And in the case of a catastrophic collapse in supply, I do believe that capitalism will be overturned, just as it is now being overturned by countries seeking to protect their food security.

the problem in most countries is not the market but it's gov't interference in the market. rarely do they report that gov't policies in most of the countries we read about are caused by subsidies and etc. what's the worst economy right now? it's zimbabwe. that is an gov't created problem through and through.

Pricing Somalia out of the market for grain is a perfectly acceptable free market solution to scarce food resources.

that is your example? a war torn region that probably doesn't have anything resembling a market economy? are you saying the ENTIRE country can't buy grain? I don't believe that. anyways, the wealth produced by the free market can make enough money available to send grain to places where starvation is a problem.

today mises had an article about the potato famine. someone on here said "just remember that the market said F-you to millions of starving people in Ireland" a few months ago. that is entirely wrong. the market was interfered with.

What Caused the Irish Potato Famine?

Was the Potato Famine an ecological accident, as historians usually say? Like most famines, it had little to do with declines in food production as such. Adam Smith was right that "bad seasons" cause "dearth," but "the violence of well-intentioned governments" can convert "dearth into famine."

In fact, the most glaring cause of the famine was not a plant disease, but England's long-running political hegemony over Ireland. The English conquered Ireland, several times, and took ownership of vast agricultural territory. Large chunks of land were given to Englishmen.

These landowners in turn hired farmers to manage their holdings. The managers then rented small plots to the local population in return for labor and cash crops. Competition for land resulted in high rents and smaller plots, thereby squeezing the Irish to subsistence and providing a large financial drain on the economy.

Land tenancy can be efficient, but the Irish had no rights to the land they worked or to any improvements they might make. Only in areas dominated by Protestants did tenant farmers have any rights over their capital improvements. With the landlords largely residing in England, there was no one to conduct systematic capital improvements.

http://mises.org/story/2978

One can argue about this for ever, but I would contend that the 'free market' has not, is not and never will be 'free'. The 'market' is simply way too important to be allowed to function freely. This is actually supported by people who continually say, but the market is being 'interfered' with, if it was left alone it would function perfectly! This 'interference' is actually builty into the structure of the 'free market' because it isn't 'free' at all. The market is a controlled market system, not completely 'unfree' but nowhere near 'free', as in not being substantially controlled and steered and 'designed' to disproportionally favour the interests of minority who benefit from the 'free market'. This is of course very simplified, but I've deadline to meet for a manuscript!

Oh, and before I forget, we need to overthrow the current Capitalist economic and social paradigm, before it 'overthrows' us. This too is a mighty big problem to add to the growing list of mega problems we face, but I believe it may be the crucial one. This isn't because I personally haven't enjoyed the many fruits of Capitalism. I have, and over-indulged, yet I think the Capitalist system is doomed, at least the current version. I almost wrote the 'unbridled version', but this would imply that it was somehow 'free' which it simply is not.

Go read David Stahan's book. He runs the numbers for how much land would be needed to "grow" our fuel. Even if we turned over all the land in the country to oil production, we would only make about 25%. So sure, there is plenty of land in Pennsylvania, it STILL isn't enough.

Yes, there will be the inevitable comment about switchgrass, sumpweed, algae..... things that might be. But things that might be, might also not be.

my comment was entirely about "peak food" nonsense.

as far as how much land to we need to grow our fuel, nobody really knows. I don't know what parameters stahan used so I can't speak to that. I do know that if you can tell me how much fuel in 2015 we'll need to grow to make up for the decline in oil production I'd ask you who is going to win the World Series then too. suppose by then we have a significant PHEVs that only need 50 gallons of gas a year because they have PVs on the roof? that kind of changes the equation, doesn't it?

Another analogy to the RMS Titanic, the expectation was that technology would not allow the ship to sink, and yet in the end it was the technology that killed so many people. Were it not for the watertight doors, the water would have flowed in evenly, settling at the bottom and the ship would have taken hours to sink, which would have allowed for a rescue ship to arrive.

The very technology that they thought would save them ended up killing most of them.

The hope of a future fueled by such things as switch grass is a false hope, that hope is delaying the hard choices that have to be made now, choices that if not made, will make things far worse than they otherwise would be.