Over at Global Dashboard, David Steven asks a serious question by juxtapositioning FAO's views when food was cheap (a bad situation as it dampened income, innovation and employment) versus its views when food became more expensive (also a bad situation as it forces millions into chronic hunger).
Is there a "Goldilocks" price for food? If not should innovation policy and food supply for those in the greatest poverty be to some degree counter-cyclical? Keynesian food policies, anyone?

2 comments:
Maybe there is a Goldilocks price, but since there are downsides and unintended consequences to trying to manipulate the market to find it, maybe the answer is to stop interfering. Also, don't demagogue speculators trading in futures.
Not to be trite, but another possible conclusion is that the FAO is not so much in the business of promoting general welfare as it is in the business of drumming up support for itself.
Post a Comment