Why more developed countries pay farmers not to grown while people starve in the less-developed countries?
415292
Because if too many people farmed, then farmers could not earn enough money, and they would all quit. As for starving people in other countries, I know it is sad, but farmers will only harvest what they can sell for a satisfatory profit. Unless someone is paying them for the crops, they will not grow it. Its one sad part of the world we live in.
1062289
first guy is right. sad.\nbut the underdeveloped nations benefit from them also cause the \nlabor they get from them is higher than what they can earn from their own country
1170670
Yes, but with a few conditions I believe is the best solution. I think they should be given funds based on the amount of food they have grown and was not sold or used. Funds should be allocated based on some criteria like...\n\n1) Below current domestic market value\n2) Above the price it would be to sell it abroad\n3) Up to a set limit based on the type of food/product it is\n\nThe idea here is that they should not get full price for the food which no one can use. This would cause farmers to grow massive amounts of food because they would know they get money for it all. It should be above the price it would be to sell it aboard (we want to keep the organic material on the country's soil for replanting and future use) and based on the difficulty and cost it is to grow/raise the certain product they should be compensated for proportionately. \n\nIf it is cheaper to grow wheat than lettuce, why should the people growing wheat be paid the same as those with lettuce? This would cause everyone to grow wheat.\n\nI am not a whiz at subsidies, but a few of these ideas make sense to me.
785900
There are currently NGO's  doing just that. The problem in the developing nations is the corruption in all areas of government. As volunteers or paid employee's the task can become daunting as technology introduced into these villages that seems antique by our standards is modern to them. Teaching modern farming techniques like rotating crops and good agriculture management empowers the local farmers and improves yield. It is a time consuming venture and water management pratices are very important when well water is the only source. You have a good idea, work with it and have fun.
721811
In most cases I would argue that the people in other contries are far worse off than then even the sick and homeless in developed nations but in the USA I would argue otherwise.  The reckless disragard for human needs displayed by big businesses and the government alike are creating a growing underclass of starving unemployed people which soon will eclipse those in other nations.\nDetroit has a statisticaly higher infant mortality rate than Ethiopia - how can this be right?\nThe USA is stupidly wealthy - waste and excess in levels beyond the contemplation of foriegn tyrants but almost all the wealth is concentrated in an emmerging super wealthy class of people while more and more normal people are disguarded as businesses move abroad for cheaper materials and cheap "slave" labour.\nAmericans need to unite as a people against the buinesses and corporations which are expanding the economy at the expense of the citezens.\n\n“the country was founded on the principle that the primary role of government is to protect property from the majority, and so it remains" - Noam Chomsky\n\nLet Oceania, Europe, Japan, and other nations help Africa and Asia - America has to helpm it's own people before they end up in the same state!
863187
Consumers in developed countries have more disposable income and so the demand for services is higher, developing countries have low capitol and labour costs and so are attractive for manufacturing companies. I believe these are the main reasons, but there is a lot more to your question than meets the eye.
850354
if you eat you are part of agriculture without it you don't develop
47497
I have some info. There's alot of hungry people in africa. And perhaps if they did some work to stir up some money, then they could buy some food. They should stop bumming food off of countries that feel bad for them. either die or work. It's that easy.
673408
I believe that the reason is that your country, as most of the developed countries, is aging.\n\nI mean, the age of the population and the expectancy of life are higher due to economical factors. This, along with a low birth rate, will make that, in a not-very-far future, the people in physical condition to work and pay taxes, and support the system, will be only a few , and their efforts won't be enough to support the rest of senior citizens.\n\nThere are some countries in Europe that are developing programs to encourage citizens to have 1 or more children. \n\nTypically, the illegal immigrants come from poor countries, where it's common to have at least 2 or 3 children.In a few years, these children will be the ones supporting the economical system of your country.\n\nHere is an excerpt from the link included below:\n"Population aging implies a contraction of the future workforce in many industrial countries and a sharp slowdown of future workforce growth in the remainder. Slowing workforce growth or actual labor force contraction will reduce domestic investment opportunities, because\nemployers will have less need to provide new equipment and facilities for additional workers."\n "There is also potential for disruption of financial asset markets if large cohorts of retirees begin to sell off their assets to pay for retirement consumption."\n\n"Although population aging is a world-wide phenomenon, it is occurring at different rates within richer industrialized countries and with a different timing in the developing world."
620659
In comparison to other countries in Europe, we do not pay as much as them.  They do offer more social programs in exchange for the higher taxes.
592076
The reason for this is the history of mankind for the last 10thousand years.\n\nFarming started in the fertile crescent and branched off from there in an east west direction.  For the same crop to be grown at a different lattitude it had to go north and south, at a substantially slower rate, because the plant would have to adjust to the change in sunlight.\n\nTo go east and west from the fertile crescent to france or to china is didn't have to change that much, the plants.\n\nThere were also animals in europe and asia the could be domesticated, like cows and pigs, the animals in africa are zebras or tigers, and can't be domesticated. Modern attempts in other places besides africa haven't proven successful.\n\nSo the farming only hit egypt originally, and maybe spread to ethiopia, but it didn't last to modern times because of the culture of hunter gather that was dominant throughout africa spread and didn't choose to continue farming.\n\nNow the Europeans came in the 1700s and 1800s with guns and germs, and eliminated some of the population and divided the remaining populations,\nyou've seen hutu and tootisy and know that this has to do with an artifical division.\n\n\nSo theres no agricultural base, which is prerequisite to capitalism, which is prerequisite to a nation having wealth.\n\nInstead the continent seems content on the genocidal whims of whoever has the guns left over by the europeans.\n\nGod has nothing to do with it, and anyone who says so, I really question their intelligence.
744643
The reality is that globalization is a positive for all players involved.  Right now, the rich countries are enjoying all the benefits without taking any of the risks and globablization does not benefit every single person anyway.  The concept is that if country A can make everything cheaper than country B, both countries can benefit by letting each do what it does best.  A may pay more to B for some things than they could make it themselves for, but A will make more money by selling other products to B.  B makes money, both by selling its goods and by purchasing A's products.  The down side is that each country must focus on its specialty and re-deploy resources from industries where it doesn't have a significant advantage.  That means that you really shouldn't be making clothes or growing wheat in N. America or Europe.  That is something that can be done better in S. America and Africa, freeing up American and European capital and labor to focus on industries where it has an overwhelming advantage.  But if you are a farmer or work in a clothing factory, you probably see if differently.
267504
The more "rich" countries have used and abused the more poor countries, after sucking up all their resources they leave them high-and-dry. Its so easy to ignore the rest of the world unless they have something you want, IE: oil, coal, coco beans, rice, cattle, etc.
683211
There's a very logical reason actually.\n\nWhen you give free food to other countries the net effect is run the local farmers out of business. \n\nThe can't compete with FREE as a price for the crops they raise. Even people who can afford to buy food that is raised locally spend their efforts trying to get the FREE food. The crops of local farmers rot or get sold for prices so much lower than production costs that they go broke.\n\nThe result is that a temporary shortage can become permanent.
984880
The country is "fatter" so the scraps are better, at least more fattening.\n\nMost of the horrible pictures you see from say Africa, there is a lot more going on than simple poverty, like genocide and tribal warfare.\n\nIn 1948 the Federal government made air-drops of fodder for the ranchers in the southwest because unusual snows had left the cattle in poor condition.  Indians on reservations in the same area were allowed to starve to death. Things like this still go on in the U.S. and Canada, just don't get play in the press.
745723
Good explanation by 'Cybele' from another perspective.\n\nThe pastoralist need the land for grazing.\nThe farmers need the land for growing crops.\n\nIt has been proved time and again that if a piece of land is used for growing crops it will support more humans than if it's used for rearing cattle for the meat.
654141
Yes, the developed countries of the world have the resources to wipe out starvation all over the globe. Will it ever happen? I truly doubt it. You see, children have no money, they don't control any oil fields and  they can't keep the big corporations and weapons manufacturers in business. Children also have no political clout, they can't make things happen, they don't vote. In other words they aren't very useful to the politicians. Thats why they starve to death.