Hacker News Reader

Comment by muriithi | Hacker News Reader

As a Kenyan who falls under the OP's definition of "a bunch of Africans" I do not want American philanthropy to "feed or cloth" Africa.

Most African economies are agricultural and it is therefore alarming that the EU uses 40% of it's budget(about 48B Euros annually) on agricultural subsidies. The US uses about $20B every year on the same.Ending these subsidies would enable Africa to export more, buy more products from the US and Europe as well as form the basis for industrialization.

We need more trade and less aid. Is that asking for too much?

More info;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978963,00.ht...

View on HN

I didn't mean any disrespect.

Although I'm not in a position to give away large sums of money, I don't believe in _just_ investing in people.

Investing in their economy, industry etc. makes more sense in the long term than investing in food/water and short term solutions.

Of course, It is very easy to talk about this sitting on my couch with a full stomach.

Farm subsidies are a serious inefficiency, yes. But I can't help feeling that getting rid of them would be worse, because they're there partly for the same reason many other inefficiencies exist: risk mitigation.

Nobody wants to put all their eggs in one basket, especially if it's someone else's basket. And from what I hear of high-yield food production, the good baskets all have problems down the line. Meat has disease and animal rights activists, fish has chemical pollution and overharvesting, fruit has pollination and insecticide issues, grain has crop rotation neglect and nutritional deficiencies.

Add to that the issues global trade is facing, such as rising fuel costs, treat of piracy, troublesome weather, looming threat of magnetosphere and solar interference, and politicians, and you can understand why I'd be reluctant to designate Africa as the world's breadbasket. Perhaps I've just watched too much TV, but food is one of the last things I want outsourced.

This sounds great in principal, and ending American and European food subsidies would be great for Africa. Additionally, food subsidies distort the market by, for example, making corn syrup cheaper than sugar in the US.

The problem is that many Americans (I don't know as much about Europe) aren't actually that wealthy. Without food subsidies, our food quality would probably increase, but so would our costs. Poor Americans are overweight today because the distorted food costs make it cheaper to eat processed food (that is more expensive to make overall) than to eat basic fruits and veggies and grains. Without subsidies, they would be starving, or at least calorie deficient.

Nixon put in our current system of subsidies because "food should never be an issue in a presidential race". And since then, it hasn't. America may be wealthy, but the wealth is very unevenly distributed. Without social programs, many of our people would be starving as well.

I respectfully disagree. The same prophesies of doom were advanced when in 1984 New Zealand's Labor government took the dramatic step of ending all farm subsidies.

Productivity and efficiency have increased much faster than when subsidies were in place.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspon...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02f...

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3411

And one result of those subsidies being cut is the US erecting trade barriers to protect US dairy farmers from the now hyper-competitive NZ dairy farmers.

Yes, from my (New Zealand, although not a farmer) point of view I'd say the ending of farm subsidies has been hugely beneficial to NZ's economy.

Wouldn't you just export the food from Africa where you probably can buy a banana with 10 pence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com