NationStates Jolt Archive

The first exposure I had to this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1550747797/104-4551044-2696740?v=glance&n=283155) was in an animated adaption to it. I thought it was a really great tool for teachers to give a brief overview of population distribution, languages spoken, religions worshipped, and so on. The premise is fairly simple...if you shrunk the world into a village of 100 people, what would they look like, and so on. Since I can't post the book (:(), I'll just include two 'rip off sites' that use some of the same stats:

http://www.gdrc.org/uem/1000-village.html
http://www.mysterra.org/webmag/coup-de-coeur_en.html

Some of the sites are more 'political' than others. But overall, what do you think of the concept itself, of representing the world in this simplistic form? The reason I ask, is because I have recently encountered a number of people who loathe this book, and go on long rants about how it skews things to make capitalism look bad:rolleyes: I was a bit shocked...I didn't think the book could possibly be so contraversial. I should've known better. So? Your thoughts?

I don't know how accurate the stats are, but I can definately see the anti-american/western bias in it.

To me, it seems its' whole purpose is to make us ashamed of living in a successful society or being successful ourselves.

I don't know how accurate the stats are, but I can definately see the anti-american/western bias in it.

To me, it seems its' whole purpose is to make us ashamed of living in a successful society or being successful ourselves.
I don't see it. I think it just makes us realize how lucky we are to have been born into Western civilization. It makes me want to share the method we've used to gain such advantages with others who are less fortunate so that they can be free, secure and prosperous too.

I don't know how accurate the stats are, but I can definately see the anti-american/western bias in it.

To me, it seems its' whole purpose is to make us ashamed of living in a successful society or being successful ourselves.

Oh no I'm being among the best that has to stop immediatly!

Slow kids lose at dodgeball that's a fact of life and to be honest I'm not going to fake empathy because there are people who are dieing. Sad but I'm not going to impede my life at all because of it. It may be cold but that's exactly how I feel.

i like the 1000 people link much more than the 100 person link. 100 people just doesnt allow for enough detail

and why is this controvesial? i found it very interesting

Yep- think I'll get it and read it with Reagan. Thanks for another useful link Sin-ya-rita.

i like the 1000 people link much more than the 100 person link. 100 people just doesnt allow for enough detail

and why is this controvesial? i found it very interesting

Since when has an accurate description of the way things are not been contraversial?

I'll be the village idiot. :)

It's controversial because most westerners (including myself, in all honestly) do not enjoy thinking about these things.

It's controversial because most westerners (including myself, in all honestly) do not enjoy thinking about these things.

Who the hell enjoys it?!?

I'll be the village idiot. :)
You've got it. I've got dibs on town drunk.

So you've heard it's controversial because some people say it makes capitalism look bad?

Beautiful. I guess it never struck them that if a factually based microcosm of the world can make capitalism look bad... there might be something wrong with capitalism as opposed to something wrong with the model?

So you've heard it's controversial because some people say it makes capitalism look bad?

Beautiful. I guess it never struck them that if a factually based microcosm of the world can make capitalism look bad... there might be something wrong with capitalism as opposed to something wrong with the model?

Makes capitalism look bad? The luckiest portion of the population are capitalists!

Makes capitalism sound pretty good. :p

Destroy the village and start over, much bigger say aaaaaaaaah A Planet?

Yeah thats what we need.


rich

Makes capitalism look bad? The luckiest portion of the population are capitalists!

Makes capitalism sound pretty good. :p

Not really. Under the current system of radically unequal distributions of wealth in the world, many, many people suffer because 80% of the wealth is concentrated in 20% of the hands. A large number of people in the village don't have doctors, education, even basic neccesities... that's what makes capitalism look bad.

Hmmm. I think it is very interesting that some people immediately saw this as trying to make them 'feel bad' or 'feel sorry' for others. It makes me suspect that some people read their own biases into things, rather than pick up any 'inherent' bias.

and to be honest I'm not going to fake empathy because there are people who are dieing.
One shouldn't have to fake empathy in that kind of situation. But at least you are honest about your lack of compassion.

Not really. Under the current system of radically unequal distributions of wealth in the world, many, many people suffer because 80% of the wealth is concentrated in 20% of the hands. A large number of people in the village don't have doctors, education, even basic neccesities... that's what makes capitalism look bad.

Yes, but how many of the 20% are capitalists? How many of the 80% unfortunates aren't?

It brings up the question of whether they are capitalists because they are successful, or if they are successful because they're caopitalists.

To view a web-movie based on these stats, check this ( http://www.luccaco.com/miniatureearth/) out. The film I saw was actually a UNICEF ( http://www.unicef.org/videoaudio/video_28382.html) production. It was really incredible. It was very upbeat, and positive, even when it was presenting facts about disease, about poverty and so on, there was a very hopeful tone. Some of these facts could be very disturbing for kids, and I think this video does a fantastic job of presenting the facts without assigning blame or trying to make anyone feel 'guilty'.

It seems to me that having a model on such a small scale leads to misunderstandings. the fact that the statistics are like that doesn't relfect the genuine efforts on the part of wealthier nations and people to assist those who cannot help themselves.

It seems to me that having a model on such a small scale leads to misunderstandings. the fact that the statistics are like that doesn't relfect the genuine efforts on the part of wealthier nations and people to assist those who cannot help themselves.
How does that have anything to do with it? I won't even go into how that 'aid' is mostly a farce (millions of aid money for the Tsunami victims is languishing in bank accounts while people still go without shelter or potable water for one...), but I am interested in your idea of 'misunderstandings'. For one, the concept is to present stats in an understandable way...break down ethnicity, language, relgion, wealth and so on so that you get a general sense of how many people are this, that and the other thing. I'm not seeing any assignation of 'blame'...blame for what...that this many people are asian, are Christian, have this many tvs etc...these are stats.

What 'misunderstandings' do you think are being caused by these figures?

Yes, but how many of the 20% are capitalists? How many of the 80% unfortunates aren't?

It brings up the question of whether they are capitalists because they are successful, or if they are successful because they're caopitalists.

It depends on what exactly we're talking about here. With very few exceptions, the world operates on a market economy. Some are more socialist leaning, some are laissez faire. But most can be classed as varying degrees of capitalist.

A capitalist economy favors those who are 'best.' Those with the most possibility of generating capital will generate the most capital, in general. One is more likely to be able to generate capital when one has education, status, secure access to basic needs, good health, and of course previously-existing capital to invest. The people who have those can be termed well-off.

Therefore under a capitalist economy, the well-off will in general be more likely to 'win' in the market, and become more well off. Thus a capitalist system extenuates the wealth gap between rich and poor, as the well-off 'win' easier in the system, become more well-off, and can 'win' even easier.

Now all this is leading to this point - the 20% remain successful, not because they are capitalists whereas the 80% are not, but because they are the already well off in a capitalist world. That doesn't vindicate them or the system in any way. It is in the end still the capitalist system that causes the gap, not - for the most part at least - fault on the part of the 80%.

But to say it even simpler, what does it matter at all? If a child is dying because he doesn't have enough money to see a doctor... how does this scenario become okay because the guy hoarding all the money is a capitalist?

PS sorry bout the long response, but these have to be my final thoughts on the matter. Schoolwork beckons me.

Here is the script ( http://www.unicef.org/videoaudio/PDFs/if_the_world_were_a_village.pdf) for the UNICEF animation (based on the book).

Excerpt from the above script:

If the whole world were a village of 100 people, there would be 38 children of school age. But only 31 actually go to school and learn to read and write. Of the others, some have no school to go to. Some have to work in fields and factories to help feed their families, and some are girls who have to stay home to help. Seven children in our village never learn to read or write.

If the world were a village of 100 people, money would still play an important role. If all the money here were divided equally, everyone could live comfortably. But it isn't. Only the richest 20 people in our village have extra money after paying for their food and shelter to spend on other things. The poorest 20 people make almost nothing - barely enough to survive. The other 60 people in our village make something in between.

Imagine - if the whole world were a village of 100 - all the foods of the world would be in one market! Only 24 people in our village of 100 always have enough food to eat.16 go hungry some of the time, 34 are always hungry, and 26 are severely undernourished. Much of the food in our village of 100 people comes from animals. Either they help to grow food, or they are food. We have 31 sheep and goats, 23 cows, bulls and oxen, 15 pigs. There are three camels in our village that help carry supplies to the remotest part of our desert. We have two horses and 189 chickens in the village. That's almost twice as many chickens as there are people!

Hmmm. I think it is very interesting that some people immediately saw this as trying to make them 'feel bad' or 'feel sorry' for others. It makes me suspect that some people read their own biases into things, rather than pick up any 'inherent' bias.

Yeah, I was gonna point that out too.

Personally, I think reducing the world down to a single village is a bad idea. Mainly because it would involve killing off the vast majority of the world's population.

Either that or having the village people eat everybody else.

Either way it's bad news.

Yeah, I was gonna point that out too.

Personally, I think reducing the world down to a single village is a bad idea. Mainly because it would involve killing off the vast majority of the world's population.

Either that or having the village people eat everybody else.

Either way it's bad news.
You rock:)

I don't know how accurate the stats are, but I can definately see the anti-american/western bias in it.

To me, it seems its' whole purpose is to make us ashamed of living in a successful society or being successful ourselves.
actually, the authors intent was to explain to young children that not everyone has an easy life, and that there is suffering, without scaring the children.

actually, the authors intent was to explain to young children that not everyone has an easy life, and that there is suffering, without scaring the children.
I also feel it was intended to point out global diversity...which is important, especially since many kids reading this book are probably in fairly homogenous surroundings.

Also, if the world were a village, there wouldn't be all those starving people, because they could eat all the food that the 6.5 billion dead people are no longer eating.

Hell, they could eat the 6.5 billion dead people!

If the world was a village of 100 people . . .
There would be a lot of inbreeding.

Well, globalization will ideally lead to a global "village", where ideas, cultures, people, goods, and knowledge will be able to travel between nations (if they still exist) with total freedom, and goods from every part of the world will be able to compete freely with each other.

These sites don't really seem all that anti-American/Western to me. If anything, they show how well we have it and what our ultimate goal should be; namely, the creation of a free (economic/social/political) and prosperous world through the integration of the world's peoples and cultures. This should be done by opening borders rather than by intimidation, economic coercion, or any other form of oppression...otherwise, it won't work.

Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/populate.htm) on a slightly different version of the same thang.

One shouldn't have to fake empathy in that kind of situation. But at least you are honest about your lack of compassion.

I do feel bad for people starving but I'm not going to let it effect me because there's little I can do about it. Thus it only makes sense just not to care.

It's important to know these kind of things, not because it's somebody's fault or to keep you from sleeping at night, or to have organize a rally to send food to Africa; but because it's important to know our place in the world, realize how lucky we are (I assume most of us in this forum have access to a computer and free time to waste here, that's pretty wealthy by world standards).

Also, because at no time before in history has humankind been so close to eliminate poverty and hunger. It's just a matter of finding the will and the mechanisms, but the potential is there. So, if we know what the world looks like, we can decide what we want it to look like, and think about ways to shape it.

It's a long road, but I think we can walk it.

I also feel it was intended to point out global diversity...which is important, especially since many kids reading this book are probably in fairly homogenous surroundings.
definatly. The author is a great person...really really smart too. He came to talk at the school i was working at last year.

The first exposure I had to this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1550747797/104-4551044-2696740?v=glance&n=283155) was in an animated adaption to it. I thought it was a really great tool for teachers to give a brief overview of population distribution, languages spoken, religions worshipped, and so on. The premise is fairly simple...if you shrunk the world into a village of 100 people, what would they look like, and so on. Since I can't post the book (:(), I'll just include two 'rip off sites' that use some of the same stats:

http://www.gdrc.org/uem/1000-village.html
http://www.mysterra.org/webmag/coup-de-coeur_en.html

Some of the sites are more 'political' than others. But overall, what do you think of the concept itself, of representing the world in this simplistic form? The reason I ask, is because I have recently encountered a number of people who loathe this book, and go on long rants about how it skews things to make capitalism look bad:rolleyes: I was a bit shocked...I didn't think the book could possibly be so contraversial. I should've known better. So? Your thoughts?

if the world was a village..i would do a sweep and clear..nuff said!

The first exposure I had to this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1550747797/104-4551044-2696740?v=glance&n=283155) was in an animated adaption to it. I thought it was a really great tool for teachers to give a brief overview of population distribution, languages spoken, religions worshipped, and so on. The premise is fairly simple...if you shrunk the world into a village of 100 people, what would they look like, and so on. Since I can't post the book (:(), I'll just include two 'rip off sites' that use some of the same stats:

http://www.gdrc.org/uem/1000-village.html
http://www.mysterra.org/webmag/coup-de-coeur_en.html

Some of the sites are more 'political' than others. But overall, what do you think of the concept itself, of representing the world in this simplistic form? The reason I ask, is because I have recently encountered a number of people who loathe this book, and go on long rants about how it skews things to make capitalism look bad:rolleyes: I was a bit shocked...I didn't think the book could possibly be so contraversial. I should've known better. So? Your thoughts?

Check Snopes for a long run through of the problems with the statistics for this long abused "gem".
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/populate.htm
This thing has been circulating for ages (in Internet time) now, and people seem to find the contrasts it highlights between the "haves" and "have-nots" of the world compelling. However, much of the information it presents is questionable, out of date, or poorly-defined.

The only real contraversy here should be whether it is acceptable to present such misinformation as the truth. Especially if, as you say, teachers are using it in class. There's far too much mistruth in the world's educational systems as is, without adding this stinker to it.

I also feel it was intended to point out global diversity...which is important, especially since many kids reading this book are probably in fairly homogenous surroundings.

Even if teaching global diversity is the point (which is doubtful, frome the way it's presented), there are better ways of doing so.

AFAIK this is just another piece of highly political propoganda. The fact that it happens to present a rather left view makes it no better than if it were something equally mistruthful from some righty like Fox news or Rush.

I do feel bad for people starving but I'm not going to let it effect me because there's little I can do about it. Thus it only makes sense just not to care.
... And why exactly would that make any sense at all? Because you don't know those people? Because you feel it's not your fault ergo you don't have to care? Because they're far away so you don't have to see them?

Quite frankly, while I don't support everyone running off and doing whatever they deem appropriate to help the less fortunate, a little more empathy wouldn't hurt this world.

It's not directly our fault they're starving, but what gives us the right to just not care? If everyone thinks that way, nothing's ever going to change and people will still starve all across the globe while we waste food in enormous quantities.

It's not about assigning guilt, but if we choose not to care, who will?

I think it wouldn't last like that for long in the 100 person village. If you and 30 of your friends were starving while the 5 people across the street were rich and wasting food it wouldn't take long for you to go get the weapons that the village spent $180,000 on and take what you need!

I'll be the village idiot. :)
Hell, you've got my vote!

I think it wouldn't last like that for long in the 100 person village. If you and 30 of your friends were starving while the 5 people across the street were rich and wasting food it wouldn't take long for you to go get the weapons that the village spent $180,000 on and take what you need!
With only 5 soldiers and 1 doctor, they'd be very poorly equipped to deal with a riot.

actually, the authors intent was to explain to young children that not everyone has an easy life, and that there is suffering, without scaring the children.

We do not need to look outside the US for suffering. We can find it in our own backyard.

I don't see it. I think it just makes us realize how lucky we are to have been born into Western civilization. It makes me want to share the method we've used to gain such advantages with others who are less fortunate so that they can be free, secure and prosperous too.
Here here!

Check Snopes for a long run through of the problems with the statistics for this long abused "gem".
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/populate.htm


The only real contraversy here should be whether it is acceptable to present such misinformation as the truth. Especially if, as you say, teachers are using it in class. There's far too much mistruth in the world's educational systems as is, without adding this stinker to it.First of all, the info snopes debunks is not exactly the same as presented by the links Sin gave,

Secondly, snopes' info is from 2000. One of Sin's links had info from 1990. Can't remember when the other was from.

The point here is that snopes' info is almost exactly the same as that Sin provided. It isn't a case of misinformation, and any conclusions you draw from either, or any impression you get from either, will be the same.

So.. Is it smoke & mirrors on your part, trying to divert attention from the fact that the world isn't a very fair place?

And what if the world was 100 Village People?

I do feel bad for people starving but I'm not going to let it effect me because there's little I can do about it. Thus it only makes sense just not to care.
That makes no sense at all! Of course there is something you can do about it...but it can seem overwhelming when you think all those starving people are a continent away, so why not focus on those people in your own country who are literally starving? Because I guarantee you that you'll find them. You know...like the ones who rely on FoodBanks even. You want to help? Donate to your local FoodBank. Volunteer to help them out. You absolutely can do something. You can't solve world hunger, but this sense of hopelessness you have is cancerous.

Check Snopes for a long run through of the problems with the statistics for this long abused "gem".
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/populate.htm


The only real contraversy here should be whether it is acceptable to present such misinformation as the truth. Especially if, as you say, teachers are using it in class. There's far too much mistruth in the world's educational systems as is, without adding this stinker to it.
Misinformation. How nice. If you actually read the snopes site, it alters the figures a bit, which only makes sense as many of these stats were from the mid 90s...and population shifts mean that certain ratios will shift as well. Nor are any of the numbers very far off. Sorry...do these figures offend you?

Even if teaching global diversity is the point (which is doubtful, frome the way it's presented), there are better ways of doing so.

AFAIK this is just another piece of highly political propoganda. The fact that it happens to present a rather left view makes it no better than if it were something equally mistruthful from some righty like Fox news or Rush.
Wow. That you could find this 'highly political propoganda'....I'd hate to see what other books you'd want banned. And what 'left view' did you project...I mean see in this book?

What I like most about this book is that it highlights how things would look were it possible for people to live all together. Right now we are divided by countries, continents...ususally living in fairly homogenous ethnic surroundings (some nations are the exception to this) and seeing fairly homogenous socio-economic conditions (within neighbourhoods and so on...meaning...you don't generally have a mansion next to a middle-class home next to a shack next to a homeless man). Putting all the world into this village gives you an idea of how many people in the world of from certain backgrounds...a fact you may not really be able to comprehend as a child if you are surrounded by a majority of one particular background (that is in fact a global minority).

What I'm NOT seeing is some sort of left-wing political conspiracy to brainwash children into...I don't know...no one has really said what they're afraid of. It amazes me how people see conspiracy everywhere.

Not really. Under the current system of radically unequal distributions of wealth in the world, many, many people suffer because 80% of the wealth is concentrated in 20% of the hands. A large number of people in the village don't have doctors, education, even basic neccesities... that's what makes capitalism look bad.
Let's play a game, called Guess that Economic dogma:
- India*
- China*
- East Timor
- Somalia
- Sierra Leone
- Malawi
- Tanzania
- Burundi
- Congo, Republic of the
- Congo, Democratic Republic of the
- Comoros
- Eritrea
- Ethiopia
- Afghanistan*
- Niger
- Yemen
- Madagascar
- Guinea-Bissau
- Zambia
- Kiribati
- Nigeria
- Mali

Are these countries:
1. Laissez-Faire Economically
2. Practice a "Traditional" Economy
3. Cleptocracies
4. Populist (A mask for Leftist Cleptocrats.)
5. Numbers 2,3, or 4.

*(Until recently; China's opened economy of 1978, India's industrial sector is still hampered by Corruption and Regulation, Afganistan had a Traditional economy until 2002.)

First of all, the info snopes debunks is not exactly the same as presented by the links Sin gave,

Secondly, snopes' info is from 2000. One of Sin's links had info from 1990. Can't remember when the other was from.

The point here is that snopes' info is almost exactly the same as that Sin provided. It isn't a case of misinformation, and any conclusions you draw from either, or any impression you get from either, will be the same.

So.. Is it smoke & mirrors on your part, trying to divert attention from the fact that the world isn't a very fair place?

I could swear I posted an answwer to that last night. Basically, my answer is that I've seen this in several variations, every one of which has played fast and loose with the truth.

Misinformation. How nice. If you actually read the snopes site, it alters the figures a bit, which only makes sense as many of these stats were from the mid 90s...and population shifts mean that certain ratios will shift as well. Nor are any of the numbers very far off.

Sorry...do these figures offend you?

I don't have time at the moment to go througfh and point out every single innaccuracy. I will do my best when I get home, if I have the time.

The figures don't offend. They are just misrepresented.

Wow. That you could find this 'highly political propoganda'....I'd hate to see what other books you'd want banned. And what 'left view' did you project...I mean see in this book?

Yea for putting words in my mouth! Pointing out that something is propaganda =/= wanting it banned. :rolleyes:

... overall, what do you think of the concept itself, of representing the world in this simplistic form? The reason I ask, is because I have recently encountered a number of people who loathe this book, and go on long rants about how it skews things to make capitalism look bad:rolleyes: I was a bit shocked...I didn't think the book could possibly be so contraversial. I should've known better. So? Your thoughts?
Yes, you should have known better. Anything which causes people to question their precocieved notions of what the world is like is going to really tick some people off. Most people do not like to think that their peculiar vision of what reality is like may, indeed be wrong. Just posting on here should have taught you that, Sinuhue. :p

If the statistics are valid, then the picture should be accurate. Kind of a sad commentary on the general state of the human race, yes? :(

I'll be the village idiot. :)
The position has already been filled by a certain politician that lives in a big house that is white. :rolleyes:

People like or hate it because it has village in the title.

It's very divisive word.

If the data is acurate, why should it make one angry? It certainly doesn't surprise me; I'm just glad to be one of the richer people in the village. Beyond that, not that big of a deal.

The position has already been filled by a certain politician that lives in a big house that is white. :rolleyes:
Wow, I didn't know that Mugabe had started redecorating. I'm suprised that he went with white, though, based on his politics.

If the data is acurate, why should it make one angry? It certainly doesn't surprise me; I'm just glad to be one of the richer people in the village. Beyond that, not that big of a deal.
Because such examples can be used to convince children and other simple-minded people that they should start enforcing sacrifices among the few rich to make the many poor happier. Concepts of social justice are very dangerous when misappropriated by certain groups.

I don't know how accurate the stats are, but I can definately see the anti-american/western bias in it.

To me, it seems its' whole purpose is to make us ashamed of living in a successful society or being successful ourselves.

Or maybe just to acknowledge that you are privileged?

Where do those dudes on that indian island fit into the village? Do they have their own hut with an exclusion zone around it; and are they allowed to kill people who walk past their front door?

Further, in light of the shocking revelations of this scholarly book, are we now allowed to invade their island and stop them from being poor.

Where do those dudes on that indian island fit into the village? Do they have their own hut with an exclusion zone around it; and are they allowed to kill people who walk past their front door?

Further, in light of the shocking revelations of this scholarly book, are we now allowed to invade their island and stop them from being poor.
You still up with that? Dude, you really need to take care of that soreness, could get infected.

In any case, no. They wouldn't make even 1 person, they wouldn't exist in the village.

In any case, no. They wouldn't make even 1 person, they wouldn't exist in the village.

So according to the book, we should kill them then?

And what if the world was 100 Village People?
:eek:

So according to the book, we should kill them then?
No, it means that they are the retarded, but lovable, dwarf who wanders around the outskirts and periodically runs into the center of the village to wave his penis at passers-by. He steps on Indians' toes every once in awhile, but nobody cares enough to stop him or count him as part of the village.

The first exposure I had to this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1550747797/104-4551044-2696740?v=glance&n=283155) was in an animated adaption to it. I thought it was a really great tool for teachers to give a brief overview of population distribution, languages spoken, religions worshipped, and so on. The premise is fairly simple...if you shrunk the world into a village of 100 people, what would they look like, and so on.

I smell another "reality tv" series coming out of this...
What would a good theme be, other than just setting up a statistically representative group? There'd have to be some sort of goal for the end of the show...
World peace, or total annihilation? :P

So according to the book, we should kill them then?
Yes, that's exactly what the book says. If there's some culture, tribe, nation, or whatever that represents less than 1% of the world population, they should be killed :rolleyes:

Not really. Under the current system of radically unequal distributions of wealth in the world, many, many people suffer because 80% of the wealth is concentrated in 20% of the hands. A large number of people in the village don't have doctors, education, even basic neccesities... that's what makes capitalism look bad.

I am not convinced that this is a problem of capitalism. As unfair as it may sound, we have to admit that different places have different resource endowments. Canada has a massive supply of metals, and China rules when it comes to labour. The US has the best technology, and Malta has a swell location. Regardless of whether we have capitalist or any other type of economic management system, these inequalities will still exist. If one lives in a deseterifying Subsaharan African country it makes no difference what type of system is in place, there will still be not enough food to go around. Supposing that there were a global communist system, perhaps there would be more distribution of wealth in the short run. In the long run, however, capitalism generates the greatest efficiency, and leads to the most overall level of wealth (Although that wealth is indeed spread in a skewed manner). One need only look at China, however, to see how switching from communism to capitalism leads to a great improvement. Yes, those millions cheap-labour workers are dirt poor, but they are less dirt poor than they were before China started to open up. In conclusion, I would like to note that I am not a dyed in the blood market capitalist. I think that there are some areas where government redistribution is vitally necessary, and I firmly hold that governments are required to provide public goods (Like healthcare, national defense, environmental protection and so on). I personally believe that countries in Western Europe and Canada have found the best balance. My basic argument is that yes, capitalism distributes wealth unfairly, and has benefitted the 20% more than they deserve, but that those 80% are better off with it than they would be without it.

Yes, that's exactly what the book says. If there's some culture, tribe, nation, or whatever that represents less than 1% of the world population, they should be killed :rolleyes:
God only knows what kind of inferences Lac would make about a book like Green Eggs and Ham!!

God only knows what kind of inferences Lac would make about a book like Green Eggs and Ham!!

It's about child molesting, obviously. Hence "green eggs" and "ham" (i.e. pork).

I am the only student of literature around here?

*stares*

*stares*
Now, now, Sin, jealousy isn't becoming for one as pretty as you.
Just because Lac is t3h ub3r5ymb0l0gi57, and you couldn't pick up on the messainic themes of Dune, doesn't mean that you should be angry or feel inferior in anyway.

*drools* he called me purdy. *giggles*

Seriously...does anyone else feel stupider for having read some of the posts in this thread?

*drools* he called me purdy. *giggles*

Seriously...does anyone else feel stupider for having read some of the posts in this thread?

Yes. Yes, I do.