Monday, July 7, 2008 @2:52 AM
the rich benefit from the food crisis. to what extent is this true?as the world steps into an era of globalisation and urbanization, agriculture becomes less abundant and countries are becoming more susceptible to a food crisis. in the past, countries were able to sustain themselves due to the availability of agricultural products. however, a food crisis presently would have adverse effects on the world, as countries in the world are interdependent, as a result of globalisation. in every problem, it is inevitable that some people have an upper hand in the issue. in this case, i believe to a large extent that the rich do benefit from the current food crisis, as they have caused the food crisis by pushing for biofuels, abusing their authority due to power and through urbanization. the rich here is defined as macro level organisations and developed countries which controls the world economy to micro level businessmen and multi-national corporations(mncs) who obtains a relatively higher income as compared to the others in the country, and benefit means gain an advantage.
due to the rapid depletion of fossil fuels, and to reduce their dependence on foreign oil, countries such as the united states have started the push for biofuels, increasing the strain on the demand of agricultural products such as maize. 'the international monetary fund estimated that corn ethanol production in the united states accounted for at least half the rise in world corn demand in each of the past three years', the new york times reported on 10 april 2008. furthermore, 'the growing diversion into ethanol has also resulted in a 60 percent rise in corn prices in the past two years' (the canadian press, 22 october 2007). moreover, governments in these countries have introduced incentives for biofuels and for those who engage in activities involving biofuels, and this further pushes the demand for biofuels. washington provides a subsidy of 51 cents a gallon to ethanol blenders and slaps a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on imports. in the european union, most countries exempt biofuels from some gas taxes and slap an average tariff equal to more than 70 cents a gallon of imported ethanol (the new york times, 10 april 2008). as such, the obvious beneficiaries are the developed countries who are closer to being self-sustainable, the businessmen in these countries who benefit from the the subisdies and tax exemptions, and mncs around the world who will benefit from these due to globalization. thus, the rich do benefit from the current food crisis.
moreover, the tremendous impact on agriculture due to the dominance of richer nations and campanies in the international arena has resulted in poorer countries not being able to determine their own food security policies. richer countries combine unfair trade agreements, have concentrated ownership of major food productions and are able to dominate the world economy through control and influence in institutions such as the world bank, international monetary fund(imf) and the world trade organisation(wto), leaving the poorer nations at their beck and call. poorer countries are made to remove trade barriers, so that the richer countries can benefit, yet these countries hardly remove their, putting the poorer countries at a disadvantage. in addition, the dumping of food, under the pretence of aid, by wealthy nations onto poorer countries, falling commodity prices through competition by the poorer nations to sell primarily to the rich, and huge agricultural subsidies in countries such as north america and europe, which outdo the foreign aid they sent, have combined to cause effects such as forcing farmers out of businesses, and this, reduces food supply to an extent. furthermore, even food in the form of aid is intercepted by the government and those of better quality is being resold to the rich in the country, who can afford these goods, while the poor gets those of poorer qualities. an example of this would be the situation in myanmar. hence, due to corrupt governments, and the dominance of richer nations in international arenas, the rich do benefit from the current food crisis.
furthermore, due to rapid urbanization, agricultural fields are constantly being transformed into cities and industrial zones, at the expense of food supply around the world. in vietnam's bac ninh province, paddy fields are now bisected by a four-lane highway. furthermore, a singapore-vietnamese joint venture will soon build a 1700-acre (700hectare) industrial park and township, turning this rural area into a satellite city. to emphasize the seriousness of this, vietnam is losing about 99,000 acres of rice paddies every year to construction of cities, highways and industrial zones. (time magazine, 'no grain, big pain'). thus, as the food supply around the world continues to decrease, and the number of industrial zones, cities and highways continue to increase, mncs are benefitting through gains in profits.
on the other hand, many agriculture fields are constantly being destroyed due to natural disasters, hence depleting the food supply in the world. this depletion has led to the rapid increase in food prices, which affects everyone, both the rich, and the poor. a 2007 cyclone in bangladesh destroyed approximately 600 million dollars worth of its rice crop, leading to rice price increases of about 70 percent (the daily star, bangladesh, 11 february 2008). also, the drought last year in north central china combined with the unusual cold and cnow during winter will probably lead the government to greater food purchases on the international markets, and this will keep the pressure on prices. thus, both the rich and the poor experiences inflation. however, the effects of inflation on the rich are not as great as that on the poor, as the rich are better able to handle inflation due to their financial capability.
in addition, rising affluence around the world due to globalisation have caused the growth of the middle class in several countries such as china and india. this has led to the increasing demand for meat, causing the increase in prices of food products such as corn and soybeans, as the use of maize and soybeans to feed cattles, pigs and poultry has risen sharply to meet this demand. the world's total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. however, in 2007, it was estimated to be 284 million tons. also, per capita consumption has more than doubled over that period. in the developing world, it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last twenty years alone (the new york times, 27 january 2008). in this case, like the above point, both the rich and poor suffer due to the increases in price of food products, both from grains and meat.
ultimately, the rich do benefit from the food crisis due to their push for biofuels, abusing of power and authority, and through urbanization. however, instead of exploiting the needs of the poor, the rich should help the poor and face the food crisis together as one. afterall, the rich are part of the cause of the current food crisis. in the short run, the rich may seem to benefit from the food crisis. however, in the long run, if the rich continues to act in their own interests, neglecting the rest of the world, especially the poor, no one will benefit from the food crisis as the food resources in the world are limited and will run out, leaving everyone at a loss.
|
Sunday, July 6, 2008 @10:13 PM
the rich benefit from the food crisis. to what extent is this true?focushow the rich caused and manipulated the food crisis to their advantage, hence benefiting from it.
definitionsrichmacro level: developed countries which controls the world’s economy (WTO, UN, G8)
micro level: businessmen, MNCs in individual countries, higher income group
benefitgain advantage
yes1. the push for biofuels by developed countries such as united states.- due to the depletion of fossil fuels and to reduce its dependence on foreign oil ie. self-sustainability
- incentives provided by governments to further push for biofuels
- eg. ‘washington provides a subsidy of 51 cents a gallon to ethanol blenders and slaps a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on imports. in the european union, most countries exempt biofuels from some gas taxes and slap an average tariff equal to more than 70 cents a gallon of imported ethanol.’
the new york times, ‘the world food crisis’, 10 april 2008.- eg. ‘the international monetary fund estimates that corn ethanol production in the united states accounted for at least half the rise in world corn demand in each of the past three years’
the new york times, ‘the world food crisis’, 10 april 2008.- eg. ‘the growing diversion into ethanol has resulted in a 60 percent rise in corn prices in the past two years.’
the canadian press, ‘ethanol demand to push food prices 5% higher next year: economist’, 22 october 2007.
- developed countries benefit from reduction in taxes, and become more self-sustainable
- mncs benefit due to globalization
2. unfair trade agreements.- main source of income for poorer countries is agriculture
- the dominance of the richer nations and companies in the international arena has had a tremendous impact on agriculture. a combination of unfair trade agreements, concentrated ownership of major food production, dominance (through control and influence in institutions such as the world bank, imf and the world trade organisation) has meant that poor countries have seen their ability to determine their own food security policies severely undermined.
- poorer countries made to remove trade barriers but richer countries seldom remove theirs in return.
- in addition, most poor countries were strongly encouraged to concentrate more on exporting cash crops to earn foreign exchange in order to pay of debts.
- poorer farmers made to give up on their jobs, reducing the supply of food.
- food dumping (while calling it aid) by wealthy nations onto poor countries, falling commodity prices (when many poor countries had to compete against each other to sell primarily to the rich), vast agricultural subsidies in north america and europe (outdoing the foreign aid they sent, many time over) have all combined to have various effects such as forcing farmers out of business and into city slums.
- rich nations benefit from the unfair trade agreements that they set
3. asia's rapid urbanization.- in vietnam's bac ninh province, paddy fields are now bisected by a four-lane highway
- singapore-vietnamese joint venture will soon build a 1700-acre (700hectare) industrial park and township, turning this rural area into a satellite city.
- vietnam is losing about 99.000 acres of rice paddies every year to construction of cities, highways and industrial zones.
- mncs benefit as they are able to earn profit.
source: Time magazine. "No Grain, Big Pain".no1. current food crisis caused by natural disasters- natural disasters destroy agriculture fields
- eg. a 2007 cyclone in bangladesh destroyed approximately 600 million dollars worth of its rice crop, leading to rice price increases of about 70 percent
the daily star [bangladesh], february 11, 2008.- eg. the drought last year in northcentral china combined with the unusual cold and snow during the winter will probably lead the government to greater food purchases on the international markets, keeping the pressure on prices.
- both the rich and poor suffer due to inflation, but the rich are better able to overcome the problem due to their financial capability.
source: http://files.tikkun.org/current/article.php?story=200805210815103442. rising affluence- rising affluence due to globalisation, causing the growth of middle class in several countries such as china and india.
- the increasing demand for meat among the middle class is one of the causes of the increase in prices of food products such as corn and soybeans, as the use of maize and soy to feed cattles, pigs and poultry has risen sharply to meet this demand.
- eg. the world’s total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. in 2007, it was estimated to be 284 million tons. per capita consumption has more than doubled over that period. In the developing world, it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last twenty years alone.
new york times, january 27, 2008.- like the above example, both the rich and the poor suffer due to the increase in price of food products, both from grains and meat. however, the rich are able to manage the inflation more effectively due to the financial capability.
|
