Is it good for a country to be 100% self-sufficient?

Asked by: DB8Rgirl
  • It is Good Only to an Extent

    Studies have shown that developing countries that accept Globalization and operated ethically and strategically have benefited immensely. Being 100% self-sufficient would be good to an extent if it were possible in most areas of the world. Most countries do not have the ability to be completely self-sufficient with lack of natural resources or even societal reasons or other economic reasons.

    Even if your country is completely self-sufficient you may have all of the resources and products you need domestically, but you still cannot strive to be any more competitive internationally. If you isolate your economy you lose the ability to compete and there will be a lack of competition inside your private sector or public sector if you're socialist. Your manufacturers will continue to produce low-quality consumer products and the products available will have no variety due to lack of international supply. Ultimately, an isolated economy does not have as much room for growth due to lack of outside supply and lack of competition. With Globalization you have more services, products, and lowers costs due to specialization in international industry. If a nation's domestic production can focus on a few areas of specialty such as Japan with high-tech industry or the United States with quality manufacturing a nation can become very successful in an interdependent world economy.

    Countries that are harmed by Globalization are the few that mismanage it. Like with anything with great potential there is possibility of harm. If you mismanage your trade or your own domestic production the Globalized economy can backfire on your individual nation. With proper management, however, a Globalized economy can have far more potential than a nation that maintains isolation.

    In conclusion, a self-sufficient country should not rely solely on their own production. For most countries around the world it is even impossible. Most countries they have to be interdependent which actually leads to economic success in the future if properly managed. It is better to commit to the international economy to bring success to your national economy.

  • Yes! To be self sufficient is to be independent!

    A nation that has a self sufficient energy supply (Which would require the nation to go full renewable, for true long term self sufficiency), and a self sufficient food supply, and other necessities, never has to be reliant on another Nation or Entity again (unless a major disaster wipes out the infrastructures that make the nation self sufficient). If all of the other nations suddenly disappeared (except the self sufficient one), The self sufficient one would survive.

    The closest example to a self sufficient nation is Sweden, which will no longer be dependent on oil in the next few years (literally).

  • Shame on us with a huge Population depending on other countries to make Tooth Brush Brissels? Time to Look within

    We often heard stories of how Japan after their Hiroshima Bombing made a huge makeover by Aatma Nirbhar Similarly Israel gave a clarion call to all Jews to return to the country & rebuild These are wonderful excamples to be followed not just appreciated; Applauded A country with 1 & half billion people need to accept challenges Strangely when Knowledge Industry boomed we automatically became the pioneer & have taken a superior role We have the talent & ability but Governments were out of focus That is why PM Narendra Modi has arrived to correct this & give impetus We must grab and go forward

  • Common sense....Yes! If you want indepence. Otherwise, we remain as a dependent even though we dont have to be.

    Self sufficient doesnt mean we need cut out importing consumer retail goods. Those items arent essential to have. A country should be focused on becoming self sufficient on essentials like energy, food, petroleum, and raw materials like steel, lumber etc. It makes no sense to import essentials if they can be possibly obtained domestically. It gives other countries leverage, and puts us in a vulnerable position if we were to rely on essentials. For example, why import any produce? Dumb idea. We can grow almost any vegetable or fruit on the planet, so why import any? Or why export oil while at the same time importing oil. Wtf? Stupid. And why the hell are we buying electricity from Canada??? We have the resources and capability to build more power production facilities for our own domestic power. The idea of relying on another country is like being a kid that never moves out of their parents house after becoming an adult. Its going to be difficult to have most americans understand why self sufficiency is a good idea, because most of them rely on the government to provide for them also. Even though they have the capability and ability to provide for themselves. Yes good idea, but NO it will not happen anytime soon unless some major law changes are made or some type of devastating catastrophe brings the american people together to survive.

  • Self sufficiency should be the driving force

    100% self sufficiency is certainly not possible, the world wasn’t created that way. The world is made up of varieties, male and female, north and south, black and white etc. And the purpose of varieties is to contribute towards a whole. The idea behind self sufficiency should be to be able to contribute towards a better whole. Self sufficiency should be a mind-set instead of a weapon. A self sufficiency mind-set will encourage collaboration and cooperation, instead of competition.

  • Help yourself before you help others

    A strong, prosperous country needs to be self-reliant first. Trade will enhance. When what happens to some crop or fuel supply in a part of the World due to war, politics or weather and it directly affects you, then you are too vulnerable and unstable economically. Switzerland is a prime example of not having to be part of the EU, have their own currency, be independent and still have a prosperous country with a high standard of living.

  • Independence for self dependance

    Only by total Independence can a country know it s strengths and weaknesses. Give the people of the country a chance to contribute to the welfare and well being of its own people, this will give a sense of pride for right reasons. Small economies would be better than large ones cause greater number of people will have a say in how companies are run there by greater number of people will management skill greater number of people will develop how to get resources, people, and skills. So smaller is better. Greater the number of people with the where to start businesses the greater the skills gained. Self help can also be promoted like making wind generators to generate electricity (not difficult) for individual homes. Solar panels could also be used. Self help can also be done for example tolerant a sport using videos on you tube where money not available. Bottom line for poor countries is self help as this would develop communities and be able to help one another, gain confidence, greater worth of the community. Share ideas on you tube. In this you tube could be the greatest way of communicating big or small ideas.

  • Good to be self sufficient

    A poor country would benifit by recognising needs for the country that is food shelter clothing schools hospitals etc. a poor country like India needs to know can it feed all its people? Like it did once before! It will be able to recognise which states are contributing in which areas and which states are not. The fall back for states not contributing will be greater unemployment and greater cost as it relies on import the state could recognise necessities and encourage newuobusinesses to start up in these area hereby all states will eventualluy contribute to the country. Another reason would be to start new for export if the country can provide for itself so in the run there would be a greater platform for growth. Unemployment will be reduced and then other avenues for a greater quality of life can be sought like better health care better infrastructure, etc.

  • I believe a country should be self sufficient. The reasons are:

    The will not be influenced by big world events, For example world war 2 influenced countries that was not even active in the war. Like South Africa
    Better for the economy. Have more control in your own country.
    To name just a few. I am against globalization and for tribalization

  • Of course it should

    Self sufficiency means nobody starves. Everything after that is gravy for that country. Once a country is self sufficient or at least nearly so, then a country can expand their resources for export that brings in revenue for that country. If they can't be totally self sufficient, then they still need to be able to create enough revenue from their resources so that they can import other goods to meet their needs.

  • 100% self sufficiency is not good.

    First off 100% self sufficiency is never attainable. Second, we give aid to countries that need it. For example, trying to put political constraints on the aid won't have any effect if the country cannot sustain itself. The most important thing to keep in mind here is that self sufficiency is going to cut off trade with others and stunt human growth and the development of those countries being effected. After all, the world wouldn't function today without being reliant on others.

  • Maybe for growing countries

    A great example many readers would know of is the States, Jefferson strongly wanted yeoman farmers to be the backbone of america and that the States should be self sufficient, but as time went on countries notice that to make money you need to expand yourself, the first prime example would be cotton from the south was traded with the English, you couldn't possibly use all of the produce from the south and sell it to the north, it wouldn't work out. Second would be look at the gilded age, business became TOO BIG for self sufficiency that they had to expand their markets to the rest of the world, also some products you just need other countries for. Though in theory self-sufficiency sounds great, you need others, you cannot just live in a castle miles away anymore, you need others and they need you.

  • Against the motion that country can be self reliant. .

    Just think. . . If you are told to become self reliant. . . Can you? Not at all
    One cannot be a tailor, Shoe maker, Farmer, Chef, Maid, Teacher, Carpenter, Civil engineer, Architect, Doctor, Nurse, Etc, Etc, Etc. . . All at a time right! One needs to learn all these if they want to become 100% self reliant. . Can you?
    Nope. .
    Similarly for a country to be self reliant, It needs to be efficient in all aspects. .
    It is usually observed that if a country is technically developed, It lacks food and natural resources, Or if it is industries excell, It's tertiary sector has some deficiency.
    So, By helping each other, Countries move ahead providing all humans peace and a quality life. .
    Moreover if a country is efficient in all aspects, Still it needs some country it can compete with, Or else how would it develope any further?
    Thus, We conclude that no country can be completely self reliant!

  • Against the motion

    My I hear somebody saying that a country can develop to be independent without foreign aid? Hahahaa! My friendly you are joking! Even Ghana, do you know the amount of loans Ghana has gone for? Go and ask his excellency John Dramani Mahama. No country is self-reliant. Thank you may God richly bless all of you

  • Fttyktykvcgt ctyjfty tfyjfcty

    G f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f g fgh h vg gfv fv v v v v v v v v v v v v f f gfh h h h f f hv f f h fh fv

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.