Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!yale!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Extent of hunger in America Message-ID: <7800561@inmet.UUCP> Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 08:17:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.7800561 Posted: Wed Oct 16 08:17:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Oct-85 05:34:12 EDT References: <215@gargoyle.UUCP> Lines: 124 Nf-ID: #R:gargoyle:-21500:inmet:7800561:000:5992 Nf-From: inmet!janw Oct 16 08:17:00 1985 [carnes@gargoyle] > >Economic > >hunger proceeds from either shortage of food (hardly the case in > >US), or from its dearth compared to existing sources of income > >such that the food cannot be acquired. Is this the case? Let us > >see. > > > > An *egg* only costs a dime; at *minimum wage*, it embodies > >100 seconds of work; it provides enough protein for some hours > >(and you don't even have to cook it). > >Carbohydrates and fats are even more accessible. > > >Whatever nutritional problems exist in this country, they cannot, > >in fairness, be called "hunger". If you can earn, receive, steal > >or borrow a dime an hour, you can't (except voluntarily) go > >hungry. > But millions of Americans *cannot* earn, beg, borrow, or steal even > that much. They include children, the elderly, the mentally and > physically ill, the disabled, and the unemployed. If this assertion is true, then you are right. This is the issue under discussion. I doubt it. I see "Help wanted" signs screaming from McDonald's and Burger King. There are lawns to mow, floors to clean, invalids and babies to sit: jobs for adults and chil- dren and old people. No, I DON'T want them to flock, cap in hand, to ask for these jobs. I am glad they can refuse them. But, dammit, why can't you admit the fact? I know, personally, people living on SSI; they get adequate nutrition. I see some beggars, but they are not mothers with emaciated babies; they are men, usually alcoholics. Words are cheap. Show me. OK, this is Boston, and you say Mississipi is different. JoSH has lived there, and he denies it. I know him from his postings; why should I believe some unknown doctors more ? Why don't these hungry people move to a better place ? Haitians do, braving high seas and immigration officials. Why not Mississi- pians who don't face these obstacles ? Possibly because they are *not* hungry ? > If they had any > adequate sources of income, very few of these would still be hungry. But are they ? Circular reasoning. > How does Jan square this with his belief that food automatically > distributes itself in nations where there is high food productivity? Square what ? The visible absence of hungry people, or the reports you quote ? I have seen reports of miracles, too. But they were always somewhwere else... How do I explain the reports ? Well, there are powerful interests involved here, political, departmental, professional and economic. Do you expect hunger specialists to declare their job redundant ? (I just noticed that report uses some weasel wording like worse than New England or as bad as anything in this country.) > > Personally, I don't care if foodstamp allocations are doubled; > >compared to other welfare programs, they seem to do less harm and > >more good. And, even if poor people eat well, why shouldn't they > >eat even better? I only mind this pseudoproblem of hunger (in > >developed countries, that is) for two reasons. First, because > >it is a red herring, diverting attention from what is > >really important. > I am mystified as to what Jan thinks is more important than food. > Missles and bombs, maybe? I wonder what gave you that idea. I have not, to my recollection, used the word "missile" since I started writing to the net. To the well-fed, many things are more important than food. Americans I see are well-fed. If you ask what I think should be important ... it's a long subject. For example, space colonization (the key to the survival of human race); genetic engineering (it may change human nature). Many other things, too. Hunger in underdeveloped countries is very important, of course. Pollution, mineral depletion, nuclear war threat, bureaucratic degeneration of society. > >Second, it distorts judgement in estimating > >the comparative efficiency of economic systems. If capitalism in > >a developed country created hunger, this would, indeed, be an ar- > >gument against capitalism. > >But it doesn't. > I would argue that while capitalism doesn't exactly "create" hunger, > it is an important contributing factor because it tends to generate > poverty, inequality, racism, and sexism. But that's a long argument. True. But I'd argue that capitalism is both the most productive *and* the most equitable system so far invented. It does not generate these four things you've named, it has reduced them enormously. > I would also argue, as indeed I have already, that such countries as > China, Cuba, and Nicaragua have made giant strides in reducing hunger > in their countries, mainly because of policies that redistribute > power over food-producing resources in the direction of more > equality. Progressive statistics ... (Gabor Fencsik's term). How do you know ? You say Cuba... I don't think that Cubans went hungry under Batista. In mid-Sixties I heard (second-hand, I admit, but I trusted my sourse) that Soviet sailors boast how one can choose any girl one sees in Havana, for a meal. In summer 68, I saw an article from Granma (reprinted in a Czech newspaper). Counter- revolutionary elements, it said, are organizing long lines before restaurants, to create an appearance of shortages; and that those guilty of it would be executed. I believe things are better now. I've heard that in China they are *much* better *than be- fore* - which means better than bad. Is this necessarily some- thing for us to emulate ? And why are they better ? Because China made a step to capitalism, like Russia during NEP. A step to capitalism in any "socialist" country means more food, espe- cially for the poorest class. The officials get fed anyway, in special stores. Speaking of capitalism, why not compare China, nutritionwise, with Hong Kong, or with Singapore ? Do you doubt the result? Richard: this is an issue of fact, not of preference. Show me. (But I'll read your book. You've at least achieved that much). Jan Wasilewsky