Could this economic negative be turned into a positive?

September 6, 2014

The Russian government doesn't seem to want to return what it has taken from Ukraine.  It seems to be demanding that it retain everything that it has stolen.

I also have to question if even its ceasing to aggress is something that the Russian government would consider just an annoying pause, and that it will immediately aggress again wherever it wants to as soon as it thinks it can.  One thought I have about when they and other aggressors might attack again is right after the next Presidential election.  Aren't transition times always vulnerable?

The Russian government's pattern seems to be to take things, deny all responsibility, make spurious counter-accusations, wait for the alarm and censure from other countries to subside, and then to attack again.

The Russian government has also banned several food imports from the U.S., Europe, Australia and Canada?  That's what I read from a CNN article online.

Let's not forget that Russian government has used deliberate starvation as a control tactic in the past.  It was last year that I heard the term "Holodomor" for the first time in my life.

Russians might not starve because of the food ban imposed by their government.  However, that government is costing its citizens money and decreasing their quality of life, for an unworthy goal.

There are plenty of places in the world where people are starving.  Why not give the food that the Russian government says it doesn't want to them, and offset the economic loss to the food producers with government subsidies?

We can bail out banks and car manufacturers, but food producers who are hit with retaliatory economic strikes from a foreign government that is a threat to democracy and world stability can't get paid to send their products to save the lives of starving people?

These are quotes from a Huffington Post article from July 16, 2013:

"A new study, conducted by a federation of state Public Interest Research Groups, or U.S. PIRG, finds that the U.S. government has spent $19.2 billion subsidizing corn and soy junk food ingredients since 1995."

"To put that into perspective, U.S. PIRG notes, the money spent on junk food subsidies since 1995 is enough to buy nearly 52 billion Twinkies which, if laid end to end, could encircle the globe 132 times."

Do you think that we need 132 Twinkie rings encircling the planet, or do you think the healthy food that could be financed instead should be sent to people who will die or live terrible lives without it?

People who are starving can't do anything except starve.  They can't take care of themselves, their children or other relatives.  They can't work or attend school.  They can't participate in the social, professional, or political lives of their countries.  Allowing people to starve is wasting lives.



http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/07/news/russia-europe-food/index.html


http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3600046


Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, September 6, 2014 @ 2:57 p.m./edited, with additions, @ 3:15 p.m./edited @ 3:31 p.m.