isn't there something fundamentally wrong?

[Rob's House]

i answered your question. You didn't Ike the answer.

 

I've already stated that more food can be produced. But that will involve making it a larger percentage of the global economy at the expense of other goods. But why isn't food already produced at a percentage that sustains the population? Answer that and you'll understand the problem with the concentration of wealth. And food production capability is not infinite even with infinite will. Demand can outstrip maximal supply and may already. We don't know since we've not tried.everyone can't climb the ladder. Some have to make clothes in factories (but not ones in Pakistan that collapse).some need to pick crops. Etc. talents aren't equally distributed and compensation needn't be either. But shouldn't the Pakistani food worker with no ladder to climb have enough to eat. Isn't greed at least in part to blame? Is that human nature or are people prone to exploiting others also prone to financial success in our current system? The converse is also largely true.

 

Your contention that nothing nefarious is going on in high finance is just silly in light of what we saw in 2008. The game is rigged and it's rigged by and for many of the same people that already hold 40 percent of the wealth.

 

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. This is obviously a global issue, but you describe it as if it were within one geopolitical unit. Speaking in broad generalities (we, them) from a distant level of abstraction can make the absurd seem sensible unless you actually break it down. There is one central question that has to be answered for any of this to make sense:

 

Who is it that should be supplying food to other countries that is not doing so currently?

[3rdnlng]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. This is obviously a global issue, but you describe it as if it were within one geopolitical unit. Speaking in broad generalities (we, them) from a distant level of abstraction can make the absurd seem sensible unless you actually break it down. There is one central question that has to be answered for any of this to make sense:

 

Who is it that should be supplying food to other countries that is not doing so currently?

 

The United States of America has selfishly decided to divert much of its prime cropland to produce biofuels to support the birdogs of this world's fantasies. These far leftists have chosen to support a program that does nothing for this world but make them feel good while contributing to world-wide famine. You waste your time trying to convince this man of anything. Long ago he made the decision that what makes him feel good about himself takes precedence over everything, including feeding babies.

[Magox]

it is to me. to the others participating in the thread, not so much...

Explain how the examples brought up by lybob and other instances of the "rigging" of the system is having a substantive, meaningful impact on a large scale on the ever-growing gap in wages. I already know the answer to this, to borrow a phrase, there is no there, there. You and possibly Lybob are doing is conflating the two, and what you guys are bringing up are instances, in some cases injustices, but in the overall scheme of things, these are not meaningful contributors to the wage gap that we are seeing..... Which is what we are talking about. Do you understand the difference? I've already explained what the main contributors are, and it's primarily globalization, advances in technology and investments in stocks and private equity. Having access to private equity and special investment funds isn't any sort of injustice or a rigging of the system, it simply just means they have enough money to have this access. Nothing wrong with that. Again, and I can guarantee you this, none of the solutions or even direction that you are looking at towards trying to find a culprit will never be remotely close to where the solutions lie. You are looking to try to bring down the wealthy. Whereas the solution lies in empowering the non-wealthy with skills, education and more than anything self-motivation and desire to climb up the socio economic latter. That's where it's at.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Magox

[Nanker]

Birdbrain's idilic future:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZI-vo2qBxw

[Doc]

There are many things that are fundamentally wrong and I could get very un-PC here. But just giving people money isn't the answer.

[3rdnlng]

There are many things that are fundamentally wrong and I could get very un-PC here. But just giving people money isn't the answer.

 

Why do you worry, especially when it comes to PC things? We all have balls, even you reticent Indians. Doc ,I say that with affection, mainly because over the years I've figured out that you are a pretty good guy.

[Doc]

Why do you worry, especially when it comes to PC things? We all have balls, even you reticent Indians. Doc ,I say that with affection, mainly because over the years I've figured out that you are a pretty good guy.

Thanks. But I think most people here know what I would have said anyway.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Where are all these hungry people anyway?

[unbillievable]

Where are all these hungry people anyway?

In every right wing dominated country of the world

---(cause the left wing dominated ones aren't allowed to complain)

[birdog1960]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. This is obviously a global issue, but you describe it as if it were within one geopolitical unit. Speaking in broad generalities (we, them) from a distant level of abstraction can make the absurd seem sensible unless you actually break it down. There is one central question that has to be answered for any of this to make sense:

 

Who is it that should be supplying food to other countries that is not doing so currently?

"we" equals humanity. probably the most active current collective action group for humanity is the UN (i can already hear the collective sighs). it's currently dysfunctional but does it have to be? in addition, there are stricly humanitarian and some not so strictly humanitarian groups (ie terrorist or political) attacking hunger for their own ends. i don't see a star trek type federation taking over anytime soon.

 

Where are all these hungry people anyway?

there's 870 million of them per my link. do you ever get out of alaska?

[GG]

Here's a timely article that may lead birdbrains to explode.

 

How in the world did global poverty rates halve in about 20 years, when there was zero progress in the preceding 50? I'm certain that the wannabe Marxists here can come up with an answer.

 

BTW, birdie, tell me exactly how the bankers hurt the little guy in your premise?

[4merper4mer]

probably the most active current collective action group for humanity is the UN (i can already hear the collective sighs). it's currently dysfunctional but does it have to be?

 

Yes

[birdog1960]

Here's a timely article that may lead birdbrains to explode.

 

How in the world did global poverty rates halve in about 20 years, when there was zero progress in the preceding 50? I'm certain that the wannabe Marxists here can come up with an answer.

 

BTW, birdie, tell me exactly how the bankers hurt the little guy in your premise?

ah, the devil is in the details. if you define poverty as consumption of $1.25 per day, then it's preet easy to cut the poverty rate in half. i would consider somebody consuminmg 10X that impoverished. but even at that arbitarary, low threshold, this writer states there are 1 billion people. what would be the effect on that $1.25 if even 10% of that top 1%'s 40% of the wealth was redistributed?

[Jauronimo]

How would reducing the amount of rich people help the people who are starving?

Because birddog and those like him believe that accumulating wealth must necessarily come at the expense of others because wealth and capital are fixed. In order for me to be rich, I must make 100 others poor.

[birdog1960]

Because birddog and those like him believe that accumulating wealth must necessarily come at the expense of others because wealth and capital are fixed. In order for me to be rich, I must make 100 others poor.

would you agree that there's a proble if 1 billion people are trying to survive while consuming less than $1.25 per day. do you think the current system (which results in 40% of the wealth in the hands of 1%) is working? not saying it's the only cause but it's relatively simple math and very simple, basic economics 101 - the allocation of finite resources.

[3rdnlng]

would you agree that there's a proble if 1 billion people are trying to survive while consuming less than $1.25 per day. do you think the current system (which results in 40% of the wealth in the hands of 1%) is working? not saying it's the only cause but it's relatively simple math and very simple, basic economics 101 - the allocation of finite resources.

 

I'll ask you this question one more time. If the world set the poverty line at 100k and insured that every person made that much, would you be ok with the rich making untold billions?

[Jauronimo]

would you agree that there's a proble if 1 billion people are trying to survive while consuming less than $1.25 per day. do you think the current system (which results in 40% of the wealth in the hands of 1%) is working? not saying it's the only cause but it's relatively simple math and very simple, basic economics 101 - the allocation of finite resources.

Economics does not dictate that all should have as much as they need. Neither does math. One again, you've built your house on sand that is on fire and underwater at the same time. Its confusing, I know, but so is your argument.

 

Which singular system are your referring to that is applicable the world over? This "phenomenon" you're referring to isn't a mystery.

 

The poorest nations on earth all typically have one thing in common: resource based economies run by a despot. For examples, see Africa. Pretty much any nation on the continent is a prime example and all share the same story. If you want to know why people are poor Nigeria, open a book. Its all right there on the surface and it has !@#$ all to do with LIBOR, HSBC, the U.S. housing market or any of your other boogey men.

[GG]

ah, the devil is in the details. if you define poverty as consumption of $1.25 per day, then it's preet easy to cut the poverty rate in half. i would consider somebody consuminmg 10X that impoverished. but even at that arbitarary, low threshold, this writer states there are 1 billion people. what would be the effect on that $1.25 if even 10% of that top 1%'s 40% of the wealth was redistributed?

 

Well, aren't we the entitled elitist? Nice of the winners of the sperm lottery that placed their birth in the US thinking that everyone should have the same living standard ... just because it's the fair thing to do. If you try to understand the article, it is clear that after 70 years of live experimentation of the exact policies you propose, there wasn't a dent in poverty, despite huge technological advancesa over time.

 

And of course, why didn't I connect the dots between traders manipulating a market and Africa's millennial tribal conflicts? It's so clear to me now. The RBS London trader was taking food off Lagos dinner tables.

Edited June 3, 2013 by GG

[birdog1960]

I'll ask you this question one more time. If the world set the poverty line at 100k and insured that every person made that much, would you be ok with the rich making untold billions?

and i'll answer it the same way again. it's not possible for every living human to have 100k purchasing power per year. there are not enough goods for that level demand (without rampant inflation). it's that simple. the concentrated wealth doesn't spur nearly as much demand. most of it's not being used on goods but on producing more wealth. that's why dollar for dollar, stimulus spent on the poor results in more economic stimulus than that spent on the rich. just the opposite of what we did in the bail out.

[3rdnlng]

and i'll answer it the same way again. it's not possible for every living human to have 100k purchasing power per year. there are not enough goods for that level demand (without rampant inflation). it's that simple. the concentrated wealth doesn't spur nearly as much demand. most of it's not being used on goods but on producing more wealth. that's why dollar for dollar, stimulus spent on the poor results in more economic stimulus than that spent on the rich. just the opposite of what we did in the bail out.

 

Let's make my question a hypothetical one then. What's your response?