| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Channels |
| User Rankings |
-
oooops - Every damn morning
- And that concludes
- Aquaman is pretty b-
- Feels
- I prefer Tomb of th-
- I'm pretty sure the-
- How to put a swimca-
- It was delicious.
- Donald
- Escaping the Friend-
- Top Gear of war.
- Freakin' Lays
- a proud mother
- Gotta Go Fast!
- oh rdj
- fat whale
- Is 4spooky6me cool
- dont let errorists
- Doctor Boob
![[cringes]](http://static2.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/pictures/e3/ac/e3acf0_4919192.jpg){kind=small}
#20
-
lieutenantderp (04/11/2013) [-] I'm sick of all this "HERP DERP AMERICA HAZ ALL THE FOODS WHILE AFRICA STARVING". I mean, what the hell are we going to do? Ship all our wheat to 3rd world countries? Just because a country has the capability to produce more food does not mean it can feed the whole world. I feel bad for hungry people in 3rd world countries, but we can't just give them our food.
#74 to #20
-
wadofwade (04/11/2013) [-]
Studies have shown that African nations grow enough food to feed everyone, but it is an issue of distribution and affordability. We as Westerners, not just Americans, inflate their economies with foreign aid, inflating their money to where it is practically worthless. So they starve more and we send them more money and ensure that they do starve. There is a reason there was not nearly as much starvation before colonialism. They didn't suddenly lose the ability to grow food; it is a policy issue, not an environmental one.
#52 to #20
-
thepyras (04/11/2013) [-] The thing is, we send tons of food to starving countries already, but their local governments are so corrupt that hardly anything makes it to the people, which leaves us with a huge decision. Do we keep doing the same and letting much of the effort go to waste, cease efforts altogether, or act as a nanny-state and attempt to realign their government?
#37 to #20
-
partnerintroll (04/11/2013) [-] What's worse, in where the areas are struck with the worse poverty and famine, the regimes controlling said country take a huge cut of the aid for themselves. Some Kenyan reporter advocated to stop aid in the form of handouts. She figured things like the peace corps were much more effective at helping the poverty problem by giving aid as well as sustainability
#27 to #26
-
Blargosnarf (04/11/2013) [-] And they'll just live off of our donations, right? Are they ever going to gain the resources for the ability to make it themselves? For a proper trade they must give us something in return, otherwise, who the hell is going to want to dedicate their entire workload for nothing in return? It's not as simple as "Just give them some free stuff, they'll manage on their own". Blistering hot and dry desert, poor nutrient soil, only a section of Africa has decent rainfall and flora, but if they destroy that to make crops then they've destroyed just that; a large tropical rainforest, and ultimately make more problems of the world. Not all of the world leaders are sleezy money grubbing ******** (still, too large of a portion though), if that were an option then they would have done it.
#55 to #34
-
anonymous poster (04/11/2013) [-]
how about your country making agricultural subventions. To provide a certain safety for your farmers the price of corn and wheat is kept under its real price. This results in small farmers in less whealty countries which cannot afford such actions not being able to even be concurizable on their own markets when there is subventioned corn/wheat from the USA/EU. the world produces more than enough food, even africa could easily feed its own people. The problem here is the distribution and again actions of certain nations, interfering with the market. The last problem is that food is traded on global stock markets. So every year, nearly a third of the worldwide production of basic food is rotting away in silos, because its just meant to be traded, not consumed.
I could go on, but i guess you see, that its not that easy (as always).
I could go on, but i guess you see, that its not that easy (as always).
#66 to #57
-
anonymous poster (04/11/2013) [-]
you get screwed too, or who do you think pays for those subventions? Thats hell lot of taxmoney spent which in the end results in "who has more money". I live in the country spending most on this subventions (CH). Our farmer don't need to do **** , because you get about 50'000$ per year for a 20ha farm (Yeah, thats small) for free. Problem: They will plant the same **** every year, without even worring, if its needed. This results in millions of liters of milk which gets thrown away every year, because we produce too much.
#83 to #66
-
thephantur (04/11/2013) [-] And I live in the city. All I know is that locally farmed, unsubsidized food costs a **** ton more. My university this year decided to switch to local foods. Our portion sizes were halved so that the cost wasn't doubled.
I'll gladly pay with my tax dollars for cheaper food.
I'll gladly pay with my tax dollars for cheaper food.
#99 to #83
-
anonymous poster (04/11/2013) [-]
but only the unhealthy stuff gets subventionized (corn, soja and wheat). Vegetables do not get subventions. You get healthcare now in the usa, so again you will pay for all the diabetes patients who got sick because they just eat the cheapest food, full of corn syrup, sugar and wheat for whose low market prices you payed before with your taxes.
#108 to #105
-
thephantur (04/11/2013) [-] I dunno then. Also gotta realize America is fricken large as **** . It will cost more here since it's harder to provide for a larger people. That's the same with a lot of the perceived problems Europeans have with us. They forget how small their country is.
