The Lords of Capital Decree Mass Death by Starvation

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

Having crushed the planet's peasants and converted food into just another commodity for global manipulation, the Lord's of Capital have unleashed upon humanity the threat - no, certainty - of mass starvation. The criminal mega-enterprise is centered in the United States, the former "breadbasket of the planet" whose massive conversion to biofuels has caused staple crop prices to skyrocket beyond the reach of hundreds of millions of the world's poor. The death of millions translates into profits in the trillions for the Lords of Capital, killers on a mass scale whose only talents lie in "the production of overlapping calamities, each more lethal than the last."

The Lords of Capital Decree Mass Death by Starvation
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

Broadcasters and others desiring an MP3 copy of this commentary should visit the Black Agenda Radio Archive page here.

"No amount of emergency aid is sufficient to make up for the wild price rises that have already occurred."

Fidel Castro called biofuels "genocide," and he was right. And there can be no question as to the identity of the perpetrators of this global genocide: the Lords of Capital that formulate the foreign and domestic policy of the United States. That policy calls for 20 million acres of corn from states like Iowa to be converted from food to fuel. As should have been expected, such a massive diversion almost immediately pushed up the price of all other basic foodstuffs - a global disaster made quick and easy by the fact that, over the past several decades, planetary food production has been taken over by agribusiness - the speculative human parasites that control how food is bought and sold, and to whom, and for what purpose. These Lords of Capital are killers on a mass scale.

"Hot" money has totally distorted the "marketplace" for life-sustaining goods, causing millions of the desperately poor in scores of countries to take to the streets. "In less than a year," writes the Guardian newspaper, in Britain, "the price of wheat has risen 130 per cent, soya by 87 per cent and rice by 74 per cent."

These are nothing less than crimes against humanity, and cannot help but destroy the lives of millions who are already at the very edge of the precipice.

"The Lords of Capital have imposed a triage of death by starvation on the planet."

The so-called "market" - which is actually a club of super-rich men who distort and destroy everything of value to humanity that they touch - will be the death of us all, and much quicker than through the effects of global warming, which is also greatly accelerated by the ghoulish, greedy rush to grow food for cars rather than people. In such a murderous environment -manipulated purely for the profits of the Lords of Capital - neither trees nor peasants stand a chance. The United Nations says it needs about half a billion dollars for the most critical cases of starvation, but no amount of emergency aid is sufficient to make up for the wild price rises that have already occurred - and which will put trillions in the pockets of the Lords of Capital.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=589&Itemid=1

...of course. We can keep breeding like mice forever, if only we get rid of the "Lords of Capital".


- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Hardly "breeding like rats".

2007 grain harvest was a world's record.

Manufactured shortage, by price.

Too bad some have to starve so some can live like sultans.

You think there's too many people, why not take their place?

why not give someone else his/her place? As for "breeding like rats" part, I only added one to the population.

Wanting "development", better material living standards for all and each of our race that is breedind like whatever, so that in the name of equal rights everybody could have american standard of living - which of course is not negotiable.

Now that masses of Chinese, Indians etc are living closer to the American dream, "like sultans" as you call it, suddenly there is not enough resources for everybody to live like Americans and demand is growing much faster than supply, so too bad some have to starve so the global Elite can live like Americans - drive car, eat meat etc. etc.

So in technical sense you are correct, there are not too many people (not yet, maybe). There are just too many Americans and wannabemericans who want their share of the American way of life.

If numbers matter and more the merrier, think how many could live at, say for example Cuban standard of living (Cuba is good example having reached the sustainable rate of birth and population not growing any more) , if there were no 5% of global population in one country "living like sultans" consuming 1/4 of global resources - perhaps even 9 billion. But the hard truth for that to happen is that somebody has to go. And that somebody is the American way of life, as practiced in USA and even more importantly as role model. Tough? No shit. But deal with it, put up or shut up.

has nothing to do with it either, of course. Their carbon footprint is many times that of a citizen in a Third World country.

There is a shortage caused by the environmentalist crowd who are willing to see people die for the god ethanol.

Rice can be and is hoarded - as the global rice market is shutting down with only two major exporters left - Thailand and USA - and others chosen protectionism, many importing countries are panic buying for all they can get, which naturally only worsens the global situation and the demise of the poorest. This quite normal and expected human behaviour is what Hannah Bell refers to as "manufactured price" - with very poor understanding of the dynamics of the situation and putting all the blame for the situation on her choise of "good enemy" investor class - who are of course guilty as hell too, but such attitude does not help the fact that all of us need to take a good look in the mirror and liberate ourselves from the chains of growth paradigm.

As for ethanol, I have never heard a real enviromentalist speak for that. Only big agrobisness and and the big combustion engine business do. Drunkards do! ;)

took their rice off the market, & the spikes began with spikes IN THE FUTURES market - by your "investing class", following the meltdown in real estate & a big influx of $ into grain futures.

Vietnam & India stopped exporting around march 2008, in RESPONSE to the price hikes, when rice had risen over 100%.

They kept their rice at home to have the supplies necessary to keep domestic prices down & fight speculative activity. Pulling their exports off the market was not the cause of the international price spikes.

I am in total agreement with you about growth, but that doesn't mean I accede to non-fact based fear-mongering about world food supplies.

This dire situation is not just going to affect the poorer countries around the world. We're ALL going to bear the brunt of this. Even in the "Bread Basket" U.S. which has typically been a net exporter of food.

Even in this country, we are going to see shortages of grains, etc. Just this week, there was an article about a local bakery. They are panicking because their broker had told them "there might not be enough wheat to last out the year". NOT ENOUGH.

This is one instance where I'm not going to blame the Lord of Capital. Why have these countries not been able to implement better population controls? When they knew what was coming.

Ugly shocking fact.
World population is now at 6.67 BILLION.
We are currently growing at around 9 MILLION HUMANS PER MONTH. That's like the population of Sweden, every 4 weeks.
There is only one outcome to this disaster: massive starvation I'm sorry to say.

The world currently produces enough food for 26 billion people. Most of it is lost in the field (lack of insecticides), or in storage (lack of suitable storage so it rots), or because of inadequate transportation to population centers.

On which consumption level? How many calories per day? How much of that production is possible only with massive energy infusion from fossile fuels?

The human race will never, ever let the so-called "Lords of Capital" destroy us for the benefit of them and them alone. I'm just talking common sense. There are too many of us.

As fallible as it can be, Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" will triumph. People must eat.

Judging from the high percentage of people at DU who seem to think the current food shortages are due to increased demand from China, or ethanol, or global warming - when 3rd world people start starving, they'll say, "Oh, too bad, but nothing can be done."

And if so, I apologize. You seem (to me) to suggest that humans would rather starve than fight tooth and nail for food. I respectfully disagree. Unless I'm a 90 year old guy in a small agrarian society who has lived more than my share of life, I will fight for food. Unless I come to the conclusion (not made under duress) that sacrificing my life in favor of saving the life of a toddler who could grow up to be a king or queen, an innovator, a general or some human whose leadership benefits his or her family, tribe, country, or humanity in general, is worth the tradeoff, I will fight for every crust of bread I can get rather than roll over and die.

My sympathy (not disgust) goes out to those DUers who look at the precarious food situation in 3rd world nations, throw up their hands and say something along the lines of "It's God's will". No, it's not. For starters, we can emphasize the importance of family planning. For seconders (I think I made that word up), we can scrap the wasteful corn-ethanol projects that some well meaning people have embraced. I'm sorry, but it takes almost as much energy to make a liter of ethanol from corn as the ethanol itself provides. I wish there were parts of the US that had a climate similar to that of sections of Brazil where sugarcane grows like weed. It's a lot easier and cheaper to make fuel-grade alcohol from sugarcane than it is from corn or sugar beets. In fact, Brazil today is essentially energy self sufficient. Almost all their vehicles run on what amounts to 199 proof rum, which is used to power everything from internal combustion engines to the generators that provide the juice for electric powered transport, like trains. What little crude Brazil does import is used to make material that sugarcane ethanol just isn't suitable for. You probably knew all this, but I had the urge to write it anyway.

On a related note, there's an interesting article in today's New York Times that concludes the food shortages plaguing Africa and Asia are due (in part) to a 5 year long drought in Australia that has compelled farmers there who used to grow rice to switch to other, less water dependent crops, from wheat and corn to even grapes for wine! Rice production in Australia is down 80%. The link is below. I hope you find it as interesting as I did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/business/worldbusiness/17warm.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Peace.

universal starvation. That's not going to happen. Prices will rise, & some will be priced out of the market for food - that's already happening. Consequently, some will starve.

So long as it's only some people staving - say 0-15% - most people simply don't question the dominant explations, & consequently, won't do a thing, except maybe send a donation. It's very easy to tolerate starving people - elsewhere. In africa, or on the other side of the tracks.

The dominant explanation says natural scarcity (demand higher than supply, overpopulation, resource depletion) is causing the starvation, & focuses our attention on "solutions" such as you mention - teaching starving people to regulate births. The dominant explanation focuses our attention on the factors you mention: ethanol, local bad harvests, global warming, etc.

But last year's grain harvest was a record, this they won't tell you.

The spike in grain prices occurred simultaneous with the global real estate meltdown, this they won't tell you.

Four trading companies control the majority of the world's grain trade, wheat acreage has been cut due to reduced demand & low prices, one company controls most ethanol production & is massively subsidized (to keep its profits up), global grain stores have been reduced under the pressure of "free trade" agreements & international finance - these things they don't tell you. Because seriously investigating these facts makes the dominant explanation impossible to believe.

Most people won't investigate; they're focused on doing the best they can for themselves.

But I think the control of the supply (and demand) of basic foods like corn, rice and wheat is slipping beyond the grasp of governments and privately run food cartels, simply because the world's population is increasing at a faster rate than government and cartel "experts" had predicted. You are correct (if I have been reading the appropriate and accountable material) that food riots (so far) have been relatively spontaneous and isolated. But given the speed with which the mainstream media (including, but not limited to the Internet) spread the truth, or at least the story of strained and dwindling food supplies, these reports could result in civil disturbances that are far more organized, intense and multi-national than what we're seeing now. Food is a causus belli that runs far deeper than a desire for more land or more regional geopolitical influence. People gotta eat!

And I wonder if the food cartels are as adept at controlling the price of and and access to basic food than you apparently think. In the US, farmers who for decades have been paid NOT to grow food (an attempt by the government to control supplies and prices) are now rejecting these voluntary programs and planting fields that would have otherwise lain fallow with corn and other food staples simply because they can make more money by doing so. And we're not just talking about the food conglomerates. We're talking about smaller, independent farmers who have never really gained true wealth through agriculture, and who are seeing a way they can increase their incomes simply by doing more work, and harvesting and selling more food basics.

I bring your attention to an article in Friday's New York Times:

Across Globe, Empty Bellies Bring Rising Anger

Maybe I'm too dependent on the NYTimes for my info, but compared to other mass media outlets, I find them pretty darn reliable.

Organized and widespread civil disturbances in the near future may not be over energy, oppressive governments, territory, religion or your other "usual suspects". They may be something over the issue of food, or more precisely, it's lack of availabliy, and the consumer cost of the food that is available. Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic and kind of a firebrand, but maybe I'm not. Thanks for a fascinating chat. I find your views very interesting.

edited for my usual spelling and link errors

in-country press. Population isn't outstripping food production.

Grain production is the most tightly managed business in the world. When prices are low, they cut acreage & take subsidies. When they're high, they put it back into production.

But I do read much more than the NYTimes. The Internet gives me (or anyone with a computer) access to scads of information. Much of it is true. Much of it (intentionally or carelessly) is false. Some of it unverifiable. Plus I get so much stuff in print I think my local post office hates me. :)

My opinions about the possible seriousness of an ongoing global food shortage that could lead to violence that could go beyond borders and could be commandeered, if you will, by people with other political agendas is based as much on my personal and (I hope) informed opinion as it is on what I have gleaned from a host of publications, web outlets (government and NGO), blogs, and so on. And the New York Times.

Am I over-reacting? Being too much of a doom and gloomer with too little evidence? Could be. But maybe not. Am I being overly defensive?? I sure hope not. I want you and other DUers who make the effort to read my posts to take them as seriously as I do your posts.

I may link to too many NYTimes pieces to your taste. But that's because I assume that you're not the only one who is reading what I post, and I believe that despite its warts (Jayson Blair, Judith Miller), the Times is a news source that is at least recognized, and as often as not taken seriously by a good many DU readers. Plus (IMO) the NYT has a way of making subjects far more interesting and understandable than so many dry reports from the USDA or the UN or the CDC or whatever that tend to be a little too heavy on statistics and a tad too light on analysis.

I do agree with you that international grain production (and food production in general) comprise some of the most tightly managed operations in the world, rivaling that of the petroleum producers.

But tightly managed doesn't always mean well managed. And the people who (attempt to) control commodities markets cannot control variables like population, short term weather (droughts) or long term weather (global warming).

I don't want you or anyone else here thinking of me as one of those guys quoting from Revelations while picketing Times Square wearing a sandwich board reading "The End Is Near". But I do think the world is facing a growing food problem that too few people are paying too little attention to.

Have a good week.

is possible, for various reasons. This year there shouldn't be shortage, according to production figures. But supposedly there is, coincident with sudden run-up in grain prices, itself coincident with the popping of the global real estate bubble.

But the media explanations mostly talk "scarcity"; this is what irks me. It panics people, & I believe it's intended to.

Hey, maybe 4 points. I'm not saying this in a mocking or derisive way, either, in case you have doubts. I'm being completely sincere... I hope you know that.

I don't want to be counted among those who think that a serious global food shortage is inevitable, and so is the violence that could follow such a development. That's shouting fire in a crowded theater. Not my MO. It's possible, but by no means a foregone conclusion, or even a "safe" bet. It's just a possibility. IMO.

And it's certainly dangerous to feed the "herd mentality" beast, because mass panic, whether in a crowded theater, on Wall Street, or in the pits of the Chicago Merc, where the prices of your basic food items like corn, wheat and pork bellies are locked in, almost inevitably result in situations where just about everybody loses.

For example, Bear Stearns whould not have collapsed, if it weren't for the panic beast. Not that I have a fondness for investment banks, hedge funds, and their ilk. But they do have their place in a decently regulated economic landscape. Bear Stearns had the assets to back their deals; they just weren't that liquid, and couldn't survive (almost no institution could) the panicky, and frankly stupid "run" that forced JPMorgan Chase and the Fed to intervene. And please let me emphasize that I'm no cheerleader for JPMChase, either. I do support limited regulation of financial institutions, which (if they had been in place in the 1930s) might have prevented the catastrophic bank runs that helped make the Great Depression that much greater. Er, worse. Which is why, in principle, I support the concept of a Fed. Not that I understand completely what Fed head Ben Bernanke has been doing, which I don't.

I'm concerned about food supply, demand, and prices. Like you, I'm more concerned about unfounded panic, and seriously concerned that an ill informed public, fed info by certain segments of a sometimes ill-informed "if it bleeds it leads" media and a similarly incompetent government (or governments) could turn a difficult but manageable situation into a monster. But the chances of a global food shortage (like global warming and the subprime mortgage mess) cannot be simply dismissed out of hand. It's interesting to read that you apparently think that certain influential people in the media want a food panic. They can't be that desperate for circulation and ratings, can they?

And if I knew the answers to the questions that both of us have raised, I'd be King Of The World. Snicker!

BTW, Happy Earth Day!:party:

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/04/commodity_arbit.html

Charts show the divergence in futures & spot markets - beginning
about 2006. In a "normal" market, there shouldn't be big differences, & both should track the midline (0) pretty close.

Beginning about 2006, they don't. If spot is lower than future price, that would tend to indicate weaker demand, or failure to move supply...


Here's more: (10/07 = full elevators & weak spot prices)


"Prices are another bright spot this year for farmers, although not
as bright as it might appear from the commodities futures market.
Corn on the Chicago Board of Trade for December delivery closed
yesterday at about $3.47 a bushel, and soybeans for November
delivery closed at about $9.68 a bushel. That’s up from about $3.10
and $6.25 last year for corn and soybeans respectively, Brees said.
But the prices showing up on the board of trade aren’t necessarily
what the farmers get for their crops. In fact, local farmers are
finding prices from grain elevators that are well below the futures
price.

"The futures price on the Chicago Board of Trade is an offer for
grain at some future time and at a specified delivery point," Brees
said in a recent FAPRI news release. "The local cash price is an
elevator’s signal for how much grain they want, or don’t want,
today."

Crop storage carryover from last year coupled with a solid harvest
this year has created a price squeeze for farmers as regional grain
elevators are filling up fast and forcing farmers to take the price
or store it themselves and sell it later.

The difference between the futures price and the elevator price is
called "basis," and for now, it’s negative, meaning that the cash
price from the grain elevator is less than the futures market. "We
don’t need a lot of this grain that’s being delivered right now,"
Brees said. "That’s why there’s a weak basis."

Caffrey said basis primarily is determined by storage and shipping
capacity, although other factors include fluctuations from
speculative futures trading and global supply and demand."


http://www.showmenews.com/2007/Oct/20071011Busi009.asp

as you call them, are all part of the big picture, PO included, and so is the fact that there was a record harvest - which most importantly for the aggregate of various reasons does not satisfy the demand. Fed pumping like hell and loose money inflating now commodities bubble instead of real estate bubble is part of the picture, but it is not all of it and not the most important underlying cause, but a consequense of the growth paradigm they serve and spread. The most important thing to understand: growth paradigm cannot continue ad infinitum, humanity at current consumption level is allready big way into overshoot, and the growth mania of consumerism still keeps just intensifying.

Even Marxists cannot escape the limits of growth. But global socialism has the potential of sharing scarcity equally and succeeding in a soft landing to less than one Earth ecological footprint, I give them that. And hope they start their revolution as of yeasterday if they mean what they say.

Unfortunately, capitalism is based on that very principle.

I am for reduced growth - but not if it means killing poor people so that wealthy people can continue to consume far beyond their needs, & not if it means LYING about the about the state of agriculture, scaring people into paying higher prices which all go into the pockets of the ruling class, & turning life into a war of all against all.

I consider some of the things I've read on this topic at DU highly irresponsible & indeed, inhuman.

cars.

Because once the infrastructure is in place, there would be little profit.

don't worry as civilization crumbles the rich will find themselves facing mobs that will find them delicious.

"MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — Many parts of America, long considered the breadbasket of the world, are now confronting a once unthinkable phenomenon: food rationing. Major retailers in New York, in areas of New England, and on the West Coast are limiting purchases of flour, rice, and cooking oil as demand outstrips supply. There are also anecdotal reports that some consumers are hoarding grain stocks.

At a Costco Warehouse in Mountain View, Calif., yesterday, shoppers grew frustrated and occasionally uttered expletives as they searched in vain for the large sacks of rice they usually buy.

"Where's the rice?" an engineer from Palo Alto, Calif., Yajun Liu, said. "You should be able to buy something like rice. This is ridiculous."

The bustling store in the heart of Silicon Valley usually sells four or five varieties of rice to a clientele largely of Asian immigrants, but only about half a pallet of Indian-grown Basmati rice was left in stock. A 20-pound bag was selling for $15.99."

http://www2.nysun.com/article/74994

Also cooking oil!

which talks of "rationing" on the basis of one California Costco limiting purchases of 50-lb bags of rice, & one NY costco limiting not rice, but unspecified flour or oil purchasess, was immediately picked up by FOX News, Glen Beck, & from there into the mainstream press.

They'll create shortage by panicking people, & that's exactly what they want. Thanks for helping the nazis.

choose ...


grow your own

or

starve

of dependence on US - or to be exact global food market - is not what people in developing countries or anywhere chose freely, it was forced upon them by neoliberal policies of the so called Washington consensus, executed by IMF, World Bank and various US agencies using extortion, extreme violence and other means to force the will of Big Money.

This problem is partly a matter of artificial scarcity.