Sweet Charity? Ch. 3
This chapter, much like the article discussed in my last post also explains the correlation between poverty and hunger. The recession in the 1980s tossed hundreds and thousands of people from their jobs and homes, forcing them into poverty and possible hunger. People were forced to go to soup kitchens and food pantries. The poverty rate rose about four percent from the 1970s to the early 1980s. Meanwhile, in 1981 the Reagan administration passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which reduced poverty programs such as Medicaid, unemployment compensation, and food assistance; it totaled to a reduction of one hundred ten billion dollars in government spending over a three year period. The people losing from this act were referred to as the "New Poor." They went to the soup kitchens and food pantries which were seeing exponential increases in numbers during this time; free meals and food baskets increased fifty percent in one year. The clients of these establishments changed from alcoholics and the homeless to mothers and their children. At the time, the Reagan administration said that they were not the cause of theses problems, even though it is evident that the OBRA reductions were clearly the underlying cause.
Whether speaking of the past, present, or future, poverty and hunger will forever be linked. I find it hard to believe that the Reagan administration made a budget cut during a recession. Government spending is a direct determinant of aggregate demand. When aggregate demand increases, GDP also increases and helps to bring a country out of a recession. A reduction in government spending does the complete opposite. I'm not fully familiar with the Reagan administration's plan to get the country out of the recession, but I've heard of Reagonomics and am guessing that he believed increasing government spending doesn't do the trick. Clearly he was wrong. No wonder he was an actor before he was president.
1. What valid evidence did Reagan have against the world renown John Maynard Keynes that disproved his theory of increased government spending leading to increased GDP?
2. Did the advisors and other people in the administration not realize that a cut in the programs that help the impoverished would make the situation worse?
Monday, April 18, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Poverty and Hunger
"The Scarcity Fallacy" by Stephen J. Scanlan, J. Craig Jenkins and Lindsey Peterson
Poverty and hunger are two global issues that have, and hopefully won't always be linked. Today, the world is home to over one billion starving people. The authors state that the idea of scarcity started with Thomas Malthus and his book An Essay on the Principles of Population. Malthus' thesis was that the world's population would continue to grow exponentially and we wouldn't be able to food ourselves. However, he was quite mistaken. Food production has grown much more than the world's population. Even so, the fact remains that there on still over one billion hungry people inhabiting the earth. Why is this? Food scarcity actually doesn't exist; "on a per capita basis, food is more plentiful today than any other time in human history." The problem is that there are so many underdeveloped and impoverished countries in which most of the population can't afford to feed themselves and their families. Studies have shown that ninety six percent of hungry people live in developing countries. These people also spend well over half of their incomes on food, compared to Americans who spend only fifteen to twenty percent. The authors cite a source that said, "the same amount of grain needed to fill an SUV’s 25-gallon gas tank with ethanol could feed a single person for a whole year." The article also notes that "it would cost less than one percent of the current U.S. stimulus package to save a generation around the world from poverty and its consequences, including hunger." However, this is not the only way to solve this problem; much can be done, but not enough action has been taken.
Hunger is an issue that is very widely talked about today, especially with such world crises in the past decade including the hurricanes in New Orleans, and the problems facing Rwanda and Darfur. Some of the stats that the article presents are mind-boggling. One less gallon filled in an SUV can feed a person for entire year. Even if this seems plausible to correct, will it actually happen? All of the developing, impoverished, and hungry countries of the world are too focused on becoming fiscally stable that they are blind to the fact that their people are starving. People in world powerhouses such as the United States have taken notice to this and have acted, but clearly more action must be taken to save the world from this ongoing, and growing problem.
1. If all SUV-drivers in the United States knew about the statistic in the article, would they switch to driving a sedan or a hybrid?
2. There are many things stated in the article that can be done to help the world's hunger problem. Have organizations been implementing these ideas into their actions to help the hungry?
Poverty and hunger are two global issues that have, and hopefully won't always be linked. Today, the world is home to over one billion starving people. The authors state that the idea of scarcity started with Thomas Malthus and his book An Essay on the Principles of Population. Malthus' thesis was that the world's population would continue to grow exponentially and we wouldn't be able to food ourselves. However, he was quite mistaken. Food production has grown much more than the world's population. Even so, the fact remains that there on still over one billion hungry people inhabiting the earth. Why is this? Food scarcity actually doesn't exist; "on a per capita basis, food is more plentiful today than any other time in human history." The problem is that there are so many underdeveloped and impoverished countries in which most of the population can't afford to feed themselves and their families. Studies have shown that ninety six percent of hungry people live in developing countries. These people also spend well over half of their incomes on food, compared to Americans who spend only fifteen to twenty percent. The authors cite a source that said, "the same amount of grain needed to fill an SUV’s 25-gallon gas tank with ethanol could feed a single person for a whole year." The article also notes that "it would cost less than one percent of the current U.S. stimulus package to save a generation around the world from poverty and its consequences, including hunger." However, this is not the only way to solve this problem; much can be done, but not enough action has been taken.
Hunger is an issue that is very widely talked about today, especially with such world crises in the past decade including the hurricanes in New Orleans, and the problems facing Rwanda and Darfur. Some of the stats that the article presents are mind-boggling. One less gallon filled in an SUV can feed a person for entire year. Even if this seems plausible to correct, will it actually happen? All of the developing, impoverished, and hungry countries of the world are too focused on becoming fiscally stable that they are blind to the fact that their people are starving. People in world powerhouses such as the United States have taken notice to this and have acted, but clearly more action must be taken to save the world from this ongoing, and growing problem.
1. If all SUV-drivers in the United States knew about the statistic in the article, would they switch to driving a sedan or a hybrid?
2. There are many things stated in the article that can be done to help the world's hunger problem. Have organizations been implementing these ideas into their actions to help the hungry?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)