>So here we have the World Bank making loans to produce more of a
>crop of which there was already a glut.
Sorry Les, but I'm missing your point.
Todd
>>
It wasn't that fine of a point (in either sense of the word), I guess. The thread started like this:
<<From: B. DeLong: (regarding the activities of the world bank)
> There's something wrong with helping farmers grow more food?
from J. Golowka:
Increasing the amount of food grown will only help baby boomers get fatter.
If we want to fight world hunger then we have to change the distribution
system.>>
So, I interpreted the original posts in the context of the long-standing debate between those who see absolute food shortage as the main cause of the problem of hunger and those who see maldistribution of resources (land, capital, jobs & income with which to buy grow or buy food) as the main cause.
In the Vietnam example, there was no absolute "lack of coffee", but there was an opportunity to undercut "inefficient" producers by starting production to a cheaper (I guess) labor market (Vietnam), funded by the world bank.
So the Vietnamese involved are somewhat better off (I guess), and the inefficient loser producers elsewhere are somewhat worse off (I guess), at least until they get their act together and figure out where their comparative advantage lies. And I get my latte for a few pennies less (because most of the difference between $3 a day and $2 a day gets sucked into the black hole somewhere between the Vietnamese coffee plantation and my local Starbucks).
And this process is funded by the world bank. For the straightforward purpose of helping farmers grow more food (or coffee, as the case may be...).
Les