View Full Version : Japan has no food because ...
... small island nation?
... Japanese food is the best and people will only eat Japanese food, but there isn't much land to grow it on?
Nope!
The agricultural board forces them to destroy it. There was a report on the news today that the hakusai cabbage crop for this year yielded too much food and prices would have fallen, so JA (the equivalent of the Wheat Board in Canada, I guess) ordered the farmers to destroy the "surplus". This happens every year with some other kind of crop as well ...
I mean really, wanting to keep prices high out of greed and disregard for actual market forces I can understand - but why didn't they just sell the food to Africa or rural China or something, somewhere that actually needs it?
Profit, man. And this sort of thing is not restricted to Japan. You are being idealistic, but in reality, unless someone interferes with this kind of deal, those extra crops will be destroyed to keep the market price stable.
Plus, every country tends to be sensitive about exporting/importing agricultural products, not to mention that we are talking about cabbages- unless they are frozen, they won't last couple of weeks. Freezing them and transporting them will cost even more, which is not worth it. It's one thing to send them to different parts of the country, it's another to send them to a different country.
crabity
12-07-2006, 07:13 AM
selling food to another nation will increase the money supply in Japan, and an increase in money supply will lead to decrease in money value, and Japanese yen will be worth less and the Japanese economy will be worse off
...right? am I getting Econ? I hope so. I have a final in a week.
stsparky
12-07-2006, 07:14 AM
... small island nation?
... Japanese food is the best and people will only eat Japanese food, but there isn't much land to grow it on? ... Nope! ... The agricultural board forces them to destroy it. There was a report on the news today that the hakusai cabbage crop for this year yielded too much food and prices would have fallen, so JA (the equivalent of the Wheat Board in Canada, I guess) ordered the farmers to destroy the "surplus". This happens every year with some other kind of crop as well ... I mean really, wanting to keep prices high out of greed and disregard for actual market forces I can understand - but why didn't they just sell the food to Africa or rural China or something, somewhere that actually needs it?
How about creating Biomass type fuels like gasahol instead? It's dumb isn't it?
Nebosuke
12-07-2006, 08:40 AM
It's not really a matter of 'greed' as many people seem to think. It would be a disaster for the cabbage industry if the price of cabbages fell below the marginal cost of cabbage production. Allowing the market to be flooded would put every cabbage farmer out of business, as they would be generating negative revenue for each head of cabbage harvested. At some point, farmers would end up leaving their produce in the field to rot, since they would lose less money doing that than if they harvested the crop.
Since the vast majority of the production cost of vegetables is incurred at/post harvest, early crop destruct is easily the most viable remedy.
Ethanol or biodiesel from cabbages would cost far more to produce than the equivalent amount of petroleum, even after the recent price hikes, so that would only be feasible if heavily subsidized by the government.
Yes, it would be a disaster for the cabbage industry if for every cabbage sold they incurred a net loss. However, the price of cabbage, like the price of just about any foodstuff in Japan, is much higher than one would expect. Like the price of rice. How much of the production and transport costs are actually included, and what is just pure profit at consumers' expense?
I think the Japanese government adjusts the price of agricultural products in order to keep imported food at bay while supporting its agriculture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture,_forestry,_and_fishing_in_Japan
The nation's many agricultural cooperatives are in charge of purchasing grain according to prices indexed to the average wage rates in the nonagricultural sector. As a result, rice, wheat, and barley prices follow productivity trends in industry rather than in agriculture. This type of support system, enacted in 1960 along with the Basic Agricultural Law, resulted in large government rice stockpiles and high agricultural prices.
Can't say if this applies to cabbage and other products, but if you are interested then you should look up the Basic Agricultural Law.
spaik
12-07-2006, 10:04 AM
this is not new. industrialized nations can produce INSANE amounts of food, if they wanted to or were allowed to. food would be dirt cheap, and there would be enough to feed everyone in the world. it is through price controlling measures, and consequently, the subsidy payoffs, that are used to control prices. stupid, but thats what market economy is like.
japanat
12-07-2006, 11:38 AM
Do you have any idea just how much food American farmers are paid to plow under? I know one guy who makes a living by not planting... They pay him to keep a certain number of acres fallow. It's enough for his living, and the only food he grows is for his family's use, and to sell at roadside veggie stands.
I'm not taking issue with the fact that yes, industrialised nations do produce more food than we consume, and thus to keep themselves in business they destroy or dispose of by whatever means many foodstuffs that would bloat supply and drive down prices, and possibly themselves out of a livelihood.
What I DO take issue with is Japanese people, from the staff at school to the government itself (this article (http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/381179) expired and is not available anymore, but it stressed the need for Japan's agricultural self-sufficiency to climb to very high levels) saying that there's so little in the way of arable land that enough food for the nation cannot be produced, and that's why prices are high and whales are researched.
The general attitude is that Japan does NOT have enough food, especially compared to all the plentiful foreign nations, when in fact it does, is what bugs me, especially after watching the news.
Trump
12-07-2006, 01:28 PM
I wouldn't say cabbage means food in general. I don't know many people who eat only that. It does sound like they should look into other crops though.
OaklandZoo
12-07-2006, 07:33 PM
Just imagine all the Kimchi we could have made with the destroyed hakusai. Such a tough loss.
I remember in the mid 90’s there was an announced rice shortage in Japan. I think Morita was the Prime Minister at the time. I remember watching news footage of him walking through a rice field, no doubt bemoaning the shortage or rice.
Prior to the announced rice shortage, there was a lot of pressure from the US government for Japan to open its rice market. So, I figured the rice shortage was a way for government to open the rice market but still save face.
Unfortunately, for the US, even with the rice market open, no one really wanted to buy US rice. Instead, importers decided to buy Thai rice. There were many shows comparing Thai rice and Japanese rice along with cooking instruction on how to make the Thai rice palatable. The final suggestion was to mix the Thai rice and Japanese rice together. In the rice shops, they started selling Japanese Rice and Thai rice together. However, instead of mixing the rice, they put the Thai rice in a separate bag and put that bag inside the bag of Japanese rice. A large number of Japanese people, people who were alive during WWII, found they just couldn’t tolerate the taste of Thai rice and started dumping it on the streets. There were huge mounds of rice all over Tokyo. The Thai people were incensed and the Japanese government had to apologize. Eventually, the rice shops stopped selling the rice together.
OaklandZoo
12-07-2006, 08:18 PM
Actually, many favored California rice over any other imported rice. They were the closest substitute to locally grown rice. When I lived in the States I went to the local asian grocery stores and bought 10lb bags of california rice, instead of the long grain rice sold at most supermarkets. The long grain rice actually remind me of the thai rice, which was good for fried rice.
Eddie Echoplex
12-07-2006, 08:19 PM
selling food to another nation will increase the money supply in Japan, and an increase in money supply will lead to decrease in money value, and Japanese yen will be worth less and the Japanese economy will be worse off.
Basic Economics.
But, destroying the surplus... Have they gone mad!? :bang:
And Japan is our main pork beef consumer, because of your pristine quality standards in meat (Sonora is the meat state of Mexico :) ).
I don't think I ever saw any US rice in any of the rice shops in Nara. Nara is not a particularly cosmopolitan place, so I can't speak for the supply of imported rice in the big cities.
spaik
12-08-2006, 03:56 AM
yup governments lie about food all the time. people talk about population growth and how we won't be able to feed everyone in the world. that's total bullshit. they are calculating that based on current 'productivity', when the true potential for food production is massive. we could be putting an end to global hunger right now, but we don't because it would drive down prices for food so low that the agriculture industry would collapse. kinda sad. in the end, its all to protect their economies. canada lies about it, the us does it, japan does it, pretty much every first world nation does it.
as for the asian countries and rice, they actually don't want people to change their rice farming methods from the traditional hand cultivated way, because it is less efficient, and thats exactly what they want. after all, they don't want to have to start paying farmers with subsidies to keep land unused, like what happens right now in the us and canada.
hanacker
12-08-2006, 04:13 AM
selling food to another nation will increase the money supply in Japan, and an increase in money supply will lead to decrease in money value, and Japanese yen will be worth less and the Japanese economy will be worse off
...right? am I getting Econ? I hope so. I have a final in a week.
Not in this case. The net effect on the overall economy from selling a bit of extra cabbage to other countries would be negligible. Most likely, increasing the global supply of cabbage (even if it's being shipped to another country) lowers the global price of cabbage, lowering the profits of Japanese cabbage farmers. Some of them go out of business, and next year you're facing a cabbage shortage and skyrocketing cabbage prices. Thus goverments like to control agricultural production to limit huge fluctuations in supply.
Free-market economics is like communism - great in theory, but in its pure form it's unworkable in the real world.
Plekto
12-08-2006, 05:46 AM
But... Most farmers won't actually destroy it if they can make even a tiny return(unless the government gives them a subsidy for the loss that is). Even then, they'll find a way to sell it for cheap if they can.
Gotta love capatalism :)
rameek
12-08-2006, 06:16 AM
EBAY:frypan: :bang: :duh: :duh:
japanat
12-08-2006, 02:25 PM
Gotta love capatalism :)
Gotta love spellcheck:gangster:
Stop being such a nutpucker.
spaik
12-09-2006, 03:22 AM
would this mean that he takes testicles and squeezes them into disc shaped objects? or does this mean that he's a peanut kissing?
It means I was inspired by Japanat's "spell check" reply in a flash of inspired inspiration.
RandomPasserby
12-09-2006, 08:45 AM
Is there a place where I could donate food for the starving japanese? Christmas isn't a time to be starving.
You could start with the parents who seem to be starving their children as a matter of course these days.
stsparky
12-09-2006, 06:28 PM
All the biomass naysayers seem to forget a lot of the stuff (http://www.dieselsecret.com/biodiesel.html) is already to use minus filtering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_vegetable_oil). "Bio-diesel" seems a pretty easy equation to me. The food producing countries (like the ones who export food) can perfect ways of doing it cheaper and cheaper using their surplus food. The first diesel engine ran on peanut oil if I remember it correctly. That we allow people to starve is cold. It seems a stupid way to run a planet. Maybe they can be employed as immigrant workers in countries with food? ...
Cherub Rock
12-09-2006, 11:24 PM
Free-market economics is like communism - great in theory, but in its pure form it's unworkable in the real world.
Plus it leads to a lot of other problems. Consider this. The US has a huge surplus of crops every year, but if they were to sell (or worse, give away) these crops to poorer nations then the price of say wheat would drop below the cost of production of wheat in that country. In other words you would be able to buy wheat cheaper than it would cost to grow it. This would destroy farmers in that country and create a system of reliance on foreign aid.
Indeed, it is great to help countries in theory, but you have to consider the negative effects too. These people are trying to make a living, and if we flood their economy with cheap wheat then we will be hurting them in the long run.
I'm sorry, but that sounds a lot like the laissez-faire arguments used in England during the Irish potato famines.
Crowley
12-09-2006, 11:55 PM
Well... that was all very exaggerated, tsk. whining irish again!
... ;-)
Cherub Rock
12-10-2006, 05:29 AM
I'm sorry, but that sounds a lot like the laissez-faire arguments used in England during the Irish potato famines.
It's proven to be true. If you want proof, read up on the FTAA. It's a proposed trade federation for North and South America excluding Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia. The biggest opposition comes from South American countries who want the US to end agriculture subsidies. Those subsidies are an overincentive for farmers to produce as much as possible and the abundant goods end up on the international market. Since the US is such a large country compared to South America a small fraction of our goods hitting the international market can create a large impact on global prices. This is basic large-small country economics. If those goods drive the price down far enough then you have... well basically the same outsourcing problem that a lot of Americans complain about with China and India taking American jobs. It's cheaper to get food from the US, so a lot of South American farmers are being put out of the business.
But the difference between the US and South American countries is the US is a highly developed country with a flexible labor force and highly mobile capital. If we lose jobs in one sector we can create jobs in another. In lesser developed countries a large percentage of the population in agricultural. If we steal those jobs from them then they can't go out and find new ones. It creates a serious and very real problem... it isn't some theory.
That's why we're constantly pouring milk in the ocean and burning wheat.
Danistar
12-10-2006, 11:58 AM
That we allow people to starve is cold. It seems a stupid way to run a planet.
Enough of this crap. The reason that people are starving all over the world isn't because of a lack of food, it's because the countries the people live in have shitty governments. More food doesn't solve the problem.
RandomPasserby
12-10-2006, 01:47 PM
Enough of this crap. The reason that people are starving all over the world isn't because of a lack of food, it's because the countries the people live in have shitty governments. More food doesn't solve the problem.
Actually, you are right in that more food doesn't solve the problem, but the shitty governments that cause the starving aren't the starving countries' goverments, it's the goverments in western countries. Because of beinf afraid of "oh, we can give food to starving countries?! I ain't going to pay much for food anymore!"-reactions, they rather destroy surplus food than give it away for free.
japanat
12-10-2006, 03:10 PM
As in, we gave tons of food to North Korea to not build a bomb; the North Koreans put all that food in warehouses for their army (estimates of 80% are common); and the people were still dying right and left?...
We often do give food aid. And in Sudan it often ended up feeding the warlords and their private armies; examples are rife. Very often the food ends up rotting on the loading docks, due to logistics problems such as no vehicles, no gasoline, even no damn roads to get it to the people who really need it.
Giving food is a wonderful idea, but w/o further, much more extensive support to countries afflicted with poor infrastructure, civil unrest, drought and other such problems, it is a band-aid at best.
stsparky
12-10-2006, 07:05 PM
Enough of this crap. The reason that people are starving all over the world isn't because of a lack of food, it's because the countries the people live in have shitty governments. More food doesn't solve the problem. If you look at my statements - I want to use the surplus food for driving in my Luxury SUV. I'm aware that it's all their government's fault that certain peoples do starve. Hence the "It's a stupid way to run a planet" states I grok it.
Here's a new link (http://www.frybrid.com/).
gentlemanandscholar
12-11-2006, 12:46 AM
Enough of this crap. The reason that people are starving all over the world isn't because of a lack of food, it's because the countries the people live in have shitty governments. More food doesn't solve the problem.
What a microscopic view of a problem that is rooted in hundreds of years of history. Did you ever stop to think how their governments got to be so "shitty", and how their economies manage to stay in shambles?
It's called exploitation and imperialism my friend. It's our (the first world nations') fault. For someone to be rich, another needs to be poor. So we exploit their resources.
I have a problem with this, but I don't. I recognize it to be a problem, but I see it as an unsolvable one. The only thing that could possibly change the poverty etc. would be to turn to another form of economics. No way in hell thats going to happen though.
RandomPasserby
12-11-2006, 05:21 AM
As in, we gave tons of food to North Korea to not build a bomb; the North Koreans put all that food in warehouses for their army (estimates of 80% are common); and the people were still dying right and left?...
We often do give food aid. And in Sudan it often ended up feeding the warlords and their private armies; examples are rife. Very often the food ends up rotting on the loading docks, due to logistics problems such as no vehicles, no gasoline, even no damn roads to get it to the people who really need it.
Giving food is a wonderful idea, but w/o further, much more extensive support to countries afflicted with poor infrastructure, civil unrest, drought and other such problems, it is a band-aid at best.
Yes, I do know that often food aid doesn't go where you want it to go, but except with the case of North Korea, I see the problem more as "whoops, I had no idea that the warlords and bandits would steal the food, but I tried so I'm a good person!"-type problem where "the thought" counts more than actually delivering the food.
Cherub Rock
12-11-2006, 10:34 AM
Yes, I do know that often food aid doesn't go where you want it to go, but except with the case of North Korea, I see the problem more as "whoops, I had no idea that the warlords and bandits would steal the food, but I tried so I'm a good person!"-type problem where "the thought" counts more than actually delivering the food.
Why does a thought count? It costs millions of dollars in tax payers money to send food to dozens of countries. You think we should just waste money and then write it off as a good PR move? You're right about this, which is why I think aid should not be given out except in emergencies.
For a country to develop it doesn't need to be fostered and nurtured and cared for... it needs to be left alone to fend for itself and to grow up under its own right. It needs to develop its own cultural identity. The problem isn't that we, the rich, don't give enough aid. The problem is exploitation.
You guys want a good example of where aid can go wrong? Take a look at the World Bank. The idea is giving out money to developing countries to foster development. The Bank offers loans that are INTEREST-FREE and they do not have to be paid off for around 15-20 years (plus usually a 4-5 year grace period). In other words the loan you can get from the World Bank is infinately better than at any commercial bank. This should be a good idea right? Well, not exactly. What happens when the money is being taken by a corrupt government, funneled to private accounts or used to finance extravagant lifestyles by dictators? You think the World Bank cares? Those numbers are on the books still, so when those dictators are ousted or leave office, they leave with thick bank accounts and they leave their country with deep debts. There is many a war-torn African country that is essentially owned by the World Bank.
That may be a little extreme, but it holds a lot of truth. Aid isn't always a good idea.
RandomPasserby
12-11-2006, 10:50 AM
Why does a thought count? It costs millions of dollars in tax payers money to send food to dozens of countries. You think we should just waste money and then write it off as a good PR move?
For a country to develop it doesn't need to be fostered and nurtured and cared for... it needs to be left alone to fend for itself and to grow up under its own right. It needs to develop its own cultural identity. The problem isn't that we, the rich, don't give enough aid. The problem is exploitation.
Sorry, I meant that the provider of the aid thinks usually that "it's the thought that counts" likethe popular saying goes. I personally think it's the armed escorts that delivers the food to the starving that should count/counts.
Also, the fend for itself idea doesn't work fast enough with ex-colonies and other developing nations where the big players caused/help a coup or two because of their interests. Also quite few countries still suffer from civil wars purely because westerns ignored the tribes when drawing the borders and so on.
Add in the way stuff like coffee and cocoa for western nations is grown instead of food for locals because westerns pay more and I tend to think that westerns should fix any problems they caused first before leaving the developing countries to fend for themselves.
Danistar
12-11-2006, 12:45 PM
What a microscopic view of a problem that is rooted in hundreds of years of history. Did you ever stop to think how blah blah blah?
Ok, listen. Canada and Mexico both border America. Canada is not starving, Mexico is. Why? It's certainly not a lack of resources, because they have buttloads of oil. It's because Mexico's government is corrupt. And because of that, the entire culture is corrupt. That's why the policemen in Mexico make money by arresting people for no reason, and then getting the people to bribe them to let them go. Yes, there are many reasons why Mexico doesn't do well, but if the government was fixed, all of the other problems could be fixed as well.
gentlemanandscholar
12-12-2006, 05:57 AM
Ok, listen. Canada and Mexico both border America. Canada is not starving, Mexico is. Why? It's certainly not a lack of resources, because they have buttloads of oil. It's because Mexico's government is corrupt. And because of that, the entire culture is corrupt. That's why the policemen in Mexico make money by arresting people for no reason, and then getting the people to bribe them to let them go. Yes, there are many reasons why Mexico doesn't do well, but if the government was fixed, all of the other problems could be fixed as well.
Are you familiar with things such as the Louisiana purchase, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo? There are so many ways Mexico could have become a world power, but they got screwed over by imperialism. It's not lack of resources, it's the exploitation of resources and labour from external countries that keeps them "down" so to speak. An example of this, although not in Mexico: the Columbian flower industry.
Besides, Mexico is pretty damn well-off. I notice you don't give Africa or the Middle-East as an example. Perhaps because you don't know much of their history, or perhaps because you know that I'm right and they prove to be perfect examples of what I was saying.
edit: On top of that, Canada was colonized by the British who were also colonizing America. See a correlation there? Mexico was not. Tada! Imperialism.
double edit: Yes I know about Spain and Mexico. That is also my point. They lost in the race, hence the difference between Canada and Mexico.
Danistar
12-12-2006, 10:45 AM
Uh, the reason I didn't use any other countries as an example was because I only used one example. If you use one example, you use one thing for the example.
Besides, Mexico is pretty damn well-off. I notice you don't give Africa or the Middle-East as an example. Perhaps because you don't know much of their history, or perhaps because you know that I'm right and they prove to be perfect examples of what I was saying.
Jeez, get over yourself already.
akitaka
12-12-2006, 11:34 AM
The general attitude is that Japan does NOT have enough food, especially compared to all the plentiful foreign nations, when in fact it does, is what bugs me, especially after watching the news.
Comments from Japantoday's POP VOX. (http://www.japantoday.com/jp/popvox/698)
I'm sure that the average joe in other countries with similar land-size would have the same mentality, until slammed with some hard facts. A lot of the comments expressed what anyone would want-to give the food to people who need it, by any means necessary. Sadly, it would actually cost the government more, with transportation, handling of goods, time, etc.
In any case, it would save a lot of restaurants on that 22% food-cost overhead if crops were cheaper...just had to throw that out.
gentlemanandscholar
12-12-2006, 02:42 PM
Uh, the reason I didn't use any other countries as an example was because I only used one example. If you use one example, you use one thing for the example.
Jeez, get over yourself already.
Oh, so you mean to say you have no counter-point?
gg.
Cherub Rock
12-13-2006, 12:00 AM
I will give you guys a good example of something.
Mozambique is a country on the Western coast of Africa (the country closest to Madagascar). It recently went on a number of reforms to help stabilize the economy, and one of the ideas was to make Mozambique a large sugar producer. The climate is pretty much perfect for growing sugar and it is a relative cheap to produce good that is highly profitable.
But Mozambique cannot do this because the European Union subsidizes sugar production. Sugar subsidies keep sugar producers in the EU, who are notoriously ineffecient, in the green. In fact the subsidies are so substantial that the EU is flooding the market with cheap sugar. Mozambique's climate lends itself to more effecient sugar production, but due to the subsidies sugar prices are so low that they are actually below the cost of production in other countries.
So the EU sends its below-cost sugar to African countries, eliminating any potential trading partners for Mozambique.
So what does this mean? It's just sugar right, you don't actually subside on sugar... but the same thing happens with other subsidized crops. If the government is paying you a fixed price for a good then you're going to produce as much of it as possible. When a large country (or in this case, collection of countries) flood the market with artificially low goods it hurts someone... certainly not consumers who get cheap food... no, instead produers, namely farmers are the ones who are hurt.
And when most of the world lives in an agricultural based society, that's not good.
gentlemanandscholar
12-13-2006, 03:00 AM
words
<3
why is there no heart emoticon? :(
RandomPasserby
12-13-2006, 11:54 AM
Cherub Rock, that works within EU too, actually i'm glad that subsidies exist in some cases, now I can eat pretty clean finnish tomatoes instead of spanish insecticide tomatoes that are grown by illegal immigrants in a slavefarm like enviroment.
Also I think Japan and USA also use subsidizes their production and place tariffs on different products. Latest tariff war is between EU and China for cheap shoes I think?
Cherub Rock
12-13-2006, 11:05 PM
I'm not 100% sure on these figures as they are based off memory and from a presentation a kid did the other day in my Advanced International Economics class, but the three leaders in subsidies paid out last year were:
European Union - $42 billion
United States - $18 billion
Japan - $9 billion
So yes, Japan and the U.S. also had substantial subsidies too. In fact the USA's agriculture subsidies have been a big debate in South America.
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.