Friends (and I really, really do mean that),
My apologies in advance. Political rant coming. Memetic defenses to maximum.
Michael Lorrey writes:
>Its been conclusively shown that there IS no third world hunger problem,
>at least as far as food production is concerned. The agricultural
>production in the 3rd world is sufficient for a 3500 calorie diet for
>every man, woman, and child. What the problem is is that the
>transportation, processing, and storage infrastructure is either poor or
>non-existent, so much or most of that food goes to waste. Additionally,
>most ALL 'famines' are the creations of governments as tools of
>opression and/or warfare. You want to 'solve' world hunger, solve those
>problems. The food is already out there.
The following is not to be taken as FACT, it is my impression, my suspicion...
It is my impression that the "kleptocracies" (the phrase I use is "dominant
elite") which dominate these countries, so that they may enjoy a standard
of living close to that of the developing nations, quite naturally control
any and all income-producing resources, including the best agricultural
land. On that land they choose to produce cash crops. That is,
agricultural products that they can sell on the international market for
hard currency. So, they control the land, produce and sell the crops, and
keep the money. Private property economics at its most basic. The people
with the guns (supplied by the "foreign aid" of the nations whose
corporations want to purchase the agricultural products) "own" the
property, and the "little" people get to use whatever land--marginal or
submarginal--is left over (until improvements in agricultural technology
make formerly marginal land newly viable economically--at which time it's
"move on, you squatters; you don't "own" this land.") Classic (unfettered)
capitalism, the ruthless enemy of humanity. (Er, sorry. Ignore that
last. I was once a socia... er, ...human being.)
One additional note. When all those old colonial powers left and went
home, you think they abandoned all that they had gained? Yeah, right!
Consider that they left in place all the legal structures which defined
property ownership, specifically, who it was that owned anything,
everything, of value. Then, though they had left, they maintained
relationships with the "new owners", continuing at some remove the flow of
benefits achieved through the earlier "colonial" conquest.
Mike's right.. There's plenty of food. It's human decency that's in short
supply.
Best, Jeff Davis
"Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
Ray Charles
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:39 MDT