EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
- Victory in Seattle as Teachers Win Battle in Standardized Test Boycott
Popular content
Today's Top News
Food Crises Pummel the Poor, Austerity Multiplies Pain
Anyone in Britain alarmed by rising inflation should look to an Indian villager for understanding about the latest worry in the global economy. Last year a village schoolteacher wrote a cracking song – featured in this year's Indian Oscar entry for best foreign film, Peepli Live – that distils the world's macroeconomic worries: "Friend, my husband earns good money but inflation, that witch, eats it all away. / Every month petrol leaps, diesel is on a roll, sugar forever soars, rice flies out of reach too. Inflation, that witch, eats it all away."
The poor spend a greater proportion of their income on food and fuel, and so, when the prices of both start to rise, poorer households suffer more. Petrol, diesel, sugar and cereal prices are all up. Poor women, invariably responsible for household food purchases, are hurt far more than men – which is why they've protested in India, where food inflation soared to 19.8% just last month.
In the UK, today's inflation figures of just 3.7% caused alarm – containing much higher rises in food and fuel costs and disproportionately hitting poorer families there as elsewhere. Of course, it's not just Britain or the subcontinent where staples are becoming more expensive. The UN announced that its global food price index is now higher than it has ever been. Already this year, protesters have taken to the streets in India, Jordan and Algeria.
Whence the price rises? One of the reasons for food and fuel inflation lies in bullish views of the economy. The price of oil is nudging $100 a barrel again. Not only does this bump the price of fossil fuels directly, but it hits food too. When the price of oil is high, it becomes economically attractive to divert crops from use in food to use in biofuels.
Others blame the weather for the inflation: La Niña, the periodic wobble in Pacific ocean weather that ripples across the planet, hasn't only been blamed for the catastrophic floods in Brazil. Argentina has experienced unusually dry conditions, which have lowered the expectations for their exports of corn and soybeans. Floods in Australia and Indonesia have also stymied production, and last year's wildfires in Russia only made things worse.
It's true that weather events have had an impact on global markets, but this is hardly the first La Niña. The historian Mike Davis, in his magisterial work Late Victorian Holocausts, looked at how the world responded to the cyclical El Niño/La Niña shocks throughout the 19th century. In the 1800s, the effects were survivable – but by the 1890s, in the so-called "golden age of liberal capitalism", weather shocks were being transmitted directly to the poor through the newly established system of global commodity markets. And it's these markets that have recently gone into overdrive.
Deborah Doane of the World Development Movement has noted that more than $200bn has been poured into food markets since the financial crisis by speculators hunting for profit, creating volatility. The leading international grain-trading companies are doing well as a result. The US agricultural giant Cargill reeled in $1.49bn in windfall profits in its last quarter, three times its profits the year before.
It might seem like there's nothing new here. Climate shocks, shoddy government policy, scalping by traders, speculation by bankers, biofuels, and a rising oil price. We're not in 2008, though. The oil price isn't quite in the $150-a-barrel recession-precipitating territory yet – but that's as far as the good news goes. There are other reasons to worry. More than a billion people went hungry in 2009, and the shock of the past two years has stripped assets away from the poor – in order to survive poverty, many have been involved in distress sales. The last two years' hunger and malnourishment will have indelibly affected an entire cohort of children. The recession has meant that more people are vulnerable to systemic shocks.
But governments are less ready to buffer those shocks. Perhaps the most significant difference between 2008 and now is that governments are no longer in recession-fighting mode – they're in inflation-fighting mode. That's a problem when you look at the kinds of policies that worked to feed the poor over the past two years. The World Bank's Robert Zoellick calls for freer markets, but researchers at, er, the World Bank found that it's government spending that helps most.
Free market policies such as cutting import tariffs on food can sometimes help to lower the price in urban areas. This helps but only, as urban Tunisians understand too well, if there are jobs and money with which to buy the food in the first place. Well-designed public-feeding and public works programmes are much better than free market policies at feeding people. But these programmes require government spending. They're inflationary.
Now that governments' great enemy is inflation, the policies that feed the hungry are precisely the ones under the knife in a global push for market-friendly austerity. India's home minister, P Chidambaram, recently admitted that he didn't "have all the tools to control food inflation". Although countries are scrambling to find ways of bridging the gaps, the great worry in 2011 is not only that inflation will eat away everyone's earnings through higher food prices, but that the institutions and policies that might ward off the worst effects will be hexed by the markets too.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

7 Comments so far
Show AllDuring tough times governments need to spend more on job creation and feeding the poor. However, in order to do this governments must spend much less during periods of economic growth and good private sector hiring. In actual practice this is quite difficult. When times are good politicians like to spread the money around and constituents are generally happy for the largess. Thus there is often a 'deficit danger' situation for governments in hard times. Inflation and interest payments can wreak havoc on everyone.
Yes, if govs. had spent less during the booms they would have more to spend reinvigorating the economy if they chose to do so (although it appears corporate welfare that depresses economies is the priority for most governments).
If the UK is anything like the US they are understating the rate of inflation...it is likely way more than 3.7%.
Pain is the correct word, and theres nothing like
Big Oil pump prices to add a stab in the back to
all else.. Big Oil forces grocers and airlines to
pass along more increases to we the sheeple, forces
affordable airlines out of business, and drives the
cost of war even higher than devastating.
The recession definitely spun headway into a depression
without getting named, and we already have food lines,
jobless families, and austerity badges galore.
Obamas tendency to do the clintonista trick to de-reg
all the big boys helps mid america Not .
We are sadly depressed and in a crises scenario in
most us states..a long coldl winter ahead.
There has been a concerted effort by Corporations, to take control of the food supply. They actively discourage local farmers and push for globalization of the food supply. The costs of transporting the food to other countries is irrational for both adding to the costs of the food and the expenditure of energy. Our current food system, both the actual system of growing food and the ever increasing size of farm operations, are causing food borne illnesses and the specter of Famine when the system fails. The actual nutritional content of our food has decreased by 50% since the late 40's due to chemical fertilizers. So we are paying more for food and are receiving half of the nutrition than our Grandparents did. Also, during the Great Depression, most of the population either grew their own food or had family that did. So at least people had food. Today we do not have that option and that should scare everyone!
What about the trillions of QE monies that the Banksters are using to speculate up the prices of commodities? Can anyone connect the dots?
No mention of "wars of aggression" that impact many areas of the globe because it is more profitable to feed the "war machine" that to feed the poor. Moral bankruptcy on a global scale. Tony
pooka47401 writes:
"The actual nutritional content of our food has decreased by 50% since the late 40's due to chemical fertilizers. So we are paying more for food and are receiving half of the nutrition than our Grandparents did."
Almost true.
The nutritional value of our (U.S.) food has decreased because our agricultural practices have depleted soil minerals. (This may be a global phenom but I haven't studied that.) For example, by at least the 1930s the academic agriculturalists in Indiana recognized this mineral depletion. Probably most emblematic of this is corn. It strips the soil. (And back then, soybean crop-rotation was virtually unheard of.) Recall the folk history here: the Amerindians who planted corn provided a dead fish for each stalk, remineralizing the soil.
My own paternal history tracks this soil depletion, as they migrated westward in the 19th century, each couple creating large families so the kids could help work the land, which they depleted just as they had to inherit smaller parcels, and so they would move farther west.
The Great Depression and the Dust Bowl migration capped the westward migration of agriculture. It was only after WWII that there arrived the introduction of massive use of synthetic fertilizer and mechanization. These fertilizers pump up the phosphorus system in plants, enabling them to grow larger even in the absence of the trace minerals the soil used to hold.
So, the first cause of the paucity of nutrition in our food is soil mineral depletion, while the proximate cause is largely the fact that we sell food by the pound (or the bushel) instead of its value as food. The synthetic fertilizers increase the size and weight to serve this exchange system.
Little wonder that the lowly apple was such a symbol of the Depression. Their roots went deep. Back then few local foods were as nutritious.
Anyway, the "food crisis" is increasingly a nutrition crisis given the above. The relatively wealthy can buy mineral supplements and/or go seriously organic. The poor tend not to, thus the "paradox" of the correlation between poverty and obesity in this country, and the consequent health crisis. Poor people have to eat more hollow calories to achieve something approaching cellular homeostasis.
-30-