Ah, gov'ts. Is there any limit to the number of people they can consign to a short, bitter, miserable, existence??

How the World's Richest Governments Starve the World's Poorest People

by Bogdan C. Enache

World food prices have increased dramatically, by almost 60 percent on average since March of last year, according to the index compiled by the World Food and Agricultural Organization, and there's no sign yet that they're going to substantially fall back in the near future. With record prices on the Chicago Board of Trade for futures contracts on agricultural commodities, it seems very likely that the high food prices are here to stay for the next few years.

Naturally, governments all over the world now feel compelled to rectify the situation and are busy enacting or preparing to enact various measures that they believe will help ease the rise of food prices. In general, however, they only succeed in making things worse.

In some places, like Argentina, Egypt, India, Kazakhstan, or Indonesia, for example, local governments have imposed new export tariffs in order to protect the domestic food market from rising international price pressures, thus setting the stage for endemic shortages. In other places, like Russia or China, things have gone much further, and export tariffs have been coupled with price controls on basic foods such as bread, milk, and eggs.

The Mexican government, on the other hand, has reacted by mixing one bad idea — namely, price controls for food — with a good idea rather a little too late: lowering import tariffs for various agricultural products. Governments in several other countries from Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia, including the European Union — despite protests from the French minister of agriculture — have lowered or even suspended import tariffs for various agricultural commodities coming from certain trading partners. While this is far from the ideal of an immediate abolition of all tariffs — and it's as distortionary as politically managed trade can be, even in time of crisis — it is certainly a small step in the right direction and might help ensure a smoother supply of food in some places.

All in all however, there seems to be little that can be done in the short term for the world's poorest people. The hundreds of millions of people who live on the border of poverty, who spend almost all their income on food, are now faced with the threat of starvation. Already, in more than seventeen countries around the world, from Mexico to Indonesia, from Argentina to Mongolia, and from Mozambique to Morocco, the hungry poor have sparked riots and civil unrest in the wake of higher food prices that they cannot afford. The anger felt by these rough but fragile people, the fruit of desperation born out of the usual mixture of poverty and oppression that characterizes the underdeveloped parts of the world, can sometimes be misguided; but in its most fundamental expression, it is just, courageous, and even commendable.

But how did this happen? With hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year on development aid and various antipoverty programs in the so-called third world, with an array of governmental and intergovernmental agencies designed to lift the planet's poorest out of earthly misery, and with no notable natural disaster affecting crops and agricultural production, how can a food crisis that threatens millions with starvation have come about?



Undoubtedly, rising prices for oil and oil-derived fertilizers did have an impact on food prices, but oil prices cannot entirely account for the soaring food prices observed. It is certainly true that increased demand from emerging markets, such as China and India, has also put pressure on prices. Moreover, the increased demand for meat and dairy emanating from these countries — a result of diets moving away from more traditional vegetarian foods, in favor of more western-style meals — must have triggered a process of adjustment along the capital structure that necessitates some time before it is capable of supplying the additional specific demand.

However, the pressure from both higher oil prices and higher grain consumption in emergent economies pales in comparison with the recent increase of industrial demand for grain in the production of various types of biofuels that occurred during recent years.

Thus, almost all additional US corn production between 2004 and 2007, for instance, has been diverted to the production of ethanol, while the European ethanol production more than tripled during the same period. The increased use of grains for ethanol production has led to a fall in the supply of grains relative to overall demand during the last seven years (with the exception of 2006, which was compensated by the use of grain stocks, now at the lowest level globally in a quarter century). This situation is not, however, a natural market phenomenon, but the direct result of various government programs — usually in the world's most developed economies, although developing countries are catching up — that aim to promote more environmentally friendly energy technology or energy self-sufficiency by subsidizing and mandating the diversion of a growing percentage of agricultural commodities such as corn, sugar cane, wheat, and so on, to the production of bioethanol and biodiesel.

The increased production of biofuels in the United States, Brazil, Europe, and elsewhere is thus effectively obtained at the expense of food production — or, as it turns out, potentially at the cost of the lives of millions of the world's poorest inhabitants who are now priced out of the market for food.

Contemplating the grotesque potential side effects of bioethanol subsidies in the world's most developed economies is almost unbearable. While everyone is affected by higher food prices, for some people they mean only giving up a new pair of shoes or a night out. For others, however, the more costly food puts their very subsistence into question. No doubt, the politicians who came up with the idea of subsidizing the diversion of grain to the production of bioethanol did not intend to starve the world's poorest people; but the fact that the consequences were unintended does not absolve them of responsibility.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

What happened here?


Anyway, corruption has always been the biggest problem in poor countries, and I don't mean those civil servants who charge a little "something" for themselves for their "services", I mean the leaders who have spent money given to them as aid to enhance their own life style, leaders as Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin, Ferdinand Marcos, and others come to my mind, with their outrageous spendings on indescribable luxury, on furnitures of solid gold, etc., all while the people in their countries have starved to death.

It really is weird to see why governments of poor countries have failed so miserably on enhancing the life standards in their countries. I found this article in a blog, it's worth reading: Why Don’t More Poor Countries Get Rich?

Another thing that strikes me are those people in rich countries, like my own, who are against gene modification. It's so easy to sit here, having enough to eat, and demand products which hasn't been gene modified, because there are enough of them to buy. If gene modifying some crops, which make them resistant against various sorts of mold fungus's, diseases, insects, can make people living in areas, where they see their fields of crops being destroyed year after year because of these threats, and losing their possibility of making a living from it, starving, and digging themselves into deeper depths of debts, then how can we, us here in the rich part of the world, demand that these gene modeficated products are not wanted and should not be allowed to buy in the stores? Then we participate in starving these people, who grow these products, and for the first time in years have been able to make a living out of producing enough to sell, even more by taking that market for their products away from them.

About gene modification: Nature has been trifled with and manipulated all the time, nature will survive us no matter what we do, the only ones who will suffer the consequences of our actions are ourselves. If some balance in the nature in those areas, and here as well, has been disrupted, then Mother Nature will show us. And Mother Nature can be very unforgiving, she can squish us at any moment.

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Those people in poor countries oughta be convinced to wait to have kids and not have more than two. Sure, God said "Be fruitful and multiply" but we've already done that 60 times in the past 2,000 years. Isn't that enough? The problem is convincing them. As far as the younger workers supporting retirees for finances there's a very good substitute for that, too - saving.

---

There are people starving in rich countries too... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Those people in poor countries oughta be convinced to wait to have kids and not have more than two. Sure, God said "Be fruitful and multiply" but we've already done that 60 times in the past 2,000 years. Isn't that enough? The problem is convincing them. As far as the younger workers supporting retirees for finances there's a very good substitute for that, too - saving.

Clyde, that's quite an assumption hidden in there. How many of these people are "multiplying" because they are Jews, Christians or Muslims trying to respect the exhortation to "be fruitful"?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

How many of these people are "multiplying" because they are Jews, Christians or Muslims trying to respect the exhortation to "be fruitful"?

'Be fruitful and multiply' was updated in the new testament to 'you will be persecuted' and 'stay single if you can'... ;)

(Of course, the hypocrites have a different take on this, which, I suppose, is the reason why they are called hypocrites.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

How many of these people are "multiplying" because they are Jews, Christians or Muslims trying to respect the exhortation to "be fruitful"?

'Be fruitful and multiply' was updated in the new testament to 'you will be persecuted' and 'stay single if you can'... ;)

(Of course, the hypocrites have a different take on this, which, I suppose, is the reason why they are called hypocrites.)

I've already noted in another thread how you've taken Paul to heart.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

In my opinion (which is not very humble - but even less appreciated), the reason why people are starving these days is because other people, the capitalists, rather watch the hungry starve than giving them food for free.
Making a business out of people's daily needs, the desire to make profit of products people are forced to buy (or to steal) if they don't want to starve or freeze, so that they have to sell what they need for themselves to afford the prices to buy these products... this every-day capitalistic greed is why people starve - and not only in poor countries.

---

Account frozen...

Those people in poor countries oughta be convinced to wait to have kids and not have more than two. Sure, God said "Be fruitful and multiply" but we've already done that 60 times in the past 2,000 years. Isn't that enough? The problem is convincing them. As far as the younger workers supporting retirees for finances there's a very good substitute for that, too - saving.

Clyde, that's quite an assumption hidden in there. How many of these people are "multiplying" because they are Jews, Christians or Muslims trying to respect the exhortation to "be fruitful"?

Don't Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God, but just call Him by another name? I just have a feeling that many people, especially the uneducated, think that it's "religious" or "doing a favor to God" to have large families. Maybe, instead, it's doing the world a disfavor by causing more starvation, filth and deaths. Maybe it's breaking one of God's Commandments by "killing" (indirectly). I watch Univisión, a local Spanish TV channel around here and often I see people, especially girls and women, "hold in awe" or "worship" the slightest imaginable human figure on a tree, in a rock, or in a condensation pattern on a (church) window and then call it "God", "Jesus", "Mary", etc. What superstition! Why can't that figure be Hugo Chávez, their brother or a girl working in the garden?

---

In my opinion (which is not very humble - but even less appreciated), the reason why people are starving these days is because other people, the capitalists, rather watch the hungry starve than giving them food for free.

Why don't you just give it to them for free? Why don't you just feed the entire world for free? Why doesn't everyone who thinks as you do just get together and feed the starving for free?

Can you see why you don't? If you can see why you don't, you can see why they don't.

The easiest answer: creating food takes resources. You will not give all of your resources away for free, and neither will anyone else.

Making a business out of people's daily needs, the desire to make profit of products people are forced to buy (or to steal) if they don't want to starve or freeze, so that they have to sell what they need for themselves to afford the prices to buy these products... this every-day capitalistic greed is why people starve - and not only in poor countries.

Which, of course, is just naive. History has shown that a capitalistic system is the only/best way to provide for the most people. The more meddling you put into it, the less it provides. When you get more extreme, like Cuba, it provides people very little, and in fact, goes to the capitalist markets to get what it cannot provide for itself. When you go almost as far as possible, like the DPRK or the Soviet Union, people simply die, by the millions.

Since no one makes a business out of people's daily needs, those people live miserable lives, nearly starving to death because there is nothing to provide daily needs for them.

You certainly won't do it. Your precious gov't certainly won't and never has. And yet you decry those that will.

That really helps bolster your case.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Those people in poor countries oughta be convinced to wait to have kids and not have more than two. Sure, God said "Be fruitful and multiply" but we've already done that 60 times in the past 2,000 years. Isn't that enough? The problem is convincing them. As far as the younger workers supporting retirees for finances there's a very good substitute for that, too - saving.

Clyde, that's quite an assumption hidden in there. How many of these people are "multiplying" because they are Jews, Christians or Muslims trying to respect the exhortation to "be fruitful"?

Don't Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God, but just call Him by another name? I just have a feeling that many people, especially the uneducated, think that it's "religious" or "doing a favor to God" to have large families. Maybe, instead, it's doing the world a disfavor by causing more starvation, filth and deaths. Maybe it's breaking one of God's Commandments by "killing" (indirectly). I watch Univisión, a local Spanish TV channel around here and often I see people, especially girls and women, "hold in awe" or "worship" the slightest imaginable human figure on a tree, in a rock, or in a condensation pattern on a (church) window and then call it "God", "Jesus", "Mary", etc. What superstition! Why can't that figure be Hugo Chávez, their brother or a girl working in the garden?

You've missed the point.
The point is, a large percentage of the people with large families these days may be those that either follow a faith not part of the three I mentioned or even no faith at all.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Why don't you just give it to them for free? Why don't you just feed the entire world for free? [snip]
Can you see why you don't? If you can see why you don't, you can see why they don't.

I don't because I can barely afford to feed myself... What's your excuse? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Why don't you just give it to them for free? Why don't you just feed the entire world for free? [snip]
Can you see why you don't? If you can see why you don't, you can see why they don't.

I don't because I can barely afford to feed myself... What's your excuse? ;)

Isn't that one of his points?
Next, how do you know he does not, in fact, act charitably? Hmmm?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Why don't you just give it to them for free? Why don't you just feed the entire world for free? [snip]
Can you see why you don't? If you can see why you don't, you can see why they don't.

I don't because I can barely afford to feed myself... What's your excuse? ;)

Isn't that one of his points?
Next, how do you know he does not, in fact, act charitably? Hmmm?

Can anyone who thinks only in an egotistic, profit-orientated way ever act charitably? I doubt that.
Even those rich people who spend money and stuff do it only to improve their image and get more customers. Such acting is not charitable, imo.

---

Account frozen...

Why don't you just give it to them for free? Why don't you just feed the entire world for free? [snip]
Can you see why you don't? If you can see why you don't, you can see why they don't.

I don't because I can barely afford to feed myself... What's your excuse? ;)

Isn't that one of his points?
Next, how do you know he does not, in fact, act charitably? Hmmm?

Can anyone who thinks only in an egotistic, profit-orientated way ever act charitably? I doubt that.
Even those rich people who spend money and stuff do it only to improve their image and get more customers. Such acting is not charitable, imo.

This is not zen.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Can anyone who thinks only in an egotistic, profit-orientated way ever act charitably?

NO... But I'm quite sure they ALL give their 10 percent at the donation box... ;)

(Then they turn around and plunder it back throughout the rest of the week)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Next, how do you know he does not, in fact, act charitably? Hmmm?

Can anyone who thinks only in an egotistic, profit-orientated way ever act charitably? I doubt that.

And, as usual, you are dead wrong. You have no idea. None whatsoever. And you assume that because I will always refuse to do what you would force me to do, because I don't buy into your silly ideas, that I (or anyone else who thinks as I do) cannot see the value of helping others.

Even those rich people who spend money and stuff do it only to improve their image and get more customers. Such acting is not charitable, imo.

Oh yeah, I'm sure the people that benefit from such largess would rather have nothing than that help. You know, because you don't happen to think it's charitable.

How many millions have YOU given to save others? Oh, that's right, none. Why do I get the impression that they would prefer the help of those that can give millions regardless of what you happen to think about the motivation behind it?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

This may be a bit of a stretch for some people to understand.

In some parts of the world, especially the underdeveloped parts,
it's a common perception that a couple needs to have 8 children.
Half of the children will not survive to adulthood. Half the children
will be girls. This leaves a possible 2 children reaching adulthood
that are male, and may support their parents in old age.
Three quarters of the global population find themselves in this
predicament. To say that an unfettered capitalist system would
eradicate this shameful inequality really is just " Pie in the Sky ".
When the top 2 % of the global population own more than half of the global
wealth, or when the bottom half of the global population own less than 1 %
of the global wealth, one has to ask the question, " Is this government
meddling at work? ". Well the answer to that question would have to be a
resounding "Yes".
But if this be the case then you must also ask the question, " How far can
Government intervention go towards addressing the disparity in
Global Distribution of Wealth? ".
Well given the above, the answer must be that any intervention that satisfies
the needs of the greatest number of the global population, would be supported.
I would gladly support increases in taxation, to support development in the
poorer segments of the globe. The initiatives of the the Earth Institute at
Columbia University deserve over-funding in my opinion, since their scope and
mandate is so far reaching in addressing the underlying causes of poverty in
the underdeveloped world.
Maybe once the problem of global poverty has been addressed, then there may be
an opportunity for " Capitalist Forces " to exert a positive influence, but only
in a limited sense. Ultimately allocation of resources towards achievement of
desired ends will no longer be determined on the basis of minimum personal
needs, but rather on the basis of global goals of achievement.

I was going to make this point too. :)

It might help if the west cancelled the huge burden of debt that most of these countries a labouring under too.

---

Reality Internet Personality

This may be a bit of a stretch for some people to understand.

That's for sure, but probably not for the reason you intended when you made this statement.

In some parts of the world, especially the underdeveloped parts, it's a common perception that a couple needs to have 8 children. Half of the children will not survive to adulthood. Half the children will be girls. This leaves a possible 2 children reaching adulthood that are male, and may support their parents in old age. Three quarters of the global population find themselves in this predicament. To say that an unfettered capitalist system would eradicate this shameful inequality really is just " Pie in the Sky ".

Why, because you sez so? You proclaimed it, so it must be true?

A capitalist system, as has been demonstrated time and time again, is the only one that provides the most income and opportunity for the greatest number of people. There will still be very rich people, there will still be very poor people.

What it does do is shift the bell-shaped curve to the right, and skews it counter-clockwise, which means higher average incomes and fewer poor people.

And frankly, it doesn't matter how rich Doprah or Michael Moore get, relative to the rest of the population because a) Doprah and Mikey didn't take it from them by force, and b) without those people creating that kind of actual wealth, many others would simply be skrewed.

See, for example, the UAW proclaiming from the highest mountain how they don't need managers or shareholders, or CEOs or investors, and yet, they aren't building any cars.

When the top 2 % of the global population own more than half of the global wealth, or when the bottom half of the global population own less than 1% of the global wealth, one has to ask the question, " Is this government meddling at work? ". Well the answer to that question would have to be a resounding "Yes".

If this were true (using "wealth" there is relatively misleading), they why why why, would one beg for MORE gov't meddling? And yet, they do. Constantly. "Oops, the gov't meddling has caused enormous problems, and contributes to massive inequities. We had better beg for more gov't meddling, that will solve it!" And then when things get worse: "Oops, the more gov't meddling has caused more enormous problems, and contributes more to massive inequities. We had better beg for even more gov't meddling, that will solve it!" That's insane.

But if this be the case then you must also ask the question, " How far can Government intervention go towards addressing the disparity in Global Distribution of Wealth? ". Well given the above, the answer must be that any intervention that satisfies the needs of the greatest number of the global population, would be supported.

I would gladly support increases in taxation, to support development in the poorer segments of the globe.

One, you don't need taxation to support development anywhere--just go do it. Invest your own time, effort, and money, raise other money, and just do it. I mean, poor countries have been the recipients of hundreds of billions (likely a trillion or more) of tax dollars, and the net result? Zip. Which is why few, if any, people invest their money over there--it's a complete waste of time. Throwing more money after that trillion won't change anything.

Two, when you drive taxes up, what happens when people stop earning money to tax? What happens when the richest among us (who pay nearly 1/2 of the total tax burden) cease to create wealth, and therefore cease to play taxes? What happens when tax revenue begins to fall?

Take, for example, under Kennedy, when the highest marginal tax rate was 90%. How is it possible that he lowered that rate to 50% and yet tax revenue never fell? Could it be because people realized they were no longer working for $0.10 on the dollar and therefore produced more wealth?

The initiatives of the the Earth Institute at Columbia University deserve over-funding in my opinion, since their scope and mandate is so far reaching in addressing the underlying causes of poverty in the underdeveloped world.

Fund it. What are you waiting for? Fund it 100%, or 200% if you wish. Oh, wait, you don't have the resources? You and everyone else that thinks like you do would have to go out and earn those resources? And then, like always, why do I think that none of you actually will fund it. Why do I think Moore or Oprah won't fund it, either, I mean, they haven't.

The causes of poverty are simple: a lack of strong private property protection, weak rule of law, byzantine rules for doing business, and a lack of effective governance. You don't need Jeffrey Sachs' mewling commentary in nearly every column in Scientific American, or even an Earth Institute to figure it out.

Maybe once the problem of global poverty has been addressed, then there may be an opportunity for " Capitalist Forces " to exert a positive influence, but only in a limited sense.

Heh heh. Let's list who will provide food and goods to this people, enough to raise their average income and standard of living to lift them out of poverty. You? No. Es? No. Thorin? No. Hev? No. Mr Gray? No. Saenger? No. Labour? No. Tories? No. Gordon Brown? No. Oprah? Moore? Unicef? Their gov'ts? No. Any gov't? No. Greenfarce, DirtFirst!, or Sierra Schlub? No. In fact, that list is nearly infinite as is demonstrated by the fact that none of them and no one else is doing it right now, no matter how The Sachsmeister and the rest of them wring their hands about it.

The only people that will lift standard of living for those people are those who are willing to risk their own money and invest in x country, by providing jobs (which none of the people above can be bothered to do) or economic incentives. And that's those eeeevil capitalists, providing jobs where there are none, and building factories where there are none. The jobs may be low paying, the factories may not be Buckingham Palace. But they still help raise the standard of living by providing jobs and economic incentives where none of the hand-wringers will. Which would you prefer, a crappy job that pays you, or just lying around watching your children starve to death in the muck?

But, the more the gov't does meddle, say in Cuba, or the DPRK or the former Soviet Union, or any number of places where corruption in gov't in rampant, rule of law is weak, and private property is a joke, the standard of living falls, the less likely those people are to invest, and the bell-shaped curve moves to the left and skews clockwise--lower average incomes and greater numbers of poor people--more children starving in the muck.

Ultimately allocation of resources towards achievement of desired ends will no longer be determined on the basis of minimum personal needs, but rather on the basis of global goals of achievement.

Yeah, good luck with that. Get Thorin, he'll help you build your wall.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I was going to make this point too. :)

That's kind of embarrassing.

It might help if the west cancelled the huge burden of debt that most of these countries a labouring under too.

It would probably have been better had those loans never been made in the first place.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...