What happened
A group of African finance ministers said in a joint statement that soaring food prices threaten peace and economic growth across the continent. The World Bank estimates that food prices have jumped by 83 percent worldwide over the last three years, exposing 100 million poor people to the risk of starvation. (Kenya’s Daily Nation)
What the commentators said
The dramatic spike in prices for basic food staples has created “the worst hunger crisis in a generation,” said Mike King in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “The U.N.'s World Food Program budgeted $2.9 billion in 2008. But to conduct its feeding programs it needs an additional $755 million.” Emergency food aid won’t solve the problem for good, but it’s a necessary step.
President Bush has pledged $770 million for world food aid, said the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in an editorial, and “we’re pleased as punch” about that. But don’t forget that the money is being folded into Bush’s request to Congress for another $70 billion for the Iraq war. “What's interesting about these two requests is that they also show not only the priorities of our president, but the monetary cost of devastation versus humanitarian aid.”
Unfortunately, food aid, American-style, can have its own devastating effects, said Dr. Joia Mukherjee and Donna Barry in The Boston Globe (free registration). The U.S. has sent surplus grains, purchased from American farmers, into Haiti for years. All that did was drive down prices for locally grown rice and other grains, which was “disastrous for Haiti's small farmers, and resulted in dramatic decreases in local production of this staple.” Only by separating food aid from programs to subsidize U.S. farmers—sending money to buy food aid from local producers, say—can we really help those in need.
Handouts aren’t the answer, said Kim B. Staking in The Denver Post. Food prices will only continue to rise as consumption climbs in booming Asian economies, as energy costs soar, and as bad policies encourage the use of food to make fuel. The only way to help poor countries reduce the “risk of starvation” is to help them boost “local food production and income” using “technology and know-how.”
56 comments:
i agree with Kim B Staking. you have to give these people a chance to try for themselves otherwise honestly we're spoiling them which then ((when or if )) we try to wheen them off the "aide" they get made at us and say that we don't care and that we are abandonin our mission when all we're doing is basically digging ourselves a deeper hole... and i want to know why we don't have food aide here in america there are plenty of cute starving children here to, why don't we have a strong foundation at home first and THEN go try fixing the world, hhhmmmm? oh because we're not a third world country thats right.... it makes complete sense NOW... BULL$#!T thats just some stupid excuse, you know politics makes my head hurt, i personally think the US should be run by firemen like in that awesome sprint commercial.... thats right FIREMEN!!!!!
This is one of those delicate situations where genuine goodwill can end up killing thousands of people. You just have to do the best, and hope everything works out. Of course, overwhelmingly large food aid would obviously solve the problem of a period of time. Imagine if that 70 billion went to food? Poor nations would be set for a good while. However, it's like recycling paper. It makes paper companies plant fewer trees to begin with, so you end up with the same amount of trees as you start with. Delicate situations, at any rate.
Seems like economics is always the problem. It's hard. Now the world's economy is getting weaker and weaker. We will propabily need heroes to save the world's economy.
By Liulinbo Yang (6)
Annie Henderson
4thHuGeoAP
9th grade
So, I'm kind of confused.
The way to end starvation is to use "technology and know how"?
Well, if those countries can acquire the technology needed to produce more food, why are they not able to already produce more food? I don't know, I just always thought that giving food to starving people really was a way to keep them from starvation. We might as well just hand out seed packets, in my eyes.
I wish Haiti would get it right....and that we could stop pouring so much money into Iraq.
i agree that the only way to end starvation in poor countrieds is to boost their foor production. Also, i think that $770 milliion is a lot but it is sad to see that this was the least of the money going to President Bush's priorities. But hey take it or leave it. I think food aid helps a little bit ease the hunger. The food is only enough to get them by for a little bit. We need to help these people find a way to get more stability in the food production area.
Sarah Lambert
Human Geography Ap 4
9th grade
Huy Nguyen 02
I find it interesting that the budget for food aid is a tenth of the requested budget for iraq. Contrast that with the fact that the food crisis is worldwide while the war isn't hardly on the same scale. Still, if there is a food crisis, should the money be spent more on teching up the food production industries in those countries suffering food shortage instead of repeatedly dropping packages of aid. Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him to fish and he'll eat a lifetime.
yeah I'm going to be cheesy:
"Give a man a fish- feed him for a day
Teach a man to fish- feed him for a lifetime"
Lindsay Huffhines
2nd
Food aid does hurt many local economies, and once that food is gone, people still go hungry, and the effects are worse than they were to begin with.
Microfinancing is an interesting proposition to solve this problem. Instead of giving countries food, you give small business owners loans to start up a business and get the economy going. This leaves something lasting in these poorer countries. It might be more effective in the long run. Goes with the whole, if you give a man a fish saying...
George Huang
6th Period
Protecting the business of local farmers where people are starving by not sending any food aid makes no sense, because these people cannot afford to buy the food anyway, or the farmers are not producing enough to keep people from starving. I agree that the best way to encourage farmers to produce and increase autonomy in these regions is to first buy crops from local farmers, and then supplement these with crops from American farmers.
On the first glance, it might seem like sending food to the starving is a fool-proof way of creating satisfaction, but another look will paint a much dissimilar picture. With drought, inflation, and the lack of resources and income, people in under-developed countries have no other option than to desperately wait for the aid more-developed countries are willing to give. Still, one ration is temporary; one bag of flour soon runs out; one instant of a full stomach is soon forgotten. One shipment of food is enough for one month, maybe longer, but what happens when the latter runs out? Another shipment flies in? How much longer can millions of people be supported that way? The only hope for survival, for a better way of life for those starving in the midst of chaos, is a stable economic infrastructure of local food production and transaction to sustain the population. Thus, while the emergency food aid should under no circumstances be suspended, more effort should be put into creating long term success, rather than just focusing on the end of the day. Tomorrow is knocking. Let’s open the door.
Keti Tsereteli
Period 4
Human Geography
$70 billion to destroy and kill others, and only $0.77 bilion to help and feed others....something doesnt seem right. Hey i was down when we went into Afghanistan, and even Iraq at first. But we screwed up and need to get out of there...its only hurting our economy and putting our country in debt.
Plus, all that extra money could be used for something productive, like aiding poor countries...hmm
Wow! This whole article is crazy, I never thought about negative effects of offering aid. I guess it's true, that old saying that the path of destruction is paved with good intentions(or something like that). I also love how the president can take this bill for aid and add on the Iraq price tag, like oh yea let's feed these people, as long as...." Rather annoying how our world works nowadays.
Well it's always tricky for the US to help without hurting. If we help the general public we hurt the farmers and things like that. I think if anything we should just give money to the government and trust them to distribute the money as needed. But mostly I don't think we have the money to give anyone handouts.
Grant Curry
human geography ap
4th period
9th grade
Even though there are people who think otherwise of foreign aid to third world countries I think that we should still help others. But I admit that there should be a limit on the amount of help that we should give as it could demean the help by causing fighting for the supplies.
Marisa Ybarra
2nd
Ah world hunger, one of life's mysterious. Once again we have believed to come up with the solution to solve all the hunger. Will it work this time? Maybe it will with the billions of dollars that are going into it. So much money and so much food, how is the food going to get to the people? Are we going tell people, i think that they are right, we need to help them survive on their own, to make better food for themselves, to do everything better. I think that its possible but, its going to be really hard and its going to take any extremely long time.
Wow. I'm always astounded at how much I, and we as Americans, take for granted. At least some of us. I don't usually think about what it cost to put food in the pantry, I usually just focus on what food what junk food we don't have and never will have. Maybe the new Commander in Chief will have a better plan to help so many of our brethren with the basic needs of life.
Gabriel Quinteros
2nd
Man..if this is "the worst hunger crisis in a generation" thats pretty intense. I mean all oveR the world people are dying and here we are in a war wasting the money we have..i don't know..it just not fair but i guess thats life.
4th
Man..if this is "the worst hunger crisis in a generation" thats pretty intense. I mean all oveR the world people are dying and here we are in a war wasting the money we have..i don't know..it just not fair but i guess thats life.
4th
Bush, Bush, Bush, yet again you prove yourself to be stupid and incompetent.
It really bothers me how nobody really cares for the African nation's hunger problems. I think, not only our country, but all the wealthy countries in the world should step up and donate as much as they can. (This excluding the "American style" way.)
Lately, I've been going to a website called freerice.org. It improves your vocabulary and you donate 10 grains of rice for every word you get correct! To be honest, I'm not sure if they're being completely honest when they say that...but it's worth a shot, right?
Peter Young
6th
The solution to all of these problems is simple, and yet uniquely American. We should just declare war on Haiti, or any of the South African countries that are always hungry. Just look what it did for Japan; getting pwned by the Bockscar was the second best thing to ever happen in that small, short-stature populaced country.
I don't think that Staking is right. If we introduce technology to those area then it will only require more money to make the food, there will be more people, and then there would need to be more food, and even more machines........and then it would just keep going on and on. The food aid is a good idea, but it still isn't solving the problem. We need to find another solution.
Jessica Kaskie
Human Geography-4
Chelsea Huffhines
4th period- human geography
After the Middle East debate we had during class, I've fully realized the fact that any positive comes with a share of negatives. This is simply another example in which doing one good thing, results in some not so good things.
I think you simply must weigh the pros and cons, and figure out which one helps or hurts the most.
I don't understand how this world works.....
That Kid is CUTE.... Let him eat.
Anybody who has had formal education in the field of economics knows that the economy of any given location is a glass castle just waiting to fall apart in the slightest breeze. The United States, as a world leader, is responsible (and, in fact, obligated) to crack down on all these terrible people across the world who would dare send aid to impoverished nations, thus upsetting local economies across the globe. The United States itself is responsible for most of the money being poured into this destructive enterprise, so if our president had any sense at all, he'd declare war on the US until we stop our reckless food aid. Then, after we've thoroughly beaten the humanitarians out of the US, we must continue the campaign, moving on to the EU, and so on.
We already have a War on Terror and a War on Drugs, no? Why not add a War on Food Aid?
I agree with Kim Staking. We need to do something about the rising food prices everywhere first dealing with those in danger of starvation. Food aid will temporarily solve the problem of starvation but it will come back with a vengence
I agree with Kim Staking. We need to do something about rising food prices first dealing with those in danger of starvaton. Although Food aid temporarily solves the problem of starvation it will return with a vengence.
Things don't look so good with food prices rising along with gas prices. Food aid does do some help by helping people get food. However at times it seems it helps them out at the expense of others such as with subsidizing U.S farmers that hurt the haitian farmers. Also it will probably help of Bush sent the money the world food banks need instead of using it as a way to his advantage.
This reminds me of that proverb about how catching a fish for a man will feed him for a day but teaching him how to fish will feed him for a lifetime. I think that the long-term benefits would be greater if the U.S. helped to develop technology in other countries that would help them produce more food, rather than simply sending food over. The local economy would also be helped if money went to local farmers to assist them in their business.
I believe that food aid is stupid. Giving out food to those in other countries is not our job. The US is not the mom for other countries. I agree that we should help other countries, such as Africa, make use of their resources and make there own food. If they have resources, help them make use of them. We shouldn't be using our money to support others.
starvation is something completely foreign to me considering i and everyone i know have always had plenty to eat. this kind of extreme contrast seems ridiculous and horrifying.
$770 million vs. $70 Billion. That's kind of disgusting. I wish it didn't have to be like this. Or does it? Why are we spending so much money on a war in which our initial cause of inception is now no longer an issue. ugh. I think the biggest problem in the world today is that people don't understand each other. If we tried to understand the other point of view - in almost any situation - the world would be so much of a better place.
Tara Viswanathan
2nd Period
Millie Dorsett
4th Period Human Geography AP
Perry 10th
i think the article shows a good point when it talks about the president's priorities, especially when it says he is more concerned for the war rather helping and aiding the people. i think the article makes a point point.
sarah rock
6th period
i think that if instead of giving them food, we gave them a way to grow and produce their own food, they would be a lot better off. if we just give them enough food for a day or a week - or even a month or year - it won't solve the problem because they'll just get hungry again.
It is sad that some people are even thinking of not giving aid to foreign countries.
We need to make this a priority. As for the budget? wow.
maria palacios
4th hum.geo.ap
9th
I think that food aid does cause because they expect us to help them out every time they have food hunger problems. i can understand that they might have some problems and they need help but when they are able to use there "technology and there know how" they should not get mad that we do not help them out, and we should try to encouge them to use their technology more so they will not always depend on us and so they can increse there income and food production.
After reading this article i would have to agree. we need to let them produce their own food, we could at least start them off, and continue to let them grow. we cant continue babying them.
eesh i sound harsh
but im not
I like when it says, 770 millions for food, 70billions for the war... But like a lot of us said, why do we not are about America first? I mean, it is great that you do something for all thoses poor, starving families here.
And it is now that we all finally realise that ethanol or food-based fuels are bad, even worse than what we thought...
I do agree with Staking. We need to help some countries boost their agricultural products and food income. They can't depend on us forever. I'm not saying that they don't carry their owen load, they do, but just not enough. Food prices may go up here if we continue to aid them with food. But like everything, there are good and bad things with food aid.
Jiaqi Niu
HuGeo 4th
10th Grade
It's a delicate balance. Honestly, I think it's impossible to get it right. No matter which route you choose, people will die from resulting starvation. It's a problem we simply can't avoid. The harsh reality is that we must choose the one more suited to the survival of more, which I would probably guess to be direct food aid. Sure, it will shoot the economy to hell in some circumstances, but without any aid, some might say they're already in hell. Who can say really.
While we give the people food, we set them up for development disaster. By becoming dependent on us other countries will not be able to sustain themselves and will fall to any enemy that poses a threat.
Christopher Reynolds
2nd period
By sending aid to other countries we are causing a developmental disaster to the countries that we help. By recieving free aid from the U.S. other countries become dependent. And when these countries are dependent they are weak. When the U.S. stops sending aid, these countries will fall to any enemy
Luke D'Cunha
Period 2
Poorer nations need to be able to subsidize their farmers more, I think. However, organizations like the World Bank and the US oppose such subsidiaries because it is "unfair." But that's just hypocrisy, since most wealthy nations (such as the US) subsidize their farmers like crazy!
I remember reading an article in the New York Times a few months ago about an African nation (unfortunately, I can't remember the name) that chose to go against the wishes of those who oppose farm subsidiaries. It turns out that the nation was much better off, and the farmers can grow much more food.
Seems like economics is always the problem. It's hard. Now the world's economy is getting weaker and weaker. We will propabily need heroes to save the world's economy.
Johanna Bauersfeld
Human Geography 4th
Seems like economics is always the problem. It's hard. Now the world's economy is getting weaker and weaker. We will propabily need heroes to save the world's economy.
Johanna Bauersfeld
Human Geography 4th
Seems like economics is always the problem. It's hard. Now the world's economy is getting weaker and weaker. We will propabily need heroes to save the world's economy.
Johanna Bauersfeld
Human Geography 4th
i agree with tara, to much money being wasted on to little..
Anjelica Savedra
4th period
9th grade
Kim B. Stakimg is about about everything that he says. There is always a problem with economic growth and there is lots of people with food staples and stuff. Food prices will continued to go up and if you give them what they want then they willl never learn.
I really don't understand why so much money has to be spent on the war when clearly it makes more sense to spend it on something more productive. People are starving and $70 billion dollars could be helping them. Instead, only $770 million of our dollars are struggling to help the needy. It isn't fair to them. We should be spending money on so many other important things like hunger instead of war.
It seems that every good deed has a negative effect somewhere. Sometimes I think we should just let other countries fix their problems themselves, but then I realize our country comes off as stingy and ignorant. Maybe the best gift we can give is advice?
Tara viswanathan
2nd period
I think that we should keep dropping food while we provide money to teach them to rely on themselves more. If we do is try to teach them to be more self sufficient the rest of the people will starve while farmers are becoming more tech savvy. Teaching the people to become more self sufficient is the way to go.
It's crazy. The fact is everyone wants to do their part in giving but its like it's hurting them in the long run. the whole teach a man to fish thing is the concept here. it's hard but in the long run it's better...unfortunately.
I think that giving them food is more harmful to us. it taks money to produce the food and send it over there and when we leave they get mad at us for leaving them to starve. why cant they work for theyre own food. another thing is we have poverty in our own country. so why dont we fix our country first then think about helping others
Landon Henderson
Pd.4
Grade 9
It always seems everytime we do something good it never works. I guess we will find a way to fix it like always.
The idea sounds good, but I'm going to have to agree with Kim Staking on this one. There is an Asian proverb that works well with this argument actually.. It says, "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime". And besides, our government needs to start paying attention to this country a little bit more, because there is poverty and starvation here too.
Has anybody ever wondered what would happen if we just kinda stopped trying to help and let them deal with their economies as they see fit?
Maybe the reason they have so much trouble getting off their feet is because we treat them like babies who need help every step of the way instead of teaching them how to walk and then letting them figure out what to do with the knowledge.
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and he won't bother you for weeks."
Post a Comment