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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

There are 196 officially recognized countries in the world today. Subtracting out the 5 or 6 command/ communist economies leaves roughly 190 capitalist economies, that account for the remaining 4/5 of the global population. Out of those countries, 52, or 27%, have a severe or serious problem with malnutrition and starvation. Doing some really rough statistics*, it's very unlikely that the only command/ communist economies escape malnutrition and starvation by random chance.

Therefore, the presence malnutrition and starvation is linked to capitalist economies; while the absence of malnutrition and starvation is linked to command/ communist economies. (It would be really interesting if some statistician could do a formal analysis of this since I haven't seen this kind of approach before. But I'm not about to, after all, I'm just trying to get a rough idea for my own information, and not write a doctoral thesis.)

The next step might be to look for common mechanisms in each type of economy that accounts for this division. GLOBALLY, there's still enough food production to feed everyone (though that will change). So on a broad scale, malnutrition and starvation comes down to distribution. There's enough food for everybody, but not everyone gets food. I'll need to think about if I want to look at malnutrition and starvation globally since countries are all linked in a global food market, or consider food supply and distribution for each country individually.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

There are 196 officially recognized countries in the world today. Subtracting out the 5 or 6 command/ communist economies leaves roughly 190 capitalist economies, that account for the remaining 4/5 of the global population. Out of those countries, 52, or 27%, have a severe or serious problem with malnutrition and starvation. Doing some really rough statistics*, it's very unlikely that the only command/ communist economies escape malnutrition and starvation by random chance.

Therefore, the presence malnutrition and starvation is linked to capitalist economies; while the absence of malnutrition and starvation is linked to command/ communist economies. (It would be really interesting if some statistician could do a formal analysis of this since I haven't seen this kind of approach before. But I'm not about to, after all, I'm just trying to get a rough idea for my own information, and not write a doctoral thesis.)

The next step might be to look for common mechanisms in each type of economy that accounts for this division. GLOBALLY, there's still enough food production to feed everyone (though that will change). So on a broad scale, malnutrition and starvation comes down to distribution. There's enough food for everybody, but not everyone gets food. I'll need to think about if I want to look at malnutrition and starvation globally since countries are all linked in a global food market, or consider food supply and distribution for each country individually.

---

You are finally getting to a very sharp point. Capitalism does not solve strangers’ problems for free. Capitalism has no commitment to the Brotherhood of All Mankind. With capitalism, there is no We Are All In This Together. Capitalism is not generous to people who can’t pay.

There will be charitable contributions from the Capitalists, but they won’t be doing whatever it takes to solve hunger unless there is money to be made. Next for me is a quick bait-and-switch from food distribution to GNP. How much money would the Capitalists have to pour into Haiti to bring it up to Denmark standards? The answer is $630 billion per year.

$630 billion every year.

$630 billion indefinitely, until Haitians adjust and start contributing to their own new prosperity.

How did I calculate that? Take the population of Haiti, divide by the pop of Denmark, multiply by the GNP of Denmark minus GNP of Haiti to get a number that is as large as the USA Defense budget of $637 billion.

If would be much cheaper to just to move everyone in Haiti to Denmark. But do you know how Europeans feel about immigration?

Haiti GDP at market prices (current US$)
$8.713 billion 2014
Population 10.71 million 2015
http://data.worldbank.org/country/haiti

Denmark GDP at market prices (current US$)
$342.4 billion 2014
Population 5.660 million 2015
http://data.worldbank.org/country/denmark

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Yes SECOND correct and that has to do with fair distribution. Something I have said from the beginning. My other point was to suggest to 1kiki and SIG they should stop promoting systems that don't provide the most resources and instead focus on finding ways to distribute resources in a more equitable fashion. Like global unions.

The fact of the matter is that we all need to do with less. The planet cannot sustain the constant over consumption of its limited resources. But that's for another thread.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Yes SECOND correct and that has to do with fair distribution. Something I have said from the beginning. My other point was to suggest to 1kiki and SIG they should stop promoting systems that don't provide the most resources and instead focus on finding ways to distribute resources in a more equitable fashion. Like global unions.

The fact of the matter is that we all need to do with less. The planet cannot sustain the constant over consumption of its limited resources. But that's for another thread.

---

I think you made many excellent points, but there will not be "global unions" without "major wars", in my opinion. There will be the strongest possible opposition against "ways to distribute resources in a more equitable fashion". I could be wrong. The only way to tell is to run a scientific experiment. Start with one small town and have the mayor give the poorest people preferential treatment. Keep running the experiment with bigger towns and larger preferences to see what happens. Eventually the experiment will involve counties, then states, then nations, then the world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

No I don't think so. I think all we need is for employees to have the right to bargain. I think all countries have to be onboard. No communism but a universal rule of law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

No I don't think so. I think all we need is for employees to have the right to bargain. I think all countries have to be onboard. No communism but a universal rule of law.

---

All aboard, all countries! I'd like to be the train conductor who calls that out just before the train engineer of the "Universal Rule of Law" starts the locomotive. I think nations would only get on that train if you were pointing a gun at them, ready to pull the trigger. You might have to shoot some of the smaller nations in order to convince the larger ones that you mean what you say.

To give an example: there are two countries sharing the Island of Hispaniola. Both have about the same population, but one is 7 times richer than the other. Without being continuously forced, how likely is it that these countries would share food, laws and money? Extremely unlikely I think.

Dominican Republic GDP at market prices (current US$)
$64.14 billion 2014
Population 10.53 million 2015
www.worldbank.org/en/country/dominicanrepublic

Haiti GDP at market prices (current US$)
$8.713 billion 2014
Population 10.71 million 2015
www.worldbank.org/en/country/haiti

Guns, books, or doctors? Conflict and public spending in Haiti : lessons from cross-country evidence
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2016/05/26396742/guns-books-
or-doctors-conflict-public-spending-haiti-lessons-cross-country-evidence
Abstract

Haiti's economic development has been held back by a history of civil conflict and violence. With donor assistance declining from its exceptional levels following the 2010 earthquake, and concessional financing growing scarce, Haiti must learn to live with tighter budget constraints. At the same time, the United Nations forces that have provided security in the past decade are scaling down. Against this backdrop, this paper explores the conditions under which public spending can minimize violent conflict, and draws possible lessons for Haiti. Drawing on an empirical analysis of 148 countries over the period 1960-2009, simulations for Haiti suggest that increases in military spending would be associated with a higher risk of conflict, an observation in line with Haiti's own history. Greater welfare expenditure (education, health, and social assistance), by contrast, would be associated with lower risk of conflict.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"My other point was to suggest to 1kiki and SIG they should stop promoting systems that don't provide the most resources and instead focus on finding ways to distribute resources in a more equitable fashion."

"... and instead focus on finding ways to distribute resources in a more equitable fashion ..." You mean ways like capitalism - that underfeeds and starves 27% of the countries that practice it? Or ways like communism - that feed everyone?

Those are my choices in the real world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

To give an example: there are two countries sharing the Island of Hispaniola. Both have about the same population, but one is 7 times richer than the other. Without being continuously forced, how likely is it that these countries would share food, laws and money? Extremely unlikely I think.

Dominican Republic GDP at market prices (current US$)
$64.14 billion 2014
Population 10.53 million 2015
www.worldbank.org/en/country/dominicanrepublic

Haiti GDP at market prices (current US$)
$8.713 billion 2014
Population 10.71 million 2015
www.worldbank.org/en/country/haiti

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Did you happen to notice that China is the largest communist economy on the planet, representing 1/5 of the entirety of humanity?

Are you Russian? Is that why you can't stop posting about Russia? And, let me point out - you forgot to mention your very special someone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
China was a failing country for millennia, with a long and storied history of repeated mass starvation by the millions, while the ruling elite lived in luxury. Until ... communism came along and gave everyone 20 more years of precious life through the simple act of making sure everyone was fed.

]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
You find starvation acceptable. As long as no one touches profits.

---

Quote:

---

I look outward and this is what I see:

THIS is what death from starvation looks like:


You seem to think starvation is painless and peaceful. But when your body is dying, you're reduced to a creature that ignores nakedness, ignores the burning sun, ignores biting flies, ignores the sloughing skin, ignores the dried diarrhea crusted on your butt, ignores the dirt and filth you eat from the ground to hold death off by another 5 calories ... ignores everything to expend that small amount of energy left on finding food ... until you become too weak to do even that.

THIS is what death from starvation is.

Not some abstract theory about poverty but immediate starvation that needs immediate food. Food which there is IN PLENTY. But you are less important than profit, which makes you expendable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

It's called globalization. It's a good idea and it was working to an extent. The problem was our leaders were stupid and let the greedy win out. Companies chose slave labor over fair wages. We needed smart trade instead of free trade so we could move more slowly and create less victims. That is what the Brexit vote was about. That's why Donald Trump has had such success.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

It's called globalization. It's a good idea and it was working to an extent. The problem was our leaders were stupid and let the greedy win out. Companies chose slave labor over fair wages. We needed smart trade instead of free trade so we could move more slowly and create less victims. That is what the Brexit vote was about. That's why Donald Trump has had such success.

---

Had remain won the referendum, the EU would have become hostage to British sabotage. Future British prime ministers would veto any fundamental change, correctly arguing that their people had voted only for the current set-up of the EU. Britain would continue to demand ever more opt-outs and concessions – playing to the fantasy that membership is a British favor to the rest of Europe. The British press and Europhobe politicians would go on portraying the EU in the most lurid, mendacious and derisory terms. The problem with Britain was not that it was critical of the EU. The problem was bad faith and delusional thinking.

Bad faith and delusional thinking is Trump's way. His entire business model is built on bad faith: intentional deceit of others and self-deception. His government would be the same. Check Trump's failed Baja condo resort --
www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-baja-snap-story.html

---

Quote:

---

It's called globalization. It's a good idea and it was working to an extent. The problem was our leaders were stupid and let the greedy win out. Companies chose slave labor over fair wages. We needed smart trade instead of free trade so we could move more slowly and create less victims. That is what the Brexit vote was about. That's why Donald Trump has had such success.- THUGR

Had remain won the referendum, the EU would have become hostage to British sabotage. Future British prime ministers would veto any fundamental change, correctly arguing that their people had voted only for the current set-up of the EU. Britain would continue to demand ever more opt-outs and concessions – playing to the fantasy that membership is a British favor to the rest of Europe. The British press and Europhobe politicians would go on portraying the EU in the most lurid, mendacious and derisory terms. The problem with Britain was not that it was critical of the EU. The problem was bad faith and delusional thinking.

---

Quote:

---

Bad faith and delusional thinking is Trump's way. His entire business model is built on bad faith: intentional deceit of others and self-deception. His government would be the same. Check Trump's failed Baja condo resort --
www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-baja-snap-story.html]

Wow that's a harsh critique second. It's hard to give up ones sovereignty. Britain felt it was subject to a lot of bad decisions made by unelected officials from Brussels.

The EU was created to help France and Germany get together in peace. They had I think 3 wars in 70 years. The only way I think it would work is with all countries giving up their identity, borders and autonomy. Not going to happen. When we add global warming to the mix, all the migration it is starting to cause which will only get worse, we will see Britain's leaving is just the beginning.-THUGR

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

It's called globalization. It's a good idea and it was working to an extent. The problem was our leaders were stupid and let the greedy win out. Companies chose slave labor over fair wages. We needed smart trade instead of free trade so we could move more slowly and create less victims. That is what the Brexit vote was about. That's why Donald Trump has had such success.- THUGR

Had remain won the referendum, the EU would have become hostage to British sabotage. Future British prime ministers would veto any fundamental change, correctly arguing that their people had voted only for the current set-up of the EU. Britain would continue to demand ever more opt-outs and concessions – playing to the fantasy that membership is a British favor to the rest of Europe. The British press and Europhobe politicians would go on portraying the EU in the most lurid, mendacious and derisory terms. The problem with Britain was not that it was critical of the EU. The problem was bad faith and delusional thinking.

---

On whose part? The Eurocrats?

Quote:

---

Bad faith and delusional thinking is Trump's way. His entire business model is built on bad faith: intentional deceit of others and self-deception. His government would be the same. Check Trump's failed Baja condo resort --
www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-baja-snap-story.html]

Wow that's a harsh critique second. It's hard to give up ones sovereignty. Britain felt it was subject to a lot of bad decisions made by unelected officials from Brussels.

The EU was created to help France and Germany get together in peace. They had I think 3 wars in 70 years. The only way I think it would work is with all countries giving up their identity, borders and autonomy. Not going to happen. When we add global warming to the mix, all the migration it is starting to cause which will only get worse, we will see Britain's leaving is just the beginning.-THUGR

---

- I'm going to move this to the Brext thread if you don't mind. It doesn't belong here.

COPIED TO http://www.fireflyfans.net/mreply.aspx?q=y&mid=1012876

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
You find starvation acceptable. As long as no one touches profits.

---

You're such an ass. You don't have the critical thinking skills to separate what I say and why I say it from your concept of poverty. It's why you're a moron who would rather live where you have no rights and are ruled instead of having a say.

Technology stands a better chance of ending poverty but I see none of that in your posting. Only Western countries bad. That's all it is with you. Western countries bad. Where are the links to TED TALKS where they speak about the different ways they are trying to end poverty? Where, all we hear from you and SIG is Western society bad. You don't want to discuss ending poverty.

Were are the links to people who are coming up with innovative ideas. Where's that discussion? Nope, you just what to bash the West. Where is your criticism of Russia and China for not doing enough? You can post terrible pictures, but you are incapable of creating a discussion that deals with the issue. If you want to help solve poverty stop supporting governments that don't respect the rule of law.

What a clown you are.

---

You can't have a simple discussion with either of those 2 harpies. It has been proven time and time again. I wonder what Kiki's solution for Hunger would be? Just to whine about it on a forum of less than 20 members? Does she even donate to a food bank? How over weight is she? Does she even come close to practicing what she preaches?

And what about the rest of the world? If capitalism is so much worse than communism (the stupidest argument ever - the "tastes great, less filling" discussion for the pretentious) at feeding people, why are they so shameful and tight and reluctant when it comes to giving? Yanno, actually doing something for others? Props to Australia.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving
-country#data

China 147, Russian Federation 138 - have a look, it's embarrassing how many poorer nations give more.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/cpid/42

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Anyway, I intend to continue on in my attempt to understand how it is that so many people starve when there's plenty of food for everyone. Because the results don't come from magic, or even generic logical scenarios. There are very specific mechanisms repeatedly at work, and very specific counter mechanisms not at work, that result in mass death by starvation, and widespread malnutrition in capitalism.

---

Quote:

---

"Their narcissism displays itself in their posts as an extreme self-interest and promotion of others."- THUGR

I hope you realize that a narcissist is ALL about ME!! ALL ME!!! EVERY DAY!! ALL DAY!! ALL THE TIME!!! And 'promotion of others' is 180 degrees and lightspeed away from narcissism. That sentence was so ludicrous, I stopped reading right there.- KIKI

---

Quote:

---

Anyway, I intend to continue on in my attempt to understand how it is that so many people starve when there's plenty of food for everyone. Because the results don't come from magic, or even generic logical scenarios. There are very specific mechanisms repeatedly at work, and very specific counter mechanisms not at work, that result in mass death by starvation, and widespread malnutrition in capitalism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

FWIW I think there are two mechanisms at work ... the first is the relentless concentration of wealth promoted by capitalism, and the second is that SHARING of wealth (a little bit) with corrupt local and national leaders who are willing to use force to keep their share of the pie.

Ultimately, its about the use of both force and propaganda to promote a power structure which does not serve the people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

"Their narcissism displays itself in their posts as an extreme self-interest and promotion of others."- THUGR

I hope you realize that a narcissist is ALL about ME!! ALL ME!!! EVERY DAY!! ALL DAY!! ALL THE TIME!!! And 'promotion of others' is 180 degrees and lightspeed away from narcissism. That sentence was so ludicrous, I stopped reading right there.- KIKI

---

I just had to repeat this, lest it get lost too quickly.

---

Quote:

---

"Their narcissism displays itself in their posts as an extreme self-interest and promotion of others."- THUGR

I hope you realize that a narcissist is ALL about ME!! ALL ME!!! EVERY DAY!! ALL DAY!! ALL THE TIME!!! And 'promotion of others' is 180 degrees and lightspeed away from narcissism. That sentence was so ludicrous, I stopped reading right there.- KIKI

I just had to repeat this, lest it get lost too quickly. -SIGNY

LOl you do that SIG. It was in a definition of a narcissist I came across and it jumped out at me because it describes the two of you perfectly. It's the mask you wear.- THUGR

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

"Their narcissism displays itself in their posts as an extreme self-interest and promotion of others."- THUGR

I hope you realize that a narcissist is ALL about ME!! ALL ME!!! EVERY DAY!! ALL DAY!! ALL THE TIME!!! And 'promotion of others' is 180 degrees and lightspeed away from narcissism. That sentence was so ludicrous, I stopped reading right there.- KIKI

I just had to repeat this, lest it get lost too quickly. -SIGNY

LOl you do that SIG. It was in a definition of a narcissist I came across and it jumped out at me because it describes the two of you perfectly. It's the mask you wear.- THUGR

---

So ... narcissism = promotion of others? Just want to make sure I know what you're saying.

---

Quote:

---

THIS is what death from starvation looks like:


Do you need those figures again? 7.7 MILLION people STARVE TO DEATH EVERY YEAR .

---

Quote:

---

Stalin also imposed the Soviet system of land management known as collectivization. This resulted in the seizure of all privately owned farmlands and livestock, in a country where 80 percent of the people were traditional village farmers. Among those farmers, were a class of people called Kulaks by the Communists. They were formerly wealthy farmers that had owned 24 or more acres, or had employed farm workers. Stalin believed any future insurrection would be led by the Kulaks, thus he proclaimed a policy aimed at "liquidating the Kulaks as a class."

Declared "enemies of the people," the Kulaks were left homeless and without a single possession as everything was taken from them, even their pots and pans. It was also forbidden by law for anyone to aid dispossessed Kulak families. Some researchers estimate that ten million persons were thrown out of their homes, put on railroad box cars and deported to "special settlements" in the wilderness of Siberia during this era, with up to a third of them perishing amid the frigid living conditions. Men and older boys, along with childless women and unmarried girls, also became slave-workers in Soviet-run mines and big industrial projects.

Back in the Ukraine, once-proud village farmers were by now reduced to the level of rural factory workers on large collective farms. Anyone refusing to participate in the compulsory collectivization system was simply denounced as a Kulak and deported.

A propaganda campaign was started utilizing eager young Communist activists who spread out among the country folk attempting to shore up the people's support for the Soviet regime. However, their attempts failed. Despite the propaganda, ongoing coercion and threats, the people continued to resist through acts of rebellion and outright sabotage. They burned their own homes rather than surrender them. They took back their property, tools and farm animals from the collectives, harassed and even assassinated local Soviet authorities. This ultimately put them in direct conflict with the power and authority of Joseph Stalin.

Soviet troops and secret police were rushed in to put down the rebellion. They confronted rowdy farmers by firing warning shots above their heads. In some cases, however, they fired directly at the people. Stalin's secret police (GPU, predecessor of the KGB) also went to work waging a campaign of terror designed to break the people's will. GPU squads systematically attacked and killed uncooperative farmers.

But the resistance continued. The people simply refused to become cogs in the Soviet farm machine and remained stubbornly determined to return to their pre-Soviet farming lifestyle. Some refused to work at all, leaving the wheat and oats to rot in unharvested fields. Once again, they were placing themselves in conflict with Stalin.

In Moscow, Stalin responded to their unyielding defiance by dictating a policy that would deliberately cause mass starvation and result in the deaths of millions.

By mid 1932, nearly 75 percent of the farms in the Ukraine had been forcibly collectivized. On Stalin's orders, mandatory quotas of foodstuffs to be shipped out to the Soviet Union were drastically increased in August, October and again in January 1933, until there was simply no food remaining to feed the people of the Ukraine.

Much of the hugely abundant wheat crop harvested by the Ukrainians that year was dumped on the foreign market to generate cash to aid Stalin's Five Year Plan for the modernization of the Soviet Union and also to help finance his massive military buildup. If the wheat had remained in the Ukraine, it was estimated to have been enough to feed all of the people there for up to two years.

Ukrainian Communists urgently appealed to Moscow for a reduction in the grain quotas and also asked for emergency food aid. Stalin responded by denouncing them and rushed in over 100,000 fiercely loyal Russian soldiers to purge the Ukrainian Communist Party. The Soviets then sealed off the borders of the Ukraine, preventing any food from entering, in effect turning the country into a gigantic concentration camp. Soviet police troops inside the Ukraine also went house to house seizing any stored up food, leaving farm families without a morsel. All food was considered to be the "sacred" property of the State. Anyone caught stealing State property, even an ear of corn or stubble of wheat, could be shot or imprisoned for not less than ten years.

Starvation quickly ensued throughout the Ukraine, with the most vulnerable, children and the elderly, first feeling the effects of malnutrition. The once-smiling young faces of children vanished forever amid the constant pain of hunger. It gnawed away at their bellies, which became grossly swollen, while their arms and legs became like sticks as they slowly starved to death.

Mothers in the countryside sometimes tossed their emaciated children onto passing railroad cars traveling toward cities such as Kiev in the hope someone there would take pity. But in the cities, children and adults who had already flocked there from the countryside were dropping dead in the streets, with their bodies carted away in horse-drawn wagons to be dumped in mass graves. Occasionally, people lying on the sidewalk who were thought to be dead, but were actually still alive, were also carted away and buried.

While police and Communist Party officials remained quite well fed, desperate Ukrainians ate leaves off bushes and trees, killed dogs, cats, frogs, mice and birds then cooked them. Others, gone mad with hunger, resorted to cannibalism, with parents sometimes even eating their own children.

Meanwhile, nearby Soviet-controlled granaries were said to be bursting at the seams from huge stocks of 'reserve' grain, which had not yet been shipped out of the Ukraine. In some locations, grain and potatoes were piled in the open, protected by barbed wire and armed GPU guards who shot down anyone attempting to take the food. Farm animals, considered necessary for production, were allowed to be fed, while the people living among them had absolutely nothing to eat.

By the spring of 1933, the height of the famine, an estimated 25,000 persons died every day in the Ukraine. Entire villages were perishing. In Europe, America and Canada, persons of Ukrainian descent and others responded to news reports of the famine by sending in food supplies. But Soviet authorities halted all food shipments at the border. It was the official policy of the Soviet Union to deny the existence of a famine and thus to refuse any outside assistance. Anyone claiming that there was in fact a famine was accused of spreading anti-Soviet propaganda. Inside the Soviet Union, a person could be arrested for even using the word 'famine' or 'hunger' or 'starvation' in a sentence.

...

---

Quote:

---

YOUR SOURCE:

---