06 Feb 10
Originally posted by quackquackDo you think it is a just situation for Bill Gates to have a net worth of $56 billion while one billion people suffer from malnutrition?
I agree with the conclusion that people starve because it is not profitable to feed them. However, that is a very different argument then what you stated before that people starve because a few ultra rich people treat the rest of society like plantation workers. I live in New York City and there are homeless people (really not that many) and literally m ...[text shortened]... tributed their Starbucks money. But average Americans (not just super rich) cannot be bothered.
According to Wikipedia:
On the average, a person dies every second as a direct or indirect result of malnutrition - 4000 every hour - 100,000 each day - 36 million each year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition#Statistics
Meanwhile there are 793 billionaires in the world. The ten richest people in the world have a combined net worth of $270 billion. If those ten alone were to be stripped of all wealth above $1 billion then that would be $260 billion to distribute among the world's poor. If we did the same to all billionaires then the rich would still be fantastically rich while hunger and starvation could be completely eradicated. I fail to see how anyone could object to such a process.
06 Feb 10
1 edit
Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the FOA (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) estimates that it would take a paltry $30 billion per year to eradicate hunger in the world. Meanwhile, the governments of the world spent $1.2 trillion ($1,200 billion) on military supplies in 2006 alone.
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000853/index.html
Edit: It seems that selling weapons is enormously profitable while keeping the poor from starvation is not.
06 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettIt wouldn't work. The logistics and legal framework required for such an operation are not in place.
Do you think it is a just situation for Bill Gates to have a net worth of $56 billion while one billion people suffer from malnutrition?
According to Wikipedia:
On the average, a person dies every second as a direct or indirect result of malnutrition - 4000 every hour - 100,000 each day - 36 million each year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnu vation could be completely eradicated. I fail to see how anyone could object to such a process.
06 Feb 10
Originally posted by rwingettWhy do you think it's possible to feed most everyone in the west at a profit, but not in poor countries?
We have the capability of doing both. You know we do. The thing that stops us from doing so is that it can't be done at a profit. People are allowed to starve because there isn't enough money to be made from feeding them.
Do you dispute that conclusion?
The answer to this question is also the reason why there is starvation in these countries.
06 Feb 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOf course it's not in place. The logistics and legal frameworks of the world are all controlled by the rich who have no interest in feeding the world's poor at the expense of their own exorbitant bottom line. That's why listening to the silver-tongued sophistries of economists with their litany of excuses for why the plight of the poor is eternal, and how this really is the best of all possible worlds, is a complete and utter waste of time. Their inflated sense of self worth obligates them to tinker around impotently within the confines of a system that guarantees substantive changes cannot be made. But that legal framework can be changed. And it will not be the economists who are the ones to change it.
It wouldn't work. The logistics and legal framework required for such an operation is not in place.
06 Feb 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI never said it was "possible to feed most everyone in the west at a profit." It's not profitable to feed the poor anywhere. That's why we still have hunger and malnutrition worldwide. The profit motive virtually guarantees it.
Why do you think it's possible to feed most everyone in the west at a profit, but not in poor countries?
The answer to this question is also the reason why there is starvation in these countries.
06 Feb 10
Originally posted by rwingettif we sent in the military to knock the heads off the world's dictatorships, so that the $30B would be free to make it to the populace, would you complain about THAT?
Of course it's not in place. The logistics and legal frameworks of the world are all controlled by the rich who have no interest in feeding the world's poor at the expense of their own exorbitant bottom line. That's why listening to the silver-tongued sophistries of economists with their litany of excuses for why the plight of the poor is eternal, and how t ...[text shortened]... al framework can be changed. And it will not be the economists who are the ones to change it.
06 Feb 10
Originally posted by rwingetthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Diouf
Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the FOA (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) estimates that it would take a paltry $30 billion per year to eradicate hunger in the world. Meanwhile, the governments of the world spent $1.2 trillion ($1,200 billion) on military supplies in 2006 alone.
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000853 ...[text shortened]... ems that selling weapons is enormously profitable while keeping the poor from starvation is not.
In May 2006, a British newspaper published the resignation letter of Louise Fresco, an Assistant Director General of FAO. In her letter, the widely respected Dr Fresco criticised Mr. Dioufs management style: "I am sad that you have isolated yourself so much from most senior managers. Combined with a lack of transparency in decision making, you have stimulated a culture of silence, rumors and even fear." Furthermore she stated that "the Organisation has been unable to adapt to a new era", that "our contribution and reputation have declined steadily" and "its leadership has not proposed bold options to overcome this crisis". [2]
07 Feb 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotI don't care a fig about Diouf's character. Either his $30 billion per year estimate is accurate or it is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Diouf
In May 2006, a British newspaper published the resignation letter of Louise Fresco, an Assistant Director General of FAO. In her letter, the widely respected Dr Fresco criticised Mr. Dioufs management style: "I am sad that you have isolated yourself so much from most senior managers. Combined with a lack of tra ...[text shortened]... teadily" and "its leadership has not proposed bold options to overcome this crisis". [2]
07 Feb 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotSo you'd spend $100 billion to free up $30 billion? Sounds like a great plan.
if we sent in the military to knock the heads off the world's dictatorships, so that the $30B would be free to make it to the populace, would you complain about THAT?
I just want the rich to swing from the gallows. Is that too much to ask?
07 Feb 10
Originally posted by quackquackHow do you know unless you try it? Besides, not all the billionaires are Americans. 793 executions could save tens of millions of people. From a utilitarian standpoint it is clearly the way to go. We'd be saving many more than would die. You see? If one person somewhere on the globe dies every second from malnutrition, it would take 13 minutes and 13 seconds to equal the number of persons killed in my proposed reign of terror. Or do you think the rich are more deserving of life than the world's poorest people? I say grab your pitchfork and flaming torch and let's go get 'em.
It is not good policy to kill our highest taxpayers.
07 Feb 10
Originally posted by rwingettmy proposed reign of terror
How do you know unless you try it? Besides, not all the billionaires are Americans. 793 executions could save tens of millions of people. From a utilitarian standpoint it is clearly the way to go. We'd be saving many more than would die. You see? If one person somewhere on the globe dies every second from malnutrition, it would take 13 minutes and 13 second ...[text shortened]... he world's poorest people? I say grab your pitchfork and flaming torch and let's go get 'em.
I love the phraseology.
😀
07 Feb 10
Originally posted by rwingettit hasn't been tried?
How do you know unless you try it? Besides, not all the billionaires are Americans. 793 executions could save tens of millions of people. From a utilitarian standpoint it is clearly the way to go. We'd be saving many more than would die. You see? If one person somewhere on the globe dies every second from malnutrition, it would take 13 minutes and 13 second ...[text shortened]... he world's poorest people? I say grab your pitchfork and flaming torch and let's go get 'em.