Buying local vs. Trade as aid

[MagnusVS]

By making the transport companies pay for the damage to society this transport of goods makes (=the cost it would be to clean up after them), we could get a more accurate relationship between price and costs, which could lead to a new supply-demand equilibrium. That would probably be a better solution, because it would include both free trade and the environmental problems. The home markets would of course gain on this.

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

It's sad that poor countries export the food out of the country. Poverty is also very hard to understand and explain. One theory that can explain a bit, is that most poor countries must import real capital like machines, oil etc. To afford this, they have save less money, which again gives them less economic growth and it's spiraling downwards. Research has found that many countries have managed to improve their economic growth by making export of real capital illegal (one of the main points of the Solow Growth Model).

I recall reading or hearing ages ago, someone putting forward the idea that on average, the countries that had done better economically in Africa over an extended period were the ones that had had less foreign aid help. Now, I don't know what research this idea was based on, or what if any other factors were taken into consideration, but is something which I think would make a great thesis research project one day.

I'm actually in Kenya to make myself redundant if possible. I'm undecided if being here does more good than not, but figure that the best way to find out was to be here. Not one who's a good couch jockey! I'm hoping to gain a better understanding of the issues facing developing communities, and if there are better ways to help them move forward than what we are doing.

I don't think there are any easy answers, whichever way you look at it.

[FlashLackey]

Just as there are far-reaching costs of avoiding many environmentalist efforts, the same costs that others have been pointing out more concisely for years now.

Tough conundrum at times, isn't it?

spooky weather predictions vs. increased poverty

seems like a no-brainer to me.

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

spooky weather predictions vs. increased poverty

seems like a no-brainer to me.

IF you believe the equation is that simple maybe.

I don't.

[Visionray]

They pay them to grow cash crops. Very simple. If they don't grow cash crops but rather for the local community demand they don't pay them. Pretty simple really, and it's not actually that easy to say no to money when it's being offered to you and you don't have any, despite your capacity to grow food for yourself and your community. The World Bank's view is that the way out of "poverty" is to grow crops that people from overseas will buy. I'm just not sure it's as straightforward an equation as that, and if you look into the collapse of some of the cash crop industries in Kenya and some other places, you can see the very real long term damage this policy can do.

No doubt that the World Bank has indirectly done damage to some countries through it's lending policies. On the other hand, simply lending or giving money to governments to use however they wish has disastrous effects - especially if those governments are corrupt.

There is simply no way to avoid the negative effects in these situations. You give a corrupt government money and they waste it away - the people suffer. You punish a corrupt government by not lending them money - the people suffer.

Think for a second why the World Bank would tell a poverty stricken nation to export certain crops as a condition for a loan. Let's face facts, poor nations will never free themselves unless their economy is stimulated. You can't simply unleash the money hose at something and hope it sustains itself. A nation can't build it's economy and raise it's GDP unless they export. The goal is long term.

[FlashLackey]

IF you believe the equation is that simple maybe.

I don't.

and i don't dream wildly enough to believe i could change your mind.

you're old enough to remember the ozone, right? remember when it was "world consensus" that we were going to cause an ice-age in our life-times by depleting the ozone? what happened to that?

don't get me wrong. im for traditional environmentalism (not dumping hazardous waste into rivers, finding ways to better treat and dispose of waste, etc.). but, i do think that the modern environmentalist movement is basically the astrology of the 21st century.

[Frets]

No doubt that the World Bank has indirectly done damage to some countries through it's lending policies.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ByXCU7xFw

and especially
http://youtube.com/watch?v=e6G6x5pTxAk

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

No doubt that the World Bank has indirectly done damage to some countries through it's lending policies. On the other hand, simply lending or giving money to governments to use however they wish has disastrous effects - especially if those governments are corrupt.

There is simply no way to avoid the negative effects in these situations. You give a corrupt government money and they waste it away - the people suffer. You punish a corrupt government by not lending them money - the people suffer.

Think for a second why the World Bank would tell a poverty stricken nation to export certain crops as a condition for a loan. Let's face facts, poor nations will never free themselves unless their economy is stimulated. You can't simply unleash the money hose at something and hope it sustains itself. A nation can't build it's economy and raise it's GDP unless they export. The goal is long term.

You have pointed out one issue that is a huge factor: corruption. And unfortunately not enough is done by those with control over financing to reign this in, both internally and externally. No, it's not an easy problem to solve. And hence why from both sides I'm saying there's no easy answer.

Unlike some who want to "defeat" one side of the debate by offering their own simple solution from their side. Those that are agitating for change are doing so because, let's face it, the majority of folk are quite prepared to spend no time at all thinking of anyone else but themselves. And that, for me, is not sustainable.

[Frets]

also,,,,

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cUon5ic1tsU

[MagnusVS]

A nation can't build it's economy and raise it's GDP unless they export. The goal is long term.

I guess they can raise it to a certain degree, but trade is important. And import is just as important as export.

you're old enough to remember the ozone, right? remember when it was "world consensus" that we were going to cause an ice-age in our life-times by depleting the ozone? what happened to that?

Not to mix myself into your happy little environment debate, but didn't the world community actually do something with that? We stopped using refrigerators etc that contained CFC gases and found other substitutes.

[FlashLackey]

Not to mix myself into your happy little environment debate, but didn't the world community actually do something with that? We stopped using refrigerators etc that contained KFK gases and found other substitutes.

so, let me know if i have this correct. some time between the mid seventies and now, humans reversed the temperature trend of the earth from going to cold to going to warm, by updating refrigerator technology?

dont go mixing if you cant handle the pressure!

[MagnusVS]

We've stopped to use those gases that mainly cause the holes in the ozone. I don't know if those problem would've made the world colder or warmer. But the UV would be increased.

And what pressure can't I handle?

[FlashLackey]

You might be too young to remember. In the 70s and 80s it was widely believed that the earth was cooling and we were entering an ice age.

(I had forgotten what role the ozone played in the cooling. So, to correct myself, ozone depletion was causing cancer, not causing the cooling.)

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

It wasn't "widely believed". You're using extreme views of a minority to once again try to back an argument.

Sticking to more accepted research: "Since the adoption and strengthening of the Montreal Protocol has led to reductions in the emissions of CFCs, atmospheric concentrations of the most significant compounds have been declining. These substances are being gradually removed from the atmosphere. By 2015, the Antarctic ozone hole would have reduced by only 1 million km² out of 25 (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer will not occur until the year 2050 or later. Work has suggested that a detectable (and statistically significant) recovery will not occur until around 2024, with ozone levels recovering to 1980 levels by around 2068."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion



Funny enough, the changes we made is response to the ozone layer issue is generally accepted to have made a positive change. And yet you're not of the belief there are other significant environmental impacts we are currently making and could change?

[FlashLackey]

I would have to research the issue further than Wikipedia to feel comfortable making any conclusions about the ozone, its implications or our role in it.

I have to call bs on the ice age scare not being widely believed. I remember learning about it in elementary school, being talked about on talks shows, radio, comedy shows, being on the cover of massively circulated publications such as Time, etc, etc.

kind of like global warming. but, not as effectively marketed.

[FlashLackey]

lol

sums it up pretty well:

[FlashLackey]

to be fair. whoever made that image sexed it up by adding the "51 NEW ICE AGE Survival Tips"

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

I would have to research the issue further than Wikipedia to feel comfortable making any conclusions about the ozone, its implications or our role in it.

Funny, I only used Wikipedia 'cos I recall your use of it previously.

I have to call bs on the ice age scare not being widely believed. I remember learning about it in elementary school, being talked about on talks shows, radio, comedy shows, being on the cover of massively circulated publications such as Time, etc, etc.

Well, being a little older than you, I can reassure you that may have been the case in the schooling and media you accessed during those years, but while it was certainly something discussed, and the ozone layer itself was a major issue (that seems to have been addressed by global action), there was never a serious idea of us entering an "ice age" during the 70s and 80s in the schooling and media I had access to, which derived much of its influences from the UK and Europe during that time. There was, however, a huge amount of concern of the possible increase in skin cancer that could result.

I guess different societies had their own concerns back then before the increase in global communication.

And I'm just wondering, are you suggesting that we should have just ignored the ozone layer issue in the 70s and 80s? 'Cos if you are, well it appears that our action actually made a difference:

While there are and will continue to be year-to-year variations in the extent of its coverage, scientists expect a slow but complete recovery by the year 2065.

"I don't think there's a risk of the ozone hole growing and destroying the world," said Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution of Washington's department of global ecology.

Although CFCs and other dangerous gases that damage the ozone layer can linger in the atmosphere for as long as two generations, the amount of such damaging gases released into the atmosphere peaked in 1995 and has been declining ever since.
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1559032006

So even though action made a change that time, you're advocating basically no action in the case of global warming?

[flashpipe1]

And does anyone else notice that it's much easier to get sunburned now that it was back in the 80s? I used to have to be outside all day when I was a kid to get a sunburn, now I can get one in an hour or two...

Another issue (as far as US grown crops go) is that the government is paying out billions of dollars in farm subsidies to US farmers and 75% of these subsidies go to the top 10% of the richest farmers who grow soybeans, corn and cotton. Why not distribute that money more evenly? Why not develop plans with other governments to invest in their economies by paying their farmers to grow these "process" crops and build refinery plants in their country to employ their citizens and then purchase the resulting products from those countries at a fair value? I mean, Scotty Pippen, the multi-millionaire basketball player turned farmer receives government farm subsidies every year!

So many things so screwed up in our economy and the global market. We have the ability and resources to solve global poverty and hunger if we could figure out a way around corrupt governments, power/money hungry politicians and rich people with no conscious...

[FlashLackey]

Funny, I only used Wikipedia 'cos I recall your use of it previously.

It's useful for a lot of things. Mainly, I think of it as a condensed version of Google or Yahoo where you can just get links and data without the spam. But, I never assume that it's impartial.

So even though action made a change that time, you're advocating basically no action in the case of global warming?

No. I'm advocating that we should have solid evidence that an action is effective in helping people if we already know for certain that it will also harm other people.