Entry 870, on 2008-10-16 at 21:29:42 (Rating 4, Politics)
I remember many years ago when I was at school I would often get comments on my report saying something like "could do better". Well duh, obviously that's true because no one works to 100% of their potential so they could always do better. I guess the real message was that I was slacking around and if I did a bit of work I could do a lot better, but that's ancient history now. The reason I mention the phrase is that I think the world as a whole could do better.
Many people have noted the obscene amounts of money which have magically appeared to prop up the world's financial and banking system which has been run down by a bunch of incompetents who seem to have the primary attributes of stupidity and greed. I was thinking about what the world would be like if that money was spent on something useful instead.
I read various reports which said that world hunger could be abolished through an estimated expenditure of between $20 billion and $60 billion (source: approximate estimates from UN reports, FAO, Dietetic Association). Humanities greatest adventure, the Apollo space program, cost (in today's currency) about $90 billion (source: Wikipedia). The world's biggest and most complex machine, the Large Hadron Collider, cost about 6 billion euros (source: Wikipedia). Budgets for humanitarian projects, science and technological development are being cut all around the world because "there isn't enough money" to support them. Well if the money doesn't exist where have the trillions thrown at this bunch of worthless parasites come from?
I'm beginning to notice a change in attitude to executives and business people recently. Many people would have looked at them with admiration in the past. I personally always despised them because they really do nothing and still demand huge salaries as well as public adulation. Before I go any further I should say that there are occasional business people who do have a moderately useful function. Calling them all worthless scum is an oversimplification but I'll just stick with that idea with the understanding that it isn't always 100% true.
An article in the local paper this morning was very critical of business people, accusing them of travelling all over the world to attend meetings of doubtful value and wasting the world's resources. Many articles on mainstream web based media recently were critical of financial companies and their directors. It seems that perhaps people are beginning to see the light and realise that the "emperor has no clothes". Those fancy suits seem to be just a disguise to hide a total lack of substance.
OK, maybe I've got a little bit carried away in the rant above, but I think the business model we are currently controlled by is the fundamental reason that we are underachieving as a civilisation. We could abolish world hunger. We could eradicate many diseases which affect millions of people around the world. We could have a reasonable standard of living for every person on the planet. We could have a permanent base on the Moon. We could have an energy production system which provides unlimited energy to everyone without producing excessive greenhouse gases. We could have all of these things if we used the worlds resources in a sane and fair way.
But we don't. So the world's report card continues to read: could do better.
Comment 1 (1741) by SBFL on 2008-10-18 at 22:03:54:
It is absolutely no exaggeration to call you delusional. Having read this post I get the feeling you were a beauty pageant queen in a former life.
'I personally always despised them...' - You have the temerity to say this after criticising some misguided Christians in the subsequent post? Are you full of hate as well?
Comment 2 (1742) by OJB on 2008-10-19 at 09:57:51:
Well instead of launching an ad hominem attack why not point out where my logic is wrong? The numbers are correct. Why can't we do something about these issues then?
I think I have a right to despise people who hog all the world's resources while other people, who could easily be helped, miss out. Do you disagree?
Comment 3 (1745) by SBFL on 2008-10-19 at 12:10:45:
Honestly OJB, you use such broad generalisations based on a dreamy ideology that I don't know where to start. Come on, you even admit it was a rant.
Lets look at just one aspect of your logic - do you really believe work hunger would be abolished by throwing around some cash? What happens when the cash has dried up? Now I haven't read the reports you refer to as they are not linked, but is the money spent on food, or is is spent on eliminating the root causes of hunger? (topic for a separate post one day maybe?)
How much hunger is generated by not spending the money to prop up failing financial institutions? Are you so naive to think this money is only for the 'executives and business people' you are so hateful of?
What about using the funds on the $90b Apollo space program to abolish world hunger (apparently $60b)?
On another point, why do you say most 'executives and business people' crave adulation and demand huge salaries? You mention 'not 100%' are like this indicating the vast majority are. What do you form the basis of this comment on? I struggle to find logic here. You don't even specify 'executives and business people' that work in the financial markets sector, so I assume you mean 'executives and business people' everywhere.
So your logic is generally warped, at best, in my humble opinion!
Comment 4 (1747) by OJB on 2008-10-19 at 15:08:48:
Money means resources, one of the most important of which is food. So yes, I do believe that hunger could be eliminated (or almost eliminated) by "throwing around some cash". I think the main reason people deny that option is that they want to keep the cash for themselves. Even if the cash didn't create a permanent solution it would still be a simple matter to continue throwing it around indefinitely.
The "trickle down" theory you are implying exists above has become somewhat doubtful. I don't think many people see throwing money at big corporations in the hope they will create more wealth for the rest of us as a realistic option any more. All that happens is the big companies say thank you for the hand out, they move jobs offshore, run on the minimum staff possible, and rip off the consumer wherever they can. Telecom has shown this phenomenon so clearly!
Taking two thirds of the space program's funds is a bit tough when a tiny fraction of the cash thrown at big corporations could be used instead. At least the space program gives us something back!
I do concede that I am stereotyping business people and I admitted that when I said "maybe I've got a little bit carried away in the rant above" but its just so upsetting to me that we live in such a deeply flawed world.
Comment 5 (1749) by SBFL on 2008-10-19 at 20:07:00:
Para 1: I'll let you in on a little secret - money doesn't grow on trees. I agree that more can be given by the richer states in the world (of course the US gives the most, but this good work is undone by the amount they give Israel just for arms). However despite that I believe cash relief is a short term as it gets. We've all heard of Lotto winners blowing their winnings and being back where they started faster than you can say "Archie Karas". Resources only go so far, we need sustainable solutions, infrastructure, good governance, property rights and effective systems.
Para 2: I suspect you vote Green. When was Telecom bailed out by the govt? I don't think many people see throwing money at big corporations in the hope they will create more wealth for the rest of us as a realistic option any more. So you won't be complaining when jobs are cut. Good. "they move jobs offshore"...where the real poor people are! If moving jobs offshore offends you, then clearly you are one of those you term "they want to keep the cash for themselves."
Para 3: Not good enough reply. Apollo Space Program or End world hunger?
Para 4: Okay fine. I think we need to take a more collective responsibility for the deeply flawed world we live in. Pointing fingers, especially at easy targets, won't solve much.
Comment 6 (1751) by OJB on 2008-10-19 at 21:21:27:
Well I found several sources (UN, etc) who said that 20 to 60 billion would solve the problem. I presume they researched it a bit more thoroughly than you. I completely agree that running the affected countries properly is the ultimate aim but letting millions die because their countries aren't well organised and we are too greedy to help doesn't seem fair.
And yes, I used to think money was hard to find too but since the trillions have turned up to help out the banks it seems to me that its not that hard after all. Why can't we find just a few percent of that to solve world hunger? The old "money doesn't grow on trees" defence doesn't seem to have a lot of credibility any more!
True Telecom wasn't bailed out many others were, and the other criticisms do apply to Telecom. Giving people in poor countries jobs is OK as long as they don't cut jobs somewhere else! There's no real gain then, is there.
Not good enough? Let's look at the numbers. Take 67% of the Apollo budget or about 2% of what has been spent on the hand out to the banks. I don't think the banks would notice quite as much, do you?
Having a system based on something other than greed seems like a good starting point. And maybe the banks are an easy target because they are the ones at fault.
Comment 7 (1754) by SBFL on 2008-10-19 at 22:35:17:
Yes, I am sure they did research the matter more than me, but like I said in comment 3 "Now I haven't read the reports you refer to as they are not linked, but is the money spent on food, or is is spent on eliminating the root causes of hunger? (topic for a separate post one day maybe?)"
Because I believe you are deluded to actually think that "just a few percent" would eliminate the issue. You are right about one thing though, a lot more could be done. A lot.
Actually it's taking something off the rich (say working class in safety net NZ) and giving it to the poor (the working class in no safety net emerging nations). Isn't it funny how this philosophy doesn't apply when suddenly "the left" find themselves in the category of the rich...? Amazing.
I notice you avoid answering again. So again I ask: Apollo Space Program or End world hunger?
How did we go from business people to banks on this particular point all of a sudden? You are very good at twisting the path of a debate to avoid the questions that might expose a weakness in your argument (IMHO of course, I don't expect you to agree with this!). Debating with you can sometimes be like pulling teeth!
Comment 8 (1755) by OJB on 2008-10-20 at 07:55:59:
I read several reports which had figures ranging from 20 to 60 billion. I couldn't link them all but just Google the subject. The money was for a short term solution, not a permanent resolution of the underlying problems which would obviously be preferable.
The reports said 20 to 60 billion, which is a few percent of the several trillion spent on helping the banks. Simple maths.
Taking jobs away from one group and making them poor so that another group are less poor is not the answer, especially when its done for the sole reason of making the shareholders even more rich.
The question of choosing between a space program and ending world hunger is a tricky one. My point was that the question isn't relevant because we can easily afford both for a few percent (times 2) of the bank bail out. But if I had to choose I would say the space program (I can justify that).
The financial crisis and the behaviour of the banks seems to me to be the most extreme example of capitalism gone wrong. The post was about spending the money given to the banks and other financial institutions to more worthwhile projects.
Comment 9 (1756) by SBFL on 2008-10-20 at 23:31:03:
Simple maths? But you just agreed that amount doesn't solve the problem.
Fact is alternative opportunities and safety nets exist here, so I doubt the impact would be so bad here, compared to the places where real poverty exists. Greed and selfishness exists everywhere, even amongst those who pretend they are free of it.
At least you made a call now. Maybe you will make a new post one day on that justification.
So? We were specifically talking about one part of your post, but you twisted it. I wonder why...another classic distortion, sigh.
Comment 10 (1759) by OJB on 2008-10-21 at 09:14:58:
I said that solving the underlying causes of the problems would be better but I specifically said that organisations who work in this area (UN, etc) have said that the money would solve the immediate problem. The maths is simple.
I agree that everyone suffers from an element of greed and selfishness. The point I was trying to make (but you seem to keep avoiding) is that such a small part of the bank bail out money would solve so many problems and that small part would barely be noticed.
A post on justifying the space program would be a good idea. I'll work on that one.
I think we both might be guilty of being less than totally sincere occasionally. I recognise that I am sometimes guilty of extending the faults of the extreme cases to the more general case. And I think you are guilty of avoiding questions by giving vague and meaningless answers (more in the area of religion than politics). We should both work on improving this maybe?
Comment 11 (1760) by SBFL on 2008-10-25 at 08:57:19:
If you think I am avoiding a topic because of being vague and meaningless then actually perhaps it is that you just don't understand. I mean you often display that human tendency to rationalise in order to make sense of matters. Your final comments (#75-85) in the post "Convoluted Rationalisations" is a classic example of this. You absolutely demanded a nice and neat executive summary to a complex issue we had spent many words discussing. Even in this latest comment you say 'The point I was trying to make (but you seem to keep avoiding)...when in fact at least one section in every comment made so far in this thread covers your point, my argument being that no, it wouldn't solve the so many problems that you and your vaguely referred to reports claim. Why would you say I am avoiding the point when the opposite is so blatantly true? Why? Some parts of our discussions may digress as the thread wears on but is that not normal? Apparently they all reach the point of referring to the Nazis or Hitler anyway!
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE