5 ms·

There are plenty of poor places with people starving, even though we have enough food to give it to people. But even in the usa, there are people who don't get

There are plenty of poor places with people starving, even though we have enough food to give it to people. But even in the usa, there are people who don't get enough to eat. in Seattle I often see news stories about the food bank.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago
Exactly. We could feed, house, and care for everyone, if we wanted to. The main problem is that we're still stuck on the agricultural notion that the moral right to live must be purchased through labor or capital.
- kazinator 9y ago
  Does this "we" include yourself, personally? How many have you fed, housed and cared for this past month, and is it completely with no strings attached (no capital or labor of any kind expected from them --- only from yourself?) Or if not, what is the blocker?
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    I'd be happy to pay more taxes to get, at the very least, better social services for those who can't support themselves. I want to live in a world that cares for those people. If you prefer a selfish motivation, I also want those services to be available for me and my loved ones, should they be needed in the future. The blocker is that I don't have the time, expertise, bargaining power, or economies of scale to efficiently turn my money into social services. Governments are much better suited to that task, and some do so reasonably effectively. (e.g. universal health care, in countries that provide it.)
    - harry8 9y ago
      Take how much extra tax you are willing to pay. Pay it to charity that best supports those ideals. If you're not already doing this people will suggest talk is cheap and posturing has a negative value to society at large. Good luck with it!
      - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
        I do give to charity, actually. That hardly precludes me from wishing my money, and others', was used more efficiently. I feel like this isn't going how you were expecting. I was supposed to be exposed as a hollow "progressive" who's free with other people's money but is secretly a grasping hypocrite. You shouldn't assume everyone is selfish just because you are.
        KGIII 9y ago
        To add to your point - and not a detractor from your point, just because you don't have the means to solve a problem doesn't mean your not qualified to point it out. You may not know how to fix it, but you can probably point out when you've got a compound fracture. If it isn't you with the broken bone, you're probably qualified to suggest that it probably is quite painful. I've donated a fair sum already this month. I'm no more entitled to opine about the system than you are. It doesn't work like that. Like you, I don't mind paying taxes. Hell, I look forward to seeing my tax bill. I also acknowledge I can pay more. Err... I'm not kidding. I don't mind paying my taxes. I kind of like paying back to the system that enabled me to be where I am. On the other hand, I seriously wish they'd spend that money more wisely, or at least more in line with my values. I grow weary of seeing functional equivalents to, "You're not solving the problem, your opinion is invalid." You don't have to contribute significantly to the solution to notice the problems. I feel that sort of thinking is just an excuse to maintain the status quo.
        kazinator 9y ago
        Re: "that enabled me to be where I am". There is no evidence-based way to determine where you would be in a parallel universe with different rules. "I don't mind paying taxes." ... "I seriously wish they'd spend that money more wisely, or at least more in line with my values". It's irrational to say, "I don't mind that money is being coerced from me by people who are squandering it and using it in ways that are not in line with my values." I don't think that your position is actually conflicting, but perhaps misstated. That is to say, maybe what you don't mind is the concept of taxation as such. Yet you acknowledge that the actual people who, today, are charged with coercing money out of you are not spending it wisely or in line with your values. So of course you must mind. Otherwise why even mention that?
ekianjo 9y ago
> There are plenty of poor places with people starving No, actually there's not. Starvation is mostly linked to conflict zones nowadays. In normal conditions starvation is pretty much a problem from the past. Look at the WHO report on poverty and how things have clearly improved since, let's say the 70s or 80s.
- bolelang 9y ago
  Where I live is not a conflict zone, yet there are people who are starving. The monetary system is not coping with rationing the resources to all in a just manner. People don't have jobs. They don't have the capital to put their ideas to action. Those who have done so, still discover that they need money to market their products and services.
maskedSlacker 9y ago
But that's not caused by SCARCITY. Scarcity means there isn't enough food. That's not the problem we have. There is enough food to feed everyone. It's just owned by the wrong people.
- winstonewert 9y ago
  Scarcity in economics doesn't mean "not enough" right now, it means that if it were free there wouldn't be enough. If food were free, production would drop sharply and most of would starve.
  - kakwa_ 9y ago
    > If food were free, production would drop sharply and most of would starve. I don't understand why, free food doesn't mean that farmers would work for free. Not going to the extreme failure that was the Soviet collectivization, governments could use part of their tax revenue and pay salary and/or for the harvest to the farmers and redistribute the result. Given the amount of subventions in the US or the EU, we are partially there. It would be a small shift in our mentalities: food is a necessary item to live, we must all contribute equally for it (as a society) and have easy access to it. If anything I would be more worry about increasing the quantity of food wasted. Paying, even a little, can be necessary to signify that food is not infinite and growing from nothing, and thus, should not be wasted.
    - StudentStuff 9y ago
      > free food doesn't mean that farmers would work for free. Definitely, we already heavily subsidize farmers, if the sole source buyer became the federal gov't we could cut out the middle men (Kroger, Walmart, the distribution warehouse chains, food staple speculators) and create a stable food supply for everyone. Perhaps charge a piecemeal amount beyond a certain quantity, to reduce waste. > the extreme failure that was the Soviet collectivization Well, when you come in and break up the existing communes at gunpoint, you can't be surprised that their output drops to zero, combined with forcing the remaining peasants you haven't killed to form farming collectives. Locally organized farming communes are quite productive, but you need buy-in from members, which takes time, effort, and proper economic incentives.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

Exactly. We could feed, house, and care for everyone, if we wanted to. The main problem is that we're still stuck on the agricultural notion that the moral right to live must be purchased through labor or capital.

kazinator 9y ago
Does this "we" include yourself, personally? How many have you fed, housed and cared for this past month, and is it completely with no strings attached (no capital or labor of any kind expected from them --- only from yourself?) Or if not, what is the blocker?
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  I'd be happy to pay more taxes to get, at the very least, better social services for those who can't support themselves. I want to live in a world that cares for those people. If you prefer a selfish motivation, I also want those services to be available for me and my loved ones, should they be needed in the future. The blocker is that I don't have the time, expertise, bargaining power, or economies of scale to efficiently turn my money into social services. Governments are much better suited to that task, and some do so reasonably effectively. (e.g. universal health care, in countries that provide it.)
  - harry8 9y ago
    Take how much extra tax you are willing to pay. Pay it to charity that best supports those ideals. If you're not already doing this people will suggest talk is cheap and posturing has a negative value to society at large. Good luck with it!
    - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
      I do give to charity, actually. That hardly precludes me from wishing my money, and others', was used more efficiently. I feel like this isn't going how you were expecting. I was supposed to be exposed as a hollow "progressive" who's free with other people's money but is secretly a grasping hypocrite. You shouldn't assume everyone is selfish just because you are.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        To add to your point - and not a detractor from your point, just because you don't have the means to solve a problem doesn't mean your not qualified to point it out. You may not know how to fix it, but you can probably point out when you've got a compound fracture. If it isn't you with the broken bone, you're probably qualified to suggest that it probably is quite painful. I've donated a fair sum already this month. I'm no more entitled to opine about the system than you are. It doesn't work like that. Like you, I don't mind paying taxes. Hell, I look forward to seeing my tax bill. I also acknowledge I can pay more. Err... I'm not kidding. I don't mind paying my taxes. I kind of like paying back to the system that enabled me to be where I am. On the other hand, I seriously wish they'd spend that money more wisely, or at least more in line with my values. I grow weary of seeing functional equivalents to, "You're not solving the problem, your opinion is invalid." You don't have to contribute significantly to the solution to notice the problems. I feel that sort of thinking is just an excuse to maintain the status quo.
        kazinator 9y ago
        Re: "that enabled me to be where I am". There is no evidence-based way to determine where you would be in a parallel universe with different rules. "I don't mind paying taxes." ... "I seriously wish they'd spend that money more wisely, or at least more in line with my values". It's irrational to say, "I don't mind that money is being coerced from me by people who are squandering it and using it in ways that are not in line with my values." I don't think that your position is actually conflicting, but perhaps misstated. That is to say, maybe what you don't mind is the concept of taxation as such. Yet you acknowledge that the actual people who, today, are charged with coercing money out of you are not spending it wisely or in line with your values. So of course you must mind. Otherwise why even mention that?

ekianjo 9y ago

> There are plenty of poor places with people starving No, actually there's not. Starvation is mostly linked to conflict zones nowadays. In normal conditions starvation is pretty much a problem from the past. Look at the WHO report on poverty and how things have clearly improved since, let's say the 70s or 80s.

bolelang 9y ago
Where I live is not a conflict zone, yet there are people who are starving. The monetary system is not coping with rationing the resources to all in a just manner. People don't have jobs. They don't have the capital to put their ideas to action. Those who have done so, still discover that they need money to market their products and services.

maskedSlacker 9y ago

But that's not caused by SCARCITY. Scarcity means there isn't enough food. That's not the problem we have. There is enough food to feed everyone. It's just owned by the wrong people.

winstonewert 9y ago
Scarcity in economics doesn't mean "not enough" right now, it means that if it were free there wouldn't be enough. If food were free, production would drop sharply and most of would starve.
- kakwa_ 9y ago
  > If food were free, production would drop sharply and most of would starve. I don't understand why, free food doesn't mean that farmers would work for free. Not going to the extreme failure that was the Soviet collectivization, governments could use part of their tax revenue and pay salary and/or for the harvest to the farmers and redistribute the result. Given the amount of subventions in the US or the EU, we are partially there. It would be a small shift in our mentalities: food is a necessary item to live, we must all contribute equally for it (as a society) and have easy access to it. If anything I would be more worry about increasing the quantity of food wasted. Paying, even a little, can be necessary to signify that food is not infinite and growing from nothing, and thus, should not be wasted.
  - StudentStuff 9y ago
    > free food doesn't mean that farmers would work for free. Definitely, we already heavily subsidize farmers, if the sole source buyer became the federal gov't we could cut out the middle men (Kroger, Walmart, the distribution warehouse chains, food staple speculators) and create a stable food supply for everyone. Perhaps charge a piecemeal amount beyond a certain quantity, to reduce waste. > the extreme failure that was the Soviet collectivization Well, when you come in and break up the existing communes at gunpoint, you can't be surprised that their output drops to zero, combined with forcing the remaining peasants you haven't killed to form farming collectives. Locally organized farming communes are quite productive, but you need buy-in from members, which takes time, effort, and proper economic incentives.