1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThese are not handouts, these are subsidies conditional on an economic activity. This activity provides more to society than the simple product they produce. Having a beautiful and active rurality provides something to society that cannot be sold and therefore cannot be "sold" by them. This is typically what is called an externality. Due to this, without state intervention, the market isn't efficient in resource allocation.
1) It's a lifestyle that depends on handouts and which will never change to a practical lifestyle for the people involved - the opposite in fact, since the objective is to maintain the lifestyle. Pretty pathetic IMO, but the French can give welfare to whoever they want.
2) Like I wrote, the French can subsidize anyone they want, but I think it's i ple are entertainers of a sort, but paid by the state instead of by the individual fans.
2) Hiring friendly neighbours? You've lost the plot there. 😵
Originally posted by Sam The ShamYour generalizations would be laughable if they weren't so idiotic.
The best thing we can do to help Africa is to stop helping them. Africa screams....for aid, money, resources, etc., then screams more about the aid they get being abusive and self-serving by those trying to help them. It will never be enough, and it will never do any good, and after it's all said and done, they'll always blame their failure on the peopl ...[text shortened]... handouts and then complaining about it.
Kinda like what they do everywhere else they go.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamProducing a fruit in the US costs 10 cents. To grow the same fruit and ship it from Africa costs 6 cents. Today, the government pays 3 cents to the US farmer, and puts a 2 cent duty on the African fruit. So the final cost to me is:
You wish to raise food prices by stopping all farm subsidies? How is that going to help Africa?
US fruit: 7 cents
African fruit: 8 cents
Naturally, I buy the American fruit. But the cost? I pay 7 cents (+3 cents I gave to the government -- actually, I had to give them 5 cents due to waste in the bureaucracy). So now my US fruit costs 12 cents total.
Which is double the 6 cents I would pay if I just bought direct from the African.
There is another way the government accomplishes the same thing: target pricing. If too many Africans show up with 6-cent fruits, the government buys the excess US fruits for a target price (say, 10 cents). But what does the government want with fruit? You'll love the solution! The government turns around and gives the fruit as FOOD AID back to Africa! So the fruits roll in, there is a glut on the market, and the African farmers go out of business (this is not made up -- it happened in Ghana with rice)
Government regulation COSTS money. Milton Friedman. Free to Choose. Read it.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamSimple. The governments simply don't have the money that we do. We're really not helping by sending over food that's actually more expensive to produce but is cheaper to buy. Who is this of benefit to? The initial conditions are not our fault, but when we price them out of their own markets, that is our fault, since we're making it very difficult for them to do their own thing. It's either stop subsidising farms here, or don't send food where they can grow it themselves perfectly well.
Their governments are free to do whatever they want, if they wish to develop their local agriculture, then they should do it. We're not forcing them out of anything.
Once again, the problems of Africa are somehow the fault of everybody elses but their own. The blame game is getting old, time for Africans to take responsibility for how screwed up the ...[text shortened]... for Africa's failure if you want, can't really go into it here. You won't like the answer.
Tell me why Africa has failed then. I'd bet its something to do with lack of indigenous domesticable animals making it more difficult to build up food reserves on which a society is based.
Originally posted by spruce112358I didn't know Africans were trying to export any fruit, thought they were all starving.
Producing a fruit in the US costs 10 cents. To grow the same fruit and ship it from Africa costs 6 cents. Today, the government pays 3 cents to the US farmer, and puts a 2 cent duty on the African fruit. So the final cost to me is:
US fruit: 7 cents
African fruit: 8 cents
Naturally, I buy the American fruit. But the cost? I pay 7 cents (+3 cents ...[text shortened]... hana with rice)
Government regulation COSTS money. Milton Friedman. Free to Choose. Read it.
Originally posted by CrowleyYou South Africans do not appear to have made any progress since the former regime was replaced by a black one, although I grant that you have not reached the level of degradation which Ebagum has imposed on the erstwhile prosperous British colony of Southern Rhodesia.
Your generalizations would be laughable if they weren't so idiotic.
Originally posted by Thales2What are talking about? Not 'made any progress'? Please try to be a little clearer on what you mean by that.
You South Africans do not appear to have made any progress since the former regime was replaced by a black one, although I grant that you have not reached the level of degradation which Ebagum has imposed on the erstwhile prosperous British colony of Southern Rhodesia.
Should I quote you stats, or will you just fall back on the same idiotic generalizations as the borderline retard in this thread (15 IQ points if you can guess who I'm referring to...)
1 edit
Originally posted by CrowleyI intented to be kind to you by 'taliking about not making any progress" I should have said straight out that the present regime looks like gradually reducing the level of SA to that of the rest of present day Africa.
What are talking about? Not 'made any progress'? Please try to be a little clearer on what you mean by that.
Should I quote you stats, or will you just fall back on the same idiotic generalizations as the borderline retard in this thread (15 IQ points if you can guess who I'm referring to...)
Originally posted by Thales2Generalizations, generalizations and more generalizations.
I intented to be kind to you by 'taliking about not making any progress" I should have said straight out that the present, regime looks like gradually reducing the level of SA to that of the rest of present day Africa.
Is this how you people debate in lalaland?
Originally posted by Sam The ShamA lot of Africa's problems have arisen because poverty and ignorance leaves people vulnerable to following dictators who treat the country as their personal fiefdom, loot the treasury, steal aid money, and/or get them involved in inane wars.
I didn't know Africans were trying to export any fruit, thought they were all starving.
As for education -- look how not understanding what "a virus" was and how it is transmitted has devastated the continent -- all due to superstition and ignorance.
Other problems stem from colonial boundaries that were drawn without regard to tribal allegiances -- and even within countries tribalism is still a big problem because it prevents common understanding and agreement.
All these things take decades even centuries to correct.
But one thing that helps A LOT is if people can start earning a living.
Let Africa export the ONE thing that they can produce and produce well -- agricultural products. Stop cutting them off.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamIt all depends on who you mean when you say "these African nations". The government officials involved will accept the loans of course because they benefit from them. The people whining about it are the people who do not benefit but still have to pay back the interest. The World Bank will have do decide whether it does what is right or what it feels pressured to do politically.
Wait a minute.....these African nations are ASKING for the loans to begin with. Give 'em the money and they cry about how they're being used and manipulated. Don't give 'em the money and they'll really start whining. Once again, they World Bank can't win, can it?
Originally posted by Sam The ShamDishing out free surpluses is one of the causes of the failure of agriculture in Africa. Where I come from, the country is perfectly capable of feeding itself, the problem is that the poor people cant afford the food. So foreign countries bring in food (instead of sourcing it locally) and either give it away or sell it cheap thus dropping the price of the food and putting farmers out of business. If they did it instead, as a form of farm subsidy ie by paying farmers to grow more then the country would benefit far more. But that is not what they want. They would rather pay their own farmers. American farm subsidies far exceeds total foreign aid.
Ahhhhhh, I see it all. Yes, let's make our food prices higher to help Africa, since they take our cheap surpluses and refuse to develop their own agriculture.
So we reeeeally have to suffer for them, don't we?