Capital Contradiction:Vegan shoppers ruin food security in global south

«‹›2 »

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Capital Contradiction:Vegan shoppers ruin food security in global south

Fire: Aug 26, 2002; As for myself I am a 28 year old special ed teacher from Jacksonville. Ironically, I myself also have asperger's syndrome. I'm a gamer, both video games and also tabletop role-playing games. I have an interest in science fiction, fantasy, and horror.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...le-truth-quinoa

quote:

Not long ago, quinoa was just an obscure Peruvian grain you could only buy in wholefood shops. We struggled to pronounce it (it's keen-wa, not qui-no-a), yet it was feted by food lovers as a novel addition to the familiar ranks of couscous and rice. Dieticians clucked over quinoa approvingly because it ticked the low-fat box and fitted in with government healthy eating advice to "base your meals on starchy foods".

Adventurous eaters liked its slightly bitter taste and the little white curls that formed around the grains. Vegans embraced quinoa as a credibly nutritious substitute for meat. Unusual among grains, quinoa has a high protein content (between 14%-18%), and it contains all those pesky, yet essential, amino acids needed for good health that can prove so elusive to vegetarians who prefer not to pop food supplements.

Sales took off. Quinoa was, in marketing speak, the "miracle grain of the Andes", a healthy, right-on, ethical addition to the meat avoider's larder (no dead animals, just a crop that doesn't feel pain). Consequently, the price shot up – it has tripled since 2006 – with more rarified black, red and "royal" types commanding particularly handsome premiums.

But there is an unpalatable truth to face for those of us with a bag of quinoa in the larder. The appetite of countries such as ours for this grainhas pushed up prices to such an extent that poorer people in Peru and Bolivia, for whom it was once a nourishing staple food, can no longer afford to eat it. Imported junk food is cheaper. In Lima, quinoa now costs more than chicken. Outside the cities, and fuelled by overseas demand, the pressure is on to turn land that once produced a portfolio of diverse crops into quinoa monoculture.

In fact, the quinoa trade is yet another troubling example of a damaging north-south exchange, with well-intentioned health and ethics-led consumers here unwittingly driving poverty there. It's beginning to look like a cautionary tale of how a focus on exporting premium foods can damage the producer country's food security. Feeding our apparently insatiable 365-day-a-year hunger for this luxury vegetable, Peru has also cornered the world market in asparagus. Result? In the arid Ica region where Peruvian asparagus production is concentrated, this thirsty export vegetable has depleted the water resources on which local people depend. NGOs report that asparagus labourers toil in sub-standard conditions and cannot afford to feed their children while fat cat exporters and foreign supermarkets cream off the profits. That's the pedigree of all those bunches of pricy spears on supermarket shelves.

Soya, a foodstuff beloved of the vegan lobby as an alternative to dairy products, is another problematic import, one that drives environmental destruction [see footnote]. Embarrassingly, for those who portray it as a progressive alternative to planet-destroying meat, soya production is now one of the two main causes of deforestation in South America, along with cattle ranching, where vast expanses of forest and grassland have been felled to make way for huge plantations.

Three years ago, the pioneering Fife Diet, Europe's biggest local food-eating project, sowed an experimental crop of quinoa. It failed, and the experiment has not been repeated. But the attempt at least recognised the need to strengthen our own food security by lessening our reliance on imported foods, and looking first and foremost to what can be grown, or reared, on our doorstep.

In this respect, omnivores have it easy. Britain excels in producing meat and dairy foods for them to enjoy. However, a rummage through the shopping baskets of vegetarians and vegans swiftly clocks up the food miles, a consequence of their higher dependency on products imported from faraway places. From tofu and tamari to carob and chickpeas, the axis of the vegetarian shopping list is heavily skewed to global.

There are promising initiatives: one enterprising Norfolk company, for instance, has just started marketing UK-grown fava beans (the sort used to make falafel) as a protein-rich alternative to meat. But in the case of quinoa, there's a ghastly irony when the Andean peasant's staple grain becomes too expensive at home because it has acquired hero product status among affluent foreigners preoccupied with personal health, animal welfare and reducing their carbon "foodprint". Viewed through a lens of food security, our current enthusiasm for quinoa looks increasingly misplaced.

• This footnote was appended on 17 January 2013. To clarify: while soya is found in a variety of health products, the majority of production - 97% according to the UN report of 2006 - is used for animal feed.

I remember back when I was a wannabe leftist undergrad who was also a vegetarian. (As opposed to now where I am a wannabe leftist with a colege degree,) even then I noticed the problem with other advocates for supposedly responsible consumption. For one, there are far too many of us to even make a dent but even then, we are paying a massive amount more for what is essentially something that is branded as being responsible/fair trade/whatever.

The fact is, all of these problems that veganism, fair trade, whatnot are trying to correct: exploitation, environmental distruction, and even animal cruelty are all of them problems intrensic to capitalism. You cannot buy your way out of them or this sort of poo poo comes up. You are still part of the system that takes as part of its fundamental nature exploitation and the acquisition of more wealth. Buy exotic imported foods from trader joe's or Whole Foods or whatever to feed your vegan diet, the unintended consequence is food insecurity as capitalism takes that food away from the south to trade to all the NPR listening greenie suckers with more money.

That brings me to so called ethical capitalism.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/17/16958...ious-capitalism

John Mackey has been touring the talk show scene to plug his new book where he polishes his halo while being a sort of apologist for capitalism for liberal NPR listeners while also condemning health care.

Naturally he is the perfect subject of an interview by Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danscha...ous-capitalism/

He in many ways is significantly worse than an amoral rand reading bank executive because his liberalism makes people content with the status quo. Look at him "he's a good one! He's a vegan even." What he is is a bullshit merchant. He's just as bad as all the others but because he wears a cloak of green, everyone feels better.

Am I off base with this?

# ? Jan 22, 2013 20:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2013 12:24

az jan jananam: Sep 6, 2011; _{"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there."-Rumi}

It's a bad article that fingerpoints at Western vegans/vegetarians without supplying the necessary evidence that it is vegans/vegetarians who are behind the upsurge in quinoa consumption, and therefore fingers should be pointed to them. I figure it was a typical "controversial" Guardian sharebait article following this more nuanced one they put out a few days ago.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201...livia-peru-crop

quote:

Quinoa brings riches to the Andes

Bolivian and Peruvian farmers sell entire crop to meet rising western demand, sparking fears of malnutrition

A burst of colour on a monochromatic panorama, a field of flowering quinoa plants in the Bolivian desert is a thing of beauty. A plant ready for harvest can stand higher than a human, covered with knotty blossoms, from violet to crimson and ochre-orange to yellow.

Quinua real, or royal quinoa, flourishes in the most hostile conditions, surviving nightly frosts and daytime temperatures upwards of 40C (104F). It is a high-altitude plant, growing at 3,600 metres above sea level and higher, where oxygen is thin, water is scarce and the soil is so saline that virtually nothing else grows.

The tiny seeds of the quinoa plant are the stuff of nutritionists' dreams, sending demand soaring in the developed world. Gram-for-gram, quinoa is one of the planet's most nutritious foodstuffs. Once a sacred crop for some pre-hispanic Andean cultures, it has become a five-star health food for the middle classes in Europe, the US and increasingly China and Japan.

That global demand means less quinoa is being eaten in Bolivia and Peru, the countries of origin, as the price has tripled. There are concerns this could cause malnutrition as producers, who have long relied on the superfood to supplement their meagre diets, would rather sell their entire crop than eat it. The rocketing international price is also creating land disputes.

"Royal quinoa has given hope to people living in Bolivia's most destitute and forgotten region," says Paola Mejia, general manager of Bolivia's Chamber of Quinoa Real and Organic Products Exporters.

Royal quinoa, which only grows in this arid region of southern Bolivia, is to the grain what beluga is to caviar; packed with even more protein, vitamins and minerals than the common variety.

Averaging $3,115 (£1,930) per tonne in 2011, quinoa has tripled in price since 2006. Coloured varieties fetch even more. Red royal quinoa sells at about $4,500 a tonne and the black variety can reach $8,000 per tonne. The crop has become a lifeline for the people of Bolivia's Oruro and Potosi regions, among the poorest in what is one of South America's poorest nations.

It is quinoa's moment on the world stage. This year is the UN's International Year of Quinoa as the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation recognises the crop's resilience, adaptability and its "potential contribution in the fight against hunger and malnutrition".

Evo Morales, the Bolivian leader whose government suggested the special recognition for the grain, said: "For years [quinoa] was looked down on just like the indigenous movement To remember that past is to remember discrimination against quinoa and now after so many years it is reclaiming its rightful recognition as the most important food for life."

However, there are concerns the 5,000 year-old ancestral crop is being eaten less by its traditional consumers: quinoa farmers. "They have westernised their diets because they have more profits and more income," says Mejia, an agronomist. "Ten years ago they had only an Andean diet in front of them. They had no choice. But now they do and they want rice, noodles, candies, coke, they want everything!"

Daysi Munoz, who runs a La Paz-based quinoa farming collective, agrees. "As the price has risen quinoa is consumed less and less in Bolivia. It's worth more to them [the producers] to sell it or trade it for pasta and rice. As a result, they're not eating it any more."

Bitter battles are being fought over prime quinoa-growing land. Last February dozens of people were hurt when farmers fought with slings and sticks of dynamite over what was once abandoned land.

Many people who migrated to cities in search of a better life are now returning to their arid homeland to grow royal quinoa, says Mejia. Most land is communally owned, she adds, so "the government needs to set out the boundaries or there will be more conflicts".

In the village of Lacaya, near Lake Titicaca, the farmers have recently sown quinoa. It grows faster in the wetter conditions but the variety quinua dulce is less sought after than royal quinoa.

Under the perpendicular rays of the intense altiplano sun, Petrona Uriche's face is heavily shadowed by her felt bowler hat. She says in the three years her village has been farming quinoa it has become the biggest earner. "We produce quinoa just for export, it's more profitable," she said. An 11.5kg arroba sack of quinoa can fetch eight times more than it did a few years ago, around $2 a kg, she adds.

But the Bolivian government – which like its neighbour Peru is heavily promoting quinoa nationally to combat malnutrition – insists Bolivians are eating more of the grain. Annual consumption per person has increased fourfold from 0.35kg to 1.11 kg in as many years "in spite of the high international prices", Victor Hugo Vásquez, Bolivia's vice-minister for rural development and agriculture, said.

Previous government figures, however, indicated domestic consumption had dropped by a third in five years.

Judging by the supermarket shelves in Bolivia's de facto capital, La Paz, where quinoa-based products from pizza crusts and hamburgers to canapes and breakfast cereals are displayed, Bolivia's growing middle class appear to be the principal consumers.

Meanwhile in the Peruvian capital, Lima, shoppers at food markets complain quinoa is becoming a luxury product. Selling at around 10 Peruvian soles per kg (£2.44) it costs more than chicken (7.8 soles per kg) and four times as much as rice. Official figures show domestic consumption has dropped.

"Unfortunately in poorer areas they don't have access to products such as quinoa and it's becoming more and more expensive," Peru's vice-minister for agriculture, Juan Rheineck, said at a breakfast for under-fives at the Casa de los Petisos children's home in Lima. The children are fed boiled eggs and quinoa and apple punch, part of a government programme to promote nutritious breakfasts. "That's what we have to avoid, we have to produce better and more," he said.

Peru's government cut chronic malnutrition in under-fives nationally to 16.5% in 2011 but it is still widely prevalent in poorer Andean regions. According to the World Bank, 27.2% of under-fives in Bolivia suffered chronic malnutrition in 2008.

Peru's telegenic first lady, Nadine Heredia, is championing a colourful campaign to promote the Andean diet, of which quinoa is a key element, to combat infant malnutrition. In 2012 Peru banked nearly $35m from quinoa exports, tripling what it earned three years ago. In Bolivia exports tripled to around 23,000 tonnes, contributing some $85m to the country's economy,Vásquez said.

But experts say both countries need to boost production to meet the rising external demand and provide the grain at lower prices for internal consumption. Bolivia, which produces nearly half the global supply, says it has given more than $5m in credits to 70,000 quinoa producers and wants to industrialise production to bring added value rather than just exporting the raw material.

Hydrocarbons and minerals are Bolivia's two key exports, but Mejia believes if the country aggressively promoted quinoa agriculture "in 10 years it could easily surpass the income from gas and minerals".

az jan jananam fucked around with this message at Jan 22, 2013 around 20:13

# ? Jan 22, 2013 20:10

Fire: Aug 26, 2002; As for myself I am a 28 year old special ed teacher from Jacksonville. Ironically, I myself also have asperger's syndrome. I'm a gamer, both video games and also tabletop role-playing games. I have an interest in science fiction, fantasy, and horror.

and that's my point. You can't ask consumers in a capitalist system to help buy their way out of this sort of problem. It isn't really the vegan's fault. The system itself is to blame.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 20:12

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009

Fire posted:

He in many ways is significantly worse than an amoral rand reading bank executive because his liberalism makes people content with the status quo. Look at him "he's a good one! He's a vegan even." What he is is a bullshit merchant. He's just as bad as all the others but because he wears a cloak of green, everyone feels better.

I don't think you've really substantiated this point or developed it fully.

1) "He's just as bad as all the others." Is he really? Is a rise in the price of organic quinoa, or whatever else, really exactly as bad as, for example, large scale factory meat farming, such that switching to quinoa consumption is not a net positive for global society? There's always a tradeoff; there's no such thing as a perfect choice.

2) "Ok, he is exactly that bad. What's the alternative?". Ok, let's take it as a given that this dirty quinoa-eating hippie is in fact exactly as bad as any other capitalist. What's the realistic alternative? "If not capitalism with a human face, then what?" If you have an alternative to propose (Maoist Third Worldism?) is that alternative realistically or even theoretically possible? Is there any realistic way to get from there to here? Can you convincingly argue that that new alternative wouldn't also be "just as bad" as capitalism under the same tests -- i.e., for example, would the necessary worldwide maoist revolution cause so much widespread suffering and death that it, too, would be "just as bad as" liberal capitalism?

Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at Jan 22, 2013 around 20:19

# ? Jan 22, 2013 20:17

az jan jananam: Sep 6, 2011; _{"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there."-Rumi}

There's also the fact that the socialist Bolivian president Evo Morales is a major proponent of exporting quinoa and boosting its international stature, something that was not mentioned in the initial article.

az jan jananam fucked around with this message at Jan 22, 2013 around 20:21

# ? Jan 22, 2013 20:18

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

1) "He's just as bad as all the others." Is he really? Is a rise in the price of organic quinoa, or whatever else, really exactly as bad as, for example, large scale factory meat farming, such that switching to quinoa consumption is not a net positive for global society? There's always a tradeoff; there's no such thing as a perfect choice.

There is a unique harm to people like him that doesn't apply to your average immoral libertarian-type person. Tricking people who are actually concerned with issues like human well-being into feeling that they are "doing their part," when they are, in fact, only perpetuating the system that causes these problems in the first place, is uniquely harmful in that it neuters any potential effort that might be put towards seeking out the unclear better solution that you mention. If an organization like NPR was viewed by liberals in the same way as they view organizations like CNN or FOX, this wouldn't be an issue. But the fact that NPR is viewed as being high quality and uninfluenced by corporate interests is a major problem that is unique to NPR and other organizations that benefit from the same sort of image.

There are options that are almost certainly superior to capitalism. Market socialism, for example, would be an improvement. It wouldn't solve all problems; it's similar enough to capitalism that exploitation would still exist on a large scale (co-ops can exploit other co-ops, after all). But it's that same similarity that removes the uncertainty that would make it impossible to say with confidence that it would be an improvement. We can be about as certain as it is possible to be without actually instituting such a system and waiting decades that removing the existence of private ownership (by non-workers) of means of production would be a plus.

Arguments like yours, however, that consist of "well, what is a better alternative that you can prove to me would be better" are inherently stupid, because it's literally impossible to somehow know the exact long-term results of a major change to a different economic system.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 20:57

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; Whenever I hit "r" in my address bar, Raine Dog comes up. Goddammit.

Fire posted:

and that's my point. You can't ask consumers in a capitalist system to help buy their way out of this sort of problem. It isn't really the vegan's fault. The system itself is to blame.

On the other hand, "ethically" importing food from across the globe should really be re-examined.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 21:25

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009

Ytlaya posted:

Arguments like yours, however, that consist of "well, what is a better alternative that you can prove to me would be better" are inherently stupid, because it's literally impossible to somehow know the exact long-term results of a major change to a different economic system.

I was actually very careful to not ask for proof for exactly that reason. Thanks for putting words in my mouth though! What I actually asked was "can you convincingly argue", not "can you prove."

Ytlaya posted:

There are options that are almost certainly superior to capitalism. Market socialism, for example, would be an improvement. It wouldn't solve all problems; it's similar enough to capitalism that exploitation would still exist on a large scale (co-ops can exploit other co-ops, after all). But it's that same similarity that removes the uncertainty that would make it impossible to say with confidence that it would be an improvement. We can be about as certain as it is possible to be without actually instituting such a system and waiting decades . ..

This is true, but the converse is that the smaller the change and the more definable the gains, the smaller the potential improvements to be made. Ultimately, where this line of argument leads is back to "capitalism with a human face" , social democracy, and incremental change.

The problem you describe with entities like NPR -- "the acceptably good is the enemy of the better" -- is both a problem and benefit of any movement of incremental change. I don't really see a way around it. In almost any conceivable system there are going to be mis-steps and things that sound like good ideas at the time but that turn out to have negative externalities and unintended consequences. At least with an incremental process those risks are minimized.

Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at Jan 22, 2013 around 21:50

# ? Jan 22, 2013 21:39

Tiramisu: Dec 25, 2006; Tuscan Trifle

I'd like to believe that people who listened to the interview with Mackey might realize he probably doesn't care that much about people or conscientious anything when he states there are simply no profits that exist to be used to pay for Obamacare and any costs must lower wages. Or when he declares ACA fascism. But I can certainly see the moral advantages of no salt no oil veganism distracting from that.

Tiramisu fucked around with this message at Jan 22, 2013 around 21:51

# ? Jan 22, 2013 21:48

flatbus: Sep 19, 2012

az jan jananam posted:

quote:
However, there are concerns the 5,000 year-old ancestral crop is being eaten less by its traditional consumers: quinoa farmers. "They have westernised their diets because they have more profits and more income," says Mejia, an agronomist. "Ten years ago they had only an Andean diet in front of them. They had no choice. But now they do and they want rice, noodles, candies, coke, they want everything!"

Daysi Munoz, who runs a La Paz-based quinoa farming collective, agrees. "As the price has risen quinoa is consumed less and less in Bolivia. It's worth more to them [the producers] to sell it or trade it for pasta and rice. As a result, they're not eating it any more."

Fire posted:

quote:
The appetite of countries such as ours for this grainhas pushed up prices to such an extent that poorer people in Peru and Bolivia, for whom it was once a nourishing staple food, can no longer afford to eat it. Imported junk food is cheaper.

Same phenomenon, two different interpretations. I'm not familiar with quinoa or the culture of Andean farmers, so I don't know if they have a glorified view of Western fast food or if they really want to continue their Andean diets but can't afford to do so. I hope someone better informed can settle this. I figure it's probably both.

How much of quinoa's price rise is actually captured by the farmers? Exporting quinoa wouldn't be a problem at all if the money went back to the farmers, or if the exported money was nationalized and given back to the farmers. That's clearly not the case here, but I wonder if the situation of quinoa farmers is different in Bolivia than Peru. Evo Morales enacted land reform for indigenous peoples, and this would make an interesting natural experiment. Bolivia and Peru produce most of the world's quinoa, and assuming the price increase affected both countries, it's possible to test if there's a significant increase in living standards for farmers in one country over the other because of land reforms.

By the way, the issue isn't just Western vegans - both articles point to increased domestic demand as well.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

2) "Ok, he is exactly that bad. What's the alternative?". Ok, let's take it as a given that this dirty quinoa-eating hippie is in fact exactly as bad as any other capitalist. What's the realistic alternative? "If not capitalism with a human face, then what?" If you have an alternative to propose (Maoist Third Worldism?) is that alternative realistically or even theoretically possible? Is there any realistic way to get from there to here?

Leaving the grand capitalism vs socialism question aside for the moment, there is a working, existing alternative to industrialized agriculture (which is what I'm assuming you're talking about by 'there' and 'here' - if not, ignore this derail!), Cuba. Here's another natural experiment: Cuba and North Korea were both heavily dependent on mechanized agriculture and imports of fuel and machinery from the Soviet Union to feed their people. After the collapse of the USSR, the 'dependent states' went their separate ways. Cuba decided to go entirely organic, which resulted in a painful but necessary (in the face of fuel shortages) reversion to labor-intensive agriculture.

UN Environmental Programme posted:

The Cuban government responded to a food crisis in September 1993 by eliminating the majority of state farms and turning them into basic units of cooperative production.

...

Food crops produced in excess of these quotas could be freely sold at farmers markets, thereby providing a price incentive for farmers to effectively use new organic technologies such as biofertilisers, earthworms, compost and the integration of grazing animals. Farmers also revived traditional techniques such as intercropping and manuring in order to increase production yields.

Public policies also supported urban organic agriculture through the Programa Nacional de Agricultura Urbana (National Programme of Urban Agriculture) in 1994, which was designed to encourage urban farmers to produce diversified, healthy and fresh products. Havanans transformed their vacant lots and backyards into small farms and grazing areas for animals. This resulted in 350,000 new well-paying jobs (out of a total workforce of 5 million), 4 million tons of fruits and vegetables produced annually in Havana (up tenfold in a decade) and a city of 2.2 million agriculturally self-sufficient inhabitants.

While ensuring national food security under a trade embargo, Cuba’s transition to organic agriculture has also had a positive impact on people’s livelihoods by guaranteeing a steady income for a significant proportion of the population. Moreover, the lack of pesticides for agricultural production is likely to have a positive long-term impact on Cubans’ wellbeing since such chemicals are often associated with various negative health implications such as certain forms of cancer.

There's this bit in the excerpt above where they mention the 350k extra hands needed as 'well-paying jobs' - they are, but extra labor is the cost of switching from industrial to organic. That's 350k people not being scientists, engineers, etc. On the other hand, it's 350k people not being unemployed, and without shifting to labor-intensive agriculture they would've starved to death. Anyway, on one branch of this experiment we've got a currently existing, working model of all-organic agriculture that's been around for a significant period of time.

On the other branch, we have North Korea, which stuck to its mechanized ways and farmed conventionally until it ran out of fuel. This part of the natural experiment doesn't need to be explained much since everyone knows how it ends.

Going back to the topic at hand, I don't think Whole Foods or its founder is interested in systemic change of agriculture to an all-organic model. It would be harder to differentiate its products and it would lose profit. (On top of that, Whole Foods is full of overpriced poo poo produce and most of their stuff says 'conventionally grown' in really small font.)

flatbus fucked around with this message at Jan 22, 2013 around 21:56

# ? Jan 22, 2013 21:48

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009

flatbus posted:

Same phenomenon, two different interpretations. I'm not familiar with quinoa or the culture of Andean farmers, so I don't know if they have a glorified view of Western fast food or if they really want to continue their Andean diets but can't afford to do so. I hope someone better informed can settle this. I figure it's probably both.

How much of quinoa's price rise is actually captured by the farmers? Exporting quinoa wouldn't be a problem at all if the money went back to the farmers, or if the exported money was nationalized and given back to the farmers. That's clearly not the case here, but I wonder if the situation of quinoa farmers is different in Bolivia than Peru. Evo Morales enacted land reform for indigenous peoples, and this would make an interesting natural experiment. Bolivia and Peru produce most of the world's quinoa, and assuming the price increase affected both countries, it's possible to test if there's a significant increase in living standards for farmers in one country over the other because of land reforms.

By the way, the issue isn't just Western vegans - both articles point to increased domestic demand as well.

Leaving the grand capitalism vs socialism question aside for the moment, there is a working, existing alternative to industrialized agriculture (which is what I'm assuming you're talking about by 'there' and 'here' - if not, ignore this derail!), Cuba. Here's another natural experiment: Cuba and North Korea were both heavily dependent on mechanized agriculture and imports of fuel and machinery from the Soviet Union to feed their people. After the collapse of the USSR, the 'dependent states' went their separate ways. Cuba decided to go entirely organic, which resulted in a painful but necessary (in the face of fuel shortages) reversion to labor-intensive agriculture.

Ok, that's a well-structured, convincing post.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 21:56

Babylon the Bright: Feb 22, 2011

Ytlaya posted:

There is a unique harm to people like him that doesn't apply to your average immoral libertarian-type person. Tricking people who are actually concerned with issues like human well-being into feeling that they are "doing their part," when they are, in fact, only perpetuating the system that causes these problems in the first place, is uniquely harmful in that it neuters any potential effort that might be put towards seeking out the unclear better solution that you mention.

I'm not sure that I buy the argument that there are potential radicals out there who figure 'ah well I'll just eat quinoa THAT'LL save the world'. There are liberals who wouldn't do anything that wasn't easy, and liberals who understand that their dinner choice is not in and of itself going to have much of an impact. I don't think anything is really being neutered by the existence of 'green' choices.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 21:56

BrandorKP: Jan 21, 2006

Fire posted:

and that's my point. You can't ask consumers in a capitalist system to help buy their way out of this sort of problem. It isn't really the vegan's fault. The system itself is to blame.

Absolutely it is, but maybe all human systems and efforts to progress have the same problem (which is not to say that some are not better than others). People under any system (be it capitalist or socialist) are going act and make choices that have unpredictable consequences some of those are going to hurt other people even if they do not intend to. Which is not to say that we should not try to do better at these things, just that we're always going to be failing in some way and we're always going to have a new negative consequences of our collective choices to deal with.

On soy, the demand for soy in South America isn't just a South American problem! There is a great deal of North American land devoted to soy bean production in bulk and we export quite a lot of that to South America. The real problem is that it costs nothing to ship things via ship (compared to other modes), especially in bulk. That's a huge two edge sword that causes many good things and many bad things. It's also a problem that won't go away by changing to a different economic system. Socialist nations participate in the global trade in agricultural commodities as much as the capitalist ones.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 22:37

OwlBot 2000: Jun 1, 2009

No real leftist thinks he can change the world through shopping habits alone, without an accompanying fundamental change in production. Yes, meat production is unequivocally inefficient and bad for the environment and feeding the world's population; at the same time, you're not doing any favors to the climate or the poor by engaging in monoculture practices or shipping food using fossil fuels from thousands of miles away. In short, if you're serious in reducing the amount of environmental damage you yourself do and want to set an example for others, by vegan food which is primarily locally sourced or at least not produced by underpaid workers half-way round the world.

OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at Jan 22, 2013 around 22:43

# ? Jan 22, 2013 22:41

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I was actually very careful to not ask for proof for exactly that reason. Thanks for putting words in my mouth though! What I actually asked was "can you convincingly argue", not "can you prove."

Sorry, I think that you misunderstood what I meant (for reasons that were entirely my fault). I took it as a given that it's not possible to literally prove the results of an untried economic system. I meant that it's inherently impossible to come up with any argument claiming that a dramatic change in economic system would have specific results. You can point out how a particular change (for instance, eliminating private property) would fix existing problems, but due to the magnitude of such a change it is impossible to give an accurate prediction of the sort of society that would arise as a result of it. The choice to pursue alternative systems depends entirely upon how dire you think the status quo is (and it's my opinion that it is extremely easy for folks like ourselves who happen to live in the countries that benefit from economic exploitation to underestimate just how dire things are).

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

The problem you describe with entities like NPR -- "the acceptably good is the enemy of the better" -- is both a problem and benefit of any movement of incremental change. I don't really see a way around it. In almost any conceivable system there are going to be mis-steps and things that sound like good ideas at the time but that turn out to have negative externalities and unintended consequences. At least with an incremental process those risks are minimized.

Ah, here is where I think the disagreement lies. I do not consider entities like NPR to be anything even remotely approaching "acceptably good." I would call something like Scandinavian social democracy "acceptably good," even if I think social democracy is fundamentally flawed. But NPR is only marginally better than its alternatives (even this feels like an exaggeration, but I can't come up with the right language), yet is believed by most of the American left to be a reliable, high quality news source. NPR - and other respected news organizations like the New York Times - are consistently anti-labor and reflect the interests of wealthy individuals and organizations (which isn't surprising, given that this is the source of their funding*). They also directly echo the US government on any matters related to US foreign policy.

*Another thing about NPR is that it enjoys the fact that many (probably most) of its listeners believe that it is primarily publicly funded, when in reality it is funded primarily by corporate donors to nearly the same extent as all other US media.

Ytlaya fucked around with this message at Jan 22, 2013 around 22:49

# ? Jan 22, 2013 22:47

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

It seems like in the long run, the currently high prices of quinoa will ensure that farmers in other markets will find a way to get a mostly-equivalent strain growing in their area, depressing the price back down to normal levels. I really doubt these prices will continue indefinitely, it's not like farmers in other parts of the world hate money.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 22:50

GreyjoyBastard: Mar 28, 2010; Qarth.

...If the West is buying all the quinoa at higher prices than the farmers have seen before, isn't this a good thing for the Peruvian economy, which can then be taxed to provide food security and still result in a net boost in Peruvian welfare?

This admittedly rests on a couple assumptions, like that the government is sufficiently functional that it can produce comparable or superior results to "the farmers inherently sell their produce to locals and the trade balance doesn't improve", but I'm not sure that the inherent problems in the current situation are with international trade.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 22:52

312: Nov 7, 2012; I give terrible advice in E/N and post nothing worth anybody's time.

i might be a social cripple irl

OwlBot 2000 posted:

No real leftist thinks he can change the world through shopping habits alone, without an accompanying fundamental change in production. Yes, meat production is unequivocally inefficient and bad for the environment and feeding the world's population; at the same time, you're not doing any favors to the climate or the poor by engaging in monoculture practices or shipping food using fossil fuels from thousands of miles away. In short, if you're serious in reducing the amount of environmental damage you yourself do and want to set an example for others, by vegan food which is primarily locally sourced or at least not produced by underpaid workers half-way round the world.

This is essentially impossible for most people though. I certainly couldn't feed myself on locally sourced vegan food. (even ignoring winter) (also as I've proved to death in the other threads chicken production is as efficient as most vegetarian staples, everyone always confuses "meat" for "beef")

312 fucked around with this message at Jan 22, 2013 around 23:05

# ? Jan 22, 2013 23:02

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

GreyjoyBastard posted:

...If the West is buying all the quinoa at higher prices than the farmers have seen before, isn't this a good thing for the Peruvian economy, which can then be taxed to provide food security and still result in a net boost in Peruvian welfare?

It's not exactly common for profits to end up benefiting people at the bottom of the totem pole, particularly in developing countries. The fact that quinoa is selling for more in no way means that quinoa farmers (as in, people on the ground) will benefit; it just means that those who own the corporations they work for will profit.

Babylon the Bright posted:

I'm not sure that I buy the argument that there are potential radicals out there who figure 'ah well I'll just eat quinoa THAT'LL save the world'. There are liberals who wouldn't do anything that wasn't easy, and liberals who understand that their dinner choice is not in and of itself going to have much of an impact. I don't think anything is really being neutered by the existence of 'green' choices.

Oh, I don't really think that 'green' choices are bad or anything. But there are absolutely many people who believe that making these sorts of choices has a significant positive impact. It isn't surprising that this is the case; the advertising for these products carries this message, and, well, advertising is effective. I don't think that the core problem here is the myth surrounding the social good created by purchasing and consuming 'green' goods/services. I'm commenting more on the extent to which modern advertising (not just of goods/services, but also of ideas) is able to misinform and redirect the energies of individuals who have the inclination towards trying to enact social good.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 23:03

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; Whenever I hit "r" in my address bar, Raine Dog comes up. Goddammit.

Cicero posted:

It seems like in the long run, the currently high prices of quinoa will ensure that farmers in other markets will find a way to get a mostly-equivalent strain growing in their area, depressing the price back down to normal levels. I really doubt these prices will continue indefinitely, it's not like farmers in other parts of the world hate money.

There is also the possibility that quinoa will stop being trendy in a few years resulting in overproduction and price crashes.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 23:06

Lyesh: Apr 9, 2003

Ytlaya posted:

Oh, I don't really think that 'green' choices are bad or anything. But there are absolutely many people who believe that making these sorts of choices has a significant positive impact. It isn't surprising that this is the case; the advertising for these products carries this message, and, well, advertising is effective. I don't think that the core problem here is the myth surrounding the social good created by purchasing and consuming 'green' goods/services. I'm commenting more on the extent to which modern advertising (not just of goods/services, but also of ideas) is able to misinform and redirect the energies of individuals who have the inclination towards trying to enact social good.

This gets really problematic though because it leads to the paralysis on the left that a lot of people on this forum complain about. Constantly being on guard against your energies being redirected is draining and prone to causing inaction.

Incidentally, I had read this article earlier in the week and it's got some bits that are verging on straight-up lies. For instance, the thing about vegan demand for soy causing problems when (as they note later) 97% of soy production is used as animal feed. That's not just a footnote, it's data that entirely removes the impact of the article regarding soy.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 23:10

Baruch Obamawitz: Feb 15, 2002; Human with its head split open.

Rebuttal:

quote:

I do enjoy a spot of quinoa now and then. The grain-like seed from the Andes makes a nice backdrop to lamb or fish, and can form a pleasant, if very rich, salad if you augment it with bacon and warm greens.

I am far from alone. Twenty years ago, quinoa was pretty much unknown. Now, it’s in everyone’s cafeteria. Its price is going through the roof.

And that, in the confused minds of Western foodies, is somehow a bad thing. This week saw a flurry of headlines suggesting that the quinoa boom, unlike any other commodity boom, must somehow be bad for the people on the producing end. “The more you love quinoa,” The Globe and Mail headline read, “the more you hurt Peruvians and Bolivians.” A report in the Guardian chronicled “the unpalatable truth about quinoa,” which is that “poor Bolivians can no longer afford their staple grain.”

There is nothing quite like food to make us lose all sense of perspective and reason. Behind the killer-quinoa meme you’ll find three modern fallacies of food.

First is the idea that success must be bad for the poor. Surely, we think, the quinoa-eating people of the Andes are going to be hurt if they can no longer afford their own crop.

The people of the Altiplano are indeed among the poorest in the Americas. But their economy is almost entirely agrarian. They are sellers – farmers or farm workers seeking the highest price and wage. The quinoa price rise is the greatest thing that has happened to them. And it is a deliberate strategy: Quinoa had all but died out as a staple in Bolivia, replaced by beans and potatoes, until farmers began planting it in the 1980s with exports to North America in mind.

Starting in 1987, they tapped an export crop that raised living standards, lowered poverty and allowed farmers to move away from the region’s other profitable export crop, cocaine.

“Quinoa fetches a guaranteed high price affording farmers economic stability,” Emma Banks of the Andean Information Network observes. This has given the Andean farmers – formerly one of the most exploited groups in Latin America – new political power, allowing them to win land rights and ecological protection. So when one ecological blog argues that quinoa’s “increase in popularity could have negative long-term effects for the farmers that grow it,” what could it mean?

There is the second fallacy: That people are better off consuming food grown near them. The “locavore” ideology holds that Montrealers should eat Quebec potatoes and people in La Paz should consume quinoa – and that if they don’t, because their success has made it expensive, they should be forced to eat some other local crop.

But why wouldn’t they use the rising incomes to purchase imported beans, rice, cheese and chicken? In fact, this is exactly what they do. Food is expensive everywhere this year; Peruvians and Bolivians are economizing.

Imported food is often nutritionally better, more affordable, better for the economic development of its producing regions, and less ecologically damaging (because growing in cold countries requires carbon-heavy storage and heating). Peruvians and Bolivians were not better off in the days when they were consuming their own produce – in fact, the Andes region had alarmingly high rates of stunted growth among children, a key indicator of undernourishment. Food protectionism was bad for the poor. So why would we relegate them to a life that was hurting them and that they didn’t enjoy?

That leads to the third fallacy of food: Authenticity. The Incas ate quinoa centuries ago, so their descendants should. Now the whole world wants to eat their healthy crop, and they’re turning to chicken. Doesn’t that somehow make them less authentically Andean?

I have relatives on the Nova Scotian side of my family who can remember when lobster was strictly for the dirt-poor – in the eyes of better-off maritimers, it was akin to eating insects. Then the postwar explosion of surf-n-turf dining priced this high-protein food out of their reach. They ate lasagna, pork chops, and macaroni and cheese instead, because the lobster boom had made them less poor. Does anyone think this made them worse off, or less authentically Nova Scotian?

Today they’re eating quinoa – which tastes pretty good with lobster, as it happens. Being poor may be authentic, but success feels better.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 23:34

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Lyesh posted:

This gets really problematic though because it leads to the paralysis on the left that a lot of people on this forum complain about. Constantly being on guard against your energies being redirected is draining and prone to causing inaction.

Incidentally, I had read this article earlier in the week and it's got some bits that are verging on straight-up lies. For instance, the thing about vegan demand for soy causing problems when (as they note later) 97% of soy production is used as animal feed. That's not just a footnote, it's data that entirely removes the impact of the article regarding soy.

Well, just to disclose my personal feelings on this issue, I believe that a solution to these problems simply doesn't exist. A society in which the many are not exploited for the benefit of the few will never exist for any extended period of time.

And yeah, that point about soy production is pretty damning. Even if the overall thrust of the article is correct, that's some pretty glaring intellectual dishonesty.

Baruch Obamawitz posted:

Rebuttal:

While I don't necessarily disagree with what this article is saying, the whole premise that importing from a country benefits that country's people is hugely flawed. There is no reason for the owners of agricultural firms to pass on benefits to their employees.

edit: Not only is there no reason for them to do so, but there is a huge reason for them not to do so. Minus the government mandating that they do so, you can be quite certain that they won't.

Ytlaya fucked around with this message at Jan 23, 2013 around 00:00

# ? Jan 22, 2013 23:36

Real hurthling!: Sep 11, 2001

Baruch Obamawitz posted:

Rebuttal:

That guy sort of dodges the whole issue by taking it for granted that wages will rise and then attacking the well-to-do diners who turn their noses up at food deemed inauthentic.

I would ask them to consider weighing whatever examples of Latin American resource booms leading to improved standards of living for the workers they might be imagining against the millions killed for banannas, guano, precious metals, rubber, coffee, etc over the past 500 year.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 23:45

Peven Stan: Feb 1, 2006

Quinoa is just going through the phase that all new products undergo when they first hit the shores. I'm sure when Yogurt was first introduced in the 70s people could handwring about how yogurt imports were going to wreck the local food security of the middle east. Likewise tofu is something that people probably first had to import from east asia before domestic producers sprang up here. The western food market (outside of speculative trading) has a terrible and efficient sort of logic where outsized profits from imports soon encourage domestic producers to step up their game and fulfill demand at a lower price point.

# ? Jan 22, 2013 23:51

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Yeah, the framing this as "gently caress you, vegans!" is just trolling. This is an issue whenever developed and underdeveloped nations trade food. See also Latin American nations having their farming industries wrecked because American imports are cheaper than domestically-grown food.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 00:18

StabbinHobo: Oct 18, 2002; nothing beats the hobo life, stabbin folks with my hobo knife

for an example of how this plays out check out 'life and debt' on netflix

its absolutely horrible

# ? Jan 23, 2013 01:10

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Pope Guilty posted:

Yeah, the framing this as "gently caress you, vegans!" is just trolling. This is an issue whenever developed and underdeveloped nations trade food. See also Latin American nations having their farming industries wrecked because American imports are cheaper than domestically-grown food.

Or how places ending up selling food supplies or reduce the variety of local food crops due the US demand for ethanol production.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 02:19

asdf32: May 15, 2010; Hello! I am a forum chatbot programmed to mimic a dense and stubborn D&D poster. Attempting to explain words or concepts is futile, as I will be unable to process. Please do not reply.

Ytlaya posted:

Well, just to disclose my personal feelings on this issue, I believe that a solution to these problems simply doesn't exist. A society in which the many are not exploited for the benefit of the few will never exist for any extended period of time.

And yeah, that point about soy production is pretty damning. Even if the overall thrust of the article is correct, that's some pretty glaring intellectual dishonesty.

While I don't necessarily disagree with what this article is saying, the whole premise that importing from a country benefits that country's people is hugely flawed. There is no reason for the owners of agricultural firms to pass on benefits to their employees.

edit: Not only is there no reason for them to do so, but there is a huge reason for them not to do so. Minus the government mandating that they do so, you can be quite certain that they won't.

If foreign money from exports is coming into the nation it's going somewhere and benefitting someone. If output is increasing then so are jobs, so either wages go up or more people are employed. Both are good things. That some people are hurt when land gets repurposed isn't particularly surprising but it's very unlikely that the net outcome for a local good being in demand is bad over the long term.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 02:50

roomforthetuna: Mar 22, 2005; I don't need to know anything about virii! My CUSTOM PROGRAM keeps me protected! It's not like they'll try to come in through the Internet or something!

asdf32 posted:

If foreign money from exports is coming into the nation it's going somewhere and benefitting someone. If output is increasing then so are jobs, so either wages go up or more people are employed. Both are good things. That some people are hurt when land gets repurposed isn't particularly surprising but it's very unlikely that the net outcome for a local good being in demand is bad over the long term.

Alternatively:
Output increases -> mechanization increases -> jobs decrease -> wages stay the same or decline -> company owner reduces expenses *and* increases income -> company owner receives much bigger profits. Laborers are worse off and more unemployed. Company owner buys unemployed laborers' land cheaply (because they're desperate now) and expands production further.

But you're right, on average it's beneficial. It's just that the average is brought up by one guy making huge profits, not by everyone benefiting.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 18:41

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010; LIKES: GUMMI BEARS

DISLIKES: JEWS, BLACKS, GAYS, HISPANICS, GYPSIES, ABORIGINES

asdf32 posted:

If foreign money from exports is coming into the nation it's going somewhere and benefitting someone. If output is increasing then so are jobs, so either wages go up or more people are employed. Both are good things. That some people are hurt when land gets repurposed isn't particularly surprising but it's very unlikely that the net outcome for a local good being in demand is bad over the long term.

The benefits aren't spread evenly, so not everyone keeps up with the costs. The farmers are making more money, and that does have a positive effect on the local economy in terms of tax collections and increased spending by those farmers, but the people who aren't farmers and the farmers who aren't growing quinoa don't see enough of that money to keep up with the increase in prices - especially if the quinoa farmers are using their export profits to import food and other goods from other countries rather than spending it locally. More people may be employed, but that doesn't really justify it if even employed people can't afford the higher price of food. It'd be nice if wages went up enough to increase the workers' purchasing power enough to offset the food price inflation, but increasing profit is rarely sufficient reason for wages to increase, and it's highly unlikely that the farmers are going to see any reason to boost the wages enough to match the incredible price rise of quinoa. Besides, quinoa's rise in popularity hasn't been just because it's new and trendy, but because it's a highly nutritional food; pricing healthy and nutritious foods out of the poor's reach while providing them with cheap and unhealthy calorie-heavy substitutes is a problem even in first-world countries. Pricing quinoa out of people's lives will still have an overall negative effect even if it comes with enough of a wage bump for them to be able to afford ramen and soda.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 19:21

Lead out in cuffs: Sep 18, 2012; Look at my horse; my horse is amazing.

312 posted:

This is essentially impossible for most people though. I certainly couldn't feed myself on locally sourced vegan food. (even ignoring winter) (also as I've proved to death in the other threads chicken production is as efficient as most vegetarian staples, everyone always confuses "meat" for "beef")

It's difficult, and for most people can't happen overnight, but people have lived on a (mostly) vegan diet through the winter in northern climates for most of the history of civilisation. You need tricks like pickling, root cellaring, drying and mulching of late autumn crops to preserve them in the ground, but it is possible to get in all the vitamins you need from vegetables in those ways. Caloric staples like pulses and grains also tend to keep pretty well in dry form. The main issue is that if you don't live near a grain-growing area, you need to import the grains from one, which might involve a fossil fueled journey of a thousand miles or so. But there is still a big difference in terms of environmental impact between a North American buying quinoa from Peru and him buying corn, soybeans or chickpeas from North America.

As an aside, on of the big problems with food is prestige-related. A lot of people eat environmentally terrible foods like factory farmed beef and out of season fresh vegetables from the other side of the world because it's an indicator of social class. Quinoa, and other only-slightly-nutritionally-better-but-much-more-expensive "superfoods" marketed by Whole Foods and its ilk tap into the same impulse, except that it's kind of a hippier-than-though social standing. I think that's some of the problem the OP is talking about?

# ? Jan 23, 2013 19:41

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

Seems a good as time as any to repost this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

Short version: expecting the agents of capitalism to mitigate the negative effects of capitalism is a pretty stupid idea.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 20:02

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004; Never stop arguing about casual racism.

I eat quinola all the time. Its loving delicious, especially with meat.

I don't really understand why vegans are getting the boot here. Its not like non vegans don't eat cereals.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 20:39

POTUShead: Sep 23, 2006

duck monster posted:

I eat quinola all the time. Its loving delicious, especially with meat.

I don't really understand why vegans are getting the boot here. Its not like non vegans don't eat cereals.

The better to linkbait with. See:

"Soya, a foodstuff beloved of the vegan lobby as an alternative to dairy products, is another problematic import, one that drives environmental destruction [see footnote]. Embarrassingly, for those who portray it as a progressive alternative to planet-destroying meat, soya production is now one of the two main causes of deforestation in South America, along with cattle ranching, where vast expanses of forest and grassland have been felled to make way for huge plantations."

Footnote you say?

"• This footnote was appended on 17 January 2013. To clarify: while soya is found in a variety of health products, the majority of production - 97% according to the UN report of 2006 - is used for animal feed."

Hmmmmmmmmm

It's almost as though the leading thrust of this article is stupid idiot garbage.

POTUShead fucked around with this message at Jan 23, 2013 around 20:58

# ? Jan 23, 2013 20:53

Peven Stan: Feb 1, 2006

POTUShead posted:

The better to linkbait with. See:

"Soya, a foodstuff beloved of the vegan lobby as an alternative to dairy products, is another problematic import, one that drives environmental destruction [see footnote]. Embarrassingly, for those who portray it as a progressive alternative to planet-destroying meat, soya production is now one of the two main causes of deforestation in South America, along with cattle ranching, where vast expanses of forest and grassland have been felled to make way for huge plantations."

Footnote you say?

"• This footnote was appended on 17 January 2013. To clarify: while soya is found in a variety of health products, the majority of production - 97% according to the UN report of 2006 - is used for animal feed."

Hmmmmmmmmm

It's almost as though the leading thrust of this article is stupid idiot garbage.

Yeah I was about to link that. The soybeans you'd find in locally American made tofu are grown here most likely

. Certain brands like Melissa's also source their soybeans from non-GMO and organic farms. Shipping up soybeans from Brasil in big barges to make tofu and tempeh makes zero sense given that you'd want semi-fresh to fresh soybeans for the process.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 21:15

asdf32: May 15, 2010; Hello! I am a forum chatbot programmed to mimic a dense and stubborn D&D poster. Attempting to explain words or concepts is futile, as I will be unable to process. Please do not reply.

Main Paineframe posted:

The benefits aren't spread evenly, so not everyone keeps up with the costs. The farmers are making more money, and that does have a positive effect on the local economy in terms of tax collections and increased spending by those farmers, but the people who aren't farmers and the farmers who aren't growing quinoa don't see enough of that money to keep up with the increase in prices - especially if the quinoa farmers are using their export profits to import food and other goods from other countries rather than spending it locally. More people may be employed, but that doesn't really justify it if even employed people can't afford the higher price of food. It'd be nice if wages went up enough to increase the workers' purchasing power enough to offset the food price inflation, but increasing profit is rarely sufficient reason for wages to increase, and it's highly unlikely that the farmers are going to see any reason to boost the wages enough to match the incredible price rise of quinoa. Besides, quinoa's rise in popularity hasn't been just because it's new and trendy, but because it's a highly nutritional food; pricing healthy and nutritious foods out of the poor's reach while providing them with cheap and unhealthy calorie-heavy substitutes is a problem even in first-world countries. Pricing quinoa out of people's lives will still have an overall negative effect even if it comes with enough of a wage bump for them to be able to afford ramen and soda.

I get the story you're telling but it's hard for things to work out that way.

One number that would be insstructive here would be the export percentage. For example if Peru is exporting half it's quinoa production then for every $1 increase per unit 50 new cents are coming into the economy and 50 more cents are transferring from local customers to local producers. The new money coming in is an unequivocal positive, the only potential negative here is that the local customers may be poor and their transfer to the local producer may increase inequality. However when the export percentage is high the new money coming in easily offsets this.

There is a reason no one worries on behalf of the average Saudi citizen when oil prices go up.

roomforthetuna posted:

Alternatively:
Output increases -> mechanization increases -> jobs decrease -> wages stay the same or decline -> company owner reduces expenses *and* increases income -> company owner receives much bigger profits. Laborers are worse off and more unemployed. Company owner buys unemployed laborers' land cheaply (because they're desperate now) and expands production further.

But you're right, on average it's beneficial. It's just that the average is brought up by one guy making huge profits, not by everyone benefiting.

This is really dumb analysis. Whether mechanization makes sense actually has little to do with the price of the good and everything to do with the price of labor that it replaces. If labor gets so expensive that it's worth mechanizing en mass that's a fantastic problem to have.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 00:10

roomforthetuna: Mar 22, 2005; I don't need to know anything about virii! My CUSTOM PROGRAM keeps me protected! It's not like they'll try to come in through the Internet or something!

asdf32 posted:

This is really dumb analysis. Whether mechanization makes sense actually has little to do with the price of the good and everything to do with the price of labor that it replaces. If labor gets so expensive that it's worth mechanizing en mass that's a fantastic problem to have.

A tractor isn't really that expensive compared to the number of laborers it replaces? If labor gets so expensive that it's worth expensive mechanization then yes, that's a good problem to have (though not for the laborers who still end up out of a job in the end).

But fine, just take the mechanization out the "really dumb analysis" if you don't like it, it doesn't change the "landowner and government gets all the new money, laborers do not get any extra money" point I was getting at.

quote:

There is a reason no one worries on behalf of the average Saudi citizen when oil prices go up.

Yes, because "oil revenues are distributed to Saudi Arabia's citizens through an array of generous social programs." Is there an equivalent system in place for quinoa farm laborers that we're missing? Venezuela and Nigeria are also oil-rich, but lack the array of generous social programs.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 00:58

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

I think the general idea is that if the quinoa farmers have more money now, they're likely to spend it in their communities by hiring more laborers or on stuff they want. I know this sounds like 'trickle-down' but we're talking about quinoa farmers in the Andes, not secluded billionaires in Manhattan high-rises. That the money will flow out to the wider community seems virtually inevitable.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 02:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2013 12:24

roomforthetuna: Mar 22, 2005; I don't need to know anything about virii! My CUSTOM PROGRAM keeps me protected! It's not like they'll try to come in through the Internet or something!

Cicero posted:

I think the general idea is that if the quinoa farmers have more money now, they're likely to spend it in their communities by hiring more laborers or on stuff they want. I know this sounds like 'trickle-down' but we're talking about quinoa farmers in the Andes, not secluded billionaires in Manhattan high-rises. That the money will flow out to the wider community seems virtually inevitable.

Unless the landowners don't actually live nearby, or the money doesn't even reach them because it's absorbed at the exporter or the government, or the landowners spend their new wealth on imported goods from China like everybody else.

Hiring more laborers is a plausible use of the money, but they're certainly not going to spend all the new income on that, or even a significant portion of it. The only way they would really benefit from hiring significantly more labor, assuming they haven't had fields laying fallow the whole time, is if they were to acquire more land, which is possibly even more of a curse on the local community.

That the bulk of the money will not flow out to the wider community (assuming 'wider' doesn't include 'china') seems virtually inevitable to me. The only semi-realistic way I could imagine it happening is if the landowners happen to be philanthropic enough to increase laborer wage with no external pressure to do so. (Or the government applies pressure to do so.)

# ? Jan 24, 2013 03:14

«‹›2 »

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Capital Contradiction:Vegan shoppers ruin food security in global south