« Gallup: Obama’s White Voter Support About The Same As John Kerry’s (REVISED)
When News Websites Screw Up Bigtime »



In Defense of Bush’s Gaffe on Rising Food Prices

May 8th, 2008
By WILLIAM KERN

Print Print

The world’s second most populous nation is up-in-arms over remarks recently made by President Bush, as he attempted to explain rising food and energy prices to an audience in Maryland.

The president said the following:

“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,” said Bush. “And when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food. And so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up.”

Among the reactions by Indian politicians, according to this analysis/op-ed from the International Business Times of India, were these:

Minister of State for Commerce, Jairam Ramesh: “George Bush has never been known for his knowledge of economics. And he has just proved once again how comprehensively wrong he is.”

West Bengal’s Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee: “It is preposterous for anyone to say that global food crisis, including the crisis in America, is because Indians are eating more. It is needless to say what the Indians get to eat or what they (Americans) eat. This only shows how he has lost his senses” … he added that Bush’s remark was nothing more than a “cruel joke.”

But striking a conciliatory note, Surojit Chatterjee writes for the Business Times: “Being well-informed or choosing words carefully are not his specialty. … Let’s be forgiving to the U.S. President. … Let us stop pointing fingers at one another and receive Bush’s remark with a pinch of salt and a hearty laugh.”

By Surojit Chatterjee

May 7, 2008

India - The International Business Times - Original Article (English)

Let’s admit it. Bush committed a gaffe when he said that the growing middle class in India has triggered an increased demand for “better nutrition,” which in turn has led to higher food prices.

Bush said [on May 2]: “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,” said Bush. “And when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food. And so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up.”

Indian political leaders were up in arms after the remark, and proceeded to shred the U.S. President to pieces - verbally of course.

“George Bush has never been known for his knowledge of economics. And he has just proved once again how comprehensively wrong he is,” said Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State for Commerce.

“It is preposterous for anyone to say that global food crisis, including the crisis in America, is because Indians are eating more. It is needless to say what the Indians get to eat or what they (Americans) eat. This only shows how he has lost his senses,” said West Bengal’s leftist Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, adding that Bush’s remark was nothing more than a “cruel joke.”

Interestingly, none of India’s political leaders, who were so quick to fly off the handle, stopped to challenge Bush about how he arrived at his figures.

Last year a study by the McKinsey Global Institute estimated that India’s middle class numbered only 50 million out of a population of 1.1 billion.

India’s National Council for Applied Economic Research also estimates that there were 56 million people in households earning $4,400 to $21,800 a year, which it defines as middle class.

So where did Bush get his extra 300 million or so middle class Indians?

Perhaps also - from the National Council for Applied Economic Research, which reports that there are, “220 million “aspiring Indians,” living in households earning between $2,000 and $4,400 a year, who can afford to buy a motorbike, a refrigerator and a television.”

Together that makes a “consuming class” almost as large as the population of the United States.

Perhaps that’s what Bush meant. And perhaps Indian leaders should keep quiet in this regard, because, like Shyam Saran, the former Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Nuclear Issue, they must also see that Bush’s remark had a positive aspect to it as well. “It (the remark) is a recognition of the distance India has traveled as a result of its successful economic development,” Saran said, adding that Bush had spoken of the growing prosperity of India when mentioning the country’s middle class, which is now bigger than the entire population of the U.S.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing foreign press coverage of how the world views our nation.



This entry was posted on Thursday, May 8th, 2008 at 5:21 pm and is filed under Nature, Newspapers, Inflation, Food Prices, White House, Columnists, Health, George W. Bush, India, Foreign Politics, Environment. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 7 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    "Being well-informed or choosing words carefully are not his specialty. … Let’s be forgiving to the U.S. President. … Let us stop pointing fingers at one another and receive Bush’s remark with a pinch of salt and a hearty laugh."

    Ouch. But totally true. Also, our middle class probably threw away more food last year than India's middle class ate. Unless TGI Friday's has started opening up in India.
    • ^
    • v
    That's definitely not a generous parsing of his words. Definitely not worth getting pissy over.
    • ^
    • v
    Well I know people can't wait for the next apparent gaffe by GWB to start punching him in the face but the fact of the matter is that India and China are the reasons that this world will be in chaos in the next 25 years.

    These two nations suddenly woke up and two nations of close to 2 billion people suddenly WANT stuff. They want fuel. Oil. Gasoline. FOOD.

    GWB pointed out the glaringly obvious. Anyone with a brain that is not full of delusional hate for anything Bush might say can only shake their head and agree with a politically unsensitive remark yet a true remark in all phases of its virtue.

    Model studies suggest that the world is incapable with modern day technologies to support more then 8.56 billion people. China is already talking about lifting the restrictions on birthing to 2 children per family. That will double China's poplulation in roughly 18 years.

    Currently we have roughly 6.808 Billion people in the world. In the next 25 years we will reach 8.56 billion people.

    There are legitimate reasons why people are starting to riot over food.
    • ^
    • v
    I have to agree with Neocon about population growth being a problem in relation to food supplies. It's also a factor in water supplies and so much else.

    There is one factor about population growth that is very uncomfortable to talk about, and that is the inecreasing life expectncies. Birth rates at one end, with technologies increasing survival rates among premies, and decreasing death rates at the other, with technologies prolonging life spans, makes population explosion inevitable.
    I have no idea what that means in the larger scale of things, but it is a factor.

    As far as the anger at Bush's speech goes. I don't see any reason to get excited over it. That's the way the US reacts to oher nations, and that's the way other nations react to the Us.
    In the face of tension over food shortages, outbursts are to be expected.
    • ^
    • v
    He didn't phrase it diplomatically (no surprise there) but he's not incorrect. In terms of the current price increases it doesn't matter that we use more food resources per capita and have more waste here- that's been the case for a long time. The change in the demand is due to rising populations and in particular, rising populations of people who can actually afford to eat. I don't think he meant to say that those people shouldn't eat- that that's a bad development instead of a good one. The point is that we need to find a way to handle the increased demand, and that it's important to understand that the market is responding to that demand which has increased without a concomitant increase in supply.

    To be more clear, I'm not saying that it doesn't matter that we waste food here- that is something we should take stock of. I'm just saying that our waste hasn't changed, and it's not the cause of the current rise in food prices. If distribution can be worked out, it's possible that some changes in our own eating habits could help the global crisis.
    • ^
    • v
    Kinda sounds like Neocon just woke up to what many have known for many years, especially anyone who has followed the "earth is flat" discussions. Yes, we currently consume more than the earth can produce. If China consumed like we do, it would take 4 planet earths to keep up. We're in deep trouble with an unsustainable future, and WE above others, with our gluttonous hyper-consumption would be well advised to learn to live more sustainably.

    But Neocon, being a hater of Bush haters hardly elevates you above them, eh?
    • ^
    • v
    The way to convince consumers to consume less is clear ... higher prices. But voters, neither in the US nor in states having food riots, are happy with higher food prices.

    Farmers are often not so unhappy. Indian exported cashews are cheaper than Iranian pistachios in Slovakia. Both India and especially China are exporting tons of food. As well as importing it.
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Gallup: Obama’s White Voter Support About The Same As John Kerry’s (REVISED)
When News Websites Screw Up Bigtime »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.