Is Economic Self-Sufficiency Possible?

[jankren]

I know it is not possible for countries with limited land, population and resources.

But what about large countries with large amount of land, population, and resources like USA, China, Russia, India, Indonesia, or Brazil?

Of course Im not talking about 100% autarky, but Im just wondering if its possible for such countries to be largely self-reliant and not relying on imports and foreign investments too much?

[Jingles]

Depends on what economic model you're using, I guess.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

I know it is not possible for countries with limited land, population and resources.

But what about large countries with large amount of land, population, and resources like USA, China, Russia, India, Indonesia, or Brazil?

Of course Im not talking about 100% autarky, but Im just wondering if its possible for such countries to be largely self-reliant and not relying on imports and foreign investments too much?

In short, No.

In long, Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Nooooooooooooot aaaaaaaaaaa chaaaaaaance.

[Raglan]

i think its possible, but is it desireable? i don't think so at all. Since to do so would limit the capacity for the economy. And make you far more succeptable to local factors. ie the earthquake in italy was hardly noticed economically, while the one it tahiti was devesting. Bad example i know cause of the serverity and development of both. but gets across the point.

[The.Delegate]

In earlier times when people were more isolated and a lot of production took place locally, probably yes for the most part. So today, in basic goods I can see that, yes. But now we have so many complex machines, advanced technology, and interdependent financial systems; probably not.

[ocelot2]

i think its possible, but is it desireable? i don't think so at all. Since to do so would limit the capacity for the economy. And make you far more succeptable to local factors. ie the earthquake in italy was hardly noticed economically, while the one it tahiti was devesting. Bad example i know cause of the serverity and development of both. but gets across the point.

Yes, good post. And to expand.

If one area wanted to produce all of the products their going to use that's fine. But what if the same product could be made cheaper elsewhere? Wouldn't you want to import that product?

To all the nay Sayers...
In California we produce oranges. In order to make Oranges it takes land, labor, time, and water. In China making oranges works excatly the same way, only that water is rationed in Cali, but not in China. This makes oranges cheaper to make in China and shipping these oranges to Cali is cheap, so cheap that it is cheaper to grow them in China and then ship them, rather than grow them locally in Cali.

But please ignore the above for a second.
We need to protect American industry, because where the best country on earth, yahoo! So we'll produce 'em oranges 'ere in America to keep industry live and runnin.
Fine but..

That means the water (that is rationed in Cali) needs to be used to produce oranges (which need a lot of water to grow). So people will have choose between (an extreme I know) a drought and Californian oranges or no oranges at all.

This dilemma could of been entirely avoided if people where not so stubborn about being being economic self-sufficient. And please do not restrict this argument to oranges because, in reality, it is not.

[Viking Prince]

Take a single person and ask the question. It is obvious that no matter how skilled the person is, the need for more skills and capital would be needed to even approach the standard of living in 1900. The solution is specialization and trade. So the singe person teams up and also trades for more goods and specializes in where he has a comparative advantage. Even the small village in early Europe had a butcher, a baker, and a candlestick maker -- or however the nursery rhymn goes.

If specialization works for the members of a village to produce more (and better quality) goods and services, the same scalling is also true up to and including the global system. Trade benefits mutually or it would not take place.

Now, we are highly dependant upon trade and specialization. If we were to for some reason to revert to the caves, bear skins, and flint knives -- I am not so certain of my own skills to be self sufficient in such an environment.

[chilon]

Now, we are highly dependant upon trade and specialization. If we were to for some reason to revert to the caves, bear skins, and flint knives -- I am not so certain of my own skills to be self sufficient in such an environment.

"Specialization is for insects" -Heinlein

[jankren]

Take a single person and ask the question. It is obvious that no matter how skilled the person is, the need for more skills and capital would be needed to even approach the standard of living in 1900. The solution is specialization and trade. So the singe person teams up and also trades for more goods and specializes in where he has a comparative advantage. Even the small village in early Europe had a butcher, a baker, and a candlestick maker -- or however the nursery rhymn goes.

If specialization works for the members of a village to produce more (and better quality) goods and services, the same scalling is also true up to and including the global system. Trade benefits mutually or it would not take place.

Now, we are highly dependant upon trade and specialization. If we were to for some reason to revert to the caves, bear skins, and flint knives -- I am not so certain of my own skills to be self sufficient in such an environment.

A country with only one person of course cant produce more than one item.

But what about a country with 10 people? Why do these 10 people have to trade with the other one person? Why cant one of them just make what that one person makes?

[Viking Prince]

A country with only one person of course cant produce more than one item.

But what about a country with 10 people? Why do these 10 people have to trade with the other one person? Why cant one of them just make what that one person makes?

I would expect as the population in our fictional village grows that we would indeed find competition. If two or more are producing the same product -- they will attempt to capture a portion of the market by a number of perfectly acceptable tactics. Some wil compete on price, others on quality, some on just being a good guy to deal with, and others on innovation. There might be the occasional strong arm mafia style sales tactics as well. This is why the rule of law comes quickly to civilization. In the end we get more, better, and cheaper. Why be self sufficient when the same output effort can be sold in the market place for stuff better than you could provide for yourself?

[jankren]

I would expect as the population in our fictional village grows that we would indeed find competition. If two or more are producing the same product -- they will attempt to capture a portion of the market by a number of perfectly acceptable tactics. Some wil compete on price, others on quality, some on just being a good guy to deal with, and others on innovation. There might be the occasional strong arm mafia style sales tactics as well. This is why the rule of law comes quickly to civilization. In the end we get more, better, and cheaper. Why be self sufficient when the same output effort can be sold in the market place for stuff better than you could provide for yourself?

Well, the logic is that its better for two brothers to compete with one another than with the neighbor's son because that way at least the money will remain in the family.

no, who the hell would want self sufficiency?
globalisation means cheaper prices,

Cheap rice from Thailand kill farmers in Indonesia.

Cheap stuff wont do anything if I have no income, no?

[Exarch]

Cheap rice from Thailand kill farmers in Indonesia.

Cheap stuff wont do anything if I have no income, no?

that's got nothing to do with free trade and globalisation;
that's the incompetence of those in charge of indonesian goods and foods quality

free trade is the dismantling of trade barriers to enhance efficiency in industries-the effect is globalisation

[Viking Prince]

Cheap rice from Thailand kill farmers in Indonesia.

Cheap stuff wont do anything if I have no income, no?

Sticking with your farming example -- all farmers have some sort of comparative advantage to produce something for market. Comparative advantage does not mean lowest cost producer.

In your example -- I seriously doubt that the Thailand rice output is enough to satisfy consumption for the world. Therefore there will continue to be rice production in addition to Thailand. What will happen is a market price will be established that makes more profit for Thai farmers than it allows for the Indonesian farmers. On the margin, this means that some Indonesian farmers might find it advantageous to switch some or all of their farm operations to other crops -- or maybe convert the operation into a golf course/spa for the tourist trade.

What I am saying is that such trade offs need not mean unemployment. Unemployment comes from continuiing to produce an unprofitable enterprise (thus shedding workers) until all capital is consumed and you are left with no resources to produce anything.

[AtOmiX]

Now, we are highly dependant upon trade and specialization.

This.

We've come to far to go back to supporting ourselves now. We rely to heavily on foreign produced goods and services. The import and export industry is too massive to stop now. Think of all the jobs and money that would be lost if those industries didn't exist. Not in 1000 years could we be economically independant, it's called globalisation.

[Exarch]

no, who the hell would want self sufficiency?
globalisation means cheaper prices,

[Manco]

And maintain modern way of life? A resounding no.

[boofhead]

Oh God, as a fruiterer I know all about Californian illegal-immigrant picked oranges. Sales are generally crap because people like home-grown.

As far as general sustenance, my country has it all, it's a veritable garden of Eden. Coal, oil, crops, fruit, veg, uranium, metals, meat, we've got it all and should be exporting only. And yet these bloody stupid FTAs exist.

FTAs are nothing more than powerful countries putting it over their so-called friends in order to get the vote and the dollar back home. They piss off local producers and the general population (at least here) doesn't like it. That's why there's a LAW here that everything sold must state country of origin. And I know for a fact that as soon as the US oranges/mandos finish and home-grown produce hits the market the sales for those particular lines triple.

Our politicians need to grow some balls and stop being swayed by lavish tea parties.

[maerd2003]

by communism which is not get slacked..

[Dr. Croccer]

Maybe, but that country would have to gone a gigantic quest for lebensraum and resources to achieve self-sufficiency. A country like that is only really self-sufficient if it has a large population that works sufficiently in all sectors, the means to employ all those workers and a large amount of resources. No single country has ever been able to effectively balance that out. Countries like Nazi Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union, all of which tried to achieve autarky in a modern economy, failed to do so because they lacked either critical resources or the means of production and employment to maintain their economy. Nazi Germany was largely reliant on essentiall plundering of occupied countries to keep it's war machine going; Japan was so reliant on foreign imports of resources and in an economic that they attempted to use militarism and imperialism to keep their economy stable, which resulted in their trade being annulled, which led to even more desperate militarism and imperialism and the Soviet Union ultimately had to resor to importation of resources and products, because it was unable to produce enough for it's own population.

[jankren]

Maybe, but that country would have to gone a gigantic quest for lebensraum and resources to achieve self-sufficiency. A country like that is only really self-sufficient if it has a large population that works sufficiently in all sectors, the means to employ all those workers and a large amount of resources. No single country has ever been able to effectively balance that out. Countries like Nazi Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union, all of which tried to achieve autarky in a modern economy, failed to do so because they lacked either critical resources or the means of production and employment to maintain their economy. Nazi Germany was largely reliant on essentiall plundering of occupied countries to keep it's war machine going; Japan was so reliant on foreign imports of resources and in an economic that they attempted to use militarism and imperialism to keep their economy stable, which resulted in their trade being annulled, which led to even more desperate militarism and imperialism and the Soviet Union ultimately had to resor to importation of resources and products, because it was unable to produce enough for it's own population.

Germany and Japan were relatively small countries.

But with Soviet Union, their problem was with Communism. Germany's autarky in the 30s were working rather well except they didnt have enough material, land and people. So all Im saying is what if for example the Germans had the land, the riches, and the population of Soviet Union? Would autarky work then?

By the way, Im not promoting 100% self-sufficiency in North Korea's way. Im just talking about a country that is self-sufficient in meeting its basic agricultural and industrial necessities and import only very luxurious and unique items.

That's an interesting point but the OP asked whether it was possible for nations to be economically self-sufficient, not whether or not it was feasible. You do raise a good point though, if in the unlikely scenario nation X was totally self-sufficient, would they want to export to other nations to attain wealth? Surely they would have surplusses across the board in whatever industry you can think of. Why let the extra go to waste? Why not make a profit and export some goods overseas? Sure, a country may be able to run itself by producing it's own goods and services, but will it be a wealthy western country that is well developed and possibly a world power? No I think not, the way the modern economies work, everything is dependant on imports, exports, supply and demand. If countries started to cease trade and become self-sufficient I think we would be in for a disaster ten or twenty times worse than the global financial crisis of last year.

By self-sufficiency I mean a country produces most of the things it needs domestically and export the surplus. This way the country wont rely on imports for most of its basic needs.