5 ms·

Indian has a space program, a nuclear weapons program and now owns British Steel and LandRover - and we send them aid to feed themselves !

ashray 14y ago
Also has enough food to feed themselves. But are tripping over time and again =/
latch 14y ago
The United States of American has a space program, a nuclear program, own a lot and 1 in 5 children are living in poverty. You can say the same about almost any country. The state of poverty and despair in western countries is far more mind boggling to me than in developing countries.
- modoc 14y ago
  True but AFAIK no other countries are spending their tax money providing food aid to the USA? I agree our own poverty situation is awful, but honestly that's another reason to not be spending tax money the US International Food Aid Program. What if we spent that ~1.2 billion each year on feeding our hungry children, trying to reduce the number of families in poverty etc..?
  - latch 14y ago
    Countries (including India) donate to the US during times of disaster (Katrina). Not exactly the same thing, but worth pointing out. The US gets a lot of value from having a friend in the region. Especially one with the military capabilities that India has. But really, my point is that we live in a complicated world. It's idealistic (naive?) to think "how silly, people are starving yet they have a space program or a nuclear program?!" Science and energy aren't wasteful places to be spending money. Frankly, we live in a world where military spending can hardly be seen as wasteful.
    - eriksank 14y ago
      The donations during Katrina were meant to be understood as moral support. These donations were not to be misunderstood as a claim that the US would have been incapable of dealing with Katrina by themselves.
      - kamaal 14y ago
        >>not to be misunderstood as a claim that the US would have been incapable of dealing with Katrina by themselves. Oh, yes sure. But if somebody in my neighborhood dies, I lend them shoulder so that they cry in comfort. Not that they are incapable of dealing with their loss. But because that's how friends treat each other. With compassion and are always there for each other during times of need.
        pm90 14y ago
        Yes, but this relation is not symmetric, which is where the OP's question comes in
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    It depends, you could spend $1.2Bn on feeding the people of various third world countries or you could spend $6.7Bn/Month on bombing just one of them - not sure which is going to gain you more friends and influence, but neither is going to do much for a poor kid in Alabama
    - accountswu 14y ago
      I agree with you, I wonder why someone downvoted / flagged your post. The US has 1000+ bases around the world and spends a lot of money maintaining troops in "friendly" countries and client states (Middle East puppet regimes) and occupying and bombing other countries. The real total "defense budget" including all the offensive actions, DoD, Pentagon, TSA etc is more than $1 trillion (that's $1000 billion, or $1000,000 million). All of that could be spent at home but we'd rather bomb / liberate those civilians than to spend money on healthcare of our elderly or food or education of our kids. http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/02/20/the-real-us-military-budget-1-trillion/ http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/02/20/the-real-us-military-budg... http://ibnlive.in.com/news/us-govt-ran--13-trillion-budget-deficit-in-2011/193143-2.html http://ibnlive.in.com/news/us-govt-ran--13-trillion-budget-d... The Federal Reserve has printed trillions of dollars and given it to their buddy banksters and have no trail of it, and we the taxpayers have to pay it back by inflation. Poor suckers who saved for their retirements can go to hell. http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2009/05/14/federal-reserve-cannot-account-for-9-trillion/ http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2009/05/14/federal-reser... End the corporate bailouts, bring the US military budget to a sane level, end the subsidies for big oil and gas, end the subsidies to banksters and we'll have enough to feed all the kids and the poor and provide universal healthcare. Bank of America Pays No Taxes, Gets $1B Refund: Report http://www.thestreet.com/story/11059978/bank-of-america-pays-no-taxes-gets-1b-refund-report.html http://www.thestreet.com/story/11059978/bank-of-america-pays... Bank of America, GE Pay Zero Federal Taxes http://publicintelligence.net/bank-of-america-ge-pay-zero-federal-taxes/ http://publicintelligence.net/bank-of-america-ge-pay-zero-fe... Bank of America, Citigroup, GM paid no taxes http://www.standard.net/topics/opinion/2011/04/04/bank-america-citigroup-gm-paid-no-taxes http://www.standard.net/topics/opinion/2011/04/04/bank-ameri... Federal Reserve Cannot Account For $9 Trillion http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2009/05/14/federal-reserve-cannot-account-for-9-trillion/ http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2009/05/14/federal-reser... We all pay for the research but when it's time for profits it's "capitalism" because socialism is evil! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[5] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies over the 2002–2008 period. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil-fuel based sources amounted to approximately $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy. The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were: Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion) Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion) Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion) The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were: Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion) Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion) Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)
  - earl 14y ago
    I was going to sarcastically reply that my apartment building also wasn't holding a fundraiser for the robber barons on wall street until I remembered that we already did. Also, you are aware that in 2011 the usa spent .86 trillion dollars on the military and wars? Maybe we should go after that for food aid before complaining about a paltry billion donated from the richest country in the world to our fellow human beings.
    - accountswu 14y ago
      Amen to that! It's more like $1 trillion or $1.3 or more, see my response below. And we need to go after the banksters and big oil and gas that take away more than enough money that could be used to balance our budget before we talk about aid that is a fraction of a percentage of our GDP.
    - modoc 14y ago
      Agreed 100%, but arguing about military spending seems pretty tangential to the main discussion here, whereas the food aid program is directly relevant.
- excuse-me 14y ago
  The definition of poverty in the US and India is a little different, in the USA it means a family income of less than $43,512 a year - in India it means dying of starvation. Not wishing to belittle the struggle of so many US families - but this isn't quite the same thing.
  - latch 14y ago
    The poverty level in the us is $23 050 for a family of 4 (1). Not sure where you got your figure. Roughly 10% of americans were food-insecure at some point in a year (2) (1) http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml (2) http://webarchives.cdlib.org/sw1s17tt5t/http://ers.usda.gov/Publications/FANRR35/ http://webarchives.cdlib.org/sw1s17tt5t/http://ers.usda.gov/... Yes, in India ~50% of the population doesn't have regular access to clean water or a sewage system. Yes, I'd rather be poor in the US than poor in India. But I maintain that the state of poverty in the US (and other western countries) is a far bigger failure than the state of poverty in any developing country. Also, I can't help but link to this great post whenever talking about poverty: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/ http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/ the mac and cheese one makes me tear up every time I read it.
    - WalterBright 14y ago
      Food insecurity at some point in a year is not at all the same thing as starvation.
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      Food insecurity in the US is meaningless. The definition is so broad it encompasses all sorts of ridiculous situations. Consider a morbidly obese person who eats 6 cheeseburgers/day. At dinner time on the 30'th day of the month (payday is the 1'st of next month) they run out of money, and are only able to purchase 4 cheeseburgers that day. By the definition of the USDA, this person is food insecure. Comparing poverty in the US to poverty in India is a misnomer - poor people in the US are actually richer than the rich (top 5%) in India. I say this based on both personal experience and statistics: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-t... The article by Scalzi you cite does not describe the poor in the US. I debunk it (with stats) here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1713461 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1713461
alokm 14y ago
The problem is not lack of food production but distribution. There is a need for a lot of investment in infrastructure.
- rdl 14y ago
  What keeps India's infrastructure basically third-world while other (small, but rapidly growing) parts of the economy are world-class?
  - anmol 14y ago
    Really bad governance. All the development and growth you hear about is driven by capitalism, private sector growth, and privatization of energy, telecommunication and other traditional government strongholds. The country is held back by public sector mismanagement and obscene corruption.
  - ctchocula 14y ago
    Not sure if relevant, but the Geopolitics of the United States article claims the thesis that one reason the US got such a strong economy was because the rich Mississippi Basin had more navigable waterways than the rest of the world combined. It mentions the Ganges River by saying: "The Ganges River Basin is the most agriculturally productive in the world, but the Ganges is not navigable. The combination of fertile lands and non-navigable waterways makes the region crushingly overpopulated and poor."
    - rdl 14y ago
      That Stratfor article is amazingly good; I wish they'd post the second half publicly vs. requiring email (I'm reading it now). It's annoying they don't have a price between free and $349/yr. I'd pay $100-150.
  - alokm 14y ago
    Its really a mixed bag. Some regions have phenomenal growth and are driving all the growth. Where as the poorer regions of the country are left in a vicious circle. Although that is changing but at a very slow rate.
tintin12 14y ago
Yeah its not fair is it? British went to India (on what visa?) and looted the country shipping everything valuable to Britain. And now British can't let Indians into their country because of visa restrictions? That is fair right?
- excuse-me 14y ago
  Or Britain liberated India from a Mughal conqueror and put the Hindus back in charge. American's also don't let Brits in because of Visa issues - and after we, almost successfully, taught them to speak English
  - tintin12 14y ago
    India is a secular country. Hindus are not in charge (Prime minister is sikh - minority, Head of ruling party is a christian, President whose position is large ceremonial is hindu, Vice President whose position is also ceremonial is muslim - Find a country with diversity at the top in entire world). >>Britain liberated India from a Mughal conqueror So called Mughal conqueror also thought he is a liberator. Edit: Typo.
    - realrocker 14y ago
      All you people are a joke. Still discussing religion and historical shit and whom to blame. What's wrong with you people? Seriously, what's done is done. Wake the fck up.
    - accountswu 14y ago
      >India is a secular country. Hindus are not in charge Tell that to the Christians of Orissa or Muslims of Ahmedabad or Kashmir. 50,000 Christians fled in Orissa in 2008, thousands of homes destroyed and dozens of Churches burnt. http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/01mob.htm http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/01mob.htm Thousands were still unable to return because of Hindu extremists more than 1 year later: http://www.christianpost.com/news/orissa-christians-are-prisoners-on-their-own-land-says-ministry-40821/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/orissa-christians-are-pris... Remember when Hindu-dominated BJP kicked Jaswant Singh out of the party for saying the truth? Jaswant Singh: "Look into the eyes of the muslims that live in india and if you truly see through the pain that they live of which land do they belong to? we treat them as aliens! because somewhere, inside we continue to ask that 'even after pakistan you still want something?' these are citizens of india now. that was jinnah's failure, because jinnah never left and never really advised the muslims that stayed back." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachar_Committee_Report#Main_findings_of_the_report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachar_Committee_Report#Main_fi... -Muslim parents are not averse to mainstream education or to send their children to affordable Government schools. The access to government schools for children of Muslim parents is limited. -The average amount of bank loan disbursed to the Muslims is 2/3 of the amount disbursed to other minorities. In some cases it is half. The Reserve Bank of India’s efforts to extend banking and credit facilities under the Prime Minister’s 15-point programme of 1983 has mainly benefited other minorities marginalizing Muslims. -There is a clear and significant inverse association between the proportion of the Muslim population and the availability of educational infrastructure in small villages. Muslim concentration villages are not well served with pucca approach roads and local bus stops. -Most of the variables indicate that Muslim-OBCs (Other Backward Class) are significantly deprived in comparison to Hindu-OBCs. The work participation rate (WPR) shows the presence of a sharp difference between Hindu-OBCs (67%) and the Muslims. The share of Muslim-OBCs in government/ PSU jobs is much lower than Hindu-OBCs.

ashray 14y ago

Also has enough food to feed themselves. But are tripping over time and again =/

latch 14y ago

The United States of American has a space program, a nuclear program, own a lot and 1 in 5 children are living in poverty. You can say the same about almost any country. The state of poverty and despair in western countries is far more mind boggling to me than in developing countries.

modoc 14y ago
True but AFAIK no other countries are spending their tax money providing food aid to the USA? I agree our own poverty situation is awful, but honestly that's another reason to not be spending tax money the US International Food Aid Program. What if we spent that ~1.2 billion each year on feeding our hungry children, trying to reduce the number of families in poverty etc..?
- latch 14y ago
  Countries (including India) donate to the US during times of disaster (Katrina). Not exactly the same thing, but worth pointing out. The US gets a lot of value from having a friend in the region. Especially one with the military capabilities that India has. But really, my point is that we live in a complicated world. It's idealistic (naive?) to think "how silly, people are starving yet they have a space program or a nuclear program?!" Science and energy aren't wasteful places to be spending money. Frankly, we live in a world where military spending can hardly be seen as wasteful.
  - eriksank 14y ago
    The donations during Katrina were meant to be understood as moral support. These donations were not to be misunderstood as a claim that the US would have been incapable of dealing with Katrina by themselves.
    - kamaal 14y ago
      >>not to be misunderstood as a claim that the US would have been incapable of dealing with Katrina by themselves. Oh, yes sure. But if somebody in my neighborhood dies, I lend them shoulder so that they cry in comfort. Not that they are incapable of dealing with their loss. But because that's how friends treat each other. With compassion and are always there for each other during times of need.
      - pm90 14y ago
        Yes, but this relation is not symmetric, which is where the OP's question comes in
- excuse-me 14y ago
  It depends, you could spend $1.2Bn on feeding the people of various third world countries or you could spend $6.7Bn/Month on bombing just one of them - not sure which is going to gain you more friends and influence, but neither is going to do much for a poor kid in Alabama
  - accountswu 14y ago
    I agree with you, I wonder why someone downvoted / flagged your post. The US has 1000+ bases around the world and spends a lot of money maintaining troops in "friendly" countries and client states (Middle East puppet regimes) and occupying and bombing other countries. The real total "defense budget" including all the offensive actions, DoD, Pentagon, TSA etc is more than $1 trillion (that's $1000 billion, or $1000,000 million). All of that could be spent at home but we'd rather bomb / liberate those civilians than to spend money on healthcare of our elderly or food or education of our kids. http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/02/20/the-real-us-military-budget-1-trillion/ http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/02/20/the-real-us-military-budg... http://ibnlive.in.com/news/us-govt-ran--13-trillion-budget-deficit-in-2011/193143-2.html http://ibnlive.in.com/news/us-govt-ran--13-trillion-budget-d... The Federal Reserve has printed trillions of dollars and given it to their buddy banksters and have no trail of it, and we the taxpayers have to pay it back by inflation. Poor suckers who saved for their retirements can go to hell. http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2009/05/14/federal-reserve-cannot-account-for-9-trillion/ http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2009/05/14/federal-reser... End the corporate bailouts, bring the US military budget to a sane level, end the subsidies for big oil and gas, end the subsidies to banksters and we'll have enough to feed all the kids and the poor and provide universal healthcare. Bank of America Pays No Taxes, Gets $1B Refund: Report http://www.thestreet.com/story/11059978/bank-of-america-pays-no-taxes-gets-1b-refund-report.html http://www.thestreet.com/story/11059978/bank-of-america-pays... Bank of America, GE Pay Zero Federal Taxes http://publicintelligence.net/bank-of-america-ge-pay-zero-federal-taxes/ http://publicintelligence.net/bank-of-america-ge-pay-zero-fe... Bank of America, Citigroup, GM paid no taxes http://www.standard.net/topics/opinion/2011/04/04/bank-america-citigroup-gm-paid-no-taxes http://www.standard.net/topics/opinion/2011/04/04/bank-ameri... Federal Reserve Cannot Account For $9 Trillion http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2009/05/14/federal-reserve-cannot-account-for-9-trillion/ http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2009/05/14/federal-reser... We all pay for the research but when it's time for profits it's "capitalism" because socialism is evil! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[5] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies over the 2002–2008 period. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil-fuel based sources amounted to approximately $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy. The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were: Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion) Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion) Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion) The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were: Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion) Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion) Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)
- earl 14y ago
  I was going to sarcastically reply that my apartment building also wasn't holding a fundraiser for the robber barons on wall street until I remembered that we already did. Also, you are aware that in 2011 the usa spent .86 trillion dollars on the military and wars? Maybe we should go after that for food aid before complaining about a paltry billion donated from the richest country in the world to our fellow human beings.
  - accountswu 14y ago
    Amen to that! It's more like $1 trillion or $1.3 or more, see my response below. And we need to go after the banksters and big oil and gas that take away more than enough money that could be used to balance our budget before we talk about aid that is a fraction of a percentage of our GDP.
  - modoc 14y ago
    Agreed 100%, but arguing about military spending seems pretty tangential to the main discussion here, whereas the food aid program is directly relevant.
excuse-me 14y ago
The definition of poverty in the US and India is a little different, in the USA it means a family income of less than $43,512 a year - in India it means dying of starvation. Not wishing to belittle the struggle of so many US families - but this isn't quite the same thing.
- latch 14y ago
  The poverty level in the us is $23 050 for a family of 4 (1). Not sure where you got your figure. Roughly 10% of americans were food-insecure at some point in a year (2) (1) http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml (2) http://webarchives.cdlib.org/sw1s17tt5t/http://ers.usda.gov/Publications/FANRR35/ http://webarchives.cdlib.org/sw1s17tt5t/http://ers.usda.gov/... Yes, in India ~50% of the population doesn't have regular access to clean water or a sewage system. Yes, I'd rather be poor in the US than poor in India. But I maintain that the state of poverty in the US (and other western countries) is a far bigger failure than the state of poverty in any developing country. Also, I can't help but link to this great post whenever talking about poverty: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/ http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/ the mac and cheese one makes me tear up every time I read it.
  - WalterBright 14y ago
    Food insecurity at some point in a year is not at all the same thing as starvation.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    Food insecurity in the US is meaningless. The definition is so broad it encompasses all sorts of ridiculous situations. Consider a morbidly obese person who eats 6 cheeseburgers/day. At dinner time on the 30'th day of the month (payday is the 1'st of next month) they run out of money, and are only able to purchase 4 cheeseburgers that day. By the definition of the USDA, this person is food insecure. Comparing poverty in the US to poverty in India is a misnomer - poor people in the US are actually richer than the rich (top 5%) in India. I say this based on both personal experience and statistics: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-t... The article by Scalzi you cite does not describe the poor in the US. I debunk it (with stats) here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1713461 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1713461

alokm 14y ago

The problem is not lack of food production but distribution. There is a need for a lot of investment in infrastructure.

rdl 14y ago
What keeps India's infrastructure basically third-world while other (small, but rapidly growing) parts of the economy are world-class?
- anmol 14y ago
  Really bad governance. All the development and growth you hear about is driven by capitalism, private sector growth, and privatization of energy, telecommunication and other traditional government strongholds. The country is held back by public sector mismanagement and obscene corruption.
- ctchocula 14y ago
  Not sure if relevant, but the Geopolitics of the United States article claims the thesis that one reason the US got such a strong economy was because the rich Mississippi Basin had more navigable waterways than the rest of the world combined. It mentions the Ganges River by saying: "The Ganges River Basin is the most agriculturally productive in the world, but the Ganges is not navigable. The combination of fertile lands and non-navigable waterways makes the region crushingly overpopulated and poor."
  - rdl 14y ago
    That Stratfor article is amazingly good; I wish they'd post the second half publicly vs. requiring email (I'm reading it now). It's annoying they don't have a price between free and $349/yr. I'd pay $100-150.
- alokm 14y ago
  Its really a mixed bag. Some regions have phenomenal growth and are driving all the growth. Where as the poorer regions of the country are left in a vicious circle. Although that is changing but at a very slow rate.

tintin12 14y ago

Yeah its not fair is it? British went to India (on what visa?) and looted the country shipping everything valuable to Britain. And now British can't let Indians into their country because of visa restrictions? That is fair right?

excuse-me 14y ago
Or Britain liberated India from a Mughal conqueror and put the Hindus back in charge. American's also don't let Brits in because of Visa issues - and after we, almost successfully, taught them to speak English
- tintin12 14y ago
  India is a secular country. Hindus are not in charge (Prime minister is sikh - minority, Head of ruling party is a christian, President whose position is large ceremonial is hindu, Vice President whose position is also ceremonial is muslim - Find a country with diversity at the top in entire world). >>Britain liberated India from a Mughal conqueror So called Mughal conqueror also thought he is a liberator. Edit: Typo.
  - realrocker 14y ago
    All you people are a joke. Still discussing religion and historical shit and whom to blame. What's wrong with you people? Seriously, what's done is done. Wake the fck up.
  - accountswu 14y ago
    >India is a secular country. Hindus are not in charge Tell that to the Christians of Orissa or Muslims of Ahmedabad or Kashmir. 50,000 Christians fled in Orissa in 2008, thousands of homes destroyed and dozens of Churches burnt. http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/01mob.htm http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/sep/01mob.htm Thousands were still unable to return because of Hindu extremists more than 1 year later: http://www.christianpost.com/news/orissa-christians-are-prisoners-on-their-own-land-says-ministry-40821/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/orissa-christians-are-pris... Remember when Hindu-dominated BJP kicked Jaswant Singh out of the party for saying the truth? Jaswant Singh: "Look into the eyes of the muslims that live in india and if you truly see through the pain that they live of which land do they belong to? we treat them as aliens! because somewhere, inside we continue to ask that 'even after pakistan you still want something?' these are citizens of india now. that was jinnah's failure, because jinnah never left and never really advised the muslims that stayed back." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachar_Committee_Report#Main_findings_of_the_report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachar_Committee_Report#Main_fi... -Muslim parents are not averse to mainstream education or to send their children to affordable Government schools. The access to government schools for children of Muslim parents is limited. -The average amount of bank loan disbursed to the Muslims is 2/3 of the amount disbursed to other minorities. In some cases it is half. The Reserve Bank of India’s efforts to extend banking and credit facilities under the Prime Minister’s 15-point programme of 1983 has mainly benefited other minorities marginalizing Muslims. -There is a clear and significant inverse association between the proportion of the Muslim population and the availability of educational infrastructure in small villages. Muslim concentration villages are not well served with pucca approach roads and local bus stops. -Most of the variables indicate that Muslim-OBCs (Other Backward Class) are significantly deprived in comparison to Hindu-OBCs. The work participation rate (WPR) shows the presence of a sharp difference between Hindu-OBCs (67%) and the Muslims. The share of Muslim-OBCs in government/ PSU jobs is much lower than Hindu-OBCs.