The cost of fixing things.
12/5/10 10:23![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
green-man-2010.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsBack 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?
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?
Better wages...no not for you, I meant for me
Date: 13/5/10 03:38 (UTC)Because you know, those workers don't belong to the union and offer better returns on investments than overpriced union labor.
But hey, that won't stop union supporters from claiming they want higher wages for everyone.
They just use an invisible asterisk.
Re: Better wages...no not for you, I meant for me
Date: 13/5/10 13:49 (UTC)And some corporations, notably Wal-Mart, single-handedly destroy industries in the U.S. with their massive pricing power. I guess that's a good thing if you think it's more efficient that way, and a bad thing if you want cadmium out of your kids' jewelry.