4 ms·

"being stolen before they get it" - nonsense! 1) There is an X amount of food and Y number of people in India. 2) Someone is eating that food (let's assume no

"being stolen before they get it" - nonsense! 1) There is an X amount of food and Y number of people in India. 2) Someone is eating that food (let's assume nothing gets thrown out/rots because of corruption: someone who steals food eventually sells it and it gets eaten, not trashed) Meaning: corruption does not change the supply and demand, so it doesn't impact the prices (total money that is charged for the food in the country). It only changes the hands which get the money. Nobody starves because of the food getting stolen unless, again, the stolen food is either trashed or ends up exported.

intended 14y ago
>. 2) Someone is eating that food (let's assume nothing gets thrown out/rots because of corruption: someone who steals food eventually sells it and it gets eaten, not trashed) That is a simplification. It is both being stolen and it is rotting. Even the article states that there is tons of food that is rotting/wasting away. If it doesn't mention it, I can give examples of food stock being wasted from as long back as, I think 1970-1980. Also - Corruption DOES shift the supply curve so "corruption does not change supply and demand" is only true in the land of platonic ideals.
- kamaal 14y ago
  I think his point is stealing food redirects it those who need it and can afford it. So the problem shifts from corruption to affordability. The free food program exists because they can't afford it. If we can fix the affordability problem, there won't be a need for a free food program and there by corruption related to it won't exist. These people need to get jobs. But since they don't have it. You may by all means fix corruption and give them free food, but they will hungry again in the next six months. Where will you get free food from, then and till when?
  - intended 14y ago
    It redirects food to people who have the buying power. IIRC Mr. A. Sen won the nobel for showing that people starved not because of lack of food, but because of lack of purchasing power. The wiki page suggests that his findings are being debated though, to be fair. My google foo is also a bit literal at the moment, and I wasn't able to produce a result which explained what he won his nobel for.
- anovikov 14y ago
  How does it shift the supply curve? The food is getting bought from farmers anyways, for cash, they don't give a damn about if it is going to be sold to people in shops, distributed for free, or stolen.
  - intended 14y ago
    Hmm. The subsidy/pds is supposed to shift the price of goods down, so corruption does affect the intended price of goods by making them unavailable at the subsidized rate. That's why I chose the supply curve. Correct me if I got it wrong.
    - anovikov 14y ago
      There is no relation to the supply curve. Because there is no change in the price at which the product is purchased from producers. Demand shifts of course (the overall price of the product drops because the stuff that wasn't supposed to make it to the market gets there, but free stuff disappears -> structure changes).
      - intended 14y ago
        Ah yes, got it, you are correct. Thank you. The supply curve is the amount of goods produced at x price. Since x isn't being changed here for sellers, it doesn't move. The demand curve does move because of the distorting effects of the subsidy/PDS, and then again because of corruption.
adaml_623 14y ago
Your assumptions and your logic are faulty. Assumption: Food isn't rotting in India. Google: 'Rotting Food India' Your logic: Corruption/Theft doesn't change the price of a commodity. You are forgetting that the government has already bought the commodity. Now it is being sold again. This drops the price (still too expensive for the poor) which means that those who can afford food buy at a lower price. Lower Price = Less Supply This is elementary because the rice is being supplied once but sold twice. Therefore the farmers are being paid half of what they deserve.

intended 14y ago

>. 2) Someone is eating that food (let's assume nothing gets thrown out/rots because of corruption: someone who steals food eventually sells it and it gets eaten, not trashed) That is a simplification. It is both being stolen and it is rotting. Even the article states that there is tons of food that is rotting/wasting away. If it doesn't mention it, I can give examples of food stock being wasted from as long back as, I think 1970-1980. Also - Corruption DOES shift the supply curve so "corruption does not change supply and demand" is only true in the land of platonic ideals.

kamaal 14y ago
I think his point is stealing food redirects it those who need it and can afford it. So the problem shifts from corruption to affordability. The free food program exists because they can't afford it. If we can fix the affordability problem, there won't be a need for a free food program and there by corruption related to it won't exist. These people need to get jobs. But since they don't have it. You may by all means fix corruption and give them free food, but they will hungry again in the next six months. Where will you get free food from, then and till when?
- intended 14y ago
  It redirects food to people who have the buying power. IIRC Mr. A. Sen won the nobel for showing that people starved not because of lack of food, but because of lack of purchasing power. The wiki page suggests that his findings are being debated though, to be fair. My google foo is also a bit literal at the moment, and I wasn't able to produce a result which explained what he won his nobel for.
anovikov 14y ago
How does it shift the supply curve? The food is getting bought from farmers anyways, for cash, they don't give a damn about if it is going to be sold to people in shops, distributed for free, or stolen.
- intended 14y ago
  Hmm. The subsidy/pds is supposed to shift the price of goods down, so corruption does affect the intended price of goods by making them unavailable at the subsidized rate. That's why I chose the supply curve. Correct me if I got it wrong.
  - anovikov 14y ago
    There is no relation to the supply curve. Because there is no change in the price at which the product is purchased from producers. Demand shifts of course (the overall price of the product drops because the stuff that wasn't supposed to make it to the market gets there, but free stuff disappears -> structure changes).
    - intended 14y ago
      Ah yes, got it, you are correct. Thank you. The supply curve is the amount of goods produced at x price. Since x isn't being changed here for sellers, it doesn't move. The demand curve does move because of the distorting effects of the subsidy/PDS, and then again because of corruption.

adaml_623 14y ago

Your assumptions and your logic are faulty. Assumption: Food isn't rotting in India. Google: 'Rotting Food India' Your logic: Corruption/Theft doesn't change the price of a commodity. You are forgetting that the government has already bought the commodity. Now it is being sold again. This drops the price (still too expensive for the poor) which means that those who can afford food buy at a lower price. Lower Price = Less Supply This is elementary because the rice is being supplied once but sold twice. Therefore the farmers are being paid half of what they deserve.