The 100 richest people earned enough in 2012 to end global poverty four times over. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=laserguided;39302262]Are you trying to say communism is a bad thing?[/QUOTE] It's an awful ideology that has about as much grip on reality as an Ayn Rand novel.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39302863]no he wasn't [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] then kill yourself[/QUOTE] Subjective. [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;39303199]It's an awful ideology that has about as much grip on reality as an Ayn Rand novel.[/QUOTE] Implying capitalism is better?

This is downright idiotic. Apparently, we only need $60B to solve world poverty! [QUOTE]Over the past 60 years at least $1 trillion of development-related aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. Yet real per-capita income today is lower than it was in the 1970s, and more than 50% of the population -- over 350 million people -- live on less than a dollar a day, a figure that has nearly doubled in two decades.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123758895999200083.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39303317]Don't backpedal. I also have no idea how the last part of your post relates to what I said in any way, you don't know a system won't work if you've never employed it on a large scale [I]with the cooperation of the community[/I]. A system that relies on the good will of people will obviously fail when you have people such as yourself going "no! we are naturally evil and greedy therefore it will never work!". It's a self-perpetuating fallacy.[/QUOTE] I'm not backpedalling - every system [I]is[/I] great on paper. And great doesn't mean [I]good[/I]. Fascism, Stalinism, Maoism all set out with a bunch of goals on paper and achieved them with varying success. My point was that I was talking about systems that have seemingly positive goals that end up with negative consequences. Like for example communism. If there were any countries that had successfully employed communism, your argument would hold water, but from what history has shown us, it universally ends up as a dictatorship. Especially in countries which support it. Should I remind you what the Russian revolution was all about? We are greedy. Communism will never work on a big scale as intended.

[QUOTE=Stopper;39303023]He also ordered the execution of the whole royal family (the Romanovs), censored the press, shut down rivaling parties, enforced conscription, stuff like that. Pretty much like... Every other tyrant.[/QUOTE] To be fair, he had reasons for most of those things. The order for the Romanov execution was only decreed by Lenin after there was a risk they would be captured by the White army during the Civil War (the war between the Communists, or Reds, and the Whites, a conglomerate of every anti-Communist party that occurred after the October Revolution), as many of the Whites were Tsarist and thus would get a huge boost of morale from capturing the family, potentially winning them the war. He covered it up as a spontaneous radical attack because he was ashamed of what he'd done. The censoring of the press and the banning of rival parties was a dick move, but he did it to prevent lawful citizens sympathising with the 'illegal' non-Communist parties. I believe the conscription was only during the Civil War because he wanted to ensure the Reds won, and immediately afterwards the army was practically disbanded apart from to quell rebellion. Again, a shitty thing to do, but unlike the other 'tyrants' he had a reason other than 'I want more power'; Communism was so universally hated by other nations that, if the government had been divided, it's possible he could have been usurped. None of this changes the fact he was just as power-hungry as many other dictators, but he at least had a government who (until the early 1920s) weren't afraid to criticise his policies, and many of his stricter laws were only introduced after somebody had tried to bring about the 'counter-revolution' through a similar measure. Not to mention he was striving to put forward a system that helped everybody, and clearly thought that his utopian omelette could survive with a few broken eggs. Had he not died in 1924, it's possible the Soviet Union could have turned out very differently once it had settled down. Still, it is clear that Lenin was perhaps not the most level-headed politician, but he certainly wasn't quite a dictator on the scale of Stalin.

[QUOTE=Morcam;39303529]This is downright idiotic. Apparently, we only need $60B to solve world poverty! [URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123758895999200083.html[/URL][/QUOTE] I honestly don't understand that. Where did all of that money go? What did we achieve with these 1 trillion dollars? Also, as a side note, 1 trillion for sixty years isn't that grand of a sum. We are after all talking about a lot of countries and a lot of people. 16 billion/year (averaged) divided by all the people really isn't [I]that[/I] much.

[QUOTE=Stopper;39303584]I honestly don't understand that. Where did all of that money go? What did we achieve with these 1 trillion dollars? Also, as a side note, 1 trillion for sixty years isn't that grand of a sum. We are after all talking about a lot of countries and a lot of people. 16 billion/year (averaged) divided by all the people really isn't [I]that[/I] much.[/QUOTE] Imagine if countries cut their defence budgets by half and gave the money that was spared to the people.

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;39303558]To be fair, he had reasons for most of those things. The order for the Romanov execution was only decreed by Lenin after there was a risk they would be captured by the White army during the Civil War (the war between the Communists, or Reds, and the Whites, a conglomerate of every anti-Communist party that occurred after the October Revolution), as many of the Whites were Tsarist and thus would get a huge boost of morale from capturing the family, potentially winning them the war. He covered it up as a spontaneous radical attack because he was ashamed of what he'd done. The censoring of the press and the banning of rival parties was a dick move, but he did it to prevent lawful citizens sympathising with the 'illegal' non-Communist parties. I believe the conscription was only during the Civil War because he wanted to ensure the Reds won, and immediately afterwards the army was practically disbanded apart from to quell rebellion. Again, a shitty thing to do, but unlike the other 'tyrants' he had a reason other than 'I want more power'; Communism was so universally hated by other nations that, if the government had been divided, it's possible he could have been usurped. None of this changes the fact he was just as power-hungry as many other dictators, but he at least had a government who (until the early 1920s) weren't afraid to criticise his policies, and many of his stricter laws were only introduced after somebody had tried to bring about the 'counter-revolution' through a similar measure. Not to mention he was striving to put forward a system that helped everybody, and clearly thought that his utopian omelette could survive with a few broken eggs. Had he not died in 1924, it's possible the Soviet Union could have turned out very differently once it had settled down. Still, it is clear that Lenin was perhaps not the most level-headed politician, but he certainly wasn't quite a dictator on the scale of Stalin.[/QUOTE] That's is true. Maybe it would've turned different, maybe it wouldn't have. I personally believe it would have gone the same way (possibly a bit milder?), but we'll never know. I prefer not to look at his reasoning, because we could apply the same excuse for any dictator with variable success, but that's just me. (I still agree with you)

[QUOTE=Stopper;39303584]I honestly don't understand that. Where did all of that money go? What did we achieve with these 1 trillion dollars? Also, as a side note, 1 trillion for sixty years isn't that grand of a sum. We are after all talking about a lot of countries and a lot of people. 16 billion/year (averaged) divided by all the people really isn't [I]that[/I] much.[/QUOTE] Did you not read the article? He explains where it all went. And yes, since this global poverty association says they only need $60B [B]total[/B] to end global poverty, not just in Africa, they might need to get a little grip on reality. "Global Aid" is a fantasy in third-world countries. They are third-world by merit of terrible governments in the first place, so how do you intend for them to spend this $60B?

[QUOTE=laserguided;39303648]Imagine if countries cut their defence budgets by half and gave the money that was spared to the people.[/QUOTE] I'm guessing you're implying a certain country which has defense budget that has been known to pass the trillion mark? (not [I]only[/I] of course, this is a satirical jab at the USA) [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Morcam;39303698]Did you not read the article? He explains where it all went. And yes, since this global poverty association says they only need $60B [B]total[/B] to end global poverty, not just in Africa, they might need to get a little grip on reality. "Global Aid" is a fantasy in third-world countries. They are third-world by merit of terrible governments in the first place, so how do you intend for them to spend this $60B?[/QUOTE] No, in all honesty I went only by your quote. The point is that while $60B/year won't automatically solve third-world problems, a constant monetary supply will definitely help things, wouldn't it? Well, this whole time I imagined funding projects like farms, water purification stations, housings, etc. not the government itself. You might argue that it's just mending the symptoms and not the cause, but something like a water purification plant would be a miracle in a country plagued by the lack of drinkable water. (it's an example)

I would sure as hell not have an issue with the federal government returning un-spent money to city governments with higher proportions of poor, or maybe higher murder rates or [I]something.[/I] [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] God knows Detroit needs all the money it can get now.

[QUOTE=Stopper;39303723] No, in all honesty I went only by your quote. The point is that while $60B/year won't automatically solve third-world problems, a constant monetary supply will definitely help things, wouldn't it? Well, this whole time I imagined funding projects like farms, water purification stations, housings, etc. not the government itself. You might argue that it's just mending the symptoms and not the cause, but something like a water purification plant would be a miracle in a country plagued by the lack of drinkable water. (it's an example)[/QUOTE] In a lot of ways, no, it really doesn't help. What Africa needs is investments, not handouts. A great example from that same article: [QUOTE]Even what may appear as a benign intervention on the surface can have damning consequences. Say there is a mosquito-net maker in small-town Africa. Say he employs 10 people who together manufacture 500 nets a week. Typically, these 10 employees support upward of 15 relatives each. A Western government-inspired program generously supplies the affected region with 100,000 free mosquito nets. This promptly puts the mosquito net manufacturer out of business, and now his 10 employees can no longer support their 150 dependents. In a couple of years, most of the donated nets will be torn and useless, but now there is no mosquito net maker to go to. They'll have to get more aid. And African governments once again get to abdicate their responsibilities.[/QUOTE] If we continually supply aid to African countries, if we continue to dump money on them, there's no incentive for them to develop their own solutions.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39303678]Courtesy of [Seed Eater].[/QUOTE] Do you notice the distinct lack of any actual [I]countries[/I] there? I'm going to be an ass and just quote the articles you quoted to show what I mean. "during the Spanish Civil War ('36-'39)" "was a government that briefly ruled" "was an attempt to form a stateless anarchist" "and lasted only" These attempts don't last and they don't materialize into actual governments. How can you use these as examples of successful communist (or variants) countries when they didn't prosper? [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Morcam;39303841]In a lot of ways, no, it really doesn't help. What Africa needs is investments, not handouts. A great example from that same article: If we continually supply aid to African countries, if we continue to dump money on them, there's no incentive for them to develop their own solutions.[/QUOTE] The example you quoted makes a ton of sense, which is why I used something that africans can't make for themselves (due to lack of know-how, resources, technology, whatever). Out of curiosity, what is your suggestion? (honest question) Get rid of the corrupt governments and go from there? Because I don't see this happening easily, unless we have a military intervention, and that's a mess, as we've all seen.

[QUOTE=Stopper;39303723]I'm guessing you're implying a certain country which has defense budget that has been known to pass the trillion mark? (not [I]only[/I] of course, this is a satirical jab at the USA) [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] No, in all honesty I went only by your quote. The point is that while $60B/year won't automatically solve third-world problems, a constant monetary supply will definitely help things, wouldn't it? Well, this whole time I imagined funding projects like farms, water purification stations, housings, etc. not the government itself. You might argue that it's just mending the symptoms and not the cause, but something like a water purification plant would be a miracle in a country plagued by the lack of drinkable water. (it's an example)[/QUOTE] Not really, I mean't world wide. About 2 trillion dollars is spent annually on defence.

I'm probably going to contribute some to charity.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39303956]Because the entire idea behind communism is for the entire world, in due time, to turn communist. The system breaks down when you have the polar opposites of communism right next door. Because they operate under different values, policies, and mindsets. Also 'capitalist' nations often can't stand the idea of communist nations breathing the same air, which leads to immense political pressure and even interventions, not to mention (deadly) political hostility. You claimed communism was never successfully implemented anywhere. I gave you proof that they did, on several occasions. Now you're saying "[B]nooo but they didnt last long enough so it doesnt count![/B]"? The did prosper, just not on the same scale as a fully-developed nation. They don't need to. You're missing the point of communism.[/QUOTE] No, I'm saying that nothing guarantees that given due time (assuming they managed to stay stable), they wouldn't end up with a dictatorial regime. No, I'm not - it's exactly why they never prosper. I get the idea of communism perfectly well. I'm still telling you that it can't work in the real world. Your proof of it's "success" is my proof of it's failure. [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;39303976]Not really, I mean't world wide. About 2 trillion dollars is spent annually on defence.[/QUOTE] Oh, c'mon - that's exactly why I put the brackets at the end. I understood you - I was only joking.

[QUOTE=Stopper;39304061]No, I'm saying that nothing guarantees that given due time (assuming they managed to stay stable), they wouldn't end up with a dictatorial regime. No, I'm not - it's exactly why they never prosper. I get the idea of communism perfectly well. I'm still telling you that it can't work in the real world. Your proof of it's "success" is my proof of it's failure. [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] Oh, c'mon - that's exactly why I put the brackets at the end. I understood you - I was only joking.[/QUOTE] No you didn't, it was actually a jab at the US.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39304112]No you didn't, it was actually a jab at the US.[/QUOTE] It was a [I]satirical[/I] jab. Hence, a joke.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39303373]Implying capitalism is better?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma[/url] [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Marbalo;39303678]Courtesy of [Seed Eater].[/QUOTE] You do realize pretty much all of them had the revolutionaries go around murdering people like the clergy and rich? And the February Revolution wasn't a socialist revolution.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39303373]Subjective. [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] Implying capitalism is better?[/QUOTE] Capitalism seems to be doing well, considering some of the healthiest nations in the world run on capitalism.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39303956]They did prosper, just not on the same scale as a fully-developed nation.[/QUOTE] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/57/SpanishLeftistsShootStatueOfChrist.jpg/300px-SpanishLeftistsShootStatueOfChrist.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=ducklingqt;39304245]Capitalism seems to be doing well, considering some of the healthiest nations in the world run on capitalism.[/QUOTE] I'm going to quote Churchill here (about democracy, but it's the same point) "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39304321]Maybe the fact that it goes directly against the most basic principle of communism? Then you have an extremely short-sighted and cynical mindset. How are we to ever improve as a species if we don't rely on one of the most ancient forms of survival - trial and error? Why not wholeheartedly commit to the idea of communism just to see if it's any better than what we had today? The transition shouldn't be overnight with a bloody revolution, but rather a transformation over a period of several decades of new, continuous policies coupled with a modified system of education that doesn't teach the youth that money is the biggest, most important goal in life. I won't bore you with any speeches because it's obvious you are entrenched in the same cynical mindset almost all anti-communist advocates have, but the reality is that we can always strive for a better world, and we could achieve one if we at the very least [I]wanted [/I]a better world. With the ferocity that many people argue with against communism, it seems that some are either terrified of change or really don't want a better world because it might take some effort. Think what would happen if we claimed that slavery was a 'natural part of humanity' because villages in Africa have been doing it for centuries. Or what'd happen if we decided to never establish a proper justice system because crime is a 'natural part of humanity' therefore should not be fought against. There are so many historical examples, just like cynics have so many examples of war and theft to justify never changing our world for the better because we aren't "naturally built for it".[/QUOTE] My original point which you didn't understand was that if communism could've worked out, it would've. It hasn't. We have plenty examples of "[I]communist[/I]" countries and no example of communist countries. Yes, I'm a cynic, but I'm not short-sighted. I [B]never[/B] argued that communism is a bad system - nothing like that. I'm a big fan of the idea. I'd also like to live in a technocratic or meritocratic community. Alas, I can't. My only argument this entire time was that communism doesn't work like on paper. I share your optimism that maybe one day we'll live in a society that isn't ruled by the pitiful standards we use today. If I could do something to change that, I would. Again, I will repeat that for the sake of repetition - I never once claimed that communism is in any way a bad system, just that it doesn't work. If I could tip the scales for a better world, I most certainly would. And the problem isn't about change, it's about the impossibility of change. I wake up with the thought of a better world and go to bed with the bitter realization that it's a distant impossibility. And on a side note, why is communism the only alternative? I refuse to rebutt this slippery slope fallacy.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39302863]then kill yourself[/QUOTE] What's wrong with you?

[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;39302063]Telling someone they can't continue to comment on a subject because they committed a fallacy is a fallacy itself :v:[/QUOTE] I didn't tell him he couldn't, I told him how to be logically consistent. [QUOTE=teh pirate;39302937]FYI my point is that FPers seem to think being CEO involves sitting behind a desk on the 300th story of one of your 7 skyscrapers and jerking off all day.[/QUOTE] Some do, though. To match anecdote for anecdote, I know one that spends most of his day between vicodin and vodka. Terrible golfer, too. You could try citing something instead of talking about your dad, which means absolutely fuck all.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;39304874]I didn't tell him he couldn't, I told him how to be logically consistent. Some do, though. To match anecdote for anecdote, I know one that spends most of his day between vicodin and vodka. Terrible golfer, too. You could try citing something instead of talking about your dad, which means absolutely fuck all.[/QUOTE] Citing what? A survey of how hard CEO's work? [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Stopper;39303856] The example you quoted makes a ton of sense, which is why I used something that africans can't make for themselves (due to lack of know-how, resources, technology, whatever). Out of curiosity, what is your suggestion? (honest question) Get rid of the corrupt governments and go from there? Because I don't see this happening easily, unless we have a military intervention, and that's a mess, as we've all seen.[/QUOTE] International aid can exist as basic healthcare and, most of all, education. Bill Gates has the right idea in how he's pushing for vaccinations so heavily. But most importantly, we need to reduce the donations to Africa, and let them evolve their economy to meet their needs. We can teach them many things, but donating large amounts of unaccountable money is just an awful idea. It goes straight to the corrupt governments, who channel it into their own accounts and the military. No one pays any taxes, so no one has any reason to be represented in the government.

[QUOTE=l l;39304480]What's wrong with you?[/QUOTE] well you DID just say that death was basically the great equalizer

Just because they have the power to do it, doesn't mean that it's their responsibility. Although I'd like to think that if I had that kind of money I'd do something worthwhile with it. Not all of it, obviously. If someone earns their money fair and square I don't think it's fair that they're pressured to give it away.

[QUOTE=Morcam;39305242]Citing what? A survey of how hard CEO's work?[/QUOTE] They exist, believe it or not. Along with profitability comparisons based on hours worked and a breakdown of hours worked on what tasks. Seems to me one wouldn't talk about something they didn't actually know about, but hey, internet forum.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39302937]FYI my point is that FPers seem to think being CEO involves sitting behind a desk on the 300th story of one of your 7 skyscrapers and jerking off all day. It's actually pretty stressful work; my dad's in this position (though it's not nearly as large a company as some others). A couple weeks ago someone climbed on top of a trash can and pulled the main cable out of the roof of his building and ripped the guts out of the power box for the copper, and the downtime might kill the company.[/QUOTE] man life must be so difficult for him, getting paid extremely well to do non-physical labor in an office. if the downtime from a copper theft on the roof of his building is enough to bring the company to its knees, he probably isn't much of a big time CEO in the first place, so there was no use bringing him up in a discussion about the worlds most wealthy people