Raj,
Your incessant indignant demonization of capitalism as the cause of food shortages does not distract me or anyone else who understands markets from the fact that your economic arguments are Marxist drivel, and your cultural food practice critiques are statist utopian fantasies:

1. This propagandistic documentary you embed was produced by Al-Jazeera, not exactly a credible journal for discovering economic root causes of shortages. No surprise they blame the U.S. for the majority of the problem. However I agree that protectionism and subsidies damage economies, including Haiti's, and I think the US should eliminate farm subsidies.

2. On the CSPAN interview with Evan Kleiman (another collectivist with masturbatory polyannic visions), you imply that India was better off with a feudal system of food production and distribution, you concur with Kleiman that "corporate greed" is the reason for current shortages, you imply that we are worse off because people are "forced" to spend less time preparing food, because they don't get paid enough or don't have a 2-hr lunchbreak....that we are "joyless" when we eat now...no surprise you advocate "living wages", universal healthcare, mandatory 2 hour lunches, and other ridiculous radical leftist dreams.

Let me help you out:

1. Food shortages are caused by either actual crop failure or natural barriers restricting distibution, or centralized economic policy: intentional restriction of supply, or price controls (3rd party pricing, subsidies, tariffs, taxes, or excessive regulations). You know that the Haitian shortages are caused by bad central policy that includes Haitian bad policy, not just bad US policy).

2. India has 1 billion people now and a fast growing economy because of capitalism, and only needing 8 minutes to prepare a meal. People CHOOSE to prepare food for 8 minutes, they're not "forced", they simply want to build their wealth, health, and security by doing what they are good at. No shocker that your "Slow Food" program you advocate was born out of socialism, as you admit. Old ideology, discredited, and rightfully derided.

3. Your admitted anger over the food situation is not an argument for the economic sense of your analysis. If people are angry about it, maybe they should work to get rid of illiberal policies which create artificial shortages and surpluses.

Why don't you read a little of "Wealth of Nations" and compare it logically and historically to the promise of "The Communist Manifesto", as ask yourself if you want to teach your kids be latched mentally and physically to the big tits of government for their whole lives, or would you perhaps be prouder if they were independent self-starters?

Stop being a parasite, get off the wagon, and grab a rope and start pulling your weight.

If you want to debate, I'm inviting you to come on my podcast show on joeypanto.com.
Email me on joey@joeypanto.com if you are interested.

Have you actually read the Wealth of Nations, or do you just own an Adam Smith necktie?

I admit only reading the pin factory part, and only aspiring to an Adam Smith ensemble of necktie, boxer shorts, and when I'm old enough, Adam Smith adult diapers.

But I'll match St. Adam's Unseen Hand against St. Barack's Heavy Thumb any day when it comes to getting food to people.

Props to you, Luddhunter, for being honest. I'd very much commend to you the bits of Adam Smith where he fulminates on the inequities of the joint stock corporation. You can find a good summary here if you've turned your copy of the Wealth of Nations into Adam Smith-themed toilet paper. If you like what you read, then you and I will find ourselves unlikely allies, finding Mr Smith's thoughts on the economy far more sophisticated and commendable than those of either of the Democratic or Republican presidential candidates.