Genesia said:

PurpleJedi said:

$290 billion dollars represents just about the net worth of the FIVE richest individuals on earth.

Stop turning this into a political tit-for-tat. This is not a rallying cry for socialism. This is simply stating a fact. Capitalism is about accumulating wealth. Accumulate means hoarding. Which is why Carlos Slim, for example, is hoarding more money than he could possibly spend in ten lifetimes.

I am not going to get into whether or not that is good or bad. Personally, I do not want the government to tell ME how to spread my wealth. I am materialistic that way.

But if I weren't...if I only kept what I needed to live on and donated the rest...and everyone else did as well...there wouldn't be so much hunger in the world.

THAT is the point of this thread.

Is there anything constructive you'd like to offer that is relevant to this thread, or you want to keep picking at my words?

Buy a dictionary and look up "accumulate" and "hoard." They do not mean the same thing.

Every person on earth could give away every cent they have - and there would still be poverty, starvation and misery. It accomplishes nothing.

Your assertions are incorrect - and it is not out of line for me to point it out. I am simply not the type to let bullshit go unchallenged.

If that puts your nose out of joint, pick another hobby.

So you challenge "b.s." with a load of "b.s."?

After all you've typed, you still haven't addressed any point I made with a valid response.

My nose is just fine where it is btw.

PurpleJedi said:

Genesia said:

Buy a dictionary and look up "accumulate" and "hoard." They do not mean the same thing.

Every person on earth could give away every cent they have - and there would still be poverty, starvation and misery. It accomplishes nothing.

Your assertions are incorrect - and it is not out of line for me to point it out. I am simply not the type to let bullshit go unchallenged.

If that puts your nose out of joint, pick another hobby.

So you challenge "b.s." with a load of "b.s."?

After all you've typed, you still haven't addressed any point I made with a valid response.

My nose is just fine where it is btw.

My responses aren't valid based on what - your opinion?

SUPRMAN said:

PurpleJedi said:

$290 billion dollars represents just about the net worth of the FIVE richest individuals on earth.

Stop turning this into a political tit-for-tat. This is not a rallying cry for socialism. This is simply stating a fact. Capitalism is about accumulating wealth. Accumulate means hoarding. Which is why Carlos Slim, for example, is hoarding more money than he could possibly spend in ten lifetimes.

I am not going to get into whether or not that is good or bad. Personally, I do not want the government to tell ME how to spread my wealth. I am materialistic that way.

But if I weren't...if I only kept what I needed to live on and donated the rest...and everyone else did as well...there wouldn't be so much hunger in the world.

THAT is the point of this thread.

Is there anything constructive you'd like to offer that is relevant to this thread, or you want to keep picking at my words?

He's haording it because he's not giving it to you? Maybe he wants to live his children an inheritance. Regardless, it is his to with as he chooses.

Capitalism is not about accumulating wealth. Wealth is a byproduct of capitalism, not the reason it exists.

Who decides what is enough to live on? Maybe I need a boat, a plane, several houses, servants and the rest to 'live on.'

You don't want other people, i.e., government, telling you, but you have no problem doing it for others. Hypocrite.

btw, that would not end hunger in the world. It's naive to say there is enough food but people are starving so people should donate more. If there is enough food being produced, then the problem isn't wealth.

How do you address corruption and armed thugs/soldiers that seize donated food? How do prevent others from selling food intended to be donated?

The problem is human beings acting like human beings rather than rational communal creatures.

That's why humans are starving in 2011?

Blame it on the rich, but the rich aren't the ones with the guns seizing food as soon as its off loaded off a ship.

Again, one quarter of all food produced simply rots due to inefficiencies in transportation, storage and usage. How many people could you feed with improvements in transportation, storage and usage?

But then, you couldn't simply blame wealth.

I am not telling anyone what they can and cannot do with their money. I leave that sort of stuff to people who are so consumed with their feelings of superiority that they fail to see the simplest facts staring at them in the face. If you decide to put words in my mouth, then you're the delusional hypocrite.

I already addressed the fact that there are distribution problems and economic hurdles to overcome in order to make the world's capacity to PRODUCE meet its needs.

One of the BIGGEST hurdles (besides the gun-toting thugs that you claim are more of a threat) is the fact that we need to make a profit.

Yes, human beings being human beings is one of the reasons that humans are starving in 2011.

...and warring.

The two of you sort of proved my point.

Genesia said:

My responses aren't valid based on what - your opinion?

You're the one who pretty much ignored my lengthy response and chose to focus on ONE SENTENCE...and then offer more of an opinion than fact.

Genesia said:

PurpleJedi said:

I didn't mean to imply that communism is a better means of distributing the bounty of the land...in principle it is, but then there's the issue of human beings being naturally proprietary & lazy that negates the advantages of what communism meant to accomplish.

NO...what I mean to say is that Capitalism...the economic system which currently reigns supreme on this crazy little planet of ours...is a system that by nature ensures that there is poverty and hunger.

There are limited resources to be had. They can either be shared by all, or appropriated according to caste/priviledge/strength/whatever. Once upon a time humans farmed the lands and hunted or grazed to feed their families. Now we are mostly dependent on a paycheck. When you base a person's ability to feed himself by how much gold he has in his pocket, then you are forming a caste system whereby those with more gold have more resources and vice versa.

Now, those with the most resources have the ability to aid those without. In fact, we have the capacity to produce much more than we actually do, but will NOT because it affects profit margins. Look at dairy farmers...they have the technology to produce much more milk than they can sell at a profit...so they DON'T because if the cost of milk lowers, then they can't afford to buy feed for their cows (let alone turn a profit). Yet...thousands of children are starving in Somalia. Why aren't these farmers producing as much as their cows will allow and the dairy converted into protein products that could be shipped overseas? PROFIT. Our capitalistic system doesn't allow for charity of that scale, and these well-meaning farmers would see themselves out of business quick.

I've already posted before that I don't believe communism is a better choice...we still as a race want to "own things" and need "compensation" for our efforts. We can discuss this further on a separate thread if you wish.

But the simple answer to the OP's question...how can humans be starving in 2011...is simple. Capitalism.

This is the mistake anti-capitalists make. They think wealth and resources are finite and constant. They aren't - they are created.

If they were finite and constant, 6 billion-odd human beings would be trying to subsist on pre-industrial resources and wealth.

It is anti-capitalist systems that render wealth finite, by removing incentives to create more.

PurpleJedi said:

SUPRMAN said:

He's haording it because he's not giving it to you? Maybe he wants to live his children an inheritance. Regardless, it is his to with as he chooses.

Capitalism is not about accumulating wealth. Wealth is a byproduct of capitalism, not the reason it exists.

Who decides what is enough to live on? Maybe I need a boat, a plane, several houses, servants and the rest to 'live on.'

You don't want other people, i.e., government, telling you, but you have no problem doing it for others. Hypocrite.

btw, that would not end hunger in the world. It's naive to say there is enough food but people are starving so people should donate more. If there is enough food being produced, then the problem isn't wealth.

How do you address corruption and armed thugs/soldiers that seize donated food? How do prevent others from selling food intended to be donated?

The problem is human beings acting like human beings rather than rational communal creatures.

That's why humans are starving in 2011?

Blame it on the rich, but the rich aren't the ones with the guns seizing food as soon as its off loaded off a ship.

Again, one quarter of all food produced simply rots due to inefficiencies in transportation, storage and usage. How many people could you feed with improvements in transportation, storage and usage?

But then, you couldn't simply blame wealth.

I am not telling anyone what they can and cannot do with their money. I leave that sort of stuff to people who are so consumed with their feelings of superiority that they fail to see the simplest facts staring at them in the face. If you decide to put words in my mouth, then you're the delusional hypocrite.

I already addressed the fact that there are distribution problems and economic hurdles to overcome in order to make the world's capacity to PRODUCE meet its needs.

One of the BIGGEST hurdles (besides the gun-toting thugs that you claim are more of a threat) is the fact that we need to make a profit.

Yes, human beings being human beings is one of the reasons that humans are starving in 2011.

...and warring.

The two of you sort of proved my point.

Sort of in that the problem is not one of production.

Human beings being human beings is the CHIEF obstacle to providing food to everyone. Mechanically we could theoretically design a sytem of robots to grow and distribute food.

But would we have more limited choices because it may be economically inefficient to ship strawberries from Chile to the U.S. during winter in the northern hemisphere?

We would also have to eliminate borders. Prisoners presumably would be entitled to same food and variety as anyone else.

What about alcohol production? Who would produce that? How much resources would be allocated to production? Again would we have the same range of variety? Would sake stay in Japan?

What about people trading food? Stealing food? (Although, there should be no need, that's never been a deterrent to theft. Ask Winona and Lindsay.)

PurpleJedi said:

You're the one who pretty much ignored my lengthy response and chose to focus on ONE SENTENCE...and then offer more of an opinion than fact.

I focused on one sentence because that once sentence was the crux of your argument!

So my co-worker and I did some volunteer work for Feed The Children..and we made pood packets filled with rice and vegetables and powder seasoning...we must have made about 8000 packets between the whole group and at the end of it we got a chance to taste the food. It wasnt bad..just need a little salt...my co worker told me that another one of our associates said he did not want to try it and added "I would even feed this to my dog!"

Stupid self reightous prick.

I really appreciate someone that struggles in America growing just that little bit because those are the people who actually care about other people's hunger in the world. It's not even about "struggle" so to speak..its a way of learning and experiencing.

paisleypark4 said:

So my co-worker and I did some volunteer work for Feed The Children..and we made pood packets filled with rice and vegetables and powder seasoning...we must have made about 8000 packets between the whole group and at the end of it we got a chance to taste the food. It wasnt bad..just need a little salt...my co worker told me that another one of our associates said he did not want to try it and added "I would even feed this to my dog!"

Stupid self reightous prick.

I really appreciate someone that struggles in America growing just that little bit because those are the people who actually care about other people's hunger in the world. It's not even about "struggle" so to speak..its a way of learning and experiencing.

Nice to know you've volunteered for Feed the Children. They're always on my list of charities.

SUPRMAN said:

PurpleJedi said:

I am not telling anyone what they can and cannot do with their money. I leave that sort of stuff to people who are so consumed with their feelings of superiority that they fail to see the simplest facts staring at them in the face. If you decide to put words in my mouth, then you're the delusional hypocrite.

I already addressed the fact that there are distribution problems and economic hurdles to overcome in order to make the world's capacity to PRODUCE meet its needs.

One of the BIGGEST hurdles (besides the gun-toting thugs that you claim are more of a threat) is the fact that we need to make a profit.

Yes, human beings being human beings is one of the reasons that humans are starving in 2011.

...and warring.

The two of you sort of proved my point.

Sort of in that the problem is not one of production.

Human beings being human beings is the CHIEF obstacle to providing food to everyone. Mechanically we could theoretically design a sytem of robots to grow and distribute food.

But would we have more limited choices because it may be economically inefficient to ship strawberries from Chile to the U.S. during winter in the northern hemisphere?

We would also have to eliminate borders. Prisoners presumably would be entitled to same food and variety as anyone else.

What about alcohol production? Who would produce that? How much resources would be allocated to production? Again would we have the same range of variety? Would sake stay in Japan?

What about people trading food? Stealing food? (Although, there should be no need, that's never been a deterrent to theft. Ask Winona and Lindsay.)

Well, you pose very valid questions, and while I can't pretend to be qualified to answer them on the fly, what I can say is that necessity is the mother of invention. We, humans, find a way to deal with the problems that plague us.

Communism is one of those "solutions". The "core" of that movement was to try to alleviate the poverty which has plagued humanity since the first "caveman" picked up a stick and said "this nice cave mine". But, as I have stated before in similar threads, the failure of communism was that it failed to take into account that we (that is; you, me, even Stalin himself) are materialistic creature and "want things" and require compensation for our efforts.

SO...why haven't the best minds that our world has to offer been assembled to find a way to solve the various obstacles which do not allow for optimum food production and distribution?

BECAUSE...who is going to PAY for it all?

Who's going to grow what? Where does it end up? How do we get it there? How do we protect it from theft/graft? Etc. Etc. Etc. I refuse to believe that we do not have the minds available to SOLVE all of these questions...it's ultimately a question of funds. Money. Capital.

THAT is why I say; Capitalism.

Who knows? If the U.S.S.R. hadn't been bankrupt by the arms race, and if people came to accept being told what to do and not expect financial compensation or entitlement, we might already have solved world hunger. I mean, we could all be living in the Dark Ages again, but we would all be fed.

Genesia said:

PurpleJedi said:

You're the one who pretty much ignored my lengthy response and chose to focus on ONE SENTENCE...and then offer more of an opinion than fact.

I focused on one sentence because that once sentence was the crux of your argument!

It's a shame you didn't fully read my post, because it really WASN'T.

PurpleJedi said:

SUPRMAN said:

Sort of in that the problem is not one of production.

Human beings being human beings is the CHIEF obstacle to providing food to everyone. Mechanically we could theoretically design a sytem of robots to grow and distribute food.

But would we have more limited choices because it may be economically inefficient to ship strawberries from Chile to the U.S. during winter in the northern hemisphere?

We would also have to eliminate borders. Prisoners presumably would be entitled to same food and variety as anyone else.

What about alcohol production? Who would produce that? How much resources would be allocated to production? Again would we have the same range of variety? Would sake stay in Japan?

What about people trading food? Stealing food? (Although, there should be no need, that's never been a deterrent to theft. Ask Winona and Lindsay.)

Well, you pose very valid questions, and while I can't pretend to be qualified to answer them on the fly, what I can say is that necessity is the mother of invention. We, humans, find a way to deal with the problems that plague us.

Communism is one of those "solutions". The "core" of that movement was to try to alleviate the poverty which has plagued humanity since the first "caveman" picked up a stick and said "this nice cave mine". But, as I have stated before in similar threads, the failure of communism was that it failed to take into account that we (that is; you, me, even Stalin himself) are materialistic creature and "want things" and require compensation for our efforts.

SO...why haven't the best minds that our world has to offer been assembled to find a way to solve the various obstacles which do not allow for optimum food production and distribution?

BECAUSE...who is going to PAY for it all?

Who's going to grow what? Where does it end up? How do we get it there? How do we protect it from theft/graft? Etc. Etc. Etc. I refuse to believe that we do not have the minds available to SOLVE all of these questions...it's ultimately a question of funds. Money. Capital.

THAT is why I say; Capitalism.

Who knows? If the U.S.S.R. hadn't been bankrupt by the arms race, and if people came to accept being told what to do and not expect financial compensation or entitlement, we might already have solved world hunger. I mean, we could all be living in the Dark Ages again, but we would all be fed.

I don't see that ever happening.

SUPRMAN said:

PurpleJedi said:

Well, you pose very valid questions, and while I can't pretend to be qualified to answer them on the fly, what I can say is that necessity is the mother of invention. We, humans, find a way to deal with the problems that plague us.

Communism is one of those "solutions". The "core" of that movement was to try to alleviate the poverty which has plagued humanity since the first "caveman" picked up a stick and said "this nice cave mine". But, as I have stated before in similar threads, the failure of communism was that it failed to take into account that we (that is; you, me, even Stalin himself) are materialistic creature and "want things" and require compensation for our efforts.

SO...why haven't the best minds that our world has to offer been assembled to find a way to solve the various obstacles which do not allow for optimum food production and distribution?

BECAUSE...who is going to PAY for it all?

Who's going to grow what? Where does it end up? How do we get it there? How do we protect it from theft/graft? Etc. Etc. Etc. I refuse to believe that we do not have the minds available to SOLVE all of these questions...it's ultimately a question of funds. Money. Capital.

THAT is why I say; Capitalism.

Who knows? If the U.S.S.R. hadn't been bankrupt by the arms race, and if people came to accept being told what to do and not expect financial compensation or entitlement, we might already have solved world hunger. I mean, we could all be living in the Dark Ages again, but we would all be fed.

I don't see that ever happening.

Not for a few thousand years at least.

Genesia said:

paisleypark4 said:

So my co-worker and I did some volunteer work for Feed The Children..and we made pood packets filled with rice and vegetables and powder seasoning...we must have made about 8000 packets between the whole group and at the end of it we got a chance to taste the food. It wasnt bad..just need a little salt...my co worker told me that another one of our associates said he did not want to try it and added "I would even feed this to my dog!"

Stupid self reightous prick.

I really appreciate someone that struggles in America growing just that little bit because those are the people who actually care about other people's hunger in the world. It's not even about "struggle" so to speak..its a way of learning and experiencing.

Nice to know you've volunteered for Feed the Children. They're always on my list of charities.