Display:
Food prices are rising because demand is rising because populations and living standards (in some countries/sectors) are rising.  Production isn't keeping up because energy, wage and input costs are rising (for farmers in the developed world) and because of land availability issues in much of the underdeveloped world.  On balance higher prices will help stimulate more production, but this exacerbate existing problems of land availability and income inequality.  Greater counter market government interventions are required to counter-act this growing income inequality but neo-liberalism frames such interventions as market distortions.  Of course they are - just as famine in a world of plenty is a moral and humanitarian distortion.  Which is the more important frame of reference?

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Apr 18th, 2008 at 09:34:15 AM EST
The problem in the underdeveloped world is not only land availability - quite literally, agriculture there is stuck in Antiquity. That limits production much more that land availability - the Green Revolution proved that parts of the Third World could raise productivity with better techniques.

Also, from the point of view of income inequality, let's remember that the rioters in Mexico and Egypt tend to be urban dwellers - who are wealthier than land workers. The ones going hungry are the food producers.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Apr 18th, 2008 at 09:46:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If there is nobody left knowing how to cultivate them, there is going to be a problem...

I pointed this out the other day in Bruce McF's latest Arc of the Sun diary. And that current prices might persuade peasant farmers to stay on the land - though we have to stop bringing world prices down with our subsidised exports (we = EU & US).

OTOH, we shouldn't give up farming. There's a free-trade notion that says we don't need agriculture any more (like we didn't need industry?), and we should just import from the cheapest bidder (comparative advantage). Which, practically, means buying from Cairns Group and emerging agri-countries that run wide-scale production of dubious sustainability. And (Doha Round) from plantation-type farming that should be encouraged (invested in by capitalists) in poorer countries, where lucky peasant farmers will be able to get wage-slave jobs and we will be told they have been raised out of poverty.

My view is we should aim at self-sufficiency, as far as possible, for all. Free-traders' schemes take no account of ecology or of human society, do not cost these into their utilitarian calculations, forget past agronomic experience of virgin deforested soils exhausted by colonial cropping (North American forest, C17 - C19?). Rather than go for plantation monocultures, we should encourage sustainable, smart small farming providing basic food plus cash crops for sale on regional and national markets. Food will be more expensive? Good. Then it will pay farmers to stay on the land, it will maintain and enrich social structures that are otherwise doomed by uprooting and flight to the cities.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Apr 18th, 2008 at 09:58:40 AM EST
Damn, I knew I had forgotten a couple paragraphs in the end. Thanks for writing them ! :)

Another point made by Mazoyer is that large-scale farms are actually quite inefficient ; that economies of scale happen only up to 5-7 workers per production units, and that after that you meet diseconomies of scale.

Also, the amount of food GDP going to the producer will rise again : even France or the US spend ~15% of GDP on food, but most of that goes to Agrobusiness and supermarket nowadays, not farmers. i.e. food prices for the end buyer need not rise that much.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Apr 18th, 2008 at 10:28:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Another point made by Mazoyer is that large-scale farms are actually quite inefficient ; that economies of scale happen only up to 5-7 workers per production units, and that after that you meet diseconomies of scale.

That's interesting... So what is the optimal farm size, in terms of people and land area?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 08:52:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What I said, 5-7 people seem to be the maximum amount people that work efficiently on an agricultural exploitation before you have to add in various administrative and coordination tasks.

Land area OTOH is very variable, depending on the type of production, the amount of capital available... A shepherd with a dog can look over a much larger herd than without...

The insight is that agriculture is very easy to decentralise, which is why economies of scale don't apply.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 08:44:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Self-sufficiency in basic needs is necessary for a sustainable economy. If the US or EU are importing either our food needs from elsewhere, or our energy needs from elsewhere, then intrinsically we have a technological system that cannot be replicated around the world, because there is no "elsewhere" for the whole world to import from.

At least, not in this century ... maybe we can get an elsewhere to import some high value things from down the track, if we don't screw the pooch too badly in this coming century.


Utsukushii kereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Apr 30th, 2008 at 09:54:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... if it is necessary to subsidize food to avoid food riots, then it becomes critical to be food self-sufficient, because a government can create additional domestic purchasing power to mobilize domestic resources, but a low-income nation that tries to create additional domestic purchasing power to buy imported products just drives down its sustainable exchange rate.


Utsukushii kereba sore de ii
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Apr 30th, 2008 at 10:00:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...on the food crisis: Raj Patel, author of the highly rated Stuffed and Starved, has a blog called, er, Stuffed and Starved full of regularly updated commentary and analysis of the food crisis.
by heathlander (jsternweiner [at] hotmail.co.uk) on Mon Apr 21st, 2008 at 09:18:07 AM EST
on the run...  and short on sleep...

thread at FS

thread at MoA

FTR I disagree with many of linca's implicit and explicit claims and assumptions about the so-called "Green Revolution" -- but more on this later, just flying a protest flag for now :-)

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed Apr 30th, 2008 at 03:40:19 AM EST
More probably a case of misunderstanding than actual disagreement : these are Roudart and Mazoyer's points, summed up in the piece, and then summed up by me.

Their point about the Green Revolution (which is further developed in their book, A History of World Agriculture) is not about extending it to small farmers in the third world, and with it extending agribusiness's hold on them ; but rather, use some of the scientific techniques and scientists developed along the Green Revolution, reorient them to a closer collaboration and study of existing "traditional" agricultural practice, and participation in the development of techniques and varieties geared towards the economic and agricultural needs of those peasants.

That is, use the science of the Green Revolution to develop a productive rustic manioc rather than wheat or maize needing a lot of irrigation and chemicals.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Wed Apr 30th, 2008 at 06:03:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rice traders hit by panic as prices surge

Rice prices hit the $1,000-a-tonne level for the first time on Thursday as panicking importers scrambled to secure supplies, exacerbating the tightness already provoked by export restrictions in Vietnam, India, Egypt, China and Cambodia.

The jump came as the Philippines, the largest rice importer, failed for the fourth time to secure as much rice as it wanted.

The unsuccessful tender followed Bangladesh's inability to buy any rice at all this week.

Traders and analysts warned that rice demand was escalating in spite of prices rising to three times the level of a year ago as countries try to build up stocks.

Your long term point is well made, but the short term disruptions are huge, and very dangerous...


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Fri Apr 18th, 2008 at 10:12:54 AM EST
Well, this looks like a speculation-based spike rather than an actual, long term increase of the prices by three. Protectionism, national reserves should allow to protect the actual populations of such prices increases, as in electricity. The price of a baguette was regulated until 20 years ago, in France...

But corrupt, indebted, "reformed" governments have been unable to undertake such preventative measures and are now fighting for the last grain of rice available...

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Apr 18th, 2008 at 10:22:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So it's panic, not speculation.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Fri Apr 18th, 2008 at 04:13:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What a horrible graph - why don't they use log scale?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 08:53:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is also the small issue of the petroleum-based energy input into the production process. Even in the U.S., gasoline tractors were pretty primitive and rare before 1950. My uncle's farm in Nebraska spends 1/3 of its outlays on energy for the irrigation system pumping, and another big chunk to drive the tractors and combine harvesters. Without that energy input, his farm would revert to a pile of beach sand.
by asdf on Fri Apr 18th, 2008 at 09:38:47 PM EST
Yes, that's part of the reasons why your uncle produces as much grain as two thousand African farmers. The factors are

-Energy : contrast gas and men's muscles. If they could get some animal traction, it'd be nice.

-Ways to renew the fertility of the ground : your uncle uses various kind of chemicals (not all of which necessarily pollute), whereas the African farmer is probably using his excrement, or burnt wood in the southern parts of the continent where they are still doing Slash and Burn. But animal manure would increase productivity of the land, and works nicely with the preceding factor.

-Tools : Without energy, the plow is useless... And without capital, many tools are not accessible to the African farmer.

-Cultivated Varieties : one of the problem of developing world is that much work was put into selecting varieties adapted for industrial agriculture, of wheat, corn and rice, or for exportation, like coffee. Not as much work was put into variety selection of plants used in the South, such as manioc, millet, sweet potato, bananas, or to adapt varieties of grain for the techniques of non-industrial agriculture...

-Water : small parcel mean the investment in agriculture has to be done collectively ; and there are problems with state stability in Africa... The State practically appeared when irrigation became a necessity, in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, or even with the Inca.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sat Apr 19th, 2008 at 04:15:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, the binary landscape of the western Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.  (From the air it looks like a bunch of ones and zeros spread as far as the eye can see.)  Depleting the Ogallala Aquifer as fast possible.

Have epistemological model of Complex Information environments. Will Travel.
by ATinNM on Sat Apr 19th, 2008 at 01:27:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Change I can believe in
by redstar - Jul 3
45 comments

Photography Blog No. 42 [UPDATED]
by LEP - Jul 4
64 comments

A game for reasoning on Archimedes.
by PerCLupi - Jul 3
4 comments

Odds & Ends: Russia Politics LQD Edition.
by poemless - Jul 3
15 comments

Solar Minimum : Temperatures drop
by Luis de Sousa - Jul 4
4 comments

How You Get Oil
by Crazy Horse - Jul 2
17 comments

What do you think?
by PerCLupi - Jul 3
24 comments

OPEC blames speculation
by Migeru - Jul 2
55 comments

Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series
Countdown to $200 oil
by Migeru - Jul 2

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris - Jul 2
1 comment

Train Blogging
by DoDo - Jul 1

TOC: Socratic Economics
by Migeru - Jun 26

Germany
by DoDo - Jun 22

Agriculture
by afew - Jun 19

Anglo Disease
by Migeru - Jun 18

Most Commented threads ever
by Migeru - Jun 13
10 comments