Magnus Itland ([info]itlandm) wrote,
@ 2008-05-05 17:08:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: hungry
Entry tags:economy

More on food prices
Who benefits from soaring commodity prices? (The Economist)

You'd think, with everyone paying more for food all over the world, all that money would have to go somewhere. Well, it was not the farmers, it seems. Rather the cost goes on to natural resources and energy (which still to a large extent means oil, but anything that can make electricity rides the rising tide). Also various minerals are rapidly growing more expensive.

I consider this good news. There are a lot of alternative energy sources that have simply not been viable without huge subsidies. If oil prices remain high for several years, we should see an explosion of solar, wind and wave power. Not to mention nuclear power, which takes a long time to set up but is quite reliable once running. Using oil to produce fertilizer is bordering on blashpemy. It is not like that animals will go back into the oil wells and die again. Oil is a finite resource and there are uses of it that will be hard to replace. Making fertilizer is not one of them. Any electricity does the trick.

In the long run, we have to separate the food prices that stem from energy cost from those that stem from limited arable land. This is trickier to get around, but there is a lot of land that is "marginal". If people could afford to pay more for food, this land would be cultivated.

The problem is not that food prices are too high. The problem is that the poor are too poor. The only long-term solution to this is for them to do something useful that they will get paid for. These days, this requires more than getting up in the morning and wanting to work. It is a rather huge project to make a person employable. But I don't need to tell that to you guys.



(Post a new comment)


[info]publius1
2008-05-05 03:10 pm UTC (link)
The problem is that the poor are too poor. The only long-term solution to this is for them to do something useful that they will get paid for.


....

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]itlandm
2008-05-05 03:23 pm UTC (link)
Hmm, I guess this could be read as "no food except to productive members of the society". That is obviously morally repugnant. What I'm talking about is the thoroughly documented fact that trade works and aid doesn't. The enemies we have traded with are better off than the friends we aided.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]publius1
2008-05-05 03:48 pm UTC (link)
Part of the problem is where some people are living. Afghanistan, for example, has very little arable land, and frankly, what is being planted on it right now tends to be poppies for heroin. Other places have arable land but extremely bizarre weather patterns, like Bangladesh, so you might have a bumper crop one year and have everything wiped out and starvation ensues.

With high prices for commodities and staple foods, even places where people live where they have to have food shipped to them, the poor simply cannot afford their food. And there's not a lot for them to do.

There's a finite number of resources in the world and not everyone CAN work. Those in the poorest of the poor countries aren't poor because they're lazy and not working, they're poor because they're utterly ravaged - by the elements or by war.


I think that it's obvious that trade is preferable in all situations to aid, especially to the areas where aid is needed because those areas tend to be run by warlords. I remember Ethiopia -- they could have fed their people as a country, but the warlords were hoarding all the food and letting the people starve.

It's just a vast, vast oversimplification of the matter, I guess is what I'm saying.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]itlandm
2008-05-05 03:56 pm UTC (link)
Rest assured that in a book I would go into painstaking detail. Vast oversimplification is what short posts are all about. Even then, I tried to point out that it is not about the poor people's decision to work, but that a framework needs to be in place to make people employable.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]publius1
2008-05-05 04:27 pm UTC (link)
Well, there are vast improvements to agriculture just on the horizon, if people can get over their fright of science.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]itlandm
2008-05-05 05:01 pm UTC (link)
Tell me about it. A poll less than a decade ago showed that about half of my countrymen believed there were no genes in their food. This is supposedly the second best educated people in the world.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kjn
2008-05-05 05:30 pm UTC (link)
Some aid helps. Some trade doesn't.

A large part of the food problem in the world is monocultures, especially of cash crops grown for export (Afghanistian and poppies is but one extreme example). Monocultures and cash crop dependency are both bad, and combined they often spell disaster.

As for aid, a big problem with most aid programs is that they are very much tied to industrial welfare to companies in the originating country. Programs which avoid that pitfall can often become quite fruitful.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]itlandm
2008-05-05 06:28 pm UTC (link)
I can think of several problems with traditional aid.
On the donor side, aid is often an euphemism for dumping stuff that is hard to sell, and/or getting an undeserved market share.
On the receiving side, aid has often been an excuse to not spend the government's own money on infrastructure, thus having more to spend on the military or perks to the small ruling class instead. Even when this is not so, aid tends to strengthen the government compared to the populace. Outside the Nordic countries, these two are often not aligned, which is one reason why so much of our aid has been worse than nothing.

There are ways around these things, but the track record so far has been unimpressive.

In contrast, trade has been more effective than we had hoped for, literally. The current shortage of a wide band of resources is mainly due to demand from our low-cost trading partners.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]publius1
2008-05-05 07:10 pm UTC (link)
Even when this is not so, aid tends to strengthen the government compared to the populace.

Hm. I think that the kind of aid I'm thinking of is different from the kind you're thinking of. When they're sending aid to war-torn or disaster-affected areas, they don't generally give it to the government. They send in the UN forces to distribute the food themselves, don't they?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]itlandm
2008-05-05 09:02 pm UTC (link)
That is true. I was thinking mainly of infrastructure aid, which we Scandinavians love to do and which is infamous for backfiring badly. Food aid usually does depend on some degree of cooperation with the government, but not to the same degree. And of course there is aid specifically to opposition groups or human rights groups (the two can be hard to tell apart in some countries), these are definitely not favoring the government. But for most of my lifetime they were also quite rare.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…