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 10 of 13
Quote:Geezer, did you think nobody would check the stats?????
The U.S. contributed around $1.15 billion in 2009 as opposed to the EU's $238 million, so your simple math doesn't hold up.
The EU as a single organization contributed $238, but individual member states ASLO contributed... a point you "conveniently" fail to note. The actual European total is $801785968
Quote:Not totally. Not ALL food aid goes through the WFP. In fact, it sounds only like cash donations do. USA aid to the WFP makes up about 42% of the WFP total. Mathematically, the USA could tie 50% of its donation to the WFP for the WFP to meet its 80% statement. The USA would then need to donate another roughly 2 billion in direct food aid (at 100% tied) through other programs and agencies in order for the 90% tied mark to hold true. Perhaps this is what happens. Its still a wet blow job to USA agribusiness.
As noted above, the UN's World Food Programme says it gets cash from donors and buys around 80% of it's food in low or middle income countries, which would let the U.S. out as a seller. Conflicting data, what?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
MAGONSDAUGHTER has a point, whatever a gurgler is
Thank you. A gurgler is a drain - eg gurgle gurgle gurgle
If I can make some completely unsubstantiated comments on aid here, there has been much written about the negative effect of aid to countries, particularly when a countries economy becomes dependent upon such aid. From what I know about aid to many African nations, some of the following heresay may be true -
-little of the aid gets through to the needy - it ends up fueling black market economies/and or ends up lining the coffers of the rulers/wealthy/or ends up in on costs of the charity involved
-it props up inefficient/corrupt regimes
-it encourages an unhealthy dependent relationship on richer nations
Why do we give aid in the first place? Is it to justify and feel okay that such a minority own all of the worlds wealth and assets and so we throw a few crumbs to the majority who live in poverty, many of them extreme poverty to stave off the guilt of our own excessive and obscene consumption.
The truth is - the world could not manage if every single person lived the way the average American lived - there just isn't enough resources for all those Indians, Africans and Chinese to live the way we do. The world would be nothing but a big toilet in about three years. The truth is - we don't really want everyone living like us - so we give to charities to buy some peasant a bucket or a goat so we can feel okay about how we live.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer -- doooood
You failed to read my units. I was talking mph and you were telling me my psi was all wrong. Go back and READ my post.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The EU as a single organization contributed $238, but individual member states ASLO contributed...The actual European total is $801785968
You're right. I saw European Comission and thought it was a rollup of all EU contributions. Thanks.
Quote:
Not totally. Not ALL food aid goes through the WFP. In fact, it sounds only like cash donations do. USA aid to the WFP makes up about 42% of the WFP total. Mathematically, the USA could tie 50% of its donation to the WFP for the WFP to meet its 80% statement. The USA would then need to donate another roughly 2 billion in direct food aid (at 100% tied) through other programs and agencies in order for the 90% tied mark to hold true. Perhaps this is what happens. Its still a wet blow job to USA agribusiness.
But you also have to consider how much food is available for purchase in the poor and middle income countries. Perhaps the WPF buys up most of the available, so the rest has to come from somewhere. Looks like time to research direct food donations from all donors and see where the crops are grown.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer -- doooood
You failed to read my units. I was talking mph and you were telling me my psi was all wrong. Go back and READ my post.
I did, and went back to read the UN article and WFP site the various data came from. Found out why the UN article talks about tons of food provided and the WPF talks about dollars. Apparenty, the UN article uses data from the INTERFIAS database
http://www.wfp.org/fais/quantity-reporting which (the article says) "...is hosted by WFP to track all donations of food aid, not just those handled by the agency". So the UN article is about total food aid, not just WFP.
The INTERFIAS database is pretty interesting, by the way.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Geezer, do you actually care how much the US provides in relation to other nations? I'd have always figured you for the camp that says public money shouldn't go to that sort of thing period. So, the less the better?
Or is this merely an exercise in debate for the joy of the exercise itself? I do that sometimes.
I actually find compelling arguments for halting aid altogether (as stated above) because 'making a better world' does not seem to be the end result of aid.
On the other hand, some people (above) have pointed out how we might deliver aid with a much higher effectiveness, while others have shown how effectiveness can be hampered by regional politics and lack of infrastructure.
But honestly, if our aid has the potential to harm these people in the long run, it might be more generous to cancel all aid period, with the possible exception of specific disaster relief programs. (A sort of volunteer international insurance agency. ;-)
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks Anthony.
If we are going to provide "aid", the question is how best to do it, and to what end?
IMHO the FIRST thing we should do is stop being such gorram bullies. We have pretty consistently landed with a huge thud on the side of the wealthy and the oligarchs. If we had simply allowed local movements to progress... land reform, national sovereignty over national resources, labor movements... a lot of our "aid" might not even be necessary.
So IMHO the question is: How do we BEST encourage local and national economies towards self-sufficiency, transparency, and equitalble distribution of resources?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Chris' unstated assumption, as described in the title of this thread, seems to me to be that the U.S. wasn't doing much to feed the "hungry peeps" of the world. I was curious about that and found and posted some statistics showing that we are providing a fair bit of food aid, around half the worldwide total.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Geezer, do you actually care how much the US provides in relation to other nations?
This apparently couldn't remain unchallenged by those who find ulterior motives in most everything the U.S. does. And we're off to the races.
Quote:
I'd have always figured you for the camp that says public money shouldn't go to that sort of thing period. So, the less the better?
Given my choice, I'd prefer that food aid be private. As noted in the Nation story cited by SignyM above, the Gates Foundation and the Rockefellers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in Africa to develop sustainable agriculture and the infrastructure to get food to markets. Good for them. However, I'd rather see my taxes go to feed others than, say, build roads to nowhere.
Quote:I suspect that's part of it for most all of us here. It's unlikely we'll ever convince each other of anything much.
Or is this merely an exercise in debate for the joy of the exercise itself? I do that sometimes.
Quote:
I actually find compelling arguments for halting aid altogether (as stated above) because 'making a better world' does not seem to be the end result of aid.
On the other hand, some people (above) have pointed out how we might deliver aid with a much higher effectiveness, while others have shown how effectiveness can be hampered by regional politics and lack of infrastructure.
Depends on the aid. I'd prefer agriculture and infrastructure development as noted above. I've mentioned before that I think a lot of the problem is local governments who'd rather keep the population reliant on food handouts rather than allow them to develop independent means of feeding themselves. Zimbabwe comes to mind, but there are others. In other countries, there just isn't enough government to set up and secure the infrastructure needed to get crops grown and to market efficiently.
Quote:
But honestly, if our aid has the potential to harm these people in the long run, it might be more generous to cancel all aid period, with the possible exception of specific disaster relief programs. (A sort of volunteer international insurance agency. ;-)
Until governments in the poorer countries are capable of setting up the infrastructure for successful agriculture, either alone or with international help, feeding the starving is going to be a political necessity. The problem is that there is no way of making those governments agree to improving conditions, and possibly losing their grip on power.
Imagine the uproar if the U.S. or the EU said "We've determined that the government of country X is using our food donations to buy votes, and preventing agricultural development to makes sure their people are reliant on their handouts, so we are going to stop sending food".
I don't think it's as simple as some folks tend to believe.
BTW, I notice no one responded to my comment about farm subsidies in the U.S.
I'm against them, as they're a violation of the free market; causing surpluses and interfering with the market's ability to determine price and production.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Geezer, do you actually care how much the US provides in relation to other nations? I'd have always figured you for the camp that says public money shouldn't go to that sort of thing period. So, the less the better?
Or is this merely an exercise in debate for the joy of the exercise itself? I do that sometimes.
I actually find compelling arguments for halting aid altogether (as stated above) because 'making a better world' does not seem to be the end result of aid.
On the other hand, some people (above) have pointed out how we might deliver aid with a much higher effectiveness, while others have shown how effectiveness can be hampered by regional politics and lack of infrastructure.
But honestly, if our aid has the potential to harm these people in the long run, it might be more generous to cancel all aid period, with the possible exception of specific disaster relief programs. (A sort of volunteer international insurance agency. ;-)
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
I have always thought that the sending of food instead of money was more or less motivated as a backdoor farm subsidy, getting around trade agreements in a way that would draw little protest.
" 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