for the last few weeks we all heard that the world is gonna run out of rice.
large stores in the usa have restricted rice buying.
i read an article on forbes-online advising to switch from savings into buying food and hording as savings only pay 4.1 % interest but food inflation in the usa is 4.5 % - that was CONSUMER advise.
i also read articles that in some 3rd world countries riots have taken place because rice actually was short on supply and people started to panick.
i live in the gambia, west africa - the 6th poorest nation on earth according to un statistics. the price of rice here has now reached about us $36 for 50 kg - this in a country where the average daily income - again according to un statistics - is us $1.
now today i stumble across some articles in the uk times that state there are 1.5 million tons of rice in storage in japan - all bought from the usa under some obscure wto regulation. not for emergencies. or for safe-keeping. or because it gets better when stored for a while.
NO
because of trade agreements, subsidies and rules.
| Quote: |
| The collapse came as think-tanks and food experts called on Japan and the US to urgently unwind one of the biggest “invisible” distortions in global rice markets: a quirk of World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules that obliges Tokyo to buy rice it does not need and that eventually rots in storage. The WTO rule, its many critics say, effectively turns millions of tonnes of high-grade American produce into feed for Japanese hogs and chickens. |
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/consumer_goods/article3948493.ece
right. ok. business is business. or is it?
| Quote: |
| Research by the World Bank suggests that export subsidies and tariffs by wealthy nations hit the paddies, fields and orchards of the developing world to the tune of an annual $100 billion (£51.1 billion) in lost income. |
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/consumer_goods/article3948494.ece
am i just naive?????
or is there something seriously wrong in this world?
Edit: i thought "wto" stands for "world trade organisation". isn't "the" world the whole round thing we ALL live on? not by these standards.
Edit: re-posted as: "does america starve the world" from "Anything for a quick buck"
My motivation: this issue is very important to me and i really would like to see more opinions. it seems that as soon as anything "american" is in a topic header it seems to attract far more viewings and comments. TY
cheers
Last edited by icecool on Sat May 24, 2008 4:32 am; edited 2 times in total really some thing to think about.
But the distribution of wealth was always a problem in the world. So is the case with the other resources too. Most of the resources are hogged by people in the developed world and the rest get only pea nuts really!
Different countries have different types of economies, and it is really difficult to put all of them in one single basket.
Political environments are different too.
In this juncture, there definitely needs to be laws and restrictions in place for export and import.
What is needed at the present time is to appeal to innate goodness in human nature to overcome these issues. I find that in developed countries, people do not have the respect and appreciation for food and other types of things which are taken for granted, which, in developing countries are really treasured. This needs to be cultivated amongst the citizens of the developed countries, and hopefully the situation should improve.
Thats why we need an end to the WTO and G8, and organisations such as these... free trade agreements with poor nations especially when it includes rice, is also a major concern.
I only want to say that the food must not be transformed in gas or oil or biodiesel or any of this related products. Food is just for eat, and many people in the world are starving because they dont have nothing to eat. Please, goverments, react to this bad practice.
Really? Trying to starve the world? The nation that gives more aid to 3rd world countries than any other nation in the world is TRYING to starve people?
I find that insulting to be honest. It's fairly apparent to me the US will never be able to win. When we try to help a lot, we're policing the world. When we don't give every single cent we have to these nations, we're trying to starve people. What an impossible fight...
| liljp617 wrote: |
Really? Trying to starve the world? The nation that gives more aid to 3rd world countries than any other nation in the world is TRYING to starve people?
I find that insulting to be honest. It's fairly apparent to me the US will never be able to win. When we try to help a lot, we're policing the world. When we don't give every single cent we have to these nations, we're trying to starve people. What an impossible fight... |
| Quote: |
| Does America help starve the world?? |
usually a question mark after a sentence denotes exactly that - a question. maybe if you actually read the post as it is written - including links provided - you wouldn't feel so insulted.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| ....the US will never be able to win.....What an impossible fight... |
who talks about fighting and winning? i'm addressing the fairness - or lack of - of international trade agreements and the insanity of some subsidies paid by governments for mostly domestic political reasons in a global context.
to make it easy for you:
Quote:
The collapse came as think-tanks and food experts called on Japan and the US to urgently unwind one of the biggest “invisible” distortions in global rice markets: a quirk of World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules that obliges Tokyo to buy rice it does not need and that eventually rots in storage. The WTO rule, its many critics say, effectively turns millions of tonnes of high-grade American produce into feed for Japanese hogs and chickens.
IS THIS SANE????????
and
Quote:
Research by the World Bank suggests that export subsidies and tariffs by wealthy nations hit the paddies, fields and orchards of the developing world to the tune of an annual $100 billion (£51.1 billion) in lost income.
IS THIS FAIR??????
and don't tell me i insult people here.
i state facts and ask questions.
cheersWether the US and A gives or stops giving any sort of 'aid' (as in actually helpful stuff, opposed to cash), as a country, is actually irrelevant. Although it is true that the US has been the entire planet's biggest sorrow promoter since the end of WWII, it's also irrelevant.
Objective information basically says a weird regulation of (just another) US-controlled world-scale organism is for no reason forcing a huge amount of really needed food to get wasted. What I really don't get is the following.
Now, a rant. Feel free to skip this part and see a pink unicorn picture or something. Thank you.
I live in a country where you could drop a turd on the ground, come a week later and find an apple tree. I understand most of Africa has a very good amount of cultivable land. And still something like 3 million people here in Argentina don't get to eat twice a day, and most of Africa is dying either of various illness or malnourishing. I don't get what the heck are my own neighbors priorities that we don't seem to notice that. Can't speak for everybody, but damn it, it's food, it's vital, and it can't be acceptable that although we produced (2002 stats here) 26,900 THOUSAND METRIC TONS OF SOYBEANS . That's some some 12 grams of soybeans per human on Earth for each day of the year, if all equally distributed, that today some 500 families sell for a huge amount of money mostly to China and the US, while thousands of men and women are dying around them everyday of starvation and malnourishing related illnesses.
Last edited by PMK-Bear on Mon May 26, 2008 12:55 pm; edited 1 time in total | liljp617 wrote: |
| Really? Trying to starve the world? The nation that gives more aid to 3rd world countries than any other nation in the world is TRYING to starve people? |
You shouldn't be so jumpy. That is a question that reads "Does US help starve the world?". Nobody stated that the US do that on purpose or that they even do that.
Also instead of you I wouldn't be proud of the US aid. Actually US is the thriftiest of the rich countries.
US official aid was $23.5B in 2006 and $21.8B in 2007.
Compare that with European Union's ones: $70.0B in 2006 and $74.6B in 2007.
That is Americans spend 16 cents in each $100 for aiding "developing" countries (politically correct term for "poor" countries). That is the smallest figure.
Europeans spend 45 cents. That is 3 times more. But even we are far from the United Nation's agreed quota of 0.7% of the Gross National Income => 70 cents.
The above figures represent governmental aid. Private aid and charities are not included.
Statistics source here
I guess this aid is good but all the rich countries should give more (especially US and Japan who are far from the 0.7% quota).
On the other hand the poor countries should be required to enforce some measures: population control, investments in production activities etc.I've always wondered why people will go hungry like that... If I were in a situation like that I would either 1) leave and go someplace better, no matter how difficult or illegal it might be (like Cubans do when they travel to Florida in homemade boats) or 2) grow/catch/hunt my own food.
A huge problem right now is the production of food to feed cars instead of food to feed people! Some farmers are moving towards this and it is leading to a huge shortage in food. Why not start here?
| smarter wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | Really? Trying to starve the world? The nation that gives more aid to 3rd world countries than any other nation in the world is TRYING to starve people? |
You shouldn't be so jumpy. That is a question that reads "Does US help starve the world?". Nobody stated that the US do that on purpose or that they even do that.
Also instead of you I wouldn't be proud of the US aid. Actually US is the thriftiest of the rich countries.
US official aid was $23.5B in 2006 and $21.8B in 2007.
Compare that with European Union's ones: $70.0B in 2006 and $74.6B in 2007.
That is Americans spend 16 cents in each $100 for aiding "developing" countries (politically correct term for "poor" countries). That is the smallest figure.
Europeans spend 45 cents. That is 3 times more. But even we are far from the United Nation's agreed quota of 0.7% of the Gross National Income => 70 cents.
The above figures represent governmental aid. Private aid and charities are not included.
Statistics source here
I guess this aid is good but all the rich countries should give more (especially US and Japan who are far from the 0.7% quota).
On the other hand the poor countries should be required to enforce some measures: population control, investments in production activities etc. |
You just compared multiple countries, pretty much an entire continent, to the US alone. Of course the statistics are going to say they give more aid.OK. The best per capita figures I can find would be:
1. Norway 21.04
2. Sweden 11.81
3. Denmark 5.95
4. Switzerland 5.85
5. Netherlands 5.15
6. Belgium 2.94
7. United Kingdom 2.58
8. Finland 2.38
9. United States 2.34
10. France 2.17
11. Canada 2.10
12. Australia 1.93
13. Ireland 1.83
14. Austria 1.23
15. New Zealand 1.18
16. Spain 0.61
17. Germany 0.61
18. Italy 0.42
19. Greece 0.27
20. Japan 0.06
21. Portugal 0.03
(That is cents per head of population per day given to foreign aid)
(source - http://www.rasmusen.org/x/archives/000368.html )
Alternatively there is a different set of figures here
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html
The US is certainly nowhere near the top of the 'giving' tree (either in Governmental Aid or private giving) when measured per head of population. ^We are in the top 10 though, which isn't bad considering how many total nations there are and the other problems we have, such as a high crime rate and two ongoing wars that also require money. Not to mention the huge amount of domestic aid in the form of Welfare and Medicare.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| ^We are in the top 10 though, which isn't bad considering how many total nations there are and the other problems we have, such as a high crime rate and two ongoing wars that also require money. Not to mention the huge amount of domestic aid in the form of Welfare and Medicare. |
Well, when you consider how many nations are as wealthy as the US it is perhaps not so good. The wars are not really a factor (given that the US aid budget is pretty consistent between wars). The domestic welfare and medical budget is something all Western countries have to deal with and is certainly not unique to the US. Most (in fact, I think ALL) of the countries above the US in foreign aid have better welfare provision as well.
PS - I think that if you measure aid as a proportion of GDP then the US is about 22nd on the list, which is near the bottom of the developed country league table. One should also, perhaps, consider that a great deal of this aid goes to specific countries that the US favours - nearly 12% going to Israel, for example.
Finally one should consider the issue of 'tied-aid'. The US ties most of its foreign aid - in other words it specifies what the donor countries can buy with it and (more importantly) who they can buy it from.
| Quote: |
| "The most generous countries are also the ones that do not tend to tie aid to their own products and services. The stingiest countries also, almost spitefully and nastily, force countries to buy their own services and products with the aid they give; which reduces free trade and commerce and harms the countries economy, as well as being simply selfish and conceited. Thankfully, many countries do not tie their aid. Countries that tie less than 10% of aid include Ireland, Norway and the UK, then Belgium, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden. The USA is the worst, and ties nearly 90% of its aid to developing countries. Italy is the second worst with 70%. The two worst countries for this obnoxious practice in aid-giving are also the two countries out of the most developed countries, who give least generously!" |
(Source - http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/foreign_aid.html )I assume that these numbers are included in the above indexes, but looking through the donations to the UN World Food Programme from year to year, I noticed that the United States' total is over $1.1 billion each year in the 21st Century. Whereas the #2 donor (European Commission) hits around $200 million each year.
WFP Donors
Respectfully,
M The Rich West does starve the world...
For example, We put our grain on the markets in africa at a lower price then those farmers can sell theirs... While here We say we have a shortage on grain so the price goes up again...
That makes both us and the african farmers suffer... offcourse we have all sorts of stuff to not really starve ( such as social security ) but they don't... so they really starve
| Poetsunited wrote: |
The Rich West does starve the world...
For example, We put our grain on the markets in africa at a lower price then those farmers can sell theirs... While here We say we have a shortage on grain so the price goes up again...
That makes both us and the african farmers suffer... offcourse we have all sorts of stuff to not really starve ( such as social security ) but they don't... so they really starve |
yes people here do.
it's quite crazy if you consider that most of our eggs and onions here come from scandinavia. they are so heavily subsidised there that even after airlifting them here to the gambia - that's about 3,500 miles y air freight - they still can sell them cheaper than local produce, making the local farmers wonder why they bother to produce them in the first place. and THEN comes the real crazy thing that the same countries send project consultants trying to teach these farmers how to work more efficiently!!!!!!!!
for me, that's taking the piss.
cheers | Poetsunited wrote: |
| The Rich West does starve the world... |
I disagree.
The main cause of starvation is stupid careless parents. They never think beforehand if their children will have enough to eat. They just breed.
A quick comparison of natality rate in the rich countries with that in the poor countries is completely clarifying. (complete stats here)
Top 20 Countries with High Birth Rates (notice that they are among the poorest countries):
Niger: 51.45 births/1,000 population
Mali: 49.23 births/1,000 population
Chad: 48.81 births/1,000 population
Uganda: 48.04 births/1,000 population
Somalia: 47.7 births/1,000 population
Liberia: 47.22 births/1,000 population
Angola: 46.89 births/1,000 population
Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 46.44 births/1,000 population
Sierra Leone: 45.63 births/1,000 population
Burkina Faso: 45.26 births/1,000 population
Mayotte: 45.26 births/1,000 population
Marshall Islands: 45.17 births/1,000 population
Ethiopia: 45.13 births/1,000 population
Western Sahara: 45.07 births/1,000 population
Benin: 44.81 births/1,000 population
Yemen: 43.44 births/1,000 population
Mauritania: 43.36 births/1,000 population
Gaza Strip: 43.14 births/1,000 population
Sao Tome and Principe: 42.98 births/1,000 population
Madagascar: 42.92 births/1,000 population
All rich countries have a birth rate of 10-15 births/1,000 population, e.g.:
United States: 14.2 births/1,000 population
Australia: 13.08 births/1,000 population
Norway: 12.79 births/1,000 population
Luxembourg: 12.45 births/1,000 population
France: 12.27 births/1,000 population
Denmark: 12.16 births/1,000 population
Netherlands: 12.12 births/1,000 population
Liechtenstein: 11.83 births/1,000 population
United Kingdom: 11.76 births/1,000 population
Switzerland: 10.4 births/1,000 population
Sweden: 10.01 births/1,000 population
Japan: 9.96 births/1,000 population
Monaco: 9.94 births/1,000 population
Austria: 9.9 births/1,000 population
Germany: 9.35 births/1,000 population
Spain: 9.22 births/1,000 population
Italy: 9.13 births/1,000 population
Besides this main cause, there are other causes: bad weather, natural disasters, the spikes in oil prices, market distortions by governmental subsidies, etcWhat surprises me everytime is this... Man, I don't know how to put it. Sorry that I say it that way, but this "sad dumbness".
The whole thing about Cash-Crops (crops that are just grown to be sold) and selling corn for cars -
| parmaster wrote: |
| A huge problem right now is the production of food to feed cars instead of food to feed people! Some farmers are moving towards this and it is leading to a huge shortage in food. |
- let's me always think:
Why don't they EAT their crops instead of selling them and then realizing that they are hungry?
Of course, there's politics involved, it's not the farmers itself selling their crops and then starving. But why don't these governments get that their people have to eat (and that you can't eat coins)?
I think it's wrong to just blame the people who buy the crops, but also the ones who sell them.
| Poetsunited wrote: |
For example, We put our grain on the markets in africa at a lower price then those farmers can sell theirs... While here We say we have a shortage on grain so the price goes up again... |
Also, the politicians there could do something against that. For example, the price of german food would be much too high for the world market if the government wouldn't support it. So if the other countries would support their farmers, there wouldn't be a problem.
For example, they could raise the import tolls for food, so the local people would buy more from local farmers and the tolls could be used to import their farmers.
Edit:
| smarter wrote: |
| Poetsunited wrote: | | The Rich West does starve the world... |
The main cause of starvation is stupid careless parents. They never think beforehand if their children will have enough to eat. They just breed. |
Don't just blame the people. Don't forget the catholic church telling people condoms and abortions are devilish and the rural society where you need a few children (but certainly not TEN) so they can help you with the farm work and care about you when you're old. So what you are saying is rice is the only thing people around the world can eat? If people would become self sufficient like we all were 100 years ago, and grow our own food what do we have to worry about.
People only have themselves to blame for becoming dependent on foreign food. Don't blame the US for peoples dependence. I certainly don't agree with the US's subsidy program but thats no excuse to blame us for "starving people".
China is now exporting food, in massive quantities. Now that much of their semi-"communist" production is actually done at market prices and for the world market.
Where free markets are allowed to operate, and property rights of the poor are respected, there is little or no starvation. Poor countries suffer from bad gov't.
And gov't to gov't aid, like the expensive consultants sent to help farmers work more efficiently when the local market is ruined by subsidized exports, gov't to gov't aid does more harm than good. All bad gov'ts suffer from corruption, and all aid supports corruption.
Including emergency aid to Myanmar/ Burma, today -- where the terrible gov't is stealing a lot of the aid.
Zimbabwe -- terrible gov't, as also Sudan but also even Kenya has corruption-filled, aid-abetted gov't.
The subsidies to US and especially EU farmers (see the Common Agricultural Policy) should end. Perhaps gov'ts should buy some stocks to maintain emergency supplies, but in general the rich Western farmers should not get subsidies so they can dump food exports into poor countries.
The silly aid given to most poor countries is mostly wasted -- so arguing about which gov't wastes how much wasted aid doesn't matter.
'Free markets' are 'free' if every player does its part fairly. And that's not how business gets made. Thusly, the free market fallacy, and the liars who try to enforce it through varied shady debt payment terms should, in my opinion, be a)disposessed and their former wealth sold to pay for developing countries's actual development and b)fed to the hungry.
Sorry, that's what I think about it.
| PMK-Bear wrote: |
'Free markets' are 'free' if every player does its part fairly. And that's not how business gets made. Thusly, the free market fallacy, and the liars who try to enforce it through varied shady debt payment terms should, in my opinion, be a)disposessed and their former wealth sold to pay for developing countries's actual development and b)fed to the hungry.
Sorry, that's what I think about it. |
the shady debt payment terms as you call them are imposed by the rich nations onto the poor, usually using this "honorable" institution, the world bank, which in effect is controlled by the "g8" club. so following your suggestion that would mean dispossesing these nations of their wealth - which was accumulated in the first place by exploiting the poor nations one way or another over the last 500 years - and re-distributing the money more fairly to allow all of humanity to start reaching equal standards of living. not bad.
however, your second suggestion.... please, don't send these guys down here. thanks
cheers | TomGrey wrote: |
China is now exporting food, in massive quantities. Now that much of their semi-"communist" production is actually done at market prices and for the world market.
Where free markets are allowed to operate, and property rights of the poor are respected, there is little or no starvation. Poor countries suffer from bad gov't. |
China is exporting because it has deliberately changed its use of large tracts of land from growing cereal staples (particularly rice) to growing fruit and veg for export. At the moment this is not a problem because China still has a reasonable rice store, but given a couple of bad harvests over the next few years we may well see China in deep doo-doo. At the moment China is just about producing enough rice for home consumption (it actually had to import some during the last 12 months). If the current policy continues I predict trouble.Trouble in China? That would be a surprise! LOL
I thought the food crisis was because of people in India & China.
| Rice wrote: |
| we obviously have to look at places where production seems to be declining and declining to the point that people are actually putting export caps on the amount of food. Now, some of that is not so much declining production as apparently improvement in the diets of people, for instance, in China and India, and then pressures to keep food inside the country |
| Bush wrote: |
There turns out to be prosperity in developing world, which is good.
...
It also, however, increases demand. So, for example, just as an interesting thought for you, there are 350 million people in India who are classified as middle class. That's bigger than America. Their middle class is larger than our entire population. And when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food. And so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up. |
Clearly, there haven't been nearly enough deaths due to starvation in the poor and developing countries (or so the Americans believe) ... and that's why the big Macs are getting costlier in the USA.
That's simplified world food economics for the Americans.
The amazing thing is that many will (and probably already do) actually believe it's true. Ha ha thats an awesome comic, I love it. Where did you find it?
