Poor Haitians Resort to Eating Dirt

[mrt144]

any/all of those countries not only had an educational base stronger than haiti, they also had more resources and capital than haiti. I am sorry to say it but the problem with haiti is that people inhabit a land that is so royally screwed that just throwing money at it wont help it, and the ideas of infant industries don't have enough traction to get off the ground.

look at any primarily agricultural exporting nation and tell me that infant industries worked there that kept primarily agricultural related industries. infant industries only work when they have a foundation of skilled labor and skilled jobs to work them.

 

[El Koeno]

yes, fight protectionism with protectionism when you don't have the resources to fund such protectionism. what needs to be done is eliminate protectionism in the first world, consequences be damned.

Look, I know first world subsidies are bad. They just are. But if you hope that if we abolish the subsidies all is well, think again. The problem cited in the OP was that food was too expensive. People have been complaining that first world subsidies were lowering prices, causing hunger, now that they're raising them (through ethanol subsidies), they're still causing the same hunger?

The problems are way deeper. I think the whole "deforestation leading to ersosion" approach holds value (though it's got nothing to do with the Dutch Disease, that's probably the only problem Haiti isn't facing ). I mean, the very poor should have at least some chance of survival through subsistence agriculture, and erosion doesn't help there.

The problem is that solutions are costly. This requires Haiti farmers to invest in their farms. For investments to make sense you need well-functioning agricultural input and output markets, and that's probably the hardest thing to achieve. There's a whole lot that needs to be fixed, but I guess a stable political climate is the most important thing.

Until then, the only option is to offer food aid. I think we do have the moral obligations to do so. It's all very nice that you've got poor people over there in the US, but I don't see you guys helping them. So the whole excuse is: "we have problems in our own country that are more urgent", but you never do anything about it... That's just sad....

 

[mrt144]

Look, I know first world subsidies are bad. They just are. But if you hope that if we abolish the subsidies all is well, think again. The problem cited in the OP was that food was too expensive. People have been complaining that first world subsidies were lowering prices, causing hunger, now that they're raising them (through ethanol subsidies), they're still causing the same hunger?

The problems are way deeper. I think the whole "deforestation leading to ersosion" approach holds value (though it's got nothing to do with the Dutch Disease, that's probably the only problem Haiti isn't facing ). I mean, the very poor should have at least some chance of survival through subsistence agriculture, and erosion doesn't help there.

The problem is that solutions are costly. This requires Haiti farmers to invest in their farms. For investments to make sense you need well-functioning agricultural input and output markets, and that's probably the hardest thing to achieve. There's a whole lot that needs to be fixed, but I guess a stable political climate is the most important thing.

Until then, the only option is to offer food aid. I think we do have the moral obligations to do so. It's all very nice that you've got poor people over there in the US, but I don't see you guys helping them. So the whole excuse is: "we have problems in our own country that are more urgent", but you never do anything about it... That's just sad....

the subsidies are so steep that they make food too expensive to GROW in haiti, because the subsidized food from the united states is cheaper. we enjoy lower prices for staple grains around here at the cost of tax dollars. again, subsidies may lower point of sale prices for domestic goods, but crowd out foreign goods completely, and if are produced in excess of demand and dumped on foreign markets it is totally disaterous.

 

[Integral]

Rambuchan, thank you for the links to Haiti HOPE and the IJDH. I'm looking through it right now.

For what it focuses on, this is a very good system. However, as with Mexico, it leaves one major problem unsolved:

Once the people are living beyond the age of 18, are educated, have skills and so on - where are the jobs? And, if they are there - do they at least pay the basic living wage?

Right. Progresa is an antipoverty, nutrition, and education program, but it doesn't guarentee or provide jobs for the newly educated and healthy recipients.

These Haitian jobs should be in sugar, coffee and fruit production. They should be in textiles, flour milling and sugar refining. But, as we know all too well, these do not pay on the international marketplace, thanks to that old chestnut - developed world subsidies (and other funky stuff). And neither the Haitian economy, nor its industries have developed enough to compete internationally. What is needed is a bit of the infant economy and infant industry approach, without retaliation from the developed nations it trades with. Along with more direct investment. Without this, their weak industries will forever be at the mercy of the global market and they will remain poor.

I agree with you on the problem, but I'm a bit hesitant about your solution.

Well-subsidized American and European farmers are a blessing and a curse to the developing world - while they provide food aid, the same mechanisms ensure that the developing farmers will not be able to compete in the global marketplace. However, I would press for lowering Western agricultural subsidies before advocating retaliatory protectionism.

But there's more: There is an economic programme which Haiti entered into in 2006, it's named "The Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement (HOPE) Act", after the legislation that brought it about. What this does is it allows goods to come into the USA tariff free, meaning lots of nice cheap produce for American consumers and a warm feeling amongst those who brought it about. However, it fails to deal with the aforementioned subsidies in the first world. And, just as damaging and counter productive, it also fails to grant stability, security and sustainability through the granting of basic rights to workers in Haiti. Brian Concannon, Director of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti, describes their situation thus:

This is the same pattern that is playing out across much of the world's poorest countries. They are being pushed into exploiting their one comparative advantage - cheap labour, with no rights, and pay that fails to meet basic living standards.

I'm looking into these and will have more substansive comments once I become familar with them.

-----------------------------------------

What is needed is a whole solution. Merely providing food aid will only make Haiti dependent on American subsidies. Food aid is part of the solution, but it should probably be augmented with education, health, and ecological development efforts. Even that is only a short- to medium-run solution, but it's a start.

 

[carmen510]

The United States Department of Agriculture should give away those crops that they destroy in order to keep food prices high.

I mean look at these statistics from the 1980s:

50 million lemons
100 million pounds of raisins
1 billion oranges

All of that destroyed

And because of subsidies, American sugar is 500 percent higher than the world price.

And a country less than 100 kilometers away from the United States eats dirt?

That's just sad.

 

[TheLastOne36]

just a question. We don't see dirt as food right? But why not? it's one of earths natural resources = eatable right?

--- ok done with the stupidness ---

from resentment of the rich, to people demanding more aid. some people are against aid and think we need to take care of each other here in the states first. so what should be done? should we do anything at all?

The op has a point however, how come are we not helping out ourselves and the people around us before taking bigger projects like Haiti and Africa?

I mean there are countries in europe that have serious problems, but i don't see any relief for them while i see the tv ad going "donate and help a child in africa for as little as ....".

 

[El Koeno]

the subsidies are so steep that they make food too expensive to GROW in haiti, because the subsidized food from the united states is cheaper. we enjoy lower prices for staple grains around here at the cost of tax dollars. again, subsidies may lower point of sale prices for domestic goods, but crowd out foreign goods completely, and if are produced in excess of demand and dumped on foreign markets it is totally disaterous.

Yes, that's a very nice description of the way it used to work, up until a (few) year(s) ago. Right now, ethanol subsidies, combined with soaring demand in emerging economies, are driving up food prices. Making food to expensive to buy for the urban poor, of which I guess Haiti has quite a few. For farmers this is a blessing, as they get a higher income, and investments in their farm are likely to be easier to pay off. It's investments in farms that Haiti needs, so the current situation might just be short-term pain leading to a long-term solution.

Please note: I completely agree that the US and the EU should abolish their subsidies, because they hurt third world farmers. But it's just silly to blame every single problem in the third world on these subsidies.

 

[mrt144]

Yes, that's a very nice description of the way it used to work, up until a (few) year(s) ago. Right now, ethanol subsidies, combined with soaring demand in emerging economies, are driving up food prices. Making food to expensive to buy for the urban poor, of which I guess Haiti has quite a few. For farmers this is a blessing, as they get a higher income, and investments in their farm are likely to be easier to pay off. It's investments in farms that Haiti needs, so the current situation might just be short-term pain leading to a long-term solution.

Please note: I completely agree that the US and the EU should abolish their subsidies, because they hurt third world farmers. But it's just silly to blame every single problem in the third world on these subsidies.

i think again, this comes to natural resources, education, and the people as a whole. a healthy populace, personal property rights, rule of law, the acceptance of losing elections, and preservation of scarce resources are the building blocks of a functional society that can prosper. and in many if not all the 3rd world nations they lack the majority of these items.

the problem specific in haiti is all of those and especially resource exhaustion, i.e. their land is fubar.

 

[JerichoHill]

Ram,

I believe that both France, and Germany, affected Haiti affairs prior to US involvement. I believe Brazil, Venezuala, and Colombia are involved with Haiti now, though I do not know if they are as involved as the US, in total, in terms of aid.

 

[Integral]

Ram,

I believe that both France, and Germany, affected Haiti affairs prior to US involvement. I believe Brazil, Venezuala, and Colombia are involved with Haiti now, though I do not know if they are as involved as the US, in total, in terms of aid.

Jericho, do you have any thoughts on a Progresa program for Haiti, possibly US-sponsored?

If not, ignore this and go on. I'd just like your input.

 

[amadeus]

Nobody seems to have mentioned yet that Haiti's economic system is mired in corruption and excessive bureaucracy.

Plus, us "imperialists" provide Haiti with almost half the foreign aid they receive. But people who are hell-bent on bashing the U.S. aren't really concerned about trivial things like that...

 

[Ramius75]

More Aid? Haiti has barely functional government, no transporation system or infrastructure to get aid to the right places..etc..etc..

How many people here have actually been to Haiti proper? I have. You need alot more to help haiti tan just aid. And how in the heck oes biofuel help here? Isnt that putting the cart before the horse?

i have to agree on this. this is almost like many parts of remote africa countries too. its almost impossible to help them unless some ultra large group moves in , eg. the UN.

but then again, we all know how "efficient" the UN in helping local people.. after 20-30 years efforts. very few African countries actually benefits from it.

im against Biofuel not advocating it. But thinking of it. if haiti can boost up their food production, they might actually have surplus to sell it to the world.

I'm always been thinking on how to help the improvised nations and its people.
one very controversial suggestion is helping local dictators... it has been done in the past.e.g. Indonesia under Suharto, Philippine under Marcos, Taiwan under Chiang, etc etc. ya, those corrupted individual and their cronies prosper more than the people. but the countries still do better than most african countries.

Now China is helping Sudan and investing in many African countries. maybe there will be improvement.

 

[countrygrl]

there are a lot of interesting opinions and some beneficial information here.

carmen mentions that food gets thrown out here in the states. and not just small sums of food, but vast sums of food. there's actually way more food produced on earth than is consumed. and a lot of it is actually thrown out.

this probably happens in haiti too. it's just that food prices are too much for people to afford. this brings up another moral question. and it relates to selfishly boosting our economy too. how right is it on any level for people with food to destroy it on a mass scale? i mean, even if we produce the food, and don't want to sell it in order to keep our own prices up. what harm would there be in simply giving all that food away to places like haiti that desperately need it anyway.

it doesn't seem to make economic sense.
and it certainly doesn't make any moral sense.

it's really sad that so many people must suffer so that some of our farmers can have a high quality of living in america.

 

[Irish Caesar]

it doesn't seem to make economic sense.
and it certainly doesn't make any moral sense.

I've often wondered about that myself.

The food is paid for whether someone eats it or not; why not let somebody eat it who wouldn't have bought it anyway?

 

[lutzj]

Haiti would be in much better conditions if it was a real colony.

Just look at Puerto Rico, Guam, or Hawaii. (Yes, I know, it's technically part of the motherland, but you get the idea.) Most US colonies are doing okay; Puerto Rico is one of the richest countries (even if not really a full "country") in the Caribbean area aside from the smaller tourism- fueled archipelagos.

 

[lutzj]

it's really sad that so many people must suffer so that some of our farmers can have a high quality of living in america.

I hate to say it, but we kind of need to make sure our farmers (already having trouble with drought and high oil prices) don't all quit. I know I may be biased, but isn't better to keep 300,000,000 Americans fed than 5-10 million Haitians, or people from any other smaller country?

EDIT: Sorry for the double post :S

 

[skadistic]

it's really sad that so many people must suffer so that some of our farmers can have a high quality of living in america.

They don't have to suffer. They could always use the machetes for something other then hacking people apart. Use their boats to fish instead of flee. Stop raping their women. Stop acting like criminals and take control.They are in the position they are in because of their own actions. Not Americas. Nor is Americas responsibility to feed these people. Its been show a few times that giving these people aid doesn't help them. And if you think farmers have a high quality of living think again.

 

[lutzj]

They don't have to suffer. They could always use the machetes for something other then hacking people apart. Use their boats to fish instead of flee. Stop raping their women. Stop acting like criminals and take control.They are in the position they are in because of their own actions. Not Americas. Nor is Americas responsibility to feed these people. Its been show a few times that giving these people aid doesn't help them. And if you think farmers have a high quality of living think again.

QFT. An attempt to permanently "fix" Haiti would require militarily occupying it, and America is unlikely to do that for at least a generation.

 

[Fëanor]

They could always use the machetes for something other then hacking people apart.

They did, they hacked down all their trees to make charcoal and transformed their lush tropical paradise, into a barren hellhole.

 

[Norseone]

Have any of you guys actually met farmers? Maybe I have just met all the wrong ones...but it isnt like they are rich. So much of their profit depends on luck, I have seen most of the ones I know almost go out of business in the few short years I have been paying attention to that sort of thing.

You all are getting things wrong here. Subsidies really are critical for small farmers...big corporate farmers abuse them but small farmers need them to stay afloat absolutely.