3 edits
Originally posted by MerkVenezuela has averaged double digit inflation for decades, so you are putting the cart before the horse. The difference is that under Chavez the real income of the workers has kept above of inflation and he has tried to do something about the inflation by use of price controls on certain commodities important to the average Venezuela.
An income rise in the face of double digit inflation doesn't count for much.
Getting a sugar high from the rapid spike in oil prices and spending money like a drunken sailor on leave creates inflation, which will, in turn, raise peoples salaries.
The only questions at this point are, can he avoid firther inflation or deflation and which part of the agriculture sector will he nationalize next.
EDIT: Your premise that Chavez's policies caused inflation where it previously didn't exist is easily demolished:
Inflation took off and peaked in 1995 at around 100% - see graph. In fact, during the Chavez years inflation has been an average of 18.4% per year. From 1984-89, during the Lusinchi presidency it averaged 22.5%; from 1989-1993 with Carlos Andres Perex at the helm, inflation averaged 45.5% and then during the last administration of Rafael Caldera from 1994 � 1999 it skyrocketed to 59.4%.
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_26069.shtml
Originally posted by FMFWhen were more people fed than now? Humanity - especially the third world for some reason - seems extremely good at converting food into human beings. How is that possible if there is less food over there than there used to be?
Not true. Increasingly prevalent monoculture and agro-industrial systems increase quantities, and even create surpluses, in the developed world while destroying food security in the developing world where "a large plurarity of earths population" actually lives. You are probably counting European 'food mountains' as food theoretically on the tables of Third World ...[text shortened]... only they had the 'desire' and 'initiative' to summon up the purchasing power. etc. etc.
Agricultural technology keeps improving. Population keeps going up, especially in the third world. The facts seem to indicate that the third world has more food than ever!
Take a look at the "2005/1990 ratios of per capita consumption" chart on the right on this Wikipedia page (yes, the chart is itself referenced):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_crisis#World_population_growth
India, Brazil, China and Nigeria have all seen increases in per-capita food consumption over the last century, for example.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMore food than ever is being produced in the Third World. But more and more of it is being produced for the First World and using approaches that degrade food security in the Third World.
The facts seem to indicate that the third world has more food than ever!
Originally posted by FMFThen why are population and per capita food consumption increasing so dramatically there?
More food than ever is being produced in the Third World. But more and more of it is being produced [b]for the First World and using approaches that degrade food security in the Third World.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFFood consumption per capita went up from 1980 to 1984 in Indonesia...lets see if I can find some more recent stats.
They aren't here.
Consumption/production. The First world likes to fudge those terms.
http://tinyurl.com/bqhhsv
EDIT - It looks like the trend lasted from 1970-1990 at least...
http://www.agnet.org/library/bc/46010/#pict1
Can you provide any evidence that people in Indonesia eat less now than they did in the past? All the evidence I am finding suggests the opposite.
Originally posted by FMFYou complained that production of food in the third world is misleading because the first world consumes that food, so I switched to consumption data...and now you're making comments about the first world confusing the two. I hope you don't mean I'm confusing the two.
They aren't here.
Consumption/production. The First world likes to fudge those terms.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDeclining food security in the Third World is a massive, urgent issue.
Food consumption per capita went up from 1980 to 1984 in Indonesia...lets see if I can find some more recent stats.
http://tinyurl.com/bqhhsv
EDIT - It looks like the trend lasted from 1970-1990 at least...
http://www.agnet.org/library/bc/46010/#pict1
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI know where you stand on these things. And I find your stance particularly offensive: (1) starvation will restore equilibrium, and (2) food security does not exist because it has never been full achieved. I'm not going through all this again. You take delight in whatever you want to take delight in. Don't mind me.
I hope you don't mean I'm confusing the two.
Originally posted by FMFI'll be happy to correct your misconceptions, even if you ignore me or lash out with your love of long winded, hateful, vicious attacks which you seem to prefer over fact and reasoning.
I know where you stand on these things. And I find your stance particularly offensive: (1) starvation will restore equilibrium, and (2) food security does not exist because it has never been full achieved. I'm not going through all this again. You take delight in whatever you want to take delight in. Don't mind me.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFIf you say so. All I know is the average Indonesian eats more food on a day to day basis than he has for nearly four decades. If this is consistent with a decline in "food security" (whatever that is) then I, once again, wonder what possible value or meaning that phrase could have.
Declining food security in the Third World is a massive, urgent issue.
If I remember correctly, if even one person does not have enough food for one day, then food security does not exist by definition (United Nations definition, that is)...and therefore it never has existed anywhere.
Therefore, I will point out again, food security has not declined. It is not a decline to go from lack of food security to lack of food security.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat's no surprise. It was never disputed by me. Whatever. You either understand the issue of food security or you don't. Few months back you went to extraordinary and ridiculous lengths to refuse to understand it. That's your prerogative. Presumably you think that declining food security in the Third World is NOT a massive, urgent issue. Good for you. Well done.
If you say so. All I know is the average Indonesian eats more food on a day to day basis than he has for nearly four decades.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou sound like a fool.
If I remember correctly, if even one person does not have enough food for one day, then food security does not exist by definition (United Nations definition, that is)...and therefore it never has existed anywhere.
Therefore, I will point out again, food security has not declined. It is not a decline to go from lack of food security to lack of food security.
Originally posted by FMFSo...
That's no surprise. It was never disputed by me. Whatever. You either understand the issue of food security or you don't. Few months back you went to extraordinary and ridiculous lengths to refuse to understand it. That's your prerogative. Presumably you think that declining food security in the Third World is NOT a massive, urgent issue. Good for you. Well done.
Indonesia produces more food than ever.
Indonesia consumes more food than ever.
Indonesia consumes more food than ever per capita.
Food security cannot exist by definition.
You fail to address my points, yet you stubbornly cling to your conclusion, which I have convincingly shown to have no basis in fact. Well done. That's your prerogative. Presumably you think belief should not be based on fact. Good for you.