nrh@inmet.UUCP (03/06/84)
#R:ihuxl:-93600:inmet:7800065:000:15194 inmet!nrh Mar 5 04:11:00 1984 I just got my 1984 World Almanac, and couldn't resist trying it out on Phil Polli's notion that we could feed the poor with our agricultural surplus. Apologies to the not-statistically-inclined. ***** inmet:net.politics / ihuxl!pvp / 5:35 pm Feb 27, 1984 >Total cost of the plan, according to the Information Please Almanac 1983. >was $11 billion. Total cost of foreign assistance (page 79 of the >almanac) for the entire postwar period is $213 billion. Foreign >aid is far from over: in 1980, "net assistance" was $10 billion. >About 10% of that was military. >If you figure that prices tripled (from consumer price indexes >for "all items") between 1955 to 1980 you get $9billion/3 = $3 billion >in 1955 dollars of non-military foreign aid in ONE YEAR (1980) vs >$11 billion / 5 years = $2 billion in foreign aid per year under >the Marshall plan. Get it? We're spending MORE now in foreign aid >than we did under the Marshall Plan in '47-'52. The facts as presented above do not support the conclusion given. The conclusion I draw is that we are giving more foreign aid to the entire world today than we gave only to Western Europe after WWII. Correct! Give the man a cigar! I had no information available on the money spent in the 40's & 50's OTHER than on the Marshall plan. My aim was to show that foreign aid NOW is comparable to the aid granted under the Marshall Plan. Time you did a little research, Phil. If you want to refute the idea, please come up with some figures on TOTAL foreign aid during the Marshall Plan era, and now. Somehow, that doesn't surprise me. There is nothing here or in the remainder of the argument that demonstrates that foreign aid causes nations to become dependent on us, which was my main point. The remainder of the paragraph simply repeats *opinions* about such dependencies. In fact, you challenged me to list the Marshall Plan countries still dependent on us. Depending on how you measure it, the following countries received grants from the US government (Source: World Almanac, 1984): Austria, Ireland, and Lichtenstein received grants and were net debtors of the USA in calender 1982. The following received grants from the US, but were net contributors to the US: (in terms of paybacks on interest on previous loans). Grant amounts: Italy (11 M) Portugal (29 M) M == Millions of dollars. Spain (22 M) Yugoslavia(7M) Oh yes! Don't forget Poland! 45M in Grants, and 12 M in "other". Grants, by the way, exclude military spending (so this doesn't even count NATO). Before you rush in about these grants being a good idea because these countries are now NET contributors to our welfare, consider how much more we'd net, were we not giving them these grants. I agree, except in the case of Poland, that disaster seems unlikely should the US not continue aid, but surely this satisfies you? Again, I don't claim these countries are filled with lazy people content to rely on their neighbors -- merely that they're STILL receiving non-military, no-strings attached aid from the US. >I was not claiming that this disqualifies aid to such countries. The >point I made was that your assumption seemed to be that we could feed the >hungry with our surplus, but you were NEGLECTING the cost of paying off >corrupt officials. I don't recall discussing all the costs involved in my proposal. I was addressing the desireability and feasability of sharing our surplus, not the bottom line cost. I certainly realize that it could be expensive. It seems to me that you were saying we could feed the hungry by sending our surplus to "the hungry". Do you know now, and did you know then what our surplus was? Well, since the concept of what the "surplus" was is not well defined -- did you mean, not used? used in aid programs? left to rot? What? let's assume that ALL of the money spent by government for US agricultural aid got transferred magically into generic food that we could send to other countries. In other words we took all the money the farmers have earned by their votes and their lobbying (that's right, a democracy, and all perfectly legal) and sent it off to Africa or someplace where surely it would do some good. By your own logic, we can't do this -- this is a republic and the votes those farmers assembled enabled OUR representatives to forge laws that define what's to be done with the money. But, say we could.... In fact, this 1982 dollar amount was about $3,491,965,000. For comparison the net foreign aid (new loans and grants - loan payments) to Africa in 1982 was $1,104,000,000. Assuming that Mboto (sp?) and his ilk get no more than 10%, (a figure some on the "60 Minutes" sketch about him criticized as being low) then we still have $3 billion to spend in Africa. Is this enough? According to the Almanac, the latest figures (1977, unfortunately) for developing nations is that they receive (on average) about 85% of their needed amount of dietary energy. Interestingly, the NUMBER of people who actually receive below the critical amount has been growing, both in absolute terms and in terms population percentage. Interestingly it appears from the almanac (1977 figures, remember) that agricultural output is slowly dropping in Africa. Okay, $3 billion. This is worth 2 billion pounds of potatoes (Boston Globe 3/3/84) assuming that you could BUY 2E9 pounds of potatoes. The food value of one potato is 145 calories. Assuming an average potato weighs 3/4 lb, we have 1 lb potato = 4/3 (145) calories = about 200 calories. We have then 2E9 * 200 = 4E11 calories to spread to africa. The 1977 shortfall was about 300 calories per person. The population of africa was then 300 million. Assuming no further lossage due to incompentence, spoilage, delivery cost, &c, (am I boring you with the real-world details?) you get 4E11/3E8 = 1.3E3 calories. Congratulations! You've just fed africa, with "trifle to spare". Oops! Africa is not the only poor bunch of people. And there are now 200 million more Africans (tough, I guess) than there were in 1977. Assuming that they, too must be included (and that Africa's farm output has grown commensurate with the population increase, which I doubt) we now have 4E11/5E8 = 8E2 = 800 calories added to average diet. Hoorah! We've done it. Well, not quite. If you now include far east ASIA, which was further under the minimum average calorie intake than Africa, and MUCH more populous, then you have (population of far east asia = 2.7 billion): 4E11/(5E8 + 2.7E9) = 4E11/3E9 = 130 ----- AHA! (You've managed to give 300 calories to people who needed 130 calories Looks like people remain under the hunger line). Too bad. You've moved them up about 1/2 way (from 85% of required calories to about 92%). Despite all this effort, either all will starve, or some will starve and some will not. The notion that you could eliminate hunger by giving away our agricultural surplus (even assuming a VERY GENEROUS surplus) is unsupported by such evidence as one can cobble together, even making some fairly generous assumptions (for example, Far East Asia was FURTHER UNDER the minimum average consumption than Africa by about 5%. Further, this assumes that supplies remain stable in the face of one of the grandest giveaways of all time. I suspect that to call forth the sort of production required you'd have to allow prices to rise a little: the potato crop in the US (1982) was 34,926,800 pounds. Assuming that the food values of the all crops were exploited, I suppose it is not preposterous. to get that much production, but I'd like to see the breakdown. (I apologize for the use of potatoes. I really wanted to use rice, but I had no price figures available for rice). The rest of the response continues to "rail against oppressive taxation and government". Yup. I feel entitled to a little railing when I bring some information to such a discussion. C'mon, Phil. Surely there are numbers to support your argument. Remember, even if you can cast doubt on mine, that doesn't make your arguments any stronger. Let's see some FACTS, rather than mushy platitudes about how we all ought to pay our taxes like good little boys and girls, and how we only have the taxes our duly elected representatives can get away with --- er, can't avoid passing in this "democracy". I am going to try to divide the issues into the separate categories that they belong in. 1) Does the federal government have the right to collect tax money and spend it on foreign aid? The answer is clearly yes. The rights of the government are spelled out in the Constitution and its amendments. The Constitution also clearly spells out the procedure for determining if the government has the right to do something. You challenge the action in the Supreme Court, and it decides the matter. I know that the Supreme Court has held that taxes are constitutional. I imagine somebody has challenged foreign aid also, and probably lost. The point here is that you cannot call taxes theft, because it is clearly not illegal. OHO! My "New World Dictionary of the American Language" gives several definitions of "theft". The first is "The act or an instance of stealing". It defines "Steal" as "to take or appropriate (another's property, ideas, etc.) without permission, dishonestly *OR* unlawfully esp. in a secret or surreptitious manner" (emphasis added). Need I look up the definition of "or"? You'd have made a poor Founding Father, Phil. To quote Schlesinger's classic "Birth of the Nation" on the reaction of the colonists to the Intolerable Acts: Although the Americans were characteristically men of action rather than reflection, they advanced a wealth of theoretical arguments in behalf of their cause..... They based their case, varying the emphasis as events required, on guarantees in the colonial charters, on "the rights of Englishman" as derived from the Magna Carta, the common law, and the Bill of Rights of 1689, and, with ever increasing stress, on "the immutable laws of nature." These precedents and principles, in the colonists view, defined the British constitution, a priceless heritage which, if infringed by Parliament, rendered its actions invalid. Get the picture? Parliament doubtless claimed that its action was perfectly legal. Tough. They were still unjust. I take a particularly jaundiced view of people arguing that taxes are not theft when they think "we" ought to blow away a lot of tax money for their favorite charity. 2) Does the government collect too much tax money? Who knows? We can argue about that forever. You vote for your tax-cutter and I'll vote for mine. There is no right answer. Oh, I don't know. The number "zero" has such a nice ring about it. Wouldn't it be nice to pay ZERO taxes? Impossible, you say? Maybe. On the other hand, the Government of Monaco taxes nobody -- it derives its income from a Casino. In the mid-1800's, when the Feds were trying to impose the first income tax, revenue for this country came mostly from import-export fees (still taxes, but....). 3) Should we spend tax money on foreign aid or other charity? We can and are arguing about that too. You have your opinion, and I have mine. If I win in congress, you have to pay up. Just like I have to pay to put all that plutonium into holes in the ground. I can call it unfair, stupid, and a waste of money, but I can't say it's illegal. Just for future reference, I agree that it is unfair that you should have to pay tax money for plutonium bombs. I wouldn't mind paying some sort of fee, myself, to discomfit the Russians, but if it isn't voluntary I'm against it. 4) *Should* the government have the right to spend tax money on foreign aid, or whatever else you don't happen to like? A different question. Note the use of the word SHOULD instead of DOES. The Constitution does give it the right today (see question 1). If you want to change the Constitution, then you have to submit an amendment, and have it ratified by the states. After that you can tell me the government has no right to do so. Until then, you're simply *wrong*. There are two amendments you should look real closely at. They reserve all powers not given to the Feds to the states and the people. They're often referred to as "the forgotten amendments". Amendments 9 and 10, if you have trouble..... Now, please find the constitutional clause regarding foreign aid, or one that even mentions charity? This was the subject of a rather fun Libertarian film about the first such "charitable" act the Congress passed. An appropriation for $5000 for the victims of (I think) the Jamestown fire. The film recounts an (alledgedly true) incident in a contemporary Congressman's life, where a man in his district pointed out that the members of Congress were easily wealthy enough to supply the money from their own pockets, but that by choosing to spend other people's money on a good cause they'd open a Pandora's box, since the constitution neither mentions charity NOR LIMITS THE AMOUNT. 5) Is our government too oppressive? Again, a fun question to argue about. You have to follow the following procedure if you think the current state of affairs is too oppressive for your taste: 1) Elect people who think like you and change the laws, or Gee, thanks. I'm a member of the Libertarian party. 2) Get the Supreme Court to agree with you and strike down the laws, or 3) Shame the congress into changing the laws (See Voting Rights Act),or 4) Get an amendment passed banning the laws, or 4) Leave the country. You don't have to love it. You just have to follow the rules. If you don't like the rules, you can change them, but you have to follow the rules to do it. If you don't follow the rules, (like not paying your taxes) then you go to jail. Or, and here I'm not advocating the initiation of force, or anything, you can resist the rules and not be bound to change the rules only by ways allowed by the rules. Happily there are many people NOT paying taxes, and more on the way. I'm not one of these (yet). Your government is cracking down on these free spirits, however, and shows a lot less respect for the constitution than you do, Phil: The IRS has attempted to smother this protest with audits and penalties against the members of the autoworkers' group, hinting that it will prosecute others under an especially nasty federal law designed to stamp out tax-protest movmentes. Besically, under the constitutional guarantees of free speech the law says that anyone can advocate violation of the tax laws; however, if as a result of that advice even one taxpayer doesn't pay, then the man who advocated nonpayment can be indicted for income-tax evasion -- even if his own returns are perfectly legal. (Cummings & Volkman: "No Deposit, No Return" Penthouse Magazine, "April" 1984.) All perfectly by the rules, I'm sure, eh Phil?
nrh@inmet.UUCP (03/07/84)
#R:ihuxl:-93600:inmet:7800066:000:207 inmet!nrh Mar 5 13:34:00 1984 oops! When I said: You've managed to give 300 calories to people who needed 130 calories I meant: You've managed to give 130 calories to people who needed 300 calories My mistake. Sorry for any confusion.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (03/07/84)
#R:watmath:-704600:inmet:7800067:000:1893 inmet!nrh Mar 5 13:56:00 1984 ***** inmet:net.politics / watmath!saquigley / 8:57 pm Feb 29, 1984 I do not have any figures to substantiate the following claim, so I would appreciate it greatly if anybody could supply some. My understanding of foreign aid is that the US gets more money back from the governments it is "helping" than the original amount of money given to these countries in the form of "aid". If this is so, arguing about whether your tax money should go to "charities" is simply ridiculous, since "aid" can simply be considered as an investment of the taxpayers' money by the state, and not as money that is thrown away never to be seen again. Sophie Quigley watmath!saquigley ---------- It's still charity -- even without figures, it's obvious that giving money as aid might not be the best "investment" possible, and therefore you're asking people with money to forego profits that are larger. You may see it as merely lower profits. They see it as cost due to lost opportunity. Andrew Carnegie, I think, once remarked that one should not feel uncomfortable asking another to give to charity, any more than one should feel uncomfortable giving another person a good stock tip. If it really WERE a good investment, you'd find people lining up to "buy in". With figures: (the handy ol' argument-busting 1984 World Almanac comes out!): Western Europe was the only net-return -- a total balance of $ -468 million. All other major regions were net losses to the US, with a total worldwide balance of $10,832,000,000. Military aid comes to $1,399,000,000. subtracting, you've still got a net loss of about 9 billion. You may still have a point, of course -- one can argue that the money spent in Europe is only now maturing, but I don't buy it might be worth looking up! I'd certainly love to invest in a scheme that resulted in feeding the hungry while making me richer.....
turner@ucbesvax.UUCP (03/29/84)
> /***** ucbesvax:net.politics / watmath!saquigley / 2:03 am Mar 1, 1984*/ > Subject: Re: Re: Using tax money to feed hungry people > My understanding of foreign aid is that the US gets more money back from > the governments it is "helping" than the original amount of money given to > these countries in the form of "aid". If this is so, arguing about whether > your tax money should go to "charities" is simply ridiculous, since "aid" > can simply be considered as an investment of the taxpayers' money by the > state, and not as money that is thrown away never to be seen again. Frances Moore Lappe' of the Institute for Food and Development Policy in San Francisco has written a book called "Aid as Obstacle" which might have some supporting data and further references. There is nothing wrong with *profitable* foreign aid per se, but at the moment much of the profit is made at the expense of the supposed beneficiaries. These claims might be out of date, however, by having been based on expected returns (via interest payments) on loans to the third world. Basically, it seems that western nations went way out on a limb to lend to nations that turned out to be economically represented by groups of people on the take. Of course, you know who will pay for setting them up in style: us. IMF and the World Bank will absorb their losses out of tax money. So much for do-gooder banking. And the U.S.-designed land reform programs ("We'll be breeding capitalists like rabbits", said an AID official in El Salvador) seem, at this point, to be a similar disaster. Frances Moore Lappe's basic message is: our aid has done more harm than good. While she sees possibilities for *real* aid, she would probably take a total cut-off as a good sign. (This doesn't make her some kind of Libertarian/isolationist, however. She has spent time in Nicaragua trying to help them sort out their mess. She returned somewhat discouraged, by her own lights. She is now an official in Democratic Socialists of America, and heads up the Institute mentioned above.) She also co-wrote "Food First", a good place to start for those who are serious about problems of world hunger. I don't mind saying that she is one of my all-time heroes. Those who advocate contraception and industrialization as panaceas for feeding the world are advised to stay away from her books if they really want to keep their comforting old opinions--at least, until the disaster is fully upon them. --- Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)