"We produce a lot of food for everyone"

[dede2002]

economic development, which of these two words is the worst?

One can dream and imagine that the economy is not monetary, or the development not destructive?

We often quote "$ 1 a day per person", but that's an average. Those who actually only have one dollar a day in a city live very badly (78% of the Malagasy urban population lives in slums), those who live in the countryside (the majority, for the moment ...) earn much less money, but live comparatively better, as long as the sky does not fall on their heads.
Encouragement would be enough to feed the urban ones, while rice imports have recently reached record levels.

[Ahmed]

Yes, "economic development, which of these two evils is the worse?"
We must not dream that the economy is something other than the economy and that, therefore, it has little to do with the needs of men.
The development of something is done at the expense of something else and when it comes to economy ...

[dede2002]

It is indeed a very lucid text, even if it does not go to the end of its approach.
The most important sentence is this: "we must not reduce the Malagasy to its economic dimension".

Wishful thinking if ever there was one! Especially since he then speaks of economic development: greet the artist ...

I like the full sentence:
"If we want to regain our freedom and have law only our needs, CULTURE and EDUCATION must be given priority and not reduce the Malagasy to its sole economic dimension. "

[dede2002]

The economy is what pushed our society to always want more.
Initially, it was to save food stocks to spend the winter ...
Those who have not succeeded in this economy have either disappeared or chosen places without winter.
Those who survived the winters have accumulated their stocks, their wealth, for fear of running out, and finally "they" try to take over the whole world ...

[Ahmed]

Yes, you're right, but from the moment the economic dimension remains present, it excludes or in any case minimizes the other aspects.

In an unequal exchange the loser can only lose since the rules of the game are by definition favorable to the one who establishes them. From a certain point of view, it even goes much further: it is not sure that there can be a winner other than apparent, but it is sufficient for the functioning of the mechanism.

It is typically the kind of aesthetic text that mixes lucidity, good feelings and blindness.

[dede2002]

Which means that the problem would be the rules of the game, not trading?
The new buzzword is "win-win" ...

[Ahmed]

Of course! The rules of the game are established by whoever is in a position of strength, therefore to his advantage ... and if, by chance, these rules become less favorable to him, he would just have to modify them ...

Win-win is part of the rhetoric used to hide this reality.

[dede2002]

The rules of the game are clearly obscure ...

In illustration these three sentences in the article of the diplomatic world on the transtlantic treaty:
"The American delegations have more than six hundred consultants appointed by multinationals, who have unlimited access to preparatory documents and to representatives of the administration. Nothing should filter. Instructions have been given to leave journalists and citizens to the discrepancy in discussions: they will be informed in good time, when the treaty is signed, when it is too late to react.

In a casino, whoever wins every time ends up plucked in public.
In a globe, Prolix would say "something is going to happen" ...

Now, we little pawns, what can we do?

I stand by what I wrote about "fair" trade, I see it as an attempt to change the rules of the game ...
Although it is palliative, insufficient, delaying the deadline. *
It's not just that, each little pawn could optimize his lifestyle, if he could have a broader, global vision, ...



* Taken over by the "big guys" to push people to buy more "with a clear conscience".
But who also contributes to the "collective awareness" that could emerge ???

[Ahmed]

for me, fair trade remains a product derived from classic trade with which it does not oppose but enters into a relationship of complementarity.
You say:

each little pawn could optimize his lifestyle, if he could have a broader, global vision, ...

Yes, what matters above all is lucidity.

[Janic]

this sir sur arte at 20 pm: "the hunger market"