You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Time Magazine, hopefully: How Hunger Could Topple Regimes
2008-04-15
Excerpt:
For a mass outpouring of rage spurred by hunger to translate into a credible challenge to an established order requires an organized political leadership ready to harness that anger against the state. It may not be all that surprising, then, that Haiti has been one of the major flashpoints of the new wave of hunger-generated political crises; the outpouring of rage there has been channeled into preexisting furrows of political discontent. And that's why there may be greater reason for concern in Egypt, where the bread crisis comes on top of a mounting challenge to the regime's legitimacy by a range of opposition groups.
I'm trying pretty hard, but I can't think of a regime that's been overthrown by famine. Lack of bread was a factor in the French revolution, but not the driving factor.
How 'bout B'rack Obamer's Amerikkka?
The social theories of Karl Marx were long ago discarded as of little value, even to revolutionaries. But he did warn that capitalism had a tendency to generate its own crises.
There were no crises under Third International Socialism. Ask any kulak. National Socialism was pretty placid, with no crises with the exception of Dresden and Hamburg and a few other incidents like that.
Indeed, the spread of capitalism, and its accelerated industrialization and wealth-creation, may have fomented the food-inflation crisis - by dramatically accelerating competition for scarce resources.
Famine is pretty rare in capitalist countries, though fairly common in the anti-capitalist world.
The rapid industrialization of China and India over the past two decades - and the resultant growth of a new middle class fast approaching the size of America's - has driven demand for oil toward the limits of global supply capacity. That has pushed oil prices to levels five times what they were in the mid 1990s, which has also raised pressure on food prices by driving up agricultural costs and by prompting the substitution of biofuel crops for edible ones on scarce farmland. Moreover, those new middle class people are eating a lot better than their parents did - particularly more meat. Producing a single calorie of beef can, by some estimates, require eight or more calories of grain feed, and expanded meat consumption therefore has a multiplier effect on demand for grains. Throw in climate disasters such as the Australian drought and recent rice crop failures, and you have food inflation spiraling so fast that even the U.N. agency created to feed people in emergencies is warning that it lacks the funds to fulfill its mandate.

The reason officials such as Zoellick are sounding the alarm may be that the food crisis, and its attendant political risks, are not likely to be resolved or contained by the laissez-faire operation of capitalism's market forces. Government intervention on behalf of the poor - so out of fashion during globalization's roaring '90s and the current decade - may be about to make a comeback.
Posted by:gorb & Seafarious

#7  PJ O'Rourke puts forth a solid case for the fact that every major famine in the 20th century was caused intentionally by government to starve out an ethnic group so it seems hard to imagine famine causing regimes to topple.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-04-15 15:13  

#6  Out: Global Warming
In: Global Starving
Posted by: tu3031   2008-04-15 11:32  

#5  Does morbid obesity also trigger revolutions?
Posted by: Excalibur   2008-04-15 10:22  

#4  But he did warn that capitalism had a tendency to generate its own crises.

Ah, yes. The "discarded social theories" of Marx, but they still had to include this bit of opinion, eh? How does capitalism explain the full-on collapse of Africa's *former* "bread basket" (ZimBOBwe)? I'd say socialist/communist regimes have done WAY less than Capitalists to "feed their populace," and then you throw in some good old-fashioned luck (e.g. weather and soils), and silly government "programs" (e.g. turning corn into ethanol), and it's a recipe for disaster.

It comes down to this....if you can't *afford* to feed your own populace now, where do you think you'll be in 20-30 years when the Chinese and Indians' economies *really* start clicking. IOW, if you're already dependent on foreign nations to feed you, and those nations aren't exactly on the *up and up*, then you'll be cut off at the knees. That's one reason we HAVE to keep farming/food supply here in the U.S. for our own populace.
Posted by: BA   2008-04-15 08:57  

#3  Don't forget cheap oil derived fertilizer.
Posted by: phil_b   2008-04-15 08:10  

#2  That's too bad---but, usually, People get exactly the kind of government they deserve.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-04-15 08:05  

#1  It was capitalist farmers, agri-businesses, and ag-schools working together that created the farming boom that this country and the rest of the West experienced in the 20th century. Some of the crops like rice where developed through statist programs in India and the like, but the great booms in agriculture have happened because people found a way to grow and sell a lot more of certain products. And every country that has loosened state controls on agriculture {like Red China} has experience a huge increase in their agricultural production in just a few years.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2008-04-15 04:23  

00:00