News: Fuel Prices Effect Starving Populations
 

In the U.S., we spend about 10% of our income on food. Parts of the World spend upwards of 75% on sustenance. When fuel costs and other pressures raise the price of food dramatically, the most vulnerable populations suffer and starve.

Green Car Congress Article on the World Bank announcement.

Higher fuel prices may sway the driving public into fuel efficient vehicles, but at what Cost?

RH77

Not only fuel prices increase the cost of food, the production of fuel does also. It's a shame how much money we spend subsidizing Ethanol, which ends up making other people's food more expensive.

Cellulosic might become practical, but the jury is still out on it.

Post of the day!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Does anyone have a chart of the fuel cost trends in Euros or in British pounds? I'm curious how much the recent rise in fuel (in the states) is due to economy crap versus the actual value of the commodity.

Also, the whole trans fat demon thing has sparked cooking oil problems in other countries too...

The best I could quickly find is a recent CNN Article on World fuel prices. Also take into consideration the barrel price is up to $112, which starts out high for everyone. Translated into Euros, it's still higher over there too.

I did a bit of math on this a few weeks ago. I had an interest as well because, as a Canadian, we've been somewhat insulated from the sudden rise in prices with the improvement in our own dollar, relative to the US.

Best I could figure, if the dollars had kept relative value, the price of a barrel of oil would be around $65, maybe $70 now with the most recent changes. Up from around $25 at the beginning of the Iraqi invasion, IIRC.

I didn't bother to keep the spreadsheet, but I think that's pretty close.

Fact of the matter is the planet is severely overpopulated and these food problems are only going to get worse.

I've found this stir over ethanol lately to be quite interesting. My personal opinion is that it is being driven by those on the extreme left that hate cars and those on the extreme right that love oil, an interesting combination huh? What has drawn me to this conclusion you might ask?

Why is there no movement against coffee bean farming, tobacco farming or land used to grow spices? None of these crops provide any nutritional value and take up land that could be used to grow grains or vegetables. Or land that is used to graze cattle could be converted to crop land and produce many times the calories per acre.

The world has enjoyed both cheap food and cheap energy for too long, now were going to pay the price of a painful adjustment in both.

Unless the world ends 2012..

Don’t worry, those poor CEO's will still make money, and with that attitude they will be getting a bonus for making less cost more..

??

I apologize for my off topic comment. The Mayan calendar has nothing to do with the current topic. I was just venting from a long stressful day.:(

Totalitarian Agriculture . Here's an interesting link. More if you need a term paper:). But at this stage of the game I think it's more of a political issue. IMO.

Actually, no need to apologize regarding CEO compensation. The middle class is getting squeezed into oblivion and the top-end of companies get more despite performance.

Nothing changes. I say (actually to anyone) to vote your mind or contact your Congressional Reps to voice your opinion -- for what its worth.

Power also lies in us, the consumer. We can save fuel, boycott companies, and try to "buy locally".

As for the World, perhaps "Food not Fuel" should be the mantra...read: Ethanol.

My apologies if it's too political for this forum...

RH77

It's also being driven by people who don't like subsidies.

Because those things are all not novel industries, so tsheir influence on prices is not really even quantifiable. They occupy a minuscule amount of land compared to ethanol production so their influence cannot be very great. Tobacco occupied 673K acres vs 79M for Corn. India is a huge producer of coffee, and uses total 900K acres for it. Spices and the like occupy even less.

The cattle argument has merit, and one reason I limit the amount of meat I eat (still eat lots of fish). Some cattle are raised on land not suitable for farming though. Also cattle, coffee and spices cannot be substituted for by battery powered meat nor can cattle be extracted from ANWR.

Edit: Starvation is not a explicitly a problem of over population any more than a lack of underwear is. We don't lack the ability to produce enough food or underwear for everyone on the world, but lots of people live in large numbers far away from where underwear is cheap and these people don't have money, so they can't get underwear. If we had the political will we could provide these people with underwear, but we don't. Sure, if all the people who were starving or didn't have underwear didn't exist, then we wouldn't have people lacking underwear or starving, but that doesn't mean that over-population is the problem - better said "de-population" (to put it euphemistically) would be a solution.

Current human practices are not sustainable, but the world's population is.

Also the species extinction is not happening in the first world and in developed economies, it's happening usually in less developed places. Most often it's the result of unsustainable agriculture practices that produce paltry amounts of food. If they stopped doing that and we provided them food, by eating less meat and giving them that food, this would decrease, but we're not going to do that because it would cost piles of $$$.

I personally think it's a catch22 - but, I'm slightly with you on that.... But, I also see it as being another transition tech - not a potential solution tech.

Personally, I think the only energy solution is solar... Humans and their stuff aside - the planet needs a LOT of energy... And it gets it from the sun. Sure, it's expensive at the moment and not quite efficient enough just yet - but the human race is pretty good at engineering itself out of predicaments... Thus far, it's been deferring problems til later :/

Have you looked at the subsidies going to agriculture?

The root of all of this is that Europe and North America had a policy for decades of overproducing grains and this was accomplished through massive subsidies. This excess food was dumped on the world markets below cost of production. This excess of food has allowed areas of the world to grow populations that have outpaced their local ability to supply food to themselves. Now that the 1rst world is faced with a quick rise in energy costs and concerns of GHGs it is no longer in our interests to subsidize cheap food for the rest.

I don’t mind providing aid to poor parts of the world when they are in need. But I am not prepared to reduce my standard of living or my future children’s just so the people of the 3rd world can continue to have 10 children and outpace the capacity of their local environment to sustain themselves as well.

Been reading much Daniel Pinchbeck lately? I've recently been thinking that I need to re-read 2012...


Anyway, it's not so much of an "ending" as a "rebirth" as I understand it.

More interesting to me is that the worst part of the lead-up to 2012 is supposed to be the "ninth-night" or something (I can't remember, that's why I have to re-read it), it began in January 2008. It continues for a bit over a year.

Agreed.

The real solution is the education and development of countries where population is booming so they have a more sustainable birthrate. World population growth is already slowing down though. First world countries are mostly imploding population wise and are slowly working on replacing themselves with Mexican or Arab immigrants.

Past subsidies for agriculture don't make subsidies for ethanol a good idea though. Just having done something before doesn't mean we should do it again, but there might be other compelling reasons. (I'm not saying you were arguing this, just making a point rather).

I am glad to see that you agree, and I agree with your assessment on education, education is the great equalizer in the world.

I think were we differ is that now that food prices have risen, farmers where I am from now receive prices for their crops that exceed their costs. I see the rising price of food as the route to eliminating subsidies to agriculture. Its unfortunate that it is hurting poor people around the world, but the fact that it is hurting people may indicate that their situation was unsustainable as well. I think its more important to address root causes of problems than just feeding starving mouths.

With all due respect, it's my opinion that the only entity that can squeeze you is the government. Companies can only pay their CEO's with profits, or pay them at a loss. However, they can't take YOUR money an pay CEO's with it. In fact, you can decide to buy from somoene else if you don't like what a company does with the money THEY earned or borrowed. They're free to do that under the law, just like WE are free to spen OUR money.

Agreed. Micro-credit is a much better investment and actually helps them develop their economy and infrastructure so they can sustain themselves. Also actually developing their economy gives them a sense of involvement and responsibility for the welfare of their country and community, unlike year after year food aid which sends them the signal that "life here sucks, but where we come from things are great." Encouraging the smart hard working people to leave is exactly the opposite of what we want - but giving them a stake in the economy encourages them to stay (for this reason I'm also somewhat against immigration, since it tends to retard the development of the country of emigration).

I am in favor of food aid during extraordinary situations though, like in Ireland during the Potato famine - that's a temporary situation which can be solved. But just giving people food year after year... we agree on that. :)

Duffman:
I think were we differ is that now that food prices have risen, farmers where I am from now receive prices for their crops that exceed their costs. I see the rising price of food as the route to eliminating subsidies to agriculture. Its unfortunate that it is hurting poor people around the world, but the fact that it is hurting people may indicate that their situation was unsustainable as well. I think its more important to address root causes of problems than just feeding starving mouths.

That would be nice if we could lessen subsidies. Also the rising food prices will hopefully encourage people in other countries to invest in modern farming methods since they'll have more of a profit to show for it. So this could be a blessing in disguise.

Post of the Day!!

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Since solar-energy has been brought up, there was an interesting article on Slashdot yesterday about concentrated solar collectors. They're positively genius. Instead of trying to convert the photons into electricity, they collect and store the heat, which then runs steam-driven turbines.
They are simple and efficient, and they've been in operation since the 70's.
Here's a link to the slashdot comments http://science.slashdot.org/article..../04/15/1159257
which contains a link to the original article.

hvatum,
I agree entirely with that.

That assumes the consumer has a choice... I can't just switch electric utility companies - there's only one for my house.... Sure, one could say just go off grid - but that brings us back to the squeeze :/ Just a few pennies for the devil...

Wow, nice to see we agree on stuff, I'm used to most people disagreeing with me. I think people here are a bit ahead of the curb. Makes sense given that being here means you've accepted that gas prices will only increase from here on out, something most people are still in denial about (including unfortunately all too many of the execs at GM and ford!)

The comment wasn't directed at you. If, however, your only complaint is about CEO's of utilites, and you know what they get paid, then that's fine. If it's about any other CEO's it doesn't.

"Walmart moved in to my town and the local grocer had to close shop."

When I did my cross country trip - I was amazed at how many smaller cities had this sort of situation... But taken even further - Walmart moves in and the local grocer needs to raise prices due to less volume... I can choose not to support Walmart - but it's going to squeeze my wallet.

That, plus I'm 1) not going to list all of my problems with every company I can think of and 2)I'm not so big on complaining (too much :D)

I'm not saying my point applies to everything - I'm just saying that your point doesn't apply to every other business ;)

As much as I'd like to blame government for all of this - I can't. For example, Berkeley, CA - the local gov't restricts the amount of drive through restaurants (imagine the killing they'd make if there was one right across the street from their University). As a result, a whole bunch of mom/pop restaurants are able to stay in business and live happily without big box chains eating into their market share with their $1 crap meal :/

You shift the topic with every post. Now your compliant is that you want more expensive meals at places where people make less. That wasn't the original topic, and I wasn't addressing you in the original post.

If your concern is that someone is making too much, by all means pay as much as you want, and support companies that no one else wants to support. However, the original issue was that people were having to pay too much!

You're a pragmatist. The only ones that can disagree are idealists or people who have differing information. In the second case, notes just need to be compared where there is disagreement. In the former case, there is no end to the disagreement.

Your a smart guy Frank.

Never establish a dependency you aren't willing to support F O R E V E R.

Whoa there - lets not put words in people's mouths - I mean what I say - if I didn't say it, I didn't mean it. I'm not shifting the topic - I'm taking my $1 to go buy a taco because a big box chain (with a CEO/business I don't like) hasn't put the taco stand out of business.

My concern is not when someone is making too much. My concern is with business practice. When comparable products are of acceptable quality - I'll support domestic production over Chinese production (that's a Walmart reference in case I need to spell that out).

When Walmart signed a contract with Rubbermaid - Rubbermaid was really happy, retooled and upgraded their factories for all the new volume they'd be getting etc... Then, when the key ingredient of Rubbermaid's product had an 80% increase in price (and Rubbermaid increased their wholesale price) - Walmart took away much of their shelf space and gave it to the cheaper counterparts. Rubbermaid, was forced to merge with their rival competitor - or go out of business (jobs were lost, etc. etc). That's just really bad business - that strikes my ethics nerve (and it's really hard to do that). I don't care how much Walmart makes - it's the business practice that bothers me.

I like business competition - in the case of Walmart (which has 200 million customers in the US alone - 100 million weekly), companies know that if Walmart doesn't like them, Walmart has the power to take them down. Solely worrying about CEO profits can be left to the idealists - there's plenty of other issues.


You first said
Which one is it? Or are we changing subject? I don't like what some companies do with the money they earned and I don't think the government can take all the blame for what these companies do - some companies have a global impact that can, if they choose, starve populations.


That's fine, I'm addressing you and everyone else. If you only want to speak to one person - use the private message feature to avoid confusion (but if it's in public - expect a response from anyone with something to say) :thumbup:

You are shifting the topic. The topic was that CEO's are "SQUEEZING" money out of consumers. That is false. It's not possible. This is not only the case due to competition (i.e., the consumer votes with his/her wallet), but also because the CEO's don't (usually) own the companies they work for. If the company (the Board of Directors and stockholders) don't like him/her, then they don't have a job.

1. But that was the topic.

2. There is no such thing as too much, unless the industry of which we speak is has no competition because of artificial barriers created by the government, or if they have engaged in illegal practices.

1. Your concern was not the topic, so your initial rebuttal of my position is a change of topic.

2. I agree with what you just said, in that I do the same.

It's not bad business. The purpose of business is to make money. Buggy whips would also still be in use if we didn't allow them to become obsolete.

It's not a matter of "like" or "dislike." It's not personal. The consumer votes with his or her wallet. Walmart merely listens. In fact, the little store owner does the same, or they are an idiot and should go out of business. Who goes into business to sell what people would rather not buy?

If Walmart starts selling expensive stuff, and the mom-and-pop store next door is selling the same thing from China at half the price, who do you think is going to sell the most stuff?

Me neither, but it's their money, just as the money you earn is your money. I probably don't like the way you spend your money, but it's not my business.

My initial comment about the government had nothing to do with that. My initial comment is that the government is the only one that can squeeze you, because you MUST do what it requires of you.

I enjoy talking to you. However, you said you disagreed with me and attributed my words to an entirely different topic. You're a good guy, but we disagree.

You're reading too deeply and missing the point. The overall topic here (which is apparently is being debated- but doesn't matter) is fuel prices squeezing - not CEOs. CEO's were pulled into it, but that's fine, topics meander.

CEO and company are hand in hand. CEO is ultimately responsible. If a company is sucessful - awesome CEO. If the company tanks - blame is first put on the person/people on top. I'm not changing the subject matter by talking about a company as a whole...

Again, I don't care about the too much thing - I agree there's no such thing as too much in this matter. But, I can't say that government is completely to blame for the actions of private companies. The government didn't setup any barrier that made Walmart take down Rubbermaid - costs went up (for rubbermaid) due to natural supply.


Fair enough - poor word choice... It's bad ethics ;)


It's not that they don't want to buy it... It's that one supplier brought it to you by employing your neighbor with an ethical business versus another supplier that brought you a product by employing another country while dismantling the local manufacturers. I wish that was hypothetical.


You might not, or you might... That's not a concern though. Their money came from my money - and if I'm supporting, say a cocaine ring by shopping at one particular store - why would I do that? If your company will support something I feel is "wrong" (probably not the right word choice) - I'm not going to trade my money for your stuff.


Yes, but I go back to basic needs/services as I originally posted. If you don't have an option - you can't bring your money elsewhere. Using Walmart (again, sorry - it's just too easy :p) as an example - they move in, force others out. The price of stuff at Walmart may be slightly cheaper - but the cost/impact is much higher due to less business. Walmart has low prices and low wages.


I enjoy speaking with you too :thumbup: But, I feel I haven't applied it differently - the topic is the same, it's just a big topic :D

The previous points still stands. No one was crying when, just a few years ago, the oil companies were having a hard time making a profit. Now profit is bad? Yet the little store owner you identify with is good for wanting the same thing? Remember, in BOTH cases the MARKET determines what their goods are sold for.

The fact is that there are innumerable goods and services that are more profitable than oil. It's silly to demonize the industry, even if all the "cool kids" are doin' it.

I wasn't blaming the government for their profits. I was blaming the government for taking YOUR money. I wouldn't bother me if they or you made more money.

It's not bad ethics. It's a noble endevor.

Neither is unethical.

Your example involves illegal activity, so it's not a good parallel.

Of course it forces others out. That is the the history of the world. No one wants to pay more for less. This has been going on since the beginning of time, resulting in better prices and superior goods and services for the consumer. When I was a kid they were complaining about Kmart. So what!

In fact, no one would be complaining if there were a oil war between the leading oil producers and the price dropped 90%. When the OPEC countries were feuding and dumping oil onto the market a few years ago, no one complained. Not one person said that it was unfair to offer better prices. NOT ONE.

True that.

May I bring the topic back to the origin:

Food prices are Increasing for the World's poor.

To respond to the ancillary discussion:

I have inside info that Wal-Mart intentionally will contract with suppliers (sometimes domestic), take a huge share of their sales, and insist on cheaper prices: only to put them out of business and buy the whole works at a discount. Fully planned and executed. Ethical? No. Business? Yes.

It happens as the supplier cannot handle the lower prices and attempts to negotiate. WM says "See-Ya" and the supplier lost 90+% of their sales. Bankruptcy ensues and jobs go overseas while WM buys the "Name".

The same is going to happen to the local, and even Corporate, Pharmacies (read: Walgreen's, CVS, Osco, etc.) Wallie World underprices scripts to bring customers into the store. Profit is made on the "While I'm here" purchases. Personally, I haven't set foot in a Wal-Mart for more than 2 years.

Personally, I don't agree with it. It's a poor business practice and represents a biased business model. Remember the anti-trust laws from History class?

I support workers' rights -- anywhere, but it's good to see jobs stay in the U.S. and Canada. Our manufacturing base has dwindled to a blip on the radar in the World market. The advantage to the weakening Dollar is more jobs filtering in.

My 3.5-cents adjusted for inflation.

Sooooooo...World food supply anyone?

RH77

I don't think we can see eye to eye on this then - only because our disagreement is on a a fundamental level.

I'll use Google as a example. One of the points of their corporate philosophy is:
As simplistic/easy way to say it - but to the point.

Intentionally destroying other business - ones that don't even compete with you - is unethical... There's nothing noble in taking away other people's livelihoods. It's just "evil" as the people at Google said.... Is it business, yes - but I, for one, will not run my business that way.

It's not the parallel - it's the point. Replace cocaine with something legal if it makes you feel better :thumbup:

:D Here's something I wrote up on the blow awhile back that I mentioned awhile back...

http://ecomodder.com/blog/2008/01/23...ew-black-look/

Lower prices are not the issue, per se - sales are. If they have the lowest price for the identical item, they will get the sales. In other words, they would be foolish to sell for less than it costs to make an item, so the real competition is with other companies who make the same thing. They can't be put out of business otherwise, unless Walmart and their existing customers simply refuse to sell the item, no matter who it is sold by. As for negotiating lower prices, every chain does that. EVERY single one!

It doesn't apply.

Interesting that in a thread about the poor in other countries not being able to afford food that someone would promote protectionism for the sake of workers' rights. Only the employed are workers, and only competition will keep that ball rolling. History has shown this time and again. No exceptions, worldwide.

You can't destroy businesses that don't compete with you by selling things. Until now you haven't even proposed this, so now you've moved onto yet another topic.

Indeed; however, you have to admit that WM has taken it to art-form. To the extent of running businesses out for the sole purpose of acquiring them? Common in small quantities, but it seems Cancerous in big business.

Of course it doesn't -- but should it?

I'm far from a business and Economic expert -- but I do know this: if someone loses their job, it's a hardship on the immediate and stratified parties. No matter where in the world you live. It impacts that nation's economy, stability, trade, and consumer confidence.

There are plenty of companies that are employee-centric that thrive worldwide -- including large, employee-owned operations.

Where does Food fall in the mix? The U.S. economy, fuel prices, grain (and other) exports, and the bottom line of the transport industry are crucial. Despite our arrogance, the United States' economy impacts the world markets heavily.

RH77

This is true. It's the history of human life - you live, you compete or die, and then you die in the end, anyhow. Those who follow learn from both your successes and failures. If I were working for GM or Ford and came to this site, I would be afraid......VERY AFRAID

Fear is a good motivator. Hope they learn so that I can buy from them. If not, it will impact "that [company's] economy, stability, trade, and consumer confidence." And so our entire nation....