Originally posted by rwingettWell, why don't you look at where corruption is lowest, and start from there?
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.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhy the obsession with corruption?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#Rankings
Here is a ranking of the perception of the level of corruption. Of course the perception doesn't necessarily reflect the real levels of corruption, but it's a good indication.
Your chart only measures governmental corruption, not corporate corruption.
Originally posted by rwingettCorruption is a signficant obstacle for eliminating inequality of opportunity, because it enables those who have wealth to acquire more power than is benefitial to society. It's no coincidence that countries who rank high on the list tend to be rich as well.
Why the obsession with corruption?
Your chart only measures governmental corruption, not corporate corruption.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAs the critics note, I think that chart is next to worthless. It seems to be saying that having a top position in the western "free" market economy is virtuous and not having that is synonymous with corruption. I will point out again that the chart merely measure governmental "corruption" and does not measure corporate corruption.
Corruption is a signficant obstacle for eliminating inequality of opportunity, because it enables those who have wealth to acquire more power than is benefitial to society. It's no coincidence that countries who rank high on the list tend to be rich as well.
Originally posted by rwingettwell, chock a new soul up for yourself then. Seal him forever in a barrel, and let him try to claw his way out while drifting in the ocean?
Ever the apologist for Dives, aren't you? As long as there is a Lazarus starving outside his door, no amount of tinkering with the tax code will absolve Dives of his sins.
Originally posted by rwingettDo you have a better measure?
As the critics note, I think that chart is next to worthless. It seems to be saying that having a top position in the western "free" market economy is virtuous and not having that is synonymous with corruption. I will point out again that the chart merely measure governmental "corruption" and does not measure corporate corruption.
Originally posted by rwingettSo now the amounts matter again? You're not renowned for your consistency, are you?
How much money would it take to eradicate hunger across the globe? You start redistributing money from those at the top to those at the bottom until this goal has been met. Is the resulting upper limit less than my salary? If so, then I am guilty as well. But I would wager that that is not the case.
Originally posted by PalynkaOf course the amount matters. But you'll never get the necessary amount through the fiscal policies that you endorse. No matter how sincere or earnest you are about eliminating hunger, it will never happen as long as the world's productive resources are privately owned. The profit motive guarantees that starvation will forever be a normal part of doing business. My purpose in this thread is not to propose any consistent set of policies, but to shake people out of the placid acceptance of starvation as being an 'acceptable' or 'normal' part of doing business. Policies which lead to artificial scarcity and the so-called 'crisis of overproduction' should rightly be viewed as crimes against humanity.
So now the amounts matter again? You're not renowned for your consistency, are you?
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI wasn't even talking about consistency of proposed policies, I was talking about consistency in terms of you not contradicting yourself every time you face solid argument.
Of course the amount matters. But you'll never get the necessary amount through the fiscal policies that you endorse. No matter how sincere or earnest you are about eliminating hunger, it will never happen as long as the world's productive resources are privately owned. The profit motive guarantees that starvation will forever be a normal part of doing busi o-called 'crisis of overproduction' should rightly be viewed as crimes against humanity.
When debating people who don't seem to mind contradicting themselves, all one can do is point out their contradictions.
Originally posted by PalynkaAlthough the thread was not started out with that in mind, my central thesis has become the following (which I will repeat):
I wasn't even talking about consistency of proposed policies, I was talking about consistency in terms of you not contradicting yourself every time you face solid argument.
When debating people who don't seem to mind contradicting themselves, all one can do is point out their contradictions.
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.
Do you have any comment on that?
Originally posted by rwingettYes, it is a disgrace and something that world governments should be doing more to address.
Although the thread was not started out with that in mind, my central thesis has become the following (which I will repeat):
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 ...[text shortened]... hat only the most callous individuals would countenance.
Do you have any comment on that?
A "crime against humanity"? Not by the ICC's accepted definition. I also don't think not helping others is a "crime".
Originally posted by PalynkaThe world governments should do more, yes. But the problem is not primarily a failure of government policy. The problem is the systemic failure of western capitalism and its "free market" policies. Unemployment, poverty, hunger and starvation are inherent features of an economic model that allows the world's productive resources to be held as private property. As long as someone actively supports the continuance of that economic system, they bear a direct moral responsibility for its inevitable evils. Working within that system may lessen those evils to some degree, but it can never eliminate them. To maintain that system indefinitely is to effectively condemn a certain percentage of the world's people to death through starvation.
Yes, it is a disgrace and something that world governments should be doing more to address.
A "crime against humanity"? Not by the ICC's accepted definition. I also don't think not helping others is a "crime".
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettSame broken record.
The world governments should do more, yes. But the problem is not primarily a failure of government policy. The problem is the systemic failure of western capitalism and its "free market" policies. Unemployment, poverty, hunger and starvation are inherent features of an economic model that allows the world's productive resources to be held as private proper ...[text shortened]... effectively condemn a certain percentage of the world's people to death through starvation.
Unemployment (is there a problem with unemployment per se? Or only with its consequences?) is a feature of capitalism, but poverty (defined as absence of material wealth), hunger and starvation are inherent features of mankind's history so the question is whether they are higher or lower than existing or proposed systems. I have yet to see a system that is better towards addressing this issue than regulated capitalism under governments which have a redistributory and regulatory role.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaPoverty, hunger and starvation are inherent features of mankind's history. I agree. Prior to capitalism material scarcity, poverty and starvation were unavoidable. Capitalism built up the means of production to the point where material scarcity could be fully overcome. But capitalism never delivered on that potentiality. The system which was initially a boon to mankind now holds them back from achieving their full potential. We have the ability to eradicate poverty and hunger, but because it can't be done at a profit those problems continue to exist. And they will continue to exist as long as the productive resources of the earth are allowed to be held as private property.
Same broken record.
Unemployment (is there a problem with unemployment per se? Or only with its consequences?) is a feature of capitalism, but poverty (defined as absence of material wealth), hunger and starvation are inherent features of mankind's history so the question is whether they are higher or lower than existing or proposed systems. I have yet to ...[text shortened]... ue than regulated capitalism under governments which have a redistributory and regulatory role.
A well regulated capitalism will alleviate starvation to the minimum amount that it can get away with. If starvation rises above a certain percentage then the people will clamor for a change. The system will subsequently correct itself by the minimum amount necessary to quiet popular discontent. The result is that through trial and error there is a certain percentage of starving people arrived at that is deemed an acceptable cost of doing business. The point I have been trying to make here is that the more our productive capacity increases, the harder it will become to justify that outlook. We have come to the point where starvation in a world of potential plenty is simply unacceptable. It will take more than a well regulated capitalism to reach the next step. It will take a fundamental reconfiguration of capitalism.