Inuit organize widespread protest over hunger, food cost - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Drsalvador;36264589]it was a quote, i should have put it in quotes, my mistake. but the point is there's no "out of touch" or "forgotten" cultures, just ones of different status.[/QUOTE] Status being "out of touch" or "forgotten"? Stop looking for arguments that aren't there.

[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;36266452]True, but if theres 30k living in one city alone compares to an entire province, thats WHY they can get cheap stuff[/QUOTE] I am talking about Northern Alaska, which is a whole different ball game than the South. Southern Alaska isn't anything like where the people in this article are living. The North shares much in common with it.

95% of canadians live along the boarder with the US. Its literally all tundra up north.

[QUOTE=Noble;36266501]I'm saying this has little to do with profit or capitalism though, it has less to do with profit and more to do with the fact that it takes a lot of resources to get food to these people because of the area they live in. There just isn't a cheap source of food for them because the only available methods of getting food (such as hunting or shipping it in) are highly expensive endeavors that need resources like fuel and transportation, or in the case of hunting: rifles, snowmobiles, etc. Even in a socialist system it would still take the same amount of resources to get food to these people which would ultimately have to be provided by someone or a group of people.[/QUOTE] "I'm saying this has little to do with profit or capitalism though" - maximal profit production levels also represent signals as to how many labor, capital and other inputs will be allocated. It would be possible to allocate more resources if one would overinvest (and consequently make less profit) in order to feed these people. But this would result in very little profit, or even (most likely) a loss. For example, a profit-maximizing (capitalistic) company wouldn't profit much by paying for the quantities of transportation/fuel required to transport all the food to the areas which aren't very accessible. An infrastructural company wouldn't be likely to invest in a mobilized manner just to alleviate the hunger, as it seeks profitable investments, not the ones which would produce more benefit for the society.

Well don't live where it's barely fucking habitable then? When very few people live in a place where very few people can even get to, you aren't going to get low prices on anything

[QUOTE=TheTalon;36272022]Well don't live where it's barely fucking habitable then? When very few people live in a place where very few people can even get to, you aren't going to get low prices on anything[/QUOTE] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/3_D-Box.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=TheTalon;36272022]Well don't live where it's barely fucking habitable then? When very few people live in a place where very few people can even get to, you aren't going to get low prices on anything[/QUOTE] Long story short: The government pretty much forced the majority of the people to live up there.

the fuel it takes for the food/stuff to get up in the north is huuge since there are no major roads leading so they get it by air.

[QUOTE=Noble;36266501]I'm saying this has little to do with profit or capitalism though, it has less to do with profit and more to do with the fact that it takes a lot of resources to get food to these people because of the area they live in. There just isn't a cheap source of food for them because the only available methods of getting food (such as hunting or shipping it in) are highly expensive endeavors that need resources like fuel and transportation, or in the case of hunting: rifles, snowmobiles, etc. Even in a socialist system it would still take the same amount of resources to get food to these people which would ultimately have to be provided by someone or a group of people.[/QUOTE] Have you read the post that you've replied to? This is the reply to this post of yours. "There just isn't a cheap source of food for them because the only available methods of getting food (such as hunting or shipping it in) are highly expensive endeavors that need resources like fuel and transportation" - As I've already said, this can be easily attained by overinvesting into labor, capital and other inputs, which would end the food scarcity in the region in question. This wouldn't make even profit, and would even have negative profit, so this isn't done in a capitalistic system. You keep replying to my posts without even reading them.

There's other costs involved in adding additional labor and capital into the equation, you can't just magically make these resources appear from thin air, they're scarce and have to be allocated properly. If you want to over-invest in one area, you're going to have to take from another area to compensate. Profits provide a signal for knowing when resources are being used efficiently and how to determine prices. Negative profits (losses) are a signal that you're not allocating resources efficiently. In a system with no profits (socialism), you have no reliable way to determine resource allocation, it's all just guesswork. I have read your posts, and I'm telling you that even in a socialist system there would still need to be smart allocation of finite resources, and that you can't just add more resources into the system out of thin air.

[QUOTE=GenPol;36274914]Have you read the post that you've replied to? This is the reply to this post of yours. "There just isn't a cheap source of food for them because the only available methods of getting food (such as hunting or shipping it in) are highly expensive endeavors that need resources like fuel and transportation" - As I've already said, this can be easily attained by overinvesting into labor, capital and other inputs, which would end the food scarcity in the region in question. This wouldn't make even profit, and would even have negative profit, so this isn't done in a capitalistic system. You keep replying to my posts without even reading them.[/QUOTE] *Capitalist system wah wah*

The more I look at the Marxist theory of history, the more I think "Occams razor". I originally thought it made sense, but upon closer inspection (Especially in the Medieval Era) the more I think it was broken.

Fuck, and I thought Aussies had it bad with software. Total BS being exposed by them.

[QUOTE=GenPol;36264752]The production quota could be reallocated to higher quantities in an economy which doesn't seek profit maximization.[/QUOTE] How could you rightfully do something like this? Profit is the epitome of human desire, you cannot fight against it and it isn't inherently a bad thing. Start a fucking charity. Don't expect people, industries, or corporations to make poor financial decisions to ameliorate the woes of a secluded and rural populace.

[QUOTE=Strider*;36292069]How could you rightfully do something like this? Profit is the epitome of human desire, you cannot fight against it and it isn't inherently a bad thing. Start a fucking charity. Don't expect people, industries, or corporations to make poor financial decisions to ameliorate the woes of a secluded and rural populace.[/QUOTE] yeah it's not exactly fair to expect firms to sell food at a loss because people choose to live in desolate areas of the world. There's also nothing stopping these troubled individuals from starting their own businesses if they're displeased with the current ones.

[QUOTE=Strider*;36292069]Profit is the epitome of human desire[/QUOTE] whoa. I didn't realise someone had resurrected Ayn Rand and signed her up for facepunch

[QUOTE=Strider*;36292069]How could you rightfully do something like this? Profit is the epitome of human desire, you cannot fight against it and it isn't inherently a bad thing. Start a fucking charity. Don't expect people, industries, or corporations to make poor financial decisions to ameliorate the woes of a secluded and rural populace.[/QUOTE] I'm not against profit as long as that profit is given based on the benefit done to the society. In fact, I fully support it in this shape, and believe that it would greatly motivate people to act for the greater good.

I wonder how much Beer and Wine Cost over there

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36278280]The more I look at the Marxist theory of history, the more I think "Occams razor". I originally thought it made sense, but upon closer inspection (Especially in the Medieval Era) the more I think it was broken.[/QUOTE] Marxism suffers the same problem as all dialectic; it's all "This happens, then this happens, then this will happen" when it should be an anagram: "Shit happens, then shit happens, then shit will happen".

the sad thing is nothing will ever be done about this thanks to widespread racism against native people in canada. canada isn't a tolerant place. don't let anyone fool you, we're just as racist as the united states or europe.

[QUOTE=Djentleman;36294585]the sad thing is nothing will ever be done about this thanks to widespread racism against native people in canada. canada isn't a tolerant place. don't let anyone fool you, we're just as racist as the united states or europe.[/QUOTE] we didn't enslave them for 200 years. This isn't racism at play here, it's the fact they live in the middle of nowhere in an area that's practically arctic. It simply costs more to have resources sent afar.

it cost like $300 for normal vodka

[QUOTE=Strider*;36292069]How could you rightfully do something like this? Profit is the epitome of human desire, you cannot fight against it and it isn't inherently a bad thing. [/QUOTE] thanks mr. psychology expert for displaying your incredibly vast understanding of how the human brain works. just kidding something tells me you've never even glanced at a paper on the subject

Why don't they build a supermarket over there?

[QUOTE=RoflKawpter;36274606]Long story short: The government pretty much forced the majority of the people to live up there.[/QUOTE] Just like all native Americans, white people have been fucking them over pretty much since we got here.

[QUOTE=BCell;36297814]Why don't they build a supermarket over there?[/QUOTE] Because everything has to be flown in basically by a Cessna with skis. It's not that they don't have food, it's that they can't get food to them. You basically have to live off the land up there. That's why everything is so expensive. It's a rarity.

[QUOTE=Djentleman;36294585]the sad thing is nothing will ever be done about this thanks to widespread racism against native people in canada. canada isn't a tolerant place. don't let anyone fool you, we're just as racist as the united states or europe.[/QUOTE] Racism against the natives? Wide spread? What kind of fucked up hallucinogenic drug are you on, seriously? Yes there is still a TENSION between natives and everyone else but it's not full fledged hate. They don't get kicked out of bars, arrested, beat, etc. for being native. This is not racism, hate or what ever you want to call it, it's the fact we need to ship food over a frozen hell which is expensive to do. The government doesn't control the price of fucking pop nor can they. There are a few people who dislike the natives, like there are who dislike blacks, hispanics, arabs, whites, and asians. It's there. It's not fucking rampant our else they would pay taxes. And please for the love of god don't start spouting out how we live on 'their' land we conquered, they lost we won tough shit.

[QUOTE=Paramud;36297849]Just like all native Americans, white people have been fucking them over pretty much since we got here.[/QUOTE] I would say the real fucking over took a bit longer. The bumblebee, smallpox and the earthworm were far bigger enemies than Europeans.

[QUOTE=Lazor;36296671]thanks mr. psychology expert for displaying your incredibly vast understanding of how the human brain works.[/QUOTE] You've proved yourself again and again to be an overly emphatic, ignorant and ultimately useless poster. And I'm not just basing this in reference to your response to me.. here I'll quote you: [quote=Lazor]lmao someone literally has no idea who the black panthers were or what they did[/quote] You spend about less than a minute on the posts you make and they're worthless. Do you do it to raise your post count? Or is your life so horribly insipid and intellectually un-engaging that you believe questioning my knowledge of psychology through sarcasm is adding anything to this discussion? I understand the point you're trying to make, but does anyone who wants to comment on a topic have to have a master degree in it? Tell me, are you a psych major? Frankly I don't give a shit, the past couple thousand years of human civilization have proven that humans are inherently greedy. I doubt even you would argue against that. Now, why don't you post something with some substance?

[QUOTE=Strider*;36303835]You've proved yourself again and again to be an overly emphatic, ignorant and ultimately useless poster. And I'm not just basing this in reference to your response to me.. here I'll quote you: You spend about less than a minute on the posts you make and they're worthless. Do you do it to raise your post count? Or is your life so horribly insipid and intellectually un-engaging that you believe questioning my knowledge of psychology through sarcasm is adding anything to this discussion? I understand the point you're trying to make, but does anyone who wants to comment on a topic have to have a master degree in it? Tell me, are you a psych major? Frankly I don't give a shit, the past couple thousand years of human civilization have proven that humans are inherently greedy. I doubt even you would argue against that. Now, why don't you post something with some substance?[/QUOTE] oh boo hoo if you can't deal with being dismissed out of hand for making definitive claims based on nothing but pseudo-intellectual bullshit rather than any real understanding of the human mind then don't make those awful posts