6 ms·

Why is this a problem? If quinoa sprouted literal diamonds we wouldn't be upset that the farmers were selling them instead of making their own jewelry. Having

by YokoZar 13y ago

Why is this a problem? If quinoa sprouted literal diamonds we wouldn't be upset that the farmers were selling them instead of making their own jewelry. Having your crops be too valuable to eat is a good problem to have; these farmers incomes have more than sextupled. That easily lets them sell the crop and buy other food like everyone else.

aaronblohowiak 13y ago
>That easily lets them sell the crop and buy other food like everyone else. [citation needed].
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Did you miss the part where they make six times their previous income?
  - SteveGerencser 13y ago
    And what about the people that used to buy it as their primary food source? Their incomes did not increase six times, just their monthly food bill.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    But we have no idea what their previous income was, nor how much other sources of food cost. It feels weird that local food is exported as a cash crop, and other food is imported.
    - reeses 13y ago
      This is basic Adam Smith-David Ricardo economics. They can grow quinoa and eat the seeds or export them and import a more diverse diet. Even if other countries can cultivate quinoa, it may make sense for Andeans to export their quinoa and import other foods.
      - DanBC 13y ago
        We don't know if they make enough from exporting quinoa to import more diverse food.
        reeses 13y ago
        I'm not sure I understand your point. You don't know if they can make enough from exporting quinoa to import more diverse food, so...?
- johnchristopher 13y ago
  I am pretty sure this is parent's conclusion of his logical argument.* So the citation you are looking for is the bunch of sentences before the one you quote. * which sounds a little bit like an open question "am I wrong ?" type.
bagels 13y ago
The concern isn't just for the farmers, but everyone that lives near them that used to have affordable local food.
pqqqqq 13y ago
It's a problem for everyone else. Specifically, malnutrition in children has grown in quinoa cultivating areas since their parents can no longer afford quinoa. It's literally four times as expensive per weight compared to much less nutritious noodles http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/world/americas/20bolivia.html?_r=1&gwh=92A77B8ACE152ED023720C4D4B8A4577& http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/world/americas/20bolivia.h...
- btown 13y ago
  This is absolutely a correct response to @YokoZar's assertion, and I would add that the families of the farmers who grow quinoa can also be in danger of malnutrition, since there is now an unreasonably huge economic incentive for the farmers to avoid eating their own quinoa, compounded with a dearth of other ways for nutritious food to be obtained on the open market. YokoZar's "diamonds" analogy only holds true in a market unrestricted by physical transportation difficulties and education gaps about nutrition (why not just spend our larger income to get more of the cheaper [less-nutritious] grain?). True, these might be solvable problems, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the fact that they exist today. An interesting parallel in urban environments in more developed countries is the phenomenon of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert - malnutrition can occur even when families have enough money to avoid it.
lukasb 13y ago
I remember seeing a headline in Thailand "rise in rice prices hits small farmers hard". I've seen similar things in Kenya: "high maize prices devastate small farmers." It turns out many subsistence farmers (of which there are roughly a billion) are net consumers of their staple crop. In order to survive, the poor diversify across a variety of agricultural products. Large industrial farming operations are growing the rest of the rice/maize ... and I'm guessing quinoa. So, if the same pattern holds here, farmers consume more quinoa than they sell, and suffer when prices go up.
- artsrc 13y ago
  > farmers consume more quinoa than they sell, and suffer when prices go up. Unless there are other foods they can buy which are cheaper. Then they benefit from the higher prices and don't pay them.
  - lukasb 13y ago
    The reason staples are staples is because they're cheapest per calorie. There probably are not replacements that are as cheap per calorie. Remember that subsistence farmers tend to be geographically isolated so you can't assume they have access to the same food products you do.
    - dbecker 13y ago
      If they are net consumers of the staple, they must be net producers of some other crops. If the price of the staple increases dramatically, can't they shift towards eating other crops (that they were previously net producers of)?
      - lukasb 13y ago
        "If they are net consumers of the staple, they must be net producers of some other crops." Again, those other crops are likely more expensive per calorie. That means there is no mix of consumption that will get them the same amount of calories they previously consumed, which for subsistence farmers will often mean malnutrition if not starvation.
gohrt 13y ago
Non-farmers in Peru used to be able to afford food. In a sense, they were getting discount-priced quinoa. Now, farmers are selling quinoa to foreigners, so the farmers are making more money, but everyone else is paying more for food. One solution would be to impose some sort of tax, to share the windfall quinoa profits with the former customers, or cooperative community ownership of the farms. Or farmers spending their increased profits on the labors of other locals in the community.
- temp453463343 13y ago
  The farmers are the people bringing in money into the economy. The rest of society starts to simply charge more for their services b/c their expenses have gone up.
enraged_camel 13y ago
I don't think you can compare diamonds to food.
inopinatus 13y ago
As my macroeconomics lecturer once put it, "The purpose of exports, is imports!"

by YokoZar 13y ago

aaronblohowiak 13y ago

>That easily lets them sell the crop and buy other food like everyone else. [citation needed].

jessaustin 13y ago
Did you miss the part where they make six times their previous income?
- SteveGerencser 13y ago
  And what about the people that used to buy it as their primary food source? Their incomes did not increase six times, just their monthly food bill.
- DanBC 13y ago
  But we have no idea what their previous income was, nor how much other sources of food cost. It feels weird that local food is exported as a cash crop, and other food is imported.
  - reeses 13y ago
    This is basic Adam Smith-David Ricardo economics. They can grow quinoa and eat the seeds or export them and import a more diverse diet. Even if other countries can cultivate quinoa, it may make sense for Andeans to export their quinoa and import other foods.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      We don't know if they make enough from exporting quinoa to import more diverse food.
      - reeses 13y ago
        I'm not sure I understand your point. You don't know if they can make enough from exporting quinoa to import more diverse food, so...?
johnchristopher 13y ago
I am pretty sure this is parent's conclusion of his logical argument.* So the citation you are looking for is the bunch of sentences before the one you quote. * which sounds a little bit like an open question "am I wrong ?" type.

bagels 13y ago

The concern isn't just for the farmers, but everyone that lives near them that used to have affordable local food.

pqqqqq 13y ago

It's a problem for everyone else. Specifically, malnutrition in children has grown in quinoa cultivating areas since their parents can no longer afford quinoa. It's literally four times as expensive per weight compared to much less nutritious noodles http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/world/americas/20bolivia.html?_r=1&gwh=92A77B8ACE152ED023720C4D4B8A4577& http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/world/americas/20bolivia.h...

btown 13y ago
This is absolutely a correct response to @YokoZar's assertion, and I would add that the families of the farmers who grow quinoa can also be in danger of malnutrition, since there is now an unreasonably huge economic incentive for the farmers to avoid eating their own quinoa, compounded with a dearth of other ways for nutritious food to be obtained on the open market. YokoZar's "diamonds" analogy only holds true in a market unrestricted by physical transportation difficulties and education gaps about nutrition (why not just spend our larger income to get more of the cheaper [less-nutritious] grain?). True, these might be solvable problems, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the fact that they exist today. An interesting parallel in urban environments in more developed countries is the phenomenon of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert - malnutrition can occur even when families have enough money to avoid it.

lukasb 13y ago

I remember seeing a headline in Thailand "rise in rice prices hits small farmers hard". I've seen similar things in Kenya: "high maize prices devastate small farmers." It turns out many subsistence farmers (of which there are roughly a billion) are net consumers of their staple crop. In order to survive, the poor diversify across a variety of agricultural products. Large industrial farming operations are growing the rest of the rice/maize ... and I'm guessing quinoa. So, if the same pattern holds here, farmers consume more quinoa than they sell, and suffer when prices go up.

artsrc 13y ago
> farmers consume more quinoa than they sell, and suffer when prices go up. Unless there are other foods they can buy which are cheaper. Then they benefit from the higher prices and don't pay them.
- lukasb 13y ago
  The reason staples are staples is because they're cheapest per calorie. There probably are not replacements that are as cheap per calorie. Remember that subsistence farmers tend to be geographically isolated so you can't assume they have access to the same food products you do.
  - dbecker 13y ago
    If they are net consumers of the staple, they must be net producers of some other crops. If the price of the staple increases dramatically, can't they shift towards eating other crops (that they were previously net producers of)?
    - lukasb 13y ago
      "If they are net consumers of the staple, they must be net producers of some other crops." Again, those other crops are likely more expensive per calorie. That means there is no mix of consumption that will get them the same amount of calories they previously consumed, which for subsistence farmers will often mean malnutrition if not starvation.

gohrt 13y ago

Non-farmers in Peru used to be able to afford food. In a sense, they were getting discount-priced quinoa. Now, farmers are selling quinoa to foreigners, so the farmers are making more money, but everyone else is paying more for food. One solution would be to impose some sort of tax, to share the windfall quinoa profits with the former customers, or cooperative community ownership of the farms. Or farmers spending their increased profits on the labors of other locals in the community.

temp453463343 13y ago
The farmers are the people bringing in money into the economy. The rest of society starts to simply charge more for their services b/c their expenses have gone up.

enraged_camel 13y ago

I don't think you can compare diamonds to food.

inopinatus 13y ago

As my macroeconomics lecturer once put it, "The purpose of exports, is imports!"