then that would be about 90 million not what you saidHi, my reply was based on the number who die every ten years, not every year.
Thanks for the reply.
– Nicole
yes, I understand it is 91.25 million. I transcribed billion by mistake…but had 91,250,000 in parenthesis next to it
we are approaching 7 billion people in the world, that means just above 1% of the world’s population will die to hunger in 10 years.yes, I understand it is 91.25 million. I transcribed billion by mistake…but had 91,250,000 in parenthesis next to it
that is still a lot of people!!
– Nicole
This is a lot different position than:
Your posts seem to convey the misconception that you can either spend money or give it to the poor. You ignore a third option: investing it. Recall the parable of the three servants, each given some money to manage for their master. Jesus said the master condemned the one who did not at least put his a bank where it would earn interest but buried it instead. Where does the interest come from? It comes from those who borrow it to start businesses and to buy homes, etc. So it’s incorrect to assume that money not spent does not help the economy [and thus people], when in fact, under our fractional reserve system, money doesn’t even exist until it is borrowed.
your right there is investment
You don’t seem to be unable to escape from the false dilemma of only one option. Why not some combination of all three? And here is something else to chew on: a great portion of the taxes your hypothetical rich man pays goes to help the less fortunate through the various government transfer payments. Do those count for anything? Or does only what he personally gives directly count?
I never said you can only choose one, I was just saying out of the three options if you only do one do give to the poor, I very much understand that you can mix and It would be a good idea too.
