News Feeding the World: Ideas for Sustainable Solutions

[steppenwolf]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats capitalism. The market will FIX ITSELF. Farmers will move on to more profitable industries. The USSR demonstrated (and N. Korea is re-affirming) quite clearly that you can't control agriculture nearly as much as you want to. The US has prospered BECAUSE OF, not in spite of, capitalism. As someone said before: what economy? 3rd world countries don't have functioning economies (thats kinda part of the definition). When millions are starving to death (yes, millions ARE starving to death), what do you think they are more interested in, turning a profit or avoiding starving to death? See above, Re: the USSR and N. Korea. Should we shut down our economy because other countries can't (because of their own failures) duplicate our success? It works too well and that's unfair so we should get rid of it...

firstly, farmers will move on to more profitable industries? oh good, we're going to save africa but they won't be able to ever fend for themsleves, all the farmers will be making cars or something to sell to the west AND WON'T HAVE ANY FOOD TO BUY

oooh bit of a contradiction here: "farmers will move onto more profitable industries" and then "what do you think they are more interested in, turning a profit or avoiding starving to death" yes i totally agree, profit is not the goal, hence farmers shouldn't turn to more profitable industries or everyone will starve!

whoever siad 'what economy' is kidding themselves, there is not a group of people in the entire world that doesn't interact in market situations, whether they be communists, hippies, etc. what's this attitude 'oh well if their economy sucks/is non existent then it doesn't matter if we mess around with it without even understanding basic highschol economics', mess up your own economy, oh i forgot you already have!

'should we shut down our economy'? no shutting is going on, destruction of surplus goods is a tried and true method of encouraging economic growth? growth=destruction? if you insist

how the hell did you turn this into a free market vs communsism debate? have you ever heard of market failures the market will not always fix itself, and if it does it's always for the benifit of the rich

As Bart Simpson would say, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. In other threads, people have pointed out for the sake of criticism that the US doesn't give very much foreign aid as a percentage of GDP. Here you are saying foreign aid HURTS the countries we intend to help. Jeez.
Fair enough. A lot of people respond with incredulity when I mention the burning. [/B]

nice effort twisting my words, i have spent my life supporting aid organisations, doing 100s of hours of volunteering, giving my money, time, education to try and make a difference.

your heart in the right place, your goals noble and i respect you for that, but the economics of the situation are delicate and you have to understand that we are not helping these people unless we are giving them self sufficiency and a stable economy, hence not showering them with free food which only destroys their economic independance.

there is a big difference between our intentions and the result, too many people are content to say 'well i tried, my intentions were good', these people need to keep away or go and study economics for a while

peace

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

And I might like to know, russ_watters, just what the percentage of the foods stuffs, produced, and paid unproduction, actually result to be, in respect of the amount of food "bought for consumption", as clearly 25% to 30% waste is a major addition to that type of human "Gross'ness".

 

[steppenwolf]

that...really doesn't make much sense

coincidently i just saw a french documentary at the cinema about these people called gleaners who come and collect all the food left over from the harvest/sunday markets. the farmers don't mind them doing it ofcourse and i know even pretty well off people do it, it's not necessarily a desperate measure. it was a great doco

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by steppenwolf
that...really doesn't make much sense

You talking to me...?[?]

 

[steppenwolf]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You talking to me...?[?]

errr...yes? *runs and hides*

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by steppenwolf
firstly, farmers will move on to more profitable industries...
oooh bit of a contradiction here: "farmers will move onto more profitable industries" and then "what do you think they are more interested in, turning a profit or avoiding starving to death"

No, there are two separate issues there that you missed. The farm subsidies are an issue IN THE US. The issue in Somalia is starvation only. Two different countries, two different problems, two different solutions.

whoever siad 'what economy' is kidding themselves

Let me say it in another way: Somalia has no meaningful/functioning economy. Yeah, there is a little money and it moves around a little, and by definition, that's an economy. But it doesn't function in a way that has any real meaning. The normal rules of economics simply do not apply when the primary issue in people's lives is "will I starve to death tomorrow?" Beyond that (or maybe connected to that), a country like Somalia also has no functioning government.

how the hell did you turn this into a free market vs communsism debate? have you ever heard of market failures the market will not always fix itself, and if it does it's always for the benifit of the rich

The US has the most successful economy in the history of the world. And it does NOT just benefit the rich. I think I linked it on this thread, but ALL income levels in the US increase. Even the poor get richer. Communism came up because it is the extreme case of overzealous government control.

nice effort twisting my words

No word twisting. I didn't say YOU said those things, just that some people (many people) do.

there is a big difference between our intentions and the result, too many people are content to say 'well i tried, my intentions were good', these people need to keep away or go and study economics for a while

I can't remember who the psychologist was who made the triangle of needs/wants, but at the bottom is physical needs. If you are in constant danger of starvation, nothing else matters. The economics of the situation comes SECOND to the addressing of the physical needs of the citizens. Or maybe its THIRD. Second would be implimenting a functioning government. Physical safety is another physical need.

but the economics of the situation are delicate and you have to understand that we are not helping these people unless we are giving them self sufficiency and a stable economy, hence not showering them with free food which only destroys their economic independance.

The economics of a warlord stealing food meant for starving people is NOT delicate. Self sufficiency and a stable economy don't exist and can't unless the physical problems are fixed first.

And I might like to know, russ_watters, just what the percentage of the foods stuffs, produced, and paid unproduction, actually result to be, in respect of the amount of food "bought for consumption", as clearly 25% to 30% waste is a major addition to that type of human "Gross'ness".

MRP, near as I can tell, that's not a sentence and I'm not sure I understand it. But if you are asking how much we waste, I haven't a clue. It may very well be as much as 50%.

 

[steppenwolf]

Originally posted by russ_watters
MRP, near as I can tell, that's not a sentence and I'm not sure I understand it.

haha good so it's not just me,

as to the rest, i am sick of this useless meandering, very sick of all the useless meandering in the world, ta!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
MRP, near as I can tell, that's not a sentence and I'm not sure I understand it. But if you are asking how much we waste, I haven't a clue. It may very well be as much as 50%.

Smarter the you have given yourself credit for, as clearly, you have understood what I asked, clear by your responce. Sorry I didn't frame the question more carefully, to you, as well, steppenwolf.

That was what I was asking, just how much, respective of the total food 'produced for consumption', is "Burned" by the two methods you have described.
(Literal 'burning' or wasting, by trashing, or, paid unproduction)