With all the holes in the supply chain, it's simply unrealistic to assert "we could feed the whole world".

Throw a gazillion dollars at it, and people still go hungry, whilst people along the supply chain get fat, the dollar devalues, blah blah.

There are a whole bunch of reasons I think this is true, the most prominent being the subjectivity of demand, which translates partially into corruption.

In other words, you can't force your opinion on to those who don't share your opinion and a lot of people don't give a shit if someone down the supply chain eats/has shelter, whatever.

I respect the blind nobility in the desire to feed everyone, but I think the idea of doing so is simply unreastic. Ultimately, people have to feed themselves.

On a side note I might ask: Is feeding everyone a good idea? Certainly I don't want to be on the starving people's list, nor do I wish it upon anyone, but with food comes more people, which becomes a bigger feeding everyone problem.

I don't think this is pessimistic at all actually, as it's really just an analysis of the system I see, knowing what I know about logistics (I'm an IE you know) and noting human nature as it is, rather that some ideal.

Please discuss.

wesmorris,

Can you at least try to assume that some people like myself are ignorant to acronym? I had to go to acronym.com to find out what IE means. There is a long list but for now I am guessing that IE stands for Information Engineer.

Anyway, I agree with you that we cannot feed the whole world but if possible, feeding as many as possible is the most noble thing that we can do.

This is a line from Dr. Phil, but painfully true, IMO: "Financial problems are not solved with money."

That kind of logic can be used also when it comes to feeding everyone: "Food problems are not solved with food."

To solve a problem, you need to remove the cause of it.
The causes however, may be very complex or irremovable, and this is where it all begins to be so complicated, that it seems more feasible to simply give people food.
Solving one problem this way, at least one new one problem gets created: African countries receiving help in food have exploded in population, and now they depend on the world to feed them, they cannot live by themselves anymore.

That's the thing, we can't feed. There are a number of ways we can give aid. One is loans to gov'ts, another is for gov'ts to sell a cash crop to the richer nations, another is for the poor country to host export platforms where its people would work. Loans, as experience shows, inevitably disappear due to corruption. Why? Human nature kicks in at the top of society, that's all. It is easy for corrupt leader to capture public liking in the poor countries. Raising a cash crop requires capital (begotten from where?), and is not the surest way because neighboring countries may compete or not want to cooperate. Why? It just happens. Export platforms naturally produce brain drain, inspite of difficulties for immigrants. Which still results in poverty. That's all. :(

Well, yes, situation can improve, but it will be a slow process. It seems as if the world looks to US for supplying all kinds of aid all over the place, but US can't do everything.

I personally think it is first of all the responsibility of the poor countries to establish competent gov'ts before we even try feeding them. That's a very hard thing to do, many still aren't up to that point.

wesmorris,

Can you at least try to assume that some people like myself are ignorant to acronym? I had to go to acronym.com to find out what IE means. There is a long list but for now I am guessing that IE stands for Information Engineer.

Anyway, I agree with you that we cannot feed the whole world but if possible, feeding as many as possible is the most noble thing that we can do.

I figured you'd look at my profile.

*smirk*

Hehe.

Industrial Engineer. Okay now you have to ask "what is that?" hehe, uhm.. how to put it, basically we study "how to jack with any system of resource distribution' and 'manufacturing methods'. :)

wesmorris,

Thank you for the clear explanation. By the way, acronym.com should be ashamed of themselves for not having Industrial Engineer listed because I would have picked it instead of guessing that you are an Information Engineer. But seriously, I should have thought of looking at your profile. :o

What about the very simple act of teaching African people how to sow and reap, provided that they have both the land and the seeds?
And if they don't want to feed themselves and they want us to feed them, then there's a very simple solution for that: ignore them. They will eventually accept the fact that they need to feed themselves, otherwise they just die.

Simple enough. Hopefully? :cool:

What about the very simple act of teaching African people how to sow and reap

Exactly, giving them food is not going to solve hunger. They have to learn how to make their own food.

Great idea. But most of other countries' research in agriculture is aimed at their own environment, while Africa's environment is very different. There are people that are involved in this, but little has been done and it takes time.

Off-topic, but sitll... Uh-oh, teach them how to live! That's what US wants to do in Iraq. That's what US wants to do everywhere and the responce is usually hostile. :p

Exactly, giving them food is not going to solve hunger. They have to learn how to make their own food.If I might just borrow you for a springboard to a link or two:

• Hickey, Ellen and Anuradha Mittal. Voices From the South: The Third World Debunks Corporate Myths on Genetically Engineered Crops. FoodFirst.org. May, 2003. See http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/ge/sactoministerial/voices.php
• Rosset, Peter M. "Cuba: A Successful Case Study of Sustainable Agriculture." Hungry for Profit: The Agribusiness Threat to Farmers, Food and the Environment. Magdoff, et al, ed. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000. (pp. 203 - 213) See http://www.foodfirst.org/cuba/success.html

Sometimes I think it's not an issue of "give a fish or teach to fish," but one of, "train to fish within the preferred profit scheme." The Voices report offers either the entire PDF or chapters; I recommend the whole, but the chapter titles are compelling enough for folks with slower connections or no particular desire to read the whole thing. (I still haven't read every page of the thing, and I've had it for a while.) Some folks aren't happy with the way multinational agricultural conglomerates and international political and economic influences influence the teaching or empowerment of fishing.

Now, in Cuba, I need to check the numbers on how much the population (e.g. demand) declined in order to meet the available supply, but the "farming revolution" seems to have grabbed some people's attention (http://www.enn.com/news/2003-04-22/s_3912.asp). (See also, this link (http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=22601).) Sure, embargoes may have put Cuba back to the 18th century (http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr118h.htm) in some respects, but right now they're seeing much success.

In terms of trying to teach folks to fish ... there's a 7-page PDF download (396kb) (http://www.undp.org/rblac/wssd/documents/cuba.PDF) on a UN development program launched in 1999 that dovetails nicely with the Cuban farming scheme. It includes things like urban recycling, potable water supply, jobs for women, enterprise development, disease control, basic manufacturing (e.g. construction materials), herbal medicine (seriously!) and even geographical and topographical modeling for municipal planners.

This is a far cry from the kinds of disasters courted by WB/IMF policies (see ICIJ (http://www.icij.org/water/). Cuba is vaguely acquainted with the 20th century, and has at least been introduced to the 21st (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=7202), and while we certainly can't say, "Mission Accomplished!" about any sense or aspect of a Cuban recovery ... they're doin' alright. Things are looking up. The WFP seems to be having an easy time in Cuba (http://www.wfp.org/country_brief/index.asp?region=4) at present.

So you guys don't think they know how to "reap and sow" in Africa?

Africans know damn well how to sow and reap! Maybe even better than anyone else. But that environment there can support only small bushmen-like tribes, that's the thing.

Wesmorris,
Knowing as much as you claim to do about supply chains and logistics, I do not then underestand how you would think that this is a supply chain issue. Supply chains owuld only come into consideration if the suggestion were that this country feed the world by providing the food itself. And even in this, it is logistically possible for this nation to manufacture the grains and meat that could feed the famine struck areas of the world. The only reason why it is practically impossible is quite simply that Agriculture is as much a buisness as any other, and in business, profit is the ultimate goal-- not morality.

That said, it is also the capitalization of agriculture that ensures that the lot dies from hunger. It would make no sense that those who can only grow crops for themselves have to sell the very same crops to get life's other necessities. The problem of feeding the world's poor is also very specific to the region. Cultural practises that foster the the maginifcation of the poverty striken are prevalent in many many areas. Illiteracy plagues the poor, and iwll continue to plague th poor. The untililies that allow for better yields of crops require capital which farmers simply do not have. It is a fact of the prresent world that most land in areas that suffer from famine and the like are very poor due to agricultural practises that erode the rich soil. Take into that the subsidies that rich countries, especially this country provide to their farmers, etc etc. Trade.

The next time you are drinking an orange juice, realize that someone is planting that instead of wheat because he makes money from that orange, and not because he does not want to eat. The elimination of the hungry starts first with trade agreements that donot favour one group oevr the other. That must follow with governments that can provide the necessary environments where specialists grow and the poor get education and the chance to pursue other specialization other than farming. Small plots that attempt to feed the entire family has been the norm in many parts of Africa for instance. In the present when the provision of goods is completely different, these small plots simply cannot work.

Wesmorris,
Knowing as much as you claim to do about supply chains and logistics, I do not then underestand how you would think that this is a supply chain issue.

I'm not exactly sure what I necessarily know, my claim is more that I've had to think about this type of problem a lot. I suppose that doesn't mean shit really, so...

Supply chains owuld only come into consideration if the suggestion were that this country feed the world by providing the food itself.
I have no idea why you would say that. Supply chain is from the point of need to the point of aquisition (of the raw material(s) to be processed into whatever), regardless of what country or whatever. If a bushel of wheat has to come from America to Africa, then that's the length of the supply chain (assuming that the seeds for the wheat came from the US). If the money for the wheat has to come from wherever, then that wherever is part of the supply chain as far as I'm concerned) What's your angle? A TON of aid is allocated to africa, all the time but it's my impression that it rarlely makes it to the people who need it. Even if the aid is just funds, that's still part of the supply chain IMO, as it is the resource required to procure the resources.

And even in this, it is logistically possible for this nation to manufacture the grains and meat that could feed the famine struck areas of the world.
LOL. Enough food is available right now to feed all of them. If it weren't for the leaky supply chain as I mentioned before, they'd probably all be quite well fed.

The only reason why it is practically impossible is quite simply that Agriculture is as much a buisness as any other, and in business, profit is the ultimate goal-- not morality.
How is that even remotely true, given that for instance $400 Billion in Iraq from the UN was diverted to palace building. I realize that's not in africa, but I'm assuming the same type of problem prevails. People somewhere along the line of funding for the procurement of the required resources decides that the funding should supply them rather that the intended people. Why is profit a problem? The aid money is as real as any other money and I'd guess the Ag industry is chomping at the bit for their slice of the pie.

That said, it is also the capitalization of agriculture that ensures that the lot dies from hunger.
How do you reach that conclusion?

It would make no sense that those who can only grow crops for themselves have to sell the very same crops to get life's other necessities.
Unless of course, they can grow more than they need and perhaps, sell the remainder in exchange for other things that they need, like better equipment or land to be able to produce yet more crops? Crazy talk eh?

The problem of feeding the world's poor is also very specific to the region. Cultural practises that foster the the maginifcation of the poverty striken are prevalent in many many areas. Illiteracy plagues the poor, and iwll continue to plague th poor.
True enough.

The untililies that allow for better yields of crops require capital which farmers simply do not have.
But if the supply chain weren't leaky, they'd recieve the intended aid and actually have some of that action. Further, their governments should strategically insist in this matter, such that it maximizes the yeild of its resources as a country.

It is a fact of the prresent world that most land in areas that suffer from famine and the like are very poor due to agricultural practises that erode the rich soil.
That's probably a good point. They know how to grow it, they just don't know how to make sure it can grow again later eh? I'll buy that.

Take into that the subsidies that rich countries, especially this country provide to their farmers, etc etc. Trade.
I don't see the connection.

The next time you are drinking an orange juice, realize that someone is planting that instead of wheat because he makes money from that orange, and not because he does not want to eat.
I'm well aware that people do what they think profits them.

The elimination of the hungry starts first with trade agreements that donot favour one group oevr the other.
Doesn't any agreement favor the sweeter deal?

That must follow with governments that can provide the necessary environments where specialists grow and the poor get education and the chance to pursue other specialization other than farming.
Well okay sure, but how is kind of the problem don't you think? Of course they need the necessary environments, otherwise they wouldn't be considered necessary. The problem seems to be that the governments lack the resources, ability or motivation to do it.

Small plots that attempt to feed the entire family has been the norm in many parts of Africa for instance.
Okay.

In the present when the provision of goods is completely different, these small plots simply cannot work.
Okay.

The next time you are drinking an orange juice, realize that someone is planting that instead of wheat because he makes money from that orange, and not because he does not want to eat. The elimination of the hungry starts first with trade agreements that donot favour one group oevr the other. That must follow with governments that can provide the necessary environments where specialists grow and the poor get education and the chance to pursue other specialization other than farming. Small plots that attempt to feed the entire family has been the norm in many parts of Africa for instance. In the present when the provision of goods is completely different, these small plots simply cannot work.
Yeah.... that's pretty well said....
Unfortunately, the only way that it seems to be possible to help poor people is by making education free or extremely cheap. But that requires some investiments from richer countries, which are not so willing to invest in Africa because of the risks (whichever those are... :rolleyes: ).

Another thing that could be done is simply forgiving their debts. That way, they will be able to have economic growth. In Brasil, that's what always happen. We have so many debts (less then US) that we have to pay to the IMF, or whatever, that our economic growth is almost none. On top of that, our population growth is quite high, but the supplies gowth is not enough to catch up with the demand. No, wait. Maybe the last statement is not quite right. The suppiles of cars definetely meets the demand... :D

Still... most of our money goes to taxes, and most of the taxes goes to pay our national debt. In summary, our monmey simply keeps getting out of the country and that results in no economic growth and, thus, no meeting of the supply or demand. We simply don't have enough money, and we are stuck with the same old opportunity cost.

My Economics course is helping quite a lot in this discussion... :D

Also, why do WE have to pay our debts while the US pays nothing at all!?!?!?
Maybe it is because the US owns the IMF...? :rolleyes:

There is no opportunity cost for "not having money", as "not having money" isn't an action. There is an opportunity cost for "not figuring out how to make some money" perhaps.

BTW: Does anyone have a link to show what the US does or doesn't pay toward their national debt? I tried to google for it but couldn't find the right keywords.

But that environment there can support only small bushmen-like tribes, that's the thing.
Yes, and so thats all it should have. Its very very simple.
We are hurting them by interfering at all. They would naturally sort themselves out.
Don't need to teach them anything.
I guarantee they won't go extinct.

I have no idea why you would say that. Supply chain is from the point of need to the point of aquisition (of the raw material(s) to be processed into whatever), regardless of what country or whatever. If a bushel of wheat has to come from America to Africa, then that's the length of the supply chain (assuming that the seeds for the wheat came from the US). If the money for the wheat has to come from wherever, then that wherever is part of the supply chain as far as I'm concerned) What's your angle? A TON of aid is allocated to africa, all the time but it's my impression that it rarlely makes it to the people who need it. Even if the aid is just funds, that's still part of the supply chain IMO, as it is the resource required to procure the resources.
Firstly in agriculture, at the least at the fundamental of merely feeding people, the raw materials are the goods. The grain is the goal. A supply chain is involved if we talk of processing the food. With respect to money, unless you are talking of beureaucracy, it matters not.


LOL. Enough food is available right now to feed all of them. If it weren't for the leaky supply chain as I mentioned before, they'd probably all be quite well fed.
Yes, enough food is available right now. The problem some don't get fed has nothing to do with supply chain, but rather a desire for leisure. A McDonalds for instance is impossible were all food to be simply used to feed all.


How is that even remotely true, given that for instance $400 Billion in Iraq from the UN was diverted to palace building. I realize that's not in africa, but I'm assuming the same type of problem prevails. People somewhere along the line of funding for the procurement of the required resources decides that the funding should supply them rather that the intended people. Why is profit a problem? The aid money is as real as any other money and I'd guess the Ag industry is chomping at the bit for their slice of the pie.
Firstly, whatever money was given to Iraq was given as an exchnage for oil, and the donators knew what the uses of the money were going to be! Besides, not many in Iraq were starving. Profit is a problem because on the world stage, in trade agreements-- this is one of the main problems by the way, it is the desire for profits that allow that one government subsidies its peoples whilst the other cannot. Subsidies by western governments to their farmers sometimes are more than the bloody GDP of some countries. Besides, money feeds noone. The issue is not money, especially when precedent allows that in most cases going to be abused.

How do you reach that conclusion?
Imagine if food were grown merely for the sake of feeding people, or f most arable land was used for food. Do you think people in afghanistan would be growing poppy?

Unless of course, they can grow more than they need and perhaps, sell the remainder in exchange for other things that they need, like better equipment or land to be able to produce yet more crops? Crazy talk eh?
Very crazy talk. Especially when you have to earn money so you can buy shit to make your pathetic soil grow any shit at all. The small plot farmer, who can only grow what he eats has always been fucked.

But if the supply chain weren't leaky, they'd recieve the intended aid and actually have some of that action. Further, their governments should strategically insist in this matter, such that it maximizes the yeild of its resources as a country.
Forget about supply chain. This is not an issue of logistics. The point of contact, or the consumer if you will, in the provision of aid is the government.

That's probably a good point. They know how to grow it, they just don't know how to make sure it can grow again later eh? I'll buy that.
They don't know how to make the land reach its full potential with the aid of technology that is both expensive and hard to use. Their current practises also abuse the soil.


I don't see the connection.
How do you not see the connection? If say the south american farmer is competing with the america farmer in the market for peanuts, and the american farmer through subsidies is able to purchase better equipment and therefore get better yield as well as better profits and a wider market due to lower prices, how do you think the south america farmer competes?

Doesn't any agreement favor the sweeter deal?
Yes of course. But isn't the entire premise of feeding the needing based on morality and the auspicious guarantee of future productive mmbers of the world?


Well okay sure, but how is kind of the problem don't you think? Of course they need the necessary environments, otherwise they wouldn't be considered necessary. The problem seems to be that the governments lack the resources, ability or motivation to do it.
That and a world environment that fosters that. The nail in the coffin is of course that for you enjoy all the leisre that provides that 40% of the adult population is overweight, current environment does insist that to some extent, some starve. It is quite silly.

There is no opportunity cost for "not having money", as "not having money" isn't an action. There is an opportunity cost for "not figuring out how to make some money" perhaps.

I guess our lack of opportunity cost comes from "not having money because the stupid shitty US stole all our money so that they can be rich and act like pigs for the rest of their lives without having to do anything at all"... :bugeye:

"not having money because the stupid shitty US stole all our money so that they can be rich and act like pigs for the rest of their lives without having to do anything at all"

Perhaps you might consider a rational analysis. It's funny that someone proclaiming to be a "love spirit" could spew such vitriol. I find this the typical hypocrasy of the left.

Oh and truthseeker, you said "your lack of opportunity comes comes from... blahblah".

Perhaps you've not been paying attention in class. Here is a reasonable explanation from economist.com:

"The true cost of something is what you give up to get it. This includes not only the money spent in buying (or doing) the something, but also the economic benefits (UTILITY) that you did without because you bought (or did) that particular something and thus can no longer buy (or do) something else. For example, the opportunity cost of choosing to train as a lawyer is not merely the tuition fees, PRICE of books, and so on, but also the fact that you are no longer able to spend your time holding down a salaried job or developing your skills as a footballer. These lost opportunities may represent a significant loss of utility. Going for a walk may appear to cost nothing, until you consider the opportunity forgone to use that time earning money. Everything you do has an opportunity cost (see SHADOW PRICE). ECONOMICS is primarily about the efficient use of scarce resources, and the notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that resources are indeed being used efficiently."

From here: http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?TERM=OPPORTUNITY%20COST

Well, I was just overacting anyways... :D

We do know how to make money. But most of our money completely goes into paying those bills that we didn't generate. Well, ok... besides building Brasilia. That was dumb... :rolleyes:

But it seems to me that there is no way that we can have economic growth with all the money that we have to pay. Also, external investiments could be quite helpful, but unfortunately there are much speculation around how risky Brasil can be as an investiment, and those speculations are mere speculations rather then a true risk. So why there are speculations from rich countries? Well, maybe you don't want to share your riches, eh?... :rolleyes:

We simply can't live through our limited opportunity cost. We definetely need economic growth in order to be able to compete in the international market.

Oh and truthseeker, you said "your lack of opportunity comes comes from... blahblah".

Perhaps you've not been paying attention in class.
Why would I? I thought I explained myself pretyy clearly... :D


Here is a reasonable explanation from economist.com:

"The true cost of something is what you give up to get it. This includes not only the money spent in buying (or doing) the something, but also the economic benefits (UTILITY) that you did without because you bought (or did) that particular something and thus can no longer buy (or do) something else. For example, the opportunity cost of choosing to train as a lawyer is not merely the tuition fees, PRICE of books, and so on, but also the fact that you are no longer able to spend your time holding down a salaried job or developing your skills as a footballer. These lost opportunities may represent a significant loss of utility. Going for a walk may appear to cost nothing, until you consider the opportunity forgone to use that time earning money. Everything you do has an opportunity cost (see SHADOW PRICE). ECONOMICS is primarily about the efficient use of scarce resources, and the notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that resources are indeed being used efficiently."

From here: http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?TERM=OPPORTUNITY%20COST
Yeah, I remember that from the class. Thanks for that, the examples are great. ;)

I can't speak for 'the country' and it's sort of silly to think like that, but one might consider common sense. Do you want to piss away all your resources on a bad investement? Where there is money to be made, there is investement. Where there is huge risk and low possibility of retunr on investment, there is none. It's common sense. Perhaps instead of complaining that "we don't want to share", you might look at "how do we make a potential investor see the profitability of what we have to offer, and then make sure we deliver". If you could do that, your purported problem is resolved.

I can't speak for 'the country' and it's sort of silly to think like that, but one might consider common sense. Do you want to piss away all your resources on a bad investement? Where there is money to be made, there is investement. Where there is huge risk and low possibility of retunr on investment, there is none. It's common sense. Perhaps instead of complaining that "we don't want to share", you might look at "how do we make a potential investor see the profitability of what we have to offer, and then make sure we deliver". If you could do that, your purported problem is resolved.
That's what the governement has been doing. However, the frequent speculations scare away possible investors... :rolleyes:

In any case, it would be nice to get back all the money that was stolen from us... :rolleyes:

That's what the governement has been doing.

That is obviously mistaken, or like I said, you wouldn't have the problem. People are suckers for a sure thing.

However, the frequent speculations scare away possible investors... :rolleyes:
That doesn't make any sense. "frequent speculations"? What does that mean? Do you mean that people think it's "high risk"? Well, it's then the job of the government to:

1) Make sure there is a damn good reason to invest. Basically - facilitate the sure thing.
2) Demonstrate to potential investors the "rock solid" nature of your investment. If you can determine a rock solid 20% return, people will line up around the globe to invest.

In any case, it would be nice to get back all the money that was stolen from us... :rolleyes:

First of all which "us" do you refer to... Brazillians?

Regardless, I don't know anything about whether or not something was stolen from your country. If it was, standing around and bitching about it certainly doesn't help. Complaints are quite human for sure, but they don't get much accomplished. Act, or waste your time. If you believe so strongly in the cause of your country's economy (which I would find to be very noble), then stop pissing and moaning, get your 5 doctorates, and make investment in Brazil a sure thing. Do that, and you will resolve your complaints. Lead them to economic salvation.

That is obviously mistaken, or like I said, you wouldn't have the problem. People are suckers for a sure thing.
The government have tried to resolve some of the problems. However, we simply don't have enough money for it. We raise our productivity and we have an economic growth, but this economic growth is instantly eaten up by paying bills that we shouldn't be paying. It's a vicious circle. We can even invest in education, but for doing that, we have to take money of other things, and we simply can't, because we don't have enough to spend. This would obviously be possible if we had economic growth. So the bottom-line
is: how can you expect us to have any economic growth, if there's no space for it? I think it's a little hypocrite to ask us to pay our loans to the IMF and not paying your own bills. The US has trillions of dollars in loans. Do they pay it? No. What do they do with the money? Invest it in education, healthcare and other things so that you can have economic growth. But your bills get more and more interests and it gets larger and larger, and you will probably never be able to pay. So why should we?

Btw, is the IMF an US-run organization or and international one? It says international, but really, what is the truth behind it? Where is the IMF located anyways...? (this is an obviously rhetoric question... :rolleyes: )


That doesn't make any sense. "frequent speculations"? What does that mean? Do you mean that people think it's "high risk"?
No. I mean that people say that there is a high risk, but in reality there isn't. With an investment, we can very easily invest the money in education and techonolgy and, in return, we could have greater increases in productivity, which would eventually result in economic growth and economic independance.


First of all which "us" do you refer to... Brazillians?
Yes.


Regardless, I don't know anything about whether or not something was stolen from your country.
For example, Portugual stole basically all our gold... :rolleyes:
That's just one example....


If it was, standing around and bitching about it certainly doesn't help. Complaints are quite human for sure, but they don't get much accomplished. Act, or waste your time. If you believe so strongly in the cause of your country's economy (which I would find to be very noble), then stop pissing and moaning, get your 5 doctorates, and make investment in Brazil a sure thing. Do that, and you will resolve your complaints. Lead them to economic salvation.
That is certainly very tempting. However, that is just one thing to accomplish, and me all by myelf would probably not be able to do it.
Why do you say 5 doctorates? :confused:

Just to remind you, before we can have an economic growth, we need a raise in the productivity. But to raise the productivity, we need a series of other things. We need, for example, education. We also need food, shelter, clothes, healthcare, etc. But our resources are carce. That's when the opportunity cot come to play. The problem with 3<up>rd</sup> wolrd countries is that we don't have enough resources to cause an economic growth. We have only enough resources to keep us alive. And in order to increase our productivity, we need either increase our work hours (which are already from about 7:00am to 10:00pm) or increase our techonology, which would result in faster and more accurate production. But we don't have neither the money, nor the proper education to do so. The reult is that we live in a viciou circle, where we only produce enough to consume. That is what is called "hands-to-mouth"... or at least how my teacher call it... :D

We need food, shelter, and safety. Without those things we cannot survive. And we only have enough opportunity cost to cover those things, resulting in obvious lack of economic growth.

Firstly in agriculture, at the least at the fundamental of merely feeding people, the raw materials are the goods. The grain is the goal. A supply chain is involved if we talk of processing the food.

Yes and no matter where that grain is, that's in the supply chain... along with all the exchanges along the way to the end user.

With respect to money, unless you are talking of beureaucracy, it matters not.
I don't know why you say that. If money is part of the resources required to procure other resources, then as far as I'm concerned, that's part of the supply chain.

The problem some don't get fed has nothing to do with supply chain, but rather a desire for leisure.
Please support that statement. I have no idea how you reach your conclusion. I think you're dismissing the value of trade.

A McDonalds for instance is impossible were all food to be simply used to feed all.

Yes and if air were only used for breathing where wouldn't be any pollution. Fortunatley, air has a number of uses. Oh and the idea of "all food being simply used to feed people" is pure idealism. If I have two twix and you have a clark bar, what if you want a twix and I want a clark bar?

Profit is a problem because on the world stage, in trade agreements-- this is one of the main problems by the way, it is the desire for profits that allow that one government subsidies its peoples whilst the other cannot.
"profit is a problem"? A government's mandate is to "profit" for it's people, regardless of economic policy. Maybe I don't see what you mean, but it seems like you've latched onto some socialist rhetoric. I admit that said rhetoric is enticing, as it 'sounds good' and right and pure. It is unfortunately however, dangerously idealistic. The "problem" as I see it in that context, is clash of value.

Subsidies by western governments to their farmers sometimes are more than the bloody GDP of some countries.
So what?

The issue is not money, especially when precedent allows that in most cases going to be abused.
It sounds like you might have a point in there, but I'm not sure exactly what it is. What precedent, what abuse? Are you sure it's abuse? By what standard?

Imagine if food were grown merely for the sake of feeding people, or f most arable land was used for food.
LOL. That is a very noble thought, but I don't think it has any merit, as with no profit, or reward for the efforts undertaken to grow it, and the opportunity cost of using it for food, I don't see how you would motivate anyone to do it. More pertinently, an economy is dependent on the fair trade of goods.

Do you think people in afghanistan would be growing poppy?
Yes (as long as the jack boot wasn't stepping on them), because someone would trade their food for it. Get it? Just because you think desire shouldn't be considered as demand - that doesn't make it stop being demand. If I really really want to do heroin and I have some extra food, and someone else really wants that extra food, they will probably meet my demand such that I can meet theirs, or vice versa. Barter, trade, whatever. If I desire what you have, there are a number of ways I can go about procuring it.

Especially when you have to earn money so you can buy shit to make your pathetic soil grow any shit at all. The small plot farmer, who can only grow what he eats has always been fucked.
LOL. But he has food right? Isn't that what you just said? If he has enough to eat, what is your complaint?

Forget about supply chain. This is not an issue of logistics.
From my perspective, it looks like you say that blindly. I find that uncharacteristic of you, but I don't see the analysis to support your demands. Forget about the supply chain? It's not an issue of logistics? Call me whatever you must, but IMO, economics is mainly about logistics and 'feeding the world' directly follows suit.

They don't know how to make the land reach its full potential with the aid of technology that is both expensive and hard to use. Their current practises also abuse the soil.
Well I don't know much about farming, but that sounds plausible to me.

How do you not see the connection?
Because your sentence made no sense to me. I think your example below clarifies what you were trying to say.

If say the south american farmer is competing with the america farmer in the market for peanuts, and the american farmer through subsidies is able to purchase better equipment and therefore get better yield as well as better profits and a wider market due to lower prices, how do you think the south america farmer competes?
Poorly. That's a good point, but doesn't that place the problem of the government of the south american country, or perhaps the consumers that fail to "buy south american"? If a country's market cannot compete - get into a market where you can. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time. Get out of the game in that case. For instance, if said south american government finds your specified issue to be problematic - place large tarrifs on the american goods, to allow fair competition. Well either that or like I said, find a new game. Turning challenge into opportunity, that's the ticket.

But isn't the entire premise of feeding the needing based on morality and the auspicious guarantee of future productive mmbers of the world?
It really depends on who you ask.

Speaking in absolutisms, like Wes seems to start off doing, of course you cant feed the world.
But, like everyone else, I say you can start by making sure people have land to grow their own food, and suchlike.

AS for Brazil, I have an interesting old book that demonstrates how Brazil effectively lost capital over much of the early 20th century, ie it was extracted by foreign companies and gvts, in the form of remitted profits and raw materials etc.

Imagine this: A thread is started that offers up an idea and the thread starter asks for feedback. Almost immediately, the thread is threadjacked into a forum to bullshit about why it is the fault of the U.S. that the excess amounts of grain grown in the world aren't distributed efficiently to the places of greatest need.

For the love of Porfiry, can you guys have one single fucking discussion that doesn't become a circular argument that leads back to the U.S.? Are you that fucking narrow minded?

Regarding the distribution of food...: If you are willfully naive enough to believe that the internal politics of any region don't play the most significant role in the distribution of resources then I really don't think you should interject your input into a discussion that is clearly over your head. Ignorance is no excuse for being wrong.

Farm subsidies. The governments way of trying to level the playing field for those that are "less than efficient" in their methods. Funny that liberals would bitch about the very policies they advocate every single day.

Indeed, this thread is a blatant example of discrimination against the EU. We throw away heaps of good food too.

Why not feed the dolphins or whales? We actually TAKE food AWAY from them. If there is excess food left over obviously they should be getting it.
The whole premise of feeding the world relies on the zany outlandish assumption that society a is responsible for society b's well being.
If somehow this was the case, there still wouldn't be a case for society a sending food to society b. Because that merely prolongs the amount of time the problem will persist.
Also I hear people saying people need land, right there already that is contradictory to the system that is life on earth. If there are people without land they should not exist. Having land to survive off of is the pre-requisite for living. Its not a matter of finding or creating land to accomodate for earths homo-sapiens, we should be allowing earth to decide how many homo-sapiens it can support. If people are living somewhere they can't survive, then let them die. There actually is a solution to these problems and they require no effort. Making an effort in fact fuels the problem.
You might think I'm heartless, but lets face reality, in 100 years if my plan(which is do nothing) was in place, there would be no more starving people living in areas unable to support human life. In 100 years with your plan in place there would be, they would occassionally be getting some tepid gruel but they would still be living unbearable lives full of suffering.
Good intentions are a bitch, history has proven this time and time again, by righteously trying to help these people you are prolonging the suffering and creating future suffering. Really think about it. You are ensuring that in a hundred years people will still be being born purely to die horrible slow painfull deaths.
The only difference between me and you is I'm proposing 1 or 2 generations of suffering, you are proposing to have as many generations of suffering as we can afford to maintain.
Thats the reality.

Why not feed the dolphins or whales? We actually TAKE food AWAY from them.

I once read someone complaining that the seabirds, dolphins etc all together rob us from an equal amount of food as we take out of the oceans each year.

What a bunch of wankers.

Imagine this: A thread is started that offers up an idea and the thread starter asks for feedback. Almost immediately, the thread is threadjacked into a forum to bullshit about why it is the fault of the U.S. that the excess amounts of grain grown in the world aren't distributed efficiently to the places of greatest need.
Maybe the fact that at least 2/3 of the american population is overlyfed and overweight, contrasting with the 2/3 of the world population that starve is a better argument? :rolleyes:


For the love of Porfiry, can you guys have one single fucking discussion that doesn't become a circular argument that leads back to the U.S.? Are you that fucking narrow minded?
Maybe is not much of narrow-mindness. If all is blamed in te US, then there must be some truth behind all the arguments, right?
Why would the US be blamed if it isn't the US's fault? That would be dumb, wouldn't it?


Regarding the distribution of food...: If you are willfully naive enough to believe that the internal politics of any region don't play the most significant role in the distribution of resources then I really don't think you should interject your input into a discussion that is clearly over your head. Ignorance is no excuse for being wrong.
O-k... so when manufacturing companies stabilish factories on 3rd world countries and pay them mierable wages, and then sell the final product back to them for a much bigger price; I assume that, by your view, that is correct and don't influence the internal economy, right? :rolleyes:

Maybe the fact that at least 2/3 of the american population is overlyfed and overweight, contrasting with the 2/3 of the world population that starve is a better argument? :rolleyes:
How is weight relevant? Since the US has a lot of food, they should ship it elsewhere? Why? What if it would be rotten before it got there? What if it would be stolen along the way? What if they don't like our food? Why, after the discussion thus far in this thread, do you still not see that your generalization is false? At least honestly question your own assertions. You say that 2/3 of the world is STARVING? How then is it that they survive? If they aren't dead then are you still sure they're starving? Please provide some evidence of your claims. 2/3 of the world starving sounds like a pile of horseshit to me.

Maybe is not much of narrow-mindness. If all is blamed in te US, then there must be some truth behind all the arguments, right?
What the hell are you on?

Why would the US be blamed if it isn't the US's fault? That would be dumb, wouldn't it?
Okay you simply can't be serious. You seem to honestly hate the US, so this seems like a sincere comment. How about if I blame you for the death of my great aunt? Would it be dumb for you not to think you are at fault?

O-k... so when manufacturing companies stabilish factories on 3rd world countries and pay them mierable wages, and then sell the final product back to them for a much bigger price; I assume that, by your view, that is correct and don't influence the internal economy, right? :rolleyes:

Okay they don't have to work, nor do they have to buy the shit. If they do, then their government sold them out and they should get a new one.

You can't just subsidize your own food production and then ship it to countries in need. You will destroy their agricultural economy.

You need to make things more fair and give structural help.


I can remember once seeing a program about dutch farmers going to third world countries not to give them grain but to see if they could give them some expertise.

I have some questions:

Who, which country first send a large amount of free food as help?
To whom?
When?

What was the motivation for this act?
Were there any conditions bound to that?
What was the outlook -- did the giving country set a deadline by which the receiving country should recover or something like that?

I am aware that this is a political question, but to give away large amounts of free food is in the end a political decision.
What benefit did the giving country hope for from that act?

How is weight relevant?
Americans eat and consume more then they should. That's a fact.

Since the US has a lot of food, they should ship it elsewhere? Why? What if it would be rotten before it got there? What if it would be stolen along the way?
So what.


What if they don't like our food?
I don't think that's an issue for an starving person. Have you ever starved.


Why, after the discussion thus far in this thread, do you still not see that your generalization is false?
Generalization? Well, maybe you see it as a generalization because you live in a rich country, and all people that you see around you is pretty well off, certainly compared to the 3rd world. Still, it's a very small amount of the population.


At least honestly question your own assertions. You say that 2/3 of the world is STARVING? How then is it that they survive?
Just because they are starving, that does'nt mean they will die immediately. People can live a long time without food and still not totally die of starvation. It is a process. Starvation is not something that happens in one day. Chances are that they will eat something, but they will have a very bad nutrition. You don't know that do you?


If they aren't dead then are you still sure they're starving? Please provide some evidence of your claims. 2/3 of the world starving sounds like a pile of horseshit to me.
The only rich people in the planet live, basically, in North America and Europe (with a few little exceptions). They represent about 1/3 of the wolrd (or maybe even less then that, if my memory doesn't fail me). The rest is the third world, and in the third world people either almost starve or do definetely starve. It's not a great exageration to say that 2/3 of the world starve, because 2/3 of the world live in poverty. Still, the amount of people in the third world that doesn't starve is quite small compared to the ones that do starve, so I totally ignore the ones that are not really starving and round it to 2/3. Big deal.


What the hell are you on?
Oxygen, food, and no brainwashing. I guess the "no brainwashing" part is the one that we have different, eh? ;)


Okay you simply can't be serious. You seem to honestly hate the US, so this seems like a sincere comment. How about if I blame you for the death of my great aunt? Would it be dumb for you not to think you are at fault?
Ah? First, I don't hate the US. Second, what are you talking about? :confused:


Okay they don't have to work, nor do they have to buy the shit. If they do, then their government sold them out and they should get a new one.
Yes, indeed. It's interesting how people are priced much lower nowdays... maybe we should have slaves again...? :rolleyes:

I stopped reading the posts less than halfway down because there were a lot of words, so maybe this has already been said.

The truth is, there is enough food in the world to feed eveyone, there are enough resources to distribute food.

There are only a few major problems in Africa that are causing so much strife and starvation:
AIDS
Droughts
Wars
Previous Colonial Rulers

I shall go further in depth, if you care to read.

Most of colonial Africa was ruled with an iron fist, only the British colonies had any experience with democratic governments, and they are doing the best (like Ghana). Corruption and nepotism are serious issues. African borders were also divided up by European powers, putting tribes and races who were traditional enemies in the same country.
From these political issues rise wars.
The wars affect nomadic people; they can no longer cross borders or return to traditional watering holes.
Africa suffers from periodic droughts, and their mostly agrarian economy and livelihood are drastically affected.
On top of that, wars in the region aggravate starvation further by pushing refugees into places that can not support that many people.
In some places, AIDS is believed to affect as much as 30% oof the population. That means 30% of people are sick and disabled. They cannot work and also require care. The people who care for them also cannot work. A lack of workers results in a damaged economy results in poverty, starvation and war. Repeat.

Many people seem to believe that the Africans do not take care of themselves and will stop working if we support them. If we do not offer support, how can they hope to stabilize their countries?

Americans eat and consume more then they should. That's a fact.

LOL. Tell me exactly who establishes a "should"?

So what.
So in either case, shipping the stuff anywhere is pointless, as it does nothing but waste the shipping resources and in the thieve's case (which is likely corrupted officials of government x), increase their power.

Generalization? Well, maybe you see it as a generalization because you live in a rich country, and all people that you see around you is pretty well off, certainly compared to the 3rd world. Still, it's a very small amount of the population.
The problem is that you're pulling your numbers out of your ass and perhaps exposing that your claim "not brainwashed" is quite false. The research I did (took all of 5 minutes) showed that approximately 1/8 of the world is hungry, and I think around a third of them are literally starving. In case you're wondering (http://www.bread.org/hungerbasics/international.htm)
The only rich people in the planet live, basically, in North America and Europe (with a few little exceptions).
Well jeez tiassa says "rich" is an artificial concept. Regardless, there are "rich" people in every country. Your claim is simply false. If you're talking about average income or "wealth", the US is what? Hmmm.. I think yeah, the US is 4th on the list of GDP per Capita. (http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/PIBH2.html) If you're weren't so goddamned brainwashed, perhaps you'd see that the point "Africa is the poorest continent ever" may have had more factual accuracy. FYI it looks like brazil would have fit in at around 38th on that list, with a GDP per capita of around 7400.

They represent about 1/3 of the wolrd (or maybe even less then that, if my memory doesn't fail me). The rest is the third world, and in the third world people either almost starve or do definetely starve.
Looks like you're wrong.

It's not a great exageration to say that 2/3 of the world starve, because 2/3 of the world live in poverty.
Again, looks like you're wrong.

Still, the amount of people in the third world that doesn't starve is quite small compared to the ones that do starve, so I totally ignore the ones that are not really starving and round it to 2/3. Big deal.
Big deal indeed. Proof at least that your following statement is false.

Oxygen, food, and no brainwashing.
To correct you, remove the "no".

I guess the "no brainwashing" part is the one that we have different, eh? ;)
I guess so, except maybe not like you thought.

Ah? First, I don't hate the US.
:rolleyes: Perhaps you should re-read your posts, love spirit. You're not paying attention.

Second, what are you talking about? :confused:
You asserted that if the US were blamed, then it wouldn't make sense if they weren't guilty. That is nonsense.

Yes, indeed. It's interesting how people are priced much lower nowdays... maybe we should have slaves again...? :rolleyes:

What in the hell do slaves have to do with anything? There are plenty of slaves in Africa, under the servitude of other Africans, but I don't see how you get slavery from an illustration that your attempted logic was grossly flawed, more than one in the same post. You see, their time would be better spent at agriculture, or fleeing their country or toppling their government than working for little to no wage. Secondly they don't have to buy whatever it is that you think is being sold back to them at an inflated rate (which obviously, you have NO CLUE about, as you have no idea of the costs incurred by the company producing said goods). Again, they could buy something else or topple their government and get one that works. NO it isn't easy, but it's better than living in squalor and starvation.

LOL. Tell me exactly who establishes a "should"?
I don't know. Maybe the IHA (International Health Association)...? :D
... Doctors estabilish the "should"...


So in either case, shipping the stuff anywhere is pointless, as it does nothing but waste the shipping resources and in the thieve's case (which is likely corrupted officials of government x), increase their power.
Excuses for not shipping the stuff... Of course nothing of that happens. It's just silly to believe that thieves will still a bunch of food!


The problem is that you're pulling your numbers out of your ass and perhaps exposing that your claim "not brainwashed" is quite false. The research I did (took all of 5 minutes) showed that approximately 1/8 of the world is hungry, and I think around a third of them are literally starving. In case you're wondering (http://www.bread.org/hungerbasics/international.htm)
Uhhh... the links is not working anymore...
"The link you clicked on leads to a page that's not there anymore. "

But anyways... it's common sense that only 1/3 of the world live in first world countries...


Well jeez tiassa says "rich" is an artificial concept. Regardless, there are "rich" people in every country.
Duh. Of course! But do you really take into account an extremely minimun percentage of the population?!?


Your claim is simply false. If you're talking about average income or "wealth", the US is what? Hmmm.. I think yeah, the US is 4th on the list of GDP per Capita. (http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/PIBH2.html)
US citizens are the biggest consumers. The average income is not relevant, consumption per person is the relevant point.


If you're weren't so goddamned brainwashed, perhaps you'd see that the point "Africa is the poorest continent ever" may have had more factual accuracy.
I'm not brainwashed by the media... you are.
You say that Africa is not the poorest continent?


FYI it looks like brazil would have fit in at around 38th on that list, with a GDP per capita of around 7400.
Yuhhoooo!!! We are coming up baby! :D


Looks like you're wrong.
I did learn that in social science... :rolleyes:


Again, looks like you're wrong.
It's common knowledge that 2/3 of the world live in 3rd world countries.


To correct you, remove the "no".
I don't watch TV.


Perhaps you should re-read your posts, love spirit. You're not paying attention.
I don't hate the US. I just pointing out the truth, that's all.


You asserted that if the US were blamed, then it wouldn't make sense if they weren't guilty. That is nonsense.
When did I say that? I didn't say that.

What in the hell do slaves have to do with anything? There are plenty of slaves in Africa, under the servitude of other Africans, but I don't see how you get slavery from an illustration that your attempted logic was grossly flawed, more than one in the same post.
People in China are enslaved by american companies that pay basically nothing for their hard work. They often get hurt and there's nothing to cover them. There's also child slavery. Nike is a prime example of American hypocrisy... :rolleyes:

Ha! "Freedom"... :rolleyes:


You see, their time would be better spent at agriculture, or fleeing their country or toppling their government than working for little to no wage.
P-leeeeaaase, read Roman's post...


Secondly they don't have to buy whatever it is that you think is being sold back to them at an inflated rate (which obviously, you have NO CLUE about, as you have no idea of the costs incurred by the company producing said goods).
Again, Nike is a prime example of the profit-at-any-cost behaviour of americans. The costs are extremely low compared to the prices. they extremely overprice their shoes. Also, they often want more shelf-space then others. It's all overpriced.


Again, they could buy something else or topple their government and get one that works. NO it isn't easy, but it's better than living in squalor and starvation.
I'm pretty sure US is quite glad of China's slave-labour... minimizing the costs only creates great revenue for your beloved country, of course at the cost of the slavery of the rest of the world... :rolleyes:

Maybe in spanish you can speak well and are halfway bright. In English, you apparently have a hard time understanding what's been said. With that, I abandon efforts to communicate with you in this topic.

Did you read that site? Brasil is in 66th place....
$2610... still, it is only that big because of the rich people. A few people earn like almost $10,000 per month while most of the population earn less then $500... :bugeye:

Maybe in spanish you can speak well and are halfway bright. In English, you apparently have a hard time understanding what's been said. With that, I abandon efforts to communicate with you in this topic.
I speak Portuguese. Maybe you don't know that because inyour country they teach only about your country and ignore the rest of the world as "backward" people... :rolleyes:

But anyways... everyone knows my English is actually quite above average compared to even some canadians. Still, who cares...?

In Psychology, we call your defensive tactic "avoiding dissonant information", which is actually compared to "physical avoidance", to be more specific.... ;)
You are also using "rationalization" in order to give an excuse to go away. This falls into the category of "distorting critical information"... ;)

Yeah. Dude, you can't read. Don't blame me.

You are using "goading" as an attempt to continue a conversation that you are not actually participating in. Please, let it go.

Yeah. Dude, you can't read. Don't blame me.
Why do you say I can't read?


You are using "goading" as an attempt to continue a conversation that you are not actually participating in. Please, let it go.
You don't know much about psychology, do you? :p

Why do you say I can't read?

Because it's obvious that you can't read well or you refuse to, or you're simply here to promote some political agenda. It's evidenced by the fact that you apparently don't understand your own points. You say shit like "2/3 of the world is starving". I prove you wrong, with evidence, and you pretend it is inconsequential, write it off as "common sense" (that you're right), fail to make any substantial point besides that you decree it "common sense" and then proceed to tell me I'm "avoiding you". The fact is that you have been demonstrated to be irrational and incorrect, and you can't admit it. Perhaps you should study up on your psychology textbooks to see what they have to say about people who behave that way.

Here is that link again: http://www.bread.org/hungerbasics/index.html

Further, since this has degraded into personal criticisms, I'd prefer to abandon the interaction but will not if you continue to goad me. In fact, my behavior will degrade in civility toward you from this point forward if you insist on your childish behavior. Perhaps this is your source of amusement. If so that's incredibly dishonest and disgusting. If not, then I encourage you to stop addressing me unless you have a rational point.

You don't know much about psychology, do you? :p

As far as I can tell I understand minds better than anyone I know.

Apparently the oraganization is 30 years old, so they've had a lot of time to think about their agenda. Here's a smidge from that site's FAQ:

"Hunger does not exist because the world does not produce enough food. We have the experience and the technology right now to end the problem. The challenge we face is not production of food and wealth, but more equitable distribution.

It would take a modest effort to end hunger and malnutrition worldwide. Hunger is a political condition. And so the key to overcoming hunger is to change the politics of hunger."

I highlighted the text I think they'd find impossible to really support. I refute them as follows:

1) "Equitable distribution" is a farce, it's nonsense. There is no such thing. Everyone values things differently (yes even food) such "equitable" is relative. I don't think throwing money or food at the problem solves the problem. The problems are I think well described by Roman's post. It's much more than redistribution, it's nurturing an incredibly diverse, conflicted continent to economic viability. I don't think it's possible to "force it". It has to be nurtured and supported to the best of the ability of the rest of the world.

Perhaps this is nature talking. It's not like Africa doesn't have the resources to support itself (sans the AIDS epidemic, in which they desperately need help). They just don't know how to use them.

2) Obviously a modest effort has already been put forth and the problem has not ended.

Wes, I agree with the "lack of wanting to help people mentality," but why couldn't helping people be made economically profitable?

"Africa" cannot support itself, obviously. Africa is many, many countries. It's not like they're all best friends. Most of Africa lacks infrastructure and oppurtunity.

How is AIDS much different than starvation? Solving the starvation issue would be cheaper than AIDS, and probably be more economically beneficial to everyone.

But in light of what you said earlier about feeding eveyone being ecologically sustainable, there is somewhat of a paradox. You'd think that for keeping the population low, one would just keep everyone hungry and dying. Unfortunately, malnutrition leads to numeous childhood deaths, which means that families need to have more kids to survive to a reproductive age (think salmon). Also, children are a form of insurance in countries without social welfare. They'll take care of you in your old age.

It's found that education is the greatest control of population. The most educated nations have the slowest birthrates. Germany has a negative birth rate, as well as the upper echelon of literate nations.

So why not educate Africa? Well, it's hard to teach people anything when they are all starving and killing eachother or dying of AIDS.

There is also an intermediary step when a country becomes "educated," (industrialized would be a better term). Cultural habits, ie, numerous offspring, aren't immediately curbed, yet medicine and care exists to keep the kids alive. Take for example 19th century Britain, or 20th century India. There are huge population explosions, who end up working 18 hours in factories rather than farms. Then, after time, a middle class arises, and all is socially harmonious.

Here in lies the paradox. Ought the Western world help out African countries (rich countries can afford what we sell) but cause dramatic population growth, or let them starve and kill each other? Either way, it's pretty damning.

Truthseeker: I think Wes is saying "yeah, it's a shame all those people have to starve," but he is also cynical in his beliefs that that they will be fed. In a very wordy, economical-jargon way he is saying basically "who really is going to feed them? everyone's a greedy whore."

Also, your comment about China having slaves for US corporations, isn't really true. They're actually communist dogs over there, are not abel to unionize, and China purposefully devalued its currency to attract US businesses. China is keeping the poor, pobre, not the US of A (so much).

It's more that I don't know how to clearly differentiate between the man who would starve and the man who would risk starvation such that the other man doesn't starve. I don't judge either. One can be viewed as more noble, but I'm not going to be the man to tell you I'm taking your food from your kid so that some other person's kid can eat. Well that, and I think that in this type of analysis I don't think that differentiating between the two is at all fair. Their luck has put them where they are, it's up to them to find their way out. If we are decent by my standards, then we will help each other out in the way I consider "helping out". Please note however, that standards of "decency", while imperative, are wholly relative. By that I mean just because I believe in my morals doesn't mean you don't believe in yours just as much as I do my own - so we're inherently at least minimally conflcting in value, and as such competition is unavoidable from a forced control perspective. If you could finesse the system such that each member adheres to your value system, then you're onto something. You might say that if you look around you right now, that's exactly what's happening eh? Cultures vying for control of essential values? (perhaps in the same way an animal seeks to survive, the aggregae interaction of a bunch of abstract animals is that the very abstracts they create somehow manage to tend to survive, in that the value systems that a culture promotes, seemingly serve to strengthen the cuture) I think that same ordeal has a multitude of layers that follow all the way from a culture down the the scale of the individual.

When I'm responsible for ME, I may make the altruistic decision, but when I'm responsible for a family, or a town, or a state, or a country... I am bound to make the choice that ensures that my people eat before yours.

You might say it sucks that this is the "cold reality" of life, but in fact it's also quite beatiful, because it what I've just described is the flip side of a beautiful symbiotic thing. You scratch my back, I scratch yours and we both win.

Another point is that given the unpredictability of value in either party in any transaction, one cannot insist that one is inherently more or less "valid" than the other, since force is the ultimate value assertion and will ultimately resolve disputes that must be resolved. That is the natural order of things. Values compete. Each carrier of value competes to assert or indulge their own value.

Roman, I think you have touched on the core principle of directed economic improvement (drastically paraphrasing): "progress is where the profit lies, so value must be influenced as heavily as possible to progress in the direction that is desired" (that is of course for instance if you desire to end hunger, which by pure numbers is probably a very bad idea) - if you follow.

Because it's obvious that you can't read well or you refuse to, or you're simply here to promote some political agenda. It's evidenced by the fact that you apparently don't understand your own points. You say shit like "2/3 of the world is starving". I prove you wrong, with evidence, and you pretend it is inconsequential, write it off as "common sense" (that you're right), fail to make any substantial point besides that you decree it "common sense" and then proceed to tell me I'm "avoiding you". The fact is that you have been demonstrated to be irrational and incorrect, and you can't admit it.
My teachers in Brasil taught me that. My teachers in Canada alo taught me that. So everyone is wrong and you are right? :rolleyes:
And what I'm saying is not o much for 2/3 of the world is starving, but that about 1/3 of the world can be considered rich or average, while the remaining 2/3 is poor. Take China for example. How much of it population is poor? Everyone knows its a big part of the population. And they have at least 1 billion people there. India is the same thing. And Africa. And I may be downplaying the numbers. So now we already have 3 billion poor people. With most of the rest of Asia, Mexico and South America, we have around 6 billion people. More then enough for 1/3. So we take the "rich" out of the picture... :rolleyes: ... and voila, we have around 5 billion poor people.

Perhaps you should study up on your psychology textbooks to see what they have to say about people who behave that way.
Oh yeah, absolutely. The textbook covers all kinds of interperonal relationships...


Further, since this has degraded into personal criticisms, I'd prefer to abandon the interaction but will not if you continue to goad me. In fact, my behavior will degrade in civility toward you from this point forward if you insist on your childish behavior. Perhaps this is your source of amusement. If so that's incredibly dishonest and disgusting. If not, then I encourage you to stop addressing me unless you have a rational point.
Did I started or you? Well, anyways. I don't care. I don't want to talk either if you have a childish behaviour....

I think Wes is saying "yeah, it's a shame all those people have to starve," but he is also cynical in his beliefs that that they will be fed. In a very wordy, economical-jargon way he is saying basically "who really is going to feed them? everyone's a greedy whore."
That's not what I heard, but anyways....


Also, your comment about China having slaves for US corporations, isn't really true. They're actually communist dogs over there, are not abel to unionize, and China purposefully devalued its currency to attract US businesses.
Yes, I know that. But the US loves it anyways, eh? Also, it's well known that like in the case of Nike, the US corporations pay them even less. What they pay them is barely enough to feed the chinese people. Also, there is some child slave labour. the US is just taking advantage of that. Doing that, just help the communists to stay in power.


China is keeping the poor, pobre, not the US of A (so much).
Yes, "so much"... :D

It's not an accident that the U.S. has the level of wealth and prosperity that it enjoys relative to the rest of the world. The deck was not stacked in favor of the U.S. by some omniscient overlord. Like every other country in the world, the U.S. has its good and bad points, and has suffered its highs and lows. We bust our collective asses every day at work to get where we are, excepting the union broke-dicks. That's why we are successful.

For example, my grandmother grew up in a time when supper consisted of salt pork and turnips almost every night. Big fucking deal? She doesn't carry that banner around. Her mother died at 9 years old and she became the domestic caretaker of the household for her father and her two older sisters. Big fucking deal? That's what tough people do. They adapt. Where would she be if she had decided at 9 years old to cry in her milk about the tough break she got dealt at an early age?

If someone told you the world was a fair place, they lied to you.

The U.S. has an abundance of certain resources. So does Saudi Arabia. I don't see anybody imploring Saudi Arabia to cough up the cash and resources to solve the worlds problems to the same degree that I see the "have-nots" of the world crying about the U.S. not letting the whole friggin world suckle at the teat.

People from all over the world visit the U.S. and come away stunned by the level of non-compulsory assistance provided by regular citizens to help those less fortunate. What does that tell you about the nature of things?

If you don't like the fact that many of the people of the world go to bed hungry every night, then look at the internal reasons before you go hunting for a scapegoat outside of the context. Otherwise, you just look like a generic envious shitcock, and green is a great color for dollars and trees, but not so much for people.

American's inherited wealth and prosperity. America had the luxury of an empty continent, to grow from sea to shining sea. Saudi Arabia has some resources. California ranks 5th in GDP of the entire world. That's some damn luck.

So your grandmother went through toughtimes. Have you? Have I, has truthseeker or wesmorris? No, not like your grandmother.

America has NO reason not to help people, except its own seflishness and greed. Where's Soviet Russia, where's Hitler? Where is any superpower capable of threatening the US? There isn't one. America spends more money on War than China, Iraq, Iran and North Korea Combined. America spends almost half the worlds money on "defense."

How fucking noble.

We used to "bust our collective asses." Now we don't. Americans don't work for cheap, because they're lazy. Ever hear of outsourcing? Why did Japan get an upper hand in the automobile market? Why are American textiles located in Indonesa, Malaysia, and Mexico? Why are manufacturing jobs lost to overseas markets? Because they are willing to work more, for less.

And they live on rice and water, not fancy turnips and salt pork.

It's not an accident that the U.S. has the level of wealth and prosperity that it enjoys relative to the rest of the world. The deck was not stacked in favor of the U.S. by some omniscient overlord. Like every other country in the world, the U.S. has its good and bad points, and has suffered its highs and lows. We bust our collective asses every day at work to get where we are, excepting the union broke-dicks. That's why we are successful.
Yeah right.... do you work from 6:00am till 10:00pm? We do, and most of our money goes to taxes... :rolleyes:


For example, my grandmother grew up in a time when supper consisted of salt pork and turnips almost every night. Big fucking deal? She doesn't carry that banner around. Her mother died at 9 years old and she became the domestic caretaker of the household for her father and her two older sisters. Big fucking deal? That's what tough people do. They adapt. Where would she be if she had decided at 9 years old to cry in her milk about the tough break she got dealt at an early age?
That is till common in Brasil...


If someone told you the world was a fair place, they lied to you.
Yes, indeed.


The U.S. has an abundance of certain resources. So does Saudi Arabia. I don't see anybody imploring Saudi Arabia to cough up the cash and resources to solve the worlds problems to the same degree that I see the "have-nots" of the world crying about the U.S. not letting the whole friggin world suckle at the teat.
Maybe it is because of all that the US stole from other countries? :rolleyes:


People from all over the world visit the U.S. and come away stunned by the level of non-compulsory assistance provided by regular citizens to help those less fortunate. What does that tell you about the nature of things?
*cough* Not what I heard on the news.... and definetely not what I heard from people that have been thre. And yes, I have been there. It is true that there are some nice people there. But the ratio...


If you don't like the fact that many of the people of the world go to bed hungry every night, then look at the internal reasons before you go hunting for a scapegoat outside of the context. Otherwise, you just look like a generic envious shitcock, and green is a great color for dollars and trees, but not so much for people.
Internal resons such as having to pay debts that are not payed by the rich...?
It is always like thet. Even the rich in Brasil don't pay taxes and the poor pay huge amounts of taxes. the governments are so biased... :rolleyes:

America has NO reason not to help people, except its own seflishness and greed.

I find blanket ideas like "selfishness and greed" to be the result of idealism or ignorance. I am completely selfish, but my values are such that if I can help you out, I probably will because it makes me feel good to do so. I'm greedy in the same fashion. Further, there is a huge difference between being protective of what you have and greed. Consider my last post to you in put in the context of greed. I think true greed is somewhat rare. Most of what people label greed is simply people acting out their perspectives as they must. The term greed is an easy way to villify percieved value that you don't understand or can't relate to. Consider that how you value something is in part a reflection of your percieved responsibility.

America spends almost half the worlds money on "defense."
That is obviously an exaggeration. Oh, I think I see what you meant to say. You mean: "of the world's defense spending, the US comprises half"? Yeah I think I heard that recently. Perhaps given its station as the world's economic hub, that makes sense.

How fucking noble.
*sigh*

Do you think it's possible that you don't clearly understand the issues that face the people who set the policies that result in a large military budget? Have you looked at military spending as a percentage of GDP?

We used to "bust our collective asses." Now we don't.
How do you reach that conclusion? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering what makes you say that.

Americans don't work for cheap, because they're lazy.
Ah, americans are lazy eh. That's an easy, cheap shot. Can you support it or are you just slinging mud? I'm sick to fucking death of anti-american shit. Certainly SOME americans are lazy, but I've met lazy people in every country I've been in. I don't think "lazy" is driven by what country you're in. There is probably a culture that fosters a "work ethic" but people who work hard, work hard, no matter what country they live in. Funny thing is that generally the most successful people in the US are usually those who are willing to work the hardest. So if everyone weren't "lazy" by your standards, everyone in the US would be even MORE wealthy and truthseeker would be even MORE pissed off about it.

Americans DO work for cheap as compared to other americans. If you want to compare GDPs or whatever, that's another issue. Did you know that there is a minimum wage law in the US? Most of the people at my plant work for around that wage. By US standards, that is goddamned cheap.

Ever hear of outsourcing? Why did Japan get an upper hand in the automobile market?
LOL. Japan got the upper hand because they embraced statistical process control and TQM, which was developed in the US but we were to stuck in the mud to change. The japanese, given the ramp-up and improvement of infrastructure from "occupied japan" used the opportunity to embrace these new manufacturing strategies and kick our asses. So to make a long story short, Japan got an upper hand because the US gave it to them.

Why are American textiles located in Indonesa, Malaysia, and Mexico?
Because of cheap general labor. That doesn't mean americans are lazy. I bet people in the US would work for less that minimum wage, but then I'd guess the anti-american bandwagon would talk about how brutal we are for not even making sure we pay our people enough to live. :rolleyes:

Why are manufacturing jobs lost to overseas markets?
Some for the same reason as above. Note however, that some of them are coming back, because it turns out that mexicans can't maintain the quality levels that americans can (this happened in my direct sphere of knowledge for sure, and I've heard stories about how outsourced IT jobs in India are starting to be reeled in due to language barriers, poor work ethics or disclipline or poor quality). Manufacturing jobs are lost due to globalization. It makes sense that companies seek the most bang for their buck and if that means that it's in malaysia, so be it. Companies generally strive to increase their efficiency. If it turns out that something can be done better somewhere else and the costs justify any expenses, it will be so. The deal is that generally different markets offer different skillsets or market advantage. Saying that one is "better" than the other or calling one "lazy" is simply and excuse to vent an apparent grudge or distaste.

Look, I'm not trying to be all "pro US" or "anti-US". I think it's wise to seek "pro-sense" or "pro-reason". The bitch about that is that given our completely different experiences, what makes sense to any of us is likely to be completely different than the other's. What a mess.

It's easy to dismiss the impact of The Marshall Plan when you don't know jack squat about economics.

It's easy to diminish the impact W. Edwards Deming had on Asia when you get your news from Kurt Loder.

Read a book kids... :rolleyes:

Ah, americans are lazy eh. That's an easy, cheap shot. Can you support it or are you just slinging mud? I'm sick to fucking death of anti-american shit. Certainly SOME americans are lazy, but I've met lazy people in every country I've been in. I don't think "lazy" is driven by what country you're in. There is probably a culture that fosters a "work ethic" but people who work hard, work hard, no matter what country they live in. Funny thing is that generally the most successful people in the US are usually those who are willing to work the hardest. So if everyone weren't "lazy" by your standards, everyone in the US would be even MORE wealthy and truthseeker would be even MORE pissed off about it.
I wouldn't be more pissed off. The reason why I'm pissed off is that they are wealthy even though they are lazy... :D

Get out of your butt and start making some exercises, evil americans! :D
EDIT: I'm just joking. Please don't take it seriously.


Americans DO work for cheap as compared to other americans. If you want to compare GDPs or whatever, that's another issue. Did you know that there is a minimum wage law in the US? Most of the people at my plant work for around that wage. By US standards, that is goddamned cheap.
Beware! Minimun wages can create the evil monster unemployment!! :D

I like Roman's posts. It's nice to hear an unbiased opinion... ;)

Wesmorris, you make some damn good points. I, however, did not intend to put so much negative charge on greed and laziness. I simply meant that if someone can get more for less, they'll almost always do it.

Thank you for correcting my USA & military budget blunder.

Here's an idea: let's use natural selection for determining 'laziness.'

Let's first define laziness as the amount of energy expended, roughly approximated by physical exertion and time spent on the job, in relation to how hungry the people are. For the purposes of statistical rigor, let's leave out anything else, such as what's made, who makes it, etc.

Here's my premise: people will do the least amount of work required of them for the greatest pay offs. Those who do not follow this rule may overwork themselves, or not work enough and starve.

So if there is someone in Africa who is too 'lazy' to carry water from the well, herd the cows, and sow grain (or whatever they do there), they will die.
In terms of physical exertion, the average African has a much harder life than the average westerner. Also, the pay offs for the African are much smaller. So the African must work more for less.

That's where people can get off calling an American 'lazy.'
I believe that protecting one's own resources rather than help out others when you are in a position to do so is considered selfish.

America is in a position to help out. We have a big military– no one's going to steal our food. Heck, we grow food for so cheap, the government pays farmers to not grow stuff. I think anger towards Americans comes from several places. One is jealousy, and another is America's sometimes callous attitude and tendency to support third world dictators, though we're the land of the free.

Hey, but if we keep the dictators in place, we get cheaper platanos (bananas). United Fruit used to be vicious.

With our current administration, there is a tendency to say one thing noble (let's liberate Iraq, I pledge 20 billion dollars to stop AIDS), and do another. I can understand anti-American sentiment.

Wesmorris, you make some damn good points.

Thank you. You do too.

I, however, did not intend to put so much negative charge on greed and laziness. I simply meant that if someone can get more for less, they'll almost always do it.

I think that's a beautiful thing because I think that it's in that manner that resources are conserved in the big picture - in terms of meeting demand (reserving judgement of what that demand is (meaning I don't twist my analysis to judge you because you want the golden toilet). It both drives continual improvement and maximizes the satisfaction of demand.

Please note that I don't think that there should be no judgements. I simply think that to analyze the economic machine we have to see it for what it is. We can then contrain it as we deem fit. Artificial contraints are imposition of will onto the system. I think that's the necessity that I deem "politics", as if not any crime you could think of would be rampant.

Thank you for correcting my USA & military budget blunder.
Gotta be good for something.

Here's an idea: let's use natural selection for determining 'laziness.'
Let's first define laziness as the amount of energy expended, roughly approximated by physical exertion and time spent on the job, in relation to how hungry the people are. For the purposes of statistical rigor, let's leave out anything else, such as what's made, who makes it, etc.

I'll object to an extent somewhere below.

Here's my premise: people will do the least amount of work required of them for the greatest pay offs.
That's a good premise, you have to make sure though that you really consider what "pay offs" can entail. Any resource from coal to love. It is subjective value that motivates the individual.

Those who do not follow this rule may overwork themselves, or not work enough and starve.
That's a funky way to put it, but yeah I'm buying your premise I think.

So if there is someone in Africa who is too 'lazy' to carry water from the well, herd the cows, and sow grain (or whatever they do there), they will die.
Note however, that if they can convince someone else to do it, or steal the food, or provide some sort of other valued service for it, they won't.

In terms of physical exertion, the average African has a much harder life than the average westerner. Also, the pay offs for the African are much smaller.
But is that a fair measuring stick? If I work 100 hours a week at a computer does that make me lazy because I don't carry a mule for 10 miles over a week?

So the African must work more for less.
While on the emotional point I do agree with you, I have to ask you to consider the following:

What if you view them instead in terms of their contribution to the economy. What does the african, working harder for less, do to contribute to ME in the US? Do you think it's as much as I do for him? I mean in terms of my contribution to the economy. If by my actions and station, I impart $10 of value into the economy today (in excess of my pay) and he actually takes a negative value from it, economically, which is the better investment of future resources? I'd follow an abstraction of your notion of getting a bang for your buck and go with the guy who adds to the economy more than he takes from it.

That's where people can get off calling an American 'lazy.'
I suppose that's a decent, though I believe - emotional - reason.

I believe that protecting one's own resources rather than help out others when you are in a position to do so is considered selfish.
The economically wise have to seek a balance. Money has a time value. You have to make it work for you or it's no good. "protecting one's resources" is techinically "ensuring wise investements", which is highly selfish and highly productive for everyone involved.

America is in a position to help out. We have a big military– no one's going to steal our food.
And we do? I think the percentage for military spending is actually equivalent to the percentage of aid we provide in the world. Note that there is crossover as well, as one of the missions of the military is to provide some civil engineering and medical services to the countries in which we have installations. I've witnessed these operations first hand. I'm not positive on my percentage thing though. Correct me if you think it's wrong, or I'll try to look it up if you insist.

Heck, we grow food for so cheap, the government pays farmers to not grow stuff.
Like I've been saying though, it's not the quantity of food that's the thing. How do you get it where it needs to go with all the holes and barriers in the way? For now, you simply don't as they make it wasteful. What if you have a hole in the hose you use to put gas in your car? If you squeeze it to the maximum, all the gas goes to the ground. There is a point at which, exactly in the same way you said earlier about the efficiency of the individual, that you keep pouring on resources but it doesn't get any more people fed, so why waste the resources? Shit that was a bad explanation. I hope you saw a point in that mess.

I think anger towards Americans comes from several places. One is jealousy, and another is America's sometimes callous attitude and tendency to support third world dictators, though we're the land of the free.
The latter if an interesting predicament. Impossible choices make for odd bedfellows I'd say. Consider Sadaam for instance. 30 years ago, he offered the US what they needed because he met their political interests. Later, not so much... so much as to that he was perceived as a threat to national security (let's not get into it, maybe we can agree on at least the perception and avoid the other aspect of the argument for now, for the sake of maintaining the topic).

Hey, but if we keep the dictators in place, we get cheaper platanos (bananas). United Fruit used to be vicious.
Can't argue with you there. It's messed up but put yourself in the position of the dipshit having to set the policy with 132023 lobbyists telling him how their children die from lack of potassium. *shrug* I'm not defending it, but I don't necessarily condemn it either, especially given who knows what other factors to consider in the scenario.

With our current administration, there is a tendency to say one thing noble (let's liberate Iraq, I pledge 20 billion dollars to stop AIDS), and do another.
LOL. Please demonstrate ONE administration in the US who is better in this regard? And please note, Iraq has been liberated and is about to become sovereign. You can politicize that however you like, but the fact remains that on 6/30, some power transfers. Later, more power tranfers and if the current president's vision is fulfilled Iraq will be completely liberated in as short of a time as it can be done. I don't know about the 20 billion for aids. Are you sure it didn't happen? That would suck. I wonder about that 5 billion for hydrogen too. Hmm. Goddamn washington bastards. ;)

I can understand anti-American sentiment.

Well, it's understandable sure, but then again so is keeping dictators in power for banana prices eh?

With all the holes in the supply chain, it's simply unrealistic to assert "we could feed the whole world".

Throw a gazillion dollars at it, and people still go hungry, whilst people along the supply chain get fat, the dollar devalues, blah blah.

There are a whole bunch of reasons I think this is true, the most prominent being the subjectivity of demand, which translates partially into corruption.

In other words, you can't force your opinion on to those who don't share your opinion and a lot of people don't give a shit if someone down the supply chain eats/has shelter, whatever.

I respect the blind nobility in the desire to feed everyone, but I think the idea of doing so is simply unreastic. Ultimately, people have to feed themselves.

On a side note I might ask: Is feeding everyone a good idea? Certainly I don't want to be on the starving people's list, nor do I wish it upon anyone, but with food comes more people, which becomes a bigger feeding everyone problem.

I don't think this is pessimistic at all actually, as it's really just an analysis of the system I see, knowing what I know about logistics (I'm an IE you know) and noting human nature as it is, rather that some ideal.

Please discuss.

the total income of one years tax in the USA could feed the entire world in wheat for their lifetime.

also, captolist countires are seriouly exploiting 3rd world countries.
workers in 3rd world countires get paid less then 50p a day (sometimes they get paid nothing, just food) to make major brand products.

ill give you one example. the actual (not replicas) footballs used in the world cup are sold for 60 POUNDS in western countires (about $100 ???) anyway, the people in asia who actually make THOUSANDS of pounds of footballs a day only make 50p a day, despite the fact the total bllas they made are worth thousands and western countries minimise the cost the poor countires can sell them (west buys 60 pound footballs for only £5 while it sells them for £60), while the price that the western country brands sell them is very high.

the idiots who buy nike trainers for a $100 dont know they were bought by Nike for like $5.

50p a day would make ~15$ a month
that ain't that bad. in Afganistan a school teacher two years ago got only 6$ a month

the total income of one years tax in the USA could feed the entire world in wheat for their lifetime.
Finally another unbiased person! :)


also, captolist countires are seriouly exploiting 3rd world countries.
What I've been saying for years. And Americans simply don't want to believe it, because they are in a very comfortable position... :rolleyes:


the idiots who buy nike trainers for a $100 dont know they were bought by Nike for like $5.
Yep, I never buy Nike. In fact, I never liked Nike, because it is a famous brand name (I don't like famous brand names, cause I like being different then most people). I like it even less when I found out that Nike has child-slave labour in China... :mad:

So, as US feeds poor countries, it should go poor too? Taxes go to fund things, like our police, military, Welfare.... We have our own poor to take care of.
And, yes, making Nike in some underdeveloped country is supposed to help that country. Export platforms like that are a usual thing that should lead to economic takeoff. It almost never worked, but at least it is an attempt. Other attempts are risky, too. Don't think that people who make these policies have less clue than sciforums posters. Don't be so skeptical. We already have middle class jobs migrating to India.
Underdeveloped countries need to establish more or less competent governments first. They need to educate their people, particularly women. This, of course, needs to be done with some sort of money. China had better luck by producing small cheap goods. Why can't others do that?

So, as US feeds poor countries, it should go poor too? Taxes go to fund things, like our police, military, Welfare.... We have our own poor to take care of.
US has money to spare, not to mention that it has stolen a whole lot from other countries...


And, yes, making Nike in some underdeveloped country is supposed to help that country.
Sorry, but that is just not true. What can help 3rd world countries is:

external investments: which causes immediate economic growth
internal businesses: because with their own business, the money flows within the country and never outward, not to mention that it makes their economy grow substantially
investment in education: which is basically from the first one (because it should probably come from external investments). With better education, people can have better jobs, and with better jobs their purchase power, productivity and their living standarts increases, which in turn increases productivity even more and, obviously, causes economic growth and better oportunity costs.



Export platforms like that are a usual thing that should lead to economic takeoff. It almost never worked, but at least it is an attempt. Other attempts are risky, too. Don't think that people who make these policies have less clue than sciforums posters. Don't be so skeptical. We already have middle class jobs migrating to India.
Yes, so that they can't have those better jobs right? No, just because it is our interest and because they don't have the proper education. Also, I don't think the rich countries "invest" in poor countries for the poor's sake. I think they do it because they know they can profit from poor people's work!


Underdeveloped countries need to establish more or less competent governments first.
I think that's not so true. I can partially agree with you, but underdeveloped countries are underdeveloped for a variety of reasons which not very often includes the imcopetence of the government. It is true that their governments sometimes do stupid things, but all governments do! For instance, controlled rental!! It has destroyed many neighbourhoods in US, didn't it?

Back to the reasons for undeveloped countries.... Have you ever noted that most undeveloped countries are below the equator? This happens because the south was controlled by countries that had a predatory approach, while the north was controlled by countries that wanted economic development within their colonies. Reemeber in US north vs south? Exactly that.

Also, underdeveloped countries are more likely to have difficulty handling money because of lack of capital and, subsequently, small opportunity cost, which means that we have to, for instance, sacrifice our health for the sake of education. That furthermore causes obvious problems and then we suddenly are faced with having to take money off education and investing in health. That obviously causes a vicious circle, where we never have enough money to progress and thus making us dependent on external capital investments.

Wow... did I just said that? :D


They need to educate their people, particularly women.
Sorry, but that is a steryotype. Do you know who is the Supreme Judge of the Brasilian Supreme Court? A 21 year old girl. :)

This, of course, needs to be done with some sort of money. China had better luck by producing small cheap goods. Why can't others do that?
Better luck? Their purchase power is close to zero! How can the economy grow if the flow of money is so limited! They need to be educated, that's what they need!

US has money to spare, not to mention that it has stolen a whole lot from other countries...
Someone remind me of the numerical size of our deficit.... Plus to that, we owe UN (if I remember right).
Sorry, but that is just not true.
Worked for South Korea.
Direct investment in form of loans, etc. encourages corruption, which is actually common in transitional societies.
Internal businesses need to be funded with capital, aided by efficient gov't policies, supplied with capable work force (at least somewhat educated.) This means, majority of the population can not be farmers (hard to do, requires convincing people, which goes again into education, providing technology, capital.) A competent gov't has to create usable infrastructure. A competent gov't is one that is legit, first of all. That comes from educated population. Besides, the population has to be educated well enough to accept the gov't reforms (that means population in villages, too).
I'm not a fan of external platforms, don't get me wrong. But it still is one of the options, and it works to some extent.
Educating women is just a stereotype? How do you control population growth? Not just women in cities, but women in villages, too! Grr. No there's no fully traditional country, but there are traditional groups of people in villages of transitional societies.

Someone remind me of the numerical size of our deficit.... Plus to that, we owe UN (if I remember right).
A few trillion, if I'm not mistaken. So what? You never pay it, and you will never be able to. America owns the IMF. You din't need to pay it, we do. Fair world, eh? :rolleyes:

And any other deficit you may have is caused by this stupid "war on "terror"". The money the goverment is wasting with that could be used to better means. The only way the US government could estabilish a democracy in Iraq was by winning the Iraquis confidence and helping them out. Of course, they used he wrong strategy once again. :rolleyes:


Worked for South Korea.
Direct investment in form of loans, etc. encourages corruption, which is actually common in transitional societies.
Loans are bad in the long-run. And yeah, corruption is often "encouraged" because of the low income.


Internal businesses need to be funded with capital, aided by efficient gov't policies, supplied with capable work force (at least somewhat educated.) This means, majority of the population can not be farmers (hard to do, requires convincing people, which goes again into education, providing technology, capital.) A competent gov't has to create usable infrastructure. A competent gov't is one that is legit, first of all. That comes from educated population. Besides, the population has to be educated well enough to accept the gov't reforms (that means population in villages, too).
Yep, I already talked about all that...


I'm not a fan of external platforms, don't get me wrong. But it still is one of the options, and it works to some extent.
Doesn't work much. Works better for 1st world countries, that benefits from the low-cost work force.


Educating women is just a stereotype?
Read carefully what we said. You said: "They need to educate their people, particularly women." I interpreted it as if you said that women are uneducated compared to men. That's what I understood. I disagreed and said that women are already very educated and I gave an example of my own country: "Sorry, but that is a steryotype. Do you know who is the Supreme Judge of the Brasilian Supreme Court? A 21 year old girl." I guess there was a misunderstanding on my part caused by the dubious double-meaning of your sentence. Oh well...


How do you control population growth?
Close your legs? :D


Not just women in cities, but women in villages, too! Grr. No there's no fully traditional country, but there are traditional groups of people in villages of transitional societies.
What do you mean by traditional?

How do you control population growth?

Cannibalism.

We'll start with the terminally stupid, but healthy.

A traditional society is the one that lives by tradition. Meaning, a family has many children, preferring boys. Women are seen as those who stay home and raise children. Children are seen as source of income since they help on farms. In traditional society, most are farmers. A farmer either owns land inherited from parents, divided between him and brothers, or doesn't own land at all and is constantly in debt. There are other kinds of traditional societies like orthodox Jews (who don't farm, but have 12 kids per family), etc; there are different kinds of tradition in each group. A common trend, as I see, in traditional societies, is large amount of children per family, which is a bad thing for a poor nation. There are other aspects, such as small middle class, large lower class. A transitional society is one that has modern life in cities and traditional life in villages. For example, in India, the caste system was outlawed but is still strictly practiced in villages. It is important to control population growth so that the nation does not eat away everything it earns. Education is important for more efficient farming (farming in traditional ways is way too inefficient). In modern society, a child is an expence (schooling, etc), not a source of profit.
Close your legs?
Not MY legs. Legs in African villages. And they have to be convinced first, that a woman is not just for leg-spreading. Would help control spread of AIDS, too.

Not MY legs. Legs in African villages. And they have to be convinced first, that a woman is not just for leg-spreading. Would help control spread of AIDS, too.

I am inclined to believe that women in the West have more sex then those in Africa. The West was really no different in population growth in the early 1900’s; it wasn't until population control began, and higher incomes ca