From: Jock McCardell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>would you feel better making a weekly contribution to a UN fund for this
>purpose rather than buying x-number cans of "biffo" or "quick cat" or packs
>of "super bird"
Any economists worth his salt, would calculate lifetime earning potential of
the various critters involved. Some show dogs and cats can earn real good
money. But those starving folks in the third world can't earn much -- or
anything -- so an economist would apologetically conclude that it IS NOT
"economical" to feed Africans instead of pets.
On the other hand, it IS "economical" to ship toxic waste to Africa:
"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in
the lowest wage country is impeccable...because foregone earnings
from increased morbidity" are low. He adds that "the underpopulated
countries in Africa are vastly underpolluted; their air quality is
probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles...."
--World Bank's chief economist, Lawrence Summers
The Economist, Feb. 8, 1992
Besides, the "market" knows what is thing is worth. We spend big bucks to
buy cuddly, little furry things. Who would want to buy a starving African?
To paraphrase one of America's all-time greatest economic poster-boys,
Milton Friedman:
"Africans can find their natural space in the market, like any other
consumer demand. The problems of the Africans, like any other problem, can
be resolved through price mechanisms, through transactions between producer
and consumer, each with his own interests."
Ain't it great?
Jay
