Dire Implications of Rising Food Prices

Every housewife knows that the food prices have been increasing much more than general inflation rates over last few years. The reason is not hard to fathom. Not only is the number of mouths in the world increasing by about eighty millions annually, growth in the economies of developing country is improving consumption among the erstwhile poor people there. The increase in demand for basic food items is outstripping the growth in production both locally and worldwide and forcing the prices up.

It has been argued that higher prices enable the farmers to produce more because they can afford better seeds and fertilizers. Whether higher production is sufficient to offset the increased demand is open to debate. In any event, this is beside the point since for the vast numbers who barely ate enough to get by before inflation there is no tomorrow; they face the unpleasant consequences of high prices today. This is why the issue needs urgent consideration.

In North America and Europe, food is a small part of overall budget for an average family. Inflation in food price has to be really large before the family members need to reduce their food intake. In most cases, before that point is reached, they have the option of cheaper, and often healthier, substitutes. In dire emergencies, the governments have the resources to help the poor get along supplemented by the generosity of prosperous members of the population via organizations like food banks. In a developing country the situation is the exact opposite, food comprises up to ninety percent of a family’s budget. There is no option of cheaper food – they already eat the cheapest available. Millions of people go hungry today who had enough a year ago. The governments and the prosperous elements of the society feel overwhelmed by the size of the problem of poverty and do precious little to solve it.

Despite a decade of almost double digit economic growth in some developing countries the number of poor and the scale of poverty did not drop in most places. This is because even though some of the poor have risen to a higher income level, it has not happened on large enough scale to offset the growth in the number of poor people. While the family planning programs have been a big success among the educated and middle and upper class families, particularly in India, they have not had a significant impact among the poor and the illiterate. Religious considerations have also held many people back. To make the situation worse, the employment rate among the uneducated masses has not improved much and the wages of the poor have fallen behind the inflation rate. This has led to a desperate situation and the consequences are frightening.

The unaffordable high prices of necessities of life are said to be at the root of mass uprisings in Tunisia, Jordan and Egypt. The disorders of this magnitude and the consequent social upheaval are likely to spread. Consequences of these occurring in countries with large population like India and even China in spite of its firm autocratic regime are scary. High average economic growth that does not filter down to the vast majority of deprived populace is a recipe for disaster. Ostentatious life style of the rich and desperate circumstances in the slums surrounding the million dollar condo towers is an explosive mix. Unfortunately, we don’t have time for patchwork solutions and baby steps. Only way to avoid the conflagration is to drastically lower the prices of basic food items in the short term by subsidizing them and, in the long term, help the poor by instituting social welfare programs accessible to needy citizens in the developing countries. Most countries don’t have the financial and administrative ability to provide any meaningful assistance to their poor. Does the West have the resources to help them adequately? Even if the answer is positive, it means sacrifices and there is no evidence that the rich of the developed and developing world have the will to make them.


Comment:

A police officer in Toronto told a seminar on public security that how girls dress could trigger a sexual assault. He was condemned for his comments and made to submit a written apology. In my humble opinion, this is another instance of political correctness taken too far. No one will deny that humans wear clothes to send signals. There are times the ‘come hither’ looks and/or clothes are very strong and even an average man may have to call on inner reserve to fight the natural urge. It so happens that some men don’t have much reserve and in some circumstances give in to the temptation. I am not saying that these men are justified and should not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Neither am I saying that the clothes or the looks have anything to do in many, even most, cases of assault. What I am saying, and the officer was saying, is simply this: When a woman dresses provocatively to challenge men’s restraint system, there will be occasions when the challenge is accepted and events take an ugly turn. It is not “she got what she was asking for.” It is just that dressing sensibly reduces the probability of trouble. The comparison might look silly but I will make it anyway. If you carry a twenty dollar bill in a crowded street held loosely between two fingers of your hand, you are very likely to have it pulled away.