World hunger

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
What do you mean, exactly ??

China and India have frequent minor border clashes and have had a few small wars (and proxy wars.) China is now a major industrial force with a rapidly modernizing military and 1.3 billion people but still ruled by tyrants. This makes China an unpredicatable and scary neighbor.

There is also the fact that China and India are rivals and even without fear, India would want to keep up with the Chinese Jones. This gave impetus for the India politicians to figure out ways to stop stifling growth.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
However, I'm always a bit skeptical of those who are too quick to blame ethnical differences for the African problems (and I don't think that is your case, CBL4, I must add). First, because it's convenient - it's their fault, other countries have nothing to do with that. Second, it smells of racism, as in "those people are too backwards to get along, they're naturally belligerant" (I've heard variations of those many times). And third, while it's true that there is wide animosity within countries, at the very least we must accept that, after decolonizations, the borders were accepted "as is".

First of all, I think poor border are only one of many problems.

It may "smell of racism" because it is used by racists but that does not mean it is, in fact, racists. This type of behavior is not limited to Africa. Look at Yugoslavia and some the former Soviet republics. There is something in human nature that allow demagogues to take advantage of differences in race, religion or ethnicity. This is a general human characteristic. In Africa it was inflamed by several factors - the colonialists' divide and conquer tactics, the riches of natural resources, poverty, lack of education and the general poverty.

As far as the border being accepted "as is", I think this actually was bad. It meant that civil wars were more common and that they became almost insolvable. The colonialists' legacy of socialism also made it more difficult to devolve power to the local communities which could have lessened the animosity.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Why should we strive to provide food and housing to people who will amount to nothing but a drain on us all? Evolution shows that only the successful organism will prosper and sometimes not even them. Why when the organism presents nothing of direct value in the short term and maybe the long, be artificially propped up when the law of the jungle would make them obsolete?

I half agree with you devil's avocacy.

I am great believer in providing opportunities for poor people. Good education and health should be provided to all children. I would like to add reasonable comfort and food to this list but this quickly turns into welfare programs which discourage works and thrift. I do not know how to provide for the children without rewarding disgusting adult behavior.

As far as evolution, I like to think that in a civilized coujntry, we would care about children regardless of their "obsolete"ness. And I do not think the children are obsolete in any way. Our welfare system and society provided great incentives for people to act in manner that would turn them (and their children and their grandchildren) into losers and derelicts. The incentives worked. The children are not inherently bad at birth. It took great training from an early age.

CBL

 

[Matteo Martini]

Luciana Nery,
you are making interesting argumentations, however:

1) Rich countries of the past expolited poor countries buying their coffee, bananas, iron, etc. at very low price, this fostered the rich countries' economy;
2) Still, the money from rich countries, even if not-so-much, helped developing countries become more developed, this is why Brazil in more developed than most ( all, maybe except South Africa, but let' s not make comparisons here ) African countries;
3) Now rich coutries are protecting they agricolture from developing countries competition, this is why developing coutries are not getting more developed.

Those assumptions have some problems:
1) Developing coutries do have huge markets to sell their stuff too, their own !! Brazilian market today is probably bigger and richer than European market one hunderd and fifty years ago ..
2) Why are not poor countries exporting some other consumer good ? Hi-Fi, Stereo, computers, cars, shirts, pants, etc. ? I mean, they cost 1/4 in Brazil than what they cost in Europe ( at least, I suppose )..
3) I still can not see why Europe started from zero ( middle ages ) and got developed, OK, maybe exploiting other countries, but Europe ( and US and other nations ) got eventually developed. Now, I think you agree that Europe and the US are not exploiting developing countries any more, so why are developing countries not getting developed quickly ??
They have natural resources, meat, iron, big rivers for electricity, ..

 

[AWPrime]

So, yes, I'm curious to know what are the negative effects of ending hunger. Go ahead.

Extinction of exotic creatures perhaps?

If people stop worring for having enough food, they will search for better food/exotic foods.

could you please at least clarify it?

I primarly see it as a impossible goal.

Humankind shouldn't be viewed negatively because it can't preform a impossible task.

You might say that it isn't impossible, but you rely on a lack of wars, fair economics and universal education, which I find to be unrealistic for a assumption.

Everything has a price, do you think that such a big thing as ending all hunger wouldn't have a big price tag?
I can honestly say that I can't foresee every possible positive or negative result from it, for I am only human, but at least I am thinking of the possibility.

 

[Luciana]

Why should we strive to provide food and housing to people who will amount to nothing but a drain on us all? Evolution shows that only the successful organism will prosper and sometimes not even them. Why when the organism presents nothing of direct value in the short term and maybe the long, be artificially propped up when the law of the jungle would make them obsolete? Why should Mr. and Mrs. Smith of Peoria have to pay taxes to provide for foodstuffs and medicines that many in their own community cannot afford? Ultimately being voluntary VS mandatory inclusion in programs that those taxpayers object to?
Not my point of view BTW, just raising the logical extension of the Hunger may not be bad train of thought.

Your taxes pay, now, for the well being of the people who, for many reasons, cannot provide for themselves. People in your own society (for it's a democracy) have decided that it's worth it to provide financial support for these people. You may agree or disagree with that or with particular instances, but this is an established principle in western countries - you take care of those who are less fortunate. At the same time, you strive to make them self-sustainable.

It is the same principle. We happen to share the planet. Some countries will need extra help if they are to have a chance of ever being self-sustainable or recovering their economies (eg, Marshal Plan). Impoverished countries are undesirable for many reasons: they attract low pay jobs; they're a threat to world security as they can harbor terrorist cells; they export uneducated immigrants; they can't stop epidemics if it comes to that (imagine if the bird flu had happened in subsaharian countries, it wouldn't have been contained); because they are weight in our collective conscience.

This is absolutely not a matter of "why should I pay for their development? They dug the whole themselves, what's that any of my business?". Demanding fairer trade won't come from your pocket. Forgiving external debt, specially of small countries, will hardly make a dent in your GDP. Stopping agricultural subsidies and protectionism can have a harder effect in your economy, granted, but these are outdated notions anyway, losing ground by the day in the present day economy.

 

[Luciana]

I am great believer in providing opportunities for poor people. Good education and health should be provided to all children. I would like to add reasonable comfort and food to this list but this quickly turns into welfare programs which discourage works and thrift. I do not know how to provide for the children without rewarding disgusting adult behavior.

It is possible. Not easy, but possible. For example, the Brazilian has started, and is now expanding, a program that pays parents to keep children at school. How so? If not for that, the child will have to either labor in farms or become a beggar in the city. By paying the parent (actually, the mother, as the money is more likely to reach the kids, instead of the father, who will just buy booze, at least in general, according to studies), the government makes sure that the child is attending school. Keeps tabs on them. At school they have three meals. It is so little money and yet, it's a success story. Future generations won't need this incentive, as better educated parents will value the need for education.

As far as evolution, I like to think that in a civilized coujntry, we would care about children regardless of their "obsolete"ness. And I do not think the children are obsolete in any way. Our welfare system and society provided great incentives for people to act in manner that would turn them (and their children and their grandchildren) into losers and derelicts. The incentives worked. The children are not inherently bad at birth. It took great training from an early age.
CBL

Poorer countries have very young populations. They represent hope. An investment in this generation will have a very fast payoff.

 

[Matteo Martini]

If people stop worring for having enough food, they will search for better food/exotic foods

Wow !!
[sarcasm]
You are right !!
We should let them die those hungry people !!
There no enough space on Earth for all, maybe a rare kind of flower could disappear forever if the whole Earth population is properly fed, so let's leave some 500 million people die for hunger.
[/sarcasm]

 

[Luciana]

Luciana Nery,
you are making interesting argumentations, however:
1) Rich countries of the past expolited poor countries buying their coffee, bananas, iron, etc. at very low price, this fostered the rich countries' economy;
2) Still, the money from rich countries, even if not-so-much, helped developing countries become more developed, this is why Brazil in more developed than most ( all, maybe except South Africa, but let' s not make comparisons here ) African countries;

But it also strenghtened dependency. If I'm hard-pressed for money, I'll accept whatever deal you offer me. If you're smart, you'll press me even more. Very unfair trade. More developed countries have excedent money which will be invested in technology. Poorer countries will always come second. That affects competition directly. Less investments in poorer countries will not only keep them backwards, but probably highly dependent of a limited number of export products (here technology makes a difference). One grows, the other also grows, but the gap remains.

3) Now rich coutries are protecting they agricolture from developing countries competition, this is why developing coutries are not getting more developed.

Part of the reason, yes.

Those assumptions have some problems:
1) Developing coutries do have huge markets to sell their stuff too, their own !! Brazilian market today is probably bigger and richer than European market one hunderd and fifty years ago ..

Absolutely. But we must import, it's a necessity. Think technology, pay for patents, heavy machinery, natural resources we don't have. We're becoming self-sufficient in oil (97%), but when that wasn't the case, we had to import it. With dollars? We can only have dollars by exporting things. Also, Brazil produces much more meat than it could possibly consume. There are markets eager to buy it. Most importantly, having those dollars provide a safeguards to external crisis - that is, we suffer less if (when) the economy of countries such as Mexico, Russia, Argentina collapse.

2) Why are not poor countries exporting some other consumer good ? Hi-Fi, Stereo, computers, cars, shirts, pants, etc. ? I mean, they cost 1/4 in Brazil than what they cost in Europe ( at least, I suppose )..

Nope, electronics in the US are much cheaper than in Brazil. It happens that our income per capita is much lower than that in the US, so less people buy less of everything.

Brazil exports cars to the whole of South America and small airplanes to the world. Our prices wouldn't be competitive, because of scale, if we produced for our internal markets only. That's another reason as to why countries export - to make products cheaper to themselves!

3) I still can not see why Europe started from zero ( middle ages ) and got developed, OK, maybe exploiting other countries, but Europe ( and US and other nations ) got eventually developed. Now, I think you agree that Europe and the US are not exploiting developing countries any more, so why are developing countries not getting developed quickly ??
They have natural resources, meat, iron, big rivers for electricity, ..

Call me optimistic, but I believe that the natural course is that, even though some countries started their industrializations later, they will develop. Europe got a head start with imperialism, and ensuing exploitation, plus looser standards for environment and worker's conditions. You can't, nowadays, do that without risking international outcry. So enterprises in general are much more expensive. The US is a superpower, in Europe there's the EU, those are very strong forces that are keen at keeping the status quo.

For example, when last year (was that it??) the US ended its steel tariffs, some thousandos of jobs were created in Brazil (I forgot the number and I'm tired to look it up). Entire cities have benefited from that.


edited for html. hmph.

 

[shanek]

But it also strenghtened dependency. If I'm hard-pressed for money, I'll accept whatever deal you offer me. If you're smart, you'll press me even more. Very unfair trade.

But what you need to consider is that, after this exchange, you won't be as hard-pressed for money as you were and that puts you in a greater bargaining position. Especially as other people show up who want what you have to sell.

Less investments in poorer countries will not only keep them backwards, but probably highly dependent of a limited number of export products (here technology makes a difference). One grows, the other also grows, but the gap remains.

I don't see why the gap is such a big deal. This isn't a horse race. Wealth in your economy is increasing; this, by anyone's standards, should be considered a good thing.

Nope, electronics in the US are much cheaper than in Brazil. It happens that our income per capita is much lower than that in the US, so less people buy less of everything.

And what that all boils down to is that you don't consider the electronics to be as much of a part of your standard of living as we do. Our wealth has increased to the point where a good proportion of our poor population owns computers. In many parts of the world, someone who owns a computer would be considered very rich indeed. Increasing wealth means, in a way, redefining what it means to be poor.

Call me optimistic, but I believe that the natural course is that, even though some countries started their industrializations later, they will develop.

Of course they will. I don't see how anyone can really question that. As long as the government isn't stifling the effect, that is.

For example, when last year (was that it??) the US ended its steel tariffs, some thousandos of jobs were created in Brazil (I forgot the number and I'm tired to look it up). Entire cities have benefited from that.

And yet, it's not the case that, as many feared, many of our jobs were "sucked away" to Brazil and other countries. We continued to create jobs at a pretty good pace.

If anyone wonders exactly why this is, just read the old Macroeconomics thread:

http://www.shanekillian.org/jref/macroeconomics.html

 

[Luciana]

Extinction of exotic creatures perhaps?

If people stop worring for having enough food, they will search for better food/exotic foods.

Unbelievable.

Ok, I'll pass this one. I'm glad I got an answer, though, thanks. If you care to expand on that and offer other reasons, I'd be glad to hear it also.

I primarly see it as a impossible goal.

Humankind shouldn't be viewed negatively because it can't preform a impossible task.

What's impossible? Putting a man on the moon? Genetic engineering? Nanotechnology?

Do you have any data suggesting that feeding 6 billion people is impossible? Remember, it is your claim, that it's impossible. Very heavy word here.

You might say that it isn't impossible, but you rely on a lack of wars, fair economics and universal education, which I find to be unrealistic for a assumption.

Unrealistid? There are rich countries. There are examples of countries that are developing. Don't you think that's a very good indication that ending hunger is a possibility in the long term?

Everything has a price, do you think that such a big thing as ending all hunger wouldn't have a big price tag?
I can honestly say that I can't foresee every possible positive or negative result from it, for I am only human, but at least I am thinking of the possibility.

Emphasis mine.

How easy it is to suggest the death of others.

If not for a certain rule in this forum which prohibits people from making exhortations to suicide, I might have something very unpleasant to say, but then, I'd be at your level, so I'll refrain.

Anyway. You're welcome.

 

[Luciana]

But what you need to consider is that, after this exchange, you won't be as hard-pressed for money as you were and that puts you in a greater bargaining position. Especially as other people show up who want what you have to sell.

True, theoretically. However, payments on loans, repatriated capital, royalties and the like constitute transfers that can exceed foreign aid disbursements moving in the opposite direction. “Decapitalization” happens. This often results from the fact that past loans were used for consumption or unproductive investments. That is, when you're working on someone else's money, you have less room to err, because the bill will grow and you'll have to pay anyway.

However, you have built resentment if you have taken advantage of your powerful bargaining position. Do it often, do it for decades, and you build downright antipathy. (I think we're getting off-topic, but anyway)

I don't see why the gap is such a big deal. This isn't a horse race. Wealth in your economy is increasing; this, by anyone's standards, should be considered a good thing.

You're right; when US economy grows, everyone else's grows also. This is a good thing. The part of the gap that annoys me is that folks at the bottom are not getting enough. If world economics goes up, and those at the bottom have enough to lead decent lives, it will annoy me less.

And what that all boils down to is that you don't consider the electronics to be as much of a part of your standard of living as we do. Our wealth has increased to the point where a good proportion of our poor population owns computers. In many parts of the world, someone who owns a computer would be considered very rich indeed. Increasing wealth means, in a way, redefining what it means to be poor.

Also, true. All Americans are rich. The poorest Americans are still rich by world's standards. (Shane, we're agreeing very much, and gosh, how fast you read and post!!!)

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Luciana, Your point about the fact that a few millions of dollars in charitable causes having little effect out the US economy is true. Having said that , I am reminded of an old politician, Everett Dirkson, who in the course of budget hearings for the pentagon,he was disparaged on his frugal ways in relation to the ridicules expenditures , he said "A million here and a million there and pretty soon your talking about real money.

The fact is that it doesn't matter how little an effect such ( charitable ) expenditures have on our overall budget. The point remains that those actions are involuntary and have a direct impact on the Smiths in Peoria.

You are mistaken when you say that the largess of the American people is all inclusive when it comes to charity, it IS when done voluntarily not when demanded. If You want to subsidies the homeless children in Rio or the starving kids in Sudan, that is Your choice. Spending dollars is a part of the US's foreign policy and has more to do with Realpolitik then charity.

Again I am playing Devils advocate, but it does bother me that many in the world believe that all in the US are rich and because of that fact owe some sort of debt to the world in general. That's BS we do have people who live below the poverty level and maybe things that we could do right here with all those billions in foreign aid. I also believe we owe the world nada.

 

[shanek]

Unbelievable.

Ok, I'll pass this one.

I won't:

If people turn to "exotic" (whatever that means) animals for food, this will most likely ensure their survival. Cows and chickens were once wild animals, and they're not in any danger of going extinct.

 

[shanek]

True, theoretically. However, payments on loans, repatriated capital, royalties and the like constitute transfers that can exceed foreign aid disbursements moving in the opposite direction. “Decapitalization” happens.

If I read you correctly, you're actually talking about "capital flight," where one country has depended so much on trade with just one other country, often to the point where they fixed the exchange rate with that country's currency. This is how Britain's economy tanked with the Great Depression in America, and how Argentinia's currency blew the big hairy one in the '90s.

That is, when you're working on someone else's money, you have less room to err, because the bill will grow and you'll have to pay anyway.

It's also true that working with someone else's money means you have little to no incentive to economize.

(Shane, we're agreeing very much, and gosh, how fast you read and post!!!)

Thank you so much for the kind words! I didn't become the first poster in JREF Forum history to exceed 10,000 posts by being a lightweight...

 

[AWPrime]

I won't:

If people turn to "exotic" (whatever that means) animals for food, this will most likely ensure their survival.

Like the Dodo?

 

[shanek]

Like the Dodo?

People ate dodos?

 

[Earthborn]

People ate dodos?

No, not very often. It is a very common myth though that they were. From Wikipedia:

There is a persistent myth that dodos were eaten as food for the long voyages between the Cape of Good Hope and Asia, but neither historical nor archeological findings corroborate this. Dodos were hardly ever eaten by the Portuguese, who found the dodos hard to eat and very messy. Dutch records concur. The Dutch settlers called it the Walgvogel ("disgusting bird") for the unpleasant taste and texture of the meat. No dodo bones have been found in the old middens of the Dutch fort Frederik Hendrik.

I'm sure AWPrime can find a better example of an animal hunted to extinction.

 

[AWPrime]

I'm sure AWPrime can find a better example of an animal hunted to extinction.

Well I learn something everyday.


oke after searching the most resent one I found was the Red Colobus monkey.

Here is a link (first part) discribing the reasons behind the bushmeat trend. http://www.sundayherald.com/25926


And it isn't confined to africa: http://web.archive.org/web/20011116162243/stacks.msnbc.com/news/580797.asp?cp1=1

 

[CBL4]

For example, the Brazilian has started, and is now expanding, a program that pays parents to keep children at school.

This sounds like it would be an effective program.
Another method I have heard about it is providing nutritious meals at the school. These programs make sense in a poverty stricken area.

In richer places, it boggles my mind that parents do not care for their childrens education.

CBL