Originally posted by googlefudge
Well it helps when you are arguing with those who really care about the
economy when you can [justifiably] claim that helping the poor also helps
the economy.

The more [valid] arguments in your arsenal the better.

The problem is when your arguments are invalid, you just end up hurting your cause.
But at least I now know why you are making the claim. You don't actually think its true, you just think it will persuade others to support your cause.
I say its far better to just be honest and stick to the humanitarian grounds, and the real economic benefits to a minimum wage rather than making stuff up.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well it helps when you are arguing with those who really care about the
economy when you can [justifiably] claim that helping the poor also helps
the economy.

The more [valid] arguments in your arsenal the better.

The argument for compassion alone should always be more than enough reason according to my way of thinking although, unfortunately, it is never enough for many politicians who just don't seem to think like me at all.

I doubt that curing an uneducated elderly homeless person of a terminal disease that is very costly to cure to the tax payers would be good for the economy. In that specific case, the argument for compassion alone for curing him is probably all you got and, if that is not enough, that is totally unacceptable and the politicians should be told by compassionate people like us that it is totally unacceptable. That way, if the politicians believe it is not good for the economy to help the poor and you cannot convince them that they are mistaken, regardless of whether they are technically correct, we can say that is irrelevant because you morally should still help the poor anyway (and, for extra measure, threaten to vote against those lacking compassionate where and when you can ) . By arguing that you morally should help the poor EVEN if, hypothetically, doing so is bad for the economy, you have no danger of ever loosing the argument because a self-consistant moral argument (based on real compassion in this case ) cannot ever be proven wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem is when your arguments are invalid, you just end up hurting your cause.
But at least I now know why you are making the claim. You don't actually think its true, you just think it will persuade others to support your cause.
I say its far better to just be honest and stick to the humanitarian grounds, and the real economic benefits to a minimum wage rather than making stuff up.

No I do believe my claim and I am being honest, thank-you very much.

I will thank-you not to second guess my motives.

EDIT: also I don't know that you know what the hell you are talking about because
the economy IS at a fundamental level people buying and selling stuff.
The more stuff [and the greater the value] being bought and sold the better the
economy is doing.

There are more details for sure, but the fundamental indexes of economic activity
are at root, people buying and selling things.

If there is nobody rich enough to buy your products, then you don't sell your products,
and the economy doesn't do anything.

EDIT2: And as a further note: In a capitalistic society [which is what we presently have]
the economy doing well is a good thing all by itself. It's not the be-all and end-all by any means,
or shouldn't be, but nevertheless it's still a good thing and it's far better to live in a country
with a good economy [all other things being equal] than one with a bad economy.
In fact it's often better to live in a good economy even if things are not all equal.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No I do believe my claim and I am being honest, thank-you very much.

Then why did you totally fail to justify your original claim and instead come up with arguments that skirted around it?

EDIT: also I don't know that you know what the hell you are talking about because
the economy IS at a fundamental level people buying and selling stuff.
The more stuff [and the greater the value] being bought and sold the better the
economy is doing.
That is simply not true. But that ridiculous definition, if you sold me something, and I sold it back to you, the economy would have improved. Lets try that. Get everyone in the country to sell their house to their neighbor, then buy it back - tax free. You will double the economy overnight.

There are more details for sure, but the fundamental indexes of economic activity
are at root, people buying and selling things.
There is a world of difference between an economy doing will and 'indexes of economic activity'.

I suspect you have learnt your economics from politicians whose main aim is to convince people the economy is doing well just before the election.

Originally posted by humy
The argument for compassion alone should always be more than enough reason according to my way of thinking although, unfortunately, it is never enough for many politicians who just don't seem to think like me at all.

I doubt that curing an uneducated elderly homeless person of a terminal disease that is very costly to cure to the tax payers would be good fo ...[text shortened]... -consistant moral argument (based on real compassion in this case ) cannot ever be proven wrong.

How many people does this disease affect? Will attempting the cure teach the practitioners how to apply it in cases where the patients body is infirm.

There is a fairly straightforward ethical argument for attempting cures in all cases where it is possible, because depriving patients of treatment on the grounds of age alone becomes an economic argument about resources invested - by the same argument a small child has had little invested in them so far so they shouldn't be given expensive treatments either. Either the treatment should be universally available, or not available to anyone if society does not have the resources.

If a clinical decision is made that a cure is unlikely to be successful and harm the patient more than not attempting a cure then they will try to control symptoms instead.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Almost all fundamental ideas in economics are fundamentally flawed.

[b]Money sitting in savings accounts doesn't really do a lot for the economy.
Nonsense. A 'savings account' is by definition an account whose money is invested into the economy.
The recent economic disaster was because people were not saving, and instead the money being borrowed ...[text shortened]... even better strategy is to invest in education, and poor people in general get poorer education.[/b]

This is also aimed at googlefudge.

Save or Spend
It is possible to have balance in these things. The problem for societies is when vast levels of wealth become concentrated in the hands of a very few people. The personal savings of the bottom 90% are never going to come into that category.

Circulation of capital and handouts
This is tricky. If money is moving around the economy faster there effectively is more money. If this is not reflected by increased production then all that happens is inflation, which definitely doesn't help the poor. Keeping people in poverty because the economy can function without them is cruel, so the compromise is ensuring that they have access to food (or land), warmth, shelter, education and enough resources (internet access etc.) to get themselves out of it. iPhones are a luxury. Once again I am arguing for balance. The problem for the poor in the U.K. tends to be that it is absolutely impossible to get out of the situation, rents are getting ridiculous which means that people are working hard and getting nowhere.

Originally posted by DeepThought
This is also aimed at googlefudge.

[b]Save or Spend
It is possible to have balance in these things. The problem for societies is when vast levels of wealth become concentrated in the hands of a very few people. The personal savings of the bottom 90% are never going to come into that category.

Circulation of capital and handouts
This ...[text shortened]... tion, rents are getting ridiculous which means that people are working hard and getting nowhere.[/b]

I agree with all this.

Originally posted by PatNovak
Here is what the US Food and Drug Administration says about GM food:

"First, let me state that FDA is confident that the bioengineered foods on the United States market today are as safe as their conventional counterparts. This conclusion has been echoed in recent reports by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Government Accountability Offi ...[text shortened]... s their conventional counterparts."

http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/testimony/ucm112927.htm

What you fail to mention is that there are several (not one, but several) ex-Monsanto chair-holders in the administration of the FDA.

I think claims of bias are evident.

Originally posted by Suzianne
What you fail to mention is that there are several (not one, but several) ex-Monsanto chair-holders in the administration of the FDA.

I think claims of bias are evident.

My position is twofold. First, I contend that there is an overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus in favor of GM food. Second, I contend that the default governmental policy on GM food (or anything else for that matter) should be in accordance to scientific consensus, and that the burden of proof should be on those who oppose scientific consensus.

If you have any compelling arguments that counter either of my contentions, then I would be interested to read them. You haven’t demonstrated that the FDA is biased, but in any event, I am not interested in defending the FDA on this issue. Whether or not the FDA is biased is of little consequence to my arguments. The FDA does not determine the worldwide scientific consensus on GM food. I could have just as easily quoted the European Food Safety Agency, the World Health Organization, or the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, among many others.

Originally posted by PatNovak
My position is twofold. First, I contend that there is an overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus in favor of GM food. Second, I contend that the default governmental policy on GM food (or anything else for that matter) should be in accordance to scientific consensus, and that the burden of proof should be on those who oppose scientific consensus.

If ...[text shortened]... Health Organization, or the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, among many others.

The GM debate has switched threads, see the recently started thread on GM (although it's sidetracked into global food markets). The only real issue for this thread with GM is the effect systemic insecticides from GM crops would have on pollinators. That became generalised into a row about the desirability of GM in general. But I think it is better if we keep the GM debate in one thread as it's just too confusing to have two threads on the same issue.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The GM debate has switched threads, see the recently started thread on GM (although it's sidetracked into global food markets). The only real issue for this thread with GM is the effect systemic insecticides from GM crops would have on pollinators. That became generalised into a row about the desirability of GM in general. But I think it is better if ...[text shortened]... ep the GM debate in one thread as it's just too confusing to have two threads on the same issue.

I agree about a single thread. I found that thread after my post here, and I'll do any future GMO postings there.