From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 21:08:10 MST
Adrian writes
> Max M wrote:
> > 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 lose the
> > market for their products, as food becomes free,
> > and so will lose their motivation for being farmers.
> > 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 lose their motivation
> > for being farmers.
Quite right. You simultaneously destroy the incentives
of both the producer and the consumer. Very efficient.
> 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.
In retrospect, it seems incredible that we could not
see that this was very likely going to be the result.
But the pressing question is still, what *can* be
done in cases of famine? Are we to just turn our
backs? (Unless you invade, what other option is there?)
> 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).
But how are they wealthy enough to order food from
another continent?
> 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.
Somehow, I can't really believe that it comes down
to the *motivations* of the rulers. Do you really
think that George Bush or Al Gore has a niceness
gene missing in third-world country dictators?
Instead, it's a systemic problem being steadily
uncovered by only the most perceptive among us,
namely people like Hernando De Soto, William Easterly,
and Thomas Bethel ("Private Property: The Noblest
Triumph").
Some countries have (1) rule of law (2) enormously
strong forces for the protection of individual rights
and private property. I can't think of a single word
in that formula that can be omitted.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 06 2003 - 21:06:49 MST