21–30 of 38 posts
This kinda thing seems like a global phenomenon. Nothing new though. For example, the current ongoing farmers' protests in India. [0] The ever intelligent and witty veteran journalist P Sainath breaks it down clearly. [1] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Indian_farmers%27_prote... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDDUdkA2Cjk
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sentence following the one that you quoted is the defense, perhaps you should argue against that instead?
That sentence is just more question begging. "Running things the way it is done in the West (i.e. encouraging 'investment' by Western firms) is good, therefore a program which furthers that end is a good one."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sentence following the one that you quoted is the defense, perhaps you should argue against that instead?
That sentence is just more question begging. "Running things the way it is done in the West (i.e. encouraging 'investment' by Western firms) is good, therefore a program which furthers that end is a good one."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sentence is just more question begging. "Running things the way it is done in the West (i.e. encouraging 'investment' by Western firms) is good, therefore a program which furthers that end is a good one."
It is natural that questions arise, when you insist on not understanding what I've said.
The program is supposed to improve agricultural yields and they claim it did not. Is the program just about helping Western investments? So the investments result in unchanged yields?
Tangentially related, but isn't small scale farming, especially in poorer countries, something that's on its way out? Like if you are a farmer, you work hard and send your kids to school. Your kids will probably then move to the city or at least a more populous area and take up a job other than farming. As this happens more and more, doesn't the population of small scale farmers decrease to the point where we have to…
That assumes some combination of extreme social mobility and a steady state population. We have a growing population and the benefits of much of our industrial production to go a fraction of that population, so it doesn't work out.
According to the UN, there were about 2 billion people living in ~475 million rural small farm households in 2015, which by definition are "poor and food insecure and have limited access to markets and services" [1] so they wouldn't reap the benefits of industrialized agriculture. Most estimates have the global human population breaking 2 billion circa 1927 so we have more subsistence farmers alive today than there were human beings alive a hundred years ago (!!!)
The birth rate inversion in developed countries is a well known phenomenon [2] so many of the subsistence agriculture dependent populations are organically growing in contrast to most of the developed world which is only growing through immigration.
Throw in all the market distortions like water pricing and oncoming climate change... where this goes, nobody knows.
Why didn't it work?
- Prioritizing on cash crops (corn, soy) instead of the traditional nutrient-rich crops which are more suited for the region
- Furthermore, the reduction of crop diversity might have lead to worsening of soil conditions
- Force-selling expensive equipment and materials (hybrid seeds, synthetic fertilizers) made farmers fall into debt, which could lead to a contraction of the farmer workforce
Although there needs to be a much more thorough study than this article to get the bigger picture, I think the main issue here is hamfisting American ways of mechanized farming to African land. With different soil, climate, and socialeconomic conditions, blindly modernizing agriculture might just not work on Africa.
Why didn't it work?
Perhaps one conclusion to consider is not "it didn't work" but rather "the real objectives were different from the publicly stated ones."
"The UN FAO have linked this increase in undernourishment in particular to the rising extent of conflict-affected countries (which is often a leading cause of famine), and compounded by climate-related factors such as the El Niño phenomenon (which can inflict both drought and flood conditions)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin_(magazine) - "Jacobin is an American socialist quarterly magazine based in New York"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is natural that questions arise, when you insist on not understanding what I've said.
What are you trying to say, exactly? The program is supposed to improve agricultural yields and they claim it did not. Is the program just about helping Western investments? So the investments result in unchanged yields?
What I have implied here, in case it is not clear, was that the Jacobin either willfully misinterprets facts or makes constant pleas to emotion of sheltered Westerners to sell their store-brand let-them-eat-cake progressivism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you trying to say, exactly? The program is supposed to improve agricultural yields and they claim it did not. Is the program just about helping Western investments? So the investments result in unchanged yields?
What I have said was that the measures taken are means of attracting direct investments from Western countries. As an example, I've given the Sakhalin-2 project, where the Russian state essentially raided away billions of Western investments to the benefits of their chosen oligarchs. What I have implied here, in case it is not clear, was that the Jacobin either willfully misinterprets facts or makes constant pleas to…
If the outcome was a net 0 compared to the baseline those investments and surrounding legal changes didn't improve things.