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?
(no subject)
Date: 13/5/10 03:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/5/10 13:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/5/10 14:35 (UTC)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?
(no subject)
Date: 13/5/10 16:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/5/10 17:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/5/10 18:22 (UTC)Re: Ad homi-what?
Date: 13/5/10 17:32 (UTC)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?
Date: 13/5/10 18:51 (UTC)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?
Date: 13/5/10 19:02 (UTC)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?
Date: 13/5/10 20:14 (UTC)Well, glad to be of service. Let's close this down then.
Re: Ad homi-what?
Date: 13/5/10 21:37 (UTC)Well, I'm not interested in reading your mind so either come out and say it or let it go.
Re: Ad homi-what?
Date: 13/5/10 21:58 (UTC)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.
Re: Ad homi-what?
Date: 13/5/10 22:16 (UTC)Then let's move on shall we? You ignored where I did list out what was wrong which means you actually filtered past my answers...which means you're not serious.
Let's move on-- again you're pretending it has been nothing but snark (snark was had but you've left out the serious response -- which shows your intentions are not open here).
Move on -- not interested in the false objectivity.
Re: Ad homi-what?
Date: 14/5/10 18:16 (UTC)Good lord -- I'm in so many battles arguing specific details on this forum that the accusation of "dodging" just makes my eyes roll.
Obviously I was snarking the man in several of my responses, but my frustration is that you seemed preoccupied with the snark and very little with the response.
You perhaps should ask me to *expand* to serious response? Rather than pretend nothing was there?
And of course, there is the matter of me not repeating what has already been said by sealwhiskers.
So if you really want me to specifically shoot holes in his arguments -- which at this point is just drilling down on what was already said, then fine.
But I'm in too many conversations arguing over specifics to accept the label of "dodging" very seriously. In this case could I have gone into more detail? Probably. Was it really needed when his premise was so obviously flawed? Not really.
But if you want to see blood splatter from beating the dead horse -- fine, I'll give you a show later on this weekend when I have time.
Re: Ad homi-what?
Date: 14/5/10 18:26 (UTC)http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/527785.html?thread=37934761#t37934761