P. 1
11 Generic Culpepper Food Prices DA

11 Generic Culpepper Food Prices DA

|Views: 36|Likes:
Published by AffNeg.Com

More info:

Published by: AffNeg.Com on Dec 21, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/16/2011

pdf

text

original

China food prices stabilizing now because of good harvest

CCTV, 7-16-08, “bumper harvest to stabilize food prices,” http://www.cctv.com/english/20080716/104603.shtml, KAPUSTINA

China has been blessed with another summer grain harvest, one that's 2.5 trillion kilograms larger than last year's at
more than 120 trillion kilograms. This is the first time China has enjoyed five bumper harvests in a row since 1949, when the
People's Republic of China was founded. Analysts say this will help stabilize the food prices and inflation as a whole.

Another bumper harvest for grain farmers. They're happy, because the harvest will bring in more money since the price of
grain is about the same or a little higher than last year.
Farmers say they're willing to grow grain on more land
and plan to invest in irrigation systems to grow in a more
economical and environmentally-friendly way.

36

Food Prices DA
DDI 2008
Culpepper Generic

Economy Impact Module

Increased food prices jack interest rates and collapse the economy

Asia Times, 6-11-08, “food summit overlooks price-surge ingredient,”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF11Dj04.html, KAPUSTINA

The cost, in the form of accelerating energy and food prices, will be borne by ordinary citizens throughout the world. Had the
Fed not succumbed to political pressures and followed prudent monetary policies, oil and food prices would have remained relatively
stable. By ignoring the contributions of monetary policy to the food crisis at the summit, and with the monetary brake removed, oil
and food prices will continue to race to dangerously higher and higher levels, with attendant recessionary effects and aggravation of
malnutrition on the global level.

Money matters - a lot
Economist and French presidential advisor Jacques Rueff, in his book the Age of Inflation (1964), argued that money matters to
the point that it can threaten political stability and even civilization.
He noted that exceptionally expansionary monetary policy in
the US and United Kingdom, through very low interest rates, brought a powerful economic boom in 1927-1929 and ended in a credit
crisis and the Great Depression. He showed that a small village could be pushed into famine by creating purchasing power
through credit that is not matched by an equivalent supply. Within a few years, the small village will have exhausted its savings
capacity and would collapse into starvation.

The same image, he contended, applies to the world economy. The result of economic mismanagement, budgetary deficits,
war spending and loose monetary policies is inflation, which is the single-worst economic disaster that can afflict a nation
or the world economy.
Rueff forcefully argued that inflation encourages a quandary and penalizes savings and investment. He
emphasized that monetary equilibrium can be maintained only when purchasing power is equal to the value of wealth
and
no excess liquidities develop in the economy. Excess liquidities will translate immediately into rising prices. His main prophecy
was that the world economy would be doomed to succumb into inflationary disorders as long as sound monetary policies were not
established.

Rueff emphasized the role of the price mechanism in achieving economic efficiency. The setting of interest rates by central
banks is a form of price control and in turn causes serious distortions in the economy. Interest rate control, while not feasible under
the gold standard, has been criticized by a number of notable economists, including Milton Friedman. Fixing interest rates can
force the real market interest rate below the natural interest rate, creating an unlimited demand for loans and igniting a cumulative
inflationary process.

By forcing nominal interest rates to low levels and real interest rates to a negative range in a bid to create a new speculative housing
boom (echoing the style of former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan), the Ben Bernanke Fed is distorting the price mechanism and
preventing recession from running its natural course. Given low yields on bonds, and fearing a collapse in the price of bonds, investors
have become attracted towards commodity and currency speculation.

Moreover, because of low interest rates, the cost of speculating and holding positions in the futures markets has become low while the
yields are high. As interest-rate control translates into accelerating oil and food prices, the real economy will be continuously
depressed.
Subsequently, the US unemployment rate rose to 5.5% in May 2008, and under a combination of the accelerator and
multiplier effects, the economy will go deeper into recession in the coming months. While Bernanke's theory of restoring a housing
boom in the midst of millions of home foreclosures is a novelty worthy of a Nobel Prize, so far aggressive money expansion has been
followed by further collapse of housing prices. Eventually, the turning point in housing prices will be reached when economic
desolation spreads and hyperinflation prevails.

37

Food Prices DA
DDI 2008
Culpepper Generic

Economy Impact Module

Global economic collapse leads to nuke war

T. E. Bearden, LTC, U.S. Army (Retired), CEO, CTEC Inc., Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists (ADAS),
Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS)June 24, 2000 (http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-
Bearden.htm)

As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed
nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take
desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of
their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are
almost certain to be released.
As an example, suppose a starving North Korea {[7]} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and
South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China — whose long-range
nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States — attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties
involved
in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies
have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential
adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary.
The real legacy of the MAD concept
is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at
all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as
possible.
As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that
will be unleashed, are already on site within the U
nited States itself {[8]}. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy
civilization
as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades

38

Food Prices DA
DDI 2008
Culpepper Generic

GMO Impact Module

High food prices increase support for GMOs

International Herald Tribune, 7-8-08, “high food prices may cut opposition to genetically modified food,
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/08/business/gmo.php, KAPUSTINA

ZURICH - Like many stores in Europe, the Coop chain of supermarkets in Switzerland does not specify whether goods are
genetically modified - because none are. But a wave of food-price inflation may help wash away popular opposition to so-
called Frankenstein foods.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0708_05_1.jpg
“I think there’s a lot of resistance in Switzerland,” said a shopper, Beatrice Hochuli, as she picked out a salad for dinner at a
bustling supermarket outside the main Zurich station. “Most people in Switzerland are quite against it.”
Consumers, even those from relatively wealthy parts of the world, are rarely first in line to adopt new technologies. Although
food prices are up more than 50 percent since May 2006, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s Food Price
Index, Europeans remain wary of foods derived from tinkering with the genetic makeup of plants.
But policy makers and food companies are pressing the genetic modification topic in a bid to temper aversion to biotech
crops
like pesticide-resistant rapeseed for oils and “Roundup-ready” soybeans, which tolerate dousing of the Roundup herbicide.
These are crops already common in the United States and other major food exporters like Argentina and Brazil.
The European Commission has said that it believes biotech crops can alleviate the current crisis in food supply, although it added in June that expediency
should not overrule strict scientific scrutiny of the use of the technology involved.
The chairman of Nestlé, the world’s biggest food group, has said it is impossible to feed the world without genetically modified organisms.
Meanwhile, the British government’s former chief scientific adviser, David King, has said over the past week that genetically modified crops hold the key to
solving the world’s food crisis. He called in a Financial Times interview for a “third green revolution,” in reference to two waves of innovation that helped
increase crop yields sharply in Asia over the past 50 years.
Climate change and increasing concern about fresh water supplies are helping to fuel interest in new seed varieties likely to be more resistant to drought and
able to produce reasonable yields with significantly less water. GM technology still has many opponents, who fear that genetically
modified crops can create health problems for animals and humans, wreak havoc on the environment, and give far-reaching
control over the world’s food to a few corporate masters.

Yet a European Commission-sponsored opinion poll last month showed slight change in awareness and acceptance of
the technology.

“For me it is just a matter of time before we get our head around GM,” said Jonathan Banks at the market information company
AC Nielsen. “The way people will learn to live with GM is to say ‘we do it product by product and make sure everything is
OK,”‘ Banks said. “At the moment we have a knee-jerk reaction which thinks of Frankenstein foods.”
The European Union has not approved any genetically modified crops for a decade, and the Union’s 27 member countries
often clash on the issue. Outside the EU, Switzerland has a moratorium on growing GM crops, though that authorities have
granted permission for three GM crop trials between 2008 and 2010 for research.
The market represents a substantial opportunity for biotechnology companies: the European seeds market is worth $7.9 billion,
out of a global total of $32.7 billion, according to data from Cropnosis, a consultancy. The global genetically modified seeds
market was worth $6.9 billion in 2007 and is set to grow further.
Agrochemical companies are riding a wave of high food prices and soaring demand for farm goods, and Monsanto,
DuPont and Syngenta have all raised 2008 earnings forecasts. Although high prices are a boon for farm suppliers, much of the
cost has been passed on to consumers, sparking protests in many countries including Argentina, Indonesia and Mexico.
Others also see opportunity: in June, the chocolate maker Mars, the computer giant IBM and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture said they would map the DNA of the cocoa tree to try to broaden the crop’s $5 billion market.
In a Eurobarometer opinion poll in March, the number of European respondents saying they lacked information on genetically
modified food fell to 26 percent, compared with 40 percent in the previous survey, which took place in 2005. But 58 percent
were apprehensive about the use of such crop technology and just 21 percent were in favor, down from 26 percent in a 2006
Eurobarometer survey on biotechnology.
People do change attitudes, just gradually, because they become used to technologies,” said Jonathan Ramsay, spokesman
for Monsanto, the world’s biggest seed company. “Consumers are looking at prices, consumers hear the

39

Food Prices DA
DDI 2008
Culpepper Generic

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->