to a large extent capitalism shouldn't be going around the world forcing everyone into a single standard of living.
just because people in one land live one unique life style, does not mean people of another land should strive to copy that other lands unique life style for there own.
standarizing life styles around the world has destroyed native life styles which were established for centuries in regions that carried with them an aspect of sustainability. capitalism's standardized life style has destroyed the balance once upheld by native life styles causing many to fall into standarized measurement of what defines the starving and impoverished. where if native life styles had not been disrupted:
such definitons could either
A: not be applied to the natives because there life style keeps them unique from the standardized measure's units of measure (so they cannot be measured in the first place.)
b: the units of measure would have found there life style provides them with enough.
there is lies the problem, what is enough for individuals? capitalism says theres no limits to your verticle accumulation, where as native life styles often left people with a limited sense of verticle accumulation which was also unique to there region of living and would go side n side with aspects of the regions sustainabilities needs.
when people break out of there native life styles and all try and accumulate vertically they break the limits of sustainability set up in there former native life style, this also brings them into a life style measurable in units that capitalism measure's recognize and will define them as impoverished and not having enough.
damn it out of time--- i'll finish my point later, back to work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Collaborative Pub: Ice Cold Thoughts Always On Tap Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
--------------------------------------------------- Vintage will rise again!Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
What number is an acceptable amount? (they are not dying) Still waiting for what standard some of you hope to obtain.
I think an ideal goal is "no-one." The realistic result would probably be less than that, but I don't think any number of people starving to death, or even going hungry, is "acceptable"; we should constantly be striving to improve the world.
Thats a rather idealistic an inefficent way to solve a problem. It lacks a clear goal. Is it worth bankrupting the country to try and meet this objective? At what point does it become dimishing returns? I'm not sure how one can meet this goal with out addressing the questions.
EDIT: We can not reduce the number to zero, so we have to determine what the acceptable amount of starvation we will tolerate while not placing an undue burden on society as whole.
You certainly can frame it as a moral question, but you don't have to. As I explained in my 2nd paragraph, there are tangible benefits for everyone in having a strong middle class. There's also the fact that at the moment money = power, and our society has more or less agreed that concentrating too much power in one person/entity is a bad thing, sooooo... yeah clearly having only a few people hold onto all the money is a bad thing too, by extension.
As I explained in my 2nd paragraph, there are tangible benefits for everyone in having a strong middle class. There's also the fact that at the moment money = power, and our society has more or less agreed that concentrating too much power in one person/entity is a bad thing, sooooo... yeah clearly having only a few people hold onto all the money is a bad thing too, by extension.
Two of the richest people (there are more) in the world are donating almost their entire net worths to charity. Is this a bad thing? (I actully think it is)
Two of the richest people (there are more) in the world are donating almost their entire net worths to charity. Is this a bad thing? (I actully think it is)
Why? Why is it bad that people like Bill Gates are giving their fortune towards eradicating AIDS in Africa?
Thats a rather idealistic an inefficent way to solve a problem. It lacks a clear goal. Is it worth bankrupting the country to try and meet this objective? At what point does it become dimishing returns? I'm not sure how one can meet this goal with out addressing the questions.
EDIT: We can not reduce the number to zero, so we have to determine what the acceptable amount of starvation we will tolerate while not placing an undue burden on society as whole.
Is it "worth" having millions of people starve every year to be a little richer?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Two of the richest people (there are more) in the world are donating almost their entire net worths to charity. Is this a bad thing? (I actully think it is)
Why? Why is it bad that people like Bill Gates are giving their fortune towards eradicating AIDS in Africa?
Its not sustainable. Giving money is not sustainable. I'm not saying they should keep it either.
EDIT: Will AIDS still be gone by the time the money is gone?
Thats a rather idealistic an inefficent way to solve a problem. It lacks a clear goal. Is it worth bankrupting the country to try and meet this objective? At what point does it become dimishing returns? I'm not sure how one can meet this goal with out addressing the questions.
EDIT: We can not reduce the number to zero, so we have to determine what the acceptable amount of starvation we will tolerate while not placing an undue burden on society as whole.
Is it "worth" having millions of people starve every year to be a little richer?
So you saying its only a little bit of the net worth we have to give to reduce the number to zero?
Is it worth 100 trillion dollars to make sure everyone gets a meal? or is worth 50 billion to make sure 90% of the population gets a meal?
if you want to argue from a position of idealism, fine, ideals are not solutions though. If you want to talk about solutions to problems, you have to willing to define the problem (i.e. quantify) and set realistic goals. Thats the problem I have with these threads. You want to talk about "feed the poor" and say everything possible should be done....well no...thats just not realistic. It's unimaginable to you that there will always be poor people who starve, regardless of what you do.
You have to consider that since the 2008 financial crisis, central banks all around the world (especially the West and Japan) have been printing money like it's going out of style. When money is created, the people that benefit the most are the ones that get to use that money first. Or in other words... the richest of the rich.
The Federal Reserve is also paying the big banks not to lend out money. So if you want to blame someone for hoarding money, blame the Fed.
They increased the capital standards for the specific reason of decreasing the threat that a bad loan would trigger a massive system shock and require a government bail out or a massive increase in the welfare state when the bank failed or a socialist take over the banks (US, Iceland, or Swedish response and all of which I personally detest philosophically).
The pump priming has been on the increase in Japan with a staggering 200% debt to GDP ratio, yet it's core population has high savings rates along with rising wages. The rising wages are coming from a shrinking labor pool with high educations and a difficult immigration policy. So while the GDP grows at 2%, Japan's income growth remains steady.
One of the causes for the system shock is also that corporations are withholding money so they can deploy it on a recovery, however corporate investment is directly tied to GDP growth these days as a part of a recovery.
While I agree with you on the inflationary effects with regard to the sugar rush stock market, the problem is that a lot of these chicanery games with fiat currency and other forms of currency manipulation can be done with a huge conch shell game such as what occurred with the debts of WWII by having them bought out, held, and paid off at 2% or something like that.
Even then, devastated economies such as Germany was still paying WWI reparations as of a few years still to France. And Germany is considered one of the major power houses in the global economy today, even after an expensive reunification and on and on. So we have to consider some socio-cultural factors outside of just policy and money.
Then we have to consider Canada who has a lower debt to GDP ratio, yet has more regulations than the US does in terms of business. And they still do quite well in the global economy with a good standard of living. Equally, they do not have the kinds of financial collapses that we in the US do because they have very strict banking regulations. Rather than the banking panics of the 19th century where people were inventing currency paper and people losing their savings or their loans would get more expensive as specie currency was starved in the West after the Civil War. The Canadians had far fewer capitalistic issues with regards to business stability.
However, we also have to consider the post 1970's trend of increasingly generous compensation packages to business management and a weakening of lower wages for workers. Then in tandem with the sugar rush with the stock market, we can see the unfairness felt with the "rich getting richer." Simply because the middle class didn't care and many business managers got paid jack, especially in the 1950's for some industries up through to the 70's and the old Axis and Allies came back into competition with the US. Thus reinforcing the "need," unlike Germany, to outsource for cheaper labor and driving down labor costs. Which actually goes counter to Ricardo's Principals for mutualism, especially when it becomes parasitism leading to massive deindustrialization.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The realistic result would probably be less than that, but I don't think any number of people starving to death, or even going hungry, is "acceptable"; we should constantly be striving to improve the world.
if this is the case, I would imagine every time you saw a bum on the road asking for money to get food, you either give him money or buy him food, if you had the means. Afterall, it's "unacceptable" to you that people go hungry. However, I'm sure this is not the case and you find reasons not to give money or buy the begger food thereby making his purported starvation acceptable or tolerable to you.
So you saying its only a little bit of the net worth we have to give to reduce the number to zero?
Is it worth 100 trillion dollars to make sure everyone gets a meal? or is worth 50 billion to make sure 90% of the population gets a meal?
if you want to argue from a position of idealism, fine, ideals are not solutions though. If you want to talk about solutions to problems, you have to willing to define the problem (i.e. quantify) and set realistic goals. Thats the problem I have with these threads. You want to talk about "feed the poor" and say everything possible should be done....well no...thats just not realistic. It's unimaginable to you that there will always be poor people who starve, regardless of what you do.
I suppose the difference between us is I think;
a) You're vastly overestimating the cost it would take to end world hunger. Estimates put it around 300 billion.
b) This isn't a zero-sum game. Ending hunger means spurring development, which produces net economic growth; it also creates vast productivity boosts from the people who are no longer starving or on the brink of starvation; it also increases political stability, which is costly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
a) You're vastly overestimating the cost it would take to end world hunger. Estimates put it around 300 billion..
b) This isn't a zero-sum game. Ending hunger means spurring development, which produces net economic growth; it also creates vast productivity boosts from the people who are no longer starving or on the brink of starvation; it also increases political stability, which is costly. ..
So an interventionist forigen policy is ideal? You think its will only cost 300 billion to make North Korea sustainable? How much of that cost will be attributed to military intervention to rid the country of the oppresive regime which is one of the culprits of that countries starvation and undoubtedly will control the incoming shipments of food... How many lives will be lost in war to save how many lives from starvation? 1.7 trillion was the cost of the Iraq war not counting the human toll. That amount you list is bull****.
EDIT: Solving the "unacceptable" starvation that exist just in North Korea alone will be much than 300 Billion and anyone who thinks otherwise is being blissfully ignorant of the real world.
So an interventionist forigen policy is ideal? You think its will only cost 300 billion to make North Korea sustainable? How much of that cost will be attributed to military intervention to rid the country of the oppresive regime which is one of the culprits of that countries starvation and undoubtedly will control the incoming shipments of food... How many lives will be lost in war to save how many lives from starvation? 1.7 trillion was the cost of the Iraq war not counting the human toll. That amount you list is bull****.
EDIT: Solving the "unacceptable" starvation that exist just in North Korea alone will be much than 300 Billion and anyone who thinks otherwise is being blissfully ignorant of the real world.
Glad to hear your amateur opinion of the world on the Internet trumps an actual study done by experts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
The US income disparity is overplayed. I don't know of anyone starving or dying of thirst in the United States. Most people have enough capital to at least waste all of it on material desires and make ends meet with foodstamps.
The real problems are in Africa and parts of Asia. Between these regions exist serious ecological limitations which prevents their enormous populations from becoming comfortably modern. You really can't throw enough money at these regions to make things better, as they are poorly conceived or populations have grown beyond their capacity.
Regardless of whether or not we reign in the US elite class, there is still the global elite which is essentially also a part of the US elite. In the geo-political structure of the world, we are better off with the super-rich doing business here, as our lower classes are super-rich in return.
It sucks that there is not much room at the top, but even a modest salary in the United States is more splendid than all of Solomon's riches (unless you happened to find them today).
What needs to happen is that inflation and minimum wage increase proportionately to each other. This way, Old Money is obsoleted over time, while people have more incentive to work hard for New Money. The lower classes can continue enjoying their relative luxuries in comparison to millions people who live in daily fear and suffering.
edit - better public education is also a must
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks:
Legacy: RWBG Goblins RRR Burn WBU Affinity UBR Sac-Land Tendrils! BBBPox
Next possible deck: D&T, but that just wouldn't be right.
Modern: R Goblins (work in progress)
Standard: I only care about standard when Goblins is a deck.
Limited: I only care about limited when Goblins are in the set.
Glad to hear your amateur opinion of the world on the Internet trumps an actual study done by experts.
I was an intelligence analyst for 8 years...by far not an "amateur" opinion. If you are now attacking my crediblity to speak on this topic please state your bonafides.
Please cite the acutal study not just the mention of it.
Does that study take in account removing the current regime in North Korea where a signficant portion of the population goes hungry due to polices of the ruling party? Does it even mention that specfiic need? Or do they have some other magical and secret solution to somehow make the N. Korean regime less opressive? Unless that study addresses that, it is meaingless. It's delusional to think it would cost less than Iraq war to solve world hungar. Considering, in some cases, such as N. Korea, we'd have to go to war and redevelop the nation so we can make sure the population gets food. It seems you have linked a mention of that study and bought into it 100% with your idealistic leymans understanding of the worlds geopolitical unerpinnings, which by the way is the source of most of the hungar issues in several developing nations. You do not honestly think its as easy or cheap as just forking up 300 billion dollars do you? Tell me the person calling me an amateur does not think this...
The US income disparity is overplayed. I don't know of anyone starving or dying of thirst in the United States.
Where do you live in America?
When the federal government shut down state level food banks and soup kitchens had to rush to find temporary sources of food or leave people to starve.
The real problems are in Africa and parts of Asia. Between these regions exist serious ecological limitations which prevents their enormous populations from becoming comfortably modern. You really can't throw enough money at these regions to make things better, as they are poorly conceived or populations have grown beyond their capacity.
Who wants to "throw money" at anything? A lot of organizations focus on improving public works, connecting farmers to international markets, and providing people with resources.
The US income disparity is overplayed. I don't know of anyone starving or dying of thirst in the United States. Most people have enough capital to at least waste all of it on material desires and make ends meet with foodstamps.
People do die of starvation and malnutrition in the US. I'm not sure if this is still true, but one of the problems lies with homelessness and the fact that many government services require an address in order to get them. It is a downward spiral of poverty that is really hard to break out of. Heck, children die of starvation and malnutrition in housing projects all the time because their parent's have taken off and left them, or mom and dad spend the little money they have (and trade food stamps for cash) on their overwhelming addictions.
Isnt that kind of like asking the inmates how the guards and warden should run the prison?
Would you rather the guards be the only ones with a say? Because remember, what you get then is this.
There is a chain of command where the guards are just above the inmates. The guards should have just a tad more say in how the prison works. Those above the guards should have the most say, and you know the government. One of the reasons I am very much against privatized prisons. Though I have a problem with who we imprison also. I am pro death penalty. There is no way we should have the prison population we have, but thats for another thread.
As for the starvation talk, when America can grow enough food to feed the world, and people are going hungry and starving in America, thats just sad. Not to mention the American government doesnt blink twice to send billions over seas or to impoverished countries to try and fix something, yet they refuse to work on what ails us right here.
The US income disparity is overplayed. I don't know of anyone starving or dying of thirst in the United States. Most people have enough capital to at least waste all of it on material desires and make ends meet with foodstamps.
People do die of starvation and malnutrition in the US. I'm not sure if this is still true, but one of the problems lies with homelessness and the fact that many government services require an address in order to get them. It is a downward spiral of poverty that is really hard to break out of. Heck, children die of starvation and malnutrition in housing projects all the time because their parent's have taken off and left them, or mom and dad spend the little money they have (and trade food stamps for cash) on their overwhelming addictions.
Income disparity really has nothing to do with addiction. You can link this downward spiral to lack of oppurtunity in some case (again very little to do with income disparity since majority of the people in this country do not starve and do not fall into the "rich " class but still survive and live fruitful lives) but still its not the major reason addicts become addicts or people become homeless.
As for the starvation talk, when America can grow enough food to feed the world, and people are going hungry and starving in America, thats just sad. Not to mention the American government doesnt blink twice to send billions over seas or to impoverished countries to try and fix something, yet they refuse to work on what ails us right here.
How many of the people who are going hungry can we help? What is the threshold of tolerance for helping starving people? How much do we spend to help a fraction of the population not go hungry? How do we do this with out violating liberty? Should we have a government entity that make warrantless and random checks to make sure childern are being fed? Should we lock up a crack addict who sells their food for crack and force them to eat instead?
Why is it so hard for people to draw a line to the extent we can help? It's an excercise in futilty to end world hungar....but that's the only goal it seems any anything short is monstorous.
As for the starvation talk, when America can grow enough food to feed the world, and people are going hungry and starving in America, thats just sad. Not to mention the American government doesnt blink twice to send billions over seas or to impoverished countries to try and fix something, yet they refuse to work on what ails us right here.
How many of the people who are going hungry can we help? What is the threshold of tolerance for helping starving people? How much do we spend to help a fraction of the population not go hungry? How do we do this with out violating liberty? Should we have a government entity that make warrantless and random checks to make sure childern are being fed? Should we lock up a crack addict who sells their food stamps for crack?
The DCFS already does wellness checks on children.
The correct answer to your question about how many, is zero. Before we go running around the world trying to fix everyone elses problems, we need to fix whats going on at home.
I can not understand the mentality of letting people die or starve because of financial reasons. Not an innocent child, not an older person, not a homeless guy, not a family out of work. America was built by helping out each other, this turning our backs because it is profitable to do it is just tearing down the foundation of the country.
As for the starvation talk, when America can grow enough food to feed the world, and people are going hungry and starving in America, thats just sad. Not to mention the American government doesnt blink twice to send billions over seas or to impoverished countries to try and fix something, yet they refuse to work on what ails us right here.
How many of the people who are going hungry can we help? What is the threshold of tolerance for helping starving people? How much do we spend to help a fraction of the population not go hungry? How do we do this with out violating liberty? Should we have a government entity that make warrantless and random checks to make sure childern are being fed? Should we lock up a crack addict who sells their food stamps for crack?
The DCFS already does wellness checks on children.
The correct answer to your question about how many, is zero. Before we go running around the world trying to fix everyone elses problems, we need to fix whats going on at home.
I can not understand the mentality of letting people die or starve because of financial reasons. Not an innocent child, not an older person, not a homeless guy, not a family out of work. America was built by helping out each other, this turning our backs because it is profitable to do it is just tearing down the foundation of the country.
So you support warranteless searches with out probable cause to make sure childern are eating. You support locking/commiting addicts so they can eat? You suport all means to make sure people do not starve? Tearing down the foundation of this country...hmmm...these are my exact thoughts. You seriously do not think my argument is solely one of money....FYI....war and liberty is the base of my position. Further, I dispute the premise that money is not a consideration and your own actions probably would validate this, otherwise we'd be hearing stories of you feeding every person you were able too. I'm sure you have a few bucks in savings not being used. Go give that to a homeless person. You probably will not do that consequently proving you know there is line you will not cross to help.
At what point would/would not disrupt your standard of living/quality of life to help a starving person?
I swear billy is trolling. The argument "the only option is to give away all your stuff and all of your autonomy to teh ebil government or allow people to die of easily prevented problems" just seems too extreme to be legit.
Warning for trolling
For the record, I figure starvation and addiction should be classed as health issues rather than anything for the police to deal with, and I support increased taxation of those who can afford it to pay for socialized healthcare and better public education, because that's useful for society in general.
International movements to provide damaged nations with material and information to build better societies are my favorite charities: long term stability is more useful than aid drops, but requires more work. It'll probably get even harder with the increase in extreme weather events and/or general increase in heat and humidity leading to increased insect vector growth.
EDIT: A problem with personally giving money to starving people is that money will only go to starving people in the vicinity of people with money to spare, taxation potentially solves this because a government or collection of governments can route money where it's needed.
As far as "Will AIDS still be gone by the time the money is gone?", it may not be because viruses are really difficult to get rid of, but weakening it's hold on an entire continent is a pretty legit goal. Also, if they can set up better social organization (eg: stop people listening to morons who say condoms don't help), then that should sustain after the cash runs out. Long term effects of education on society, yo.
I swear billy is trolling. The argument "the only option is to give away all your stuff and all of your autonomy to teh ebil government or allow people to die of easily prevented problems" just seems too extreme to be legit.
For the record, I figure starvation and addiction should be classed as health issues rather than anything for the police to deal with, and I support increased taxation of those who can afford it to pay for socialized healthcare and better public education, because that's useful for society in general.
International movements to provide damaged nations with material and information to build better societies are my favorite charities: long term stability is more useful than aid drops, but requires more work. It'll probably get even harder with the increase in extreme weather events and/or general increase in heat and humidity leading to increased insect vector growth.
I think you have a problem comprehending my argument which is not one of solutions but one of focusing on reasonable objectives. End world hungar is not a reasonable objective. 300 million to end world hungar is delusional. I'm trying to get people to identifty and quantify the problem and create a practical goal. Such as reducing hungar by 10% in developing nations and to what extent will they reach to acheive this goal. War? intervention? Outspending? This argument we should do everything possible to end world hungar is a fools game and waste both money and resources. no one wants to draw the line of acceptable hungar and that needs to be done so we can efficently address the issue.
What needs to happen is that inflation and minimum wage increase proportionately to each other. This way, Old Money is obsoleted over time, while people have more incentive to work hard for New Money. The lower classes can continue enjoying their relative luxuries in comparison to millions people who live in daily fear and suffering.
edit - better public education is also a must
If the raise in the minimum wage is artificial this just squeezes the middle class by devaluing their labor. The minimum wage gives big corporations who can afford to pay it leverage to edge out mom and pop shops who could thrive on value before. It's just like other regulations. Why do you think the insurance industry is the most regulated industry and yet you still hear people getting ripped off by them all the time? Why do you think big insurance companies wanted Obamacare? Regulation squeezes competition who can't afford lawyers.
The wealthy will always outearn inflation. Inflation increases the wealth disparity. That's what has really happened in the last 100 years. In 1900 over 90% worked for themselves (most in agriculture but still) now more than 90% work for someone else.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
just because people in one land live one unique life style, does not mean people of another land should strive to copy that other lands unique life style for there own.
standarizing life styles around the world has destroyed native life styles which were established for centuries in regions that carried with them an aspect of sustainability. capitalism's standardized life style has destroyed the balance once upheld by native life styles causing many to fall into standarized measurement of what defines the starving and impoverished. where if native life styles had not been disrupted:
such definitons could either
A: not be applied to the natives because there life style keeps them unique from the standardized measure's units of measure (so they cannot be measured in the first place.)
b: the units of measure would have found there life style provides them with enough.
there is lies the problem, what is enough for individuals? capitalism says theres no limits to your verticle accumulation, where as native life styles often left people with a limited sense of verticle accumulation which was also unique to there region of living and would go side n side with aspects of the regions sustainabilities needs.
when people break out of there native life styles and all try and accumulate vertically they break the limits of sustainability set up in there former native life style, this also brings them into a life style measurable in units that capitalism measure's recognize and will define them as impoverished and not having enough.
damn it out of time--- i'll finish my point later, back to work.
Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
---------------------------------------------------
Vintage will rise again! Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
Thats a rather idealistic an inefficent way to solve a problem. It lacks a clear goal. Is it worth bankrupting the country to try and meet this objective? At what point does it become dimishing returns? I'm not sure how one can meet this goal with out addressing the questions.
EDIT: We can not reduce the number to zero, so we have to determine what the acceptable amount of starvation we will tolerate while not placing an undue burden on society as whole.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
You certainly can frame it as a moral question, but you don't have to. As I explained in my 2nd paragraph, there are tangible benefits for everyone in having a strong middle class. There's also the fact that at the moment money = power, and our society has more or less agreed that concentrating too much power in one person/entity is a bad thing, sooooo... yeah clearly having only a few people hold onto all the money is a bad thing too, by extension.
Only if you want to get into endless dribble about who's morals are superior.
Two of the richest people (there are more) in the world are donating almost their entire net worths to charity. Is this a bad thing? (I actully think it is)
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Why? Why is it bad that people like Bill Gates are giving their fortune towards eradicating AIDS in Africa?
Is it "worth" having millions of people starve every year to be a little richer?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Its not sustainable. Giving money is not sustainable. I'm not saying they should keep it either.
EDIT: Will AIDS still be gone by the time the money is gone?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
So you saying its only a little bit of the net worth we have to give to reduce the number to zero?
Is it worth 100 trillion dollars to make sure everyone gets a meal? or is worth 50 billion to make sure 90% of the population gets a meal?
if you want to argue from a position of idealism, fine, ideals are not solutions though. If you want to talk about solutions to problems, you have to willing to define the problem (i.e. quantify) and set realistic goals. Thats the problem I have with these threads. You want to talk about "feed the poor" and say everything possible should be done....well no...thats just not realistic. It's unimaginable to you that there will always be poor people who starve, regardless of what you do.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
They increased the capital standards for the specific reason of decreasing the threat that a bad loan would trigger a massive system shock and require a government bail out or a massive increase in the welfare state when the bank failed or a socialist take over the banks (US, Iceland, or Swedish response and all of which I personally detest philosophically).
The pump priming has been on the increase in Japan with a staggering 200% debt to GDP ratio, yet it's core population has high savings rates along with rising wages. The rising wages are coming from a shrinking labor pool with high educations and a difficult immigration policy. So while the GDP grows at 2%, Japan's income growth remains steady.
One of the causes for the system shock is also that corporations are withholding money so they can deploy it on a recovery, however corporate investment is directly tied to GDP growth these days as a part of a recovery.
While I agree with you on the inflationary effects with regard to the sugar rush stock market, the problem is that a lot of these chicanery games with fiat currency and other forms of currency manipulation can be done with a huge conch shell game such as what occurred with the debts of WWII by having them bought out, held, and paid off at 2% or something like that.
Even then, devastated economies such as Germany was still paying WWI reparations as of a few years still to France. And Germany is considered one of the major power houses in the global economy today, even after an expensive reunification and on and on. So we have to consider some socio-cultural factors outside of just policy and money.
Then we have to consider Canada who has a lower debt to GDP ratio, yet has more regulations than the US does in terms of business. And they still do quite well in the global economy with a good standard of living. Equally, they do not have the kinds of financial collapses that we in the US do because they have very strict banking regulations. Rather than the banking panics of the 19th century where people were inventing currency paper and people losing their savings or their loans would get more expensive as specie currency was starved in the West after the Civil War. The Canadians had far fewer capitalistic issues with regards to business stability.
However, we also have to consider the post 1970's trend of increasingly generous compensation packages to business management and a weakening of lower wages for workers. Then in tandem with the sugar rush with the stock market, we can see the unfairness felt with the "rich getting richer." Simply because the middle class didn't care and many business managers got paid jack, especially in the 1950's for some industries up through to the 70's and the old Axis and Allies came back into competition with the US. Thus reinforcing the "need," unlike Germany, to outsource for cheaper labor and driving down labor costs. Which actually goes counter to Ricardo's Principals for mutualism, especially when it becomes parasitism leading to massive deindustrialization.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
if this is the case, I would imagine every time you saw a bum on the road asking for money to get food, you either give him money or buy him food, if you had the means. Afterall, it's "unacceptable" to you that people go hungry. However, I'm sure this is not the case and you find reasons not to give money or buy the begger food thereby making his purported starvation acceptable or tolerable to you.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I suppose the difference between us is I think;
a) You're vastly overestimating the cost it would take to end world hunger. Estimates put it around 300 billion.
b) This isn't a zero-sum game. Ending hunger means spurring development, which produces net economic growth; it also creates vast productivity boosts from the people who are no longer starving or on the brink of starvation; it also increases political stability, which is costly.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
So an interventionist forigen policy is ideal? You think its will only cost 300 billion to make North Korea sustainable? How much of that cost will be attributed to military intervention to rid the country of the oppresive regime which is one of the culprits of that countries starvation and undoubtedly will control the incoming shipments of food... How many lives will be lost in war to save how many lives from starvation? 1.7 trillion was the cost of the Iraq war not counting the human toll. That amount you list is bull****.
EDIT: Solving the "unacceptable" starvation that exist just in North Korea alone will be much than 300 Billion and anyone who thinks otherwise is being blissfully ignorant of the real world.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Glad to hear your amateur opinion of the world on the Internet trumps an actual study done by experts.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
The real problems are in Africa and parts of Asia. Between these regions exist serious ecological limitations which prevents their enormous populations from becoming comfortably modern. You really can't throw enough money at these regions to make things better, as they are poorly conceived or populations have grown beyond their capacity.
Regardless of whether or not we reign in the US elite class, there is still the global elite which is essentially also a part of the US elite. In the geo-political structure of the world, we are better off with the super-rich doing business here, as our lower classes are super-rich in return.
It sucks that there is not much room at the top, but even a modest salary in the United States is more splendid than all of Solomon's riches (unless you happened to find them today).
What needs to happen is that inflation and minimum wage increase proportionately to each other. This way, Old Money is obsoleted over time, while people have more incentive to work hard for New Money. The lower classes can continue enjoying their relative luxuries in comparison to millions people who live in daily fear and suffering.
edit - better public education is also a must
Legacy:
RWBG Goblins
RRR Burn
WBU Affinity
UBR Sac-Land Tendrils!
BBBPox
Next possible deck: D&T, but that just wouldn't be right.
Modern: R Goblins (work in progress)
Standard: I only care about standard when Goblins is a deck.
Limited: I only care about limited when Goblins are in the set.
Pauper:
RGoblins
URCloudpost
other decks
Goblins.
I was an intelligence analyst for 8 years...by far not an "amateur" opinion. If you are now attacking my crediblity to speak on this topic please state your bonafides.
Please cite the acutal study not just the mention of it.
Does that study take in account removing the current regime in North Korea where a signficant portion of the population goes hungry due to polices of the ruling party? Does it even mention that specfiic need? Or do they have some other magical and secret solution to somehow make the N. Korean regime less opressive? Unless that study addresses that, it is meaingless. It's delusional to think it would cost less than Iraq war to solve world hungar. Considering, in some cases, such as N. Korea, we'd have to go to war and redevelop the nation so we can make sure the population gets food. It seems you have linked a mention of that study and bought into it 100% with your idealistic leymans understanding of the worlds geopolitical unerpinnings, which by the way is the source of most of the hungar issues in several developing nations. You do not honestly think its as easy or cheap as just forking up 300 billion dollars do you? Tell me the person calling me an amateur does not think this...
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Where do you live in America?
When the federal government shut down state level food banks and soup kitchens had to rush to find temporary sources of food or leave people to starve.
Who wants to "throw money" at anything? A lot of organizations focus on improving public works, connecting farmers to international markets, and providing people with resources.
And presumably they'll all love Big Brother.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
There is a chain of command where the guards are just above the inmates. The guards should have just a tad more say in how the prison works. Those above the guards should have the most say, and you know the government. One of the reasons I am very much against privatized prisons. Though I have a problem with who we imprison also. I am pro death penalty. There is no way we should have the prison population we have, but thats for another thread.
As for the starvation talk, when America can grow enough food to feed the world, and people are going hungry and starving in America, thats just sad. Not to mention the American government doesnt blink twice to send billions over seas or to impoverished countries to try and fix something, yet they refuse to work on what ails us right here.
Income disparity really has nothing to do with addiction. You can link this downward spiral to lack of oppurtunity in some case (again very little to do with income disparity since majority of the people in this country do not starve and do not fall into the "rich " class but still survive and live fruitful lives) but still its not the major reason addicts become addicts or people become homeless.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
How many of the people who are going hungry can we help? What is the threshold of tolerance for helping starving people? How much do we spend to help a fraction of the population not go hungry? How do we do this with out violating liberty? Should we have a government entity that make warrantless and random checks to make sure childern are being fed? Should we lock up a crack addict who sells their food for crack and force them to eat instead?
Why is it so hard for people to draw a line to the extent we can help? It's an excercise in futilty to end world hungar....but that's the only goal it seems any anything short is monstorous.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
The DCFS already does wellness checks on children.
The correct answer to your question about how many, is zero. Before we go running around the world trying to fix everyone elses problems, we need to fix whats going on at home.
I can not understand the mentality of letting people die or starve because of financial reasons. Not an innocent child, not an older person, not a homeless guy, not a family out of work. America was built by helping out each other, this turning our backs because it is profitable to do it is just tearing down the foundation of the country.
So you support warranteless searches with out probable cause to make sure childern are eating. You support locking/commiting addicts so they can eat? You suport all means to make sure people do not starve? Tearing down the foundation of this country...hmmm...these are my exact thoughts. You seriously do not think my argument is solely one of money....FYI....war and liberty is the base of my position. Further, I dispute the premise that money is not a consideration and your own actions probably would validate this, otherwise we'd be hearing stories of you feeding every person you were able too. I'm sure you have a few bucks in savings not being used. Go give that to a homeless person. You probably will not do that consequently proving you know there is line you will not cross to help.
At what point would/would not disrupt your standard of living/quality of life to help a starving person?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Warning for trolling
For the record, I figure starvation and addiction should be classed as health issues rather than anything for the police to deal with, and I support increased taxation of those who can afford it to pay for socialized healthcare and better public education, because that's useful for society in general.
International movements to provide damaged nations with material and information to build better societies are my favorite charities: long term stability is more useful than aid drops, but requires more work. It'll probably get even harder with the increase in extreme weather events and/or general increase in heat and humidity leading to increased insect vector growth.
EDIT: A problem with personally giving money to starving people is that money will only go to starving people in the vicinity of people with money to spare, taxation potentially solves this because a government or collection of governments can route money where it's needed.
As far as "Will AIDS still be gone by the time the money is gone?", it may not be because viruses are really difficult to get rid of, but weakening it's hold on an entire continent is a pretty legit goal. Also, if they can set up better social organization (eg: stop people listening to morons who say condoms don't help), then that should sustain after the cash runs out. Long term effects of education on society, yo.
Art is life itself.
I think you have a problem comprehending my argument which is not one of solutions but one of focusing on reasonable objectives. End world hungar is not a reasonable objective. 300 million to end world hungar is delusional. I'm trying to get people to identifty and quantify the problem and create a practical goal. Such as reducing hungar by 10% in developing nations and to what extent will they reach to acheive this goal. War? intervention? Outspending? This argument we should do everything possible to end world hungar is a fools game and waste both money and resources. no one wants to draw the line of acceptable hungar and that needs to be done so we can efficently address the issue.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
If the raise in the minimum wage is artificial this just squeezes the middle class by devaluing their labor. The minimum wage gives big corporations who can afford to pay it leverage to edge out mom and pop shops who could thrive on value before. It's just like other regulations. Why do you think the insurance industry is the most regulated industry and yet you still hear people getting ripped off by them all the time? Why do you think big insurance companies wanted Obamacare? Regulation squeezes competition who can't afford lawyers.
The wealthy will always outearn inflation. Inflation increases the wealth disparity. That's what has really happened in the last 100 years. In 1900 over 90% worked for themselves (most in agriculture but still) now more than 90% work for someone else.