NationStates Jolt Archive

When will people come to realise the destruction caused by rampant market fundamentalism? By frar the most dangerous fundamentalism in the world today...

----------------------------------------------------

Plenty of food - yet the poor are starving

The two faces of Niger

Jeevan Vasagar in Tahoua, Niger
Monday August 1, 2005
The Guardian

In Tahoua market, there is no sign that times are hard. Instead, there are piles of red onions, bundles of glistening spinach, and pumpkins sliced into orange shards. There are plastic bags of rice, pasta and manioc flour, and the sound of butchers' knives whistling as they are sharpened before hacking apart joints of goat and beef.
A few minutes' drive from the market, along muddy streets filled with puddles of rainwater, there is the more familiar face of Niger. Under canvas tents, aid workers coax babies with spidery limbs to take sips of milk, or the smallest dabs of high-protein paste.

Wasted infants are wrapped in gold foil to keep them warm. There is the sound of children wailing, or coughing in machine-gun bursts.
"I cannot afford to buy millet in the market, so I have no food, and there is no milk to give my baby," says Fatou, a mother cradling her son Alhassan. Though he is 12 months old he weighs just 3.3kg (around 7lbs).

Fatou, a slender, childlike young woman in a blue shawl, ate weeds to survive before her baby was admitted to a treatment centre run by the medical charity MSF.

This is the strange reality of Niger's hunger crisis. There is plenty of food, but children are dying because their parents cannot afford to buy it.

The starvation in Niger is not the inevitable consequence of poverty, or simply the fault of locusts or drought. It is also the result of a belief that the free market can solve the problems of one of the world's poorest countries.

The price of grain has skyrocketed; a 100kg bag of millet, the staple grain, costs around 8,000 to 12,000 West African francs (around £13) last year but now costs more than 22,000 francs (£25). According to Washington-based analysts the Famine Early Warning System Network (Fewsnet), drought and pests have only had a "modest impact" on grain production in Niger.

The last harvest was only 11% below the five-yearly average. Prices have been rising also because traders in Niger have been exporting grain to wealthier neighbouring countries, including Nigeria and Ghana.

Niger, the second-poorest country in the world, relies heavily on donors such as the EU and France, which favour free-market solutions to African poverty. So the Niger government declined to hand out free food to the starving. Instead, it offered millet at subsidised prices. But the poorest could still not afford to buy.

yes thank goodness we're not all nasty marxists who help each other

ewwwwwwwww

[/sarc]

Eh, capitalism should be monitored and regulated. Food should probably be subsidized or something. Maybe the country needs to start out more socialist then after reaching a certain level of wealth become capitalist. Really, if most economic systems are taken to their illogical extreme then they suck due to the complicating factor of the human element.

The problem with that is poverty, not the free market. No matter how much the market is regulated the people will still be largely too poor to have healthy eating habits. Unfortunately, though a free market is the best way to spur economic growth so that Niger pulls out of this poverty, many people will be left out in the cold in this period. Maybe some protectionism to prevent the grain to be sent out of the country would help, however for progress to be made, the market must be freed up to grow.

The problem with that is poverty, not the free market. No matter how much the market is regulated the people will still be largely too poor to have healthy eating habits. Unfortunately, though a free market is the best way to spur economic growth so that Niger pulls out of this poverty, many people will be left out in the cold in this period. Maybe some protectionism to prevent the grain to be sent out of the country would help, however for progress to be made, the market must be freed up to grow.The free market is inherently evil. Markets, in order to succeed, go for profit. A free market would obviously go for whatever makes the most profit, without morals or ethics. Should anyone have morals or ethics, they will likely go out of business in the end. The "free" market lie has been spread by westerners that wanted to open developing nations to their markets. The World Bank and the IMF have been the main tools for this: No market reforms, no credit. The free market, however, does not only entail a reduction of trade barriers, but also a reduction of subsidies, which doesn't get done so often. That's why NAFTA is such a sham. The US wants to open Central and South American markets for the highly subsidised American agricultural products.
Who said we needed a free market anyway. Oh, now I remember... Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher.

Eh, capitalism should be monitored and regulated. Food should probably be subsidized or something. Maybe the country needs to start out more socialist then after reaching a certain level of wealth become capitalist. Really, if most economic systems are taken to their illogical extreme then they suck due to the complicating factor of the human element.

Capitalism should be monitored and regulated? Reminds me of a statement that some politician made about how privitization is an issue far too important to be left to the whim of the market. Capitalism is, almost by definition, a system with minimal regulation.

How could a country possibly start out socialist and reach any level of affluence? Much more likely for it to start out Capitalist, get rich, then switch to socialism and blow the money on social programs.

The problem with that is poverty, not the free market. No matter how much the market is regulated the people will still be largely too poor to have healthy eating habits. Unfortunately, though a free market is the best way to spur economic growth so that Niger pulls out of this poverty, many people will be left out in the cold in this period. Maybe some protectionism to prevent the grain to be sent out of the country would help, however for progress to be made, the market must be freed up to grow.
1) The statement you made that the free market isn't to blame is contradicted later in your post when you said that "Maybe some protectionism to prevent the grain to be sent out of the country would help."

2) Your assertion that "No matter how much the market is regulated the people would still be too poor to have healthy eating habits" is contradicted in the article where it states that the price of a sack of grain has roughly doubled. There is a famine impending in Niger, and the article makes it clear that unregulated free market capitalism is to blame.

Free markets are not a good solution to poverty. Markets must be regulated.

Capitalism should be monitored and regulated? Reminds me of a statement that some politician made about how privitization is an issue far too important to be left to the whim of the market. Capitalism is, almost by definition, a system with minimal regulation.

How could a country possibly start out socialist and reach any level of affluence? Much more likely for it to start out Capitalist, get rich, then switch to socialism and blow the money on social programs.
How can capitalism be regulated?

1) Minimum wage laws
2) Laws guaranteeing the right of workers to form unions and strike
3) Laws guaranteeing the safety of the workplace
4) Laws to prevent unsafe products from being sold
5) Pollution regulations

These are all limits on capitalism that are currently in force in the USA. They should be extended worldwide in addition to the following

1) Living wage guaranteed to all full-time workers
2) Basic healthcare guaranteed to all full-time workers

If first world countries would allow only the import of products who's production meets the above regulations the third world would get richer and healthier while the first world wouldn't have as much unemployment.

economists would agree. Regulation is necessary. If you ignore social concerns that actually undermines the market itself.

I will say this are we in the west willing to give up our lifestyles to give third worlds peaples a fair chance to improve thier lives ? unfortinatly the mojority will ay no in a descrite manner and ued aid events like live 8 to clear our conchence once in a while wich i why thing wont change :headbang:

I'm not fond of people starving, but I sincerely doubt "the free market is evil" is an approriate attitude to take. The farmers of Niger have a right to sell food to whoever they want. And if they want more money, almost all of their food will go to the people who pay the most.

I'm not fond of people starving, but I sincerely doubt "the free market is evil" is an approriate attitude to take. The farmers of Niger have a right to sell food to whoever they want. And if they want more money, almost all of their food will go to the people who pay the most.
The free market would be regulated solely by the desire for profit. Without anything to reign it in, the ones with the least scruples will be the ones on top. That would lead to greed, which in my eyes is "evil". This isn't just based on Niger. It's applicable to everything. Why do you think there is no free trade?

yes thank goodness we're not all nasty marxists who help each other

ewwwwwwwww

[/sarc]
Yeah. Just like Lennin "helped" Karenski and Trotsky, and Stalin "helped" millions. Right. :rolleyes:

1) The statement you made that the free market isn't to blame is contradicted later in your post when you said that "Maybe some protectionism to prevent the grain to be sent out of the country would help."

My point was that poverty was the problem and that the free market would cause economic growth that would fix the problem. With protectionism, you would have slower growth, as the lower prices that Niger can offer on grain than the surrounding countries would be negated, but you would not have the upward pressure on prices. The free market is the solution, but as with any process it has side effects, so it depends on how fast you prefer the economy to grow as compared to how much protection you want to give the people who are on the slow end of the economic growth.

2) Your assertion that "No matter how much the market is regulated the people would still be too poor to have healthy eating habits" is contradicted in the article where it states that the price of a sack of grain has roughly doubled. There is a famine impending in Niger, and the article makes it clear that unregulated free market capitalism is to blame.

The only instance provided by the author of the negative effects on prices is through exporting, yet this article (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/12267721.htm?source=rss&channel=charlotte_news) states that tariffs on grain in Sub-Saharan Africa are triple the rates for developed European nations, making it hard for exporting and importing to take place. So, because of substantial market regulation between nations, it is both unlikely that prices are getting significantly raised in Niger because of exporting, and it is also very likely that cheaper grain from surrounding countries who are not suffering from famine and drought cannot be brought in.

Free markets are not a good solution to poverty. Markets must be regulated.

Allowing the free market is the only way to spur the growth that will lead to economic independence in these nations. Until then we will continually have knee-jerk reactions to these horrible pictures of starving pictures, and continually pouring money down a pit without ever fixing the problem.

Mister Pink, a free market is the best way to screw up the world's economy. Without control, the market will do whatever it pleases, and that would be to make as much money as it possibly can. That will eventually put any socially minded people out of business and make things worse than they are now. Free trade is not the answer, fair trade would be.

Allowing the free market is the only way to spur the growth that will lead to economic independence in these nations. Until then we will continually have knee-jerk reactions to these horrible pictures of starving pictures, and continually pouring money down a pit without ever fixing the problem.Let's take a look at some of the fastest growing economies, shall we: The USA and China. The gap between rich and poor in these countries is one of the biggest. How has the good economy made things so much better in these countries?

The free market would be regulated solely by the desire for profit. Without anything to reign it in, the ones with the least scruples will be the ones on top. That would lead to greed, which in my eyes is "evil". This isn't just based on Niger. It's applicable to everything. Why do you think there is no free trade?
The free market would be regulated solely by the desires of the people. If the farmers of Niger wanted to give food to these people, they would. Making money is more important to them, so their free market is governend by profit.

The free market is inherently evil. Markets, in order to succeed, go for profit. A free market would obviously go for whatever makes the most profit, without morals or ethics. Should anyone have morals or ethics, they will likely go out of business in the end. The "free" market lie has been spread by westerners that wanted to open developing nations to their markets. The World Bank and the IMF have been the main tools for this: No market reforms, no credit. The free market, however, does not only entail a reduction of trade barriers, but also a reduction of subsidies, which doesn't get done so often. That's why NAFTA is such a sham. The US wants to open Central and South American markets for the highly subsidised American agricultural products.
Who said we needed a free market anyway. Oh, now I remember... Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher.

Your imposition on what you think is a moral structure for society is evil. Society, through the individuals themselves, should be allowed to determine for themselves what is a moral structure for society and the economy. Free market capitalism is the only system that allows for this. If profiteering and consumerism is their choice, it is still their choice, if mass altruism and charity is their choice, then it is still their choice. I would like to believe that people can make reasonable choices for their own benefit, and that they would know themselves and their own situation better than I.

Mister Pink, a free market is the best way to screw up the world's economy. Without control, the market will do whatever it pleases, and that would be to make as much money as it possibly can. That will eventually put any socially minded people out of business and make things worse than they are now. Free trade is not the answer, fair trade would be.

In a free market society, money is only made by offering a product or service of benefit to society. If you are not contributing to society you are not making money.

The free market would be regulated solely by the desires of the people. If the farmers of Niger wanted to give food to these people, they would. Making money is more important to them, so their free market is governend by profit.The situation in this case is: Not enough food. People will starve no matter what. It doesn't matter whether the "farmers" want to give any food. They have none.

The title is a dumb misnomer. First off, it was ineffective government that did this, not capitalism. Ineffective or bad government can ruin anything. The US also has a lot of wealth and a big middle class... that's what a good fast growing economy does. Niger is not a standing example of free market capitalism. It was ruled by the weak governments and military juntas for years...

I find the title of this thread misleading and almost offensive.

In a free market society, money is only made by offering a product or service of benefit to society. If you are not contributing to society you are not making money.
Look, if you only want to argue market theory, be my guest. I prefer how things happen in reality: Rising gaps in the Rich-Poor divides.

The situation in this case is: Not enough food. People will starve no matter what. It doesn't matter whether the "farmers" want to give any food. They have none.
According to the article in the original post, the problem is that the poor people can't afford food, not that there isn't enough. (Of course, it does mean there "isn't enough" when you look at things through a supply vs. demand perspective)

Let's take a look at some of the fastest growing economies, shall we: The USA and China. The gap between rich and poor in these countries is one of the biggest. How has the good economy made things so much better in these countries?

The poverty rate in the US has steadily dropped over the last few decades, with the only hikes coming during times of recession. China is not a free market economy, it imposes heavy tariffs, devalues its dollar, and generally works to benefit the corporate side in return for heavy profits for the government. It uses communism to enforce an authoritarian style of capitalism and corporatism.

Look, if you only want to argue market theory, be my guest. I prefer how things happen in reality: Rising gaps in the Rich-Poor divides.

You can look at the things in the black and white, or you can look at the vast majority of the public who are living comfortably.

And besides that, you have to show that is the free market that causes the rich-poor divides, and not government interaction with our capitalism. While I agree that capitalism allows large gaps in wealth distributions that socialism and communism would eliminate. I will not agree that the free market causes them to happen until you can show me reasonable evidence.

According to the article in the original post, the problem is that the poor people can't afford food, not that there isn't enough. (Of course, it does mean there "isn't enough" when you look at things through a supply vs. demand perspective)If you'd have paid attention to the issue in the news, you'd know that after long droughts and a devastating locust plague, the people that once didn't have to buy food in order to be fed are now without any food at all. They also have no income with which to buy the food. Of course they can't afford the food. They couldn't before either.

You can look at the things in the black and white, or you can look at the vast majority of the public who are living comfortably.

And besides that, you have to show that is the free market that causes the rich-poor divides, and not government interaction with our capitalism. While I agree that capitalism allows large gaps in wealth distributions that socialism and communism would eliminate. I will not agree that the free market causes them to happen until you can show me reasonable evidence.What makes you think that I need to convince you that it causes it to happen? You seem to be the expert. Convince me that capitalism only allows for such things to happen.

If you'd have paid attention to the issue in the news, you'd know that after long droughts and a devastating locust plague, the people that once didn't have to buy food in order to be fed are now without any food at all. They also have no income with which to buy the food. Of course they can't afford the food. They couldn't before either.
There is a local shortage of food, but not a national shortage.

I'm not fond of people starving, but I sincerely doubt "the free market is evil" is an approriate attitude to take. The farmers of Niger have a right to sell food to whoever they want. And if they want more money, almost all of their food will go to the people who pay the most.
You seem to be saying that you're more fond of people starving than of capitalism being regulated.

You seem to be saying that you're more fond of people starving than of capitalism being regulated.

Actually I want bad government regulated... that's what happened in Niger.... poor management.

Mozambique is an example where bad government is regulated and kept to a minimum. They are also one of the fastest growing economies in Africa.

This has little to do with capitalism. It has more to do with corruption, and poor management.

What makes you think that I need to convince you that it causes it to happen? You seem to be the expert. Convince me that capitalism only allows for such things to happen.

1. You made the statement that the free market causes wealth gaps, so it is on you to back it up.

2. My explanation of why capitalism allows for wealth gaps, and doesn't cause them will rely on much more "market theory" than the statement you have already dismissed.

Wealth gaps are necessary in order to keep inflation in check. For example, a person working in McDonalds shouldn't be paid as much as a doctor.

There is a local shortage of food, but not a national shortage.If it was "local" then there wouldn't be signs of similar things about to happen in the neighboring countries.