Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Sorry, I'll try harder lol. Bernie Sanders said during his campaign when asked why he did not do better. " Because 80% of poor people who can vote don't." So in a way their predicament is there own fault. That last part was me.

---

I googled What is voter participation in the USA and Denmark? The answer I got was Denmark 85.9% (love the precision) and USA 66.5%, while Australia is 94.5% and Mali was 21.3%. If anybody wants to prove me right (why should you?) please graph voting % versus starving %. I suspect there is a strong relationship between voting and eating.
www.idea.int/publications/vt/upload/Voter%20turnout.pdf

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

In civilized countries anyway SECOND.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

In civilized countries anyway SECOND.

---

People who don't vote, or are too far out in the boondocks to vote, will not get fed.

---

Quote:

---

Mass starvation of millions NOT under communism

---

Quote:

---

Ach. Third-world infrastructure- SIGNYM

Nope.
The Soviet famine of 1932–33:
"The famine was the result of the actions of the Soviet state in the implementation of forced collectivization, in economic planning, and political repression in the countryside." .... blah blah blah ... Your complete denial of past communist disasters explains your enduring devotion to the ideology. And vice versa.- KRAPO

---

Quote:

---

lol unbelievable. If you took the wealth of the top 100 people in the world and distribute it to the poorest 50%, it would double their incomes. Lol from 2 dollars a day to 4 dollars a day. That asshole is not a fix it's stupid.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry Second but you are talking about income distribution. I am talking about the best System to generate income. -THIRDSTOOGE

So wrong on so many levels. First of all, people don't survive on "income", they survive on "resources" ... at its most basic: food, water, shelter, clothing, medical care, safety. - SIGNY

This is the stupidest post I have ever read. Income = resources - THIRGSTOOGE

---

Quote:

---

It's possible to generate vast amounts of "income" without increasing resources whatsoever- real estate owners, stock owners, fine art collectors, hedge fund managers who are playing with fictitious money - i.e. money created out of thin air by banks (including the Fed) via severely undercapitalized loans. Speculation (which is what this is) is a way of increasing "income" using ALREADY MADE objects without increasing the production of resources at all.- SIGNY

Lol, You get these resources depending on income. What did you use to obtain your resources? Is this what you tell your hired help? Income allows you the choice. Insufficient income = insufficient resources = no choice.- THIRDSTOOGE

---

Quote:

---

Secondly, who cares how much income OR resources are generated if they don't make it to the people who will use it? Having a vast surplus concentrated with a small group of people ... it begs the question, WHAT are these resources, or this income, being generated for? What is the purpose? If it's generated for some sort of abstract point about generating "more" without linking that "more" to consumption, then who cares, really about this vast but unobtainable treasure trove? It doesn't do anybody any good, except maybe the 0.0000001% who control it. -SIGNY

You start this post by quoting something I said to SECOND about determining the best system for generating resources

---

Quote:

---

and the worst. Responding to Second I explained she was speaking to problems with distribution. A different subject. In this last bit posted by you, you in a subjective rant confirm what I said to SECOND. You are talking about a distribution problem and that is different from a resources generating system.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

I was talking about the economic suffering (and of course physical suffering and preventable death) of vast, vast numbers of people on the planet.

But if you find the same suffering over and over in different countries with unregulated capitalism with a wide wealth gap - whether or not the countries have presidents, premiers, or dictators - and find that countries that LACK toxic capitalism have greatly reduced suffering in their populations - despite having vastly different forms of government - the logical answer is to pin the problem on capitalism. Not the individual leaders or the form of government.

Don't you agree?

---

Quote:

---

It would be only fair to the reader to say frankly in advance that the attitude of any person toward this story will be distinctly influenced by his theories of the Negro race. If he believes that the Negro in America and in general is an average and ordinary human being, who under given environment develops like other human beings, then he will read this story and judge it by the facts adduced. If, however, he regards the Negro as a distinctly inferior creation, who can never successfully take part in modern civilization and whose emancipation and enfranchisement were gestures against nature, then he will need something more than the sort of facts that I have set down.

But this latter person, I am not trying to convince. I am simply pointing out these two points of view, so obvious to Americans, and then without further ado, I am assuming the truth of the first. In fine, I am going to tell this story as though Negroes were ordinary human beings, realizing that this attitude will from the first seriously curtail my audience.

---

Quote:

---

Personally I think the "toxic" part is people don't care about others. The "toxic" is not part of capitalism at all. The "toxic" is just something people can do with capitalism when they feel like they want to hurt somebody.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

If by "capitalism" you mean

The use of that concentrated capital to consolidate one's business into a monopoly, and

The use of concentrated capital to shape self-favorable laws and mores ...

THAT capitalism? Then capitalism, by its very nature, is toxic.
. . . and the second two are sufficient to ensure that the system isn't either economically or politically (respectively) self-correcting.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

If by "capitalism" you mean

The use of that concentrated capital to consolidate one's business into a monopoly, and

The use of concentrated capital to shape self-favorable laws and mores ...

THAT capitalism? Then capitalism, by its very nature, is toxic.
. . . and the second two are sufficient to ensure that the system isn't either economically or politically (respectively) self-correcting.

---

Some monopolies are illegal in capitalism. But laws don't enforce themselves. Some bribes are illegal in capitalism. But politicians don't ever admit to taking bribes. We could design a system (call it Firefly) that is in no way capitalism, but it could still be overrun with monopolies and bribery, if those in charge choose to run it that way. The people living under the Firefly system would suffer, as people suffer under a Capitalist System. There is no technology just yet to build a self-driving economic system, like a Google driver-less car. If people crash their economic system because of their inattention or drunkenness, then it will crash. If they steer to the wrong destination, they will arrive at the wrong place. If they want to run over people with the economy or just not let them hitch a ride with the economy, that will happen. Replacing capitalism with another system, Firefly for example, won't fix the problem with people and their muddled thinking and churning just below the surface hostilities.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Sorry you have to follow the link to see the graph. Make sure to carefully read the last sentence SIG, 1kiki.

Soviet Food Shortages

The 1980s posed many challenges for the everyday lives of the average citizens of East Europe countries, including daily difficulties created from shortages. Buying such necessities as food, clothing, and hygiene products was recurring obstacle to the average consumer. Food shortages were the result of declining agricultural production, which particularly plagued the Soviet Union. This chart reflects the widespread underproduction throughout the Soviet Republics. Only Ukraine, Belorussia, and Kazakhstan produced a surplus. The most populous republic, Russia, was dependent on imports of all food categories in order to reach subsistence level. While these statistics are from 1991, the CIA estimated that production was only a small percentage (5.4%) below its average throughout the 1980s. In other words, the Soviet Union never produced sufficient food to feed itself.

https://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/items/show/182

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Sorry you have to follow the link to see the graph. Make sure to carefully read the last sentence SIG, 1kiki.

Soviet Food Shortages

The 1980s posed many challenges for the everyday lives of the average citizens of East Europe countries, including daily difficulties created from shortages. Buying such necessities as food, clothing, and hygiene products was recurring obstacle to the average consumer. Food shortages were the result of declining agricultural production, which particularly plagued the Soviet Union. This chart reflects the widespread underproduction throughout the Soviet Republics. Only Ukraine, Belorussia, and Kazakhstan produced a surplus. The most populous republic, Russia, was dependent on imports of all food categories in order to reach subsistence level. While these statistics are from 1991, the CIA estimated that production was only a small percentage (5.4%) below its average throughout the 1980s. In other words, the Soviet Union never produced sufficient food to feed itself.

https://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/items/show/182

---

So, do we chalk this up to "communism" (which has never existed) or "socialism" (which as far as I can tell hasn't ever existed either) or mismanagement?

The reality is that economies are all managed. There is no "capitalism" of independent robustly-competing small and medium-sized producers, just as there is no "socialism" where the means of production are owned by the workers (that would be a 100% cooperative economy), and "communism" has yet to even be described. In the real world, economies are managed by banks and large businesses and by the government, in varying proportions. Where the USA economy flops, we can lay that (for the most part) at the feet of financialists and international corporations. When it flies, they get the credit. In the Soviet Union, we could lay both the successes - winning WWII, rapid industrialization and improvement in living standards compare to Tsarist Russia - and the failures - stagnant economy- at the feet of the government. The crash of the Russian economy, lifespan, and standard of living in the 1990s can definitely be laid at the feet of international capital.

The question is how to make sure an economy is managed best. And to do that, we have to decide what our goals are. That gets to the point of (among other things) production, distribution, robustness, efficiency (robustness and efficiency seem to be always be at odds with each other) and sustainability. Can we call a temporary halt to mudslinging at various "isms" which- as far as I can tell- don't exist as people imagine them? Focusing on process might be more fruitful.

---

Quote:

---

"I never said communism was the only cause of mass starvation. But it IS one of them"

You haven't shown that.

---

Quote:

---

The Soviet famine of 1932–33:

"The famine was the result of the actions of the Soviet state in the implementation of forced collectivization, in economic planning, and political repression in the countryside."

The Great Chinese Famine

"Until the early 1980s, the Chinese government's stance, reflected by the name "Three Years of Natural Disasters", was that the famine was largely a result of a series of natural disasters compounded by several planning errors. Researchers outside China argued that massive institutional and policy changes that accompanied the Great Leap Forward were the key factors in the famine, or at least worsened nature-induced disasters."

---

Quote:

---

Historian Mark B. Tauger of West Virginia University suggests that the famine was caused by a combination of factors, specifically low harvest due to natural disasters

---

Quote:

---

combined with increased demand for food caused by the collectivization, industrialization and urbanization

---

Quote:

---

and grain exports by the Soviet Union at the same time.

---

Quote:

---

You just love to post all kinds of subjective bullshit to confuse don't you. Lets keep it simple shall we:

The government of the Soviet Union administered the country's economy and society during the period of its existence 1917-1991. It implemented decisions made by the only political institution allowed in the country, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. And then it collapsed.- THUGR

---

Quote:

---

So there you have it, communism directly causing massive famine.-KRAPO

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

You just love to post all kinds of subjective bullshit to confuse don't you. Lets keep it simple shall we:

The government of the Soviet Union administered the country's economy and society during the period of its existence 1917-1991. It implemented decisions made by the only political institution allowed in the country, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. And then it collapsed.- THUGR

---

Yeah, like I said: it was mismanaged from the 60's onwards. The Soviet Union also had stunning successes - they won WWII in the European theater, took a backward peasant nation under a monarchy and industrialized it to modernity, and raised the standard of living of over a hundred million people, from (literally) starving ignorant peasant living in a hovel to an educated population which didn't want for necessities (even if luxuries were hard to come by). And if you want to blame the economic stagnation of the Soviet Union on "communism", you must then also blame the catastrophic drop in living standards in the 1990s on the introduction of "capitalism".

Quote:

---

So there you have it, communism directly causing massive famine.-KRAPO

---

Are you kvetching because I don't lay the collapse of the Soviet Union, or starvation in China, on "communism"? Hey, I'm just using the standard definition of the word, and by that definition "communism" has NEVER existed. Just because various parties call themselves "communist" doesn't make it so. By way of example, just because I can call myself a Jehovah's Witness, does it mean Jehovah exists? People can call themselves anything. Wiccans or what-have-you. But that doesn't mean real witchcraft exists.

If you stop using the word "communism" as some sort of catch-phrase, maybe you can figure out what REALLY happened.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, in your vast study of Russian economic policy history, what were the particularly fateful decisions of the Soviet government, and what other decisions do you think would have avoided the problems?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
In 2014 10.9% of the global population (or about 750 million) suffered from malnutrition. http://www.worldhunger.org/2015-world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-sta
tistics/ About 7.7 million die every year from hunger. http://www.poverty.com/

And while the tendency is to write those deaths off as being due to laziness, ignorance, promiscuity, or backwardness - in fact, adults capable of work, with access to resources needed for survival, and access to modern contraception, aren't going to voluntarily sit around and voluntarily let themselves and their children starve ... just because.

The hundreds of millions of hungry people are hungry because their access to the resources they need to live is being blocked by other people.

So my next question is: what are the SPECIFIC mechanisms used to deprive people of resources?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
So my next question is: what are the SPECIFIC mechanisms used to deprive people of resources?

---

communism, socialism and greed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
THUGGERSTOOGE

You mean all those SOCIALIST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES like Denmark, Switzerland and France ARE STARVING????!!!

You just outdid yourself in stupidity and sheer dishonesty.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
You just can't but be really stupid, hunh? 'Socialist' refers to economy, not government.

---

Quote:

---

So, in your vast study of Russian economic policy history, what were the particularly fateful decisions of the Soviet government, and what other decisions do you think would have avoided the problems?- SIGNY

Not electing Putin and sticking with democracy. Purging themselves of corruption like the Ukraine would like to do. So far it is a tough haul for them and Russia is not helping.- THUGR

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

So, in your vast study of Russian economic policy history, what were the particularly fateful decisions of the Soviet government, and what other decisions do you think would have avoided the problems?- SIGNY

Not electing Putin and sticking with democracy. Purging themselves of corruption like the Ukraine would like to do. So far it is a tough haul for them and Russia is not helping.- THUGR

---

Hunh???

You were talking about SOVIET economic stagnation. All of the sudden, you fast-forward to Putin? Are you saying that Putin caused the economic malaise of 1980?

Dood, I'm beginning to see why you were a failure in school. Your thinking is hopelessly disorganized, and I don't think you can help it. I'm sorry I've called you "stupid" so many times, I won't do it again, I promise. Really, sincere apologies.

---

Quote:

---

The point is I answered your question about Russia

---

Quote:

---

In typical SIG fashion you refuse to say anything about Russia

---

Quote:

---

comrade... will you lose your job as a Russian troll?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, I think the next order of business is to go through the remaining list of countries suffering from hunger and starvation and see which ones are capitalist. Though I can point out right now that communist-ideology Russia, China (world's most populous nation), Cuba, Vietnam and Venezuela are all absent from the list; while capitalist-ideology India (world's second most populous nation) is on it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, I think the next order of business is to go through the remaining list of countries suffering from hunger and starvation and see which ones are capitalist. Though I can point out right now that communist-ideology Russia, China (world's most populous nation), Cuba, Vietnam and Venezuela are all absent from the list; while capitalist-ideology India (world's second most populous nation) is on it ie, the citizens of India are suffering from 'serious' hunger and starvation.

---

So 1kiki, my response to this same post above so terrified you all you could do is repost the same thing as though I did not address this. How funny is that?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

The point is I answered your question about Russia

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
No, your nonsense just made me want to continue INTELLIGENT discussion --- without you.

"Most economist" (Please note the poor - ie foreign - English of someone who really doesn't care about the US.) Most? Who? Links? OF COURSE YOU PROVIDE NONE OF THESE.

"capitalism produces the best results" I'd THINK that the 'best' results are ones where the fewest people are hungry OR STARVE TO DEATH. Wouldn't you? Of course not. YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT PEOPLE. Remember? You said so yourself. You're quite clear about that. As far as YOU'RE concerned, the 'best' result is one that furthers your ideology. People be damned. Because YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT PEOPLE.

MY METRIC IS PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HUNGER AND DYING OF STARVATION. Over a tenth of all people on the planet suffer malnutrition. And 7.7 MILLION die of starvation every year.

THIS is what death from starvation looks like:

Do you need those figures again? 7.7 MILLION people STARVE TO DEATH EVERY YEAR. Oh that's right, it doesn't matter to you how few or many because YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT PEOPLE.


And to point out how stupid you seem to think we are, of course your claim shares your usual problem with all the rest of your idiotic posts: Figures? Definitions? Links? OF COURSE YOU PROVIDE NONE OF THESE.

"The fact that Russia and China have moved further into the free market and private ownership proves the point don't you think?"
By YOUR OWN SOURCE Russian life took a dump with capitalism. Remember? ""Since the collapse of the Soviet Union" ... life for most Russians has not improved." And it's only since Putin and the reintroduction of economic controls that the standard of living - AND LIFESPAN- - have increased.
The shock of transition to capitalism in Russia caused the average lifespan for males to drop from 75 to below 40 years old. 40 YEARS OLD! Just like in feudal times, except of course we HAVE enough food to feed everyone, we HAVE modern distribution systems to move food where it's needed, we HAVE modern medicine and technology that extend lifespan. Medieval lifespan in a modern capitalist technology. Your standards for the benefits of capitalism are insane. YOU are insane. Babbling the insane creed of your insane masters.
But then - YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT PEOPLE. And you think no one else does, either.

Meanwhile, in 20 years Communist China raised the average lifespan 20 years. By simple arithmetic - though I suspect it's far beyond you - for every year people lived in the Cultural Revolution, they gained all an extra year of precious life. Grandparents. Babies. But the average life span of the Chinese has only gone up 6 years since 1990 and market reforms. That's a gain of only 6 years in 25, if you're counting. Or three months gain for every year lived, compared with the Cultural Revolution of 1 year gained for each year lived, extended over 20 years. Oh, that's right - YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT PEOPLE.


http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58208&p=5
kiki - And meanwhile, to understand the role of capitalism in improving life FOR THE MASSES you'll note here that the greatest gains in life expectancy in China - for women from 45 to 63, and for men from 44 to 64 - came between the years 1950 and 1972.
THUGGR - Your (sic) a fucking moron: who gives a shit?

Because YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT PEOPLE.

---