ok.

rice was 1 cent a pound, it increased 140% so now its 2cents a pound. Oh noes! we'z all gonnaz die masta!

Another scare tactic brought to you by liberal media.

"Another scare tactic brought to you by liberal media."

Food stocks up 140%, and it's a scare tactic? You're nuckin' futz.

once again, the liberals are to blame.

Its like a merry go round.

And in 10 years all grains will cost 10x as much because of the liberal demand for biofuel.

Boy, liberals are smart. They like driving their cars, and don't give a rats fucking ass who starves.

Trample the poor for personal gain! Thats what I call great policy. Go libs go.

Kuma

All this time I thought Condoleezza was sort of worthless.

"once again, the liberals are to blame."

Because, of course, Republicans don't eat rice.

"all grains will cost 10x as much because of the liberal demand for biofuel."

Because, of course, only Democrats drive.

"Boy, liberals are smart."

Third time's a charm.

If any of you conservatives would take the penis out of your mouths long enough to actually read the article, you would see that the price is 3 time higher than a year ago in Thailand and 80% higher on the CBOT.

While you heartless fucks couldn't give a damn about anyone other than yourself, the vast majority of the people in poverty spend most of their meager income on food. What do you think will happen when the price of that food triples?

They can't skimp on luxury items since to them having a few grams of fish twice a week is about the most luxurious thing they can imagine.

The price of rice is life or death to these people.

But to the Rtards on DR, it is just a joke.

OK smart guy, why is the price of rice going up so much? Has anyone ever heard about the supply and demand thing? It sure ain't the fuel prices because all thoes 3rd world countries work the rice fields by hand. WTF over.

Snippy, you ignorant slut.

The price of rice that is reported by these reports is that of INDUSTRIALLY PRODUCED rice. Fuel price is now the greatest component in the price of staples like rice and other grains.

And you masquerade as someone with functioning brain cells???

Subsistance farmers don't report their rice prices to the CBOT, dumbshit!!!!!

Let us for a moment consider that our friend Snipper is a farmer in some southeast asian country. He and is sex partner, the family water buffalo manage the family rice business. He has no motor vehicles and relies on his 3 cousins and said water buffalo to pump water and till and harvest the rice.

He has a good harvest and hitches up Fluffy to the wagon and goes off to the market.

When he gets there, the going price for the government subsidized imported rice that until recently has kept him in poverty has all of a sudden gone up 500%.

What does Snippy do? Does he sell at last years price because he is a good guy or go with the market price?

"The price of rice is life or death to these people.

But to the Rtards on DR, it is just a joke.

Posted by axe "


Ignorant rightwing shitstains don't give a fuck about anybody except themselves. Take GutterSniper...please!

Snippy, you ignorant slut.

The price of rice that is reported by these reports is that of INDUSTRIALLY PRODUCED rice. Fuel price is now the greatest component in the price of staples like rice and other grains.

And you masquerade as someone with functioning brain cells???

Posted by axe

axe, you ignorant slut (your words, not mine). What does that have to do with the people that are starving in all the 3rd world countries? Read the posts and they are all whining how this price increase is hurting the masses. Do you realy care that rice costs you $5.00 per year more this year than it did last year?

"What does that have to do with the people that are starving in all the 3rd world countries?"

Axe just explained it to you, idiot.

Snippy,

I guess that explains why you take the most cowardly specialty in the armed forces for your handle. (Acutally the second most cowardly after Commander in Chief)

You really are a total retard.

Rice could go up 2000% and it would not affect me or you but it would kill off millions and millions of the worlds truely poor.

Of course a sick Rtard like you would just think that was a good thing.

ASSHOLE!!!

ASSHOLE!!!

Posted by axe

That's one heck of an arguement you got there axe.

Please tell me how the price of rice here in the US effects a 3rd world country. Do thoes realy poor people over there order rice from us? If they do, how do they pay for it if they are so damn poor? Is this the only country that has dirt so we can grow crops? Isn't there any dirt in Asia? Dosen't it rain there?

Please tell me how they ever survived before the US ever became a country.

Set aside your name calling and try to answer my questions. One at a time, I'm a little slow.

What I have read and heard about this is that the farmers in the poor nations were fine until grains from factory farms in places like the US, selling subsidized grains were under free trade able to sell their products in third world countries thereby undercutting the local farmers as per Mexico. The farmers lost the farms, couldn't make money moved to cities to find work. Now, with the fuel price rising it costs too much to transport the grains to the third world and the price is rising for the grains because of it. So, now the move is on to try to get the farmers in the localities to start growing grains again so that the transportation costs will be lessened. It's just another episode in the World Wide Horror Show called Free Trade which most of the people in this country worship as if it is God's choice.

"One at a time, I'm a little slow."

That's for sure.

" It sure ain't the fuel prices because all thoes 3rd world countries work the rice fields by hand. WTF over."
Posted by Sniper

YEAH!

What Year is it, where you live?

YEAH!

You do know snip that the actors in that movie The Good Earth we're actuly just some Crackers pretendin'!

But now you've done it! Now I will have to dig it out and have a special viewin'!

It's just another episode in the World Wide Horror Show called Free Trade which most of the people in this country worship as if it is God's choice.

NAFTA, WTO and more acronyms than I am familiar with. Free trade negates bureaucratic controls. That the politicians and their corporate cronies call it free doesn't make it free. Danni suffers from the problem of not knowing what "free" means.

Snippy,

Just go back and read the article. The price trippled in THAILAND. Last time I checked, that ain't the USA, Bubba.

The reason the price of rice will never effect the people of the USA as drastically as other places is the social safety net we still have in place. Giving another 4 years of Bushonomics, that may change for the worse.

Beating up on Snippy is too damned easy. It's like kicking a blind puppy.

Where it that damed chairpoodle?

selling subsidized grains were under free trade

Subsidized grains. Free trade. That's a contradiction in terms.

"Danni suffers from the problem of not knowing what "free" means."

Semantical games. Doesn't matter what you call it. It's global capitalism, whether you call it "free trade" or not. And it's a train wreck.

Giving another 4 years of Bushonomics, that may change for the worse.

Don't ever think inflation will let up. Government statistics are a flat out lie as anybody who shops can see. We may not be many years away from $200 a barrel oil and $8 gas.

It's global capitalism, whether you call it "free trade" or not. And it's a train wreck.

Heavily distorted by government intervention. No economic system can prevent human stupidity.

Ray,

I think you may be optimistic in thinking we are years away from $200 oil. I'd think more in terms of months. Any maybe not even too far into double digits of months.

"Heavily distorted by government intervention."

Capitalism is a government program. Always has been. Always will be.

"Danni suffers from the problem of not knowing what "free" means."

No I don't Ray, I don't think "Free Trade" is free any more than you do. I was just saying that so called "Free Trade" is now beginning to cause millions of people to begin starving when they were at least eating before our corporations did them the favor of selling them cheaper food.....almost like getting them hooked on cocaine....when the corporations are the only dealer.

Capitalism is a government program. Always has been. Always will be.

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-04-25 08:44

Until it collapses, which can't be many more years away. We're not talking about decades anymore.

Oh BTW, I wonder how many people in third world countries started smoking cigarettes today??
I wonder how many received a free pack of American cigarettes around the world?
Anheuser Busch is pissed that Muslim countries don't allow alcohol?
I wonder how the Coca eradication program is doing in Columbia?
God bless America.

Danni

Let's just get our terms right. The best example of real free trade is trade between our states where goods and services flow across borders without regulation and taxes.

The current system as you realize is set up for the benefit of the corporations. They are federally subsidized with nice sounding terms like "foreign aid" and "free trade." The term I like that describes our economic system is "fascist capitalism." But certainly not FREE trade in the way Adam Smith meant.

"fascist capitalism."

I could accept that description. It has gotten worse under Herr Bush but it was bad enough already. I believe it began under Nixon but Reagan was the one who kicked it into high gear. Although, I think those are just names of men who sat at a desk and got his picture taken a lot. THe same power structure has governed continually including during the Clinton years though Carter did not just dance as a puppet and has been forever demonized because of it. I think that was why he met with Hamas in spite of the Bush administration objections, he likes pissing them off and I like him for it.

"The best example of real free trade is trade between our states where goods and services flow across borders without regulation and taxes."

That's not free trade. Ricardo talked about comparative advantage between nation states, not within nation states.

Carter did not just dance as a puppet and has been forever demonized because of it. I think that was why he met with Hamas in spite of the Bush administration objections, he likes pissing them off and I like him for it.

I have to think he knew what to expect going into it. The reaction sent a message to the Muslims to expect war. Not that they needed it.

I didn't think even kkkarl rove(r)(ARF ARF) would pay for that skanky slut.

I think Carter sees the ME as a powder keg which he feels an obligation to try to prevent from exploding. AT his age he undertakes to, at least, try to help avoid war and most Americans think he is just an old man who likes to meddle. He is a truely great man and deserves so much more respect and love from Americans. And righties will laugh and make stupid comments about Carter which, when you research them, usually are not even true. It makes me angry.

That's not free trade. Ricardo talked about comparative advantage between nation states, not within nation states.

Ricardo had a narrow view. Comparative advantage exists between states, cities and individuals. That's why we trade.

Danni

For all Carter's faults I don't question the man's sincerity for a world without war. He is the only president post WWII that did not get us into any foreign conflicts. The Iranian hostage crises was blow back from America's support of the hated Shah.

That makes no sense. Intel has plants in Arizona and California. To talk about "free trade" between California and Arizona is nonsense. Neither state has the capacity to impose tariffs, raise tariffs, lower tariffs, or eliminate tariffs on each other. You're comparing apples to oranges.

NULLIFIDIAN I think Ray was just saying that free trade has to be trade between completely equal traders. Under what we call "free trade" there is no equality between the different nations. I don't think he was literally thinking states were nations but that the relationship between states is what would be required between nations for there to, literally, be free trade.

"Where it that damed chairpoodle?"

She was knighted?

Ray -- With gold's continuing swift decline, (~11% in 6 weeks) you'd be wise to invest in rice. Unlike gold, if it declines, you can always eat it.

Neither state has the capacity to impose tariffs, raise tariffs, lower tariffs, or eliminate tariffs on each other.

As I previously stated, that's what defines real free trade. It took, I think, one sentence in the Constitution. That leaves the states to compete for corporate factories and offices.

Free trade and the theory of comparative advantage refers to trade between nation states. Trade between individuals within a nation state is just participation in a market.

Goat

I wouldn't be gloating if I were you. Markets always fluctuate. This may be the last buying opportunity to get gold this cheap. The price of gold runs inverse to the purchasing power of the dollar. The fundamentals which you seem oblivious to are worse then ever. Government debt and spending are out of control. That translates to severe inflation ahead.

With gold or silver, you can buy all the food you want. No need to live on rice. Check out my link at 9:06.

Null

You are stuck in a Ricardo rut. Political borders don't change the fact that people trade for mutual advantage. Adam Smith called it self interest.

I wouldn't be gloating if I were

I'm not gloating. I'm poking fun at you.

"As I previously stated, that's what defines real free trade. "

Participants in "free trade" must have the capacity to restrict "free trade" if they so choose. Otherwise it is coerced trade, not free trade. You can't say that some entity is acting freely if they have no other choice. The state of California cannot impose tariffs on Arizona.

Goat
You would be wise to take me seriously.

Nulli,

The theory of comparative advantage explains how trade can benefit any party involved in trade.

If you want to narrowly define it as nations so be it, but Ricardo used nations as an example.

Its easy to abstract it and see its useful in many types of resource exchanges, both in nature, and human made markets.

"The state of California cannot impose tariffs on Arizona."

Actually states do impose certain types of tariffs on each other, telecommunications, pipelines as examples.

Another scare tactic brought to you by liberal media.

Posted by pragmatous

You're as dumb as a bag of nails. The economy is in the shitter and you're complaining about liberals. Did you actually graduate high school?

The state of California cannot impose tariffs on Arizona. That would be a violation of the interstate commerce clause.

"Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, states that Congress has the exclusive authority to manage commerce between the states, with foreign nations, and Indian tribes."

You would be wise to take me seriously.

Thank you for your advice. I give it the same credence I gave it the first few dozen times you've offered it.

Actually states do impose certain types of tariffs on each other, telecommunications, pipelines as examples

I believe the feds impose those. I think the states are constitutionally prohited from doing so.

oops. Null beat me to the tarrif thing and answered it better anyway. I should not read, retort, read, retort.

This is a classic example of Capitalism destroying human beings. First NAFTA is passed, through legal bribery, to open markets to Mega-Agriculture, which can produce rice for less than peasants. Taxpayers pay huge fucking subsidies to the Mega-Agriculture, who collect subsidies when the price is low, but wait to sell when the price is high. They drive peasants into bankruptcy and off their farms in Mexico, India, and even the US.

The GIANT payoff comes when all the little people are off theri farms and starving, they RAISE the price.

This is how Rockefellar took over the Oil Industry and brought the entire country to its knees. Same ruthless fuckers, different time.

The state of California cannot impose tariffs on Arizona.

That's part of what makes trade free between the states.

I think I'm losing you. We trade according to what choices are available to us. Once a third party interferes, it is no longer free.

"I think I'm losing you. "

I think you don't understand the Constitution.

This is a classic example of Capitalism destroying human beings.

Wrong! It's classic example of government interference in the market economy.

We had a tulip bubble and it popped. {1738}
We had a gold bubble and it popped. {1980}
We had a dot com bubble and it popped. {2000}
We had a real estate bubble and it popped. {2007}
WE had a rice bubble and

"Wrong! It's classic example of government interference in the market economy."

You can't separate the two. That's like claiming the Sun interferes with the Earth's climate.

I think you don't understand the Constitution.

Including your 10:01.

Article I, Section 10

"No state shall, without the consent of Congress lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports ...."

I think we agree. Where's the problem?

Wrong! It's classic example of government interference in the market economy."

You can't separate the two. That's like claiming the Sun interferes with the Earth's climate

As long as government has the police and military power to impose force on economic activity, we certainly can separate the two.

I think you are trying to weasel out of the destructive effects of government interference.

Wahhhh Wahhhhh! I have to pay $2.00 a bushel instead of $1.50.


Get a job, hippies!

The problem is your analogy sucks. You might just as well say "free trade" is what happens when I go to the supermarket. That's just a simple market transaction, and is not what is meant when economists talk about "free trade," by which they mean "international free trade."

In any event, your hypothetical "real free trade" does not exist between nations, and never will. You can't separate politics from economics.

"WE had a rice bubble and..."

Tens of thousands died of starvation.

"I think you are trying to weasel out of the destructive effects of government interference."


I think you will say anything to avoid assigning blame for economic dysfunction to the everyday working of really existing capitalism. Government "interference" as you put it, is part and parcel of capitalism and always has been.

You can either debate really existing "free trade" and really existing capitalism or you can continue to compare abstract models that only exist in the minds of Austrian economists to reality.

Nullifidian

You might just as well say "free trade" is what happens when I go to the supermarket. That's just a simple market transaction, and is not what is meant when economists talk about "free trade," by which they mean "international free trade."

In any event, your hypothetical "real free trade" does not exist between nations, and never will. You can't separate politics from economics.

As much as it makes me cough and choke to say it -- you are correct.

Bush does not want true "free trade" because if he did he would not any trade with countries like China where their government subsidizes that country's private industries putting our own country's industries at a distinct disadvantage. You also would never seek free trade policies where trademark infringement, copyright theft, etc. such as China does is allowed to go unregulated and unpunished all to the detriment of our own country.

There is one supermarket within walking distance from me and another five miles away. I go to one 15 miles away because the quality of food is more to my liking. That's a perfect example of an individual making a free choice of where to shop.

"Free" means free to choose from what is available wherever it is available. What "they" mean and what Austrians mean are not the same. Boundaries per se are artificial and arbitrary.

Suppose for argument's sake, each of our 50 states was a nation that agreed to the articles in the Constitution. The economic benefits would be approximately the same as if within one national boundary.

You can't separate politics from economics.

That's why in the next decade this country will experience an inflationary Depression more severe than anything imaginable.

Government "interference" as you put it, is part and parcel of capitalism and always has been.

That doesn't make it right.

You can either debate really existing "free trade" and really existing capitalism or you can continue to compare abstract models that only exist in the minds of Austrian economists to reality.

The reality of what people do has consequences. None of the popular theories are working as should be obvious by now. Austrian Theory explains why they don't work. It's okay with me if you don't care to know why they fail.

Soaring rice prices are temporary, caused mainly by the worst Australian crop in decades. This is supposed to be a record crop, as they've seen strong early rains. In four months, the rice crisis will be over.

Not so with corn. The sooner the West gets off this ridiculous fixation with ethanol, the sooner base grains will ease in the world markets. The presidential candidates haven't given much to hope for here, though--just today Obama kissed farmers' ass in a speech in Indiana, telling the world of his commitment to ethanol and, by extension, crippling food prices.

"That's why in the next decade this [Capitalist] country will experience an inflationary Depression more severe than anything imaginable."

AXE and Redneckville: I lived in the Philippines for 4 years. Yes people in many places still have to tend to and reap rice by hand. Because of many factors even the Philippines now have to import rice as too many have sold their paddies and/or left the rice growing business. Think about it. When I was there in the early 80's they fed their own, now they have to pay to import rice because they no longer grow enough.

If you want to comment on this, study up a little first.

good.

it's working - it's taking the bleeding hearts' minds off the phony scam of the century "global warming" - what with over 400 inches of snow in the colorado/utah areas for a longer ski season...

wonder what'z next?

"wonder what'z next?"

Extended droughts in other places; it's a closed system.

MSGT,

Please go back and read Red and my posts again and you will see we stated exactly what you were saying. It was your fellow Rtards that had it all wrong.

I see that fat cow Nanc has wakened from her three day bout with the DTs.

Go have another bottle of cheap scotch and leave the posting to people who actually read the article, welfare queen.

Government "interference" as you put it, is part and parcel of capitalism and always has been.

"That doesn't make it right."


Make it right? According to who?

Every time I see this headline I'm thinking that Condi is charging more for tricks.

Every time I see this headline I'm thinking that Condi is charging more for tricks.

Posted by goatman at 2008-04-26 12:27 AM

Condi must have made one (or many) of the big honchos wilth Chevron oil real happy for quite a few nights as Chevron named a tanker after her ("Condoleeza"). It was built in 1993 and sailed under the Bahamian flag. When Bush and his oil boys took over the White House they didn't think it looked too good to show how the WH was drenched in oil so her ship was renamed around 2001.

axe - surely you should know i'm a beer snob by now and we've ALWAYS been a working family.

i've lived in rice country for the better part of my adult life - i know people who work for the lundbergs in californistan - they've had a banner year in rice production - i ask, why do we export rice? why do we import rice?

the powers that be are banking on a panic, just like y2k - stranger things have happened. why don't you go back to the porcelain bus before you steer u.s. into a fully functioning rice paddy?

"Soaring rice prices are temporary, caused mainly by the worst Australian crop in decades. This is supposed to be a record crop, as they've seen strong early rains. In four months, the rice crisis will be over."

And in four months the cost of transporting that rice to third world countries will fall???
No, I don't think so. In fact it will continue to rise as will all of the costs associated with growing that rice. It is simply not practical for the food grains to be grown on one continent and then transported to another. It needs to be grown as close to the consumer as possible to eliminate as much cost as possible. However, corporate farmers will not like that arangement because they get cut out of the deal.

Just go back and read the article. The price trippled in THAILAND. Last time I checked, that ain't the USA, Bubba.

Posted by axe

If you could just f****n read axe. I did ask why it was increasing in the poor 3rd world countries. It aint becaust the use so much fuel over there where they work the fields by hand and fertlize with human waste.

That would leave the fact that the supplies are decreasing in relation to the population. WHY?

You libs always go to name calling and not presenting the facts when yout brains run out of energy. Tou are running true to form.

I thought the headline was about how much it costs to buy off condoleeza rice.

That would leave the fact that the supplies are decreasing in relation to the population. WHY?

What a moronic statement, question, or what ever.

The supplies are not decreasing, the cost of shipping it over there is increasing.

The issue here is not an increase in demand, the demand remains the same so stop making it out like the demand is bigger than supplies because that simply is not the case.

You libs always go to name calling and not presenting the facts when yout brains run out of energy.

Moronic.

A rightie left behind doesn't understand the issue what so ever and can't seemed to grasp the facts of the situation but by god he knows it is bad so it must be a lib problem.

Well, that's how we got into this mess in the first place. If there is a problem, the righties stick their head in the MUD until it hits their pocket book then they scream to all hell about it and blame the libs. Stupid morons can't seem to think through the actions and the future of those actions.

Make it right? According to who?

Posted by nullifidian at 2008-04-26 12:23

The basic rules of accounting.
Government socialist programs have amassed over $60 trillion in obligations and rising. There are limits to how much debt a nation can accumulate without going into default. So far it looks like the Feds are going to inflate their way out. That can only result in the collapse of the dollar and our economy.

"The limits to the unlimited abuse of the debt standard are particularly evident in the GAAP-based financial statements of the U.S. government, which show the actual federal deficit at $4.0-plus trillion for 2007 alone, with total federal obligations standing at $62.6 trillion. With no ability to honor these obligations, the government effectively is bankrupt."

"Although the U.S, government faces ultimate insolvency, it has the same way out taken by most countries faced with bankruptcy. It can print whatever money it needs to create, in order to meet its obligations. The effect of such action is a runaway inflation - a hyperinflation - with a resulting, full debasement of the U.S. dollar, the world's reserve currency."

"Oil prices are near historic highs, the dollar is near historic lows, and money growth is at an all-time high. The near-term outlook for all three is for new record levels and for extremely strong upside pressure on U.S. inflation. ... gold prices should continue setting new historic highs."

"The difference is in accounting ... for unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities."

"Put into perspective, if the government were to raise taxes so as to seize 100% of all wages, salaries and corporate profits, it still would be showing an annual deficit using GAAP accounting on a consistent basis. In like manner, given current revenues, if it stopped spending every penny (including defense and homeland security) other than Social Security and Medicare obligations, the government still would show an annual deficit."

"U.S. federal obligations are so huge versus the national GDP that the country's finances look more like those of a banana republic than the world's premiere financial power and home to the world's primary reserve currency, the U.S. dollar."

"The effect of this structural change has been that most consumers have been unable to sustain adequate income growth beyond the rate of inflation, unable to maintain their standard of living. The only way personal consumption can grow in such a circumstance is for the consumer to take on new debt or liquidate savings. Both those factors are short-lived and have reached untenable extremes."

"From the Fed's standpoint, it can neither stimulate the economy nor contain inflation. Lowering rates has done little to stimulate the structurally-impaired economy, and raising rates may become necessary in defense of the dollar."

"By the time hyperinflation kicks in, the economy already should be in depression, and the hyperinflation quickly should pull the economy into a great depression. Uncontained inflation is likely to bring normal commercial activity to a halt."

The supplies are not decreasing, the cost of shipping it over there is increasing.

The issue here is not an increase in demand, the demand remains the same so stop making it out like the demand is bigger than supplies because that simply is not the case.

Posted by moneywar

If they arn't producing enough for themselves then their demand does exceed their supply. I guess it's about time they started producing something and not just consuming. I have an idea, they could grow rice. How bout they match their population to their food supply. Na, we couldn't possibly expect them to quit screwing themselves away from the table.

If they were so damn poor, how did they pay for the ocean shipping before 1980 when fuel hit it's peak cost? How come its a problem this year and not before?

Where did their rice come from before the US and Australia started shipping to them. You don't have to go back too many years for that. We haven't been feeding the world all that long.

zat, what part of this question do you have trouble with? Where did their rice come from before the US and Australia started shipping to them?

Everyone blames the oil prices for the problem. It ain't the original problem. It has only become a problem when they couldn't grow enough rice to feed themselves.

Their problem is they have screwed themselves away from the table!!!!!!!! They have planted more babies than rice.

Another scare tactic brought to you by liberal media.

Posted by pragmatous at 2008-04-25 06:37 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You're a fucking loon...

O MY GOD.... Its the liberal media that is poisoning every ones mind....

get a life

all news is entertainment...

Put food in our gas tank (biofuels). That has got to be stupider than the iraq invasion.