NationStates Jolt Archive

You know, I am sick of people and politicians talking about ending poverty or world hunger. Personally I think this is a communist idea, why? Because in order to end poverty, we need to be on a financially similar level, now with all our CEOs and wealthy people in power, how are we going persuade them to share their wealth? We live in a generally capitalist world, and it works. Anyone who thinks about ending world hunger or poverty is pretty much a liberal or a communist

Or you could just give food away for free. Oh wait, I forgot. Charity of any sort is communist and thus evil.

Aww, how cute. *pats on head*

You know, I am sick of people and politicians talking about ending poverty or world hunger. Personally I think this is a communist idea, why? Because in order to end poverty, we need to be on a financially similar level, now with all our CEOs and wealthy people in power, how are we going persuade them to share their wealth? We live in a generally capitalist world, and it works. Anyone who thinks about ending world hunger or poverty is pretty much a liberal or a communist
liberal =/= communist

You know, I am sick of people and politicians talking about ending poverty or world hunger. Personally I think this is a communist idea, why? Because in order to end poverty, we need to be on a financially similar level, now with all our CEOs and wealthy people in power, how are we going persuade them to share their wealth? We live in a generally capitalist world, and it works. Anyone who thinks about ending world hunger or poverty is pretty much a liberal or a communist
Not really. Most sweatshop workers are far below anyone in the West in terms of wealth, yet the majority of them manage to feed themselves.

Capitalism doesn't work if 1 in 8 people in the world are starving. Not that another system would make it better, but you're a fool if you're pretending that everything is fine.

You can prevent poverty with a minimum wage and that is hardly communist.

God...

Why are there so many bloody 'Liberals r teh suxs' rants on General at the moment? Damn N00bs.

Okay Gyrobot, here's a question: Define 'Liberal' and 'Communist'

You can prevent poverty with a minimum wage and that is hardly communist.

Its basically socialist, which isn't a far cry from communist.

Hmm, let's see.

Capitalism VS Nobody ever going hungry or being poor again.

...

Wow. Tough call.

>_>

This isn't completely true. A lot of the "world poverty" is to do with corrupt leaders in corrupt governments that choose to spend their money on weapons etc... Also, wiping out the debts would help a bit. This could all be done with out lowering other countries economies as long as the governments suddenly stop being corrupt. If everyone in the west spared ten pounds a month that could probably solve it too.

Its basically socialist, which isn't a far cry from communist.

So, a wage anywhere from a given minimum upwards is the same as everyone getting exactly the same? Not at all.

One rewards ability and the other does not.

If we ate the poor, then there wouldn't be any world hunger.

If we ate the poor, then there wouldn't be any world hunger.
True, I suppose. Those who are poor enough to be hungry are separate from the economy altogether - they aren't putting anything in or getting anything out.

Of course, I would argue for giving them jobs rather than eating them...

If we ate the poor, then there wouldn't be any world hunger.
If we ate the rich, there wouldn't be any world hunger or poverty And it'd be tasty.

You know, I am sick of people and politicians talking about ending poverty or world hunger.

Go on...

Personally I think this is a communist idea, why? Because in order to end poverty, we need to be on a financially similar level, now with all our CEOs and wealthy people in power, how are we going persuade them to share their wealth?

Um...wealthy CEOs dont exist in communism.


We live in a generally capitalist world, and it works. Anyone who thinks about ending world hunger or poverty is pretty much a liberal or a communist

First of all, you say communist/liberal like its a bad thing. Second of all, if caring about other people rather than my own wealth makes me a liberal or communist, sign me up.

If we ate the poor, then there wouldn't be any world hunger.If we killed every human being on the face of the planet, and those few in orbit, every problem humanity faces would be solved. (Except for extinction, but we won't be around to make a problem of it, so it isn't really one then either)
I suppose not every effective solution is necessarily desirable.

If we ate the rich, there wouldn't be any world hunger or poverty And it'd be tasty.
No, then the world economy would collapse and everyone would be hungry.

Because in order to end poverty, we need to be on a financially similar level, now with all our CEOs and wealthy people in power, how are we going persuade them to share their wealth?

Actually, one of the arguments in favor of liberal (as in "liberty") free trade and economic globalization is that the interest business has in expanding globally (thereby increasing market reach and, eventually, profit) ends up providing jobs, education, and general wealth to the rest of the world. It is also argued that where developed free economic processes go, liberal democracy also follows. Thus by appealing to the "greed" of the CEOs and wealthy, one can bring economic development, jobs and wealth, to the rest of the world.

So, in sort, according to many of those evil "liberals," allowing the international capitalist market to flourish is the best way to achieve sharing of the wealth. :eek:

Yah, but this guy is relying on the perverted American definitions, so that'll fly over his head.

It is corruption that is the problem in many areas. Were capitalism allowed to truly flourish, I do believe poverty would be solved for the most part. Obviously more needs to be done, but that is the first step: end corruption.

You know, I am sick of people and politicians talking about ending poverty or world hunger. Personally I think this is a communist idea, why? Because in order to end poverty, we need to be on a financially similar level, now with all our CEOs and wealthy people in power, how are we going persuade them to share their wealth? We live in a generally capitalist world, and it works. Anyone who thinks about ending world hunger or poverty is pretty much a liberal or a communist

If it worked, there wouldn't be people starving to death while you tard-bark on t'internet from your confortable suburban home.
And anyway, some people like communism.

No, then the world economy would collapse and everyone would be hungry.Except the people who actually produce the food. Which get extorted these days by multinationals. (The price increases at least tenfold from field to market)

This isn't completely true. A lot of the "world poverty" is to do with corrupt leaders in corrupt governments that choose to spend their money on weapons etc... Also, wiping out the debts would help a bit. This could all be done with out lowering other countries economies as long as the governments suddenly stop being corrupt. If everyone in the west spared ten pounds a month that could probably solve it too.
i agree

so much of the aid that is sent to help starving masses goes to line the pockets of corrupt officials. only a small bit of it gets to those who could really use the help

if everyone in the west spared 10 pounds a month, it would still go to the corrupt officials. we need to target our charity money to those who dont waste it and who spend the majority of the money at the grass roots level where it can do some good.

Except the people who actually produce the food. Which get extorted these days by multinationals. (The price increases at least tenfold from field to market)
Yeah, but everyone not working on a farm (including the people who were starving in the first place) would go hungry.

EDIT: Except that the farms would have no supply of machinery, pesticides, etc. so the crops would fail.

I just noticed, this is yet another thread that Gyrobot starts and never posts in again. Can that be counted as spam or somesuch?

"Where did this idea come from that everybody deserves free education? Free medical care? Free whatever? It comes from Moscow. From Russia. It comes straight out of the pit of hell."
Rep. Debbie Riddle

:rolleyes:

This isn't completely true. A lot of the "world poverty" is to do with corrupt leaders in corrupt governments that choose to spend their money on weapons etc... Also, wiping out the debts would help a bit. This could all be done with out lowering other countries economies as long as the governments suddenly stop being corrupt. If everyone in the west spared ten pounds a month that could probably solve it too.
:( It would be so much easier to say starving people are thier own fault but in areas where there is a critical need the biggest problem is that the government in those areas are so corrupt that they dont allow aid to get where its needed,or are somehow trying to benefit thier military,or them selves. Have you ever seen a straving leader of a country.
The main reason why capitalism hasn't fixed the problem,as if it could on its own,in an area spinning down so out of control that its people are starving there is no econonomy to speak of,therefor no way for capitilism to fix a problem it might have had a hand in creating,but was lost on the way down to the present. Does that make sense are am I babbling

I just noticed, this is yet another thread that Gyrobot starts and never posts in again. Can that be counted as spam or somesuch?
If it were something that sparked a great deal of intellectual debate that was not inflammatory, I'd say no. But this? This does not qualify, so yes, it is a little spammy.

"Where did this idea come from that everybody deserves free education? Free medical care? Free whatever? It comes from Moscow. From Russia. It comes straight out of the pit of hell."
Rep. Debbie Riddle

:rolleyes:

If i knew how to work a sig, id slap that in there. Just so i could ridicule it.

Its basically socialist, which isn't a far cry from communist.
And yet every country in the western world has a minimum wage. Every country in the world is a far cry from communist.

Liasia']If i knew how to work a sig, id slap that in there. Just so i could ridicule it.
Psst: "Profile" at the top of the page, then "Edit signature".

Knock yourself out :D

Psst: "Profile" at the top of the page, then "Edit signature".

Knock yourself out :D

I should have said 'if i could be bothered to work a sig. But thanks anywho.

Communism = One (that is the idea afterall, one big 'family', or so we will assume).

That would mean that Ending*World*Hunger=Poverty

because Ending*World*Hunger/Poverty = One (Communism)

But then, the Ending*World=Poverty/Hunger

And the World=Poverty/Ending*Hunger

We can deduce a lot from this!

Liasia']I should have said 'if i could be bothered to work a sig. But thanks anywho.
Aye... But now you know how, young Padwan, so now you are ready for later, when the day comes. And you will know when that day has arrived...

Only a communist would try to get some kind of government 'welfare' tax enforced on us hard-working citizens. This is precisely the type of insidious plot that the commies are trying to push down the throats of us straight God-fearing Christians. Creeping socialist policies, homosexual rights, leftist hippie trash, and the fluoridation of our water supplies in an attempt to dim our resistance to their propaganda and taint our precious, God-given bodily fluids. That's why I only drink bottled water, except when it comes from France.

Amartya Sen.

In order for capitalism to actually represent that which it is supposed to represent (ie a meritocratic system of freedom and individualism), some people might need a basic support structure that will allow them to integrate into global capitalism, in other words - they need to have access to food and drink, to a certain level of liberalism in their culture and to a basic level of education.

Now, that is up to 3rd world governments to create. But I support attempts by the Western world to help out those governments - my money gets taken in taxes anyways, so they might as well spend it on things that'll actually help people, rather than horribly inefficient behemoths of public education, healthcare or welfare.

Only a communist would try to get some kind of government 'welfare' tax enforced on us hard-working citizens. This is precisely the type of insidious plot that the commies are trying to push down the throats of us straight God-fearing Christians. Creeping socialist policies, homosexual rights, leftist hippie trash, and the fluoridation of our water supplies in an attempt to dim our resistance to their propaganda and taint our precious, God-given bodily fluids. That's why I only drink bottled water, except when it comes from France.
That's it! I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water? No? I didn't think so!

What an amusing thread, anyway to respond to the original post...

If wanting to Stop World Hunger and Poverty makes me a Communist, Then you'd better call me a Communist!;)

This reminds me of a very appropriate quote I heard (though I forget who said it)...
"If I give the poor bread, they call me a Saint,
if I ask why the poor have no bread, they call me a Communist"

What an amusing thread, anyway to respond to the original post...

If wanting to Stop World Hunger and Poverty makes me a Communist, Then you'd better call me a Communist!;)

This reminds me of a very appropriate quote I heard (though I forget who said it)...
"If I give the poor bread, they call me a Saint,
if I ask why the poor have no bread, they call me a Communist"
:eek:
COMMIE!!!
I deny you my essence!

*flees*

:eek:
COMMIE!!!
I deny you my essence!

*flees*
Order attack plan R!

Hmm, let's see.

Capitalism VS Nobody ever going hungry or being poor again.

...

Wow. Tough call.

>_>

Or how about, using empirical evidence, realizing that its Capitalism Vs. Failed economic system that collapses on itself and leaves everything in ruins.

Tough call indeed.

Ok now what is so bad about Comunism. OK. Now hating the USSR is one thing but, they got screwd. In theory Comunism is perfectly acceptable. However, it could only work if either, you ruled the entire world but, then honestly, who would set up a comunist government. No one. Everyone would be supreme kick butt dictator. Or, comunism could work if, their was no money in the world but that wiukd mean getting rid of capitalism.

Thanks All,
The Turk :sniper:

Communism is an ideal, a system that is fantastic in principle, but doesn't work in reality. I support the theorgy, but I'm capitalist because it works, and has been proven to work.

Communism relies on humans who will work to the best of their ability no matter what their job. It relies on humans not being either jealous or greedy. On people who accept getting only what they need, and not always what they want.

In short, "perfect" citizens.

...

Let me know when you see some?

No, instead everyone would be poor and we would have to live under an oppressive dictatorship; in addition, we'd get to have shortages of all basic goods and a totally ruined environment...even better, we wouldn't even know what was going on at all.

If anything, Communism prolongs world poverty and hunger rather than solves it.

Oprah's a commie???

Aye... But now you know how, young Padwan, so now you are ready for later, when the day comes. And you will know when that day has arrived...

Now that i can read sigs... they are pretty damn boring. What a dissapointment

Liasia']If it worked, there wouldn't be people starving to death while you tard-bark on t'internet from your confortable suburban home.
And anyway, some people like communism.

There is just something so hilariously juvenile about that phrase. When I read it I was eating a burrito, and now I have hot sauce in my sinuses! It smells like pain!

On topic.

Someone mentioned earlier that capitalism would probably end poverty if corruption wasn't a factor. Communism is the same. I don't think a purely communist or capitalist society can operate satisfactorily. The real problem is finding the correct balance between the two.

How about a bit of reality. Pure capitalism is total nonsense. So is pure communism. None of the richest countries, or the countries with the highest standards of living in the world practice capitalism or communism for that matter. They have an unacknowledged middle way-- of which the richest Sweden has learned to keep its mouth shut and impose neutrality on warfare so it can stay on top. The same goes for the United States, it is a mixed economy that likes to talk about unabashed market capitalism, but practices something completely different. The richest countries are also strongly unionized with heavy investment in technology and education for their workforce. Look at GDP and standard of living and you will see this is true. China is not one of the richest countries nor is India. They are bad examples.

Sweden, the United States, Canada, and many of the European countries are heading towards what is called a post-scarcity economy, something which capitalism and communism cannot deal with realistically. The edges are starting to fray-- how do you take care of people when you know that every single person can be replaced with a robot eventually, how do you represent money when money is better represented by intellectual capital than goods or services-- communism, socialism, and capitalism can't effectively deal with these questions. They are emerging and our leaders are babbling away with answers that don't work.

We are in a precarious situation. We want the poor countries to have less people, use less resources, and be more environmentally responsible. The only proven way to do this is to raise the standard of living.

When people have a safe livelihood, they have less kids, and do not have to do environmentally destructive stuff to survive. They are also less likely to send suicide bombers over our borders to blow themselves up.

It is a question of what we are willing to do to change the situation. It is a question of long term return on investment if we must use monetary terms. Less people means less resources used and more ability to create sustainability.

You cannot have sustainable export forestry or agriculture under the current conditions. We will not be able to get our wood and food from Vietnam, Nigeria, or other places if they use up all the environmental resources.

You know, I am sick of people and politicians talking about ending poverty or world hunger. Personally I think this is a communist idea, why?

I'm no communist, but I still think world hunger and poverty suck and should be ended. You realise that it's not impossible for third world countries to develop better infrastructure and economic robustness without directly taking money from the citizens of developd countries?

Wealth is not "zero-sum": It's not like there's X amount of wealth all the time and we have to divide it arbitrarily between all the people of the world. Wealth is MADE all the time by people who work to produce goods and services, and with the right government and socio-economic conditions, every nation can produce their own wealth in one way or another.

The same retarded misconception about money and wealth is made by idealogues in all political factions, I'm not defending any particular side here.

Or you could just give food away for free. Oh wait, I forgot. Charity of any sort is communist and thus evil.
People who support full capitalism simply believe that government forced charity is "evil", stop making up information simply to make fun of the "evil capitalists".

You can prevent poverty with a minimum wage and that is hardly communist.
And everyone would be working for a few cents a day without a minimum wage, and they would all be starving, right?

post-scarcity economy
That is an oxymoron.

Communism is an ideal, a system that is fantastic in principle, but doesn't work in reality. I support the theorgy, but I'm capitalist because it works, and has been proven to work.

Communism relies on humans who will work to the best of their ability no matter what their job. It relies on humans not being either jealous or greedy. On people who accept getting only what they need, and not always what they want.

In short, "perfect" citizens.

...

Let me know when you see some?

Agreeing with you, I would like to note that Capitalism is also fantastic system. Differing from Communism it is based on people being jealous and greedy and wanting more and more wealth. But like Communism it still does not work perfectly due to nationalism. How free market economy be achieved if almost any significant country (USA, EU countries, others) have bunch of import taxes, quotes and so on. I hate those people who speak about free market economy and in next sentence they speak about protecting local industries.

World hunger and poverty will end when world will achieve free markets and capitalism (going towards it is, but long way to go still).