This is straight out of the Potato Famine. :(
while everyone should acknowledge the degree of poverty that is still rampant in countries like Ethiopia, that image is not particularly well suited to make a point.
It can be true that at the same time that Ethiopian farmers sell produce to Europe, while people from somewhere else try to alleviate poverty in the country.
It would not make sense for farmers in Ethiopia to stop trading food with the world at large just because people in the country are hungry. In fact, depending on whatever economic transaction is going on, the food coming in might be significantly cheaper than the food going out. Trade and reducing poverty or hunger are not at odds.
The goal should be to generate better incomes and social services for poor Ethiopians, not stopping businesses from trading with Ethiopia globally.
It's true that individuals are all acting rationally, and that imposing limits on exports would not be a panacea. However, at the most basic level, it is monstrous that food exports are happening in the context of local starvation. The rationality of the outcome within capitalism shouldn't blind us to the absurdity of the outcome itself.
There's really no way to stop this other than to outlaw all exports of food while starting to centrally distribute food in Ethiopia. This is neither productive nor would it reduce the amount of starving people in Ethiopia. In fact, it would increase the amount of poverty.
There are certainly poor people who have trouble affording basic goods in California. Still the solution is not to stop all exports of goods from California to Washington and vice versa. This would just make everybody worse off.
The point of the original post is that those "independent actors" are not "independents", not from Ethiopia.
To turn this back to software, I am strongly reminded of Joel Spolsky’s discussion of when and what to outsource:
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/10/14/in-defense-of-not-...
“If it’s a core business function — do it yourself, no matter what.”
- "the only alternative is this particular strawman policy, which would make things worse"
- "there's nothing absurd about people starving due to preventable causes"
This is only absurd if you consider the nation-state to be the fundamental unit of mutual aid.
If you consider a different division of population - the corporation, or the city-state, or the tribe, or the individual, for example - it makes perfect sense. Even before "monstrous" capitalism, you'd get plenty of situations where one tribe would actively pillage the farms of a neighboring tribe - food "exports" and local starvation.
You might argue that this is monstrous as well, and I'd even agree with you, but that's an argument against being shitty to your fellow human beings, and not specifically against capitalism. Capitalism is just yet another definition of "tribe", where the corporation that employs you is the tribe that you owe allegiance to, damn all the other tribes.
The path followed for development by the developed nations have nothing to do with the path they (we?) recommend to underdeveloped nations.
Capitalism really doesn't have anything to do with tribalism though. Workers don't have any allegiance whatsoever to their employer beyond that dictated by the imperative of not starving to death. The structural constraint under critique is the one where capital seeks to maximize profits regardless of the human cost. So, when a grower exports food for money instead of giving it to starving people for free, that's what I'm talking about.
At least one party in the food market isn't acting rationally. The situation where food is produced in Ethiopia for consumption in Europe and food is produced in Europe for consumption in Ethiopia could equivalently be solved by keeping the food in its country of origin and everyone saves on transport costs.
But maybe the Ethiopian "food" was just something like coffee beans which can't really feed a population, in which case there also isn't any problem with exporting them.
Both Ethiopia and Europe would be worse off for your plan. Ethiopia because instead of the profit from coffee they subsistence farm something that doesn't grow as well. Europe because they don't have coffee and they get even more of the crops they already grow too much of.
Now some have pointed out that the profit from Ethiopian coffee might not got to Ethiopia. That might be true (I don't know), but even if so, Ethiopia retains more money than if they quit exporting coffee and the profits.
Unfortunately, it also puts it at the mercy of forex rates, collapse of their monoculture, food shortages in other parts of the world causing rising food prices, any disruptions in foreign trade... Any of those things go south, and now you have millions of starving people. Sitting on a pile of coffee beans.
Why do you think the US government pushes billions of dollars into agriculture subsidies? Wouldn't it be so much cheaper if it just imported all of its food from abroad - where farmers get paid ~$1/day, instead of $6/hour.
There's a simple reason - it's because it doesn't want food riots, caused by some factor outside of their control. Nothing brings about regime change faster then the price of bread. [1] No well-ran country wants to be dependent on food, or oil imports.
Ironically, these same agriculture subsidies are what cripples agriculture in other nations - they can't always compete with Uncle Sam's subsidies.
[1] Just ask Mubarak. Or the Romanovs.
These things became more common in the modern world because transport costs fell so low that it doesn't matter in most cases.
Actually I believe that for a country rich in cash crop potential, some form of communism might actually be not so bad (e.g. free market with a strong legal bias favoring the formation of co-ops in agriculture). Certainly not worse than an economy dominated by a few plantation lords (doubly so if those are foreign entities), if that's the only alternative. I wouldn't suggest anything for Ethiopia though, wouldn't suggest anything, just too dang little knowledge about the place (and my personal threshold for feeling comfortable with playing armchair president is embarrassingly low).
The international community / western marketplace obliterates any country that dares expropriate / nationalize the lands of the (white colonialist) landholding class.
Just look at how the West has cut off Cuba and Venezuela.
The US cut off Cuba, but even with US retaliatory sanctions much of the rest of the West did not.
It defies the "african countries are poor only due to the oppressive white colonialism" narrative.
EDIT: As for Venezuela, 1 USD was ~6-7 Venezuelan bolívars in 2013.
Last time I checked it was roughly 1,100,000. A staggering 180 000 times drop in only 5 years.
External political climate remained roughly the same in that time span.
But what happens most of the time in these unstable African governments is that they gravitate from one extreme to another: Either they enforce zero workers rights and exert very little control over foreign investors - allowing them to pay bribes to individuals rather than taxes which would benefit state run institutions. Or they nationalize every last farm and shop in the country, scaring away foreign investment and know-how and end up with lower productivity and mismanagement of local industries.
And if toxic investors are clever, they might even support every major candidate a little: they have already reached their goal if the eventual winner believes that his secret supporter was acting as kingmaker. Might be much cheaper in total than actually forcing a result with money.
It is mentioned multiple times in the movie, and in these comments, that it is not Ethiopian farmers those who trade with anyone. Foreign corporations on incognito or behind domestic providers are those who suck money out of a poor country presumably without or with astonishingly weak trade legislature. More strikingly, doing so at the cost of famine of the blatantly low paid workers while violating not only ethics but also human rights of those exploited humans.
If those corporations were so savvy investors they would make profit at home under well ordered trade system.
This is a statement that is not necessarily true on its face.
When the country's currency is gradually inflated away to worthlessness [1] and economic prospects are limited for non-landowning classes of people, trade and reducing poverty can indeed be at odds. You need only look at history [2] to see the real effect imperialist export policies can have on a population.
1. https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=ETB&view=10Y 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
To get some real insight into this we'd need to find out what goes wrong when that last step doesn't happen.
The country of Ethiopia is not one collective organization but made up of individuals. The enclosure of resources for individuals allow independent trade and returns, meaning that gains are not distributed across society but held by the individual.
It is the same system everywhere.
Why are schools underfunded? Why are homeless shelters underfunded? Why are food banks underfunded?
Productivity is best held in individual hands. Taxation is the best mechanism to distribute wealth. However the taxes go through political hands and is thus corruptible.
Seems like an individual with too much money is just as corruptable.
How do the foreign companies grow produce ? Do they employ local people ?
From examples of India I personally feel the real issue here is the inability of the country to clearly enforce property rights and especially for poor and tribal people. (Tribal people might be better off selling off land to richer corporation and working in those fields as an employee)
But are the people employed, at what is admittedly low wages, better off than the alternative?
And if we in the EU pressure for fair wages, then might this not be better than nothing?
But I’m pretty sure this is the entire purpose of the World Bank. Scam weak nations out of their resources and give them to extranational corporations.
I think they have a “do good” arm but the “extricate resources” arm has final say. If the do good arm ever, say, started returning large amounts of productive land to indigenous farmers, that program would be quietly killed.
The net effect of the do good arm is then just PR for the extricating of resources.
In Ethiopia they are starting with advanced agriculture, and the World Bank is critical in jump starting that process. Foreign companies need to participate in a local economy when there are no local alternatives.
The people don't get the food produced on their farms because they can't afford the food. They can't afford it because the Ethiopian economy is in its infancy. Sure it doesn't feel right when the food is being shipped out of the country, but that's how capitalism works.
If Ethiopia plays by the rules of the game for the next few decades then their economy will grow the problems we see in today's Ethiopia will be diminished.
Starting this process is the purpose of the World Bank.
Maybe there's a better way without inherent suffering?
>If Ethiopia plays by the rules of the game for the next few decades then their economy will grow the problems we see in today's Ethiopia will be diminished.
If someone came to you with this proposition, that your region would grow in a few decades (maybe in time for your grandchildren to benefit) while you watch your neighbors starve and the profits and food from your countries land is shipped overseas for the majority of your adult life, I hope you would do the sane thing and tell that person to fuck off.
The "rules of the game" are "get yours, and get it now by whatever means capable", which is what countries with capability do and will continue to do. If their actions result in any benefit to the world outside their borders, it is incidental.
So people starve because they cannot afford to eat the food that they farm. If that's how capitalism works then maybe capitalism needs some adjustments.
Law, order and prudent fiscal/monetary policy are all it takes. If Ethiopia can guarantee these things then the international community of capitalism will reward it and its citizens will reap the rewards.
Using the same logic, Western countries tried to colonize Russia in 1919 and Nazi Germany colonized quite a bit of Europe during WWII.
An assertion about "Africa" is like an assertion about "Asia", which includes everything from Russia to Thailand to India to China to Turkmenistan to Iran to Japan to North Korea. There are few assertions one can make about all of Africa, which covers Egypt to Morocco to South Africa to Kenya to Liberia to Madagascar, and so much in between.
> the only continent that produces what it doesn't need but imports all that it needs
That's normal trade behavior. You produce things in which you have comparative advantage, then trade them for things that others produce more efficiently.
France produces far more wine than it needs and Japan produces far more cars than it needs because both are great at making those things. Then they trade; resources are used most efficiently, because both are more efficient at producing their specialty; and consumers get the best products in the world. You get more for less. Otherwise you'd have lots of Japanese wine and French cars.