[quote user=JayTopStix] I know this is TAN but really? I have seen many of you care more for the lolcats. This image is really heartbreaking [/quote]
Dont feel too bad man c'mon Its Mmat, Wolfe and Straw. You know all about the white power loving canadian redneck and Bendy Mc DoleVirgin. Then straw actually uses a pic of himself and his "Life-Partner" as his avatar pic.
JayTopStix wrote:
I know this is TAN but really? I have seen many of you care more for the lolcats. This image is really heartbreaking
Dont feel too bad man c'mon Its Mmat, Wolfe and Straw. You know all about the white power loving canadian redneck and Bendy Mc DoleVirgin. Then straw actually uses a pic of himself and his "Life-Partner" as his avatar pic.
it is heartbreaking, but its suggesting its our responsibility to solve their problem or its their death - which would be on our hands/conscious, which is bad juju cause i didnt fuck and make them, and i didnt bare them in an nearly inhospitable land and i didnt wantonly abandon them, it is sad they suffer but we/I didnt make em suffer. Would i help them if i could, yes. are they gonna die cause i cant, no, someone will help them, its not always up to us to help them, some of you have to step in too.
That being said, you really wanna help these people, kill the fuckin warlords (and crew) who steal all the fucking aid and food we do send em.
it is heartbreaking, but its suggesting its our responsibility to solve their problem or its their death - which would be on our hands/conscious, which is bad juju cause i didnt fuck and make them, and i didnt bare them in an nearly inhospitable land and i didnt wantonly abandon them, it is sad they suffer but we/I didnt make em suffer. Would i help them if i could, yes. are they gonna die cause i cant, no, someone will help them, its not always up to us to help them, some of you have to step in too.
That being said, you really wanna help these people, kill the fuckin warlords (and crew) who steal all the fucking aid and food we do send em.
[quote user=ZaGGeh13] it is heartbreaking, but its suggesting its our responsibility to solve their problem or its their death - which would be on our hands/conscious, which is bad juju cause i didnt fuck and make them, and i didnt bare them in an nearly inhospitable land and i didnt wantonly abandon them, it is sad they suffer but we/I didnt make em suffer. Would i help them if i could, yes. are they gonna die cause i cant, no, someone will help them, its not always up to us to help them, some of you have to step in too.
That being said, you really wanna help these people, kill the fuckin warlords (and crew) who steal all the fucking aid and food we do send em. [/quote]
Exactly. Why is it somehow automatically my responsibility to take care of children thousands of fucking miles away? I've never been there, I never want to be there, I don't have family there, I have nothing to do with that area of the world or those stupid fucking nigger moms popping out 5 babies when she could barely eat herself.
I fucking hate these liberal hippie nuts who think just because I make a certain amount of money or live a certain way that I somehow "owe" shit to everyone lower than me. NOT THE CASE
ZaGGeh13 wrote:
it is heartbreaking, but its suggesting its our responsibility to solve their problem or its their death - which would be on our hands/conscious, which is bad juju cause i didnt fuck and make them, and i didnt bare them in an nearly inhospitable land and i didnt wantonly abandon them, it is sad they suffer but we/I didnt make em suffer. Would i help them if i could, yes. are they gonna die cause i cant, no, someone will help them, its not always up to us to help them, some of you have to step in too.
That being said, you really wanna help these people, kill the fuckin warlords (and crew) who steal all the fucking aid and food we do send em.
Exactly. Why is it somehow automatically my responsibility to take care of children thousands of fucking miles away? I've never been there, I never want to be there, I don't have family there, I have nothing to do with that area of the world or those stupid fucking nigger moms popping out 5 babies when she could barely eat herself.
I fucking hate these liberal hippie nuts who think just because I make a certain amount of money or live a certain way that I somehow "owe" shit to everyone lower than me. NOT THE CASE
[quote user=EdRoberts] I am willing to chip in, buy them and let them work the cotton fields... Couple buckets of KFC and these little guys will be ready to work. [/quote]
Don't forget to throw in a bottle of jergens. Never forget the jergens.
EdRoberts wrote:
I am willing to chip in, buy them and let them work the cotton fields... Couple buckets of KFC and these little guys will be ready to work.
Don't forget to throw in a bottle of jergens. Never forget the jergens.
[quote user=EdRoberts] I am willing to chip in, buy them and let them work the cotton fields... Couple buckets of KFC and these little guys will be ready to work. [/quote]
hey thats better than sticking their hand out and begging for nothing
EdRoberts wrote:
I am willing to chip in, buy them and let them work the cotton fields... Couple buckets of KFC and these little guys will be ready to work.
hey thats better than sticking their hand out and begging for nothing
People have forgetten, but there was once a universal concept among the judeo/christian cultures called the "responsibility of salvation".
Essentially, if you save someone their lives are from that point on ultimately your responsibility. You are asnwerable to the quality of life they lead, and to the actions they make.
Is it moral to save someone that has lost all limbs, cognition, and sentience? Is it moral to save a mass murderer? Is it moral to save an unborn child that you know is retarded?
If I were to save one of these kids, then I must also be prepared to ensure that they will look back at me saving them and consider it a good thing. This means that I have to supply a certain quality of life. I must also be prepared to take responsibility for any actions that person takes. I must also be prepared for them bringing children of their own into the shit stain of a country they live in. The humanists of today are all to keen to 'save a life' but are usually unwilling to answer for the life that they are saving. "The greatest harm can come from the best of intentions"
People have forgetten, but there was once a universal concept among the judeo/christian cultures called the "responsibility of salvation".
Essentially, if you save someone their lives are from that point on ultimately your responsibility. You are asnwerable to the quality of life they lead, and to the actions they make.
Is it moral to save someone that has lost all limbs, cognition, and sentience? Is it moral to save a mass murderer? Is it moral to save an unborn child that you know is retarded?
If I were to save one of these kids, then I must also be prepared to ensure that they will look back at me saving them and consider it a good thing. This means that I have to supply a certain quality of life. I must also be prepared to take responsibility for any actions that person takes. I must also be prepared for them bringing children of their own into the shit stain of a country they live in. The humanists of today are all to keen to 'save a life' but are usually unwilling to answer for the life that they are saving. "The greatest harm can come from the best of intentions"
[quote user=mmateri]why help a person who can't help themselves? you just delay the suffering [/quote]
A man with a broken leg can't help himself, but you would still get him healed and back on his feet. It's all about willingness to take responsibility.
mmateri wrote:
why help a person who can't help themselves? you just delay the suffering
A man with a broken leg can't help himself, but you would still get him healed and back on his feet. It's all about willingness to take responsibility.
I blame their governments, I certainly am NOT sending them money to prop up their governments when those governments squander resources to the point of causing mass suffering to the local population.
Governments caused this problem, governments can fix it.
I blame their governments, I certainly am NOT sending them money to prop up their governments when those governments squander resources to the point of causing mass suffering to the local population.
Governments caused this problem, governments can fix it.
This is more of a technical problem. We shouldn't let emotion / blame get in the way.
Mass starvation really only occurs these days from a couple reasons:
1.) Civil Unrest, in regions without any Government. 2.) Short-term famines in isolated agricultural societies.
For the most part, famines are the result of local changes in weather, in a region that grows its own food. Nobody is really to blame.
When I was young, most famines occurred in India and China. These Governments were just as corrupt as Africa, but they managed to solve the problem over the next coupe decades. The Soviets and Americans gave agricultural technology and they were able to increase crop production. Many would argue the surplus of food then allowed people to leave farms, join industry, and grow the economy.
This hasn't really happened in Africa. They weren't of interest to anyone during the Cold War, so they never had any "Green Revolution". In fact, NGOs such as the IMF have forbidden Governments from subsidizing such programs in Africa. There may even be technical reasons that make it easier to massively increase production of rice in Asia, rather than Africa.
This is more of a technical problem. We shouldn't let emotion / blame get in the way.
Mass starvation really only occurs these days from a couple reasons:
1.) Civil Unrest, in regions without any Government. 2.) Short-term famines in isolated agricultural societies.
For the most part, famines are the result of local changes in weather, in a region that grows its own food. Nobody is really to blame.
When I was young, most famines occurred in India and China. These Governments were just as corrupt as Africa, but they managed to solve the problem over the next coupe decades. The Soviets and Americans gave agricultural technology and they were able to increase crop production. Many would argue the surplus of food then allowed people to leave farms, join industry, and grow the economy.
This hasn't really happened in Africa. They weren't of interest to anyone during the Cold War, so they never had any "Green Revolution". In fact, NGOs such as the IMF have forbidden Governments from subsidizing such programs in Africa. There may even be technical reasons that make it easier to massively increase production of rice in Asia, rather than Africa.
But even in Zimbabwe, food shortages only occur in regions suffering droughts or too much rain.
In 2010, Zimbabwe's overall food production is at a 30-year high, apparently due to the subsidization of farming equipment / fertilizer. When you get record lows in 2008, then record highs in 2010, the Government seems to be a side-issue, in my mind. It's the same Government.
Although we probably seem to agree in general, as Government can effectively be the agent of increasing productivity.
[quote]Government efforts and a 70 million dollar international aid programme providing farmers with subsidised input, had boosted agricultural production, the report found.The area planted under maize, Zimbabwe's main staple, increased by 20 per cent in 2010 to the highest level in 30 years and production rose seven per cent over 2009, the mission found.[/quote]
But even in Zimbabwe, food shortages only occur in regions suffering droughts or too much rain.
In 2010, Zimbabwe's overall food production is at a 30-year high, apparently due to the subsidization of farming equipment / fertilizer. When you get record lows in 2008, then record highs in 2010, the Government seems to be a side-issue, in my mind. It's the same Government.
Although we probably seem to agree in general, as Government can effectively be the agent of increasing productivity.
wrote:
Government efforts and a 70 million dollar international aid programme providing farmers with subsidised input, had boosted agricultural production, the report found.The area planted under maize, Zimbabwe's main staple, increased by 20 per cent in 2010 to the highest level in 30 years and production rose seven per cent over 2009, the mission found.
Thanks for the link Mr Manning, interesting and encouraging.
However, I take the point to be that where you do have droughts, non corrupt Governments, or governments withh effective oppositions go along way to mitigating the effects of that drought.
your thoughts on this proposition, unfortunately I have no links to support it's truth. Though I do remember it being mentioned in a book by William J Talbot "what rights should be universal".
Thanks for the link Mr Manning, interesting and encouraging.
However, I take the point to be that where you do have droughts, non corrupt Governments, or governments withh effective oppositions go along way to mitigating the effects of that drought.
your thoughts on this proposition, unfortunately I have no links to support it's truth. Though I do remember it being mentioned in a book by William J Talbot "what rights should be universal".
[quote user=EricManning] But even in Zimbabwe, food shortages only occur in regions suffering droughts or too much rain.
In 2010, Zimbabwe's overall food production is at a 30-year high, apparently due to the subsidization of farming equipment / fertilizer. When you get record lows in 2008, then record highs in 2010, the Government seems to be a side-issue, in my mind. It's the same Government.
Although we probably seem to agree in general, as Government can effectively be the agent of increasing productivity.
[quote user=]Government efforts and a 70 million dollar international aid programme providing farmers with subsidised input, had boosted agricultural production, the report found.The area planted under maize, Zimbabwe's main staple, increased by 20 per cent in 2010 to the highest level in 30 years and production rose seven per cent over 2009, the mission found.[/quote]
[/quote]
I would be interested to see who actually gets the food. African governments would be more likely to sell it overseas where higher profits are acheivable than sell it among their own people.
EricManning wrote:
But even in Zimbabwe, food shortages only occur in regions suffering droughts or too much rain.
In 2010, Zimbabwe's overall food production is at a 30-year high, apparently due to the subsidization of farming equipment / fertilizer. When you get record lows in 2008, then record highs in 2010, the Government seems to be a side-issue, in my mind. It's the same Government.
Although we probably seem to agree in general, as Government can effectively be the agent of increasing productivity.
wrote:
Government efforts and a 70 million dollar international aid programme providing farmers with subsidised input, had boosted agricultural production, the report found.The area planted under maize, Zimbabwe's main staple, increased by 20 per cent in 2010 to the highest level in 30 years and production rose seven per cent over 2009, the mission found.
I would be interested to see who actually gets the food. African governments would be more likely to sell it overseas where higher profits are acheivable than sell it among their own people.
[quote user=alienpig]However, I take the point to be that where you do have droughts, non corrupt Governments, or governments withh effective oppositions go along way to mitigating the effects of that drought.[/quote]
Yeah, I agree. I'm just introducing conversation. Even corrupt Governments want people to be fed, and I can't think of many countries that *didn't* have land redistribution at some point. Even in the Americas, Governments took land from the natives and gave it to European farmers. The Government then went out and taught those farmers how to use technology to maximize output.
[quote user=alienpig]your thoughts on this proposition, unfortunately I have no links to support it's truth. Though I do remember it being mentioned in a book by William J Talbot "what rights should be universal".[/quote]
Do you mean the rights on food security, which have been a subject of the UN in recent years? Historically (since the 80s), the view has been that you shouldn't let Government subsidize agriculture. You should let the market decide your specialization and focus on trade for food.
Poor countries have argued they need to provide food-security first, then worry about trade later. I am persuaded by this view, and think it has largely been slowly accepted over time.
[quote user=synthesis]I would be interested to see who actually gets the food. African governments would be more likely to sell it overseas where higher profits are acheivable than sell it among their own people.[/quote]
And from a Capitalist perspective, this is what they should be doing. The IMF has traditionally held that you should export crops overseas - even when your people are starving - if you can make higher profits by doing so.
alienpig wrote:
However, I take the point to be that where you do have droughts, non corrupt Governments, or governments withh effective oppositions go along way to mitigating the effects of that drought.
Yeah, I agree. I'm just introducing conversation. Even corrupt Governments want people to be fed, and I can't think of many countries that *didn't* have land redistribution at some point. Even in the Americas, Governments took land from the natives and gave it to European farmers. The Government then went out and taught those farmers how to use technology to maximize output.
alienpig wrote:
your thoughts on this proposition, unfortunately I have no links to support it's truth. Though I do remember it being mentioned in a book by William J Talbot "what rights should be universal".
Do you mean the rights on food security, which have been a subject of the UN in recent years? Historically (since the 80s), the view has been that you shouldn't let Government subsidize agriculture. You should let the market decide your specialization and focus on trade for food.
Poor countries have argued they need to provide food-security first, then worry about trade later. I am persuaded by this view, and think it has largely been slowly accepted over time.
synthesis wrote:
I would be interested to see who actually gets the food. African governments would be more likely to sell it overseas where higher profits are acheivable than sell it among their own people.
And from a Capitalist perspective, this is what they should be doing. The IMF has traditionally held that you should export crops overseas - even when your people are starving - if you can make higher profits by doing so.
"Do you mean the rights on food security, which have been a subject of the UN in recent years? Historically (since the 80s), the view has been that you shouldn't let Government subsidise agriculture. You should let the market decide your specialisation and focus on trade for food.
Poor countries have argued they need to provide food-security first, then worry about trade later. I am persuaded by this view, and think it has largely been slowly accepted over time. "
I wasn't talking about food security specifically, but maybe I ought to be thinking along those lines. I'll need to think about this issue again; perhaps food security could be a necessary (though not sufficient condition) for good governance. In that case perhaps international aid, focused on food security would help achieve political/military stability in a given region?
speculative...
"Do you mean the rights on food security, which have been a subject of the UN in recent years? Historically (since the 80s), the view has been that you shouldn't let Government subsidise agriculture. You should let the market decide your specialisation and focus on trade for food.
Poor countries have argued they need to provide food-security first, then worry about trade later. I am persuaded by this view, and think it has largely been slowly accepted over time. "
I wasn't talking about food security specifically, but maybe I ought to be thinking along those lines. I'll need to think about this issue again; perhaps food security could be a necessary (though not sufficient condition) for good governance. In that case perhaps international aid, focused on food security would help achieve political/military stability in a given region?
[quote user=alienpig]perhaps food security could be a necessary (though not sufficient condition) for good governance. In that case perhaps international aid, focused on food security would help achieve political/military stability in a given region?[/quote]
I think it's likely. I think India and China needed their "Green Revolution" before they could start aggressive economic development.
Before you get engineers and factory workers, you need people to leave their farms. To do this, you need to increase food output so a farmer can produce more than enough to feed themselves and their family. When you see famines, it almost always seems to occur after bad weather, in regions where everyone farms their own food.
The same region doesn't experience a famine every year, but in a continent as large and agricultural as Africa, there will always be some place with a poor yield.
A corrupt Government is not desirable, but I think that comes later. Even with a corrupt Government, you will eventually look like Cuba. You may not be very rich, but people still eat and live as long as Americans.
alienpig wrote:
perhaps food security could be a necessary (though not sufficient condition) for good governance. In that case perhaps international aid, focused on food security would help achieve political/military stability in a given region?
I think it's likely. I think India and China needed their "Green Revolution" before they could start aggressive economic development.
Before you get engineers and factory workers, you need people to leave their farms. To do this, you need to increase food output so a farmer can produce more than enough to feed themselves and their family. When you see famines, it almost always seems to occur after bad weather, in regions where everyone farms their own food.
The same region doesn't experience a famine every year, but in a continent as large and agricultural as Africa, there will always be some place with a poor yield.
A corrupt Government is not desirable, but I think that comes later. Even with a corrupt Government, you will eventually look like Cuba. You may not be very rich, but people still eat and live as long as Americans.
i'd send them money or food or w/e, but the toires is gonna cut my income, raise my taxes and evict me from my home (or at least try). so i'm a lil screwed. perhaps if i ever get another job i will, but until then i cannie do nothing
i'd send them money or food or w/e, but the toires is gonna cut my income, raise my taxes and evict me from my home (or at least try). so i'm a lil screwed. perhaps if i ever get another job i will, but until then i cannie do nothing
23
| 323 views
| 702x463
| 65KB
[/quote]
[quote user=straw] They shouldn't have been born in the first place. When you don't have food to feed yourself, don't fucking do kids!
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
Dont feel too bad man c'mon Its Mmat, Wolfe and Straw. You know all about the white power loving canadian redneck and Bendy Mc DoleVirgin. Then straw actually uses a pic of himself and his "Life-Partner" as his avatar pic.
Dont feel too bad man c'mon Its Mmat, Wolfe and Straw. You know all about the white power loving canadian redneck and Bendy Mc DoleVirgin. Then straw actually uses a pic of himself and his "Life-Partner" as his avatar pic.
That being said, you really wanna help these people, kill the fuckin warlords (and crew) who steal all the fucking aid and food we do send em.
That being said, you really wanna help these people, kill the fuckin warlords (and crew) who steal all the fucking aid and food we do send em.
That being said, you really wanna help these people, kill the fuckin warlords (and crew) who steal all the fucking aid and food we do send em.
[/quote]
Exactly. Why is it somehow automatically my responsibility to take care of children thousands of fucking miles away? I've never been there, I never want to be there, I don't have family there, I have nothing to do with that area of the world or those stupid fucking nigger moms popping out 5 babies when she could barely eat herself.
I fucking hate these liberal hippie nuts who think just because I make a certain amount of money or live a certain way that I somehow "owe" shit to everyone lower than me. NOT THE CASE
That being said, you really wanna help these people, kill the fuckin warlords (and crew) who steal all the fucking aid and food we do send em.
Exactly. Why is it somehow automatically my responsibility to take care of children thousands of fucking miles away? I've never been there, I never want to be there, I don't have family there, I have nothing to do with that area of the world or those stupid fucking nigger moms popping out 5 babies when she could barely eat herself.
I fucking hate these liberal hippie nuts who think just because I make a certain amount of money or live a certain way that I somehow "owe" shit to everyone lower than me. NOT THE CASE
[/quote]
Don't forget to throw in a bottle of jergens. Never forget the jergens.
Don't forget to throw in a bottle of jergens. Never forget the jergens.
[/quote]
hey thats better than sticking their hand out and begging for nothing
hey thats better than sticking their hand out and begging for nothing
Essentially, if you save someone their lives are from that point on ultimately your responsibility. You are asnwerable to the quality of life they lead, and to the actions they make.
Is it moral to save someone that has lost all limbs, cognition, and sentience? Is it moral to save a mass murderer? Is it moral to save an unborn child that you know is retarded?
If I were to save one of these kids, then I must also be prepared to ensure that they will look back at me saving them and consider it a good thing. This means that I have to supply a certain quality of life. I must also be prepared to take responsibility for any actions that person takes. I must also be prepared for them bringing children of their own into the shit stain of a country they live in. The humanists of today are all to keen to 'save a life' but are usually unwilling to answer for the life that they are saving.
"The greatest harm can come from the best of intentions"
Essentially, if you save someone their lives are from that point on ultimately your responsibility. You are asnwerable to the quality of life they lead, and to the actions they make.
Is it moral to save someone that has lost all limbs, cognition, and sentience? Is it moral to save a mass murderer? Is it moral to save an unborn child that you know is retarded?
If I were to save one of these kids, then I must also be prepared to ensure that they will look back at me saving them and consider it a good thing. This means that I have to supply a certain quality of life. I must also be prepared to take responsibility for any actions that person takes. I must also be prepared for them bringing children of their own into the shit stain of a country they live in. The humanists of today are all to keen to 'save a life' but are usually unwilling to answer for the life that they are saving.
"The greatest harm can come from the best of intentions"
[/quote]
A man with a broken leg can't help himself, but you would still get him healed and back on his feet. It's all about willingness to take responsibility.
A man with a broken leg can't help himself, but you would still get him healed and back on his feet. It's all about willingness to take responsibility.
I blame their governments, I certainly am NOT sending them money to prop up their governments when those governments squander resources to the point of causing mass suffering to the local population.
Governments caused this problem, governments can fix it.
I blame their governments, I certainly am NOT sending them money to prop up their governments when those governments squander resources to the point of causing mass suffering to the local population.
Governments caused this problem, governments can fix it.
Mass starvation really only occurs these days from a couple reasons:
1.) Civil Unrest, in regions without any Government.
2.) Short-term famines in isolated agricultural societies.
For the most part, famines are the result of local changes in weather, in a region that grows its own food. Nobody is really to blame.
When I was young, most famines occurred in India and China. These Governments were just as corrupt as Africa, but they managed to solve the problem over the next coupe decades. The Soviets and Americans gave agricultural technology and they were able to increase crop production. Many would argue the surplus of food then allowed people to leave farms, join industry, and grow the economy.
This hasn't really happened in Africa. They weren't of interest to anyone during the Cold War, so they never had any "Green Revolution". In fact, NGOs such as the IMF have forbidden Governments from subsidizing such programs in Africa. There may even be technical reasons that make it easier to massively increase production of rice in Asia, rather than Africa.
Mass starvation really only occurs these days from a couple reasons:
1.) Civil Unrest, in regions without any Government.
2.) Short-term famines in isolated agricultural societies.
For the most part, famines are the result of local changes in weather, in a region that grows its own food. Nobody is really to blame.
When I was young, most famines occurred in India and China. These Governments were just as corrupt as Africa, but they managed to solve the problem over the next coupe decades. The Soviets and Americans gave agricultural technology and they were able to increase crop production. Many would argue the surplus of food then allowed people to leave farms, join industry, and grow the economy.
This hasn't really happened in Africa. They weren't of interest to anyone during the Cold War, so they never had any "Green Revolution". In fact, NGOs such as the IMF have forbidden Governments from subsidizing such programs in Africa. There may even be technical reasons that make it easier to massively increase production of rice in Asia, rather than Africa.
^
reason 3) Consider Zimbabwe, was the bread basket of Africa, now major food shortages due to an incompetent government
^
reason 3) Consider Zimbabwe, was the bread basket of Africa, now major food shortages due to an incompetent government
In 2010, Zimbabwe's overall food production is at a 30-year high, apparently due to the subsidization of farming equipment / fertilizer. When you get record lows in 2008, then record highs in 2010, the Government seems to be a side-issue, in my mind. It's the same Government.
Although we probably seem to agree in general, as Government can effectively be the agent of increasing productivity.
[quote]Government efforts and a 70 million dollar international aid programme providing farmers with subsidised input, had boosted agricultural production, the report found.The area planted under maize, Zimbabwe's main staple, increased by 20 per cent in 2010 to the highest level in 30 years and production rose seven per cent over 2009, the mission found.[/quote]
In 2010, Zimbabwe's overall food production is at a 30-year high, apparently due to the subsidization of farming equipment / fertilizer. When you get record lows in 2008, then record highs in 2010, the Government seems to be a side-issue, in my mind. It's the same Government.
Although we probably seem to agree in general, as Government can effectively be the agent of increasing productivity.
However, I take the point to be that where you do have droughts, non corrupt Governments, or governments withh effective oppositions go along way to mitigating the effects of that drought.
your thoughts on this proposition, unfortunately I have no links to support it's truth. Though I do remember it being mentioned in a book by William J Talbot "what rights should be universal".
However, I take the point to be that where you do have droughts, non corrupt Governments, or governments withh effective oppositions go along way to mitigating the effects of that drought.
your thoughts on this proposition, unfortunately I have no links to support it's truth. Though I do remember it being mentioned in a book by William J Talbot "what rights should be universal".
In 2010, Zimbabwe's overall food production is at a 30-year high, apparently due to the subsidization of farming equipment / fertilizer. When you get record lows in 2008, then record highs in 2010, the Government seems to be a side-issue, in my mind. It's the same Government.
Although we probably seem to agree in general, as Government can effectively be the agent of increasing productivity.
[quote user=]Government efforts and a 70 million dollar international aid programme providing farmers with subsidised input, had boosted agricultural production, the report found.The area planted under maize, Zimbabwe's main staple, increased by 20 per cent in 2010 to the highest level in 30 years and production rose seven per cent over 2009, the mission found.[/quote]
[/quote]
I would be interested to see who actually gets the food. African governments would be more likely to sell it overseas where higher profits are acheivable than sell it among their own people.
In 2010, Zimbabwe's overall food production is at a 30-year high, apparently due to the subsidization of farming equipment / fertilizer. When you get record lows in 2008, then record highs in 2010, the Government seems to be a side-issue, in my mind. It's the same Government.
Although we probably seem to agree in general, as Government can effectively be the agent of increasing productivity.
I would be interested to see who actually gets the food. African governments would be more likely to sell it overseas where higher profits are acheivable than sell it among their own people.
Yeah, I agree. I'm just introducing conversation. Even corrupt Governments want people to be fed, and I can't think of many countries that *didn't* have land redistribution at some point. Even in the Americas, Governments took land from the natives and gave it to European farmers. The Government then went out and taught those farmers how to use technology to maximize output.
[quote user=alienpig]your thoughts on this proposition, unfortunately I have no links to support it's truth. Though I do remember it being mentioned in a book by William J Talbot "what rights should be universal".[/quote]
Do you mean the rights on food security, which have been a subject of the UN in recent years? Historically (since the 80s), the view has been that you shouldn't let Government subsidize agriculture. You should let the market decide your specialization and focus on trade for food.
Poor countries have argued they need to provide food-security first, then worry about trade later. I am persuaded by this view, and think it has largely been slowly accepted over time.
[quote user=synthesis]I would be interested to see who actually gets the food. African governments would be more likely to sell it overseas where higher profits are acheivable than sell it among their own people.[/quote]
And from a Capitalist perspective, this is what they should be doing. The IMF has traditionally held that you should export crops overseas - even when your people are starving - if you can make higher profits by doing so.
Yeah, I agree. I'm just introducing conversation. Even corrupt Governments want people to be fed, and I can't think of many countries that *didn't* have land redistribution at some point. Even in the Americas, Governments took land from the natives and gave it to European farmers. The Government then went out and taught those farmers how to use technology to maximize output.
Do you mean the rights on food security, which have been a subject of the UN in recent years? Historically (since the 80s), the view has been that you shouldn't let Government subsidize agriculture. You should let the market decide your specialization and focus on trade for food.
Poor countries have argued they need to provide food-security first, then worry about trade later. I am persuaded by this view, and think it has largely been slowly accepted over time.
And from a Capitalist perspective, this is what they should be doing. The IMF has traditionally held that you should export crops overseas - even when your people are starving - if you can make higher profits by doing so.
Poor countries have argued they need to provide food-security first, then worry about trade later. I am persuaded by this view, and think it has largely been slowly accepted over time. "
I wasn't talking about food security specifically, but maybe I ought to be thinking along those lines. I'll need to think about this issue again; perhaps food security could be a necessary (though not sufficient condition) for good governance. In that case perhaps international aid, focused on food security would help achieve political/military stability in a given region?
speculative...
Poor countries have argued they need to provide food-security first, then worry about trade later. I am persuaded by this view, and think it has largely been slowly accepted over time. "
I wasn't talking about food security specifically, but maybe I ought to be thinking along those lines. I'll need to think about this issue again; perhaps food security could be a necessary (though not sufficient condition) for good governance. In that case perhaps international aid, focused on food security would help achieve political/military stability in a given region?
speculative...
I think it's likely. I think India and China needed their "Green Revolution" before they could start aggressive economic development.
Before you get engineers and factory workers, you need people to leave their farms. To do this, you need to increase food output so a farmer can produce more than enough to feed themselves and their family. When you see famines, it almost always seems to occur after bad weather, in regions where everyone farms their own food.
The same region doesn't experience a famine every year, but in a continent as large and agricultural as Africa, there will always be some place with a poor yield.
A corrupt Government is not desirable, but I think that comes later. Even with a corrupt Government, you will eventually look like Cuba. You may not be very rich, but people still eat and live as long as Americans.
I think it's likely. I think India and China needed their "Green Revolution" before they could start aggressive economic development.
Before you get engineers and factory workers, you need people to leave their farms. To do this, you need to increase food output so a farmer can produce more than enough to feed themselves and their family. When you see famines, it almost always seems to occur after bad weather, in regions where everyone farms their own food.
The same region doesn't experience a famine every year, but in a continent as large and agricultural as Africa, there will always be some place with a poor yield.
A corrupt Government is not desirable, but I think that comes later. Even with a corrupt Government, you will eventually look like Cuba. You may not be very rich, but people still eat and live as long as Americans.
[/quote]
gtfo
gtfo