Excluding places where government deliberately restricts access to food, the problem is totally individual. These are real people with real struggles and real issues and their own unique individual stories. It sounds like a lot when we talk about hundreds of millions suffering, but puddlejumper has a point. A problem like this does not get solved by creating an authoritative agency that goes out and crams food down people's throats. It gets solved by caring individuals taking time and resources out of their own lives to help someone else by not just feeding them, but also listening to them and reminding them that they are a part of this social creature called humanity. It seems to me there are plenty of people who are not impoverished. If we each helped someone directly, then we could eliminate a lot of suffering in the world. It is an individual solution that can solve a global problem.
This is fantastically bull****. Is polio an individual problem? How about smallpox?
Are you being serious right now?
Yeah, because hunger and poverty are contagious viral infections and diseases.
All the more reason I shouldn't go anywhere near a homeless or starving person, I might catch the bug.
I might have understood if you had compared it to racism, or injustice, or rape culture maybe, but polio and smallpox.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Just do something, anything, that personally addresses the problem on an individual level.
The problem doesn't exist on the individual level. It exists on a global, systemic level. Charity can stop some people from starving to death but only a restructuring of the global system of resource distribution will prevent people from going hungry in the first place.
It would be nice if socialists for once left their echo chambers and give a solution to the problems they point that wasn't so baffling general as "restructure global system of resource distribution".
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The reason why hunger happens is so incredibly diverse that a single "end world hunger plan" won't contemplate all cases. There's no silver bullet to be used here.
Hunger is a symptom, not a specific disease. It is a symptom of underdeveloped or primitive economies/regions, it is a symptom of adverse demographic effects, it is a symptom of dysfunctional planned economies, it is a symptom of poor urban planning, it is a symptom of natural effects. There's just a load of things involved and a lot of explanations.
So if people wants to discuss hunger, they have to discuss case by case for the obvious reason that not all hunger cases in the world tie together as unified phenomenon. It's like trying to apply epidemiology to solve diarrhea cases across the whole globe. I hope you understand how silly that sounds.
Numbers in the name of the thread paint not a grim picture at all. If the total population of the planet is 7 billion, I deduce 3.5 billion people belonging in the middle class. Not to shabby if you ask me.
Ok, I assume you have no idea about economic or world living standards based on that post.
Do you consider people that live on $2 a day as middle class?
Numbers in the name of the thread paint not a grim picture at all. If the total population of the planet is 7 billion, I deduce 3.5 billion people belonging in the middle class. Not to shabby if you ask me.
Ok, I assume you have no idea about economic or world living standards based on that post.
Do you consider people that live on $2 a day as middle class?
What, like 2 dollars a day pocket money? If its pocket money, with all other needs taken care of.. I don't know. I don't think it would be considered middle class by a unified standard. But I don't think that is poverty.
If 2 dollars a day all inclusive, those weren't people I was talking about.
7 bill - (3.5 bill + 85) = 3.49999 bill - i was talking about those people.
Sorry but this is totally nonsensical.
What you're calling the "middle class" is a group of 3.5 billion people ranging from the 86th richest person in the world (which according to Forbes is a beverage magnate in China with a net worth of over $11.5 billion dollars) to the 3.5 billionth +1 poorest person in the world barely living over the poverty line. That's not a class.
Numbers in the name of the thread paint not a grim picture at all. If the total population of the planet is 7 billion, I deduce 3.5 billion people belonging in the middle class. Not to shabby if you ask me.
Ok, I assume you have no idea about economic or world living standards based on that post.
Do you consider people that live on $2 a day as middle class?
What is this supposed to mean? $2 buys more in some places than others....
It would be nice if socialists for once left their echo chambers and give a solution to the problems they point that wasn't so baffling general as "restructure global system of resource distribution".
There is quite a lot of leftist theory. "What things should look like" and "how to get there" are topics that people have written billions upon billions of words about. What do you want, anyway? If you're at all familiar with leftists you should have come across suggestions such as mass organisation of workers with the goal of democratic control of the economy and... well, that's honestly the core of it. Unions, social programs, nationalisations etc have all been part of this struggle.
Wage gap, poverty and all that goes with it are intrinsic to the socio-economic systems that have been used since humans achieved sentience. The rich 'subsidizing' the poor will never work as a complete fix, as it has been mentioned it is unsustainable. However I am not against this, as it reduces the level, or intensity of poverty globally.
Go Mr Gates, and others who donate significant funds to alleviate suffering and poverty which enriches countless lives to some degree, IMHO people should do what they can to help others, donate if able, sponsor if you can etc.
However complete global societal change is the only way to truly remedy the broader issues.
This will not happen any time soon. All nations, communities and groups of people are nowhere near the point where such change, where distribution of resources globally, can occur in a meaningful, stable way.
msun: Knives scoop ice cream.
Highroller: No they don't, knives don't scoop. Spoons scoop.
msun: Well, knives SHOULD scoop icecream.
Highroller: We have spoons that do it. Moreover, the shape of a knife that would scoop ice cream would make it horrible for performing the functions of a knife.
msun: Highroller, you bring up spoons as though they were the utensil used for scooping ice cream.
Numbers in the name of the thread paint not a grim picture at all. If the total population of the planet is 7 billion, I deduce 3.5 billion people belonging in the middle class. Not to shabby if you ask me.
Ok, I assume you have no idea about economic or world living standards based on that post.
Do you consider people that live on $2 a day as middle class?
What is this supposed to mean? $2 buys more in some places than others....
Purchasing power is of course different everywhere. But he was referring to a "middle class". The middle-class is a term we usual consider to be able to provide for a nice family life. You know occasionally go on vacation abroad, have a good health and dental care plan, could probably afford a car, etc.
Someone living off $2 a day in rural China where they are barely staying afloat isn't the middle class, nor is it anything someone in China would consider a good life. I live in CHina by the way.
I am 50 years old. I did my time, I have fought for my right to express my thoughts. Just because they dont agree with yours, doesnt give you the right to talk down to me.
Interesting statement. It reminds me of the statements made by those whom were involved in the early movements (african-american and women) --- said years later. They fought for change or for their to express.
Not saying anything against you, just making a general comment of "I did my time."
How this regards to the OP: self entitlement. I already helps therefore I did my part; it's someone elses (the current generations) issue; etc
It would be nice if socialists for once left their echo chambers and give a solution to the problems they point that wasn't so baffling general as "restructure global system of resource distribution".
There is quite a lot of leftist theory. "What things should look like" and "how to get there" are topics that people have written billions upon billions of words about. What do you want, anyway? If you're at all familiar with leftists you should have come across suggestions such as mass organisation of workers with the goal of democratic control of the economy and... well, that's honestly the core of it. Unions, social programs, nationalisations etc have all been part of this struggle.
Yes, I'm familiar with some of the far-left political theory. The problem is that theres very little consensus there, so when i'm debating I never know precisely what position my adversary hold. When you throw overly general stuff such as "reestructure of the global economy" it gets really messy to argue again because that could mean a hundred of different things.
The echo chamber part is due the fact that leftist theorists feel entitled of not answering to their adversaries. I never heard of any marxist evoking a counter argumentation of the Dmitriev-Bortkiewicz critique. There's very little effort from marxists to answer the philopher's critiques on hegelian dialetics as well. There's zero effort from marxists to answer to any mainstream economics, despite a considerably part of mainstream economics being of empirical nature, so you have to answer to it even if you adopt a different theoretical framework. Marxist also totally ignore the relevance of game theory, by far the biggest revolution on social sciences from the last century.
EDIT: I forgot to mention Arrow's impossibility theorem which basically destroy the notion that a economy based on votes (democratic economy) would work.
I am 50 years old. I did my time, I have fought for my right to express my thoughts. Just because they dont agree with yours, doesnt give you the right to talk down to me.
Interesting statement. It reminds me of the statements made by those whom were involved in the early movements (african-american and women) --- said years later. They fought for change or for their to express.
Not saying anything against you, just making a general comment of "I did my time."
How this regards to the OP: self entitlement. I already helps therefore I did my part; it's someone elses (the current generations) issue; etc
I have been and will continue to be a huge proponent of my generation taking the fall/hit that is going to have to be taken by some generation financially or any other way for future generations to have it better then I did/do.
But when someone is balking at trying to end world hunger because we may have to fight another war, when we have gone to war for much less and petty reasons recently, it really irks me. Fear should never be a reason to not do something humanitarian, for your fellow man.
I am 50 years old. I did my time, I have fought for my right to express my thoughts. Just because they dont agree with yours, doesnt give you the right to talk down to me.
Interesting statement. It reminds me of the statements made by those whom were involved in the early movements (african-american and women) --- said years later. They fought for change or for their to express.
Not saying anything against you, just making a general comment of "I did my time."
How this regards to the OP: self entitlement. I already helps therefore I did my part; it's someone elses (the current generations) issue; etc
I have been and will continue to be a huge proponent of my generation taking the fall/hit that is going to have to be taken by some generation financially or any other way for future generations to have it better then I did/do.
I agree with this.
i.e. If I have to retire without getting any social security (that I've paid into), so that my son, and his kids, do not have to pay into that broken defunct and unfunded monster - so be it.
But when someone is balking at trying to end world hunger because we may have to fight another war, when we have gone to war for much less and petty reasons recently, it really irks me. Fear should never be a reason to not do something humanitarian, for your fellow man.
Two things wrong with this.
1) It's not fear, it's futility
It's not just one war, it's a dozen or more minor wars followed by years of occupation.
The truckloads of money they would print to fight those battles would only bankrupt more people than were poor to begin with.
All it would do is make more people equally poor - which isn't the goal is it?
2) We have fought, and are fighting stupid or unjust wars - but the fact we're fighting stupid wars doesn't invalidate an argument against a new war.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
1) It's not fear, it's futility
It's not just one war, it's a dozen or more minor wars followed by years of occupation.
The truckloads of money they would print to fight those battles would only bankrupt more people than were poor to begin with.
All it would do is make more people equally poor - which isn't the goal is it?
2) We have fought, and are fighting stupid or unjust wars - but the fact we're fighting stupid wars doesn't invalidate an argument against a new war.
I might agree with what you have said if we have not been fighting 2 of the most futile wars for the past few decades. The war on drugs and the war on terrorism. America seems to love futile causes. At least fighting hunger is a humanitarian effort.
1) It's not fear, it's futility
It's not just one war, it's a dozen or more minor wars followed by years of occupation.
The truckloads of money they would print to fight those battles would only bankrupt more people than were poor to begin with.
All it would do is make more people equally poor - which isn't the goal is it?
2) We have fought, and are fighting stupid or unjust wars - but the fact we're fighting stupid wars doesn't invalidate an argument against a new war.
I might agree with what you have said if we have not been fighting 2 of the most futile wars for the past few decades. The war on drugs and the war on terrorism. America seems to love futile causes. At least fighting hunger is a humanitarian effort.
"2) We have fought, and are fighting stupid or unjust wars - but the fact we're fighting stupid wars doesn't invalidate an argument against a new war."
Lets say we have bank robbers. They rob banks to fund their coke addiction.
If I say they shouldn't rob a bank to pay for a little girls cancer treatment - this is not an approval of them robbing banks to fund their coke addiction.
More likely, I don't want them to rob banks at all, whether it's for coke or cancer.
However, this isn't even the case.
Because I actually support worthy and just wars. I think the right causes are worth fighting for. I believe violence can solve problems.
This opinion unfortunately must be tempered by my pessimism, and my pragmatism. That while fighting North Korea to rescue it's people from severe poverty and oppression is a worthy and just cause to go to war, and I do not believe Afghanistan, Iraq, or even Vietnam, met such a standard, doesn't convince me to sign the checks.
Why you ask?
Because of that pesky pessimism and pragmatism.
1) We'd harm many of those we sought to help.
2) It'd last for decades.
3) It'd cost us so much money that inflation and debt would simply bankrupt us, and therefore, the gains would just be lost or reversed.
4) It wouldn't work, whatever was accomplished would be unsustainable, for many reasons, and doomed to failure and regression.
(basically the same reasons Afghanistan and Iraq were bad moves)
Bad moves for bad causes are just as bad as bad moves for good causes. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If we could END all the corruption and stupid warmongering, and political hocus pocus, and fix ourselves first - we'd be a much greater help to the rest of the world.
Until then, ordering up another endless global economic and military conflict, without first eating what's on our plate, is a fools game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
This thread's title is so great because it doesn't use dollar signs and brings about the truth that it's not just their combined net worth that is equal it's their value in capitalism. Those 3.5 billion literally are worth .0000000242 of one of the 85.
I <3 Capitalism.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
This thread's title is so great because it doesn't use dollar signs and brings about the truth that it's not just their combined net worth that is equal it's their value in capitalism. Those 3.5 billion literally are worth .0000000242 of one of the 85.
I <3 Capitalism.
Early in my Army tenure a boss of mine said to me "if you compare yourself to others, you will sell your sell short". This has stayed with me and I get reminded of it every time I hear or read something like this.
For me, my value is not tied to what the 85 or billions of other people are worth....I have no idea why it's relevant to point out that some people are finacially worth more than others. Why is this important to you? Are you jealous? Are you entitled to something?
My life is not changed or impacted knowing that bill gates is worth 50 billion dollars.
This thread's title is so great because it doesn't use dollar signs and brings about the truth that it's not just their combined net worth that is equal it's their value in capitalism. Those 3.5 billion literally are worth .0000000242 of one of the 85.
I <3 Capitalism.
Early in my Army tenure a boss of mine said to me "if you compare yourself to others, you will sell your sell short". This has stayed with me and I get reminded of it every time I hear or read something like this.
For me, my value is not tied to what the 85 or billions of other people are worth....I have no idea why it's relevant to point out that some people are finacially worth more than others. Why is this important to you? Are you jealous? Are you entitled to something?
Yup. I've got the problem here.
My life is not changed or impacted knowing that bill gates is worth 50 billion dollars.
This thread's title is so great because it doesn't use dollar signs and brings about the truth that it's not just their combined net worth that is equal it's their value in capitalism. Those 3.5 billion literally are worth .0000000242 of one of the 85.
I <3 Capitalism.
Early in my Army tenure a boss of mine said to me "if you compare yourself to others, you will sell your sell short". This has stayed with me and I get reminded of it every time I hear or read something like this.
For me, my value is not tied to what the 85 or billions of other people are worth....I have no idea why it's relevant to point out that some people are finacially worth more than others. Why is this important to you? Are you jealous? Are you entitled to something?
My life is not changed or impacted knowing that bill gates is worth 50 billion dollars.
Its a huge problem when that upper echelon is making laws and rules the rest of us have to abide by because they control the markets and the flow of money.
Why does it bother you someone else has more money than you or another group of people? How does this impact your day to day life in any meaingful way?
This thread's title is so great because it doesn't use dollar signs and brings about the truth that it's not just their combined net worth that is equal it's their value in capitalism. Those 3.5 billion literally are worth .0000000242 of one of the 85.
I <3 Capitalism.
Early in my Army tenure a boss of mine said to me "if you compare yourself to others, you will sell your sell short". This has stayed with me and I get reminded of it every time I hear or read something like this.
For me, my value is not tied to what the 85 or billions of other people are worth....I have no idea why it's relevant to point out that some people are finacially worth more than others. Why is this important to you? Are you jealous? Are you entitled to something?
My life is not changed or impacted knowing that bill gates is worth 50 billion dollars.
Its a huge problem when that upper echelon is making laws and rules the rest of us have to abide by because they control the markets and the flow of money.
The thing about the .0000000242 is that they make up 99.9% of the electorate.
Since you will not answer my questions, I'll draw my own conclussion on why you care about other peoples money.....
I'd still like to know what laws but I bet I never get an answer to this....maybe because the prime target you could point towards is one championed, at least in part, by socialist. The heavy lobbying agasint that law did not stop it from being passed.
Oh yeah, this has nothing to do with the huge amount of money rich people spend, that is you just avoiding the entire premise of your argument which is "it is not fair they have more money than the rest of us".
Rich conservatives spent hundreds of millions of dollars to stop Obama from getting re-elected. Health insurers spents hundreds of millions of dollars to stop the ACA....
I'd still like to know what laws but I bet I never get an answer to this....maybe because the prime target you could point towards is one championed, at least in part, by socialist. The heavy lobbying agasint that law did not stop it from being passed.
I'd still like to know what laws but I bet I never get an answer to this....maybe because the prime target you could point towards is one championed, at least in part, by socialist. The heavy lobbying agasint that law did not stop it from being passed.
Quit spamming with sites that require payment to read the content. Besides that, I still have not seen a law that impacts me.....
The largest expansion of government in the history of the country was lobbied against extensively using hundred of millions of dollars.....You keep spamming articles about lobbying efforts. I can point to just as many where despite all the money in the world, it failed to accomplish anything. Do you really think you are proving something here with your spam?
Are you being serious right now?
Yeah, because hunger and poverty are contagious viral infections and diseases.
All the more reason I shouldn't go anywhere near a homeless or starving person, I might catch the bug.
I might have understood if you had compared it to racism, or injustice, or rape culture maybe, but polio and smallpox.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
It would be nice if socialists for once left their echo chambers and give a solution to the problems they point that wasn't so baffling general as "restructure global system of resource distribution".
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The reason why hunger happens is so incredibly diverse that a single "end world hunger plan" won't contemplate all cases. There's no silver bullet to be used here.
Hunger is a symptom, not a specific disease. It is a symptom of underdeveloped or primitive economies/regions, it is a symptom of adverse demographic effects, it is a symptom of dysfunctional planned economies, it is a symptom of poor urban planning, it is a symptom of natural effects. There's just a load of things involved and a lot of explanations.
So if people wants to discuss hunger, they have to discuss case by case for the obvious reason that not all hunger cases in the world tie together as unified phenomenon. It's like trying to apply epidemiology to solve diarrhea cases across the whole globe. I hope you understand how silly that sounds.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Ok, I assume you have no idea about economic or world living standards based on that post.
Do you consider people that live on $2 a day as middle class?
Sorry but this is totally nonsensical.
What you're calling the "middle class" is a group of 3.5 billion people ranging from the 86th richest person in the world (which according to Forbes is a beverage magnate in China with a net worth of over $11.5 billion dollars) to the 3.5 billionth +1 poorest person in the world barely living over the poverty line. That's not a class.
What is this supposed to mean? $2 buys more in some places than others....
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
and we are back to war.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Go Mr Gates, and others who donate significant funds to alleviate suffering and poverty which enriches countless lives to some degree, IMHO people should do what they can to help others, donate if able, sponsor if you can etc.
However complete global societal change is the only way to truly remedy the broader issues.
This will not happen any time soon. All nations, communities and groups of people are nowhere near the point where such change, where distribution of resources globally, can occur in a meaningful, stable way.
Purchasing power is of course different everywhere. But he was referring to a "middle class". The middle-class is a term we usual consider to be able to provide for a nice family life. You know occasionally go on vacation abroad, have a good health and dental care plan, could probably afford a car, etc.
Someone living off $2 a day in rural China where they are barely staying afloat isn't the middle class, nor is it anything someone in China would consider a good life. I live in CHina by the way.
Interesting statement. It reminds me of the statements made by those whom were involved in the early movements (african-american and women) --- said years later. They fought for change or for their to express.
Not saying anything against you, just making a general comment of "I did my time."
How this regards to the OP: self entitlement. I already helps therefore I did my part; it's someone elses (the current generations) issue; etc
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
Yes, I'm familiar with some of the far-left political theory. The problem is that theres very little consensus there, so when i'm debating I never know precisely what position my adversary hold. When you throw overly general stuff such as "reestructure of the global economy" it gets really messy to argue again because that could mean a hundred of different things.
The echo chamber part is due the fact that leftist theorists feel entitled of not answering to their adversaries. I never heard of any marxist evoking a counter argumentation of the Dmitriev-Bortkiewicz critique. There's very little effort from marxists to answer the philopher's critiques on hegelian dialetics as well. There's zero effort from marxists to answer to any mainstream economics, despite a considerably part of mainstream economics being of empirical nature, so you have to answer to it even if you adopt a different theoretical framework. Marxist also totally ignore the relevance of game theory, by far the biggest revolution on social sciences from the last century.
EDIT: I forgot to mention Arrow's impossibility theorem which basically destroy the notion that a economy based on votes (democratic economy) would work.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
I have been and will continue to be a huge proponent of my generation taking the fall/hit that is going to have to be taken by some generation financially or any other way for future generations to have it better then I did/do.
But when someone is balking at trying to end world hunger because we may have to fight another war, when we have gone to war for much less and petty reasons recently, it really irks me. Fear should never be a reason to not do something humanitarian, for your fellow man.
I agree with this.
i.e. If I have to retire without getting any social security (that I've paid into), so that my son, and his kids, do not have to pay into that broken defunct and unfunded monster - so be it.
Two things wrong with this.
1) It's not fear, it's futility
It's not just one war, it's a dozen or more minor wars followed by years of occupation.
The truckloads of money they would print to fight those battles would only bankrupt more people than were poor to begin with.
All it would do is make more people equally poor - which isn't the goal is it?
2) We have fought, and are fighting stupid or unjust wars - but the fact we're fighting stupid wars doesn't invalidate an argument against a new war.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I might agree with what you have said if we have not been fighting 2 of the most futile wars for the past few decades. The war on drugs and the war on terrorism. America seems to love futile causes. At least fighting hunger is a humanitarian effort.
"2) We have fought, and are fighting stupid or unjust wars - but the fact we're fighting stupid wars doesn't invalidate an argument against a new war."
Lets say we have bank robbers. They rob banks to fund their coke addiction.
If I say they shouldn't rob a bank to pay for a little girls cancer treatment - this is not an approval of them robbing banks to fund their coke addiction.
More likely, I don't want them to rob banks at all, whether it's for coke or cancer.
However, this isn't even the case.
Because I actually support worthy and just wars. I think the right causes are worth fighting for. I believe violence can solve problems.
This opinion unfortunately must be tempered by my pessimism, and my pragmatism. That while fighting North Korea to rescue it's people from severe poverty and oppression is a worthy and just cause to go to war, and I do not believe Afghanistan, Iraq, or even Vietnam, met such a standard, doesn't convince me to sign the checks.
Why you ask?
Because of that pesky pessimism and pragmatism.
1) We'd harm many of those we sought to help.
2) It'd last for decades.
3) It'd cost us so much money that inflation and debt would simply bankrupt us, and therefore, the gains would just be lost or reversed.
4) It wouldn't work, whatever was accomplished would be unsustainable, for many reasons, and doomed to failure and regression.
(basically the same reasons Afghanistan and Iraq were bad moves)
Bad moves for bad causes are just as bad as bad moves for good causes. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If we could END all the corruption and stupid warmongering, and political hocus pocus, and fix ourselves first - we'd be a much greater help to the rest of the world.
Until then, ordering up another endless global economic and military conflict, without first eating what's on our plate, is a fools game.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I <3 Capitalism.
Early in my Army tenure a boss of mine said to me "if you compare yourself to others, you will sell your sell short". This has stayed with me and I get reminded of it every time I hear or read something like this.
For me, my value is not tied to what the 85 or billions of other people are worth....I have no idea why it's relevant to point out that some people are finacially worth more than others. Why is this important to you? Are you jealous? Are you entitled to something?
My life is not changed or impacted knowing that bill gates is worth 50 billion dollars.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Yup. I've got the problem here.
Yes it is. Welcome to reality where your laws are the best money can buy.
Its a huge problem when that upper echelon is making laws and rules the rest of us have to abide by because they control the markets and the flow of money.
Answer the questions....
Why does it bother you someone else has more money than you or another group of people? How does this impact your day to day life in any meaingful way?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
What laws? How are these law's impacting me?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
No, I'm not going to answer weather or not I am still beating my wife.
The link I posted was a google search to many articles you could have read where it showed that because Bill Gates has substantial money he could buy lobbyists and influence public policy with said money. If you don't think individuals spending money to literally write the law impacts your life in a meaningful way then I don't know what to tell you.
The thing about the .0000000242 is that they make up 99.9% of the electorate.
Since you will not answer my questions, I'll draw my own conclussion on why you care about other peoples money.....
I'd still like to know what laws but I bet I never get an answer to this....maybe because the prime target you could point towards is one championed, at least in part, by socialist. The heavy lobbying agasint that law did not stop it from being passed.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Rich conservatives spent hundreds of millions of dollars to stop Obama from getting re-elected. Health insurers spents hundreds of millions of dollars to stop the ACA....
So where are you going with this?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Now if only they had 99.9% of the power!
You do that. I mean it's not like I keep posting links to how money=political capital. Here's another one, just in case.
The answers you seek are a mere click away!
Quit spamming with sites that require payment to read the content. Besides that, I still have not seen a law that impacts me.....
The largest expansion of government in the history of the country was lobbied against extensively using hundred of millions of dollars.....You keep spamming articles about lobbying efforts. I can point to just as many where despite all the money in the world, it failed to accomplish anything. Do you really think you are proving something here with your spam?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.