8 ms·

The Youngest Are Hungriest

114 points by clarkm 12y ago

dropit_sphere 12y ago
Devil's advocate, which is why I have this account: why is it not a gender equality issue that the sons are expected to care for their parents and not the daughters? I'm not saying everything is hunky-dory in India. I'm saying that if someone thinks the fix is "Oh just apply Americanism in this particular aspect" then that someone is naive.
- fchollet 12y ago
  It is definitely a gender equality issue, but you have to understand that it's simply the other side of that same coin that is generally presented as "women are not equally respected in India". There is a universal correlation between responsibility and respect (and between responsibility and the share of resources that one receives), across all cultures, all organizations, etc. So if in a certain culture men / boys are given higher responsibilities, such as having to provide for their family, then they are automatically attributed more respect and a larger share of power and resources. The answer, however naive and simplistic it may seem, is to distribute responsibility equally, for instance by expecting both genders to provide for their families. Respect cannot but follow. This is why giving women access to all kinds of jobs is a key issue.
  - jovrtn 12y ago
    None of what you said is in any way anthropologically sound.
    - fchollet 12y ago
      The best kind of HN comments: - are one line long - provide categorical judgments of absolute negativity - originate "from above", from an authority figure with a much higher intelligence and much better understanding of the topic - provide no information or arguments whatsoever Pretty nice example right there.
      - fasteo 12y ago
        Fully agree; more formally he is doing - at least - a couple of logical fallacies: 1. Ad Hominem, that is, a personal attack. 2. Appeal authority, although in this case he did not even mention a specific authority.
        mseebach 12y ago
        It's not an ad hominem. "You're not an anthropologist, so what you said is wrong" would have been an ad hominem. The GP actually attacks the argument, although somewhat incompletely (to be polite). EDIT: The authority is actually named, it's "anthropology".
        jovrtn 12y ago
        1. Saying someone said something is a personal attack? Let me rephrase: "The textual information that became visible to me once the reply button was pressed on your computer" — or is my use of 'your' still out-of-bounds? 2. I didn't include enough detail in my post to actually conclude whether my appeal to authority is fallacious, since that entirely depends on in what manner I'm citing the authority. On the other hand, the post I responded to contained implicit appeals to supposed authoritative information ("There is a universal correlation...", emphasis mine) and the subsequent conclusions based on that authority.
        Dewie 12y ago
        1. No. There was no personal attack, and no fallacious reasoning from any personal attack. 2) An intellectual field is a very abstract form of authority, in this context.
      - jovrtn 12y ago
        I thought it was pretty self-evident that torpedoed your entire comment by claiming 'universal correlation' across all cultures and organizations—was any further response to that really necessary? You're throwing around gigantic assumptions that don't bear up under even the most minor investigation into the nature of power and respect cross-culturally.
        12y ago
- _nedR 12y ago
  Because the daughter is busy taking care of her in-laws. Yep.. the system pretty much sucks. Source: Am Indian.
- nilsimsa 12y ago
  The dowry system has already been illegal by law in India for 60 years but of course it is not well enforced. Secondly due to family dynamics, things are not equally divided as you might think. It maybe the oldest son that gets the property but another son who takes care of the parents. It maybe a daughter who is the caring one while the sons go of on their own.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Even in US its traditional for bride's family to pay for the wedding. That's not appreciably different from a dowry.
    - filmgirlcw 12y ago
      Yeah it is. First, the bride paying for the wedding may be tradition, but it isn't absolute. In other words, in the United States, you won't see two people NOT get married because the wife's family can't afford a wedding. If your culture expects a dowry, what you can afford may influence who you are allowed to marry or whether a marriage can happen or not. Second, the tradition of the bride's family paying in the U.S. has significantly lessened over the years. More young people pay for their own weddings or share the cost with their parents. My parents's paid for the bulk of my small wedding (which despite being deliberately small and my hack of avoiding having to pay for the location, was still probably $20k once my dress, the reception, airfare/hotel for my parents and sister, flowers, photos and other assorted pre-wedding meals were dealt with -- weddings are just fucking expensive), and were happy to do it (and were happy they were able to do it), but if they would have been unable to cover the bill, my husband and I -- or his family -- would have stepped in, no questions asked. Like, it wasn't even a concern.
  - known 12y ago
    Can poverty be declared illegal by law? http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2014/07/11/hunger-in-india-the-numbers/ http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2014/07/11/hunger-in-india-the-...
- bdevani 12y ago
  Women are also expected to care for their parents in India, but the definition of 'parents' varies. If you're a widow and your husband dies, you will be required to take care of your in-laws for the rest of their lives, and this is often not very pretty. If you are unmarried and thus, by most Indian standards, live at home, you will be required to take care of your aging parents exclusively (minus financial matters), which also is often not very pretty. Sons are expected to take care of their parents in terms of spending money. Daughters are not b/c quite frankly, they do not have exclusive control of any money in this system. Instead they are expected to wait on them -- and the rest of the family -- by cleaning, cooking, etc.
  - known 12y ago
    http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/01/16/why-honor-killings-happen/ http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/01/16/why-honor-kill...
apsec112 12y ago
"Over 40 percent of those 5 and under are stunted — meaning they are in the bottom 2 to 3 percent of the worldwide height distribution for their age and sex" Argh. It really bugs me when newspapers can't do simple arithmetic. Especially in the lead paragraph. India is about 17-18% of the world's population. It has a slightly above average fertility rate, so it will have disproportionately more children. So about 20% of the world's children are Indian. If 40% of Indian children are stunted, therefore, at least 8% of children worldwide must be stunted (not including Africa, China, etc.). 8% of children cannot be in the bottom 2-3% of the world's height distribution. That is not how statistics works. If this obvious an error was put in the lead paragraph, how can we trust that the other facts are accurate?
- mikeyouse 12y ago
  Doesn't your question presuppose that the height distribution tables reset every year? If the height distribution is a fixed scale over time, then the bottom 3% of that distribution could easily account for far more than 3% of the children that are currently in that age range. Late-ish Edit for Clarity: We don't weigh all the children every year to calculate new tables, we have enough data to figure out how much a 'normal' child should weigh. The percentiles are based on normal age / weight / height correlations and not their relative weight in the world's current sample of children.
- aamar 12y ago
  UNICEF statistics classify 25% of children as stunted. http://data.unicef.org/resources/2013/webapps/nutrition# http://data.unicef.org/resources/2013/webapps/nutrition# Not sure where that 2 to 3 percent is coming from.
  - judk 12y ago
    I would guess it probably means 2-3%ile of a "healthy" "middle class" population like Finland, or a theoretical model of one.
- DanBC 12y ago
  The world food programme list their methods here. http://www.micronutrient.org/nutritiontoolkit/ModuleFolders/13.Manuals_and_resources/WFP_Measuring_and_Interpreting_Malnutrition_and_Mortality/3)_Chapter_1_-_Defining_&_measuring_malnutr_(pgs_15-32).pdf http://www.micronutrient.org/nutritiontoolkit/ModuleFolders/... The CDC and NCHS developed data that was adopted by WHO and then WFP. > To determine a child's nutritional status, you need to compare that child's status with a reference for healthy children. References are used to compare a child's measurement(s) with the median for chil- dren of the same sex and age for height- for-age and weight-for-age, or to children of the same sex and height for weight-for- height. The internationally accepted reference was developed by the CDC and its National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) using data collected from a popu- lation of healthy children2. > The World Health Organization (WHO) adopted the NCHS reference curves for international use. Evidence has shown that the growth patterns of well-fed, healthy preschool children from diverse ethnic backgrounds are similar and consequently are applicable for children from all races and ethnicities. These references are used by agencies involved with nutritional assessments and analysis, including WFP.
fgt 12y ago
The South African Indian population has, apart from easily distinguished recent migrants, been in the country for 100+ years, and is relatively large (more than 1 million people). Due to apartheid, assimilation was limited, and the population was drawn from all over India. It would make an interesting comparison group, matched for socioeconomic status. If the pattern persisted in South Africa, then further research would be needed - South African Indians generally rely on pensions/savings to support them in old age.
VMG 12y ago
> India’s patrilineal traditions dictate that the eldest son care for his parents in old age and inherit property, while the dowries paid to marry off daughters can be expensive. The result is sex-selective abortion and an underinvestment in girls so common it has popularized a Hindi motto: “beti to bojh hoti hai,” meaning, “a daughter is a burden.” This explanation has always been unsatisfying for me. At least it seems incomplete. The system is obviously unethical, but I don't understand how the economics work here. If only the eldest son inherits, why are the the following sons valued? Given that the practice creates a surplus of unmarried men, shouldn't unmarried women become an asset instead of a liability? Shouldn't unmarried men be a huge force against the dowry system?
- aleem 12y ago
  Cultural values define the economics here. The dowry is expected from women which ultimately end up with the groom once the bride leaves to live with the groom and his family. The bride's side hence considers it a liability since there is a financial cost with no return. The other sons are valued because they contribute to the work force. These sons will usually live under the same roof in a joint-family system.
  - VMG 12y ago
    > The bride's side hence considers it a liability since there is a financial cost with no return. Right - so why do they pay dowry on top of that? It would make economic sense for them to accept a bride price to compensate for the investment. Especially when the femicide now has created an increased demand for unmarried women. Is it just cultural inertia that overrides economics here?
    - keerthiko 12y ago
      Yup, it's just cultural inertia. You are trying to understand the situation's economics from a capitalist point of view, that the brides are "worth" something, and the investment the parents have put into their upbringing was "value" the bride's family put into the marriage, and they should be paid for that. However, in the culture of India, the groom's family is doing the bride's family a favor by taking the bride off their hands, and undertaking caring for her for the rest of her life. Thus the bride family pays for this service. Usually the dowry is proportional to things like how undesirable the girl may be, how desirable the guy may be, the difference in social status between the parents, all favoring the guy. Of course, the family itself thinks more along your lines -- "I have to spend money to raise her and take care of her, and then I have to spend an exorbitant amount more when she gets married as dowry," and thus end up resenting her existence from birth. It's pretty silly, and is slowly fading away, but cultural inertia in a country as large and riveted in its ways as India is a force to be reckoned with.
McCoy_Pauley 12y ago
I'm not sure if this is the place for an anecdote, but here we go. And just to give a warning, this is from an American perspective. I am the first born. My mother has told me that she would could the amount of protein she would get each day during her pregnancy with me. If she didn't get enough she would each more or drink a large glass of milk to try and supplement her diet. She didn't drink soda either. With my younger brother she tried to make sure she ate enough protein, though she gave up not drinking soda. With the youngest, my sister, she was working part time during her pregnancy and wasn't able to watch what she ate like with either me or my brother. This all being said, we are no where near malnutrition. There is a considerable size difference between me and my siblings. I am 6'4" and have considerably larger bone structure than my siblings. (I'm not fat/obese/heavy. I only weigh 193 lbs.) My brother is just a 6' and considerably smaller than I am. My sister is smaller than my brother and has a similar bone structure. Might there be a biological imperative to ensure that the first born is healthy. Then with the later children parent lose the need to ensure their children are as healthy.
- Dewie 12y ago
  So you're more healthy than your siblings because you're larger? (like you said; they aren't malnourished.)
  - msandford 12y ago
    Size was a great heuristic for health for the entire history of the world up until maybe 50 years ago. If everyone's growth is stunted some to malnutrition then the biggest people are the least malnourished. It doesn't hold as much these days but it still "feels" right and useful.
    - wavefunction 12y ago
      Like many statistical tools, the height charts doctors use are gaussian distributions and the inferences drawn from where an individual falls on that distribution do not boil down to "bigger === better."
- 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- _nedR 12y ago
  Isn't this still a problem in the south too? The article clearly mentions its talking about India on average- Incidentally, the states you mentioned are also among the most populous. Most of the problems discussed do exist in the south as well although not to the same extent as the north. Only Kerala seems to be relatively less afflicted- with a favourable sex ratio, less absolute poverty and sanitation issues. Even in Kerala, the practices of dowry and favouring of sons is widely prevalent. I, for one think the article is commendable in bringing new insight to problems facing us in India.
slurry 12y ago
open defecation, which is more widespread in India than Africa, For real? It's astonishing that India - a second world country, alleged rising star - could get beaten out in sanitation by Africa.
im3w1l 12y ago
This is an interesting example of a market without speculators. Future demand will be high, but current demand is low, so production remains low. In a market with speculators this would lead to stockpiling in anticipation of price increases.

114 points by clarkm 12y ago

Devil's advocate, which is why I have this account: why is it not a gender equality issue that the sons are expected to care for their parents and not the daughters? I'm not saying everything is hunky-dory in India. I'm saying that if someone thinks the fix is "Oh just apply Americanism in this particular aspect" then that someone is naive.

fchollet 12y ago
It is definitely a gender equality issue, but you have to understand that it's simply the other side of that same coin that is generally presented as "women are not equally respected in India". There is a universal correlation between responsibility and respect (and between responsibility and the share of resources that one receives), across all cultures, all organizations, etc. So if in a certain culture men / boys are given higher responsibilities, such as having to provide for their family, then they are automatically attributed more respect and a larger share of power and resources. The answer, however naive and simplistic it may seem, is to distribute responsibility equally, for instance by expecting both genders to provide for their families. Respect cannot but follow. This is why giving women access to all kinds of jobs is a key issue.
- jovrtn 12y ago
  None of what you said is in any way anthropologically sound.
  - fchollet 12y ago
    The best kind of HN comments: - are one line long - provide categorical judgments of absolute negativity - originate "from above", from an authority figure with a much higher intelligence and much better understanding of the topic - provide no information or arguments whatsoever Pretty nice example right there.
    - fasteo 12y ago
      Fully agree; more formally he is doing - at least - a couple of logical fallacies: 1. Ad Hominem, that is, a personal attack. 2. Appeal authority, although in this case he did not even mention a specific authority.
      - mseebach 12y ago
        It's not an ad hominem. "You're not an anthropologist, so what you said is wrong" would have been an ad hominem. The GP actually attacks the argument, although somewhat incompletely (to be polite). EDIT: The authority is actually named, it's "anthropology".
      - jovrtn 12y ago
        1. Saying someone said something is a personal attack? Let me rephrase: "The textual information that became visible to me once the reply button was pressed on your computer" — or is my use of 'your' still out-of-bounds? 2. I didn't include enough detail in my post to actually conclude whether my appeal to authority is fallacious, since that entirely depends on in what manner I'm citing the authority. On the other hand, the post I responded to contained implicit appeals to supposed authoritative information ("There is a universal correlation...", emphasis mine) and the subsequent conclusions based on that authority.
      - Dewie 12y ago
        1. No. There was no personal attack, and no fallacious reasoning from any personal attack. 2) An intellectual field is a very abstract form of authority, in this context.
    - jovrtn 12y ago
      I thought it was pretty self-evident that torpedoed your entire comment by claiming 'universal correlation' across all cultures and organizations—was any further response to that really necessary? You're throwing around gigantic assumptions that don't bear up under even the most minor investigation into the nature of power and respect cross-culturally.
      - 12y ago
_nedR 12y ago
Because the daughter is busy taking care of her in-laws. Yep.. the system pretty much sucks. Source: Am Indian.
nilsimsa 12y ago
The dowry system has already been illegal by law in India for 60 years but of course it is not well enforced. Secondly due to family dynamics, things are not equally divided as you might think. It maybe the oldest son that gets the property but another son who takes care of the parents. It maybe a daughter who is the caring one while the sons go of on their own.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Even in US its traditional for bride's family to pay for the wedding. That's not appreciably different from a dowry.
  - filmgirlcw 12y ago
    Yeah it is. First, the bride paying for the wedding may be tradition, but it isn't absolute. In other words, in the United States, you won't see two people NOT get married because the wife's family can't afford a wedding. If your culture expects a dowry, what you can afford may influence who you are allowed to marry or whether a marriage can happen or not. Second, the tradition of the bride's family paying in the U.S. has significantly lessened over the years. More young people pay for their own weddings or share the cost with their parents. My parents's paid for the bulk of my small wedding (which despite being deliberately small and my hack of avoiding having to pay for the location, was still probably $20k once my dress, the reception, airfare/hotel for my parents and sister, flowers, photos and other assorted pre-wedding meals were dealt with -- weddings are just fucking expensive), and were happy to do it (and were happy they were able to do it), but if they would have been unable to cover the bill, my husband and I -- or his family -- would have stepped in, no questions asked. Like, it wasn't even a concern.
- known 12y ago
  Can poverty be declared illegal by law? http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2014/07/11/hunger-in-india-the-numbers/ http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2014/07/11/hunger-in-india-the-...
bdevani 12y ago
Women are also expected to care for their parents in India, but the definition of 'parents' varies. If you're a widow and your husband dies, you will be required to take care of your in-laws for the rest of their lives, and this is often not very pretty. If you are unmarried and thus, by most Indian standards, live at home, you will be required to take care of your aging parents exclusively (minus financial matters), which also is often not very pretty. Sons are expected to take care of their parents in terms of spending money. Daughters are not b/c quite frankly, they do not have exclusive control of any money in this system. Instead they are expected to wait on them -- and the rest of the family -- by cleaning, cooking, etc.
- known 12y ago
  http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/01/16/why-honor-killings-happen/ http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/01/16/why-honor-kill...

apsec112 12y ago

"Over 40 percent of those 5 and under are stunted — meaning they are in the bottom 2 to 3 percent of the worldwide height distribution for their age and sex" Argh. It really bugs me when newspapers can't do simple arithmetic. Especially in the lead paragraph. India is about 17-18% of the world's population. It has a slightly above average fertility rate, so it will have disproportionately more children. So about 20% of the world's children are Indian. If 40% of Indian children are stunted, therefore, at least 8% of children worldwide must be stunted (not including Africa, China, etc.). 8% of children cannot be in the bottom 2-3% of the world's height distribution. That is not how statistics works. If this obvious an error was put in the lead paragraph, how can we trust that the other facts are accurate?

mikeyouse 12y ago
Doesn't your question presuppose that the height distribution tables reset every year? If the height distribution is a fixed scale over time, then the bottom 3% of that distribution could easily account for far more than 3% of the children that are currently in that age range. Late-ish Edit for Clarity: We don't weigh all the children every year to calculate new tables, we have enough data to figure out how much a 'normal' child should weigh. The percentiles are based on normal age / weight / height correlations and not their relative weight in the world's current sample of children.
aamar 12y ago
UNICEF statistics classify 25% of children as stunted. http://data.unicef.org/resources/2013/webapps/nutrition# http://data.unicef.org/resources/2013/webapps/nutrition# Not sure where that 2 to 3 percent is coming from.
- judk 12y ago
  I would guess it probably means 2-3%ile of a "healthy" "middle class" population like Finland, or a theoretical model of one.
DanBC 12y ago
The world food programme list their methods here. http://www.micronutrient.org/nutritiontoolkit/ModuleFolders/13.Manuals_and_resources/WFP_Measuring_and_Interpreting_Malnutrition_and_Mortality/3)_Chapter_1_-_Defining_&_measuring_malnutr_(pgs_15-32).pdf http://www.micronutrient.org/nutritiontoolkit/ModuleFolders/... The CDC and NCHS developed data that was adopted by WHO and then WFP. > To determine a child's nutritional status, you need to compare that child's status with a reference for healthy children. References are used to compare a child's measurement(s) with the median for chil- dren of the same sex and age for height- for-age and weight-for-age, or to children of the same sex and height for weight-for- height. The internationally accepted reference was developed by the CDC and its National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) using data collected from a popu- lation of healthy children2. > The World Health Organization (WHO) adopted the NCHS reference curves for international use. Evidence has shown that the growth patterns of well-fed, healthy preschool children from diverse ethnic backgrounds are similar and consequently are applicable for children from all races and ethnicities. These references are used by agencies involved with nutritional assessments and analysis, including WFP.

fgt 12y ago

The South African Indian population has, apart from easily distinguished recent migrants, been in the country for 100+ years, and is relatively large (more than 1 million people). Due to apartheid, assimilation was limited, and the population was drawn from all over India. It would make an interesting comparison group, matched for socioeconomic status. If the pattern persisted in South Africa, then further research would be needed - South African Indians generally rely on pensions/savings to support them in old age.

VMG 12y ago

> India’s patrilineal traditions dictate that the eldest son care for his parents in old age and inherit property, while the dowries paid to marry off daughters can be expensive. The result is sex-selective abortion and an underinvestment in girls so common it has popularized a Hindi motto: “beti to bojh hoti hai,” meaning, “a daughter is a burden.” This explanation has always been unsatisfying for me. At least it seems incomplete. The system is obviously unethical, but I don't understand how the economics work here. If only the eldest son inherits, why are the the following sons valued? Given that the practice creates a surplus of unmarried men, shouldn't unmarried women become an asset instead of a liability? Shouldn't unmarried men be a huge force against the dowry system?

aleem 12y ago
Cultural values define the economics here. The dowry is expected from women which ultimately end up with the groom once the bride leaves to live with the groom and his family. The bride's side hence considers it a liability since there is a financial cost with no return. The other sons are valued because they contribute to the work force. These sons will usually live under the same roof in a joint-family system.
- VMG 12y ago
  > The bride's side hence considers it a liability since there is a financial cost with no return. Right - so why do they pay dowry on top of that? It would make economic sense for them to accept a bride price to compensate for the investment. Especially when the femicide now has created an increased demand for unmarried women. Is it just cultural inertia that overrides economics here?
  - keerthiko 12y ago
    Yup, it's just cultural inertia. You are trying to understand the situation's economics from a capitalist point of view, that the brides are "worth" something, and the investment the parents have put into their upbringing was "value" the bride's family put into the marriage, and they should be paid for that. However, in the culture of India, the groom's family is doing the bride's family a favor by taking the bride off their hands, and undertaking caring for her for the rest of her life. Thus the bride family pays for this service. Usually the dowry is proportional to things like how undesirable the girl may be, how desirable the guy may be, the difference in social status between the parents, all favoring the guy. Of course, the family itself thinks more along your lines -- "I have to spend money to raise her and take care of her, and then I have to spend an exorbitant amount more when she gets married as dowry," and thus end up resenting her existence from birth. It's pretty silly, and is slowly fading away, but cultural inertia in a country as large and riveted in its ways as India is a force to be reckoned with.

McCoy_Pauley 12y ago

I'm not sure if this is the place for an anecdote, but here we go. And just to give a warning, this is from an American perspective. I am the first born. My mother has told me that she would could the amount of protein she would get each day during her pregnancy with me. If she didn't get enough she would each more or drink a large glass of milk to try and supplement her diet. She didn't drink soda either. With my younger brother she tried to make sure she ate enough protein, though she gave up not drinking soda. With the youngest, my sister, she was working part time during her pregnancy and wasn't able to watch what she ate like with either me or my brother. This all being said, we are no where near malnutrition. There is a considerable size difference between me and my siblings. I am 6'4" and have considerably larger bone structure than my siblings. (I'm not fat/obese/heavy. I only weigh 193 lbs.) My brother is just a 6' and considerably smaller than I am. My sister is smaller than my brother and has a similar bone structure. Might there be a biological imperative to ensure that the first born is healthy. Then with the later children parent lose the need to ensure their children are as healthy.

Dewie 12y ago
So you're more healthy than your siblings because you're larger? (like you said; they aren't malnourished.)
- msandford 12y ago
  Size was a great heuristic for health for the entire history of the world up until maybe 50 years ago. If everyone's growth is stunted some to malnutrition then the biggest people are the least malnourished. It doesn't hold as much these days but it still "feels" right and useful.
  - wavefunction 12y ago
    Like many statistical tools, the height charts doctors use are gaussian distributions and the inferences drawn from where an individual falls on that distribution do not boil down to "bigger === better."
12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

_nedR 12y ago
Isn't this still a problem in the south too? The article clearly mentions its talking about India on average- Incidentally, the states you mentioned are also among the most populous. Most of the problems discussed do exist in the south as well although not to the same extent as the north. Only Kerala seems to be relatively less afflicted- with a favourable sex ratio, less absolute poverty and sanitation issues. Even in Kerala, the practices of dowry and favouring of sons is widely prevalent. I, for one think the article is commendable in bringing new insight to problems facing us in India.

slurry 12y ago

open defecation, which is more widespread in India than Africa, For real? It's astonishing that India - a second world country, alleged rising star - could get beaten out in sanitation by Africa.

im3w1l 12y ago

This is an interesting example of a market without speculators. Future demand will be high, but current demand is low, so production remains low. In a market with speculators this would lead to stockpiling in anticipation of price increases.