Free Market Famine

[vox]

Last week, Ernest wrote a post recommending capitalism as a way to solve the problem of famine. I wrote a post in response, but no one seemed too interested. You can view the exchange near the bottom of this page (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=308&start=20).

I think that this is an interesting topic, however. I found the following, showing that capitalism itself is the cause of hunger in Latin America, and thought that some folks here might be interested as well.


Price of Free Trade is Famine

by Marc Edelman

Los Angeles Times
March 27, 2002

Central America is in the grip of famine, and if President Bush mentions it when he visits El Salvador on Sunday, he will likely suggest that free trade is the solution.

Yet Bush's proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement is hardly going to remedy the worsening disaster in rural Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua. Unregulated markets are a large part of the reason why 700,000 Central Americans face starvation and nearly 1million more suffer serious food shortages.

Hardest hit are coffee plantation workers and maize farmers. Coffee prices have spiraled downward since the 1989 collapse of the International Coffee Agreement, which assigned countries production quotas. In the past few years, prices plummeted further with a surge in exports from Vietnam and Indonesia, where the World Bank encouraged expansion of coffee acreage. With the market glutted, many coffee farmers did not bother to harvest this year. The result has been evictions from plantation housing, increased migration to teeming slums and severe hunger among unemployed coffee workers.

Maize farmers too have been feeling the free-market squeeze. Since 1992, Central America has had intra-regional free trade in grains and almost no tariff protection against low-cost imports. Forced to compete with highly subsidized U.S. farmers, many Central American farmers have abandoned food production, gone bankrupt and lost their land.

Some of Central America's most conservative figures--Guatemalan President Alfonso Portillo and Nicaraguan Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo--acknowledge that the intensity and suddenness of the food emergency make it a famine, worse than the hunger characteristic of the region.

Famine is always rooted in economic policies and political decisions, as Amartya Sen, the 1998 Nobel Prize winner in economics, has long maintained. Sen also points out that famines do not occur in democracies, where contested elections and vigorous journalistic oversight force policymakers to try to prevent occurrences that might threaten constituents or allow opponents to make political hay.

U.S. policymakers should ask, then, what the widening famine says about Central American democracy, for which Washington spent billions of dollars and waged three proxy wars during the 1980s.

Apparently, the gap between rulers and ruled in the four affected countries is so large that policymakers feel little pressure to address the crisis. No wonder polls show that a mere 35% of Hondurans, 24% of Nicaraguans, 21% of Salvadorans and 16% of Guatemalans say they are "satisfied" with how democracy functions in their countries.

Right now, tens of thousands of Central Americans are heading north. In contrast to the 1980s and early 1990s, most are not escaping war and repression. Many are abandoning farms that failed because of globalized trade and the dumping of U.S. grain. Others are fleeing liberalized interest rates so high that they have no hope of ever starting a small business. Still others are trying to escape life in the free trade zones, where factory owners enjoy huge public subsidies and workers face immense obstacles in organizing for a living wage.

Central American land could produce decent living standards for small farmers if they could obtain small-scale irrigation systems, better access to land, secure title to property, low-cost credit and shelter from unfair competition and the ravages of global market forces.

These measures would give even the poorest of the poor a stake in their societies, but they would require elites to take popular needs seriously. Public sectors eviscerated by privatization and budget cuts can't address the inequalities that globalization generates.

Rural Central Americans are already reeling after a decade or more of free-market reforms. President Bush's trade proposals could be the knockout blow.

[IzmSchism]

down with companies like Monsanto, the whole move from agriculture to agribusiness is disgusting, how can responsible governments in supposed democratic societies be so fuct up in the head to allow the big businesses of the world starve the people in these countries, good article.

[Ernest Everhard]

VOX, I remember we had a similar debate about a month back. I think I'll cut and paste it below, because i'm a lazy bastard.



Quote: from vox on 9:44 am on Mar. 7, 2002
Agusto writes:

"Famines don't occur because there is no food, but because those in power choose not to distribute the food effeciently. Something which market mechanisms never fail to do. Point out all of the famines that have occurred in the 20th century, and in every case you will see intrusive government or war."


Actually, Agusto, Sen disproves you.

"Take the Bangladesh famine of 1974. Sen discovered that it "occurred in a year of greater food availability per head than in any other year between 1971 and 1976." What actually happened was that the floods that year hit rural landless laborers indirectly. Because they had no land, all their income came from transplanting rice for others. The floods prevented them from earning the meager amount that kept their families alive in most years. There did turn out to be enough food in Bangladesh that year, but the rural poor could not afford to buy it.

"Sen points out, chillingly, that large famines can strike down thousands of human beings without anyone's formal libertarian rights being violated. No dictator stole food from the Bangladeshi poor in 1974. The normal functioning of the economy, with property rights respected, led to their deaths."

You're wrong again, Agusto. Fact is, you've never been right. Your bold statemement here, undisguised as anything but straightforward, has been proven to be wrong.

vox (still right)




Quote: from AgustoSandino on 5:24 pm on Mar. 7, 2002
hahaha,

do you always run into traffic like that vox...

so you would agree that in bangladesh in 1974 there was enough food, according to sen "greater food availability per head than in any other year..."
So the famine wasn't caused by lack of food, as I stated.

Furthermore if you knew anything about history you would be aware that following independence Bangladesh was run by a socialist military junta. Despite the fact that you might find that term oxymoronic (while history sees socialist military junta as common) the military junta was hardly capitalistic and imposed tremendous amounts of price controls and agricultural restrictions in the spirit of socialist centralization.

So what have we learned here vox, not that I'm right and you're wrong, we knew that already. But that beyond wrong, you are so foolish that you don't even recognize when you agree with me.

Famines are not caused by lack of food, but by intrusive govt, ect. Bangladesh, as you demonstrate is a perfect example.

This just underlines a major problem of about every socialists here. You would prefer to uphold your ideology than help those your ideology was intended to help. Despite the fact that capitalism has, where it operates, erradicated famine, you'd rather get rid of it.

In another thread you state that socialism should and would provide basic needs. In your pseudo intellectual prentension you dismiss the fact that people want more than their needs. Capitalism provides not only those needs, but also those wants. And because of its success you'd like to see it replaced. You'd replace capitalism because it works, not for the sake of the "workers" but for the sake of socialism as an ideology as an end in itself. Fool.




Quote: from reagan lives on 10:17 pm on Mar. 7, 2002
"No dictator stole food from the Bangladeshi poor in 1974."
True enough, because Mujibar Rahman can't properly be called a dictator, but this is not for a lack of trying. Rahman (socialist) did, however, send out his army to arrest those who were "hoarding" rice, even though there was a surplus of rice being produced. This action, not the market left to its own devices, is what fueled the price surge, which gave life to a black market (which found a nice partner in the phenomenally corrupt [socialist] Rahman regime).

Please, vox, get your goddamn facts straight.




Quote: from vox on 2:29 pm on Mar. 14, 2002
Actually, Agusto, the famine in 1974 had nothing to do with the government but with the floods hitting in a different fashion.

Really, you should read Sen before you attempt to disprove him. At least you'd know what he said, right? And that would give you something to argue. Remmeber, Sen came from the Chicago School.

vox


I excluded three posts, one in which el che comments on my old sig, one in which peaccenikked talks about pakistan and india at war, and one in which some guest makes fun of you.

The problem with central america is that its leaders do not put reverse pressure on America to abide by trade agreements and disavow farm subsudies. Free trade, and liberal markets between nations must be two way. It is categorically anti-capitalist, and immoral for the US to subsidize its agricultural industry at the expense of third world agriculture. Leftist economic policies, like this farm subsidization must not be allowed to starve central americans.

[vox]

"The problem with central america is that its leaders do not put reverse pressure on America to abide by trade agreements and disavow farm subsudies. Free trade, and liberal markets between nations must be two way. It is categorically anti-capitalist, and immoral for the US to subsidize its agricultural industry at the expense of third world agriculture. Leftist economic policies, like this farm subsidization must not be allowed to starve central americans."

I find this very interesting, for, if you accept the article, and you seem to, you don't talk about the WB policies regarding coffee production. While it's true that the WB did not seem to give money to Vietnam to increase coffee production, it did give $17 million dollars in 1998 to maintain existing coffee plantations.

Too, you write of "reverse pressure" without acknowledging the uneven playing field or, and perhaps more important, the very uneven distribution of wealth in the countries mentioned in the article, which tranlsates directly into a lack of power for the very people effected by this crisis. That was the whole point about the nature of democracy in these countries.

Another, and much larger, question is whether or not businesses could continue to function without government subsidies or $17 million maintenance loans from the WB.

About your cut and paste job, I stand by what I wrote. Indeed, reading it over I find you contradict yourself. In the first post you pasted, I quote you as saying, "Famines don't occur because there is no food, but because those in power choose not to distribute the food effeciently." However, in your response to me, you write, "Famines are not caused by lack of food, but by intrusive govt, ect. Bangladesh, as you demonstrate is a perfect example." One is left wondering if those in power, that is, the government, should "distribute food efficiently" or if "intrusive gov't" is the problem. You seem to want it both ways.

Beyond that, you seem to have purposefully misrepresented what Sen wrote, which had to do with famine being the result of a perfectly functioning market in Bangladesh. Indeed, you seem to want to avoid talking about Sen at all, though you cite him. That's unfortunate.

Your objection that Bangladesh "imposed tremendous amounts of price controls and agricultural restrictions" doesn't seem relevent here, for, as we agree, there was more food available in 1974 than the previous year, but the famine was worse. Price controls and vague "agricultural restrictions," whatever their result may be in the long term, did not hamper food production, so I'm not sure what your point is.

From what I can gather, we both agree that famine is not caused by lack of food. However, you say that it's because "those in power choose not to distribute the food effeciently." This is where we disagree. I say that it has to do not with food distribution but income. This is the point that Sen makes in Poverty and Famines. In his analysis of the Bengal famine of 1943 and 1944 he clearly shows that an increase in entitlement of one sector, given an unchanged food supply, reduces the entitlement of another sector. (Prices rose sharply before any crops had failed.) That's the market at work, functioning properly.

vox

[Ernest Everhard]

Indeed, reading it over I find you contradict yourself. In the first post you pasted, I quote you as saying, "Famines don't occur because there is no food, but because those in power choose not to distribute the food effeciently." However, in your response to me, you write, "Famines are not caused by lack of food, but by intrusive govt, ect. Bangladesh, as you demonstrate is a perfect example." One is left wondering if those in power, that is, the government, should "distribute food efficiently" or if "intrusive gov't" is the problem. You seem to want it both ways. -vox

Well vox in cases like socialist bangladesh, then those in power should distribute the food effectivelly, unfortunately in the case of bangladesh those in power, the government, as reganlives pointed out, proceeded to undertake a disastrous policy of intervening in economic and agricultural affairs.

[reagan lives]

Which is to say that we should revise the first statement from "Famines don't occur because there is no food, but because those in power choose not to distribute the food efficiently" to "Famines don't occur because there is no food, but because those in power choose to distribute food inefficiently" (a la Mujibar Rahman). The punchline, vox, is that socialist wahoos like Rahman are more likely by orders of magnitude to distribute food inefficiently than the market is.

"Your objection that Bangladesh 'imposed tremendous amounts of price controls and agricultural restrictions' doesn't seem relevent here, for, as we agree, there was more food available in 1974 than the previous year, but the famine was worse. Price controls and vague 'agricultural restrictions,' whatever their result may be in the long term, did not hamper food production, so I'm not sure what your point is."

Wow, you really are just a simple creature. Nobody is saying that price controls and agricultural restrictions hampered food production. In fact, the point is that they didn't. Ernest's thesis, and I agree with him, is that the "hampering of food production" is not the primary factor that leads to famine. Conversely, high food production does not prevent famine. Price controls and agricultural restrictions, when applied in the ignorant child-like manner adopted by socialists like Rahman, can often lead to famine.

"In his analysis of the Bengal famine of 1943 and 1944 he clearly shows that an increase in entitlement of one sector, given an unchanged food supply, reduces the entitlement of another sector. (Prices rose sharply before any crops had failed.) That's the market at work, functioning properly."

More ignorance. A sharp rise in prices without the failure of crops is NOT "the market at work, functioning properly," and it's beyond me how you can even assert that that's the case. IN FACT, an "unchanged food supply" would never accompany a change in "entitlements" (whatever that means in the market) in "the market at work, functioning properly." Seriously vox, you make very little sense to me.



(Edited by reagan lives at 6:52 pm on April 30, 2002)

[vox]

Reagan writes:

"Wow, you really are just a simple creature. Nobody is saying that price controls and agricultural restrictions hampered food production. In fact, the point is that they didn't. Ernest's thesis, and I agree with him, is that the "hampering of food production" is not the primary factor that leads to famine. Conversely, high food production does not prevent famine. Price controls and agricultural restrictions, when applied in the ignorant child-like manner adopted by socialists like Rahman, can often lead to famine."

It's funny, really. Ernest and Reagan assert that price controls and agricultural restrictions caused the famine, whereas Sen does not. They do not offer any substantiation for their belief, but Sen does. Now, maybe they're right. I don't think they are, but maybe they are. If so, I wish they would provide something in the way of explanation, rather than simple assertions, that would contradict Sen's research in the matter. So far, neither Ernest nor Reagan has done so. One might be led to think that they haven't because, verily, they can't.

To put it simply, what policies specifically led to the '74 famine and how?

"More ignorance. A sharp rise in prices without the failure of crops is NOT "the market at work, functioning properly," and it's beyond me how you can even assert that that's the case. IN FACT, an "unchanged food supply" would never accompany a change in "entitlements" (whatever that means in the market) in "the market at work, functioning properly." Seriously vox, you make very little sense to me."

I assert it because that's what happened. But don't take my word for it, please do your own research on the subject. I make very little sense to Reagan, most likely, because I'm talking over his head. I used entitlements in the way that Sen used the word in the work I cited, Poverty and Famines. This goes directly toward the way the market works, and to why a widening of the gap between the haves and the have-nots always hurts the poor.

One might think that it's a truism that one should be familiar with a work before attempting to discredit it. That, apparently, is lost on our capitalist friends, who, convinced of their correctness, spout unsubstatiated platitudes and dismiss, without rebuttal, scholarly work that doesn't fit their myopic world view.

Like I said, it's funny, in a pathetic kind of way.

vox

[Ernest Everhard]

Numerous times over the last 40 years so-called "experts" predicted global famine because increases in food production couldn’t possibly keep up with population growth. Thankfully, they were wrong.

The best indications today are that food production will continue to outpace population growth for the foreseeable future, though this doesn’t preclude localized famines since, as we shall see in a moment, famine in the 20th century is largely unrelated to the ability to produce enough food to feed the world.

The accomplishment in food production over the last 40 years was a result of the Green Revolution -- agricultural processes focusing on hybrid plants designed to maximize yield while being resistant to pests, and intensive irrigation and fertilizing efforts. As Denis Avery points out, in 1950 the world’s 611 million hectares of cropland produced 692 million tons of grain. By 1992, the world planted 700 million hectares of cropland which produced 1,920 million tons of grain. In spite of skeptics in the late 1960s and 1970s who predicted the effects of the Green Revolution would be minimal, agricultural output increased from 1.13 tons/hectare to 2.74 tons/hectare in four decades (CITE).

The Green Revolution was so successful that the developed world now sees a glut of food. Many governments in the developed world now pay farmers to limit food production in order to increase prices. Even if population growth should increase along the lines of the worst case scenario, this underproduction could be converted quickly to meet the world’s food needs.

What makes the world increase in food production so much more amazing is that many parts of the world have yet to experience its effects. Development of Green Revolution-style techniques for Africa, for example, has lagged for a variety of reasons. The introduction of hybrid crops designed for the relatively poor soil of central Africa combined with farming techniques to maximize productivity of the land have yet to be extensively adopted on that continent. Such techniques could increase food production in Africa by a factor of 7 and allow that continent to finally be self-sufficient in its food production.

Unfortunately there may not be a lot we can do about the primary cause of famine and hunger in the 20th century -- government interference with food production.

All of the largest and most publicized famines of this century were the direct result not of inherent problems with food production but of government policies which discouraged proper production and distribution of food.

In the 1980s famine in Ethiopia resulted from the government preventing food aid from reaching provinces rebelling against the government of Haile Mariam Mengitsue. Famine which killed tens of millions in the Soviet Union in 1921-22 and 1932-3, China in 1958-61 and Bengal in 1943 were all the direct result of government policies which severely distorted production and/or distribution of food. These large famines deserve a closer look.

With the famines in the USSR, not only did Soviet policies provide a disincentive to farmers to lower food output, but in both cases the USSR decided to export millions of tons of grain during periods when its citizens starved in large numbers. Lenin finally called in Western aid agencies (led by future U.S. president Herbert Hoover) to stop the 1921-22 famine, while Stalin explicitly rejected appealing to outside aid during the 1932-3 famine leading to the deaths of an estimated 7 million (another 7.5 million are estimated to have died in the collectivization and dekulakization programs undertaken by Stalin which directly caused the lowered grain output).

China experienced what is believed by many to be the worst case of famine in world history -- a mind boggling 30 million people are believed to have perished. The cause was not drought or pestilence or some other natural disaster, but Mao Tse-Tung’s Great Leap Forward which destroyed Chinese agriculture.

Deciding it wasn’t going to let the Communists lead the world in causing famine, Great Britain inflicted a terrible famine on Bengal in 1943. Fearing a Japanese invasion of that colony, Great Britain systematically reduced all local grain supplies so the Japanese wouldn’t be able to seize it after the anticipated invasion.

Famine in the 20th century has been inflicted on tens of millions of people by the very governments they looked to for help during agricultural crises. Unlike crop yields, this problem does not have a simple solution.

by Brian Carnell

[reagan lives]

See vox, I thought we did a good enough job of this in the thread that Ernest so thoughtfully copied. But you are a glutton for punishment. The source of your Sen infatuation seems to be ensconced in this line:

"Sen points out, chillingly, that large famines can strike down thousands of human beings without anyone's formal libertarian rights being violated. No dictator stole food from the Bangladeshi poor in 1974. The normal functioning of the economy, with property rights respected, led to their deaths."

And my objection, which you chose not to respond to, was that people's "formal libertarian rights" certainly WERE violated in the events that led up to the 74 famine. Rahman sent his goons out to arrest "hoarders" and confiscate that which they were "hoarding." The very existance of the socialist Rahman regime was a rejection of "formal libertarian rights" in almost every way.

I, and I believe Ernest is with me, agree with Sen that the source of famine is often political rather than natural. You, as a whacked-out socialist, interpret this as meaning that Sen thinks the market causes famine. Sen himself never says anything to that effect. It's quite something to see a person who quotes what appears to be a review of Sen's book telling others to familiarize themselves with sources.

[vox]

That's great, Ernest, but I'm still waiting for specifics. Stalin, of course, used famine for political ends, which isn't disputed. But then, we weren't talking about Stalin. While a discussion of Stalin and the Kulaks may be interesting from an historical perspective, it has nothing to do with Bengal or Bangladesh.

The article you provided mentions Bengal twice, but provides nothing specific. I'm very interested to know how Great Britain, a capitalist nation by the way, caused the famine. Perhaps you're right. I don't know, and can't from what has been posted so far.

Too, if you can find something about Bangladesh, I'd be grateful, for I believe that the floods prevented landless workers from working and it was lack of money, rather than any gov't interference, that prevented them from being able to purchase food. Please note that this isn't a question about gov't responsibility and social welfare, either in a capitalist or a quasi-socialist society, but only about the cause of famine in a particular instance. The applicability of generalizations is always limited by the details, of course, which you surely know.

vox

[vox]

Reagan writes:

Rahman sent his goons out to arrest "hoarders" and confiscate that which they were "hoarding."

That's interesting, for somehow Reagan seems to be suggesting that hoarding a commodity is, contrary to any market rules, going to make the commodity more available. Is that right?

Of course it isn't. In a time of famine, the gov't tried to liberate a needed commodity from people who were hoarding it and driving up the cost. This isn't terribly difficult to understand, but Reagan, typically, doesn't get it. Whacked out, indeed.

Reagan, too, doesn't seem to understand that what I cited doesn't "appear to be a review" but is a review, which I stated explicitly in the thread I linked to at the start of this topic. Sen's book isn't online, you see.

Regardless of Reagan's misrepresentation of virtually everything I write, which he warps to suit his own end, the fact is that Sen states, quite clearly, that famine can occur in perfectly functioning markets. Here's a quote from Sen, "Food supply fell in the Irish famine of the 1840's. It did not fall in the Bengal famine of '43, and it was at a peak height in the Bangladesh famine of '74. But a section of the community lose their ability to command food by not having jobs - not having enough wage and then they cannot buy food and that's what happened -- not a really large proportion usually -- but it can still kill millions of people."

The blame is placed squarely on economic factors by Sen, not on political factors. That's the point the right-winger continues to miss, and will continue to miss regardless of what is said by anyone.

vox

[reagan lives]

"That's interesting, for somehow Reagan seems to be suggesting that hoarding a commodity is, contrary to any market rules, going to make the commodity more available. Is that right?"
Where do I suggest that?

"the gov't tried to liberate a needed commodity from people who were hoarding it and driving up the cost."
Indeed. The truth is, vox, that the prices shot up BECAUSE of Rahman's seemingly inexplicable actions, which fueled rumors of a nonexistant food shortage. Just keep telling yourself that Mujibar Rahman was benevolently "liberating" food for the good of his subjects. Right.

"Reagan, too, doesn't seem to understand that what I cited doesn't 'appear to be a review' but is a review, which I stated explicitly in the thread I linked to at the start of this topic. Sen's book isn't online, you see."

And yet:

"One might think that it's a truism that one should be familiar with a work before attempting to discredit it. That, apparently, is lost on our capitalist friends, who, convinced of their correctness, spout unsubstatiated platitudes and dismiss, without rebuttal, scholarly work that doesn't fit their myopic world view."

So the book review is a scholarly work with which we should acquaint ourselves? Or are you just a hypocrite?

"Regardless of Reagan's misrepresentation of virtually everything I write, which he warps to suit his own end,"
As opposed to your attempt to misrepresent Sen to suit your own ends. Once again, Sen does NOT claim that the markets were "perfectly functioning." Nobody in his right mind would assert that Bangladesh under the Rahman regime had a "perfectly functioning" market. He never, ever, ever blames these events on capitalism or any capitalist ideals, no matter how much you wish that he did.

[vox]

"Where do I suggest that?"

You suggested that getting the food away from the hoarders is somehow to blame for the famine. This, of course, makes no sense at all, and I have to wonder why you think it does.

"The truth is, vox, that the prices shot up BECAUSE of Rahman's seemingly inexplicable actions, which fueled rumors of a nonexistant food shortage."

Are you saying that the market was wrong? But how can that be? And what of the price controls you and Ernest spoke of earlier? Shouldn't price controls have kept the price stable?

The question, which Sen has answered but you keep avoiding, is simple, Reagan. We agree that there was enough food. Why couldn't people afford this food, Reagan?

"So the book review is a scholarly work with which we should acquaint ourselves? Or are you just a hypocrite?"

Golly, you're rather a dim bulb, aren't you? Ande a bit of a liar, too.

See, Reagan (I'll explain this slowly so you can understand it), I quoted a review which summarized part of a book, called Development as Freedom, in a post. Then, I talked about another work, called Poverty and Famines, and you said you didn't understand the term "entitlement" the way it was used in my post, for I used it the way that Sen used it in the work Poverty and Famines.

Now, you deliberately, and foolishly, try to confuse the issue by saying that I called a book review a scholarly work, when, in actuality, I was talking about Poverty and Famines, which wasn't even the subject of the review.

Perhaps you simply made a mistake, but I'm not disposed to give you the benefit of the doubt. I think that you're intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue and have resorted to grasping at straws that don't even exist. This, it seems, is the apex of your ability.

Love,

vox

[reagan lives]

So not only is your cited source not the book in question, it's not even a review of the book in question. No wonder you seem to have such a hard time with the material.

[vox]

"So not only is your cited source not the book in question, it's not even a review of the book in question. No wonder you seem to have such a hard time with the material."

Hee! Reagan, you really are too much. Not only did you completely avoid the question, you take issue with the absolute weakest part of your rather confused post!

I really don't know how much clearer I can make it. I cited a review and then I cited a text. What about this don't you understand?

Hee! I'm sorry, but this is really quite funny. Even if you were confused the first time around, after my patient explanation, I thought that even you would understand. Oh dear. Too amusing.

Thanks, Reagan, for doing your dance for me yet again.

vox

[reagan lives]

Please, vox. It's quite clear that if you did read Poverty and Famine (and not simply a socialist review of it) you did a pretty piss-poor job. You assailed me before for missing your contextual use of the term "entitlements," when in fact it is you that used the term in a way not congruent with Sen's definition. The quote I'm referring to is this one:

"In his analysis of the Bengal famine of 1943 and 1944 he clearly shows that an increase in entitlement of one sector, given an unchanged food supply, reduces the entitlement of another sector. (Prices rose sharply before any crops had failed.) That's the market at work, functioning properly."

...when anybody's who's cracked Sen's book knows that this is not the case. He even provides a goddamn table which shows that there was no significant increase in food consumption among the non-starving-to-death Bengals in 43-44. And "entitlement" as used in Sen is not the amount of food that one has on hand, but the amount of food that one can buy or earn given one's resources and the market price.

But all this is trivial...I've exposed your lack of credibility so many times that it's becoming redundant. The point here is that Sen does not construct a solid argument against capitalism. If anything, his argument is Rawlsian in nature...he is only interested in the ability of the lower class to subsist, not with achieving any sort of economic parity. He makes his point by referring to the three instances that he could come up with where famine was caused in anything that even resembled a free market, even the pseudo-socialism of Rahman. Once again, there's nothing anti-capitalist in Sen's book, no matter how much you want there to be.

[vox]

"He even provides a goddamn table which shows that there was no significant increase in food consumption among the non-starving-to-death Bengals in 43-44. And "entitlement" as used in Sen is not the amount of food that one has on hand, but the amount of food that one can buy or earn given one's resources and the market price."

Oh, poor Reagan. Where, exactly, did I say otherwise? Indeed, I didn't even MENTION an increase in food consumption, no matter how much you wish I had. You're lying again, Reagan, out and out lying about what I've written. Which is, of course, the only way you can make your feeble points.

The market price is exactly what I'm talking about, lost on you, of course. When the poor compete for a commodity in the market, they lose. Always. This is what Sen is saying.

Too, I never once said that Sen argued against capitalism. That's just more fairydust from your foul mind.

You couldn't even understand that I wrote about two different things after I explained it to you. Quit embarassing yourself, Reagan.

Indeed, entitlement is different from command, which is the ability to purchase commodities. You're lost here, Reagan. Nothing, nothing at all, that you've written here counters ANYTHING that I've written.

Keep dancing, Reagan. Your ignorance is flapping in the breeze.

vox

[Ernest Everhard]

Too, I never once said that Sen argued against capitalism. That's just more fairydust from your foul mind.


vox


Quote: from vox on 10:40 pm on April 29, 2002
Last week, Ernest wrote a post recommending capitalism as a way to solve the problem of famine. I wrote a post in response, but no one seemed too interested. You can view the exchange near the bottom of this page (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=308&start=20).

I think that this is an interesting topic, however. I found the following, showing that capitalism itself is the cause of hunger in Latin America, and thought that some folks here might be interested as well.



I like how your argument always ends up being, and allow me to paraphrase here, "you cappies are wrong because...you're liars."

[reagan lives]

vox, you set up a causal relationship: "...an increase in entitlement of one sector, given an unchanged food supply, reduces the entitlement of another sector." If you are using the term "entitlement" in the correct Sen sense, then you are even more demented than I thought. Let me ask you this: if the former sector happens to be the lower class, is the entitlement of the upper class reduced? If food prices drop, can the rich now afford less? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?