This map shows how many of seven essential food groups each country can supply domestically, based on data from a Nature Food study. The result reveals a striking gap: just one country can meet all its food needs on its own.
🔗 visualcapitalist.com
pull down to refresh
related posts
The fact that China gets a 6 tells me this is kind of useless. China doesn't have enough airable land and freshwater to supply enough food for its massive population so the fact that they "can supply" 6 out of 7 food groups is pretty irrelevant.
@Solomonsatoshi!! I choose you!!
You choose me for what exactly?
New Zealand enjoys a beneficial trade relationship with China- we provide them with food they need - (dairy, beef, lamb, fish, vegetables, fruit, wine etc) and they sell us manufactured goods we need and cannot make ourselves.
NZ was the first western nation to sign a FTA with China in the early 2000s and is one of the few western nations to enjoy a balanced trade relationship with China where imports and exports are roughly equal.
USA has always refused to enter a FTA with NZ because we banned US nuclear powered/armed ships from our ports in the 1980s.
Other food surplus primary producer nations around the world enjoy similar beneficial trade with China to NZ.
China is also the largest buyer of oil from OPEC nations.
It dominates global trade in commodities and manufactured goods.
It is the wests manufacturing nations that struggle to benefit from trade with China as they cannot compete with Chinas manufacturing efficiency.
So you choose me for what exactly?
Making the best of free trade opportunities available?
This is just a cool thought experiment. In a real-life scenario where every country had to grow its own food, people would be starving everywhere—and it definitely wouldn't be because they're missing a food group.
I think that's a misreading of the chart and also why this chart is silly.
Countries like the US specialize because they exist in a world of widespread trade, not because they can't grow the foods that are imported.
Under autarky, farmers would face very different market incentives and would grow very different things.
True. Agreed.
Since Britain started relying on foreigners to feed her (insert famous political-economy quote) in the 19th C, this fake concern has been a ridiculous endeavor.
Trading is just as reasonable and practical a way of feeding yourself as growing
nation of shopkeepers?
No, there's some famous line from the 19th C. I mentioned it here, but can't remember the exact one https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/you-cannot-eat-bitcoin/
As a British colony NZ enjoyed a very beneficial trade with Britain from the 19th century onwards, sending our meat, wool and dairy products- but in the 1970s when Britain joined the EEC they ended our access to their market and we were forced to seek new markets in places like Russia, the Middle East and more recently, China.
These figures are surprising; it’s remarkable that a small territory like ‘Guyana’ is the only country capable of achieving all of them.