Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
this article appeared today in the new york times:
in host's thread on the functions of the redistribution of wealth, i posted something on how i understood neoliberalism to operate....in the back of my mind, i was thinking of the enormous amount of data that i have seen/accumulated on the debacle that neoliberal economic prescriptions have been in the southern hemisphere, on the curious lack of information about these failures in the context of the american ideological bubble that we refer to as "the press"....so here is an example.
world bank/imf prescriptions have made disastrous situations in the southern hemisphere worse.
using debt to leverage roll-backs in state actions to stabilize economies in general, and fundamental sectors like agriculture in particular, have functioned to make many countries de facto dumping grounds for american mono-crop based agricultural overproduction. this over-production is made possible by a vast array of state subsidies to particular types of agricultural production in the states, which priveleges certain types of crops (particularly corn, often gm corn) and particular corporate interests (can you can monsanto?) over all else. the results in the states have been catastrophic if you look at them--catastrophic in certain ways that i could go into, but wont for the moment.
this subsidiy system is defended with great ardor by the conservative set that is actually in power--but the ideology espoused by these same folk is staight neo-liberalism. so the dumping of over-production of agricultural commodities produced in the states based on subsidy rates that are often over 100% of the cost of production lay behind the empty rhetoric of markets, their rationality, the irrationalities of the state--all of which inform neoliberal policies, enforced via structural adjustment programs.
sooner or later, neoliberalism has to be seenas the joke it is.
this is a good starting point.
what do you think?
|
I don't like inorganic fertilizer:
Quote:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=4&gl=us
An Agricultural Solution
To the
Imported Petroleum and Pollution Crises
March 31, 2004
.... It takes 40 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer to grow an acre of legumes such as soybeans
versus more than 200 pounds for corn because like most legumes, soybeans can fix
nitrogen from the air and corn cannot. Therefore, oil-producing soybeans and the Pongam
Bush (
Pongamia Pinnata)
are the preferred crop to use the nitrogen content of
wastewater. However, the greatest oil production per acre is from the Oil Palm Tree
which would thrive in the southwestern deserts with adequate water and nutrients.
• One of the obstacles to growing petroleum alternatives is the cost of fertilizer, which
requires a natural gas and petroleum to produce. .....
|
I don't know that it is a sustainable solution, especially if the result is to increase Malawi's population. Are the farmers competent to use the fertilizer so as not to damage the soil from overuse, and from trace elements in the soil not getting replaced because of poor soil testing resources and because the trace elements are not ingredients in the inorganic fertilizer. This tyoe of fertilizer does not fix well to the soil of to plant roots, causing runoff and unwanted nitrogren pollution to streams/rivers/lakes and ground water.
I suspect that this was a project to market American corp.s' fertilizer, but it seems to have impacted some locals, too:
Quote:
http://www.usaid.gov/stories/malawi/...ertilizer.html
For Malawian farmers, fertilizer can make the difference between a hungry year and a healthy one. Malawi has one of the highest population densities in Africa, with 85% of the population farming on small plots. Soil degradation is widespread, and homegrown manure from livestock or composting isn’t commonly practiced. Most farmers rely on chemical fertilizer for a good harvest. Until the mid-1990’s, fertilizer sales -- mostly imported -- were controlled and subsidized by the government. When the system was privatized, a few central companies took over. But poor distribution and high prices meant that fertilizer was inaccessible for many smallholder farmers.
Beginning in 2002, USAID began to revitalize fertilizer distribution in Malawi with support to the International Center for Fertility and Agricultural Development. USAID began by developing a network of middle- and small- sized business dealers in fertilizer. The middle-level dealers purchase fertilizer from the supplier, then distribute it to local dealers. This creates a system of credit for the local dealers, who are usually village shop owners with little cash and no access to credit.
In less than two years, there are over 1,000 new fertilizer dealers with 30% of them women. At village shops, local dealers receive training in business skills, which is essential since the adult literacy rate in Malawi is 60%. The dealers are organized into district associations, now in twenty-seven of Malawi’s twenty-nine districts. These associations provide accountability and the leverage to buy fertilizer in bulk. As the associations grow in number and gain experience, USAID expects fertilizer to be cheaper and more accessible to millions of Malawians in the next few years.
|
I think that this "bailout" is a better example, rb.... On the surface, it is confined to "aiding homeowners" (bagholders) who cannot afford higher monthly payments caused by adjustable interest rate "reset" provisions.
The consequence of being "saved" by this program is win win for lenders and those with equity who are trying to sell. The "saved" already are in negative equity circimstances. They owe more than the value of the property. That won't change because prices will continue to decline, only slightly slower because of this lender bailout.
This turns mortgagees, their credit already poorly rated, into debt slaves, Their "deals" were only feasible, in the first place, IF the housing ponzi scheme could push continued increasingly higher prices, pushing these high risk "last in" buyers, into positive equity that would allow for refi's at more favorable terms, or they could sell at a profit and "trade up".
Now they'll pay to stay longer in homes that are going to lose value for an undetermined number of future years. It is in their interests to walk away...default....and leave the losses for the lenders to suffer.
They will walk as prices go down further, after wasting huge, avoidable sums on additional mortgage payments for the privilege of paying muliples of what monthly rent would be if they had walked sooner. They are being robbed of the opportunity to default, pay much lower rent....they won't gain any equity by paying more mortgage payments on these properties. They could be saving the difference between the much lower rent cost and the present mortgage payment amount, for a downpayment, after their credit ratings improve, on a comparable or better property five years from now, and borrow less at that future time....due to having accumulated a downpayment, and lower housing prices, than the terms and property they are trapped in now.
Note the plummeting asking prices in an area still enjoying employment growth and high wages:
http://www.southsanjose.com/realtren...ef=patrick.net
This "save" puts all the risk on the mortgagees and is only a subsidy for reckless or even fraudulant lenders, but they put lipstick on it and sell it as in your OP example, rb !
Quote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,3775994.story
U.S., banks craft foreclosure rescue plan
But exactly who gets the help is uncertain
By William Neikirk | Tribune senior correspondent
December 1, 2007
....The proposal, which could be announced as early as next week by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, is designed to help almost all groups involved in the surge of house buying in the last few years that resulted in many marginal borrowers taking out "subprime" adjustable-rate mortgages. These loans will reset at higher rates in great numbers over the next year.
In addition to borrowers, it would also salvage some of the now-questionable mortgage investments made by lenders, loan-service companies and bondholders. And it would give the Bush administration cover from the charge it is indifferent to those hurt by the housing price correction now in full force.
Analysts said the move could forestall a wave of foreclosures and evictions many fear would tip the economy into a recession in 2008. Also helping will be the prospect of more interest rate reductions by the Federal Reserve, which Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke hinted at in a speech Thursday......
|