I have a theory on this. If there's no food/water/shelter where you're at...move. what do you have to lose?

stop giving people handouts and they start helping themselves.

Well, this is a "duh" kind of thing. Libertarians (who don't support aid, but will support it if it's done properly) have said this all along.

Give Africa food, and they'll come back tomorrow hungry.

Teach Africa to farm, and they'll feed themselves.

/or something like that
//we're too busy turning corn into a poor substitute for oil, and can't be bothered

Sam Kinison unavailable for comment.

Stop sending them food. Send them U-Haul's. They live in the farking dessert. Send them to where the food is.

"Let them eat cake."

The idiotic way we distribute aid now is a consequence of the influence special interest groups have in politics. I detest the Bush administration, but applaud their going to bat for common sense on this issue. It's not like they have any political support to lose anyway.

Stop sending them food. They aren't our problem. We have enough problems of our own to deal with. We can start sending other nations food and aid once we've gotten everyone here off the streets and off welfare.

We are fast becoming a nation in crisis due to high oil prices. The economy is based upon cheap fuel which some predict may go as high as $10/g in the near future. Why are my tax dollars going to countries like Saudi Arabia? A ridiculous number of Americans are going to lose their houses in the next 10 years. We are about to flop like the Soviet Union.

Free food has been killing African agriculture for decades, but it's been great for US ag, like they need help.

Well this kind of logical thinking has no place in government policy. Now if we could make sure that someone rich got a cut then we might be able to pull it off. That's a big if.

Ah, Africa, the blackhole of civilisation and development.

That idea is stupid. The current system helps US farmers. The idea is to send them our surplus food. If we buy a few boat loads of food from country A to feed country B, what do we do then when A runs out of food??

ihatedumbpeople: I have a theory on this. If there's no food/water/shelter where you're at...move. what do you have to lose?

ck1938: Stop sending them food. Send them U-Haul's. They live in the farking dessert. Send them to where the food is.


Sure, you say that now.




But it doesn't seem to be a popular idea:

ihatedumbpeople: I have a theory on this. If there's no food/water/shelter where you're at...move. what do you have to lose?

stop giving people handouts and they start helping themselves.

You mean, like Mexicans helping themselves?

What would Sam Kineson send them?

African farmers can feed Africa at low cost. The problem is these farmers can't compete against free US food. Why farm if you can't make a profit?

"The idiotic way we distribute aid now is a consequence of the influence special interest groups have in politics. I detest the Bush administration, but applaud their going to bat for common sense on this issue. It's not like they have any political support to lose anyway."

Going to bat for common sense? Isn't Bush the one that approved spending 700 million US dollars to send food to starving people that will probably die before the food gets there, not to mention the red tape banana republic beurocracy that the food will encounter once it reaches its destination? We've done this before, and the rice and wheat have quite literally sat and rotted on the docks while it waited to get sent to where it was supposed to go.

Omnivorous: What would Sam Kineson send them?

U-HAULS!

from TFA: In Ethiopia in 2003, for example, widespread drought occurred in the low-lying areas of the country and the very dry northern highlands. Some 12 million to 15 million people were at risk of hunger and starvation. But in the central and southern highlands of Ethiopia, farmers were producing a bumper crop of corn and other cereals. Yet with no market for the locally produced grains, prices collapsed.

and by local market they meant in the immediate neighborhood? Ethiopia isn't that big so moving the bumper crops to the area of drought was impossible because?

there are many more problems in Africa than this simplistic article mentions.

I think foreign aid should be approached just like triage on the battlefield.

GilRuiz1: But it doesn't seem to be a popular idea

Man, I am ALWAYS stuck behind that woman's Buick! She's smoking a cigarette, yakking on her cellphone, touching up her garish look...anything but paying attention to the damn traffic signal.

GilRuiz1: ihatedumbpeople: I have a theory on this. If there's no food/water/shelter where you're at...move. what do you have to lose?

ck1938: Stop sending them food. Send them U-Haul's. They live in the farking dessert. Send them to where the food is.


Sure, you say that now.
But it doesn't seem to be a popular idea:

Strangely enough, europe is closer to Africa than the US is. And there's food there.

moof: ihatedumbpeople: I have a theory on this. If there's no food/water/shelter where you're at...move. what do you have to lose?

stop giving people handouts and they start helping themselves.

You mean, like Mexicans helping themselves?

Sure. come on over legally, become a citizen, get a SSN, pay taxes, get paid regular wages, just like everyone else.

GilRuiz1 & moof

I came here too to point out the flaw in Mr. Self-loathing's logic...

I know this is fark and no one reads the article, but they aren't saying to stop spending money on them, but to stop using our tax dollars at home and buy locally from African farmers to save money on shipping and help the African economy.

One thing really bothers me about this. The food aid, when we do it now is also aid to ourselves. We're giving away food, but we're also giving money to the food producers who are Americans. This is in effect putting our tax money back into the economy. When we ship it, its going in American ships. Also putting our tax money back into the local economy. If we buy local, its true aid. We see nothing from it, we're giving our tax money to African farmers where it doesn't really belong. The way we do it now, while imperfect, benefits everyone. They get food, and we put our tax money back into the economy. Perhaps a hardship exemption would be for the best. If there is a true emergency we would buy foreign food.

Omnivorous: What would Sam Kineson send them?

EVPs and high EMF readings?

Wait, did he suggest buying food from Africa instead of American farmers? Unless I have mis-interpreted that, if you buy something from me (such as food) and then give it back to me for free... ?

Removing starvation removes the main form of population control poor nations have, and without addressing the underlying cultural and economic problems that cause such straining of resources to begin with, increasing the food supply only allows for the maintenance of a larger population of starving people. To put it simply, free food increases net human suffering.

Now, improving African agricultural infrastructure would also increase the food supply and thus have a similar effect in the short run, but now they're producing something. Eventually, they might be producing enough of it to export, and so you have the beginnings of industrialization and, ultimately, a complete renovation of African culture that will bring them in line with nations that don't have mass starvation and overpopulation.

ck1938: Stop sending them food. Send them U-Haul's. They live in the farking dessert. Send them to where the food is.

If they lived in a dessert it should be pretty obvious where the food is. (Calls dibs on the giant farking cherry!)

And for the people that didn't RTFA, he's not suggesting stopping aid, just buying it locally with aid money. Not sure how that would work though..

"Hello, can I buy some grain?"
"Sorry I sold it all to that USAID guy for twice what you would have paid.. but go over there and he'll give you come for free.."

Can't see it really making much difference. Seems like it would be the same as handing out $USD directly to the populace and letting them import the food their country can't produce on its own. Except its Africa, so it would probably just end up in the hands of a few corrupt individuals and they'd end up importing Rolls Royces instead.

I find it ironic that the idea of taking some cash to a country in Africa, in the clutches of famine, and buying some food with it, is met with resistance. But someone from the C.I.A. can load a cargo plane down with millions and millions of dollars, fly over some village in Afghanistan or Irag, and basically kick it out the back of the plane, at low altitude; and there is no complaint with that. How strong is that farm lobby, anyway? Damn shame the rest of us can't afford one.

Well we caused all of Africa's suffering by enslaving so may of them that we are responsible for taking care of them now. I say we send them free food for as long as is needed. Eventually they will start taking care of themselves I just know it

Nobel prize winners are so stupid compared to Fark posters. How come all the "experts" can't see the wonderful solutions that people like "ck1938", "ihatedumbpeople", and "AstralRunner" have provided?

Perhaps you can only see the real solutions when you're sitting at home in front of your PC doing nothing about it. Yeah, that must be it. It certainly couldn't be that the situation is very complicated and it isn't as simple as armchair experts like to pretend it is. That's just crazy talk.

Ready_Cents: Well we caused all of Africa's suffering by enslaving so may of them that we are responsible for taking care of them now. I say we send them free food for as long as is needed. Eventually they will start taking care of themselves I just know it

Aw, you can do better than that.

ck1938: Stop sending them food. Send them U-Haul's.

Actually, U-Hauls would do them some good. They can use them to help haul the tons of grain surplus from the bountiful areas of the country over to the ones eating sticks.

Ready_Cents: Well we caused all of Africa's suffering by enslaving so may of them that we are responsible for taking care of them now. I say we send them free food for as long as is needed. Eventually they will start taking care of themselves I just know it

You're not too bright, are you?

Anyone who knows anything about history knows that the English and French empires are the root cause of most of the problems in both Africa and the Middle East.

The current system is flawed in many ways, as the article outlines.
1. We support US farmers by buying surplus grain and giving it away free over there. This may be good for US farmers, but depresses the ability of African farmers to grow and manage for themselves.
2. By giving US farmers the money, we increase local prices while increasing the need in Africa for "free" food. We get a double whammy of "bads" there, because WE pay more, they get deeper in the hole of dependency.
3. Food value is lost in transit - costs are high, and we use oil, driving oil prices higher. Nuff said there.
4. Food value is lost in transit as foodstuffs are lost at sea to piracy, storm, and sometimes even spoilage (usually as the food sits at docks, it goes bad. This is well documented as a political problem in the countries we are trying to "help".)

This idea of taking the money we give to US farmers and helping Africa locally is good. It will help them develop better farming techniques, help their local economies, reduce waste, increase livelihoods, and lower prices of commodities here in the US.

What's not to like?

As for the idea that if you can't support yourself, then move - that's a great idea. Except that if you can't support yourself, sometimes moving is a greater risk than holding out until times get better. If you're unsure of what lies beyond the horizon, the NATURAL human reaction is to fear it and live conservatively.

It's a predominant view in the US (more in relation to our history) that we're willing to take BIG risks.

Grind the bottom 10% up into food. Serve the food and pray that Mad AIDS disease doesn't occur.

/Such a nice handbasket I'm in, wonder where I'm going....

Curious: from TFA: In Ethiopia in 2003, for example, widespread drought occurred in the low-lying areas of the country and the very dry northern highlands. Some 12 million to 15 million people were at risk of hunger and starvation. But in the central and southern highlands of Ethiopia, farmers were producing a bumper crop of corn and other cereals. Yet with no market for the locally produced grains, prices collapsed.

and by local market they meant in the immediate neighborhood? Ethiopia isn't that big so moving the bumper crops to the area of drought was impossible because?

Because free US food destroyed the market. How do you compete against free?

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Grind the bottom 10% up into food. Serve the food and pray that Mad AIDS disease doesn't occur.

/Such a nice handbasket I'm in, wonder where I'm going....

Kill two birds with one stone. Send them burgers made from our over-crowded prison population. Slightly less chance of the Mad AIDS, but slightly more chance of catching a buzz.

sabyJeBus

That's a joke, right?

uofwi92: Give Africa food, and they'll come back tomorrow hungry.

Teach Africa to farm, and they'll feed themselves.

/or something like that
//we're too busy turning corn into a poor substitute for oil, and can't be bothered


"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." Chinese Proverb

I am sorry we don't need to be sending more money out of this country at a time when our economy is hurting. This guy is an idiot and made zero good points. We are all now dumber, and soon to be poorer for having listened to this guy.

As for the idea that if you can't support yourself, then move - that's a great idea. Except that if you can't support yourself, sometimes moving is a greater risk than holding out until times get better. If you're unsure of what lies beyond the horizon, the NATURAL human reaction is to fear it and live conservatively.


Lets not forget that if you lived in Africa, and decided to move to someplace with more food; you would undoubtedly run into a group of guys riding around in an old cadiallac, with a crew served weapon mounted in the back seat. These people would, of course, be only too happy to help you with hungry feeling.

They don't want our intervention. American agribusiness does
Navdanya (new window)

If the local economy has food and people are still starving then US meddling isn't going to help. It's just going to further enrich the people who are starving their own countrymen.

Our record of successfully delivering US food to foreign countries is considerably better than our record of successfully deploying pallets of Benjamins. You think grain shipments get lost? Try moving bales of money.

Q: What's the world's fastest flightless bird? A: Ethiopian chicken. (Truly Tasteless Jokes, 1982). If the domestic food problem has been going on for more than 30 years, it's not a food problem at all.

wow, there are a shocking number of people not familiar with the comedy stylings of Sam Kinnison.

any one who is involved in a serious discussion of the sending a uhaul comment, you might want to look into it.

elrond 2008-05-03 11:33:13 AM
The current system is flawed in many ways, as the article outlines.
1. We support US farmers by buying surplus grain and giving it away free over there. This may be good for US farmers, but depresses the ability of African farmers to grow and manage for themselves.
2. By giving US farmers the money, we increase local prices while increasing the need in Africa for "free" food. We get a double whammy of "bads" there, because WE pay more, they get deeper in the hole of dependency.

So by doing the reverse, aren't we just going to create a glut of US crops leading to price depression which hurts US farmers? Plus we're going to artificially inflate the price of crops in places in Africa where we buy them, so locals in the region where they're grown aren't going to be able to afford them anymore.

I'm all for improving the system, but shooting ourselves in the foot and sending cash to Africa doesn't seem like a particularly well thought out plan to me.

Former girlfriend of mine decided she was going to do the humanitarian thing and volunteer to work in one of those food distribution places in Africa. She didn't have an easy time there either, but lasted there for two years which is two years longer anyone ever thought she would last.

The biggest complaint she had was with the locals themselves. Some of the locals were told that the food from the US was treated with chemicals or radiation so that whoever eating it would be sterilized or catch some bad disease.

It was a massive facepalm for a humanitarian type.

_{Second biggest complaint was dodging bullets thrown in her and the depot's general direction}