De precios relativos y su estabilidad II

Habíamos comparado el precio del petróleo y el tipo de cambio como importantes precios relativos en este post, ahora nos parece relevante citar a Jame Kielkopf quien en un comentario dice:

The data presented by Mr. Tangermann is simply more consistent with a belief that markets themselves, rather than biofuel promotion policies, are causing the current food crisis. This presents a policy problem: believing in market speculation (or monetary growth) as the cause of the food crisis means disbelieving in prices as reliable indicators of relative scarcity for the purposes of most food market participants. It means that markets that allow some of the wealthiest people in the world to bid for the same food commodity with the world's poorest are probably not likely to achieve either the equity or efficiency benefits that we tend to provide as reasons for imposing markets and their associated rules and institutions on human economic activity.

I think the more interesting research question coming out of this is not whether biofuels are causing the food crisis but whether markets that allow financial speculators to compete with slum dwellers for the same food commodity (but with different usage intents -- utility) really achieve the policy outcomes of efficiency and equity that most people expect (and have been promised) from markets. That is, the problem may not be that energy competes with food, but rather that current market rules which allow the wealthy to compete with the poor for basic life needs is the problem.

(el resaltado es nuestro)
No lo podíamos decir mejor. De ser cierto el enfoque que la especulación es en parte culpable de los altos precios de los alimentos, lo que dice Kielkopf es destacable: los grandes capitales en este mundo financieramente globalizado con sus movimientos buscando mayores retornos están haciendo sufrir a los consumidores de estos bienes, en gran parte los pobres.