jj@rabbit.UUCP (01/26/84)
Well, Sharon, I can't say as I agree completely with your comments, but I can say that you have at least stated a premise, and suggested routes that can lead to solutions. Can you reference (or quote) some of the UN reports that you are mentioning? <Yes, we all have work to do.> Please DO bear in mind that a lot of the UN's output is politically biased, and may not in fact represent reality. <Look at some of the comments on Afghanistan/Grenada/Honduras/Poland to see the difference that is imputed to the activities of various individuals and countries.> More specifically, can you explain how US companies (I don't say American companies> are ripping off small African countries? (I know some of the ways that are alledged/happening, but I'd like to see some discussion.) On the subject of food, I challenge your assertion that the US could feed the world. Our surpluses (even including the really offensive amount of waste that you mention indirectly) would indeed feed a lot of people for a while, but they do NOT, as far as I've been able to tell, come close to reaching a steady state solution, even assuming NO population growth or increased consumption. <Yes, it WOULD be nice to have another answer...> ******NEW SUBJECT********** A subject that has not been discussed on this net is the loss of topsoil in the US through erosion due to modern farming techniques. If continued, the US will not, according to the most pessimestic projections, be able to feed ITSELF in or around 2010AD. (The more optimistic projections give us to 2100.) This fact <which is documented in many places, most of them hard to reference>, coupled with the extreme depletion of many of the major agricultural aquifers (which are being depleted at SEVERAL TIMES their recharge rate, given excellent weather) is an indication that farming techniques and food production techniques in the USA must be severely altered if we are not to starve eventually ourselves. <I don't justify keeping the current surplus due to that reason, but it does show why we shouldn't unquestionably feed everyone.> -- TEDDY BEARS ARE PEOPLE, TOO! (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
cdanderson@watarts.UUCP (01/30/84)
Ah, to jump boldly where none have gone before. One of the ways in which the U.S. in particular has been exploiting the 3'rd World (as we call it) and causing starvation is by setting up an elite to elite trading pattern in which the 3'rd world is a provider of raw materials, especially agricultural ones, and labour to supply ourselves with "luxury" goods. For example, we have turned much of Mexico into a grower of peppers and (of all necessary foodstuffs) carnations. Before, it was cotton, but a major epidemic among the crops and a soft market killed most of this, and many peasants. As well, as the 1'st world's M.N.C.'s have introduced (often under direction from the World Bank) 1'st World, i.e. capital intensive, technology into these countries, two problems have been made manifest; 1) the small-area farmers have been pushed off their land due to increasing taxation and a higher over-all expense for goods in relation to the purchasing power of the agricultural produce. This means that they usually enter the already strained "work-force" of the urban centres (witness the barrios around Mexico City and most other capitols in the 3'rd World) and starve as jobs are extremely difficult to procure and the cost of staples relatively great, in part due to a decreased supply. In this case, the taxes and land prices rise due to the greater earning potential, for some, of the land. They tend to not eat many carnations or cotton (maybe they haven't read Catch-22). 2) as the M.N.C.'s have a much better ability to provide collateral, they drain the local money markets. As was pointed out by someone earlier, they tend to extract $3 for every $1 they put in. This, as well, increases interest rates or inflation, depending on the economic model followed, to the detriment of the local farmer. It is a myth that our companies provide great infusions of capital into these areas, they merely mobilize existing monies. ************************** Regarding proceedings of the U.N. etc., this is likely a futile exercise as it will come down to the point of "Well,do you believe what was said by the U.S. or by country X?". If one takes the views of one country, and the other person, of the other, to be correct, not much is going to come of it. For example, some people beleived the U.S. when at first it denied any involvement in the Allende coup in Chile, etc. or feel, still that it had any right to invade the Phillipines, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic (to ensure a steady supply of pineapples and profit), Grenada,....Nicaragua (?),etc. Have fun, I've had lots of practice as a fire-eater, C.D. Anderson watarts!cdanderson