Global Food Crisis, overpopulation and Cannibalism

[Oleg Bach]

So if a hungry person's incentive is geared to keeping you from being hungry then maybe that hungry person should get a few bucks for feeding you? The word incentive seems to be used with reckless disregard when it comes to human suffering...once a person is hungry over a period of time - delerium set in and it's to late to educate them on matters of incentive.

[blueblood]

This logic has always astonished me.

According to you blueblood, if we get free sunlight, that's bad for us because then we don't produce candles and lightbulbs.

That "sunlight" the Europeans are "giving" the Africans is not free. That is paid for by the European taxpayers, which is cramping on their standard of living. European ag producers are Quebec dairy farmers on steroids. Think supply management, and then flooding the market, that's not good for anybody.

The open market is there is night, and the Europeans are giving candles and lightbulbs away cheaper than it costs to produce and more people are left in the dark because of it.

Huh? High prices are good?

In Canada we are an exporting country, if the prices go down on the goods we produce, that's a bad thing. It's like when Quebecers cry about high oil prices, when in fact high oil prices are a benefit to all Canadians. Same goes with food prices.

My issue is a market imbalance caused by European leftist nonsense. It has made everyone poorer because their producers can't function in an open market.

If government handouts are bad, then why do governments pay for so much in successful societies?

Blueblood, there is so much nonsense in what you post. Your clap-trap is a mish-mash of inconsistent modern, leftist conventional wisdom.

Alberta is a far more successful society than Quebec, which province has the bigger gov't and higher taxes, it begins in Q and ends in C.

If you want to understand this question better: think of incentives. Too many people want governments to adopt a policy or give money to certain people or causes to help them. Instead, one should think of how the change/money will affect incentives.

For example, if Europeans sell cheap food to Africans, then that's an incentive for Africans to get out of the food business. And so on.

Europeans are giving cheap food to Africans on the guise of kindness to help the African people, and paid for by European tax payers. If the Europeans really want to help the African people get out of poverty, they should stop with their subsidy madness and let the market decide. I'm arguing against the European governments madness with producing something at less the cost of production on their taxpayer's backs and driving people out of business, it makes everyone poorer.

What I'm arguing against is leftist nonsense putting people in the poorhouse. Other examples of this are the USSR people having a garbage standard of living, Venezuelans giving their oil away to their own people, and the Canadian Dairy industry screwing over consumers with inflated prices on milk.

[Oleg Bach]

That "sunlight" the Europeans are "giving" the Africans is not free. That is paid for by the European taxpayers, which is cramping on their standard of living. European ag producers are Quebec dairy farmers on steroids. Think supply management, and then flooding the market, that's not good for anybody.

The open market is there is night, and the Europeans are giving candles and lightbulbs away cheaper than it costs to produce and more people are left in the dark because of it.

In Canada we are an exporting country, if the prices go down on the goods we produce, that's a bad thing. It's like when Quebecers cry about high oil prices, when in fact high oil prices are a benefit to all Canadians. Same goes with food prices.

My issue is a market imbalance caused by European leftist nonsense. It has made everyone poorer because their producers can't function in an open market.

Alberta is a far more successful society than Quebec, which province has the bigger gov't and higher taxes, it begins in Q and ends in C.

Europeans are giving cheap food to Africans on the guise of kindness to help the African people, and paid for by European tax payers. If the Europeans really want to help the African people get out of poverty, they should stop with their subsidy madness and let the market decide. I'm arguing against the European governments madness with producing something at less the cost of production on their taxpayer's backs and driving people out of business, it makes everyone poorer.

What I'm arguing against is leftist nonsense putting people in the poorhouse. Other examples of this are the USSR people having a garbage standard of living, Venezuelans giving their oil away to their own people, and the Canadian Dairy industry screwing over consumers with inflated prices on milk.

If the super powers thirty years ago had not made a hobby of waging surrogate wars in Africa and perhaps curtailed the privateering gun runners from literally making a killing by accessing tribal feuds in order to turn a profit...Africa would not have half the problems that it does today. Also the killing off of the male population did not help much in keeping the ancient social structure together either - now we blame these poor people for the disease we brought them - the plight of poverty and hunger?

[Michael Hardner]

What I'm arguing against is leftist nonsense putting people in the poorhouse. Other examples of this are the USSR people having a garbage standard of living, Venezuelans giving their oil away to their own people, and the Canadian Dairy industry screwing over consumers with inflated prices on milk.

Ok, how about this: why does Africa have to be self-sufficient in everything ? Must they produce wheat ? Can't they specialize in something else and import wheat ? How much wheat does Singapore produce ?

[blueblood]

Ok, how about this: why does Africa have to be self-sufficient in everything ? Must they produce wheat ? Can't they specialize in something else and import wheat ? How much wheat does Singapore produce ?

The problem is that prices in the 90's-2007/8 didn't reflect the real cost of production. Had the massive European subsidies been taken out, it would have made sense to grow grain in Africa due to the cost of shipping and handling from Europe. In 2007/8, the prices rose to a point because of high demand where growing crops in Africa made sense.

That and the tin pot dictators rationing the low cost food imports and causing chaos in the countryside wasn't good for anybody either.

The problem is, with the amt. of people starving which you and I agree would be the "total demand", that should be a signal to have ag production going on at full steam. However, since Africa has such poor management of what little it does produce, they can't afford to buy the imports from other countries even at rock bottom prices. Having grain prices reflecting reality instead of some European socialist's pipe dream would save the European's a lot of money, and have a smarter allocation of resources. Which would mean the Europeans would have to cut production, and the Africans would be able to produce due to the costs of shipping. The problem is, the EU will throw billions of dollars at its ag industry propping it up when market signals that it should decline.

In short, what I'm suggesting is let the market decide where ag production should take place, and let the market decide the winners and losers. That would result in some winners in Africa, and some losers in Europe, because of transportation. Saudi Arabia tried playing the subsidy game with it's farmers, however the cost of producing grain in Saudi Arabia was not reflecting prices which resulted in a massive drop of water supplies and a massive waste of their tax dollars. They ended up investing money into African farmland.

[Michael Hardner]

In short, what I'm suggesting is let the market decide where ag production should take place, and let the market decide the winners and losers. That would result in some winners in Africa, and some losers in Europe, because of transportation. Saudi Arabia tried playing the subsidy game with it's farmers, however the cost of producing grain in Saudi Arabia was not reflecting prices which resulted in a massive drop of water supplies and a massive waste of their tax dollars. They ended up investing money into African farmland.

AG production is very political everywhere, it seems, and governments are unwilling to give up subsidies. As long as governments are willing to help farmers transition, I think it's a good idea.

[blueblood]

AG production is very political everywhere, it seems, and governments are unwilling to give up subsidies. As long as governments are willing to help farmers transition, I think it's a good idea.

The problem in Europe is they are not willing to transition. In Canada if you are a hog producer, if you want gov't money, you have to shut down your operation. The Saudis had to give up subsidies because it was getting too expensive for them, and the winner of that turned out to be Africa.

[Rue]

Ok, so you guessed it, Cannibalism is an age old practice ranging from prehistory to present day. Yet the vast majority of the world population, doesn't practice it. What is the underlying reason why Cannibalism of humans who die of natural causes, as being unfit for the table?

I mean this in the gentlist, most unobscene and unvulgar way.

1. By any chance do you work at a funeral parlour?

2. Give thought to what a Big Mac is made out of.

3. By any chance do you work at a senior citizen's home?

4. How many freezers do you have?

5. Where do you live?

6. Consider sticking to chicken and fish.

7. Do you have a chainsaw by any chance?

Edited January 9, 2010 by Rue

[Pliny]

I have followed Michael's and Bluebloods discussion here and I agree with Blueblood on a few points. An unstable political structure is not conducive to production due to the uncertainty it brings to an economy. This is the main problem in Africa. The other point is that Ag subsidies detaches the determination of prices from supply and demand thus making the price of a commodity determined by an agency of government. Surpluses are generally reduced with quotas.

If Europeans are indeed overproducing and shipping surpluses to Africa, essentially providing them food for free, then that does reduce incentive for it to produce it's own food. Once again, the main problem is unstable governments in Africa, but the creation of dependence upon foreign food supplies, along with killing incentive, contributes to the instability. People cannot/willnot become self-reliant under such conditions.

So the political left attempts to eliminate poverty with handouts. It never realizes that the ranks of the poor swell and the resources become more scarce over time. Part of the reason why the ranks swell is that marginal producers, those scraping by, will stop producing, and those producers that manage themselves well will be increasingly burdened making them marginal producers and the longer that continues the more senseless it seems to be a producer. Eventually, the increased numbers of those forced to abandon production creates too much of an imbalance. They create the welfare/warfare state.

The extreme right, being socialists of a different ilk, will kill their economy as well by engineering it into the ground. Production decreases the more government attempts to direct the use of resources and the distribution of production.

So what is the solution?

[Michael Hardner]

So the political left attempts to eliminate poverty with handouts. It never realizes that the ranks of the poor swell and the resources become more scarce over time. Part of the reason why the ranks swell is that marginal producers, those scraping by, will stop producing, and those producers that manage themselves well will be increasingly burdened making them marginal producers and the longer that continues the more senseless it seems to be a producer. Eventually, the increased numbers of those forced to abandon production creates too much of an imbalance. They create the welfare/warfare state.

Not so fast. Many on the left decry this practice, and there is also the environmental movement focusing on local food production, such as the "100 mile diet", which I like to refer to as the "return Scurvy to Canada" program.

The extreme right, being socialists of a different ilk, will kill their economy as well by engineering it into the ground. Production decreases the more government attempts to direct the use of resources and the distribution of production.

So what is the solution?

Why does food production need to be subsidized ? It's made cheaply somewhere and that threatens people.

It's another example of the "problem" - if you want to call it that - of continually diminishing costs. Our lives are costing us less and less over time, which is great, but also gives us less and less to do - which should also be great. If we were efficient mind-reading Communists of good character, we could live like children in paradise, but such is not the case.

Let's ask the people with money what they expect to have happen - it's their economy after all.

[Pliny]

Not so fast. Many on the left decry this practice, and there is also the environmental movement focusing on local food production, such as the "100 mile diet", which I like to refer to as the "return Scurvy to Canada" program.

Then they aren't too far on the left. When you have do-gooders like Bono around who is praised so heavily for his efforts to supply food to the needy then that kind of sticks in my craw. Catastrophes are one thing but annual fundraisers for the needy only massage the egos of the self-righteous.

Why does food production need to be subsidized?

So that farmers don't grow to much of the same thing. If the surpluses are too high then that drives the price down and the farmer goes broke. It supposedly takes the risk out of the market for the farmer. He gets a guaranteed price for his produce regardless of the market price. Farm marketing boards started in the 1920's in the US under Hoover.

It's made cheaply somewhere and that threatens people.

It's another example of the "problem" - if you want to call it that - of continually diminishing costs. Our lives are costing us less and less over time, which is great, but also gives us less and less to do - which should also be great. If we were efficient mind-reading Communists of good character, we could live like children in paradise, but such is not the case.

Let's ask the people with money what they expect to have happen - it's their economy after all.

"Our lives are costing us less and less over time?" In what respect? We have more leisure time?

What is "an efficient mind-reading Communist of good character"?

Who are the people with money that we should be asking?

[blueblood]

So that farmers don't grow to much of the same thing. If the surpluses are too high then that drives the price down and the farmer goes broke. It supposedly takes the risk out of the market for the farmer. He gets a guaranteed price for his produce regardless of the market price. Farm marketing boards started in the 1920's in the US under Hoover.

These are not good things and distort the economy. The market does the best job of taking care of surpluses. With greater risks comes greater payout. Guaranteed prices send out wrong signals and lead to massive surpluses which causes chaos.

[Shwa]

Not so fast. Many on the left decry this practice, and there is also the environmental movement focusing on local food production, such as the "100 mile diet", which I like to refer to as the "return Scurvy to Canada" program.

Why on earth would you refer to the 100 mile diet as the 'return to scurvy program?'

[bush_cheney2004]

Why on earth would you refer to the 100 mile diet as the 'return to scurvy program?'

Just a guess...but citrus fruit yield in many parts of Canada is exceptionally low.

[Oleg Bach]

ALL of humnaity has a right to life. The lowest African starving peasant is of the same value as the high and mighty investment banker.

[Michael Hardner]

Why on earth would you refer to the 100 mile diet as the 'return to scurvy program?'

I dunno. It's just hard to get a good source of vitamin C in March, I guess.

My point is that the 100-mile diet is a romantic fad, and that if we're going to take the environmentalist concept of growing locally to that degree, we should just evacuate Canada anyway - it's a huge waste of heating oil.

[Michael Hardner]

Then they aren't too far on the left. When you have do-gooders like Bono around who is praised so heavily for his efforts to supply food to the needy then that kind of sticks in my craw. Catastrophes are one thing but annual fundraisers for the needy only massage the egos of the self-righteous.

"Supplying food to the needy" meaning what ? Victims of famine aren't the same thing as what we're talking about here. USA for Africa in the 1980s was meant to provide famine relief, and never a permanent solution for Ethiopia.

I don't think the Bono-led fundraisers are even held annually any more, but in certain circumstances.

And the idea that a lefty-do-gooder sticks in your craw is not a surprise. In fact, general repulsion for lefty-do-gooders (which I sometimes share by the way) is heard all over this board, and appears to be a driver for right-wing thinking.

"Our lives are costing us less and less over time?" In what respect? We have more leisure time?

I read in the Globe and Mail recently that groceries cost about 50% less per family from what they did 50 years ago, adjusted for inflation. We have less leisure time, but that's because we choose to work more. There's a paradox there, and you'll find an encapsulation of our dilemma in that:we're richer, but more stressed, more in debt and lead more complicated lives.

So that farmers don't grow to much of the same thing. If the surpluses are too high then that drives the price down and the farmer goes broke. It supposedly takes the risk out of the market for the farmer. He gets a guaranteed price for his produce regardless of the market price. Farm marketing boards started in the 1920's in the US under Hoover.

That sounds like collusion, doesn't it ? We as a society like the prices to go down for everything else - why not agricultural commodities ?

What is "an efficient mind-reading Communist of good character"?

It's poetic license. I'm saying that since economics generally makes life better as time progresses, we could theoretically - if we were perfectly selfless and clairvoyant - share the benefits of improved economics evenly across society. Then we would have perfect progress - every year, your work week would be reduced by 8 minutes, your costs would reduce by 2%, and all would be happy.

That's the theory behind a planned economy, but it can't be done in the real world we live in today. Certain industries wither and fail, and there are political reverberations to that.

Who are the people with money that we should be asking?

I ask you - who are the people with money ? The Thomsons, the investors, the capitalists - what are they thinking ? Are they expecting their taxes to go down forever ? How do they plan to share their wealth with the general community ? Certainly, it hasn't been done evenly to this point so maybe we can put the problem to them.

[Pliny]

These are not good things and distort the economy. The market does the best job of taking care of surpluses. With greater risks comes greater payout. Guaranteed prices send out wrong signals and lead to massive surpluses which causes chaos.

I agree.

[Shwa]

I dunno. It's just hard to get a good source of vitamin C in March, I guess.

My point is that the 100-mile diet is a romantic fad, and that if we're going to take the environmentalist concept of growing locally to that degree, we should just evacuate Canada anyway - it's a huge waste of heating oil.

No, it is hard to find vitamin C on a wooden sailing ship full of salt pork and rum in March, but there are plentiful natural sources of vitamin C (and every other vitamin you need)in most locations in Canada. Many of them growing naturally, but almost all of them can be cultivated in the prime growing regions of Canada and several others can be successfully cultivated in the not-so-prime growing regions.

For a 'romantic fad' the 100 mile diet was pretty helpful to thousands of early Canadian settlers not to mention the millions of native inhabitants over thousands of years prior to colonization.

[Michael Hardner]

No, it is hard to find vitamin C on a wooden sailing ship full of salt pork and rum in March, but there are plentiful natural sources of vitamin C (and every other vitamin you need)in most locations in Canada. Many of them growing naturally, but almost all of them can be cultivated in the prime growing regions of Canada and several others can be successfully cultivated in the not-so-prime growing regions.

What are they ?

For a 'romantic fad' the 100 mile diet was pretty helpful to thousands of early Canadian settlers not to mention the millions of native inhabitants over thousands of years prior to colonization.

Gee, harkening back to the days of the settlers... and you're saying it's not romantic ? Do you really think Canadians could live like that ?

Ok. It's March 31st and I'm on the 100 mile diet. What do I eat ?

Furthermore, why is it that we do the 100 mile diet ? One of the reasons I understand is to reduce the carbon footprint from transporting goods, but I have yet to see a comparitive breakdown of the benefits and costs of, say, importing food from warmer climates in the US and Mexico and transporting them here versus growing them.

An article in Now magazine put the transportation costs (I think) at 10%, but also pointed out that it takes less resources (such as fertilizer) to grow things in naturally warm climates.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Pliny]

ALL of humnaity has a right to life. The lowest African starving peasant is of the same value as the high and mighty investment banker.

I don't know what you mean by value. Perhaps it isn't the right word. Value is an individual assignment of utility and not really assessable from an objective point of view. It is entirely subjective.

A human life is a human life and what one does with it is important. You are, I think limiting the definition of a life to just being and not doing. A person by just being is neither contributing to or taking away anything regarding life so you could say they are equal. A person like Hitler and a person like Mother Theresa are known for what they did and thus who they are. If they had both done nothing they would probably be considered equal but they did do things and their value is assessed by their utility to others.

I don't believe in capital punishment so agree with the basic premise that "all of humanity has a right to life". So Hitler, had he not killed himself, would not be put to death but only incarcerated.

I think you are just trying to sound like a nice guy, Oleg.

[Shwa]

What are they?

If you need to ask, then stick with the grocery store bud. The citrus fruit section in particular.

Gee, harkening back to the days of the settlers... and you're saying it's not romantic ? Do you really think Canadians could live like that?

I think hundreds of thousands, probably millions of Canadians could live like that easily. I didn't use the example of settlers in a romantic way, that is your focus. I also mention the natives in the same sentence. That isn't romanticism, but a recognition that there are ways available that are viable and sustainable to millions of people with a little more effort.

Ok. It's March 31st and I'm on the 100 mile diet. What do I eat?

Be realistic. If you want to start the 100 mile diet, do it when it is advantageous to do it. But if you really need to eat something for a vitamin C difficiency, try some cedar tea. That will get you back to from the brink. Of did you forget the lesson on Jacques Cartier?

Furthermore, why is it that we do the 100 mile diet?

No one is saying that everyone has to, only that it is viable and sustainable and can be done. My comments were regarding the concept of vitamin C. Already, by asking about which local foods contain vitamin C, you point out a very good reason why the 100 mile diet is worthwhile: for education. With obesity at the rates they are, any education as to what we eat - and what we could be eating - should be a good thing.

[Michael Hardner]

If you need to ask, then stick with the grocery store bud. The citrus fruit section in particular.

Ok, Shwa, here you have an opportunity to educate somebody on the value of this 100-mile diet, and to promote the idea and you're passing it up. I could go out and find a link that discusses the advantages, but I'm having this discussion with you, not Google so I guess we'll both pass on discussing the content of 100-mile diet.

I think hundreds of thousands, probably millions of Canadians could live like that easily. I didn't use the example of settlers in a romantic way, that is your focus. I also mention the natives in the same sentence. That isn't romanticism, but a recognition that there are ways available that are viable and sustainable to millions of people with a little more effort.

And why would people make that effort ? What's the advantage ? Why do we want them to make the effort ?

Be realistic. If you want to start the 100 mile diet, do it when it is advantageous to do it. But if you really need to eat something for a vitamin C difficiency, try some cedar tea. That will get you back to from the brink. Of did you forget the lesson on Jacques Cartier?

I never knew Jacques Cartier.

No one is saying that everyone has to, only that it is viable and sustainable and can be done. My comments were regarding the concept of vitamin C. Already, by asking about which local foods contain vitamin C, you point out a very good reason why the 100 mile diet is worthwhile: for education. With obesity at the rates they are, any education as to what we eat - and what we could be eating - should be a good thing.

I can see how that would be a good thing, and more discussion is always good. I think we need to discuss economics more than diet, since economic changes are driving societal changes that we need to understand and be on the same page more.

I respect your desire to improve you knowledge and healthy habits, though.

[blueblood]

That sounds like collusion, doesn't it ? We as a society like the prices to go down for everything else - why not agricultural commodities ?

Unless you are a commodity exporting country, then you want those prices to rise. Including ag commodities. When 75% of grain is exported, you want those prices high.

I ask you - who are the people with money ? The Thomsons, the investors, the capitalists - what are they thinking ? Are they expecting their taxes to go down forever ? How do they plan to share their wealth with the general community ? Certainly, it hasn't been done evenly to this point so maybe we can put the problem to them.

I'm hoping my taxes go down forever, as long as the tax base expands and gov't spending is capped. They are going to "share" their wealth with the general community by buying things, saving in banks, and investing.

[Shwa]

I can see how that would be a good thing, and more discussion is always good. I think we need to discuss economics more than diet, since economic changes are driving societal changes that we need to understand and be on the same page more.

Diet IS economics - always has been, always will. I mean, at the very least, the beginning of economics and the most important aspect of economics. Everything else is about consumption.

here you have an opportunity to educate somebody on the value of this 100-mile diet

No, you asked about vitamin C, not the 100 mile diet. Since you brought it up first and made a pronouncement I believed you had educated yourself about it. My mistake.

And why would people make that effort ? What's the advantage ? Why do we want them to make the effort ?

Very good questions. At the very least to make people as aware as they possibly can about the content of their diet. Eat healthier if they are able. Get a sense of community and have something in common.

I never knew Jacques Cartier.

You never learned about Jacques Cartier in grade school??