Chirac warns of 'African flood'

Jim Ley wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:50:19 +0200, "NightRaven"
wrote:

That's a fairy-tale, wealth and prosperity Always comes at the
expense of someone else, otherwhise where would the wealth come
from in the first place ?

Through increased specialisation, if the bloke who's brilliant and
making shoes can spend more time making shoes and less time breeding
pigs, then there are more shoes than if everyone made their own.
Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

Jim.

on the stock market it is

One of the sad facts is that it is cheaper to get fresh produce from
Kenya to Europe than it is to get fresh produce from farms near
Nairobi into rural areas in Kenya. This is due to infrastructure
problems, poor road/rail networks, lack of storage facilities etc.
etc. etc. Most Europeans just don't have a clue about how difficult
logistics are in Africa.

Another major problem is that the rural Kenyans you mention don't have
any money to purchase locally produced staples like maize and cassava,
let alone buyluxury products like mange-tout peas.

One can only hope that some of the profits being generated by M+S and
other growers is being paid in taxes to the Kenyan government, and
that the Kenyan government is using those taxes to alleviate poverty
in rural Kenya. Chances are slim though...

Marc - Johannesburg

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:31:29 +0100, Whitedog
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:20:36 +0200, Hans-Georg Michna
wrote:

SNIP

While that's true it's not a good thing IMO. In parts of rural Kenya
(& the same may be said of many other places) there will be
undernourished people, especially during prolonged dry seasons. In my
local supermarket I can buy all year round, "fresh" Kenyan produce
like mange tout peas for example.
There is an inbalance somewhere in that.
SNIP

I didn't want to be part oif this fray, but I felt that I had to make
this point:

Every major famine that we have experienced over the past 200-odd
years has been completely avoidable. In every case there were
political reasons for the disaster.

Biafra, Ethiopia (1970's and 1980's), Sudan (1980's and present),
Ireland (1840's), North Korea (2004), Afghanistan (often), Zimbabwe
(present), China (late 1950's), Vietnam (1945), India (often), Europe
(WWII), etc. etc. etc. In every case, food was available nearby, but
was witheld for political reasons.

It's not a question of there being too many PEOPLE to feed, it's a
question of having too many political opponents and pawns to feed.

Marc - Johannesburg

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:16:41 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


Be patient; it's inevitable. Right now many populations live on a
very jagged edge: a little bit too much drought, and they start dying.
That's because there are too many of them.

Marc Lurie wrote:
I didn't want to be part oif this fray, but I felt that I had to make
this point:

Every major famine that we have experienced over the past 200-odd
years has been completely avoidable. In every case there were
political reasons for the disaster.

Biafra, Ethiopia (1970's and 1980's), Sudan (1980's and present),
Ireland (1840's), North Korea (2004), Afghanistan (often), Zimbabwe
(present), China (late 1950's), Vietnam (1945), India (often), Europe
(WWII), etc. etc. etc. In every case, food was available nearby, but
was witheld for political reasons.

It's not a question of there being too many PEOPLE to feed, it's a
question of having too many political opponents and pawns to feed.

Marc - Johannesburg

With less people there would be less conflict and more wildlife. (flora
and fauna)
More resources would be available and last longer.

When conflict used to arise a tribe would move on to greener pastures.
These days that is impossible without causing conflict, because
somebody else is already living there.

In message , Marc Lurie
writes
Marc,
We have had a discussion on the subject of imported produce from
Naivasha (Kenya) on a Yahoo group, Mwananchi, that I`m a member of,
one of the contributors was Eddie Cross from Bulawayo, Eddie is in
agriculture and he said we should continue to purchase these vegetables
here in Britain as it gives employment to local people. I lived in
Kenya for years and of course you are right, about people not being able
to afford these veggies, they grow their own greens, also the
difficulties of transporting and storing are difficult. I`ve stayed at
Hemingways hotel at Watamu, the produce under the "Homegrown" label
is part of the hotel`s business and as you may know, the vegetables and
roses are flown out to Europe maybe even daily. I do buy this produce
hoping I`m helping the people of Naivasha at least.
Pat







One of the sad facts is that it is cheaper to get fresh produce from
Kenya to Europe than it is to get fresh produce from farms near
Nairobi into rural areas in Kenya. This is due to infrastructure
problems, poor road/rail networks, lack of storage facilities etc.
etc. etc. Most Europeans just don't have a clue about how difficult
logistics are in Africa.

Another major problem is that the rural Kenyans you mention don't have
any money to purchase locally produced staples like maize and cassava,
let alone buyluxury products like mange-tout peas.

One can only hope that some of the profits being generated by M+S and
other growers is being paid in taxes to the Kenyan government, and
that the Kenyan government is using those taxes to alleviate poverty
in rural Kenya. Chances are slim though...

Marc - Johannesburg

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:31:29 +0100, Whitedog
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:20:36 +0200, Hans-Georg Michna
wrote:

SNIP

While that's true it's not a good thing IMO. In parts of rural Kenya
(& the same may be said of many other places) there will be
undernourished people, especially during prolonged dry seasons. In my
local supermarket I can buy all year round, "fresh" Kenyan produce
like mange tout peas for example.
There is an inbalance somewhere in that.
SNIP


--
Pat Anderson

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:01:45 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Dave Frightens Me writes:

And the benefit of this would be?

A better and happier world for all of us.

Wouldn't giving us all a million dollars do that?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Dave Frightens Me wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:01:45 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Dave Frightens Me writes:

And the benefit of this would be?

A better and happier world for all of us.

Wouldn't giving us all a million dollars do that?

For Mixi? I take it you didn't follow the thread where he suggested that
was a paltry sum.

--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:21:17 +0200, Marc Lurie
wrote:

One of the sad facts is that it is cheaper to get fresh produce from
Kenya to Europe than it is to get fresh produce from farms near
Nairobi into rural areas in Kenya.

Cheaper how? In terms of externally funded, tax free fuelled and
subsidised air freight? The money never even touches the ground in
Kenya in real terms.
Nairobi has some spectacular slums/shanty towns (call then what you
like) full of people who gave up a life on the land for a dream of a
better life. I don't blame them for trying at all, it's just that many
would have been better nourished staying in the villages and farming.
Growing towns and cities very quickly lose the ability to be self
sufficient and actually contibute to their own logistical problems.

This is due to infrastructure
problems, poor road/rail networks, lack of storage facilities etc.
etc. etc. Most Europeans just don't have a clue about how difficult
logistics are in Africa.

So called Logistics *are* the problem. It's the very nature of
business that causes this kind of problem. It's the application of
unsustainable European or American business models to countries unable
to cope that adds to and complicates fairly simple local problems.
Road and rail networks don't neccesarily help unless there's an urgent
need to flood an area with supply, such as in times or war or famine.

Another major problem is that the rural Kenyans you mention don't have
any money to purchase locally produced staples like maize and cassava,
let alone buyluxury products like mange-tout peas.

Buy staples? They shouldn't have to *buy* them, they should be
producing them! The successful population of the African continent
didn't come about as a result of business but of smaller scale local
agriculture, practised by people who learned how to farm their land
according to local conditions.

Out of season (in the UK) Kenyan mange-tout are a luxury product here
in the UK, in Kenya they are an outrage, stripping valuable resources
from the land and exporting them rather than supporrting local
populations.


One can only hope that some of the profits being generated by M+S and
other growers is being paid in taxes to the Kenyan government, and
that the Kenyan government is using those taxes to alleviate poverty
in rural Kenya. Chances are slim though...

Sadly that's the truth of it. There's much talk of "fair trade" etc in
Europe, but what's fair about creating a market for something we don't
need and diverting foreign labour and expertise away from their own
needs?

Don't get me wrong, I love Africa, my experiences have been good and
mostly positive; I just feel uncomfortable knowing how many good, hard
working people are suffering unneccessarily at the hands of the
African politicians and the people who trade through them and line
their pockets.

From a purely personal and selfish perspective I'm involved in farming
here in the Uk and don't want foreign exports to ruin my way of life
either, although African produce doesn't count as a competitor in this
respect.

Marc - Johannesburg

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:31:29 +0100, Whitedog
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:20:36 +0200, Hans-Georg Michna
wrote:

SNIP

While that's true it's not a good thing IMO. In parts of rural Kenya
(& the same may be said of many other places) there will be
undernourished people, especially during prolonged dry seasons. In my
local supermarket I can buy all year round, "fresh" Kenyan produce
like mange tout peas for example.
There is an inbalance somewhere in that.
SNIP

--
.--~~,__
:-....,-------`~~'._.'
`-,,, ,_ ;'~U' Nearer my shed, to thee.
_,-' ,'`-__; '--.
(_/'~~ ''''(;

On 17 Jul 2006 03:46:35 -0700, "Hooverphonic"
wrote:

With less people there would be less conflict and more wildlife. (flora
and fauna)
More resources would be available and last longer.

When conflict used to arise a tribe would move on to greener pastures.
These days that is impossible without causing conflict, because
somebody else is already living there.

This is an extremely simplistic view. And while it may have held some
merit at some stage, the fact of the matter is that people aren't
nomadic any more.

There have been no significant numbers of nomads anywhere on earth for
the past two hundred years, so your point is completely moot.

Marc Lurie wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 03:46:35 -0700, "Hooverphonic"
wrote:

With less people there would be less conflict and more wildlife. (flora
and fauna)
More resources would be available and last longer.

When conflict used to arise a tribe would move on to greener pastures.
These days that is impossible without causing conflict, because
somebody else is already living there.

This is an extremely simplistic view. And while it may have held some
merit at some stage, the fact of the matter is that people aren't
nomadic any more.

There have been no significant numbers of nomads anywhere on earth for
the past two hundred years, so your point is completely moot.

hence use of *past* tense !

the future is that is growing populations in the same place,
i.e.more competition for a dwindling amount of resources.

the message is reduce the population.