No one is starving in this country!

[specious_reasons]

From ShaneK"
No one is starving in this country. Not even the unemployed. And it's not due to anything the government has done, but to the wealth the market has created for everyone.

http://www.mannafoodbank.org/faceofhunger/faceofhunger.html

America's Second Harvest estimates that 23.3 million Americans were receiving emergency food aid in 2001 just before the economic downturn and September 11th.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr35/
by way of
http://www.frac.org/html/news/103103foodInsecurity.htm

In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in households experiencing food insecurity, compared to 33.6 million in 2001 and 31 million in 1999. 11.1 percent of US households (12 million households) experienced either food insecurity or hunger in 2002.

9.4 million of these individuals lived in households in the worst circumstances and experienced outright hunger. One in ten households (9.7 percent) with incomes below 185 percent of the federal poverty line experienced hunger.

Few people seem to be actually starving, but many people are going hungry. I guess he's technically correct.....

[Badger]

From the articles:

hunger is defined as the uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food

This seems to me to be a poor measure of deprivation. Based on this definition, my teenaged boys "go hungry" every 20 minutes. I fail to see how this hunger is a negative thing in their lives.

It would have been much better if there'd been some minimum caloric/nutritional requirement given.

The fact that people AREN'T starving here, is a good thing.

[specious_reasons]

I think you're parsing words, Badger:

http://www.frac.org/html/news/103103foodInsecurity.htm

Food insecure households are those that are not able, for financial reasons, to access a sufficient diet at all times in the past 12 months. Households labeled hungry are those where one or more household members experienced hunger due to lack of financial resources at some time in the past 12 months.

[American]

The point is, they don't HAVE to starve. There is ample charity if they need it and aren't too proud or mentally ill to accept it.

[Badger]

Yes, and hunger is defined as stated, right?

So, if I don't eat a bowl of cereal as a midnight snack, because I'm leaving it for the kids for breakfast, that classifies my household as "hungry", because I didn't have enough money to buy an extra box of cereal.

I'm sort of being facetious here, but the point I'm trying to make is that people may FEEL hungry, but they're not in any danger, whatsoever. If one is used to supersized meals, ones' body adjusts, so when one doesn't get a supersized meal, one feels unfulfilled. While this may be hunger, I fail to see how it is a problem.

The problem is lack of caloric and nutrient intake such that their "active, healthy life for all household members" (from your previously cited http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr35/ article) is affected. And this would include low energy levels in kids and adults, decreased ability to concentrate at work, and school, etc.

Also, there is a connection between feelings of hunger, and lack of hydration. One of the signs of thirst is hunger, and people often confuse the two, so they eat something instead of having a glass of water.

Hunger is too subjective, as defined here, for my liking.

[American]

Originally posted by Badger
Yes, and hunger is defined as stated, right?

So, if I don't eat a bowl of cereal as a midnight snack, because I'm leaving it for the kids for breakfast, that classifies my household as "hungry", because I didn't have enough money to buy an extra box of cereal.

I'm sort of being facetious here, but the point I'm trying to make is that people may FEEL hungry, but they're not in any danger, whatsoever. If one is used to supersized meals, ones' body adjusts, so when one doesn't get a supersized meal, one feels unfulfilled. While this may be hunger, I fail to see how it is a problem.

The problem is lack of caloric and nutrient intake such that their "active, healthy life for all household members" (from your previously cited http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr35/ article) is affected. And this would include low energy levels in kids and adults, decreased ability to concentrate at work, and school, etc.

Also, there is a connection between feelings of hunger, and lack of hydration. One of the signs of thirst is hunger, and people often confuse the two, so they eat something instead of having a glass of water.

Hunger is too subjective, as defined here, for my liking.


Yup. Before I got a job and became a Rich Guy, I was buying $1 MREs (not even MREs, they were just meals in a plastic pouch). I sat in an empty room with no furniture and sucked them out, cause I didn't have the cash for a plate. (Why would you buy a plate if you didn't have furniture? Put the plate on the floor?)

I felt hungry, and it was depressing, but there was no chance of starvation. The real question is, if I didn't have $5 a day to eat, would I have gone to a shelter? It was there if I needed it, not that I knew exactly how to get there, or had the ability to call social services and find out.

Those days are long gone. Funny thing is... I think I was happier then.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
From ShaneK"


http://www.mannafoodbank.org/faceofhunger/faceofhunger.html



http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr35/
by way of
http://www.frac.org/html/news/103103foodInsecurity.htm



Few people seem to be actually starving, but many people are going hungry. I guess he's technically correct.....

I think a more important question here is who is malnourished (unwillingly) and how many people die from starvation (unwillingly) in USA. I believe the answer would be close to 0.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Grammatron

I think a more important question here is who is malnourished (unwillingly) and how many people die from starvation (unwillingly) in USA. I believe the answer would be close to 0.

34.9 million people lived in households experience food insecurity. I would imagine that this condition is not voluntary. It is a credit to American society that so many of the people who have trouble paying for their own food can find that food through charity or government programs.

There just seemed to be a hyperbole in the original claim, that because people weren't starving, somehow people were doing well in this regard.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


34.9 million people lived in households experience food insecurity. I would imagine that this condition is not voluntary. It is a credit to American society that so many of the people who have trouble paying for their own food can find that food through charity or government programs.

There just seemed to be a hyperbole in the original claim, that because people weren't starving, somehow people were doing well in this regard.

You did not answer my question though and the point shanek made still remains. No one is starving in this country. Everyone can access help that would provide them with enough nutrition to sustain them properly that is a fact that is yet to be proven wrong.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Grammatron

You did not answer my question though and the point shanek made still remains. No one is starving in this country. Everyone can access help that would provide them with enough nutrition to sustain them properly that is a fact that is yet to be proven wrong.

I would agree with you, and Shane, that very few people are involuntarily starving in this country. I have already said, it is a credit to American society that so many of the people who have trouble paying for their own food can find that food through charity or government programs.

If it wasn't clear in my OP, my point was what I stated later:
There just seemed to be a hyperbole in the original claim, that because people weren't starving, somehow people were doing well in this regard.

I have trouble believing that everyone in America has enough food to "sustain them properly." The concern by the linked organizations seems to indicate that. There are gaps in both charity and governmental programs. ...and from reading these sites, it seems that some government programs are more worried about preventing fraud than ensuring full access.

I suspect hunger is more of a problem in extremely rural areas, where access to food programs become more difficult.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


I would agree with you, and Shane, that very few people are involuntarily starving in this country. I have already said, it is a credit to American society that so many of the people who have trouble paying for their own food can find that food through charity or government programs.

If it wasn't clear in my OP, my point was what I stated later:
There just seemed to be a hyperbole in the original claim, that because people weren't starving, somehow people were doing well in this regard.

I have trouble believing that everyone in America has enough food to "sustain them properly." The concern by the linked organizations seems to indicate that. There are gaps in both charity and governmental programs. ...and from reading these sites, it seems that some government programs are more worried about preventing fraud than ensuring full access.

I suspect hunger is more of a problem in extremely rural areas, where access to food programs become more difficult.

Why don't you conduct an experiment if you don't believe anyone? Dress up as someone needy and ask people for food (not money) and see if you are able to get anything to eat. Also, try to see if you can get fed at homeless shelters and such. If you are unable to obtain proper nutrition from either I will believe you and take up a cause to feed all those who are starving.

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Few people seem to be actually starving, but many people are going hungry. I guess he's technically correct.....

Yes, there are people going hungry; I've acknowledged that almost every time I've made the starvation claim. But going hungry and malnutrition, while are certainly problems, are NOT the same as starvation. "Going hungry" means skipping meals, or going more than a day without food. "Malnutrition" means not getting enough of the vitamins and minerals that you need. "Starving" is going through the terrible, terrible agony of having nothing to eat for so long that you die as a result. Every other culture throughout history had this problem until the US licked it with the wealth generated in its free markets...BEFORE any such government handouts existed.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, there are people going hungry; I've acknowledged that almost every time I've made the starvation claim. But going hungry and malnutrition, while are certainly problems, are NOT the same as starvation. "Going hungry" means skipping meals, or going more than a day without food. "Malnutrition" means not getting enough of the vitamins and minerals that you need. "Starving" is going through the terrible, terrible agony of having nothing to eat for so long that you die as a result. Every other culture throughout history had this problem until the US licked it with the wealth generated in its free markets...BEFORE any such government handouts existed.

I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong, but that acknowledgement seems to be missing from the "minimum wage" thread. That's where your quote comes from.

The point I wanted to make, (and extracted it into it's own thread), was that because people aren't "starving" doesn't mean people are surviving well.

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong, but that acknowledgement seems to be missing from the "minimum wage" thread. That's where your quote comes from.

In post:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870068018#post1870068018

Ion had said:

Earthborn told you, and I tell you, to look at the poor, who are starving.

And I said:

NO THEY AREN'T. They may be going hungry, but that's not the same thing.

The point I wanted to make, (and extracted it into it's own thread), was that because people aren't "starving" doesn't mean people are surviving well.

We became the first country ANYWHERE to conquer the problem of starvation. In my opinion, that is a greater achievement than heavier-than-air flight or putting a man on the moon! Why do you people insist on downplaying one of the most significant achievements in the history of manking?

"There's more to life than food..." "Just because you're not 'starving' doesn't mean people are surviving well..." Man, this isn't even a glass-half-empty thing! The glass has been fuller at any time than it has been in the entire history of mankind and you people are just shrugging it off and griping about how much hasn't been done...which is the key point, since, because you don't acknowledge what has been done, you fail to see the solution that will also work for the things we have yet to do.

[shanek]

And by the way, there's already a thread dedicated to examining this topic and how rich our poor actually are:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27305

[epepke]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I think a more important question here is who is malnourished (unwillingly) and how many people die from starvation (unwillingly) in USA. I believe the answer would be close to 0.

Malnutrition is still somewhat of a problem; you still see pellagra in the South. Starvation is not a problem. And even malnutrition is rare nowadays, mostly due to Federal requirements to add vitamins to staples like white flour.

Within the past five years, I've been living-in-a-shack-in-the-woods poor, but still, starvation was never even a remote possibility.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek


In post:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870068018#post1870068018


We became the first country ANYWHERE to conquer the problem of starvation. In my opinion, that is a greater achievement than heavier-than-air flight or putting a man on the moon! Why do you people insist on downplaying one of the most significant achievements in the history of manking?

"There's more to life than food..." "Just because you're not 'starving' doesn't mean people are surviving well..." Man, this isn't even a glass-half-empty thing! The glass has been fuller at any time than it has been in the entire history of mankind and you people are just shrugging it off and griping about how much hasn't been done...which is the key point, since, because you don't acknowledge what has been done, you fail to see the solution that will also work for the things we have yet to do.

I told you I'd admit I was wrong... You at least acknowledge people are going hungry even now. ...and there is a disctinction between starvation and hunger, I'll agree.

I think the primary difference is the value judgement I place on this issue. To me, the glass isn't full enough. The distinction between "starvation" and "hunger" or "food insecurity" isn't pleasant, and there doesn't even have to hunger in this world.

As an aside, I'm having trouble locating any kind of historical data on this subject. Does anyone know where to find them?

[shanek]

Originally posted by epepke
Malnutrition is still somewhat of a problem;

Sure; but again, starvation is the more severe problem, so it seems only natural that the free market would conquer that problem first. And malnutrition is less of a problem now than it used to be.

I'm saying we have the perfect and proven solution for all of this within our grasp. Let's use it!

[Gem]

Just for the heck of it: When was starvation conquered? I don't want a precise date, just a general time where it ended.

Gem

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
As an aside, I'm having trouble locating any kind of historical data on this subject. Does anyone know where to find them?

What you have to really look for is the absence of statistics. With the exception of the Great Depression, there are just no figures on starvation in the US for about 100 years. Particularly telling is the 1917 resolution of Woodrow Wilson which talks about the problem of starvation in the country...and yet, not the Census, not the Historical Statistics of the US, none of them even mention starvation in that year. If it were such a problem, don't you think it would have been at least mentioned by those who compiled such statistics?

[reprise]

What are the conditions for obtaining food relief in the US?

We, too, have many charities which offer food relief but the amount of relief available varies enormously as does the conditions which have to be met in order to obtain that relief. There are almost no services here which can offer immediate, same day, relief, and many appointments to obtain relief have to be booked a week in advance. Similarly, almost all relief organisation place limits on the amount of times one can obtain assistance (usually once every 3 months or once every 6 months).

Although "soup kitchens" do exist in the Sydney metropolitan area, they are few and far between and the fares to get to them by public transport might make them inaccessible for a family.

My family takes part in a Department of Health survey which is conducted every 6 months and runs through a long list of questions related to food and finances. A disturbingly high number of low income families are going without meals on a regular basis due to lack of finances. There is also a trend towards "pre-payday truancy" in my area - ie, children being kept home from school for a couple of days before pay day because their parents have no food in the cupboards which is suitable for school lunch. Many schools in this area have initiated breakfast programmes because a significant number of their students were coming to school without having eaten before school.

By world standards, our disadvantaged are well nourished, but they are not necessarily adequately nourished to maintain the level of health and well-being necessary to meet the demands of the society in which they live and function.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
If it were such a problem, don't you think it would have been at least mentioned by those who compiled such statistics?An old adage comes to mind...

"Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence."

I'm sorry, but you'll have to do better than that to prove that there was no more starvation in the US in 1917. Especially since statistics from that period were not up to the standards of today.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Earthborn
An old adage comes to mind...

"Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence."

I'm sorry, but you'll have to do better than that to prove that there was no more starvation in the US in 1917. Especially since statistics from that period were not up to the standards of today.

Do you have evidence that the statistics of 1917 were not up to the standards of today? :p

[epepke]

Originally posted by reprise
What are the conditions for obtaining food relief in the US?

We, too, have many charities which offer food relief but the amount of relief available varies enormously as does the conditions which have to be met in order to obtain that relief. There are almost no services here which can offer immediate, same day, relief, and many appointments to obtain relief have to be booked a week in advance. Similarly, almost all relief organisation place limits on the amount of times one can obtain assistance (usually once every 3 months or once every 6 months).


I think that the system works a bit differently in the US. As for emergency needs, in the town where I live with a population of 150,000, there are several places one can go to get a meal.

For chronic poverty, there are two Federal programs: the Food Stamps program and the Women, Infants, and Children program. Apart from that, there are state programs, which vary, of course. For kids, most public schools have breakfast and lunch programs, which are cheap for everyone, and poor families in most places can get vouchers so that they are free.

It is also possible to use informal methods. There are bakery thrift stores that sell expired bread; I've gotten a loaf for as little as ten cents. Most grocery stores will give away damaged fruit and vegetables. There used to be more surplus food programs, but tight health regulations have closed a lot of them down. Hospital cafeterias are always incredibly cheap.

It is not difficult to eat quite well most places on a dollar or two per day, even without cooking for yourself or using Federal or state programs. In rural areas it's tougher, but then again, there's also hunting and fishing.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by reprise
What are the conditions for obtaining food relief in the US?

We, too, have many charities which offer food relief but the amount of relief available varies enormously as does the conditions which have to be met in order to obtain that relief.

Absence of evidence that people are dying of starvation doesn't mean that it isn't a problem. From what I know about deprivation (admittedly not much), the Poor tend to die of diseases like pneumonia. They can't afford food that provides them with the necessary nutrients to build a strong immune system, so they're more likely to catch a serious case of whatever illnes is going around.

Even in the UK, where we have free healthcare, life expectancy in deprived areas is up to 7 years less than in weathly areas (http://www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/depofhealth.asp?pageid=13 ).

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by epepke
For chronic poverty, there are two Federal programs: the Food Stamps program and the Women, Infants, and Children program.

And the reason for discriminating against adult males is?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
An old adage comes to mind...

"Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence."

Then why did they list just about every other problem? Why did they list malnutrition, for example, and not even mention starvation if starvation was any kind of problem?

They didn't mention those who died by being trampled to death in an armadillo stampede. From that, I think we can logically conclude that there were none, or at least not enough to make it even worth mentioning.

You know perfectly well that it's hard to prove a negative, so we CAN make this conclusion from the absence of statistics in the sources where the statistic is supposed to be!

Sorry, but jumping over to the woo-woo tactics doesn't help you here.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Absence of evidence that people are dying of starvation doesn't mean that it isn't a problem. From what I know about deprivation (admittedly not much), the Poor tend to die of diseases like pneumonia. They can't afford food that provides them with the necessary nutrients to build a strong immune system, so they're more likely to catch a serious case of whatever illnes is going around.

Granted, but that still isn't starvation. Why are so many people trying to deny this magnificent achievement?

[Tmy]

I agree that there arent many starving people in the US. And even less "hungry children". Thats such a crock. If you have a child your pretty much garunteed food and a roof over yourhead.

I do not agree that it has nothing to do with the govt. Quite the opposite. If soemone is in dire straits they are then helped by soem govt agency or a charity that probably gets a good chunk of $$ from the govt.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by shanek


Granted, but that still isn't starvation. Why are so many people trying to deny this magnificent achievement?

Very few people probably actually die of "starvation" (by your definition) in sub-Saharan Africa, either. AIDS, malaria, and dehydration probably get most of them first.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
Why did they list malnutrition, for example, and not even mention starvation if starvation was any kind of problem?Okay, so you want specifically the word 'starvation'. Malnutrition doesn't sound bad enough for you?

So, how severe was this malnutrition, anyway?They didn't mention those who died by being trampled to death in an armadillo stampede. From that, I think we can logically conclude that there were none, or at least not enough to make it even worth mentioning.I don't think you can logically make that conclusion, even though it is a reasonable assumption.You know perfectly well that it's hard to prove a negative, so we CAN make this conclusion from the absence of statistics in the sources where the statistic is supposed to be!You are the one who wants to prove a negative: you want to prove that there is no starvation, that is there are no people dying because of shortage of food.

Precisely because it is hard to prove a negative, you can't logically conclude that it didn't exist. You can assume whatever you want, some assumptions are just more reasonable than others.

Since you have no proof that it stopped at a specific moment in time, you have nothing to show what caused the end of starvation in the US. Was it the government? The free market? Or just the fact that it was an awfully big country providing an awfull lot of resources to relatively few people?Why are so many people trying to deny this magnificent achievement?Nobody is denying it was a magnificent achievement. Nobody! There are just a few people who are not entirely convinced by your argument (unsupported by any actual evidence) that it was purely the 'free market' that caused it, and the government had nothing to do with it.

[c0rbin]

I suspect hunger is more of a problem in extremely rural areas, where access to food programs become more difficult.

Squirrel is goood eatin'

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by specious_reasons

... it seems that some government programs are more worried about preventing fraud than ensuring full access.


Fraud prevents access to food for the people who need it, not the government program.

I recently spent a little over two months unemployed. Hardly a life-threatening situation, but it gave me some insight into how things work when you are down and out.

WIC (Women, Infants and Children) provides food vouchers for pregnant women and for children. You get cheese, cereal, milk, eggs, peanut butter, juice, and that is about it. No meat or a lot of other things. You won't starve to death, but it ain't great.

I have also helped people who were homeless due to drug and alcohol addictions find food and shelter. Again, they weren't going to freeze to death or starve, but it ain't great. But how much could/should we do for these people? To give them any money at all is to feed their addiction. You could literally kill them with kindness.

There are kids in America who are indeed starving. But it isn't our nation's or our society's fault. They just have been cursed with having been born to some really screwed up parents. This is not a Republican or Democrat problem. It is a human problem. One we will never entirely defeat.

[Luke T.]

Oh. I lost my train of thought. I just wanted to add that I saw the ability to commit fraud as pathetically easy with WIC. It took an act of will not to commit fraud. That's how wide open to fraud they are.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
. . .There just seemed to be a hyperbole in the original claim, that because people weren't starving, somehow people were doing well in this regard.

Granted that it's all relative, but compared to large parts of the rest of the world, if your're not starving you are doing well.

[Larspeart]

I don't believe that figure (34 million people). The US has around 290 Million people, so they are trying to tell me that 12% of the population is hungry?

Unless they mean 'I sure could use a bag of Doritos right now, because I skipped lunch'-hungry, that number is INSANELY high.

And yes, there is a massive distinction between 'hungry' and 'starving'.

Ask an Ethiopian what 'STARVING' feels like. I will PROMISE you you have never felt that sensation.

[Gem]

Why are so many people trying to deny this magnificent achievement?

I think people are more skeptical that it was the free market that solved the problem rather than denying it. I'm not sure if I mentioned it, but the industrial revolution, the westward expansion of the railroads, and a flood of immigrants who went to work in the farms, must have contributed greatly.

And also, before the industrial age, many people in America lived in "Family Farms." So there are many more factors to consider besides the economic model of the time.

Gem

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

And the reason for discriminating against adult males is?

This is strictly from memory, so I may be wrong:

IIRC, food stamps don't. WIC is based on the idea that lifetime health is severely hampered by malnutrition at an early age. So, the program is specifically targetted at young children and their mothers.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Gem

I think people are more skeptical that it was the free market that solved the problem rather than denying it. I'm not sure if I mentioned it, but the industrial revolution, the westward expansion of the railroads, and a flood of immigrants who went to work in the farms, must have contributed greatly.


And don't forget the invention of artifical fertilizer - the "farming revolution" this created has probably meant as much for the progress throughout the 20tieth century as the industrialization did.

Of course, even post WW-II Soviet Union managed to defeat starvation as a problem, so Shanek's claim that it was the free market that solved this problem seems unfounded.

I might be mistaken, but I was of the impression that most of the cases of large-scale starvation in the modern age is not so much caused by a lack of available food, as it is caused by the inability to distribute the food that is available in a timely manner.

[Earthborn]

Could someone explain to me why in the US people don't get money but all these kinds of silly coupons and vouchers that are even easier to forge than dollar bills (and that says a lot!). What is the logic of all these different programs instead of just giving people the money and allowing them to choose for themselves what to do with it?

And is it true that people on welfare (almost) always get their welfare in the form of welfare checks? I understand that being a mail delivery person in the US is a dangerous business, as there is always a specific day in the month that they carry lots of welfare checks around and often get mugged. Can't the government just put the money on people's bank accounts? Or do poor people in the US not have bank accounts for some reason?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Could someone explain to me why in the US people don't get money but all these kinds of silly coupons and vouchers that are even easier to forge than dollar bills (and that says a lot!). What is the logic of all these different programs instead of just giving people the money and allowing them to choose for themselves what to do with it?

And is it true that people on welfare (almost) always get their welfare in the form of welfare checks? I understand that being a mail delivery person in the US is a dangerous business, as there is always a specific day in the month that they carry lots of welfare checks around and often get mugged. Can't the government just put the money on people's bank accounts? Or do poor people in the US not have bank accounts for some reason?

Well "silly coupons and vouchers" are not easy to forge and people get them instead of money because the reason most people are poor has to do with what they spend money on and not how much they made/make.

I'm not aware of any mass muggings of postal workers for welfare checks so I don't believe it's a problem. Also attacking a mail delivery person is a federal offense something most criminals are not willing to commit. As far as bank accounts go, yeah most poor people don't have them plus it's an extra effort in time and money to figure out who has what bank account, if they have a bank account and does that bank accept electronic transfers. It's easier and more efficient to send a check.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Well "silly coupons and vouchers" are not easy to forgeHave you actually seen one of them (http://www.yolocounty.org/org/health/images/WICvoucher.jpg)? Or one of these (http://www.extension.umn.edu/mnimpacts/pictures/foodstamp.jpg)? It's not like the old Dutch banknotes or anything... Or Euros. So they are easily forged.and people get them instead of money because the reason most people are poor has to do with what they spend money on and not how much they made/make.So what happened to 'holding people responsible for their own decisions' and 'you nanny statists think people are too stupid to care for themselves' ? Apperently you think the government must dictate what people do with the money they get.

Nanny Statist! :pAlso attacking a mail delivery person is a federal offense something most criminals are not willing to commit.Well, some people seem to disagree (http://www.freep.com/news/locway/mail20_20030220.htm). They are not the only ones (http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/1499815/detail.html).As far as bank accounts go, yeah most poor people don't have themWhy not? Is there some reasons banks to want to give them to poor people or what?plus it's an extra effort in time and money to figure out who has what bank account, if they have a bank account and does that bank accept electronic transfers. It's easier and more efficient to send a check.No, it is easier to ask a person who applies for welfare or other government benefit what his/her bank account is, and if this person doesn't have one to tell that he/she needs to get one. Assuming banks are willing to give poor people bank accounts of course.

Why should a bank not accept electronic transfers? What kind of backward country are you in anyhow? :p

[jj]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Well "silly coupons and vouchers" are not easy to forge and people get them instead of money because the reason most people are poor has to do with what they spend money on and not how much they made/make.

I'm not aware of any mass muggings of postal workers for welfare checks so I don't believe it's a problem. Also attacking a mail delivery person is a federal offense something most criminals are not willing to commit. As far as bank accounts go, yeah most poor people don't have them plus it's an extra effort in time and money to figure out who has what bank account, if they have a bank account and does that bank accept electronic transfers. It's easier and more efficient to send a check.

Hmm, my knowledge is back to the 1970's on this issue, but in fact there used to be quite a racket about stolen welfare checks in NYC.

Your point about why some people are poor is well-taken. I've stood behind someone who was livid that they couldn't buy a bottle of champaigne with food stamps, ditto various kinds of smokes. Such people can actually be rather, erm, alarming to be behind in the line.

But I also have known a lot of people who used food stamps resposibly. Most of them, though, got back into the economy as soon as they could get straightened around, except for those who went on to medicaid and death (some wasting diseases have, it seems, in this country, the "eat from food stamps and not get medical care" stage that comes before the "you qualify for medicaid" stage)...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Have you actually seen one of them (http://www.yolocounty.org/org/health/images/WICvoucher.jpg)? Or one of these (http://www.extension.umn.edu/mnimpacts/pictures/foodstamp.jpg)? It's not like the old Dutch banknotes or anything... Or Euros. So they are easily forged.

Yes I have seen and used them and the way the system works it's hard to forge them also it's not profitable to forge them. The biggest fraud associated with these is selling them for cash so people can feed their addictions.

So what happened to 'holding people responsible for their own decisions' and 'you nanny statists think people are too stupid to care for themselves' ? Apperently you think the government must dictate what people do with the money they get.Nanny Statist! :p

That paragraph makes no sense. I am arguing the responcible use of the social program not it's validity. Frankly I am against it, but that's a whole different argument.

My point is, the social program was designed so it would feed the people thus they get foodstamps. There is no good reason to give them money instead, if there is, please provide one.

Well, some people seem to disagree (http://www.freep.com/news/locway/mail20_20030220.htm). They are not the only ones (http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/1499815/detail.html).
That is why I said most and this is just anecdotal evidence that has nothing to do with welfare checks.

Why not? Is there some reasons banks to want to give them to poor people or what?No, it is easier to ask a person who applies for welfare or other government benefit what his/her bank account is, and if this person doesn't have one to tell that he/she needs to get one. Assuming banks are willing to give poor people bank accounts of course.

Why should a bank not accept electronic transfers? What kind of backward country are you in anyhow? :p

Why yes? You have not given me a good reason for why government should institute it nor do people complain about it as far as I know.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Very few people probably actually die of "starvation" (by your definition) in sub-Saharan Africa, either.

That is just absolutely untrue. From about ten seconds of Googling:

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/cf42e0b48b45ad76c1256c090052cb24?OpenDocument

14m people across southern Africa face the prospect of starvation and disease epidemics as famine threatens the region.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/fam-m11.shtml

A special report of the food prospects in Africa by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has warned that hundreds of thousands of Somalis are facing starvation...The Red Cross and UN have received reports from Somalia that people are dying of hunger and that severe malnutrition is widespread. More than 1 million people are desperately short of food and 400,000 are threatened with starvation.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/01/25/africa.famine/

The U.N. World Food Program (WFP) said in December that more than 38 million people across Africa are at risk of starvation.

Hardest hit are the Horn of Africa, where about 17.9 million people face severe food shortages, and southern Africa, where 16.41 million are at risk, the agency said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/13/magazine/13AFRICA.html?ex=1071637200&en=3a2d0d4c9d015483&ei=5070

The World Food Program warns that nearly 40 million Africans are struggling against starvation, a ''scale of suffering'' that is ''unprecedented.''

I got that from the first page of results. Why is it, then, that when a similar search is done for starvation in the US the only links Google can seem to come up with deal with the efforts of US aid, either through government or through charities, to combat starving elsewhere in the world?

Sounds like denial to me...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Okay, so you want specifically the word 'starvation'.

Since that is the claim I made, then yes.

Malnutrition doesn't sound bad enough for you?

It's not as bad as starvation.

Nobody is denying it was a magnificent achievement. Nobody!

Then what's with all the denial in this very thread?

As usual, your complete twisting of the logic causes you to miss the point.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
There are kids in America who are indeed starving.

Where?

But it isn't our nation's or our society's fault. They just have been cursed with having been born to some really screwed up parents.

If you'll look again at the "fattest poor people" thread, you'll see that parents tend to give their kids more food and take the hit themselves. If any children are starving in this country, it can only be due to gross negligence on the part of the parents, and I'm sorry, that doesnt count; just like anorexia sufferers don't count. The food is there for them.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Oh. I lost my train of thought. I just wanted to add that I saw the ability to commit fraud as pathetically easy with WIC. It took an act of will not to commit fraud. That's how wide open to fraud they are.

But how much fraud actually occurs? If people just aren't wanting to rip them off, then it really isn't worth their while to spend extra money and take extra security measures to stop something that isn't happening that much.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Larspeart
I don't believe that figure (34 million people). The US has around 290 Million people, so they are trying to tell me that 12% of the population is hungry?

Unless they mean 'I sure could use a bag of Doritos right now, because I skipped lunch'-hungry, that number is INSANELY high.

Actually, it does. By their definition, I'm "going hungry" every time I work late, because I do experience pain and discomfort due to lack of food in such occasions.

And yes, there is a massive distinction between 'hungry' and 'starving'.

The fact that people refuse to acknowledge this I can only conclude is due to them being spoiled by the wealth the free market has created for them.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
I think people are more skeptical that it was the free market that solved the problem rather than denying it. I'm not sure if I mentioned it, but the industrial revolution, the westward expansion of the railroads, and a flood of immigrants who went to work in the farms, must have contributed greatly.

And how was all of that not part of the free market?

[Earthborn]

My point is, the social program was designed so it would feed the people thus they get foodstamps. There is no good reason to give them money instead, if there is, please provide one.Alright...

1. It is cheaper. The government doesn't have to print food stamps but can instead just give the money directly.
2. People themselves are best able to decide how much money they need for food. If they decide to buy cheaper products, they can decide for themselves whether they want to spend the rest of the money for something else. Like the rent. Or a bottle of bubbly.
3. This reason is probably not something you care about at all, but I'll mention it anyway: people who buy food with foodstamps feel ashamed for doing so, as it marks them clearly as being poor. For them it would be more comfortable if they could just pay with banknotes or their PIN card, just like everybody else.That is why I said most and this is just anecdotal evidence that has nothing to do with welfare checks.This is not anecdotal evidence because it isn't just stories. These things actually happened and you check for yourself that they did. I made no claim whatsoever about how often these things occur, but the first article clearly shows that it is something that it concerns postal workers very much.

I think it has lots to do with welfare checks. Criminals don't attack postal workers if they don't think there might be something of value in the mail they are carrying. They are typically not interested in postcards, bills and taxforms. Is there anything else postal workers are often carrying around that is of any value? I can't think of anything.Why yes?I was asking why banks don't give poor people bank accounts. Could you explain that to me? Why are they not interested in raking in all the money these people will pay in debt?... nor do people complain about it as far as I know.Perhaps people don't know any better?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
And don't forget the invention of artifical fertilizer

Another innovation of the free market. You guys are making my point for me!

[Earthborn]

Malnutrition doesn't sound bad enough for you?It's not as bad as starvation.Well, it doesn't sound as bad. But it might as well be a eufemism of starvation. That's why I asked the most important question, which you cleverly ignored: how severe was this 'malnutrition' ?

Also, since your definition of 'starvation' doesn't include people dying from diseases because of a badly functioning immune system caused by a lack of nutrients, it seems to me that the end of this 'starvation' isn't caused by anything special about the US at all.
Death by a direct lack of food was probably quite rare through out human history, and limited only to very extreme circumstances. A human being can survive weeks, even months without any food, and in such a time people will almost always be able to find at least some food (squirrels even). Except perhaps in a siege of a city or something like that.

So the end of starvation as defined by you wasn't anything special at all. The starvation never even begun!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Death by a direct lack of food was probably quite rare through out human history,

No, it wasn't. In fact, as I've shown, it's still going on today in many places. This is just more denial.

A human being can survive weeks, even months without any food, and in such a time people will almost always be able to find at least some food (squirrels even).

But not always enough to survive.

So the end of starvation as defined by you wasn't anything special at all. The starvation never even begun!

Deny, deny, deny...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Alright...

1. It is cheaper. The government doesn't have to print food stamps but can instead just give the money directly.
I need to see evidence that it is indeed cheaper; since government prints money and food stamps I doubt it would be that much of a burden to be printing both.

2. People themselves are best able to decide how much money they need for food. If they decide to buy cheaper products, they can decide for themselves whether they want to spend the rest of the money for something else. Like the rent. Or a bottle of bubbly.
No people are not. That is mostly the reason why they are on such programs. And this is a food program, not rent. And this is not their money that is why they can't have a choice in the matter especially for things like "bubbly" which is nowhere near being a necessity. If they want a choice on the matter they should get their own money and pay for it. Like the old saying goes, beggars can't be choosers.

3. This reason is probably not something you care about at all, but I'll mention it anyway: people who buy food with foodstamps feel ashamed for doing so, as it marks them clearly as being poor. For them it would be more comfortable if they could just pay with banknotes or their PIN card, just like everybody else.
This is pretty much the same response as number two. The program is there to help them get on their feet not to help them have a comfortable life.

This is not anecdotal evidence because it isn't just stories. These things actually happened and you check for yourself that they did. I made no claim whatsoever about how often these things occur, but the first article clearly shows that it is something that it concerns postal workers very much.
You are confusing anecdotal with some other word as these are clearly anecdotal. In fact, the first article was about some crazy lady who could not wait a minute to get her $34 check. Are you saying everyone here is insane like that?

I think it has lots to do with welfare checks. Criminals don't attack postal workers if they don't think there might be something of value in the mail they are carrying. They are typically not interested in postcards, bills and taxforms. Is there anything else postal workers are often carrying around that is of any value? I can't think of anything.
There are a plethora of checks that get sent through post office any special reasons why you are so concerned about welfare checks?

I was asking why banks don't give poor people bank accounts. Could you explain that to me? Why are they not interested in raking in all the money these people will pay in debt?
Banks give accounts to anyone who has money to put in them. I don't see how you got out of my comments that banks don't give accounts to the poor.
Perhaps people don't know any better?
Once again, what is such a big deal with cashing the check or putting it in your bank account?

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it wasn't. In fact, as I've shown, it's still going on today in many places. This is just more denial.No it isn't denial, yes it stil happens in many places. Under very extreme circumstances that are quite rare. But the world is so big that it happens at all times at least somewhere.

You can even use it to argue against government intervention, because it usually happens when there are political struggles, like wars, which make people flee from more fertile grounds, or they end up locked up in a place no food can reach them and they can't get to a place with more food.

Such extreme circumstances have always existed, but they have also always been rare. In more natural circumstances people are almost always able to find enough food to survive, but not necessarily to thrive.But not always enough to survive.If they are not coerced to stay in one place with too little resources, they will almost always find enough food to survive. Certainly the people who landed in the US found themselves in places that provided provided enough nourishment to survive. Even the deserts in America are not as barren as those in Africa. It is not caused by the 'free market' but by nature.

Some may have starved, not because there wasn't enough food, but because they didn't know it was there. They lacked the knowledge Natives did have. I think that was pretty rare though, in most cases people didn't dare to travel so far from familiar territory.

And you haven't answered the question "How severe was the malnourishment?" You don't know do you? You just assume it wasn't severe and that the free market solved it nicely. I'm a bit skeptical of that. I think it might very well be close to what most people understand 'starvation' to be, although it probably isn't starvation according to your definition.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
No it isn't denial, yes it stil happens in many places. Under very extreme circumstances that are quite rare.

Define "rare," and submit evidence showing that, both now and throughout history, starvation in the world has been "rare."

You can even use it to argue against government intervention, because it usually happens when there are political struggles, like wars, which make people flee from more fertile grounds, or they end up locked up in a place no food can reach them and they can't get to a place with more food.

Well, that's the big thing: there's plenty of food that can be exported (a huge amount of the food used for world aid comes from the US; a lot of the rest is bought with capital from the US), but the governments are so corrupt and tyrannical they're basically not allowing the people to have it. Then you have those stupid "greenie" policies which say that they can't have things like genetically modified or hybrid crops.

It is not caused by the 'free market' but by nature.

This statement shows a profound ignorance of economics. The free market is a method of efficiently using finite and even scarce resources provided by nature.

And you haven't answered the question "How severe was the malnourishment?"

I did answer it: It wasn't severe enough to rise to the level of starvation. And that is the only answer that is relevant to my argument.

[Earthborn]

I need to see evidence that it is indeed cheaperI think it is fairly obvious. Food stamps are made of paper. Paper costs money. Food stamps are printed with ink. Ink costs money. Printing food stamps requires labour. Which costs money. So I think not making food stamps, not printing them with ink, and not using labour to print them is cheaper than doing these things.No people are not. That is mostly the reason why they are on such programs.So since we don't have such programs, people here are just more responsible?And this is not their money that is why they can't have a choice in the matter especially for things like "bubbly" which is nowhere near being a necessity.Ultimately, nobody owns anything (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-propertyrights.htm). So the fact that 'it is not their money' is not a reason to deny them some control over it. In fact, allowing people to have control over the resources they get (one way or another) is a fundamental cornerstone of capitalism. It makes sure that goods are more efficiently distributed among the people who may want them. What if someone eats less than the average person and can save up a bit of money for something nice for the holidays? What is the justification to deny this person to have this little pleasure in life?

If the foodstamp program is just for providing the necessities, then it should measure how much each person eats and only give that much in food stamps. Of course that would be virtually impossible, so you'll have to allow people some choices in foods no matter what. And if you allow that, I can't see any reason why someone should not be allowed to choose champagne.Are you saying everyone here is insane like that?No, I am saying that it (most likely) actually happened. And you can check the story. You can't check anecdotes. Here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31963&highlight=anecdotal+evidence) is a nice discussion on the definition of 'anecdote'. I'm in the camp of people that believe an anecdote is by definition not verifiable, and thus that something that is verifiable is not an anecdote.There are a plethora of checks that get sent through post office any special reasons why you are so concerned about welfare checks?You mean to say that people sent actual checks through the mail? You got to be kidding me! That's just nuts! Why on earth would anyone want to do such a thing?

Are you people still living in the Stone Age or something?Once again, what is such a big deal with cashing the check or putting it in your bank account?Listen, I will explain this only once: if poor people have bank accounts, the government can just electronically transfer the money to them and save a whole bunch of money on postage, paper and paperwork. And it might make the work for postal workers a bit safer.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I think it is fairly obvious. Food stamps are made of paper. Paper costs money. Food stamps are printed with ink. Ink costs money. Printing food stamps requires labour. Which costs money. So I think not making food stamps, not printing them with ink, and not using labour to print them is cheaper than doing these things.So since we don't have such programs, people here are just more responsible?Ultimately, nobody owns anything (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-propertyrights.htm). So the fact that 'it is not their money' is not a reason to deny them some control over it. In fact, allowing people to have control over the resources they get (one way or another) is a fundamental cornerstone of capitalism. It makes sure that goods are more efficiently distributed among the people who may want them. What if someone eats less than the average person and can save up a bit of money for something nice for the holidays? What is the justification to deny this person to have this little pleasure in life?

If the foodstamp program is just for providing the necessities, then it should measure how much each person eats and only give that much in food stamps. Of course that would be virtually impossible, so you'll have to allow people some choices in foods no matter what. And if you allow that, I can't see any reason why someone should not be allowed to choose champagne.No, I am saying that it (most likely) actually happened. And you can check the story. You can't check anecdotes. Here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31963&highlight=anecdotal+evidence) is a nice discussion on the definition of 'anecdote'. I'm in the camp of people that believe an anecdote is by definition not verifiable, and thus that something that is verifiable is not an anecdote.You mean to say that people sent actual checks through the mail? You got to be kidding me! That's just nuts! Why on earth would anyone want to do such a thing?

Are you people still living in the Stone Age or something?Listen, I will explain this only once: if poor people have bank accounts, the government can just electronically transfer the money to them and save a whole bunch of money on postage, paper and paperwork. And it might make the work for postal workers a bit safer.

The more I respond to you the less sense you make, in fact there's berely a point in your entire post!

First of all, linking to some bizarre hypothetical law of ownership site almost invalidates your whole argument. But if you must insist on talking about it, lets.

Those people are not practicing capitalism; taking my money from my paycheck and giving it to them just because they made stupid decisions is not capitalism. I don't know where you took economics but you need take it again.

Also, each person needs certain amount of nutrition a day that is how the program works.

Ok this is where you get ridicules. I don't deny it happened, I am saying it does not prove sending welfare check in the mail is a bad idea. You are practically arguing against postal service here.

And yeah, people send checks by mail that is how things work. You either don't know what a check is or...well I have no clue what the heck is your point on this matter. Anyone else want to try and explain it to Earthborn about money?

[Earthborn]

Define "rare," and submit evidence showing that, both now and throughout history, starvation in the world has been "rare."Why don't you show that it was commonplace? That should be easier since it is closer to a positive claim.but the governments are so corrupt and tyrannical they're basically not allowing the people to have it.Yes, that sometimes happens. And I say that almost the only instances where people actually died directly of being unable to eat anything were caused by such situations. Are you disagreeing with that?Then you have those stupid "greenie" policies which say that they can't have things like genetically modified or hybrid crops.I think I can reassure you, in most tyranical countries the greenies have very little say.

There is of course also the issue of certain government trying to push genetically modified crops onto people who really don't want it. That's not very nice either. Not wanting genetically modified food may not be rational, but that's hardly an excuse. You don't push pork on Muslim countries either, without even offering an alternative.The free market is a method of efficiently using finite and even scarce resources provided by nature.Yes, of course. However, when I find myself alone in a forest looking for food, I don't consider any 'free market' at all. A free market is after all a system that is ultimately enforced by government through property laws. If I only need to relate with nature, I can safely ignore free market economics.

Also, I would think that it is much easier to solve 'starvation' when the products of nature aren't scarce at all. I think this was the case when the US began, and in many ways it still is like that: a vast country providing enormous riches to relatively few people.I did answer it: It wasn't severe enough to rise to the level of starvation.That's just a play on words. You just assume that because they didn't call it 'starvation' that it wasn't. And you also assume that because it wasn't starvation, that it was better than what would have naturally occured and claim it as a great success. But the only evidence (well, actually I didn't even see the evidence, but I'll assume you are right) you provide is that they didn't call it 'starvation'.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how any one can conclude anything about how severe the malnutrition was. All I know is that they didn't call it starvation, but why they didn't call it that I still have no idea.

Maybe you are right and there were few problem. Maybe they used a euphemism...

[Earthborn]

The more I respond to you the less sense you make, in fact there's berely a point in your entire post!I guess my point is that I think you people across the great divide have a completely ridiculous and wastefull social security system. But You knew that already, I'll bet.

So I am telling you some things about how the system works around here, and providing ideas on how your system might be made simpler and more efficient. Without kicking millions of people out of welfare of course.

If you cannot follow them, then I guess that such ideas maybe so new and alien to you that you can't quite grasp them. Or maybe you don't want to try to see it from a different perspective.First of all, linking to some bizarre hypothetical law of ownership site almost invalidates your whole argument.I am sorry, but this is how things in the real world work. It is not bizarre and hypothetical, it is stuff you and I deal with every day. I make no claim whether this is how it should be, only that it is.

In fact, there has already been a thread on this topic (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27283), and it is not such a difficult concept to understand: you may have property, but what you are allowed to do with that property is limited by law. The ultimate property, the right to do anything with it, lies with the state which is controlled by all of us.

This is not the libertarian sense of property, but then again there are no libertarian countries yet.taking my money from my paycheck and giving it to them just because they made stupid decisions is not capitalism.Then what is it? It is still common practice in capitalist countries. I understand that it is not your favourite form of capitalism.You are practically arguing against postal service here.I am arguing that sending very valuable and easy to steal items through the postal service is not such a good idea, and people should not make a habit out of it.And yeah, people send checks by mail that is how things work.Not necessarily. Maybe this is just a cultural difference but people don't do that around here. No one that I know of has ever send a check by mail. Too risky, and not nice to the postman. People do send transfer cards though: you write the recipients account number and adress (often they are preprinted) on them and sent them to the bank, and then the money is transferred from my bank account to the bank account of the person who is the recipient. A different person cannot cash them, and they are all checked for possible fraud. Don't you have such bank transfer cards? And there are also automatic bank transfers, which saves a lot of hassle and paper work.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Why don't you show that it was commonplace?

You claimed it was rare and always was, and this was IN RESPONSE to evidence I put forth showing that it was and in many places still is a big problem. So in this case it's up to YOU to show that it was and is rare.

And I say that almost the only instances where people actually died directly of being unable to eat anything were caused by such situations.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but it does seem as though the industrialized nations are able to produce enough food that starvation elsewhere isn't necessary either.

I think I can reassure you, in most tyranical countries the greenies have very little say.

But in other places, they do. They stopped a lot of this from going into Zimbabwe, for example.

There is of course also the issue of certain government trying to push genetically modified crops onto people who really don't want it. That's not very nice either. Not wanting genetically modified food may not be rational, but that's hardly an excuse. You don't push pork on Muslim countries either, without even offering an alternative.

Which is exactly why this stuff should be left to the free market. Government shouldn't restrict it, government shouldn't force it on anyone. I'm glad you agree with that.

Yes, of course. However, when I find myself alone in a forest looking for food, I don't consider any 'free market' at all.

Well, there isn't a free market if you're alone. You have to have at least two people. Look back to my old desert island example. You need things other than food; suppose there's two of you, one of you excellent at getting food and the other excels at building shelter? Now you can work out an arrangement and life isn't quite as big a struggle. Food and shelter are now both easier to come by. Now multiply that by millions.

A free market is after all a system that is ultimately enforced by government through property laws.

The only thing you really need a government to enforce is restrictions against the initiation of force or fraud. Property rights are one aspect of that, but really, aside from that, the government doesn't need to do anything to make a free market work and can really make things worse if it tries.

Also, I would think that it is much easier to solve 'starvation' when the products of nature aren't scarce at all.

Keep in mind that natural resources are just one aspect of production. You need labor (capital is moot if you're alone). You need to work to hunt, trap, or gather your food. Now suppose you fall and break both legs; now what are you going to do? The food is still there, but you are unable to perform the labor to get it.

And again, when you get more and more people into it, barter just doesn't cut it anymore and that's when you start to need capital.

I think this was the case when the US began, and in many ways it still is like that: a vast country providing enormous riches to relatively few people.

Oh, please don't throw out this old canard again...even if the rich are getting a bigger piece of the pie, the pie is much, much bigger than it would have been otherwise.

That's just a play on words.

No, it isn't. There is a clear difference between malnutrition and starvation. First of all, it has to be a death to be starvation; and even then, the lack of food has to be the major contributing cause. This isn't even a controversy, so I don't know why you're trying to make it into one.

[Troll]

shanek is right

In most countries they starve because food doesn't get to those that live in places that can't freaking grow it.

In the US we've got so many freaking charities and organizations ready to feed you that the only way you starve is out of pride or stupidity.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I guess my point is that I think you people across the great divide have a completely ridiculous and wastefull social security system.

I'm hardly going to disagree with that. And it's made even more stupid by the fact that we have a system that will generate three times the revenues of Social Security, but we're prevented by law (except in one lone county) for using our money for that purpose.

Not necessarily. Maybe this is just a cultural difference but people don't do that around here. No one that I know of has ever send a check by mail. Too risky, and not nice to the postman. People do send transfer cards though: you write the recipients account number and adress (often they are preprinted) on them and sent them to the bank, and then the money is transferred from my bank account to the bank account of the person who is the recipient.

Okay, I'm confused here. Your last sentence describes quite accurately how checks here work. So, how are checks in your country different? Here, the check can only be used by the person it is made out to, who deposits the money into their account. Stealing a check does you no good unless you also steal the other person's identity.

A different person cannot cash them,

Same with our checks here, unless (again) you steal their identity, which would also be a problem with your system as you describe it.

and they are all checked for possible fraud.

So are checks here.

Don't you have such bank transfer cards?

I guess...apparently, we call them "checks."

And there are also automatic bank transfers, which saves a lot of hassle and paper work.

We have those, too. In fact, the Fed just passed rules making these transactions much more efficient (yes, I'm for giving GovCo props when it deserves it! It's just a rare happenstance...).

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Have you actually seen one of them (http://www.yolocounty.org/org/health/images/WICvoucher.jpg)? Or one of these (http://www.extension.umn.edu/mnimpacts/pictures/foodstamp.jpg)? It's not like the old Dutch banknotes or anything... Or Euros. So they are easily forged.

Did you look at your own links? Why on earth would anyone want to forge a slip of paper that will get them milk?

They are written in many places with the exact item you can get for them. This didn't come about by accident. Some people spent their welfare money on beer and cigarettes instead of baby food.

(edited to add: I'm sorry, but I can't stop chuckling over the idea of some forger trying to pass off a couple hundred gallons of milk vouchers at the register without anyone getting a little suspicious. :D)

So what happened to 'holding people responsible for their own decisions' and 'you nanny statists think people are too stupid to care for themselves' ? Apperently you think the government must dictate what people do with the money they get.

A child can't make the decisions on how mom or dad are going to spend the welfare money. These vouchers are a better guarantee that they will get their milk.

The rest of your post was about transferring money to bank accounts which won't be done for the reasons I just stated.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek
If you'll look again at the "fattest poor people" thread, you'll see that parents tend to give their kids more food and take the hit themselves. If any children are starving in this country, it can only be due to gross negligence on the part of the parents, and I'm sorry, that doesnt count; just like anorexia sufferers don't count. The food is there for them.

I participated in the fattest poor people topic, shanek. Remember? I was one of the parents who said he gives his kids the food at the cost of going a little hungry myself.

It does count that kids are starving because of their parents when someone claims that no kids are starving. And I was quite clear that there is only so much you can do about it.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


But how much fraud actually occurs? If people just aren't wanting to rip them off, then it really isn't worth their while to spend extra money and take extra security measures to stop something that isn't happening that much.

I will tell you exactly how the fraud can be committed, and why it takes an act of will not to commit it, and then you can decide for yourself whether or not you think a lot of people do it.

Being unemployed with a family completely destroys your finances. If you were fortunate enough to have some money save up, it is quickly wiped out. Debts pile up. It is very frightening how quickly this occurs.

Once you get a job again, it takes a very long time to recover from that. And the fact that I got a job that pays a lot less than my last one means it will probably be years before I feel financially secure again.

Now. Where I live, WIC only checks on your financial status every six months. I got a job a little over a month into the first six month period. I could have continued to receive our WIC vouchers in the mail for close to five more months. That would have been very helpful, and it would have also been fraud. And the only way for me to make them stop sending the vouchers was to tell them I had a job. I had to tell them.

So you tell me how much fraud you think occurs.

(edited to add: And that is just one example of how you can commit fraud. There are others, but I don't want to give anyone any ideas...)

[Earthborn]

I guess...apparently, we call them "checks."Okay. I probably misunderstood. I assumed that Grammatron meant what we call "cheques". That's basically like a banknote where you can write your own value on and give it to someone who can cash it. The value will then be taken from your bank account. The difference is that they don't necessirally have a recipient mentioned on them (although that highly unusual because it would mean that anyone could cash them).Same with our checks here, unless (again) you steal their identity, which would also be a problem with your system as you describe it.It would also mean that this person needs to steal the persons bank account, bank card and PIN code.

If someone steals a transfer card, the only thing s/he can do with it is putting it in the postbox and wait until the transfer is complete and the rightfull owner has gotten a bit richer. The card itself is worth absolutely nothing.
If the thief already has the bankcard and security code, there is no point in waiting for the transfer to be completed, and will probably just steal whatever is on the account at the moment.

Nobody sends a transfer card to the person you are transferring the money to, you send it to the bank, by post. The bank then transfers the money to the recipients bank account. The recipient never gets to see the card, s/he just sees the increase in their balance.

I assumed that welfare checks are different from transfer cards since the recipient receives them and not the bank, someone can take them to a bank to cash them and they are even usefull for people without a bank account. Transfer cards are not like that: they are only usefull if both people have a bank account (and everybody does), you send them to the bank instead of the person you are transferring to and even if I were to give it directly to the recipient, s/he can still not go to the bank and cash it. The only thing you can do with it is put it in a special envelope and put it in the postbox.

Basically, a transfer card is just a request to the bank to transfer money, similar to one you do on the computer or via telephone. (You can do that in the US, right?)

People try to avoid sending real money or cheques via post, since these do have real value.

I hope I explained it clearly now. I think our transfer cards are still a bit different from your checks...

[Gem]

And how was all of that not part of the free market?

The free market is an economic system.

The industrial revolution just means that you change the way of doing things. The soviets industrialized rapidly, without the free market. If you have tractors instead of a plow and horses, you get far more work done.

The railroad expansion would have been slower (or non existent at all) if it wasn't for government land grants.

Immigration has to do with people moving from one area to another. This is NOT a free market inovation.

As for the artificial fertilizer, are you going to make the free market get credit for every individual invention or ideas?

Gem

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Okay. I probably misunderstood. I assumed that Grammatron meant what we call "cheques". That's basically like a banknote where you can write your own value on and give it to someone who can cash it. The value will then be taken from your bank account. The difference is that they don't necessirally have a recipient mentioned on them (although that highly unusual because it would mean that anyone could cash them).It would also mean that this person needs to steal the persons bank account, bank card and PIN code.

If someone steals a transfer card, the only thing s/he can do with it is putting it in the postbox and wait until the transfer is complete and the rightfull owner has gotten a bit richer. The card itself is worth absolutely nothing.
If the thief already has the bankcard and security code, there is no point in waiting for the transfer to be completed, and will probably just steal whatever is on the account at the moment.

Nobody sends a transfer card to the person you are transferring the money to, you send it to the bank, by post. The bank then transfers the money to the recipients bank account. The recipient never gets to see the card, s/he just sees the increase in their balance.

I assumed that welfare checks are different from transfer cards since the recipient receives them and not the bank, someone can take them to a bank to cash them and they are even usefull for people without a bank account. Transfer cards are not like that: they are only usefull if both people have a bank account (and everybody does), you send them to the bank instead of the person you are transferring to and even if I were to give it directly to the recipient, s/he can still not go to the bank and cash it. The only thing you can do with it is put it in a special envelope and put it in the postbox.

Basically, a transfer card is just a request to the bank to transfer money, similar to one you do on the computer or via telephone. (You can do that in the US, right?)

People try to avoid sending real money or cheques via post, since these do have real value.

I hope I explained it clearly now. I think our transfer cards are still a bit different from your checks...

Ok here's what a check is http://ncapp-cdi.trifecta.com/message/art/enlg_67.gif

As you can see it has a name of the place/person who is paying opposite that is where you enter the date then who is the recipient of the money then you write the amount in the white box and then write it out so not to confuse people. Then you sign it and that's it. Welfare checks look like this and they are person specific so you can't steal one and cash with out forging your identify.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek


Another innovation of the free market. You guys are making my point for me!

Do you actually know anything at all about the invention of modern fertilizer? What makes you assume that a free market was a factor?

[Earthborn]

Oh, please don't throw out this old canard again...even if the rich are getting a bigger piece of the pie, the pie is much, much bigger than it would have been otherwise.You misunderstand me, which is a pity because I thought the context was quite clear.

With 'relatively few people' I mean, in this case, the entire population. I used the term 'relatively few people' because the United States is still quite thinly populated. All 300 million of you have all that room for yourself.

I think it is much easier for a group to sustain itself if it lives in an area that is largely empty and thus has lots of space for agriculture than for a group that has already put a large percentage of the ground to agricultural use and needs to fight the neighbours who are trying to expand as well.First of all, it has to be a death to be starvation; and even then, the lack of food has to be the major contributing cause.Not according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation)In living organism, starvation is the condition of being in an extreme state due to lack of nutrients for an extended period of time. Continued starvation will cause about permanent damage to a living organisms, including death.So there can be starvation without death, if it is solved soon enough. This means that 'starvation' and 'malnutrition' or not entirely seperable concepts and malnutrition can gradually change to starvation. Or you could say that both overlap. While malnutrition sounds less severe than starvation, there is nothing that clearly distinguishes them.But in other places, they do. They stopped a lot of this from going into Zimbabwe, for example.It was Zimbabwe itself (the government no doubt ;) ) that turned it down. Now is it fair for the US to continue to say: 'if you don't take it you'll get famine, but we won't give you anything else?' Not very nice either, is it? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A23728-2002Jul30&notFound=true)Which is exactly why this stuff should be left to the free market. Government shouldn't restrict it, government shouldn't force it on anyone. I'm glad you agree with that.Well, sure! I'm just as much in favour of free market economics as anyone else... :)

Pity that your free market buddy Grammatron prefers the 'Beggars can't be Choosers' approach.Look back to my old desert island example.You mean the one where you said EvilYeti is the government and there was no free market?The only thing you really need a government to enforce is restrictions against the initiation of force or fraud.Of course we can spend the rest of eternity discussing just what constitutes 'initiation of force and fraud' :)

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Ok here's what a check isOkay. So you can give thing to another person and that person can then cash it at the bank, right? Do you have anything to transfer money from one bank account to another without a cashable check?

You don't think Social Security could save some good money if it could just automatically transfer the money to the welfare recipients?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Earthborn:
You don't think Social Security could save some good money if it could just automatically transfer the money to the welfare recipients?

Wouldn't the social security system have to hire additional staff to administer credit transfer payments on this scale? And if it was just a matter of resourcing present staff rather than hiring additional workers how much would it cost to train them? And wouldn't any potential savings count for very little compared to the enormous amounts of government expenditure that goes on social security anyway?

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Wouldn't the social security system have to hire additional staff to administer credit transfer payments on this scale?They are already writing out check on the same scale, so theoretically it wouldn't be so much more paperwork.And if it was just a matter of resourcing present staff rather than hiring additional workers how much would it cost to train them?Gee, I don't know! Of course I think that in the long run, things might become simpler, as it is easier to automate such transfers.And wouldn't any potential savings count for very little compared to the enormous amounts of government expenditure that goes on social security anyway?I guess so. Which doesn't necessarily mean it isn't worth it. I think it would be nice to look into it and see if it is.

[Larspeart]

<---- shoves a sandwich Earthborns way.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
It does count that kids are starving because of their parents when someone claims that no kids are starving.

They aren't starving due to the unavailability of food; they're starving due to parental negligence. The food is there and there's no excuse for the parents not feeding their kids.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I will tell you exactly how the fraud can be committed, and why it takes an act of will not to commit it, and then you can decide for yourself whether or not you think a lot of people do it.

Sorry; I'd rather go with the actual evidence of how much fraud actually does occur.

[Luke T.]

I think the reason welfare (unemployment) checks aren't set up as a Direct Deposit System type of account is because of the lag time between setting up the DDS and discountinuing DDS. People receive unemployment for a limited time. I was on it for only two months. If I had set up a DDS, somewhere along the way I would have either been paid late or overpaid at the end. Then money would have to be spent trying to get that money back from me. :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Okay. I probably misunderstood. I assumed that Grammatron meant what we call "cheques". That's basically like a banknote where you can write your own value on and give it to someone who can cash it. The value will then be taken from your bank account. The difference is that they don't necessirally have a recipient mentioned on them (although that highly unusual because it would mean that anyone could cash them).

All checks here must have a recipient written on them. Only the recipient can cash or deposit the check, unless they explicitly sign the check over to someone else.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
The free market is an economic system.

Which is an excellent way of advancing technology.

The industrial revolution just means that you change the way of doing things. The soviets industrialized rapidly, without the free market. If you have tractors instead of a plow and horses, you get far more work done.

But the Soviets were utilizing things that had already been invented elsewhere...in a free market.

The railroad expansion would have been slower (or non existent at all) if it wasn't for government land grants.

That just isn't true, and I thoroughly debunked that idea in the mass transit thread.

Immigration has to do with people moving from one area to another. This is NOT a free market inovation.

WHY were they immigrating? Because of the free market and the jobs they could get. They came here and worked in the free market to produce labor.

As for the artificial fertilizer, are you going to make the free market get credit for every individual invention or ideas?

Are you saying that artificial fertilizer was not invented by free market corporations?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


Sorry; I'd rather go with the actual evidence of how much fraud actually does occur.

This is a denial of human nature and reality.

The only way you could find out if this type of fraud was going on would be to pay for the cost of a computer tracking system tied into tax records to see who is employed and how much they are making. A very expensive proposition.

What's that expression? An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

I am sure the WIC workers on the ground level are aware of the ease with which this fraud could be committed, but they probably are too overwhelmed with their work loads or just don't care or feel that their people deserve a couple extra months of food vouchers even if it is technically fraud.

Those on the higher levels probably aren't even aware of this problem.

I would wager that more people do it than don't. But we will never know.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Do you actually know anything at all about the invention of modern fertilizer? What makes you assume that a free market was a factor?

I assume nothing.

http://www.imcglobal.com/general/efumanual/pdf/history.pdf

The German chemist, Justus von Liebig, is considered by many to be the father of agricultural chemistry and the fertilizer industry beginning in about 1840. In 1842, the first commercial fertilizer patent was granted to Lawes of Rothamsted fame for the manufacture of superphosphate. Production of commercial fertilizer in the U.S. began in 1849 in South Carolina at the nation’s first superphosphate plant.

Many changes have occurred in the United States fertilizer industry since its early beginnings in the 1830s of importing low analysis nutrient sources such as guano and sodium nitrate. From about 1850 to 1900, poudrette or human excrement, cottonseed meal, fish scraps and slaughterhouse wastes were the principal sources of fertilizer N. By-product ammonium sulfate from coke oven gases became the most important N fertilizer from the 1920s until 1944 when it was overtaken by ammonium nitrate. Synthetically manufactured ammonium sulfate which began to appear in the 1920s had by the 1980s become much more important than by-product ammonium sulfate. For a short time in the 1920s and 1930s, there was moderate consumption of calcium cyanamide imported from Canada.

Rapid expansions of the ammonia industry starting in the early 1940s resulted in the availability, after 1943, of significant amounts of ammonium nitrate for fertilizer purposes. Consumption of ammonium nitrate increased rapidly up to 1955 when it represented about one-third of the N applied directly to U.S. cropland. However, by 1994 ammonium nitrate usage had declined to only 5.3 percent of the total fertilizer N used nationally.

The same developments in ammonia production, particularly between 1960 and 1980, greatly increased the production and importance of urea as a N fertilizer. In 1994, it accounted for 14.7 percent of the N applied to the nation’s cropland.

The first commercial production of bulk blends in the United States occurred in Illinois in the late 1940s. This approach to supplying farmers with prescription mixtures of NPK and other essential nutrients formulated for specific areas of their cropland gained rapid acceptance. The number of blenders increased from just six in 1950 to 1,536 in 1964 and about 7,500 in 1995. Noteworthy reasons for this phenomenal acceptance include the flexibility in producing a virtually endless range in NPK plus other nutrient mixtures to satisfy specific local soil and cropping conditions; lower cost of nutrients compared to the granular, homogeneous NPKs; improved quality of the high analysis N, P and K materials used in blending and the various attractive services offered to farmer customers.

After a modest beginning in California between 1923 and 1928, the liquid mixed fertilizer sector experienced little growth until the 1950s when it expanded rapidly in the Midwest and Pacific Northwest. The major advances made during the mid-1950s to 1972 involving recognition of the importance of ammonium polyphosphate in producing high quality, clear liquid fertilizers and processes for its production contributed greatly to the growth in use of mixed liquid fertilizers. They now account for approximately 20 to 21 percent of the nation’s total mixed fertilizer market.

All fluid fertilizers, including N only materials and the various NP, NS, KS, NPK, and NPKS, etc. mixes, represented 20.5 percent of the total nationwide fertilizer market of 52.3 million tons in 1994.

How was all of this not the free market?

[Tmy]

Its sortof lieke my Tots for Tots fraud thread. In the end the % of fraud aint so bad cuae its still kids getting toys ( or milk n cheese with WIC)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy
Its sortof lieke my Tots for Tots fraud thread. In the end the % of fraud aint so bad cuae its still kids getting toys ( or milk n cheese with WIC)

Bingo.

[Shane Costello]

Originally psoted by Earthborn:
They are already writing out check on the same scale, so theoretically it wouldn't be so much more paperwork.

If social security and European agri-subsidy payments are similar, then the cheque "writing" process is already fully automated. Agrisubsidy cheques aren't similar to personal cheques. They're basically computer printouts similar to payslips. There isn't any paperwork involved as such.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
With 'relatively few people' I mean, in this case, the entire population. I used the term 'relatively few people' because the United States is still quite thinly populated. All 300 million of you have all that room for yourself.

That's not exactly the character of the US. Yes, we have a lot of room for our population, but that population is not evenly distributed across the landscape.

And again, look at how Japan was able to utilize free market forces to bring prosperity to a bunch of people crowded onto a tiny little island.

It was Zimbabwe itself (the government no doubt ;) ) that turned it down. Now is it fair for the US to continue to say: 'if you don't take it you'll get famine, but we won't give you anything else?' Not very nice either, is it? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A23728-2002Jul30&notFound=true)

Hey, we reached out, they threw it back in our faces.

Well, sure! I'm just as much in favour of free market economics as anyone else... :)

Then why have you almost consistently argued against it in practically every thread?

You mean the one where you said EvilYeti is the government and there was no free market?

No, that was EvilYeti's example. I'm referring to the one where you start off with one person, then two people, then several tribes, etc., and follow the evolution of the economy from basically nothing to cooperation, bartered trade, monetary system, etc. EvilYeti set up his example where he already had food, a house, and everything else to start out with.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Okay. So you can give thing to another person and that person can then cash it at the bank, right? Do you have anything to transfer money from one bank account to another without a cashable check?

Sure, you can do Electronic Funds Transfers (EFT). Happens all the time. You can also use a "Check Card," which is like a Visa or MasterCard only instead of going into a credit account the funds come directly from your checking account.

You don't think Social Security could save some good money if it could just automatically transfer the money to the welfare recipients?

It does that, whenever possible.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
That's not exactly the character of the US. Yes, we have a lot of room for our population, but that population is not evenly distributed across the landscape.Of course not. I didn't claim it was, did I?

All I did was claim that with a lot of 'empty' land available to agriculture, it is fairly easy to feed the entire population.
And again, look at how Japan was able to utilize free market forces to bring prosperity to a bunch of people crowded onto a tiny little island.Yes, but it does have a much bigger problem with feeding its population, which in their case is solved with imports. I don't think their population could have grown so large with out the existence of a world market.Hey, we reached out, they threw it back in our faces.Yes, remember that when you ever need to help a muslim country and you have an excess of pork. You can argue as much as you want that it is perfectly safe, and that is irrational to refuse it. It doesn't matter: you can't expect people to just swallow what ever you are 'generously' giving. You'll have to consider their wishes as well.Then why have you almost consistently argued against it in practically every thread?I haven't argued against free market capitalism. I have argued that things can be taken to extremes, and if someone thinks things should be taken to extremes they have to show evidence that these things are so horribly bad today that they need to. And also evidence that things will be better if they are taken to extremes.
EvilYeti set up his example where he already had food, a house, and everything else to start out with.So who is the government in your example? Who enforces property laws?It does that, whenever possible.But I guess it doesn't do that very often, since poor people don't have bank accounts. So what is wrong with the banks?

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
They aren't starving due to the unavailability of food; they're starving due to parental negligence. The food is there and there's no excuse for the parents not feeding their kids.You are adjusting your claim. You used to say that nobody was starving. Now you say that there kids starving because of their parents.

The kids are starving (assuming it is true) because of unavailability of food, because it isn't available to them is it? This is how starvation usually works: someone in power takes it for himself and makes it unavailable to someone else.

Since you now acknowledge that there are people who are irresponsible, doesn't that put a little whole in your usual argument that people should be responsible for their own actions?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Of course not. I didn't claim it was, did I?

All I did was claim that with a lot of 'empty' land available to agriculture, it is fairly easy to feed the entire population. Yes, but it does have a much bigger problem with feeding its population, which in their case is solved with imports. I don't think their population could have grown so large with out the existence of a world market. Yes, remember that when you ever need to help a muslim country and you have an excess of pork. You can argue as much as you want that it is perfectly safe, and that is irrational to refuse it. It doesn't matter: you can't expect people to just swallow what ever you are 'generously' giving. You'll have to consider their wishes as well.I haven't argued against free market capitalism. I have argued that things can be taken to extremes, and if someone thinks things should be taken to extremes they have to show evidence that these things are so horribly bad today that they need to. And also evidence that things will be better if they are taken to extremes.
So who is the government in your example? Who enforces property laws? But I guess it doesn't do that very often, since poor people don't have bank accounts. So what is wrong with the banks?

You make a whole bunch of assumptions. The biggest assumption of all is that there is not enough food. The fact is, the world produces more than enough food to feed everyone adequately, the problem is delivery, which is a political problem that can't be solved so easily. Heck US tried it in Somalia look how that turned out.

No one is feeding anyone with pork, most programs use grain and rice as a main food supply.

Nothing is wrong with banks! What the heck is your fixation with forcing everyone to have bank accounts? Everyone who wants a bank account can get one if they don't, they don't get one. There's no problem outside of you thinking there's one.

[Gem]

You know, all of this might be irrevelant. Did starvation even occur in the united states after the first generation of settlers? I don't remember hearing of any starvation after the first colonial starvations and famine...

Gem

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Earthborn
But I guess it doesn't do that very often, since poor people don't have bank accounts. So what is wrong with the banks?

There are various governmental aid organizations, each with a specific purpose. Social Security is the program in which elderly, disabled and certain other needy people receive long-term income assistance. It makes sense to use EFT for this class of assistance.

To give an example of "other needy people", a friend from my high school received social security until he was 18, after his father (the sole earner in the family) was killed. I don't know the exact details of why they qualified for this benefit.

LukeT already pointed out the problems with unemployment insurance.

As far as the banks go, there are a lot of potential reasons why the poor don't have banking account. Some of the ones I can think of:
- low availablity of area banks.
- difficulty in meeting the bank's information requirements (i.e. lack of credit history)
- difficulty is maintaining monetary requirements of some banks (minimum deposits, fees for service)
- fear or mistrust of bank/banking system
- providing banking for the poor is not very profitable

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
The biggest assumption of all is that there is not enough food.Nowhere did I make this assumption.No one is feeding anyone with pork, most programs use grain and rice as a main food supply.I made the comparison to show that it is not fair force genetically modified crops on starving people, just because their fear of genetically modified crops is 'irrational'. My argument is that if you want to help a nation, you need to provide something they will accept, not dump whatever you have in excess and claim generousity.Nothing is wrong with banks!I misread, sorry.What the heck is your fixation with forcing everyone to have bank accounts?Bank accounts give people bankcards and such, which eases peoples lives. People don't have to store lots of money in their homes. It makes it easier for people to exercise their economic freedom. And it makes it easier (and probably cheaper)for the government, or any other institution to give people money.

So I think everyone benefits if everyone has a bank account. They don't need to be forced, just encouraged.Everyone who wants a bank account can get one if they don't, they don't get one.So what is the reason that poor people often don't have them?

Looks like specious_reasons already provided an answer to that:- low availablity of area banks.
- difficulty in meeting the bank's information requirements (i.e. lack of credit history)
- difficulty is maintaining monetary requirements of some banks (minimum deposits, fees for service)
- fear or mistrust of bank/banking system
- providing banking for the poor is not very profitableSo there is something wrong with the banks!

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Earthborn
You are adjusting your claim. You used to say that nobody was starving. Now you say that there kids starving because of their parents.


I understood this as implicit in ShaneK's argument. There are people, and children, who die of starvation, even in the US, as a result of incapability or unwillingness of the person responsible.

My personal opinion is that dysfunction will always be present, even in the best of systems, and it's relatively safe to say that the starvation rate is basically zero.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Earthborn

Looks like specious_reasons already provided an answer to that:
So there is something wrong with the banks!

Speculations on my part.

Although, getting banks to open branches in impoverished areas does make the news in the Chicago area, usually because it's the community leaders trying to publically guilt banks into doing it.

...and to refute some of my own speculation, I do know that most banks in this area do have a low cost checking option, which most working poor should be able to afford.

[specious_reasons]

Just wanted to give a shout out to LukeT, because his candor and openness not only provides insight but elevates the quality of discourse on topics like this.

Thanks!

During my childhood, I grew up in what would probably considered a "food insecure" household. Although I don't remember going hungry, it's probably because my mother worked 2 jobs and was smart enough to use the system to her advantage, when she could.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Of course not. I didn't claim it was, did I?

You seemed to, by implying that people could always go and forage for food on their own.

All I did was claim that with a lot of 'empty' land available to agriculture, it is fairly easy to feed the entire population.

Provided you have a free market to produce the food, deliver it, prepare it, etc...

Yes, but it does have a much bigger problem with feeding its population, which in their case is solved with imports.

Another function of the free market. Specifically, the open market.

Yes, remember that when you ever need to help a muslim country and you have an excess of pork.

You aren't honestly equating that with Zimbabwe refusing genetically modified crops, are you? At least with pork there are a plethora of alternatives, and we are talking about a deeply rooted religious belief. In many cases, though, particularly in Africa, GM foods will make the difference between them having enough food.

I haven't argued against free market capitalism.

Yes, you have, in the Minimum Wage thread, for example, or the Social Security thread. You constantly argue for restrictions and oppressions on the free market.

I have argued that things can be taken to extremes, and if someone thinks things should be taken to extremes they have to show evidence that these things are so horribly bad today that they need to.

Except that my position, as I've shown many times, is not the extreme.

So who is the government in your example? Who enforces property laws?

You keep bringing this up, yet you know perfectly well that I do in fact believe we need a government to enforce property rights as well as other rights.

But I guess it doesn't do that very often, since poor people don't have bank accounts.

Many poor people do in fact have bank accounts.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
You are adjusting your claim.

No, I'm not.

You used to say that nobody was starving.

I said that nobody was starving due to a lack of food. I said that from the start. Anorexia, for example, doesn't count because the food is there if they would just choose to eat it. Same with parental negligence. Same with someone kidnapping someone and denying them food. NONE of this is what I was talking about, and I made that clear from the very first time I made the claim.

Since you now acknowledge that there are people who are irresponsible, doesn't that put a little whole in your usual argument that people should be responsible for their own actions?


This is another pathetic strawman. I have always said that people should be punished when they behave irresponsibly and it results in the harming of others!

Have you ever even TRIED to understand ANYTHING I say???

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
You know, all of this might be irrevelant. Did starvation even occur in the united states after the first generation of settlers?

Actually, yes, it did, and it was a major problem for quite some time. Up through the Civil War, and in the West after that.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
You seemed to, by implying that people could always go and forage for food on their own.And Grammatron said that I assumed that there wasn't enough food, while I specifically implied that there was. I see no contradiction.You aren't honestly equating that with Zimbabwe refusing genetically modified crops, are you? At least with pork there are a plethora of alternatives, and we are talking about a deeply rooted religious belief.Aren't there also non-genetically modified crops? There used to be ten years ago. Where have they all gone?

In this case we are talking about a deeply rooted belief that genetically modified crops are bad. I don't see the rationality of that either, but I still respect that belief because people tend to be very suspicious about the food they eat.In many cases, though, particularly in Africa, GM foods will make the difference between them having enough food.There are also non-GM foods. Give those, and everybody is happy.Yes, you have, in the Minimum Wage thread, for example, or the Social Security thread. You constantly argue for restrictions and oppressions on the free market.I am hardly the only person who favours free market economics but still wants restriction on it to smooth out any problems it might cause.
Except that my position, as I've shown many times, is not the extreme.I think it is. The form of libertarian capitalism is a radical change in the politico-economic systems seen in the world today. It is completely different.You keep bringing this up, yet you know perfectly well that I do in fact believe we need a government to enforce property rights as well as other rights.Sometimes it seems like you are deliberately trying to misunderstand what I am trying to say... When I say "So who is the government in your example? Who enforces property laws?" I am in no way implying that you think the government is useless. Only that it seems missing in your island example.

So how do these two people decide what belongs to the other, and what constitutes fairness in their behaviour towards eachtother?Many poor people do in fact have bank accounts.Grammatron seems to disagree and a few others as well. Do you have any figures on how many poor people have bank accounts?I said that nobody was starving due to a lack of food.Can you give one example from history, just one, where this has happened and was not caused a distribution problem, people not knowing how to use local foods or political struggle?I have always said that people should be punished when they behave irresponsibly and it results in the harming of others!You also repeatedly said that all sorts of regulations weren't necessary because people would behave responsibly in a free market setting, and if they don't behave responsibly they would lose their customers.

So if the child doesn't like the way it is treated by its parents, why doesn't it just leave and find new ones on the free parenting market? Why should the government get involved with this by setting regulations for how parents should behave towards their children?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Grammatron seems to disagree and a few others as well. Do you have any figures on how many poor people have bank accounts?

When did I say poor people did not have bank accounts? What I said is not all poor people have bank accounts. You are making these weird claims that I still don't see a point to. The fact is the welfare check is quickly printed out and sent to the right person. As far as I know, and I could be wrong, but each bank might have a different policy on electronic transfer some might even charge for them. I never heard anyone complain about getting a welfare check. Heck I get paid by check and it doesn't bother me one bit.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
When did I say poor people did not have bank accounts?Here:As far as bank accounts go, yeah most poor people don't have themEmphasis mine. I think there is a difference between 'most don't have them' and 'not all have them'.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Here:Emphasis mine. I think there is a difference between 'most don't have them' and 'not all have them'.

How much difference?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
And Grammatron said that I assumed that there wasn't enough food, while I specifically implied that there was. I see no contradiction.

I'm not saying there was a contradiction; I'm just saing that your argument implied a more uniformly distributed population in the US than there is.

Aren't there also non-genetically modified crops?

If you want to get technical about it, all crops are genetically modified; corn is genetically modified wheat, which is genetically modified grass, for example. It's just less haphazard now. But the latest ones are made to grow in different environments where they couldn't before and give an increased yield per acre, and that is something very important to areas that have trouble growing them.

[quoe]In this case we are talking about a deeply rooted belief that genetically modified crops are bad.[/quote]

GM crops have been around, what, ten years? The belief about pork has been around for thousands. Sorry, but you don't get to use the words "deeply-rooted" here; there just ain't enough time for it.

There are also non-GM foods. Give those, and everybody is happy.

Even if they won't grow in that environment, or will spoil earlier, or any of the other plethora of problems GM foods solve?

I think it is.

It's nothing more than the system our founders set up. What about it is extreme?

Sometimes it seems like you are deliberately trying to misunderstand what I am trying to say... When I say "So who is the government in your example? Who enforces property laws?" I am in no way implying that you think the government is useless. Only that it seems missing in your island example.

The island example was meant to examine the development of an economy on different scales; not to examine the government's role in it.

Can you give one example from history, just one, where this has happened and was not caused a distribution problem, people not knowing how to use local foods or political struggle?[/b]

What about the famines all throughout the history of India?

You also repeatedly said that all sorts of regulations weren't necessary because people would behave responsibly in a free market setting, and if they don't behave responsibly they would lose their customers.

Yes, I did. Now, perhaps you'll explain how the one precludes the other?

So if the child doesn't like the way it is treated by its parents, why doesn't it just leave and find new ones on the free parenting market?

Obviously, it can't, which is why I have never said one thing about the laws against child abuse and neglect (just the way they're enforced).

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Earthborn:
Aren't there also non-genetically modified crops? There used to be ten years ago. Where have they all gone?

Robert Mugabe drove the most productive farmers of their land and put hsi cronies in their place?

In this case we are talking about a deeply rooted belief that genetically modified crops are bad. I don't see the rationality of that either, but I still respect that belief because people tend to be very suspicious about the food they eat.

Actually that's not the case at all.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2148452.stm)

But few in Zimbabwe are really aware of the arguments over GM foods.

BBC reporters there say that most people just want food.

They do not know what GM food is and are not worried about its quality when they are so hungry.

So the GM food is being rejected on behalf of the poor people by the same government that has them short of food to begin with.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek


I assume nothing.

http://www.imcglobal.com/general/efumanual/pdf/history.pdf

How was all of this not the free market?

How about the patents that were granted - which in effect is a restriction on the market. I'd also assume that the companies paid customs on the raw material imported from abroad, which again is a restriction on the free market.

I'm also rather surprised that neither of your sources mentions Birkeland and Eyde with a single word, but then they both seemed to be USA-centric and was detailing the development of commercial fertilizer (which isn't quite the same as artifical fertilizer) in the USA.

[Gem]

Aren't we forgeting something? Was there ever starvation in the US? Did slaves starve when it was implemented in the US? If so, wasn't it ended because it never actually begun with?

Gem

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Which is an excellent way of advancing technology.


Which is presently, via the market demands for 3-month horizons, seriously suppressing technology advances, and that is further, via the destruction of the institutions that make such advances, ensuring that further technological advance is slowed.

The free market is not much more of a panacea than most anything else.

Yes, it's possible to have much worse than a free market, so don't bother going there.


But the Soviets were utilizing things that had already been invented elsewhere...in a free market.


But Shane, they said they invented the airplane, the rocket ship, relativity theory, etc.

They said it, after all, so didn't they?

(Yes, I'm trolling Huzington. Do I need the sarcasm warning here?)

Are you saying that artificial fertilizer was not invented by free market corporations?
Who invented the original process, Shanek?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
How about the patents that were granted - which in effect is a restriction on the market.

That's a very disingenuous argument, since without the patent anyone could have taken their invention under the law. That's the flip side to patents no one seems to like to mention.

I'd also assume that the companies paid customs on the raw material imported from abroad, which again is a restriction on the free market.

Well, geez, it's not like they wouldn't have imported them without the customs charges! In fact, it would have just made it cheaper!

Just because the free market did it in spite of obstacles put in its place by government doesn't mean that the free market didn't achieve what it achieved.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Which is presently, via the market demands for 3-month horizons, seriously suppressing technology advances, and that is further, via the destruction of the institutions that make such advances, ensuring that further technological advance is slowed.

I don't know what market you're talking about, but in the free market in the US there is plenty of technology advancement going on...and it's in the mostly unregulated industries, like the computer industry. The more heavily regulated the industry, the fewer the technological advancements. Amazing how that works...

Who invented the original process, Shanek?

It's in the link I provided. It was a free market inventor, NOT a government.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


I don't know what market you're talking about, but in the free market in the US there is plenty of technology advancement going on...and it's in the mostly unregulated industries, like the computer industry. The more heavily regulated the industry, the fewer the technological advancements. Amazing how that works...


Let's see how that corresponds to reality.

Perhaps the entity most responsible for technological advancement anywhere in the world in the last century was Bell Labs. You can argue some other entities contributed, of course, but there is a very strong record of technological innovation that you simply can't deny, starting from vacuum tubes, the transistor, 2.7k, and a whole army of other things.

AT&T/The Bell System was as heavily regulated as anything ever was, and they provided a disproportionally LARGE number of the technological advances. The Bell System was the most heavily regulated industry IN THIS COUNTRY at the same time that Bell Labs was the most productive research lab in the world.

That is, until they were SPLIT UP AND DEREGULATED, and now, thanks entirely to free-market operation, they are gone.

Sorry, the real world shows that you are dead, flat, competely wrong.


It's in the link I provided. It was a free market inventor, NOT a government.

I'd say something about the Faber process, but given your response to the first half, I doubt there's any point.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek


That's a very disingenuous argument, since without the patent anyone could have taken their invention under the law. That's the flip side to patents no one seems to like to mention.


I fail to see how my statement that the patent system is, in effect, a regulation of the market is disingenious. I'm not arguing against the patent system, or ignoring the positive effects of the patent system - I'm merely pointing out that patents are a market-regulation. Just because it's a market-regulation you approve of doesn't mean it isn't a regulation of the market.


Well, geez, it's not like they wouldn't have imported them without the customs charges! In fact, it would have just made it cheaper!

Just because the free market did it in spite of obstacles put in its place by government doesn't mean that the free market didn't achieve what it achieved.

If there are restrictions in place, then it is not a free market in the pure sense. Since the development of artifical fertililizer happened in markets that were not absolutely free, I don't see how you can so easily dismiss the regulations that were in those markets as irrelevant to the development. If you want to argue that artifical fertilizer is a product of the free market, you have to argue as to why the regulations of the markets of the time did not in any way contribute positively to its development. You haven't done that - you've only stated, without any argumentation, that so was the case.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Let's see how that corresponds to reality.

Perhaps the entity most responsible for technological advancement anywhere in the world in the last century was Bell Labs. You can argue some other entities contributed, of course, but there is a very strong record of technological innovation that you simply can't deny, starting from vacuum tubes, the transistor, 2.7k, and a whole army of other things.

AT&T/The Bell System was as heavily regulated as anything ever was, and they provided a disproportionally LARGE number of the technological advances. The Bell System was the most heavily regulated industry IN THIS COUNTRY at the same time that Bell Labs was the most productive research lab in the world.

That is, until they were SPLIT UP AND DEREGULATED, and now, thanks entirely to free-market operation, they are gone.

Your denial is truly astounding...

Let's see...IBM, Wells Fargo, Westinghouse, etc., sure, they're not as popular as names go, but how can you say that Bell Labs contributed more than they did? And anyway, the only real point you have with Bell Labs was that it was a government-sponsored monopoly for the telephone system, but much of their innovations, such as in computers, happened in areas where there was a huge amount of competition (and very little regulation).

And your accusation that the free market killed them is just so blatantly dishonest, but still in keeping with what I've come to expect from you...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
I fail to see how my statement that the patent system is, in effect, a regulation of the market is disingenious.

Because the clear implication is that these inventions would not have been made were it not for the patent system, which is completely bogus.

Just because it's a market-regulation you approve of doesn't mean it isn't a regulation of the market.

But again, you can't just point to a market regulation and say "there it is, now I win," especially when these innovations happened in spite of said regulation.

Since the development of artifical fertililizer happened in markets that were not absolutely free, I don't see how you can so easily dismiss the regulations that were in those markets as irrelevant to the development.

Because they just weren't. And that's obvious when you read up on the subject. It was corporations operating in a competitive free market environment developing technology to increase production of a free market product. It doesn't matter if the government had its fingers in it, especially since if anything these regulations were a hinderance to it! It made the goods more expensive, made the technology more expensive to produce and distribute, with absolutely nothing quantifiable to contribute to their development.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by shanek


That is just absolutely untrue. From about ten seconds of Googling:

I got that from the first page of results. Why is it, then, that when a similar search is done for starvation in the US the only links Google can seem to come up with deal with the efforts of US aid, either through government or through charities, to combat starving elsewhere in the world?

Sounds like denial to me...

You rely on the definition of words used by the news agencies that Google searches?

(to be fair, allegedly the Oxford English Dictionary checks the definitions of words these days by passing them through Google)

In a way, you're right. The American poor are incredibly rich compared to the poor in other parts of the world. but your insistance on using the word "starvation" is very odd - because almost no-one actually dies of lack of nutrients. They die because their immune systems are too weak - due to lack of nutrients - to fight off the diseases they really die of. But to insist on "starvation" as the cause of death is disingenuous.

I lived in Equatorial Guinea for a while. People were poor and died of many diseases. But the main root causes of death, overall, were a combination of overpopulation and political mismanagement: the president had allowed the traditional cocoa and timber industries to lapse as soon as offshore oil was found.

[Earthborn]

Posted by Shanek
I'm not saying there was a contradiction; I'm just saing that your argument implied a more uniformly distributed population in the US than there is.I don't see how this is implied in my argument.

Also, if people are free to move, and some areas don't have enough food, you would expect them to spread more uniformly, would they not? (If not, then people don't behave rationally in an economic sense, and I could use it against you in the minimum wage thread to argue that people aren't so mobile that they can find the highest wages.)If you want to get technical about it, all crops are genetically modified;Yeah, yeah, I know. Of course, what we generally call 'genetically modified' is produced with slightly different techniques, so it is possible to talk about GM foods and non-GM foods in a more or less meaningfull way. You know exactly what I mean when I speak of GM food.GM crops have been around, what, ten years? The belief about pork has been around for thousands. Sorry, but you don't get to use the words "deeply-rooted" here; there just ain't enough time for it.I don't see why the time people have a belief should affect how much respect you give them. But if you want, you can also call them 'deeply felt' beliefs.Even if they won't grow in that environment, or will spoil earlier, or any of the other plethora of problems GM foods solve?If the people who you give it to prefer that, yes.It's nothing more than the system our founders set up. What about it is extreme?It is extremely different from what exists today, is it not? And I don't have to tell you that extremists often point to some 'glorious past from before the enemy ruined everything'. :p

Since few people are convinced by libertarians I also see no non-violent way to achieve your goals, except perhaps mass 'education' in libertarian economics.What about the famines all throughout the history of India?My knowledge of the history of India is a bit rusty. Could you give a specific example?Obviously, it can'tObviously they can, because many children do it every year.Posted by Shane Costello
So the GM food is being rejected on behalf of the poor people by the same government that has them short of food to begin with.So it is obviously not such a good idea to offer only GM foods to this government because of its deeply felt beliefs.

You can of course offer GM food to this government and then blame it for its silly beliefs and its willingness to let people starve for them, but I don't see how that helps anyone.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


Your denial is truly astounding...

Let's see...IBM, Wells Fargo, Westinghouse, etc., sure, they're not as popular as names go, but how can you say that Bell Labs contributed more than they did? And anyway, the only real point you have with Bell Labs was that it was a government-sponsored monopoly for the telephone system, but much of their innovations, such as in computers, happened in areas where there was a huge amount of competition (and very little regulation).

And your accusation that the free market killed them is just so blatantly dishonest, but still in keeping with what I've come to expect from you...

I've replied to this hideous nonsense in the other thread where it's the subject.

[MoeFaux]

Jesus, I'm not going to wade through this, instead I'm going to agree with the subject and link to this great article:

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/valuedriven/0,15704,558759,00.html?cnn=yes

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn

You can of course offer GM food to this government and then blame it for its silly beliefs and its willingness to let people starve for them, but I don't see how that helps anyone.

There's nothing wrong with GM foods other than they are copyrighter but that's a different issues. Excluding GM foods is just showing your ignorance and starving because the only good that is available is GM is akin to suicide.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
Jesus, I'm not going to wade through this, instead I'm going to agree with the subject and link to this great article:

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/valuedriven/0,15704,558759,00.html?cnn=yes

Well, the subject of the thread was intended in sarcasm.

A little point about the article: Obese does not imply well nourished.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek

Because the clear implication is that these inventions would not have been made were it not for the patent system, which is completely bogus.


I didn't mean to imply that at all - I merely wanted to point out that the development of artifical fertilizer did not happen in a totally free market.

For what it is worth, though, the part of this history I'm familiar with - the development of the Birkeland-Eyde process and the founding of Norsk Hydro, the patent system was very important - and it is not at all certain if Eyde would have given Birkeland the necessary financial backing to develop the method if they had not been able to get patent protecting. It's even more unlikely that Eyde would have been able to trum up the necessary financial backing for the development of the Rjukan plant if they had not had the "hard currency" of the patent.


But again, you can't just point to a market regulation and say "there it is, now I win," especially when these innovations happened in spite of said regulation.


My point is that a) there were regulations in the markets of the time, and b) you have not shown that the innovations in question happened merely in spite of those regulations.

I am not claiming that the development of artifical / commercial fertilizer did not happen as a result of the free market - rather I'm pointing out that your claim that it did has been made without backing it up with any good arguments.


Because they just weren't.


"Because" - is that the best argument you can make?


And that's obvious when you read up on the subject. It was corporations operating in a competitive free market environment developing technology to increase production of a free market product.


You keep making that claim, but I don't think you have shown that to be the case. "It's obvious" isn't a valid argument - because it isn't obvious; particularly not since patents were involved.


It doesn't matter if the government had its fingers in it, especially since if anything these regulations were a hinderance to it! It made the goods more expensive, made the technology more expensive to produce and distribute, with absolutely nothing quantifiable to contribute to their development.

It matters in as much as it then wasn't a free market - which means you have to analyse the effects of the regulations on the particular developments in question. You haven't done that - you merely assume that these effects must have been only bad. That is not a given.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I don't see how this is implied in my argument.

Because you argued that without the free market people could still go out and collect food themselves. But that just isn't possible in densely populated areas.

Also, if people are free to move, and some areas don't have enough food, you would expect them to spread more uniformly, would they not?

No, I would expect them to form a free market so they wouldn't have to. Some might move, but others might find other things they could do, that others would benefit from and be willing to exchange food for.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Of course, what we generally call 'genetically modified' is produced with slightly different techniques,

It's just less haphazard. That's the only real difference.

I don't see why the time people have a belief should affect how much respect you give them.

The operative phrase was "deeply-rooted." GM food just hasn't been around long enough for people to have "deeply rooted" beliefs about it, certainly not on the level of people eating pork.

Besides, the whole pork thing is the individual's choice based on their personal religious beliefs. The "choice" not to eat GM food is being forced on them by their governments.

If the people who you give it to prefer that, yes.

But again, the people haven't been allowed to make the choice. In fact, I'd wager the starving people of Africa would love to get any kind of food, GM or otherwise.

It is extremely different from what exists today, is it not?

So, then, abolitionists would have been extremists in their time.

Since few people are convinced by libertarians

There is no basis for that conclusion. Perhaps you'd like to explain how Ron Paul, whose message is 100% Libertarian, gets reelected again and again even though the Republicans try their darndest every primary to unseat him?

My knowledge of the history of India is a bit rusty. Could you give a specific example?

Some sources:

Dan Banik, Democracy, drought and starvation in India: Testing Sen in theory and practice, Doctoral thesis submitted to the Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, November 2002.

Does Democracy avert famine? (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70A14FC3B580C728CDDAA0894DB4044 82)

Now, however, in India, the main focus of Mr. Sen's research, there are
growing reports of starvation. In drought-ravaged states like Rajasthan in the west and Orissa in the east, many families have been reduced to eating bark and grass to stay alive. Already thousands may have died. This is occurring against a backdrop of endemic hunger and malnutrition. About 350 million of India's one billion people go to bed hungry every night, and half of all Indian children are malnourished.

Obviously they can, because many children do it every year.

Not on their own, unless they're older.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
I've replied to this hideous nonsense in the other thread where it's the subject.

And I've replied to your LIES in that thread. (He actually claimed that Westinghouse is gone, people!)

[shanek]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
Jesus, I'm not going to wade through this, instead I'm going to agree with the subject and link to this great article:

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/valuedriven/0,15704,558759,00.html?cnn=yes

That's an excellent article, Moe. Thanks!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Grammatron
There's nothing wrong with GM foods other than they are copyrighter but that's a different issues.

I thought the Supreme Court ruled against that?

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
A little point about the article: Obese does not imply well nourished.

But it most certainly does imply "not starving."

Who was it who claimed earlier that no one was denying this great achievement?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
I am not claiming that the development of artifical / commercial fertilizer did not happen as a result of the free market

Then there is no argument here. It was free market forces that prompted the inventions. Period. The fact that there were regulations that got in the way doesn't mean anything.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Earthborn:
So it is obviously not such a good idea to offer only GM foods to this government because of its deeply felt beliefs.

This suggests that food aid to Zimbabwe from the US is only in the form of GM seed. I doubt this is the case.

You can of course offer GM food to this government and then blame it for its silly beliefs and its willingness to let people starve for them, but I don't see how that helps anyone.

It doesn't, but don't suggest culpability for malnutrition is shared by the donors in this case.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek

But it most certainly does imply "not starving."

Who was it who claimed earlier that no one was denying this great achievement?

Remember my intent of this thread? I agree that very few people are, indeed, starving. This does not mean that people are doing all that well.

Hence, the reason why the title is intended to be in sarcasm. Remember I'm the "cup is not full" guy?

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Remember my intent of this thread? I agree that very few people are, indeed, starving. This does not mean that people are doing all that well.

And again, I acknowledged from the first time I made the claim that there are problems other than starvation, and there are nutritional problems other than starvation. But starvation was the biggest, with the most drastic consequences, and something that every other civilization in history has had to combat. And we beat it. Can't you at least acknowledge the full half of the glass?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek


Then there is no argument here. It was free market forces that prompted the inventions. Period. The fact that there were regulations that got in the way doesn't mean anything.

I don't consider that a given fact, nor have you given any reason as to why I should do such. Yes, you believe this is the case, but that doesn't make it so.

[Gem]

But starvation was the biggest, with the most drastic consequences, and something that every other civilization in history has had to combat. And we beat it.

But you still haven't explained when you beat it. I asked earlier if starvation ever existed in America. If it never existed, then how could you beat something that never existed?

Gem

[Earthborn]

No, I would expect them to form a free market so they wouldn't have to.Whatever. The point is: if there are no extreme restriction on where they can go and what they can do, there will very likely not be starvation.

They could also form a centralized economy, just like many ancient civilizations did, with a government that distributes foods evenly among the population. The result is very similar: no starvation.It's just less haphazard. That's the only real difference.I know that. You don't have to teach me biology. Stick to economics instead. :)Besides, the whole pork thing is the individual's choice based on their personal religious beliefs. The "choice" not to eat GM food is being forced on them by their governments.Please try to understand my argument. We have a starving population who at the mercy of a not so nice government. And we have two governments: one that refuses to accept GM food, and one that refuses to give much else. If one of these governments stops being so stubborn, the problem would be solved. It makes no difference which one stops being pigheaded first, but when both continue to blame eachother the problem remains. Who is 'right' is irrelevant: all that matters is who is the one to give in first.

Also, if you try to import german Bratwurst to Saudi Arabia, I'll bet you'll notice that it is enforced by the government. So the argument isn't that different.So, then, abolitionists would have been extremists in their time.I'll bet they were. They sure had a tough time convincing others that it was a good idea to free slaves. Lots of people probably thought that things worked pretty well without giving slaves total freedom.

So, there are lots of people who think the world works pretty well without a market as free as you want it. So you know what you should do: try to convince others that this isn't enough, that things will be better with more economic freedom (and less government protection against adverse consequences of the free market) and most importantly that your ideas are not just the latest fad in economics. I don't think you argue very effectively.There is no basis for that conclusion. Perhaps you'd like to explain how Ron Paul, whose message is 100% Libertarian, gets reelected again and again even though the Republicans try their darndest every primary to unseat him?So, what is the percentage of people that vote for this Ron Paul? If it is a minority, then it still means that few people are convinced by libertarians.Some sources:Below is all I get (the rest I need to pay for), which to me shows what I have been arguing all along, that starvation as you define it (dying directly of a lack of food) happens almost exclusively when there are extreme circumstances which prevent people from finding their own food.
Abstract: Indian economist and 1998 Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen, who theorized that democratic nations that held their leaders accountable through election process could therefore not be susceptible to famine, is subject of scientific scrutiny as India reports growing incidents of starvation; Sen contends that democracy does not solve problem of hunger or poor resource management, but does solve problem of widespread famine and large-scale loss of life, which India has not experienced since 1947, when it won independence; photosSo large scale famine has not occured, even during the time when Indian bureaucracy and government involvement were legendary, just because there was democracy.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shanek


I thought the Supreme Court ruled against that?

Can you please provide a link? I'm not questioning you it's just I never heard this and would like to learn a bit more about the ruling.

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by shanek


That's an excellent article, Moe. Thanks!

Yeah, I was happy to find it, it's just the truth. We're better off than we've ever been.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
But you still haven't explained when you beat it.

Yes, I have. I explained when it existed and why, when it was beat, that it resumed a bit during the Great Depression and afterwards was never seen again.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
They could also form a centralized economy, just like many ancient civilizations did, with a government that distributes foods evenly among the population. The result is very similar: no starvation.

Give examples of these ancient civilizations with no starvation.

We have a starving population who at the mercy of a not so nice government. And we have two governments: one that refuses to accept GM food, and one that refuses to give much else. If one of these governments stops being so stubborn, the problem would be solved.

In such a situation, I would indeed agree that both governments are being obstinate and neither one was in the right.

Now, what that has to do with my original point is something that completely escapes me.

I'll bet they were.

Okay, so abolitionists were extremists, according to you. Did that make them wrong?

So you know what you should do: try to convince others that this isn't enough, that things will be better with more economic freedom (and less government protection against adverse consequences of the free market) and most importantly that your ideas are not just the latest fad in economics.

All of which I have done. And far from being the "latest fad," these are fundamental economic principles abandoned (but not refuted) when the Keynesians came along and started telling governments what they wanted to hear. When they were thoroughly discredited in the 1970s, economists started looking back at the old theories and models and found that they explained and predicted the situation quite well.

I'm still waiting for people to explain to me why Von Mises was the only one to successfully predict the Great Depression, when it took others, even the much-touted Irving Fischer, completely by surprise. He also successfully predicted the conditions which would lead to the fall of communism decades later. His theories were also used by the Austrian economists to successfully predict the market bust of 2000.

No, it isn't just the "latest fad." And not even all of it is based on Austrian economics.

So, what is the percentage of people that vote for this Ron Paul?

He generally gets over 50% of the primary votes from Republicans even though he usually has two or more opponents, and he's won the general election by as much as 70% of the total vote.

So large scale famine has not occured, even during the time when Indian bureaucracy and government involvement were legendary, just because there was democracy.

Uh-huh. And you fail to see that this supports my side completely?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Can you please provide a link? I'm not questioning you it's just I never heard this and would like to learn a bit more about the ruling.

It's something I'd heard, but never seen referenced. That's why I phrased it in the form of a question.

[Gem]

I'm still waiting for people to explain to me why Von Mises was the only one to successfully predict the Great Depression, when it took others, even the much-touted Irving Fischer, completely by surprise.

Because he wasn't the only one to say it...

Bankers, some economists, and Babson himself, had been uttering dire warnings for well over a year without any previous effect.
http://www.futurecasts.com/Depression_descent-'29.html

Yes, I have. I explained when it existed and why, when it was beat, that it resumed a bit during the Great Depression and afterwards was never seen again.

You're right, I missed the post.

Gem

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
Because he wasn't the only one to say it...

Bankers, some economists, and Babson himself, had been uttering dire warnings for well over a year without any previous effect.

"Well over a year"? Von Mises predicted it as early as 1924, when the Fed started to push down interest rates.

Besides, Babson was the one who claimed in 1931 that a recovery was iminent and inevitable, something that von Mises refuted. I don't think I have to tell you whom history proved right.