Results for “food” 1955 found
Life on $1 or $2 a day
Here is one summary, consistent with my research and travel experience:
1. "The average person living at under $1 a day does not seem to put
every available penny into buying more calories…Food typically
represents from 56 to 78% [of household spending]."Despite this, hunger is common. Among the extremely poor in Udaipur, only 57% said their household had enough to eat in the previous year, and 72% report at least one symptom of disease.
2.
"The poor generally do not compain about their health – but then they
do not complain about life in general. While the poor certainly feel
poor, their levels of self-reported happiness or health are not
particularly low."3. Spending on festivals – religious ceremonies,
funerals and weddings – is high. In Udaipur, median spending on these
by people living on $1 a day was 10% of income.4. In several countries, the extremely poor spend about 5% of income on alcohol and tobacco.
5. In the Ivory Coast, 14% of people on $1 a day have a TV – and 45% of those on $2 a day have one.
6.
Many of the extremely poor get income from more than one source.
Cultivating their own land is not always the main source of income.7. Participation in microfinance is not as high as you’d think. The poor seem unable to reap economies of scale, therefore.
Here is the underlying paper, by Banerjee and Duflo of MIT, highly recommended, hat tip to Michael Blowhard.
Here is one more controversial bit, I wonder what they see as the relevant alternative:
…it is easy to see why so many of them are entrepreneurs. If you
have few skills and little capital, and especially if you are a woman,
being an entrepreneur is often easier than finding a job: You buy some fruits
and vegetables (or some plastic toys) at the wholesalers and start
selling them on the street; you make some extra dosa mix and sell the
dosas in front of your house; you collect cow dung and dry it to sell
it as a fuel; you attend to one cow and collect the milk. As we saw in
Hyderabad, these are exactly the types of activity the poor are
involved in. It is important, however, not to romanticize the idea of
these penniless entrepreneurs. Given that they have no money,
borrowing is risky, and in any case no one wants to lend to them, the
businesses they run are inevitably extremely small, to the point where
there are clearly unrealized economies of scale. Moreover, given that
so many of these firms have more family labor available to them than
they can use, it is no surprise that they do very little to create jobs
for others. This of course makes it harder for anyone to find a job and
hence reinforces the proliferation of petty entrepreneurs.
Do the poor need jail?
You’re going to think this is funny. But if you’re poor, you need jail. You really do. That’s where I disappear to. The food is good and it’s better in the winter; the people are okay to you, except for the guards that try to get up in your kootchie. And you get some peace. I mean, you have to know when to go! You can’t go right after [check day] when everyone’s in there because they’re drunk. No. You go middle of the week, slow time, get a few days, get rested, get warm. See, everyone around here does that. That’s why we know the cops so well; we see them all the time. They’re like our landlords.
That is from an interview with Carla, in Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh, Off the Books: The Underground Economy of the Urban Poor.
Against organic farming
Perhaps the most eminent critic of organic farming is Norman Borlaug,
the father of the “green revolution”, winner of the Nobel peace prize
and an outspoken advocate of the use of synthetic fertilisers to
increase crop yields. He claims the idea that organic farming is better
for the environment is “ridiculous” because organic farming produces
lower yields and therefore requires more land under cultivation to
produce the same amount of food. Thanks to synthetic fertilisers, Mr
Borlaug points out, global cereal production tripled between 1950 and
2000, but the amount of land used increased by only 10%. Using
traditional techniques such as crop rotation, compost and manure to
supply the soil with nitrogen and other minerals would have required a
tripling of the area under cultivation. The more intensively you farm,
Mr Borlaug contends, the more room you have left for rainforest.
Read more here.
Addendum: Speaking of The Economist, here are their book recommendations for the year.
The case for economic turbulence?
Here is my Wall Street Journal review of Clair Brown, John Haltiwanger, and Julia Lane, Economic Turbulence: Is a Volatile Economy Good for America? Excerpt:
In short, America is not becoming
a nation of part-time Wal-Mart cashiers or burger flippers. In four of
the five sectors studied by the authors–semiconductors, software,
financial services, retail food and trucking–the growth rate for
full-time jobs exceeds the growth rate for jobs in general. (Retail
food is the exception.) Separate research, conducted by Ann Huff
Stevens at the University of California, Davis, shows that the average
tenure for employed U.S. male laborers has been broadly stable over the
past 35 years.Insofar as individuals move to
lower-paying jobs, the turnover of firms is not the driving cause. The
most original proposition in "Economic Turbulence" is the claim that a
big part of measured wage declines derives from job downgrades within
firms–sticking with the same employer but moving from, say, mid-level
manager to gopher.
Should we discount the future for radical uncertainty?
A few points:
1. Whatever the chance that the future (or rather our role in it) simply won’t exist, that should be discounted directly by the relevant probability of extinction. That said, while I do worry about asteroids, I take this probability to be relatively small over the next five hundred years.
2. Our uncertainty about the future is good reason for performing an expected value calculation, but it does not provide additional reason for time discounting. It will shape the p’s that go into the expected value calculation.
3. Austrians and Knightians may believe that our uncertainty about the future is deeply radical and that the entire expected value calculation is meaningless.
I am closer to a Bayesian myself. But even if we take the Knightian view at face value, it does not diminish the importance of the future. Whether or not we call expected value calculations "scientific" or "stupid," we still need to make choices about the future. A woman might think "I simply can’t imagine what sort of man I might marry." He might even be some hitherto unimagined extraterrestrial being. But her parents should still set aside some money for the possible ceremony.
To make the uncertainty stronger and more general, perhaps the parents think "We have *no* idea what will happen with our daughter, marriage or not. Perhaps she will sell kitchen equipment, perhaps she will be turned into a sweet potato." In any case there is no general reason for the parents to think they should save less rather than more. The potential outcome might require a very large expenditure on their part.
Some of my technically inclined readers are already thinking about the
third derivative of the utility function and the precautionary motive
for saving. The intuition is this: if the effect of your savings is very uncertain, you might either eschew savings altogether ("who knows what it will bring?"), or you might feel a need to save all the more. The third derivative will determine which is the correct decision, and this is not a matter of the discount rate per se.
4. The party analogy: Let’s say you have no idea who will show up at the party (or what the future will look like). How can you buy the food until you know whether the guests are Hindu, Muslim, or whatever. Fair enough, perhaps we should wait. But given the uncertainty, we might want to set aside more savings for future contingencies, and not spend all the money today.
Let’s consider this "third derivative" business in a little more detail. When does radical uncertainty justifiably mean the future should be ignored? A Christian might believe that he should not save up for Rapture. Perhaps Rapture, once it comes, will be so different and so unexpected in its nature that current precautions simply were not worth making. Odds are your mutual fund won’t make it into heaven (or hell?). Fair enough.
Alternatively, let’s say you are worried about an avian flu pandemic, but you don’t have a good idea what such a pandemic would look like. You probably still should buy more bottled water, not less, and pickle more kimchee, not less.
The practically-minded can debate which of these two cases more closely resembles global warming.
Charlotte bleg
Where should I eat dinner in Charlotte tomorrow night? Barbecue would be ideal, but I have read from Bob Garner that Charlotte is too modern to be a first-class barbecue town. I would settle for dumpy Mexican, or for that matter plain, simple good food. Help! Comments of course are open…
East Germany, circa 1985
Chris Bertram writes in the comments of MR:
As it happens I spent some time in East Germany in 1984. As I
recall, it was then claimed that the per capita GDP was comparable to
that of the UK. It was immediately obvious to me that the standard of
living for most people was far far lower. But real problem with East
Germany was not its comparative level of economic development or the
level of health care its citizens could receive (rather good,
actually). It was the fact that it was a police state where people were
denied the basic liberties.Given them those liberties and I think you’ve achieved most of
what’s morally important. If they then choose a policy of more leisure
and lower growth or the opposite … that’s up to them. I don’t think
it matters, morally speaking, that they are poorer than Americans are.
I am genuinely puzzled by this. I visited East Berlin — supposedly the showcase of the country – in 1985. Let me try to sound as superficial as possible, in light of the extreme poverty in Africa.
The food was terrible. The cars were a joke, if you even had one. There were hardly shops to be found. I had to spend 40 or so "Ostmarks" and literally could not find a single thing I wanted. I bought a Stendahl book and left the rest of the money on a bench. Few people had the means to travel, even if politics had permitted it. I am skeptical about the health care though I will admit I am not informed. Had the relatively productive people been free to leave, this all would have been much worse. It should also be noted that the country was neither donating much to Africa, nor taking in many immigrants, and again that is not just because of the politics.
Chris and I have a very different notion of what is morally important. I don’t wish to force anyone to be richer than East Berlin circa 1985, but if you give them liberty, almost everyone will try to exceed that level, and not just by a little bit.
What is the fuel cost of grapes from Chile?
Tim Harford writes to me:
Polluters in Europe currently have to pay about euros10 per tonne of carbon dioxide as part of Europe’s efforts to meet its obligations under the Kyoto agreement. That is less than one penny per kg of carbon dioxide. Perhaps that price, in a volatile market, is too low. A Government Economic Service paper on the social cost of carbon emissions recommends a cost closer to euros25 a tonne of carbon dioxide. Even that is less than 10p for a kilogram of mange-tout, or a penny for a 100g packet. If consumers were forced to meet those costs – as in principle they should be – the sum would barely register. There are good environmental reasons to tax airline fuel, but such taxes are not likely to make food imports substantially more expensive.
Here is the link, and Tim notes there are typos in the article, the text is correct as above. When it comes to the social cost of food, one estimate is that congestion and accidents account for two-thirds of that sum. So maybe you should walk or bike more, but eat what you want, from where you want. Here is, again, my review of Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma.
By the way, for a more skeptical view of a carbon tax, here is Robert Samuelson’s piece from today’s WP.
Addendum: The Economist (MMM?) refers me to a new "AntiPigou" and "Anti-Mankiw" blog, which I have yet to read.
Gas Guzzling Grapes?
It may look like we are eating Chilean grapes, he [Pollan] argues, but in fact, once we
consider transportation costs, we are guzzling petroleum. Economics offers a
clearer view of what is going on. We do need to save energy, but it is difficult
for a central planner (or for that matter a food commentator) to identify what
is waste, relative to the costs of eliminating it….If fuel becomes more expensive, we’ll likely adopt peak-load
energy pricing, and drivers may scrap their SUVs for hybrids. But we probably
won’t plant grapes in our backyards. While we must conserve energy, we cut back
where it makes the most sense; grape-shipping is not the place to start. Global
trade does involve transportation costs, but it also puts food production where
it is cheapest, again saving energy by economizing on costs of labor,
irrigation, and fertilization, relative to the alternatives.
That’s the ever-wise Tyler reviewing the Omnivore’s Dilemma in Slate.
Why I love Sweden
I won’t dwell on the beauty of Stockholm, the quality of the seafood, or the intelligence and good judgment of the people. Swedish women seem OK too, and Swedish Impressionist painting is underrated. I even liked the place in December. But what I enjoy most about Sweden is the sense of freedom.
Let’s be blunt: much of this freedom stems from government, and what you get is freedom from other people. People are not less free of the tax man, but in Sweden you don’t need other people very much to insure your economic well-being. You can do your own thing, without much fear (relatively speaking, of course) of personal oppression from others. You really can choose which personal relationships you wish to have. Autonomy reigns. The Swedish family is, of course, fractured. For all of its collectivist reputation, Sweden is the land of the true individualist, sometimes verging on atomism. At will you can go off into the woods and eat your lingonberries, weather of course permitting.
I would not want to live there, if only because my restless self needs a large country and lots of space for travel in multiple directions. Uppsala bored me in less than a day, Malmo was OK, but what next? The yikes factor kicks in. Latin America looks so far away.
Nor do I think that living in Sweden necessarily would be good for me. But when I look at it, I like it. I like seeing it. I think it is an important social experiment. And it is hard to argue that it has been bad for the Swedes. I also think the whole arrangement, tax payments and all, is no less voluntary (and probably more voluntary) than what we do in the United States. Some of that is the small country/homogeneity thing, some is simply that Swedes recognize their high quality way of life.
I’ve heard it said that "socialism is the religion of the Swedes." This is not quite correct, though it hints at an important truth. I think of "being Swedish" as the religion of the Swedes. And the more cosmopolitan they behave, the more they are partaking in this religion; don’t be fooled!
This "being Swedish" business is a wonderful religion for Sweden. It is not a good or possible religion for most of the rest of the world. And it is not a religion to which I have been or could be invited.
But Sweden (or should I say Stockholm?) remains one of the best places in the history of the world to date, and we are fooling ourselves if we don’t recognize that.
Save us from vegemite
The US has banned Vegemite, even to the point of searching Australians for jars of the spread when they enter the country.
The bizarre crackdown was prompted because Vegemite has been deemed illegal under US food laws.
The
great Aussie icon – faithfully carried around the world by travellers
from downunder – contains folate, which under a technicality, America
allows to be added only to breads and cereals.
Australian expatriates in the US said enforcement of the ban had
been gradually stepped up and was now ruining lifelong traditions of
Vegemite on toast for breakfast.
Here is the full story.
Dr. Curry and the future of mankind
Dr Curry warns…in 10,000 years time humans may have paid a genetic price for relying on technology.
Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals.
Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams.
Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile. Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food.
There could also be health problems caused by reliance on medicine, resulting in weak immune systems. Preventing deaths would also help to preserve the genetic defects that cause cancer.
Dr. Curry also claims:
Further into the future, sexual selection – being choosy about one’s partner – was likely to create more and more genetic inequality, said Dr Curry.
Only his third paragraph — about less sociability — fits my basic model of future human evolution. Genetic engineering aside, won’t greater choosiness favor physically fit partners? And given the ease of birth control, I expect that people will come to love their children more, even though they will care less about everyone else. Who needs allies for quality child care when per capita income is very high?
Here is the full story. Thanks to Jason Kottke for the pointer.
Markets in everything, canine edition
Ice cream maker Good Humor and pet food producer Pedigree have announced plans to produce ice cream sandwiches for dogs.
Apparently this is not a stupid pet snack. The companies said they needed a special formula for the dairy treats, as many dogs are lactose intolerant and cannot easily digest regular ice cream.
Here is the story, and thanks to Robert Stewart for the pointer.
What I’ve been reading
1. Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic, by Ray Takeyh. A good implicit "public choice" treatment of how the different factions in the Iranian government fit together. Surprisingly readable.
2. The United States of Arugula: How We Became a Gourmet Nation, by David Kamp. Terrible title, good content, awkward writing style, terrible font, little economics, still good for foodies but only for foodies.
3. The Road, by Cormac McCarthy. "Post-apocalyptic masterpiece." Fair enough, but is it better than The Dark Tower? I’m not sure, but even to pose that question is to favor Stephen King. Here is the NYT review.
4. The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood, by Rashid Khalidi. Some of the apologetics and omissions really bugged me. But as to why the Palestinians failed to construct their own state — before the creation of Israel — I learned a great deal.
5. Salman Rushdie, The Satanic Verses. His best novel. Fun from the outset, and you can test your knowledge of Bollywood and Islamic theology. Too famous as a political dispute, too little known as a book.
What features would you like to see in future supermarkets?
So asks The New York Times (TimesSelect). Randall Williams responds:
I like to try interesting recipes which often have exotic ingredients. But I often don’t need a whole bottle or bunch of a spice or other ingredient that I might never use again. It would be great to have an “assembly area” similar to the deli section where I could take my recipe and get a tablespoon of this and an ounce of that, measured into little plastic cups that I could take home to cook with.
The excess bundling is a form of price discrimination. If you can’t be bothered to go to an ethnic market, which is both cheaper and sells in more flexible quantities, they figure you will pay the higher price.
As for me, I used to wish for shorter check-out lines, but now usually I get them. Dark chocolate is there too. I still would like ready-to-buy, truly fresh cooking stocks (beef and chicken), better magazines, and home delivery.
We should expect supermarkets to overinvest in encouraging impulse purchases. (Wegman’s should put a given item in only one place and yes I will learn where that is.) Maybe that is the economic problem with home delivery. Smells, squeezes, and full-size items — not Internet links — sell profitable foodstuffs. The boring bulk stuff which is easy to order over the Internet also brings the lowest profit margins, I believe.
Here is a (non-gated) article on how supermarkets are evolving.
What do you wish for, and what is the analysis behind your wish?