(January 27, 2013 at 12:29 pm)BGChuckLee Wrote: Money doesn't remove violence from a country- the main reason why countries are in poverty is due to violence, wars, and all sorts. Throwing money in their general direction has historically shown to be unsuccessful.

I am happy many of western society are interested in helping the poor, but the only long term way to solve it is by reducing violence and increasing job opportunities in that area. Which is why I want to employ people in African Industries some time in my life.

You denounce that money solves social problems, to then say that investments solve social problems best.

Since when do investments no longer require money?

What are you historical examples?

The rest of your post simply reminded me of this image:

(January 27, 2013 at 1:00 pm)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote:

(January 27, 2013 at 12:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Mark 14:6


Was that the holy blowjob?

Did Jesus have any other kind?

She was just receiving the love of Jesus.

All over her tits.

(January 27, 2013 at 1:03 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote:

(January 27, 2013 at 12:29 pm)BGChuckLee Wrote: Money doesn't remove violence from a country- the main reason why countries are in poverty is due to violence, wars, and all sorts. Throwing money in their general direction has historically shown to be unsuccessful.

I am happy many of western society are interested in helping the poor, but the only long term way to solve it is by reducing violence and increasing job opportunities in that area. Which is why I want to employ people in African Industries some time in my life.

You denounce that money solves social problems, to then say that investments solve social problems best.

Since when do investments no longer require money?

What are you historical examples?

The rest of your post simply reminded me of this image:

Yes, money does not solve social problems- as money is not simply a thing that people require more of- economics is an ecosystem always trading with each other. I said that donations and hand me downs do not work, since it doesn't solve problems, it only keeps people on life support to survive beyond their means.

If I was a starving African, I would want job opportunities. Not some white people to give me a sandwich every year.

You are as vague as possible arent you?

A financial investment which creats a basic sanitation system, inferstructure, food supply system - frm any basic sociatial need will improve living conditions and thereby lower criminality.
Such things can be provided via handout and are actualy provided via handout and actualy are the most successfull chareties.

Where are your historical examples again?!?!?!

If I was a starving kid in Africa, I would like to know where in Africa I live, what the situation in politics is there, what my ethnicitie is and other specifics.
Africa is a diverse continent of nations and ethnicities in which each region has it`s own challenges.

Didn`t you get the carricature?

Are you that thik?

(January 26, 2013 at 10:29 pm)Shell B Wrote: To be fair, I would buy an Aston Martin and help the needy. Just saying. It's not like I would drive it through a poor African village drinking Champagne and rocking bling. In other words, it is okay to have nice things if you are rich. Being contemptuous of nice things seems like jealousy, which is also okay. What is not okay is to be a tight ass that buys himself nice shit, but doesn't share with people who need it. It's fucking tax deductible. Why not?

Again, I do not hate wealth, it is the total climate, not one person. No I don't think it is ok to be jealous of wealth. No more than I think it is ok to have contempt for the poor. In the end we are all humans and how you treat others is what matters.

It is ok to have nice things. But it is not ok live in a bubble and pretend there isn't a problem and that everyone who doesn't get up to the top is worthless.

---

(January 27, 2013 at 1:17 pm)BGChuckLee Wrote:

(January 27, 2013 at 1:03 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: You denounce that money solves social problems, to then say that investments solve social problems best.

Since when do investments no longer require money?

What are you historical examples?

The rest of your post simply reminded me of this image:

Yes, money does not solve social problems- as money is not simply a thing that people require more of- economics is an ecosystem always trading with each other. I said that donations and hand me downs do not work, since it doesn't solve problems, it only keeps people on life support to survive beyond their means.

If I was a starving African, I would want job opportunities. Not some white people to give me a sandwich every year.

Is that really how stupidly you view life? That picture on your horse makes all the sense in the world now.

This isn't about opportunity, this is merely you in denial that giving is nothing but PR on your part to justify having that horse.

Opportunity works so well that there is lower pay, and higher cost of living and less jobs.

I am sorry but the slash and burn economy of global monopolies isn't providing shit. Over tilling the field and blaming the picker is all you are doing.

I am reminded of an old story, Of an explorer in the Amazon, who had taken with him some post cards of houses in Britain to explain the sort of society he came from.
He was showing these pictures to the Amazonians and they took special interest in a picture of a lord's mansion and said something on the lines of-

'You mean one man has that big house all to himself, and all the rest of your tribe only has little houses? Why don't you just kill him and take it from him? If one of our tribe had so much and would not share it, we would kill him, because he would be showing he no longer wanted to be part of the tribe, although he was using our land. That would make him our enemy.'


I can't help feeling those Amazonians might have a point.

(January 21, 2013 at 9:07 pm)jonb Wrote:

Quote:Billionaires' fortunes hinder fight against poverty, says Oxfam
Charity says $240bn amassed by 100 richest people last year would be enough to end extreme poverty four times over.

This story provokes me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/j...erty-oxfam

I'm not entirely sure of the Math that they are using for this article. If you taxed an extra 25% on the 240bn, you'd have 60 billion dollars. That is not even close to enough to end poverty. There are around 1.29 billion people living in extreme poverty. So you'd have around 50 extra dollars a year for all of them. In other words about 30 cents a day. That's with a 100% efficient distribution system, which obviously isn't possible. So I'm fairly baffled where they are getting their math from.

Also the old axiom of the rich getting richer and the poor getting isn't true. In fact the poor are getting richer as well, and huge numbers of people are coming out of extreme poverty.

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/0...worldwide/

Lets keep one thing in mind, nobody in the US or UK lives in extreme poverty. Nobody. One year I lived on 2000 dollars, and that probably seems impossible to most people on here, but that is still almost 8 times as much as a enormous percentage of the world.

Overall I think that this article is ill-supported by any evidence, has a deceptive principal, and is more fueled by propaganda than fact.

(January 28, 2013 at 2:46 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: One year I lived on 2000 dollars, and that probably seems impossible to most people on here, but that is still almost 8 times as much as a enormous percentage of the world.

my basic out goings each year without food are in excess of £8000 the council tax alone is £1200.
Last weeks shop came to over £240 because food costs have rocketed and because there are five of us, (and a hamster).

When you look at the exchange rate of 1.57 dollars to the pound you get quite a frightening figure.

You could not live in england on the equivalent of $2000 a year!

(January 28, 2013 at 3:03 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: my basic out goings each year without food are in excess of £8000 the council tax alone is £1200.
Last weeks shop came to over £240 because food costs have rocketed and because there are five of us, (and a hamster).

When you look at the exchange rate of 1.57 dollars to the pound you get quite a frightening figure.

You could not live in england on the equivalent of $2000 a year!

I don't pay for anything but food. I don't have a phone and I live in my girlfriends mini-van and when she wants to go do something else I live in a tent. I think the year I lived on 2000 dollars I spent 4 or so months in Mexico. I spend a lot of time in Latin America, which helps. I bet you could live on 2 grand in the UK if you really tried, you'd just have to give up things that make you comfortable. How do you think people live in 2 dollars a day in other countries? I mean things are cheaper there, but they aren't that much cheaper.

(January 28, 2013 at 3:09 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: [quote='downbeatplumb' pid='392868' dateline='1359399797']



I bet you could live on 2 grand in the UK if you really tried, you'd just have to give up things that make you comfortable. How do you think people live in 2 dollars a day in other countries? I mean things are cheaper there, but they aren't that much cheaper.

Not as an adult, the council tax is a compulsary charge for an occupied house/flat and it pretty much costs over a grand anywhere in the country. A loaf of bread here costs about a £1 on average where a year or so ago it would have been about 60p, the same almost for everything. The only thing that seems to be coming down in price is tablet computers.