Many people believe that countries should produce food for the whole population and import as little food as possible. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
In recent years, the trading of crops has increased. Researchers, on the one hand, argue the fact that the nations should not purchase eatable goods from the other economies. However, on the other side, it has been argued that importing products would raise more varieties of food for the people. I partially agree with the given statement, and I will provide the substantiated argument in the upcoming paragraphs.
To initiate, the purchase of commodities from other regions would increase the expenses and debt of the nation. To put it in other words, the government will spend an income on bringing goods. Therefore, the country will spend more. This would lead to poverty and less economic growth in the nation. Moreover, the country’s gross domestic income would also decrease from the import of goods. Besides, the import of goods would bring unemployment to the domestic economy. As an illustration, the import of goods would bring fewer opportunities to the younger and elder generation. There would be fewer industrial and agricultural industries. Thus, it would change the lifestyle of people.
On the contrary, the import of goods plays a significant role in the economies. To simplify, different types of lands produce different varieties of crops. As an example, the fertile land of Punjab and Haryana produces large quantities of Rabi and Kharif crops. While, the soil of Eastern India is enriched in producing tea and coffee. As a result, the nations have the opportunity to earn a livelihood through the export of commodities. Furthermore, it would bring more employment opportunities and development to the countries.
To conclude, although the import of goods is costly, countries should earn revenue through the export of goods in which they are rich. Therefore, the economic cycle of buying and selling would help in more development of society.