On May 2, George W. Bush explained that the current spike in food prices worldwide is primarily a consequence of rising demand from China and India: “when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food, and so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up.” The quote was widely seen in the English-language Indian media as “blaming” Chindia for the problem, and was met with outrage.
Some of that outrage is collected in a recent IHT article on the President’s controversial statement. Some of the best, most snarky comments are by Pradeep Mehta, who works for a private economic research organization in India:
The food problem has “clearly” been created by Americans, who are eating 50 percent more calories than the average person in India, said Pradeep Mehta, the secretary general of CUTS Center for International Trade, Economics and Environment, a private economic research organization based in India with offices in Kenya, Zambia, Vietnam and Britain.
If Americans were to slim down to even the middle-class weight in India, “many hungry people in sub-Saharan Africa would find food on their plates,” Mehta said. The money Americans spend on liposuction to get rid of their excess fat could be funneled to famine victims instead, he added. (link)
And somewhat more measured comments, along with some more statistics on caloric consumption, are here:
Americans eat an average of 3,770 calories per capita a day, the highest amount in the world, according to data from the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, compared to 2,440 calories in India. They are also the largest per capita consumers in any major economy of beef, the most energy-intensive common food source, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The United States and Canada top the world in oil consumption per person, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
“George Bush has never been known for his knowledge of economics,” Jairam Ramesh, the minister of state for commerce, told The Press Trust of India after Bush’s remarks, which he said proved again how “comprehensively wrong” Bush is.
“To say that demand for food in India is causing increase in global food prices is completely wrong,” Ramesh said.
Politicians and academics in India cite various other reasons: diversion of arable land in the United States and Europe into ethanol production; trade subsidies by the United States and Europe; and the dollar’s decline. (link)
Those latter factors (ethanol production, trade subsidies, dollar’s decline) have also been cited by a number of economists in the west. Still, the President and Condoleezza Rice (who made a similar statement a couple of weeks ago) are presumably right when they say that there has been a rise in global demand, though I have a strong feeling that that demand started to rise more than a decade ago. It’s those other factors that, as I understand it, have really converged this year to drive up prices. (Does anyone really know? Is this an economics problem that can be solved?)
Consumption-wise, I admittedly look like an ordinary American: my own caloric intake is probably closer to 3000 than 2000 (though I’ve admittedly never been able to count it out… how many calories in roti? rajma-chaval? chicken biryani?). Still, on this issue, I can’t help but see things from the Indian point of view: “Why do Americans think they deserve to eat more than Indians?”
May be this can lead to a direct conclusion that Americans listen to their Moms better than Indians when they say … “Don’t let that food go to waste. There are starving kids in ________”
Actually I don’t understand one aspect of the crisis. The food habits of Americans (non-desi food) is totally different from Indians. I wonder how much of what America consumes here is prepared from rice, cereals etc. imported from India and China. If diet of American is not made from stuff abroad then main contributing factor to price increase has to be factors like land diversion for biofuels, transportation costs due to gasoline price increase ( which definitely has Indian and Chinese hand ). A way in which Bush could be right is that weakening dollars has led to a surge in exports across many industries. Now coupled with the fact the American agriculture is one of the most heavily subsidized industry, maybe the American grains and cereals are dirt cheap in the world markets and are being bought by Indians and Chinese ? But does India buy any food ( not definitely corn ?) from America.
Anyways a recent news article on ways to fix the problem – 8 Ways to Fix the Global Food Crisis
Amardeep,
if you have an hour to kill (or less, there are smaller segments of the discussion) there’s a very good discussion of food supply/aid/production issues on bloggingheads.tv between Raj Patel (lefty economist) and Megan McArdle (center-right libertarian econoblogger).
Where in Bush’s comments does he suggest that Americans deserve to eat more than Indians? Beyond that, Americans have been eating at the current pace well before the current food crisis. So, the current high price of food is not related to Americans’ eating habits.
Ajay Shah on Global Food Prices
As stupid as Dubya is, I think the rising standard of living in China and India has got to play some oblique part. Here are some possible India related factors: 1) Back in the days when India had no foreign currency reserves–around 1990 it was close to 0– it was selling rice at below cost. 2) Only a small portion of Indian rice was exported then or is now. Rice is thinly traded in the world’s markets and is more susceptible to big price swings.
I think that the question of whether or not Americans think they deserve to eat more than Indians (or any other foreign country) isn’t a concious or blatant racial superiority issue, but a reflection of the mindset brought about by an economically prosperous history. America, while experiencing its own bouts with famine, has generally been advantaged enough to be able to provide food for its citizens. I think that what comes off as “blaming” these countries is really a reaction to the strain imposed upon that assumed lifestyle. People attempt to provide a reason for the situation and (inadvertently?) come off as superior. Maybe Americans at large aren’t familiar with the food situation in China and India and assume that people there are living as we are here.
I would agree that based on reading these comments, I feel people are way over reacting to his comments. He did not say anything to the effect that people in India and China need to reduce consumption. However, such issues are usually sensitive and this is being looked upon as another ‘western politicians’ for blaming developing countries for problems arising because those countries are now doing better. This comment by itself would not have evoked such a strong reaction IMHO, but it comes close at the heels of comments in recent times related to global warming and greenhouse gases where the view that historical pollution and per capita pollution should be taken into consideration brings western diplomats at odds with Indian and Chinese ones. And then there is the issue of agricultural subsidies and western hypocrisy related to that which also irks people, all of which has culminated into this over reaction.
Of course, related to this issue, some estimates say that about 40% of the food consumed in the US is actually plain wasted. 40% of a 3000 calorie diet will bring Americans close to other countries and this wastage should be reduced. The good thing about rising food prices is that since it is a supply side inflation issue, it will help reduce excessive consumption and particularly wastage. However, unfortunately with food (unlike gas), it being a necessity means that the poorest will go hungry which is not how it should be.
A more interesting comparison would be the caloric intake of middle/upper class Indians and Americans. My guess is that it would be the same.
Bush always plays to his base. If any of you have read analysis about Bush, he always makes statements that suite well for conservatives (probably except the backing of the McCain-Feingold immigration issue of last year). Plus, he knows the subsidizes in Iowa deal with the rising food prices (plus the Fed’s low interest rates). He wants to shift the blame to others, which makes sense politically. Well, it technically is true that Indians and Chinese people are consuming more, the root of the problem is with the lack of foreign farm competition (meaning the subsizies are raising the food prices, which inhibits a decrease in food prices around the world). Not to mention India prohibits future markets for food commodities, which is crazy as well.
Another factor in rising food costs is fuel….and another aspect of the rising fuel costs….that is almost NEVER discussed……is the fact that a great many American “investors” are doing their part to drive the price of gas up by treating it like a commodity….much like Gold is traded….this was not so much a factor before the Bush administration took office….some think more than half the risingf fuel cost problem is due to “investors,” most of which have enough goddamned money already…..
My guess is that most Americans now know that they should be eating more like Indians (more vegetarian, less calories etc), but just can’t help themselves.
As for Bush’s comment – it just shows how out of touch he can be. Supply side inflation and instability has so much more to do with food prices this year, than any demand spike. This link shows commodity prices since Jan 1. Some food prices have spiked 30% in four months. Those Chindians are not just eating, they must be purging too! Those gluttons!
This kind of conflicts ( who is blame, who has to pay and who ahs to sacrifice ) will become more and more common on many fronts as the rest of the world rises. Look at global warming and other environmental issues, food crisis, CTBT/NPT and in general arms control etc. to mention a few.
11 · Vedauwoo said
Actually, India & China are consuming more oil than ever before (I mean look at their populations), and oil is a finite good. Food isn’t finite; the problem is protectionism to aid the farmers in the U.S. Low interest rates, the weak dollar, invading Iraq, and Indian & China are the reasons why oil cost is high.
“I wonder how much of what America consumes here is prepared from rice, cereals etc. imported from India and China” Amazingly, Japan imported rice from the US–not sure if that’s true right now, but it was during the 70s & 80s. The US was the major grain exporter until recent years. This food crisis, at least in western countries, is contrived. Until recent years there was a food surplus in this country. They were paying farmers not grow or milk or feed. Then they sort of paid them to go out of business so the corps. could take over and make a big conglomerate out of food production They who control the seeds, control the world. But yeah, of course if each overweight American sent at least one cheeseburger a day to Africa, one packet of fries to India, and several Mars bars to Burma, the problem would be solved.
part to drive the price of gas up by treating it like a commodity.
Oil, natural gas, and coal has always been treated, traded, and priced as a commodity. Also, is historically known for it’s fluctuations.
Please read Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power
Everybody and their mother is being blamed for high food prices, except the party that’s largely responsible: Environmentalists and the Global Warming brigade. Because of them, America was forced into the ethanol scam, thus diverting scarce resource usage to produce “environment friendly” ethanol.
The poor and hungry should step away from the offices of futures traders and take their pitchforks to the doorsteps of environmentalists (who are suddenly verrry silent) and demand their pound of flesh.
M. Nam
All he is saying is increasing demand, well, is increasing demand.
Why on earth is Indian officialdom so touchy about everything? Chip on shoulder, much? Yes, ethanol policies are ridiculous, but, there is lots of ridiculousness to go around. Bad governance is quite common.
Well, meat intensive diets aren’t particularly good for the foodgrains crisis. Beef requires large amounts of grazing ground which means its land not being used for foodgrain production, A vegetarian diet also means that less energy is lost in the transfer of calorific value.
And, where on earth did you get the idea that Americans think they deserve to eat more than the rest of the world? Aren’t we a major food exporter? Big bad Americans – we run a successful country and it’s our problem other governments can’t do much for their own people?
*If I were a politician abroad I would love the Americans. They would be my excuse for, well, every failing of my own.
**No, I’m not saying we never make mistakes. I’m saying the rhetoric is ridiculous.
if each overweight American sent at least one cheeseburger a day to Africa, one packet of fries to India, and several Mars bars to Burma, the problem would be solved.
Yeah, the burgers, frites, candy aid recipients would all be dead. Problem solved 😉
18 · MD said
I remember reading about Big Brother last year in London (with Shilpa Shetty on it), and this Irish lady said a thing that could be considered offensive (Ms. Poppa Dom). There was an outcry in India (even from the politicians). NRI’s face a lot of racism compared to people in India. What she said wasn’t the worst thing…same with what Bush said.
20 · MD said
Bush’s statement was political rhetoric and Indian politicians are responding with the same. Now people are dissecting the logical, scientific and economic validity which gave rise to the rhetoric in the first place.
MD,
The successful country is looking to blame the problems on other people, with decades of driving gas guzzling cars and excessive consumption the shoe is on the other foot and the successful country is acting high and mighty, with the current president blaming Chindia for the food problem and the Republican nominee wanting to control India and China’s energy consumption. The world is happier if the successful country remains successful and the rest of world stays in misery
Oh, I guess I should clarify – I don’t much care for our lot of American politicians, pundits, and assorted flunkies these days. Servants of the people? Eh, not so much.
I think we shouldn’t allow government officials and bureaucrats to manipulate us so much. We let these silly instances get in the way of true reforms. It’s irritating.
Some of you need to look up the difference between blame and explain. It’s right there in the dictionary.
I’m not saying it was a good explanation, but an explanation is not the same as blaming. Like I said, touchy touchy!
*When India is the new hegemon, 50 to 100 years from now, it will all be chest-thumping about how you lot earned your success all on your own. You’ll be just the same, trust me 🙂
MD,
Thanks for looking up the dictionary and our future. The distinction between Blame and Explain is entirely your own and not your hon. presidents’
*When India is the new hegemon, 50 to 100 years from now, it will all be chest-thumping about how you lot earned your success all on your own. You’ll be just the same, trust me 🙂
MD Mausi,
How was Fallujah as a medic? You seem all fired up.
It is very understandable a countries that for long struggled (and still does) with food and poverty, would get touchy, if told that the main explanation for food prices upswing were them.
Is that so difficult to understand?
Amardeep:
Shouldn’t it be kerfuffle?
25 · MD said
But you reading this blog 🙂
You are a rude person, Kush Tandon.
And you, in particular and your chickenhawk insults, are the reason I stopped reading and writing on this blog for so very long.
So, since you are back, I am gone now again.
Bye all 🙂
Ok, I lied.
After this link, I’ll go.
Here’s what a bunch of people who have served think about the chickenhawk label. It’s all over the place, naturally.
http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2008/04/chickenhawk-argument-revisited.html
Okay, really good bye!
20 · MD said
You forgot to mention the huge subsidies the US provides to its farmers and major agri-businesses to make US produce competitive in international markets and drive third world farmers out of business. [Or the the exploitative practices of American agri-business abroad (seeds and Monsanto; although, admittedly there is little the US Govt can do to prevent this).]
Funny how conveniently principles of free trade are forgotten when it comes to agriculture and then the amnesia wears away when US diplomats negotiate WTO provisions on behalf of the pharma industry. Not to mention the selective recall of the democratic principle of equality. The world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases refuses to sign the Kyoto Protocol — because India and China won’t. If every individual in the world counts for one and is treated equally, then per capita emissions should be the metric for green house gases allowance per country. In that case, India and China can justifiably emit more than the US (which they don’t — per capita emission, resource consumption, and waste generation is several times lower) simply because they have more people.
We might be used to gaffes from our president as a matter of routine. No reason why the rest of the world shouldn’t call him out on his rather peculiar rendering of facts and tolerate his fudging (no mention of ethanol? bad weather because of global warming?). After all, they didn’t make the mistake of electing him in the first place.
And you, in particular and your chickenhawk insults, are the reason I stopped reading and writing on this blog for so very long.
Who would have thought that a poor dehati like Kush Tandom from village Sukanda could scare a battle hardened, gizillion military blogs reading warrior like MD!
The 2400 calorie/per desi figure doesn’t seem right at all given the amount of malnourished Indians. Or if it is the top 20% is eating over 4,000/day. I have seen the number of UKG students per rickshaw decrease from 10 in 1985 to to 2 in 2008. Upper middle class Indian kids wouldn’t have anything to fear sitting on a seesaw with little Johnny from Cleveland.
Why do people persist in portraying INDIA as starving, when its clearly a problem exclusive to sub-Saharan Africa?
fat city# 15 said They who control the seeds, control the world.
I’ve read several Op-Ed’s and other stuff on how the EU and America’s “left” have contributed to problems in food production ,by its resistance to GMO crops etc, which hurts underdeveloped countries;which sounds plausible at points. I’ve just finished the Vanity Fair piece on Monsanto, and I have to suspect if they can push American farmers around with such impunity that a poor farmer in
the developing worldAfrica would have no hope.link
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “what’s this got to do with the price of tea in China?”
9 · ata said
no — just the consumption of animal and dairy products in america would tip the scale heavier on their side. food in india (in terms of PPP) is more expensive (especially calorie dense processed food which is still expensive in india). you would spend a greater percentage of an equivalent salary on food in india than in america.
however, if you compared physical activity of upper middle class indian and american women who stay at home and are not employed in the paid jobs, i suspect that will be similar.
MD, I wondered where you had gone. Come back. Contribute. I like reading your posts.
Some of the rise in prices of commodities, grains included, must be attributed to the drop in the USD. With a negative rate of return (after factoring inflation), I suspect that large investors are in euros, oil, precious metals and now commodities like grains. I did not hear Indian politicians complain when rise in oil was attributed to Chindia. At that time it probably played well with the Indian psyche due to oil’s connection growth, industrialization and mobility.
Dilettante:
It might be an issue of semantics, but that large numbers of Indians are malnourished to the point of negatively impacting full growth potential and cognitive ability is not a misconception. I do agree that starvation leading to death in the near term is not as prevalent, but certainly India suffers from diminished potential due to caloric deficit at a level that does not exist anywhere else outside of sub-Saharan Africa.
Oh, why do I bother to pretend I won’t come back to a thread? I’m really a fool to pretend that I’m not interested in what people have to say. It’s like I’m an 18 year old in a chat room
First, I was responding to the silly rhetoric. I’m not talking about the substantive disagreements on trade and trade policy. I’m against the farm subsidies and I’m from Iowa, okay? It’s the article and the quotes that got me thinking. They are over the top. They really are.
Second,I started reading milblogs, not because I am some kind of chest thumping warmonger, but because I was genuinely curious about their experiences. Also, I felt guilty. My illness precludes me from serving and the least I could do is read and learn as much as I possibly can. There.
Third, if I feel any shame, it’s not because I had a political belief that differed from those on this blog, but that I was too light-hearted and playful in comments about things that are to be taken seriously.
Fourth, In that vein, the chickenhawk insult is just the other side of the coin. It’s no different in tone than the warmongery milbloggers, because it’s just snark. Those who use the term often haven’t served themselves, and of those, there are people who supported the interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc. And yet, they don’t serve. Are they not also chickenhawks? I’ll accept the term from someone in the military, but not another civilian blogger.
Fifth, I’m not scared off by anyone. Why should this comment section be polluted by a back and forth between two people who don’t like each other? It’s disrespectful to everyone here.
Okay, who knows if I’ll be back. I obviously have a blogging problem and addiction 🙂
Ughh, no matter who ends up being the next president, I am certain (and grateful) we won’t have to deal with these tactless cringe-inducers anymore.
There are too many koenigseggs on the road.
If every individual in the world counts for one and is treated equally, then per capita emissions should be the metric for green house gases allowance per country.
I would prefer this to be: If every individual and cattle in the world counts for one and is treated equally, then per capita emissions should be the metric for green house gases allowance per country.
However, in all fairness, it should be: The GDP ratio of a country with respect to the total world GDP should be the metric for green house gases allowance per country.
When John McCain is elected President, the subsidies will disappear, and thus, food will be a little cheaper. Once the dollar appreciates, food will be even cheaper.
Why should basic principles of democracy get thrown out the window when it comes to the world order (except for the obvious reason that it favors the wealthy and powerful)? Although I guess we have that same logic for the crimes that the rich and the famous can get away with in our criminal system, so it is a logical extension.
This is key. Bush and Condi’s statements about the ravaging hordes of Chindians are just a logical extension of their way of thinking about pollution and how much they think the US is entitled to spit gases, based on this bogus calculation on a country basis with no accounting of population. Or the fact that a large fraction of Chinese pollution is, at least, outsourced from the US.
And more directly on topic: Last I knew, India and China have been growing for a tad longer than since last year. Maybe, just maybe, the massive weather fluctuations and the claiming of farm land for ethanol have led to a supply crunch. But what do I know? I don’t control the free world.
43 · amaun said
really? in that case, since women not doing any wage labor should have zero emissions rate because technically their contribution to the GDP is zilch, nada. But that is no problem because everyone knows well-bred ladies don’t fart or burp.
really now, proportional GDP contribution?
so if you’re rich, you can consume all the energy you like because you contribute more to the world GDP? what about structural factors which do not allow poor people to contribute to the GDP as much as they like? because bill gates makes so much contribution to US GDP, he/microsoft should be allowed to pollute more than other individuals/industries? your metric will encourage countries with big GDPs to give up efforts to curb emissions. given their high GDPs, they will be allowed to emit more. consequently, they will acquire an even bigger competitive advantage because they won’t have to bear costs associated with lowering emissions. as a result their GDPs will grow even larger, increasing the amount they are allowed to emit. what a
virtuous, er, vicious cycle.and given that GDP of big countries is going to large (multiply a small number even by a billion or 2, it looks big) your metric will favor india and china over countries with lower fertility rates. it will also favor resource rich nations because they will tend to have higher GDPs because of their natural endowments such as minerals or oil (eg the saudi arabia, south africa). the fortunate made even more fortunate, thanks to asinine policy.
you should get in touch with cheney’s people. you guys will see eye to eye on this one (see point #1, the section in bold font).
44 · Rahul S said
Subsidies make food cheaper for the consumer. Remember, subsidies subsidize. It’s easy.
In fact, this is the kind of cycle that was induced by carbon caps based on current usage. Of course, “current usage” was high for big polluters already, and additionally, it was calibrated in a way that encouraged people to rapidly increase their emissions so that they would get higher caps.
I have actually wondered about some environmentalists who smoke and are fatasses, yet will judge anyone with an SUV. I am overweight too and I feel like I need to clean up my own house first because I am part of the problem. I eat a lot of meat and will not make any apologies for it. However, for my own health, and for the environment, and for my tiny role in global food supply, I need to lose weight and eat moderately. There are just too many benefits from a personal and community perspective in doing so. Not just that, but it will also play a part in reducing healthcare costs.
Just to highlight something that was mentioned above since people are talking calorific values which I think does not paint a full picture. Americans have a much more higher percentage of meat in their diet than Indians and the equivalent amount of grains would be much higher per capita. Thus just considering pure calories is not a good approach.
Moornam – ethanol has played some part but it’s not as substantial as you seem to suggest. For that matter rising oil prices (which influence both cost of production and transportation), droughts in places like Australia for a few years, and a messed up trading system in agriculture are all to blame to small extents. Speculative hoarding has also been cited by some economists but some recent articles show that reserves are going down and thus hoarding at least in the open market is not happening. The major reason for food price hike is that reserves have been diminishing for a few year because demand has gone up while supply has not. Now that the reserves are getting over, we are seeing a sudden spike as the world wakes up to a shortage.