UN World Food Day Message: more than 1 billion people are hungry - Why?

[Darya Akbari]

herb slocomb wrote:

Arvind Mahendra wrote: ...I don't know what role the rich play in modern times in world hunger....

No one has produced any examples yet of a billionaire acting through a free market casuing global hunger.
...

OK, then let's see whether the above Google Billionaires Map will make it more tangible. Do you see the north/south division? Of the 794 billionaires only 40 of them seem to live south of the equator, 754 live north of the equator.

95% of the billionaires live north of the equator. Where do you think live those 1 billion people whom the UN report say are hungry?

[Ulf Dittmer]

Darya Akbari wrote:95% of the billionaires live north of the equator. Where do you think live those 1 billion people whom the UN report say are hungry?

It seems you missed the second part of Herb's post which contained the outline of a solution:

herb slocomb wrote:On the contrary, the more billionaires a country has as a result of a free market, the less hunger it has. So instead of looking for blame, focus on the solution of finding more ways to increase the number of billionaires in country.

[Darya Akbari]

Ulf Dittmer wrote:It seems you missed the second part of Herb's post which contained the outline of a solution:

herb slocomb wrote:On the contrary, the more billionaires a country has as a result of a free market, the less hunger it has. So instead of looking for blame, focus on the solution of finding more ways to increase the number of billionaires in country.

I simply don't see this will happen at anytime, since if it had a chance to happen it would have already happened. The fact is that the north will not let it happen, otherwise we wouldn't have the north/south division as we have it now.

[Gregg Bolinger]

You can find all sorts of sources for this info searching google.

Did you know it is estimated that 1.3 billion people could be fed with the amount of grain that America uses to feed livestock? And one acre of land can grow approximately 40,000 lbs of potatoes or 250 lbs of beef, and it takes 50,000 gallons of water to produce 1 lb of California beef, but only 25 gallons of water to produce 1 lb of wheat. Half of all water used in America is for livestock consumption.

[frank davis]

Darya Akbari wrote:
I simply don't see this will happen at anytime, since if it had a chance to happen it would have already happened.

My nephew has a friend whose cousin saw several things happens on the same day that previously had not happened before.

Just saying.

Darya Akbari wrote:
The fact is that the north will not let it happen, otherwise we wouldn't have the north/south division as we have it now.

So, the billionaires in the North conspire to prevent free markets from emerging in the South so as to prevent billionaire creation in the South because they prefer to deal with local warlords and thugs who give them much better special billionaire discounts on natural resources/commodities?

Funny, I never thought of warlords as being discounters.

[frank davis]

Gregg Bolinger wrote:You can find all sorts of sources for this info searching google.

Did you know it is estimated that 1.3 billion people could be fed with the amount of grain that America uses to feed livestock? And one acre of land can grow approximately 40,000 lbs of potatoes or 250 lbs of beef, and it takes 50,000 gallons of water to produce 1 lb of California beef, but only 25 gallons of water to produce 1 lb of wheat. Half of all water used in America is for livestock consumption.

Better even than Google, is the peerless wisdom that flows from the Empire of the Billionaire of All Billionaires, Bill Gates, on how to produce food with even less water:

Using existing lakes and ocean pens: "Algae provide food for people ... serve as thickening agents in ice cream and shampoo, and are used as drugs to ward off diseases."

And I always see bug around no matter how much drought:
"Insects have served as a food source for people for thousands of years. ... but insects are a popular food in many developing regions of Central and South America, Africa, and Asia. At least 1,200 species of insects are eaten in various parts of the world.




http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761573848_3/Algae.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701702408/entomophagy.html

[Arvind Mahendra]

herb slocomb wrote:

Arvind Mahendra wrote: ...I don't know what role the rich play in modern times in world hunger....

No one has produced any examples yet of a billionaire acting through a free market casuing global hunger.

On the contrary, the more billionaires a country has as a result of a free market, the less hunger it has.
So instead of looking for blame, focus on the solution of finding more ways to increase the number of billionaires in country.

Whats the point of reporting gossip as fact when it wouldn't take more than 5 mins to google?
Also, I think the underlying intention of your statement is to ultimately draw me into some kind of debate about which economic system is superior viz a via socialism or capitalism, so let me put it out there form the get go, I definately believe capitalism is the way to go and provided the playing field is leveled may lead to equality for ALL. Not just the elite. Whether the first world has been willing to level the playing field is another debate for another day.

herb slocomb wrote:
On the contrary, the more billionaires a country has as a result of a free market, the less hunger it has.
So instead of looking for blame, focus on the solution of finding more ways to increase the number of billionaires in country.

seems to be quite a leap of logic. Read this excerpt from an article by Anuradha Mittal who seems to be an expert in this issue and has written various books and articles on the subject. She talks about Hunger in the U.S.

"An estimated 35 million Americans are food insecure with food insecurity and the necessity of food stamps being experienced by at least 4 in 10 Americans between the ages of 20 and 65. That's 50% of Americans! "

"Meanwhile, the already burdened food safety-net program which was designed to alleviate hunger and food insecurity is under attack by the threat of reduction of funding and ease of enrollment by policy makers. With food expenses being the most elastic part of a family's budget, as limited funds usually get allocated to fixed payments first, such as rent and utilities, food purchasing has become the most compromised portion of the average family's budget. So far in 2004, 35% of Americans have had to choose between food and rent, while 28% had to choose between medical care and food. While others, forced to stretch their budgets further and further, are buying less expensive but often less nutritious food. "

Agreeably, the hunger levels aren't as bad as in parts of the third world but I think your assumption can now be demoted to mere wishful thinking. Still not convinced? read this report from which countries have the least hunger.
"Mauritius has the best score (lowest level of hunger) on the 2008 GHI, followed by Jamaica, Moldova, Cuba, and Peru. "
None of these countries has a single billionaire.

[quote=herb slocomb
No one has produced any examples yet of a billionaire acting through a free market casuing global hunger.


Mr. Billionaire by itself is not the problem, as Greg points out in a later post its mostly about personal responsibility and state policy(political will). Big Business will only do what it has to do to earn your money, if it willingly or unwillingly augments the cause of global hunger is secondary and the blame has to be shared by all. Here's an example. A billionaire who runs a power company, seeing an increase in demand for his product decides to dam a river that acts as a life line for millions of acres of farmland downstream. Look at what this does - you displace millions of people from their home, food production is lessened and the price of produce has now gone up. Not only does this lead to hunger but likely also strife and other violence that occurs when people get displaced. The free market can work for you and in this case it can also work against you by causing more (hunger related) deaths. Again the Billionaire here is not directly at fault, he has a right to increase production but his actions has led to hunger whether one likes this fact or not. The "saving grace" is that as more people get access to electricity, it would lead the standard of everyone's living and so the thousands of hunger deaths occurring each day due to starvation would not be in vain. In some ways this also captures the very essence of capitalism, inequality today for more equality tomorrow.

src:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1210-22.htm
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1014-hunger.html

[frank davis]

Arvind Mahendra wrote:

"... food insecurity and the necessity of food stamps being experienced by at least 4 in 10 Americans between the ages of 20 and 65. That's 50% of Americans! "

Didn't know half of America had food insecurity

No wonder everyone is stocking up on bullets here...

[frank davis]

Arvind Mahendra wrote:

herb slocomb wrote:
No one has produced any examples yet of a billionaire acting through a free market casuing global hunger.
On the contrary, the more billionaires a country has as a result of a free market, the less hunger it has.

...
Here's an example. A billionaire who runs a power company, seeing an increase in demand for his product decides to dam a river that acts as a life line for millions of acres of farmland downstream. Look at what this does - you displace millions of people from their home, food production is lessened and the price of produce has now gone up. ...

You still have not given a real example of a billionaire causing world hunger. Also, in real life, the situations I know about are a result of government action (Hoover Dam & Three Gorges) not a result free market activity (where land is bought from owners at fair price). Fortunately in the US, even government actions require landowners to be paid a fair value for their land (that would include considering profits from farming). A world market in food commodities also vastly reduces the impact of any regional disruptions.

In any event, the benefits of electricty are quite substantial - electricity to power hospitals, schools, homes, factories, equipment, computers, etc - all of which can help increase people's living standards and wages and ability to buy food or buy tractors or feetilizers that enable food to be produced more cheaply.

[frank davis]

Arvind Mahendra wrote:

herb slocomb wrote: .

...On the contrary, the more billionaires a country has as a result of a free market, the less hunger it has.. .

Whats the point of reporting gossip as fact when it wouldn't take more than 5 mins to google?

OK, did my Google, and as expected, the hunger map I found pretty much looked like the "gossip" said it would -
countries with most billionaires had on avergage (per country) the lowest rates of hunger. The overall obvious point is that USA and Western Europe had most billionaires (compare with earlier posted map) and lowest rates of hunger:


http://www.feedingminds.org/info/world_en.htm

[Frank Silbermann]

Darya Akbari wrote:
Zimbabwe is a good example. Beside the fact that Mugabe is responsible for the misery there now, but what about the responsibility of the white farmers who had those huge farms?

We would not have this high rate of starvation in Zimbabwe had the white colonists never arrived.

Before colonialism, Zimbabwe produced little and supported a very small population. There was some starvation, but not in large numbers because people didn't exist in Zimbabwe in such large numbers.

Then these white settlers came and cleared farms, grew lucrative crops, and hired many Africans to work for them. With their wages, the Africans were able to buy food, thereby allowing the African population to increase dramatically. This resulted in the existence of huge numbers of Africans dependent upon the white farmers for employment, and a government dependent on them for taxes.

Mugabe took those huge farms away from the Zimbabwe whites and gave them to people who, for whatever reason, are not producing large amounts of cash crops for export, who are not producing large amounts of food for domestic sale, and who are not employing large numbers of African workers. Because the Zimbabwe black population is much too large to be supported by a pre-colonial style economy, many are starving. This high rate of starvation will probably abate once the population is back down to what it was before the whites came.

As for the white farmers themselves, many fled to wherever they could find refuge (e.g. other African countries) to start over; those who were allowed to remain on much smaller parcels of land may still be able to raise enough food to feed themselves, but no longer can employ large numbers of African farm workers.

We've seen similar famines in other countries when farms were confiscated from the people who knew how to farm -- in the Soviet Union during the 1930s, in China during the 1950s and '60s, and probably many other places. (In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge didn't wait for starvation to result from their policies.)

Of course, in America most hunger is self-imposed by people trying to lose weight.

[Darya Akbari]

Frank Silbermann wrote:Then these white settlers came and cleared farms, grew lucrative crops, and hired many Africans to work for them.

We had that already during slavery. And on this stock of land a lot of those white settlers got rich.

Frank Silbermann wrote:We've seen similar famines in other countries when farms were confiscated from the people who knew how to farm -- in the Soviet Union during the 1930s, in China during the 1950s and '60s, and probably many other places. (In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge didn't wait for starvation to result from their policies.)

So neither the above systems nor what we have today works out, right?

herb slocomb wrote:countries with most billionaires had on avergage (per country) the lowest rates of hunger. The overall obvious point is that USA and Western Europe had most billionaires (compare with earlier posted map) and lowest rates of hunger:

If you make the wrong conclusion out of it, of course every country should produce billionaires. By the way, have you seen a hungry billionaire? It should be more than obvious, with the Billionaire and Hunger maps, how both are related.

herb slocomb wrote:So, the billionaires in the North conspire to prevent free markets from emerging in the South so as to prevent billionaire creation in the South ...

This is by nature the case. It's not a united front against the south but the northern strength and the billionaires' greedy mentality seems to be the root cause for the misery of many others.

[Darya Akbari]

herb slocomb wrote:You still have not given a real example of a billionaire causing world hunger.

In principle anyone of them who speculates on the world food market (especially after the real estate crashes) is an example.

[Frank Silbermann]

Frank Silbermann: Then these white settlers came and cleared farms, grew lucrative crops, and hired many Africans to work for them.

Darya Akbari: We had that already during slavery. And on this stock of land a lot of those white settlers got rich.

Yes, and the Africans ate and multiplied and didn't starve (until Mugabe stopped it). What's your point?

Frank Silbermann: We've seen similar famines in other countries when farms were confiscated from the people who knew how to farm -- in the Soviet Union during the 1930s, in China during the 1950s and '60s, and probably many other places. (In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge didn't wait for starvation to result from their policies.)

Darya Akbari: So neither the above systems nor what we have today works out, right?

What do you mean "we"? The system the Zimbabweans have today isn't working out. I'm not a Zimbabwean.



herb slocomb: So, the billionaires in the North conspire to prevent free markets from emerging in the South so as to prevent billionaire creation in the South ...

Darya Akbari: This is by nature the case. It's not a united front against the south but the northern strength and the billionaires' greedy mentality seems to be the root cause for the misery of many others.

That's an interesting thought. We're still waiting for some kind of explanation beyond mere assertion. (Later you talk about billionaires speculating in the food markets. But I haven't heard of any billionaires speculating in the food markets, nor do I have any reason to think that has anything to do with the hunger in Zimbabwe. Or any other places, for that matter.)

There are plenty of reasons to resent billionaires, the primary one being that I'm not among of them. But that doesn't mean _any_ evil can be attributed to them.

[frank davis]

Darya Akbari wrote:

herb slocomb wrote:You still have not given a real example of a billionaire causing world hunger.

In principle anyone of them who speculates on the world food market (especially after the real estate crashes) is an example.

Precisely wrong. "Futures" purchases of food commodities are the main process whereby farmers can forecast demand, reduce risk, afford to make investments to increase their productivity, and wisely plan their planting schedules in advance. Food production would be LESS, not more, without these types of market purchases. So, we can thank the billionaires, the ones who have enriched all of society with their benefits, yet one more time for reducing world hunger.

[frank davis]

herb slocomb wrote:You still have not given a real example of a billionaire causing world hunger.

Even I am not maintaining that all billionaires are saints, there must be some evil ones. So there must be some examples of them causing global hunger, right?

But still, in general, we have to admit that billionaires, motivated by 'greed' in some form, have done more to advance human kind and reduce hunger than all the ivory tower academics and kind-hearted, fluffy- headed poor people combined since time began.

[Borlaug wasn't an ivory tower academic, he was vigously involved out in the field and in advocating free-markets. Some say he saved about 1 billion lives].

Jeff Bezos - Accelerated e-commerce in society leading to market efficiencies due to scale & scope. (Disclosure: My favorite 'store')
Sergey Brin - Google inventor. Information is power, and Google spreads it out to the masses. In my job I use it multiple times daily; increasing my productivity vastly as it does for most information workers of all types.
Bill Gates - Often labeled "E-V-I-L", yet one of the biggest results focused charity donors. Gates, via his ruthless greed, not only hastened the poliferation of computers to the common man, but also created a dominant desktop computing standard which allowed a common platform that allowed economies of scale for software application development that fostered the creation of software companies large and small. Conservatively speaking, the accelerated widespread adoption of desktop computing, advanced mankind forward 15 years, and led to increases in productivity throughout society.
Henry Ford - Mass production via the assembly line - another quantum leap forward in societal efficiency.

etc...

Instead of blaming these guys, and thousands like them through history, we should be on our knees in gratitude for the blessings they have bestowed on us.

"Atlas Shrugged" movie should be out in 2011 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/

[Frank Silbermann]

herb slocomb wrote:

Instead of blaming these guys, and thousands like them through history, we should be on our knees in gratitude for the blessings they have bestowed on us.

"Atlas Shrugged" movie should be out in 2011 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/

Even if Ayn Rand's philosophy is true, it's still dangerous to teach; scoundrels such as the head of Enron have used her "greed is good" principle to justify actions that violate a greedy person's _long_ term self-interest. That's why I favor encouraging people to attend a decent church denomination -- not one of those denominations that promote autocracy or war against unbelievers, but one that teaches the Protestant Work Ethic or its equivalent.

[frank davis]

Frank Silbermann wrote:

herb slocomb wrote:

Instead of blaming these guys, and thousands like them through history, we should be on our knees in gratitude for the blessings they have bestowed on us.

"Atlas Shrugged" movie should be out in 2011 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/

Even if Ayn Rand's philosophy is true, it's still dangerous to teach; scoundrels such as the head of Enron have used her "greed is good" principle to justify actions that violate a greedy person's _long_ term self-interest. That's why I favor encouraging people to attend a decent church denomination -- not one of those denominations that promote autocracy or war against unbelievers, but one that teaches the Protestant Work Ethic or its equivalent.

Well, every philosophy and religion has been distorted or abused, and I'd say the record on religion is far worse than an Enron financial scam since millions have died at the hands of distorted religion fanatics and continue to die even as I type these words.

A philosophy emphasizing rationality and liberty, which also allows compassion more freely than any religion, is likely to be a preferred choice.

[Bert Bates]

I'm going to circle back to long term vs. short term...

In the long term EVERYTHING must become sustainable. As it stands, many aspects of how humans impact the planet are not sustainable. So it's certainly valid to talk about the billion people who are hungry today, but it's also valid to talk about the 10 billion that will be hungry in 20 years. So here's visualization:

Imagine you're working in a biology lab, doing research on a fast growing strain of bacteria. Let's say this strain of bacteria doubles its population every 15 minutes. Further, lets say that you've calculated that a certain cup of bacteria will be totally full in 24 hours. How full will that cup be in 23 hours?

The math's not hard, but imagine looking at the cup in 23 hours... would it be intuitive at that point to imagine that in 1 hour the cup would be full?

From there it's pretty easy (for me at least), to think that as a planet we're at the 23rd hour.

[frank davis]

Bert Bates wrote:

The math's not hard, but imagine looking at the cup in 23 hours... would it be intuitive at that point to imagine that in 1 hour the cup would be full?

Yes, the math is indisputable. Thomas Malthus actually figured this all out over a hundred years ago that population growth will always be able to outstrip food production since one increases mathematically while the other geometrically. Yet , somehow the Malthusians are proved wrong year after year for past hundred some years.

Fortunately there are 2 factors at work:

1) Countries lower their reproductive rate as their living standard increases. Many industrialized countries have negative growth rates or would have it were it not for immigrants from third world countries.

2) Technology has increased food production. Hybrid crops (credit to Borlaug), more efficient large scale production, and genetic manipulation have and will continue to increase food production at rates thought impossible based on current models. There are also huge untapped sources of food that are simply underutilized due to local customs and traditions.

I'm not saying there are no limits, I'm saying that the prediction of limits is always based on current models. Those models change daily to some extent...

[Darya Akbari]

herb slocomb wrote:

Darya Akbari wrote:

herb slocomb wrote:You still have not given a real example of a billionaire causing world hunger.

In principle anyone of them who speculates on the world food market (especially after the real estate crashes) is an example.

Precisely wrong. "Futures" purchases of food commodities are the main process whereby farmers can forecast demand, reduce risk, afford to make investments to increase their productivity, and wisely plan their planting schedules in advance.

I should have emphasized the word speculates. The nature of speculation or a speculator is not of the kind of making plans. Right the opposite, any move is unplanned. Look the finance crisis we are in today. The real estate sector has crashed and new sectors like the food sector are being found to move huge amounts of money there. Like a gambler a speculator only has one thing in mind: make money

[Darya Akbari]

Frank Silbermann wrote:Frank Silbermann: Then these white settlers came and cleared farms, grew lucrative crops, and hired many Africans to work for them.

Darya Akbari: We had that already during slavery. And on this stock of land a lot of those white settlers got rich.

Yes, and the Africans ate and multiplied and didn't starve (until Mugabe stopped it). What's your point?

My point is that what you see as freedom for the Africans, I call modern form of slavery.

[Darya Akbari]

Frank Silbermann wrote:Enron have used her "greed is good" principle to justify actions that violate a greedy person's _long_ term self-interest. That's why I favor encouraging people to attend a decent church denomination -- not one of those denominations that promote autocracy or war against unbelievers, but one that teaches the Protestant Work Ethic or its equivalent.

This "greed is good" principle is really sick. I don't know who brought that one up to excuse his sick mind set about how the world has to function. But you don't need to be on the religious path to understand that this principle is sick.

[Frank Silbermann]

Darya Akbari wrote:

Frank Silbermann wrote:Frank Silbermann: Then these white settlers came and cleared farms, grew lucrative crops, and hired many Africans to work for them.

Darya Akbari: We had that already during slavery. And on this stock of land a lot of those white settlers got rich.

Yes, and the Africans ate and multiplied and didn't starve (until Mugabe stopped it). What's your point?

My point is that what you see as freedom for the Africans, I call modern form of slavery.

Yes, but Mugabe ended it. Mugabe has the power to set whatever policy for Zimbabwe that he pleases. He can let white farmers grow crops and employ Africans in Zimbabwe (which you call modern slavery), or not. When he removes from white Zimbabweans the authority to run the farms, he simultaneously removes from them the responsibility for producing food, exportables and paychecks. If he can teach black Zimbabweans to do the job themselves, no one will stop him.

Perhaps when the scientists get off their easy chairs and invent the time machines that their fiction writers have long been promising, we can undo the past and make the white-run plantations never have happened, thereby instantly reducing the African population. Until then, Mugabe must choose from among the policies he is capable of implementing, and his people will bear the consequences of his choice.

The point has been made quite clearly that my country is not the world's policeman. Until that changes, my opinion about what the Zimbabwean people are suffering is irrelevant.

[frank davis]

Darya Akbari wrote:

herb slocomb wrote:

Darya Akbari wrote:

herb slocomb wrote:You still have not given a real example of a billionaire causing world hunger.

In principle anyone of them who speculates on the world food market (especially after the real estate crashes) is an example.

Precisely wrong. "Futures" purchases of food commodities are the main process whereby farmers can forecast demand, reduce risk, afford to make investments to increase their productivity, and wisely plan their planting schedules in advance.

I should have emphasized the word speculates. The nature of speculation or a speculator is not of the kind of making plans. Right the opposite, any move is unplanned. Look the finance crisis we are in today. The real estate sector has crashed and new sectors like the food sector are being found to move huge amounts of money there. Like a gambler a speculator only has one thing in mind: make money

There is misunderstanding about how the the markets work; especially in regards to food commodities.

Commodity Futures Contract:
"An agreement to buy or sell a set amount of a commodity at a predetermined price and date. Buyers use these to avoid the risks associated with the price fluctuations of the product or raw material, while sellers try to lock in a price for their products. Like in all financial markets, others use such contracts to gamble on price movements."
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commodityfuturescontract.asp

Farmers benefit by having a known price for their goods in the future. They can therefore make investments with less fear of catastrophic failure if the market becomes overburdended with too much surplus of their food with a resulting price fall. This greater stability encourages more efficiency for both buyers and sellers because their planning then has less variables they have to hedge against.

Real estate in the US is a special case, since it was heavily distorted by governement agencies who encouraged unsound lending... but this is another controversial topic I addressed many months ago. In any event, no billionaire or group of billionaires directly caused the real estate collapse. It was the result of unsound lending and unwise buying of many individuals clearly not billionaires and could not afford to pay monthly mortgage.

But still, we are back to square one, you have yet to name a billionaire who has caused widespread starvation by speculating or hoarding using free market options only.

[frank davis]

Darya Akbari wrote:

Frank Silbermann wrote:Enron have used her "greed is good" principle to justify actions that violate a greedy person's _long_ term self-interest. That's why I favor encouraging people to attend a decent church denomination -- not one of those denominations that promote autocracy or war against unbelievers, but one that teaches the Protestant Work Ethic or its equivalent.

This "greed is good" principle is really sick. I don't know who brought that one up to excuse his sick mind set about how the world has to function. But you don't need to be on the religious path to understand that this principle is sick.

Greed, via free markets and the application of technology, has done more to advance living standards for everyone throughout history than any charity or religion. In fact, many religions have been (or still are) actively hostile to science, thus hindering the advancement of technologies to ease human suffering, poverty, and hunger. In the real world, "greed is good" when properly channeled in society. In the real world, all the hugs, all the prayers, all the rain dances, and all the chanting in the world have done nothing to increase food production efficiency.

[Darya Akbari]

herb slocomb wrote:Greed, via free markets and the application of technology, has done more to advance living standards for everyone throughout history than any charity or religion ... In the real world, "greed is good" when properly channeled in society.

Greed is the reason of all evil. What do you mean with when properly channeled. Your when will never happen as you can see by 1 billion starving people. In the real world the speculators don't care about your when, they only follow their greed for money. Then what difference does it make for dying child whether the greed is the direct or indirect cause why it is dying now .

[Darya Akbari]

herb slocomb wrote:There is misunderstanding about how the the markets work; especially in regards to food commodities.

So far the north has enslaved the south in that they use the south as farming ground dictate their prices, so much that not enough remains for the south. That in addition with the subvention policy of the north even force the south to import food again from the north. On one hand the south has to provide its farming ground to pay its debts to the north. Now where does the debts come from?

[frank davis]

Darya Akbari wrote:

herb slocomb wrote:Greed, via free markets and the application of technology, has done more to advance living standards for everyone throughout history than any charity or religion ... In the real world, "greed is good" when properly channeled in society.

Greed is the reason of all evil. What do you mean with when properly channeled. Your when will never happen as you can see by 1 billion starving people. In the real world the speculators don't care about your when, they only follow their greed for money. Then what difference does it make for dying child whether the greed is the direct or indirect cause why it is dying now .

Its greed that raises living standards, then parents can feed their children.

[frank davis]

Darya Akbari wrote:

herb slocomb wrote:There is misunderstanding about how the the markets work; especially in regards to food commodities.

So far the north has enslaved the south in that they use the south as farming ground dictate their prices, so much that not enough remains for the south. That in addition with the subvention policy of the north even force the south to import food again from the north. On one hand the south has to provide its farming ground to pay its debts to the north. Now where does the debts come from?

In a free market, prices are not dictated.

[Darya Akbari]

herb slocomb wrote:Its greed that raises living standards, then parents can feed their children.

That's obviously not the case for the parents in the south.

herb slocomb wrote:In a free market, prices are not dictated.

For the south they are dictated, since there we don't have a free market.

[frank davis]

Darya Akbari wrote:

herb slocomb wrote:Its greed that raises living standards, then parents can feed their children.

That's obviously not the case for the parents in the south.

herb slocomb wrote:In a free market, prices are not dictated.

For the south they are dictated, since there we don't have a free market.

We are back where we started, there is no free market because of the govt, not because of billionaires.
Billionaires and wannabe billionaires want free markets. Allow billionaires their wishes and all problems cease.

[Darya Akbari]

herb slocomb wrote:Billionaires and wannabe billionaires want free markets.

The only thing they want is money.

[frank davis]

Darya Akbari wrote:

herb slocomb wrote:Billionaires and wannabe billionaires want free markets.

The only thing they want is money.

They give you everything that society has to offer - the PC that you use to make your posts on javaranch, the tractors that till the fields so the babies can have food to eat, the transportation to bring the food to the tiny starving crying babies, the shirt on your back, the diapers for the baby, the medicene for mother and baby, everything in this world.

All the Goodness that exists flows through them. They simply ask for small contribution so that they may continue their good deeds since they themselves need money to give to those that work for them. For the greedy workers that work for billionaires are very selfish and refuse do good deeds without money.

Unless perhaps you wish to give up time posting here on Javaranch so that you may volunteer freely to help the billionaires do their good deeds???

In the time you have used posting here on javaranch, you could volunteered to help 6 starving babies be fed. Are you perhaps guilty of selfishness in doing that; and also perhaps greedy to not help without wanting pay?

[Frank Silbermann]

Darya Akbari wrote:

herb slocomb wrote:There is misunderstanding about how the the markets work; especially in regards to food commodities.

So far the north has enslaved the south in that they use the south as farming ground dictate their prices, so much that not enough remains for the south. That in addition with the subvention policy of the north even force the south to import food again from the north. On one hand the south has to provide its farming ground to pay its debts to the north. Now where does the debts come from?

I agree -- the rich western countries should never have lent money to poor countries. Their corrupt leaders keep it for themselves and leave their countrymen holding the debt. We should not do this anymore.

[frank davis]

Frank Silbermann wrote:

Darya Akbari wrote:

herb slocomb wrote:There is misunderstanding about how the the markets work; especially in regards to food commodities.

So far the north has enslaved the south in that they use the south as farming ground dictate their prices, so much that not enough remains for the south. That in addition with the subvention policy of the north even force the south to import food again from the north. On one hand the south has to provide its farming ground to pay its debts to the north. Now where does the debts come from?

I agree -- the rich western countries should never have lent money to poor countries. Their corrupt leaders keep it for themselves and leave their countrymen holding the debt. We should not do this anymore.

Finally, one thing we can all agree on, lending money to people who can't pay back is a horrendous idea. This is the root of much evil in the world, including the real estate mess that spawned the financial crisis. Although, like many ideas, it has its own roots in compassion, helping, and other fluffy-bunny stuff.

[Ulf Dittmer]

Darya Akbari wrote:So far the north has enslaved the south in that they use the south as farming ground dictate their prices, so much that not enough remains for the south.

Careful there. You seem to use "the north" and "the billionaires" as a convenient proxy for all kinds of things that frustrate you, but to have an actual discussion we should be more precise. We already talked about Zimbabwe, where it was the country's own government that figured it could do better and now has a humanitarian disaster on its hand (not that that government would recognize it as such, of course, since its own henchmen are covered ...). Let's also not forget that said billionaires -Gates, Buffett and Turner foremost amongst them- channel lots of money to fight diseases that chiefly afflict what I guess you'd call "the south". What part of "greed" is that?

[Anil K Chandra]

Darya Akbari wrote:

Greed is the reason of all evil.

You also need to consider the fact that all life on Earth is greedy. When the resources are limited, being greedy is the only way to survive. But I'm not saying any amount of greed is acceptable. There needs to be a balance. But saying outright that greed is evil is ignoring the basic fact of life.

I'll give an example of my own greed. Compared to what most people do for a living, I have a cushy job. 40-60 hrs a week, no work on weekends and a good pay. With my salary, I probably can provide shelter and food to about 15 people. But I do not do that. I'm greedy. I need my own private space. I don't like living in a cramped space. I need my TV and Internet. I need to horde money for my progeny. I need a vehicle to go around. From a basic survival point of view, none of these are required. But my greed dictates that they are necessary.

I'm sure there are a lot of people on this planet who are not very rich and yet lead a cushy life compared to those billion hungry people. If you want to blame someone, just blaming billionaires is not fair. For a person who can't afford daily meals, I'm filthy rich. Just consider things from this perspective. Greed is not a black and white issue.

[frank davis]

Ulf Dittmer wrote:

Darya Akbari wrote:So far the north has enslaved the south in that they use the south as farming ground dictate their prices, so much that not enough remains for the south.

Careful there. You seem to use "the north" and "the billionaires" as a convenient proxy..

Is this an example of a misapplication of the Facade Design pattern rather Proxy design pattern?

[Darya Akbari]

Ulf Dittmer wrote:You seem to use "the north" and "the billionaires" as a convenient proxy for all kinds of things.

You can call it proxy or black and white but I call it poles. North/south and billionaire/starving people to me are simply poles. The billionaires map and the hunger map make it very clear who is the north and who is the south and who is billionaire and who is starving. This topic is very complicated, and I know that there are also other reasons for 1 billion hungry people. Their are also lots of very poor (even starving) people in the north and 5% of the billionaires in the south. But for what should we mix everything up? Would it really answer the question why we have 1 billion hungry people? Even discussing this simple view of north and south or black and white is hard enough, leave alone merging everything. I don't see where that would lead us in finding some root causes for this misery except wandering in the dark.