janw@inmet.UUCP (11/05/85)
[Linda Seltzer linda@amdcad]] > Why do people feel that people have to be down to their last > nickel, in desparate, destitute condition, before anyone > should help them? We should be helping people long before it > gets to that state. I couldn't agree more. But all problems cannot be solved with food baskets. A full stomach does not prevent one from being poor in this country. Poverty in USA means being trapped in a subculture. The two worst problems of the poor here are clearly crime and ignorance. If you want to help the poor, show them a way *out*, instead of just shoving Christmas pies *in*. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/05/85)
[ tim sevener whuxn!orb] > The point is that Jan has offered absolutely no evidence to refute > Richard's claims about the *distribution* of food in Communist countries. (1) Well ... why not try *reading* the article you are responding to ? It is so short. And the last paragraph goes: "Uneven DISTRIBUTION has compounded this shortage" etc. (2) You might also try *reading* Richard's statement you quoted. He made *no* "claim about distribution of food". Richard's claim was that a more equal distribution of "power over food-producing resourses" greatly reduced hunger. And this makes much more sense than what you attribute to him. Land reforms *can* feed people. I agree with him there. But in places like China, Cuba, and Nicaragua, there are overriding factors. For in these countries, the real *power over food-producing resourses* is in the hands of the central government and so is less distributed than ever. (3) By breaking off the quote where you did, you made it factual- ly misleading (unintentionally, I presume). It appears to be say- ing that China is only as bad as India or Pakistan in feeding her people. But in the original, an important BUT follows, proving that she is much worse - as bad as Bangladesh. (4) Now, since you are interested in statistics, try and verify the following theorem: "If the average person is hungry, then *some real people* are hungry, whatever the distribution". See, averages do tell you something. In fact, per capita figures are universally and correctly used in this field of study. (5) See my new note on Food for China. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/05/85)
[Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes] > I would also argue, as indeed I have already, that such countries as > China, Cuba, and Nicaragua have made giant strides in reducing hunger > in their countries, mainly because of policies that redistribute > power over food-producing resources in the direction of more > equality. The following is from "China, Alive in a Bitter Sea", by Fox Butterfield, Bantam Books, p. 15. > > For recent Western Studies show that food consumption per capita > > is actually only about what it was in the mid-1950s, and, more > > surprisingly, no better than in the 1930s, before World War Two. > > > > These studies suggest that the average daily calorie supply in > > China is between 2,000 and 2,100 per person. Two thousand > > calories a day is the level of India, 2,100 is the norm in Pakis- > > tan. Americans eat an average of 3,240 calories a day. > > > > But what makes these figures worse is that three fourths of the > > protein in the Chinese diet and five sixth of the calories are > > derived from food grains like rice, wheat and corn, rather than > > from other richer and more varied sources like meat, fish, eggs, > > vegetables, or sugar. In Asia only Bangladesh and Laos approach > > these proportions. BANGLADESH AND LAOS, Richard. Bangladesh and Laos. > > Uneven distribution has compounded this shortage of food. A Com- > > munist periodical in Hong Kong disclosed in 1978, while I was > > there, that the annual grain ration of 200 million Chinese > > peasants was less than 330 pounds a year. "That is to say", the > > journal said, "they are living in a state of semistarvation". Jan Wasilewsky