Skip to comments.
EDITORIAL: The high price of global food
San Francisco Chronicle ^
| 4/6/8
| Editor
Posted on 04/06/2008 5:05:42 PM PDT by SmithL
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
1
posted on
04/06/2008 5:05:43 PM PDT
by
SmithL
To: SmithL
Al Gore's happy. Starvation means fewer people. Fewer people means less CO2, reducing global warming.
Reduces the market for his carbon credits, though.
2
posted on
04/06/2008 5:08:55 PM PDT
by
AZLiberty
(Wipe the national hard drive and reinstall the Constitution.)
To: SmithL
Population growth might have something to do with it. Ten billion didn’t seem to bother the planners since if everything runs perfectly the planet can feed all that, but if everything doesn’t go according to plan then maybe going on seven billion is a problem. Especially since the major productive farms are mechanized (oil).
3
posted on
04/06/2008 5:10:49 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Clam down! avoid ataque de nervosa)
To: SmithL
Of course the greenies at the SF Chron couldn’t get themselves to mention their pet project ethanol as contributing to the price increase.
Also the selfishness of the left is exhibited in full splendor by them resenting the fact that people that used to starve in China and India are actually making enough money nowdays to afford what we’ve been eating, and that grates them the wrong way because their prices at Whole Food are going up!!!
4
posted on
04/06/2008 5:14:20 PM PDT
by
aquila48
To: AZLiberty; xcamel; steelyourfaith; neverdem
That's funny: Don't higher energy prices, less CO2, more taxes, more government waste, more government interference in the market mean more food for more people?
5
posted on
04/06/2008 5:20:40 PM PDT
by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: SmithL
We are giant net food exporters. We benefit from higher food prices worldwide, as much as Arab countries benefit from higher oil prices. They aren't nearly high enough yet. When the Saudis are inventing new ways to raise sheep in the desert, with more breathless concern than we expend on oil substitutes, they will be within spitting distance. Right now they have to rise oh, another 10 fold I'd say, just to make things remotely even.
6
posted on
04/06/2008 5:30:16 PM PDT
by
JasonC
To: RightWhale
Wrong, more productive population produces the wealth that feeds itself. World population has risen enourmously over 2 centuries and real prices have fallen, and real wealth per capita risen, by equally enourmous amounts in direct consequence. Malthus was wrong the minute he put pen to paper and he has been more resoundingly wrong every decade since. Population is not the problem, other men are not our enemies, but our collaborators in the whole process of production.
7
posted on
04/06/2008 5:32:29 PM PDT
by
JasonC
To: JasonC
We are a net exporter of food on a calorie basis, not dollar basis. In fact, couple of years ago our imports of food began exceeding our exports. (This involved a shift to importing high labor cost processed food products).
Now that the price of wheat and other basic commodities is skyrocketing, we will probably regain our status as a net exporter (in terms of dollars).
8
posted on
04/06/2008 5:53:36 PM PDT
by
muawiyah
To: Robert A. Cook, PE; Delacon; TenthAmendmentChampion; Horusra; CygnusXI; Fiddlstix; ...
Perverse it is.
Global Warming Scam News & Views
|
To: aquila48
The Ethanol Boondoggle should be a major campaign issue. We’ve been bamboozled into a catastrophic national (and global) policy by Big Corn, and Iowa’s agriculture lobby is going to be the next target for the enmity of ratepayers, replacing the Texas oil barons. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO STARVE FOR THE SAKE OF THIS LIBERAL FEELGOOD CRAP, AND THEY WON’T CARE, THEY WON’T KNOW, AND THEY WON’T DO ANYTHING. Reminds me of Walter Duranty’s blood-stained Pulitzer Prize.
10
posted on
04/06/2008 6:50:20 PM PDT
by
Humble Servant
( Keep it simple - do what's right.)
To: SmithL
There’s a rumor fast spreading that Werner Trucking has filed for bankruptcy due to the rising cost of diesel fuel. Apparently this is NOT true.
To: Humble Servant
I agree... It’s like the MTBE fiasco, but with much more severe consequences.
12
posted on
04/06/2008 7:40:14 PM PDT
by
aquila48
To: muawiyah
The only reason it is even a question is we are sweethearts and patsies. If we drove bargains half as hard as the oil producers, instead of giving away food free to anyone who really needs it, then the world would pay for all our imports and to spare, or it would flat out starve.
13
posted on
04/06/2008 8:04:41 PM PDT
by
JasonC
To: SmithL
Do these people have no clue that they made this bed when they started pushing ethanol? That once the government subsidized growing corn for fuel, farmers would flock to that and the price of everything else (including wheat for pasta) would skyrocket?
What did the envirowackos think was going to happen? Corn would magically appear to be made into ethanol and it would have NO effect on the world’s food supply or world’s food prices?
Put another one in the “Law of Unintended Consequences” file.
Duh.
14
posted on
04/06/2008 8:13:29 PM PDT
by
fightinJAG
(RUSH: McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton longer than we've been in Iraq, and never gave up.)
To: fightinJAG
There is no corn subsidy to farmers and farmers have
increased output to supply the extra for ethanol.
Price supports stopped at less than half of present price.
There is no shortage just prices deiven up by
speculators. The money speculating in farm crops has
went up 20 times in last 8 years.They are trating it like
all other financial dealings, driving up the price.Ed
15
posted on
04/06/2008 11:13:30 PM PDT
by
hubel458
To: SmithL
I’ll trade ‘em a loaf of bread for two barrels of oil.
16
posted on
04/06/2008 11:16:38 PM PDT
by
VeniVidiVici
(Benedict Arnold, the Rosenbergs and Joe Kennedy were all against the Terrorist Surveillance Program)
To: SmithL
Food prices are going up across the board here in Japan as well. Between 7 and 10 percent in most cases, some higher.
There’s a lot of grumbling about it.
17
posted on
04/06/2008 11:49:18 PM PDT
by
Ronin
(Bushed out!!! Another tragic victim of BDS.)
To: JasonC
The classical demand/supply curve is incorrect and obviously does not apply to much of anything except sleeping Econ101 students. The econ plane flies true when it is properly trimmed and the balance point is slightly ahead of the aerodynamic pressure center point. Too far ahead and the plane cannot maneuver; behind and the plane will be uncontrollable.
18
posted on
04/07/2008 7:42:40 AM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Clam down! avoid ataque de nervosa)
To: RightWhale
My families weekly grocery bill has gone from about $110 to $140 since december, same food choices...
Some of this also has to b e the result of the FED and go vernment printing all that nice new money to throw at the economy.
To: Jim Verdolini
A Bushel of Grain for a Barrel of Oil!
20
posted on
04/07/2008 8:30:11 AM PDT
by
CholeraJoe
("Gonna make those posts that offend the senses, gonna pop my Geritol from a Pez dispenser.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson