English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-12-17 05:04:22 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Economics

Specifically increases in the commodity prices like grain.
I agree it helps the poor farmer, especially those in poor places where competition with western grain can make earning a living difficult.
Aren't a majority of the world's poor in agricultural based economies?

2007-12-17 09:09:06 · update #1

10 answers

It depends on two things, (1) where in the food supply chain prices increase, and (2) what the poor in question do for a living.

If food prices increased because the prices of agricultural commodities rose, it could help poor farmers, who would be selling their crops at higher prices. However, if food prices increased because of higher transportation or processing costs, this would have no positive impact on farmers, as their sale prices would remain unchanged.

As to the poor living in cities, they would be affected adversely regardless of where in the supply chain the price increase takes place.

2007-12-17 06:35:35 · answer #1 · answered by NC 7 · 2 0

There's already a huge variety in what food actually costs - You can spend $50 for a single meal at a fancy resturant, or you can pay 18 cents for a package of raman noodles. There's also a huge price difference between generic non-brand foods, brand name foods, and "organic" or "natural" foods. Basically, it is currently possible more or less to get your food bill to fit your budget. You currently may not be able to get the things you want, but you'll be able to get enough to stay healthy.

However, unless the extra price in food goes specifically and directly to the poor (and not the grocers), artificially raising the price of groceries will likely only make the poor even hungrier, as they'll only be able to afford the cheapest of the cheap items. A diet of only the cheapest goods may also cause malnutrition.

In order make this idea work, you'd have to apply a specific "food tax" to fund food stamps for the poor. We already have enough taxes, in my humble opinion, and food stamps are already available to those below a specific income level.

Many food budgets are already stretched thin because of high gas and other living expenses, and raising the food bill per month may bump some people out of the the "making it but living paycheck to paycheck" and into the "poor" bracket. In essence, artificially raising food prices will make more people poor, not less.

2007-12-17 05:30:32 · answer #2 · answered by Laelia 3 · 0 2

Around the world, yes. Here at home, no. Higher food prices mean more money in the hands of farmers. Since most of the world's poor are farmers who compete with subsidized food from the west rising food prices will put more money in their hands and lead to increased food production around the world.

2007-12-17 05:16:49 · answer #3 · answered by Hubris252 7 · 2 1

The prices of the necessities of life must be reduce. If you have to say that the poverty is rising it means the life index of the economy is going down. Thus if we high the prices of the necessities of life like food, clothing and shelter then poverty in increase rather than decrease.

2007-12-17 05:17:23 · answer #4 · answered by umar z 2 · 0 1

I think any increase would be swallowed up by middlemen, and the producers would be the last to benefit. If you have ever grown your own vegetables, you surely compared your cost with the price paid by customers in the store. Or if you listen to farming reports on radio or TV, you will hear similar comparisons. Huge differences. Processors, transporters, wholesalers and retailers all want their cut, and if we want it processed and transported to us, that's what makes it expensive. If we paid more, very little would trickle down to the producer. Poverty will need to be tackled by more than one angle.

2007-12-17 13:32:49 · answer #5 · answered by bluebell 7 · 0 1

No. not something precise. greed and paranoid delusions are using the entire international mad, we some time past stepped off the sanity ledge and plunged into the abyss of maddness. we will not get ourselves out without very severe "come to Jesus" revival, then , purely then, and purely by using His mercy would we start to work out the way out. precise now too many grasping men are enjoying on too many fears-- this would end badly for each guy or woman.

2016-10-11 11:32:32 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

That will depend on what the people living under poverty are recieving...
if inflation is by how much?
Also other factors affect poverty, so it also depends on the proportion of income spend on food

2007-12-17 07:55:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Sure...the people who can no longer afford the food will starve to death, thereby reducing the population of poor people! So, yes - it reduces poverty....permanently.

2007-12-17 05:13:25 · answer #8 · answered by Blue Oyster Kel 7 · 1 2

No. We humans need to learn to share, and not be so greedy..then this would be a good start................

2007-12-17 08:26:54 · answer #9 · answered by †100% Angel† 6 · 1 0

No, but it will spike the crime rate.

2007-12-17 05:19:52 · answer #10 · answered by forestbythesea 6 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers