Russia bans grain exports


Russia bans grain exports as drought and wildfires ravage crops

The price of a loaf of bread in Britain could hit a record after Russia imposed a ban on all exports of wheat and other grains.
 
The unprecedented move, instigated by Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, will see a quarter of the total world's wheat exports withdrawn from the market. It comes as Russia suffers from its worst drought in over a century, which has seen much of its harvest wiped out by wildfires.

Though Britain buys little wheat directly from Russia, most loaves on supermarket shelves contain a large proportion of imported flour. Russia's move sent up prices on the wholesale market to a 30-month high in Paris, where European wheat is traded.

Yesterday, Premier Foods, one of Britain's biggest good companies and the owner of Hovis, said the price of a loaf of bread will have to rise, by possibly as much as 10p.

Robert Schofield, chief executive, said: "The size of rise will force us to put a price increase through in the coming months. The retailers have the final decision on how much of that will be passed on to the public."

According to the Office for National Statistics, the average price of a loaf of sliced bread in Britain is £1.19. It was a mere 65p five years ago but shot up during the crisis in food prices during 2007 to 2008, when a similar set of poor harvests, this time in Australia, caused the global price to rise. This in turn set off a series of inflationary spikes in commodities.

A loaf hit a record of £1.27 in the summer of 2008.

If Premier's warning that 10p will be added on, the price of a loaf, one of the very few staples that families buy every day of the week, would hit a record of £1.29.

Martin Deboo, a food analyst from Investec, said: "Experience of 2008's round of inflation would suggest cost side increases from wheat do get passed on to the consumer eventually."

Mintec, a company that specialises in tracking the price of food, estimates that the cost of wheat makes up about 57 per cent of a loaf of bread, with the baking, packaging and distribution of it accounting for the rest.

Nick Peksa, at Mintec, said: "Ironically the harvests in Britain and Canada have been good this summer, but I fear a lot of these price rises have been fuelled by speculators on the back of the Russian problems.

"The chances are the price of bread will go up."

Mr Putin appears to have acted after meteorological experts issued further drought warnings, raising fears that the ground would still be too hard next month to seed the winter crop.

The loss of two crops would force Russia to withdraw from the global export market altogether for up to two years.

Russian sources said Mr Putin had requested Kazhakstan and Belarus, two other major wheat producers, also banned exports.

Abdolreza Abbassanian, chief grain economist at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, said: "This is maximum: it's a desperate situation because it has caught everybody off guard."

Harry Wallop and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Telegraph
Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:54 EDT





http://businessfinder.oregonlive.com/OR-Portland?s=online%20forex%20broker

It Could Have Been Worse

Economists Tell the Masses: "It Could Have Been Worse"

Magazine covers show former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan.
It is amazing that angry mobs have not risen up and chased all the economists out of the country. While the greed of the Wall Street gang provided the fuel for the bubble, the economists played an essential role as enablers. This was most directly true for economists in policymaking positions, like Alan Greenspan at the Fed.

It was Greenspan's job to stop the housing bubble. A competent and honest Fed chair would have recognized the bubble by 2002 and taken whatever steps were necessary to rein it in. And we should be 100 percent clear, in spite of all the song and dance about how the financial reform bill will prevent another bailout, the Fed absolutely had all the tools needed to stop this disaster. They just lacked either the competence or the integrity, or both.

But the economists in policymaking positions are just the beginning. There are thousands of macroeconomists across the country, in government, academia and private industry who track the economy as a full-time job. It is actually a well-paid job, with many drawing six-figure salaries and big name types getting close to $1 million a year.

Given the high pay for this profession, it was reasonable to expect that they would be able to see something like the $8 trillion housing bubble that eventually wrecked the economy when it collapsed. But you can count on your fingers the number of economists who raised warnings about the housing bubble. The rest either did not see it, or didn't think it worth mentioning.

Remarkably, no economists seem to have lost their jobs for this failing. Unlike dishwashers and custodians, economists are not held accountable for the quality of their work.

Now, the economists are back telling us that we should be thankful that Congress and the Fed enacted the TARP and the other programs that saved Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and the rest from bankruptcy. A new study by Princeton University Professor Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, examined the impact of the TARP and the related Fed and FDIC bailout programs. The study found that without the bailout, GDP would have declined by another 6.5 percent and the economy would have lost another 8.5 million jobs. In other words, things might be bad now, but if we didn't shovel trillions in loans and loan guarantees to Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Wall Street gang, they would be even worse.

Before we start thanking Goldman for taking our money, it is worth taking a closer look at the study. The big story here is the counterfactual. What does the study assume the Fed and Treasury would have done if we had not passed the TARP and the Fed had not come through with its vast array of emergency loan and loan guarantee programs?

The answer is that the study assumes that they would have done nothing. In other words, the question asked by the study is "what would the world look like if the federal government had done absolutely nothing to counter the economic and financial downturn resulting from collapse of the housing bubble?"

This counterfactual seems more than a bit unrealistic. Suppose we had let the market work its magic and put Goldman, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley into bankruptcy. Suppose that once these firms were in receivership and their bank units were in the hands of the FDIC, the Fed flooded the system with liquidity. How would this situation compare with the situation where trillions of taxpayer dollars were put at the discretion of Goldman and the rest through TARP and the Fed's special facilities?

The Blinder-Zandi study tells us absolutely nothing about this scenario. In other words, Blinder and Zandi have constructed an absurdly unrealistic counterfactual and told us that the TARP was much better than this absurd scenario. This is like saying that people who don't eat chicken will starve to death. Under the counterfactual that people who don't chicken don't eat anything else either, they certainly will starve to death.

But that is not a serious analysis of the benefits of eating chicken, and Blinder and Zandi have not given us a serious analysis of the benefits of the TARP. This "it could have been worse" line should be flushed down the toilet. The reality is that greed and incompetence created an entirely unnecessary disaster. Tens of millions of people are still suffering from its consequences. And the Wall Street boys and the economists who are responsible for the disaster are all doing just fine.

People should be really angry about this and a silly study that might be used to tell them otherwise should just make them angrier.

Dean Baker, Truthout.org