Free Allegiance Forums

Still for hippies.

fuzzylunkin1 wrote:QUOTE (fuzzylunkin1 @ Nov 27 2011, 07:10 PM) 90%? Wtf?

Where is this number coming from? Either that's just wrong or we have very different ideas of "pretty damn good." A large number of people have it "pretty damn good" because of ridiculous loans that they can't even pay. Plus, more than 10% of the population are without jobs, so, unless you consider welfare "pretty damn good" . . . .

I think he was saying in comparison to the Third World or some such? I don't know.

*makes standard comment about Federal Reserve & Congress in relation to ease of loans here*

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Nov 28 2011, 01:51 AM) I think he was saying in comparison to the Third World or some such? I don't know.

If so, I would agree with that.

That said, many Americans don't really have the ability to help people in third-world areas, like most people think we should. If I could spare $5000 and a truckload of food, I most definitely would.

Maybe I should just take out a loan and send them food. Everyone's doing it, right?

EDIT:
Spelling.

fuzzylunkin1 wrote:QUOTE (fuzzylunkin1 @ Nov 27 2011, 10:06 PM) Maybe I should just take out a loan and send them food. Everyone's doing it, right?

You could, but that would do more harm than good. Flooding third world nations with free food does two things:

1) It greatly suppresses the prices that their local farmers/fishermen can get for their foodstuffs, which is not a good thing for their economy.

2) Dumping a lot of money into another economy like that leads to inflation, which hurts the poor the most... and since most third world countries are mostly poor, its a great disservice.

The best thing you could do is to purchase a product that is made in their country.

Alternatively you could convince the EU to stop subsidizing fishing so that third world countries can have access to their own waters for fishing back.

fuzzylunkin1 wrote:QUOTE (fuzzylunkin1 @ Nov 28 2011, 02:06 AM) If so, I would agree with that.

That said, many Americans don't really have the ability to help people in third-world areas, like most people think we should. If I could spare $5000 and a truckload of food, I most definitely would.

Maybe I should just take out a loan and send them food. Everyone's doing it, right?

EDIT:
Spelling.

The big problem in the third world isn't that people are just magically too poor to afford food, it's that their economies are completely $#@!ed up, thanks largely to the modern global economy. Just as Wal-Mart typically forces nearby local stores out of business with its cheaper prices and other advantages, first-world multinationals producing goods at Chinese factories can produce and sell goods far cheaper than most third-world countries can manage locally. You'd think that the lower prices would be a good thing for poorer people, but since nobody's buying domestic products, far more money is flowing out of the country than into it, and so everyone just gets poorer and possibly loses their job. Similarly, third-world farmers can't compete with heavily-subsidized Western agriculture, and they barely scrape by because it's cheaper to import food from thousands of miles away than to buy from them.

And if selling them cheap stuff is bad, giving them free stuff is a lot worse. Certainly, food aid has its place when the area is under serious external constraints (such as war or natural disaster) which prevent the economy from functioning as normal. But when everything is normal and the farmers are working the fields, there's no food shortage and sending them free @#(! is probably just going to aggravate the issue by hurting those farmers and damaging the country's agriculture industry further. Ultimately, the secret to success is probably the trifecta of heavy protectoinism, total disregard for patent and IP law, and building up a strong economic foundation of state-supported businesses. It worked in America, and it's working now in China.

germloucks wrote:QUOTE (germloucks @ Nov 28 2011, 12:02 AM) sundance is actually the name of a big film festival that shows indie films/documentaries and such

Also the name of a whirlpool/spa company in southern minnesota...


One that may or may not be missing a 9 foot banner...



Straight up, I wanted a Top Gun related tag, but Maverick was retardedly overused. So I went with the guy who replaced Goose when he died. (SPOILER!)
But it was Sundown... not Sundance. But I kept Sundance anyway. And that was back in 1999. =]

It's not about money, it's about education, hope and an illusion to become better in life, usually Third World countries have different values than Western ones, but as they said in a Cosmopolitan article years ago, guys are simple and have 3 basic needs, food, a roof and a blowjob each day.

It applies to some extent here too, a healthy and fed population with a roof over their heads and the satisfaction of a distraction now and then, that's reachable through education, being able to get better paid jobs and to pay for a place to crash at night, if that brain can then focus on personal development, just perfect.

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Nov 28 2011, 09:23 AM) You could, but that would do more harm than good. Flooding third world nations with free food does two things:

1) It greatly suppresses the prices that their local farmers/fishermen can get for their foodstuffs, which is not a good thing for their economy.

2) Dumping a lot of money into another economy like that leads to inflation, which hurts the poor the most... and since most third world countries are mostly poor, its a great disservice.

I like jousting with Camaro. He's smart

To simplify this down. Both the USA and the European nations (And now the EU) spend incredible amounts of money on farm subsidies. We artificially lower the cost of food (and pay for it in taxes), and then we dump our excess as charity into the third world.

If you're a poor person living in some unhappy corner of Africa, are you going to spend what little money you have on buying food from a local farmer if a charity is giving it away for free? Of course you aren't. That screws over the local farmer, and means that local agriculture isn't developed. There's no money to develop it. At most a multinational comes in, buys all the land and farms stuff for export.

There are ways of giving a leg up to Africa so the nations and people there can recover from the ravages of colonialism, but dumping our subsidised excess food there isn't one of them.

Fuzz' half-baked post written in a partially-serious manner which people don't seem to understand to this day.
--------------------------
Everyone else?


Giving them food assumes worst-case scenario, there are plenty of places who don't have enough food for the whole population, and even if they do what if they can't actually get it?

Pick the best option:
-- Starve because you can't eat
-- Turn to violence
-- Take free food temporarily


I'm in no position to help entire governments.

Except for countries affected by civil wars or natural disasters, there are very few places where there is literally not enough food to feed the people of the country. Most food shortages are actually a distribution problem - either there's enough food for everyone but the population can't afford to buy it, or there's enough food for everyone but external forces such as warlords or corrupt officials are taking most of it before it reaches the general market.