we feed the world

So I'm guessing most of you don't realise that our best yielding food crops have very narrow limits to the conditions (rainfall, sunny days, frost free days, etc. - Wheat does not grow well if annual rainfall is > 70 cm or < 25 cm) in which they can grow.
Other, less developed, crops such as Cassava or Sorghum are predominantly grown in many African nations over the "supercrops" like Wheat and Maize (while these are grown sometimes it's usually for export, go capitalism). Cassava has a very low average yield and is generally propagated vegetatively, while Sorghum tends to outbreed with wild, poisonous varieties.

Code: 
Crop	Latin name	Annual Production (million tonnes)
Wheat	Triticum aestivum	360
Rice	Oryza sativa	320
Maize	Zea mays	300
Potato	Solanum tuberosum	300
Barley	Hordeum vulgare	170
Sweet potato	Ipomoea batatas	130
Cassava	Manihot ultissima	100
^ These supply 74% all food consumed. Pretty frightening when you know just how intolerant most of them are to unfavourable weather conditions.
A world food shortage is predicted by 2030, and it's not just because of population growth, current farming practices are unsustainable.
 
delusional said:
Hey, did you know this very same internet wasn't a product of capitalism?
Click to expand...
That's right! Net neutrality ftw. Comcast sux. :p

They think they can make us pay a "subscription" for the nets and by that I mean for every web site. What are they thinking? Capitalist pigs!
 
ARGH A DRAGONSHIRT

What the heck
 
unozero said:
lol this dude is calling em close minded and makes a thread on a gaming forum to express how much he hates capitalism,the very same economic system that provided the Keyboard he is typing on.



naive tool.
Click to expand...

that is probably the most idiotic counter argument thus far.


i hate capitalism because it is making us live stressful lives in pursue of success and disregarding everything else. plus the absurd wealth distribution it produces.
the video mentions that 57% of the worlds wealth is owned by 500 corporations.
 
jverne said:
that is probably the most idiotic counter argument thus far.


i hate capitalism because it is making us live stressful lives in pursue of success and disregarding everything else. plus the absurd wealth distribution it produces.
the video mentions that 57% of the worlds wealth is owned by 500 corporations.
Click to expand...

Capitalism doesn't make you do anything, it allows you to do whatever you want within the limits of your abilities. If you choose to live a stressful life in pursuit of money at the expense of everything else, then it's your own stupidity to blame, nothing else.

However, if you don't want to engage in that shit, don't complain when you're not one of those 500 corporations with 57% of the world's wealth.

The socialist's creed...it's all someone else's fault!
 
So, what, it's the fault of individual Zambians that the british government, apparently in thrall to corporate interests, is spending over fifty times more money on privatising copper mines than on improving nutrition? Maybe they could all rise up and have a revolution, but I'd like to see how that would play in the outside world, or indeed how well it would go.

I am not entirely opposed to the free market but if communism must accept the 'nature' of mankind as one of its integral flaws, then so too must capitalism accept that severe humanitarian problems begin when corporations begin to inform government policy, or where they begin to act like governments themselves.
 
Sulkdodds said:
So, what, it's the fault of individual Zambians that the british government, apparently in thrall to corporate interests, is spending over fifty times more money on privatising copper mines than on improving nutrition? Maybe they could all rise up and have a revolution, but I'd like to see how that would play in the outside world, or indeed how well it would go.
Click to expand...

Where did I say anything about Zimbabwe? And for that matter, it's not the British government's responsibility to spend any money in Africa whatsoever so they should be thankful for what they get - especially when most people in the UK are living on the bread line and it's only going to get worse.

I am not entirely opposed to the free market but if communism must accept the 'nature' of mankind as one of its integral flaws, then so too must capitalism accept that severe humanitarian problems begin when corporations begin to inform government policy, or where they begin to act like governments themselves.
Click to expand...

It's not about "communism" and "capitalism". Capitalism is just life. Money makes you powerful, if you don't like it then you're free to become a multi-millionaire yourself and give all your money to Zimbabwe.
 
You know what I mean. :p
I haven't really been following the thread, hence why I never made reference to Z-whatever in the first place...
 
He was merely using an example to contradict you. I don't think Sulk believed you had brought up Zambia.
 
Contradict me on what basis? I made reference to jverne's comment specifically.
 
slightly oftopic but have a look at THIS
It kinda makes me feel sick knowing im the lucky one in most examples...

-dodo
 
Dodo said:
slightly oftopic but have a look at THIS
It kinda makes me feel sick knowing im the lucky one in most examples...

-dodo
Click to expand...

Yes it's sad, but it's neither our responsibility nor our fault. For that matter, direct comparisons of wealth are irrelevant because the cost of living is immeasurably higher in "rich" countries. As it stands I can barely afford to pay my bills and I can't afford to visit my family - it's far from an uncommon situation for ordinary people in this country to be in.

Emote over their suffering all you like, it's when you suggest that it's our collective responsibility to bail them out that you take liberties. Life is hard, that's just how it is.
 
I read an article in the paper recently that went somewhere along the lines of "It wasn't hard for the Aboriginies until all you bastards came over and brought your "LIFE IS SUFFERING" attitude with you".

I don't know how true or how false this is, but whatever.
 
No but see it this way;
Somewhere in the middle of Africa, people live in houses made of shit (there good houses none the less...), they fish, chill with the lions, etc. Thats a very good life, it has been for 100,000's of years.
Then a big russian company comes along and fishes there lake dry, they basically starve to death. Not fair & Our fault.
(this is just one example ofcourse...)

-dodo
 
Dodo said:
No but see it this way;
Somewhere in the middle of Africa, people live in houses made of shit (there good houses none the less...), they fish, chill with the lions, etc. Thats a very good life, it has been for 100,000's of years.
Then a big russian company comes along and fishes there lake dry, they basically starve to death. Not fair & Our fault.
(this is just one example ofcourse...)

-dodo
Click to expand...

Who gave the big Russian company permission to take their resources, and how is that in any way our fault?
 
Jintor said:
I read an article in the paper recently that went somewhere along the lines of "It wasn't hard for the Aboriginies until all you bastards came over and brought your "LIFE IS SUFFERING" attitude with you".

I don't know how true or how false this is, but whatever.
Click to expand...

Oh jeeze...i've got a killer argument against the behaviour of some of those bastards...
 
repiV said:
Where did I say anything about Zimbabwe? And for that matter, it's not the British government's responsibility to spend any money in Africa whatsoever so they should be thankful for what they get - especially when most people in the UK are living on the bread line and it's only going to get worse.
Click to expand...
Rather missing the point, aren't you?

What I am trying to demonstrate is that the current market, far from allowing the widest array of options possible for people ("within the limits of their abilities"), rather restricts them. As Eijit got, a Zambian peasant does not have much they can do within the limits of her abilities because her abilities have been severely curtailed, not by her own laziness, nor entirely by the base reality of the world, but also, very much, by the conditions imposed upon her country and environment by the operations of the global market.

In elaborating on this I can also along the way take issue with your absurd breezy unconcern for the way we give out aid. These people should not be "thankful for what they get" - because what they get is predominantly shafted. Consider the state of Andhra Pradesh in India - patronised by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton alike, donated plenty of money by the British government and the World Bank, and completely bonkers. In order to sustain his own power, Chandrababu Naidu, that state's chief minister (now thrown out by election), commissioned a study on how to transform the country by a US-based think tank, McKinsey.

Monbiot said:
McKinsey?s scheme, ?Vision 2020″, is one of those documents whose summary says one thing and whose contents quite another.(1) It begins, for example, by insisting that education and healthcare must be made available to everyone. Only later do you discover that the state?s hospitals and universities are to be privatised and funded by ?user charges?.(2) It extols small businesses but, way beyond the point at which most people stop reading, reveals that it intends to ?eliminate? the laws which defend them,(3) and replace small investors, who ?lack motivation?, with ?large corporations?.(4) It claims it will ?generate employment? in the countryside, and goes on to insist that over 20 million people should be thrown off the land.(5)
Click to expand...
Monbiot points out that this is rather like what happened to Chile, when General Pinochet deferred his economic policy to Chicago-based economists, very neo-liberal, who ended up ruining the country. While inflation was cut, unemployment doubled and output fell within the space of a year. Things got worse.

Was this simply the result of economics, of competition? It was not. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank helped formulate the plan of the Chicago boys and made its acceptance a precondition for any future loans (Chile, incidentally, remains cripplingly in debt), just as they place scary preconditions on their loans to countries around the world.

Pinochet himself had been put in place by the CIA after his predecessor, Salvadore Allende, nationalised the copper mines (which were at the time mostly owned by US companies - the USA having a huge business involvement in the country). Pinochet's job was to perpetrate human rights abuses in order to make opposition to the Chicago plan disappear. So the federal government and big business were complicit in ruining a country and oppressing its population for the economic gain of businesses back home.

In a similar way, the Blair government was forced in 2001 to admit that despite denial it was in fact funding Vision 2020 with our tax money. Similar funded was the actual economic reform programme in Andhra Pradesh, and the implementation committee for the state's privatisation programme which was, at our own insistence, run by the super-rich Adam Smith institution, those beneficiaries of more tax-paid aid money than two desperately poor nations. Our aid budget; once again, government collaborates with big business in order to ruin a few million people.

ibid said:
The results of the programme we have been funding are plain to see. During the hungry season, hundreds of thousands of people in Andhra Pradesh are now kept alive on gruel supplied by charities.(17) Last year hundreds of children died in an encephalitis outbreak because of the shortage of state-run hospitals.(18) The state government?s own figures suggest that 77% of the population has fallen below the poverty line.(19) The measurement criteria are not consistent, but this appears to be a massive rise.
Click to expand...

As might be expected, Bernie Ecclestone, whose paying-off of New Labour is well-remembered, also seems involved - since Naidu was being advised to give million-pound subsidies to Formula One while thousands died of malnutrition-related diseases as a result of the food subsidy being cut. And, as in Britain, Formula 1, Naidu agreed, should be exempted from the Indian ban on tobacco advertising. Furthermore, Indian politicians, with British government backing, began to lobby the Indian government on behalf of the Hinuja brothers, businessmen who are facing criminal charges in their native country.

Why the hell should anyone "be thankful" for this? "Aid" to Chile came in the form of a CIA-backed coup against a democratically-elected leader, and backing of a campaign of oppression for profit. Aid from DFID now is primarily used to secure profits for multinational corporations, for british businesses especially, for example in South Africa where its massive exportation of a discredited water-metering system has caused outbreaks of cholera.. This is actually illegal, since the DFID is only allowed to spend money on directly combating poverty. But hey! These Africans should be happy for what they get, right?

You may believe we have no responsibility to give money to foreign countries - something I would heartily disagree with (poverty at home is not a result of giving money abroad. it's a result of mismanagement and fraud). But dear god, don't you think we have a responsibility to stop using large amounts of our tax money to wage a kind of war on the poor population of other countries in favour of business interests? But there is no neutral ground. For someone quick to denigrate "socialists" for laying the blame on others, you are quick to avoid any personal or collective responsibility for the suffering of others. Yet if we are not taking some measure of responsibility for our policy abroad, we allow our policy to become aggressive, and oppressive, as it is now and has been for all of my living memory.

This kind of oppression, while incorporating governments, tax money, and non-business institutions, is just as much an effect of our current form of capitalism as bureaucratic corruption was an effect of the Soviet form of communism. That is why I drew the analogy -

repiV said:
It's not about "communism" and "capitalism". Capitalism is just life. Money makes you powerful, if you don't like it then you're free to become a multi-millionaire yourself and give all your money to Zimbabwe.
Click to expand...
- I was using it as an example. Let me explain.

It's stupid when people say "oh, communism is a perfect system, it's just human nature makes it bad". Obviously, others shoot back, a system that does not take human nature into account is a system that is inherently flawed.

This, they will often continue, is what makes capitalism a 'good system' (there is no "just life", no default state. At least have the integrity not to pretend what you support is neutral or 'natural'). It takes human nature into account. It harnesses it. But you rarely hear the same people noting that it also allows it to flourish in these horrible ways. Deals are made. Money exchanges hands. Bernie Ecclestone gets special treatment for his millions. Things get involved, and why, if you are rich and successful, would you ever let anyone else have a chance of diminishing your own fortunes?

So if you want to continue claiming that "this is life", that this is okay, that this is just how things are, please stop trying to pretend that all is fair in this as in love and war, because it is very clearly not fair, whether you care about that or not. Capitalism as practised in this way does not merely "allow you to do whatever you want within the limits of your abilities" - it also, for the self-interest of those in power, attempts to mercilessly restrict the limits of "your abilities", and many people have only a few abilities, the easiest of which is 'starve'. This rising tide isn't lifting all boats but wrecking them and furthermore wrecking the sustainability of the very material resources that we are going to need.

I'm not trying to indict one thing as the root of all the world's problems. I'm trying to closely examine the workings of a system whose relationship to human life you seem to have extreme delusions about. You may continue to brush this all off; hey - you could say - that's life. But be honest as to what you are endorsing: life of such quality that it approaches death.
 
repiV said:
Capitalism doesn't make you do anything, it allows you to do whatever you want within the limits of your abilities. If you choose to live a stressful life in pursuit of money at the expense of everything else, then it's your own stupidity to blame, nothing else.

However, if you don't want to engage in that shit, don't complain when you're not one of those 500 corporations with 57% of the world's wealth.

The socialist's creed...it's all someone else's fault!
Click to expand...

that is misleading...if you don't go along with the trend you get swallowed eventually and that's why it's forced. example: you could live in a forest and live of the land but sooner or later it will get privatized and you're screwed.

the problem with capitalism (consequently the free market) that it makes corporate corruption and robbery legitimate.

we need an economy where product prices are not that extremely higher that factory prices.
social health care and welfare is perfectly fine...IF...it goes to the people that deserve it.

i'm not cheering for communism..at least not in the way you perceive it. we need a third option, like i've already mentioned many times.

as for freedom...how free are you exactly if you are born in a poor family and most resources/education/assets are controlled by large corporations....not much if you ask me.


as for poor countries...that's the problem...the first world is exploiting them. where will we turn when there's nobody left to exploit?
 
Sulkdodds said:
*Snippity snip*
Click to expand...


What a waste of a post, as if I once said I disagree that wealthy nations rules aren't fair, what I was talking about was the notion we should feed everyone ourselves, or that we are capable without bringing our own economies and agriculture to breaking point.

So I think we agree on that point that the rules need to change, but as Pvt_Ryan has said, some of us seem to be talking about two things.





I think what needs to be done is the rules being made from our side need to be changed, and the corrupt SoB's on the developing side need to be round up, sent to prison, and more competent leaders brought in (if its possible, lets be honest, I am having doubts as to wether the west can salvage the third world with crusading altruism alone, change needs to come from within).


So, what, it's the fault of individual Zambians that the british government, apparently in thrall to corporate interests, is spending over fifty times more money on privatising copper mines than on improving nutrition? Maybe they could all rise up and have a revolution, but I'd like to see how that would play in the outside world, or indeed how well it would go.
Click to expand...

To play devils advocate, the British government probably needs the copper, it doesn't need some smiley happy well fed africans who do nothing for our economy. There has to be a line when our governments actually look out for us, as is their job, instead of worrying about every other foreign John and Mary who provides absolutely nothing in return, we do actually have our own country to feed as well.


Where did I say anything about Zimbabwe? And for that matter, it's not the British government's responsibility to spend any money in Africa whatsoever so they should be thankful for what they get - especially when most people in the UK are living on the bread line and it's only going to get worse.
Click to expand...

I somewhat have to agree here, if white noobs with the easy ideology of the middle class feel the need to help black folks out of poverty, we might as well start with our own conveniently placed populations of African origins who continue to live in pretty substandard housing, poor education, poor social amenities and poor policing.


Who gave the big Russian company permission to take their resources, and how is that in any way our fault?
Click to expand...

Don't you know, the likes of Bob Geldorf and a constant barrage of charity commercials are trying to convince a part of the world where the son isn't responsible for the crimes of the father, that were all responsible for the crimes of other whiteys.


I'm still tainted by the fact my ancestors, some of whom were driven from their land in the highland clearances and sent to America, killed Indians and took land, and you better believe I still hear about the fact a British empire used to exist.
 
jverne said:
i'm not cheering for communism..at least not in the way you perceive it. we need a third option, like i've already mentioned many times.
Click to expand...




^reckon the fact is that as of yet humans have been limited in their intelligence as to fully investigate and invest in a "third option" (sic) and economical/political ideology. One would assume that such a leap or timid step into such a branch would require a shitload of unknown factors (including knowledge of this third option) which the populus as a whole aren't willing to put on the line, which is understandable. However, such a third option may be progressively engineered and evolved over time.

Yes we need a third option, but sussing one out may be just around the corner...chinese ecomomy + political ideology much?
 
nurizeko said:
What a waste of a post, as if I once said I disagree that wealthy nations rules aren't fair, what I was talking about was the notion we should feed everyone ourselves, or that we are capable without bringing our own economies and agriculture to breaking point.

So I think we agree on that point that the rules need to change, but as Pvt_Ryan has said, some of us seem to be talking about two things.
Click to expand...
The reason I made my post is because you gave the impression that we're all bailing out a bunch of countries from their own problems, and being too benevolent for our own good (or their own good). That's not true. Our governments and businesses continue to intentionally exacerbate these people's problems and if we're bailing them out of a frying pan it's into a fire.

I should definitively note that I use the term 'we' as a short-hand - I'm not trying to imply any vast guilt for white people AHMAGAD. If we do have any responsibility it's not because of the sins of our fathers but because we are citizens under a government which is what we like to think is a functioning democracy and yet which is also currently and continuously doing these bad things, these aggressive things. These governments aren't well-intentioned only they're doing it wrong. They're being actively oppressive and entirely supporting those "corrupt SOBs" on the developing side. And it's not that I want to detract any blame from those dictators, but rather that I think it needs to be understood that it doesn't play out like this:

THE NAIVE WEST: Here, let me help you with some money!
AFRICAN DICTATOR: Muhahaha! I shall take the money and spend it on an enormous swimming pool for my pet dogs!
THE NAIVE WEST: Curse you! We can't initiate regime change because our hippy lobby won't like it!

You say you have doubts as to whether the west "can salvage the third world with crusading altruism alone". What I want to bang into people's heads is that there is no crusading altruism from western governments and businesses. The opposite exists. We're not just failing to help people. We're killing people!

So yeah, I guess we agree that things need to change? Great. It'd be interesting to get back to the actual specific subject of food production and how far it's sustainable. But these arguments have blossomed out of people making silly arguments about a specific thing (ie capitalism as it operates in regard to the developing world).

Nuri said:
To play devils advocate, the British government probably needs the copper, it doesn't need some smiley happy well fed africans who do nothing for our economy. There has to be a line when our governments actually look out for us, as is their job, instead of worrying about every other foreign John and Mary who provides absolutely nothing in return, we do actually have our own country to feed as well.
Click to expand...
If the british government needs the copper the british government can negotiate a fair deal for taking the copper directly, instead of essentially giving huge handouts to private corporations (who'll do what they want with the copper) and causing loads of people to starve.

EDIT: And then pretending it's "aid". And breaking its own laws as to the purpose of the DFID. And...
 
Koola Mena said:
^reckon the fact is that as of yet humans have been limited in their intelligence as to fully investigate and invest in a "third option" (sic) and economical/political ideology. One would assume that such a leap or timid step into such a branch would require a shitload of unknown factors (including knowledge of this third option) which the populus as a whole aren't willing to put on the line, which is understandable. However, such a third option may be progressively engineered and evolved over time.

Yes we need a third option, but sussing one out may be just around the corner...chinese ecomomy + political ideology much?
Click to expand...

i have a third option in mind...but for now it's full of holes so i shall rather not discuss it for the time being.


the whole thing about humans is that they have the ability to reason and not go blindly by instinct. human nature is evolving, so saying other forms of socio-economic systems are not possible is completely narrowminded.
 
Sorry Sulk, I'll reply when I have the time as I'm at work...

jverne said:
that is misleading...if you don't go along with the trend you get swallowed eventually and that's why it's forced. example: you could live in a forest and live of the land but sooner or later it will get privatized and you're screwed.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I grew up in London, quickly got sick of the ridiculous rat race and moved to Devon to live a more relaxed, less work-orientated lifestyle. What you seem to be suggesting is that we do away with society all together and just "live off the land", which, I'm sorry to say, is something of a pipe dream and in reality would probably be a living hell anyway.

the problem with capitalism (consequently the free market) that it makes corporate corruption and robbery legitimate.
Click to expand...

How's that? The most successful capitalist economies are those with the least corruption...see countries like Mexico and Russia in comparison for example. For that matter, non-capitalist countries are far more corrupt than you can imagine.

as for freedom...how free are you exactly if you are born in a poor family and most resources/education/assets are controlled by large corporations....not much if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I was born into a poor family. I also left school at 14 and spent most of my adolescence with a debilitating disability. It hasn't stopped me doing what I want to do, so I don't see why anyone else should sit around complaining. You can't expect everyone to get an equal start in life, the very concept is absurd. A man just makes the best of what he has, instead of whining about how unfair it is. Not everybody wins. It's tough.

as for poor countries...that's the problem...the first world is exploiting them. where will we turn when there's nobody left to exploit?
Click to expand...

Define exploitation. Sweatshops, for example, are not actually exploitation because they are the best job opportunities available in that area. Hence, the presence of the sweatshop is doing the local area a big favour and contributing to the economy. Nobody has to work there.
 
repiV said:
Sorry Sulk, I'll reply when I have the time as I'm at work...
Click to expand...
Aye, no problem, I'm supposed to be writing an essay. Well, I guess I am...

EDIT: Just to say, the problem with your sweatshops example is that, you know, how does the sweatshop become the best job opportunity available? Is that just an accident?
 
jverne said:
i have a third option in mind...but for now it's full of holes so i shall rather not discuss it for the time being.


the whole thing about humans is that they have the ability to reason and not go blindly by instinct. human nature is evolving, so saying other forms of socio-economic systems are not possible is completely narrowminded.
Click to expand...

Concur
 
Sulkdodds said:
Aye, no problem, I'm supposed to be writing an essay. Well, I guess I am...
Click to expand...

BTDT...glad I didn't do the uni thing...

EDIT: Just to say, the problem with your sweatshops example is that, you know, how does the sweatshop become the best job opportunity available? Is that just an accident?
Click to expand...

It's not much of a stretch for a Western company to create jobs in the third world that are a good opportunity by their standards and terrible by ours. Considering that urban China with its bustling, ultra-competitive economy is renowned for them, I see no reason to believe that something is afoot, as it were.
 
Africa will always be a shit hole as long as the warlord dictators are alowed to stay in power.
I mean its so corrupt over there most of the time you have to pay just to get your bags back from airports.
 
repiV said:
Not at all. I grew up in London, quickly got sick of the ridiculous rat race and moved to Devon to live a more relaxed, less work-orientated lifestyle. What you seem to be suggesting is that we do away with society all together and just "live off the land", which, I'm sorry to say, is something of a pipe dream and in reality would probably be a living hell anyway.
Click to expand...

i wonder how long till you can live a relaxed less work oriented life.

no i'm not suggesting that...i never have.



How's that? The most successful capitalist economies are those with the least corruption...see countries like Mexico and Russia in comparison for example. For that matter, non-capitalist countries are far more corrupt than you can imagine.
Click to expand...

what about the 700 billion bail out the US want's to do. thing is the west does the dirty work in foreign countries and trys to stay subtle about it...ever heard of tax evasion heavens or what are they called...who do you think invented them, or at least helped them. I'm sure it was not the dictators of third world countries since they don't need to hide from the public.
in the west there is alot of white collar crime.



I was born into a poor family. I also left school at 14 and spent most of my adolescence with a debilitating disability. It hasn't stopped me doing what I want to do, so I don't see why anyone else should sit around complaining. You can't expect everyone to get an equal start in life, the very concept is absurd. A man just makes the best of what he has, instead of whining about how unfair it is. Not everybody wins. It's tough.
Click to expand...

are you sure of that...or you tricked yourself in believing that. because i don't so obviously your logic is unilateral (word?).

i agree with you that everybody needs to fend for themselves as best they can, but they don't really stand a chance with multi billion dollar companies.


Define exploitation. Sweatshops, for example, are not actually exploitation because they are the best job opportunities available in that area. Hence, the presence of the sweatshop is doing the local area a big favour and contributing to the economy. Nobody has to work there.
Click to expand...

exploitation...watch the video or better yet just read one of sulks post.
 
jverne said:
i wonder how long till you can live a relaxed less work oriented life.
Click to expand...

Everyone has to earn money somehow, regardless of the economic system...I'm not quite sure what your point is. Certainly 9-5 working hours are a modern luxury, before industrialisation people spent most of their lives either working or surviving. Prosperity available to the masses is a 20th century thing.

You can also set up some kind of business that brings you money without you having to work on an ongoing basis, should you decide it's worth the effort.

no i'm not suggesting that...i never have.
Click to expand...

If you want to be part of wider society, you have to earn money. That's the price of progress.

what about the 700 billion bail out the US want's to do. thing is the west does the dirty work in foreign countries and trys to stay subtle about it...ever heard of tax evasion heavens or what are they called...who do you think invented them, or at least helped them. I'm sure it was not the dictators of third world countries since they don't need to hide from the public.
in the west there is alot of white collar crime.
Click to expand...

"Tax evasion havens"? All sounds much grander than it is...you just put your money in an offshore bank account and hire an expensive accountant to pay as little tax as possible. All sensible people with money to be worth guarding would do exactly the same. There is very little white collar crime in the West compared to what you find in second world countries, that's one of the main reasons why the West has the wealth. Corruption destroys economies.

are you sure of that...or you tricked yourself in believing that. because i don't so obviously your logic is unilateral (word?).
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm quite sure. Life isn't fair and it isn't meant to be, resources are finite and until we can produce an infinite supply of necessary resources at no cost then people will always be in competition with one another. The question is, are you going to be a winner or a loser?

i agree with you that everybody needs to fend for themselves as best they can, but they don't really stand a chance with multi billion dollar companies.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand your obsession with mega-rich companies. They're not hiding under the bed waiting to snatch babies and burn down houses. They're simply out for their own interests, like everyone else - they're simply better at it which is why they got so rich in the first place, and this wealth then gives them more opportunity to support their interests.

And Bill Gates is going to donate at least 90% of his wealth to charitable causes, so really...I don't see what your problem is.
 
Kase said:
yes but the fact we alow them to stay in power is the reason why it will always be shithole.
we can send all the aid in the world over there but aslong as the Warlords Stay in charge the countrys will always suffer
Click to expand...

you missed my point completely; often the warlords/despots/tyrants are PUT into power by western nations ..obviously they have no reason to dispose of a puppet regime they put into power ..until that is they no longer serve their interests
 
This thread is as one sided as the political forum.
 
Based on his avatar, I suggest we vote in Naph as king of the world, since everyone seems to think they have the answer to world problems ignoring the fact they are nobodies on a website.

:thumbs:



Plus Naph is full of win and pie.
 
give me your pie Nuri said your full of it and am hungry :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Naudian
The changing the world thread
2
Replies
53
Views
3K
Naudian
Naudian
Codcommando
Finally! we have a way to defeat them!
Replies
15
Views
1K
taviow
taviow
DigiQ8
85 Minutes of Left 4 Dead Footage
Replies
20
Views
6K
Dodo
Dodo
W4d5Y
  • Locked
Electrical Engineer for WTC dismisses that fire and fuel alone toppled the towers
Replies
2
Views
530
Pi Mu Rho
Pi Mu Rho
hot564231
The Sad Life of Jonathan Harchick
Replies
10
Views
2K
Raziaar
Raziaar
Back
Top