A frightening look at the effect of a doubling (or tripling, in the case of corn) of grain prices in the world, from Lester Brown, at Foreign Policy Magazine.
He links the 'Arab Spring' and other troubles and unrest less to a desire for freedom or change of regime, than to a desire for a full stomach as noted in this opening paragraph.
"In the United States, when world wheat prices rise by 75 percent, as they have over the last year, it means the difference between a $2 loaf of bread and a loaf costing maybe $2.10. If, however, you live in New Delhi, those skyrocketing costs really matter: A doubling in the world price of wheat actually means that the wheat you carry home from the market to hand-grind into flour for chapatis costs twice as much. And the same is true with rice. If the world price of rice doubles, so does the price of rice in your neighborhood market in Jakarta. And so does the cost of the bowl of boiled rice on an Indonesian family's dinner table."
I don't know why the article assumes that Americans only spend 10% of their income on food. A family of four making $25,000 a year (common in right-to-work states) spends more like 25% of their income on groceries, and it keeps going up, up, up.
ReplyDeletePutting corn in the gastank was the dumbest, most irresponsible decision ever made. The repercussions on our entire food supply will be predictable and deadly, not just worldwide, but in our own neighborhoods. Any acre that's planted with gastank corn is NOT planted with food or feedlot corn (meat prices skyrocketing). Pure stupidity.
Question: Once a farmer/corporate food producer plants a field with fuel corn, does that field later still qualify for a no-grow crop subsidy in a fallow year?
ReplyDeleteMany "gentleman & gentlewoman" farmers, they who own land but never have hoed a row, are anxious to know this?
My latent naive hippie rotten Commie bastid conscience asks: Why do we (The USA and other 1st world farming nations) not grow as much food stuffs as we can and feed the world with it if necessary? I'd not object to price supports for that effort, although I acknowledge it can make self-reliance, both individual and local farmers, an issue in places where food is essentially handed out gratis.
ReplyDeleteI do know, from some personal experience, through various government offices, including military, that we've assisted 3rd world farmers with both technology and seed stock improvements ... think S.E. Asia among others.
Why are bullets easier to export than food?
Psst: I know the answer, I'm just in denial.
Ari: we do feed some people but I think you're asking "why not as much as we can".
ReplyDeleteEverything has consequences. The "self reliance" you talked about would be a major consequence.
The US would be the low cost producer for many items, given the scale and technology of our ag and resources.
This would have the effect of driving many farmers out of business in many parts of the world.
Then the US has a bad year, and all those parts of the world with arable land (but no farmers any more) go hungry.
Lewy # 4 ...
ReplyDeleteWe agree on the potential negative "consequence" of such largess, however ... couldn't we devise a way to do it and still encourage local farmers worldwide? Yee Gawd, today we can man a space station, shoot the gnats off the ass of a pigeon from 10,000 miles away, etc. etc.
Some form of back fill proposition for any shortfalls they experience ... where it is profitable for them personally to increase production and reap the rewards? Where their own governments, with a temporary western subsidy if necessary, provide assistance for fallow years locally?
Whoops ... I've just cited another potential consequence of note, other government corruption, such as North Korea et al, where food provided essentially underwrites their military.
Maybe we insist our largess of food provision be directly to those local 3rd world farmers, who in turn could profit from it? Damnit, another consequence inhibiting work ... e.g., why work if you can get the produce from gratis?
One actual experience I had in a far eastern economy that did get food assistance ... bags of rice with the ubiquitous hand shake "USA" logo on them. Yep, they were sold on the black market, but many westerners did not understand how and why. Actually, it increased prices paid to their local farmers for local product. Recipient individuals of free rice sold it to a black marketeer, who in turn sold it to even more impoverished people, etc. The original recipients used the black market money they got to buy local rice at a premium ... long grain "Yankee" rice was not to their taste if any means existed to get the local variety.
The remaining problem in that black market scenario was there always seemed enough people poor enough to need the USA rice. They usually didn't have easy access to local production ... e.g., lived in higher mountainous areas where potatoes and/or wheat were the staple ... in a bad year they had to have the "Yankee" rice.
Aw crap, most of the above wouldn't likely work out ... bullets are often just easier. Back to my wine fueled late 60's hookah for more rotten Commie pondering. :-L