The price of corn, the stable of the Zimbabwe diet, rose 700% in Zimbabwe this week. Given the poverty rates in this country, this will almost certainly lead to mass starvation, most likely riots and unrest as well. As of this morning, neither the Red Cross nor Oxfam has announced any initiatives to do anything (and neither has the US government). I don’t really have much of a point to make in this post, aside from pointing out the crisis, and wondering why nobody is doing anything.

A couple of brief points that go back to earlier posts/discussions on leftfielder:

1) If the Hokie Spirit memorial fund were to go to stave off this impending food crisis, you could buy every person in Zimbabwe a week’s supply of corn. Instead, while those people starve, the money will go to, as noted on the official Hokie fund website, “comfort expenses”. (I wonder what, exactly, comfort expenses are, and who will be the beneficiary?). While my heart goes out to the victims of the Va Tech massacre, I am disturbed that it seems to be the primary focus of Americans’ sympathy given all the other horrible things going on in the world.

2) In the article above, there is a human interest blurb about a family that will be impacted by the hike in food prices. The family income is considerably less than what would be considered the poverty level in Zimbabwe. And the family has THREE children. I can’t understand this at all. If you can’t afford to feed yourself and your spouse, why would you have children at all, let alone three? This goes back to our conversation about whether not having children is a sign of selfishness or maturity. I can’t understand the mindset that leads people to have children who will then starve because of the financial situation.

 

This article chronicles how children in war torn countries are kidnapped, brainwashed, and turned into professional soldiers. Its horrifying. If Americans really understood the realities of war, I think there would have been a lot less support for Bush’s policies.

 

God bless Nicholas Kristof. In his article today, the New York Times columnist points out that western indignation over “sweatshops” is misplaced. In fact, sweatshops provide a needed service to many poor countries, by providing relatively high-paying, comfortable, and safe jobs for the local population. Twenty-five cents per hour may seem scandalous to you or I, but we are comparing it to the $5.15 local minimum wage, or the $40,000/year median family income. But remember that a significant portion of Africa lives on less than $1 each day; working 12 hours a day at $0.25/hour, and you can triple that amount.

Also, and this is a point Kristof doesn’t make, remember that today’s haven for sweatshops is tomorrow’s booming economy. Fifty years ago, the sweatshops were located in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Korea, all of which now have established industrial, or post-industrial, economies. Twenty years ago they were in Indonesia, China, India, and Malaysia, all of which are now rapidly developing industrial economies. In order to break the cycle of poverty, countries basically need two things: stable political systems, and economic opportunity that does not rely on exporting raw materials. Sweatshops can’t make a country more stable, but they can provide economic opportunity and help a country develop its infrastructure and wealth to be able to attract more diversified business in the future.

So be compassionate, and buy African.

 

I was at an interesting talk from the former CEO of the non-profit CARE. They focus on a variety of philanthropic efforts, but the most prominent is promoting the rights of girls in third world countries. One of the big strategies they use is to make sure girls have access to education. I found one story particularly interesting:

In one African country, very few girls received education. Lots of resources went into trying to solve this problem by trying to reduce cultural barriers, geographical/proximity barriers, time barriers, etc. But in the end it turned out that the real barrier to education was that there was only one bathroom at most schools. And the girls didn’t like sharing the bathroom with the boys — especially during menstruation. So they wouldn’t go to school at all! Once this problem was identified, it was simple and cheap to add an extra latrine, which doubled the rate of girls’ attendance.

I like this story, because it highlights the fact that complex social problems often have simple, easy solutions. And that large government programs based on “common sense” to resolve barriers are often not nearly as effective as small, local solutions. I wonder how much better policy could be developed if we actually looked closely at individual social situations, rather than attempting to use accepted wisdom and a top down approach.

 

The most important reason why the Iraq War was a mistake has nothing to do with WMDs, or the lack thereof. It doesn’t concern Saddam Hussein, Muqtada al-Sadr, Grand Ayatollah Sistani, or the Kurdish militias. The most important reason that invading Iraq was a mistake is Sudan.
Continue reading »

© 2012 leftfielder.org login Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha