Q: It's said that the decline in rice consumption is serious, but if the amount produced increased and the price went down, people would eat more, wouldn't they?
A: Exactly. Rice acreage reduction is an absolutely terrible policy. The government spends over 300 billion yen (about $2.06 billion) in subsidies annually to decrease the amount of rice produced, thus going out of its way to raise the price and increasing the burden on consumers.
To be fair, that's a common practice even when it comes to non edible products (for example, coming from a petrol producing country, I grew up hearing every now and then about OPEC having decided to reduce petrol production to raise prices)
Yes but per the article, this policy has been active for 60 years. They're not temporarily buoying after a seasonal surplus, they're just paying farmers not to farm ..... for generations.
It also props up the price of various goods to keep them profitable to produce so farms don't go under by limiting the amount produced to avoid big gluts of produce.
That’s a great point. Reminds me of how currently in the Willamette valley of Oregon, grass seed prices are terrible because there’s oversupply such that growers can’t even sell last years crop at a profit, resulting in more oversupply.
Some ground isn’t suitable for much else than annual ryegrass, which does well on the clay mud in the hills and seasonal bogs. There’s not much to switch to that can even handle the conditions.
Other grass crops like different types of fescue are a multi year investments since the first year you don’t get much from the field and it takes time to clean up the weed seeds. So flipping to another crop puts you in a big hole.
Finally there’s the generally six figure equipment to harvest any particular crop. A given harvester can only deal with a very limited selection of crops, and even then is often going to require configuration and tuning when switching to a compatible crop.
I think the grape and hop guys might also be seeing something similar, but I’m not entirely sure.
I can imagine that growers with fields configured for growing rice face similar issues. If price tanks, they don’t have the flexibility to “just” pivot to something else as needed.
One of many. Another is to just directly bribe farmers for political support in areas of the country given extra power by the structure of the US government where not every vote gets equal weight.
Which is dumb. Land should just be purchased for conservation (or other arrangements like easements with transfer on sale) to the government or private land conservatory groups. Endless subsidy is corrupt.
Japan is an island, which can be blockaded, so they’ve always tried to help their farmers. Usually they pay the farmers to grow less, not pay them to grow nothing. Also this policy was phased out in 2018; now they’re just subsidizing farmers and encouraging crop diversity. I think they’re doing a good job. Being a farmer is always hard. In Japan at least they’re making it easier. Encouraging crop diversity and organic farming is nice (especially compared to the us corn/soy situation).
The difference is that OPEC countries colluding to raise prices hurt other countries, not their own people (they generally subsidise petrol for their own citizens), whereas Japan's policy of artificially raising the price of Japanese rice hurts Japanese consumers, and Japanese consumers vastly outnumber Japanese farmers.
Are people moving to other crops that aren’t as water intensive with all the global warming and erratic weather patterns that are developing around the world? Looks like from the article there isn’t a significant decrease in rice production and “tourism” could only affect 0.5% so could it be artificial inflation like in the USA from limited competition that’s been going on the past few years?
There is no water shortage on a small island like Japan, it gets a LOT of rain, and really, when grown in the mountain areas (cmmon in Japan) the rice terraces probably slow the water flow down rather than speed it up (going via the river straight into the sea) somewhat watering the rice crops and all other life nearby.
Rice doesn't actually need a lot of water to grow, they use the water as a type of weed control, rice is unique in that it can grow practically submersed in water. Most other species cannot.
Bali has been experimenting growing rice without such large amounts of water, it went well. Google it!
Global warming, climate change is shifting weather patterns. While west coasts (California, the UK, Spain) are generally getting less rain, East coasts (Japan, Newfoundland, Florida) are generally getting hit with more rain and more storms.
The UK is actually getting more and more rain because evaporation over the Atlantic increases with warming (I suppose same phenomenon as for Japan)... at least as long as the Gulf Stream keeps flowing.
Domestic food production is a national security concern, especially for a country like Japan which already has abysmal food self-reliance as-is. Not to mention rice is a matter of cultural identity.
Artificially keeping market prices high so rice farmers can make a living is a justifiable thing. There is no free market if the free market is dead.
It sounds like they should have more import duty on foreign foods if anything in this case.
> Artificially keeping market prices high so rice farmers can make a living is a justifiable thing.
This doesn't make sense to me, if the prices need to be high for farmers to survive, how is it artificial? You're just paying twice, once in tax and once for the product.
>It sounds like they should have more import duty on foreign foods if anything in this case.
Rice imports are also heavily taxed and tightly regulated to maintain high market prices.
>if the prices need to be high for farmers to survive, how is it artificial?
It's artificial because market prices don't actually care if the supplier can survive. The Japanese government cares about the rice farmers' continued existence.
Yup. If all Japanese rice came from, say, Thailand (less expensive and major regional rice producer), Thailand would have them by the balls if it came down to it.
Fiat money can be printed. It’s one reason that governments are quite bad at executing on innovation that requires long nights and weekends to spin up.
Is labor worth anything? How do you find out? How do you define "value"? We can continue this if you like, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't leading you somewhere...
> I would be lying if I said I wasn't leading you somewhere
You're leading me nowhere because you aren't actually saying anything at all. Try actually answering questions if you want to lead someone somewhere.
> How do you define "value"?
At a basic level, usefulness.
> Is labor worth anything?
Yes, I value (it is useful to me) being able to leave my house without everything being overgrown. I value (it is useful to me) having the yard not overgrown to the point wildlife take over my yard and invade my home. I value (it is useful to me) to not have the trees overgrow above my roof and eventually lose limbs on to my roof. The way I achieve these useful things is by labor. So the labor is useful, it has value.
> How do you find out?
I look at the usefulness of that labor. What would it cost for me to hire exterminators once rats and snakes and bugs take over the yard and then my house? What would I have to trade for a doctor to heal me once I get sick from the rodent infestation? How would I repair my home after the damage from the infestations? What does a new roof cost if I don't maintain my trees? How much do I have to work to ensure these things don't happen? Then finally, given the fact I only have 24 hours in a day and I have other wants, is it useful to me to exchange something with someone else (something they find use of) to do it for me.
But going back to "is past labor less valuable than current labor", well, today do I care more about the lawn being mowed and the trees trimmed properly or do I just value that I did it six weeks ago and that's good enough for me now? In the end, today the trees are overgrown. The lawn is getting tall. Rats are starting to live in the bushes. I need to get out there now, despite the fact I did it six weeks ago. The value of that work I did then is now less, because the realities of the world continued changing.
A baker baked a loaf of bread a month ago. Is that labor still worth something today? Is that labor worth the same, more, or less than if he baked a loaf of bread today?
Allegedly a barrel of WTI crude is worth $76 today. I can go look up that price, and theoretically lots of people out there would trade at that price. If someone just dropped off a barrel of oil to my driveway, I wouldn't agree it is worth $76. It has no usefulness to me. I'd have to work (labor!) to move it off my lot someplace else. I'd have to find someone willing to take it and they'll probably want to buy it at a discount. Chances are, the value of a barrel of crude at my house is negative, not positive $76. Why is it worth negative to me while its worth $76 to others? Simple, its usefulness to those people. Those people buying it at $76 have the connections to trade it to the refiners. Those refiners have the knowledge and tools to turn it into other things more people find useful. And finally, I'll find use from it and buy something made or protected by the plastics or use the energy from the gasoline or diesel they get from it.
But how can that be? You're suggesting value isn't something subjective!
Lead me places buddy. Tell me your definition of value then. Explain to me how value isn't something subjective.
> You're assuming your questions are even answerable in the context you're providing.
Most would see it as a very simple answer. A baker wants $1 for him baking a loaf of bread. Would you pay him the same, more, or less today for his baking labor a week ago compared to the labor he just did five minutes ago? This shouldn't be a challenging question, most probably know which loaf they want.
I would want today's bread, but I don't think this is really the same as your first mowing comment. If I bought bread today, I would expect the cost of bread I buy next week to be the same. If costs remain constant, it should be so, but that's unlikely, as price is the consensus of "what people are willing to pay" vs "the difficulty in providing the item"
> Lead me places buddy.
If, let's say, this baker was to create a new oven, that somehow magically, did not radiate heat, and so the input energy was DIRECTLY put into baking the bread. They, would be able to lower the cost to the consumer as they had less energy costs? They would be able, to make their process more efficient, by being less wasteful. (You could apply this to a new internal combustion engine too for instance.)
The bread does not become more valuable, but the difficulty to provide it has been lessened, because of entropy minimization.
Value, I believe, is a product of thermodynamics. Things are useful, because they allow you to be more efficient, and use less energy.
There's so much to unpack on your first paragraph. You would expect the cost to remain constant even though you then understand its unlikely. I would expect I should be able to fly if I jump off my roof, but that's unlikely. Its almost like the values change because of some amount of subjectivity to them...hmm..nah can't be, it's the laws of thermodynamics that set prices and determine values!
> I would want today's bread
So right there we see a difference in the value of what was produced a week ago to what was produced today. If the value of his labor was constant, why wouldn't you value his work put into that loaf the same? Shouldn't the two loaves be similar? Ah, maybe because the world continued on so the fact he made bread a week ago doesn't matter as much anymore, as if it's not as useful or valuable anymore. Hmm...
> I don't think this is really the same as your first mowing comment
It is precisely the same. Sure, the day it was mowed it was worth the same to me as a freshly mowed lawn today. But the usefulness of my mowing became less over time because the lawn and the trees continue to grow. I need to keep doing it.
The baker can't just bake all the bread a week ago and expect people still value it the same. The world marches on, the bread goes stale and moldy, the yard keeps growing.
But someone labors and makes a more durable good, and that labor (usually) holds its value a good bit longer. Not forever though, as that washing machine or car will also rust away and become less useful over time.
In the end though, everything we do will eventually be worth nothing. Everything you make will fall apart, everything you write will be forgotten.
> price is the consensus of "what people are willing to pay" vs "the difficulty in providing the item"
It's almost like you're describing usefulness here. How useful is it to the people buying it versus how laborious it was to make it. Funny how that usefulness metric still shows up here.
> Value, I believe, is a product of thermodynamics. Things are useful, because they allow you to be more efficient, and use less energy.
This does nothing to explain why that barrel of crude is worth negative dollars to me while its worth positive dollars to others. If it is some product of the laws of thermodynamics that make a barrel of crude worth $76, why do the laws of thermodynamics behave differently around me than some commodities trader? Or maybe this whole "iTs thErMoDynAmicS" is just fluff around "things have value because they're useful"?
It also fails to explain why you value that loaf of bread today more than the loaf of bread from a week ago. The energy cost for that loaf was the same. If it all boils down to energy, should the bread be the same price? Don't they have the same value? Why are you being so subjective about your valuation of the two loaves of bread?
I mean, your last sentence essentially points out that "product of thermodynamics" ends up being just a measure of usefulness...so...one could just say value is a subjective measure of usefulness?
And even then you argue things have value because they make me more efficient. So how does this explain the "value" of a rare baseball card or a fancy work of art? Does taking a vacation really make me more efficient? Maybe I just really like the color red, so I spend more on a red car that looks cool, it was more valuable to me, but did that make me more efficient? I like cinnamon raisin bread and sometimes pay a premium for it, did that somehow make me more efficient? No, but it's useful to me because I subjectively derive happiness from these things.
Some people hate raisin bread, and to them that loaf is worth less than a regular loaf of wheat or whatever. Or if I'm making a ham sandwich, I don't think I'd normally want to use raisin bread for that, so I wouldn't generally put a higher value on regular bread over raisin bread in that case. It's not anything about efficiency, it's about subjective measures of usefulness.
It is, though largely due to confusion rather than intentional metaphor. (Exception: when described as a “shadow tax,” though that is still a close metaphor and only applies to debt-monetising monetary inflation.)
> If in January, you can buy something for $1, then in February because of inflation it becomes $1.10, that's a 10% tax increase
You’re confusing taxes and costs.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, they didn’t levy a tax on poor Egyptians even though Moscow’s actions raised their food costs. Cost increases are taxing [1]. Confusing something taxing with a tax [2] is a common mistake but still wrong. (And valiantly wrong in a policy context.)
> If a government spends more than it takes in, in taxation, the difference has to come from somewhere, and invariably, it comes via inflation
Governments spent more than they earned before fiat currencies. They made up the difference by borrowing. Borrowing isn’t fundamentally inflationary; this is trivial to show with commodity money.
> choice to spend more than the governemnt has, is a choice, and is imposed, so is a tax
Every commemorative bill is a government choice. That doesn’t make National Talk Like a Pirate Day a tax proposal [1].
Consider the implications of your definition. Every cost and every government choice is a tax. At this point, taxes are so naturally occurring as to make the word meaningless.
You get a pay raise? A tax on your employer! Tesla stock goes up? Musk is taxing you! Governor went on a walk instead of driving? Taxation! Cat got sick? Mittens is taxing me with vet bills!
I realize you have interpreted my comment as suggesting this, but that really wasn't my intent. It was really just about tax vs spend, and if they differ.
I must be retarded because I don't see how this makes a difference.
Even if you're getting 0% interest loan (unlikely) you still have to pay it back, which will eat into future taxation? And if you don't pay it back they would be justified adding duties to all exports, recouping that way, by inflated prices...
Yes. But the amount of gold in the system is always conserved. Monetarily, the fact that it's borrowed is irrelevant.
Also, if the borrowing is used to increase economic activity, it need not eat into future taxes for anyone. The classic example is borrowing to buy upgraded farm equipment, or to irrigate previously-fallow land.
> Assuming they don't find more gold
Orthogonal and thus irrelevant to the question of whether borrowing fundamentally causes inflation.
this is flatly false equivalence.. it is a political statement because it is widely understood on a political topic. Any analysis beyond the most superficial and dramatic shows that this is not at all equivalent.
> A: People across the world say, "It's the best-tasting rice in the world, so why isn't more of it being exported?" Japanese agricultural officials often comment, "We can't compete with cheap rice produced in Thailand and elsewhere," but that's not the case. Just like you have luxury and standard cars, there are different kinds of rice. Luxury cars won't lose out to ordinary ones even if the price is higher.
Totally not the point of this, but is Japanese rice really "the best-tasting"? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy California-produced Japanese-style short-grained varieties (I'm not sure whether I've bought actual Japanese-grown rice) -- in some applications. But sometimes you want a jasmine or a basmati or something else, and it seems like that's a matter of preference and what you're used to and what other food you're eating it with, more than "better" or "luxury".
If a "Japanese agricultural official" is not claiming that Japan produces the best-tasting rice in the world, he is failing at his job! His job is to promote Japanese agriculture, at home and abroad.
As you say, there are different kinds of rice that taste and feel differently, and you should use the right one for your recipe, but debating with a marketing person about their superlative is a futile exercise.
My wife is Japanese and we buy Japanese style rice grown in California (Nishiki Premium). She still complains it isn't as good, but my theory is it's actually the water used in prep. Our Wisconsin water is incredibly hard, and water in Tokyo won't scale a kettle EVER. It's very, very good.
You could run an experiment pretty trivially to determine if the hardness of the water is the issue. Get one of those charcoal filters, get some coffee filters, and cook some rice with various combinations of the filtering.
The previous place I lived in had very hard water, and I found that running the water through both a coffee filter and then a Brita charcoal filter worked rather well to soften the water and improve the quality of the rice I was cooking.
Try The Rice Factory, a rice importer in New York state. They import prize rice from Japan, in refrigerated containers. It's a clear step up in quality from anything grown in California.
Well yeah, but you're comparing steak from the blue ribbon cow to Tyson, I sure hope they win. You might still be right about regional quality but you should at least compare the best both have to offer.
I would be amazed if rice grown by Japanese immigrants like Koda or Tamkai couldn't reach the level and it really was the land that made the difference.
Nishiki uses an offshoot of Calrose rice, which is okay but popular Japanese rice is often Koshihikari or Yumipurika: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nishiki_rice (do click the link for SICK web art on a random wikipedia page)
My family buys bags of flour every time we're in Canada because the old recipes apparently don't taste quite right with anything else. We'll probably keep doing it because it's kind of fun.
Just one man's anecdote: I worked a short walk from a specialty Japanese food store when I lived in New York city. It was the kind of place that had fresh produce and fish/meat flown in from Japan a few days per week. They had a very large section of Japanese rice that had been produced in Japan (e.g. all of the packaging including ingredients etc. were in Japanese and the store manually overlaid printed labeled stickers in English). I pretty much exclusively ate rice I bought there for 2 or 3 years cooked in a mid-range Zojirushi rice cooker (as an aside - this is my favorite and most used kitchen appliance to this day and I would replace it in a heart beat if it ever stops working)
The premium brands of Japanese rice that I would buy were slightly better than the current Kokuho Rose brand I get now (this is the best I can find in semi-rural Canada). The biggest difference in quality were brown rice variants (e.g. genmai) that I have been unable to find anywhere else. But the short-grain white rice weren't so much better that I really miss them. The quality is maybe 5% better but the cost to have it imported here is more than double, so very much not worth it.
The best rice I've had is in far northeastern China (Heilongjiang or Jilin province). Which seems weird to me given the geography, but I guess I don't know shit about rice farming.
Yea I mean I would not be surprised about this either. See also: sketchy cooking oil (sometimes literally transported in fuel tankers?), sketchy milk, etc etc. Food safety in China is still getting up to speed.
Though if we're talking specifically about heavy metals, iirc northeastern China has better (lower) heavy metal levels compared to a lot of other parts of China
Chinese would never agree with you. The best rice comes from the South. (I dont necessarily agree but it’s a strong stereotype that I often heard in my 6 years there).
There is an old Chinese saying that goes Live in Hangzhou, marry in Suzhou, dine in Guangzhou, and die in Luzhou.
I think Japanese rice in a decent Japanese rice cooker with millions of engineering hours poured into competently cooking Japanese rice consistently produces pretty great rice. Flavour / texture wise, I'd pick Thai rice cooked from stove top over it any day.
This calls out for a Triangle Test! There are a lot of Japanese where I live, and grocery stores that cater to them. It would be easy to test whether people really can tell the difference.
"It's the best-tasting rice in the world" is typical Japanese hyperbole in the same way they brag about having four seasons.
I'm sure it's excellent, but in the end, it's just rice. A blind taste test would be random noise. I sure can't remember there being a material different in the rice I ate in Japan vs good Japanese food in Cali.
Hell, even if you included jasmine or basmati, I'll bet most western people wouldn't even be able to tell those apart from Japanese short-grained rice.
Please don't project your own opinions of a staple that people eat sometimes 3 meals a day onto others.
I'll beat your blind taste test everyday of the week just by rolling the rice around in my mouth
EDIT fwiw you can vaguely bucket 1.4 billion people into "eat basmati" 673M+1.4B people into "eat jasmine" and 150M+50M into "eat short grain" rice which is well over a third of the planet
I agree with you. I can tell them apart (Not Japanese vs. California rice, though).
I should have qualified that to randomly selected Americans/Europeans. And that they could understand each type of rice is different but wouldn't have a clue which is which.
I would enjoy a California be Japanese blind taste test. My mother in law has started buying Vietnamese-grown Japanese short grain - I think I can taste the difference but it could also be the cooking method
As a cash strapped student I would buy Korean short grain as it was cheaper
I mean, different kinds of rice do have clearly different textures, and basmati and jasmine are both aromatic in a way that koshikihari is not. I think people should be able to tell them apart easily (including just from "how easy is this to eat with chopsticks? could I imagine clumping this into the base of nigiri sushi? could I imagine this in a biryani?") but I think that's very different from deciding that one is better. To me your statement is like saying people cannot tell the difference a French baguette, focaccia and Japanese milk bread because "it's just bread". I think you wouldn't confuse them unless you were really distracted.
I agree with you and can tell, but I doubt most people around me could. They could understand each type of rice is different but wouldn't have a clue which is which.
It was a bit of hyperbole, but I think you'd be surprised how undifferentiated people's pallets can be if they aren't eating something constantly.
That's a really interesting comparison because the LFA is such a good car. But the Corvette has much more brand equity because its been what it is longer than most of its buyers have been alive. The LFA just wasn't around long enough to build broad awareness. A closer comparison is 911 vs Corvette. You can always charge more for a 911, both cars have a ton of brand loyalty. The 911 is the Japanese rice, the Corvette is the California rice :)
> The crop situation index for rice grown in 2023, indicating the amount of the rice harvest, was 101
Does that mean that each acre is producing about 100% of the average production, or that the total production is about 100% of the average production?
The article makes it sound like the change in production is neglectable and that the change in demand is tiny, implying that a high estimate would be about 0.5% increase in demand.
Crop situation index is percentage yield of the area cultivated. 2023 had 101% of the expected yield per area, so it’s not a bad harvest (2022 had a 96 due to the typhoon, for instance). Which means the high price of rice results from some combination of increased consumption or reduced cultivation area.
Im somewhat baffled by this policy… just produce as much rice as you can, buy surplus from farmers and give it out cheap/free as food assistance to developing countries. Surely a small cost to the Government to get a steady, controlled production numbers.
Then they could give free food to countries that are experiencing short-term famine through natural or man-made disasters. In such a situation, consumers are helped and producers aren't really able to increase production in response to the high price - hence a famine.
This is true. In the spirit of charity, what if we kill more businesses? Seems like doing good in the world can also have negative impacts we may not be aware of.
It still boils down to dumping. This is a hard problem.
You don’t want the global markets determining that you have a competitive disadvantage relative to peers and thus want to import all of your food and abandon your domestic production.
You also don’t want farmers hitting the prisoners dilemma issue of producing as much crop as possible because then farms die from competition. And again letting them die is not good for a critical industry like food.
Paying farmers to underutilize their land is a less insane idea than it sounds.
then... you could dump it in the ocean and feed fish to help the fishing industry (which arguably would be a wise thing anyway given Japan's love of seafood). IIRC the USA did (does?) that with corn.
That would be particularly stupid : agriculture is not something sustainable (at scales of thousands of years), and especially not agriculture using fertilizer based on fossil fuels (only sustainable at scales of hundreds of years ?), which I presume Japanese farmers use ?
And you suggest that they deplete this non-renewable resource faster ?
The intent was to strategically react to crises, as opposed to the existing perpetual (60 years and counting) bribe program.
Strategically/rarely buying and dumping excessively cheap grain would bolster farmers' livelihoods, prevent price collapse, and... some fish get fed one time.
Crisis inherently implies rarity. If every day for sixty years is a crisis, it's time to reevaluate bigger life choices. Feels like we're just having fun poking invented holes rather than arguing in good faith here.
You solve permanent overproduction with mobbing people together and demanding that the government stops mandating it. Because it only exists when the government mandates it.
If you want to soften the blow into people that have to learn how to grow some completely different crop. You go and do that, you don't create an entire class entitled to permanent societal support for not working.
I would say that aid to developing countries is the one thing that has failed over and over again to improve them. Even China raw exploitation of those countries probably brings more development to a country than aid.
Japan already has some of the highest debt-to-GDP ratios in the world, the Yen is increasingly unstable, and much of the budget is spent on the Japanese Welfare system that cannot be messed with or you are committing political suicide along with rising defense expenditures that are now required due to North Korea's military buildup.
The existing status quo is good enough to keep farmers happy (and not switching their vote) while leaving money on the table to be used for social spending, defense, and debt payments.
Japan's government debt is owed to... Japan, mostly the Bank of Japan (ie, the government). Ironically the yen is weak because Japanese interest rates are low, because Japanese prices have barely nudged since 1990, averaging approximately no inflation until roughly last year. If anything, Japan isn't printing nearly enough yen. They can afford to spend more and tax less.
> If anything, Japan isn't printing nearly enough money
Japan has very low wages compared to other OECD countries (the average wage in Japan is only around $25,000), so inflation - especially the kind you are proposing - is catastrophic, especially given how a significant proportion of the population is on a fixed income due to retirement or social subsidizes due to un- or underemployment.
This is why the Japanese government tries to limit inflation to 2%.
> because Japanese prices have barely nudged since 1990
> Interest rates have been negative for nearly 2 decades
Nope.
Only since 2015 when the Japanese economy entered a recession and CPI rose to 4%.
> What significant government intervention has there been to keep inflation low
Negative inflation rates, impacting the ability to borrow further.
The expansive welfare system that allows 2% of the poorest Japanese to get direct benefits transfers (it's a great program, but very expensive, so other priorities are lower).
Price controls on utilities and some crops like Wheat.
> I don't know why they didn't just raise the minimum wage
Because Japan has a very extensive set of FTAs, and before 2015 a very high youth unemployment rate (8-12%).
If Japan raised the minimum wage, employers would leave for South Korea, Taiwan, China, ASEAN, and India.
> Negative inflation rates, impacting the ability to borrow further.
Government doesn't set the inflation rate.
> The expansive welfare system that allows 2% of the poorest Japanese to get direct benefits transfers (it's a great program, but very expensive, so other priorities are lower).
Price controls on utilities and some crops like Wheat.
> That does NOT mean interest rates were negative.
You're being pedantic. Your graph shows interest rates have been essentially under 0.5 for 30 years. At no point is that a hammer being used to curtail inflation, which was the point.
> Japan has very low wages... so inflation is catastrophic
Wages increase with government spending (and inflation), unless productivity falls a lot or there's a huge wealth transfer from labor to capital. When the government prints a bunch of money and uses it to purchase a bunch of rice from Japanese farmers, that money ends up as higher wages for farmers and their supply chain, and this in turn circulates throughout the economy, as one farmer's spending is another retail worker's wages.
This doesn't help retirees of course, who aren't earning any more, but the government can choose to hand them more money too if necessary; inflation-indexed pensions are a policy choice. (Although I would say that they should be handing more money to young children, in the custody of their parents).
When I refer to government spending and money-printing I am talking about fiscal policy, which can produce inflation if not counterbalanced by taxation. The BoJ, like any central bank, sets monetary policy in response to inflation (and expected inflation) and will raise interest rates if inflation increases; this is what "implements monetary policy with the aim of maintaining price stability" means. Although most central banks, the BoJ included, consider price stability to be a state of low inflation, not necessarily zero inflation.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it sounds like they are already paying them to under-produce. So why not just pay them to produce the excess and then...do something with it? Sell it to other countries, donate it as humanitarian aid to areas like Gaza, Ukraine, etc.
"People also ask
Why is Japanese yen so weak today?
Why is the yen losing value? There are several factors, but it is mainly a "product of divergent monetary policy between the Bank of Japan and its developed-market peers — particularly the Federal Reserve," said Barron's."
Farm land conservation in the face of climate change is a good thing the USA has been doing it for generations. Depleting the land just because you can is a bad idea.
Then do a hasty non-thought through turn towards green fuels and watch as the poor developing countries whose poor you fed for years, tear there governments a new one, shredding your regional diplomacy policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring
Welcome to policy dependency hell.. its getting heated.. but gradually..
There is no rice shortage in Japan currently, at least not in the sense of the word 'shortage' in economics. Prices are not held artificially low (they are influenced by the state in a market-friendly way through restrictions in supply), and so we see that rice is as available as ever, just at a higher price than last year.
Oh wow! Sorry about that. Empty aisles, i.e. a true shortage, only happens due to an artificially low price -- do you know what is holding the price down in this case? Perhaps price gouging laws? Or (misguided) big chain stores' policies against big price increases?
I recommend little mom-and-pop stores. Typically they feel free to quietly charge a market-clearing price.
> Empty aisles, i.e. a true shortage, only happens due to an artificially low price
That's not true due to Always Late Inventory(tm). See: Covid and toilet paper in the US.
Because inventory is optimized to almost nothing, a demand shock can strip the shelves (the last remaining point of inventory) before pricing can adjust. Super-optimization means that supply has very little ability to increase and it would take many months to backfill the drained edge inventory. Prices shoot up, but don't actually make a dent as there is enough inelastic demand to always drain the incremental inventory resupply.
Add in the fact that a harvest is a specific point in time while consumption is continuous and it's really easy to wind up in a shortage situation that takes a remarkably long time to correct.
A lot of countries have a national food reserve that is used to calm prices when demand fluctuates, it allows time to adjust production while you’re putting food in or out of the reserve to control prices.
"Japan's rice stockpile has dropped to its lowest level in this century due to a prolonged heatwave in 2023 and rising domestic demand, causing concerns among residents about high prices."
Probably for the same reason strategically placed tea reserves all around china just incase someone wants to steal it "all"...the idea of Japan having a massive underground cave complex for rice is amusing to me for some reason. I know its not how it works but the next big earthquake could open up a lava flow and produce a giant rice krispy field and then we'd just have to lure the stay-puff marshmallow man into that field...
Is there a list of food reserves that each country maintains? I feel like that would be an interesting/funny cultural insight. Like the US Cheese Stockpile or the Canada Maple Syrup Reserve.
Gotta include the at-home stocks which is going to be harder/more variable to measure.
Though if you have diversity in your crop production, usually when one thing does badly, something else does better, especially if your country is big.
When COVID first hit, I did an estimate of how much food I had on hand (without even intentionally trying to stockpile) and I figure I could live 6-8 months without leaving.
So Japan has a stockpile...but is not competent to manage it. I'd guess that's the usual story of too-numerous and long-calcified bureaucrats, overseen by oblivious and uncaring politicians.
(From a few quick searches, it looks like rice will last 5+ years with proper storage.)
Japan is only producing about half of the rice it could potentially produce.
This is due to government policy that pays farmers not to grow to prevent falling prices.
Argues in the current geopolitical climate with the potential of a food blockade, this policy should be abandoned.
If abandoned, Japan will become one of the largest rice exporters which he argues is better for Japanese food security.
It sounds like an XY problem. They don't want the price to fall because then farming wouldn't be profitable, but they're paying farmers to not profit off sales anyway. Instead of subsidizing half the farmers to do nothing, they should subsidize all the farmers, half as much, and allow the price to drop by half.
Anything is small if you choose a big enough denominator (eg. GDP). What's the total value rice production in japan? This source[1] values all agricultural output at $29B, which means rice subsidy alone is 6.9% of agricultural production.
> The amount of annual subsidies is around $2 billion. It's a tiny number for a country as large as Japan. Their GDB is $4 trillion per year.
Their Debt-to-GDP ratio is 263% (so around $9 trillion in debt), and the government's budget is only $1.2 trillion per year, so it becomes very difficult to maneuver, especially due to the increased Yen volatility.
The current status quo keeps farmers happy and voting for the LDP, while continuing to fund Japan's very generous and very expensive welfare system that everyone loves.
Mainichi is also the opposition newspaper and election season is approaching in Japan due to Kishida's scandals leading to his resignation.
it is not a simple number.. people who operate business on the commodity scale, often have very low profits and therefore, have lower spending power economically.. in other words, lots of farmers tend to live close to a kind of poverty. Meanwhile, in the center of some kind of fast and loose economics, like entertainment for example.. lots of economic spending power is traded very quickly.. plenty of people in the entertainment industries do not live close to poverty at all..
Large economic systems in real life have economic niches. Government policy levers change the basic flow patterns.. it is often a matter of life and death
Sounds like dairy in Canada. We basically have a taxi medallion system for milk.
Result: high prices (basically a regressive tax), personal import limits that haven’t increased in 3+ decades, artificial barriers to entry (good luck becoming a dairy farmer unless you inherited a farm or take out a massive loan before even starting) & low per capita production for a country that could be a dairy exporting juggernaut.
New Zealand is currently the biggest dairy exporter. Canada, despite being a massive agri-exporter for other products, not even in the top 15.
It is not. It is producing a two tier market. "As of January 2024, India was the world's largest rice exporter, shipping 16.5 million metric tons of rice. India's rice is known for its quality and aroma, and is shipped to many countries, including varieties like Basmati and non-Basmati. India's rice exports support millions of farmers and help the country's economy. " And India and Tialand are benefitting.
The Japanese government has long managed the production of rice to keep market prices high for the farmers' sake and given subsidies to farmers to not fully utilize their production potential.
Covid hit and tanked the demand moreso than usual, so government policies shifted to further production (read: supply) reductions. Less supply in response to reduced demand equals maintained market prices.
Politics has not caught up in the post-covid era where demand from both domestic and international (including tourism) has recovered and surged. The supply is still mid-covid limited.
>I'm not saying Japan has the best system, but it's probably nowhere near as bad as you think.
I merely answered the Why? in the clickbaity article title.
As far as my thoughts on the policy, I think it's quite more reasonable than the far more popular western policy of letting the free market kill itself in a race to the bottom only to then be bought out by China.
The current rice shortage isn't a problem to do with the policy, it's how it's being handled.
And all western countries all doing same type of or similar enough subsidy. EU is built on it. Free market on food is only something pushed on lesser nations...
With the current high food prices, US taxpayers will be pleased to know that they will spend about 4 billion this year on ensuring the farmers don't grow too much food (this total is up from last year due to the inflation reduction act)
High prices? 2022 is but a distant memory now. As a farmer, I haven't seen food prices this low, nominally, since the bottom of the mid-2010s crash, and if you account for inflation it doesn't look like food has ever been as cheap as it is right now!
Perhaps you mean the current high price of convenience? It does seem the grocery stores keep pushing prices higher even as the price of food keeps going down, down, down.
Partially true. Rising grocery prices and falling food commodity food prices. Where is all that money going? Look no further than corporate land ownership.
They don't care about votes outside of the swing states.
They care about the people who have been getting those billions for decades spending a small portion of it against them. Also they are concerned for their family members who happen to be upstanding people who landed in great jobs at charities owned by the people who get the billions to not feed people.
With the policy being active, non-stop, for 60 years (as opposed to temporary incentives to buoy farmers during a bad year) it's clearly politicking. Especially given the sleight-of-hand from the Abe administration (as mentioned in the article) where they claimed to kill the subsidy but actually only killed its limitations. In short - not sure why you've been downvoted.
Many are missing the cultural aspect. This isn't all about the government protecting the price. There is a second order issue. If the price dropped, Japanese farmers would react by reducing costs, by bringing in new tech and consolidating small farms into larger agri-businesses. Japan wants avoid the cultural changes that would bring to rural areas, areas that many believe to be the heart of Japanese culture.
I wonder how much of this is actually just inflation. The first sign of inflation is shortages, usually, and then people raise prices to keep the goods on the shelf.
sounds like an emotional appeal to a political situation, not at all factual. Politics in practice are full of this (challenge - rearrange those four letters)
Their system of subsidies limits the production of rice, so they do not have any rice surplus.
Because of that, even a very small increase in rice demand, like from having more tourists than expected in 2024 (I have also visited Japan this year, benefiting from the small prices after yen conversion) has been enough so that the demand could not be satisfied, resulting in increased prices.
After tasting the Japanese rice in Japan, I agree with the article that their rice is by far the best and that the government policy of limiting the rice production is wrong and it would be much better for them to produce a rice surplus and attempt to export it.
As they are aware, they could not compete directly with the cheaper rice from Thailand or other major exporters, but they could compete successfully in the "more expensive but better" rice category.
TLDR: the article points to a system of agricultural subsidy through quota limits, called "acreage reduction", similar to EU "set aside".
It seems a common phenomenon around the world that, because price instability for food leads to social instability, governments end up with elaborate systems of direct and indirect price control. In this case, farmers being paid not to grow rice.
Yes, but then it needs to be stored, and the price effects might encourage even more production. Previously this has led to events like the devastating Wisconsin butter flood [0] ("A firefighter reported flames 300 feet (91 m) high", "It took about twenty hours to contain the blaze, and eight days until the fire was officially out").
Not that rice would do anything so nefarious, but more to point out that large scale purchase and storage is not a trivial task. I can imagine the scenario where some bureaucrats ran the numbers and concluded that it is cheaper to just give the money to farmers instead of running the purchase/storage scheme.
Rice would split open the hulls of wooden sailing vessels if it got wet.
The problem is, the other option here, the Futures Markets has Goldman-Sachs using their vast cash reserves to buy in when it suits them so as to make money on the people's daily bread.
Like many other things, "It's better to have it and not need it, than need it, and not have it."
Article claims USA/Europe no longer have crop reduction policies in place because "they know that producing more and exporting it brings greater benefits than reducing the amount produced." Japan's approach does indeed seem more controlling. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know.
Edit: Article also says "western" countries subsidize farmers to protect them from price drops of oversupply.
I’m sure they would never do that here. Our price increases are completely organic, natural, and market-driven, as always. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
A: Exactly. Rice acreage reduction is an absolutely terrible policy. The government spends over 300 billion yen (about $2.06 billion) in subsidies annually to decrease the amount of rice produced, thus going out of its way to raise the price and increasing the burden on consumers.