Comments on: Starvation in Malawi: Another Glorious Victory For Fundamentalist Market Worship http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/10/24/starvation-in-malawi-another-glorious-victory-for-fundamentalist-market-worship/ Feminist, anti-racist, pro-fat, plus whatever else we feel like talking about. Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:46:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: RonF http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/10/24/starvation-in-malawi-another-glorious-victory-for-fundamentalist-market-worship/#comment-308249 RonF Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:58:03 +0000 http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/10/24/starvation-in-malawi-another-glorious-victory-for-fundamentalist-market-worship/#comment-308249 <i>“It was a simplistic, Economics 101 lesson, that if you raise prices, farmers produce more, which makes sense if farmers have roads, access to credit, good access to fertilizer markets,” he said. “But most of the time, farmers were lacking those.”</i> Which is why here in the U.S. it has been defined from the earliest days (even back to late colonial days, certainly in the Constitution) that it is a public good to build roads, create and improve navigable waterways, secure markets, etc. If such things had already existed (or if the resources to build them had existed) in Malawi, then fine. But if they don't, then subsidies are legitimate. Now the question I ask is, why didn't those things exist? Was it because money for them wasn't being raised by taxes? If so, is that because there wasn't enough productivity to tax (i.e., the country is just damn dirt poor) or is it because the productive people are taking advantage of corruption to duck taxes? Were loans/grants for them denied? Were they asked for in the first place? Was it because the money that would have gone for it was being stuffed in government officials' pockets? Were they built and then blown up by terrorists? I'm not pissing on subsidies. From the above it would seem that they did a world of good in Malawi. Great. So - now what? Subsidies won't last forever. What's the game plan? “It was a simplistic, Economics 101 lesson, that if you raise prices, farmers produce more, which makes sense if farmers have roads, access to credit, good access to fertilizer markets,” he said. “But most of the time, farmers were lacking those.”

Which is why here in the U.S. it has been defined from the earliest days (even back to late colonial days, certainly in the Constitution) that it is a public good to build roads, create and improve navigable waterways, secure markets, etc. If such things had already existed (or if the resources to build them had existed) in Malawi, then fine. But if they don’t, then subsidies are legitimate.

Now the question I ask is, why didn’t those things exist? Was it because money for them wasn’t being raised by taxes? If so, is that because there wasn’t enough productivity to tax (i.e., the country is just damn dirt poor) or is it because the productive people are taking advantage of corruption to duck taxes? Were loans/grants for them denied? Were they asked for in the first place? Was it because the money that would have gone for it was being stuffed in government officials’ pockets? Were they built and then blown up by terrorists?

I’m not pissing on subsidies. From the above it would seem that they did a world of good in Malawi. Great. So - now what? Subsidies won’t last forever. What’s the game plan?

]]>