Living Like a Middle Class King
May 5th, 2008 by Wil Robinson
There is a common theme repeated in the mainstream media when they report on the rise in food prices. It reflects the politicization and over-simplification of an important issue in the midst of elections.
We’re not talking about the Reverend Wright or flag lapel pins; this is about basic sustenance that we all need to survive. Thanks to the “liberal” media and politicians vying for a few votes, one of the three basic necessities in life has become a 10-second sound byte.
The pervasive theme in media is the reason given for the price hike. Every major network (save PBS’s NewsHour) repeats the mantra that food is more expensive because of China and India. Another simplistic answer for a problem that requires serious debate.
The theme that China and India’s growth are influencing food prices is not rhetoric; it is a legitimate reason that has a direct impact on food prices. What the networks’ coverage leaves out is that we have the power to combat this problem.
However, President Bush, ever one to shirk responsibility, is playing the blame game publicly and pointing the finger at India’s middle class.
“So, for example, just as an interesting thought for you, there are 350 million people in India who are classified as middle class. That’s bigger than America. Their middle class is larger than our entire population,” Bush said.
Bush refused to admit that his push for bio-fuels has any role in the reduction of supply, but he does admit that high energy costs are influencing food price. (Of course, this has nothing to do with an illegal occupation in the Middle East to control the last few remaining drops of oil on the planet. Nor does the last eight years of refusing to invest in real research for an alternative energy source have any impact.)
Bush also puts part of the blame on drought and “weather-related problems.” However, we must be clear that this is not related to that “myth” of global warming created by tree-hugging liberals. And surely this problem won’t get worse.
Instead, the blame is laid on those Indians who dare to think they can live even remotely similar to Americans. It has become a neo-conservative formulaic answer to problems - find a scapegoat who is different from us and blame them.
The comments sent Indian politicians into an uproar. The BJP, a Hindu-nationalist party, decried Bush’s statements as “a cruel joke,” and demanded that Congress-party Prime Minister Manmoham Singh “stand up for India’s honor.”
The Minister of State for Commerce Jairam Ramesh said: “Bush has never been known for his knowledge of economics. And he has just proved once again how comprehensively wrong he is. To say that the demand for food in India is causing increase in global good prices is completely wrong.”
Another Congress-party spokesperson noted that India is a food-exporter, and said that U.S. policy promoting bio-fuels is responsible for the food shortage.
Yet politicians are politicians - no matter what country. With an Indian election scheduled by spring 2009 and the upcoming November elections in the U.S., both Indian and American politicians are using skewed statistics and empty rhetoric to whip up voter anger - as long as it is for their advantage.
First, there is the incorrect number of 350 million “middle-class” Indians that no one seemed to question.
According to the McKinsey Global Institute, the number of middle class Indians is only 50 million (defined as having an annual income between $10,000-20,000). It’s difficult to claim that just 50 million Indians are having more impact than 300 million Americans…so Bush went ahead and “fudged” the numbers.
But did the BJP and the Congress-party in India dispute the figure of 350 million? No way - not before an election. What Indian politician is going to point out to their constituency that in a country of more than 1 billion, less than 5 percent is considered middle class? It doesn’t exactly bode well for reelection based on past economic policies.
More importantly, there is the matter of scale. The average American consumes 1,046 kilograms of grain each year - the average Indian consumes 178 kg. That means in terms of global impact, each American equates to ten Indians. The 350 million middle class Indians have the same impact on food grain as 3.5 million Americans. Bush isn’t claiming that 3.5 million more people living the American lifestyle has had such a wide-ranging global impact, is he?
There is also meat - one of the biggest drains on the world’s energy supply. It takes 5.8 kg of grain to produce 0.5 kg of beef (not to mention the water). The average American eats 46 kg of beef every year - compared to 1.6 kg in India.
I know, I know - Indians don’t eat cows. So let’s use chicken. Average American - 45 kg; average Indian - about 2 kg. Add up the two meats - the average American consumes more than 90 kg of meat every year, and the average Indian eats about 3 kg.
When the American media, and now the American president, put the blame for food prices on the 350 million “middle class Indians” (which is really only 50 million), it smacks of hypocrisy.
The world is changing. If we want to continue to prosper, we have to change our way of life. The only other option is to keep billions of people stagnated in the poverty they have struggled against for decades.
And now when large portions of the developing world are finally pulling themselves up economically, the American president blames them for wanting to live at even a fraction of the level Americans enjoy.
The world can meet somewhere in the middle. We don’t have to live in poverty, and neither does India.
But we can’t all live like opulent kings.
Tags: western world, economy, capitalism, America, India
This is excellent, Wil and I’m going to use portions in a post now. I have been concerned for some time about these false economics which are being trotted out.
Aside from oil, the U.S. can sustain itself - look at its grain for a start. So why this rubbish about China and India? Because of globalization - of the wilful linkage to other nations which means, for example, that a housing downturn in America incommodes Europe.
This is a beat up - sure the linkages are there but why are they there?