4 ms·

> We should just spend that money on like... I dunno. Better park benches or something. That'll solve everything. How about ending hunger worldwide? It's mostl

by phaer 11y ago

> We should just spend that money on like... I dunno. Better park benches or something. That'll solve everything. How about ending hunger worldwide? It's mostly a distribution problem nowadays. Or what about providing things like sanitation, electricity or some form of education for each and everyone on this planet? I guess what I want to say is that there are much, much more elemental things to spend your money on than "better park benches", even if one does not see the need to go to Mars in the short way.

vlehto 11y ago
>How about ending hunger worldwide? It's mostly a distribution problem nowadays. It's also incentives problem if you are not all in communist. If you simply send food from Europe to Africa, it disincentives food production in Africa. Which causes unemployment and hinders economic growth with it. And it also causes huge security of supply problem and might cause starvation if something happens to the shipping. My best idea is to turn foreign aid into basic income. If you would send dollar/day/person to everybody in Africa, this would make African agriculture more profitable than ever before, security of supply would be good and hunger would end. Inflation would rise too, but with so much good money in circulation you would see booming private sector in no time despite this.
- keyme 11y ago
  I'm sure this will work brilliantly, considering that no one who needs your money there has a bank account or credit card. Cash also won't work due to the tiny problem of all the warlords and corrupt government/police/military/paramilitary taking all this money away by force. The only way to make a shit place better for people, is if some rich guy finds an investment opportunity there, that as a side effect, might directly benefit workers. Spoon feeding people, in the long run, does nothing good. No matter how much money you have to donate (it's finite).
  - lhc- 11y ago
    So, the only way to improve the world is to wait for rich people to exploit something and try to pick up the scraps? I don't think I can agree with that one.
  - vlehto 11y ago
    >bank account or credit card Cash has been invented. They also don't have mail addresses but still some people suggest sending food. I supposed a way to give aid. No matter what way you choose the warlords and corrupt governments are going to be huge problem. The best way to help so far has been private investing. But it doesn't matter if the investor is single rich guy or bunch of average westerners. That's how stock works. But the warlords are again a problem. During the past 50 years, western "help" has done probably more harm than good. But that doesn't mean we are unable to ever do any good. As far as I understand, that UBI idea has been only once for limited time, and it looked like it could be a success. It would be great if we could incentivize the warlords to behave. We should start from a country that's relatively safe and where the locals can anonymously report if they got to keep the money. Despite such country not being the absolutely poorest one. This should turn out for the best once more restless countries figure out they could be collecting fat taxes from the imported goods. If they just settle down.
    - phaer 11y ago
      > We should start from a country that's relatively safe and where the locals can anonymously report if they got to keep the money. Successful examples include Otjivero - Omitara, Namibia[1] and Madhya Pradesh, India[2] [1]: http://www.bignam.org/BIG_pilot.html http://www.bignam.org/BIG_pilot.html [2]: http://www.guystanding.com/files/documents/Basic_Income_Pilots_in_India_note_for_inaugural.pdf http://www.guystanding.com/files/documents/Basic_Income_Pilo...
- neuro_imager 11y ago
  Its principally a corruption issue. Western governments and corporations reinforce crony, incompetent governments in developing countries so that their resources can be exploited. These crony governments then steal (literally) from the population who need it. Until the poor governance issues are resolved, a lot of foreign aid is wasted.
  - vlehto 11y ago
    Part of the problem there is ironically that African cultures often look after each other. If somebody becomes a doctor, then it's expected that s/he feeds pretty big part of the extended family. This disincentives getting good salary, you want to get just slightly above average. And that's why you get biggest impact by sharing the money as evenly as possible.
- PavlovsCat 11y ago
  > If you simply send food from Europe to Africa, it disincentives food production in Africa. That's already happening. http://www.ipsnews.net/2007/06/africa-food-for-12-billion-so-why-did-854-million-go-without/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2007/06/africa-food-for-12-billion-so... > Jean Ziegler, U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, alerted the more than 500 delegates that while 854 million people went without food in the world last year, enough food was produced to feed 12 billion people. "This is why a child that dies from famine is murder," Ziegler said. > Food is being over-produced in industrialised countries where some 349 billion dollars have been spent on agricultural subsidies for a minority of people. Only 2.5 percent of the French and 4.9 percent of the Swiss population are farmers, said Ziegler. > "You can go to the Dakar market (in Senegal) and find Spanish, French, German and Italian fruit and vegetables at half or one-third of the local prices. The African farmers work 15 hours a day but they cannot compete with subsidies. This is systematically destroying Africa's agriculture," he pointed out. > "Nothing is being done about the dumping policy. The Third World is feeding us (Europeans). That is what is keeping this system in place." > Ziegler called the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the "mercenary organisation of the financial oligarchies that dominate the world". http://www.theguardian.com/world/poverty-matters/2012/oct/05/jean-ziegler-africa-starve http://www.theguardian.com/world/poverty-matters/2012/oct/05... > Löpfe: Why is it that Africa is the continent where most people starve and which imports more than a quarter of its food supply? > Ziegler: Because the colonial pact is still enforced. > Löpfe: Isn't this a bit too simple? Colonialism has been over for more than half a century. > Ziegler: But there still is a small upper class, dependent on rich countries, and extremely corrupt. Again Senegal: The country exports peanuts and at the same time imports three quarters of its food requirements. > Löpfe: Why? Ziegler: Because the colonial pact was never broken. The Senegalese farmers are forced to grow and exports peanuts because the revenue serves to pay for foreign debt. At the same time, Europe sells its food surplus at dumping prices on the African markets. How can a small farmer survive under these conditions? > Löpfe: African farmers are not very productive. Their productivity is less than 10 percent of Europe's agriculture. Are they not just lazy? > Ziegler: On the contrary. Nobody works harder than farmers in Africa. They just cannot thrive because they are not supported: no irrigation, no seed, no draft animals, no tractors, no fertilizer, nothing.
  - 11y ago
shadowmint 11y ago
how? That's the issue here. Don't just complain. Actually suggest, tangibly, how to achieve that goal. Installing ad blocks isn't it. A free internet; also not the solution. Redistributing wealth? Ok; that's an idea, but how? The Gates Foundation has spent billions, and achieved a great deal, but it's not visible for most people. If someone tells me they're sick of people like Elon Musk, who is out there, actually changing the world, they can categorically Get Lost. Armchair social commentary doesn't cut it for me.
- phaer 11y ago
  > Armchair social commentary doesn't cut it for me. If you'd consider to argue a bit less aggressive and just a but more nuanced, I would in turn consider a serious answer to your arguments. As it stands I am one of the people who can "categorically get lost" for you. Not because I criticize people who are changing the world, but the priorities of some of those people and social structures which ensure that mostly white, western men are in the position to change the world.
  - shadowmint 11y ago
    I'm not going to argue that there are problems in the world... ...but pointing to Elon Musk as one of those is ridiculous. It's talking straight down the 'space, who needs it? We should spend that money on earth instead' trope, which has been, repeatedly, and in many many places, shown to be a completely hollow and invalid argument. We don't need to debate this. Go speak to the people at NASA; they've been having this conversation for the last 60 years. When you taint the message you're trying to get across with this sort of trope, it actively harms your ability to convey a meaningful message.

by phaer 11y ago

vlehto 11y ago

>How about ending hunger worldwide? It's mostly a distribution problem nowadays. It's also incentives problem if you are not all in communist. If you simply send food from Europe to Africa, it disincentives food production in Africa. Which causes unemployment and hinders economic growth with it. And it also causes huge security of supply problem and might cause starvation if something happens to the shipping. My best idea is to turn foreign aid into basic income. If you would send dollar/day/person to everybody in Africa, this would make African agriculture more profitable than ever before, security of supply would be good and hunger would end. Inflation would rise too, but with so much good money in circulation you would see booming private sector in no time despite this.

keyme 11y ago
I'm sure this will work brilliantly, considering that no one who needs your money there has a bank account or credit card. Cash also won't work due to the tiny problem of all the warlords and corrupt government/police/military/paramilitary taking all this money away by force. The only way to make a shit place better for people, is if some rich guy finds an investment opportunity there, that as a side effect, might directly benefit workers. Spoon feeding people, in the long run, does nothing good. No matter how much money you have to donate (it's finite).
- lhc- 11y ago
  So, the only way to improve the world is to wait for rich people to exploit something and try to pick up the scraps? I don't think I can agree with that one.
- vlehto 11y ago
  >bank account or credit card Cash has been invented. They also don't have mail addresses but still some people suggest sending food. I supposed a way to give aid. No matter what way you choose the warlords and corrupt governments are going to be huge problem. The best way to help so far has been private investing. But it doesn't matter if the investor is single rich guy or bunch of average westerners. That's how stock works. But the warlords are again a problem. During the past 50 years, western "help" has done probably more harm than good. But that doesn't mean we are unable to ever do any good. As far as I understand, that UBI idea has been only once for limited time, and it looked like it could be a success. It would be great if we could incentivize the warlords to behave. We should start from a country that's relatively safe and where the locals can anonymously report if they got to keep the money. Despite such country not being the absolutely poorest one. This should turn out for the best once more restless countries figure out they could be collecting fat taxes from the imported goods. If they just settle down.
  - phaer 11y ago
    > We should start from a country that's relatively safe and where the locals can anonymously report if they got to keep the money. Successful examples include Otjivero - Omitara, Namibia[1] and Madhya Pradesh, India[2] [1]: http://www.bignam.org/BIG_pilot.html http://www.bignam.org/BIG_pilot.html [2]: http://www.guystanding.com/files/documents/Basic_Income_Pilots_in_India_note_for_inaugural.pdf http://www.guystanding.com/files/documents/Basic_Income_Pilo...
neuro_imager 11y ago
Its principally a corruption issue. Western governments and corporations reinforce crony, incompetent governments in developing countries so that their resources can be exploited. These crony governments then steal (literally) from the population who need it. Until the poor governance issues are resolved, a lot of foreign aid is wasted.
- vlehto 11y ago
  Part of the problem there is ironically that African cultures often look after each other. If somebody becomes a doctor, then it's expected that s/he feeds pretty big part of the extended family. This disincentives getting good salary, you want to get just slightly above average. And that's why you get biggest impact by sharing the money as evenly as possible.
PavlovsCat 11y ago
> If you simply send food from Europe to Africa, it disincentives food production in Africa. That's already happening. http://www.ipsnews.net/2007/06/africa-food-for-12-billion-so-why-did-854-million-go-without/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2007/06/africa-food-for-12-billion-so... > Jean Ziegler, U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, alerted the more than 500 delegates that while 854 million people went without food in the world last year, enough food was produced to feed 12 billion people. "This is why a child that dies from famine is murder," Ziegler said. > Food is being over-produced in industrialised countries where some 349 billion dollars have been spent on agricultural subsidies for a minority of people. Only 2.5 percent of the French and 4.9 percent of the Swiss population are farmers, said Ziegler. > "You can go to the Dakar market (in Senegal) and find Spanish, French, German and Italian fruit and vegetables at half or one-third of the local prices. The African farmers work 15 hours a day but they cannot compete with subsidies. This is systematically destroying Africa's agriculture," he pointed out. > "Nothing is being done about the dumping policy. The Third World is feeding us (Europeans). That is what is keeping this system in place." > Ziegler called the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the "mercenary organisation of the financial oligarchies that dominate the world". http://www.theguardian.com/world/poverty-matters/2012/oct/05/jean-ziegler-africa-starve http://www.theguardian.com/world/poverty-matters/2012/oct/05... > Löpfe: Why is it that Africa is the continent where most people starve and which imports more than a quarter of its food supply? > Ziegler: Because the colonial pact is still enforced. > Löpfe: Isn't this a bit too simple? Colonialism has been over for more than half a century. > Ziegler: But there still is a small upper class, dependent on rich countries, and extremely corrupt. Again Senegal: The country exports peanuts and at the same time imports three quarters of its food requirements. > Löpfe: Why? Ziegler: Because the colonial pact was never broken. The Senegalese farmers are forced to grow and exports peanuts because the revenue serves to pay for foreign debt. At the same time, Europe sells its food surplus at dumping prices on the African markets. How can a small farmer survive under these conditions? > Löpfe: African farmers are not very productive. Their productivity is less than 10 percent of Europe's agriculture. Are they not just lazy? > Ziegler: On the contrary. Nobody works harder than farmers in Africa. They just cannot thrive because they are not supported: no irrigation, no seed, no draft animals, no tractors, no fertilizer, nothing.
- 11y ago

shadowmint 11y ago

how? That's the issue here. Don't just complain. Actually suggest, tangibly, how to achieve that goal. Installing ad blocks isn't it. A free internet; also not the solution. Redistributing wealth? Ok; that's an idea, but how? The Gates Foundation has spent billions, and achieved a great deal, but it's not visible for most people. If someone tells me they're sick of people like Elon Musk, who is out there, actually changing the world, they can categorically Get Lost. Armchair social commentary doesn't cut it for me.

phaer 11y ago
> Armchair social commentary doesn't cut it for me. If you'd consider to argue a bit less aggressive and just a but more nuanced, I would in turn consider a serious answer to your arguments. As it stands I am one of the people who can "categorically get lost" for you. Not because I criticize people who are changing the world, but the priorities of some of those people and social structures which ensure that mostly white, western men are in the position to change the world.
- shadowmint 11y ago
  I'm not going to argue that there are problems in the world... ...but pointing to Elon Musk as one of those is ridiculous. It's talking straight down the 'space, who needs it? We should spend that money on earth instead' trope, which has been, repeatedly, and in many many places, shown to be a completely hollow and invalid argument. We don't need to debate this. Go speak to the people at NASA; they've been having this conversation for the last 60 years. When you taint the message you're trying to get across with this sort of trope, it actively harms your ability to convey a meaningful message.