If we spent some of the magical Bail-Out money feeding the hungry peeps of the planet, would making a better world buy us any street cred?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, October 8, 2009 03:41
VIEWED: 7124
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:20 PM

Would America still be "The Evil Infidels" & such?
Would not everyone love us? Would not oil prices come down?
Or is there some REASON to keep the third world in it's place? To keep black babies weak?

Take this where you will...

The laughing Chrisisall

RUE

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:32 PM

You SHOULD know better Chris,IsAll.

It's the 'given a man a fish and he'll survive for the night, and don't give a man a fish and social Darwinism will take it's course' saw conservatives keep harping on.

Why SHOULD you give poor people ANYTHING, after all ? It'll just make more of them, like vermin.

^
^
^
^
^
bitter sarcasm

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:40 PM

No.

The money that we would give away was just robbed from poorer folks anyway. Maybe if we withdrew our troops from the 800 installations around the world, signed out of the WTO until it included and enforced worker protections and benefits for operating transparent democracies, stopped the IMF from enforcing the Chicago School of Economics, and brought capitalism to heel... then we might have some street cred.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:52 PM

Signy, were I unwed, I would take you in a manly fashion.

That's my way of saying you rock.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
bitter sarcasm

Duely noted.

The laughing Chrisisall

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:01 PM

the west would lose control, and we would have a much different world.

as Signy said, capitalism has to be brought to heel,

as does organized religion, power hungry leaders full of themselves, and anyone else who cannot respect the rights of people just to be left to be.

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:14 PM

CHRIS...

Oh... my!

*flutters*

How romantic!

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:16 PM

Heheheheh

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:23 PM

Better 'n some gun nut jacking off with a firearm.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Heheheheh

Wulf, I often stand up for you, dude. Now is not one of those times.
GFY. In a comfortable way, of course.

The laughing Chrisisall

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Heheheheh

you got me wrong Wulf

not a hippie, hippies wouldn't advocate violence.

that said, why do you think people all over the world hate and want Americans dead anyway.

you keep going the way you are, someones gonna burn your country down, and be justified in doing it... I'm only sad for the folk who don't get off using people and don't deserve it.

the rest... well

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

CHRISISALL

Thursday, October 1, 2009 12:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I'm only sad for the folk who don't get off using people and don't deserve it.

Thanks, Gino, but I don't want your sadness.

How about a little room in your home...?

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, October 1, 2009 12:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Better 'n some gun nut jacking off with a firearm.

That visual is... disturbing. And powderburn-y.

The laughing Chrisisall

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, October 1, 2009 12:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I'm only sad for the folk who don't get off using people and don't deserve it.

Thanks, Gino, but I don't want your sadness.

How about a little room in your home...?

The laughing Chrisisall

strange enough I am finishing the basement as we speak... lol

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, October 1, 2009 1:07 AM

Siggy stole a chunka my thunder here cause yeah, it is like a "tax refund" - kind of an insult to take from someone, gnaw the take down to the bone, and then act like throwing it back is some kinda benevolence when not takin from em in the first place woulda been the right thing to do.

But then, there's always a "right thing to do", and on a rare and priceless occasion, it's even legal.

Lemme share with you a quote from somewhere I don't remember that's stuck with me for decades.

"Though silver in your palm weighs light,
Compared to death by fire and sword,
Do not shy the hopeless fight,
Endeavour is it's own reward."

Doin right is kinda like that, it matters not if you are hated for it, bitterly cussed and snarked at for it, even hunted with intent on your destruction for it - It's STILL Right you understand ?

I've caught hell a time even from my own, vicious that I can be, for showing mercy to folks who 'deserved' not a drop of it, soley on seeing SOME spark of humanity within them, however faint.

Really, the folk I have pulled out of their own personal hells, do you think all of em have fond thoughts of me, especially given both my brutality, especially in the early days, and my honesty when they would have very much preferred otherwise ?

Consider how most folk feel about physical therapists (sadistic bastards, ha!) despite the obvious fact that they mean to, and often do, help people ?

So street cred or no cred, we still oughta do it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, October 1, 2009 1:23 AM

"If we spent some of the magical Bail-Out money feeding the hungry peeps of the planet, would making a better world buy us any street cred?"

Figures - you wanna BUY street cred... tsk tsk... money's always the answer with you Americans!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

CHRISISALL

Thursday, October 1, 2009 1:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Figures - you wanna BUY street cred... tsk tsk... money's always the answer with you Americans!

Eff U Pizmo, I was talkin' about doin' the RIGHT thing (see Frem's post above) because it's something that would REALLY make a better world.
Oh wait. You were being sarcastic- okay, I can get behind that.

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Thursday, October 1, 2009 1:33 AM

Chris, how are you and your ghost both signed in at the same time?

GEEZER

Thursday, October 1, 2009 2:37 AM

If only it were that easy. In lots of the places the hungry peeps are, we'd have to also put in troops to make sure the magical Bail-Out money ended up feeding those hungry peeps instead of ending up in the Swiss bank accounts of various government officials of those countries. Putting troops in might get folks fed for a change, but they would then be deafened by the screams about American Imperialism, so it's looking kind'a no-win.

Some would also say that food aid is not the right approach, but that the agriculture sector of these countries full of hungry peeps should be developed so they don't have to rely on our aid. of course, the same problem with the government officials of those countries skimming the development money obtains.

That being said, the U.S. did provide 49% of world food donations in 2006, the last cite I could quickly find. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19253&Cr=China&Cr1=

More recently, the U.S. provided almost half the global contributions to the Word Food Programme for 2009. http://www.wfp.org/about/donors/wfp-donors/2009

Darn us for greedy capitalist pigs.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 1, 2009 2:39 AM

Teach a man to fish.

Money spend on gmo foods research and food irradiation and transportation, followed with restructuring third world agriculture to reduce vulnerability to political situations, weather, and be less environmentally destructive, and you solve the problem.

The fact of the matter is, most starving populations are not the "third world" but people who are under siege. It's our smarmy proxy armies that are creating the situation. Yes, we should, as a stop gap measure, but we must end those conflicts that are creating the shortage. Then, we must devote our energies to increasing the food output per acre.

For every human, there are three tons of termites. That's an entire earth's population of termites per human. What are they living on? Our excess food supply because of the inefficiency of our farming.

Or we could take the world population of mice, and divide them per human. Were you to get in an SUV with your portion of the world's mice, the entire vehicle would be filled with mice except for that filled by you. Why? Because mice are relatively efficient in their lifestyle, hunter gatherers though they are.

Biofuels need to be kicked in the but, along with anything else that's not wild and is wasting farmland, and we need real production. We're working well under 1% of capacity here. Irradiation is a good answer too: It's cheap, it's effective, and leaves no toxic side effects, unlike pesticides and preservatives. If these techniques could increase our food per acre 100 fold or more, they could do the same for Africa and Asia, and then they wouldn't need a hand out from the US.

No, I'm sorry, I can't care anymore about the US economy, that's like trying to bail out the Titanic. But I do know this:

If the US is the food supplier to Africa, that puts the US in the political position to tell Africa what to do for the rest of eternity. Think about it.

Teach a man to fish.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 1, 2009 2:46 AM

Just as a quick question... and a reminder.

How many of our own people, (Americans) are going to bed hungry tonight?

Just out of curiosity... shouldnt we be taking care of our own FIRST before we try and save the rest?

You don't rush to put out a fire at your neighbors house, when your own is going up in flames.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, October 1, 2009 3:07 AM

You hunt, Wulf ?

I don't, but till I couldn't physically keep up no more I used to spot game and take bag limit with me, and you know what me and Mick T did with it, well, most of it ?

Fed the local poor, and be damned to the regs - thankfully the local game warden was cool with it though, that coulda been a problem.

Game overpopulation and hunger, solved, and in a way that I don't think would be offensive to you at all, now would it ?

Just some thoughts.

-F

ANTHONYT

Thursday, October 1, 2009 3:56 AM

Please stop the aid?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html

Hello,

I could not help but feel that this interviewee made some poignant points.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 1, 2009 4:06 AM

Frem,

Problem Crisis Solution or whatever you called it. Doesn't it occur as a classic globalist setup up?

Create a famine, then step in with food, be the savior, lifeline, and ultimate controller of policy.

People need food independence.

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, October 1, 2009 4:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Please stop the aid?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html

Hello,

I could not help but feel that this interviewee made some poignant points.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

How aid is brought in is always a question,

I seen on TV a program to provide Mosquito Nets in Africa.

Instead of having nets made in here or Europe, the donors had the nets made in Kenya, then distributed across Africa using local freight, and sold at cost to vendors in the country's that needed them at cost, allowing that vendor to add a small profit margin ( part of the arrangement )

So the end result was affordable Mosquito nets in the marketplace, and employment for a bunch of people. The donors set it all up, got it running, and walked away giving the business over to the Kenyans working there.

Bit more of a result than just giving away Mosy nets

ANTHONYT

Thursday, October 1, 2009 4:35 AM

Hello Gino,

That is a far better system. Head and shoulders better than what is usually done.

Of course, it does have one flaw. It puts a lot of people into a non-sustainable business.

Personally, I think a combination of cessation of aid, and extremely low-interest micro-loans to individuals and small businesses is the way to go.

That way the locals can decide what's in demand and go into business meeting that demand, rather than making a 'phantom product' that no one will be able to afford once the aid dies out.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, October 1, 2009 4:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Gino,

That is a far better system. Head and shoulders better than what is usually done.

Of course, it does have one flaw. It puts a lot of people into a non-sustainable business.

Personally, I think a combination of cessation of aid, and extremely low-interest micro-loans to individuals and small businesses is the way to go.

That way the locals can decide what's in demand and go into business meeting that demand, rather than making a 'phantom product' that no one will be able to afford once the aid dies out.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Mosquito nets are definitely NOT a phantom product in Africa

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071219/malaria_n
ets_071219?s_name=&no_ads=

the trick is to shift from sending in mass produced ones, to ones of local manufacture.

Of course the cost of these cannot compete with mass production, so of course if enough nets are sent in as aid this won't work, on the other hand there has never been enough of this in Africa to protect ALL the population, so if the costs are kept affordable, someone will still buy them.

micro-loans are fine, if you can find people who have the background and talents to start up companys from scratch...

I suspect that is far less than what would be necessary in many areas.

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

PIRATECAT

Thursday, October 1, 2009 5:10 AM

Ok now I work 12 an half hour shifts with about 1 hour drive each way due to road construction. Sitting in a company suck meeting listening to the fast track to nowhere community tech flunkies known as Human Resources. On there weekends there out there with there company shirts painting crack houses and picken up needles. Hoo Ray for them. There not doing good but just making themselves feel good. Ok now when they lose paperwork they want me to stay over till they get in to fix there shit. Even though they only work 8 hour days with fridays half a day. Am I missing something. Charity begins at home. Ok first take care of your own people not everybody else. Don't worry about the poe black child worry about your own white chillden. Then go save the world. When people understand that the world is ancient and ruthless. Life is cheap over there. It's not that there backwards it's that were forward. America is a fragile experiment. I know Kansas can feed the world. But those people can't help themselves. I do not believe in the Peace Corp or Catholic Charities. Get rid of the dogma and tyrants then you can move forward. If starving with aids what are you doing trying to get laid and that is Africa.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

ANTHONYT

Thursday, October 1, 2009 5:13 AM

Hello Gino,

By 'phantom product' I mean a product that the people can't buy without the carefully orchestrated assistance.

In other words, if you are selling anything at cost to anyone along the way, you are creating a phantom market. As soon as people can no longer get things 'at cost' then the profit margin either vaporizes or the prices are increased to put the product out of reach. The buyers of the inexpensive net can't afford the profitable net, and so the market dries up. Not because people don't want the product, but because people can no longer afford it.

If people could afford it, and were willing to pay for it, there would be no need to set up the aid to begin with.

An alternative might be providing the local manufacturers in Africa with the technology to produce these things much more cheaply than they can do it now. This accomplishes the same job as selling 'at cost' by reducing expenses, but creates a sustainable venture because everyone is making money and able to afford the end product.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SOCKPUPPET

Thursday, October 1, 2009 5:27 AM

Whole world hunger situation plain stinks dontcha think? Corporate greed makes bailouts so gets bailouts. Feed the poor with food Americans waste all the time. Heck, just make it shiny sugar for Haliburton, right? Find out who Barry's "handouts" go to and work them into the picture. Fuck politics. People need a food handout? Give them food.

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, October 1, 2009 5:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Gino,

By 'phantom product' I mean a product that the people can't buy without the carefully orchestrated assistance.

In other words, if you are selling anything at cost to anyone along the way, you are creating a phantom market. As soon as people can no longer get things 'at cost' then the profit margin either vaporizes or the prices are increased to put the product out of reach. The buyers of the inexpensive net can't afford the profitable net, and so the market dries up. Not because people don't want the product, but because people can no longer afford it.

If people could afford it, and were willing to pay for it, there would be no need to set up the aid to begin with.

An alternative might be providing the local manufacturers in Africa with the technology to produce these things much more cheaply than they can do it now. This accomplishes the same job as selling 'at cost' by reducing expenses, but creates a sustainable venture because everyone is making money and able to afford the end product.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

but this requires an infrastructure base ( power, sewer, etc), technical support ( which in most case they still need in bring in from abroad ) a larger capital investment...

the leap from pre industrial revolution to modern manufacturing is large, plus in the long run you would likely make alot more nets with alot less employees, thus ruining part of the scheme before you got off the ground.

plus mass produced nets are usually nylon, so you would either have to import nylon and eat the additional costs ( and no jobs to the local cotton industry ) or build a nylon industry as well...

you have to walk before you run, and the biggest part of the scheme is to generate local jobs with minimum investment, maximum entry level employees, etc, etc.

Even if you set it up so that the many charity efforts to provide nets buys into this system of distribution to keep the costs down, it would still be more productive than trying to hand a net to every person on the continent.

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

ANTHONYT

Thursday, October 1, 2009 5:42 AM

Hello Gino,

No doubt at all that it's a better way. But it's just not sustainable in the absence of the aid.

Still, if I had to choose how to give my money away, I like it better than what usually goes on.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, October 1, 2009 5:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Gino,

No doubt at all that it's a better way. But it's just not sustainable in the absence of the aid.

Still, if I had to choose how to give my money away, I like it better than what usually goes on.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

lol sorry to poke so many holes, probably has something to do with my job, Everytime I get into planning I get a little cynical trying to get ahead of the curve of problems.

Your article did illustrate the problems aid can cause, but lack of infrastructure, training, education, etc plus that most of Africas exports are raw unprocessed resources makes for an uphill battle to turn things around. No place for a middle class to develop.

South Africa has the best infrastructure, Kenya used to have the stability, resources everywhere, just sad.

Mind you besides the aid problem, all the dumping of toxic and radioactive waste from Europe to Africa is crazy.

Oh well, enough rambling tonight

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

ANTHONYT

Thursday, October 1, 2009 5:59 AM

"but this requires an infrastructure base ( power, sewer, etc), technical support ( which in most case they still need in bring in from abroad ) a larger capital investment..."

Hello,

A second comment on this- This is the 'teaching people to fish' thing that folks often talk about. We did it in Japan, if I remember.

Picking one area and setting up all this infrastructure would create many more jobs than the singular mosquito net manufacturing component. I understand that aid to Africa is measurable in the Billions (with a B.)

We could pick a new country every year, probably based on merits of governance (minimum standards of human rights) and set up the infrastructure for dozens of new industries to join the 21st century.

Then people could build their own nets, and afford them, too. Aid to the area stops, but improved conditions live on.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, October 1, 2009 6:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"but this requires an infrastructure base ( power, sewer, etc), technical support ( which in most case they still need in bring in from abroad ) a larger capital investment..."

Hello,

A second comment on this- This is the 'teaching people to fish' thing that folks often talk about. We did it in Japan, if I remember.

Picking one area and setting up all this infrastructure would create many more jobs than the singular mosquito net manufacturing component. I understand that aid to Africa is measurable in the Billions (with a B.)

We could pick a new country every year, probably based on merits of governance (minimum standards of human rights) and set up the infrastructure for dozens of new industries to join the 21st century.

Then people could build their own nets, and afford them, too. Aid to the area stops, but improved conditions live on.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

In the case of Japan that infrastructure was REbuilt

remember all the warships, aircraft, etc they had for years before WW2.. factorys, even a nuclear program. Remember the war began when the US threatened to blockade them from their sources of raw resources in effect ruining their economy.

In addition the level of education and training of the Japanese people was equal to the challenge because it had been built up for decades before the war.

Your " merits of governance " comment, while well intended, opens things up for manipulation and abuse from the politicians who lie in wait to muck things like this up.

It would likely take ten years ( with alot of luck ) to set up something self sustaining from scratch.

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

ANTHONYT

Thursday, October 1, 2009 11:14 AM

Hello,

All right, Gino, you've got a deal.

In my lifetime, we could've set up 3 and a half self sustaining infrastructures in Africa.

Instead, we've got fekk all.

I know where I'd prefer to put my tax dollars.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, October 1, 2009 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Would America still be "The Evil Infidels" & such?
Would not everyone love us? Would not oil prices come down?
Or is there some REASON to keep the third world in it's place? To keep black babies weak?

Take this where you will...

The laughing Chrisisall

I think there's merit in what you ask here, but doesn't the USA already do that? Are we not the most charitable country on Earth? Do we not give away billions of tax dollars for foreign aid all over the world, year after year, decade after decade? Whenever there's a natural disaster in the world, who's the first on the scene with human and monetary aid...America, right? Even in countries we are at odds with, like when the USA sent aid to Iran a couple of years ago to help them recover from the Qom earthquake. Whether it's tsunami relief, or even religious-based Christian organizations all over the 3rd world, we are there, and we do more than all others combined. The poor in America do not pay income taxes, and can get Welfare or other Federal assistance when needed. Why is there this constant image portayed out there by some that America doesn't do enough? And if we did more, even a lot more, do you honestly think it would matter one hoot to the Islamic jihadist mullahs and their terrorist murderer followers out there? Would it matter another hoot to the Europeans? Their self-interest needs for oil, combined witht their look-down-their-nose attitude towards America, have seen them either allied with dictators and thugs, or as roadblocks to America's security goals. Maybe I'm tad jaded, but it seems to me we're damned if we do & damned if we don't.

GEEZER

Thursday, October 1, 2009 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Money spend on gmo foods research and food irradiation and transportation, followed with restructuring third world agriculture to reduce vulnerability to political situations, weather, and be less environmentally destructive, and you solve the problem.

Hate to sound pessimistic, but you got several problems lurking just in this one sentence. There's lots of opposition in developed countries to GMO food and irradition, and it's likely that the same fears about it would spread to needy countries with even less supposed scientific education. The infrastructure for transportation in third world countries relies on their governments, which are usually interested in lining their own pockets rather than providing services to the people. These same governments like their people to be vulnerable to famine so they can use hunger as a political tool, distributing food to their supporters and letting the opposition starve, a la Zimbabwe, so reducing vulnerability isn't in their game plan.

Quote:
...but we must end those conflicts that are creating the shortage.

Not sure which "we" you mean. The U.S. can't do it without being called Imperialist, and probably isn't interested in putting any more "nation building" on the plate at this time anyway. The U.N. doesn't have the will. Regional groups generally want to keep the status quo.

Quote:
For every human, there are three tons of termites.

Some folk find termites tasty.

But, yeah, the problem isn't growing the food - there are grain surpluses in North America and Europe most years, and many of the starving countries could grow as much if allowed to develop their agriculture - but in causing the governments of the starving countries to get over their kleptocracies and tribal squabbles and allow change to happen. Absent strong external force, I don't see that happening.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 1, 2009 12:51 PM

1. I disagree. Objection to these technologies in this country is a luxury. people worry about gay marriage more when no one is bombing them

2. Sure these conflicts are local, but they are being backed and supplied by first world powers with an agenda, usually to own the local mineral rights.

3. Govt. food distribution programs gain power because of the local lack of food. If an african community could sustain itself long term, ie while not damaging its environment, then it wouldn't need the govt. to give it food. This would help undermine the power of local corrupt regimes, and could be done without fighting those regimes.

GEEZER

Thursday, October 1, 2009 1:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
1. I disagree. Objection to these technologies in this country is a luxury. people worry about gay marriage more when no one is bombing them

There are hungry folks in parts of the EU, despite local surpluses, and the EU bans most GM food. The same EU politicians who did this would oppose distributing GM foods to the third world; both to be consistant with the EU ban and to avoid having to ban imports if the third world countries ever produced enough to export. If I were going to look for better crops for third world countries, I'd probably look at the hybrids developed over the last 30 years, which have a lot less opposition.

Quote:
2. Sure these conflicts are local, but they are being backed and supplied by first world powers with an agenda, usually to own the local mineral rights.

In some cases. In many, though, it's just the local governments, tribes, religions, etc.

Quote:
3. Govt. food distribution programs gain power because of the local lack of food. If an african community could sustain itself long term, ie while not damaging its environment, then it wouldn't need the govt. to give it food. This would help undermine the power of local corrupt regimes, and could be done without fighting those regimes.

But to set up sustainable farming in those regions, you need support. The support has to be funneled through the government, because the government says so. You try to go around the government, your organization gets kicked out of the country and your assets in-country go to - surprise - the government.

Consider Zimbabwe, formerly the "Breadbasket of Africa". They were feeding their people and exporting food. The government started seizing the large, efficient, farms and supposedly distributing them to the people. Of course, in this case 'the people' meant government officials. Madame Mugabe now owns six farms. Absent folks who knew how to farm, the agriculture industry failed in a big way and now several million Zimbabweans depend on foreign food donations which are largely distributed by Pres. Mugabe's political party.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Thursday, October 1, 2009 6:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Maybe I'm tad jaded

I would accept that as an axiom.

Yeah, to some out there nothing we do or don't do matters regarding their hatred of us, but I expect they are in the minority.

The laughing Chrisisall

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 1, 2009 6:38 PM

So lets do nothing.

Take the money we would have sent to these countries, and spend it on our own people....

WOW!

Instead of funding some warlord over there... we could fix a lot of stuff here!!

(Crickets chirping)

Yeah. Crazy idea.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, October 1, 2009 6:53 PM

Hello Wulf,

Actually, that is a valid and fair point of view. You won't find me chastising you for it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CHRISISALL

Thursday, October 1, 2009 6:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Instead of funding some warlord over there... we could fix a lot of stuff here!!

(Crickets chirping)

Yeah. Crazy idea.

Silly silly British man. Without well-funded warloards, internationl conflict itself would be impossible.

The laughing Chrisisall

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 1, 2009 7:01 PM

"Actually, that is a valid and fair point of view. You won't find me chastising you for it."

Too bad. I should have learned that "HOW you say things is as important as WHAT you say" before.

Could have made more headway here.

ETA: And you damn well know Im not British.

RUE

Thursday, October 1, 2009 11:43 PM

BTW Chris,IsAll

I just wanted to splain' a little. You may have noticed that the context of every defense of capitalism is: well, if they weren't motivated by starvation they wouldn't work (for us).

That's what it comes down to, sick as it is. Given that, why would ANYONE want to waste money on the poor ? It would cause the global economy to collapse. B/c while greed and the nostril-flaring spirit of COMpeTItion is sufficient motivation for the capitalist, only starvation is powerful enough for the worker. Take that away, and then where would we be ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, October 2, 2009 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
So lets do nothing.

Take the money we would have sent to these countries, and spend it on our own people....

WOW!

Instead of funding some warlord over there... we could fix a lot of stuff here!!

(Crickets chirping)

Yeah. Crazy idea.

Most of the programs I was talking about were private based,

perhaps governments should get out of donating aid, or at least be put to limits... such as only being able to match donations made publicly.

Perhaps that way, when times are tough the gov doesn't spend as much... and the gov can no longer choose where the money goes but can only send it where the people choose to send their own money.

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

RUE

Friday, October 2, 2009 12:41 AM

“(Americans) are regularly told by politicians and the media, that America is the world's most generous nation. This is one of the most conventional pieces of 'knowledgeable ignorance'. According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period. But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%. The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share.

Not only that, but according to one source cited by Sarder & Davies, 80% of that aid itself actually goes to American companies in those foreign countries.

The stingiest countries also ... force countries to buy their own services and products with the aid they give; which reduces free trade and commerce and harms the countries economy, as well as being simply selfish and conceited. Thankfully, many countries do not tie their aid. Countries that tie less than 10% of aid include Ireland, Norway and the UK, then Belgium, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden. The USA is the worst, and ties nearly 90% of its aid to developing countries.”

***************************************************************

Business, as usual.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, October 2, 2009 1:13 AM

Yeah, foreign aid is one huge racket - it generally just contributes to corrupt economies. People don't generally starve en masse because there is no food - it's because they've been displaced from their farms and villages by war and tyranny.

Irritating as it may be for us outsiders, it's pretty safe to conclude that the world needs the US economy to be sound - because if you guys go down the gurgler, you're taking the rest of us with you.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 2, 2009 1:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
if you guys go down the gurgler, you're taking the rest of us with you.

"Gurgler"? That's so Aussie.

The laughing Chrisisall

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, October 2, 2009 1:49 AM

GEEZER

Friday, October 2, 2009 2:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
“(Americans) are regularly told by politicians and the media, that America is the world's most generous nation..."

As usual, cites would be nice. Not only of the quote, but of the figures noted in the quote.

edit to add:

Quote:
You may have noticed that the context of every defense of capitalism is: well, if they weren't motivated by starvation they wouldn't work (for us).

While we're at it, a cite for this as "every defense of capitalism" would be nice.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 2, 2009 3:05 AM

Quote:

There are hungry folks in parts of the EU, despite local surpluses, and the EU bans most GM food. The same EU politicians who did this would oppose distributing GM foods to the third world; both to be consistant with the EU ban and to avoid having to ban imports if the third world countries ever produced enough to export. If I were going to look for better crops for third world countries, I'd probably look at the hybrids developed over the last 30 years, which have a lot less opposition.

This is a flawed argument: Policy in the EU is set by an unofficial unelected council in Brussels, where there is no food shortage. Brussels loves creating crises in the far corners of its empire to cause nations to come crawling on their hands and knees to them.

Your other points are valid.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 2, 2009 3:06 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER has a point, whatever a gurgler is

KWICKO

Friday, October 2, 2009 3:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
As usual, cites would be nice. Not only of the quote, but of the figures noted in the quote.

Not my post, but a quick little look at the Googler brought up this Princeton study, whose results are roughly analogous to Rue's figures.

http://www.princeton.edu/~soapbox/vol2no4/24noveck.html#2

By the way, the Google keywords I used were just the first two sentences of Rue's quoted text. Enter it, hit enter, and voila! Easy as quiche, n'est-ce pas?

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, October 2, 2009 3:33 AM

I wonder what the numbers would be like if you eliminated the aid to Israel...

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

KWICKO

Friday, October 2, 2009 4:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I wonder what the numbers would be like if you eliminated the aid to Israel...

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

Banish the thought! That was HUMANITARIAN AID!!!

How else do you explain sending them one TV dinner and 3400 metric tonnes of C4 with which to heat it up?

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

GEEZER

Friday, October 2, 2009 12:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Policy in the EU is set by an unofficial unelected council in Brussels, where there is no food shortage. Brussels loves creating crises in the far corners of its empire to cause nations to come crawling on their hands and knees to them.

Whether the EU really doesn't trust GM foods or just wants to lord it over the poor nations, the point remains that they have the hook of existing policy on which to hang their opposition to GM food for the Third World. Hybrid grains have been around for 40 years or so, since the Green Revolution, and are used everywhere in the EU. They'd be a much easier sell, or at least make it easier to expose the EU's imperial pretentions if they are acting as you say.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, October 2, 2009 1:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Not my post, but a quick little look at the Googler brought up this Princeton study, whose results are roughly analogous to Rue's figures.

http://www.princeton.edu/~soapbox/vol2no4/24noveck.html#2

By the way, the Google keywords I used were just the first two sentences of Rue's quoted text. Enter it, hit enter, and voila! Easy as quiche, n'est-ce pas?

Yeah, I know. Providing cites for the stuff you quote is just a courtesy to the folk reading your post. Googling often gives you the same text in 20 different reposts of the same article, making it time-consuming to find the original source, which can help provide context for the content. It's also nice to be able to go to the original article to see if quotes have been edited or taken out of context.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 2, 2009 1:27 PM

I figure I have the EU's number at least as much as everyone has Israel's number. They're pretty fucking obvious about it.

RUE

Friday, October 2, 2009 5:20 PM

Geezer

Weird how you ask for cites from only ONE person, no matter how many other posts contain internet sources. Is this your lame attempt to look fair ? And, do you have anything ON TOPIC to say about my post ?

I thought not.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 2, 2009 6:01 PM

Kathy,

I agree. I personally think the citation request should be reserved for unsubstntiate claims that have no serious following, but aren't really necessary for anything that falls under the "use the google" category.

KWICKO

Friday, October 2, 2009 6:20 PM

Especially if, once a cite is given or a book listed as a cite for a quote, the response given back is "Yeah, but he's just trying to sell his book."

GEEZER

Friday, October 2, 2009 10:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer

Weird how you ask for cites from only ONE person, no matter how many other posts contain internet sources.

Since you are the one person here who most consistantly fails to provide links to the stuff you quote, it seems reasonable that you should be the one I ask for links. Most everyone else is pretty good about providing this courtesy.

Quote:
And, do you have anything ON TOPIC to say about my post ?

Sure. It's not relevent to the thread topic, which is about food aid.

The U.S. GDP is around $13 trillion and the EU GDP is around $11 trillion.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp-economy-gdp

In 2006, the U.S. provided 4 million tons of food to the WFP, as against 1.5 million from the EU.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19253&Cr=China&Cr1

Seems relatively equitable.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 2, 2009 10:46 PM

Hello,

I'm sorry, I believe I took the thread off topic by discussing aid in general terms.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Friday, October 2, 2009 10:58 PM

Oh Geezer

"Since you are the one person here who most consistantly fails to provide links to the stuff you quote ..."

Oh, but you do SO much more than ask for links. You expect me to back up my general opinion with sources !

Strange, you did not ask for a reference for this:

Quote:
Would America still be "The Evil Infidels" & such?
Would not everyone love us? Would not oil prices come down?

or this

Quote:
Maybe if we withdrew our troops from the 800 installations around the world, signed out of the WTO until it included and enforced worker protections and benefits for operating transparent democracies, stopped the IMF from enforcing the Chicago School of Economics, and brought capitalism to heel

or this

Quote:
the west would lose control, and we would have a much different world. ... and anyone else who cannot respect the rights of people just to be left to be.

or this

Quote:
hippies wouldn't advocate violence. ...that said, why do you think people all over the world hate and want Americans dead anyway. ...you keep going the way you are, someones gonna burn your country down, and be justified in doing it.

or this

Quote:
Figures - you wanna BUY street cred... tsk tsk... money's always the answer with you Americans!

or even this, YOUR contribution of 'facts' without sources

Quote:
In lots of the places the hungry peeps are, we'd have to also put in troops to make sure the magical Bail-Out money ended up feeding those hungry peeps instead of ending up in the Swiss bank accounts of various government officials of those countries.

Shall I go on, or have I made my point ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:01 PM

Quote:
Since you are the one person here who most consistantly fails to provide links to the stuff you quote

I call bull.

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Especially if, once a cite is given or a book listed as a cite for a quote, the response given back is "Yeah, but he's just trying to sell his book."

lmao

I think I'm the one guy who's been criticized for providing too many cites

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:08 PM

Hello,

I think Geezer was referring to quotes. As in stuff quoted from sources.

I think he just wanted to know where your quote came from.

He has less faith than I, who generally assumes that your quotes come from reputable sources. :-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

GEEZER

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Strange, you did not ask for a reference for this:...

Why strange? None of those things are quotes from un-attributed articles, such as the one I asked you to provide a cite for. They're either opinion, or general information that pretty much anyone who's aware knows about. You expect folk to provide cites for their own views or for saying the sky is blue?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I figure I have the EU's number at least as much as everyone has Israel's number. They're pretty fucking obvious about it.

The EU has its problems, but I tend to agree about the GM food issues

Monsanto in particular gives me pause,

Signy if I remember right was really knowledgeable on this from another thread

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

RUE

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:12 PM

Geezer

And when it comes to FOOD AID - the question was about MONEY, not direct food aid. So dooood, you blew it. Again.

"The question on the table is this: SHOULD THE UNITED STATES SEND CASH TO NEEDY COUNTRIES INSTEAD OF FOOD, AS MANY OTHER COUNTRIES DO NOW?

'The impulse for U.S. food aid is generous and good, but the questions being asked are not deep enough and the reasons for giving aid are often not as altruistic as people think,' said Sophia Murphy ...

In recent years, significant shifts have occurred in food aid programs, mostly in Europe where there has been a move away from shipping food toward sending cash. Cash now represents some 90 percent of the aid being given by Europeans, who argue that commodity-based programs were costly, slow, and at times caused disruptions in local markets.

Christopher B. Barrett ... one of the nation's leading experts on food aid, said much of the rest of the world sees the U.S. food aid model as outdated. 'We insist on doing business as we did in 1954. We are caught in a model of food aid being driven entirely by the supply side, by congressional objectives and agribusiness interests.'

Murphy, who currently lives in Belgium, says the United States is seen as 'a laggard' for its failure to make serious reforms. 'The United States would be seen as more generous if it would give cash that could be used where it is needed,' she said."

***************************************************************

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_41_43/ai_n27451795/?tag
=content;col1

RUE

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:15 PM

Oh Geeeeezzzzerrrrr

YOOOO HOOOoooo ...

Did you forget about this little gem YOU posted ?
"While we're at it, a cite for this as "every defense of capitalism" would be nice."

You do SO much more than ask for references for quotes. Dontcha' ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:22 PM

AnthonyT

"I think Geezer was referring to quotes."

No, he was also looking for sources for opinions. (see above)

And BTW, google serves very nicely if you really need to find a source for an extended quote. But often, as in the healthcare quotes I provided for example, the original source is no longer available, and all one can find on the internet are secondary sources.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

GEEZER

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Did you forget about this little gem YOU posted ?
"While we're at it, a cite for this as "every defense of capitalism" would be nice."

You do SO much more than ask for references for quotes.

Yes I do. I ask for cites of things stated as fact.

Let's start with your entire statement.

"You may have noticed that the context of every defense of capitalism is: well, if they weren't motivated by starvation they wouldn't work (for us)."

You stated this as a fact. I asked you to provide a cite for that fact, as I'm not familiar with one.

If you'd said "In my opinion" or "It seems to me the context of every defense of capitalism is: well, if they weren't motivated by starvation they wouldn't work (for us).", I'd have had no problem with it. State something as gospel and I'll ask for chapter and verse.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:36 PM

"While we're at it, a cite for this as "every defense of capitalism" would be nice."

Hello,

Well, I just assumed that was your opinion. I don't necessarily agree with the opinion itself, but you shouldn't have to provide the source of an opinion you just posted. But just in case:

"You shouldn't have to provide the source of an opinion you just posted."

--From fireflyfans.net RWED discussion area, as posted by A. E. Toledo on 10/02/09

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:43 PM

Hello Geezer,

Come now. People don't generally go around qualifying their opinions. When's the last time someone called you a jerk and qualified it with, "In my opinion..."? I could tell it was Rue's opinion specifically because there's no way to prove it with evidence.

If I say "There can't possibly be life on other planets," you can ask me why I think that, but you ought not to ask me for cites.

However, if I say, "Every reputable scientist knows there's no life on other planets," you might be able to ask for cites because I'm talking about other people's opinions, and not my own.

It's easy to tell when cites are warranted.

I think what you meant to say was, "That's your opinion, Rue, but it's entirely subjective and tainted by your bias."

And, you know, she wouldn't need to ask you for cites either, because that's clearly your opinion, too.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:56 PM

Well, there ya have it, Geezer. 6 out of 6 people agree... you asking Rue for cites on everything is stupid. BTW- Here's the cite:
www.fireflyfans.net/replymsg.asp?b=18&t=40204&m=733584

KWICKO

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You do SO much more than ask for references for quotes.

Yes I do. I ask for cites of things stated as fact.

Cites?

You stated "Yes I do" as a statement of fact. Where did you get it from? What's your source of that "fact"?

RUE

Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:26 AM

So, doing some simple math:

If the EU provides roughly 90% of its food aid as money, and it provided 1.5M tons of food, that would mean that the EU provided the money equivalent of 150M tons of food, for a total of 151.5M tons of food aid equivalent.

If the US provides 90% of its aid as food, and it provided 4M tons of food, that would mean that the US provides the money equivalent of 0.4M tons of food, for a total of 4.4M tons of food aid equivalent.

EU 151.5M tons of food aid equivalent
US 4.4M tons of food aid equivalent

No wonder the US looks cheap when it comes to helping starving people eat. Along with the highest obesity rates in the world

( http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity) it sure paints the US in a very bad light.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:01 AM

Hell, Rue, we're just being patriotic! We have to make sure that ending starvation begins here at home!

GEEZER

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:05 AM

Okay. I consider posting cites or attributions for quotes and little-known facts to be a courtesy to the folks who'll be reading my post. Apparently several of you don't consider this type of courtesy necessary.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KWICKO

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. I consider posting cites or attributions for quotes and little-known facts to be a courtesy to the folks who'll be reading my post. Apparently several of you don't consider this type of courtesy necessary.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Well, it does tend to get a bit carried away with at times...

(and that's not aimed just at you, either).

It's handy and nice when cites are provided, but it kind of undercuts things when the provided cites are dismissed out of hand. Just sayin'.

GEEZER

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, doing some simple math:

If the EU provides roughly 90% of its food aid as money, and it provided 1.5M tons of food, that would mean that the EU provided the money equivalent of 150M tons of food, for a total of 151.5M tons of food aid equivalent.

If the US provides 90% of its aid as food, and it provided 4M tons of food, that would mean that the US provides the money equivalent of 0.4M tons of food, for a total of 4.4M tons of food aid equivalent.

EU 151.5M tons of food aid equivalent
US 4.4M tons of food aid equivalent

But the contributions to the WFP are money, with the Programme, run out of Rome, doing the purchasing. Most of the purchasing is done in low or middle income countries.
http://www.wfp.org/procurement/food-procurement-map

The U.S. contributed around $1.15 billion in 2009 as opposed to the EU's $238 million, so your simple math doesn't hold up.
http://www.wfp.org/node/9243

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:20 AM

Hello Geezer,

Don't be that way.

Come now, I think that if you and I are completely honest with one another, we will agree that sometimes...

and let's be honest here...

sometimes when we say 'cites please' it is in an attempt to invalidate an argument without having to deal with the logic of the argument itself.

I mean, if we had a counter-argument, it wouldn't matter what cites the poster had, would it? We'd have evidence of our own- and cites too if we needed them- to refute the illogical argument of the original poster.

And then we'd look better for it.

Also, saying, 'cites please' in response to an opinion is, quite frankly, balderdash. And I think you know it, and were just twisting the knife a bit in response to Rue's unsupported opinion.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:23 AM

To go back to the issue of food aid... There's a huge article about it in The Nation, delving into what Rue has already mentioned: Food aid from the US is tied to purchasing food from US agribusiness, which receive huge subsidies. 90% of US food aid is so tied, only 10% of EU food aid is tied.

One picture they paint in the 2003 Ethiopian famine: As trucks laden with 1 million tons of US corn, wheat, peas, beans and lentils rolled into Nazareth, a city of around 230,000 people in central Ethiopia, they passed warehouses stuffed with 100,000 metric tons of Ethiopian grains, beans and peas--the surplus from a bumper crop two years earlier Farmers in Ethiopia and the agricultural infrastructure have been devastated, thanks US agribusiness subsidies and pressure from the IMF. It would have been better to have paid Ethiopian farmers for their surplus crops and distributed them to the starving. But US food aid is just a big, wet blow job to USA agribusiness.

It's complicated. Educate yourself.

www.thenation.com/doc/20090921/cunningham/2

GEEZER

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
sometimes when we say 'cites please' it is in an attempt to invalidate an argument without having to deal with the logic of the argument itself.

When I ask for cites for a quote, it's because I want to know where it came from; whether it's from an expert in world food aid, say, or Zeppo the anti-something blogger.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:31 AM

Hello Geezer,

I'm sorry if I misattributed your intentions.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:45 AM

GEEZER: HINT Quotes have "quotation marks" around them, are written in italic to distinguish them from surrounding text,

Quote:
or are formatted with the QUOTE instruction.

And now, back to the regularly scheduled program...

GEEZER

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To go back to the issue of food aid... There's a huge article about it in The Nation, delving into what Rue has already mentioned: Food aid from the US is tied to purchasing food from US agribusiness, which receive huge subsidies.

Think I found it. Is it this one? http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090921/cunningham
I'll have to read it.

edit to add: Oh, I see it is. Thanks.

As noted above, the UN's World Food Programme says it gets cash from donors and buys around 80% of it's food in low or middle income countries, which would let the U.S. out as a seller. Conflicting data, what?

I'd just as soon lose agricultural subsidies.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 3, 2009 3:09 AM

Quote:
The U.S. contributed around $1.15 billion in 2009 as opposed to the EU's $238 million, so your simple math doesn't hold up.

Geezer, did you think nobody would check the stats?????

The EU as a single organization contributed $238, but individual member states ASLO contributed... a point you "conveniently" fail to note. The actual European total is $801785968

Quote:
As noted above, the UN's World Food Programme says it gets cash from donors and buys around 80% of it's food in low or middle income countries, which would let the U.S. out as a seller. Conflicting data, what?

Not totally. Not ALL food aid goes through the WFP. In fact, it sounds only like cash donations do. USA aid to the WFP makes up about 42% of the WFP total. Mathematically, the USA could tie 50% of its donation to the WFP for the WFP to meet its 80% statement. The USA would then need to donate another roughly 2 billion in direct food aid (at 100% tied) through other programs and agencies in order for the 90% tied mark to hold true. Perhaps this is what happens. Its still a wet blow job to USA agribusiness.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, October 3, 2009 5:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
MAGONSDAUGHTER has a point, whatever a gurgler is

Thank you. A gurgler is a drain - eg gurgle gurgle gurgle

If I can make some completely unsubstantiated comments on aid here, there has been much written about the negative effect of aid to countries, particularly when a countries economy becomes dependent upon such aid. From what I know about aid to many African nations, some of the following heresay may be true -

-little of the aid gets through to the needy - it ends up fueling black market economies/and or ends up lining the coffers of the rulers/wealthy/or ends up in on costs of the charity involved
-it props up inefficient/corrupt regimes
-it encourages an unhealthy dependent relationship on richer nations

Why do we give aid in the first place? Is it to justify and feel okay that such a minority own all of the worlds wealth and assets and so we throw a few crumbs to the majority who live in poverty, many of them extreme poverty to stave off the guilt of our own excessive and obscene consumption.

The truth is - the world could not manage if every single person lived the way the average American lived - there just isn't enough resources for all those Indians, Africans and Chinese to live the way we do. The world would be nothing but a big toilet in about three years. The truth is - we don't really want everyone living like us - so we give to charities to buy some peasant a bucket or a goat so we can feel okay about how we live.

RUE

Saturday, October 3, 2009 11:11 AM

Geezer -- doooood

You failed to read my units. I was talking mph and you were telling me my psi was all wrong. Go back and READ my post.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

GEEZER

Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The EU as a single organization contributed $238, but individual member states ASLO contributed...The actual European total is $801785968

You're right. I saw European Comission and thought it was a rollup of all EU contributions. Thanks.

Quote:
Not totally. Not ALL food aid goes through the WFP. In fact, it sounds only like cash donations do. USA aid to the WFP makes up about 42% of the WFP total. Mathematically, the USA could tie 50% of its donation to the WFP for the WFP to meet its 80% statement. The USA would then need to donate another roughly 2 billion in direct food aid (at 100% tied) through other programs and agencies in order for the 90% tied mark to hold true. Perhaps this is what happens. Its still a wet blow job to USA agribusiness.

But you also have to consider how much food is available for purchase in the poor and middle income countries. Perhaps the WPF buys up most of the available, so the rest has to come from somewhere. Looks like time to research direct food donations from all donors and see where the crops are grown.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer -- doooood

You failed to read my units. I was talking mph and you were telling me my psi was all wrong. Go back and READ my post.

I did, and went back to read the UN article and WFP site the various data came from. Found out why the UN article talks about tons of food provided and the WPF talks about dollars. Apparenty, the UN article uses data from the INTERFIAS database
http://www.wfp.org/fais/quantity-reporting which (the article says) "...is hosted by WFP to track all donations of food aid, not just those handled by the agency". So the UN article is about total food aid, not just WFP.

The INTERFIAS database is pretty interesting, by the way.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:40 PM

Hello,

Geezer, do you actually care how much the US provides in relation to other nations? I'd have always figured you for the camp that says public money shouldn't go to that sort of thing period. So, the less the better?

Or is this merely an exercise in debate for the joy of the exercise itself? I do that sometimes.

I actually find compelling arguments for halting aid altogether (as stated above) because 'making a better world' does not seem to be the end result of aid.

On the other hand, some people (above) have pointed out how we might deliver aid with a much higher effectiveness, while others have shown how effectiveness can be hampered by regional politics and lack of infrastructure.

But honestly, if our aid has the potential to harm these people in the long run, it might be more generous to cancel all aid period, with the possible exception of specific disaster relief programs. (A sort of volunteer international insurance agency. ;-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 3, 2009 5:10 PM

Thanks Anthony.

If we are going to provide "aid", the question is how best to do it, and to what end?

IMHO the FIRST thing we should do is stop being such gorram bullies. We have pretty consistently landed with a huge thud on the side of the wealthy and the oligarchs. If we had simply allowed local movements to progress... land reform, national sovereignty over national resources, labor movements... a lot of our "aid" might not even be necessary.

So IMHO the question is: How do we BEST encourage local and national economies towards self-sufficiency, transparency, and equitalble distribution of resources?

GEEZER

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Geezer, do you actually care how much the US provides in relation to other nations?

Chris' unstated assumption, as described in the title of this thread, seems to me to be that the U.S. wasn't doing much to feed the "hungry peeps" of the world. I was curious about that and found and posted some statistics showing that we are providing a fair bit of food aid, around half the worldwide total.

This apparently couldn't remain unchallenged by those who find ulterior motives in most everything the U.S. does. And we're off to the races.

Quote:
I'd have always figured you for the camp that says public money shouldn't go to that sort of thing period. So, the less the better?

Given my choice, I'd prefer that food aid be private. As noted in the Nation story cited by SignyM above, the Gates Foundation and the Rockefellers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in Africa to develop sustainable agriculture and the infrastructure to get food to markets. Good for them. However, I'd rather see my taxes go to feed others than, say, build roads to nowhere.

Quote:
Or is this merely an exercise in debate for the joy of the exercise itself? I do that sometimes.

I suspect that's part of it for most all of us here. It's unlikely we'll ever convince each other of anything much.

Quote:
I actually find compelling arguments for halting aid altogether (as stated above) because 'making a better world' does not seem to be the end result of aid.

On the other hand, some people (above) have pointed out how we might deliver aid with a much higher effectiveness, while others have shown how effectiveness can be hampered by regional politics and lack of infrastructure.

Depends on the aid. I'd prefer agriculture and infrastructure development as noted above. I've mentioned before that I think a lot of the problem is local governments who'd rather keep the population reliant on food handouts rather than allow them to develop independent means of feeding themselves. Zimbabwe comes to mind, but there are others. In other countries, there just isn't enough government to set up and secure the infrastructure needed to get crops grown and to market efficiently.

Quote:
But honestly, if our aid has the potential to harm these people in the long run, it might be more generous to cancel all aid period, with the possible exception of specific disaster relief programs. (A sort of volunteer international insurance agency. ;-)

Until governments in the poorer countries are capable of setting up the infrastructure for successful agriculture, either alone or with international help, feeding the starving is going to be a political necessity. The problem is that there is no way of making those governments agree to improving conditions, and possibly losing their grip on power.

Imagine the uproar if the U.S. or the EU said "We've determined that the government of country X is using our food donations to buy votes, and preventing agricultural development to makes sure their people are reliant on their handouts, so we are going to stop sending food".

I don't think it's as simple as some folks tend to believe.

BTW, I notice no one responded to my comment about farm subsidies in the U.S.

I'm against them, as they're a violation of the free market; causing surpluses and interfering with the market's ability to determine price and production.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GINOBIFFARONI

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Geezer, do you actually care how much the US provides in relation to other nations? I'd have always figured you for the camp that says public money shouldn't go to that sort of thing period. So, the less the better?

Or is this merely an exercise in debate for the joy of the exercise itself? I do that sometimes.

I actually find compelling arguments for halting aid altogether (as stated above) because 'making a better world' does not seem to be the end result of aid.

On the other hand, some people (above) have pointed out how we might deliver aid with a much higher effectiveness, while others have shown how effectiveness can be hampered by regional politics and lack of infrastructure.

But honestly, if our aid has the potential to harm these people in the long run, it might be more generous to cancel all aid period, with the possible exception of specific disaster relief programs. (A sort of volunteer international insurance agency. ;-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

I have always thought that the sending of food instead of money was more or less motivated as a backdoor farm subsidy, getting around trade agreements in a way that would draw little protest.

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:42 PM

Hello,

I'm against subsidizing businesses in general, so you can add my voice of opposition to your own.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE