Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Commodities traders caused starvation and malnutrition for 200 million people

JimW

支那暗杀团
Writes Johann Hari:
At the end of 2006, food prices across the world started to rise, suddenly and stratospherically. Within a year, the price of wheat had shot up by 80 percent, maize by 90 percent, and rice by 320 percent. In a global jolt of hunger, 200 million people - mostly children - couldn't afford to get food any more, and sank into malnutrition or starvation. There were riots in over 30 countries, and at least one government was violently overthrown. Then, in spring 2008, prices just as mysteriously fell back to their previous level. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, called it "a silent mass murder", entirely due to "man-made actions."

Various reasons were advanced at the time for the price rise but it now emerges it was almost entirely due to speculation by commodities traders:
Here's how it happened. In 2006, financial speculators like Goldman's pulled out of the collapsing US real estate market, and they were looking for somewhere else to make their stash of cash swell. They started to buy massive amounts of derivatives based on food: they reckoned that food prices would stay steady or rise while the rest of the economy tanked. Suddenly, the world's frightened investors stampeded onto this ground and decided to buy, buy, buy.

So while the supply and demand of food stayed pretty much the same, the supply and demand for contracts based on food massively rose - which meant the all-rolled-into-one price for food on people's plates massively rose. The starvation began.
 
The problem with this analysis is that it just repeats the same old mantra 'its the markets' therefore concluding that we need more state action to regulate them. But this completely misses the fact that not all 'markets' are the same.

A market is nothing other than a set of individual behaviours that interact in complex ways to result in emergent outcomes. But the environment that individual actors operate in has the effect of shaping the end result. Blaming 'markets' for everything then is really just akin to blaming gravity if your house falls down. The real thing that should be blamed is the design created by the architect. Change the design (i.e. the environment that the market operates within) and the market outcome also changes.

We have a system in which property 'rights' are nothing but an abstract notion enforced by the state and treated as a commodity without (as the article points out) any connection between the actual commodity and the trader needing to exist. Property in it's natural sense is a result of combining ones labour with the world around you - ownership is by nature a function of direct human action as opposed to state granted titles.

Minus this state distortion generated by artificial property rights, the outcome of market forces would not result in the type of speculative madness we see today.
 

he writes some good stuff sometimes johann hari - his bang-up-the-pope stuff got me going!

its pretty incredible how no meaningful new regulation regime has entered post lehman etc. - i think it wont be till the double dip really kicks in that the fuckers will get clamped down (we live in hope)
 
"The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money"

Relevant.
 
thats the problem - nothing has changed - no one wants to take the bankers on

When you say 'no-one' do you mean the state? Because the two are the same thing. Only a change in the fundamental operation of societal organisation - i.e. removing the whole corporatist structure - can prevent bankers causing such damage.
 
Goldmann Sachs is not a lobbyist as Johann Hari suggests, it designs and runs all government banking policy:

Just take Hank Poulson - former US Treasury Secretary and man who pulled together the package that 'saved' the banks, totally GS, through and through. As is Tim Geithner, the current US Treasury Secretary. The whole game was rigged before, and after the rescue, to keep the banks independent - all by insiders:

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/03/04/government-sachs-is-back.html


How many convictions of bankers have their been, how much new legislation to help ensure none of this happens again - literally the whole game is rigged.
 
Some wonk at the FT rubbishes Hari's claims, but this thing from Harper's supports the same broad argument:
The wheat harvest of 2008 turned out to be the most bountiful the world had ever seen, so plentiful that even as hundreds of millions slowly starved, 200 million bushels were sold for animal feed. Livestock owners could afford the wheat; poor people could not. Rather belatedly, real wheat had shown up again—and lots of it. U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics eventually revealed that 657 million bushels of 2008 wheat remained in U.S. silos after the buying season, a record-breaking “carryover.” Soon after that bounteous oversupply had been discovered, grain prices plummeted and the wheat markets returned to business as usual.

The worldwide price of food had risen by 80 percent between 2005 and 2008, and unlike other food catastrophes of the past half century or so, the United States was not insulated from this one, as 49 million Americans found themselves unable to put a full meal on the table. Across the country demand for food stamps reached an all-time high, and one in five kids came to depend on food kitchens. In Los Angeles nearly a million people went hungry. In Detroit armed guards stood watch over grocery stores. Rising prices, mused the New York Times, “might have played a role.”

On the plane to Minneapolis I had read a startling prediction: “It may be hard to imagine commodity prices advancing another 460 percent above their mid-2008 price peaks,” hedge-fund manager John Hummel wrote in a letter to clients of AIS Capital Management. “But the fundamentals argue strongly,” he continued, that “these sectors have significant upside potential.” I made a quick calculation: 460 percent above 2008 peaks meant hamburger meat priced at $20 a pound.
 
I wrote about exactly this movement at the time on MATB Jim. This oisleep did too.

Cheers butchers, will have a search for that. I remember the price rises at the time but had missed the specific allegations about commodities trading (although obvious you knew that in general food prices are victims of the market).
 
Goldmann Sachs is not a lobbyist as Johann Hari suggests, it designs and runs all government banking policy:

Just take Hank Poulson - former US Treasury Secretary and man who pulled together the package that 'saved' the banks, totally GS, through and through. As is Tim Geithner, the current US Treasury Secretary. The whole game was rigged before, and after the rescue, to keep the banks independent - all by insiders:

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/03/04/government-sachs-is-back.html


How many convictions of bankers have their been, how much new legislation to help ensure none of this happens again - literally the whole game is rigged.

As well as in the US, in particular Goldman Sachs who seemingly sharing senior employees with the State Treasury there is a big problem in the UK. Senior bankers move back and forth between the Treasury and private financial institutions.

The hypocrisy that results of this kind of arrangement is something that is often written about in Private Eye.

These cosy relationships may well go some way to explain the lack of effective regulation on the financial sector.
 
The problem with this analysis is that it just repeats the same old mantra 'its the markets' therefore concluding that we need more state action to regulate them. But this completely misses the fact that not all 'markets' are the same.

A market is nothing other than a set of individual behaviours that interact in complex ways to result in emergent outcomes. But the environment that individual actors operate in has the effect of shaping the end result. Blaming 'markets' for everything then is really just akin to blaming gravity if your house falls down. The real thing that should be blamed is the design created by the architect. Change the design (i.e. the environment that the market operates within) and the market outcome also changes.

We have a system in which property 'rights' are nothing but an abstract notion enforced by the state and treated as a commodity without (as the article points out) any connection between the actual commodity and the trader needing to exist. Property in it's natural sense is a result of combining ones labour with the world around you - ownership is by nature a function of direct human action as opposed to state granted titles.

Minus this state distortion generated by artificial property rights, the outcome of market forces would not result in the type of speculative madness we see today.

When did you first become religious? Actually, on second thoughts, i I bet you're not even aware that you're religious.
 
Writes Johann Hari:


Various reasons were advanced at the time for the price rise but it now emerges it was almost entirely due to speculation by commodities traders:

" Here's how it happened. In 2006, financial speculators like Goldman's pulled out of the collapsing US real estate market, and they were looking for somewhere else to make their stash of cash swell. They started to buy massive amounts of derivatives based on food: they reckoned that food prices would stay steady or rise while the rest of the economy tanked. Suddenly, the world's frightened investors stampeded onto this ground and decided to buy, buy, buy.

So while the supply and demand of food stayed pretty much the same, the supply and demand for contracts based on food massively rose - which meant the all-rolled-into-one price for food on people's plates massively rose. The starvation began."


JH does some some interesting stuff sometimes, but his take on this isnt entirely correct - thats not to say hes wrong, but there is a great deal more involved than just food demand here
 
JH does some some interesting stuff sometimes, but his take on this isnt entirely correct - thats not to say hes wrong, but there is a great deal more involved than just food demand here

Seems like the more in depth argument behind it is between that Prof Ghosh whose report Hari quotes (tho doesn't say it was entirely the speculators) and the OECD who dismiss the claims (as they would). Points made at the time such as rising demand from new middle classes in developing world seem to have shown to have been false; not sure about the biofuels argument.
 
I think it was the Mark Thomas Manifesto where someone suggested that if traders (Goldman's) had purchased this food then it should all be shipped to their office.
 
" Here's how it happened. In 2006, financial speculators like Goldman's pulled out of the collapsing US real estate market, and they were looking for somewhere else to make their stash of cash swell. They started to buy massive amounts of derivatives based on food: they reckoned that food prices would stay steady or rise while the rest of the economy tanked. Suddenly, the world's frightened investors stampeded onto this ground and decided to buy, buy, buy.

So while the supply and demand of food stayed pretty much the same, the supply and demand for contracts based on food massively rose - which meant the all-rolled-into-one price for food on people's plates massively rose. The starvation began."


JH does some some interesting stuff sometimes, but his take on this isnt entirely correct - thats not to say hes wrong, but there is a great deal more involved than just food demand here

What did you have in mind? Do you mean environmental / supply side factors? Buying of up agricultural land from other-seas countries (especially China)?
 
When you say 'no-one' do you mean the state? Because the two are the same thing. Only a change in the fundamental operation of societal organisation - i.e. removing the whole corporatist structure - can prevent bankers causing such damage.

Or removing corruption between corporation and member of government. Get back to democracy perhaps! Get back to (if we ever were there) where politicians represent the people's wishes, not become corrupted by inducements of loadsa cash. When politicians work for the people, then whatever we get, we deserve, it's in our hands.

So, cut the corruption between big business and politicians, and the bankers and their criminal ilk can be taken on. People have to demand from their leaders or corruption will take over.
 
How many convictions of bankers have their been, how much new legislation to help ensure none of this happens again - literally the whole game is rigged.

Totally rigged. For a long time. Either we carry on like this, or we demand change. Up to the people. Some say we can't change anything, but whatever the strength of that argument, it is the only way. A thief addicted to stealing isn't gonna suddenly stop on his own. Down to the people!
 
I expect it will be brought down by a big revolution.
If history is anything to go by.
I wonder what wonderful killing machine the revolutionists will come up with this time?
 
Actually, some guy at FT with knowledge about how the futures market's really work comprehensively rebuts the argument and provides further studies to back up his argument.

Well "he would do wouldn't he". As with most matters in economics, what you see to be true depends on where you sit...
 
Bollocks; they nitpick some bit where Hari mischaracterises the workings of the market while signally failing to address the actual issue other than to big up the OECD report, which is in no way a watertight refutation.
 
comprehensively rebuts? The thing is shot through with 'perhaps' 'possible' 'doesn't necessarily' 'can argue' 'should at least theoretically' - and all it concludes is that the various reports ' at least cast doubt' - she can't even bring herself to say Hari is wrong.
 
Her use of the OECD report is disgustingly dishonest - she cites the reports listing of theoretical reasons why there may not have been a bubble as empirical proof of there not being a bubble.
 
Of the other reports linked to as definitive proof that this didn't cause price rises, the first one concludes:

However, as the paper shows, futures trading can have short-term effects on commodity prices.

The second one is not about financial speculators at all, it doesn't look at their impact or non-impact. It looks only at increased demand, oil prices and the growth of China. At best it can pinpoint other contributory factors to the price rise, but not rule out any impact by speculators.

The third is to a firewalled FT piece.
 
"...Suddenly, the world's frightened investors stampeded onto this ground and decided to buy, buy, buy.".

Sorry to gainsay you, Johann, but it's more likely that GS made a decision to buy up food derivatives partly in the knowledge that shifting even a fraction of their reserves into a new field would cause a rising market as the investment sheep followed the shepherd, with the finance journos playing sheep-dog to keep the sheep moving in the "right" direction.
 
Back
Top Bottom