2. The notion that prices are driven by financial speculation is only supported by a graph that shows the price of wheat changes while production has remained the same. Which is really insufficient to make that conclusion. I do think that the fact the prices went up during the 2008 financial crisis might be worth pointing out, but at least on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_p... there's a whole list of possible causes listed and none of them addressed in the article.
3. The article never attempts to quantify even roughly how much of the food price increase is due to financial speculation versus the drop in supply, even though there isn't much proof for the former driving sustained food increase on the macro scale whereas a drop in supply leading to price increases is inevitable.
4. The author seems to object to deregulation of the commodities market without actually linking/or having any analysis on its impact on commodity production and prices.
5. The author decries bankers 'ploughing capital' into commodities market, but putting capital into at least the futures market is exactly what leads to more of it - e.g. more food.
I would say in general when making a case for something as important as the issue of food security, and imposing drastic change in national policy, you can't just start with the assumption everything bankers touch is bad and then carry on from there. You should at least address counter-points to your arguments even if you are not able to completely refute them, instead of pretending like they don't exist.
I think the goal of preventing food starvation is a laudable one but as in most cases I think the most efficient way of doing so would just be through aid/loans to the people who are suffering the most instead of trying to ration out the current supply of wheat to the whole world. I think in a world where most nations struggle to even care for their own poor, it is still refreshing to see the case made for a place where we try to alleviate suffering regardless of the location of it.
But I would say the whole scale rejection of free-markets is likely to be counter-productive, especially in the long run. The most successful poverty elevation programmer in the world occured when China opened up its economy, embracing free markets and foreign investment (e.g. money from greedy bankers).
Don't know if they've just been posting to get people to try their app, but I had an interview arranged with them and no one showed up. They asked me to reschedule, I gave them a different time and they never responded.
1. The proof that basic commodities are extremely volatile is a page on understanding investing. https://europe.pimco.com/en-eu/resources/education/understan...
2. The notion that prices are driven by financial speculation is only supported by a graph that shows the price of wheat changes while production has remained the same. Which is really insufficient to make that conclusion. I do think that the fact the prices went up during the 2008 financial crisis might be worth pointing out, but at least on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_world_food_p... there's a whole list of possible causes listed and none of them addressed in the article.
3. The article never attempts to quantify even roughly how much of the food price increase is due to financial speculation versus the drop in supply, even though there isn't much proof for the former driving sustained food increase on the macro scale whereas a drop in supply leading to price increases is inevitable.
4. The author seems to object to deregulation of the commodities market without actually linking/or having any analysis on its impact on commodity production and prices.
5. The author decries bankers 'ploughing capital' into commodities market, but putting capital into at least the futures market is exactly what leads to more of it - e.g. more food.
I would say in general when making a case for something as important as the issue of food security, and imposing drastic change in national policy, you can't just start with the assumption everything bankers touch is bad and then carry on from there. You should at least address counter-points to your arguments even if you are not able to completely refute them, instead of pretending like they don't exist.
I think the goal of preventing food starvation is a laudable one but as in most cases I think the most efficient way of doing so would just be through aid/loans to the people who are suffering the most instead of trying to ration out the current supply of wheat to the whole world. I think in a world where most nations struggle to even care for their own poor, it is still refreshing to see the case made for a place where we try to alleviate suffering regardless of the location of it.
But I would say the whole scale rejection of free-markets is likely to be counter-productive, especially in the long run. The most successful poverty elevation programmer in the world occured when China opened up its economy, embracing free markets and foreign investment (e.g. money from greedy bankers).