Wednesday, June 04, 2008

UN & Anderton learn good economics! (updated)

Crikey! Jim Anderton and the head of the United Nations -- the head of the godamned UN! -- are both on the correct side of the economic argument on food production! Liberty Scott has the stories on this amazing development:

They're both far better than the raving lunatics at last weekend's Greens conference like Jeanette Fitzsimons, who has built a career on "fear, irrationality and ignorance," and Sue Kedgley, who has gone to argue the opposite of good sense at the UN food conference.

UPDATE: Paul Walker sees me agreeing with Neanderton and the UN and asks, "Has Peter Cresswell gone completely mad?"

Labels: , , , , , , ,

4 Comments:

Blogger Matt B said...

It is encouraging to see this, especially the idea of raising supply being at the forefront of thinking.

What is sad, however, is that the UN seems to think this is a problem whose solution is planning.

Encouraging to see the objective correctly identified, and very very pleased to see a call for reduced tariffs and subsidies, but not good by the UN still thinking planning will solve all.

6/04/2008 10:07:00 am  
Anonymous LGM said...

UN wallahs are non-productive drones who enjoy talking and planning what the productive should be forced to do.

6/04/2008 01:01:00 pm  
Blogger Clunking Fist said...

Sorry, I think all of you could be wrong:
cutting subsidies and/or tariffs in the west will result in a fall in production in the West.

More food will be imported from the developing nations, pushing up the prices that those farmers receive.
They will increase production, but this may only partially offset the lost western production, but who knows?

The extra EARNED cash (rather than aid) sloshing around in developing nations can only be good (trickle down, flow-on, etc).

6/05/2008 01:45:00 pm  
Blogger libertyscott said...

Clunking fist - some subsidies in the EU and USA are about paying farmers to NOT produce, to prop up the protected prices in those economic areas. However yes, the outcome could be mixed, but in any case farmers in the EU/USA can hardly argue they need protection at a time of record prices. This IS the time to remove it.

6/05/2008 08:00:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home