Unbelievable

[RetiredGySgt]

The US Government DONATES and provides transportation to Africa food. The Government doesn't make a dime, they PAY for the food, they pay to ship it.

YET the Government gets attacked for donating food. If there is a problem it is the charities that SELL the food.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/w...b1f234ce9e6078&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[ReillyT]

The US Government DONATES and provides transportation to Africa food. The Government doesn't make a dime, they PAY for the food, they pay to ship it.

YET the Government gets attacked for donating food. If there is a problem it is the charities that SELL the food.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/w...b1f234ce9e6078&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

It isn't unbelievable. It makes perfect sense. There are advantages and disadvantages to food aid in places not suffering from extreme famine. Food aid floods the markets and lowers the prices of agricultural commodities, which (as any good capitalist knows) lessens the incentives of African governments and individual producers to invest in agricultural development. To the question of whether food aid lowers agricultural incentives, it is irrelevant whether the food aid enters the market when it is sold by charities or is given directly to consumers. In any event, a sufficient amount of aid will dampen commodity prices.

Whether any specific amount food aid actually reduces the incentive to invest in agriculture is a factual question. CARE, and others cited in the article, believe that it does. Others may disagree. I personally have no idea.

If you believe strongly in free markets, you should applaud CARE for attempting to restore incentives in the agricultural industries of Africa as a means of developing domestic production.

By the way, none of this means that the US is bad for providing food aid. There are just unintended consequences to even the most beneficent actions.

 

[dilloduck]

It isn't unbelievable. It makes perfect sense. There are advantages and disadvantages to food aid in places not suffering from extreme famine. Food aid floods the markets and lowers the prices of agricultural commodities, which (as any good capitalist knows) lessens the incentives of African governments and individual producers to invest in agricultural development. To the question of whether food aid lowers agricultural incentives, it is irrelevant whether the food aid enters the market when it is sold by charities or is given directly to consumers. In any event, a sufficient amount of aid will dampen commodity prices.

Whether any specific amount food aid actually reduces the incentive to invest in agriculture is a factual question. CARE, and others cited in the article, believe that it does. Others may disagree. I personally have no idea.

If you believe strongly in free markets, you should applaud CARE for attempting to restore incentives in the agricultural industries of Africa as a means of developing domestic production.

By the way, none of this means that the US is bad for providing food aid. There are just unintended consequences to even the most beneficent actions.

Sounds to me like the US agri-buisnesses, shipping industy and employees of NPOs are enjoying their paychecks at the expense of those they are claiming to be helping.
i.e (pay me to give you a fish instead of learning how to fish yourself.

 

[ReillyT]

Sounds to me like the US agri-buisnesses, shipping industy and employees of NPOs are enjoying their paychecks at the expense of those they are claiming to be helping.
i.e (pay me to give you a fish instead of learning how to fish yourself.

Everyone wants to keep their piece of the pie. Agriculture wants it subsidies and NGOs like the money they can get by selling food aid. Against this background, CARE comes off looking pretty good - unless they are wrong factually about the effects of food aid, in which case they are just being stupid.

 

[dilloduck]

Everyone wants to keep their piece of the pie. Agriculture wants it subsidies and NGOs like the money they can get by selling food aid. Against this background, CARE comes off looking pretty good - unless they are wrong factually about the effects of food aid, in which case they are just being stupid.

Didn't I just say that ?

 

[ReillyT]

Didn't I just say that ?

Yes. I was agreeing with you. I try to be agreeable.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes. I was agreeing with you. I try to be agreeable.

It's an admirable quality--thanks.

 

[William Joyce]

Idea:

Since it costs us (bad) and they don't want it (bad), maybe we could STOP DOING IT. Oh, wait. Then Bono and Bush wouldn't have something to feel good about. Sorry, my mistake.