![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mcgillianairePresident Bush has raised a storm in India by attributing rising food prices to the growth of India's middle class. He was quoted as saying:
"So, for example, just as an interesting thought for you, there are 350 million people in India who are classified as middle class. That's bigger than America. Their middle class is larger than our entire population. And when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food. And so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up." [Source]
Not surprisingly, the Indian political establishment is up in arms with this claim and lashing out at Dubya. Though all the three major political parties have responded angrily, they have each done so differently. The party leading the government, The Congress, have said that the major reason for spiralling global food prices was the diversion of land producing foodcrops to biofuel production in America. The Commies who prop up the government (with outside support) have gone for the time-tested "neoliberal economic policies imposed on India by the Bush administration" approach while the opposition BJP have blamed Bush's statement on the government's failure to control inflation. Other commentators are pointing out that India is a net exporter of rice, not importer. Really, who cares? Indian politics. It never fails to amuse.
Not surprisingly, the Indian political establishment is up in arms with this claim and lashing out at Dubya. Though all the three major political parties have responded angrily, they have each done so differently. The party leading the government, The Congress, have said that the major reason for spiralling global food prices was the diversion of land producing foodcrops to biofuel production in America. The Commies who prop up the government (with outside support) have gone for the time-tested "neoliberal economic policies imposed on India by the Bush administration" approach while the opposition BJP have blamed Bush's statement on the government's failure to control inflation. Other commentators are pointing out that India is a net exporter of rice, not importer. Really, who cares? Indian politics. It never fails to amuse.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 05:14 pm (UTC)Dubya makes me embarrassed to be an American.
Has no one seriously even mentioned the soaring costs of oil, and the fact that a huge percentage of food-production overhead goes to petroleum-based products?
WTFever.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 05:58 pm (UTC)so make the most of things and invest in agriculture companies :)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 11:11 pm (UTC)Agreed, but only to a certain extent. It is worth noting that many Indians (more than any other country by population and percentage) are vegetarian. In fact here's what the Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US_eats_5_times_more_than_India_per_capita/articleshow/3008449.cms) has come up with:
"Total foodgrain consumption — wheat, rice, and all coarse grains like rye, barley etc — by each person in the US is over five times that of an Indian, according to figures released by the US Department of Agriculture for 2007. Each Indian gets to eat about 178 kg of grain in a year, while a US citizen consumes 1,046 kg. In per capita terms, US grain consumption is twice that of the European Union and thrice that of China. Grain consumption includes flour and by conversion to alcohol. In fact, per capita grain consumption has increased in the US — so actually the Americans are eating more. In 2003, US per capita grain consumption was 946 kg per year which increased to 1046 kg last year. By way of comparison, India’s per capita grain consumption has remained static over the same period. It’s not just grains. Milk consumption, in fluid form, is 78 kg per year for each person in the US, compared to 36 kg in India and 11 kg in China. Vegetable oils consumption per person is 41 kg per year in US, while Indians are making do with just 11 kg per year. These are figures for liquid milk, not for cheese, butter, yogurt and milk powders which are consumed in huge proportion in the more advanced countries.
A significant proportion of India’s population is vegetarian, and so, this is all the food that they get, apart from vegetables and pulses. But the source of carbohydrates and fats is mainly derived from food grains and oils.
As far as meat consumption is concerned, the US leads the world in per capita consumption by a wide margin. Beef consumption, for example, is 42.6 kg per person per year, compared to a mere 1.6 kg in India and 5.9 kg in China. In case you are thinking that perhaps Indians might be going in for chicken, think again. In the US, 45.4 kg poultry meat is consumed every year by each person, compared to just 1.9 kg in India. Pork consumption is negligible in India, while it is a major item elsewhere. In the European Union, 42.6 kg pork is consumed per person every year, while in the US, 29.7 kgs are consumed. Pork is a staple for Chinese, and so over 35 kg are consumed per person per year. And, we are not talking about various other types of meat, like turkey. All these comparisons are for powerful economies, whether of the west or the east.
These figures are collated by the US Department of Agriculture. US per capita grain consumption rose from 946 kg in 2003 to 1046 kg last year. India’s per capita consumption remained static in this period."
It's going to take a very long time for India's rising middle-class to make a significant dent on global food prices. It's also highly unlikely that it's rise until now has had a significant effect on prices. China on the other hand...
>the real problem is that the US turned 25% of its corn into inefficient fuel last year
Earlier this year the Indian Finance Minister launched a tirade against the West on this very matter. At the time I thought it was one of his weaker moments in which he gave into Leftist pressure to balance his overwhelming support for the "neoliberal economic policies imposed on India by the Bush administration". Soon after, the Economist's cover page was dedicated to an impending food crisis. That's when I realized how significant his tirade actually was and the fact that it was not too far off the mark.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-05 04:58 pm (UTC)