PDA

View Full Version : Food Crisis: The Greatest Demonstration of Globalist Failure



Nbadan
04-30-2008, 12:59 AM
Food Crisis: "The greatest demonstration of the historical failure of the capitalist model"
by Ian Angus
Global Research, April 28, 2008


"If the government cannot lower the cost of living it simply has to leave. If the police and UN troops want to shoot at us, that's OK, because in the end, if we are not killed by bullets, we'll die of hunger."

— A demonstrator in Port-au-Prince, Haiti



In Haiti, where most people get 22% fewer calories than the minimum needed for good health, some are staving off their hunger pangs by eating "mud biscuits" made by mixing clay and water with a bit of vegetable oil and salt.[1]

Meanwhile, in Canada, the federal government is currently paying $225 for each pig killed in a mass cull of breeding swine, as part of a plan to reduce hog production. Hog farmers, squeezed by low hog prices and high feed costs, have responded so enthusiastically that the kill will likely use up all the allocated funds before the program ends in September.

Some of the slaughtered hogs may be given to local Food Banks, but most will be destroyed or made into pet food. None will go to Haiti.

This is the brutal world of capitalist agriculture — a world where some people destroy food because prices are too low, and others literally eat dirt because food prices are too high.

Record prices for staple foods

We are in the midst of an unprecedented worldwide food price inflation that has driven prices to their highest levels in decades. The increases affect most kinds of food, but in particular the most important staples — wheat, corn, and rice.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization says that between March 2007 and March 2008 prices of cereals increased 88%, oils and fats 106%, and dairy 48%. The FAO food price index as a whole rose 57% in one year — and most of the increase occurred in the past few months.

Another source, the World Bank, says that that in the 36 months ending February 2008, global wheat prices rose 181% and overall global food prices increased by 83%. The Bank expects most food prices to remain well above 2004 levels until at least 2015.

The most popular grade of Thailand rice sold for $198 a tonne five years ago and $323 a tonne a year ago. On April 24, the price hit $1,000.

Increases are even greater on local markets — in Haiti, the market price of a 50 kilo bag of rice doubled in one week at the end of March.

These increases are catastrophic for the 2.6 billion people around the world who live on less than US$2 a day and spend 60% to 80% of their incomes on food. Hundreds of millions cannot afford to eat.

This month, the hungry fought back.

Taking to the streets

In Haiti, on April 3, demonstrators in the southern city of Les Cayes built barricades, stopped trucks carrying rice and distributed the food, and tried to burn a United Nations compound. The protests quickly spread to the capital, Port-au-Prince, where thousands marched on the presidential palace, chanting "We are hungry!" Many called for the withdrawal of UN troops and the return of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the exiled president whose government was overthrown by foreign powers in 2004.

President Renι Prιval, who initially said nothing could be done, has announced a 16% cut in the wholesale price of rice. This is at best a stop-gap measure, since the reduction is for one month only, and retailers are not obligated to cut their prices.

The actions in Haiti paralleled similar protests by hungry people in more than twenty other countries.

* In Burkino Faso, a two-day general strike by unions and shopkeepers demanded "significant and effective" reductions in the price of rice and other staple foods.

* In Bangladesh, over 20,000 workers from textile factories in Fatullah went on strike to demand lower prices and higher wages. They hurled bricks and stones at police, who fired tear gas into the crowd.

* The Egyptian government sent thousands of troops into the Mahalla textile complex in the Nile Delta, to prevent a general strike demanding higher wages, an independent union, and lower prices. Two people were killed and over 600 have been jailed.

* In Abidjan, Cτte d'Ivoire, police used tear gas against women who had set up barricades, burned tires and closed major roads. Thousands marched to the President's home, chanting "We are hungry," and "Life is too expensive, you are killing us."

* In Pakistan and Thailand, armed soldiers have been deployed to prevent the poor from seizing food from fields and warehouses.

Similar protests have taken place in Cambodia, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Honduras, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mauritania, Niger, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Thailand, Uzbekistan, and Zambia. On April 2, the president of the World Bank told a meeting in Washington that there are 33 countries where price hikes could cause social unrest.

A Senior Editor of Time magazine warned:

"The idea of the starving masses driven by their desperation to take to the streets and overthrow the ancien regime has seemed impossibly quaint since capitalism triumphed so decisively in the Cold War.... And yet, the headlines of the past month suggest that skyrocketing food prices are threatening the stability of a growing number of governments around the world. …. when circumstances render it impossible to feed their hungry children, normally passive citizens can very quickly become militants with nothing to lose."[2]

What's Driving Food Inflation?

Since the 1970s, food production has become increasingly globalized and concentrated. A handful of countries dominate the global trade in staple foods. 80% of wheat exports come from six exporters, as does 85% of rice. Three countries produce 70% of exported corn. This leaves the world's poorest countries, the ones that must import food to survive, at the mercy of economic trends and policies in those few exporting companies. When the global food trade system stops delivering, it's the poor who pay the price.

For several years, the global trade in staple foods has been heading towards a crisis. Four related trends have slowed production growth and pushed prices up.

The End of the Green Revolution: In the 1960s and 1970s, in an effort to counter peasant discontent in south and southeast Asia, the U.S. poured money and technical support into agricultural development in India and other countries. The "green revolution" — new seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, agricultural techniques and infrastructure — led to spectacular increases in food production, particularly rice. Yield per hectare continued expanding until the 1990s.

Today, it's not fashionable for governments to help poor people grow food for other poor people, because "the market" is supposed to take care of all problems. The Economist reports that "spending on farming as a share of total public spending in developing countries fell by half between 1980 and 2004."[3] Subsidies and R&D money have dried up, and production growth has stalled.

As a result, in seven of the past eight years the world consumed more grain than it produced, which means that rice was being removed from the inventories that governments and dealers normally hold as insurance against bad harvests. World grain stocks are now at their lowest point ever, leaving very little cushion for bad times.

Climate Change: Scientists say that climate change could cut food production in parts of the world by 50% in the next 12 years. But that isn't just a matter for the future:


* Australia is normally the world's second-largest exporter of grain, but a savage multi-year drought has reduced the wheat crop by 60% and rice production has been completely wiped out.

* In Bangladesh in November, one of the strongest cyclones in decades wiped out a million tonnes of rice and severely damaged the wheat crop, making the huge country even more dependent on imported food.

Other examples abound. It's clear that the global climate crisis is already here, and it is affecting food.

Agrofuels: It is now official policy in the U.S., Canada and Europe to convert food into fuel. U.S. vehicles burn enough corn to cover the entire import needs of the poorest 82 countries.[4]

Ethanol and biodiesel are very heavily subsidized, which means, inevitably, that crops like corn (maize) are being diverted out of the food chain and into gas tanks, and that new agricultural investment worldwide is being directed towards palm, soy, canola and other oil-producing plants. This increases the prices of agrofuel crops directly, and indirectly boosts the price of other grains by encouraging growers to switch to agrofuel.

As Canadian hog producers have found, it also drives up the cost of producing meat, since corn is the main ingredient in North American animal feed.

Oil Prices: The price of food is linked to the price of oil because food can be made into a substitute for oil. But rising oil prices also affect the cost of producing food. Fertilizer and pesticides are made from petroleum and natural gas. Gas and diesel fuel are used in planting, harvesting and shipping.[5]

It's been estimated that 80% of the costs of growing corn are fossil fuel costs — so it is no accident that food prices rise when oil prices rise.

* * *

By the end of 2007, reduced investment in the third world, rising oil prices, and climate change meant that production growth was slowing and prices were rising. Good harvests and strong export growth might have staved off a crisis — but that isn't what happened. The trigger was rice, the staple food of three billion people.

Early this year, India announced that it was suspending most rice exports in order to rebuild its reserves. A few weeks later, Vietnam, whose rice crop was hit by a major insect infestation during the harvest, announced a four-month suspension of exports to ensure that enough would be available for its domestic market.

India and Vietnam together normally account for 30% of all rice exports, so their announcements were enough to push the already tight global rice market over the edge. Rice buyers immediately started buying up available stocks, hoarding whatever rice they could get in the expectation of future price increases, and bidding up the price for future crops. Prices soared. By mid-April, news reports described "panic buying" of rice futures on the Chicago Board of Trade, and there were rice shortages even on supermarket shelves in Canada and the U.S.

Why the rebellion?

There have been food price spikes before. Indeed, if we take inflation into account, global prices for staple foods were higher in the 1970s than they are today. So why has this inflationary explosion provoked mass protests around the world?

The answer is that since the 1970s the richest countries in the world, aided by the international agencies they control, have systematically undermined the poorest countries' ability to feed their populations and protect themselves in a crisis like this.

Haiti is a powerful and appalling example.

Rice has been grown in Haiti for centuries, and until twenty years ago Haitian farmers produced about 170,000 tonnes of rice a year, enough to cover 95% of domestic consumption. Rice farmers received no government subsidies, but, as in every other rice-producing country at the time, their access to local markets was protected by import tariffs.

In 1995, as a condition of providing a desperately needed loan, the International Monetary Fund required Haiti to cut its tariff on imported rice from 35% to 3%, the lowest in the Caribbean. The result was a massive influx of U.S. rice that sold for half the price of Haitian-grown rice. Thousands of rice farmers lost their lands and livelihoods, and today three-quarters of the rice eaten in Haiti comes from the U.S.[6]

U.S. rice didn't take over the Haitian market because it tastes better, or because U.S. rice growers are more efficient. It won out because rice exports are heavily subsidized by the U.S. government. In 2003, U.S. rice growers received $1.7 billion in government subsidies, an average of $232 per hectare of rice grown.[7] That money, most of which went to a handful of very large landowners and agribusiness corporations, allowed U.S. exporters to sell rice at 30% to 50% below their real production costs.

In short, Haiti was forced to abandon government protection of domestic agriculture — and the U.S. then used its government protection schemes to take over the market.

There have been many variations on this theme, with rich countries of the north imposing "liberalization" policies on poor and debt-ridden southern countries and then taking advantage of that liberalization to capture the market. Government subsidies account for 30% of farm revenue in the world's 30 richest countries, a total of US$280 billion a year,[8] an unbeatable advantage in a "free" market where the rich write the rules.

The global food trade game is rigged, and the poor have been left with reduced crops and no protections.

In addition, for several decades the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have refused to advance loans to poor countries unless they agree to "Structural Adjustment Programs" (SAP) that require the loan recipients to devalue their currencies, cut taxes, privatize utilities, and reduce or eliminate support programs for farmers.

All this was done with the promise that the market would produce economic growth and prosperity — instead, poverty increased and support for agriculture was eliminated.

"The investment in improved agricultural input packages and extension support tapered and eventually disappeared in most rural areas of Africa under SAP. Concern for boosting smallholders' productivity was abandoned. Not only were governments rolled back, foreign aid to agriculture dwindled. World Bank funding for agriculture itself declined markedly from 32% of total lending in 1976-8 to 11.7% in 1997-9."[9]

During previous waves of food price inflation, the poor often had at least some access to food they grew themselves, or to food that was grown locally and available at locally set prices. Today, in many countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, that's just not possible. Global markets now determine local prices — and often the only food available must be imported from far away.

* * *

Food is not just another commodity — it is absolutely essential for human survival. The very least that humanity should expect from any government or social system is that it try to prevent starvation — and above all that it not promote policies that deny food to hungry people.

That's why Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez was absolutely correct on April 24, to describe the food crisis as "the greatest demonstration of the historical failure of the capitalist model."

boutons_
04-30-2008, 01:34 AM
Here's another article in similar vein:

Corporate Vultures Lurk Behind the World Food Crisis

By Anuradha Mittal, AlterNet

Posted on April 29, 2008, Printed on April 29, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/83859/

UN agencies are meeting in Berne to tackle the world food price crisis. Heads of International Financial Institutions (IFIs), including Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank (former U.S. trade representative) and Pascal Lamy, WTO's Director General, are among the attendees. Will the "battle plan" emerging from the Swiss capital, a charming city with splendid sandstone buildings and far removed from the grinding poverty and hunger which has reduced people to eating mud cakes in Haiti and scavenging garbage heaps, be more of the same -- promote free trade to deal with the food crisis?

The growing social unrest against food prices has forced governments to take policy measures such as export bans, to fulfill domestic needs. This has created uproar among policy circles as fear of trade being undermined sets in. "The food crisis of 2008 may become a challenge to globalization," exclaims The Economist in its April 17, 2008 issue. Not surprisingly then, the "Doha Development Round" which has been in a stalemate since the collapse of the 2003 WTO Ministerial in Cancun, largely due to the hypocrisy of agricultural polices of the rich nations, is being resuscitated as a solution to rising food prices.

Speaking at the Center for Global Development, Zoellick passionately argued that the time was "now or never" for breaking the Doha Round impasse and reaching a global trade deal. Pascal Lamy has argued, "At a time when the world economy is in rough waters, concluding the Doha Round can provide a strong anchor." Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the IMF, has claimed: "No one should forget that all countries rely on open trade to feed their populations. [...] Completing the Doha round would play a critically helpful role in this regard, as it would reduce trade barriers and distortions and encourage agricultural trade."

Preaching at the altar of free market to deal with the current crisis requires a degree of official amnesia. It was through the removal of tariff barriers, made possible by the international trade agreements, that allowed rich nations such as the U.S. (boutons: and Western Europe) to dump heavily subsidized farm surplus in developing countries while destroying their agricultural base and undermining local food production.

In Cameroon, lowering tariff protection to 25 percent increased poultry imports by about six-fold while import surges wiped out 70 percent of Senegal's poultry industry. Similarly reduction of rice tariffs from 100 to 20 percent in Ghana as a result of the structural adjustment policies enforced by the World Bank, increased rice imports from 250,000 tons in 1998 to 415,150 tons in 2003. In all, 66 percent of rice producers recorded negative returns leading to loss of employment. Vegetable oil imports in Mozambique shrank domestic production from 21,000 tons in 1981 to 3,500 in 2002, negatively impacting some 108,000 small-holder households growing oilseeds.

Developing countries had an overall agricultural trade surplus of almost $7 billion per year in the 1960s. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), gross imports of food by developing countries grew with trade liberalization, turning into a food trade deficit of more than $11 billion by 2001 with a cereal import bill for Low Income Food Deficit Countries reaching over $38 billion in 2007/2008.

Erosion of the agricultural bases of developing countries has increased hunger among their farmers while destroying their ability to meet their food needs. The 1996 World Food Summit's commitment to reduce the number of hungry people -- 815 million then -- by half by 2015 had become a far-fetched idea by its 10th anniversary. U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, reported last June that nearly 854 million people in the world-one in every six human beings-are gravely undernourished.

So on who's behalf are the heads of the IFIs promoting the conclusion of the Doha Round and further liberalization of agriculture. While Investors Chronicle in its April 2008 feature story, "Crop Boom Winners" explores how investors can gain exposure to the dramatic turnaround in food and farmland prices, a new report from GRAIN, Making a Killing from the Food Crisis, shows Cargill, the world's biggest grain trader, achieved an 86 percent increase in profits from commodity trading in the first quarter of 2008; Bunge had a 77 percent increase in profits during the last quarter of 2007; ADM, the second largest grain trader in the world, registered a 67 percent per cent increase in profits in 2007. Behind the chieftains of the capitalist system are powerful transnational corporations, traders, and speculators who trade food worldwide, determine commodity prices, create and then manipulate shortages and surpluses to their advantage, and are the real beneficiaries of international trade agreements.

The vultures of greed are circling the carcasses of growing hunger and poverty as another 100 million join the ranks of the world's poorest - nearly 3 billion people who live on less than $2 a day. Agriculture is fundamental to the well-being of all people, both in terms of access to safe and nutritious food and as the foundation of healthy communities, cultures, and environment. The answer to the current crisis must be centered on small-scale farmers producing for local and regional markets. It is time for the developing countries to uphold the rights of their people to food sovereignty and break with decades of ill-advised policies that have failed to benefit their people.

Anuradha Mittal is executive director of the Oakland Institute.

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/83859/

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

Shipping US taxpayer subsidized corn to MX destroyed 1000s of small corn famers who then headed where US taxpayers get to pay again.

The Masters of the Universe, unregulated businesses, have fucked the world up badly.

boutons_
04-30-2008, 01:36 AM
And another:



Food scientists say stop biofuels to fight world hunger

http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Food_scientists_say_stop_biofuels_t_04292008.html

some_user86
04-30-2008, 05:59 AM
Food-based biofuels aren't really the corn farmers' fault. It's more the fault of the legislators who cave into them and give the anti-free market subsidies and tariffs. Let go of the subsidies and tariffs and corn prices will re-adjust itself.

I only skimmed the first two articles, but I think that is what's happening with rice and grain products as well.

We have to return to good old-fashioned economic sense and elect leaders with enough spines to stand-up against the farm lobbies. It's a failure of people, not of the farmers. After all, everyone has a lobby these days to lookout for themselves.

smeagol
04-30-2008, 07:01 AM
Dan, boutouns, what is the solution to Globalization?

Don Quixote
04-30-2008, 08:26 AM
Yes. Communism is a great solution to the food distribution problem!

some_user86
04-30-2008, 08:48 AM
Yes. Communism is a great solution to the food distribution problem!

I agree with the sarcastic sentiment; lets end communist-style agricultural welfare. Let the global free-market do its job.

Are we actually agreeing on something?

xrayzebra
04-30-2008, 08:58 AM
Actually it is people like dan and boutons that cause most of these
problems. They moan and groan and raise hell that the government
should do "something" they aren't sure what, but do something and
when the government does and it in most cases it has all these
unintended consequences then they want to blame everyone but
government. What a group of silly people they are.

RandomGuy
04-30-2008, 11:34 AM
HIn Cameroon, lowering tariff protection to 25 percent increased poultry imports by about six-fold while import surges wiped out 70 percent of Senegal's poultry industry[/B].

This is where lefties fail to see the big picture.

70 percent of Senegal's poultry industry was wiped out, but 100% of the people in Senegal got to buy more chicken protein with the same amount of money, ultimately improving nutrition.

The resources that were inefficiently raising poultry could be reassigned to more efficient uses.

Aggie Hoopsfan
04-30-2008, 01:02 PM
Try saying this until it makes sense boutons:

Less government is better for everyone.

some_user86
04-30-2008, 01:05 PM
Try saying this until it makes sense boutons:

Less government is better for everyone.

Agreed. Great.

Can we make the Republicans say it now?

Or does that only work during election time.

boutons_
04-30-2008, 02:25 PM
AHF continues to put words in my mouth.

Get down your knees, aggie, I got something to put in your mouth.


Here's how dubya's $50B subsidies are enriching a few while helping starve millions, to death:

Emptying the Breadbasket


For decades, wheat was king on the Great Plains and prices were low everywhere. Those days are over.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802509.html

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

dubya's corn ethanol and soy biodiesel subsidies are NOT making any significant difference in US oil imports, while the resulting farm acreage being converted to corn and soy for fuel is exploding, taking food off the world market, of which USA is huge supplier.

US food exports are required to be transported in much more expensive US ships than in competitive non-US ships, making food charity go less far, and increasing prices to foreign buyers.

Kill ALL US govt subsidies to agriculture, ALL.

Kill ALL subsidies and tax breaks for BigPharm and oilcos, coalcos.

Kill all subsidies and tax breaks for coal mining/burning companies.

boutons policy:

Take all subsidy and tax-break money and give to non-oilco, non-motorco research on reducing carbon consumption.

Tell everyone that federal taxes will prop the price of gas (and whatever diesel is) to $6/gal, indexed to inflation, no matter what the landed oil price is, and also on domestic production.

Similar move for natural gas.

The objective here is not to win elections but to use consumption taxes to encourage aggressively carbon fuel consumption.

Americans "Can Do", right?

Well, let's do it.

Prediction: no politician, esp not McFlopPander, has the intelligence and balls to wage a

War on Carbon Fuels.

Don Quixote
04-30-2008, 04:39 PM
Fine. W made a mistake with the ethanol-subsidy boondoggle. It was a stupid idea intended to cure a problem that may or may not exist (global warming). He shares some of the blame.

But what about Congress? Are they not responsible as well?

RandomGuy
04-30-2008, 05:14 PM
Fine. W made a mistake with the ethanol-subsidy boondoggle. It was a stupid idea intended to cure a problem that may or may not exist (global warming). He shares some of the blame.

But what about Congress? Are they not responsible as well?

Actually, cutting and burning forests for ethanol contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than it might save. (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-08-ethanol-study_N.htm) (click link for article on study)

Ethanol was, I think, kind of a give-away to agribusiness for the Bush Administration.

I know that sounds overly lefty and cynical, but I find the whole Bush-ethanol thing puzzling and is the best motive that I could come up with. I am sure that some buddy of Bush/Cheney stood to make oodles of cash and pushed the right buttons to get it done.

Ethanol is reasonable as a replacement for the nasty carcinigenic additive (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-20942046.html)that was in gasoline, but should not be thought of as a viable alternative for gasoline as a fuel.

Don Quixote
04-30-2008, 05:44 PM
And Congress' role?

SPARKY
04-30-2008, 06:06 PM
Agreed. Great.

Can we make the Republicans say it now?

Or does that only work during election time.

A-fucking-men. The GOP used to be the leave us the fuck alone party. And the people loved them.

Extra Stout
04-30-2008, 10:36 PM
I know that sounds overly lefty and cynical, but I find the whole Bush-ethanol thing puzzling and is the best motive that I could come up with. I am sure that some buddy of Bush/Cheney stood to make oodles of cash and pushed the right buttons to get it done.

While George W. Bush has done more than any other President to destroy the balance of power and establish a unitary executive, he yet still cannot change farm policy by fiat. You can thank our beknighted Congress for that.

And yes, they do have buddies. There is an entire street full of persuasive buddies in Washington. ArcherDanielsMidland, Cargill, and ConAgra paid good money to Congressional campaign in return for nifty new laws that allow them to make untold billions for their shareholders and corporate officers. So what if those policies cause millions to starve to death?

Look, until the lives of those corporate officers are threatened, they will happily go on with their happy lives of wealth accumulation through holocaust.

Don Quixote
04-30-2008, 10:59 PM
Hmm. Sounds like a problem that is best solved by a return to limited government! A pipe dream, but it's a good dream.

RandomGuy
05-01-2008, 08:43 AM
And Congress' role [in the ethanol subsidies]?

They were right there lining up to do something that looked like they were doing something about energy independence and farm subsidies are always politically popular, if economically stupid.

RandomGuy
05-01-2008, 08:46 AM
A-fucking-men. The GOP used to be the leave us the fuck alone party. And the people loved them.

Now both parties are the "what-can-I-do-to-get-reelected" party.

We need public financing of campaigns, and MAYBE we won't have to get polticians pandering to special interests.

boutons_
05-01-2008, 08:46 AM
"But what about Congress? Are they not responsible as well?"

Sure, but it's easier to fire the coach than the team.
If biofuel susidy bill was bad, dubya could have arguied against it, vetoed it, sent it back, etc, etc. It sailed through the WH (not even a signing statement?)

dickhead has been forcing through a unitary executive. Guess what? it comes with a LOT more responsibility, so dubya gets biofuel subsidy responsibility.

some_user86
05-01-2008, 09:02 AM
No, this one belongs on both congress and the president.

There is no difference between the parties.

Witness the collusion post-9/11 to pass the Patriot Act, start the Iraqi War, and to dupe the rest of us into going along with. The minute things turned sour, all of sudden Democrats came out against it. The Republicans got stuck with the bill because majority power was with them.

That's the reason why Obama and Ron Paul get so much traction. For those of us so disillusioned by the crap we get from our politicians, any sliver of hope, no matter how fleeting, is attractive.