Burma Death Toll estimated at 22,000

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

Rising costs of staples does not equate to a "global food crisis". Certainly increased rice and wheat prices do create significant challenges for places where these base foods are the major consumables, and we're seeing the effects of this on the streets of many developing nations. But a true "global food crisis" happens when supplies of food are significantly outstripped by demand and many populations previously with stable food sources starve. We're not at that point.

Furthermore, your article complains of a lot of the negative effects of monocrops and corporate agriculture. These complaints are certainly valid, but paint an incomplete picture . These things are also a leading cause of the massive increase in total food production in the past 60 years, without which millions of people would likely have starved. If you want to suggest that there are many problems in our current food production methods, I'll wholeheartedly agree. If you want to suggest that the world has been disserved by our current modes of food production, I'd wholeheartedly disagree.

ok ... "global" is probably inaccurate as we here in the west continue to enjoy cheap food ...

my main point here is that climate change has an impact on food

josevolution

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080508/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_myanmar

these fuckers don't even wan't help ....:eek:

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

new orleans: hence the validity of developing a city in a natural flood area ...

Not sure where you get that "hence" from, unless you're being sarcastic. There's really not much validity in developing a city in a natural flood plain.

isn't that a socialist approach? ... if the people that reap the benefits of resources don't reinvest into a collective scheme - how does that work?

The socialist approach would not "invest", it would simply redistribute. Those are two fundamentally different approaches. To invest in something is to provide resources expecting to receive a return on those resources. To redistribute is to simply hand out resources without caring what you get back.

A wise developing nation invests its limited funds in areas where a return is possible and is miserly to areas where no return is possible. For instance, it would be briliant for the Burmese people and their government to begin investing in rice production, or natural gas mining, or potentially oil drilling. Those are some base staples that have high market values from which expanded investments can be created. It would idiotic, however, for those same people or that same government to turn around and invest in say, building a complex system of national highways before anything really would utilize those highways.

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

my main point here is that climate change has an impact on food

Absolutely. I don't disagree there at all.

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

Not sure where you get that "hence" from, unless you're being sarcastic. There's really not much validity in developing a city in a natural flood plain.



The socialist approach would not "invest", it would simply redistribute. Those are two fundamentally different approaches. To invest in something is to provide resources expecting to receive a return on those resources. To redistribute is to simply hand out resources without caring what you get back.

A wise developing nation invests its limited funds in areas where a return is possible and is miserly to areas where no return is possible. For instance, it would be briliant for the Burmese people and their government to begin investing in rice production, or natural gas mining, or potentially oil drilling. Those are some base staples that have high market values from which expanded investments can be created. It would idiotic, however, for those same people or that same government to turn around and invest in say, building a complex system of national highways before anything really would utilize those highways.

my point there is that building levees to protect a city that should never have been built isn't a plus for technology ...

but that investment would be up to the individual to choose under your preferred system no?

i can agree with that

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

my point there is that building levees to protect a city that should never have been built isn't a plus for technology ...

Be that as it may, the city is there and its citizens numerous. A good system of levees to protect those citizens would certainly be a plus for technology, assuming that those levees then work.

but that investment would be up to the individual to choose under your preferred system no?

i can agree with that

Then I think we're in agreement here

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

Be that as it may, the city is there and its citizens numerous. A good system of levees to protect those citizens would certainly be a plus for technology, assuming that those levees then work.



Then I think we're in agreement here

well ... that's to my point that technology might be the only solution to a problem created by technology ...

i was in agreement with your last point regarding "investments" by countries

i'm still perplexed to see how if the choice to invest is dependent on the individual - how a nation can move forward if that choice is left to one?

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

well ... that's to my point that technology might be the only solution to a problem created by technology ...

i was in agreement with your last point regarding "investments" by countries

i'm still perplexed to see how if the choice to invest is dependent on the individual - how a nation can move forward if that choice is left to one?

Just because investments are made by individuals does not mean "the choice is left to one". That's like suggesting that in a true democracy that one person decides who wins.

When you ensure that people can invest in their chosen aims and goals, you get a broad diversity of investments. And this diversity and individual choice helps weed out bad investments.

Burma, under its socialistic leadership, has consistently invested in one bad thing after another (most notably, military violence) because of the whims of a tiny minority in charge of its economy. And they've suffered accordingly.

Nations best move forward based on the diverse desires and activities of their citizenry, not based on the limited whims of their leaders.

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

Just because investments are made by individuals does not mean "the choice is left to one". That's like suggesting that in a true democracy that one person decides who wins.

When you ensure that people can invest in their chosen aims and goals, you get a broad diversity of investments. And this diversity and individual choice helps weed out bad investments.

Burma, under its socialistic leadership, has consistently invested in one bad thing after another (most notably, military violence) because of the whims of a tiny minority in charge of its economy. And they've suffered accordingly.

Nations best move forward based on the diverse desires and activities of their citizenry, not based on the limited whims of their leaders.

ok ... my last post - simply because the larger topic on this issue probably deserves more attention which is why aid is not getting to the people of Burma ...

I will say this and give you the last word - if the investment choices are determined solely by the individual - then your belief that in the long run good decisions will outweigh the bad is speculative at best ... i would speculate that some will choose to invest for future prospects while others will choose to let others make that choice and maybe not make those investments ...

Rats of Multa

farfromglorified wrote:

The socialist approach would not "invest", it would simply redistribute. Those are two fundamentally different approaches. To invest in something is to provide resources expecting to receive a return on those resources. To redistribute is to simply hand out resources without caring what you get back.

A wise developing nation invests its limited funds in areas where a return is possible and is miserly to areas where no return is possible. For instance, it would be briliant for the Burmese people and their government to begin investing in rice production, or natural gas mining, or potentially oil drilling. Those are some base staples that have high market values from which expanded investments can be created. It would idiotic, however, for those same people or that same government to turn around and invest in say, building a complex system of national highways before anything really would utilize those highways.

ok, but perhaps what you are actually describing is a government more closely related to what can be described as "communist", as opposed to "socialist". this is a distinction that seems to be mistaken many times in today's american political scene/environment, mostly because pundits are too afraid to lose their jobs over key-words and politicians are too vulnerable to expose themselves to criticism(s) for speaking about such ideas [aka the failure of democracy in america]...

what [whom] is to say a socialist government couldnt make such decision wisely, both with the tact of a capitalist and the compassion of a communist,....??

farfromglorified wrote:

Not sure where you get that "hence" from, unless you're being sarcastic. There's really not much validity in developing a city in a natural flood plain.

this is where POLARIS has you on your knees in this discussion, because A: New Orleans is a prime example of immature [unintelligent/-visionary] social-development occurring at the hands of the randomness of historical-progression, and B: because the industrial-solutions to such developmental problems were not appropriately invested-in, either privately or governmentally, and therefore pure-capitalism is open to easy-criticism for failing to protect and provide for the citizenry at large.

a merging of the polarized economic-forces is first necessary to effectively advance the nature of cultural-development throughout the world.

Rats of Multa

polaris wrote:

ok ... "global" is probably inaccurate as we here in the west continue to enjoy cheap food ...

my main point here is that climate change has an impact on food

FFG's main point here is that technology could be used to reduce the impact of climate-changes upon global-food-supplies,... which is certainly a valid contribution to the discussion.

the issue at hand is maximizing what resources are available while simultaneously minimizing the detrimental effects of such extractions, and really such a conversation has yet to occur in the trials and tribulations of world-historical government. sadly the foremost task of simply gaining power is so overwhelming as to distract even the best and brightest candidates from guiding our world-cultures towards the thoughts necessary for sparking the imminent changes that are needed to establish sustainable societies and civilization.

farfromglorified

Rats of Multa wrote:

ok, but perhaps what you are actually describing is a government more closely related to what can be described as "communist", as opposed to "socialist". this is a distinction that seems to be mistaken many times in today's american political scene/environment, mostly because pundits are too afraid to lose their jobs over key-words and politicians are too vulnerable to expose themselves to criticism(s) for speaking about such ideas [aka the failure of democracy in america]...

In all reality, "communist" and "socialist" are two terms that have been rendered pretty meaningless. I am referring more to traditional communistic systems.

what [whom] is to say a socialist government couldnt make such decision wisely, both with the tact of a capitalist and the compassion of a communist,....??

History and philosophy, primarily. Such governments typically end up making very bad decisions for very bad reasons.

this is where POLARIS has you on your knees in this discussion, because A: New Orleans is a prime example of immature [unintelligent/-visionary] social-development occurring at the hands of the randomness of historical-progression, and B: because the industrial-solutions to such developmental problems were not appropriately invested-in, either privately or governmentally, and therefore pure-capitalism is open to easy-criticism for failing to protect and provide for the citizenry at large.

I never suggested that pure capitalism isn't open to easy criticism. It's very open to easy criticism. A capitalistic structure certainly doesn't guarantee good investment. In fact, it guarantees some bad investment.

And I don't think polaris and I are disagreeing on much in terms of New Orleans. New Orleans, geographically, is a stupid place for a city. Regardless, however, it is a place that can support a city with the correct technology. Bangledesh is a stupid place for a country, all things considered. It too, however, is a place for that can support a country with the correct technology.

a merging of the polarized economic-forces is first necessary to effectively advance the nature of cultural-development throughout the world.

Yeah, we already have that. It's called Keynesianism and is the economic foundation for most of the West.

Rats of Multa

farfromglorified wrote:

In all reality, "communist" and "socialist" are two terms that have been rendered pretty meaningless. I am referring more to traditional communistic systems.

ok, so that is a distinction i would like to resurrect, because otherwise Marxism is lost to the vagueries of insufficient interpretation.

farfromglorified wrote:

History and philosophy, primarily. Such governments typically end up making very bad decisions for very bad reasons.

fair enough, but this is a generalization and a very pessimistic one at that.

farfromglorified wrote:

I never suggested that pure capitalism isn't open to easy criticism. It's very open to easy criticism. A capitalistic structure certainly doesn't guarantee good investment. In fact, it guarantees some bad investment.

And I don't think polaris and I are disagreeing on much in terms of New Orleans. New Orleans, geographically, is a stupid place for a city. Regardless, however, it is a place that can support a city with the correct technology. Bangledesh is a stupid place for a country, all things considered. It too, however, is a place for that can support a country with the correct technology.

ok cool, i too agree with the both of you on this. however, leaving cultural-development to the forces of market-investment and privatization lessens both the efficiency and ergo the effectiveness of a society's growth, and so i think there ultimately needs to be some moderate degree of unified-oversight [aka "government"] to ensure that appropriate nation-building occurs.

farfromglorified wrote:

Yeah, we already have that. It's called Keynesianism and is the economic foundation for most of the West.

as, say,.. a pluralistic ["Dialectic"] form of Adam Smith and Karl Marx..?? i say, let us see some more of that!!

Heineken Helen

mammasan wrote:

I'm done with this discussion. Let me just add a big thanks you for turning a thread about the tragedy in Burma into a lets piss on the US thread. Classy indeed.

Oh yes, I am solely to blame... all I did was point out one of the biggest potential donors giving excuses not to give. Am I not entitled to mention that... and suddenly I'm simply pissing on the US? We're not allowed mention anything bad the US do and it's only cos we hate the US... what a lazy way to nullify a perfectly good point! :mad: If it were France or Britain I'd say the exact same fucking thing so get over it. I wasn't just arguing with myself you know... so you had a hand in it too :rolleyes:

Anyway, yes, back to burma :(

Hinny

The typhoon clearly killed the wrong people and left alone the ones who really deserve it.

even flow?

Mother nature doing what it does and the fact that this country is run by the people that it is does not mean that things like this won't happen again. They should let others help but that is a problem when you rule with the iron fist. Poor locals have to deal with the shitheads in power. Wonder if the money (cold cash) actually gets to where it should?

I also heard the powers that be didn't give anybody any warning about the incoming storm.

polaris

a good friend has a friend organizing relief for a village in papua new guinea ... it is being co-ordinated by an outdoor adventure company there ... i've given some money and hope that it will get to that village as it also was devastated by a storm in previous months ...

point being is that the red tape seems to be lifted and the only concern is getting the money!! ...

the most fucked up thing is that there are groups that train for this and can be on the ground usually in 48 hours ... at the very least to provide medical services and start getting clean water ...

farfromglorified

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/09/myanmar/index.html

Kann

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_re_as/myanmar
It took time, but this is good news

farfromglorified

Kann wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_re_as/myanmar
It took time, but this is good news

sanity prevails...