OK, let's try this again.

[LittleGrizzly]

Why do people think that the poorest countries have the lowest manufacturing costs?

you confused me with the word manufacturing here, im talking of farming...

I assumed that people in africa work for much cheaper, rather than use machinery and other expensive equipment they put more (cheap) man hours into farming, so what you end up with is a product that mostly just needed inexpensive labour to produce, whereas a farmer in britian would need to make an income of at least 10,000 to have a decent lifestyle and make it worthwhile (most minimum wage factory jobs would pay equivelent for probably less work...) whereas i hear regularly of africans living on a dollar a day or just a few dollars a day, so even just say 3,000 a year would be a good income for an african farmer....

I always thought the foriegn goods (as in farm goods) were cheaper than african just because of tarrifs and subsidies, or am i wrong on this...

I suppose the equipment used in more mordern countries could make thier farms more productive and thus need less profit of each crop/animal.. i suppose transport costs as there is a less rich domestic market as well ?

[HoreTore]

Why do people think that the poorest countries have the lowest manufacturing costs?

you confused me with the word manufacturing here, im talking of farming...

I assumed that people in africa work for much cheaper, rather than use machinery and other expensive equipment they put more (cheap) man hours into farming, so what you end up with is a product that mostly just needed inexpensive labour to produce, whereas a farmer in britian would need to make an income of at least 10,000 to have a decent lifestyle and make it worthwhile (most minimum wage factory jobs would pay equivelent for probably less work...) whereas i hear regularly of africans living on a dollar a day or just a few dollars a day, so even just say 3,000 a year would be a good income for an african farmer....

I always thought the foriegn goods (as in farm goods) were cheaper than african just because of tarrifs and subsidies, or am i wrong on this...

I suppose the equipment used in more mordern countries could make thier farms more productive and thus need less profit of each crop/animal.. i suppose transport costs as there is a less rich domestic market as well ?

Yes, I'm talking about farming too.

But anyway, you're underestimating the advantages of industrialism. An industrialized farmer grows a LOT more food than an undeveloped african farmer will. Fertilizers, machinery, etc will all make things more profitable. And I wasn't talking about countries like UK or France, I'm talking about those a level below that, like Brazil. A poor country by our standards with cheap labour, but they have quite advanced agricultural methods, and is very capable of flooding the markets of the poorest countries with cheap food.

[LittleGrizzly]

Yes, I'm talking about farming too.

But anyway, you're underestimating the advantages of industrialism. An industrialized farmer grows a LOT more food than an undeveloped african farmer will. Fertilizers, machinery, etc will all make things more profitable. And I wasn't talking about countries like UK or France, I'm talking about those a level below that, like Brazil. A poor country by our standards with cheap labour, but they have quite advanced agricultural methods, and is very capable of flooding the markets of the poorest countries with cheap food.

I suppose i didn't consider that, i was just thinking of 1st world compared to 3rd world, was i right in that sense though, can a 3rd world farmer beat a unsubsidised 1st world farmer for price ?

How could we help them compete with 2nd world farmers, would simply giving them equipment and fertilisers be a good solution (though i suppose anything needing fuel could be an issue...)