3 ms·

I think "distribution" in this context is just a nice way of saying that poor people can't afford better food from elsewhere, they have to rely on what is cheap

by bmj 12y ago

I think "distribution" in this context is just a nice way of saying that poor people can't afford better food from elsewhere, they have to rely on what is cheap and can be bought from the local market. Depends on location, I think. In the United States, yeah, that might be the case, but in other countries (I'm thinking parts of Africa), it is a distribution issue, particularly when dealing with corrupt governments.

placeybordeaux 12y ago
I am not sure if I agree, but in the case you are right improving the nutrition of all foods and making them disease resistant would certianly be a good thing.
jjoonathan 12y ago
I'm sure it depends on the famine, but this very issue (is famine primarily due to local inequality or local scarcity) is currently the subject of a spat between two prominent academics, Amartya Sen and Thomas Picketty, which has produced an abundance of material on the subject. FWIW Picketty seems to be much better at managing the internet battlefront, so it might be better to start with Sen's book "Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation" ($10 on kindle) and then judge what you see on the internet after having read Sen's argument. Sen was originally motivated to study economics when, as a boy, he lived through one of India's famines while working at a grain/rice/? silo. He wanted to reconcile the fact that there was a large amount of excess grain left at the time the next crop was being harvested with the fact that he had seen starved corpses along the streets (and had heard that the famine was much worse elsewhere through the newspaper). He eventually came to the conclusion that the famine he had lived through, along with many others, was primarily economic (due to inequality combined with a few other triggers) rather than due to local food supply actually falling below what was needed to feed the population. I don't know as much about Picketty (I had Sen as a lecturer -- didn't care much for him in that capacity, but his writing was top quality). I do know that I haven't been impressed or convinced by Picketty's arguments, which read as if they were written by someone who had never read Sen's book (he keeps raising objections that Sen thoroughly addressed >30 years ago).
- chrisgd 12y ago
  FWIW, Sen has agreed with the majority of Piketty's conclusions, though.
  - jjoonathan 12y ago
    It sounds like you're referring to a particular article I must have missed. Any chance you have a link? I've read enough vitriolic back-and-forth between these two that I'd greatly enjoy hearing them discuss what they actually agree about :)
    - chrisgd 12y ago
      Sure. I was referring to this, which seems to be a summary of another article that isn't loading. I imagine the original is much more informative. http://www.social-europe.eu/2014/06/inequality-2/ http://www.social-europe.eu/2014/06/inequality-2/

by bmj 12y ago

placeybordeaux 12y ago

I am not sure if I agree, but in the case you are right improving the nutrition of all foods and making them disease resistant would certianly be a good thing.

jjoonathan 12y ago

I'm sure it depends on the famine, but this very issue (is famine primarily due to local inequality or local scarcity) is currently the subject of a spat between two prominent academics, Amartya Sen and Thomas Picketty, which has produced an abundance of material on the subject. FWIW Picketty seems to be much better at managing the internet battlefront, so it might be better to start with Sen's book "Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation" ($10 on kindle) and then judge what you see on the internet after having read Sen's argument. Sen was originally motivated to study economics when, as a boy, he lived through one of India's famines while working at a grain/rice/? silo. He wanted to reconcile the fact that there was a large amount of excess grain left at the time the next crop was being harvested with the fact that he had seen starved corpses along the streets (and had heard that the famine was much worse elsewhere through the newspaper). He eventually came to the conclusion that the famine he had lived through, along with many others, was primarily economic (due to inequality combined with a few other triggers) rather than due to local food supply actually falling below what was needed to feed the population. I don't know as much about Picketty (I had Sen as a lecturer -- didn't care much for him in that capacity, but his writing was top quality). I do know that I haven't been impressed or convinced by Picketty's arguments, which read as if they were written by someone who had never read Sen's book (he keeps raising objections that Sen thoroughly addressed >30 years ago).

chrisgd 12y ago
FWIW, Sen has agreed with the majority of Piketty's conclusions, though.
- jjoonathan 12y ago
  It sounds like you're referring to a particular article I must have missed. Any chance you have a link? I've read enough vitriolic back-and-forth between these two that I'd greatly enjoy hearing them discuss what they actually agree about :)
  - chrisgd 12y ago
    Sure. I was referring to this, which seems to be a summary of another article that isn't loading. I imagine the original is much more informative. http://www.social-europe.eu/2014/06/inequality-2/ http://www.social-europe.eu/2014/06/inequality-2/