The US may run an agricultural trade deficit in 2005

[Imran Siddiqui]

In addition of KH's explination, just look at the supply-demand graph, Kid (you have to be told that more than once?). Go up the supply curve. That leads to higher price and greater quantity with demand not changing. Of course that is a surplus, but it is a way of getting more quantity at higher price without changing demand.

[Berzerker]

Yeah. I'm sure production will increase, but it shouldn't mean that the supply in the 3rd world will increase. It makes sense that prices will be higher so supply must me shorter.

But in response people will produce more to take advantage of the better profit until food production is too high and the price will come down but we will still end up with more production.

Yep, because we know that there is no such thing as famine and starvation in parts of Africa, so we can import food that Americans do not need.

Those are usually man-made. Food is used as a weapon in many places suffering from dictators, warlords, etc...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
And do you suppose those higher prices are going to encourage more farmers to plant more acrage?

I'm not really sure this is a good thing. Environmental destruction due to human encroachment is already reaching crisis proportions in the 3rd world.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
And the primary reason they lack money is because rich countries tarrif them out of the market or else they subsidize rich country farms to such an extent that prices collapse.

Actually, we do the opposite. We subsidize our farmers in order to keep prices up, so that farmers don't over produce and swamp the market and go out of business.

[Berzerker]

How ya going to feed people? Or are you in Stalin mode

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
In addition of KH's explination, just look at the supply-demand graph, Kid (you have to be told that more than once?). Go up the supply curve. That leads to higher price and greater quantity with demand not changing. Of course that is a surplus, but it is a way of getting more quantity at higher price without changing demand.

Why would you go up the supply curve? Supply changes. You go up the demand curve. Holy cow Imran.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Smarter than you, sweetheart.

You've completely ignored the fact that rising incomes due to increased ability of 3rd world farmers to compete will increase demand in 3rd world countries for food.

You always have a wise ass comment to make to me. Now I have you in my clutches.

Let me get this straight. You believe that their income increases so much by not selling in their domestic market, and exporting instead, that they the producers themselves, buy more additional food than they additionally exported. I want to get your possition straight and give you every opportunity to make it clear.

You've also ignored the fact that we're nowhere near selling all the food which is produced (i.e. we're not at equilibrium). This is in large part due to 1st world subsidies combined with price supports (http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/psd/) and import quotas. So increased sale of food does not lead immediately to higher prices. There is a significant lag time until the demand would catch up with supply at current prices.

And do you believe that the surplus food was more than the additional exports?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Smiley
There's no shortage of food in the world; the 3rd world problem is that farmers lack money to buy the other food types they need for a balanced diet.

Exactly. Most hunger in the world is caused by an inability to purchase food, not a lack of food.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker


But in response people will produce more to take advantage of the better profit until food production is too high and the price will come down but we will still end up with more production.

If and when the price falls it's going to be because of some other factor. A decrease in supply does not create a lower price. It creates a higher price. It's the Law of Supply. For some reason I can not get through to people about this.

[chequita guevara]

Kid is right in the particulars, even if theory should ideally be different. For example, when Somolia was experiencing famine, and the U.S. sent in the marines to guard the food, Somolia was still growing enough food to feed its people, and in fact, was exporting food for hard currency. These days, famine has nothng to do with drought, and everythng to do with man made relations.

The fact is, if it is more profitable to sell your food abroad, you aren't going to sell it in your home market, if you can help it. While large landlords might increase their incomes, this doesn't mean that smaller farmers are seeing their incomes rise, and certainly others aren't seeing their incomes rise sufficiently to match the prices paid by overfed 1st worlders. And the landlords don't spend their money in local markets, but rather buy items from the 1st world, so they dont help the local economy.

So what happens? 1st world governments buy grain from their own subsidized farmers and distribute it to the impoverished masses of the 3rd world.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kidicious



You always have a wise ass comment to make to me. Now I have you in my clutches.

Watch me quake. You're the Ned of the left. For that reason you're much less morally repugnant and yet just as easy to trounce.

Let me get this straight. You believe that their income increases so much by not selling in their domestic market, and exporting instead, that they the producers themselves, buy more additional food than they additionally exported.

This sentence is very badly constructed. For the sake of clarity I'll rephrase it for you more eloquently than you have a chance of doing on your own. If this is not what you meant to say, feel free to object.

What Kidicious should have posted

Let me get this straight: you believe that increased prices worldwide will allow 3rd world farmers to export more food, increasing their income to the point that the increase in the food that they import will outpace the increase in food that they export

And as for my response to you, it goes as follows:

No.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Watch me quake. You're the Ned of the left. For that reason you're much less morally repugnant and yet just as easy to trounce.

No, that's problem_childe. Kid's in his own catagory. Kid actually has lots of knowledge, he just can't express it. He's also too eager to respond, so he doesn't take the time to think through what he really wants to say. Because of this, he's super easy to troll.

[Kidlicious]

OMG! That's not what I said. How sad?! Try again.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kidicious
OMG! That's not what I said. How sad?! Try again.

Yet another example of an unintelligible post from Kid.

Are you attempting to mock my one word response or objecting to my rephrasing of your post? The world may never know.

[Kidlicious]

What a weak punt. You suck. Respond to my post or admit that you suck.