Och-Ziff Capital Management

Originally posted by rwingett
Poverty, 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 boo ...[text shortened]... d capitalism to reach the next step. It will take a fundamental reconfiguration of capitalism.

You just assert things without any argument.

"The system will subsequently correct itself by the minimum amount necessary to quiet popular discontent."
The "system" you're talking about is the libertarian one, that's not the one I have in mind. I have yet to see an argument why governments with a redistributory role necessarily require "starvation".

"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."
Acceptable by whom?

"The point I have been trying to make here is that the more our productive capacity increase, the harder it will become to justify that outlook."
Sure, that's why a social role for governments seems to be increasingly accepted compared to 30 years ago and free markets are seen as a powerful, but sometimes flawed, tool.

Originally posted by rwingett
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?

subtract the people who are starving in war zones. how many are left?

Originally posted by rwingett
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 ...[text shortened]... o-called 'crisis of overproduction' should rightly be viewed as crimes against humanity.

It's odd that you assert that, considering you know hunger is all but absent in the West, where resources are privately owned. Are you one of those deluded people who believe the wealth of industrialized nations is only because of the deprivation of those in developing countries?

Originally posted by rwingett
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.

I say again that slavery requires force and threats of force.

Originally posted by rwingett
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?

And what would your plan be?
how would you measure the success?
what crop and where would be the best to grow?

Taking away the private sector does more harm than good. Trust me on that.

forget the great Chinese and Ukrainian famines. that wasn't true socialism. 😵