Comments on: The Newest Global Religion

By: johnk

johnk — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:05:55 +0000

I like the religion analogy. It’s a powerful thing when a small group claims to have authority on a subject and power to do something about it. It does at least two things: First, it can lead everyone else to believing that the issue is being taken care of by these experts, and second, it can lead others to believe that they are experts and know what they are doing simply because they have claimed to be.

I commend the G20 for speaking out on the issues they have, but I agree with you wholeheartedly that the faith-based actions need to be backed up by reason and evidence.

By: zulusafari

zulusafari — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:02:30 +0000

I appreciate your occasional attempts at creativity, unlike some of the other commenters.

I also feel opposite from some of the commenters in that I feel your satire is SPOT ON whereas your questions at the end don’t help solve the problem. Adding vitamins doesn’t get a community off of hand-outs (the ultimate goal) and the US using US food doesn’t solve your problem either. Even if purchased locally, the logistics in that alone would be crazy, and the quantity needed would likely soak up the local supply entirely, leaving NOTHING for purchase, or what little is available would be INSANELY expensive and totally unaffordable to those who used to purchase it. The opposite effect you described.

There must be a happy middle ground for that last one.

By: David Shea

David Shea — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:21:44 +0000

The insistence on using a particular counties resources / supply chains just shows that Poverty and Hunger are just items on a bureaucrats checklist. A feel-good, political checklist that’s the appendix to the 15 page feel-good proclamation.

By: QT

QT — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:13:42 +0000

I can understand that the politics of the G20 is quite disheartening and frustrating. The biting sarcasm of this piece seems to blunt the thrust of the argument. One hears the anger and bitterness which tend to overshadow the conclusions.

The quality of argument is seldom improved by anger.

By: George

George — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:02:25 +0000

Quite. And of beyond-crucial importance.

Simon Johnston, ex-Chief Economist of the IMF (07-08) also wrote about this on his (excellent) blog, in a post entitled “Was the G20 Summit Actually Dangerous?”:

http://baselinescenario.com/2009/09/26/was-the-g20-summit-actually-dangerous/

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:54:20 +0000

Two reasonable questions at the end, shame we had to wade through all that ’satire’ to get there.

And the satire’s a bit off target anyway because G-ism as you describe it seems to be a religion without many, maybe any, fanatical adherents. In fact the only people who talk like they really believe in it (and then only intermittently) seem to be the ’shamans’ themselves, i.e. the G7 or G20 leaders. This points to the function of the G as an institution, which is to facilitate and encourage public commitments to joint action. These commitments are, as everyone including you keeps pointing out, a very imperfect means of ensuring actual implementation, but they are arguably better than nothing. It’s an interesting question as to whether the process of ‘make commitment, get part of the way but fall short of full implementation’ is actually a vote-winner for G leaders or a rod for their own backs.

Regarding food aid, don’t you think you should be aiming some of your criticisms at the US farm lobby which demands that aid consist of US produce, rather than railing against ‘the government’ in general, given that the executive has tried on several occasions to change this practice? I continue to be puzzled at the methodological nationalism on display here.

By: Ranil Dissanayake

Ranil Dissanayake — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:12:13 +0000

While your two questions (and the underlying argument that most problems due to nutrition are chronic, not crisis-driven) are valid and very important, I think this doesn’t address why the G20 communiques have no impact.

Do you really think that coordinating how vast amounts of money are spent to reduce duplication and improve the way resources are allocated across the range of needs of poor countries won’t be useful? That’s ridiculous. Of course it would. If it’s done correctly, this would allow the vitamin supplements etc. to be bought by some donors, while food crises are dealt with by others.

The question we should be asking is ‘why, despite the rhetoric, does this never get translated into action?’.