The capitalist argument usually is the same
as with the defence of the arm-industry:
just imagine all those who have to be made
unemployed if we scrap the pet-food industry...
Less revenues from taxes... etc, etc.
The socialist argument is, that if the
economic system stayes the same both here
and in the said african country, the
same crisis will be reproduced, with
most aid - as previously - ending up
in the hands of the local or even
international capital.
The IMF/ etc insist
on all sort of economic strategy guarantees by
countries receiving loans, but nobody demanding
guarantees on human rights, such as adequate food,
shelter and education... which makes it clear
how the "totally free markets" and "totally
free competition" would work.
Eva
> In accord with a local (australia), highly unpopular politician's catch cry
> could someone out there 'please explain' and without junk economics
>
> I refer to michael gurstein's post 29/9/1989 wherein he forwards the NYT
> article covering the UN's 1998 Human Development report. The second last
> statistic refers to the US + Europe expenditure on pet food and health.
> How would an economist figure it if pets were sudenly outlawed in the USA
> and Europe (ignoring the social cost but including the disposal cost!) and
> this US$17 billion might be redirected to provide basic health and
> nutrition for everyone in the world? how does the ledger look in the these
> affluent areas if this industry is dismantled? would there really be $17
> billion available?
> how do these UN people arrive at their estimates of costs for basic health
> and nutrition?
> 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"
> maybe even some percentage of their ingredients comes from the LDCs?
> regards
> Jock McCardell
>
>
>
