Many of these very poor countries have the misfortune to have very bad soil. There are grains the local people need that the local farmers simply cannot produce. Corn and soybeens are always needed, and yet much of the world doesn’t have the soil to grow those crops. If we don’t ship ours, there aren’t all that many other sources for those countries. John

The organization … a huge multinational whose business is aid … now sees the method of aid as innefficient — and doing more harm than good, partially because it cuts the legs off of local farmers which exacerbates the problem not only by creating more poor, but also by continuing the cycle of too little food. It is well within their mandate to prompt change in practices.

Storage of stockpiled grain and keeping US carriers in business is a matter for others to concern themselves with … not CARE.

I also take issue with your postulation that the cost to the US is “less than zero” in the present system. The cost to taxpayers for agribiz monoculture crops grown to maintain the surplus, plus the subsidies that are part of the system is huge. For the government to compensate itself by selling stockpiles and calling it aid seems disingenuous and a poor way of doing business … except for those reaping a harvest of millions of taxpayers dollars. For them, it’s a boon.

The way it is done now is probably dictated by some US issues. We do have stockpiled grain, bought by the government, we need to move it. Effectively, it costs us money to store it, so the cost of 45 mil of this grain is less than zero to the US. The cost of the same amount of grain in another country is 45 mil, big difference. We always struggle to keep US flag carriers going, again we are taking care of our intersts and killing two birds with one stone, the grain has to get there somehow. We are giving and we are also taking care of us at the same time, is that bad? John

It seems to me that the issue isn’t beggars being choosey about the 10 mil, but about what happens to the 35 mil in between.

Is it aid in general that you’re opposed to? If so, there is argument against.

CARE seems to be looking toward keeping the aid coming, but more effeciently and with less potential for graft and corruption. I don’t get arguing against that.

Certainly we can all get upset about the evil big companies, but what is the focus here, a nice pure gift done the way the beneficiary wants it, or getting money for local programs? Even if they only get 10 mil out of the 45 mil, that is still a lot better than zero. Isn’t there an old saying, ‘beggers can’t be choosey’? John

if you bought the car, had it driven to Mexico where your friend was told to sell the car, send back enough of the cash to pay for the manufacture … of a car that, by the way, would not have been made were it not going to Mexico … pay the driver, then use what’s left over to buy himself another car. And all ostensibly because you’re a wealthy and generous guy, and your friend needs a car to continue living, and his continued living means a healthier, safer and generally better world.

Not an exact model of how it works, but closer than yours I think.

CARE isn’t looking at giving gifts the way someone wants them, but in a way that removes big bonuses for rich companies and adds those back onto what goes into AID … sort of more the point, really.

There is a part of this that bothers me. I live in CA, suppose I wanted to give an american made car of mine to a friend in Mexico, and I was even going to pay an american driver to bring it to him. Now lets suppose the mexican friend says “No way, a mexican car delivered by my fellow countrymen or forget it.” I would see that as ungracious. If we are giving the money, isn’t it rather silly to say “No, I am holding out for the gift just the way I want it”? John