thelinuxlink.net

Here are some numbers:

- Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day.
- The GDP of the poorest 48 nations (a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined
- 51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodies are corporations.
- The wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation.
- 20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the world’s goods.
- In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much.
- A few hundred millionaires now own as much wealth as the world’s poorest 2.5 billion people.
- Approximately 790 million people in the developing world are still chronically undernourished, almost two-thirds of whom reside in Asia and the Pacific.
- A mere 12 percent of the world’s population uses 85 percent of its water, and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp

Its terrible, how do you think this can be changed?
For a start multi-national companies should dissolve and let the poor countries develop there own countries industry so they can build an economy that they can be proud of and start trading with other countries. To prevent corruption a international organisation to fight corruption should be set up.
To get these poor countries to a fair start , money that has been reeked out of them from the multi-national companies should be given to them free of charge to build there countries.

A International communist revolution would be another alternative, to be painfully true, its unlikely, the top recommendation is more possible.

I'm always surprised at how often communism is put out as a viable alternative with it's very poor track record on pollution, individual freedom, economy, and a host of other issues. You really still think it could possibly work?

The big problem with the statistics you're quoting is that you seem to suggest there is a correlation between some people having a lot of money with other people having hardly any. It's a vague suggestion with absolutely nothing to back it up. The economy isn't like a pizza that's divided up into slices, so that if someone has a lot of slices another guy has to eat the box. Economies grow. The causes of poverty are complex, and certainly can't be reduced down to some simplistic "they have money, they must have taken it from us" cargo cult mentality.

Unfortunately Lenin died , so we will never know what Russia could of been like. Stalin from that very beginning was power hungry and was not really interested in communism.
What happened in Vietnam, China , North Korea, Cuba,Laos as well was just Stalinism in different forms.
Wally just brought up facts not reasons for poverty. pro-capitalist say similar things all the time that poverty is not simple. Tony once said "If we can find the money to kill people, we can find the money to help people."

There is certainly true, look at Iraq and Afghanistan, billions of dollars have been spent on that, why not giving the billions to the starving in Africa?
I guess that's too socialist..... all that needs to be done is get the troops out of those countries, give up saving oil pipes for the rich world. Stop the trade embargos in Africa, let them all start making money...
Is it too much to ask for?

allix wrote:Unfortunately Lenin died , so we will never know what Russia could of been like. Stalin from that very beginning was power hungry and was not really interested in communism.
What happened in Vietnam, China , North Korea, Cuba,Laos as well was just Stalinism in different forms.

To add a few details to what Allix said,

"Stalinism, according to proponents of the term, is the political regime named after Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union from 1924-1953. Proponents of the term argue that it includes an extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality cult around an absolute dictator, as well as extensive use of the secret police to maintain social submission and silence political dissent."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

China: Maoism
North Korea: Juche

I agree that the causes of poverty are complex, but I think this is worth knowing:

Annual military spending in the world - $1,000 billion (643 billion of that is from the U.S.)

It would only cost 40 billion to establish basic education, water and sanitation, reproductive health for women, and basic health and nutrition for all in every developing nation in the world.

It just goes to show what the U.S. government's priorities are. Endless war and imperialism, when those funds could completely eliminate much of the world's poverty.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics ... ending.asp

allix wrote:Unfortunately Lenin died , so we will never know what Russia could of been like. Stalin from that very beginning was power hungry and was not really interested in communism.
What happened in Vietnam, China , North Korea, Cuba,Laos as well was just Stalinism in different forms.

Right, but you centralize power into one authority, and you attract these people who want to use this power in an authoritarian way. Happens every time, and I haven't seen any plan for preventing it. The founders of the U.S.A. tried to keep the government from gaining power, and so far it's not really working like they planned, though I'll take free markets and voluntary exchange over government coercion any day.

allix wrote:Wally just brought up facts not reasons for poverty. pro-capitalist say similar things all the time that poverty is not simple. Tony once said "If we can find the money to kill people, we can find the money to help people."

There is certainly true, look at Iraq and Afghanistan, billions of dollars have been spent on that, why not giving the billions to the starving in Africa?
I guess that's too socialist..... all that needs to be done is get the troops out of those countries, give up saving oil pipes for the rich world. Stop the trade embargos in Africa, let them all start making money...
Is it too much to ask for?[/quote]

We do send money to Africa, the problem is that money isn't enough. So long as there's political oppression, no rule of law, and a lack of respect for individual rights, I doubt any sum of money would help.

I'm all for getting rid of the trade policies that hurt Africa, and if you've ever looked into the philanthropic groups like we have at my church or tried to help Africans through them, you know that poverty isn't like some cell on a spreadsheet where you can put money in, increase the spreadsheet value, and make things better.

Wally Balljacker wrote:I agree that the causes of poverty are complex, but I think this is worth knowing:

Annual military spending in the world - $1,000 billion (643 billion of that is from the U.S.)

It would only cost 40 billion to establish basic education, water and sanitation, reproductive health for women, and basic health and nutrition for all in every developing nation in the world.

It just goes to show what the U.S. government's priorities are. Endless war and imperialism, when those funds could completely eliminate much of the world's poverty.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics ... ending.asp

I agree that we spend too much on military, though really a proper defense (not interventionist military operations and bases all over the world) should be one of the primary concerns of the federal government.

Where did you get that number for only needed 40 billion for every developing nation in the world? That sounds incredibly optimistic, outlandishly so, seeing as how often the money that is sent over is wasted.

Vogateer wrote:

Wally Balljacker wrote:I agree that the causes of poverty are complex, but I think this is worth knowing:

Annual military spending in the world - $1,000 billion (643 billion of that is from the U.S.)

It would only cost 40 billion to establish basic education, water and sanitation, reproductive health for women, and basic health and nutrition for all in every developing nation in the world.

It just goes to show what the U.S. government's priorities are. Endless war and imperialism, when those funds could completely eliminate much of the world's poverty.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics ... ending.asp

I agree that we spend too much on military, though really a proper defense (not interventionist military operations and bases all over the world) should be one of the primary concerns of the federal government.

Where did you get that number for only needed 40 billion for every developing nation in the world? That sounds incredibly optimistic, outlandishly so, seeing as how often the money that is sent over is wasted.

From the link in my original post. I just added up the numbers at the bottom. Keep in mind these
statistics are from 1998, but I doubt they've changed all that much.

allix wrote:A International communist revolution would be another alternative, to be painfully true, its unlikely, the top recommendation is more possible.

Have you been following the developments in Venezuela, under Hugo Chavez? I think he's made great strides in implementing a democratic socialism, as well as reducing poverty, expanding social services like health care and education, and leading the Bolivarian Revolution, which is really extraordinary. It's a kind of "from the bottom up" version of socialism, where there are hundreds of thousands of worker co-operatives, collectives, community councils, and various other decentralized grassroots movements and organizations, and the government is aiding and assisting them. It's really incredible. Even in it's early embryonic stages, it seems to be showing a lot of promise. I'm just hoping that the U.S. doesn't interfere again and attempt to assassinate Chavez. We can't have Venezuela setting an example, now can we?

Wally Balljacker wrote:Have you been following the developments in Venezuela, under Hugo Chavez? I think he's made great strides in implementing a democratic socialism, as well as reducing poverty, expanding social services like health care and education, and leading the Bolivarian Revolution, which is really extraordinary.

The same Hugo Chavez who's attempting to eliminate freedom of the press and enacting other socialistic/communist like policies? He seems to fancy himself a mini Castro. He tried to make himself dictator for life by pushing a bunch of constitutional changes to eliminate term limits and expand his range of powers. The day that assclown is out of power will be a good day.

Wally Balljacker wrote:
Have you been following the developments in Venezuela, under Hugo Chavez? I think he's made great strides in implementing a democratic socialism, as well as reducing poverty, expanding social services like health care and education, and leading the Bolivarian Revolution, which is really extraordinary. It's a kind of "from the bottom up" version of socialism, where there are hundreds of thousands of worker co-operatives, collectives, community councils, and various other decentralized grassroots movements and organizations, and the government is aiding and assisting them. It's really incredible. Even in it's early embryonic stages, it seems to be showing a lot of promise. I'm just hoping that the U.S. doesn't interfere again and attempt to assassinate Chavez. We can't have Venezuela setting an example, now can we?

I have been keeping an eye on this, its interesting to watch .

Patrick wrote: The same Hugo Chavez who's attempting to eliminate freedom of the press and enacting other socialistic/communist like policies? He seems to fancy himself a mini Castro. He tried to make himself dictator for life by pushing a bunch of constitutional changes to eliminate term limits and expand his range of powers. The day that assclown is out of power will be a good day.

I respect you have your opinions on socialism.. why do you think its not a solution? After all under a socialist state everyone would benefit including yourself.
Of course i am not going to ignore the atrocities caused in the name of communism. We are all human and whatever good we try to achieve there will always be a bumpy road towards it.

Patrick wrote:

Wally Balljacker wrote:Have you been following the developments in Venezuela, under Hugo Chavez? I think he's made great strides in implementing a democratic socialism, as well as reducing poverty, expanding social services like health care and education, and leading the Bolivarian Revolution, which is really extraordinary.

The same Hugo Chavez who's attempting to eliminate freedom of the press and enacting other socialistic/communist like policies? He seems to fancy himself a mini Castro. He tried to make himself dictator for life by pushing a bunch of constitutional changes to eliminate term limits and expand his range of powers. The day that assclown is out of power will be a good day.

You paint Chavez as being this evil dictator, when in reality, he is at the mercy of his people like any good elected president. You neglected to mention that Chavez cannot just create laws or constitutional amendments himself, they need to democratically pass the National Assembly and then pass a popular referendum. Even the Venezuelan Constitution itself was voted into effect by citizens, themselves. Venezuela is one of the most democratic countries in the world, and the U.S. could learn a thing or two.

As for freedom of the press, his media policies seem mostly justified, seeing as how Chavez believes that some of the television networks were supporting and collaborating with United States coup leaders. You can't blame the guy for being paranoid when there have already been multiple assassination attempts on him by U.S. forces.

The day that assclown is out of power will be a good day.

It should be sometime in 2013 when his second term expires. I just hope the revolutionary experiments he helped implement will continue to flourish.

I should probably also mention that the people of Venezuela disagree with your statement. They are number two in Latin America, behind Uruguay in terms of satisfaction with their democracy.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2887

Wally Balljacker wrote:

Patrick wrote:

Wally Balljacker wrote:Have you been following the developments in Venezuela, under Hugo Chavez? I think he's made great strides in implementing a democratic socialism, as well as reducing poverty, expanding social services like health care and education, and leading the Bolivarian Revolution, which is really extraordinary.

The same Hugo Chavez who's attempting to eliminate freedom of the press and enacting other socialistic/communist like policies? He seems to fancy himself a mini Castro. He tried to make himself dictator for life by pushing a bunch of constitutional changes to eliminate term limits and expand his range of powers. The day that assclown is out of power will be a good day.

You paint Chavez as being this evil dictator, when in reality, he is at the mercy of his people like any good elected president. You neglected to mention that Chavez cannot just create laws or constitutional amendments himself, they need to democratically pass the National Assembly and then pass a popular referendum. Even the Venezuelan Constitution itself was voted into effect by citizens, themselves. Venezuela is one of the most democratic countries in the world, and the U.S. could learn a thing or two.

As for freedom of the press, his media policies seem mostly justified, seeing as how Chavez believes that some of the television networks were supporting and collaborating with United States coup leaders. You can't blame the guy for being paranoid when there have already been multiple assassination attempts on him by U.S. forces.

The day that assclown is out of power will be a good day.

It should be sometime in 2013 when his second term expires. I just hope the revolutionary experiments he helped implement will continue to flourish.

Good post , however Pat has made up his mind already , he has not replied to my polite post. Most of the political posts on here don't get much response. Perhaps we should start a political forum on troels server