The cost of fixing things.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Back in the 80s, I  went to a presentation on world poverty being run by a group called The Hunger Project.

One of the arguments being discussed was that poverty was not inevitable. we had , after all, put a man on the moon - so could we not end poverty on Planet Earth?

Think of the cost of giving every child on Earth a decent home with running water, with proper sanitation, and then giving all those children a primary education and then an adequate diet. the cost would run into astronomical figures.

I was actually shown the figure on a screen - a huge number with a whole string of noughts on the end.
" And yet, " the speaker told us " this is what the UK spends every year on chocolate and sweets, its what Europeans spend every month on alcohol, and it's what the USA spends every day on armaments."

Wow!

A more recent figure put it at three trillion US dollars. A trillion = 1,000,000,000,000.  It's a thousand billions, and a billion is a thousand millions. That is a lot of money - and yet, I wonder  how much that would come to in terms of government spending? Is it an accurate estimate even? It must be added that the money needs to be spent wisely and not funnelled off by corrupt dictators - but what would the cost be of eliminating endemic poverty , and could the world actually raise that amount?

Comments

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

internet Libertarians who have just completed their first or second year of college

the same could be said about internet liberals.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

except internet liberals wouldn't have advanced a theory like that one...

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

no, they regurgitate other stupid theories they've been spoon fed in college.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

uh huh... nice attempt to equivocate but it's neither here nor there.

*This* specific theory being advanced is basically a "college argument". Let's focus on this one shall we, or else the banter will have value = 0

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

okay. let's keep it in college.

which of chomsky's and/or zinn's theories do you want to discuss?

or perhaps white privilege? evil corporations? zionist oppression?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Let me repeat:

"Let's focus on this one shall we?

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

as you wish.

but they're all part of the same puzzle.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Then let's solve the puzzle in small pieces and focus on what was said *here* . Great.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

you're a small-picture guy. i get it.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

No, I just dont like going off on needless tangents which do *not* address what was actually said.

You're so busy trying to posture here you haven't addressed (not once) what he actually said.

Some people talk just to talk -- that would be you.
Some people talk to get to the essence of what was said -- that would be me.

Get it now?

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

what brucenstein said. right below me. look down.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

I replied to him. right below him. look down.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

and he replied to you. look down again.

Re: Ad homi-what?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

I'm not dismissing his point -- rather I'm not interested in arguing a dozen tangents when the main point of the post hasn't been addressed.

So please - if you're not addressing the actual post or thread -- then I'm not interested. Intellectual wank has it's place but this isn't it.

Re: Ad homi-what?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Well, I've already pointed out numerous holes in rasilio's argument and furthermore sealwhiskers has shot several holes in it as wekk -- it seemed his response had already been addressed.

But I thought you were trying to continue Deb's "argument" which is why I said I wasn't interested.

and I never pretended I was profound, rather I've argued that the problems with rasilio's assumptions were so obvious it was profound that they weren't seen.

But if you want me to beat up his response again -- fine, I'll do that in a little bit after I get some work done.

Re: Ad homi-what?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Much of the important points are addressed already here:

http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/527785.html?thread=37804201#t37804201

http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/527785.html?thread=37822633#t37822633


You let me know what other points you feel were *ignored* in those responses...

Re: Ad homi-what?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

I'll take it you agree then the points were addressed then, since I don't see a list of which points weren't addressed.

Well, glad to be of service. Let's close this down then.

Re: Ad homi-what?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Or rather what you didn't say? As in the list of items I supposedly ignored?

Well, I'm not interested in reading your mind so either come out and say it or let it go.

Re: Ad homi-what?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

I already addressed his points and the flaws witht them and even gave you the links to those discussions.

If you want to pretend nothing else has been said and everything is only ad hominems, then that is your choice but honestly I dont have time for it.

I even asked you which points you felt I had ignored, and after asking twice I still get .... nothing...specifying which points he made that I ignored.

So until you list which post I apparently ignored, or list which points I didnt address in some way -- then I'm not interested in this. As I said before, if you can't point out what I didnt answer then I consider this as wank and am not interested.