If we spent some of the magical Bail-Out money feeding the hungry peeps of the planet, would making a better world buy us any street cred?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, October 8, 2009 03:41
VIEWED: 7088
PAGE 4 of 13
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Gino,
By 'phantom product' I mean a product that the people can't buy without the carefully orchestrated assistance.
In other words, if you are selling anything at cost to anyone along the way, you are creating a phantom market. As soon as people can no longer get things 'at cost' then the profit margin either vaporizes or the prices are increased to put the product out of reach. The buyers of the inexpensive net can't afford the profitable net, and so the market dries up. Not because people don't want the product, but because people can no longer afford it.
If people could afford it, and were willing to pay for it, there would be no need to set up the aid to begin with.
An alternative might be providing the local manufacturers in Africa with the technology to produce these things much more cheaply than they can do it now. This accomplishes the same job as selling 'at cost' by reducing expenses, but creates a sustainable venture because everyone is making money and able to afford the end product.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
but this requires an infrastructure base ( power, sewer, etc), technical support ( which in most case they still need in bring in from abroad ) a larger capital investment...
the leap from pre industrial revolution to modern manufacturing is large, plus in the long run you would likely make alot more nets with alot less employees, thus ruining part of the scheme before you got off the ground.
plus mass produced nets are usually nylon, so you would either have to import nylon and eat the additional costs ( and no jobs to the local cotton industry ) or build a nylon industry as well...
you have to walk before you run, and the biggest part of the scheme is to generate local jobs with minimum investment, maximum entry level employees, etc, etc.
Even if you set it up so that the many charity efforts to provide nets buys into this system of distribution to keep the costs down, it would still be more productive than trying to hand a net to every person on the continent.
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Gino,
No doubt at all that it's a better way. But it's just not sustainable in the absence of the aid.
Still, if I had to choose how to give my money away, I like it better than what usually goes on.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Gino,
No doubt at all that it's a better way. But it's just not sustainable in the absence of the aid.
Still, if I had to choose how to give my money away, I like it better than what usually goes on.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
lol sorry to poke so many holes, probably has something to do with my job, Everytime I get into planning I get a little cynical trying to get ahead of the curve of problems.
Your article did illustrate the problems aid can cause, but lack of infrastructure, training, education, etc plus that most of Africas exports are raw unprocessed resources makes for an uphill battle to turn things around. No place for a middle class to develop.
South Africa has the best infrastructure, Kenya used to have the stability, resources everywhere, just sad.
Mind you besides the aid problem, all the dumping of toxic and radioactive waste from Europe to Africa is crazy.
Oh well, enough rambling tonight
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"but this requires an infrastructure base ( power, sewer, etc), technical support ( which in most case they still need in bring in from abroad ) a larger capital investment..."
Hello,
A second comment on this- This is the 'teaching people to fish' thing that folks often talk about. We did it in Japan, if I remember.
Picking one area and setting up all this infrastructure would create many more jobs than the singular mosquito net manufacturing component. I understand that aid to Africa is measurable in the Billions (with a B.)
We could pick a new country every year, probably based on merits of governance (minimum standards of human rights) and set up the infrastructure for dozens of new industries to join the 21st century.
Then people could build their own nets, and afford them, too. Aid to the area stops, but improved conditions live on.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"but this requires an infrastructure base ( power, sewer, etc), technical support ( which in most case they still need in bring in from abroad ) a larger capital investment..."
Hello,
A second comment on this- This is the 'teaching people to fish' thing that folks often talk about. We did it in Japan, if I remember.
Picking one area and setting up all this infrastructure would create many more jobs than the singular mosquito net manufacturing component. I understand that aid to Africa is measurable in the Billions (with a B.)
We could pick a new country every year, probably based on merits of governance (minimum standards of human rights) and set up the infrastructure for dozens of new industries to join the 21st century.
Then people could build their own nets, and afford them, too. Aid to the area stops, but improved conditions live on.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
In the case of Japan that infrastructure was REbuilt
remember all the warships, aircraft, etc they had for years before WW2.. factorys, even a nuclear program. Remember the war began when the US threatened to blockade them from their sources of raw resources in effect ruining their economy.
In addition the level of education and training of the Japanese people was equal to the challenge because it had been built up for decades before the war.
Your " merits of governance " comment, while well intended, opens things up for manipulation and abuse from the politicians who lie in wait to muck things like this up.
It would likely take ten years ( with alot of luck ) to set up something self sustaining from scratch.
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
All right, Gino, you've got a deal.
In my lifetime, we could've set up 3 and a half self sustaining infrastructures in Africa.
Instead, we've got fekk all.
I know where I'd prefer to put my tax dollars.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Would America still be "The Evil Infidels" & such?
Would not everyone love us? Would not oil prices come down?
Or is there some REASON to keep the third world in it's place? To keep black babies weak?
Take this where you will...
The laughing Chrisisall
I think there's merit in what you ask here, but doesn't the USA already do that? Are we not the most charitable country on Earth? Do we not give away billions of tax dollars for foreign aid all over the world, year after year, decade after decade? Whenever there's a natural disaster in the world, who's the first on the scene with human and monetary aid...America, right? Even in countries we are at odds with, like when the USA sent aid to Iran a couple of years ago to help them recover from the Qom earthquake. Whether it's tsunami relief, or even religious-based Christian organizations all over the 3rd world, we are there, and we do more than all others combined. The poor in America do not pay income taxes, and can get Welfare or other Federal assistance when needed. Why is there this constant image portayed out there by some that America doesn't do enough? And if we did more, even a lot more, do you honestly think it would matter one hoot to the Islamic jihadist mullahs and their terrorist murderer followers out there? Would it matter another hoot to the Europeans? Their self-interest needs for oil, combined witht their look-down-their-nose attitude towards America, have seen them either allied with dictators and thugs, or as roadblocks to America's security goals. Maybe I'm tad jaded, but it seems to me we're damned if we do & damned if we don't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Money spend on gmo foods research and food irradiation and transportation, followed with restructuring third world agriculture to reduce vulnerability to political situations, weather, and be less environmentally destructive, and you solve the problem.
Hate to sound pessimistic, but you got several problems lurking just in this one sentence. There's lots of opposition in developed countries to GMO food and irradition, and it's likely that the same fears about it would spread to needy countries with even less supposed scientific education. The infrastructure for transportation in third world countries relies on their governments, which are usually interested in lining their own pockets rather than providing services to the people. These same governments like their people to be vulnerable to famine so they can use hunger as a political tool, distributing food to their supporters and letting the opposition starve, a la Zimbabwe, so reducing vulnerability isn't in their game plan.
Quote:
...but we must end those conflicts that are creating the shortage.
Not sure which "we" you mean. The U.S. can't do it without being called Imperialist, and probably isn't interested in putting any more "nation building" on the plate at this time anyway. The U.N. doesn't have the will. Regional groups generally want to keep the status quo.
Quote:
For every human, there are three tons of termites.
Some folk find termites tasty.
But, yeah, the problem isn't growing the food - there are grain surpluses in North America and Europe most years, and many of the starving countries could grow as much if allowed to develop their agriculture - but in causing the governments of the starving countries to get over their kleptocracies and tribal squabbles and allow change to happen. Absent strong external force, I don't see that happening.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1. I disagree. Objection to these technologies in this country is a luxury. people worry about gay marriage more when no one is bombing them
2. Sure these conflicts are local, but they are being backed and supplied by first world powers with an agenda, usually to own the local mineral rights.
3. Govt. food distribution programs gain power because of the local lack of food. If an african community could sustain itself long term, ie while not damaging its environment, then it wouldn't need the govt. to give it food. This would help undermine the power of local corrupt regimes, and could be done without fighting those regimes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
1. I disagree. Objection to these technologies in this country is a luxury. people worry about gay marriage more when no one is bombing them
There are hungry folks in parts of the EU, despite local surpluses, and the EU bans most GM food. The same EU politicians who did this would oppose distributing GM foods to the third world; both to be consistant with the EU ban and to avoid having to ban imports if the third world countries ever produced enough to export. If I were going to look for better crops for third world countries, I'd probably look at the hybrids developed over the last 30 years, which have a lot less opposition.
Quote:
2. Sure these conflicts are local, but they are being backed and supplied by first world powers with an agenda, usually to own the local mineral rights.
In some cases. In many, though, it's just the local governments, tribes, religions, etc.
Quote:
3. Govt. food distribution programs gain power because of the local lack of food. If an african community could sustain itself long term, ie while not damaging its environment, then it wouldn't need the govt. to give it food. This would help undermine the power of local corrupt regimes, and could be done without fighting those regimes.
But to set up sustainable farming in those regions, you need support. The support has to be funneled through the government, because the government says so. You try to go around the government, your organization gets kicked out of the country and your assets in-country go to - surprise - the government.
Consider Zimbabwe, formerly the "Breadbasket of Africa". They were feeding their people and exporting food. The government started seizing the large, efficient, farms and supposedly distributing them to the people. Of course, in this case 'the people' meant government officials. Madame Mugabe now owns six farms. Absent folks who knew how to farm, the agriculture industry failed in a big way and now several million Zimbabweans depend on foreign food donations which are largely distributed by Pres. Mugabe's political party.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME