Children Going Hungry

[shackwacky]

More than one billion children do not have access to at least one of seven commodities deemed essential: shelter, water, sanitation, schooling, information, health care and food, according to "The State of the World's Children" report, launched Thursday in London

CBC Half the World Children Threatened by Extreme Poverty

Apparently our fearless leaders are too busy or too broke to honor their commitments to the children of the world. Canadians have long been known for their willingness to step up to the plate, what can we as a country do to help these kids....in spite of our government?

I am willing to take $50 off of each of my paycheques. Does anyone know which organization is most likely to eventually use this money for the good of the children. I don't want my donation to be paying an administrators salary in Ontario rather than buying food or blankets.

[caesar]

That is the problem; much of the money people send for poverty stricken children gets siphoned off by "administation costs" or into the greedy hands of corrupt officials in the poor country. We have many many poor underprivileged children here in Canada, Charity should begin at home.

[Tawasakm]

I'll add some more detail to this later (sorry I don't have some books to hand that I need) but I would make the point that alot of the worlds inability to feed itself is the ongoing result of the colonial process. There are many nations who were forced into a situation, for example, of growing cash crops such as rubber which ruined the soil for anything else afterwards. Also many nations were forced to reorient their economies to serve western interests. The withdrawal of the colonial powers has not reversed the economic dependency which was created. I would argue that as beneficiaries of this process we owe it to these nations to assist in removing those factors which create dependency. I know everyone argues that it was in the past and none of these countries are doing so now (which in itself is arguable). I don't think this holds water because the current situation is not 'static' it is not determined only by current events but by ongoing processes which are rooted in colonialism. I don't agree with the view that since we are not contributing to exploitation now we owe nothing. We are beneficiaries of that past exploitation.

Anyway more detail later when I have me texts to hand.

[caesar]

Nobody "forced" them to do anything. They did it for the "yankee dollar" Other countries such as Zimbabwe have self destructed their own countries with unwise political manuevers. Sure, these countries were exploited; we should offer help but No one is blameless in the situation. Droughts and wars have furthered instability in these countries. They keep having more and more children that they cannot feed. India uses condoms they are supplied with for all sorts of non sexual uses including water proof roofing.

[Guest eureka]

Your asking for an effective aid organisation is a laudable idea. It is not, though, the real answer.

The answer needs to come through concerted political pressure on government. Only at that level can meaningful action be taken. And the most important action is rather simple though its consequence would involve considerable economic adjustment.

The poverty of the third world could be dramatically improved in a very short time by putting an end to agricultural subsides in the West. This is another Bushism that America has instituted a further $300 billion in subsidies at the time that the EU has been trying to reduce subsidies.

This though all are agreed that it is the subsidies that are killing the agricultural possibilities in most poor nations.

[August1991]

The poverty of the third world could be dramatically improved in a very short time by putting an end to agricultural subsides in the West.  This is another Bushism that America has instituted a further $300 billion in subsidies at the time that the EU has been trying to reduce subsidies.

The Europeans are arguably more guilty than the Americans.

But eureka, please tell me how lowering the price of food causes children to go hungry.

The answer needs to come through concerted political pressure on government. Only at that level can meaningful action be taken.

As Hugo would argue, government got people into this situation of poverty so, of course, the solution is to have more government.

I would make the point that alot of the worlds inability to feed itself is the ongoing result of the colonial process. There are many nations who were forced into a situation, for example, of growing cash crops such as rubber which ruined the soil for anything else afterwards.

Huh? The colonial process ended some 50 years ago. I would argue that rubber producing countries, on balance, are better off than others.

From the link above:

Childhood is under threat, not for mysterious reasons that strain our imaginations, but because of deliberate choices made by governments and others in power. Poverty doesn't persist because of nothing, war doesn't emerge form nowhere, HIV doesn't spread by choice of its own," said Carole Bellamy, executive director of UNICEF.

The continent that suffers most is Africa and it suffers from pestilence and war. The brightest spot is China since it ditched Maoism.

By and large though, what does anyone expect the UNICEF to say? It is in the business of getting money from rich donors.

Compared to 200 years ago, kids around the world have never lived so well.

[Guest eureka]

The short answer, August, is that it has destroyed the agriculture of those poor nations. They are not able to grow for export to the developed nations. They actually have, in some cases, become dependent on foodstuffs from the developed nations since their own industries have no way to be developed. The subsidies are both a cuase of hunger and of poverty.

The US is the worst offender, now. Just a couple of years ago, while France and Germany were hammering out an agreement between themselves that would enable the EU to begin sharp reductions in subsidies, Bush signrd a Bill authorising an additional $300 billion in subsidies.

[August1991]

The short answer, August, is that it has destroyed the agriculture of those poor nations. They are not able to grow for export to the developed nations.

This is got to be the weirdest argument I've ever heard.

The rich north won't buy food from the poor south and this causes hungry children in the poor south.

That's tantamount to saying that since I won't come over to your house for dinner, you are starving.

eureka I am using common sense in my argument and I suggest you do the same.

The UNICEF argument quoted above is closer to the truth. There are despicable wars in Africa which have nothing to do with foreigners and then there is AIDS. The sad fact is that Africa could be isolated from the rest of the world and no one - in Africa or elsewhere - would notice.

The US is the worst offender, now. Just a couple of years ago, while France and Germany were hammering out an agreement between themselves that would enable the EU to begin sharp reductions in subsidies, Bush signrd a Bill authorising an additional $300 billion in subsidies.

The people who suffer most from these policies are taxpayers in Europe and the US. I would not be so quick to blame Bush. Europe's CAP is an orgy of money for pig farmers in Germany and beef producers in France.

[ceemes]

The sad fact of the matter is, we as a race on the planet earth do produce more then enough food to feed each and every human being alive a good and balanced diet. Trouble is, that abudance is not shared equally amoung us all.

We in the industrial north consume more then we actually need of all the earth resources, food, energy or what have you.

One just has to look at the obesity data of North America to see the truth of that. Or just take a look into any one of our many many supermarkets, or showrooms.

Much of what we consume does come from the have not nations, produced cheaply and sold here cheaply, and yet those same products, especially food stuffs are often well out of the financial reach of those that produce them.

[Guest eureka]

Sorry to see that you are not using your common sense and are being, for you, unusually obtuse. If you put the two points togethert - I thought it was clear - you will see the relationship.

These countries are, in mny cases, dependent on single crops that they can no longer develop. They grow poor but must import food that they cannot pay for so they go hungry. They have, in most become one crop systems to satisfy wealthy countries that provide many crops at no greater expense now due to subsidies.

Agricultural subsidies in the West have been the principal for the declining condition of the poorest countries for more than a generation now. Their economies have been in decline for that long. Until recently, when the European decided to act (belatedly) nothing has been done although we knew well the desperation overtaking these countries.

The EU has a long way to go yet, and the new members complicate the problem. But a start has been made while the Bush admonistration exacerbates the suffering.

These poor countries have also no way to build the infrastructure; the irrigation; the water treatment facilities. These have all deteriorated as their economies have been driven into the ground by us.

Apart from the effect on agriculture these lacks have, you will know that water problems kill more than aids , malaria, and war together.

[August1991]

Trouble is, that abudance is not shared equally amoung us all.

I agree with your observed fact. Some people own a house and some people rent. But I disagree with your implied solution. "Take from those obese Americans and give to the starving kids."

OK. Let's take part of your house and give it to someone who now rents.

This policy might work at first (why not your house?), but I would not be surprised if, very quickly, I found no house owners. Everyone would be renters.

These countries are, in mny cases, dependent on single crops that they can no longer develop. They grow poor but must import food that they cannot pay for so they go hungry. They have, in most become one crop systems to satisfy wealthy countries that provide many crops at no greater expense now due to subsidies.

Huh?

You are blaming me for your poverty because I won't trade with you? WTF?

Have you ever gone shopping, eureka? Trade is voluntary. You buy it if you want it. Can a shop claim that you are a despicable, dishonest, capitalist, greedy cheat because you decide not to buy its stuff?

The notion in economics is the mutual benefits of voluntary trade. The words voluntary and mutual require emphasis. It's also called co-operation. "You help me, I help you." Or, a non-zero sum game.

[Guest eureka]

Come, August. You know well what is involved here. There is nothing voluntary or mutual in power relations or the economic powers.

Then there is "dumping." The Western Powers have dumped their excesses in the poor countries for a long time. This has prevented those countries from developing the ibndustry to meet their own needs. We have "charitably" given them "aid" to pay for what we have dumped on them.

That "aid" is often tied to purchasing our dumped products. We destroy their agriculture; subsidise our own industry to send cheap foods to them; lend them the money to buy our subsidised products; then demand repayment of the loans.

I wonder if WalMart executives are former Ministry of Agriculture operatives.

[August1991]

Come, August. You know well what is involved here. There is nothing voluntary or mutual in power relations or the economic powers.

What "power relations" are you referring to? What do you mean by "economic powers"?

Then there is "dumping." The Western Powers have dumped their excesses in the poor countries for a long time. This has prevented those countries from developing the ibndustry to meet their own needs.

I would be quite happy if Japan dumped a few more cars our way. Would you refuse a free Lexus, eureka? How is it bad to get something for free?

Sunlight is free. Does sunlight dumped into a poor country destroy its energy industry? (The answer is yes, it does.) So I guess, eureka, you think we should block sunlight to promote local industry.

The ideas you present eureka are unfortunately common. But they are fallacies and this has been known for at least two hundred years.

That "aid" is often tied to purchasing our dumped products. We destroy their agriculture; subsidise our own industry to send cheap foods to them; lend them the money to buy our subsidised products; then demand repayment of the loans.

Eureka, I suppose you've heard of the Marshall Plan. Was that any different from what you describe above?

Poor countries are not poor because of "dumping" from the rich north. They are poor for other, frustrating reasons.

[Guest eureka]

August, I could use a new car. I fail to see what that has to do with the dumping of surplus foodstuffs in third world countries, though.

Neither do I quite grasp the similarity between the Marshall Plan and the tied aid to third world countries now.

[August1991]

The Marshall Plan gave free stuff and/or lent stuff to Europe after the war. This helped Europe to rebuild. The Sun gives us free energy as light and heat. We benefit greatly. If Japan gave us free cars or Japan sold us cars below cost, we would benefit too.

All these examples are no different from your example of dumping food in third world countries or providing them with tied aid.

By your logic, eureka, sunlight makes us poor because it depresses energy prices and makes it difficult for our energy industry to develop. Similarly, you made the argument that agricultural subsidies depressed food prices and hurt poor countries.

Your argument is fallacious.

The cause of the tragic poverty in this world must be sought elsewhere.

[Guest eureka]

How would it benefit us if Japan gave us cars below cost (dumped their surplus in a subsidised industry)>

That would deive our manufactureers out of business with the consequent loss of employment; economic distress; hunger and poverty.

These are the analogies you are failing to se through. The effect on us would be bad but small compared to the devastation wrought on a third world country whose onlysource of possible income and economic activity is destroyed.

That darned sun did not show itself today so I could not test your hypothesis about energy.

[caesar]

If Japan gave us free cars or Japan sold us cars below cost, we would benefit too.

Gee, I thought that was called "dumping" and made most countries a little ticked off as it hurts their own industries.

The USA bends over backwards to accuse Canada of dumping to stop our industries from trading there. They don't seem to see our lower prices as a "benefit" They would prefer their consumers to have to pay higher prices.

[August1991]

How would it benefit us if Japan gave us cars below cost (dumped their surplus in a subsidised industry)

That would deive our manufactureers out of business with the consequent loss of employment; economic distress; hunger and poverty.

If you really believe that eureka, then you must also believe that sunlight drives our energy sector out of business causing economic distress, hunger and poverty.

The USA bends over backwards to accuse Canada of dumping to stop our industries from trading there. They don't seem to see our lower prices as a "benefit" They would prefer their consumers to have to pay higher prices.

It is US producers (eg. US softwood lumber producers) who dislike so-called Canadian dumping. US consumers like the dumping. Overall, the US economy is better off with dumping and lower Canadian prices.

The same analogy applies to sunlight. American energy producers would prefer a world without sunlight but US consumers would clearly dislike such a prospect.

Using common sense, the idea that blocking sunlight would make a country richer is absurd. And that should put the lie to the whole "dumping is bad" argument.

The notion that dumping is bad is one of several common economic fallacies. In fact, it is corporate lobbyists who promote the fallacy and then putative left wingers like eureka believe it.

[Guest eureka]

August, I think you have finally taken leave of your senses. If I were not certain that you are not using imaginary emoticons I would say that the wagon should be called.

The subsidy argument has been in use for many years now and is not a matter for argument. Europe and America have been defying international pressure to correct the situation for a very long time. In recent years they claim to be making a start.

[August1991]

The subsidy argument has been in use for many years now and is not a matter for argument. Europe and America have been defying international pressure to correct the situation for a very long time. In recent years they claim to be making a start.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not in favour of subsidies. They are costly to taxpayers in the countries that offer them.

However, it is wrong to say that subsidies are bad for foreigners who can buy cheaper products as a result.

Producers in foreign countries however will be quick to see subsidies and dumping everywhere because by this means, they can justify protectionist barriers.

[This was the basis of my argument that while ordinary people benefit from the sun, energy producers lose because of this cheap competitor.]

Economists and even politicians understand perfectly what is going on but getting the political interests to align is not easy.

In Europe, the latest effort to stop these expensive agricultural subsidies involves getting the Left in line by claiming subsidies hurt producers in poor countries and getting the Greens in line by claiming subsidies hurt the environment.

Incidentally, in Canada, we do something even more pernicious. We don't subsidize agriculture, we impose quotas.

The sole legitimate argument against "dumping" would be based on predatory pricing (lowering prices to eliminate competition and then later raising prices as a monopoly). I have never seen a case of predatory pricing. The Economist states they are "extremely rare":

But surely anti-dumping measures may be justified if foreigners are guilty of predatory pricing? Not usually. Genuine predatory pricing is extremely rare, because it relies on the unlikely ability of a single producer to dominate a world market. In any case, consumers gain from lower prices; so do companies that can buy their supplies more cheaply abroad—General Motors, for example, in the case of steel.

The Economist

August, I think you have finally taken leave of your senses.

I feel comfortable sharing the same opinion as The Economist.

[Guest eureka]

I am not wriring of the effects of dumping between trading states. My contention is with respect to a number of third world states. There is actually a lot of information available on this that explains how the economies of many are devastated by this practise of subsidozation of agriculture in the developed world.

I have looked at it in the past and that is why I referred to the increase in subsidies at the same time as France and Germany were meeting to adjust their policies to the EU goal of reducing them. That goal became much more difficult with EU expansion as some of the new members are vulnerable to the rise of third world food exports.

The US has professed to hold the same intent, but, once again, Bush looked to his domestic support.

[Tawasakm]

In my recent absence I'd forgotten about this thread and that I had promised more detail.

I have since put up an essay which would explain my point of view a little better.

It can be found here.

Sorry for the delay