Last updated on July 8, 2011
So says Tim Worstall in a post over at Forbes:
“The reason that food is shipped, not money, is straight old politics. For the EU, it’s easier to persuade people that the near insane excess production of the coddling of European farmers be sent of to feed the starving than it is to reform said system. In the US, purchases are made from US farmers, the shipping must be US owned and operated shipping, so there’s a good constituency militating for no change in ways.
As an example of what should be done and why it isn’t, a few years back one of George Bush’s budget requests asked that a famine in Niger be dealt with by sending money. There was plenty of sorghum (the local staple crop) in nearby countries and either buying and shipping it by truck or perhaps even just giving money to starving people and watching the market get food to them would be quicker than anything else that could be done.
That request was beaten back by Congress: it’s hard not to be cynical here but perhaps too many votes in the farming and shipping lobby?”
(HT: A View from the Cave, via Twitter.)