Category: Morality

Fairness in society

Very difficult times ahead but a fairer social order could be one outcome.

As is so often the case, a number of different lines of thought come together once again to highlight the pressures on society and my belief that we are in the ‘zone of change’ between the last 40 or 50 years and what is ahead for western societies.  There is no question that these are very difficult times as, I presume, all phases of change have been over many centuries.

On the 28th October there was a Post on Learning from Dogs about the recent book from Will Hutton, Them and Us.  That book masterfully articulates the core issues in British society arising out of some fundamental economic policy errors and the very difficult times that are being experienced right now.

The British are a lost tribe – disoriented, brooding and suspicious. They have lived through the biggest bank bail-out in history and the deepest recession since the 1930s, and they are now being warned that they face a decade of unparalleled public and private austerity.

As if to underline the fact that the economic situation is far from recovery, despite what is being promoted, here’s a recent article from Washington’s Blog. Almost impossible to take an extract that conveys the essence of this powerful (and scary) article – so just go here and read it.  Or if you haven’t the time here’s a taste:

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2010

It’s Not Just the “Peripheral” European Countries … Financial Contagion Could Spread to “Core” Eurozone Countries and the U.S.

CNN notes:

Americans will not be spared if there’s a recession in Europe, even if U.S. bank exposure to European government debt is relatively limited.

SNIP

The European Union is the second largest market for U.S. exports, behind only Canada. The EU bought about $175 billion in U.S. goods in the first three quarters of this year. That’s up about 8% from a year ago.

So worsening problems in Europe will clearly be a drag on the U.S. as well.
Niall Ferguson, Marc Faber, and SocGen’s Edwards and Grice predicted 9 months ago that the European debt crisis would eventually spread to America.

But the question of what country the “contagion” might spread to next is really the wrong question altogether.

The real question is whether the wealth of the people around the world will continue to be shoveled into the bottomless pit of debts held by the big banks, or whether the people will prevail and the giant banks and bondholders will be forced to take a haircut. See this, this and this.

So back to the issue of fairness.  There is no escaping the consequences, still playing out, of the ‘spend now, pay tomorrow’ culture of the last 30 or 40 years so then the main issue is how do we mitigate the consequences for those who are most exposed to some of less prettier aspects of modern life.  Ponder on that question while you read this recent piece from Open Democracy.

Fairness and the cost of life for the poor in Britain

Brian Landers, 26 November 2010

Most Britons had “never had it so good” despite the “so-called recession” declared Lord Young of Graffham.  His words were immediately disowned by David Cameron, who fired him. But in reality Young was only articulating what he and his circle are experiencing and privately believe.

For example, on the BBC’s Sunday morning Broadcasting House on 21 November, Lord Charles Powell who was Margaret Thatcher’s advisor, complained, “unfortunately he said the wrong thing. In terms of fact what he said was probably right, with interests rates low people are not particularly badly off at the moment. But some people are very badly off and it is insensitive, I suppose, to suggest that everyone is not doing too badly at this time. It does show that you can’t speak the truth in politics anymore you have to defer to what is politically correct”.

Well, there is another truth: that for thousands of pensioners and not just “some” of them, negative real interest rates on their savings are becoming a disaster. Even though for the heavily mortgaged wealthy, low interest rates do indeed make them much better off.

What Young’s comments illustrate, therefore, is that when we consider equality and inequality we need to look at expenditure patterns, which can be just as important as differences in income.

Historically debates on social equality focus overwhelmingly and inevitably on inequalities of income. We read, for example, that according to a study by Incomes Data Services chief executives of the UK’s 100 largest companies are now paid on average 88 times the pay of typical full-time workers and that this ratio is getting worse. Last year the multiple was 81 times and ten years ago top bosses took home 47 times the average wage.

But in addition to their income being a lot lower the poor also suffer more because life costs them more. There are two issues, one obvious, one less so.

The primary issue is one of fairness. Three for the price of two supermarket offers are great value only for those who can afford to buy two; those who can only afford one end up paying 50% more per unit. Is that fair?

Another supermarket example which received widespread but soon-forgotten newspaper coverage earlier this year is more subtle. Tesco owns three convenience store brands in this country: Tesco Express, Tesco Metro and One Stop. An enquiry in 2006 found that the corporation was charging more than 20% more for the same products in its One Stop stores than in its Tesco branded stores. Tesco responded that it was bringing prices down in One Stop but in 2010 further research showed that One Stop prices were still 14% higher than prices for the same product in the rest of Tesco. One Stop typically operated in less attractive (that is poorer) areas where there was no competition from other mega-corporations and where therefore significantly higher prices could be charged. Again that raises issues of fairness.

If such unfairness is somehow familiar there is a further layer that goes beyond fairness: we live in a society where in many tiny ways the poor actually subsidise the better off through the way patterns of expenditure are organised by the market place, (i.e., not just by providing cheap labour).

Consider for example the cost of owning a car.  Bernard Jullien of the University of Bordeaux analysed published data on household expenditure and trade data from car distributors (See Competition and Change 6, 2002). He showed that richer consumers were being cross-subsidised by poorer consumers. Distributors in France (and almost certainly elsewhere) were following a conscious policy of keeping new car prices lower to increase their market share. Then then marked up the prices of spare parts and maintenance to maintain their overall profit levels. Jullien found that the unintended consequence was that well off customers, who were more likely to buy new cars, ended up being subsidised by less well off customers who typically bought second hand cars that needed more frequent repair.

There are more examples if the term “well off” is extended to include corporations. The cost of producing and distributing the electricity needed to power a light bulb is the same whether the bulb is in a private house or in the office of a mega-corporation – and yet the corporation will undoubtedly pay far less. Quantity discounts typically reflect the purchasing power of the buyer rather than any scale economies for the seller.

What are apparently rational pricing strategies have the unintended consequence of ensuring that poor people pay more than the well off in ensuring the overall profits corporations need.

Then there is time. Time budget surveys have shown, for example, that the poor take much longer per mile to get to work than the rich because the forms of transport they use are typically much slower. Similarly the poor have to devote more time to food shopping and a host of other activities.

There is nothing conspiratorial about the way that the poor fare worse than the rich. Often it is just the accidental by-product of perfectly sensible business decisions. Indeed in some cases there may even be wider social benefits. Improved stock control with Just-In-Time inventory techniques and Call-Off procurement contracts has ensured that waste in many industries has been sharply reduced; it is unfortunate that in food retailing one consequence is that end-of-day price reductions on perishable products are now less common, again hurting the poor more than the rich.

What can be done to mitigate these expenditure inequalities? First, they deserve to be highlighted, if only because, like so much else, they are beyond the experience of the multimillionaires in and around the cabinet. Second, and especially if we are going to talk about Big Society and us being ‘all in it together’, we need to think about economic models that build into their measures of success their consequences for all of us.

[Published with the permission of Brian Landers and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence.]

By Paul Handover

On a Clear Day

An inspirational film with an incredibly relevant message to us all.

I’m not going to yield to the temptation to take a personal view, real life is too complicated.

Just, if you can, watch the film.

Here’s the summary from Wikipedia.  More background to the film is on the IMDB website including this review:

I saw this movie at Sundance, and it was brilliant. Beautiful shots, wonderful acting and such a moving story! It made me cry, it made me laugh (with Billy Boyd as much of the comic relief!), it made me want to see it again! Gaby Dellal’s direction was spot on, and the emotions from each of the characters was so true, that I wanted to cheer Frank (Peter Mullan)) on while swimming the English Channel and console him when he felt like he couldn’t do anything.

The only thing that I had an “issue” with, was that at a few moments, the Scottish accent was so thick that I missed what was said.

Some scenes from the film follow:

Finally, more on Peter Mullan, a very powerful actor.

By Paul Handover

Everything revolves around love.

This is not corny, this is at the heart of everything in life.

Nearly a month ago, I wrote a piece called The Power of Love.  It was offered as a logical argument in favour of love – read it if you want to see what was written.

In line with the general Blog theme on here that we have much to learn from dogs and unconditional love is the BIG lesson we should take from these noble animals, here’s a lovely story that was sent to me by a dear friend.

WHOEVER DID THIS IS A VERY BEAUTIFUL PERSON

The ‘whoever’ being someone at a dead letter office within the US Postal System.

Here’s how it goes.

Our 14 year old dog, Abbey, died last month. The day after she died, my 4 year old daughter Meredith was crying and talking about how much she missed Abbey.. She asked if we could write a letter to God so that when Abbey got to heaven, God would recognize her. I told her that I thought we could so she dictated these words:

Abbey and Meredith

Dear God,
Will you please take care of my dog? She died yesterday and is with you in heaven. I miss her very much. I am happy that you let me have her as my dog even though she got sick.
I hope you will play with her.. She likes to play with balls and to swim. I am sending a picture of her so when you see her You will know that she is my dog. I really miss her.
Love, Meredith

We put the letter in an envelope with a picture of Abbey and Meredith and addressed it to God/Heaven. We put our return address on it.. Then Meredith pasted several stamps on the front of the envelope because she said it would take lots of stamps to get the letter all the way to heaven. That afternoon she dropped it into the letter box at the post office. A few days later, she asked if God had gotten the letter yet. I told her that I thought He had.

Yesterday, there was a package wrapped in gold paper on our front porch addressed, ‘To Meredith’ in an unfamiliar hand.. Meredith opened it. Inside was a book by Mr. Rogers called, ‘When a Pet Dies..’ Taped to the inside front cover was the letter we had written to God in its opened envelope. On the opposite page was the picture of Abbey &Meredith and this note:

Dear Meredith,
Abbey arrived safely in heaven.
Having the picture was a big help. I recognized Abbey right away.
Abbey isn’t sick anymore. Her spirit is here with me just like it stays in your heart. Abbey loved being your dog. Since we don’t need our bodies in heaven, I don’t have any pockets to keep your picture in, so I am sending it back to you in this little book for you to keep and have something to remember Abbey by..
Thank you for the beautiful letter and thank your mother for helping you write it and sending it to me. What a wonderful mother you have. I picked her especially for you.
I send my blessings every day and remember that I love you very much.
By the way, I’m easy to find, I am wherever there is love.

Love,
God

[The book is available on Amazon here. I have no financial interest in providing you with the link. Ed.]

Thanks Julie for sending that in – it’s a very moving example of unconditional love and generosity.

By Paul Handover

Dolphin’s inspire!

And bring good people together.

On the 23rd October, I wrote a piece on Learning from Dogs about the innocence of dolphins and how some humans (not the correct term but it will do for now) sully the very soul of mankind by murdering these beautiful aquatic creatures.

Hopefully, the piece touched a folk with goodness in their hearts. Indeed, one such good person posted a lovely poem as a comment.  That person was Sue of the Blogsite Dreamwalker’s Sanctuary.  The poem deserved being made a post on here and so it’s an honour to do just that.

 

A Sanctuary for Inspirational Thoughts of Light, Love and Peace

 

Our Song, by Sue Dreamwalker
We are the giants that swim beneath the waves
Will you help our babies save?
Why do you Hunt us, why do you Kill?
Do you not realise what part we do play.
Singing our songs each and every day.
Vibration is what your world is held in
We balance your ocean along with Dolphin.
Now once again we are chased from the deep
Your awareness of us is what we do seek.
So painful a death as we face the harpoon.
Our calves are left orphaned to swim alone.
Our carcass is butchered, how long can we survive?
Our only escape is dive, dive, dive.
But connected to you we breathe the same air
Please listen to our despair.
For Our Song in lament we plead with you all.
For soon no longer will you hear our call.

Thanks Sue.

And do tune in next Monday (1st November) – another lovely story about dolphins.

By Paul Handover

Will Hutton, Them and Us

Changing Britain – Why We Need A Fair Society

 

Will Hutton

 

I have been reading Will Hutton‘s latest book for the last couple of weeks and am now through the first 5 chapters, at the time of writing this Post!  To my mind, it’s a very powerful and extremely well-argued summary of the sickness that has engulfed Britain, and by implication, other countries who have had similar experiences over the last 20 years.

There was a long extract published by the Guardian on the 26th September 2010 which gives one a good feel for the book.  Here’s how that extract starts:

The British are a lost tribe – disoriented, brooding and suspicious. They have lived through the biggest bank bail-out in history and the deepest recession since the 1930s, and they are now being warned that they face a decade of unparalleled public and private austerity. Yet only a few years earlier their political and business leaders were congratulating themselves on creating a new economic alchemy of unbroken growth based on financial services, open markets and a seemingly unending credit and property boom. As we know now, that was a false prospectus. All that had been created was a bubble economy and society. Yet while the country is now exhorted to tighten its belt and pay off its debts, those who created the crisis — the country’s CEOs and bankers, still living on Planet Extravagance, not to mention mainstream politicians — all want to get back to “business as usual”: the world of 1997 to 2007.

There are many, many sentences in the book that have one gasping for breath.  One of them that particular struck me was one on Page 13, see below for the sentence in italics.  But let me include sufficient text to put the sentence into context:

Today, philanthropy or living according to a particular moral code does not confer status.  Only money is able to do that.  People start to question whether vocational career choices – in farming, teaching, medicine or science – make any sense when society rewards them so lowly while rewarding finance so high.  Material values start to crowd out altruism, philanthropy and restraint.

Then comes this staggering reflection:

Two incidents in September 2007 highlighted the new values.  Lance Bombardier Ben Parkinson, who lost both legs after a landmine exploded in Afghanistan, was offered £152,000 compensation by the Ministry of Defence.  The very same week, Eric Nicoli left his job as CEO of EMI – having failed to turn around the company – with a pay-off of £3 million. [My italics]

Earlier, on page 6, Hutton writes of Richard Lambert, head of the Confederation of British Industry, the CBI as having said in March 2010, “for the first time in history officers of a company can become seriously rich without risking any of their own money.”   Here’s another piece from that extract published in the Guardian:

We need a shared understanding of what constitutes fairness in order to restore our society. At present, there is none. The rich argue that it is fair for them to be so wealthy, in much the same way as Athenian noblemen believed that their riches were signifiers of their worth. They believe they owe little or nothing to society, government or public institutions. They accept no limit or proportionality to their wealth, benchmarking themselves only against their fellow rich. Philanthropic giving is declining; tax avoidance is rising; and executive pay is rising exponentially. All three are justified by the doctrine that the rich simply deserve to be rich. Meanwhile, the poor, in their view – and that of a virulent right-wing media – largely deserve their plight because they could have chosen otherwise. The mockery of chavs is premised on the assumption that they could be different if they wanted to be. The poor could work, save and show some initiative. So why should we indulge them by giving them state handouts?

This lies behind the arrogance with which bankers still defend their bonuses, in spite of everything that has happened over the past few years.

OK, you get my drift! I could go on and on but, hopefully, my point is made.  This book by Hutton is going to be another of his classics and may well be seen as the ‘tipping point’ when society looks back in a decade’s time with that wonderful 20:20 hindsight!

Finally, are there other conclusions to be made of Hutton’s approach?  Yes, of course.  Reading the comments posted on the Guardian web page will show you many.

By Paul Handover

Man is very, very close to Dolphin

Dolphin DNA very close to Human DNA

I had real trouble in writing yesterday’s Post about the appalling slaughter of the dolphins in Japan. Perhaps there was something out there in the ether that recognised the pain that I was sharing with so many thousands of other dolphin lovers.

Because while I was writing the article, into my in-box came something from Save Japan Dolphins about how close dolphins are to mankind, in DNA terms.

The article opened thus:

Seema Kumar, of Discovery Channel Online, writes that scientists have discovered that the genetic make-up of dolphins is amazingly similar to humans. They’re closer to us than cows, horses, or pigs, despite the fact that they live in the water.

David Busbee of Texas A&M University is then quoted as saying:

Busbee says, “If we can show that humans are similar to dolphins, and anything that endangers dolphins is an equal concern for humans, it may be easier to persuade governments to keep oceans clean.”

And make it easier for all honest and loving people to join the fight to stop that most dastardly murdering of dolphins in Taiji, Japan.

If you do nothing else, at least sign up to receiving the latest news from Save Japan Dolphins – which is how this Post was conceived.

 

Kissing not killing, please.

 

By Paul Handover

Dolphins – truly innocent victims

This just makes me weep!

Watch.

Read and be Educated.

In Japan, fishermen round up and slaughter hundreds and even thousands of dolphins and other small whales each year.In the small fishing village of Taiji, entire schools of dolphins are driven into a hidden cove after a prolonged chase. Once trapped inside the cove, the fishermen kill the dolphins, slashing their throats with knives or stabbing them with spears. The water turns red with their blood, and the air fills with their screams.

Now go here and here.

Take action.

By going here.

Not for your sake, not for my sake but for the sake of this magnificent creature.

I tried to insert a picture of dolphins being slaughtered in Japan but just couldn’t handle the negativity that the picture sent out.

Read this and focus on the beauty of these creatures – and let that inspire you to take action. Please.

By Paul Handover

James Kwak blows a loud whistle!

So much for integrity with some economists.

While I follow a number of Blogs, there are few that I read avidly.  One of them in that latter category is Baseline Scenario.  I wish I understood more of the technical issues presented by the Blog authors and the dozens of brilliant commentors.  But the essence of what is being discussed is clear.  I thoroughly recommend subscribing.

Here’s a recent Post from James Kwak (see end of Post for bio details). It was called Free Books and Board Seats. James very kindly has given Learning from Dogs written permission to reproduce the article in full.

Here in the blogging world, some of us are very sensitive to the potential appearance of impropriety. A year ago, the FTC published new rules requiring bloggers to disclose cash and in-kind payments they receive for reviewing products. The upshot, for most of us, is simply that now, when we discuss a book, we say if we got a free copy of the book from the publisher. (Although it’s not clear that that disclosure is required, since getting a free copy is something that readers should expect; I don’t think the New York Times Book Review bothers pointing out that, for every book they review, they got a free copy, although they almost certainly did.)

All the more relevant, then, is Gerald Epstein’s post about conflicts of interest in the economics profession.

“Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth and I did a study of 19 prominent academic financial economists who were members of two influential groups that have played a key role in the financial reform and regulation debate in the U.S. Of the 19 academic economists in these groups, 70% advised, owned significant stock in or were on the board of private financial institutions. But you wouldn’t know by looking at their self-identification in media appearances, policy work or academic papers.”

There are certainly economists who were talking up the housing market in the summer of 2008 without disclosing their financial ties to banks–who were desperately hoping that housing prices would not collapse.

C’mon, guys. I don’t even get very many free books (maybe one per month on average–I decline most of them), and I always disclose that. I know it’s not feasible to list every company that ever paid you to give a speech. But really, if you’re a paid director of a bank and you write about the banking industry, can’t you at least point that out?

Well put James.

——————————
James Kwak is a former McKinsey consultant, a co-founder of a successful software company, and currently a student at the Yale Law School.  He is not, never has been, and never will be a member of the Yale Law Journal.  He is a co-founder of The Baseline Scenario.

Serendipity

Is it luck or something more fundamental?

I love the word serendipity.  It reminds me of the power of letting go.  Allowing the universe to reflect back what is in our souls, good or bad!

Before moving to why this article surfaced in my mind, let’s just examine a couple of web definitions of the word.  Here’s The Free Dictionary:

ser·en·dip·i·ty

n. pl. ser·en·dip·i·ties

1. The faculty of making fortunate discoveries by accident.
2. The fact or occurrence of such discoveries.
3. An instance of making such a discovery.

.
Here’s the definition from the UK Web Dictionary:

Pure luck in discovering things you were not looking for.

But the Buddhist belief is that there is no such thing as luck.  See here:

The dictionary defines luck as ‘believing that whatever happens, either good or bad, to a person in the course of events is due to chance, fate or fortune.’ The Buddha denied this belief completely. Everything that happens has a specific cause or causes and there must be some relationships between the cause and the effect. (My italics.)

So you takes your choice!  The Free Dictionary goes on to provide a fascinating account of the word history of serendipity:

Word History: We are indebted to the English author Horace Walpole for the word serendipity, which he coined in one of the 3,000 or more letters on which his literary reputation primarily rests. In a letter of January 28, 1754, Walpole says that “this discovery, indeed, is almost of that kind which I call Serendipity, a very expressive word.” Walpole formed the word on an old name for Sri Lanka, Serendip.He explained that this name was part of the title of “a silly fairy tale, called The Three Princes of Serendip:as their highnesses traveled, they were always making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of….”

Anyway, to a real example of serendipity!

I subscribe to the Blog The Sales 2.0 Network and therefore had my attention brought to the article published on the 16th October entitled Be Inspired. Be a Changemaker. Here’s what caught my eye.

The work that the dedicated folks at WITNESS do is both humbling and uplifting and puts into perspective the value of what we do everyday.

Take 10 minutes from your busy day to view this video and then look at the WITNESS website to see what real change looks like. It will inspire you and enrich your life. It is important.

That reference to the charity WITNESS impressed me.  Especially the fact that

Peter Gabriel

it was founded by that great musician Peter Gabriel.

Here’s the video mentioned in the extract above:

So how to close this particular post? Not sure, to be honest. But whether one believes in luck or not, there’s no doubt that we attract the world around us that we ‘deserve’.

As has been said before on this Blog, we get more of what we think about most. So really the Buddhist approach that there “must be some relationships between the cause and the effect” is more than sufficient reason to be a good and integrous member of this planet.

By Paul Handover

Commodity trading

Something really disquieting about this.

I don’t know about you but I’m picking up more and more ‘vibes’ from all over the place that strongly suggest an increasing awareness of the need for real change in society.  Anyway, more of this another time.

My article today is base on an editorial in the Mole Valley Farmers Newsletter

 

MVF logo

 

for October 2010 (no. 557).  First some background to this organisation.

Mole Valley Farmers is described on their web site thus:

Mole Valley Farmers was started in 1960 by a small group of farmers around South Molton* who were concerned by the discriminatory practices and the large margins being taken by many of their input suppliers. From the outset it was decided to treat all members equally, subject only to quantity allowance and that the Company would operate on the minimum margin to allow continuity and growth. Today it remains one of a few true co-operatives in the supply industry.

Mole Valley Farmers consists of:

  • Nine branches in the south west supplying a vast range of goods to farmers and the public alike. These range from farm requirements to clothing, footwear, garden supplies, pet food and accessories, domestic goods and power tools
  • Our own feed mills for all animal feeds
  • Fertiliser blending plants
  • A specialist mineral plant
  • A quality farm building division

Of special importance are our farmer customers who purchase animal feed, fertilisers and minerals, all manufactured to a high specification by Mole Valley Farmers and delivered direct from point of manufacture to farm or to branches for collection in small lots.

* South Molton is in Devon, England about half-way between Barnstaple and Tiverton and the history of this interesting firm may be found here.

I have to declare a certain interest in that when I lived in Harberton, Devon for a number of years, we were non-farmer Members of Mole Valley Farmers for feed for our chickens and ducks and later on for Pharaoh.  So when I arrived to stay recently for a week with friends in Brixham, Devon,  my eye quickly picked up the familiar look of the MVF Newsletter lying on the table.

This is the editorial, reproduced in full with the kind permission of the Newsletter editor, from the pen of David Burke, Chairman of MVF.

Commodity trading

Until relatively recently, the price of food was set by the forces of supply and demand for the food itself, which worked reasonably well in developed countries able to purchase in times of shortage.  For the last century farmers have been able to reduce some of the market risk by forward selling crops to a trader in that market, at a price that fair to both parties.

This type of trading was tightly regulated and only those who were directly involved could participate and it worked well.  At some time in the mid-90s, Goldman Sachs, with other financial institutions, successfully lobbied for the regulations to be abolished.

Forward contracts became derivatives, which could be bought and sold repeatedly by traders, which enabled the financial institutions to become involved.  This type of investment really took off when the American and European pension market collapsed, together with that for normally traded derivatives like metals, prior to the recession, although actual food supply and demand remained relatively in balance.  Last year Goldman Sachs reportedly made £3.2bn profit from derivatives trading.

In spite of Russia’s grain export ban and some other weather affected harvests, both the EU commission and the International Grains Council report more than adequate reserves of grain to meet demand and that the carry-over stocks are likely to be the second highest for years.  The rumoured (but non-existent) wheat shortage that is driving up all feed prices, is entirely due to actions of the world’s principle investment bankers and their investors, which have serious implications throughout the globe.  Whilst few in the developed world mostly in the Northern Hemisphere, will go hungry, it is a growing tragedy for the poorer countries in the Southern Hemisphere where three-quarters of the world’s population live.  According to the Food and Agricultural Organisation, one third of the population lack food security and 792m people there are undernourished to varying degrees of starvation.  But most damning of all, some 12m children die annually of malnourishment.  Derivative speculation, which pushes up the cost of grains and in particular wheat, is responsible for food inflation that is proportionally greater for the impoverished nations.

Re-regulation of the basic food market to prevent a recurrence of the spikes of 2007 and 2010 would go some way to stabilising global food costs and help with developing nations, though without a great deal of pressure from compassionate people, this will be difficult, given the influence that the world’s richest investors have over governments.  Alternatively, primary food producers worldwide are paid a high enough price for their produce to enable them to invest in research and best practice, as well as in efficient equipment.  This concept received the approval of the European Parliament on 9th September and although they are considering legislation to ensure farmers receive a fairer share of the consumer price, it may be difficult to implement other than through a properly funded and regulated CAP.

Well said, Mr Burke.

NB.  The web links in Mr Burke’s article have been inserted by me, they were not in the original article.

By Paul Handover