Food prices push cash-strapped consumers to, yes, Spam

It's true. Sales of SPAM are up 10% from last year, as shoppers facing unaffordable food turn to more, ah, inexpensive meats. (On average, a 12-ounce can of Spam costs $2.62, and it's dense enough that you can feed several people with one can.)

I should point out that I have, in fact, eaten Spam. For reasons not worth going into, when I was home in May I had fried Spam for breakfast on two different occasions. Now, my sainted father urged me not to spread this following fact around, for reasons relating to my social standing -- but I have always been a rebel at heart -- so friends, as God is my witness, I tell you now that FRIED SPAM IS DELICIOUS. It's like a tender, candied sausage. Greasy and awesome. My blogging purview does not normally include endorsements of food products (only rages against them), but in this case, I wholeheartedly recommend you try some Spam today.

Above: Fried Spam. I am completely serious about this.

(via Daily Kos's irreplaceable Bill in Portland Maine)

Filed under: Consumption • deliciousness • food • food prices • no really • Spam

Markus Kolic's blog • 2 comments • email this

Next stop: Rationing at Wal-Mart (seriously)

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said its Sam's Club wholesale club chain is limiting the sale of some rice to four bags per member visit because of what it described as "supply and demand trends." ...Wal-Mart said at this point, it's not limiting purchases of flour or oil.

Read that again: "At this point."

And food prices continue to rise.

(via Ambinder)

An adventure in the world of free-trade cultism

Holy crap do you need to see this: Dani Rodrik gives an utterly mind-bending account of the World Bank's position on trade and food prices.

Now, as you probably know, food prices around the world are soaring to dangerous levels -- see, for instance, the recent riots in Haiti, violent protests in Egypt, marches in South Africa, general strike in Burkina Faso, unrest all over Southeast Asia, etc. The UN is starting to worry about the "security implications" of continuing price increases. Meanwhile in the U.S., consumers are being hit hard from Brooklyn to Aspen (plus, though it hardly merits the comparison, in Harvard dining halls); food price worries are starting to show up in public opinion polls. Point is, there's a grave crisis in world food prices -- Robert Zoellick, head of the World Bank, said as much in his speech last week.

So what does Zoellick, a Bush appointee, propose we do about the food crisis? Take a wild guess:

If ever there is a time to cut distorting agricultural subsidies and open markets for food imports, it must be now. If not now, when?

Ding ding ding! Congratulations, everyone who guessed "boilerplate libertarian crap!" You've won... well, you've won this:

Rodrik shared the above graph, which indicates that a total liberalization of world trade would result in some big price increases, including 4-7% hikes in rice, wheat and coarse grain prices (which are the key variables here) -- a finding that seems to cut directly against Robert Zoellick's argument. What disreputable left-wing pseudoeconomist produced such misinformation? Try Robert Zoellick's World Bank.

AAAAAARGH.

At this point you are probably as confused as Dani Rodrik was. How can Zoellick simultaneously call for lower food prices and freer international trade, which now seem to be two totally contradictory goals? Luckily for us, Dani Rodrik has brass balls. Read:

As it so happens, Zoellick was at the HKS yesterday and I expressed my puzzlement to him. His answer was that he didn't think economists really understood how agricultural liberalization would work, he doubted that the effect on world prices would be to raise them (no matter what the WDR says), and that in any case import liberalization within developing countries would help reduce domestic prices. But if Zoellick really believes that Doha will lower food prices in developing nations, he has just articulated a new doctrine that upends years (nay, decades) of research on the subject. The truth, I fear, is that Zoellick's faith in trade agreements has little to do with the underlying economics and like many ideological free traders he is willing to latch on to the economic arguments only when they serve the cause (and to discard them just as easily when they no longer do).

Yes. The head of the World Bank, king of world economic policy, believes that economists "don't really understand" how agricultural liberalization would work and therefore we should do it immediately. Not only is he disregarding his own evidence, he's disregarding his own logic. The conservative capacity for rationalization continues to astound me.

...The question is, will the next Democratic president put a sane person in this position? Don't be too cocky -- there are plenty of free-trade nuts in our party as well...