From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 11:36:34 MST
--- Max M <maxmcorp@worldonline.dk> wrote:
> Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > As has been pointed out in countless places,
> including
> > repeatedly on this list before, famine is a
> > distribution problem, not a food shortage. We
> have so
> > much spare food available that people are talking
> > about using some of it to replace petroleum fuels.
>
> Isn't that a rather simplistic view of economics? If
> you just take all
> the food there is and distribute it around it will
> have two big negative
> side effects.
>
> - The farmers in the poor countries will loose the
> market for their
> products, as food becomes free, and so will loose
> their motivation for
> being farmes. Thus adding to the problem.
>
> - The farmers in the rich countries will not get a
> reasonable price for
> their products, as it is given away to the poor, and
> so will loose their
> motivation for being farmers.
In both cases, you don't simply give the food away to
the poor. Someone pays a reasonable price on behalf
of the poor. In fact, that is more or less the system
we have today, except that in the areas where famine
happens, governments (in effect, if not always in
fact) seize the food that was going to the poor and
sell it for their own profit. (Those who would buy
food on behalf of the poor only have so much money, so
they can not repurchase and redistribute that which
will be reseized indefinitely.) At its simplest, this
is straight-up robbery - exchanging food for no value
(not even the abstract protection or other government
services that taxes pay for) - except it's legal.
(Or, at least, the robbers are never punished for
their deeds.)
It's a distribution problem - as in, a problem with
the actual physical distribution. In effect, those
under famine are being deprived of the right to buy
food, as we would understand "buy" (which includes the
right to use what one buys without having it taken
away). This highlights one of the primary differences
among the world's governments: those who desire their
citizens to flourish and who live off the generated
excess, versus those who desire their own wealth and
standard of living first and foremost with little
regard for that of the governed. (Though, it is of
note that the methods used to implement the latter
usually result in a worse standard of living for the
governing class than most people, including the
governing class, enjoy in the former. This
self-defeating nature at the price of everyone
involved is one reason why the latter is often
regarded as "evil".)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 06 2003 - 11:44:05 MST