Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!zehntel!vlsvax1!qantel!lll-crg!lll-lcc!vecpyr!amd!pesnta!pyramid!decwrl!decvax!yale!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <7800676@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Nov-85 19:14:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800676
Posted: Thu Nov 14 19:14:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Nov-85 21:29:37 EST
References: <796@whuxl.UUCP>
Lines: 50
Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-79600:inmet:7800676:177600:2172
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Nov 14 19:14:00 1985


>> [ tim sevener whuxn!orb]
>> > The point is that Jan has offered absolutely no evidence to refute
>> > Richard's claims about the *distribution* of food in Communist countries.

>> (1) Well ... why not try *reading*  the  article  you  are
>> responding  to  ?  It  is  so short. And the last paragraph goes:
>>   "Uneven DISTRIBUTION has compounded this shortage" etc.

>As I recall (the article is now off my machine) your point was that
>uneven distribution made things worse than the average only in China.

(1) If that's what you recall, how do you reconcile it with your
"absolutely no evidence" claim above ?

(2) The article must be on your machine 'cos I  reposted  it  to-
gether with what you are answering now. Once more, reading before
responding is *such* a good habit.

(3) In any case, here is the relevant paragraph; it is by Fox Butterfield,
and in this country *no one* knows better (check his credentials):

]  Uneven distribution has compounded this shortage of food.  A Com-
] munist  periodical  in  Hong  Kong disclosed in 1978, while I was
] there, that the  annual  grain  ration  of  200  million  Chinese
] peasants  was less than 330 pounds a year.  "That is to say", the
] journal said, "they are living in a state of semistarvation".

If you compare this with  the  average  for  the  whole  country,
that's quite a bit of unequal distribution. Of course, any uneven
distribution *within* the 200 million can only aggravate the pic-
ture (meaning, simply, death for some).

>You did not point out that in fact most countries in the world have
>a far more uneven food distribution than China.

Of course I didn't; there is no reason to believe it. If you read
my  "Food  for  China" note you will find some factors of unequal
distribution that exist(ed) in China but not in most countries.

>> (2) You might also try *reading* Richard's statement you quoted. He
>> made *no* "claim about distribution of food".

>Your point is well-taken. I was responding to your critique of Richard's
>article and never read the original.

You are doing it again. I was speaking of reading *the statement you
quoted*. Haste makes waste.

		Jan Wasilewsky