People tend to assume a political / social position then proceed with a hypothesis to support the view they have taken without regard to contradictory evidence. Sometimes the stance is a case of whatever they encountered first, sometimes it's an obligatory position to support an ideology or financial strategy.
For example, looking at the recent history of baby formula / milk powder production highlights some glaring contradictions in the claims used to justify the job losses over the cheese. Not only have we bumped up milk powder and baby formula production, we offered to cover the US shortfall, a shortfall caused by corporate decisions not by resource availability. And we still export to China and SE Asia as well!
In fact with very very little effort you could easily go as far to assert this cheese fiasco is the latest corporate rinse and repeat of the very same actions that lead to falling supply of baby formula accompanied by massively increased profit margins. (Less production / lower capital costs / lower direct costs / static demand / higher prices / bigger profits / bigger corporate psychopath bonus. ) The application of lessons learned by/from the oil / fuel industry, now being applied to just about any basic commodity item by people who have no long term outlook beyond their gross annual salary for the coming financial year.
So ask yourself, are the job losses an effect of falling primary production, or are the job losses an effect of falling milk prices to primary producers? Because the root cause is significantly different, one is fundamentally a force of nature, while the other is triggered by the compounding of a deliberate corporate decision to maximise profit.
I can list any number of similar scenarios from the Packaging, Food or Renewable Energy industries. Packaging is particularly relevant given recent announcements from Mondelez, Nestle and other large corporates.
For example, looking at the recent history of baby formula / milk powder production highlights some glaring contradictions in the claims used to justify the job losses over the cheese. Not only have we bumped up milk powder and baby formula production, we offered to cover the US shortfall, a shortfall caused by corporate decisions not by resource availability. And we still export to China and SE Asia as well!
In fact with very very little effort you could easily go as far to assert this cheese fiasco is the latest corporate rinse and repeat of the very same actions that lead to falling supply of baby formula accompanied by massively increased profit margins. (Less production / lower capital costs / lower direct costs / static demand / higher prices / bigger profits / bigger corporate psychopath bonus. ) The application of lessons learned by/from the oil / fuel industry, now being applied to just about any basic commodity item by people who have no long term outlook beyond their gross annual salary for the coming financial year.
So ask yourself, are the job losses an effect of falling primary production, or are the job losses an effect of falling milk prices to primary producers? Because the root cause is significantly different, one is fundamentally a force of nature, while the other is triggered by the compounding of a deliberate corporate decision to maximise profit.
I can list any number of similar scenarios from the Packaging, Food or Renewable Energy industries. Packaging is particularly relevant given recent announcements from Mondelez, Nestle and other large corporates.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"