World Food Crisis

[David Floyd]

So, apparently there's a global food crisis going on now, brought on by rising oil prices and rising demand from nations like India and China. My question is, what should the developed and food exporting world do about it?

Should the First World limit consumption, and should food exporting nations like the US, Argentina, Australia, Ukraine, etc., lower prices?

Should we go on as business as usual, and neither reduce consumption nor reduce prices?

Or, finally, should we simply temporarily reduce/eliminate food exports, as Russia, Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine have already done?

Personally, I'm not willing to limit my consumption because some other nations have exploding demand. I can accept and afford slightly higher prices, so that isn't really a concern. It's not as if there's an actual shortage of food, at least not in the US. Oh, some items in some areas might be TEMPORARILY tougher to find, but I'm confident that's simply a logistics issue that'll get fixed pretty quickly.

I'm not sure what the solution is for nations that don't produce enough food to meet their own demand, or for nations that can no longer afford to buy grain. Perhaps the solution might start with "Have a less corrupt and more free market system" in order to increase prosperity, but then again, that wouldn't apply to Japan, for example. Some nations might have to make major changes in the way they operate, whereas some, like Japan, may just have to accept either higher food prices or a more traditional diet (in Japan's case, rice and fish).

I do know that the solution for the US has to be "Take care of #1." If that means that we join other grain-exporting nations in limited exports to increase supply in our own country, I'm all for it. If it means accepting slightly higher prices, well, we can afford it. But we should only supply foreign nations with food after our internal, MARKET-DRIVEN (meaning we basically get as much as we want) demand is satiated.

Sorry for the diatribe/rant - what got me started was that I read an article tag-lined "Food rationing in the US?". The actual article didn't mention anything of the sort, just some supply problems in finding certain food items in certain areas of the country, but it sort of pissed me off that anyone could think that option could ever be on the table.

[LordShiva]

[Wezil]

Popular topic.

[Aeson]

Stop farm subsidies. Especially the paying people not to grow crops (or to burn them).

Stop Ethanol production from edible foodstocks. (Using the chaff and byproducts is ok.)

Stop bailing out banks with rate cuts (among other things) debasing our currency and sending oil (and every other commodity) on a moonshot.

------------------

We have more than enough food here in the US, and could easily have more if we needed. (We could use some food rationing for health.) We're ****ing with the global economy to keep some fat cats fat, and that's really all it is.

[David Floyd]

I agree with not bailing out banks. to corporate welfare.

Ethanol production - well, we produce plenty of food, so I don't think that's going to cause any food shortages. Granted it isn't helping with the price of gas at the pump, but maybe there's a way to make it more efficient?

I'm torn on farm subsidies - the free trader in me says to end them, but I'm also not insensitive to the fact that we need to keep farmers in business growing food.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are a bad libertarian .

Trying to prop up inefficiencies (keep farmers in business growing food) and looking out for nation-state rather than let the market decide.




Stopping farm subsidies is #1, but no one will ever go for it. Too much protectionist thinking in this world. It would drastically lower the price though (that's why farmers would go out of business, btw... because it wouldn't be as profitable... at some point an equilibrium would be reached).

[David Floyd]

Yeah, I'm fully aware of the contradiction buddy

Freedom in the US, the rest of the world can **** off

Realistically, though, if it comes to a decision between being a "pure" Libertarian, and making sure that the US has enough readily available food to avoid reducing consumption, the choice is pretty clear. Only a moron takes a political philosophy and tries to apply it to every situation - the real world doesn't work that way.

I agree that ending farm subsidies would help the worldwide food price, but what do you think the immediate impact on the US would be? I doubt it'd be positive.

[Imran Siddiqui]

making sure that the US has enough readily available food to avoid reducing consumption, the choice is pretty clear

Well, the easy way to do that is to eliminate farm surpluses and let the market do its thing. The price of food would drop immediately, because the surpluses really just pay farmers for not planting as much. Also remove tariffs on foreign agg commodities (our tariffs on things like Brazilian sugar cane is insane).

Prices WILL drop in the US, and big agribusiness will be able to survive. Plenty of food to go around and the price will hit an equilibrium that makes it profitable to farm and provide enough food to everyone.

If you are concerned about "immediate" impact, phase it in slowly. Drop the subsidies and tariffs by a small bit every year.

Only a moron takes a political philosophy and tries to apply it to every situation - the real world doesn't work that way.

Oh the irony... compared to your previous statements .

[David Floyd]

Well, the easy way to do that is to eliminate farm surpluses and let the market do its thing. The price of food would drop immediately, because the surpluses really just pay farmers for not planting as much. Also remove tariffs on foreign agg commodities (our tariffs on things like Brazilian sugar cane is insane).

Prices WILL drop in the US, and big agribusiness will be able to survive. Plenty of food to go around and the price will hit an equilibrium that makes it profitable to farm and provide enough food to everyone.

If you are concerned about "immediate" impact, phase it in slowly. Drop the subsidies and tariffs by a small bit every year.

The thing is, though, this only works if the rest of the world does this. I'm very much in favor of free trade. The whole world should trade freely. But that's not going to happen.I am also very concerned that ending subsidies would simply result in farmers going out of business. Maybe not the big ones, but a lot of small ones probably would.

I think that if we were to do this, we'd also have to cut down on exports to stabilize the domestic supply of food, at least temporarily. I'm certainly OK with doing that, but it won't help the global situation any.

As for lowering subsidies a bit at a time, that could work, but as you say, isn't likey to happen.

Oh the irony... compared to your previous statements

*shrug* What can I say? There's an ideal world and a real world, right?

The other thing I'm very concerned about - and maybe this is unwarranted - is that if the US starts facing global pressure to increase humanitarian food aid to a large degree, a liberal in the White House might buckle and do just that, even at the cost of lowering supply and raising prices in the US. I hope no President of any political party would do something like that, but Obama especially scares me.

[David Floyd]

[quote]Well, the easy way to do that is to eliminate farm surpluses and let the market do its thing. The price of food would drop immediately, because the surpluses really just pay farmers for not planting as much. A

[Imran Siddiqui]

The thing is, though, this only works if the rest of the world does this.

Not really. When Great Britain ended the corn laws back in the 1846, their standard of living shot up incredibly. Even though less corn was grown in Britain, the people were allowed to afford cheaper corn because of the lack of tariffs (and subsidies are merely a form of tariff).

Some American farmers would go out of business, but a lot of foreign trade would be directed towards the US. The US would have its food, in great numbers, since it would be cheaper to sell in the US rather than in areas that had a tariff still in place. So, really it'd end up being a pro-US move in the end anyway.

And agribusiness in the US would survive, no doubt. And an equilibrium would develop.

I'm arguing for the market here and you are against that? I mean, I've always been market orientated among Poly posters, but wow... what a reversal.

that if the US starts facing global pressure to increase humanitarian food aid to a large degree, a liberal in the White House might buckle and do just that, even at the cost of lowering supply and raising prices in the US.

Any humanitarian food aid increase would be tiny. Already foreign aid is less than 1% of the budget. More wouldn't really be enough to sway the supply all that much.

[Vanguard]

If global wealth were evenly distributed, then markets could be trusted to deliver food at the cheapest possible price.

But this isn't the case. Markets force their participants to maximize profit for a given limiting resource----- not to maximize food production with that resource.

The large imbalances in global wealth are making food production an increasingly less profitable way to use oil. So free markets are reducing food production (relatively, anyway). It is simply more profitable to take that oil and use it to fly private jets.

[Dinner]

Actually food prices are going up which means farming is now more profitable.

[Colon™]

Re: World Food Crisis

Originally posted by David Floyd
Personally, I'm not willing to limit my consumption because some other nations have exploding demand.

The US also have exploding demands. With gratitude to the ethonal subsidies borne out of the exact same desire for self-sufficience you pronounce.

[Sandman]

The other thing I'm very concerned about - and maybe this is unwarranted - is that if the US starts facing global pressure to increase humanitarian food aid to a large degree, a liberal in the White House might buckle and do just that, even at the cost of lowering supply and raising prices in the US. I hope no President of any political party would do something like that, but Obama especially scares me.

Most of the time, hungry people can access food, they just need money to buy it. So global pressure would be for more US cash aid. Not that anyone would expect much.

There could be national pressure for more farm subsidies, with the justification of 'feeding the world', since Americans seem to believe that the world is dependent on their grain exports.