Happy International Day for the Eradication of Poverty!

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Woo-hoo!

Naturally, nobody gets it off from work.

[JimmyJazz]

I hadn't heard of this day before, but poverty actually could be eradicated tomorrow if anyone was serious when they proclaimed it International Day for the Eradication Poverty. No one was, naturally.

Scarcity is not a factor in the failure to meet the basic needs of all humanity, not even under current production levels.

[timbaly]

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/intldays/IntlDay/index.html

"Through resolution 47/196 adopted on 22 December 1992, the General Assembly declared 17 October as the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty and invited all States to devote the Day to presenting and promoting, as appropriate in the national context, concrete activities with regard to the eradication of poverty and destitution. The resolution further invites intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to assist States, at their request, in organizing national activities for the observance of the Day, and requests the Secretary-General to take, within existing resources, the measures necessary to ensure the success of the Day's observance by the United Nations."

[Trystan]

Liberal bullshit.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Liberal bullshit.

:laugh:

Poverty, hmm. Well, the New Deal and Great Society reduced poverty by 10% and 30%, respectively. The poverty rate for blacks dropped from 50% to 25% in only ten years. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarepoverty.htm

[JimmyJazz]

:laugh:

Poverty, hmm. Well, the New Deal and Great Society reduced poverty by 10% and 30%, respectively. The poverty rate for blacks dropped from 50% to 25% in only ten years. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarepoverty.htm


It seems like you are disagreeing with Trystan, saying that poverty cannot in fact be eliminated with ease. Which may be true using U.S. standards of poverty. But considering it's an international day, I was assuming they define poverty as "less than $2 a day" or something like that.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I hadn't heard of this day before, but poverty actually could be eradicated tomorrow if anyone was serious when they proclaimed it International Day for the Eradication Poverty. No one was, naturally.

It's a decent PR stunt for various politicians.


Scarcity is not a factor in the failure to meet the basic needs of all humanity, not even under current production levels.

I can't stand the average person who disagrees with this, the type that believe everything is scarce and we need to hoard as much as we can for ourselves.

[Bud Struggle]

What about National Boss Day? It was on October 16.

http://maladyspoetry.com/images1/BossDay.png

[pusher robot]

It's a decent PR stunt for various politicians.



I can't stand the average person who disagrees with this, the type that believe everything is scarce and we need to hoard as much as we can for ourselves.

But almost everything is scarce. That doesn't mean it's rare or even very valuable. It certainly doesn't demand hoarding.

To say something is scarce only means that (1) there's only so much - that there's a finite quantity available; and (2) more would be useful, that is, the price is greater than zero.

So coal, while being quite common, is also scarce - there's only so much that is available at any given time, and we could certainly find uses for more if we had it at the market price or lower.

That something is scarce only means that there needs to be some mechanism for allocating it among the many different possible ways it could be used. Liberals like myself think that markets are almost always the best mechanism because (a) they do not require centralized command and control to work, (b) they are voluntary, and (c) they ensure that the resources go to the activities that produce the biggest increases of value as determined by the end consumer.

[Dr Mindbender]

What about National Boss Day? It was on October 16.

http://maladyspoetry.com/images1/BossDay.png


http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-9529.gif

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I admit that I giggled.

[JimmyJazz]

I can't stand the average person who disagrees with this, the type that believe everything is scarce and we need to hoard as much as we can for ourselves.

Yep.. I blame Malthus. (and his ideological followers).


But almost everything is scarce. That doesn't mean it's rare or even very valuable. It certainly doesn't demand hoarding.

To say something is scarce only means that (1) there's only so much - that there's a finite quantity available; and (2) more would be useful, that is, the price is greater than zero.

It seems you didn't read the conversation before jumping in. We are talking about basic necessities--food, clothing, and shelter from the elements.

We can currently produce enough food and clothing such that more would not be useful. These things are not scarce--or rather, they shouldn't be.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

But almost everything is scarce. That doesn't mean it's rare or even very valuable. It certainly doesn't demand hoarding.

To say something is scarce only means that (1) there's only so much - that there's a finite quantity available; and (2) more would be useful, that is, the price is greater than zero.

So coal, while being quite common, is also scarce - there's only so much that is available at any given time, and we could certainly find uses for more if we had it at the market price or lower.

That something is scarce only means that there needs to be some mechanism for allocating it among the many different possible ways it could be used. Liberals like myself think that markets are almost always the best mechanism because (a) they do not require centralized command and control to work, (b) they are voluntary, and (c) they ensure that the resources go to the activities that produce the biggest increases of value as determined by the end consumer.

When I wrote scarce I admit that I was using it as a substitute for rare.

And for the most part, I agree with what you wrote. However, I disagree with your conclusions (or at least, what I assume you mean by them): (a) there are few markets which do not feature some sort of a centralized command structure guiding them. Whether this be government subsidies to stop certain farmers from growing certain crops lest the price fall, to greater regulation in the terms of the credit markets, to giving certain corporations tax breaks to foster growth. We should have a government which guides the market to favor growth in developments we, as society, would benefit from. If the US govt decides we should switch to ethanol, the most effective means would be to subsidize and give tax breaks to companies which refine it, the producers of the items needed to make it, and people or companies who buy ethanol-fueled alternatives. In this sense the central control (our govt in this example), uses markets as a tool to guide the direction of society. Just because we don't throw up red flags and nationalize all the industries involved doesn't mean the government isn't very much involved.

Another example from the past would be Abraham Lincolns land handouts. We wanted to develop the west, so he gave anyone who was willing to sit and settle their 120 acres the land after 5 years. Also, he gave railroads thousands of acres, which otherwise would not have been built for lack of investment confidence in what were, at the time, hugely ambitious projects across thousands of miles of land lacking a single costumer.

But markets would exist without any form of central control. Even in total anarchy (and not the romantic view of it) a market would certainly exist for just about everything other than air. But it does give the best results when some larger strategy is at least partially adherred to.

(b) No real argument here.

(c) None here, except that many end comsumers need to change their values

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

What about National Boss Day? It was on October 16.

http://maladyspoetry.com/images1/BossDay.png

Wow.

Quite a coincidence as it coincides with "National Bring and AR-15 to Work Day". Wonder if they planned it that way.

Just kidding Tom. Not all Bosses are bad guys. Or at least there must be some who aren't that bad...somewhere.