Author: admin

  • We’re not celebrating Israel’s anniversary

    In April 1948, the same month as the infamous massacre at Deir Yassin and the mortar attack on Palestinian civilians in Haifa’s market square, Plan Dalet was put into operation. This authorised the destruction of Palestinian villages and the expulsion of the indigenous population outside the borders of the state. We will not be celebrating.

    In July 1948, 70,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes in Lydda and Ramleh in the heat of the summer with no food or water. Hundreds died. It was known as the Death March. We will not be celebrating.

    In all, 750,000 Palestinians became refugees. Some 400 villages were wiped off the map. That did not end the ethnic cleansing. Thousands of Palestinians (Israeli citizens) were expelled from the Galilee in 1956. Many thousands more when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Under international law and sanctioned by UN resolution 194, refugees from war have a right to return or compensation. Israel has never accepted that right. We will not be celebrating.

    We cannot celebrate the birthday of a state founded on terrorism, massacres and the dispossession of another people from their land. We cannot celebrate the birthday of a state that even now engages in ethnic cleansing, that violates international law, that is inflicting a monstrous collective punishment on the civilian population of Gaza and that continues to deny to Palestinians their human rights and national aspirations.

    We will celebrate when Arab and Jew live as equals in a peaceful Middle East.

    Seymour Alexander
    Ruth Appleton
    Steve Arloff
    Rica Bird
    Jo Bird
    Cllr Jonathan Bloch
    Ilse Boas
    Prof. Haim Bresheeth
    Tanya Bronstein
    Sheila Colman
    Ruth Clark
    Sylvia Cohen
    Judith Cravitz
    Mike Cushman
    Angela Dale
    Ivor Dembina
    Dr. Linda Edmondson
    Nancy Elan
    Liz Elkind
    Pia Feig
    Colin Fine
    Deborah Fink
    Sylvia Finzi
    Brian Fisher MBE
    Frank Fisher
    Bella Freud
    Catherine Fried
    Uri Fruchtmann
    Stephen Fry
    David Garfinkel
    Carolyn Gelenter
    Claire Glasman
    Tony Greenstein
    Heinz Grunewald
    Michael Halpern
    Abe Hayeem
    Rosamine Hayeem
    Anna Hellman
    Amy Hordes
    Joan Horrocks
    Deborah Hyams
    Selma James
    Riva Joffe
    Yael Oren Kahn
    Michael Kalmanovitz
    Paul Kaufman
    Prof. Adah Kay
    Yehudit Keshet
    Prof. Eleonore Kofman
    Rene Krayer
    Stevie Krayer
    Berry Kreel
    Leah Levane
    Les Levidow
    Peter Levin
    Louis Levy
    Ros Levy
    Prof. Yosefa Loshitzky
    Catherine Lyons
    Deborah Maccoby
    Daniel Machover
    Prof. Emeritus Moshe Machover
    Miriam Margolyes OBE
    Mike Marqusee
    Laura Miller
    Simon Natas
    Hilda Meers
    Martine Miel
    Laura Miller
    Arthur Neslen
    Diana Neslen
    Orna Neumann
    Harold Pinter
    Roland Rance
    Frances Rivkin
    Sheila Robin
    Dr. Brian Robinson
    Neil Rogall
    Prof. Steven Rose
    Mike Rosen
    Prof. Jonathan Rosenhead
    Leon Rosselson
    Michael Sackin
    Sabby Sagall
    Ian Saville
    Alexei Sayle
    Anna Schuman
    Sidney Schuman
    Monika Schwartz
    Amanda Sebestyen
    Sam Semoff
    Linda Shampan
    Sybil Shine
    Prof. Frances Stewart
    Inbar Tamari
    Ruth Tenne
    Martin Toch
    Tirza Waisel
    Stanley Walinets
    Martin White
    Ruth Williams
    Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi
    Devra Wiseman
    Gerry Wolff
    Sherry Yanowitz

  • Secret Bush “Finding” Widens War on Iran

    Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or “army of god,” the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border — whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law’s throat.
     
    Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi arabs of south west Iran.  Further afield, operations against Iran’s Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime.
     
    All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees.  That has not proved a problem.  An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy.

    Until recently, the administration faced a serious obstacle to action against Iran in the form of Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon, who made no secret of his contempt for official determination to take us to war.  In a widely publicized incident last January, Iranian patrol boats approached a U.S. ship in what the Pentagon described as a “taunting” manner. According to Centcom staff officers, the American commander on the spot was about to open fire. At that point, the U.S. was close to war.   He desisted only when Fallon personally and explicitly ordered him not to shoot.  The White House, according to the staff officers, was “absolutely furious” with Fallon for defusing the incident.

    Fallon has since departed.  His abrupt resignation in early March followed the publication of his unvarnished views on our policy of confrontation with Iran, something that is unlikely to happen to his replacement, George Bush’s favorite general, David Petraeus.

    Though Petraeus is not due to take formal command at Centcom until late summer,  there are abundant signs that something may happen before then.  A Marine amphibious force, originally due to leave San Diego for the Persian Gulf in mid June, has had its sailing date abruptly moved up to May 4.  A scheduled meeting in Europe between French diplomats acting as intermediaries for the U.S. and Iranian representatives has been abruptly cancelled in the last two weeks.  Petraeus is said to be at work on a master briefing for congress to demonstrate conclusively that the Iranians are the source of our current troubles in Iraq, thanks to their support for the Shia militia currently under attack by U.S. forces in Baghdad. 

    Interestingly, despite the bellicose complaints, Petraeus has made little effort to seal the Iran-Iraq border, and in any case two thirds of U.S. casualties still come from Sunni insurgents.  “The Shia account for less than one third,” a recently returned member of the command staff in Baghdad familiar with the relevant intelligence  told me, “but if you want a war you have to sell it.”

    Even without the covert initiatives described above, the huge and growing armada currently on station in the Gulf is an impressive symbol of American power.

    Armed Might of US Marred By Begging Bowl to Arabs

    Sometime in the next two weeks, fleet radar operator may notice a blip on their screens that represents something rather more profound: America’s growing financial weakness. The blip will be former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin’s plane commencing its descent into Abu Dhabi.  Rubin’s responsibility these days is to help keep Citigroup afloat despite a balance sheet still waterlogged, despite frantic bail out efforts by the Federal Reserve and others, by staggering losses in mortgage bonds.  The Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth Fund injected $7.5 billion last November (albeit at a sub-prime interest rate of eleven percent,) but the bank’s urgent need for fresh capital persists, and Abu Dhabi is where the money is.

    Even if those radar operators pay no attention to Mr. Rubin’s flight, and the ironic contrast it illustrates between American military power and financial weakness, others will, and not just in Tehran.  There’s not much a finding can do about that.

    Andrew Cockburn is a regular CounterPunch contributor. He lives in Washington DC. His most recent book is  Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall and Catastrophic Legacy.

  • China moves on from low price manufacturing

    “The message coming from local governments and to a lesser extent the central government is very clear,” says William Anderson, the head of Social and Environmental Affairs at adidas. “They’re saying don’t tell us about your problems, relocate.”

    For thousands of small and multinational manufacturers the story is the same. For them, the world economic order is turning on its head.

    The endless, seemingly indomitable factories that stretch from the Hong Kong border north up the Pearl River delta in Guangdong province and through the coastal provinces of China are choking on their own success. They have exhausted what was thought to be a bottomless barrel of cheap labour. They have erected their sheds on the peasant farmland that is cheaply available. They have devoured so much oil, cotton, rubber, coal and steel that commodity prices have remained “stronger for longer” than the world has known. And they are rapidly using up China’s political tolerance for filling the earth, sky and waterways with toxic waste.

    There are no more obvious corners to cut and few remaining efficiency gains to extract. Low-end manufacturers are shutting down or moving out. A Hong Kong business association claims 3000 factories have shut down in the Pearl River delta this year. The Guangdong local media is full of reports and pictures of newly abandoned factory floors.

    But a growing proportion of manufacturers are steeling themselves to push their rising costs through to the final stop on the production chain: the consumers.

    About 100 million pairs of shoes and 125 million garments were sourced in China by adidas last year, which says it is packing up a large part of its Chinese production and moving it to the country’s lower-wage but logistically challenging inland provinces. The company will not reveal any price-rise plans.

    “We have no immediate plans to change the pricing policy of our products,” says Anne Putz, the head of adidas corporate public relations at head office in Germany.

    But other low-wage manufacturers are making their intentions clear. They are moving, skimping on inputs and fighting as to give consumers some of their pricing pain.

    “The consumer, our customers, have pushed for years to get the lowest possible price and they feel because it’s made in China it’s got to be cheap,” says Michael Morosin, who runs an electronics packaging company called PRT Manufacturing in Shenzhen. His main cost is plastic, derived from oil.

    “The cost of oil is killing us,” he says. “But we can never pass on more than 50 per cent because on the other end of the phone you hear these guys scream.”

    WESSCO International supplies a large proportion of the world’s airline bags, with their disposable toothbrushes and socks, to companies such as Qantas. Last year, its managing director, Petros Sakkis, shifted his efforts from trying to squeeze ever-increasing quantities of cheap plastic goods at ever-diminishing prices out of his Chinese production lines. Instead, he’s been roaming Vietnam, Thailand and India for factory space.

    “Rising cost pressures are pushing us to be more aggressive in moving our production out of China,” Sakkis says. “Where to? That’s the big question. You’ve got to start from scratch because there is no paradise.”

    Sakkis will not talk about his prices, as each contract is negotiated individually. But Jo Austin, who edits a trade magazine called OnBoard Hospitality, spells it out.

    “The rising costs will be passed on to airlines and airlines are passing them on again,” she says. “But rather than pay more, airlines are reducing product, particularly at the back of the plane.”

    Whether consumers pay higher airfares or receive a lower-service flight, they are paying more for less. For decades, consumers have had the better of the world’s manufacturers. But the tide is starting to turn. The battle between them will affect the political fortunes of leaders such as China’s Premier, Wen Jiabao, who last week said inflation was the biggest concern of the Chinese people, and the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who says the consumer price index is his biggest economic challenge.

    This week, China’s Bureau of Statistics shocked the economic world with consumer price index growth of 8.7 per cent for the year to February. Most of that was driven by food prices, but upstream inflation pressure is growing just as fast.

    China’s producer price index jumped 6.6 per cent in the year to February, from a virtual standing start in the middle of last year.

    The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics reports import prices from China fell by about 1.5 per cent annually from 2004 through to mid-last year. But the latest annual figures show China import prices rising 2.5 per cent. Chinese statistics show its export prices are up 6.5 per cent in a year in US dollars, the currency in which most China export deals are set.

    Australia does not compile country-specific import price data. But a China economist for UBS, Jonathan Anderson, says China export prices are rising into the US, Europe and Japan – so it’s a fair bet they are rising in Australia, too.

    “It is accelerating,” Anderson says. “And the reason we expect it to continue to accelerate is that labour pressure is unabated.”

    So far, the Reserve Bank Governor, Glenn Stevens, has been spared the added inflationary headache of rising Chinese import prices thanks to the mercurial Australian dollar. The rising dollar means Australia’s purchasing power is rising faster than China’s US dollar-denominated export prices. But that relief will last only for as long as the Australian dollar out-runs the Chinese yuan.

    Macquarie Bank’s China economist, Paul Cavey, says it is only a matter of time. “Whichever way you look at it, Chinese export prices are moving up,” he says. “At some point, it must begin to have an impact on Australian inflation.”

    China’s cost pressures are spreading deeper and further through the system. More than half of the increase in China’s producer price index was caused by coal and steel, and those shocks will be amplified by a second round of cost increases as steel and energy-intensive producers pass their pain down the production chain.

    Australian consumers and businesses have enjoyed an unprecedented, sustained rise in buying power because prices for the commodities that Australia exports to China are going through the roof and, at least until now, prices have been falling for Chinese goods that are coming the other way. But booming commodities prices are starting to embed themselves in many of the manufactured goods Australia buys from China.

    China’s steelmakers have more than offset the huge rises in iron ore and coking coal costs by simply pushing them down the line. Steel-intensive users, in turn, are pushing those costs on to the next line of producers.

    An employee at Morimatsu Industry, a Japanese company that manufactures in Shanghai, says steel accounts for half of the costs of the huge steel tanks it makes for chemical and mineral processing. He said he will add the 20 per cent rise in steel prices this year directly onto his product prices – and charge it to customers that include BHP Billiton in Australia.

    The tyre maker Goodyear, which also sells to Australian mining companies, says it is lifting productivity to absorb rising rubber, energy and shipping costs. Nevertheless, it is also asking customers to pay.

    “But yes, eventually consumers bear the brunt, just like they pay for increases of other products from raw materials or natural resources,” says Goodyear’s regional communications director, Ron Castro.

    It helps resource-intensive producers that they can easily point to record commodities prices in order to explain their cost problems to customers. It also helps they tend to sell to other producers, such as mining and Asian construction companies, which are flush with cash.

    Philip Kirchlechner, a marketing director at West Australia’s Aurox Resources, says prices for iron ore processing equipment such as crushers and ball mills have jumped about 30 per cent in three years and delivery times have doubled.

    “This price and delivery situation will get worse by the end of this year,’ he says.

    Tom Ren, a Shanghai businessman who runs a chemicals company called FineKing, says his inputs are derived from oil and therefore getting more expensive. He sold the world Yuan300 million ($45 million) in polyurethane gap filler products last year – the stuff that builders use to seal the cracks between windows and walls.

    Ren writes his key financial variables on the back of a notebook to show how rapidly his costs are rising. They are not rising as fast as his efficiency gains.

    “Our cost keep going up and up and up, but so is our productivity,” Ren says. And then he adds a crucial detail: the prices of the products he sells are slated to rise 20 per cent this year.

    Makers of heavy machinery and equipment tend to start from a less efficient base than their labour-intensive cousins, meaning they have more room to raise their productivity and preserve margins. More importantly, they have pricing power.

    One observer, whose private equity fund controls $US4 billion ($4.29 billion) in the Asian region, including in China and Australia, said rising costs are sorting Chinese exporters into three groups.

    “The guy who sell products that are really super-commodities are passing their cost increases on because their customers understand what’s happening in the world market,” he says. “The low-end manufacturers like hardware, textiles and low-end auto-part suppliers, like cooling fans, are being hammered. But those who can differentiate on product or use a lot of technology are OK. Anybody who has a bit of technology in their product can pass that on.”

    It turns out that cost pressures are far from defeating China.

    Meguri Aoyama, who is the head of China affairs at Keidanren, Japan’s top business association, says China’s labour-intensive manufacturers will struggle. But prices for resource-intensive products such as cement, paper and steel will keep going up. But the overriding theme of Chinese industry, he says, is that rising costs are pushing the world’s most competitive manufacturers to scramble faster up the technology chain.

    For Toyota, he says, rapidly improving technology will easily counter rising steel costs. The car maker, which is likely to overtake General Motors as the world’s top car maker this year, is helping to turn cities such as Guangzhou from low-wage manufacturing centres into high-wage, high-tech capitals.

    “Guangzhou’s becoming the Detroit of Asia. In five years the situation has totally changed,” says Atsuo Kuroda, who is responsible for China trade and investment at Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

    Other leading brands such as Canon, and Panasonic are steering clear of rising costs by using ever-improving technology to produce increasingly high-tech digital cameras, flat-screen TVs and industrial machinery.

    It is a little more than a decade since China cemented its name as “the world’s factory” for being the home of simple, low-wage manufacturing. But the country is moving on.

    Rising costs are igniting yet another round of creative destruction. They are forcing some firms out of business, others deeper into China or into southern or South-East Asia, while giving others the impetus to advancing up the technology ladder.

    The Chinese Government is encouraging the transition. “They’re saying, ‘We want to move up-market, upscale, we prefer auto to apparel,”‘ says Anderson at adidas. And so his company is shifting its China manufacturing inland, where it can provide jobs to China’s remaining low-wage workers and direct its products towards the country’s rapidly growing domestic market.

    China is treading a similar path to Japan, Korea and Taiwan before it, albeit on a much larger scale. With these precedents, economists expect consumers might hurt a bit during the transition but will end up back on top.

    “Cost pressures are rising so everybody is talking about whether China will push up the prices of its products and therefore inflation everywhere,” says Huang Yiping, the chief Asia economist at Citigroup. “But I don’t think that will happen. If China succeeds in exporting autos, for example, then China will remain a deflationary force for a long time to come.”

    The times of an ever-falling “China price” for labour and resource-intensive manufactured goods is probably over. But the era of a new China price for cars, sophisticated electronics and even aircraft is probably around the corner.

  • Irrigators at odds over water buyback

    IAL national chair Stephen Mills says, however, “On-farm savings can potentially deliver much more water to the environment than the purchase of water rights.

    “With more government support for investment in technologies that already exist, we can help put more water back into the environment and help restore the balance in our river systems.”

    Water Minister Penny Wong on Tuesday announced the government would spend $3.1 billion purchasing water rights from irrigators as part of a $13 billion plan to secure the nation’s water.

    The money is to be allocated over 10-years, hence the ACF’s response wanting to shorten this time frame, at least with the pace of water buyback.

    Senator Wong on Tuesday said climate change means the government needs to act quickly to address the over-allocation of water in Australia’s food bowl.

    She said the buybacks would see large volumes of water returned to the basin’s waterways.

    “We cannot wait to start purchasing water from the river,” Senator Wong told reporters.

    Victorian Farmers Federation president Simon Ramsay said the market would be affected by the government’s entry into water trading.

    “A $3 billion water buyback will drive up demand and there is a risk that (water) prices will be driven up and that food production and the viability of rural communities will be impacted upon,” Mr Ramsay said.

    Opposition water security spokesman John Cobb agrees.

    He said yesterday the buyback would drive up food prices by cutting agricultural production. (See separate story).

    SOURCE: AAP

  • We regret to inform you

    Before you argue with me (and you are both welcome and encouraged to), I’d like to post something a bit out of my usual style – it is simply a description of what has happened with food and energy in the last year – that’s all it is. Then tell me what you think – because it wasn’t until I began to write this introduction to the present food situation that I suddenly was struck by the fact that even a fast crash doesn’t always look fast when you live it – new normals arise and it turns out we assimilate faster than we panic.

    So here we are – the “We regret to inform you that what you have imagined to be ‘civilization’ is now falling apart” post. See if it strikes you the way it struck me.

    I would also note two things. The first is that the general political consensus is that neither the food nor energy crisis will do anything but grow more acute anytime soon – we’re really in the early stages. And that this only covers the first 4 months of 2008.

    _______________________________________________________

    In early 2008, the world’s food and energy train came off the rails. What was startling was that it didn’t happen either gradually or in a linear way – instead, things simply fell apart at an astounding rate, faster than anyone could have predicted without being accused of lunacy.

    It started with biofuels and growing meat consumption rates. They drove the price of staple grains up at astounding rates. In 2007, overall inflation for food was at 18%, which created a new class of hungry, but that was just the tip of the iceberg. In 2008, the month to month inflation was higher than 2007’s annual inflation. At that rate, the price of food overall was set to double every other year. Rice, the staple of almost half the world’s population rose 147%, while wheat grew 25% in just one day. Price rises were inequitable (as was everything else) so while rice prices rose 30% in rich world nations like the US, Haitian rice prices rose 300%.

    Haiti was an early canary in the hunger coal mine. Desperately poor, by early 2008, tens of thousands of impoverished Haitians were priced entirely out of the market for rice and other staples, and were reduced to eating “cookies” made of nutrient rich mud, vegetable shortening and salt to quiet their hunger pangs. Women stood on the street, offering their children to any reasonably well fed passerby, saying “Please, pick, take one and feed them.” Thousands of Haitians marched on Port Au Prince, yelling, “We’re hungry.” And indeed, the Haitian government was complicit, allowing food relief to rot on the wharves. But Haiti was just the start.

    After riots over long bread lines threatened to destabilize Egypt, the Egyptian government set the army to baking bread for the hungry. Forty nations either stopped exporting grains or raised tariffs to make costs prohibitive. Food prices rose precipitiously as importing nations began to struggle to meet rising hunger. The UN warned that 33 nations were in danger of destabilizing, and the list included major powers including Pakistan, Mexico, North Korea India, Egypt and South Africa. Many of these hold nuclear weapons.

    The crisis didn’t stop among the already-poor, however. An article in The Economist reported that the crisis extended well into the middle class – Joanna Sheeran, director of the World Food Project explained, “For the middle classes,…it means cutting out medical care. For those on $2 a day, it means cutting out meat and taking the children out of school. For those on $1 a day, it means cutting out meat and vegetables and eating only cereals. And for those on 50 cents a day, it means total disaster.”

    Up to 100 million people who had managed to raise their incomes above $2 a day found themselves inexorably drawn back to the world poverty level, while millions of those who called themselves “middle class” began, slowly, to realize that they were no such thing. Reports noted that many of the supposed middle class in rich world nations were actually the working poor who had overextended their credit to keep up appearances. And the appearances – and credit access – were fraying

    In 2007, a major American newspaper reported the growing problem of seasonal malnutrition affecting poor children in the Northern US – the rising price of heating oil meant that lower class families were struggling to put on the table. Hungry, low weight children were unable to maintain their body temperature in chilly houses, and a vicious circle of illness, hunger and desperation ensued. Malnutrition bellies began to be regularly seen by pediatricians treating the urban poor in cold climates.

    Shortages were a chronic problem in the poor world, but by early spring of 2008, they began to arrive in the rich world – despite Japan’s deep pockets, a shortage of butter and wheat reminded the rich world of its dependence on food import. Many of the supply problems were due to climate change and energy issues, as Australian dairy farmers struggled with high grain prices and the extended drought that destroyed their pastures.

    Following up on anecdotal reports of limits at bulk warehouse stores, in late April of 2008 rationing went official. Many Costco stores were limiting purchases of flour, rice, cooking oil and other staples to avoid shortages – and the stores tracked purchases electronically to prevent customers from visiting other Costco stores. This was the first example of food rationing, but probably not the last – at least one financial analyst was predicting corn shortages in the fall of 2008.

    The energy train and the food train were inextricably linked, and indeed directly (as the costs of diesel rose rapidly) and indirectly (rising energy costs created the biofuels boom) drove the food crisis. They were linked in other, complex ways as well – the housing collapse that threatened to plunge Europe and the US into a major depression was in part due to the high costs of commuting from suburban infrastructure. Exurban housing collapsed hardest, while housing closer to cities remained desirable – for a while.

    While the food crisis in the poor world made headlines, the energy crisis there went almost unnoticed. <ore and more poorer nations simply could not afford to import oil and other fossil fuels, and began to slowly but steadily lose the benefits of fossil fuels. Nations suffered shortages of gas, electricity and coal. Tajikistan, experiencing a record cold winter found itself with inadequate supplies of heating oil and a humanitarian crisis. South African coal supplies were so short that electricity generation dropped back to intermittency.

    Industrial agriculture, described as “the process of turning oil into food” began to struggle to keep yields up to match growing demand. Yield increases fell back steadily, with more and more investment of energy (and higher costs for poor farmers trying to keep yields up). Yield increases, which had been at 6% annually from the 1960s through the 1990s fell to 1-2%, against rapidly rising demand. Climate change threatened to further reduce yields in already stressed poor nations – Bangladesh struggled with repeated climate change linked flooding, the Sahelian African countries with growing drought, China with desertification.

    All future indications were that both food and energy supplies would fail to keep up with demand. Unchecked (the only kind we’ve got) climate change is expected to reduce rice yields by up to 30%, and food production in the already starving Sahel is expected to be reduced by half. GMOs, touted as a solution, have yet to produce even slightly higher yields. Arable land is disappearing under growth, while aquifers are heavily depleted – 30% of the world’s grain production comes from irrigated land that is expected to lose its water supply in the next decades.

    Meanwhile the costs of fossil fueled agricultural skyrocketed, with Potash rising by 300% in less than a year. What should have been a boom for farmers was actually the beginning of an increasingly precarious spiral of high prices, high indebtedness and market volatility. Agricultural indebtedness rose dramatically.

    Meanwhile, the ability of nations to transport food supplies began to be called into question. Early trucker protests were intermittent and largely ineffective, but real predictions of diesel shortages and a shortage of refining capacity made it a real possibility that food might not reach store shelves.

    And so how does the story end? If you were reading this in a history book, what ending would you expect to see? Because just because the crash doesn’t quite read like a post apocalyptic novel doesn’t mean that we aren’t the new Po-Apoc (like Po-Mo, only darker) generation.

  • Pestilence lays waste to global wheat crop

    David Kotok, chairman and chief investment officer of Cumberland Advisors, said the deadly fungus, Puccinia graminis, is now spreading through some areas of the globe where “crop losses are expected to reach 100 percent.”

    Losses in Africa are already at 70 percent of the crop, Kotok said.

    “The economic losses expected from this fungus are now in the many billions and growing. Worse, there is an intensifying fear of exacerbated food shortages in poor and emerging countries of the world,” Kotok told investors in a research note.

    “The ramifications are serious. Food rioting continues to expand around the world. We saw the most recent in Johannesburg.

    “So far this unrest has been directed at rising prices. Actual shortages are still to come.”

    Last month, scientists met in the Middle East to determine measures to track the progress of “Ug99,” which was first discovered in 1999 in Uganda.

    The fungus has spread from its initial outbreak site in Africa to Asia, including Iran and Pakistan. Spores of the fungus spread with the winds, according science journal reports.

    According to the Food and Agriculture Office (FAO) of the United Nations, approximately a quarter of the world’s global wheat harvest is currently threatened by the fungus.

    Meanwhile, global wheat stocks are at lows not seen in half a century, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

    Scientists fear that the spores could spread on the wind and reach the U.S. and Canada or Europe.

    “It will take five to eight years to genetically engineer a resistance,” said Kotok. “In the interim, U.S. agriculture faces higher risk.”

    Kotok is worried that governments around the globe are reacting to the crisis — which he believes is as big of a threat as bird flu — inappropriately by artificially lowering the prices of domestic wheat, and raising export taxes on wheat.

    William Gamble, president of Emerging Market Strategies, tells MoneyNews that artificial mechanisms put in place by governments could be as much to blame for the crisis as anything.

    “Twenty countries have put food in price controls or export restrictions,” Gamble says.

    “Others have restricted futures markets. It is the politicians who are interfering in the markets to protect themselves, and that causes the problem.”