The article still isn't clear (at least to me) on who took the losses for the speculators.
Though it raises some interesting ethical questions. Is it better to have the farmer subsidize the poor by not turning a profit, or is it better to have the farmer turn a profit (the goal of the business) at the cost of starvation of others?
Over the last few decades the real problem has been food is too cheap. First world governments are subsidizing food production to the point that a farmer trying to grow rice in southeast Asia can't compete with imported rice shipped from California. So that farmer moves to the city and gets a job making Nikes.
When there's some disruption in food production thousands of miles away all of the sudden people are starving because everybody is making shoes instead of growing food.
> Then, like all speculative bubbles, the food bubble popped. By late 2008, the price of Minneapolis hard red spring had toppled back to normal levels, and trading volume quickly followed. Of course, the prices world consumers pay for food have not come down so fast, as manufacturers and retailers continue to make up for their own heavy losses.