DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - I see investment in Africa as great but The Guardian trashes it.

**!!!maryann!!!** · 03-08-2010, 08:42 PM

Now some more awkward questions-

1- Why can't foreign aid be used to provide wells, equipment, extra livestock, training and improved crops to the people already on the land?

2- If the aim is to feed Africa, how will turning over its land to produce biofuels and coffee help?

3- "The farmers do not like it because they get displaced, but they can find land elsewhere and, besides, they get compensation, equivalent to about 10 years' crop yield"

Is that compensation enough, given that the farmers have to relocate, re-plant and feed themselves for up to a year afterwards- meaning that it's only from the remaining funds that they can buy land?

1. The reality is tiny subsistence plot farms are not economically viable and won't result in new jobs and likely aren't productive enough to support even one family.

2. The goal here is to grow what makes the most value added and thus the most profit. If that's coffee and biofuels then great as the profits can then be used to buy other things off the world market. Or do you think Japan shouldn't convert farm land to car factories because it should be 100% food self sufficient? The truth is using the land for what ever purpose makes the most money is economically speaking the best move.

3. That was a quote from the Ethiopian government which supposedly does pay fair compensation though I don't see how this is different from any other use of imminent domain by governments.

03-08-2010, 08:42 PM	#5
!!!maryann!!! Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 346 Senior Member	Now some more awkward questions- 1- Why can't foreign aid be used to provide wells, equipment, extra livestock, training and improved crops to the people already on the land? 2- If the aim is to feed Africa, how will turning over its land to produce biofuels and coffee help? 3- "The farmers do not like it because they get displaced, but they can find land elsewhere and, besides, they get compensation, equivalent to about 10 years' crop yield" Is that compensation enough, given that the farmers have to relocate, re-plant and feed themselves for up to a year afterwards- meaning that it's only from the remaining funds that they can buy land? 1. The reality is tiny subsistence plot farms are not economically viable and won't result in new jobs and likely aren't productive enough to support even one family. 2. The goal here is to grow what makes the most value added and thus the most profit. If that's coffee and biofuels then great as the profits can then be used to buy other things off the world market. Or do you think Japan shouldn't convert farm land to car factories because it should be 100% food self sufficient? The truth is using the land for what ever purpose makes the most money is economically speaking the best move. 3. That was a quote from the Ethiopian government which supposedly does pay fair compensation though I don't see how this is different from any other use of imminent domain by governments.
	Quote