Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
nobody starves due to laziness
Saturday, June 18, 2016 6:55 PM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Saturday, June 18, 2016 9:36 PM
THGRRI
Saturday, June 18, 2016 9:59 PM
Sunday, June 19, 2016 8:30 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: I take it the THIRDSTOOGE is confused about what a REAL world event is. Figures.
Sunday, June 19, 2016 11:29 AM
SECOND
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: The hundreds of millions of hungry people are hungry because their access to the resources they need to live is being blocked by other people. So my next question is: what are the SPECIFIC mechanisms used to deprive people of resources?
Sunday, June 19, 2016 7:31 PM
KPO
Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.
Quote:So my next question is
Quote:what are the SPECIFIC mechanisms used to deprive people of resources?
Sunday, June 19, 2016 7:49 PM
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: double
Monday, June 20, 2016 1:27 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Quote: So my next question is - KIKI This was your first and only question.- THIRDSTOOGE what are the SPECIFIC mechanisms used to deprive people of resources?- KIKI The concept of ownership.- THIRDSTOOGE
Monday, June 20, 2016 8:17 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Quote: So my next question is - KIKI This was your first and only question.- THIRDSTOOGE what are the SPECIFIC mechanisms used to deprive people of resources?- KIKI The concept of ownership.- THIRDSTOOGE In other words ... "Property is theft." It's taken you a long time to figure that out, but you finally got there.
Quote:But one national expert warned that it's too early for Houston-area trauma-care advocates to declare victory anytime soon. "The challenge for the new Level 2 centers will be to come up to speed very quickly, suddenly treating seriously injured patients they used to send to the Medical Center," said Dr. Robert John Winchell, director of the trauma center at New York Presbyterian Medical Center and chairman of the College of Surgeons' trauma systems evaluation and planning committee. "Centers new to treating complex head injuries and doing a smaller volume than Level 1 centers, that's when morbidity and mortality rates increase." Winchell said such realities drive the debate, often political, about what model best serves a region. He noted that a single Level 1 trauma center in Seattle serves Washington, Alaska, Montana and Idaho whereas Boston has five Level 1 centers in an area significantly smaller than Greater Houston. Some experts argued it was too costly and inefficient to have so many until the surplus proved lifesaving after the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. Winchell, who served as trauma chief at Memorial Hermann in the Medical Center from mid-2014 to mid-2015, said the College of Surgeons' position is that trauma care should be planned by a coordinating body rather than emerging spontaneously under a business model. He said having Level 2 centers at geographic coordinates sounds good but may not match a region's injury demographics and disaster preparedness needs.
Monday, June 20, 2016 9:15 AM
DEVERSE
Hey, Ive been in a firefight before! Well, I was in a fire. Actually, I was fired from a fry-cook opportunity.
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: So my next question is: what are the SPECIFIC mechanisms used to deprive people of resources?
Monday, June 20, 2016 9:39 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: In 2014 10.9% of the global population (or about 750 million) suffered from malnutrition. http://www.worldhunger.org/2015-world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/ About 7.7 million die every year from hunger. http://www.poverty.com/ And while the tendency is to write those deaths off as being due to laziness, ignorance, promiscuity, or backwardness - in fact, adults capable of work, with access to resources needed for survival, and access to modern contraception, aren't going to voluntarily sit around and voluntarily let themselves and their children starve ... just because. The hundreds of millions of hungry people are hungry because their access to the resources they need to live is being blocked by other people. So my next question is: what are the SPECIFIC mechanisms used to deprive people of resources?
Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:18 AM
Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:23 AM
Tuesday, June 21, 2016 5:40 AM
Tuesday, June 21, 2016 6:30 AM
Tuesday, June 21, 2016 7:35 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: second You look at a small slice of a situation and fail to address the unimaginably vast troves of wealth outside of your view that are unused. I appreciate the very specific article, but, like a lot of liberal hand-wringing and faux-concern, it wants to pretend that those disparities don't exist, and that the problems can be solved by making minor adjustments to our current structure (and then is faux-dismayed that the numbers don't work out).
Tuesday, June 21, 2016 7:37 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: Which system would you say then contributes to or creates more poverty? Capitalism, communism, or socialism? We've discussed this before. And you don't give a shit. Remember? THUGGR - Your (sic) a fucking moron: who gives a shit?
Tuesday, June 21, 2016 8:50 AM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: So you are saying because Russia and China have adopted many aspects of Capitalism because Communism and Socialism wasn't working, look how poorly it works for Cuba and Venezuela, that capitalism helps lift more people out of poverty. Have I got that right?
Tuesday, June 21, 2016 9:15 AM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: So you are saying because Russia and China have adopted many aspects of Capitalism because Communism and Socialism wasn't working, look how poorly it works for Cuba and Venezuela, that capitalism helps lift more people out of poverty. Have I got that right? No, you have not got that right. Everyone in the USA, for example, could be lifted out of poverty, but only the ones with the very best connections are: Why I Was Wrong About Welfare Reform by Nicholas Kristof June 18, 2016 Every year I hold a “win a trip” contest to choose a university student to accompany me on a reporting trip to cover global poverty in places like Congo or Myanmar. This year we decided to journey as well to Tulsa, in the heartland of America, because the embarrassing truth is that welfare reform has resulted in a layer of destitution that echoes poverty in countries like Bangladesh. Recent research finds that because of welfare reform, roughly three million American children live in households with incomes of less than $2 per person per day, a global metric of extreme poverty. That’s one American child in 25. They would be counted as extremely poor if they lived in Africa, and they are our neighbors in the most powerful nation in the world. So my win-a-trip winner, Cassidy McDonald, an aspiring journalist from the University of Notre Dame, and I interviewed families in Tulsa. Extreme poverty is not the same in the U.S. as in Africa, for America has better safety nets from the government and from churches and charities. But it’s still staggering, and instead of mitigating the problem, “welfare reform” has exacerbated it. www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/opinion/sunday/why-i-was-wrong-about-welfare-reform.html
Tuesday, June 21, 2016 10:16 AM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Sorry Second but you are talking about income distribution. I am talking about the best System to generate income. You see 1kiki likes to complain and start threads bemoaning poverty while at the same time on other threads, promote political systems that create poverty. I am addressing that with her. An example of poor income distribution would be; "Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991-1992, and the end of the centrally controlled "command economy," a new class of wealthy private capitalists with close government connections has emerged in Russia. The new ruling clique that has replaced the Soviet-era "nomenklatura" is widely referred to by the American-origin term "istablishment." At the same time, life for most Russians has not improved. The great majority still struggles to survive, sometimes below the subsistence level. Industrial and agricultural production have fallen 50 percent in recent years, and millions are not paid their paltry salaries on time. Because most people lack hard currency to buy anything but essentials, consumer goods are generally accessible only to successful speculators, the mafia, and higher government officials. For the average Russian, and especially the elderly, life is not just impoverished, it is becoming desperate. [See: "Nationalist Sentiment Widespread, Growing in Former Soviet Union." Now lawlessness prevails in Russia, with business life functioning at a level similar to that of Al Capone's Chicago. There is no effective system of laws to ensure the fair and orderly operation of business, banking, finance, insurance, stock trading, and so forth, and existing laws are neither consistently nor impartially enforced. Lawlessness and excess are more often rewarded than punished, and people have little protection against fraud by the new criminal class." Corruption is a terrible thing and has a negative effect on populations if there is an unfair distribution of resources.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:39 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Sorry Second but you are talking about income distribution. I am talking about the best System to generate income. You see 1kiki likes to complain and start threads bemoaning poverty while at the same time on other threads, promote political systems that create poverty. I am addressing that with her. An example of poor income distribution would be; "Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991-1992, and the end of the centrally controlled "command economy," a new class of wealthy private capitalists with close government connections has emerged in Russia. The new ruling clique that has replaced the Soviet-era "nomenklatura" is widely referred to by the American-origin term "istablishment." At the same time, life for most Russians has not improved. The great majority still struggles to survive, sometimes below the subsistence level. Industrial and agricultural production have fallen 50 percent in recent years, and millions are not paid their paltry salaries on time. Because most people lack hard currency to buy anything but essentials, consumer goods are generally accessible only to successful speculators, the mafia, and higher government officials. For the average Russian, and especially the elderly, life is not just impoverished, it is becoming desperate. [See: "Nationalist Sentiment Widespread, Growing in Former Soviet Union." Now lawlessness prevails in Russia, with business life functioning at a level similar to that of Al Capone's Chicago. There is no effective system of laws to ensure the fair and orderly operation of business, banking, finance, insurance, stock trading, and so forth, and existing laws are neither consistently nor impartially enforced. Lawlessness and excess are more often rewarded than punished, and people have little protection against fraud by the new criminal class." Corruption is a terrible thing and has a negative effect on populations if there is an unfair distribution of resources. I google gnp Russia and I get these graphs that do not totally support your point of view. Russian GNP did go down, as you are saying, but then it came back up. My point would be that any stupid-ass system, even one that can be better described as Kleptocracy than Capitalism, can be made to function. If Putin would remove more of the stupid from his stupid-ass system, it would function better and smoother with less effort for all Russians.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:58 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Quickly, if you have three rich people in a town it brings up the whole town's perceived incomes.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016 5:09 PM
Tuesday, June 21, 2016 7:24 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Yes it's very bad. It has been heading in that direction for a long time. I feel very bad for the people. We need to be sending aid.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016 7:30 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Yes it's very bad. It has been heading in that direction for a long time. I feel very bad for the people. We need to be sending aid. Send the President of Venezuela advice, not food or money. "If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" -- Will Rogers. President Nicolas Maduro will get a brain and everything will work out well.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:34 AM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Yes but in the meantime let's help the victims of this stupidity.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016 12:59 PM
REAVERFAN
Wednesday, June 22, 2016 1:48 PM
Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:04 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Yeah SECOND I don't know what else to say. It's terrible and I don't see it getting better anytime soon. I really think we need to help. Is our elected officials even talking about this? I don't hear Clinton speaking of it either.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:38 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Yeah SECOND I don't know what else to say. It's terrible and I don't see it getting better anytime soon. I really think we need to help. Is our elected officials even talking about this? I don't hear Clinton speaking of it either. The crisis may be forcing a thaw in relations with the US, long presented as a bogeyman by Chávez and then Maduro. The US under secretary of state, Thomas Shannon, flew to Caracas this week, following a meeting at the OAS between John Kerry and his counterpart, the Venezuelan foreign minister, Delcy Rodríguez. www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/22/venezuela-economic-crisis-guardian-briefing But if the USA sent a million tonnes of absolutely free food, President Maduro would scheme to personally earn two billion dollars by selling it for $2 per kilogram. And thus the cycle of stupidity in governing Venezuela would continue. Maduro gave a less than conciliatory televised address in which he accused U.S. President Barack Obama of trying to interfere in Venezuela’s internal affairs. “I gave Shannon a message to take back to President Obama. We hope that Obama can rectify the posture he’s taken during eight years of opposing Venezuela’s revolution. Hopefully in these last seven months of his presidency, we can start down the path toward dialogue, with respect for a positive agenda between the two countries. I really hope we can,” Maduro said. www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/top-us-diplomat-to-meet-with-venezuela-officials-amid-crisis/2016/06/21/0aef7f9a-3812-11e6-af02-1df55f0c77ff_story.html www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-usa-idUSKCN0Z82A4 Photos today of President Maduro show him in a blazer rather than his usual baggy tracksuit or baggy shirt. I don't expect he will, but Maduro should cut back on his eating to show his solidarity with the starving people he misrules.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:05 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Well then, that's the answer. Shoot Maduro
Thursday, June 23, 2016 12:04 AM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: Which system would you say then contributes to or creates more poverty? Capitalism, communism, or socialism? We've discussed this before. And you don't give a shit. Remember? THUGGR - Your (sic) a fucking moron: who gives a shit? So you are saying because Russia and China have adopted many aspects of Capitalism because Communism and Socialism wasn't working, look how poorly it works for Cuba and Venezuela, that capitalism helps lift more people out of poverty. Have I got that right?
Thursday, June 23, 2016 12:16 AM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: So you are saying because Russia and China have adopted many aspects of Capitalism because Communism and Socialism wasn't working, look how poorly it works for Cuba and Venezuela, that capitalism helps lift more people out of poverty. Have I got that right? No, you have not got that right. Everyone in the USA, for example, could be lifted out of poverty, but only the ones with the very best connections are: Why I Was Wrong About Welfare Reform by Nicholas Kristof June 18, 2016 Every year I hold a “win a trip” contest to choose a university student to accompany me on a reporting trip to cover global poverty in places like Congo or Myanmar. This year we decided to journey as well to Tulsa, in the heartland of America, because the embarrassing truth is that welfare reform has resulted in a layer of destitution that echoes poverty in countries like Bangladesh. Recent research finds that because of welfare reform, roughly three million American children live in households with incomes of less than $2 per person per day, a global metric of extreme poverty. That’s one American child in 25. They would be counted as extremely poor if they lived in Africa, and they are our neighbors in the most powerful nation in the world. So my win-a-trip winner, Cassidy McDonald, an aspiring journalist from the University of Notre Dame, and I interviewed families in Tulsa. Extreme poverty is not the same in the U.S. as in Africa, for America has better safety nets from the government and from churches and charities. But it’s still staggering, and instead of mitigating the problem, “welfare reform” has exacerbated it. www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/opinion/sunday/why-i-was-wrong-about-welfare-reform.html Sorry Second but you are talking about income distribution. I am talking about the best System to generate income. You see 1kiki likes to complain and start threads bemoaning poverty while at the same time on other threads, promote political systems that create poverty. I am addressing that with her. An example of poor income distribution would be; "Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991-1992, and the end of the centrally controlled "command economy," a new class of wealthy private capitalists with close government connections has emerged in Russia. The new ruling clique that has replaced the Soviet-era "nomenklatura" is widely referred to by the American-origin term "istablishment." At the same time, life for most Russians has not improved. The great majority still struggles to survive, sometimes below the subsistence level. Industrial and agricultural production have fallen 50 percent in recent years, and millions are not paid their paltry salaries on time. Because most people lack hard currency to buy anything but essentials, consumer goods are generally accessible only to successful speculators, the mafia, and higher government officials. For the average Russian, and especially the elderly, life is not just impoverished, it is becoming desperate. [See: "Nationalist Sentiment Widespread, Growing in Former Soviet Union." Now lawlessness prevails in Russia, with business life functioning at a level similar to that of Al Capone's Chicago. There is no effective system of laws to ensure the fair and orderly operation of business, banking, finance, insurance, stock trading, and so forth, and existing laws are neither consistently nor impartially enforced. Lawlessness and excess are more often rewarded than punished, and people have little protection against fraud by the new criminal class." Corruption is a terrible thing and has a negative effect on populations if there is an unfair distribution of resources. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p21_Michaels.html http://t.co/JsXPJqV9Nv
Thursday, June 23, 2016 12:32 AM
Thursday, June 23, 2016 12:50 AM
Thursday, June 23, 2016 7:28 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: So, given that the collapse of the old Soviet economy was a BAD THING for both the people and production output, that countries with the highest quality of life are largely socialist regarding the support and care of their people, and that economic problems in socialist countries aren't due to socialism per se - it looks like the systemic problems facing most people today are due to the OTHER extant system, capitalism.
Thursday, June 23, 2016 10:29 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: It's taken you a long time to figure that out, but you finally got there.
Quote:In other words ... "Property is theft."
Thursday, June 23, 2016 11:30 AM
Quote:Sorry Second but you are talking about income distribution. I am talking about the best System to generate income.
Thursday, June 23, 2016 11:40 AM
Quote:And all those small dramas can have happy endings, rather than sad, with a little money. As for world starvation, that large problem can be solved with a large amount of money. But it is not happening. It is not just the wealthiest who don’t want to pay. I perfectly understand them, because they will be paying the majority of the money. It is also those who aren’t wealthy, the middle class, the vast majority, who also don’t want to pay.
Thursday, June 23, 2016 12:00 PM
Thursday, June 23, 2016 12:19 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Quote:Sorry Second but you are talking about income distribution. I am talking about the best System to generate income. So wrong on so many levels. First of all, people don't survive on "income", they survive on "resources" ... at its most basic: food, water, shelter, clothing, medical care, safety. It's possible to generate vast amounts of "income" without increasing resources whatsoever- real estate owners, stock owners, fine art collectors, hedge fund managers who are playing with fictitious money - i.e. money created out of thin air by banks (including the Fed) via severely undercapitalized loans. Speculation (which is what this is) is a way of increasing "income" using ALREADY MADE objects without increasing the production of resources at all. Secondly, who cares how much income OR resources are generated if they don't make it to the people who will use it? Having a vast surplus concentrated with a small group of people ... it begs the question, WHAT are these resources, or this income, being generated for? What is the purpose? If it's generated for some sort of abstract point about generating "more" without linking that "more" to consumption, then who cares, really about this vast but unobtainable treasure trove? It doesn't do anybody any good, except maybe the 0.0000001% who control it. RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION... or, in your thinking, INCOME DISTRIBUTION ... is important.
Thursday, June 23, 2016 12:35 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Quote:And all those small dramas can have happy endings, rather than sad, with a little money. As for world starvation, that large problem can be solved with a large amount of money. But it is not happening. It is not just the wealthiest who don’t want to pay. I perfectly understand them, because they will be paying the majority of the money. It is also those who aren’t wealthy, the middle class, the vast majority, who also don’t want to pay. I think you vastly understimate how much wealth the wealthy have. The richest 100 people in the world own more than the bottom 50%. If you were able to take that wealth and distribute it to the bottom 50% - those who live in $2 a day or less - you would literally double their income.
Thursday, June 23, 2016 1:43 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: lol unbelievable. If you took the wealth of the top 100 people in the world and distribute it to the poorest 50%, it would double their incomes. Lol from 2 dollars a day to 4 dollars a day. That asshole is not a fix it's stupid.
Thursday, June 23, 2016 2:44 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Ach. Third-world infrastructure.
Thursday, June 23, 2016 2:56 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: lol unbelievable. If you took the wealth of the top 100 people in the world and distribute it to the poorest 50%, it would double their incomes. Lol from 2 dollars a day to 4 dollars a day. That asshole is not a fix it's stupid. By assuming that the rich do not have enough money to make a difference in the lives of the poor, you're not getting into the proper spirit of this argument about the rich against the poor. In democracies the top 1% could not stop the bottom 99% from taking all the wealth. But it is not happening. At the start of 2015, Oxfam had warned that 1% of the world’s population would own more wealth than the other 99% by next year. www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/13/half-world-wealth-in-hands-population-inequality-report Another statistic is that 85 people own more than the bottom 50% of the world’s population. www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/#4faba861324b I think at least 50% of the population in democracies is on the same side as the top 1%. I think 100% will do nothing about the top 1%, maybe from lack of imagination or ambition. I think that with the world’s murder rate as high as it is, even in the most peaceful countries of the world, that 85 bullets could be found somewhere to be fired into the brains of the 85 richest people in the world. But it is not happening. You should think about why nothing is happening all over the world. I've already written what I think.
Thursday, June 23, 2016 5:26 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Wow SECOND that's a jump. I never said anything of the kind. I simply pointed out that SIG'S assertion was nuts, stupid, laughable.
Thursday, June 23, 2016 6:55 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Wow SECOND that's a jump. I never said anything of the kind. I simply pointed out that SIG'S assertion was nuts, stupid, laughable. You are no fun in this argument about the rich versus the poor. I chose assassinating the rich as the ultimate wealth redistribution policy. It won't work that smoothly because the rich have wills, trusts, corporations and their wealth won't go to the poorest, but will go where their wills say. In a well functioning Democracy, maybe Denmark for example, the wealth disparity doesn't grow without bounds because the poorest 90% can outvote the top 10%. Someone should check the statistics to see if Denmark has a lower % of people going hungry than the USA.
Thursday, June 23, 2016 8:27 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Sorry, I'll try harder lol. Bernie Sanders said during his campaign when asked why he did not do better. " Because 80% of poor people who can vote don't." So in a way their predicament is there own fault. That last part was me.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL