TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Impending International Food Crisis
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton I think you are completely wrong here. You might have been right a few years ago, but oil prices are so far off what supply-demand would dictate, that it is my belief that more than 50% of the oil price is caused by forced other than supply-demand. The primary forces are... 1. Global conflict in oil producing regions, especially in Iraq and possibly Iran. (Risk Premium) 2. Oil speculators who have found that in an environment in which few assets are increasing in value, dollars are decreasing in value; oil is one of the only commodities which continues to rise, despite prevailing recessionary trends. They are not buying oil because they need it, they buy because it is one of the places in the market which continues to rise. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton As I stated before, public transit in this country is underdeveloped, so don't expect people to enthusiastically pack their bags and move to cities with New York-style public transit systems. It's not going to happen. The stigma is a result of the underdevelopment of the public transit system. It is not ubiquitous throughout the country, especially in cities which have a very good public transit system, but unfortunately, that is not most of the country. I don't think your understanding my reasoning. You think I'm just trying to make up excuses for not using public transit. I'm trying to explain to you, that using public transit is not practical to most people, and so they will not use it! I don't know how much easier I can explain it... You need to take into account the high property values inherent in living in the middle of a big city. People move to the suburbs in search of affordable real estate. You can't just tell people, "Pack up, move to the city, or STFU." It isn't that simple. ------------------------------------------------------------- We have diametrically different views of the economy, so we'll just leave it there... Public transit SUCKS. It isn't practical unless you live in a huge metropolitan area which has developed the system for large numbers of people. Therefore private transit will remain the primary mode of transportation, and therefore, according to this reasoning, people are forced to pay for high gas prices. If you don't agree that, that's fine, but that's my view...  |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Put it this way. If supply-demand dictated oil prices, the price per barrel would be $40-$50. So please don't tell me demand is driving up oil prices to such high levels as today, because it is not! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton The price of gas is inherently connected to the price of oil. Yes, it needs to be refined, but so what? Yes, we haven't built a refinery in decades. Doesn't matter. That does not justify a $3.50 a gallon gas price. The supply is more than enough to meet demand. Hell, we haven't even tapped the strategic gas supply of the country. I keep trying to tell you, supply-demand is not causing oil or gas to be at record highs because if it was, again I say, oil per barrel would be $40-50 and gas would be in the $2 range. It does not matter what China are demanding. They have plenty of petrol too. China has excellent sources of oil in Africa, so saying we have gas prices because of China really has little basis. China has secured its own supplies. America has its own. And so on. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 no, i'm right today. i'm not saying your factors aren't important, what i'm saying is that supply and demand still drive the price. you should really rip out the economics book on this one, this is pretty basic stuff. even if other factors effect price, it still has everything to do with supply and demand. If americans all of a sudden didn't demand oil, the price would plummet. At that point, geopolitical instability would mean shit because we wouldn't be purchasing the product. If that were to happen, saudi arabia and iran would have excess oil because we wouldn't be buying it, and then they would begin selling it for less money to get rid of their reserves. |
| quote: |
| since you are simply pulling that 50% number out of your ass i won't argue that because we won't resolve it. but since you attribute 50% of the cost to those two what accounts for the other 50% of cost in your mind? |
| quote: |
| 3. Much of the price of gas is not a result of supply and demand. A good percentage of the oil price is something called the "risk premium". It ranges 20-30% by most analyst estimations. This is a result of increased levels of violence, terrorism, and war in the Middle East and other oil producing countries like Nigeria. Another factor in the oil price is something I call the "speculator's premium" which is the rise in oil prices due to speculative buyers by financial traders. This premium is in the range of 30-40%. Also take note, that the risk and speculative premiums partially overlap at times, such as a unrest in Nigeria convincing traders to buy more oil futures contracts, thus driving up oil prices. Also take note that none of this has anything to due with the supply or demand of oil commodities themselves or OPEC. It is all wicked psychology. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4962032/ http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...inion-rightrail |
| quote: |
| your entire argument is based on the fact that people do not want to do it. simple as that. i get your point, but that's does not mean people don't have choices. also, with respect to the comment about people moving out of the city for more affordable housing, that doesn't mean people need to move into an area where houses are on one/two acre lots. lower cost neighborhoods that are now suburbs could have just as easily developed as smaller cities. suburbs are much more expensive to maintain and develop than cities. what makes you think that 500 houses spread over 500 acres is cheaper than 500 houses on 100 acres? if you truly believe that it is you are absolutely wrong. the more distant homes are from each other the more pipes, streets, etc... that need to be built and maintained. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton When an asset enters bubble territory, as oil has done, supply and demand takes a backseat... I didn't pull 50% out of my ass... Let's refer to page 3 again when I posted... So more than 50% of the oil price is not a result of supply-demand but of the risk and speculator's premium. After that, THEN supply and demand come to play. Also a falling dollar spurs speculator's to load up on hard assets which oil would be the most prominent. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton You completely skipped over the underdevelopment of most of American public transit infrastructure. So no, my argument is not based on what people don't want to do. It is based on the practicality of using an antiquated public transit system. I'll say for the 3rd or 4th time, IT SUCKS. If it sucks, why would people want to use it? They don't, so they use cars. Cars are the only practical way of getting around in most of the country, so therefore, people have to fill up their gas tanks at the prevailing gas prices. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 the problem i see with your formula is where does production cost and delivery cost come in to play. we'll just agree to disagree on this one. |
| quote: |
| no i didn't. you seem to be missing the point that a transportation infrastructure can't pop out of nowhere. people have to make the necessary steps to enable the system to grow. people don't want to make those choices. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton the underdevelopment of most of American public transit infrastructure. So no, my argument is not based on what people don't want to do. It is based on the practicality of using an antiquated public transit system. I'll say for the 3rd or 4th time, IT SUCKS. If it sucks, why would people want to use it? They don't, so they use cars. Cars are the only practical way of getting around in most of the country, so therefore, people have to fill up their gas tanks at the prevailing gas prices. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Antiquated public transit system? Who's fault is that? Don't you think that if Americans demanded better transit, or started taking it in greater numbers, that investment would soon follow? I would think that a good deal of money could be made in private mass transportation as well if there were a demand for it. The fact of the matter is that in places like Tampa there is no demand, not that infrastructure is poor. |
Haha, well you guys expect the federal government to invest in improving public transit, yet, our infrastructure does not even get improvement. So what if people start riding the antiquated public transit systems? The government is bogged down as it is fighting foreign wars.
Look ---> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7137552/
This is all a part of my reasoning supporting my theory on high oil markets. We can always agree to disagree on economics.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Haha, well you guys expect the federal government to invest in improving public transit, yet, our infrastructure does not even get improvement. So what if people start riding the antiquated public transit systems? The government is bogged down as it is fighting foreign wars. Look ---> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7137552/ This is all a part of my reasoning supporting my theory on high oil markets. We can always agree to disagree on economics. |
point goes to jerZ
on the whole public transport thing.
at least it makes more sense to me.
if public transportation sucks in the U.S., imagine a third world country PT system, now that is the suckiest thing that ever sucked, yet people still use them.
in guatemala, where i'm from, the buses are not run by the government but by private companies who compete with one another for customers. they are packed all the way, and i mean all the way (three or four on each side with all the rest, standing up.)
you wake up at 4 or 5 in the morning to catch the bus, and it's already packed. it takes you to the next town where you work, a good 1 hour away. you work longer hours and the pay is not even 1/10 of what you would make in the U.S. and oh yes, gas is more expensive over there.
so yeah... quit your whining, and get on the bus.
I havent read what you guys are talking about, but if you are talking about Ethanol or Genetically Modified Seeds and stuff.. than let me emphasis again : There is NO shortage of food, people in Africa were rioting against rise in COST of food and inflation.. and the rise in cost of food is NOT because of bad crop this year because of some massive crop damage, flooding, disease, GModifying or Ethanol production.. I have no clue where these ideads in media popped up from.. supply is meeting demand.. but just at higher cost because of higher oil prices.. its as simple as that.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by atbell I'd pick up a copy of "Collapse" by Jared Diamond if I were you, and maybe a copy of "Germs, Guns, and Steel" if you are one of those people who thinks that Western society has any redemeing quality other then luck that has resulted in our position as an economic and millitary power house. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Ishad I havent read what you guys are talking about, but if you are talking about Ethanol or Genetically Modified Seeds and stuff.. than let me emphasis again : There is NO shortage of food, people in Africa were rioting against rise in COST of food and inflation.. and the rise in cost of food is NOT because of bad crop this year because of some massive crop damage, flooding, disease, GModifying or Ethanol production.. I have no clue where these ideads in media popped up from.. supply is meeting demand.. but just at higher cost because of higher oil prices.. its as simple as that. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Ishad I havent read what you guys are talking about, but if you are talking about Ethanol or Genetically Modified Seeds and stuff.. than let me emphasis again : There is NO shortage of food, people in Africa were rioting against rise in COST of food and inflation.. and the rise in cost of food is NOT because of bad crop this year because of some massive crop damage, flooding, disease, GModifying or Ethanol production.. I have no clue where these ideads in media popped up from.. supply is meeting demand.. but just at higher cost because of higher oil prices.. its as simple as that. |
There is so much injustice in the world. I look at the worldwide situation and it seems so hopeless. Especially when the greatest nation on earth is fucking up so bad. Judgment day is upon us..
is there a book out there that addresses these issues?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by daydreamer is there a book out there that addresses these issues? |
An interesting critique of the World Bank, as well as the observation that despite this summer's sharp crisis, little seems to be changing in policy circles.
| quote: |
| A Crisis of Faith? Food and Markets By ADAM W. PARSONS In the wake of a food crisis that gripped the media�s attention during the summer of 2008, a new set of questions is beginning to surface. As analysts predict that the era of cheap resources is finally over, that the food emergency is no blip but a situation that could last indefinitely, the international community is being forced to re-examine the basic direction of world development. Could it be that the interlinked crises in food, energy and financial markets indicate the commencement of a terminal decline in the export-led, free market development model that has defined the past few decades of globalisation? Or will the emergency in food provision, as previously happened in 1974, reinforce the same policies in favour of large-scale industrial farming that have already devastated rural communities throughout the developing world? The inability of world leaders to face up to the root causes or policy contradictions of a food crisis is nothing new. Throughout the 1980s and 90s, mass protests over a recurring food crisis in developing countries were popularly known as �IMF riots�, although the solutions � as today � were handed to the very structures that caused those crises. The Ethiopian famine during the 1980s led not to initiatives that helped sustain poor rural dwellers, but rather the dedication of good land to export crops under the tutelage of the World Bank, thus further exacerbating food insecurity and storing up a repeat of the famine situation that is surfacing today. In Peru in August 1990, following the dictats of the IMF, fuel prices increased 30 times overnight, and bread prices increased 12 times within a day. In Caracas, 1989, after a 200 percent increase in the price of bread, anti-IMF riots led to the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children. More examples could be repeated ad infinitum. Compared to the last major food and fuel crisis of 1973/4, which culminated in similarly vain promises from the FAO�s first World Food Conference to end hunger and prevent a repeat occurrence, the needed lessons after 34 years are far from being acknowledged. The main difference today is in the parting of extremes, or the deepening polarisation between alternative paradigms, narratives and solutions. On one side of the court stand the impassioned NGOs and hardened campaigners who have long opposed large-scale agribusiness in place of food sovereignty, bottom-up development, and the empowerment of small farmers through local and regional markets. The food price crisis, they say, has exposed the disaster of global agricultural production and the conclusive failure of a market fundamentalist ideology left unchecked for far too long. On the other side of the court, supported by Gordon Brown, George W. Bush, Bill Gates� pockets and the most powerful financial institutions in the world, stand the Green Revolutionaries led by chemical technologies and multinational corporations from the E.U and U.S.A. One path, say almost all of the NGOs, will lead to social justice, the strengthening of local communities and food security for all, while the current path is inherently unsustainable, responsible for continued hunger in a world of plenty, and incapable of ending poverty. By 2008 it should be a platitude to state that the escalating global food crisis, which some NGO�s are pointedly distinguishing as the �food price crisis�, is the inevitable long-term consequence of misguided economic policies and a disastrous free market restructuring of agricultural land. The official version of history over the past few decades as interpreted by G8 governments, however, could not be more different. In the World Bank�s latest World Development Report 2008 on agriculture, the same model of development that has created a global crisis in food production in the first place � import liberalization, elimination of tariffs, a dependency on cash crops, GMO seeds and fertilizers, and all other measures that work in favour of agribusiness and against the millions of small-scale farmers struggling against poverty and hunger - is being promoted as the only solution.The $1.2 billion of extra loans as part of the World Bank�s �Global Food Crisis Response Facility� will be handed out with the same underlying conditions of further trade liberalisation and market reforms. Likewise, the IMF used the crisis to augment its existing arrangements under the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF), attaching the same conditions requiring structural adjustment to the 10 countries, mostly in Africa, already forced to make new agreements. The World Trade Organisation similarly tried to capitalise on the crisis by working to increase its mandate through the Doha Round of trade agreements, alongside a push to persuade developing countries to further liberalise their financial sectors under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).Between the expert rhetoric and analysis by international financial institutions on the catastrophic extent of the crisis, with even the IMF declaring that some countries are at �tipping point�, their proffered medicine is still being mixed with the same deep-seated poisons. This basic contradiction of agreeing to increase agricultural production in developing countries to address the plight of small and poor farmers, while promoting policies that achieve the opposite ends, was set in stone after the UN�s emergency food summit held in Rome. The final declaration made no attempt to address the structural problems and deeper causes of the crisis, as evidenced in key paragraph 7(e) that concluded: �We encourage... efforts in liberalizing international trade in agriculture by reducing trade barriers and market distorting policies.� A rare mention of small farmers was only made in reference to international markets, underlining the continued prioritising of market fundamentalism and trade over food security. A renewed commitment was made to reduce by half the number of undernourished people by 2015, but after 45 years of similar promises one NGO called this �the big lie� that no-one at the Summit believes will happen. Despite both Ban Ki-moon and Jacques Diouf�s impassioned speeches and articles over the period of the Summit, neither of them sought to address the entrenched structural origins of the food crisis. Most worrying was Ban�s simplistic prescriptions for improved market efficiency and a 50 percent rise in food production by 2030 to meet rising demand, thus playing into the hands of politicians who seek to divert political debate away from the role of agribusinesses in the current food crisis, as well as the corporations who wish to accelerate a �Doubly Green Revolution� in agriculture as propounded by Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation. The inevitable result, without a critical re-examination of the unsustainable manner in which food is produced and distributed, will be more of the same; more privatization, more corporate monopolization of food systems, more GMO crop initiatives, more displacement of poor farmers, more migration into cities and slums, more hunger, more poverty, more overconsumption and obesity. And all this without even considering the environmental footprint of producing more food on less available land, or transporting more food through international markets which contradicts the urgent need of reducing CO2 emissions. The search for technical fixes to produce cheap and abundant food may have made sense in the 1940s, but 70 years of the �productionist� model has led to the vital challenge of defining a sustainable diet � one that recognises the central crisis of distribution and overcomes the co-existence of under-, over- and mal-consumption in a world defined by extremes of inequality. Not even Ban Ki-moon, it seems, was able to acknowledge the most basic contradiction of all: that already we are producing more than enough food. There are signs, however, that the world direction is changing course. As a knee-jerk response to skyrocketing food price inflation, those developing governments fortunate enough to have export stocks began pulling out of the global market to safeguard their domestic prices. The failure of the Doha round of trade negotiations, which sought to further liberalise agricultural markets, was widely interpreted as recalcitrance on the part of developing countries � and the issue of agriculture, in the light of the food crisis, was cited by most accounts to have provoked the collapse. The only source of good to emerge from spiralling food price inflation is the resultant crisis of faith amongst poorer and developing countries in neoliberal economic orthodoxy. Unlike the crisis of 1970s stagflation that signalled the end for the Keynesian social-democratic model, 2008 could be marked down in history for setting in motion an opposite trend. A notable example of this gradual shift in economic thinking is set down in the UN�s latest World Economic and Social Survey (WESS), released a week before the G8 Summit. A belief in the self-regulating market is no longer credible, was the Report�s message, noting that �John Maynard Keynes, until recently persona non grata in policy circles, is once again the �defunct economist� to consult.� Such an acknowledgement of the redistribution agenda is no longer confined to renegade economists exempt from mainstream discussion. Although the food price crisis has failed to serve as a wake-up call to world leaders, a crucial international debate has started to emerge on the whole theology of food security. For now, the redundant model of export-led agriculture and import dependency has won through, but the calls for people-led social change are rapidly achieving a long-awaited consensus. Adam W. Parsons is the editor for Share the World's Resources (stwr), an NGO that advocates for essential resources such as food, water and energy to be shared internationally under the agency of the United Nations. He can be reached at [email protected]. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ******** I think we are forgetting that oil is going up and up at $120 / barrel it has some effect on the price of fuel. The thing is though that there are different mechanism.. simply though here is the real issue- Countries have lost self sustainability to population growth ratio - not only are some countries underdeveloped in farming skills and development of agricultural landscape but they arn't sufficient with other infrastructure and agrifood industries, such as aqua culture. If these countries would harvest alternate food sources the issues wouldn't be there. As sick as it sounds - if humans accepted canibalism - with our current death rate we also have a very large untapped food source. None the less there is ample food, but the problem is capitalism and greed. Normal people need fuel - so jacking up the price of gas by removing ethanol isn't going to help an already slumping western economy - although countries like canada have jacked 100+ million into the world food program.. what the problem is is that countries arn't tapping all the food sources they have available - their governments need to tap things like aquaculture - also terraforming - look to israel for a model of mastery of landscape - etc... The planet has so many potential untapped food sources.. people can immigrate... so what is the issue? While we need to cushion this.. people arn't thinking straight nor are they seeing a realistic solution.. the countries that get food aid have gotten it for a long time.. and their economy and self sustainability hasn't needed to balance out.. what needs to be done is planning based upon self sustinance.. not on barely surviving.. obviously the agri planning needs vast improvement. Although some places are recovering from colonial exploitation and damage ... we need to develope and move people.. movement of people is key.. regionalization is key... but countries in the west put of barriers to unskilled immigration.. if every plane that flew aid flew back 100 people etc.. and every truck took back 50 etc.. then we would slowly stabalize.. but greed and capitalism is slowing rational progress WE MUST HAVE A REVOLUTION.. JOIN WITH ME WORLD AND I WILL SOLVE ALL YOUR PROBLEMS!!!!!!!!!!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton There is so much injustice in the world. I look at the worldwide situation and it seems so hopeless. Especially when the greatest nation on earth is fucking up so bad. Judgment day is upon us.. |
Not international in nature, but I still found this to be fascinating:
| quote: |
| That Burger You're Eating Is Mostly Corn By tracing the unique chemical signature of corn, scientists have shown that most of the meat in fast food is raised on corn By David Biello If you thought you were eating mostly grass-fed beef when you bit into a Big Mac, think again: The bulk of a fast-food hamburger from McDonald's, Burger King or Wendy's is made from cows that eat primarily corn, or so says a new study of the chemical composition of more than 480 fast-food burgers from across the nation. And it isn't only cows that are eating corn. There is also evidence of a corn diet in chicken sandwiches, and even French fries get a good slathering of the fat that makes them so tasty from being fried in corn oil. "Corn has been criticized as being unsustainable based on the unusual amount of fertilizer, water and machinery required to bring it to harvest," says geobiologist Hope Jahren of the University of Hawaii at Manoa's School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, who led the research. "We are getting a picture of the American diet on a national scale by using chemistry, which is quite objective." Eating a diet of meat from corn-fed animals hasn't been linked to any specific health effects in humans. But it has resulted in widespread environmental degradation, including drained water supplies, degraded soils, and reliance on fossil fuels for fertilizer, pesticides and farm machinery fuel, says preventive medicine physician Bob Lawrence, director of the Center for a Livable Future at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who was not involved in the study. It's also hard on cows, whose stomachs are specially designed to break down the cellulose in grass, leading to an epidemic of antibiotic use. Also, humans may lose out on beneficial omega-3 fatty acids�important for development of the nervous system and heart health�when they consume corn-fed as opposed to grass-fed beef. "Instead of eating a predominantly whole grains, fruits and vegetables, we are diverting the grain supply to feeding the animals," Lawrence says, arguing for a diet that treats meat as a garnish rather than the main course and corn for human consumption rather than cows. "Corn-finished beef does add to what has become a preferred taste for the American palate. We've acquired that taste at our own peril." Jahren and her colleague Rebecca Kraft collected hamburgers, chicken sandwiches and fries from three separate Burger King, McDonald's and Wendy's locations in six U.S. cities: Baltimore, Boston, Detroit, Denver, Los Angeles and San Francisco. The scientists were looking for the amount of carbon 13 (13C), a variety of carbon with an extra neutron (known as an isotope) that makes its atom heavier. Corn tends to have more of this 13C than other plants. That telltale signature persists as the corn travels through the complex system that turns it into feed, which is consumed and processed by cattle to grow tissue. It continues after the animals are slaughtered and the meat is cooked. The result: 93 percent of the tissue that comprised the hamburger meat was derived from corn. In fact, only 12 samples from the entire country did not show this unique corn signature: all from a Burger King on the west coast. "My best guess is that it represents meat from another country," Jahren says. And all of the chicken, in addition to being sourced from just one company, Tyson Foods, Inc., had been fed an entirely corn diet, resulting in a chemical composition that was almost exactly the same from coast to coast. Jahren notes that the isotopic composition of this chicken meat varied from restaurant to restaurant and state to state less than if a sample were taken from just one farmyard-raised chicken. Further, by studying the levels of a particular heavier isotope of nitrogen, the researchers found that this corn-fed beef was relying on heavy applications of fertilizer as well as, potentially, animals surrounded by their own waste. "As metabolism proceeds, the nitrogen products become heavier and heavier," Jahrens explains. "Nitrogen is just cycling through the animal, including potentially ingestion of that waste or respiration. Our results are consistent with that." Researchers at Johns Hopkins are now completing a study measuring the levels of carbon 13 in human blood, in an effort to understand how much of the corn in our meat and in the sweeteners (high fructose corn syrup) in our food and drink ends up in our bodies. The fast-food outlets did not return calls for comment. As Jahren notes, Americans spend more than $100 billion a year on such fast food, making it a significant part of the diet. "Diet related disease is causing more and more suffering in this country and the information you can get is either vague or nonexistent," says Jahren, who spent the last two years trying to get information about what specifically goes into fast food at these chains and how it is made, with no success. "You shouldn't have to use stable isotopes to get the answer to what's in something I just spent my money on and am about to put in my body." |
Non-organic food can be disgusting and not terribly nutritious, and on many occasions just plain unhealthy for you in the long run. Corn is the most likely crop to be contaminated with GMOs.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Non-organic food can be disgusting and not terribly nutritious, and on many occasions just plain unhealthy for you in the long run. Corn is the most likely crop to be contaminated with GMOs. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Not international in nature, but I still found this to be fascinating: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id...-is-mostly-corn |
three groups to blame:
A] wealthy people who think peasant farming (read small scale and organic) is good and better
B] EU gov'ments for banning genetically modified food imports
C] US farm subsidies for the bio-fuels industry, and US farming in general, but mostly for the bio-fuel growers
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.