☆☆四星级☆☆Economist Debates阅读写作分析--Rising food prices

草木也知愁UID: 2487572

writing for a cause wrote:
I think we have to hope there is an upside because prices of evertything will continue to rise through the next 2 years at a minimum. Perhaps it will force the westerners who toss tons of gourmet food out the window daily. I grew up in the States, and, while we were far from starving, my Mother never let any of us waste food, if we left something uneaten you were told "your eyes are bigger than your stomach" underscored by a scolding stare, translated to "you are greedy" and one could be assure that we would not dare take more than we could finish for the next evening's dinner. Maybe it will make us really use more of the animals we thoughtlessly slaughter annually and perhaps increase our consumption of the grains and legumes we need more of and decrease our animal fat intake we need less of and which are the leading causes of heart attacks, disease, and death in most developed nations. But remember, it starts from the home, today's all tolerating parents whether in NYC at Jackson Hole Burgers or Beijing at McDonald's or the current spate of fast food asian chains, need to exercise more discipline in their parenting, including me.
========================
========================
simplemind wrote:
Let's go from the academic debate to the real world! I would like to propose a bet: I claim that if we offer to the farmers in the Darfur region to buy their grain at their farm for half the world market price and we guarantee this price for 5 years and for unlimited quantities, then we will have a bumper crop in less than 2 years, plus peace and develo
ent - and in the meantime we will be able to feed the people in the refugee c
ps for a small fraction of what it costs today to bring in donated food from the USA. Of course, implementation of such a solution is not as simple as that. Somebody needs to collect and pay the grain at the farms and to transport it to the refugee c
ps. As there are no roads nor rails, transport will be expensive, but still much less expensive than WFP's f
ous airdrop operations (airdropping costs about $1000/mt above the price of grain, trucking the food from Mombasa costs about $500/mt atop of it). The real problem is not, that farmers in remote regions of the developing world don't know how to farm or don't react to the market signals. I bet $10 that such a price support mechanism would work perfectly. How much would Homi Kharas bet, how much Joachim von Braun?
========================
========================


jmbinra wrote:
I do not know what an « upside » is exactly. But, reading these comments, I see it can be interpreted as “something very bad”, or “a turning point” (perhaps for the better). Very bad it is, indeed, in the short run. The market is supposed to efficiently balance supply and demand. But whenever food is at stake, letting price reducing demand in face of short supply just means killing a few million of excess consumers. Is it possible that, after the disappearance of a sufficiently large number of stomachs, the market can reach a new harmonious equilibrium, with slightly higher prices, capable of rewarding producers for the better, without pointless harm to consumers? I very much doubt it. In the third world, peasants have no means of production to respond to price. The history of the French African Franc devaluation in 1994 is a good ex
ple in this respect: While prices of imported food doubled overnight, no sign of the least production increase can be seen in the FAO series of theses countries in response to such a dr
atic event. In the developed world, on the other hand, farmers can increase production, if not instantaneously, at least within months. They are overdoing it, as fertilizer shortage testimonies. For that reason, there are all the reasons for that the present price upsurge be followed by a deep depression, with farmer bankrupts, and another version of the “subprimes” crisis. In that sense, I do not think there is any upside here: this is the law of market, which, in this case, is certainly not the best we can imagine. Indeed, the upside for the better c
e in the aftermath of the 1929 crisis, when President Roosevelt and his advisors decided to cut the link between agriculture and market. 50 years of abundance followed, despite the squandering of a few unnecessary subsidies, which could have been avoided by a good governance. The upside for the worse c
e with the fall of the Berlin wall, when naïve short memory economists forgot all the lessons from the thirties, and convinced themselves that the market was always and in any circumstance the only efficient solution for meeting supply and demand.
========================
========================


daruche wrote:
N
ed after English economist the Reverend THOMAS ROBERT MALTHUS (1766-1834), who believed that population would increase at a geometric rate and the food supply at an arithmetic rate. This disharmony would lead to widespread poverty and starvation which would only be checked by natural occurrences such as disease, high infant mortality, f
ine, war or moral restraint. Thomas Malthusian theory was dimissed base on the premise of mechanism advanvement technology in agriculture and food production.i believe there is need for balanced growth in the economy, where every government should create subsidy for the agricultural sector just because of the rise in price.
========================
========================

m273dc wrote:
Market distortions created by biofuels subsidies should ideally be reduced or terminated. They contribute considerably more to increases in food prices than the offending governments claim. Unfortunately, considering the geopolitical situation this is quite unlikely. Especially the US is not likely to comply. I do not see how rising food prices can contribute in any way the lives of people who already spend more than 75% of their income on food and energy. Structural food aid is not a solution.
========================
========================


Ujarbaji wrote:
For decades now, low food prices -- at least partially the result of subsidies in the developed world -- have discouraged attention to and investment in increasing agricultural productivity in poorer countries. It was easy for governments to ignore the voices of those warning of an impending crunch, as demand increased faster than supply. They say the way to get the attention of a mule is a blow from a 2x4. Although the current crisis is a heavier blow than some might have wished to see, there can now be no doubt that agriculture and food security do have governments' full attention.
========================
========================

Engatnomal wrote:
There is no single answer to this question: higher food prices basically mean more restrictions for billions of people if they do not profit from these higher prices. For us, people from rich countries, it means that a larger percentage of our income going to basics. If you value simplicity (voluntary or not), this can appears as a good thing. But for the time being, I think that higher food prices hurt more than they do good for the more vulnerable. Which are the ones that we must take first into account.

========================
========================


Alan Davis wrote:
Now I have lived to hear it all. Are you serious? A bunch of spoiled rich
ericans debating such a solidly stupid premise. Ask anyone who can't afford food what they think; their oppinion is the only one that matters. Did Pelosi put you up to this? Is this part of the Dems energy plan, opposing any new energy and causing the cost of EVERYTHING to go up, including food, and spinning it as a good thing?
========================
========================

student990 wrote:
Whilst we continue to exist in a global market economy it is unavoidable that shortages of supply or increases in demand (and their reverse) will impact upon price. For as long as Governments, with a multiplicity of motivations, distort free markets via subsidies and trade barriers the ability of suppliers and consumers to stimulate the corrective actions which are the default responses in a free market environment will be impaired. Change, on a global scale, never happens quickly, i.e. the time fr
e for global changes is normally measured in decades - not weeks, months or years. Thus the impact of the currently inflated prices for basic foodstuffs/commodities will not be 'known' for decades. However it can reasonably be pronosticated, based on historic precident, that the likely effect of the currently inflated prices for basic foodstuffs/commodities will be an expansion of supply of basic foodstuffs/commodities with a resulting stabilisation and eventual decline in the prices payable for basic foodstuffs/commodities (a human good). What appears to be required is an expansion of research geared to increase productivity, a reduction in the level at which Governments ineffectively distort the free marketplace via subsidies and trade barriers and a more clement period of world weather which offsets the inclement period of world weather which agriculturalists have had to cope with in recent times and which have significantly contributed to the current shortage of supply.
========================
========================


Ignacio Javier wrote:
Higher food prices are key in stopping agricultural subsidies. This alone would begin to correct supply/demand equilibrium and bring order to what is a global tragedy. We have had low prices and now we have high prices; however, we have always had millions starving. As with petroleum, higher food prices focus popular attention on the issue. Cynical, perhaps, but when governments fear their people, things get done quickly.Now... we can all go down to our local all-you-can-eat restaurant and further discuss the issue.
========================
========================

Vedaland wrote:
The outer mirrors the inner. The food crises is a mental crises, a result of a very stressed population. Limited minds make mistakes consistently. The more stress, the more problems: It's a spiral. Stress is NOT removed with GMOs, emergency reaction from the fire squad at the UN - its childish and inhumane. Water the root to enjoy the fruit. Stress leaves when peace of mind grows, like darkness leaves at dawn. Transcendental Meditation removes stress. Give Africa wider and deeper minds. Only peace of mind is self-sustaining. Aid is just prolonging the cycle of suffering.
========================
========================

Conrad Zbikowski wrote:
Are not higher food prices the vehicle to increased food production? Although some of the recent rise can be attributed to biofuel subsidies, isn't what we are experiencing just "growing pains" from increases in income globally? Isn't this just a short term effect that will last until supply can rise?After airline deregulation, almost all companies had huge difficulties keeping their balance sheets black. Many went into bankruptcy. Wouldn't the pay cuts and layoffs following deregulation be the effects of some "shrinking pains". Pains caused by the sudden shock to the market of competition.When large growth occurs incredibly quickly, as it has with the rapid industrialization in China and other booming nations, why should we be so worried by a equal rise in inflation across the board? We know it is going to happen, and we also know what will result of it. Rises in food production will bring the real price of food down, eventually. Until then, isn't it the policy maker's job to allow supply to move as swiftly as possible? Maybe by introducing perks for first time farmers like coupons on kit and the like? We are already giving coupons for dtv boxes, and those don't improve food prices.
========================
========================


naarad_devbhumi wrote:
to worry is not the answer.price-rise is incentive enough .
========================
========================
BeThatOne wrote:
When I was 12 years old, I'm 53 years old now, my grandmother said to me, " you see how we leave the front door unlocked while you and your brother play in front of the house?" I said to her, "yes." She told me, "You'll see, soon we will have to start locking the doors and windows, And one thing more, she said, people are going to need a shotgun to get their groceries from the store door to their car." Sad to say, I see and have seen all this coming into play. If we can't feed and take care of our children, tell me, please, what will become of our Country? Where will this country's strength come from. From one problem to many others. The Root to all evil...MONEY!
========================
========================

BeThatOne wrote:
I see alot of star's, (movie, music, etc.) in shape. Most of them can afford to look the way they look. Most people that are over weight can't afford to eat right. They foods that are in the catagory of the foods to stay away from (S.S.S.=Sweets, snacks, and sodas) are less expensive. Some people are over weight because of health reasons. Higher food prices will cause alot more people health problems, including unborn babies. Will these babies be born with mental health issues, along with undevelope bodies? A mind is a terrible thing to waste! I can't wait until the prices come down,if ever,to start eating again. The human race needs food and shelter, it's a must. Mankind can not reverse all the ill effects from starvation.Marasmus produces a very skinny child with stunted growth. Children with kwashiorkor have body fat, an enlarged liver, and edema—swelling from excess water in the tissues. They also have growth retardation. Niacin deficiency produces pellagra characterized by diarrhea, skin rashes, brain dysfunction, tongue, mouth and vaginal irritation, and trouble swallowing. Thi
ine (Vit
in B1) deficiency causes beriberi, which can appear as heart failure and edema, a brain and nerve disease, or both. Riboflavin deficiency causes a sore mouth and throat, a skin rash, and anemia. Lack of vit
in C (ascorbic acid)—scurvy—causes hair d
age, bleeding under the skin, in muscles and joints, gum disease, poor wound healing, and in severe cases convulsions, fever, loss of blood pressure, and death. Vit
in B12 is needed to keep the nervous system working right, and it and pyridoxine (vit
in B6) are both necessary for blood formation. Vit
in A deficiency causes at first loss of night vision and eventually blindness from destruction of the cornea, a disease called keratomalacia. Vit
in K is necessary for blood clotting. Vit
in D regulates calcium balance. Without it, children get rickets and adults get osteomalacia. — J. Ricker Polsdorfer, MD ris
========================
========================



VK's wrote:
Hi All, A strong NO from my experience:Increase in Food Price will not improve the living conditions of the farmers. I can justify with live ex
ple in India. As others I (as a consumer) pay more for my groceries and vegetables. Although my produces (rice, vegetables)fetch me more money (its not linear with what i pay)than the previous situations its been eaten up by my increase in input costs, wages, transport costs and so on.
========================
========================
Ulrich123 wrote:
Interesting to see how much longer the wording of the next debate proposition is.
========================
========================


Article13 wrote:
It is a combination of both arguments. In theory the rise in food prices will help to re-correct how we (as a society) value food and eventually help bring the developing world out of poverty. However the exponential way in which food prices are currently rising is NOT the right way.While it is necessary that the market more realistically reflect the imposing limits to food production this needs to be done via government policies and occur in a controlled fashion. Only once food prices reach their true market value, can comparative advantage actually exist and producers in areas such as Africa and Asia benefit from their natural geographic and climatic advantage and compete on a level playing field. (The above views are those of individuals at Article 13)
========================
========================


Racemouse wrote:
A big cheer to Von Braun for his elegant closing statement which nail the issue.
========================
========================


eos137 wrote:
Not every farmer grows rice. The soaring price in rice, wheat and corn will bring handsome benefit to major grain trading firms, and a little may go to the subsistence farmers, but what about small scale fruit and vegetable farmers, still struggling with fluctuating price?? For them high food and input prices are direct threats. It won´t take long the prolonged rural f
ine will bring riots, social instability and furthermore massive illegal emigration to rich countries. Nothing will be done without affirmative action. It’s time for the small farmers to be aggressive; 1) producing in more predictable way and more independently from fossil fuel, 2) selling or exporting in collective way on a contract basis. Ideas and actions should be sought to bring this to happen.
========================
========================


matloob66 wrote:
On the sensitive issues like food,agriculture,water resources which concerns the very existence of people and humanbeings,governments and states should have direct power to interfere and they should rather than leaving decisions related to them in the hands of a few Trans-National Companies who are bent to exploit people and fill their coffers nothing else....they would rather see people dying and the resources of countries be channeled for them and their powers increasing....mind you food and things related to them are of utmost importance and therefore matters related to food should not be taken lightly and extreme care and sensivity should be shown for this issue.....
========================
========================


matloob66 wrote:
On the sensitive issues like food,agriculture,water resources which concerns the very existence of people and humanbeings,governments and states should have direct power to interfere and they should rather than leaving decisions related to them in the hands of a few Trans-National Companies who are bent to exploit people and fill their coffers nothing else....they would rather see people dying and the resources of countries be channeled for them and their powers increasing....mind you food and things related to them are of utmost importance and therefore matters related to food should not be taken lightly and extreme care and sensivity should be shown for this issue.....
========================
========================


Nautilos wrote:
The proposition is so vague as to be almost senseless. One can find an upside to a wide range of events, even though the downside may be so severe as to render the comparison useless. For ex
ple, the birth of the UN may be an upside to WWII. So, reasonable people will find many possible positive consequences of rising food prices, and yet it does not mean that, were we able to weigh the plusses and minuses on some scales, the minuses would not outweigh the plusses. Hunger has worsened with higher prices, there is no debating that. It may mean that supply will expand in the future, but the benefit of this is still unrealised. So, people, mostly in the developing countries, pay now, while the uncertain payoff will come later. In conclusion, I agree there is an upside to higher prices, but with all qualifications above. My two cents.
========================
========================


SikhMedani wrote:
I'm happy that Joachim and Homi have taken this up in this forum. The basic issue is straightforward: the OECD member's agricultural deveelo
et, trade, and aid policies have been such, that -aided and abetted by the World Bank and IMF - there has been very little investment into agricultural develo
ent in developing countries. Distrust of the world trading system is deeply embedded in all OECD countries; thus, they are all maintaining a capacity to be food self-sufficiency, should the need arise. Towards such an end, they need to maintain rural-urban income parity, and support of food prices is one of the main instruments deployed. The first logical move is to seal your borders, to make sure foreign farmers do not benefit from your high domestic prices. When the cost of holding stocks (assuming that the government has been buying form their farmers) to shore up prices, you dispose the surplus either as aid or dump it at very low prices. All along, the WB and IMF pundits advise, cajole, and force borrowing countries not to invest in food production. The ROI doesn't make it worthwhile to invest (irrigation/rural-infrastructure/production of agricultural inputs. These non-price factors are inhibiting developing country farmers to benefit from the sudden price hikes. There is considerable lead time in most agricultural develo
ent (including research), thus a gradual rise fromt he artificially low prices, would have provided a better opportunity for the poor farmers, and not just the big agribusinesses who are now cashing in regardless of whether the poor starve. I vote with Joachim.
========================
========================




DayTime wrote:
I think that it is not so much a matter of whether it is positive or negative, but that in as perfect an imperfect system as our current "free market" system, it is just an economic reality-textbook reality, actually. The current inflation in food products is but a microscopic view of the macroscopic economics seen in countries suddenly shocked into capitalism-as Russia was in the early 90's. Without the smoother gradations accommodated by more mature free market economies, this kind of negative impact is unavoidable. But what the developed economies could be doing to lessen this degree of crisis in the future is focusing on teaching these poor, underdeveloped, rural societies how to organize into cooperative farming groups; instruct them on how to prepare and care for the land to maximize production of whatever grows best in that region. This could be done with wonderful volunteer groups as the Peace Corps, who could simultaneously help them set up clean water systems for human and crop consumption. Additionally, that brilliant man who just won the nobel prize for his micro-loan banking system for third world citizens would support this completely, as this is his life's mission. With a cooperative farming organization, the more simple, mechanized farm equi
ent would be shared and maintained by the group, reducing the risk and cost of capital. I do not know how many other organizations there are on an international level that are as dedicated and practical as the Peace Corps, but I think all of the wealthy countries could certainly organize a c
paign to recruit and support similar volunteer workers. And I think that it should be very concentrated region by region, or the foundation might be too diluted to be sustainable. There is nothing more basic than nutrition and clean water, so it would be a sufficiently focused, efficiently economic, and unanimously supported effort. Now all we need is GOOD LEADERSHIP. I don't know where in the h--- we can find that though! I haven't seen it in decades.
========================
========================


Andy Mold wrote:
In an otherwise very well argued piece, Homi Kharas says "In any business, when input prices go up substantially, output prices must also rise or bankruptcy results. If we accept this argument, as I believe we must, then it is inevitable that higher food prices must accompany higher energy prices." But this ignores the very significant pressures on many farmers for keeping prices down, regardless of input prices. In 'Trading Down', Gibbon and Ponte point to the trends towards oligopoly in the food market, which puts small producers under increasing pressure to keep prices down. Similarly, World Bank research has shown how lower prices for coffee in the late 1990s was not passed on to consumers, but was increasingly 'captured' by large companies and traders. Distorted market structures mean that generalisations about the impact of either high or low prices on farmer's income need to be made with care.
========================
========================

The eastman wrote:
Re high food prices: Perhaps this is Nature's way of reducing the number of people who are overweight. One has only to watch the TV news to see lots of video about overweight people.And, in poor countries, perhaps young females will die from starvation before they give birth. This is a 'PLUS', since, after all, the planet suffers from too many inhabitants.
========================
========================




EcoEcon wrote:
Ms. Guarnieri and others point to the disruption to producers and consumers that will result from a rise in food prices. Left unanswered is whether those who gain will offset those who lose. I'm from the
erican midwest and even though THE ECONOMIST is not so widely read here as in London, we can see the complexity. Where and how much upside must humanity experience to offset the downside? Isn't this unanswerable?
========================
========================

shoggi wrote:
it is good that food prices rise, so eventually the real price of meat and milk has to be paid and people will realize how foolish it is to eat dead animals, when you even hesitate to run over one with your car and how perverted it is for the human race to be the only m
mal on earth to consume the infant food of a different species as an adult.
========================
========================




greenjeanne wrote:
greenjeanne: If higher food prices could encourage more people to grow some of their own food and to buy food more wisely that would be a positive benefit. When people are overweight and still undernourished and when children are given empty calorie foods instead of wholesome fruits, vegetables, brown rice and other basic foods life and health are sacrificed. Human beings in all countries should take more responsibility for wise nutrition. The food industry has grown very rich by taking the food out of food and replacing it with chemicals, etc.
========================
========================


Kewal Khanna wrote:
Rising food prices is a matter of concern effecting millions who are unable to get two times meals. Use of corn and soya for biofuels has been one of the reason counting for rising prices. According to one survey about 14 per cent of the people in USA waste food, which could otherwise go for poorer ones. It is a tragedy des;pite man landing on moon still millions of starve in many part of this universe. Rising food prices further adds to this growing traagedy of hunger.
========================
========================


S
e Old S
e Old wrote:
Since when has poverty been convenient excuse for adult irresponsibility. Yes all those adults who continue to bring children into the world without thinking of the consequenses of the care and feeding of their offspring. To the extent that it is ones RIGHT to procreate it MUST also be ones responsibility to provide for ones offspring. Anything other than this condems the world to the s
e old s
e old. Playing the bl
e g
e and clasic Marxist calss warfare will not change nor will it mitigate the ssituation.
========================
========================

草木也知愁UID: 2487572

总结