Explain why scarcity of food exists, while fields that could grow crops to feed everybody lie unused?

Question

I am researching the thesis that exchange depends on a necessary scarcity, and it is scarcity- obviously!, that causes local starvation of goods, and on a greater level, world starvation. I.E. starvation is the built in factor of economics. Why isnt this a big deal, a big issue! MAJOR.

Answer 1

UGH !!! Who are these people that answer questions?
Starvation is absolutely, positively, under no circumstances a built in factor of economics.
Scarcity is not the cause of local starvation. It is what causes scarcity. Causes that are very easily fixed.

1-Lack of private property rights (people seem oblivious to how important this is)
2-Lack of free trade (people hate free trade, just ask around and listen to them rant about China, as an example)

1>>In Zimbabwe, the farmers have the ability to produce enough food to feed the whole country and surrounding countries.
Dictator/Thug Robert Mugabe took the farm land(because it was owned by whites) and redistributed it to his cronies.
>>The result is famine.

2>>In Africa farm lands go unused because of US/European farm subsidies. As a result African farmers don't farm because they cannot make a living selling their crops.

http://www.washtimes.com/business/20031207-114046-8545r.htm
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/trade/bp31_dumping.htm
http://www.mindfully.org/WTO/Subsidies-Hurt-Poor-Akande19oct02.htm
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36207.html
http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2005-11/24sharma.cfm
http://www.ipsnews.org/news.asp?idnews=32906
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-Everywhere/dp/0465016146/sr=8-3/qid=1161227163/ref=pd_bbs_3/002-7870909-1100821?ie=UTF8&s=books

Answer 2

Food is a perishable commodity, it cannot be shipped everywhere in its edible form. The means of growing food are not in the `right` places, you have lush soil in one country because it has the right amount of sunshine and rain, so it feeds its` people. In other countries you have arid conditions where nothing will grow and the country cannot feed its` peoples. If they had the same conditions as for example the U.K.has, then starvation would be a thing of the past. There must be some one somewhere in this world, that can `invent` irrigation systems to take sea-water, de-salinate it and pipe it to arid regions. I know this is expensive, but what price life, when thousands die every year?

Answer 3

Unless rocks and sand become edible, then food will always be scarce.

It is really simple economics. Suppliers of food must recive a return on their investment. Poor people in poor nations cannot provide those growers with an adequate return. Instead, wealthier nations wind up "gifting" food supplies to these needy people. This is helpful where warlords and criminals don't steal these supplies.

Ulitimately, those people should move to region where food can be more easily produced or they should die of starvation. This is the way life works.

Sounds harsh, doesn't it?

However, imagine this: If you moved to an artic tundra miles from any food source and had no money or goods of value to trade, would it be resonable to expect others to deliver food to you without compensation?

Not very rational, is it? And economics is ALL ABOUT RATIONAL behavior.

I'm hungry.


Gonna go make a sandwich.

Answer 4

You are fogetting one major component, the ability to pay. Just because there is demand and supply does not mean that in the short term the curves will cross at an optimal level. If there is supply but no ability to pay the supply remains unsued as you see. Then either supply is reduced or price is dropped. The ability of third world countries to buy on their own would be a price below the cost of production and as such the demand will not be met unless their is an artificial subsidy which will also have long term negative effects on the ecomony. Despite this, the short term needs exceed the long term negative, if, we also provide the third world nations the ability to sustain them selfs without assistance.

Answer 5

Well I'd say that food is the real weapon. I guess Chinese saying about catching the fish isn't relevant anymore. It is easier to control populations if you starve them and this way keep them down and quiet (e.g. N Korea). There are also benefits, why feed someone who have no means at all to pay (no natural resources)? There is no scarcity of food at all, great amounts of food have been thrown away every day in the world, while many die of starvation. The politics, I'd say.

Answer 6

My guess would be it has a lot to do with rich nations wanting to be richer and its all about greed, and money at the end of the day. I wish I knew what the solution was but I'm willing to do my bit to help when I can. Yes you're right it SHOULD be a MAJOR issue! And its up to people like us mere mortals to let the powers that be know that we are not going to accept their crap any longer.
Perhaps if more and more people lobby politicians and let governments know that we are not going to accept the situation, then they will have to address the issue. (Sorry if I'm going on a rant there) But its an important issue.

Answer 7

as many academics say, "poverty in plenty". there are fields to grow n feed but people do not have the power to purchase. impoverished regions of the world produce and supply an amazing amount of raw material but get paid very less. according the principles of free market n wot micheal chossudovosky calls "dollarisation of prices" locals who r not owners of their own lands n hence are not self sustained, cant afford their own produce.

Answer 8

The cost for planting, growing and harvesting is exorbitant. The farmers do not break even with most crops. If they have a bad year (ex: floods, not enough water, diseases and other crop infestations) they go in the hole and cannot afford to plant another year.

Answer 9

I think u r aiming at a new Ricardianism. u r a promoter of comparative trade.