3 ms·

Historically, we (i don't know who you are) provided both solidarity & charity.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> we (i don't know who you are) provided both solidarity & charity Empirically, no. Most humans facing food insecurity starved.
- wnc3141 2y ago
  With fewer than 2% of people employed in agriculture, the US produces more food than needed for ten billion people. Capital distributions are the source of declining wealth for most people. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W270RE1A156NBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W270RE1A156NBEA Of course the common course provided food insecurity. See the book why nations fail. -- making markets necessary, but excessive capital concentration (rent seeking) also reduces the productive capacity of an economy via, restricting capital flows through verticals.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Super interesting, thank you. Unfortunately, not relevant to someone who doesn’t have labour to sell.
    - yellowapple 2y ago
      The notion that labor must be sold for basic survival is in and of itself the problem.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > notion that labor must be sold for basic survival is in and of itself the problem One, this isn't a thing in the developed world. Two, why not? Existence isn't free, and denying that reality is bound to lead to problems. Strong communities tend to start with acknowledging the reality that is the cost of existing. From that flows the value of existence, the value of others' existence to one's own, and thus, altruism.
        yellowapple 2y ago
        > One, this isn't a thing in the developed world. I mean, if you're saying that the US doesn't count as "the developed world" then I'd agree with you, but otherwise I'd encourage you to take a field trip to your local river banks and highway underpasses if you want to see what happens if you fail to sell your labor. > Existence isn't free It'd be pretty darn close to it if the means of said existence weren't hoarded and price-gouged for the sake of profiteering and rentseeking. We have enough food in the US to end world hunger. Most cities have more vacant homes than they have homeless persons. Any supposed scarcity of basic essentials is artificial. > Strong communities tend to start with acknowledging the reality that is the cost of existing. Strong communities tend to start with acknowledging that their members deserve to have food to eat, clothes on their backs, and rooves over their heads, and are consequently willing to operate on a principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > take a field trip to your local river banks and highway underpasses if you want to see what happens if you fail to sell your labor Very few of those folks are there because they're ready and willing to work but just can't find a job. (Those who are, the transitional homeless, tend to find one.) > We have enough food in the US to end world hunger We have enough atoms in the universe for anything. Getting them to the right place is the challenge. Ending world hunger would require massively decreasing living standards in the rich world. Your aforementioned homeless under a bridge have better access to resources than much of the human population.
        yellowapple 2y ago
        > Very few of those folks are there because they're ready and willing to work but just can't find a job. (Those who are, the transitional homeless, tend to find one.) Most of the chronically homeless started off as transitionally homeless. The longer you're in that hole, the harder it is to climb out - and the greater the psychological toll, and the greater the temptation to turn to drugs/alcohol to numb the psychological and physical suffering resulting from being in that hole. > Ending world hunger would require massively decreasing living standards in the rich world. I very much doubt that. But fine, we can start by ending hunger in the "rich" world.

> we (i don't know who you are) provided both solidarity & charity Empirically, no. Most humans facing food insecurity starved.

wnc3141 2y ago
With fewer than 2% of people employed in agriculture, the US produces more food than needed for ten billion people. Capital distributions are the source of declining wealth for most people. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W270RE1A156NBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W270RE1A156NBEA Of course the common course provided food insecurity. See the book why nations fail. -- making markets necessary, but excessive capital concentration (rent seeking) also reduces the productive capacity of an economy via, restricting capital flows through verticals.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Super interesting, thank you. Unfortunately, not relevant to someone who doesn’t have labour to sell.
  - yellowapple 2y ago
    The notion that labor must be sold for basic survival is in and of itself the problem.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > notion that labor must be sold for basic survival is in and of itself the problem One, this isn't a thing in the developed world. Two, why not? Existence isn't free, and denying that reality is bound to lead to problems. Strong communities tend to start with acknowledging the reality that is the cost of existing. From that flows the value of existence, the value of others' existence to one's own, and thus, altruism.
      - yellowapple 2y ago
        > One, this isn't a thing in the developed world. I mean, if you're saying that the US doesn't count as "the developed world" then I'd agree with you, but otherwise I'd encourage you to take a field trip to your local river banks and highway underpasses if you want to see what happens if you fail to sell your labor. > Existence isn't free It'd be pretty darn close to it if the means of said existence weren't hoarded and price-gouged for the sake of profiteering and rentseeking. We have enough food in the US to end world hunger. Most cities have more vacant homes than they have homeless persons. Any supposed scarcity of basic essentials is artificial. > Strong communities tend to start with acknowledging the reality that is the cost of existing. Strong communities tend to start with acknowledging that their members deserve to have food to eat, clothes on their backs, and rooves over their heads, and are consequently willing to operate on a principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > take a field trip to your local river banks and highway underpasses if you want to see what happens if you fail to sell your labor Very few of those folks are there because they're ready and willing to work but just can't find a job. (Those who are, the transitional homeless, tend to find one.) > We have enough food in the US to end world hunger We have enough atoms in the universe for anything. Getting them to the right place is the challenge. Ending world hunger would require massively decreasing living standards in the rich world. Your aforementioned homeless under a bridge have better access to resources than much of the human population.
        yellowapple 2y ago
        > Very few of those folks are there because they're ready and willing to work but just can't find a job. (Those who are, the transitional homeless, tend to find one.) Most of the chronically homeless started off as transitionally homeless. The longer you're in that hole, the harder it is to climb out - and the greater the psychological toll, and the greater the temptation to turn to drugs/alcohol to numb the psychological and physical suffering resulting from being in that hole. > Ending world hunger would require massively decreasing living standards in the rich world. I very much doubt that. But fine, we can start by ending hunger in the "rich" world.