Just goes to show that the the free trade/protectionism is a false dichotomy.

It’s important to have transferable skills. If you’re a Volvo mechanic and the last Volvo dealership in your area closes, you’ll need to move or work on other kinds of cars. But you don’t have to become a farmer and live off the land. But even a category as broad as “mechanic” is very specialized compared to the Nepalese house servant Roberts talks about in his podcast.

I’m not an advocate of hyper-specialization. I’ve always kept my options somewhat open. But I think Roberts is right that it’s not a good strategy to be too much of a do-it-yourselfer.

In the 1970’s, 70% of the wealth was in the hands of 25% of the people. In the new millennium, more than 90% of the wealth is in hands of less than 1% of the population of the world.

Hm… We as a race, have been basing our economic system on these principles, surprises?

Peace for you all :¬)

Self-sufficient people are certainly more stable – see recent financial crisis as Exhibit A. Highly specialized bankers and real estate agents were left empty-handed and scared whereas jack-of-all-trades just moved on, happy with what they had, and optimistic about new opportunities.

Lastly, self-sufficient people define their own value of their work. They plant the food and they eat it. Instead, an orthodontists worth is held over his head and determined by the market and people’s perception of value. The orthodontist may be more prosperous, but some people would prefer the control.

As software developers and parents, my husband and I struggle with this. We want our son to have a “wholesome” childhood with fresh, healthy, home-cooked food, and a clean home and lawn that we tend to ourselves.

In reality we both work full time, plus have the opportunity to do high-paying side work, so it’s not “worth” our time to do these things, and we have cleaners, lawn mowers, pool cleaners, and eat out more often than we eat in. This is not just a high-level society question, but one that we face every day.

Self-sufficiency, when used to describe a nation or economy tends to sound like isolationism (which is what I believe the intent is here).

However, individuals that are not self-sufficient are not generally thought of as being more engaged with the economy, but rather the opposite – not sufficiently engaged enough to provide for their own needs. Their shortcomings must be made up for by someone else. Example: a dependent teenager who has a job, but cannot yet fully support him/herself (i.e., not yet self-sufficient). Surely Mr. Roberts does not mean to say that by becoming more competent at providing for his own needs, a teenager is on the road to poverty.

So perhaps using different terms for the two cases would clarify things a bit? Maybe it would make them worse . .

Perhaps there is a better or more specific set of terms

It gets back to the difference between relying on trade versus relying on benefactors. I buy my own groceries. I’m self-sufficient in the sense that I do not depend on parents, government, etc. to pay for my food. But I’m not self-sufficient in Robert’s sense of the term. I’m relying on grocers, truck drivers, farmers, …