absolutely nobody responded to this post of mine:
http://www.crazyontap.com/topic.php?TopicId=21126#244148
which is a shame because it was, frankly, a brilliant and incisive point to make.
so Im giving you'all a second chance.
Daddy's Invisible House
iFAQ
I will do bananas.
Asteroids
Youtube Videos
Deleted Posts Today (∞)
[2] Days Since Muppet erased this area and the tag-line and put something totally unfunny in its place.
Geez, I can't go away from this place for even a day, without disaster happening. Sheesh!
ethanol redux #2
pondBacterium July 31st, 2007 3:58pm
"Im sure I remember reading an article that said that one of the biggest causes of the failed economies in a lot of the third world countries was the fact that the global price of agricultural staples was kept artificially low in the global market by subsidised farmers in the US and the EU."
Ok, that is a good point and I agree with you it's a possibility. This is a long term thinking here though, and relies that free western food aid will stop, allowing local farming to have a chance in Africa.
On the other hand, they could just decide to dedicate more money to the issue to buy the same amount of grain, or something. Hopefully that won't happen, but you're right, it's just as likely that starvation would decrease as increase.
Also, although food aid creates problems in many countries, the biggest real problem in Africa right now is stupid leaders and factionalism. Burn the farms to the ground sort of thinking and experiments in collectivism are the new risk, and any western aid in these situations probably is preventing starvation, but it might also be empowering government that they control the distribution of this aid (as in how North Korea feeds their soldiers first) preventing the needed revolution.
On the other hand progressive revolution doesn't occur because of philosophies of submission and collectivism are more common than those of the individualism and skepticism of authority that came from the enlightenment authors.
Ok, that is a good point and I agree with you it's a possibility. This is a long term thinking here though, and relies that free western food aid will stop, allowing local farming to have a chance in Africa.
On the other hand, they could just decide to dedicate more money to the issue to buy the same amount of grain, or something. Hopefully that won't happen, but you're right, it's just as likely that starvation would decrease as increase.
Also, although food aid creates problems in many countries, the biggest real problem in Africa right now is stupid leaders and factionalism. Burn the farms to the ground sort of thinking and experiments in collectivism are the new risk, and any western aid in these situations probably is preventing starvation, but it might also be empowering government that they control the distribution of this aid (as in how North Korea feeds their soldiers first) preventing the needed revolution.
On the other hand progressive revolution doesn't occur because of philosophies of submission and collectivism are more common than those of the individualism and skepticism of authority that came from the enlightenment authors.
Practical Economist July 31st, 2007 6:56pm
You want to eat? Join the army and obey orders.
Coming to a nation near you.
Coming to a nation near you.
Heavy Mettle August 1st, 2007 12:45am
One of the biggest stumbling blocks which caused the Doha round of talks to fail was that the US refuses to cut back on ag subsidies.
I'm a little torn on those though.
I suppose in the end I lean toward abolishing all of that crap.
Big industrial ag has already dealt the death blow to the common farmer. We are just paying room, board, and power for the ventilator.
I suppose in the end I lean toward abolishing all of that crap.
Big industrial ag has already dealt the death blow to the common farmer. We are just paying room, board, and power for the ventilator.
JoC August 1st, 2007 11:05am
Other topics: July, 2007