In the past, almost nations believed that global agriculture market is good choose to rich the poor farmers, but now someone finds that the free market ideology is hurting food security and never lives any poor. In India 1999, government started subsiding import soybean. However, the price of bean in that time increased more than two-thirds. No costumer wanted to buy local bean and almost farmers lost their income and have to sale their farm land to make money. Agriculture companies became better by buying farm land and planted cash crop. Until India government stopped subsiding foreign foods, many farmers kill themselves because of lacking money. Free market doesn’t promote the profit of poor guys. It even doesn’t solve the global hungry issue. In …show more content…
It’s a good policy in political, but it’s fail in economic and society. America provides 1.2 billion dollars food to the Third world. But the amount of people who are hungry is increasing recent year. Free foods from America destroy local food market in fact. If some countries believe America will live them or give them enough money, they prefer not to work. In another way, getting foreign aids is their work. Development Aids is another way to help them by lend money to them. In view of balance sheet of their county, they have much debt not less. And they always waste this part of money. Foreign Aids destroy local market system in fact and keep someone’s power. (John 1987)
Jason Sadler wanted to send some T-shirt to Africa by free. From his blog, what he got finally isn’t “Thanks” but “foolish”. Because people believe Sadler will hurt the market in Africa. Before Sadler donated his shirt, he would decline some job first. Many people believe their donation could help the poor in Africa and no one thinks it’s a way of dump. Rasna believe aides from other place should stop sending to Africa. And government in Africa also should refuse those aids. (Nick,