back to article A Quid A Day for NOSH? Luxury!

It's that time of year as El Reg limbers up for the Quid A Day Nosh campaign and I'm here to point out that in context this is actually a pretty easy challenge. It must be, in technical terms, if one billion mostly illiterate peasants manage it all year round every year. Which is rather the point of the challenge in fact, to …

  1. 45RPM Silver badge

    Politics be damned, left or right I think we can all agree that this is a laudable cause and laudable challenge. I've done it as well, years and years ago, and nothing short of desperation would induce me to do it again. But I will be throwing some money in the pot to support the have-nots.

    Thumbs up Tim and thumbs up El Reg.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      I don't quite agree with you on politics be damned. One of the points that Tim Worstall has made in several of his articles is that not only are we in the developed world immensely rich, by both relative and historical standards. But also that globalisation has made a few billion people also immensely rich by relative and historical standards.

      I think this is an important thing to chuck into the current political debate. There's various arguments on when it happened, but wage growth for the ordinary working person has recently stalled. I don't think it's a new permanent thing, but you could argue that it kicked in sometime in the middle of the last boom. Or there's an argument, for the US/UK, that purchasing power growth petered out some time in the 90s because of rocketing housing costs (more the UK), and soaring healthcare costs in the States.

      Globalisation has chucked an awful lot of money into the Chinese economy in particular, also the rest of Asia, South America and quite a lot of African economies have been doing pretty well too. Much better than was previously thought, now that people have gone back and looked properly (partly becasue governments in Africa weren't spending enough money on their statistical offices).

      So one thing that this might be telling us is that aid is less useful than trade. Which then leads to another political discussion. We've increased the global workforce, and therefore outsourced quite a lot of jobs, and that's made a lot of our stuff cheaper. Although has also hit wages. This has happened with industry and services. But we're still protecting our agricultural sectors, with lots of subsidies, tariffs and trade barriers. Even though agriculture is likely to be a way that the very poorest can get a chance of starting to improve their lives.

      So how many more people's lives in the developing world could we improve if we traded fairly with them in agriculture too? In the EU we use the Common Agricultural Policy to increase the food prices to our consumers in order to enrich our farmers (and impoverish farmers in Africa). If we feel we need to protect our rural economies, might it not be better to have fair trade, drop the tariffs and therefore our food prices. And then use taxation to deal with the rural issues. Theoretically it should be possible to make almost everyone better off, and nobody worse off, if done right.

      1. 45RPM Silver badge

        I didn't mean 'Politics be damned' because damn politics, or because I don't think that this is a worthwhile debate. I meant 'Politics be damned' because politics tends to be a heated and divisive subject (and heated and divisive is pretty much the definition of El Reg forums too), and I feel that it shouldn't really detract from the gist of this article. We're all of a different stripe - and this is an excellent and worthy cause.

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          45RPM,

          Fair enough. I agree.

          This is an excellent cause. You've already done it, and don't fancy the culianary boredom again. Well you don't need your awareness being raised. I'm going to have a go this year, so you don't have to.

          I'm also going to try my best to "show off" a bit by having an interesting variety of different niceness to eat on my £5 - but that's just for my own personal amusement. As TW says, the £5 should really be covering everything - but then I don't think the bank will let me pay just £1 towards my mortgage that week...

          I was chatting about it this lunctime, as I blew more than my week's £5 on some prawns and noodles, that the posh coffee machine at work is 50p a cup.

          We're just so lucky to have all this stuff available. Tonight I'm going to have a lovely salad of peppers, cucumber, rocket, cress and cherry tomatoes. But if I don't fancy that, there's bacon and eggs in the fridge or stuff in the freezer. All while sat in a nice comfy flat with an iPad to faff around with, and a world's worth of enteratinment at my fingertips. And Eastenders... (Should I ever be feeling too happy.) And I can afford all this variety of grub, for a relatively small percentage of my salary.

  2. jake Silver badge

    If you know how to cook ...

    ... feeding people for under a buck a day per head isn't exactly rocket science.

    I suspect that the real story here isn't the cost per day per head, but rather teaching people in the so-called "first-world" how to feed themselves without the aid of "fast food".

    1. Neil Barnes Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: If you know how to cook ...

      If only there were, say, a cook book entitled something along the lines of 'Food for a Tenner a Week'...

      Last year, Jake, you challenged me on this. Consider it answered.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: If you know how to cook ...

        Neil,

        I'm not dissing the book. I'm dissing "the first world"'s attitude towards food. I purchased a couple dozen copies of your missive to send out to clueless relatives ... not that the idiots will pay any attention to it, mind. They haven't payed attention to me over the years. Still, I try.

        dogged,

        Yes, economy of scale works. Use it to your advantage. For example, purchase dry-goods from restaurant supply stores open to the general public[0]. 50 pound bags can be had for US$19.95, if you watch the sales. If you can't use that much before it goes off, form a collective. Five families splitting 50 pounds each of beans and rice get 20 pounds each of good protean for about 8 bucks apiece.

        Likewise, almost every urban space has room for four or five 3" pots of herbs ... Flavo(u)r doesn't always mean money.

        etc.

        [0] I use https://www.smartfoodservice.com/content/store/42/ ... Not affiliated, just a happy customer.

        1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

          Re: If you know how to cook ...

          Thanks, Jake.

    2. dogged
      WTF?

      Re: If you know how to cook ...

      > feeding people for under a buck a day per head isn't exactly rocket science

      That's true. It's economics.

      Specifically, the only way you can reliably manage it in current Western culture is via economies of scale. A factory-kitchen feeding 5000 kids and distributing meals to schools will probably do so for under $1/day by exploiting those economies of scale. However, you don't need to be Jamie Oliver to realize that the food in question is never going to be exactly great. Or nutritious. Or sustaining.

      Could i - personally - feed myself for less than £1/day? For a week? Sure. A few rabbit snares, fishing with worms (it's not cheating when you're starving), maybe 5p for a handful of raisins to take a couple of pheasants with.... none of these are an option if you live somewhere urban (unless you enjoy the taste of fox or cat or you decide bin-diving outside Tesco is allowed). Almost none of these are an option for kids.

      And don't pretend you do it, either. Not without a freezer and fridge at least. Seriously man, I'm with Tim on this one. "Raising awareness" is almost always bullshit and often actively counter-productive but this challenge - raise a few quid and actually start to get an idea of how the other half lives - cannot be a bad thing. Why do you have to scorn even this? Isn't sneering at every single new piece of technology that arrives enough for you? Who pissed in your cornflakes? And did you still count them toward your $1.25/day?

  3. boba1l0s2k9

    Tim: yes!

    You're a good man. The world needs more of you.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Free market nut stew

    It's this that makes me the right-wing free market and globalisation glorifying git that I am. This past generation has seen the biggest reduction in that absolute poverty in the history of our entire species, as a result of that free marketry and that globalisation. It works which is why I support it.

    ...

    Hats off to those who are taking this challenge. Raising awareness is normally a vomit inducing phrase but here, about real poverty, it's admirable. As is raising money to help reduce it.

    What happened to that "globalisation glorifying git"? If you're so satisfied that the free market will fix everything, why is it admirable to try to artificially skew those market forces with wealth redistribution? Shouldn't we simply be buying and eating *more* stuff to remediate global poverty?

    1. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: Free market nut stew

      "What happened to that "globalisation glorifying git"? If you're so satisfied that the free market will fix everything, why is it admirable to try to artificially skew those market forces with wealth redistribution? Shouldn't we simply be buying and eating *more* stuff to remediate global poverty?"

      If you havnt noticed there is a decent portion of the world that doesnt subscribe to capitalism. Parts are socialist or socialist leaning, parts are at war so cant really have the functioning market and productive use of capital, and some places are just flat out corrupt. Capitalism and globalisation pulls people out of poverty in a sustainable way (a job not a donation), but govs/mafia's/politicians/etc are happier taking money from those who earn it and like the status quo.

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Free market nut stew

      To our anonymous friend,

      You'll find that most free market economists will talk about market failures. Government has the job of dealing with these areas.

      For example, a free market can't function properly without the rule of law. Otherwise you make a profit, and some bugger nicks it, so you stop investing. So by definition you can't have a truly free market without a government. And I've not seen any free market economist try to dispute that. Whatever the caricatures you may see made of the arguments. Stopping monopolies, making companies pay for pollution etc. are other cases in point.

      In the case of the El Reg Nosh Posse, we're raising money for Malaria no more. Poor people who are also ill will struggle to improve their own lives. Poor people who have died obviously have no hope. So as well as the basic humanitarian reasons for wanting to help people avoid malaria, helping poorer people with basic healthcare should give them a better chance to farm or earn, a better chance to get a decent diet, and maybe more free resources to educate their kids, and/or get a business going that can allow them to help themselves.

      I remember reading lots of stuff ten years ago about how Western governments should stop targetting their aid cash at infrastructure projects, and push it into improving healthcare. The drop in child mortality and illness would be both a good thing in itself, and also help people to sort out their own economies in their own ways. Drops in child mortality and the growth in the young end of the population also tend to lead to growth in the economy - when those extra kids grow up and start working.

      1. Naselus

        Re: Free market nut stew

        "So by definition you can't have a truly free market without a government. And I've not seen any free market economist try to dispute that."

        Murray Rothbard did, as did his equally crazy student, though even most right-wing small-gov nutjobs have distanced themselves from him nowadays. Of course, his general insistence on how awesome markets would be if only governments weren't in the way forced him to endorse all sorts of horrible ideas, including 'a thriving market in child labour'... and a thriving market in children, too.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Free market nut stew

          I think I have a modest proposal to add to the cookbook

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    True poverty still exists in the UK

    Try visiting a school in a deprived area and hear stories of the only meal kids get are the breakfasts paid for by the teachers donations plus the tiny free school meals and then nothing till the following day.

    I think the reason people get so angry at your articles is that it's economics without compassion - numbers on a spreadsheet. I'm sure you will argue that's the point of economics and it's for the sociologists to wring their hands over it, but it wouldn't hurt to go and experience the data rather than just report it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: True poverty still exists in the UK

      If you want to fix the world, then economics is the way to do it. Have a sob if you like, but compassion has no place here.

      That leads to things like food being dumped on the market in Africa, causing farmers to go out of business which leads to more starvation.

      1. Pete 2 Silver badge

        Re: True poverty still exists in the UK

        > If you want to fix the world, then economics is the way to do it.

        I would humbly suggest that economics describes the problem - though that is the crucial first step before it can possibly be fixed. In order to fix it, the world needs education (foremost for Guardian journalists opinion-scribblers).

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: True poverty still exists in the UK

          In my rush to post, I may not have been clear. What I meant to say is that a working economy is the way to fix the problem of third world poverty.

          Give the people security and a functioning market to buy and sell services and produce, some limited education so they can make use of the market and they'll fix it themselves.

          Dump tonnes of food on them and they'll eat like kings for a while, then starve.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: True poverty still exists in the UK

        Economists fix the world?! I've not laughed so hard in ages. Where were all the economists predicting the recent global economic crash, or 'fixing it' by stopping it from happening in the first place.

        All of them stepped forward AFTER the event, providing endless commentary on it. All economists have 20-20 vision with hindsight. They are fuck all use at fixing problems.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: True poverty still exists in the UK

          Why is it their job to predict it or fix it?

          Markets go up, there are opportunities to make money, markets go down there are even more opportunities. Some economists bet that there would be a housing induced crash and made a fortune.

          Rushing to inject subsidies to keep your local car plant open, and then have it close exactly 18months later when the subsidy ends is politics not economics.

        2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: True poverty still exists in the UK

          Economists fix the world?! I've not laughed so hard in ages. Where were all the economists predicting the recent global economic crash, or 'fixing it' by stopping it from happening in the first place.

          There were plenty of economists predicting that the last boom would end in a big crash. But then there's a saying, "economists have predicted twenty of the country's last two recessions"...

          However some did. If you were reading The Economist any time after the late 90s, they were talking about how the imbalances in the global economy were causing problems. And how China (and the rest of East Asia to a lesser extent) were recycling their growing export surpluses into the Western capial markets. This was leading to an asset price boom and also lower interest rates. The "price of money" being artificially reduced would therefore lead to mis-investment, and inefficient use of capital. Of course calling the problem doesn't tell you when the disaster will actually kick off, or what form it will take when it does.

          But there were plenty of voices saying that European and US governments were spending too much during the boom (or at least not taxing as much as they spent), and that consumers and companies were taking on too much debt.

          This problem is now easing off thankfully. China's balance of payments is becoming more balanced, the drop in oil price means that OPEC and the Russians are now going to have to spend some of the money they made in the boom times, and hopefully that will rebalance the global economy somewhat.

          Also, give economics some credit. It predicted that the Eurzone wouldn't work (to much derision at the time). Turned out that was correct. Our understanding of how economics works is far from perfect, but it does at least act as a guide.

        3. Ossi

          Re: True poverty still exists in the UK

          "All economists have 20-20 vision with hindsight. They are fuck all use at fixing problems."

          Ironic, then, that your judgement that economists are useless depends on you having no hindsight whatsoever.

          Economists can never reach the stage of perfection that would seem to be good enough for you because they're dealing with a dynamic and ever-changing system. But so used to rising prosperity do you appear to have become that a relative blip (our level of prosperity went back to what it had been a few years before) appears to you to be good enough reason to damn the whole field of economics. It's interesting that the rising prosperity is not credited to the economists (or simply ignored because it's just seen as normal now) whilst they're blamed for the blips.

          Would you really prefer to live in a world without an understanding of economics? Do you really think economics has contributed nothing? I invite you to develop hindsight.

        4. Tim Worstal

          Re: True poverty still exists in the UK

          "All economists have 20-20 vision with hindsight."

          Would that make them like computer engineers?

          No, I don't know when your computer system is going to fall over but when it does I might be able to work out why?

          Hindsight?

      3. Uffish

        Re: economics is the way to do it

        Should one describe China's economics as being the same as the West's economics or just pragmatic.

        The economic boom in China was organised and to a great extent run by the authorities in power. Some may say that means that the authorities in power have adopted 'Western' economics, I don't think that those in power in China would ever consider that to be true.

        As another example, France had a mindboggling 'dirigiste' system for running the economy which worked well for three or four decades. It's true that the wheels have fallen off now, but I can't for the life of me imagine that they won't come up with an equally artificial new system. I just hope it works as well as the old one did.

        I would suggest "If you want to fix the world, then looking after the economies is the way to do it". Pragmatism and competence are essential, politics doesn't come into the equation.

    2. Nick Kew

      Re: True poverty still exists in the UK

      Sure, there's child poverty (and adult poverty).

      But that's a dangerous observation, because it so easily leads to a bogus conclusion that it would go away if benefits levels for their families were higher.

      People may be poor here for two reasons:

      (1) Where theory and practice differ. People may be poor in absolute terms if they are denied the money the law says they are entitled to, and have to live on much less. Benefits levels are of little relevance to those who don't get them.

      (2) Where they cannot cope. A child whose parents have an ample income but spend it all on fags and booze is indeed poor, and through no fault of their own. This is a particularly troublesome case, because the "give them more money in benefits" solution may be more likely to make things worse than better.

      A non-financial safety net - like hostels and soup kitchens, and indeed free school meals - have the huge advantage that they can't be diverted into booze/etc.

      FWIW (1) has happened to me, most recently in 2003 when I did the basic arithmetic and saw that the cost of travel to London to march against invading Iraq would've been six months food budget. And that's at the special "unwaged" rate the organisers were advertising for the buses they'd laid on!

    3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: True poverty still exists in the UK

      I think the reason people get so angry at your articles is that it's economics without compassion

      How the fuck do you know that? What gives you the right to ascribe motives to other people?

      Political debate would be a lot easier if people would start from the idea that other people are reasonably decent and trying to come to the best solution - even if they disagree on methods. You can start to make the case that somone's motives are amoral, immoral or even evil - when you have some actual evidence to back that up.

      Economics is only ever going to be a blunt instrument anyway. It's not very good at looking at individual cases, because it's not very precise. It's hard enough just guesstimating GDP levels from 4-6 months previously, let alone working out the effects on individual members of society.

      We'll never have a perfect benefits system that treats everybody equally and gets them what they're entitled to. Because all our systems are imperfect, because they're run by people. Even if we had a perfect system, that was fair, generous and properly run, we'd still then have to deal with the people claiming from it. Some of them are likely to be greedy, foolish or just accident prone (also being people) - so even after being helped perfectly., might still end up in a worse situation. I've known people to do really self-destructive and stupid things, and I've known parents to act incredibly irresponsibly and fail in their duty to their children.

      We spend something like £2,000 per person per year on healthcare in this country. A kid born today has got a life expectancy of close to 100, so we've basically got a government insurance policy that is worth £200k for each of us. Add to that a promise of various benefits, including unemployment insurance, housing benefit and pensions. What's the basic pension now £6k for every year over 67? So that's another £200k of pension to add to the £200k of healthcare - and the other stuff you might be lucky enough not to use, and free education for your kids - and whatever the costs of the fire brigade and police would be. We have a minimum wage of £13k a year, and a national median wage of about £25k. Tell me again we're not one of the richest places there's ever been?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: True poverty still exists in the UK

        >How the fuck do you know that? What gives you the right to ascribe motives to other people?

        Good heavens, someone's rattled you cage today. He/she doesn't know that and he didn't ascribe anything to anyone. The clue is in the use of "I think" which you reproduced so there's a good chance you actually read it as well but obviously didn't let that get in the way of yet another rant.

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: True poverty still exists in the UK

          Good heavens, someone's rattled you cage today.

          Chris W,

          Indeedy. And every day. Certain people in politics, often on the left but not exclusively, like to try to lay claim to the moral high ground. It is very annoying. I choose to challenge it. It's often used as a device to close down debate on topics they don't like. Or to try and win the debate by painting the opposition as 'nasty'. I think they should grow up, and try to win the debate by showing their ideas will work better than the oppositions'.

          So I defend UKIP, even though I don't like populism or single-issue parties, because they have some valid points to debate, that have been pushed aside too often. And a right to make their point without being shouted down. I defend politicians (and politics in general) from lazy, childish faux-worldly-wise-cynicism pretending to be wisdom, about them "all being the same/corrupt/whatever". And I hope thereby to improve the quality of the discussion.

          1. Ossi

            Re: True poverty still exists in the UK

            "Indeedy. And every day. Certain people in politics, often on the left but not exclusively, like to try to lay claim to the moral high ground. It is very annoying. I choose to challenge it. It's often used as a device to close down debate on topics they don't like. Or to try and win the debate by painting the opposition as 'nasty'. I think they should grow up, and try to win the debate by showing their ideas will work better than the oppositions'."

            Hear, hear!

      2. Tom 13

        Re: True poverty still exists in the UK

        To further illustrate some of the problems even if you assume the impossible perfect distribution system, I was reading a part of a Bob Hope biography a while back. The author noted his somewhat troubled childhood which was the result of his father hitting the bottle too hard from time to time. Then came the kicker: his dad didn't hit the bottle when they were having hard times, it was when he was hitting the good times. When he'd fall back on hard times, he'd sober up, move, and work himself into a new good job. At which point he'd hit the bottle again.

        Sometimes us humans are an ornery lot.

    4. Triggerfish

      Re: True poverty still exists in the UK

      Whilst that may be true, having a few friends who teach in some poor areas and just going on their anecdotes it does seem some of those kids going hungry aren't exactly being properly looked after by their parents as well.

      I'm not saying all of them but there's definitely other issues in deprived areas that are contributing factors for some kids.

  6. Salamander

    I wonder when Tim will be publishing a critique or defence of the off shore finance system. One reason why developing countries find it hard to get ahead is because they loose so much money through the off shore system. I beleive it is something like for every dollar in aid the developing countries receive, they loose ten dollars. A lot of developing countries are not actually poor. The countries just have a problem in maximising the benefits of their wealth.

    Given that a lot of developing countries assets are in the form of mineral wealth, I would think that Tim is well placed to give an analysis of this situation.

    1. Tim Worstal

      Fair enough

      For next weekend then.

      The actual number is they "lose" about the same as official aid. But what is being measured there is official going in and private sector going out. Which isn't really all that useful: we want also to know what is private sector going in?

      1. Salamander

        Re: Fair enough

        Great. I look forward to reading it.

        1. Tim Worstal

          Re: Fair enough

          So, that's 2,500 words filed on that subject then....

    2. dogged
      Mushroom

      > loose

      STOP DOING THAT

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
        Devil

        dogged,

        I know. It's rediculous that people keep spelling lose* incorrectly.

        * Incidentally I just had a pop-up from my Samsung printer driver this morning about what to do if my printer looses connection... Aaargh!

        1. Tromos

          My printer looses connection. It then loses connection because the plug falls out.

      2. Tom 13
        Devil

        With that moniker, I'd expect you'd want him to loose the dogs.

  7. streaky

    PPP

    A lot of the argument seems to depend on an unspecified measure of it and without the caveat that it's generally the worst way to measure things. Except for all the other ways.

  8. Santa from Exeter

    Oy, don't knock it 'til you've tried it!

    'medieval England had the joy of pease pudding (essentially, porridge made from dried peas)'

    There's actually a lot more to pease pudding than just the peas!

    I plan to use it as a part of my 'quid a day' food when I manage to join the posse

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: Oy, don't knock it 'til you've tried it!

      It's not called the Pease Pudding Porridge Posse you know?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oy, don't knock it 'til you've tried it!

      I plan to use Pease Pudding and Lentils to start my own wind farm and methane collection service and sell the energy back to the grid!

    3. dogged

      Re: Oy, don't knock it 'til you've tried it!

      Tim's wrong on that one anyway. The two staples were bread and pottage, pottage being "whatever you've got boiled in a pot until you can eat it. With bread". Similarity in word to the French "potage" is absolutely intentional.

      1. Tim Worstal

        Re: Oy, don't knock it 'til you've tried it!

        That's a fair point. Think there was a little brain fart there by me, "pease pottage" is the thing I really had in mind.

        Not that I know that that's a real thing but that's what I meant.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A very worthy and difficult challenge.

    Food for a quid a day, that is easy.

    *everything*, now that's a lot more difficult and I'll be following this with great interest.

  10. Little Mouse

    PPP

    PPP is an abstract concept, and one that you simply don't hear about all that often. If it;s not mentioned then it's only natural to jump to the same conclusion that Zoe Williams did when you see news reports that trot out figures with regards to costs and incomes - that you can buy a lot more for your money "over there" than you can in the UK.

    If the articles/reports do not explicitly draw attention to the fact that they have factored in PPP, then how are we supposed to know whether they have or not?

  11. Identity
    Boffin

    Just a niggle, since we're being so statistical, and all...

    In 1990, the world population was 5.2 billion or so. Today, it's approaching (if not passed) 7 billion. therefore, 1.91 billion was was 36.7% of the world, roughly. Today's 1 billion is about 7%. Progress, indeed! Now, what per cent of the world in 1990 was 'developing' compared with today?

  12. Martin Budden Silver badge
    Go

    An Aussie version:

    For those of us living Down Under, there is an Aussie Version here: https://www.livebelowtheline.com.au/

  13. Swarthy
    Coffee/keyboard

    ...2,000 calories of rice with a few chickpeas for flavour: and just think how damn boring your diet is if you're using chickpeas for flavour.
    I'm getting dirty looks from my coworkers, the looks match my now-dirty monitor.

    Thanks Tim.

  14. HAL-9000

    Wow

    So many libertarians in one place, you sometimes get the feeling el reg is a market fundamentalists playground dressed up as an IT news / current affairs feed.

    So much dogma dressed up as good sense :(

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like