Canada with global food shortages


polaris
#1
How close to the bone are you prepared to go? If it comes to you and your family....hungry....with hungry heavily armed Americans heading north of their border out of a really scary scene....do you want a gun?

Imagine Palestine,...wall....shortages....bullets....expan ded to a global stage.

My dreams get weird.... the MATRIX....

all contracts are conspiracies




3



2




1




awake
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
+1
#2  Top Rated Post
Why would members of the greatest food producing nation on Earth be heading for Canada - a country that can't produce any food other than livestock in many parts of the country for half the year?
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#3
It won't be us that I would be worrying about, maybe people trying to come across the United States border with Mexico for food which may cause a problem. As long as climate change doesn't kill off the farming we will be able to take care of ourselves first, then export the excess.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#4
The United States of America is facing drought problems and they will experience shortages
the reason is the failing food distribution system if anything goes wrong. Earthquake or other
serious situation and there will be all kinds of problems.
The problem is Canada which has some of the greatest farmland and storage facilities in the
world is also in the same boat for distribution. For example in a crisis, Vancouver Island has
enough food for only three or four days tops. Don't sell Canada short though we produce a
tremendous amount of greenhouse food and we have great storage and canning facilities.
Our problems lie in the fact that there are fewer and fewer farmers, the guys are getting old and
the young ones know there is no money in it.
The greatest danger does not come from Americans coming north China has put aside over
175 billion dollars to buy farmland in foreign countries to ship food to their homeland in case of
food shortages from disaster or other events. Canadian farmland may well end up in foreign
hands and should that happen we ourselves could face a famine in a land of plenty.

China and India have a growing middle class that will soon consume everything their farmers can
grow and they will be looking to buy food on the open market. If that should happen, even if we
have food here, it will be very expensive to the point where Canadians will go to bed hungry.
In the next decade, there will be three main issues on the global radar. FOOD, WATER
and OIL.
If we start selling bulk water it will become a world commodity, and many will not be able to afford
what comes from our own tap as it were. Food will be more than triple in price if you can get it
and oil will be world price which thanks to those wonderful environmentalists, so expensive you
won't even get to sniff it let alone buy it.
The poison food dart is heading straight at us, and we happen to be our biggest enemy.
Here is an example of what I mean. Remember a few years ago they deregulated Natural Gas?
Private suppliers were much cheaper and people split from Terasen Gas in droves. I didn't make
a move because I knew what was going to happen. I have a brother in law in the fuel business
and he told me exactly what was coming. Now they are paying through the nose that I get to save
on. Serves them right. All this crap about competition for essential services is going to cause
many Canadians to experience hunger thirst and deprivation like never before. All this talk about
Americans coming north, don't count on it, they won't be able to afford the gas to come here.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#5
Years of poisoning our soil shrinking water supplies will mean food shortages, but it is the collapse of the fictitious economic system and the waking up to the realities of our bogus political system that will bring down The US and Canada. The only advantage Canada has is the apparent abundance of space. Of course, most Americans don't know a lot of it is uninhabitable and very little of it is arable. But that won't stop them from wanting to come here. But should there be a breakdown in the economic/political/food distribution systems, people will resort back to the lowest common denominator and there will be rampent raping, pillaging and cannibalism. We figured it out back in the 70s that perhaps 5 - 10% would live long enough to get here. Most would be eaten by gangs or desperate families trying to keep their kids fed. If our projections are correct, Americans would be a welcome addition to our food supply.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#6
Some soil has been downgraded but nowhere near what people believe. As for climate
change I believe it is a natural flow of earth and time in space.
I am also concerned about the organic industry which in many cases is not organic at all.
Some people who believe organics is a religion have no idea what is going on in some
cases. There are no spot checks on farms and no serious inspections, it is all based on
paper work.
Besides if is actually cheaper and more environmentally friendly to farm with a diesel
tractor than to use horses. Not only that using horses is inefficient and half the food area
would be required to grow feed for working animals.
Too many people have been force fed a lot of nonsense about what is happening in the
agricultural industry. Yes there are many problems and some countries have done a terrible
job but by and large North America, as in Canada and the United States, farming has done
a pretty good job.
Even the false statements about modern pesticides is so blown out of proportion it would
make me laugh if it were not so damn deceptive. We have target sprays that don't kill the
beneficials while killing target pests. And those who believe and there are some, that organic
farmer don't spray think again. There are all kinds of sprays that they use, and they are
every bit as deadly to pests. There are a lot of things in nature that will kill you faster than
chemicals devised by man.
I listen to Al Gore and the environmental lobby and I can hardly contain myself. Both the
organic and conventional farmers do a good job and a poor job at times, but the organic
industry is not the saviour many think it is. And not all the chemical use products are as
bad or destructive as they would have people believe. But then I am a farmer, what would I
know. There are so many lobby groups and media relations firms that never allow the truth
to get in the way of a good story.
 
dumpthemonarchy
Free Thinker
#7
I wonder if talk of food shortages is a euphemism for peak oil. First the people way down the food chain get whacked, then those farther up get hit. But because we have a more rational system, we can mitigate the shocks coming. They say if we had plenty of oil, the price would be around $20 bbl. not $85.
 
Trotz
Bloc Québécois
#8
Most American and Canadian wheat is going abroad, bought under subsidization campaigns, and shipped abroad and sold in foreign markets at a greatly reduced price.

If we ever starve in North America, even with an oil crisis, it wouldn't be the fault of nature but rather farmers selling their grain to international buyers as oppose to the domestic market.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Trotz View Post

Most American and Canadian wheat is going abroad, bought under subsidization campaigns, and shipped abroad and sold in foreign markets at a greatly reduced price.

If we ever starve in North America, even with an oil crisis, it wouldn't be the fault of nature but rather farmers selling their grain to international buyers as oppose to the domestic market.

Of course, the only thing that will effect us would be a major change in the climate, we will not starve because of the cost of oil. Problem is that we are supporting billions who cannot grow or produce enough food for themselves. Does not make a peaceful outlook for the future.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Years of poisoning our soil shrinking water supplies will mean food shortages, but it is the collapse of the fictitious economic system and the waking up to the realities of our bogus political system that will bring down The US and Canada. The only advantage Canada has is the apparent abundance of space. Of course, most Americans don't know a lot of it is uninhabitable and very little of it is arable. But that won't stop them from wanting to come here. But should there be a breakdown in the economic/political/food distribution systems, people will resort back to the lowest common denominator and there will be rampent raping, pillaging and cannibalism. We figured it out back in the 70s that perhaps 5 - 10% would live long enough to get here. Most would be eaten by gangs or desperate families trying to keep their kids fed. If our projections are correct, Americans would be a welcome addition to our food supply.


Love a BBQ
 
polaris
#10
Next time you are in the supermarket consider how much of what you see comes from outside your local area. I would guess that not even 10% would remain if all imports were to disappear.

When conditions deteriorate to hunger, which kind of society would you rather live in....Along the Conservative path we will see small gated heavily armed (secure?) communities protecting the wealthy who have stockpiles of food and resources. They will be guarded by phalanxes of lawyers and police who will be paid for by your tax dollars.

Or would you rather live in a community where resources are shared....community gardens abound on every backyard and boulevard, where there is almost no crime because everyone is in the same boat...instead of fighting there is cooperation.

The conservative way always leads toward disparity, corruption, violence, fascism and evil in times of scarcity.

To prepare a mutually beneficial society we must take the other path now.

Eliminate poverty...make greed a crime
 
Tonington
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

Problem is that we are supporting billions who cannot grow or produce enough food for themselves.

You may want to dig into the effects of massive farming subsidies in industrialized nations like your own on nations that largely rely on agriculture for subsistence, instead of using it as a commodity.
 
eh1eh
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

You may want to dig into the effects of massive farming subsidies in industrialized nations like your own on nations that largely rely on agriculture for subsistence, instead of using it as a commodity.


We should us it as a commodity. We should tie the prices to the price of oil. Oil up, food exports up. Maybe some careless people on the planet will put a sock on it and save the planet from the virus load that is HivUMANS.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

You may want to dig into the effects of massive farming subsidies in industrialized nations like your own on nations that largely rely on agriculture for subsistence, instead of using it as a commodity.

I have no objection to using farming as a commodity, and it is a good idea now, and should be exchanged for what ever other resource we may need. But in the future there still will be people going to bed hungry and that prospect should scare the devil out of us when we won't be able to take care of them. Subsidies will have to be eliminated or cut back, we won't be able to afford paying for a farmer not to grow.
 
Trotz
Bloc Québécois
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

You may want to dig into the effects of massive farming subsidies in industrialized nations like your own on nations that largely rely on agriculture for subsistence, instead of using it as a commodity.

Green Revolution for one,
Germany and France can barely feed themselves despite massive subsidies and yet, countries like Nigeria (smaller than Germany and France combined) have more people than both countries combined.

Or even Bangladesh which has 150 million people living in a country the size of the Netherlands, see more people does equal more power as we all take orders from Bangladesh (or not).

The Liberal Party's Solution is to bring them all into Canada; the more practical solution (for the planet) is to stop sending them food and allow their farmers to compete and have Nigeria's population reach a sustainable figure. I don't see how perpetual poverty and immigration to the west, because of economic imblanaces, is ever going to make the world a better place.

At best it reinforces the capitalist and banker's cycle of exploitation.
 
Tonington
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Trotz View Post

the more practical solution (for the planet) is to stop sending them food and allow their farmers to compete and have Nigeria's population reach a sustainable figure.

They have to compete against mechanized and subsidized farming. Subsistence farmers can't compete, by definition. They can try to raise enough food for their family, and that's it. That's what subsistence is. If you price them out, and they're not even competitors in a market, then that's not only not practical, it's not really ethical either.
 
polaris
#16
With looming food shortages should we stop trying to save lives in whatever afflicted region of the planet? Should we let nature take its course in Africa...Haiti...Canada? Ultimately nature will take its course and limit our numbers one way or another and I suspect that the longer we postpone the inevitable the bigger the crash will be.
Collapse the economy...grow a garden....gather your friends...invest in karma...
I think the safest places will be small self-sufficient communities like the Hutterites etc...or a country like Cuba.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#17
I'm not sure where all of this panicky talk is coming from. To put things in perspective California alone produces more food than all of Canada. In addition there are vast areas of agricultural land in the US that are under-producing. Stepping up agricultural production in both the US and Canada is a simple matter of demand. If demand increases and crop prices increase farmers will grow more food. There will be no shortage. Alarmists have been making similar predictions since the 1960s. Such predictions are much more about selling books and documentaries than about actually getting anything right.
 
Trotz
Bloc Québécois
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

They have to compete against mechanized and subsidized farming. Subsistence farmers can't compete, by definition. They can try to raise enough food for their family, and that's it. That's what subsistence is. If you price them out, and they're not even competitors in a market, then that's not only not practical, it's not really ethical either.


Quote: Originally Posted by polaris View Post

With looming food shortages should we stop trying to save lives in whatever afflicted region of the planet? Should we let nature take its course in Africa...Haiti...Canada? Ultimately nature will take its course and limit our numbers one way or another and I suspect that the longer we postpone the inevitable the bigger the crash will be.
Collapse the economy...grow a garden....gather your friends...invest in karma...
I think the safest places will be small self-sufficient communities like the Hutterites etc...or a country like Cuba.

Would it be ethical if an Asteroid slammed into the planet and killed 99% of humanity?
I guess it wouldn't but then an Asteroid slamming into this planet and ending most life is simply one of those things we do not have control over.

It will come crashing down as either the money for subsidization runs out, oil runs out or farm invasions occur.

As oppose to having sustainable populations, most people rather have overpopulated countries in Africa waiting to be a repeat of Uganda, how quaint.

Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

I'm not sure where all of this panicky talk is coming from. To put things in perspective California alone produces more food than all of Canada. In addition there are vast areas of agricultural land in the US that are under-producing. Stepping up agricultural production in both the US and Canada is a simple matter of demand. If demand increases and crop prices increase farmers will grow more food. There will be no shortage. Alarmists have been making similar predictions since the 1960s. Such predictions are much more about selling books and documentaries than about actually getting anything right.

There have been multiple famines and food shortages since the 1960s but none of these never materialized into mass famines because of response from the United States.

Although the local population took note that each time you had a starvation, much like in Ethiopia, you would just have 8 children because of the free food and there would be another famine in a couple of years, of course at the same time you had the Taliban and other Terrorist seize this food in order to purchase weapons from the Russians and leading to our international security problem at the moment.

With 16 Trillion in Debt, and with future oil crises, the question has to be asked how long can the U.S. keep up with free food esepcially when foreign populations continue to spiral out of control?
 
Tonington
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Trotz View Post

Would it be ethical if an Asteroid slammed into the planet and killed 99% of humanity?

Let me know when you have the power to control asteroid strikes on this planet.

Agricultural policy we do have control over.

Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Stepping up agricultural production in both the US and Canada is a simple matter of demand.

California has tremendous agriculture because they have routed water all over the state, irrigating areas that would never otherwise support the types of cropping systems they have.

There are constraints on growth
YouTube - The Impossible Hamster
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

They have to compete against mechanized and subsidized farming. Subsistence farmers can't compete, by definition. They can try to raise enough food for their family, and that's it. That's what subsistence is. If you price them out, and they're not even competitors in a market, then that's not only not practical, it's not really ethical either.

Subsistence farmers were never in the market, they are just that subsistence farmers growing barely enough for their families. They never were competitors, as being not ethical, it is not. But ethics will not feed the world, we have to keep producing and supplying the world with subsidized farm goods in order to put off the inevitable as long as we can. Just like global warming we cannot stop it, but maybe slow it down.

Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

I'm not sure where all of this panicky talk is coming from. To put things in perspective California alone produces more food than all of Canada. In addition there are vast areas of agricultural land in the US that are under-producing. Stepping up agricultural production in both the US and Canada is a simple matter of demand. If demand increases and crop prices increase farmers will grow more food. There will be no shortage. Alarmists have been making similar predictions since the 1960s. Such predictions are much more about selling books and documentaries than about actually getting anything right.

California is on the verge of collapse, water sources are drying up. What area within the U.S. or Canada for that matter has land fertile enough to pick up the slack.
 
Tonington
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

Subsistence farmers were never in the market, they are just that subsistence farmers growing barely enough for their families.

Yes...that's what I said.

Quote:

But ethics will not feed the world, we have to keep producing and supplying the world with subsidized farm goods in order to put off the inevitable as long as we can.

That is plain retarded. If you remove subsidies, making it possible for people once again to be able to afford to grow food for themselves, then you, we, do not have to feed the world. There will always be some who need food, like areas hit hard by droughts, but leaving subsidies in place ensures that farmers elsewhere cannot afford the basic inputs, farmer who would otherwise be able to farm.

Quote:

Just like global warming we cannot stop it, but maybe slow it down.

You're in denial.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post


That is plain retarded. If you remove subsidies, making it possible for people once again to be able to afford to grow food for themselves, then you, we, do not have to feed the world. There will always be some who need food, like areas hit hard by droughts, but leaving subsidies in place ensures that farmers elsewhere cannot afford the basic inputs, farmer who would otherwise be able to farm.


Subsidies artificially lower the prices.... Your logic makes no sense.
 
Tonington
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Subsidies artificially lower the prices.

Yeah...that`s kind of the point. There are entire rounds of trade negotiations that stumble largely due to agricultural policy. Look up "Doha Round" and read.

Developed nations can afford to subsidize agriculture, and that gives us a comparative advantage. Not because we produce goods better...The artificially lowered price encourages developing nations to buy the cheaper product, but in turn they lose agricultural production and productivity. It ensures that the poorest nations will always be buyers, and can never be sellers. So if they happen to have good years, where they produce more food than they need, they couldn't sell it. That is, if they are still farming at all. If it costs you more money to buy the inputs to farm then you can get from selling your crop, there's no incentive to be a farmer.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Developed nations can afford to subsidize agriculture, and that gives us a comparative advantage. Not because we produce goods better... The artificially lowered price encourages developing nations to buy the cheaper product, but in turn they lose agricultural production and productivity. It ensures that the poorest nations will always be buyers, and can never be sellers. So if they happen to have good years, where they produce more food than they need, they couldn't sell it. That is, if they are still farming at all. If it costs you more money to buy the inputs to farm then you can get from selling your crop, there's no incentive to be a farmer.


None of what you posted relates to the capacity for people to be able to grow their own food on an affordable basis....

Fact is, the relative cost of food would rise for those people that you claim can not afford to grow their own crops under the current system. Cutting subsidies will result in there being a greater pressure being applied on producing their own crops, but that will result in it having a higher cost associated with it.
 
Tonington
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Fact is, the relative cost of food would rise for those people that you claim can not afford to grow their own crops under the current system. Cutting subsidies will result in there being a greater pressure being applied on producing their own crops, but that will result in it having a higher cost associated with it.

Wrong. If the price is artificially lowered by subsidies on producer A's goods, then consumers will preferentially purchase goods from producer A over producer B. If the subsidies are removed from producer A, it doesn't mean that suddenly producer B will have higher costs of production. The relative costs are only higher for producer B while producer A is subsidized.

That's idiotic, and a 0/10 on a first year micro-economics question.
 
polaris
#26
I think the major component behind farm subsidies is because any responsible national government wants their nation to be food self-sufficient. To be otherwise would leave the nation vulnerable to conditions beyond your control...open to market manipulation or even food blackmail and extortion. It is unfortunate that a side effect of that policy is that we don't purchase goods from poorer nations and that makes it very difficult for them to work their way out of poverty.
Once again the capitalists determine a market void of ethics.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Wrong. If the price is artificially lowered by subsidies on producer A's goods, then consumers will preferentially purchase goods from producer A over producer B. If the subsidies are removed from producer A, it doesn't mean that suddenly producer B will have higher costs of production. The relative costs are only higher for producer B while producer A is subsidized.

That's idiotic, and a 0/10 on a first year micro-economics question.


In light of the specific issue at hand, Ttat's the most ridiculous logic I've ever seen. There is a reason why people aren't rushing out to become a producer, especially those nations that have food production issues to begin with.

Answer that question genius and you'll quickly determine why companies and individuals haven't rushed forward to develop that sector.
 
Tonington
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

In light of the specific issue at hand, Ttat's the most ridiculous logic I've ever seen.

It's pretty standard economics. You had it right in the beginning, subsidies articficially lower price, and relative costs for unsubsidized producers are therefore higher. You went off the rails when you tried to turn that into increased costs on unsubsidized producers once the subsidy on subsidized producers is removed. That, is plain old bunk.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
#29
We're talking about affordability here and not competitive forces.

Go answer the last question I asked and you'll realize that you are confusing 2 separate issues.
 
Tonington
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by polaris View Post

I think the major component behind farm subsidies is because any responsible national government wants their nation to be food self-sufficient. To be otherwise would leave the nation vulnerable to conditions beyond your control...open to market manipulation



Subsidies are market manipulation. And this form of market manipulation hurts the poorest nations. The subsidized EU, US, Canadian farmers aren't that efficient at producing their goods. The governments artificially makes them more efficient than competitors. Who would rush to compete with someone who has stacked the deck against you? That's the answer to Captain's question. If the trade barriers are removed, then producers in devleoping nations aren't competing against production prices kept artificially low by government spending. Some analysts have estimated that this lop-sided trade arrangement ensures developing nations in need of about $50 billion worth of food from other countries, food they could be producing in their own nations, and selling like everyone else does. They can't afford the same level of subsidies that a US Farm Bill produces.

In 2010, net cash farm income in the US is close to $90 Billion.

One wonders if the new Congress, intent on cutting spending, will remove these market interfering subsidies.

Yeah right, the GOP just took back many of the farm districts!

What's more perverse? Corn is the lions share winner of the agricultural subsidies, and nations like Canada and the US are mandating higher blends of ethanol in the gasoline at the pumps. The majority of which comes from ethanol distilled from corn, by huge companies like ADM, Cargill, etc. Even more perverse, these huge companies could glut the market with more corn than small co-op distilleries could, and then force out the smaller US farmers as well, and consolidate the industry.

Food for gasoline.
 

Similar Threads

1
Gaza: Chronic shortages of food and medicine.
by earth_as_one | Feb 16th, 2009
2
5
food shortages
by Nuggler | Apr 23rd, 2008