How come the globalization cheerleaders failed to foresee the worldwide food riots?

[brentspeak]

A high school student could have predicted that the rapidly-emerging economies of India and China (populations of around 1 billion people each) would tax the world's energy and food supplies beyond anyone's control. And yet, the pro-globalization economists and their media shills (see under: "Thomas Friedman"), who often like to say that the average person is "ignorant about economics", failed utterly to foresee the worldwide food riots. The "experts" were apparently completely in the dark on the supply-and-demand mechanics of mankind's most basic staple.

Why are these people considered "experts" again?

[hatrack]

1. It's really very simple. You see, once upon a time . . . .

Once upon a time, Daddy Economist, Mommy Economist, and a litter of little Economists were in a mountain cabin, sitting in front of a small coal-burning stove to keep warm. Although most people know that when coal burns, it's gone forever, Daddy Economist isn't worried because he was trained to believe that when the coal is gone, a substitute will magically appear. So when the coal is gone, he looks around, and his furniture pops into view -- just like magic! So Daddy Economist decides to maximize his utility by breaking up his furniture and burning it in the small stove.

Now the Economists must sit on the floor, but heck, it's better than the alternative: dying. Then one day, SURPRISE!!! All the furniture is nearly gone. But Daddy Economist isn't worried because he believes a substitute will magically appear. So when the furniture is gone, he maximizes his utility by ripping the boards off the walls of his cabin and burning them in the stove to keep warm.

Now the Economists must sit on the floor very close to the stove, but heck, it's better than the alternative: dying. Then one day, SURPRISE!!! The Economists' cabin is completely burnt up. But Daddy Economist was trained not to worry. He decides to maximize his utility by pulling the clothes off his family and burning them in the stove to keep warm.

Now the Economists are forced to stand right next to the stove and constantly turn, but heck, it's better than the alternative: dying. Then in a few hours, SURPRISE!!! All the Economists' clothes have been burnt in the stove. But Daddy Economist isn't worried because he is going to maximize his utility by...

[brentspeak]

3. Ha, ha!

:thumbsup:

[Uncle Joe]

4. By burning the litter of little economists? n/t

[Selatius]

8. Now THAT is illustrative of why we will continue to burn oil and wreck the planet.

We won't change until after something bad already happens, like fuel running out.

[hatrack]

9. Yes, but people will just find an economicaly rational substitute for food . . .

. . . won't they?

[Selatius]

12. Yeah, other humans. "Soylent Green is people!" n/t

[Lorien]

10. and then it's too late. n/t

[zeemike]

2. Because you fail to see that they don't give a shit

People who concern themselves with only money have no empathy with the living creatures of the earth, but worship the god of Mammon.
It has always been that way, but now they are in charge and do what they will.

[brokensymmetry]

6. Perfect.

They simply do not care about the food riots.

They do care about increased profits.

Simple. All too simple.

[Warpy]

14. Ding ding ding! We have a WINNAH

Economists failed to foresee the food riots because great economists consistently fail to see PEOPLE!

People are those messy subunits their great theories seek to avoid at all costs. People are net losses to any economic system because they require all sorts of expensive things to keep functioning and most of the time, their functioning is not essential to the system great economists would like to construct.

To say they don't give a shit is putting it mildly.

[HughBeaumont]

15. And that's why one day . . .

. . . maybe not now, maybe in a few years, maybe in a few decades . . . the wealthy, should they continue propagating the destructive path their needs demand without care, are going to be strung up by their thumbs, fenced-in communities be damned.

[ensho]

5. they did foresee it. its part of the plan. what they didn't foresee was

how much damage climate change is doing to crops.

now it is out of their control.

[Selatius]

7. They did forsee it. They simply discounted it. Profits are greater than human life.

Otherwise, the people who hold power would have been afflicted with a crisis of conscience so massive as to entirely freeze the structure by which they exercise power in the world.

[malaise]

11. It is way more than that

When you deregulate the economies of developing countries, you literally destroy their agricultural sector. When you deregulate and allow all sorts of cheap milk powder imports you destroy their milk industry.
This resulted in massive unemployment as well as a resulting massive rural -urban migration with all of the associated problems. Deregulation has also led to a fundamental shift in diets, so that healthy food like cassava (which provided flour supplements)were no longer being produced by many of the areas that once thrived from that industry.

For centuries the majority of Caribbean people ate more breadfruit, cassava, yam, potatoes, green bananas and plantains than flour. We will either return to basics or starve. It's that simple.
Now that the shit has hit the fan, all the governments in the Caribbean are promoting 'eat what you grow' which was the norm in these parts until the Washington Consensus model was forced on us.

Further the environmental cost of importing when you can eat what you grow is a no brainer.

[natrat]

13. because scumbags like the clintons pimp for megacorporations and could give a shit about people

[El Pinko]

16. I'm as anti-NAFTA/anti-free-trade as they come, but are you saying...

...that somehow China and India (or at least their upper-middle-classes) getting a taste of what (some) Americans have taken for granted for so many decades is wrong?

Are Americans more entitled to the food and gas than the better-educated, harder-working Indians and Chinese?

I don't say that facetiously. Neither nation had its growth handed to it. And meanwhile, we send armies of kids to "College" to gain valuable skills like "social worker" and "chakra aligner"...

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong. I oppose NAFTA etc. because I want to protect American jobs, not because I want to keep China and India in the dark ages.

[brentspeak]

18. I'm pointing out a simple fact

The emerging Indian and Chinese middle classes are demanding more grain-fed meat in their diets -- which, in turn, is causing more demand for fuel and grain (to produce the grain-fed meat). That and other factors, such as climate changes and wrong-headed agricultural policies, have dramatically lowered world-wide food supplies at the same time that global demand has greatly increased. And the speculative commodities markets are taking advantage of this. Hence, inflated food prices world-wide and the resulting food-riots.

The off-shoring of American jobs, praised by globalization "experts", has played its own role in causing this world-wide food inflation, because its a big reason why large numbers of Indian and Chinese people have obtained middle-class status.

My point is that the "experts" apparently didn't see this occurring.

If I wanted to turn your question back to you, I could ask: are you saying that the Chinese and the Indians are more entitled to food than those in other parts of the world, such as Haiti and the Philippines?

(BTW, unrelated: in what way are the Chinese and Indians "better-educated, harder-working" than Americans?)

[entanglement]

26. Funny how the idea of some of the poorest people on earth eating a little more (for a brief period)

than usual irks you so much. Consider how obnoxious you sound - you grudge working people the food they earn with the sweat of their brow and want them to be malnourished. Do YOU feed them? Nationalists like you are the enemies of workers everywhere, keeping them divided and fighting each other. At best you are the useful idiots of the boss class.

[brentspeak]

28. Consider how ludicrous (and almost murderous) you sound

You apparently think it's acceptable that people in Haiti and Bangladesh starve to death so that people in China and India can eat some prime rib.

[entanglement]

30. I'm a socialist - I believe NO ONE, no matter whether they're American, Haitian or Chinese

should be malnourished or undernourished and it's a shame if even one human being goes hungry. I believe the forces of organized capital are directly responsible for the present food crisis. I believe in the unity of the entire global working class - ALL of humanity, all nations, races, religions. I oppose those (like you) who try to pit workers of one nation against those of the other instead of taking the fight to the boss class.

[brentspeak]

31. Fair enough

(except, that is, for the accusation that I'm "trying to pit workers of one nation" against each other.)

[On the Road]

17. Are You Proposing That Globalization

either caused the food riots or resulted in a shortage of food?

Not questioning it at this point, but I don't understand the cause-and-effect you're proposing.

[brentspeak]

19. Explanation, here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3187089&mesg_id=3187649

[On the Road]

24. Thank You -- The Demand for Animal Feed Might Indeed be a Factor

I suspect given the suddenness of the crisis, commodity speculation is a big factor too.

[brentspeak]

20. s/k

:kick:

[Hannah Bell]

21. There is no global demand increase that explains the doubling of

grain prices in 3 months.

Do you think the Chinese & Indians were sitting in a corner eating a spoonful of rice, & suddenly in the last year they changed to prime rib?

It's idiotic. Meat prices have risen less than grain. Demand for grain has been rising ~ 2%/year for the last 10 years, less than overall economic growth. Grain prices have been low, not high, for years - suggestive of loose supplies. What fraction of China & India is benefitting from globalization?

Suddenly, concurrent with the real estate meltdown, prices spike - & everyone starts raving about millions of Chinese eating beef & millions of farmers growing ethanol corn.

[brentspeak]

22. Ok, so what's your explanation?

[Hannah Bell]

23. Same reasons grain spiked during the 70' oil shocks.

1) Rising price of oil (itself partly the result of speculation).

2) Large movements of money from real estate bubble to grain futures, driving up prices - in search of "investments" that hold value in unstable times. (Evidence: volumes traded, initiation of price spikes concurrent with the popping of real estate, difference between futures prices & spot prices.)

The underlying reason though: too much money concentrated in too few hands, the fallout from 30+ years of right wing economic policy. Concentrated wealth = it moves markets, we puppets dance to its tune.

[entanglement]

25. Simple. Your empathy stops at the border, and theirs doesn't even go that far n/t

[OKthatsIT]

27. Hmmm...that's really too simple

The WTO doesn't permit National Security measures...such as food security for US citizens. Farmers have opted to sell ethanol corn because they can get a higher price on the WTO Market. Ethanol is not cost effective in any regard. Foreign markets will pay more for the corn...for fuel or grain. So off goes all our grain ->out of the country.

Don't blame the farmers...they're strapped by the dollar falling and diesel going skyhigh. They also don't have a choice by WTO RULES. If a foreign market can/will pay more, they are obligated to sell to foreign countries.

Cute, huh?

So...you see, guilt tripping Americans about their selfish ways just doesnt apply..GOT THAT?

[entanglement]

29. And when did I blame the farmers?

Is it a really unreasonable idea that NO HUMAN BEING should be malnourished or undernourished no matter their nationality? I contend that this is a perfectly achievable goal - the only thing standing in the way of it are the organized forces of global capital (and the WTO is one of them, among many others).
That's where the empathy argument comes in - if you don't have it you are more inclined to believe (like the OP) that working humans in other countries are enemies and competition for food rather than blame the distorting forces responsible for global hunger. Who benefits from that other than the capitalists?

The problems confronting the global working class are immense - but it's a mighty struggle to get people to think outside the nationalist cocoon.