Nov

7



We have seen how the state planning for alleviating famine and food shortage fails miserably in a planned economy. Often in a mixed economy, government seeks proper control over the agriculture and food sector and that becomes the reason of corruption and further suffering at the times of need, scarcity and famine.[1]
On the other hand, in a free market, the profit motive acts efficiently to assuage worst kind of shortage and famines and hence actually save the populace from extreme starvation.
In a free market, there is a tendency of price of wheat, rice or crude oil (or any other commodity that can be stored), to be equal to its expected prices say after 6 months or a year, that is, free market naturally depresses the unexpected price rise.
Whenever government intervenes with the market, the market moves away from this natural tendency and the consumers suffer unexpected shortage and famine.
The force behind the tendency of uniformity of present and expected future prices of a commodity in a market is the profit motive of free enterprisers. Any disturbance in prices provides a chance for higher profit rates and as the enterprises exploit it, the discrepancy in the prices reduces to minimal.

Solving the Shortage of Grains

To understand this, let us take the case of an unexpected flood or drought in an Indian region (say Bihar, or Andhra Pradesh). Because of drought, the production of wheat will be reduced (let us say it reduces by 1/12th of the average wheat production in an year). Obviously, because of the shortage in production, the price of wheat is expected to rise after say, 6 months. The enterprisers looking for making higher profits will speculate this expected price rise and will start storing the wheat at the current lower prices to save it to make higher profits in future by selling the stored wheat at higher prices.
Their speculative storing of wheat will result in a raise of current price of wheat, as there will be lesser wheat available to be sold to consumers, and the enlarged quantity of wheat for future will reduce the future prices of the wheat.
Because of current higher prices, the consumers will also start accommodating themselves to the shortage of wheat by reducing the consumption of wheat and checking the wastage. This thriftiness on behalf of consumers will allow them to sustain the time of absolute scarcity of wheat and that will further reduce the expected future price of wheat. Thus, at one hand, speculators will increase the current prices of wheat by storing it for future sales at higher prices, on the other hand, the increased available quantity of wheat for future and the thriftiness of consumers at present will reduce the expected prices of wheat in future. As a result, the maximum possible increase in price of wheat at the period of most scarcity will also be not very much more than the current price of wheat plus the storing and preserving charges of the wheat by speculators.
In absence of speculators, as most of governments illegalizes speculation for price control, the consumers will never realize the actual shortage of wheat because there will be no sign of scarcity by means of price rise and will continue consuming wheat as normal. On the other hand, although the stored wheat will satisfy the demand of consumers for first 11 months, there will be no wheat left for the next 12th month of year as the total wheat produced is already less by 1/12th of the average required for an year. Such a situation will not only make people suffer starvation but will also fail to reduce wastage when it could have been. In addition, it will provide further chances of bureaucratic governmental corruption.
The profit motive will also alleviate the situation of famine and scarcity by means of another natural force of free market that tends to equalize the price of a commodity at all places. At a time when Andhra Pradesh or Bihar is suffering famine and food shortage, the dealers at other parts (say Uttar Pradesh, Punjab or Tamil Nadu) will seek higher profit rates by selling their stored wheat to the consumers in Bihar or Andhra Pradesh. This will result in a slight increase in price of wheat at the local markets while the increase quantity of wheat available for Bihar or Andhra Pradesh consumers will reduce the unexpected rise in price of wheat at markets there. Thus, the shortage of wheat at a region will be spread to whole India and hence will reduce its effect to minimal, all will share the increase in price of wheat, and that will reduce any extra burden on the consumers of famine suffering area to negligible.
The speculators cannot store the wheat for more than a period of 12 months as by that time, the new crop of wheat will arrive in the market and that will reduce the price of wheat to normal.

Issue of Oil Shortage because of Corrupt Oil Barons

The same principles of free market will also tackle any unwanted situation in the market of crude oil and petroleum or any storable commodity.
In the previous post, while discussing the Market Anarchy[2] , one of my friends raised the issue of Oil Barons, asking what will happen to free market if the Arab Oil Barons tries to control the market because of their influence on oil production.
Let us assume that all Oil Barons of Arab makes a union and tries to control the free market by imposing an artificial scarcity of crude oil (although this is impossible because reducing supply of oil will reduce all income of those oil barons as they have no other means of profitable production).
The speculators of free market will certainly foresee the future shortage of oil and will maintain their oil storage to make higher profits. That will obviously increase the current prices of available oil and hence will introduce the thriftiness in consumers, making them more able to sustain the period of oil shortage. Consequently, it will reduce the chances of unexpected increase in price of oil at extreme periods too.
On the other hand, Indian free market will also tend to increase its oil production to make higher profits. In addition, profit motive will tend the oil producers of other nations (like USA or Russia etc) to sell their oil to the Indian market. That will obviously tend to spread the scarcity of oil through out the world and hence will assuage the problems of Indian market. Hence, although the economy of India and actually whole world, will suffer a comparable loss but that would not be of any considerable degrees. On the other hand, Oil Barons depend only on oil production, their loss at not selling the oil will be huge and directly pointed towards them, and that will break their union.
Conclusion: A free market inadvertently safeguards itself against any sort of scarcity of any commodity by means of the profit motivated market forces. As speculators guard the market and hence the well-being of consumers as true and honest soldiers (as their vested profits and interests are strictly attached with the consumers), the free market necessarily remains free of any discrepancy in the prices of any commodity.
Even the administrators of mixed economy have realizes the power of forces of free market that is why Indian government issued allowance of speculations over wheat few months ago[3]. Certainly, it is a positive step towards the Free Market.

Footnotes:
  1. Cultivating Famine, Reason for Liberty []
  2. Issue of Oil Barons, The Market Anarchy []
  3. Ban of wheat futures lifted, Speculation allowed, Economic Times []

Related Posts

111 views

4 Responses to “Cure of Shortage and Famine”

  1. shumit Says:

    OK, Thanks for explaining the overall process of how famine is created by producers to gain profit from the consumer, but ultimately they cannot continue to inflate prices because market speculators will act to counter the shortages by storing those commdities for the future.

    However, I have one query in that you refer to the market speculators as those who “…guard the market and hence the well-being of consumers as true and honest soldiers…”

    This is a complicated statement as in terms of social politics, who was it that selected the market speculators to act as guardians and soldiers on behalf of everybody else? Who regulates the speculators and ensures that they themselves are not trying to control the market by setting up opposition to the producers?

    I think I understand the overall point of what you’re saying: that anybody interested in profit and acting rationally in a free market will move to safeguard profits by reacting and predicting the current market trend. This more or less is a selfish act for the profit of the speculator, but what it means for society is that it acts as a balance to producers who may be trying to control the market by reducing production of commodities and increasing prices.

    If one or more of these speculators were to act in a way to try and control the market themselves then that might lead to problems: say hypothetically there was a genuine reason for reduced production say crop disease or natural reduction of oil reserves and the speculators foresaw this and started hoarding to ensure their own supply. According to your explanation, in this situation, the producers and other speculators would have to react to this hoarding by producing more. However, what if they simply cannot produce more (as there is a genuine reason for lack of production)?

    In this case the speculator becomes the problem maker and needs to be regulated with penalties otherwise they will create further famine/shortages.

    This is a hypothetical situation and may not actually be realistic, but if it is realistic then it does highlight a need for some ‘realistic restraint’ of the otherwise free market.

    Other than the question about who selects and regulates the speculator, I think your points about a single government controlling the market, or allowing monopolies/oligarchies to control the market is a serious problem and a direct cause of shortages and famine.

    Any steps towards moving to a free market will ensure that natural balances are allowed to act against any attempt to subvert the economy.

    I still think that this system in it’s purest form - although fair - is not as socially responsible as it could be and so I do recommend some regulation to ensure that the ‘little guy’ or less successful people can have some gains if they work legally for it, instead of leaving them to their fate.
    But then maybe I’m being the idealist here!

    Thanks

  2. ranjit Says:

    Shumit,
    in a free market there though speculators tend to form syndicates, due to free entry barriers anyone seeing an opportunity of even a small profit can enter the market and bring down the prices…and in free markets there will be large number of speculators with varied interests and the chances of forming a syndicate of such a large group is very bleak and even such a group is formed it tends to be weak…
    in fact regulations encourage monopoly/oligarchy (intended or unintended)…example…if the govt decides only x number of people can speculate and issue regulations accordingly…so no new person can speculate…so these group can form a syndicate…if the govt make up a rule that speculation cant go beyond Rs. x or something similar…it drives away many speculators from the market due to lesser profit opportunities…again leaving very less number of speculators to form oligarchy…

    this is my first post and i am not good at writing…please excuse me if i am not clear enuff

  3. Unpretentious Diva Says:

    @ ranjit

    this is my first post and i am not good at writing…please excuse me if i am not clear enuff

    very welcome Ranjit, and your answer is valid. Don’t worry about writing skills or language. The only thing important is rationality of Ideas.

    @ Shumit
    ..
    ..
    Ranjit has explained the issue properly. You see, free market allows you to be the speculator/hoarder. So since you believe that you are more socially responsible than the other speculator and the other speculator is actually trying to loot society, you can opt for checking that speculator/hoarder by yourself. You are free to provide the cure for the corrupt hoarder.
    Hence, it is impossible for that, or any other hoarder to actually act anything against the common consumer, because any common consumer can become not only the service provider/dealer/speculator/hoarder, but he can be the producer too, there is n0 restriction on anybody.

    But now, consider the case of government. Government illegalizes speculation/hoarding, hence (as already explained in article) people starve and many dies at the time of maximum need. Also, the illegalization makes speculation and hoarding too much risky and hence costly (the fear of police and the cost of bribing police and politicians also includes in it).

    Thus the marginal utility of Hoarding/Speculating decreases while cost and risk involved increases. Hence, most of the potent speculators/hoarders denies providing their services to the society freely. In such case, even you (howsoever responsible you are) will deny being a speculator/hoarder (because at initial, it would be illegal and it would be extremely risky and costly too) You may be able to pay for storing wheat ( or oil) at its cost, but you will fail in paying bribes and commissions to politicians and police. Yet, speculation won’t stop, rather it would become sparse, and hence the profits inhibited in speculation will increase enormously. Obviously, some of the speculators (very few) will choose to take the risk and act illegally, even politicians and police will encourage them because that provides them extra huge incomes. And that would create Oligarchy/Syndicalism/Corporatism, and that actually hurts people/common citizen and all of us.

    So you see, the best way to avoid such scenario is to let the market be free and avoid government control because government brings corruption, robbery, poverty and starvation.
    Not only that, government forces the true and honest soldiers of consumers (the speculators and hoarders) to become corrupt. But trust me no matter how corrupt they become, only the hoarders and speculators saves the common man from starvation.

  4. shumit Says:

    @ranjit,
    Thank you for a clear explanation of how government limits on speculation might actually cause the very situation they are trying to avoid, that a minority of traders/producers control the market. Your post is well written and clear, keep it up!

    @Unpretentious,
    Also thank you for the clear explanation. In a free market there is no limit on the number of profit driven participants, so that creates a natural balance for any one individual or group that try to control the market.

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv Enabled

Subscribe without commenting