Published on May 6, 2008 By Artysim In Politics

A time of great change is upon us. In the last few weeks there were riots in the streets of Egypt, Somalia, Haiti, Morocco, Madagascar, Thailand and Mauritania. And this is just the beginning. Here in Canada, Filipinos are buying up rice and shipping it back home to the Philippinnes, another country that may soon see rioting.

The people in these nations were not rioting over politics or ideology. They were not rioting because of religion or human rights abuses by their respective governments. They were rioting because they are having trouble feeding their kids. World hunger and starvation have always been present in developing (and developed) countries but this time is different. This is no isolated incident caused by the failure of local crops or a particularly bad harvest. In fact, just like the oil supply, the global supply of food currently exceeds the demand. Global hunger is on the rise, not because food is unavailable but because it is becoming increasingly unaffordable. When someone becomes unable to feed their family, all bets are off. Political loyalties, culture and religion all go out the window to make way for the number 1 priority- survival. If the situation lasts long enough that people can't feed their kids, blood does indeed run in the streets until some sort of resolution (for better or worse) to the crisis is reached. Why is this happening now? Please read along.

More than 2.2 billion people on this planet (that's 1/3 of humanity, which is 7 times the population of the U.S) spend more than 75 % of their income entirely on food. In the last year, the price of rice has doubled, wheat prices have increased 30% and corn has increased 74%. Traditionally, folks in poorer countries have typically been able to feed themselves on 1 to 2 dollars per day (US equivalent) but with the rising costs of staple foods they can simple no longer afford to do this unless their incomes go up (I don't see a pay raise for 2.2 billion people coming anytime soon, do you?) The reason why food prices have gone up across the board so much is complicated, but there is someone to blame. Ourselves. That's right, us. All of us. Not just the U.S, or Canada, or the U.K. It's not just China's fault, or the middleast, or all the developing countries that are now experiencing food riots. As a species we have been complicit in accepting a vision of globalized trade that now threatens to starve and impoverish 30 % of our entire population. We bought into a lie that promised to usher in a new age of prosperity that would uplift all mankind. Instead we are now in a situation in which many will drown while the few crowd aboard air-conditioned, wi-fi connected yachts with helipads.

The developing countries of the world at one time were able to produce much of their food locally. By no means was this perfect and there were indeed many droughts in localized instances. But in the bigger scheme of things, these countries were largely able to meet their food needs without having to import staples like wheat, rice or corn. Then the IMF came along and convinced them to get in on the game of globalization. We told them that if they wanted to get their slice of the international trade pie, they had to play by our rules. Playing by our rules meant they had to stop growing food to feed their people and start growing cash crops which they could then export and sell to other countries. Things like tobacco, coffee beans, strawberries etc. Nevermind that this quite often involved our companies moving in and setting up shop to reap most of the financial rewards (Dole, United Fruit, the list is long) With most of what little arable land these countries had now in the hands of big multinational companies, vast amounts of staples had to be imported just to feed their people. Instead of growing rice and wheat locally, now it had to be purchased and shipped in from overseas.

This worked for awhile. Although these countries remained dirt poor while big overseas business reaped the rewards, folks were able to afford to eat. Granted, 75 % (in some cases 90%) of a person's income went to food leaving little else for investment on the Nasdaq. Now that the price of staples have more than doubled, suddenly a lot of folks are getting priced out of the audacious luxury of being able to afford 1500 calories per day. The agri-businesses that run the tobacco and coffee plantations couldn't care less that the people in these countries are having trouble eating. They put on a concerned face and give a few million, which is a paltry sum considering the profits they're rolling in, most often tax free (another pre-condition imposed by the IMF and global free trade zealouts) Sorry kiddo, times are tough they say.....and so says the IMF to the governments of these countries too.

In regards to the high food prices, that is also our fault. It's our fault because we let it happen and I quote from Jean Zeigler- "The immediate cause for the rise in food prices is the speculation in commodities mainly at the Chicago stock exchange. One thousand billion dollars of the world money supply have been lost between October and January through market speculation on the world's stock exchanges. The big speculators, the hedge funds – that's not the Red Cross, – now speculate in soya, rice, millet, wheat and corn. They are looking for maximum profit in agricultural raw materials and are thus pushing the prices up to an explosive level. They can buy up Brazil's entire soya harvest with only 5 % of real capital. This way they risk very little if the harvest turns out to be less than expected but they stand a good chance of making astronomical profits."

We created financial machinery that makes it possible to inflate the value of staple food-stuffs to astronomical highs, thus causing massive profits for investors while leaving no option but starvation for the poorest 30 % of our species. We convinced the world's poorest countries to give their agricultural production to our companies for cash crop exports, thus making them almost entirely dependent on purchasing food from us to feed their people. And they bought into it. Their leaders certainly aren't starving, as the big business that's profiting knows they have to keep the local governments and militaries on their side with some of the profits.

We sit back and fret about the cost of filling our gas tank, while families across the globe worry about their next meal. We sit here and pontificate about the "threat" of Iran (who hasn't started an aggressive war with anyone in the last 25 years) while in cities across the world spontaneous riots are breaking out over the most basic of human needs. Riots which, if we all would have seen the sham that globalization is, would never have happened. We cluck our tongues about needing to increase oil production at home and energy policy. We talk about the utter farce that will be the presidential election and who got voted off on American Idol.

Meanwhile, we remain blind to what is really going on; Rome is burning. Hungry people don't stay hungry for long. Either the situation changes so that the hungry have access to food, or they starve and die. This causes the human survival instinct to kick in which should never be underestimated. Entire nations and cultures have been toppled over food. Marie Antoinette once said "let them eat cake" in response to the poor of France going hungry.... and so came the french revolution which changed the west forever.

Global "free" trade is a prescription for the misery of billions so that a few million can profit enormously. It knows no national affiliation or political ideology. It does not prefer the good of one nation over another (a lesson the U.S may come to learn painfully in the coming years with it's national debt) It doesn't give two rips about conservative vs liberal or any such bullshit. It doesn't distinguish between Christian or Muslim, Hindu or Budhist. It sees people and resources as the same things; items to be exploited for maximum profit. Once  that profit has been attained, the item (whether it be a human being or natural resource) is to be discarded. Welcome to the world of the throwaway person. Welcome to the 21st century.


Comments
on May 06, 2008

I can see war starting over this, and I don't mean the revolutionary type.  China, by sheer numbers, could decide...hey, we need more food but don't have the ability to produce it...so we are gonna take some land (by invasion) and before you know it...WW3.

I'd be keeping my eyes on countries who are not democratic, and are suffering.  They have the biggest chance of raising up a leader who will war for land.

Interesting stuff.

on May 07, 2008

I will read the rest of this after I finish eating my cake.

on May 07, 2008

I can see war starting over this, and I don't mean the revolutionary type. China, by sheer numbers, could decide...hey, we need more food but don't have the ability to produce it...so we are gonna take some land (by invasion) and before you know it...WW3.

Yes, although it doesn't have to happen. If we were to change how we do business and ban speculation on staple foods in the market and encourage more localized production of food instead of the globalized lie (would also cut down considerably on fuel costs for transportation if more folks ate food that came within 100 miles of where they lived) then we wouldn't have this problem. Instead I fear you are correct. Rather than change the system we will go back to what we do best, killing each other.

I will read the rest of this after I finish eating my cake.

 

on May 07, 2008
If we were to change how we do business and ban speculation on staple foods in the market and encourage more localized production of food instead of the globalized lie (would also cut down considerably on fuel costs for transportation if more folks ate food that came within 100 miles of where they lived)


Don't you think this will happen by default?

If people are rioting, they will eventually make it to these huge tracts of land that produce food for the globe....and mob rules. Look at Africa.

I wouldn't want to do business in a country where my plantation was being over run by hungry locals. It wouldn't be profitable, and might be deadly.

on May 07, 2008
Don't you think this will happen by default?


No, nor has it ever been the case as long as there is trade among communities (note not even nations).
on May 07, 2008

Don't you think this will happen by default? No, nor has it ever been the case as long as there is trade among communities (note not even nations).

Profits always come first. Companies will always fight tooth and nail to retain their operations regardless of the effect it is having on the local area. The only way changes are brought about are as you said, due to mob rule. Ie- workers in Argentina reclaiming factories, the Zapatistas in Mexico and the like. Occasionally, you will get a government in power that actually nationalizes industries and farms (thus returning them to the public sphere) but these governments are often villified as rogue or somehow anti-democracy by the major players. Quite often when a government gets in power that is going to nationalize industries or close their borders to globalization, that's when the meddling begins.

I would like to use Iran as an example. Circa 1950's. At the time Iran was ruled by a secular, left-leaning (though not communist) nationalist leader named Mossadegh and he was democratically elected. His great sin was that he was going to nationalize oil production so that most of the oil wealth stayed in country rather than get exported. That's it. He had no ambitions of invading other countries or oppressing freedom or any such nonsense. He was not going to cut off oil exports to the world, only replacing the company selling Iranian oil with an Iranian company. 

But due to the fact that he was going to get in the way of the profits of big business, the CIA actually fomented a coup that installed the Shah (an absolute monster and tyrant) in his place. The Shah was so brutal on his people that despite a massive military and secret police apparatus that was equipped with the latest in weapons, there was such a massive popular uprising that he was driven from power. This uprising was not without casualties- his military and police killed approximately 300,000 people before the revolution was over.

So, no, it won't happen by default. In the eyes of the major players:

profit and control= most important

human life= takes a backseat to the above

 

on May 07, 2008
Companies will always fight tooth and nail


We are not talking companies, we are talking individuals. Hence the reason I said communities not nations.
on May 07, 2008

We are not talking companies, we are talking individuals. Hence the reason I said communities not nations

My bad. As a socialist sometimes all I see is red