Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
On its website Oxfam reminds us that its name comes from the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief. Today it claims to work to “find lasting solutions to poverty and injustice.” So imagine the surprise when I read on WUWT that Oxfam is now pushing an international tax on maritime transport.
Why the surprise?
Such a tax would increase the price of all goods that are traded via shipping. First, it would add to the difficulties that many developing countries have in meeting their demand for food. In particular, a substantial share of the food consumed in developing countries is imported:
- In least developed countries, cereals account for 57% of the calories consumed. But net imports of cereals amount to over 15% of domestic production. [Data from FAOSTAT.]
- In Africa, cereals account for 50% of food calories consumed, but net imports amount to 41% of indigenous production.
Thus, even a small increase in the price of imported crops would push many who are already living on the margin in these areas into poverty and hunger. The UN Food and Agricultural Organization estimates that 925 million people suffer from chronic hunger worldwide. Adding to these numbers would seem to be antithetical to the purpose of the Oxford Committee on Famine Relief.
Second, a tax that would increase the price of traded goods would reduce trade and, with that, economic growth. But economic growth is the best antidote to poverty. Historical experience shows that poverty is reduced fastest where economic growth is greatest, as suggested by the following figure.
This figure shows that the most spectacular reductions in poverty occurred in East Asia and the Pacific, where the number of people living in “absolute poverty” (defined as living on less than $1.25 per day in 2005 dollars), dropped from 1,071 million to 316 million between 1980 and 2005. And as anyone who has bought anything in the past few years ought to know, their economic growth was driven substantially by trade.
To summarize, despite Oxfam’s claim that it works to “find lasting solutions to poverty and injustice,” the policies it pursues assures that it will never be out of a job.
Figure: Poverty rates (in %) in the Developing World, 1981-2005. Source: PovCalNet, World Bank (2010).
Zeppelins! ;->
Dave Pitchford says:
December 13, 2011 at 3:34 am
I’d like to know which anti-poverty organisation we should support. Any?…..
_________________________
The Salvation Army. My father was Army liaison with the Red Cross and HATED the Red Cross. Years later when stationed overseas we were told to go to the Salvation Army if we needed help and forget the Red Cross. Experience of other soldiers showed this to be good advice.
I have never heard a bad word about them. (I am not Christian BTW)
In their “Economic Justice” Statement they say:
Pamela Gray says:
December 13, 2011 at 6:31 am
“. . . with say…goats.”
One way of doing that would be:
http://www.heifer.org/?msource=magento
————————————————–
JPeden says:
December 13, 2011 at 5:48 am
“Go find someone who validly needs help yourself. Then do it.”
You might have added that this is extremely easy to do, may not involve giving away your money (that you may need), and may involve a return gift of cookies!
—————————————–
Fred from Canuckistan says:
December 13, 2011 at 5:51 am
“OXFAM . . . must be Old English for “Head Stuck up Wazoo”
Wazoo just happens to be the “now discredited” nickname* of the school otherwise officially known as Washington State University.
*See
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Washington_State_University_-_Spirit_and_traditions/id/5574032
Of course there is that other slang meaning also.
And here I was thinking Oxfam was okay because they were against biofuel… Unfortunately they are duped into believing the rent seekers that famine is somehow connected to global warming when famine has generally been associated with global cooling throughout history such as crop failures during the LIA for example. Sheesh, can these people not figure out that warming increases the growing season in the higher latitudes?
Do some research Oxfam, yields continued going UP while the planet warmed at the end of the last century and now appear to have slowed since the the planet stopped warming any further over the last decade.
Sounds like Oxfam are pushing this tax for the EU – one of their donors – the same way that they push the Tobin tax for them. And of course EU import tariffs damage the third world, too. None of them give a damn.
@Gary Young Pearse
Years ago a work colleague of mine, a guy about as hippy as you could get in the 1980’s, refused to donate to famine relief in East Africa. He explained how he had seen cargo ships docked in Mogadishu replenishing their food stores by buying crates of relief supplies from dock workers. Crates clearly marked for famine relief only. His description, coming as it did from someone who outwardly you would have expected to actually be soliciting donations, was a real eye-opener.
Mike.
John F. Hultquist says:
December 13, 2011 at 10:22 am
Pamela Gray says:
December 13, 2011 at 6:31 am
“. . . with say…goats.”
One way of doing that would be:
http://www.heifer.org/?msource=magento
______________________
NO!
Heifer International is BAD NEWS! A guy from Africa was over here trying to save the zebu cattle in his country. He told us (a bunch of farmers ) that Heifer International would only give them a prue bred calf IF and only if they got rid of (killed) their native cows. The calf they got was not hardy like the native cattle and ended up dying so the farmer was left with nothing.
Rajan Alexander posted a link above to his blogpost on Oxfam’s ‘Climate Smart Agriculture’. It’s well worth a read and a linkage to Facebook.
http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/2011/12/climate-smart-agriculture-new-eco.html
One charity that does good work is Water Aid. I dont know the figures but i suspect that they have saved more lives than Oxfam, Save the children and all the others put together
Si if you want to donate to a charity that works then Water Aid is the place to donate
Dave Pitchford says:
December 13, 2011 at 3:34 am
I’d like to know which anti-poverty organisation we should support. Any?
=======================================================================
Dave-
I’m sure others will have suggestions, but one of my personal favorites is Heifer International. They have been in existence since the nineteen forties. Their approach is along the lines of “teach a man to fish.” They provide farm animals (all kinds, depending on the local situation) to a family, along with instruction on how to care for the animal. The family must give away to first animal born to the gift animal to another family. Heifer International’s website is
http://www.heifer.org
A check of the charity rating website
http://www.charitynavigator.org/
shows Heifer International to be well run.
Rajan Alexander
Very interesting site. Thanks.
BTW, do you know Oxfam’s stance on GMOs?
“Richard says:
December 13, 2011 at 1:31 am
@MangoChutney.
It’s really quite simple. Something awful happens in a third-world country – drought, flooding, starvation – and there’s a news report that tugs at the heart strings of some decent people in …”
Add to what you have stated here these two facts, the use by Third Sector organisations of the Chatham House Rule (originally intended only for situations of dire national emergency but is now commonly used) which allows meetings to be unrecorded and un-minuted – in other words secret.
Plus the Third Sector (the charity, voluntary, community sector) continuing to not fall under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000 even though this sector is now literally taking over from the Public Sector (covered by the FOI Act 2000) in many areas. Coincidence?
This ‘injustice’ that Oxfam management and members seek is the secular social justice that is based on relative morality and socialist economic principles. It involves the destruction, not the support, of property rights. It involves income redistribution. It is based in part on attempting to impose justice via coveting and theft. Underneath it all, it is just more secular attempts to attain the long-sought Utopia.
When private property is subject to arbitrary suspension and prices subject to ideological meddling, the free market cannot function. Without prices, the economy is not “sustainable”, another cherished concept of those who seek social justice. Without prices, the various participants in the economy cannot make a rational economic decision and thus cannot reliably make a profit. Without a profit, waste cannot be overcome, capital equipment cannot be purchased, new products cannot be invented. Without a profit, the finite capital is consumed. When it is all gone, the enterprise cannot function. Without functioning enterprises, people cannot purchase their food, clothing or shelter. Without a free market, people will die. This is why Koreans are perishing in the North while prospering in the South. Oxfam’s philosophy is contrary to liberty and prosperity even as they cannot exist today without donations that only come from wealth created by free and prosperous donors.
That bears repeating because it’s perfectly true. Give them a standing army and an IRS and they’d be the US federal government…
Oxfam. Greenpeace etc are not charities. They are political organizations. As such they should be subject to taxes etc.
To the person who asked a question about a “charity”, I would say that there is none better than the left-wing Medecin san Frontiers (doctors without borders). These doctors do in fact stay true to the ideals of the organization and they go into war zones to perform their duties, knowing the risks that are involved. They also go to places like Haiti after the earthquake. If there is a disaster then they will attempt to go there. That is the kind of “charity” that I can support if I desire. Otherwise there are plenty of other alternatives to Oxfam where the money actually goes to those in need.
What is really questionable about Oxfam is why they have not adopted some of the methods that were applied by the Israelis in their early days as a nation, when they pursued delsalination so that they had clean water to drink (back in the 1950s), and they used greenhouses to grow their produce.
At the same time these are the same people who have been destroying the experimental genetically modified food crops that could help the people in Africa, by producing seed that is drought resistant. That destruction is based upon something that is likely in the realms of junk science.
Leftists are loyal only to leftist causes, not to those they pretend to help. It is a shame that all these do-gooder organizations have been taken over by leftists. Leftist opposition to DDT and to the Borlaug’s green revolution tells you they can be, and often are, extremely detrimental to the poor. Now they are enemies of fossil fuel, an essential ingredient of prosperity. OxfAm should examine the graph in this article about the evaporation of poverty and consider that free trade is the answer to hunger and poverty, not left wing paranoia. Besides, all the IPCC dire predictions about global warming effects have failed.
I guess acting against cheap fuels, hybrid crops mining and the like is part of Oxfam’s, UN’s and most NGO’s corporate survival plans.
Simple Explanation: I believe Oxfam largely funded by European Union, EU
You know, it’s funny how we are all expected to contribute to this program and that under the guise of ending world hunger. The most frustrating thing in this process is the faces of hungry children year after year after year in never-ending hopeless human misery. In the year 2007, there was enough food to feed every human on the planet, 2,247 pounds of food per man, woman, and child, if the figures on FAOSTAT were any indication. This figure does not include livestock. I’d like to find out what the food figures were for 2009, to get a map going, but right now, FAOSTAT is inaccessible to the general public. All the transportation and basic network and human forces are there to realize a soup kitchen within a 10 mile radius of everywhere that there are people that need to eat, but don’t have the resources. Jobs are scarce due to the Trojan Horse of job erosion: the computer. And you can’t grow money on trees as fast as you can grow food. But as long as there is a lack of human will, the human race will see starvation, and this starvation will be reflected in the eyes of the least of humankind: starving children.
One more thing: I meant to say the “least of humankind”: starving children.