Your meat example is a valid one, however i disagree with you on your example. As a general rule, the more something is demanded, the higher the price. The only exception to this rule (usually) is with government intervention, e.g. the banning of the import of certain parts of a cow. However, people from 'your country', will therefore likely buy more of this meat, and push the price up again.
Lets take my example again. You kill a cow and you get A+B to sell. A cant be sold abroad only B can.
Price of B goes up (international price of meat rises), ppl that raise cows will be whiling to raise and kill more cows. Now you have 2xA+2xB. 2xA cant be sold abroad, so now you got B prices raising international (and localy) but the sustitute A price going down.
On countries that have high cow meat exportation this will cause A price to touch rock bottom if the price of B climes up.
What you have to remember, is while there are local exceptions, staples (wheat, rice, corn etc) are pretty much the same the world over (homogenous), they are also generally cheaper, and therefore the poor buy more of them, meaning their rising price has a disproportionate effect, again the 99% vs 1%. ie plants (cheaper) do not really change in quality (i know organic but its a niche market), so it is easy to export.
Yet if Exportations of that product > Local consumtion then you will get to tax it and you can neutralize the efect and even end up with spare cash.
1)A country sells 400$ of product C abroad and consumes 400$ of product C.
2) Price of C goes up to 800$.
3)The country decides to tax exportation of product C by 400$ and use it to subside local consume.
4) The avarage person will buy 800$ of product C (and get 400$ via subsides) and the person that export product C will sell it for 800$ (paying 400 Tax). Production will remain constant.
OFC this isnt a neutral efect as it causes the country to have superhabit wich is desirable on some scenarios (as 800$ will enter the country instead of 400$).
If you move that bar away from 50% consume 50% exportation to something like 30% consume and 70% exportation (wich seems reasonable for a country to be better at something) not only the goverment has enough $ to pay subsides but he can even get some extra income or decide not to absorb the hole rise of price to increase the profit of the productor.
As you can see, as long as exportations>Consume it apears that the efect is always positive. In the scenario where Exportation=Consume it will be a good thing as long as the country requires a to have a superhabit.
It is also probably worth noting that if wheat prices rise too much, the USA will ban food exports, to make the internal price lower, which will drive the price higher everywhere elsehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7323713.stm. This has happened before with rice and India, i found this really interesting
Actualy that happened in my country not even 5 years ago (and still happens so you can see the evolution), and the efect is was the complete oposite because meat is not like rice.
There are plenty parts from a cow that you cant sell abroad and you sell in the local markets. If you shut down the exportation the production simply falls apart.
However i cant be sure about the case of USA because im not realy aware of their tastes in meat. I saw a pice of meat that here is worth no less than 15 bucks beeing sold there for just 1 buck (even better quality) on a supermarket. I was surprised to see they do not buy that tasty part wich OFC you canot export because it rots in less than a week even in a refrigerator.