Food prices set to soar

by starvin marvin Sun Feb 18, 2007 20:14

I accidentally bumped into a table and a copy of the daily mail happened to fall off it and when it landed, it fell open on an article stating that the price of food was set to rise. This article seemed to be based on a statement from those people we know and love from IBEQ, you know the guys, mary harneys husband was until recently head of their org, neo liberal raw capitalism whores, big fans of open borders lobbying to have a pool of cheap labour for business to screw over, the ones that will be hiding under the (very expensive designer) rock when social fallout and huge unemployment bills hit us down the line when the construction "industry" falters. Those guys.

Well I happened to accidentally sit on the remote control that evening and lo and behold, I was greeted by the rte corporate news (Why do we pay a licence and still have to sit through piles of adverts too?? Gah!!). Well guess what they were saying? almost word for word what was in the daily mail. It all sounded like a blanket multi-media softening up exercise to me.

I also happened to notice later as I spent my last few euros on enough fuel to get my little car home, that the price was a reasonable 99c per litre. This having been nearly 1.19 per litre a while back. Seems like the price of fuel has come down. A LOT. And looking around my local supermarket, i see that a lot of food is imported.

Call me confused but I imagine that there is no need to increase the price of all the staples across the board when the cost of fuel is coming down and most of the food is imported cheaply anyway. Unless of course the intention is a PR drive to prepare us for increases in prices artificially imposed in the name of greed by IBEQ members.

I realise that in the longer term what the poster says is not far off the mark but this current situation is just greedy people taking the opportunity to rig the game and grab a little more of the pie with the media as their bitch and the toothless consumer watchdog bodies licking their hairy arses and doing what they were set up to do in the face of business playing dirty: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!

Happy shopping in stepford, ireland, readers!

Still, on the bright side, if those prices go a little too high and we can no longer afford food, it will give us a mild "taste" of what it's like every day for all the poor people around the globe we fuck over to keep our affluent lifestyles.

by Jim O'Sullivan Sat Feb 17, 2007 08:33

Remember the promises made by the newly set-up quango the National Consumers Agency that abolishing the below cost selling orders would result in food becoming cheaper? Where are they now? Firmly in the back pockets of big business no doubt

by relieved jack sprat Fri Feb 16, 2007 17:33

if he sticks to these types of decree - he'll still get the ceramic memorabilia. Chavez has told food retailing chains in Venezeula in no uncertain terms that if they fix or inflate the price of meat - their stores will be impounded and the stock sold at government set value to the people. After one chain had it's stock impounded, the others are now taking meat off their shelves till they figure out how to tell their share-holders the difference between lean & fat. They're greasey enough so they'll work something out, for as squeeler of animal farm reminded the people (modelled by orwell on molotov) napoleon's dogs need that full fat-milk. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6364515.stm

but that's the 3rd world. Where Lulu promised every brazilian a hot meal a day & that was enough to put him in the sash. Could it be relevant to the first? = Yes it could especially in those very few states of the EU where school-children don't get free meals allowing old people to feel useful dishing it to them.... just an example. Sure that could help the old people live longer whilst being fiscally productive & possibly learn the yung'uns good enough to get something better for the nation's health than a career in burger franchise retail. This all sounds like "rip-off" ireland needs a refresh.

by Terence Thu Feb 15, 2007 19:02

I agree that some of the price increases may be related to increased energy costs. The manufacture of fertiliser is energetically expensive and this would be having an impact besides increase in the cost of diseal over the past year or two used for both the tractors and trucking. I would imagine that both groups have tried to avoid passing on the costs but now that energy prices have remained relatively high in comparison to just 3 or 4 years ago, these increase are now been passed on.

Another factor is that the USA is one of the worlds biggest exporters of grain. However in the last year, there has been a surge of interest and investment in bio-fuels and in the most recent state of the union address by the criminal Bush, he has pushed for more which has increased the frenzy. The result is that it is estimated with all the biofuel plants coming online, most of the excess crop can easily be used up in these plants. Prices predictably have shot up and are at an all time high much to the joy of those producing.

What is actually happening is now that we are at Peak Oil essentially or at least bouncing along the plateau (of production) at the top, society is looking and turning to biofuels to feed demand and any shortfalls. This means now that very rapidly the situation has now arisen and because of global markets the impact is basically now world-wide, is that using land to grow fuel is competing head on with land to grow food. As always the poorest are losing out, as basically the wealthy appropriate the land to keep them in their cars.

In Malaysia and Indonesian there are already grand schemes for massive plantations of palm oil which can be used to manufacture biofuel. The intention will be to export this 'crop' and as always you can be sure it is grown on the best land, with the people consigned to the marginal lands on erosion prone hillsides.

And for all of this, controversary still rages over the energetic benefiits of growing biofuels. The essence of the argument is when you add up all the energy in the bio-fuel you get out of the plants does it equal all the energy expended by the tractors in ploughing, harvesting, the chemical processing and then distribution (trucking) and manufacture of the fertilisers to replace lost nutrients. Some people are saying the net energy is a loss while others are saying it is positive but not by a huge amount. Whatever the figures though growing biofuels in the tropics (and it is agreed by all) is going to be more energy efficient than Northern latitudes because the tropics have longer growing seasons (all year if you have the rainfall / irrgation) and much more sunshine which is the main energy input.

For some background read:

Biofuels for Oil Addicts: Cure Worse than The Addiction
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BFOA.php

Palm Oil -- The Southeast Asia Report
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2214

Biofuel Skeptic Extraordinaire: An interview with David Pimentel
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/08/philpott/

Top Energy Scientists Agree, Bush Wrong on Alternative Fuels
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/articles/845

by Modis Thu Feb 15, 2007 17:56

Just walk into tesco or wherever pick up what you need and walk out the door. Simple !