Geo Food Politics

[boedicca]

Dood. If SEIU and AFSCME thugs are willing to riot over having to pay a smidgen of their health insurance and pension costs...what's going to happen when food prices quadruple?

 

[Two Thumbs]

That is a complete crock of shit.

If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.

I agree. And as a cost cutting measure to our Federal budget, we should stop subsidizing ALL farmers and stop paying them to NOT grow crops. This currently costs Joe Taxpayer $20 BILLION annually.

You got that right!

My Dad ran a tavern, when a farmer came in a bought a round for the house. He was laughing his ass off b/c the Fed just paid him not to plant food crops for 20 years. But being the good farmer he is, he didn't want to let the land sit, so he found our that it takes pine trees ~ 20 years to properly mature. "In 19 years I'll start to clear the trees so when the government comes back, they can pay me not to plant food there for another 20 years."

That was 1979ish. So I imagine his kids are dong the same thing now.

 

[Two Thumbs]

And we should give a shit about food costs in Mexico, why?

1+1=2

If food went up in Mex b/c they switched to corn for fuel, and it got so bad they rioted.

It would be an example of what would/could happen here if we did the same.

Riots? REALLY? Do you HONESTLY believe American citizens care that much?

Are you saying American are above rioting?

Katriana, the 60's, Watts, come to mind immediatly.

 

[Big Fitz]

And we should give a shit about food costs in Mexico, why?

You've broken your own personal record for willful ignorance.

Of course, why should a leftwing moonbat care about brown people living in poverty and squalor? Although your hero claims we are all connected, clearly, some connections are tenuous at best.

Here are three valid reasons why decent and rational people care:

- Humanitarian concerns over a completely manmade issue.
- Civil unrest along an already volatile border exacerbates a national security risk.
- Food commodity prices rising around the world affect Americans as well.

Unfortunately, the United State of America is broke, and we as a country and government cannot afford to care about another country's problems.

Wow, first time ever I agreed with VaYank.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Dood. If SEIU and AFSCME thugs are willing to riot over having to pay a smidgen of their health insurance and pension costs...what's going to happen when food prices quadruple?

Nothing motivates like a hungry child.

 

[Big Fitz]

That is a complete crock of shit.

If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.

I agree. And as a cost cutting measure to our Federal budget, we should stop subsidizing ALL farmers and stop paying them to NOT grow crops. This currently costs Joe Taxpayer $20 BILLION annually.

End all ag subsidies. End all ethanol/biofuel subsidies. Let the market correct

 

[Big Fitz]

That is a complete crock of shit.

If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.

Yes it looks like I'm contradicting myself, but both of you are right. VaYank is correct. We are broke and cannot afford to focus on helping other nations at our expense. You are correct that we must end ag/energy subsidies on all levels. The two are tied together, and will correct together.

As subsidization for ethanol and fallow land go away, food will increase, lowering prices and making more available for sale overseas. The farmers will profit more with increased sales, and small ag business will expand creating jobs rather than consolidate in the hands of AGM, Monsanto and others.

 

[Big Fitz]

Dood. If SEIU and AFSCME thugs are willing to riot over having to pay a smidgen of their health insurance and pension costs...what's going to happen when food prices quadruple?

Nothing motivates like a hungry child.

motivates to violence unfortunately.

 

[boedicca]

That is a complete crock of shit.

If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.

Yes it looks like I'm contradicting myself, but both of you are right. VaYank is correct. We are broke and cannot afford to focus on helping other nations at our expense. You are correct that we must end ag/energy subsidies on all levels. The two are tied together, and will correct together.

As subsidization for ethanol and fallow land go away, food will increase, lowering prices and making more available for sale overseas. The farmers will profit more with increased sales, and small ag business will expand creating jobs rather than consolidate in the hands of AGM, Monsanto and others.

Here's the big difference between the two of us: I don't assume that caring about an issue means it's the government's responsibility to spend taxpayer money to solve it.

 

[Big Fitz]

That is a complete crock of shit.

If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.

Yes it looks like I'm contradicting myself, but both of you are right. VaYank is correct. We are broke and cannot afford to focus on helping other nations at our expense. You are correct that we must end ag/energy subsidies on all levels. The two are tied together, and will correct together.

As subsidization for ethanol and fallow land go away, food will increase, lowering prices and making more available for sale overseas. The farmers will profit more with increased sales, and small ag business will expand creating jobs rather than consolidate in the hands of AGM, Monsanto and others.

Here's the big difference between the two of us: I don't assume that caring about an issue means it's the government's responsibility to spend taxpayer money to solve it.

I don't either, but I also know that charity start at home. Stripping the government out of the way is the first move towards fixing a multiple of problems.

 

[CountofTuscany]

That is a complete crock of shit.

If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.

I'd rather have them producing and use the money we pay them not to produce to subsidize the cost of the food to our poor.

 

[Robert]

That is a complete crock of shit.

If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.

I'd rather have them producing and use the money we pay them not to produce to subsidize the cost of the food to our poor.

I don't suppose you've seen the size of most of "our" poor.

 

[CountofTuscany]

That is a complete crock of shit.

If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.

I'd rather have them producing and use the money we pay them not to produce to subsidize the cost of the food to our poor.

I don't suppose you've seen the size of most of "our" poor.

Would that be in quality or quantity?

 

[Big Fitz]

That is a complete crock of shit.

If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.

I'd rather have them producing and use the money we pay them not to produce to subsidize the cost of the food to our poor.

I don't suppose you've seen the size of most of "our" poor.

So have em change crops if they can to make the healthy foods cheaper by increasing supply. Oh wait... the poor won't eat that anyway.

 

[CountofTuscany]

I'd rather have them producing and use the money we pay them not to produce to subsidize the cost of the food to our poor.

I don't suppose you've seen the size of most of "our" poor.

So have em change crops if they can to make the healthy foods cheaper by increasing supply. Oh wait... the poor won't eat that anyway.

Just supersize it.

 

[Big Fitz]

And we should give a shit about food costs in Mexico, why?

1+1=2

If food went up in Mex b/c they switched to corn for fuel, and it got so bad they rioted.

It would be an example of what would/could happen here if we did the same.

Riots? REALLY? Do you HONESTLY believe American citizens care that much?

Little thought experiment for you.

1. You go to the grocery store. It is closed and you have very little food in your house. A sign tells you they have shut down for the next 2 months according to a federal order.

2. So you choose to go to a restaurant. Also closed by the same order

3. you go home and inventory your food supply and find you have only 2 weeks left for you and your family.

What will you do? How far are you willing to go to prevent suffering from 6 weeks of no food?

Now this is of course unlikely that the government will shut places like this down. What could happen instead is $25 loaves of bread, $80 for 10 oz of coffee, $120 for a pound of hamburger or lunch meat. It has happened before. In the Confederate States of America, when their dollar collapsed and all they had was CSA dollars, they used to take 100 dollar bills, and cut a slice of bread off the height of the bill (about 2-3.5 inches). The Wiemar republic was worse.

So, how would you act if you were facing these issues? You bet those assholes that are currently beating people to death in McDonalds would kill you if they knew you had food and they didn't. what will your response be if your monthly grocery bill jumps 500% or more? Are you ready to pay $1000 a month for groceries?

 

[Big Fitz]

I don't suppose you've seen the size of most of "our" poor.

So have em change crops if they can to make the healthy foods cheaper by increasing supply. Oh wait... the poor won't eat that anyway.

Just supersize it.

Glib, but nonsensical. Please clarify.

 

[syrenn]

It's not a coincidence that there is growing civil unrest in areas where: 1) local food production is insufficient to feed the population; 2) inflation is making the scarcity very expensive.

World Food Import Export Ratio

Above is a chart dealing with food self-sufficiency. It is measuring, in calories, (exports-imports)/consumption. Green marks countries with high food self-sufficiency and the scale moves to red, which marks countries poorly able to feed themselves, much less export food (original Net Trade in Food chart).

Anybody following the current unrest in North Africa and the Middle East will immediately note that the area is bathed in red. Add in the percentage of a person's income spent on food and the picture looks even worse. For example, both Spain and Algeria are dark red, yet the Spanish spend only 14.6% of their incomes on food, while Algerians spend a whopping 44% on food.

That means that if World food prices go up they'll cut into the discretionary spending of the Spanish, while they'll cut to the bone in places like Algeria.

The Chinese are having a crop failure, but they have money to buy food imports. That, and the increasing transport costs due to rising oil prices, means that the price of food will go up. This does not bode well for stability of any post demonstration/revolution Middle Eastern and North African governments. I think it will almost certainly extend the instability of an already unstable region. ...

The way to a man's heart


And check out the photos here (and note the horrifying packaged and prepared (predigested) food of Westernized diets):

Fresh Pics: What People Eat Around The World


So what does this all mean. For starters:

1. The world is going to be a turbulent place due to scarcity and inflation (finally Paul Ehrlich can be happy).

2. The USA is indebted to China. China needs more food. Watch for increased exports from the USA to China, and an acceleration in USA food inflation.

3. The Obamanoids and the Feds will continue to ignore food inflation while the lower and middle classes are squeezed.

4. The ongoing federal deficit spending will not resonate well in 2012 as people see their own grocery bills ballooning and are faced with painful decisions (gas for car vs. food).

I have so many thoughts about this subject its crazy. I agree with your 4 points!

Not enough food in your area, good reason to STOP having babies.

It makes me laugh when people in this country whine about their situation in life in comparison to other places in the world.

It makes me laugh when people in this country whine about wealth distribution....and of course the buck would stop with them.

 

[editec]

That is a complete crock of shit.

If our government ceased subsidizing ethanol and paying farmers to not grow food...and allowed water to once again be used for irrigation in CA's central valley (much of which has been lying fallow due to the Feds letting water drain into the ocean instead of being used for agriculture), we'd be able to increase supply and lower prices to our benefit as well as customer of U.S. output around the world.

I agree. And as a cost cutting measure to our Federal budget, we should stop subsidizing ALL farmers and stop paying them to NOT grow crops. This currently costs Joe Taxpayer $20 BILLION annually.

We're not really subsiding FARMERS, we are mostly sudsiding AGRICULTURAL CONGLOMERATES, multibillion dollar a year corporations.

That is why the BIG AG corporations hired the RIGHT WING SPOKESMAN (former REPUBLICAN senator Robert Dole)to sell this stupid idea to the American public.

Now that is what happened, folks, and please note that every time this issue comes up the right wing tools advance the same big lie....

That the LEFT (which was objecting to this idea from the very start) was supportive of it.

That's not merely a mistake, that's not merely slightly off, or a half truth, that is a great big god damned CORPORATE LIE, one that is advanced by our resident FASCISTS on this board.

 

[sinister59]

It's not a coincidence that there is growing civil unrest in areas where: 1) local food production is insufficient to feed the population; 2) inflation is making the scarcity very expensive.

World Food Import Export Ratio

Above is a chart dealing with food self-sufficiency. It is measuring, in calories, (exports-imports)/consumption. Green marks countries with high food self-sufficiency and the scale moves to red, which marks countries poorly able to feed themselves, much less export food (original Net Trade in Food chart).

Anybody following the current unrest in North Africa and the Middle East will immediately note that the area is bathed in red. Add in the percentage of a person's income spent on food and the picture looks even worse. For example, both Spain and Algeria are dark red, yet the Spanish spend only 14.6% of their incomes on food, while Algerians spend a whopping 44% on food.

That means that if World food prices go up they'll cut into the discretionary spending of the Spanish, while they'll cut to the bone in places like Algeria.

The Chinese are having a crop failure, but they have money to buy food imports. That, and the increasing transport costs due to rising oil prices, means that the price of food will go up. This does not bode well for stability of any post demonstration/revolution Middle Eastern and North African governments. I think it will almost certainly extend the instability of an already unstable region. ...

The way to a man's heart


And check out the photos here (and note the horrifying packaged and prepared (predigested) food of Westernized diets):

Fresh Pics: What People Eat Around The World


So what does this all mean. For starters:

1. The world is going to be a turbulent place due to scarcity and inflation (finally Paul Ehrlich can be happy).

2. The USA is indebted to China. China needs more food. Watch for increased exports from the USA to China, and an acceleration in USA food inflation.

3. The Obamanoids and the Feds will continue to ignore food inflation while the lower and middle classes are squeezed.

4. The ongoing federal deficit spending will not resonate well in 2012 as people see their own grocery bills ballooning and are faced with painful decisions (gas for car vs. food).

let em eat cake