Leaders warn on biofuels and food

[screener]

Maybe the problem is that fair trade or to start off with any trade, isn't a one way street. We feel a need for foods that can't be grown in our own backyards so we empower people to go out and get it for us. Naturally they try to buy cheap, and sell dear as Cricket Tragic points out. At the same time our subsidized basic foods like grains and oilseeds need a market. The people we empower in this case, the multinational grain companies, have it in their interests to move as much grain as possible because they make their money by volume.

Part of our subsidization of agriculture has been the usage of high levels of chemical fertilizers and pesticides allowed by cheap gas and oil. this has permitted the production of grain at nominally lower values than third world country farmers can grow it at. The grain companies sell this "cheaper" grain into undeveloped countries. The results being that farmers there are forced out of business. Some, with the wherewithall to adapt, change production to meet the demands for goods from the wealthier nations.

They then have to deal with our purchasers. Hopefully some of them run into fair trade workers who actually live up to their agreements with both sides. What often happens is that food giants like Dole, buy the land for a song and hire the locals for another song, and sell the produce to us for a high price.

An avoidance of this whole cycle of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer would be to recognize that we shouldn't be subsidizing agriculture but we should be paying what it's worth to grow food.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by screener

An avoidance of this whole cycle of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer would be to recognize that we shouldn't be subsidizing agriculture but we should be paying what it's worth to grow food.

I wonder how one would go about that? It would be a massive undertaking to change the world wide system.

[screener]

spadlet, I don't know that it would be that big a deal. Every product sold has had an analysis done of the costs of production and the therefore required returns on investment. Grain farmers do it all the time, it doesn't help with pricing because it is seldom that farmers have any input to the pricing of their product. What they do is get out of a crop if the returns aren't there. If they have options they'll look around and grow what works best. If they don't have options they lose the farm.

What I'm suggesting is that in light of the food/fuel debate, the increasing starvation in needy areas, climate change variables, input costs, and increasing concern over the healthiness of food, that it's time for a group like the UN to undertake such a costing examination. Farmers, consumers, industry, municipal/ rural district governments, examining the price that consumers are paying, checking out where the money is going, what environmental/energy/social subsidies are being paid and by who. On a regional, national, and international basis.

It would be difficult but the present system is laden with difficulties as well.

[Twig6]

I agree that it would be hard to change the global food system, but I think it will eventually become untenable anyway if we do nothing, and even more eventually revert back to a more sustainable system out of sheer necessity, but there will be a lot of pain along the way if it goes that route.

I used to think that people could petition powerful entities like the World Bank, the U.S. government, the UN, etc. to actually change into what they were supposed to be in the first place--forces for poverty relief instead of poverty proliferation, entites that worked on behalf of the vast majority instead of the richest and most powerful, and I no longer think that's possible. At least not until things get worse and they are forced to make concessions to save themselves and the powerful people they represent (see: the Great Depression).

I DO think that centralized power can be pressured into removing the worst of their offenses, I think campaigning for things like debt relief can work. I just don't think centralized power can truly be transformed into a force for good for the majority of people--their interests are just too narrow.

Besides waiting for things to get worse before they get better, which isn't a good plan, I think that individuals and communities can empower themselves in lots of ways that quietly tilt the world on its axis. Buy local, buy fair trade imports, support both your local and global neighbors in other creative ways, and they will in turn support you. What's that quote? If you turn just a few degrees now, and walk on that path for yards and then miles, pretty soon there's no relation between that first path you were on and the one you find yourself on now.

[Twig6]

Winning the global trade game

The World Trade Organization reported last week that China had overtaken the United States as the second biggest exporter in the world.

One could react to this news by complaing about China's competitive advantages: low wages, the artificially low exchange rate for the yuan, and weak environmental protection, for starters. Or one could wonder: Who is number one?

For the fifth straight year, the world champion export nation is Germany. A country boasting high wages, a robustly valued euro, and strong environmental laws. In 2007, Germany exported $1.327 trillion dollars worth of goods; China, $1.218; and the U.S, $1.163.

How does Germany do it? That's a big question, probably too big for a little blog post. The main point to be made here is that thriving in the global economy does not inevitably require a race to the bottom. The German perch at the top proves otherwise.

Winning the global trade game - How the World Works - Salon.com

--------------