Bread and Circuses, Famine by Price

Bread and Circuses: Famine by Price
by R.J. Croton

Food is in crisis. The Roman satirist, Juvenal, wrote that once politicians promised and paid out in sound policy, now in ‘bread and circuses’: petty promises which helped speed the Roman Empire’s rotting from within.
How does this connect, you ask? Only 20 years ago, there was a European agricultural ‘crisis’- if by crisis, you mean that we were out-producing, and thus ‘threatening’ agricultural prices- so much so, that we had the infamous ‘butter mountains’, where the EU bought the surplus and let it go to waste. If we said that we were producing a surplus of something of want, like an mp3 player, that would be less ludicrous: but food is a need. What of the starving?
That was over twenty years ago, and dare I say it but it seems to be happening again. Farmers are fighting against changes to the subsidising, protectionist regime. They are using the state as buyer, subsidiser, and price-fixer, a highly unethical situation, and in a time of rising unemployment, hundreds of thousands in Britain alone will have to spend an increasing amount of their income and savings on needs, rather than wants.
Why, then, are prices so high? Because farmers and government are, essentially, colluding to fix prices through subsidisation, and buying up of surplus stock. Rather than letting supply outstrip demand, and thus suppress prices, we are pursuing a policy of deliberately keeping prices high. It is true in Britain that many in the countryside face financial trouble and poverty; however, they can hardly be called poor compared to farmers in even internationally rich countries such as China, Poland, or Vietnam: to say they are in poverty, is a misnomer.
What, then is the substance of the current crisis? We are not producing enough. World markets have seized, and the price of fuel has risen from last year’s collapse (having risen to very high levels, which of course hurt farmers, who depend on fuel). Scientific Farming depends on fuel- it depends on it for its machinery, for its fertiliser, and for its transport, and of course the power to refrigerate in the cases of crops such as cauliflower, which is hurt by the summer weather, considered much more of a winter vegetable- therefore, they must be preserved, and sold at a low price, which hurts farmers. That is, however, how the market works, and we cannot decide what food consumers pay for- why, then, should we decide what price they should pay?
What would happen, then, you ask if prices collapsed? They already have- dairy prices have reportedly shattered coming down from the rural roads- yet, prices have risen coming down the urban and suburban roads from the supermarkets. Therefore, farmers are racing for extra income- and to get this they have to try and reverse a trend in the past couple of years for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union to liberalise and lessen in its intervention.
However, this situation cannot go on for much longer. Economic recovery is already on its way- last quarter, Germany and France surged out of recession to grow modestly; China, a growing market for western farmers as Chinese consumers increasingly get the taste for dairy products, sourced from the farms of Europe and America, especially with quality traditional products like cheese, which are subjected to statute control for what constitutes ‘cheddar’ or ’stilton’- same with quality products like champagne, and with the invasion of the West’s business culture into the Eastern Orient, no doubt these products are becoming more in demand, just as wines, scotches and whiskeys have, both for expensive gifts to partners, and as personal tastes: no doubt, then, the West’s food industry has a growing admiration in the East, with countries which house the world’s largest populations, and economies which are still growing furiously, despite the global recession- why? Because in China, the government is in surplus, and is spending its money wisely in stimulating consumer spending- Europe’s governments are not in rude health- it shows that Germany, which has the healthiest balance sheet in the Union, has exited recession as demand for exports rises with the running-down of the Euro’s value against competing currencies such as the British pound (last year it seemed like the Euro would overtake the Pound’s price for the very first time- now it is going back the other way, which helps export friendly Europe).
What, then, of the central issue: agricultural price supports? Some are driven by nationalism, in the case of France; others, from national security- America still has quotas on sugar, ostensibly to fight Cuba, which has faded as an enemy in recent years. However, all do so because farmers clamour for it (although perhaps not in the case of the sugar farmers, but their voice is low amid the crowd of competing special interests lobbying Washington for bank, auto-mobile and other industry bail-outs, and money for self-interested programs such as Ethanol fuel)- they want to keep prices high at the gate, but they are seeing, and have seen for many years now, high prices in the supermarket shelves compared to the price paid to the farmers themselves- we have been told this is the reason for the decline in dairy farming in the United Kingdom, a traditional player. Problems such as foot and mouth have also added to the problems, and the controversy over mad cow disease left British beef in ruins, despite the fact that the problem was also present in the continent: here, government did a terrible thing in Europe by lying, and lost people its livelihoods, whilst the British government took the moral choice and attempted to openly fight the problem. It seems like a losing situation- Britain has not been able to support its own population on its own agriculture since the 1800s. Therefore, either our population rapidly contracts, we accept that British farming is an aging and dying force, or we introduce some entrepreneurial vigour into the industry. How do we that?
We have to kick government out of the market entirely: there is zero reason why the government should owe farmers a living; government should assist by treading lightly- health inspections and other such intervention should help stop the spread of parasites and disease, a major problem in an industry as transport intensive as farming.
For maximum effect, the government should refuse to give out its EU subsidies prices would fall rapidly; the poor, an increasing demographic in Britain, which is reportedy more unequal than ever, despite a Labour government which for the past decade has zealously legislated to force equality, with mixed results. Arguably, with longer legal maternity leave, and now paternity leave, has left persons of a certain age much less employable, and has hurt women’s attempt to rightly take their role in the workplace: Lord Sugar, the television personality and millionaire businessman was criticised for suggesting that maternity leave has damaged women’s employability…and this coming from a man who has to employ and pay people for a living to keep his businesses ticking. Perhaps we should be more encouraged to listen to such a person on the ground than a proselytizing columnist or opinion writer.
What would this achieve? Lower prices would, as I have tried to explain, help the poorest. As people get richer, the statistics and empirical evidence shows that less of a percentage of income is paid out on food- think that a man on a large salary may purchase a luxury bottle of scotch or two, which could cost as high as a full weekly shop by some families, and possibly two weeks for single and working people, who are likely to be hit hardest by economic troubles, as they cannot rely on others’ incomes to help them through the period of unemployment. But should we listen to the farmers? Would the lower prices kill them? Unlikely. If Britain’s auto prices ran down further to cost, it’d be incredibly lucrative to purchase British-made cars- more cars could be made for the same amount of money, and this would further support the lower prices. Suddenly a factory which turned a small profit by selling fewer but higherpriced cars could find brand new export markets and showrooms at home heaving with lower-income persons eager to purchase a good quality product. The same is true in farming- dairy farmers could export to markets abroad if the retailers in Britain pushed their current policy; rather than a disjointed market where the producers are hurting and the retailers winning, it would be in the producers’ hands.
Furthermore, it would make farming less daunting with less government intervention- the industry could advertise itself healthily, rather than the doom and gloom of an aging farming population, and the loss of skills this represents; apprentiship schemes could speed the passing on of skills, and unused land could be taken up. Sophisticated ecological management, essential if the industry is to ween itself off damaging chemicals and expensive fuel, should also be encouraged- here, government could help by introducing more courses in higher education, and in bringing a practical, yet sensible approach and teach it in schools- if children are taught the essentials, they will be more likely to go into farming, to go into ecological management, or watch prices on the shelves with the knowledge of how the industry works, creating a cleverer customer: a boon to farmers in any event.
Abroad, though, the effects could also extend- not only would customers in easily reachable countries enjoy more British-grown produce, it would also help poor farmers in regions such as Africa, which receive little help from government, and stare terrifyingly at the sky, at the mercy much more to the weather than Britain’s farmers, with our healtheir climate supporting diverser crops, which means if the weather is too hot, cold or wet, farmers will have something to ship and give them income. The world could do much to help its poorest by being fair- and by being fair, I mean playing by the same rules.
As oil prices glut higher with peak oil arriving either now or in the next few years, depending on the projection, farming must innovate- you can’t just throw oil-derived fertiliser at the ground forever, and you can’t simply plough the ground to pieces with massive internal-combustion engined machines. We can’t advocate a return to the old ways, but we can be smart about it- world population will have to start declining in the next century, as not enough food will be able to go around, and more countries will pass industrialisation, which historically leads to a falling birth-rate. However, with genetic engineering just around the corner, we can look forward to things such as virus-ran batteries (already being produced experimentally), and other such innovations which will not depend on oil or fossil fuels. Either we’re smart about it now, or when fossil fuels run out in the next century- and they will if consumption continues to grow and not stay at a standstill- we will see famine.
Now, with governments colluding with farmers, we have famine by price…then we will simply have famine. Governments must stop literally starving people to death with their intervention and supporting of a situation which cannot naturally go on: so it’s enough with the bread and circuses- give us education, give us freedom, and allow us to mind our own business…or, even better, allow us to educate ourselves, and allow us to feed ourselves.