If you look at the history of the New Deal it was’t a program for feeding Africans. It was a program for making life better for farmers.
When there was a common agricultural policy in the EU the goal wasn’t either feeding Africans. It was having a food system that still works in case of a war with the Soviets. The New Deal thought of supporting the lives of farmers and seeking political support of farming communities.
Once we had overproduction someone decided that shipping grain to Africa is better than burning it but the grain doesn’t get produced to feed Africans. It get’s produced for other reasons.
Once we had overproduction someone decided that shipping grain to Africa is better than burning it but the grain doesn’t get produced to feed Africans. It get’s produced for other reasons.
Absolutely. We agree.
I don’t know your industry, but let’s say you are a Water Engineer in an American city. Now imagine that suddenly the Swiss developed portable desalination processing ships that created clean water and supply it to the whole of the U.S. for free… for generations. You lose your job and we as Americans lose the skills to supply water ourselves.
We are at the mercy of the benevolent Swiss who have their own reasons for providing us water. Their benevolence makes us weaker.
Yes, but that’s substantially different than what happens in Effective Altruism.
There no naitve betnet production in Africa. There’s no native production of deworming tablets. Those interventions are driven by actual altruism as opposed to free grain that driven by other motivations.
GiveDirectly is even better in creating local markets by providing a community with money.
Is that tongue in cheek?
The program takes our desire to be good and uses it as a tool for a particular special interest. Yes, it fulfills its goals.
If you look at the history of the New Deal it was’t a program for feeding Africans. It was a program for making life better for farmers.
When there was a common agricultural policy in the EU the goal wasn’t either feeding Africans. It was having a food system that still works in case of a war with the Soviets. The New Deal thought of supporting the lives of farmers and seeking political support of farming communities.
Once we had overproduction someone decided that shipping grain to Africa is better than burning it but the grain doesn’t get produced to feed Africans. It get’s produced for other reasons.
Absolutely. We agree.
I don’t know your industry, but let’s say you are a Water Engineer in an American city. Now imagine that suddenly the Swiss developed portable desalination processing ships that created clean water and supply it to the whole of the U.S. for free… for generations. You lose your job and we as Americans lose the skills to supply water ourselves.
We are at the mercy of the benevolent Swiss who have their own reasons for providing us water. Their benevolence makes us weaker.
Not necessarily, because it freed up resources we used to provide water and these resources can now be put to a different use.
Don’t overstate your position—or you’ll end up arguing against all international trade.
Yes, but that’s substantially different than what happens in Effective Altruism.
There no naitve betnet production in Africa. There’s no native production of deworming tablets. Those interventions are driven by actual altruism as opposed to free grain that driven by other motivations.
GiveDirectly is even better in creating local markets by providing a community with money.
And what might be the reason for that?