carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/18/85)
[Jan Wasilewsky] >> In the USA, one can eat like a >> king off a garbage dump. One hour's work at McDonald's could feed >> a 3d world citizen for a week. True, so why are there many Americans who don't get enough to eat? Because they're too proud to eat out of garbage cans, right? >> To prove his point, Mike would have to name a rich nation whose >> poor are *poor* not by THAT country's standards, but *by poor >> country standards*. There's no such place. True, the poor of Chicago are much better off than the poor of Calcutta. Somehow this isn't much consolation to the poor in Chicago. [JoSH] >Distribution of nothing, no matter how even, feeds no one. JoSH conveniently overlooks the case of China, where a billion or so people manage to stay decently fed on nothing, and where people formerly set their clocks by the famines. [Piotr Berman] >19th century gives the example of Potato famine in Ireland. The >peasants of western Ireland were poor by any standard, in spite >of the relative wealth of Great Britain as a whole. It's even worse than that. Ireland itself was well stocked with food throughout the years of the famine. The basic reason the peasants starved was that they lacked any income with which to buy food. The historian Cecil Woodham-Smith attributes the famine mainly to the British government's blind and dogmatic adherence to what we would today call libertarian ideas but which at that time were called free-trade, laissez-faire, and Manchesterian ideas. It will be recalled that this was the time (late 1840's) when the Corn Laws were repealed. The result of this British blindness and callousness was the most horrendous human catastrophe of the 19th century, in which between one and two million Irish, out of about eight million, died horribly by starvation or epidemic or both, and millions more emigrated to America, an act of desperation for an Irish peasant. One tends to assume that some great natural disaster must have caused such a calamity. In fact, all that happened was the failure of a *single* crop, the potato, during several years, in Ireland, a fertile land capable of growing many different crops. This is *typical* of famines. Through the drought years of the 1970's, the Sahelian countries of Africa, with the possible exception of Mauritania, produced enough food to feed their populations. (See R.W. Franke and B.H. Chasin, *The Political Economy of Ecological Destruction: Development in the West African Sahel*.) Bangladesh, rich in fertile soil, water, manpower, and natural gas, is a potential breadbasket, yet hunger has been widespread in that country, especially among peasants who grow rice for a living. In the Caribbean, much of the best land is used to grow coffee, bananas, cocoa, and sugar cane for export, while many people are malnourished. I have mentioned Venezuela, a "rich" 3rd world country where at least half the population doesn't get enough to eat. A large grain "surplus" exists in India which must be guarded by soldiers. And in the world as a whole, enough food is produced right now to keep everyone well fed, including pets and draft animals. This is an example of how a more equal distribution is a positive-sum game. The rich do not have to give up their lives or even their health to give life to those who are starving (and in many cases they could *improve* their health by doing so). You can't eat the per capita GNP, you can only eat that portion of it that gets on your table. Richard Carnes
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/18/85)
In case anyone is inclined to doubt my statements about the great Irish famine, here are some passages from *The Great Hunger* by C. Woodham-Smith. ______________ One of the reasons why the British Government did not feel bound to send food to Skibbereen [an Irish town] was that ample food was to be found there already. "On Saturday, notwithstanding all this distress," wrote Major Parker, the Board of Works' Relief Inspector, on December 21, "there was a market plentifully supplied with meat, bread, fish, in short everything." This extraordinary contradiction occurred all over Ireland during the famine years, and was not understood by the British Government. Trevelyan insisted that the "resources" of the country should be "drawn out", failing to realize that those resources were so utterly inaccessible to the unfortunate wretches dying in the streets and by the roadsides that they might as well never have existed. The starving in such places as Skibbereen perished not because there was no food but because they had no money with which to buy it. [p. 165] ...the subsequent value to Ireland of [Robert] Peel's boldness, independence and strength of mind was unfortunately outweighed by his belief in an economic theory which almost every politician of the day, Whig or Tory, held with religious fervour. This theory, usually termed *laissez faire*, let people do as they think best, insisted that in the economic sphere individuals should be allowed to pursue their own interests and asserted that the Government should interfere as little as possible. Not only were the rights of property sacred; private enterprise was revered and respected and given almost complete liberty, and on this theory, which incidentally gave the employer and the landlord freedom to exploit his fellow men, the prosperity of nineteenth-century England had unquestionably been based. The influence of *laissez faire* on the treatment of Ireland during the famine is impossible to exaggerate. Almost without exception the high officials and politicians responsible for Ireland were fervent believers in non-interference by Government, and the behaviour of the British authorities only becomes explicable when their fanatical belief in private enterprise and their suspicions of any action which might be considered Government intervention are borne in mind. The loss of the potato crop was therefore to be made good, without Government interference, by the operations of private enterprise and private firms, using the normal channels of commerce.... The flaw in the plan was the undeveloped state of the food and provision trade in a great part of Ireland. [pp. 54-55] It has been frequently declared that the parsimony of the British Government during the famine was the main cause of the sufferings of the people, and parsimony was certainly carried to remarkable lengths; but obtuseness, short-sightedness and ignorance probably contributed more. To take only a few instances, it did not occur to Lord John Russell and his advisers that, by forcing the famine-stricken applicant for relief to give up every possession, they were creating fresh armies of paupers, even though Lord Clarendon had inquired if it were wise to compel a man to become a pauper, when he was not one already, in order to be saved from starvation.... Even the self-evident truth, that Ireland is not England, was not realized by the Government in Whitehall; the desolate, starving west was assumed to be served by snug grocers and prosperous merchants and to be a field for private enterprise.... Much of this obtuseness sprang from the fanatical faith of mid-nineteenth century British politicians in the economic doctrine of *laissez faire*, no interference by government, no meddling with the operation of natural causes. Adherence to *laissez faire* was carried to such a length that in the midst of one of the major famines of history, the government was perpetually nervous of being too good to Ireland and of corrupting the Irish people by kindness, and so stifling the virtues of self reliance and industry. [pp. 410-411] -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (09/21/85)
Richard, what you are saying is that the British government did not do a good job in dealing with the famine. I agree. I expect that the Red Cross and the Salvation Army could have done a better job. That the government did a worse job than it could is another reason why sticking your eggs in one basket and assuming that ``the government'' will do a proper job is a poor idea. I come from a line of Irish immigrants who really believe that the problem was worse than that -- that without prior government restrictions on farming *there* *would* *have* *been* *no* *famine* and worse, that elements of the government viewed the famine as a good way to end the Catholic problem that Ireland (a subject nation, ruled by force for generations which *still* hasn't solved Catholic Irish/Protestant English problems) once and for all. I do not know how to verify these claims, but if they are true then the government's activity becomes all the more reprehensible. i think that you are wrong in viewing the Irish famine as a ``free trade'' famine since Ireland more closely resembled a colony or an occupied territory at that time. -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
walker@oberon.UUCP (Mike Walker) (09/22/85)
> This is *typical* of famines. Through the drought years of the > 1970's, the Sahelian countries of Africa, with the possible exception > of Mauritania, produced enough food to feed their populations. (See > R.W. Franke and B.H. Chasin, *The Political Economy of Ecological > Destruction: Development in the West African Sahel*.) Bangladesh, > rich in fertile soil, water, manpower, and natural gas, is a > potential breadbasket, yet hunger has been widespread in that > country, especially among peasants who grow rice for a living. In > the Caribbean, much of the best land is used to grow coffee, bananas, > cocoa, and sugar cane for export, while many people are malnourished. > I have mentioned Venezuela, a "rich" 3rd world country where at least > half the population doesn't get enough to eat. A large grain > "surplus" exists in India which must be guarded by soldiers. And in > the world as a whole, enough food is produced right now to keep > everyone well fed, including pets and draft animals. > > This is an example of how a more equal distribution is a positive-sum > game. The rich do not have to give up their lives or even their > health to give life to those who are starving (and in many cases they > could *improve* their health by doing so). You can't eat the per > capita GNP, you can only eat that portion of it that gets on your > table. > > Richard Carnes There seems to a problem here, if the world produces enough food to feed itself why doesn't it? There is a limit to how much food a person can eat. So what happens to the food not distributed? Why the governments buy it up and store it till it goes bad? Or perhaps pay the farmers to let it rot in the fields? Or refuse to let it go to the famine affected areas for political reasons? The fact that the poor cannot afford the food is not the only limit to its distibution. Government intervention is often the primary cause of misdistribution. -- Michael D. Walker (Mike) Arpa: walker@oberon.ARPA Uucp: {the (mostly unknown) world}!ihnp4!sdcrdcf!oberon!walker {several select chunks}!sdcrdcf!oberon!walker
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/26/85)
Mike Walker asks: >There seems to a problem here, if the world produces enough food to feed >itself why doesn't it? There is a limit to how much food a person can >eat. So what happens to the food not distributed? Why the governments >buy it up and store it till it goes bad? Or perhaps pay the farmers to >let it rot in the fields? Or refuse to let it go to the famine affected >areas for political reasons? An interesting question. The short answer is that the food is allocated inefficiently. 1. The world's staple food is the various kinds of grain, which are rich in protein and calories. Around one-third of the world's grain production is fed to livestock, which yield much less in nutritional value than they consume (beef cattle, in particular, are nutritional black holes). Most of the barley harvest, for example, is not eaten by humans. (Source: the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.) 2. Some crops are used to produce alcoholic beverages, but I don't know what proportion goes to this use. It is probably small. 3. Income disparities lead to inefficient use of food. The amount of food that regularly dies in my refrigerator could probably feed an entire Ethiopian family. The amount that Americans throw out could probably (wild guess) feed the nation of Ethiopia, not to mention Americans in need. 4. Some food is wasted through spoilage. The reasons for this are various. >The fact that the poor cannot afford the food is not the only limit to >its distibution. Government intervention is often the primary cause >of misdistribution. Let's discuss some specific examples. Of course, it is not only misdistribution that contributes to hunger; inefficient production is also a factor. The world is capable of producing far more food than it now does, even with existing technologies. In the great majority of cases I think one will find that the root cause of hunger is inequality in power over food-producing resources, and that hunger can only be eliminated through political and economic changes that redistribute this power. Nicaragua makes an instructive case study. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
lkk@teddy.UUCP (09/27/85)
In article <119@oberon.UUCP> walker@oberon.UUCP (Mike Walker) writes: > >There seems to a problem here, if the world produces enough food to feed >itself why doesn't it? There is a limit to how much food a person can >eat. So what happens to the food not distributed? Why the governments >buy it up and store it till it goes bad? Or perhaps pay the farmers to >let it rot in the fields? Or refuse to let it go to the famine affected >areas for political reasons? Or perhaps the farmers feed it to pigs and cattle and chickens? Or perhaps it goes into the large percentage of Americans and Europeans who are overweight? -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
eva@oddjob.UUCP (Eva Browder) (09/28/85)
[This article is by Richard Carnes -- I am borrowing someone else's account while our machine is down.] Sorry, my information about what happens to the world's food output was out of date. In 1981 livestock consumed about one-half of all grain produced. Today it is likely that OVER HALF of all grain is fed to livestock. And not only grain: some of the staple foods of the poor are used as livestock feed, e.g. the cassava, a staple in Africa. A large proportion of the soybean harvest is fed to livestock, and I think fish are used in some livestock feed. (Sources available on request.) Since a very large proportion of the world's food output is fed to livestock, and since livestock in general yield much less nutritional value than they consume when they eat grain and soybeans, this amounts to a huge waste of food when 15-20% of the world's population doesn't get enough to eat. In general, this is not the result of governments decreeing that livestock must be fed at the expense of the poor. It is the result of marketplace transactions: the poor can't afford the grain, the big landowners and ranchers can. Brazil is a good example, where the majority of the rural poor are malnourished while about half of the basic grains are fed to livestock. Now I am waiting for some economist type to explain why this colossal misallocation of resources is really the most efficient, since it is the result of free-market transactions. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
walker@oberon.UUCP (Mike Walker) (10/05/85)
> [Mike Walker] > >The fact that the poor cannot afford the food is not the only limit to > >its distibution. Government intervention is often the primary cause > >of misdistribution. > > [Richard Carnes] > Let's discuss some specific examples. Of course, it is not only > misdistribution that contributes to hunger; inefficient production is > also a factor. The world is capable of producing far more food than > it now does, even with existing technologies. In the great majority > of cases I think one will find that the root cause of hunger is > inequality in power over food-producing resources, and that hunger > can only be eliminated through political and economic changes that > redistribute this power. Nicaragua makes an instructive case study. I should have made myself more clear. Government intervention not only results in misdistibution but also discourages production. Why should a Nicaraguan farmer work to produce food which he must sell to the gov. at little or no profit? [I *suspect* that the gov. then turns around and sells it at a profit so it can obtain more Soviet Mig 25's and other farm equipment :-) ]. Oh and some people might think your reference to them and their farms as resources to be controlled smacks of slavery. -- Michael D. Walker (Mike) Arpa: walker@oberon.ARPA Uucp: {the (mostly unknown) world}!ihnp4!sdcrdcf!oberon!walker {several select chunks}!sdcrdcf!oberon!walker