Why Economists are goofing up on Food Production and Supply Chains?

Why the Economists from the developed markets always goof up when it comes to global projections.

Now it is the turn of the Food Production and supply chains.

The whole system of production and of supply of food has always been on a cliff edge right from the beginning when large scales were thought of in the developed countries. They have always teetered on the edge and they have to keep in business not by establishing a segment but on constant expansion where the negatives from the previous fiscal would be compensated by more volumes and inflationary trends. This model of business is very much dependent on perceived and projected margins from a non-dependable future. This is what exactly happened in the real estate sector in the US which in turn devastated the banks which in turn brought down the viability of more modest economies of Europe for debts were called in and the downward spiral could not be absorbed without buffers. Until the government came to the rescue by infusing funds there was a threat of the whole economy of the developed country markets collapsing totally. The opening up of some third world country markets absorbed some of the shock, but there was an irrational projection for that too as these markets are little understood by western economists.

It was first done in the Automobile sector and because there was no buffer from the third world markets Detroit was totally destroyed. Then it was the real estate’s turn, nearly destroyed the whole of the western economy.

And now the same kind of methodology is now being tried in the Agricultural and Food distribution sector. China has seen a rapid expansion but India would not; due to political and conservative resistance. Right now the promise of the opening up of the Markets to this sector due to the promises of the new government in India has sent all the wheeler dealers back to the drawing board with great expansion plans and the same kind of ill placed optimism. This is going to be the final nail if it fails, and it is bound to fail due to its unsustainable and overoptimistic fundamentals. In the beginning there will be an illusion of “business as usual” for that is exactly what the new Government is hoping to project to the world business community and a seemingly fast and progressive change to “good times” for the Indian populace. But the “benefits” of this exercise; when it remains with the elite few; and hardly any trickle-down effect; is seen by the vast middle class, the main target of all markets; then there is going to be a hiccup, and subsequently breath arrest. That is the most probable scenario when you throw in the resistance to industrialized agriculture and the deteriorating quality food nutrition in supermarket chains. Add to that; the following; Indian population does, of western trends, and a penchant for the educated middle class to follow popular movements happening in the west. When the clamor for non-GMO and chemical free food and a return to organic and nutritious food gets loud enough then the Indian buyer is going to follow suit. That will be the final nail, because all the business models are being built on the perceived notion that there is huge market waiting to be tapped. As it has been pointed out recently of the Giant Chain Tesco Express in UK the sales have dipped and they are closing down more than 43 stores which are in the red and overall the sales in the top 4 chains have dipped by 5% according to Nielsen; the honeymoon with supermarkets and large supply chains is over. They will get an initial boost for surviving a few more years from the third world markets but it will just be a postponement of the inevitable.



Sadly it has become essential today to differentiate kinds of capitalism when in a simple world it had only one meaning. Today it is “ETHICAL  V/S  UNETHICAL CAPITALISM”. There will always be people who will try to obfuscate the meaning of capitalism and take advantage of it to loot.

There is a very big difference in making money and looting money. Capitalism as it has been defined in the philosophical and moral sense is the investment of one’s thinking power and physical effort into creating goods or services of value for exchange for a higher value corresponding to the value addition done by the one and is under no restriction on the fixation of the price of that value addition by any other, other than the one who has done the value addition. Capitalism is a natural outcome of human existence just like his eating food and drinking water. As he is a rational being and lives by the only tool of survival that he has that is the brain he does so by building a social relationship with fellow humans by trading his skill and value added creations and that is the capital he uses; his brain. The by-product of this endeavor of his to add value to his services and goods is called the instrument of exchange, and in the modern world it exists in the form of a promissory note printed on paper which is “money” There have been different instruments in different ages, like gold, silver, and even sea-shells in the hoary past. This exercise of humans is called “making” money. Anything that involves acquiring money without the exchange of value is called looting or mooching.

I have referred to the unethical practices of large corporations who seemingly give people a value in exchange for money but is far more inflated than the actual value addition, and people are bamboozled by false advertisements, force feeding  or downright political and governmental patronage or religious patronage, all unethical in a “FAIR and FREE” society.

See how difficult it is to explain? Do you know that there is enough and more food in this World produced every year and millions of tons are just wasted, and that is true even in the poor countries. This happens due to a real absence of “Freedom” and “Fair-play”. There are always victims of this but it is unfair that “children” bear the brunt of this when they have done nothing willfully to be a part of this corruption.



It looks like I do have a serious misunderstanding of “Capitalism” as it is being understood today. I studied it as one of the various means of economic systems that various peoples through time have applied for the progress of mankind and in a narrower sense the nations. The common underlying aim of all the systems was ‘the progress of humankind’. I did not know that a separation of this underlying meaning has ceased to exist. I was under the impression that this separation was done to quantify and qualify at school and college levels to make it easier to study the mechanism of the subjects. But when that stage of the system is understood then a comparative study is made to assess the efficacy of each system towards the final goal of the system. If capitalism is a mechanism to earn money by owning the means of further creation of money by an individual then it is obviously the only system of economics that exists. It is differentiated from say a communist system because the aim of that system is not ownership of the means of money making by individuals or fascism where the ownership lies with the Dictator or with imperialism where it is owned by the king. But the ownership of the means of investment to create wealth always exists.  And when we finally come down to it capitalism is what is practiced as an economic system for the creation of wealth, whether by individuals or the commune or a dictator or a king. It is the system of investing and reaping, very simple. That is exactly why I said it is as natural to humans as breathing and eating. So why is a distinction made in dividing them into different systems? The distinction is in the individual freedom of anyone in a Democratic setup to choose to do it individually and not do it if he doesn’t want to. Unlike the other systems human beings are free to choose. But the choice also has to me made with regards to the Morality involved. If as you say Capitalism starts and ends at putting in the investment, buying the knowledge and producing the goods or services which are in demand and nothing more or less to it, then there is nothing stopping a rich person from buying heavy arms investing some more in buying mercenaries and going around collecting money by threatening and coercion, as his “business” will be to collect money and he has invested money in it and he is nothing more than an honest to god “capitalist”. That I don’t think is what you mean, As soon as you say that “that” is against the law and as soon as a person’s actions are judged then it is but natural to say that the perp’s. action was bereft of morality. You cannot separate the consequences from the action. As soon as you start judging the consequences then you start making a moral judgment. I think you are beginning to understand that there is no separation. Only a person with an intention of engaging in looting will insist that any of the “isms” carry no moral tab. and that situation is called “anarchy”

Check your premises, “civilization” is all about morality and has nothing to do with wealth, but we can always choose not be a participant in a civilized society, and that is freedom but every other man can choose in his own freedom that he doesn’t like you and kills you, that is anarchy in direct opposition to civilization, therefore if you choose to live in a civilized society then freedom means freedom to act and behave morally and not freedom to loot and rape and that is a prerequisite that guides all civilized human beings, there has never been nor is there any scope to separate morality from any action of a civilized man and that goes for “CAPITALISM” too.

Governments and the people they govern.

Through time immemorial there has been a constant tussle between the people and their Governments. It has always seemed like people are never satisfied with whatever kind of governance they have nor the actions for public benefit that they take. The basic fact is that humans have an inherent hatred of being controlled and the nature of any kind of governance is control. Ancient history reveals that the then governments would control the armies and other instruments of aggression as this would be a means of amassing wealth and if the fallout of wealth accumulation spread to the populace then things were hunky dory and such kind of fallout was cleverly allowed to happen so that there would always be a constant supply of personnel for the war efforts and accumulation of more power and wealth. Such governments lasted long and glorified as progressive benign and clever in the annals of history. But one thing is certain; any progress that happened was accidental to the process of keeping control of the power of controlling the wealth and the populace nothing more and nothing less. The age of amassing wealth through war and aggression slowly subsided and became a crime with the advent of the Industrial age. The basic tenets of governance did not change but only the means of achieving the goal; that of amassing wealth, by a few ambitious individuals and their cronies continued. Now it was economic warfare that was the tool. The transition period from open aggression to a covert one facilitated the combination of both and the end saw a few countries having taken a major portion of the pie by hook or crook and ending up as the wealthy nations of today’s world. The small section of people of these countries who govern them proved to be more ambitious and greedy than others. One can observe that Governments and Industry and Trade were one and the same through the transition period. Those few people were the ones who governed and traded and ran the industries during those times. When times started changing to a Democratic way of thinking and a clamor for freedom from overbearing and oppressive regimes started getting too loud the necessity to appear that the governments were apart from industry and trade became a compulsion. Thus in all appearances Governments seemed to separate from trade and commerce, the modern tools of aggression for amassing wealth. But in reality they have not. The tools of amassing wealth and power are still maintained by a few ambitious people who appear to be different from the Government but are just two sides of a coin. There cannot be a Government without Wealth which in turn translates to power and there cannot be wealth without industry, therefore wealth generated by industry is the only means to power and power of governance is the only means to control industry, and if anyone who tries to shake this foundation of wealth and power then that idea or individual or a group is ruthlessly thwarted and eliminated. That’s a threat to the whole fabric of modern society and has a potential to rent it asunder.
The modern tools of amassing wealth ie industry commerce and trade are the Governments of any country in this modern age. The population is allowed to believe that the Government is there to get them the best deal from the wealth producing instruments that being the Corporate World, or The Companies, or whatever they are known as in different countries. This false idea; that has been carefully inculcated into the populations; is to prevent people revolting and a situation of anarchy to prevail. Governments of all countries would like things to be industrialized and controllable, therefore even research and budgets are directed towards that. If anything that the government does helps people then it is either out of political compulsion or an accidental by product of their existence. It is a power game and if people are not aware of this then they will pay the price, tragic but true.
People like us will always be there to create awareness and churn the cauldron so that the powers that be do not take off on a runaway exercise of exploitation. Most of the people in Governments’ employment are experts at planning on devising means to convince people that they are working day and night for the sole benefit of the population. And Industry is their main poster boy. And GDP is their measure of achievement. All this has been constantly revealed about all Governments in hindsight from time immemorial, but that’s the way it is. Just being aware of it is half the battle won. And only that much is possible. And only churning is desirable; the pot should never be upturned.
If the government wins the whole battle, then there is despotism; if the people win it there is anarchy, and these are the very things that are not very desirable to have.