Originally posted by aging blitzerthe subsidies are as self defeating as pumping vast amounts of money through corrupt goverment.
Why would these technologically advanced farmers need subsidising?
It sounds like a very European thing to do, not free-market.
It leds to unhealthy practice.
In agriculture it produces inefficient and unwanted food production.
The way US overseas aid is distributed and tied to governments produced centralised beaurocratic governments that do not want to encourage free enterprise.
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeTwo things:
War-torn Iraq 'facing collapse'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6663935.stm
Iraq already had a developed economy in place and had to be liberated from a dictator; moreover, the enemy there is very savvy, stubborn and ruthless and has many allies in the U.S. Congress and among the chattering classes, so I don't think it is fair to compare Iraq to a "developing country."
In the BBC story cited above, I did not see one quote from the new commander of U.S. military forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus. I trust his assessment more than Chatham House's.
Originally posted by petrosianpupilDid you say something?
the subsidies are as self defeating as pumping vast amounts of money through corrupt goverment.
It leds to unhealthy practice.
In agriculture it produces inefficient and unwanted food production.
The way US overseas aid is distributed and tied to governments produced centralised beaurocratic governments that do not want to encourage free enterprise.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterTypical Supreme Dim Lard thinking.
[b far beyond any wet dream redmike, petrosianpupae or shavixmir might have about redistributing land.[/b]
I am not with Redmike or Shavi on economic views. The main thing I share with them is the belief in your stupidity.
But of course you are a bigot who wants to kill people in turbans, because they are all responsible for 9-11 so I shouldn't be too surprised labelling people with no factual basis.
Originally posted by petrosianpupilIt's not our government's job to provide worldwide welfare outreach to failed states like England.
How stupid are you? You even quote statistics that prove you are wrong!
"Although the United States routinely gives the greatest overall amount of foreign aid, critics argue that as a percentage of national income, ODA places America behind all the other industrialized nations."
Of course now you want to include personal contributions, yet in yo ...[text shortened]... or about 0.15% of Israel's GDP." These huge sums don't even include the free weapons!!!
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterOf course not we've only just finished paying you for WW2, some ally! We pay you and you pay Germany and Japan. No wonder countries aren't rushing to step up to the plate with the US.
It's not our government's job to provide worldwide welfare outreach to failed states like England.
1 edit
Stephen King, Salem's Lot (not very classical, but this has always seemed to me to grasp the problem):
"This country is an amazing paradox. In other lands, when a man eats to his fullest day after day, that man becomes fat...sleepy...piggish. But in this land...it seems the more you have the more aggressive you become. You see? Like Mr Sawyer. With so much; yet he begrudges you a few crumbs from his table. Also like a child at a birthday party, who will push another baby away even though he can eat no more."
Originally posted by AmauroteVery nice...rec'd.
Stephen King, Salem's Lot (not very classical, but this has always seemed to me to grasp the problem):
"This country is an amazing paradox. In other lands, when a man eats to his fullest day after day, that man becomes fat...sleepy...piggish. But in this land...it seems the more you have the more aggressive you become. You see? Like Mr Sawyer. Wi ...[text shortened]... a child at a birthday party, who will push another away baby even though he can eat no more."
King may not be a classic but i love the guy none the less.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI wonder how much money the US has spent on the Iraq war?
You are such a braying jackass petrosianpupae:
U.S. Remains Largest Donor of Foreign Aid
In 2000, the United States officially gave $9.9 billion in foreign aid -- also referred to as Official Development Assistance (ODA). President Bush has pledged a 50 percent increase in ODA by 2006 -- the largest increase since the Marshall Plan -- in ad ...[text shortened]... or more on International Issues:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=26
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSo why don't you go after Mugabe? Or help Sudan?
Iraq already had a developed economy in place and had to be liberated from a dictator;
And i am sure the 20 000 to 600 000 (depending on sources) dead innocent Iraqis and the 3 million Iraqi refugees since the US invasion agree that they are better of without Saddam. Moron.
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterGiving food to the hungry is a good thing. We must continue to do so.
The United States is the world's largest food donor, handing out 4 million metric tons, or more than half the world's total. Whenever and wherever there's famine, we help. Since the rest of the world acts like a bunch of spoiled, petulant children, should the United States withdraw that aid and thus put the money back in its own taxpayer's pockets?
However, USA(*) food aid (food, not money) has two important side-effects:
(from an excellent Dutch documentary)
1. by giving away a part of agricultural surplus (I hope this is proper English), you avoid USA prices going down (no/smaller surplus has less negative effect on prices than bigger surplus). Ergo: the USA benefits (indirectly) from donating food to other countries.
2. in 3rd world countries, food aid can have a negative effect on the price of local agricultural products: as soon as foreign aid arrives, local farmers see the prices of their products go down, making it more difficult to make ends meet. Very simple: if I grow potatoes and suddenly more potatoes appear on the market, I will have to accept a lower price for my beautiful, tasty potatoes.
So, we in the West may be less altruistic then we think. Sometimes we can even do harm with our aid.
Maybe we should focus more on microcredits .......?
Any economists around that want to comment on this?
(*) I think this applies to all western countries donating food
Originally posted by WallieGood point.
Giving food to the hungry is a good thing. We must continue to do so.
However, USA(*) food aid (food, not money) has two important side-effects:
(from an excellent Dutch documentary)
1. by giving away a part of agricultural surplus (I hope this is proper English), you avoid USA prices going down (no/smaller surplus has less negative effect on prices th ...[text shortened]... at want to comment on this?
(*) I think this applies to all western countries donating food
Subsidising food destroys the open market.
Then dumping food on the third world does two things
1) Creates bearocracies to deal with the free handouts (free handouts = corruption)
2) destroys the economy of poor third world farmers who cannot sell their food.
Originally posted by WallieI think your points are accurate, however, I would add one more: I don't believe most of it gets to the people it is supposed to help. Usually the strongman and his henchmen steal most, if not all of it.
Giving food to the hungry is a good thing. We must continue to do so.
However, USA(*) food aid (food, not money) has two important side-effects:
(from an excellent Dutch documentary)
1. by giving away a part of agricultural surplus (I hope this is proper English), you avoid USA prices going down (no/smaller surplus has less negative effect on prices th ...[text shortened]... at want to comment on this?
(*) I think this applies to all western countries donating food