Four people were killed in food riots in Haiti. From Bolivia to Uzbekistan there have been violent protests against the doubling of food prices. In Italy, mothers are marching against the price of pasta. The World Food Programme has seized up and the World Bank on 13 April forecast that 100 million people face starvation. It should not have come as a surprise.
Conventional explanations for the food crisis range from climate change to dietary change in China, from global overpopulation to the switch of agricultural production to biofuels. These long-term factors are important but they are not the real reasons why food prices have doubled or why India is rationing rice or why British farmers are killing pigs for which they can't afford feedstocks. It's the credit crisis.
This latest food emergency has developed in an incredibly short space of time - essentially over the past 18 months. The reason for food "shortages" is speculation in commodity futures following the collapse of the financial derivatives markets. Desperate for quick returns, dealers are taking trillions of dollars out of equities and mortgage bonds and ploughing them into food and raw materials. It's called the "commodities super-cycle" on Wall Street, and it is likely to cause starvation on an epic scale.
Investment houses, pension funds, private equity groups and banks are driven by profit not morality, and they invest wherever they can see the biggest return. It is not a conspiracy, but it is a conscious strategy, backed by the central bankers of the west as they try to help Wall Street back on its feet.
RLCC Comment: "...but they are not the real reasons why food prices have doubled." That's only half true. The tumbling U.S. Dollar that had made up much of the world's currency of course has a great deal to do with it all also. The truth is that it is a combination of many factors all coming at once. Greed is hitting. The wave of negative results caused by selfishness is slamming humanity and the planet. We are all reaping what they sowed or you sowed if you are one of them (the greedy, the selfish).
"It is not a conspiracy." That's just propaganda. It most certainly is a conspiracy. Not everyone is in on it at the same level of course. There are those at the top however who are always sure to manipulate things so they may anticipate and pre-position themselves. The king of the mountain can get knocked off and replaced, but the game remains the same until it's over. It will end.
The term "conspiracy" means planned. When you plan a capitalist economy, you conspire. It's inherent. Having an amoral (really immoral) economic system is the direct result of those who planned it very selfishly. They knew what they were doing relative to what Jesus had called for. They obfuscated and have been trying to turn people away from doing what is right and best (which are the same thing, unselfish, always) as much as possible.
The military-industrial complex is most definitely the result of conspirators out to do wrong. Look at the fruit (results) to know the tree (how to identify them). Has it been good or bad once everything has been taken into consideration? It has been bad, of course. If it had been good, things would be good. The quality of life for everyone would be up. It isn't.
Those who are running things are not of the good spirit.
Look at certain Israelis who right now are begging that no one else even attempt to negotiate peace. They conspire (plan) to and do lump the Iranians and Shiites together as much as possible and demonize them all. The Likudniks want the Iranians and very nearly all Shiites viewed as an unreasoning blob in capable of turning and with nothing but bad intentions. It's ridiculous. It's just as stupid as saying that all people calling themselves Jews are evil. There are Jews who love the real Jesus. They can't even be evil.
There is a financial bubble in commodities, but there is also a real shortage. We have what has developed into a just-in-time food system. The capitalists don't want money tied up in inventory (grain stocks) any more than they think they have to. They want to turn over their inventory as quickly as possible. It's the Wal-Mart model writ globally. It's selfishness rather than thinking about the general welfare of all. It's the stupid so-called self-regulating/self-correcting system that Milton Friedman so ignorantly and thoughtlessly and even callously touted.
No, one must plan to be good. One must plan to sow the good seed so all will reap the good fruit only. It isn't short-sighted. It isn't based upon mammon profits with euphuistic externalities. It's feeding your brothers and sisters because you love them and not to make personal, private, special profits off them.
New Statesman Contents, April 16, 2008, 5:00pmby Iain Macwhirter, obtained via:
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)