Argentina, from first wheat exporter of the world, to the lack of flour in supermarkets. The intervention of the government would have been able to avoid this crisis but the government had its focus on increasing tax collection instead.

My mother is used to making her own bread, so she buys all the ingredients and bakes it for herself. But that day she was quite disappointed, because she went to the supermarket and she was only allowed to buy one kilogram of flour. The restriction was that each person could buy only one kilogram of flour per purchase. So my mother bought one and my father bought another. Last summer we were facing, for the first time in my life, flour scarcity.*

As it usually happens in these cases, the government blamed wheat producers for this stock break, arguing that producers were avoiding to sell their harvests as they were speculating to get higher prices in the future. Producers claimed that they had no harvest to sell because they never sowed wheat due to the current tax structure. So once again the rationalization of products arrived at supermarkets.

Argentinians would not be troubled if they were to rationalize some rare or imported product. But the ones who were once called the granary of the world, were now lacking of the very same product they used to export to the entire world. And we then began asking ourselves how did this happen to us. Rumours of wheat import were spreading in the country that in the first decade of the twentieth century was the first world exporter of wheat and concentrated the 23% of the world production of this cereal.

After the 2001 crisis Argentina devalued its currency. At the same time the prices of commodities began to increase in the world. The combination of these two factors, devaluation and high commodity prices, helped our economy to grow rapidly, achieving growth rates similar to China's. Dollars were entering Argentina and economy was flourishing.

These were months of great tension. Rumours were spread that producers demonstrating were already carrying weapons and fear of an armed conflict was growing

At that time, as a way to prevent domestic prices for agricultural commodities from reaching international values, a new tax regime was implemented: exporters had to pay a fee for each tone exported. This taxation method has also proved to be very lucrative and the government was now financing itself with the incomes from these particular exports. As government's deficit increased, tax pressure on agricultural commodities became heavier, until in the year 2008 a new resolution to increase taxes was resisted by farm producers. For four months protests in the entire county interrupted roadways and farmers refused to sell their harvests. These were months of great tension. Rumours were spread that producers demonstrating were already carrying weapons and fear of an armed conflict was growing. In the end, the congress acting against our President put an end to the crisis by revoking the last tax increase. It was a memorable session at the Chamber of Senators, which was the one that had the power to definitely revoke this tax increase. Final voting took place and it ended in a tie. All the eyes were on the vice president, who had the last vote that could change the history of our country. It was his turn now and he began his speech. He was so nervous that he could hardly express himself. By voting to revoke the tax increase, he was acting against his same government. On the other hand supporting these new tax could unleash a conflict that nobody knew how it would end. Finally he voted against the tax increase, expressing his will with a declaration that will be remembered by history: “my vote is not  positive”. Outside the congress and in the roadways of the entire country, thousands were celebrating: after so many days of  waiting and resisting the fight came to its end.

However, this taxing structure for commodities was still existing and the government ignored how  it was affecting the landscape of agricultural production. In the year 1928 we had 9,5 millions hectares sowed with wheat. In 2012 we had less than 4 million in spite of the fact that total area sowed has been constantly increasing. Area dedicated to wheat has been nonetheless diminishing. We can find the main reason for this strange producers' behaviour in the price increase of other products, like for example soy. As relative prices of other agricultural products increase the producer is better of by using his land for these other product rather than for wheat. On the other hand, the heavy taxes for agricultural producers created a price distortions, which affect the producer's decision criteria.

The intervention of the government would have been able to avoid this crisis. Introducing changes in the tax structure, making wheat more profitable than other products. This would have influenced producers to sow wheat instead of soy. But the government had its focus on increasing tax collection instead of assuring the provision of flour for the population. In this case government intervention did not only failed, but it produced and absurd situation: the country that has been the granary of the world was now struggling to provide its citizens with flour.