77. The conclusion of this letter is that consumers are not truly benefiting from
" J! @# j& X1 h# T" i. Eadvances in agricultural technology. The author concedes that, on the average,
' c% O4 ]4 s% Gconsumers are spending a decreasing proportion of their income on food. But the author
8 M* @5 K8 x( \- e# d9 ~contends that this would happen without advances in agricultural technology. The 9 v9 }" L1 V2 q/ ?( ?
author reasons that demand for food does not rise in proportion with real income, so as 9 Y6 I' Q2 E1 N! j' Z
real income rises, consumers will spend a decreasing portion of their income on food. " w2 {9 j; `" g
This argument turns on a number of dubious assumptions.
# [7 U, j i1 N5 x f First of all, while asserting that real incomes are rising, the author provides no
' e% ~2 ^$ c6 ^2 |4 M {8 [# |evidence to support this assertion; moreover, it might be false. Even if salaries and
9 k5 D3 |% l9 A0 z' _wages go up, this fact may not indicate that real income has increased proportionally. 7 t0 H; H5 y9 T7 P
Real income takes into account any effect inflation might have or, the relative value of
9 C+ t# m! q1 {- x# u, _: kthe dollar. It is possible that, when salaries and wages are adjusted for inflation, what 7 F$ M7 I# a& J4 Z$ x0 _
appear to be increases in real income are actually decreases.
# E2 Z# x9 k2 d2 u$ ~- |) W In addition, the author assumes that increases in real income explain why, on the 6 J; W& l7 U8 }. B- P
average, consumers are now spending a decreasing proportion of their income on food.
* d& J! @" L' @( @# m0 @; dBut no evidence is provided to show that this explanation is correct. Moreover, the % f5 X& a. ]/ }8 ^" g& |
author fails to consider and rule out other factors that might account for proportional 7 G% }! |- G5 {& A
decreases in spending or food.# ]- p+ l3 Q8 a
Finally, the entire argument turns on the assumption that benefits to consumers ' f- T0 }4 j8 U5 { z, @
from advances in agricultural technology are all economic ones—specifically, ones 1 ]# c. v. [" T0 f2 u
reflected in food prices. The author ignores other likely benefits of agricultural , E4 K" P' o y7 k
technology that affect food prices only indirectly or not at all. Such likely benefits
9 A/ {* P- i8 R3 i0 R/ A& Q/ kinclude increased quality of food as it reaches the market and greater availability of % A6 Y6 n6 H5 H/ m: }4 A: Z2 U
basic food items. Moreover, the author cannot adequately assess the benefits of ) A8 p- A* o& e# B& h; t8 D
agricultural technology solely on the basis of current food prices because those prices
, e; y/ U; f; l. x K& O* rare a function of more than just the technology that brings the food to market.- P0 X" _' x0 S0 v9 F
In conclusion, this letter has provided little support for the claim that consumers 2 f d n8 v; G4 _
are not really benefiting from advances in agricultural technology. A stronger argument
1 |2 p% K' q* r b$ Jwould account for the benefits of technology other than the current price of food, and
; o) C0 d$ Q! f1 T( S# |would account for other factors that affect food prices. To better evaluate the argument,
0 v' O" R b* j+ n8 {" fwe would need more information about whether real incomes are actually rising and
5 m. v# H# d8 C: n* Twhether this alone explains why consumers now spend a proportionately smaller
$ C, _ \' M& M! n( Ramount of income on food. |