Och-Ziff Capital Management

Originally posted by rwingett
How do you know unless you try it? Besides, not all the billionaires are Americans. 793 executions could save tens of millions of people. From a utilitarian standpoint it is clearly the way to go. We'd be saving many more than would die. You see? If one person somewhere on the globe dies every second from malnutrition, it would take 13 minutes and 13 second ...[text shortened]... he world's poorest people? I say grab your pitchfork and flaming torch and let's go get 'em.

You are simply advocating a new hate group and calling for the systematic extermination of people who did nothing other than be successful. I don't find it any more amusing then the ideas of the KKK, the Nazis, skinheads or slave owners.

Originally posted by rwingett
Do you think it is a just situation for Bill Gates to have a net worth of $56 billion while one billion people suffer from malnutrition?

According to Wikipedia:
On the average, a person dies every second as a direct or indirect result of malnutrition - 4000 every hour - 100,000 each day - 36 million each year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnu ...[text shortened]... vation could be completely eradicated. I fail to see how anyone could object to such a process.

I'm an anyone and I disagree, rich folk don't just convert their wealth into pieces of paper called money, fill their swimming pool with it and frolick about in it, their worth is represented by investments and assets. Some of them come by their wealth just by luck but most have to be good at what they do, (otherwise we'd all be doing it, including you rwingett) How many people are employed by those billionaires, how many people are secondarily employed by those billionaires employees so it goes on, you think you can steal billions from them and it will not be noticed? They are so good at what they do we should be applauding them, we should get the hell out of their way so they can create more and more wealth. They control immense resources enabling them to initiate immense projects we should all be thankful for that.

Originally posted by rwingett
I never said it was "possible to feed most everyone in the west at a profit." It's not profitable to feed the poor anywhere. That's why we still have hunger and malnutrition worldwide. The profit motive virtually guarantees it.

But most everyone in the west is fed. I don't think anyone died of starvation here in a long time (except for maybe the demented who forget to eat).

Originally posted by Wajoma
I'm an anyone and I disagree, rich folk don't just convert their wealth into pieces of paper called money, fill their swimming pool with it and frolick about in it, their worth is represented by investments and assets. Some of them come by their wealth just by luck but most have to be good at what they do, (otherwise we'd all be doing it, including you rwing ...[text shortened]... ense resources enabling them to initiate immense projects we should all be thankful for that.

Didn't expect a broken window fallacy from you, Wajoma.

Originally posted by rwingett
Of course it's not in place. The logistics and legal frameworks of the world are all controlled by the rich who have no interest in feeding the world's poor at the expense of their own exorbitant bottom line. That's why listening to the silver-tongued sophistries of economists with their litany of excuses for why the plight of the poor is eternal, and how t ...[text shortened]... al framework can be changed. And it will not be the economists who are the ones to change it.

I'm sure the rich in Zimbabwe would prefer a reliable government so they can do business more easily and make more money, don't you think?

I'm sure most rich in China prefer a government without the rampant corruption so they don't have to hand out bribes all the time, don't you think?

I don't know which economists claim that "the plight of the poor is eternal". I sure don't (but I'm also not an economist). I'm just saying that you cannot solve the problem with simplistic slogans like "take from the rich and feed the poor". It doesn't work. Why doesn't it work? Think about how you would have to do this in practise. Are you going to hand out all this food personally? Probably not. You need some kind of team on the ground with extensive logistics and government permission. The former means you need a huge wad of cash for all the trucks, manpower, etc. The latter means you will need a huge wad of cash for bribes. Then there is the problem of making sure the food gets to the right place. How do you make sure no one steals the food, or tries to resell it, or whatever? You can't. Why not? Because the governments are not effective in these countries. This is the core of the problem.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Didn't expect a broken window fallacy from you, Wajoma.

If you think I have cited a broken window fallacy you don't understand what the broken window fallacy is.

Originally posted by Wajoma
If you think I have cited a broken window fallacy you don't understand what the broken window fallacy is.

It's either that, or you don't. I know which one applies.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm sure the rich in Zimbabwe would prefer a reliable government so they can do business more easily and make more money, don't you think?

I'm sure most rich in China prefer a government without the rampant corruption so they don't have to hand out bribes all the time, don't you think?

I don't know which economists claim that "the plight of the po ...[text shortened]... vernments are not effective in these countries. This is the core of the problem.

I will break the problem down to its basic components:

A. The productive capacity of the world is such that we can easily produce enough food to adequately feed every man, woman and child on the face of the earth. It is further estimated that we could probably produce enough to feed up to 12 billion people.

B. Despite this productive capacity, 36 million people die every year from hunger and malnutrition.

C. Allowing 36 million people to starve when you have the resources to prevent it is a crime against humanity that only the most callous individuals would countenance.

World hunger is NOT an economic dilemma. It is a moral one. The economists and their lackeys (yourself included) come up with a million and one excuses why the problem cannot be fixed. They don't actually say that "the plight of the poor is eternal", but that is the net effect of their tinkering within a fatally flawed system. Relying on economists to solve the problem of world hunger for all practical purposes means that the plight of the poor is doomed to be an eternal one.

If the people of the world were to shake off their inexcusable moral torpor, throw the money changers out of the temple, and treat each and every one of those 36 million people as though it was their own brother who was starving, then I'm sure we would find the moral will and the physical ability to overcome any and all of your perceived obstacles.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I'm an anyone and I disagree, rich folk don't just convert their wealth into pieces of paper called money, fill their swimming pool with it and frolick about in it, their worth is represented by investments and assets. Some of them come by their wealth just by luck but most have to be good at what they do, (otherwise we'd all be doing it, including you rwing ...[text shortened]... ense resources enabling them to initiate immense projects we should all be thankful for that.

I say again that this view is exactly the same as the slaves thanking the slave master for providing them with a plantation to work on.

Originally posted by rwingett
I will break the problem down to its basic components:

A. The productive capacity of the world is such that we can easily produce enough food to adequately feed every man, woman and child on the face of the earth. It is further estimated that we could probably produce enough to feed up to 12 billion people.

B. Despite this productive capacity, 36 mil ...[text shortened]... the moral will and the physical ability to overcome any and all of your perceived obstacles.

I'm sure we could feed 50 billion people. But how do you plan on tackling the obstacles I mentioned? I'm all for feeding all the hungry, but you need to find a way to do that in practise. What is your way?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm sure we could feed 50 billion people. But how do you plan on tackling the obstacles I mentioned? I'm all for feeding all the hungry, but you need to find a way to do that in practise. What is your way?

Either eliminate or radically transform capitalism. Simple, no?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm sure we could feed 50 billion people. But how do you plan on tackling the obstacles I mentioned? I'm all for feeding all the hungry, but you need to find a way to do that in practise. What is your way?

Maybe we should ask Coca Cola. They seem to be able to get stuff to just about every village on Earth.

Originally posted by rwingett
Either eliminate or radically transform capitalism. Simple, no?

Radically transform, how? And how is that going to eradicate corruption?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm sure we could feed 50 billion people. But how do you plan on tackling the obstacles I mentioned? I'm all for feeding all the hungry, but you need to find a way to do that in practise. What is your way?

The entire concept of "private property" has to be rethought. That someone may own their house and the contents within as private property is self-evident. That someone may own the productive resources of the earth as private property is not.

The primacy of shareholder interests over stakeholder interests likewise needs to be rethought.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Radically transform, how? And how is that going to eradicate corruption?

See my post above.

It is probably not possible to eradicate corruption. No matter what system you operate under, there will likely be room for corruption. Should that dissuade us from trying something different? Of course not.