Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

[Shakuhachi]

Let us take all the world’s wealth, and divide it equitably amongst all the world’s people. And let us take all the world’s annual production, and divide it equitably amongst all the world’s people.

Who would “us” include and how would this redistribution be enforced and tracked?

I do not know how best to deal with the inequalities or should I say, imbalances of wealth, power and resources. The market got them where they are. I would hope that some basic human needs or rights could be agreed upon along with just ways to meets them.

 

[Shakuhachi]

How would you define or describe the “real problem”?

 

[Theo520]

How would you define or describe the “real problem”?

The ‘real problem’ isn’t starving to death, it’s malnutrition and it’s health impacts over their lives.

Starvation is only a real problem where there is severe drought and conflict.

The two issues are very different and require different solutions

 

[LittleFlower]

This is incorrect.

Malnutrition and health impacts when unaddressed lead to starvation. You can’t really separate the two. One is the first tier and the next one is the last tier.

Addressing the first tier of course means less people die.

But the solutions go hand in hand.

I would recommend you read more from the FAO site.

 

[Theo520]

Malnutrition and health impacts when unaddressed lead to starvation. You can’t really separate the two. One is the first tier and the next one is the last tier.

No, they lead to other health complications which lead to death.
They don’t lead to starvation.

Why would you says something so patently untrue?

 

[Shakuhachi]

I can agree with that but I thought you might be going for the larger economic problem embracing moral issues related to wealth and poverty.

 

[LittleFlower]

Why would you says something so patently untrue?

Because it’s not untrue. If you have severe malnutrition and are starving you can die. It is not untrue.

 

[philipl]

But you reasoning as to why they are starving is wrong.

 

[Theo520]

Because it’s not untrue. If you have severe malnutrition and are starving you can die. It is not untrue.

So were back at straight starvation, which we already agreed was limited to areas with severe drought and conflict. People are not starving to death in the many countries were there are pervasive problems with malnutrition and it’s effects.

You seem to also be misrepresenting the scope of the issues so you can swing that starvation emotional appeal.

 

[LittleFlower]

I am not.

There will be some percentage, however small, of people who die of starvation in areas where there are more “pervasive problems with malnutrition and it’s effect”.

I never said it was huge, but said that it occurs. I also said that is important to realise that the first tier is malnutrition and if that isn’t treated either with better agricultural practices, etc. then it can lead to starvation.

There are no emotions in what I am writing, I have read FAO extensively as well as Caritas Australia’s East Africa appeal.

Also, I only clinked in to rectify to statistics and provide sources for numbers.

 

[Theo520]

Taking the exception to the rule and presenting it as more mainstream isn’t honest in presenting the problems.

Examine why you are so keen to use the “starvation” term were it’s not really the issue to be solved.
Solving malnutrition effectively eliminates the example you touted, right?

 

[LittleFlower]

Solving malnutrition effectively eliminates the example you touted, right?

It does, and I never said otherwise. It’s important however to also realise if we do not solve malnutrition it can lead to starvation in the future (months, years, decades).

Healthily agricultural practices is what FAO is encouraging and has been for years. Things like crop rotation, and allowing farmers to meet up and exchange different crops makes all round healthier communities.

In a lot of countries in Africa, there are female farmers so encouraging them and their homesteads is important as well.

But if we ignore all of this, we would most likely have a starvation problem if let’s say one crop fails (aka potato famine in Ireland), and there is no backup.



It’s an interesting subject, and FAO has a great project underway called “Digital Services in Africa” where they have launched four apps to help local farmers treat malnutrition.

 

[Arkansan]

The reason why communism does not work is because it rewards idlers.

Really! Do you know anything about life under the Communists in Russia? The people were not given handouts. They were made to work, work hard and received very little for it - a lot like many Western countries today.

I’m aware of the measures required to make communism even slightly workable. Obviously, the OP’s system of voluntary communism does not have such safeguards.

The idlers are those who live off interest on money the they lend - what the Bible condemns as usury. Yet without usury where would modern Western economies be. The sin of usury is a major part of our economy. Jesus told us that the love of money is the root of all evil. Perhaps our love of money is the root of all our social ills. (Note that Jesus said it was the love of money, not money itself, that was the root of all evil.)

Usury, the demanding of interest on personal recourse loans, is an abominable crime. However, simply making money off the rent of property that one has rights in (which is what mortgages are, for example), is both unobjectionable and beneficial. Usury could be banned and banks would continue to exist (indeed, some investment banks would barely be affected).

This is why some form of intervention is needed.

I agree that every man should have the opportunity to provide comfortably for a family. But the notion that equality is possible or even desirable is insane.

 

[Theo520]

a great project underway called “Digital Services in Africa” where they have launched four apps to help local farmers treat

The challenge is probably more in addressing malnutrition in countries that don’t need food aid. India has this problem but they are also a developed country with sufficient resources to feed their people. Sending them food aid is not the answer.

Instead we need such governments and their people to step up and care for their underprivileged that need a better subsistence diet, better nutrition. It’s more of a marketing problem than parts of Africa which do need food aid.

 

[LittleFlower]

That could be the case.

And it’s more educational than marketing. You need to educate farmers, and people, to rotate crops and eat diverse foods. Even in the Western world, most people will go to a fast food outlet than to a grocery store because of convenience.

We have a different malnutrition crises on our hands and it’s affects, like diabetes.

 

[Seeksadvice]

Hmm… if the war is over… why don’t the “refugees” go back and fix their country then?

Also, if you double everybody’s amount of money available, prices go up simply because they can.

Further, lots of people have no long-term thought processes; they only look for what they think can make them “happy” immediately. $33,000.00 US will buy a lot of crack, coke, meth, pot, etc. What do you propose we do after Bob and his friends go on a multi-day orgy of sex, drugs, and who knows what else, leaving Bob as penniless as before? Are we then to reissue Bob another check for $33,000.00 and hope that it doesn’t wind up in his drug dealer’s pockets? Or, those folks who squander inheritances, lottery winnings, outrageous salaries, etc. on all sorts of B.S. stuff. If Tom spends his $33,000.00 on a gold grille with gem stones, do we cut him another check because he’s “broke” again?

Simply giving people money doesn’t help. If that helped, lottery winners wouldn’t have a habit of going broke shortly after winning. Believe it or not, many times the poor make choices that put them in that position. I’m not talking about “caste” cultures, I’m talking about the people who blow money on things, people who make really stupid investment decisions, things like that. All that throwing more money at them does is just give more money to the people who sell the drugs, the bling, the get-rich-quick schemes, etc.

People have to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. Heck, even Finland is realizing that giving people free money as “basic” income for doing nothing doesn’t work.

 

[dochawk]

So were back at straight starvation, which we already agreed was limited to areas with severe drought and conflict.

That is half-factual.

Specifically, the conflict is correct–in the countries with starvation it is because government or rebel troops are preventing food in the country from getting where it needs to go.

Drought is “easy” to handle.

But if we ignore all of this, we would most likely have a starvation problem if let’s say one crop fails (aka potato famine in Ireland), and there is no backup.

Bad example. That was just plain genocide. Ireland, or more specifically it’s british masters, was exporting food while her people died.

It’s railroad system shows this tool, and remains unique: it’s spoke & hub, but all of the old hubs are on the west coast: it was built to deport the native population, as a ticket to America cost the landlords less than feeding the tenant for a year

hawk

 

[2ndRateMind]

Who would “us” include and how would this redistribution be enforced and tracked?

All of us, Shakuhachi. The redistribution would not be enforced or tracked. And it must be voluntary. But if one has, say, a $million town house in New York, USA, a country seat in Berkshire, UK, a private Leah jet, a gin palace yacht moored in Cannes, France, and a differently coloured Porsche sports car for each day of the week, while others still hunger unto death, it would be pretty obvious that one wasn’t contributing as perhaps one ought.

I would hope that some basic human needs or rights could be agreed upon along with just ways to meets them.

So would I.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Hmmm. dochawk, that was a dense post, with lots of theories, assumptions, concepts and ideas packed into a small space. That’s fine. But I am going to tackle them one by one, to see how they stand up, economically and morally.

The size of the pie is a function of the current system and incentives.

So, is it your contention that private vice is public virtue? In other words, is the engine of selfishness, in your opinion, necessary to the current level of the economic amount and growth? Can you conceive of another system, less selfish, that might provide the same extent of global economic magnitude and growth?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Gab123]

Let us take all the world’s wealth, and divide it equitably amongst all the world’s people. And let us take all the world’s annual production, and divide it equitably amongst all the world’s people.

Horrible idea. God wants people to earn their living through an honest livelihood. All you are proposing is communism.