Economists list cheapest ways to save the world

May 14, 2012
A malnourished child at a refugee camp, near Bassiknou in southern Mauritania. An expert panel has suggested annual spending of $3.0 billion to solve the malnutrition problem that affects more than 100 million children worldwide.

Leading economists have ranked how to best and most cost-effectively invest to solve many of the world's seemingly insurmountable problems, a Danish think-tank said Monday, calling for a shift in global priorities.

"It may not sound sexy, but solving the problems of , worms and malnutrition will do good for more of the world's poor than other more grandiose interventions," Bjoern Lomborg, who heads the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, said in a statement.

His think-tank on Monday presented the results of its third global Copenhagen Consensus, in which it asked prominent economists working within 10 of the world's top problem fields to propose the best investments to fix those problems.

A panel of experts, including four Nobel laureates, then went through the proposals and ranked the ones they believed would have the biggest impact and "where we can get the most mileage for our money," Lomborg told AFP.

The Dane, who shot to fame with his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" in 2001, insisted the list was necessary since policymakers and humanitarian organisations often allow irrational emotions to dictate how they spend money earmarked for fighting poverty, declining biodiversity or .

He pointed out that focussing on creating and making large swathes of forest off-limit to development was "a nice idea, but the problem is that it often doesn't happen."

Instead, the Copenhagen Consensus economists proposed investing heavily in and development to make food production more efficient, which they said would reduce and also protect biodiversity "by reducing the need for forest land to be converted into ."

Lomborg, who adamantly rejects the climate change-denier label sometimes thrown at him, also criticised the heavy focus on curbing in the battle against global warming.

While such efforts could make "a little difference," Lomborg said they are often not followed through.

"There are smarter ways to tackle this, for instance by investing in research and development on green energy, or looking into geo-engineering," he said

"It's really just about focusing on what works rather than on what feels good," he said, adding that especially in light of the economic crisis, "it has become very clear that we need to spend our money in the best possible way."

The Copenhagen Consensus economists were asked how the world should best spend $75 billion (58 billion euros) over a four-year period, which Lomborg says is only 15 percent more than the global aid spending today.

Malnutrition topped the list of 10 proposals, with the expert panel suggesting annual spending of $3.0 billion to solve the problem that affects more than 100 million children worldwide, stressing that "each dollar spent reducing chronic under-nutrition has more than a $30-pay-off".

This was because better nutrition improves cognitive functions and thereby also an individual's education and income prospects as well, they said.

The economists also proposed investing around $1.0 billion annually in early warning systems for natural disasters, which Lomborg said was a far better way to spend money than to throw most resources into the clean-up after the disaster.

Explore further: Halliburton pays $1.1 bn for Gulf of Mexico BP spill

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The biodiversity crisis: Worse than climate change

Jan 19, 2012

Biodiversity is declining rapidly throughout the world. The challenges of conserving the world's species are perhaps even larger than mitigating the negative effects of global climate change. Dealing with the biodiversity ...

Deforestation conference to turn plans to action

Mar 11, 2010

(AP) -- French President Nicolas Sarkozy will open a daylong conference Thursday of some 40 nations to start turning plans into action to save the world's forests and help rein in the noxious gases blamed ...

Cool model for a hot planet

Mar 08, 2010

In his recent book, "Strategic Bargaining and Cooperation in Greenhouse Gas Mitigations," Binghamton University's Zili Yang suggests ways governments might realistically work together to reduce carbon dioxide ...

Recommended for you

Halliburton pays $1.1 bn for Gulf of Mexico BP spill

9 hours ago

Oil services company Halliburton said Tuesday it would pay a $1.1 billion settlement over its role in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil rig blowout that led to the United States' most disastrous oil spill.

Underwater grass comeback bodes well for Chesapeake Bay

10 hours ago

The Susquehanna Flats, a large bed of underwater grasses near the mouth of the Susquehanna River, virtually disappeared from the upper Chesapeake Bay after Tropical Storm Agnes more than 40 years ago. However, ...

Clean air halves health costs in Chinese city

12 hours ago

Air pollution regulations over the last decade in Taiyuan, China, have substantially improved the health of people living there, accounting for a greater than 50% reduction in costs associated with loss of life and disability ...

User comments : 113

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (17) May 14, 2012
What! The do gooders haven't solved world malnutrition yet!? How are they expecting to control the global climate if they can't even solve such a basic problem.

Although it makes tree-huggers feel good about themselves, fighting against the use of CO2 based energy is pointless non-sense and is akin to trying to hold back the ocean. Since no one is going to stop using energy nor voluntarily reduce their energy use (not even Algore) and live like a cave-man, nor turn over their freedom to socialist governments,.... the only solution is investing in research for alternatives that can compete on a level in which oil & coal are used.

Investing huge money into anything requires economies to be functioning to generate the wealth to do so, so anti-capitalist or gov run economy solutions are also not serious solutions.
kaasinees
2.7 / 5 (21) May 14, 2012
Nope, the investors keep pumping money in facebook instead of where its needed the most. People with money dont care about the poor.
Origin
1.4 / 5 (9) May 14, 2012
The absolutely cheapest way how to stop the energetic and subsequent financial crisis is the replacement of fossil fuel sources with cold fusion. But just this way makes all proponents of existing social order very nervous. If nothing else, it will make the research of alternative methods of energy production, transport, conversion and storage redundant. The researchers involved will be first, who will be threatened with this competition. So they tend to ignore it as a single man obstinately.

MIT cold fusion device outputs 14-times input power and it faces funding cut.

Does it sound like sci-fi for you? Welcome in real pre-apocalyptic world, which fears of actual progress.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (13) May 14, 2012
The world doesn't need saving, the human race does. Call it what it is. The world will persist through anything we could possibly do to it and will be around long after we are gone.
Aryeh_Z
3.4 / 5 (5) May 14, 2012
One of the most promising ways to greatly reduce malnutrition would be to invest in the development of artificial or tank produced fish and meat. These are emerging technologies that will eventually change the eating habits of the world.
kaasinees
2.4 / 5 (14) May 14, 2012
We are the dinosaurs of this age.
We will keep farting into the atmosphere untill an extinction event.
Then the apes will the oppurtinity to become the dominant species and evolve.
We will evolve into screaming midgits domisticated by the evolved apes.

As the holy movie planet of the apes has foretold us.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (16) May 14, 2012
Nope. Capitalists are preventing it.

"What! The do gooders haven't solved world malnutrition yet!? " - Numentard
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (17) May 14, 2012
Nope, the investors keep pumping money in facebook instead of where its needed the most. People with money dont care about the poor.


Funny, the upper 1% account for 90 % of charitable contributions.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (13) May 14, 2012
Exactly.

Another plan would be to use magic pixie dust to solve the worlds problems.

Martini and Rossi anyone?

Magic Pixie dust is of course easier to find than cold fusion.

"The absolutely cheapest way how to stop the energetic and subsequent financial crisis is the replacement of fossil fuel sources with cold fusion." - Origin
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (16) May 14, 2012
Nope. Capitalists are preventing it.


http://www.micros...sPR.aspx

http://www.dailym...ren.html

I have a word of advice for you, whenever you are going to say something, assume the opposite is true then go look it up and find out, it would save you a whole lot of embarrassment.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (15) May 14, 2012
I agree with NumenTard. if the people don't have bread... Let them eat cake.

"Investing huge money into anything requires economies to be functioning to generate the wealth to do so" - NumenTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (17) May 14, 2012
Would that advice be to check your links before posting?

"I have a word of advice for you" - DeathTard

Corporations love to collect their employees cash and distribute it under their corporate banner to make it look like the corporation is being charitable.

The company I work for does the same thing.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (12) May 14, 2012
One of the best ways to save the world would be to execute the economists and then get on with the job of saving the world.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (19) May 14, 2012
Nope, the investors keep pumping money in facebook instead of where its needed the most. People with money dont care about the poor.


Funny, the upper 1% account for 90 % of charitable contributions.


And the upper few % supply vast amount of the tax revenue for gov subsidized research.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (20) May 14, 2012
What commie dolts like Vendicar will never understand is that our existing economic strength comes from free market capitalism. That strength has improved the standards of living, and the medical knowledge to do so around the world, immeasurably already.

The gov is useless without the generation of wealth. The gov is incapable of generating value and wealth itself. Once a alternative energy source appears promising in that it can compete with oil, the market will invest heavily. But basic fundamental research (which companies do also) comes also from research investment by the gov.
kaasinees
2.6 / 5 (18) May 14, 2012
Why do 15% of US americans have trouble getting food on their table?
Why are 50 million US americans living in poverty?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.1 / 5 (18) May 14, 2012
Because American Capitalism is pure failure.

"Why are 50 million US americans living in poverty?" - Kaasin
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (17) May 14, 2012
One of the best ways to save the world would be to execute the economists and then get on with the job of saving the world.


As we can see with this statement, Vedictard appears more interested in promoting anti-capitalistic politics, than in doing anything about AGW. He promotes a fundamental change to existing economic forces. Anyone can see there is zero chance of that, thus he is irrelevent wrt climate change.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (17) May 14, 2012
Why do 15% of US americans have trouble getting food on their table?
Why are 50 million US americans living in poverty?


"poverty" is a relative term. In the USA having a wide screen tv, computer, iPod, and welfare check etc, still may qualify you given that the democrats promote such a stretch of the term since they buy votes with promises of the welfare state. In anycase the poor don't contribute anything to society as a whole, in fact they are a burden.

There will always be poor. There is poor in every free nation,... in fact if in the USA then de facto, everywhere.
Deathclock
2.2 / 5 (16) May 14, 2012
Why do 15% of US americans have trouble getting food on their table?
Why are 50 million US americans living in poverty?


Due to their own lack of effort, laziness, sloth, poor decisions, etc... as it should be. No one is entitled to anything, everyone should have to work for their daily meal, and those that do live well in America, believe me.
Deathclock
2.2 / 5 (17) May 14, 2012
Would that advice be to check your links before posting?


Links work fine here...

Corporations love to collect their employees cash and distribute it under their corporate banner to make it look like the corporation is being charitable.


The "corporation" is not some nebulous entity that exists all to itself, the corporation is the sum of the employees, you retard.
kaasinees
2.6 / 5 (20) May 14, 2012
Due to their own lack of effort, laziness, sloth, poor decisions, etc... as it should be. No one is entitled to anything, everyone should have to work for their daily meal, and those that do live well in America, believe me.

Right. Poor people choose to rot in a ditch.
Nobody will hire a poor person simply because they are poor.

What kind of circular reasoning is this?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (14) May 14, 2012
I agree with NumenTard. Unsustainable development is essential if the global economy is to be sustained.

"He promotes a fundamental change to existing economic forces." - NumenTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (13) May 14, 2012
Do the employees get a say in what decisions the corporation takes?

I had no idea that corporations were Democratically run. The only ones I have ever seen have been dictatorships, run by old men who generally have little vision but lots of money stolen from the workers.

Oh... Did I say stolen? I meant given to them willingly by their compatriots on the board of directors without the permission of the workers.

"The "corporation" is not some nebulous entity that exists all to itself, the corporation is the sum of the employees, you retard." - DeathTard
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (13) May 14, 2012
Then you will have no complaint should you be deprived of air, water, food, clothing, medical care, etc.

"No one is entitled to anything" - DeathTard

I can think of many ways to deprive you of the air that you have no entitlement to.

What is your address and real name by the way?
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (12) May 14, 2012
Right. Poor people choose to rot in a ditch.


No one chooses to be poor, but people do make poor choices...

Nobody will hire a poor person simply because they are poor.


This is false.
Deathclock
2.7 / 5 (12) May 14, 2012
Then you will have no complaint should you be deprived of air, water, food, clothing, medical care, etc.

"No one is entitled to anything" - DeathTard

I can think of many ways to deprive you of the air that you have no entitlement to.


Why are you confusing entitlement with deprivation? I didn't say people should be deprived of things, I said they are not entitled to things, you are arguing a false dichotomy. You are often unreasonable and argue straw men or false dichotomies, you also regularly argue using appeals to emotion, you are irrational and illogical.

What right do I have to anything without working for those things? Who is responsible to go and buy food for me if I choose not to lift a finger in support of myself?

Fucking communists on this website are sickening.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (13) May 14, 2012
Answer the question VD, if I, as a grown adult, choose to sit on the sidewalk all day long daydreaming who's job is it to go to the store and buy me some food and to deliver it to me and put it in my hand and make sure I eat it? Who is responsible for me, other than myself? If I am ENTITLED to food every day then clearly it is someones job to feed me if I make no effort to feed myself, right?
kaasinees
2.2 / 5 (13) May 14, 2012
This is false.

Poor people dont have the money to look healthy or even be healthy.
They wont be able to function in a job or they simply dont hire that person because that person doesnt look like he earns a decent living.
Deathclock
2.7 / 5 (14) May 14, 2012
This is false.

Poor people dont have the money to look healthy or even be healthy.
They wont be able to function in a job or they simply dont hire that person because that person doesnt look like he earns a decent living.


Dumb... do you have any idea how many people go from nothing to wealth in the United States? Upward mobility of our society is the envy of the world. Yes, we have homeless people, we also have millionaires who used to be homeless people.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (12) May 14, 2012
Since you are not entitled to air, there can be no legitimate claim to depriving you of air since you have no legitimate claim to any share of air.

"I didn't say people should be deprived of things, I said they are not entitled to things, you are arguing a false dichotomy. " - DeathTard

Really Tard Boy, your powers of reason are so stunted and immature.

Your address?

"What right do I have to anything without working for those things? " - DeathTard

How much have you worked today for the air you breathe?

Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (13) May 14, 2012
VD, you are being stupid.

Just because you are not ENTITLED to anything does not mean I think you should be actively DEPRIVED of anything either. This is a BLATANT false dichotomy, one that I already pointed out, yet you continue to act like an idiot.

I don't know why I bother with you.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (11) May 14, 2012
Meanwhile back in reality land....
Class mobility in the U.S. has never been lower.

"Dumb... do you have any idea how many people go from nothing to wealth in the United States?" - DeathTard

Social Immobility: Climbing The Economic Ladder Is Harder In The U.S. Than In Most European Countries

http://www.huffin...788.html
Deathclock
2.7 / 5 (12) May 14, 2012
Rather than deliberately misrepresenting me by saying that I think people should be deprived of air how about you answer the question that you keep avoiding:

"If I, as a grown adult, choose to sit on the sidewalk all day long daydreaming who's job is it to go to the store and buy me some food and to deliver it to me and put it in my hand and make sure I eat it? Who is responsible for me, other than myself? If I am ENTITLED to food every day then clearly it is someones job to feed me if I make no effort to feed myself, right?"
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (14) May 14, 2012
Dumb... do you have any idea how many people go from nothing to wealth in the United States? Upward mobility of our society is the envy of the world. Yes, we have homeless people, we also have millionaires who used to be homeless people.

Oh you mean a dozens of people, half of which are blowjob whores, other half sold their souls to capitalists.
And the one guy who just got lucky.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (10) May 14, 2012
You can not be deprived of something you have no claim to.

"Just because you are not ENTITLED to anything does not mean I think you should be actively DEPRIVED of anything either." - DeathTard

Your address?
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (11) May 14, 2012
You can not be deprived of something you have no claim to.

"Just because you are not ENTITLED to anything does not mean I think you should be actively DEPRIVED of anything either." - DeathTard


You idiot, ACTIVELY preventing someone from obtaining something is not the same as not being ENTITLED to that thing.

Are you really this stupid? Keep clinging to your ridiculous false dichotomy...
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (11) May 14, 2012
Just in case you really ARE this stupid, I'll give you an example:

If I was ENTITLED to a playstation 3 it would be someone's job to go and buy one for me if I didn't have one.

If I was RESTRICTED from owning a playstation 3 it would be illegal for the stores sell me one even if I come in with the money.

CLEARLY neither of those two things are true, so CLEARLY you are presenting a fucking stupid and obvious false dichotomy.
RustyMustard
3.8 / 5 (10) May 14, 2012
Vendicar Decarian, i don't post much here, but i just can't keep quiet anymore, SHUT THE HELL UP YOU IGNORANT TURD!

I'm personally fed up with you and your infantile attacks on others, name calling, and THREATS (not that you'd actually carry them out). If i tell you where i live, will you come over? Please do, i'd LOVE for you to pay me a visit and try to deprive me of anything you feel i shouldn't have.

Be careful little boy, monsters really do exist, and we'll calmly eat you alive without threats or drama.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
Well no one can argue that money should be spent as effectively as possible, but there are some things I don't agree with what Lomborg says
$1.0 billion annually in early warning systems for natural disasters, which Lomborg said was a far better way to spend money than to throw most resources into the clean-up after the disaster.

Early warning systems are important - but how exactly are they going to lessen cleanup costs? It's not like we can move cities before a tsunami strikes.
looking into geo-engineering

That one is just Pandora's box waiting to be opened. Let's not. Please.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) May 14, 2012
I agree with Noumenon. Unsustainable development is essential if the global economy is to be sustained. - Veneral_Disease

" [VD and the far left] promotes a fundamental change to existing economic forces." - Noumenon


You should take your own sarcasm seriously, that way you may finally learn something. If it's "unsustainable" then that means it won't happen,.. that is to say, it will self regulate. I say IF, because no one is going to take projections of an anti-capitalists seriously.

You say that "capitalism in the USA is a pure failure", while every rational person on the planet can plainly see that the exact opposite is the case.

You come off like the guys promoting AWT or cold fusion on this cite, completely irrational. Your extreme form of wanta-be-radicalism is immature and quit irrelevent. You are spoon fed by the Huffington post, as are the useles Occupy Wall Steet no-nothing croud.

Accept capitalism as a reality, and then support green energy.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) May 14, 2012
Nope. Capitalists are preventing it.

"What! The do gooders haven't solved world malnutrition yet!? " - Numentard


How are capitalists preventing that, bonehead? Capitalists create taxable wealth. Do you not understand economics? It's governments that take in that money, and useless UN, that are incompetent. My point is that if something as basic as malnutrition can't be solved by the UN and socialist of he world, then there is NO chance these same far left liberals, are going to control the global climate.

In some regions entire generations of peolle are conditioned to receive hand-outs, which has caused little to no motivation to develope on their own. Unintended consequences of the do gooder far left.

The free market and technology will be instrumental in any solutions. This is just a plain fact you are not mature enough to accept.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) May 14, 2012
"So I believe deeply that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history." - Barach H. Obama, 2012


Even Obama agrees with me. Poor VD, you may need to take down your poster of Mr. Obama.

If your aim is to destroy free market capitalism, you will have a more difficult time than even controlling the global climate.

VD is unscientifically minded, as many of the mush headed far left are, because he does not accept natural conditions as they are, and work WITH such forces,... instead he asks people, 'please don't act according to your intrinsic nature of egoism, submit to socialism instead,... oh but ignore it's history if you don't mind sir'.

Fantasy.
kaasinees
2.6 / 5 (10) May 14, 2012
Free market, free to collapse the housing market, free to take advantage of the housing market as in 1 trillion dollar stolen from US american people by Goldman Sachs.
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
An MIT professor is being threatened with funding cuts for his LENR device that has been outputting excess heat 14 times the input power since January. Another well established cold fusion research center, i.e. SPAWAR was closed already recently. This is how the contemporary science actually doesn't work for the rest of civilization. It works rather for the premature end of civilization. The people should realize, just these silent actions are threatening their future, living standard and freedom in the very end.
CHollman82
2 / 5 (4) May 14, 2012
An MIT professor is http://blog.alexa...-130221/ for the rest of civilization. It works rather for the premature end of civilization. The people should realize, just these silent actions are threatening their future, living standard and freedom in the very end.


I'd like to believe you, I really would, but I'm not a weird conspiracy theorist... If there is something to this technology then no amount of corruption will be able to contain it, there is too much potential for profit in it.
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
Do you know, in the USA is censored over 3.000 patent applications every year (and even more at the Great Britain)? According one of such list of banned inventions it includes the findings like the "solar cells with efficiency over 20%" (in 1983 already!) or the "direct convertors of thermal energy into electricity". Why we should invest into research, when every just a bit more important finding is censored immediately in the name of "national security"?
there is too much potential for profit in it
Well, this is just the reason. By this profit the profit of existing energetic lobby will be decreased accordingly. But those who have power in their hands right now are just the proponents of this lobby.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2012
http://www.washin...e-sites/
"A decision to use destructive force preemptively will be taken if the situation worsens, Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov said at an international missile defense conference in Moscow attended by senior U.S. and NATO officials."
I assure you that Makarov is not joking and that it would be much better for NATO to give up its plan to install the missile defense sites in Eastern Europe. America is not understanding the gravity and seriousness of what it intends. Russia has no wish to harm Europe or America. But in future, it is China that will likely be big threat to Russian Federation and we will fight with China.
Also, Europe is not so much threatened by Iran as they think. The immigration of Moslems into European countries is the real threat of Moslem takeover of those countries by stealth with the aid of stupid socialist governments.
Russkiycremepuff
1.8 / 5 (5) May 14, 2012
I have strong dislike of socialists. They think that the socialist form of culture and government is good? It is not good because Socialism allows those people who do not wish to work to still receive the money to live on. Communism is superior because everyone has to work for their money and no sitting on porch is allowed while everyone else is working. The sitting on porch and getting paid anyway is product of socialist culture and government, and the byproduct of Socialism is evil and corruption.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels should be required reading for American and European schoolchildren.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2012
Big difference between Socialism and Communism: Socialism allows land ownership but does not force everyone to be employed or they do not get paid. It is the Socialism that is breaking the back of Western nations.
With Communist system, EVERYONE must work and no land ownership is allowed. But Communist system is the best because it works well for all the people and nobody is left out and marginalised. Everyone has a place in our society and family values are promoted. Western corporations are useful idiots because they produce jobs and pay taxes. But they work against the porch sitters who get paid for doing nothing always as reminder of wealth of corporations and potential for employees to become wealthy. I am stating fact that I do not enjoy but is big observation in 15 years. We now have Capital wealth in Russian Federation, but with certain conditions.
Russkiycremepuff
1.8 / 5 (5) May 14, 2012
America needs Communist system, not Socialism. Everyone will be happy to have a job and get paid for it. I think that American porch sitters are really unhappy and dissatisfied with life because they are jobless. People need jobs to feel useful no matter what type of job they are qualified for, and the steady pay brings pride. In Soviet Union, all students were tested for their abilities, both mental and physical. Not everyone could attend University as if higher learning were grade school. But in America, the brigands are coddled and are encouraged to go to University even if unqualified. Something is wrong with that thinking.
sstritt
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2012
Cheapest improvement: Responsible use of DDT to eradicate malaria.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) May 14, 2012
America needs Communist system, not Socialism. Everyone will be happy to have a job and get paid for it. I think that American porch sitters are really unhappy and dissatisfied with life because they are jobless. People need jobs to feel useful no matter what type of job they are qualified for, and the steady pay brings pride. In Soviet Union, all students were tested for their abilities, both mental and physical. Not everyone could attend University as if higher learning were grade school. But in America, the brigands are coddled and are encouraged to go to University even if unqualified. Something is wrong with that thinking.


In normal times the USA unemployment is only around 5%,... and that's while retaining liberty and freedom of choice,.... so why in earth would the USA adopt communism over its current system?!! No nation on the planet has been more successful economically and wrt individual standard of living, than the USA.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (8) May 14, 2012
Big difference between Socialism and Communism: Socialism allows land ownership but does not force everyone to be employed or they do not get paid. It is the Socialism that is breaking the back of Western nations.
With Communist system, EVERYONE must work and no land ownership is allowed. But Communist system is the best because it works well for all the people and nobody is left out and marginalised.


How about this, how about a system where people are rewarded based on their individual efforts, where if you try really hard and work hard you will be successful but if you are lazy or ignorant or make poor choices then you will fail in life?

Is that so crazy? Is it so abnormal to think that people should be responsible for themselves and should fail or succeed based on their own effort?
Caliban
3 / 5 (4) May 14, 2012
Rather than deliberately misrepresenting me by saying that I think people should be deprived of air how about you answer the question that you keep avoiding:

"If I, as a grown adult, choose to sit on the sidewalk all day [...] Who is responsible for me, other than myself? If I am ENTITLED to food every day then clearly it is someones job to feed me if I make no effort to feed myself, right?"


@DC,

Allow me to step in here.
You make the error --deliberate or no-- of lumping all the members of this "entitled" subclass together. You make no distinction between those who are incapable of doing meaningful work, and those few who are capable, but choose not to.

If someone is in one way or another disabled, and whose family(if they have one) are unable and/or unwilling to support them, then what should be done? Nothing? Let them beg for their bread or starve? Is that the best you can do for them?

cont'd
Caliban
3 / 5 (4) May 14, 2012
cont'd
And as far as those who won't-- their case is a little more worrisome, but-- if you were faced with having at least the basics covered by government benefit programs, or risked losing access to most or all of that basic support simply as a result of taking a deadend minimum wage service sector job(for instance), then really, what would be the rational choice?

Outside of the "family collective" model, the above is what most people that come from a poverty background are faced with. If you come from nothing, you're frequently doomed to nothing. And they aren't offered handouts at every turn to assist in hauling themselves into the mainstream by their boot-straps, either. Absent flat-out, undeniable, and extreme good luck, the rags-to-riches meme just isn't gonna happen. It is, incidentally, one of the(simultaneously) most damaging and status-quo reinforcing lies ever peddled in America or any other nation...

cont'd
Caliban
3 / 5 (4) May 14, 2012
cont'd

I know this, because I inherited a vast estate worth a couple billion. Since the bulk of it is held offshore, and my "job", home, car, utilities, groceries, travel, cable, etc are all "expenses" paid for by the "foundation" of which I was appointed "director", then I can see just how useful a fantasy the bootstrap propaganda is.

I get to enjoy a life of ease and plenty, while paying less tax, per unit of wealth, than you. How do I manage this trick? It's simple, really. The wealth that my business interests generate is assiduously cultivated by a very few Chief- level staffers that I pay obscenely(by your standards) high salary and bonus packages to keep the boot pressed to the backs of everyone else's necks to keep grinding out the profit...

Meanwhile, I keep my money in the markets, blowing bubbles here and there in various commodities, because that destabilizes everyone else, and makes them that much less likely to take any chances

cont'd
Eric_B
4 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
Most poor people in America work.

Some opinions regarding the dollar amount it takes for one person to live comfortably in america today; $150,000.

NoumeTard; "In anycase the poor don't contribute anything to society as a whole, in fact they are a burden."

Do your own dishes next time you go to a restaurant, disingenuous shitbird. Those busboys are working hard are dirt poor and going no-where.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) May 14, 2012
How about this, how about a system where people are rewarded based on their individual efforts, where if you try really hard and work hard you will be successful but if you are lazy or ignorant or make poor choices then you will fail in life?

Is that so crazy? Is it so abnormal to think that people should be responsible for themselves and should fail or succeed based on their own effort?


That is fully in accord with nature as well. Competition and desire for profit with egoistic motives, is a good thing, because it motivates one to improve efficiency, quality, and innovation. Without the potential for personal gain, why work harder, why innovate and improve?

@Eric_B, somehow you took that statement as a personal attack on the poor,... it wasn't.
Caliban
3 / 5 (4) May 14, 2012
cont'd

and maybe lose that 6, 8, 10, 20, or even 100 dollar an hour job, because --let's face it-- if you aren't making at least 200K per annum in this country, you have exactly zero chance of being able to leverage your earnings into any semblance of a guaranteed income-for-life. Which is the only thing that will get you off the Wheel-of-"Free Market"-Capitalism without being sucked absolutely dry first. Unless, of course, you die unexpectedly early.

And I'm certainly not risking my hard-earned capital to make jobs for you that might disrupt the surety of that system.

In the meantime, your share of that so-called "entitlement" amounts to a few TENS OF DOLLARS' worth of your taxes(per 10k FAG --federal adjusted gross-- income a year, while I pay even less, because I can take advantage of all the loopholes and shelters(including tax refunds and direct federal subsidies) that my massive, inherited wealth makes possible.

See how that works?

Now, what was your complaint, again?
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) May 14, 2012
A final note:

DeathClock,

Sorry buddy, didn't mean to single you out- you just provided the springboard. My comments were aimed at many other posters here as well, including --but not limited to-- Noumenon, riggsuckin'(aka mangy, swenson, etc), freethinking, --ah, it makes me feel physically ill naming them, so I'll stop, since we all know who I'm talking about.

Just thought a little clarification was in order.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
In anycase the poor don't contribute anything to society as a whole, in fact they are a burden

Those working poor are actually doing the work.

Imagine how much a factory would produce and sell without workers (who get next to no pay): Nothing, because there would be no product.
Imagine how much a factory would produce and sell without management (who get most all the money): Certainly less than they do now, but not nothing, because there WOULD be a product and you COULD find buyers.

So who is really the one who is worth anything? Workers or management?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2012
HEY! Im just reading about technocracy. Greece was playing with the idea of being governed by technocrats. Then I saw this vid about smart meters, the worldwide energy web
http://www.youtub...oQ3wbstQ

-And I wonder whats so bad about an energy-based economy rather than one based on money? Im enthused. Why should we suffer with the waste, corruption, and abuse of competition-based governance when we can be ruled by scientists and engineers who know far better how to run things than elected lackeys and bourgeois investment bankster bloodsuckers?

Technocracy. Like the '65 worlds fair only global.
http://www.youtub...=related
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) May 14, 2012
In anycase the poor don't contribute anything to society as a whole, in fact they are a burden

Those working poor are actually doing the work.

Imagine how much a factory would produce and sell without workers (who get next to no pay): Nothing, because there would be no product.
Imagine how much a factory would produce and sell without management (who get most all the money): Certainly less than they do now, but not nothing, because there WOULD be a product and you COULD find buyers.

So who is really the one who is worth anything? Workers or management?


I didn't make myself clear. I'm NOT disparaging "the poor". I was posting to a couple of anti-capitalist.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2012
In my country, the poor still work according to their ability. The disabled and elderly are taken care of by their family. They also get paid a certain amount of money to live on. In AMERICA I see that the elderly go to nursing homes which takes all their money to pay for drugs and care and many die alone without the children to even visit. Not so in the R. F.We care about our people but we do not tolerate the moochers who do not like to work, with their bottles of vodka. They go to hospital to find out mental problems. If they persist after being found to be healthy, they go to gulag.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2012
You see, if there are people who do not care to work, it means there is something wrong. Everyone must want to work, even if only sitting down all day. If they do not work, they do not eat because they do not get paid. We have policy that we must care about the community. If small part of community does not work and do their share, then everyone suffers. In America and some other countries, the shirkers are elevated to those who must be pitied and must have compassion for them. Otherwise, is being considered mean and insensitive. But in my country, mean and insensitive is not considered as reason to allow porch sitters with pay. It is regarded as insanity to allow such people to have their way.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2012
In R.F. it is hard life for most of the people. We are not soft crybabies who love to complain about little things as people of the West like to do. Many of our people have to share TV set and cell phone is not common thing. But we do not complain because we are working and making money and we have big family to help each other. In big cities there is some dissension for more freedom. I do not understand why they want to be like Americans. The Western culture, imo is big trouble for us. It is even big trouble for Americans. They complain about their tax money being to pay for porch sitters, but they still vote for the politicians who allow it. The Americans seem confused about what they want. It might be possible that so many are thinking in different way from each other. In Communist country, we all think much the same, and we survive even if we are not so rich like Americans.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2012
Of course, poor people are everywhere, this is fact. The baby in the picture picked a bad time to be born. Yes, I know he did not make the choice, but the statistics will say that if he survives, he will grow up and make more babies who will also be undernourished. So it is never ending. Under Commiunism, this would not happen unless the leaders of country are corrupt.
I have now some pampushki in the oven. Goodnight
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) May 14, 2012
"No one is entitled to anything, everyone should have to work for their daily meal" I could not agree more DeathClock. Just take for example the starving baby in the picture. Lazy little shit probably expects the government to feed him. If his parents had only given him the right set of morals - he would be an upstanding factory workder - and in no need of gubberment charity. What is the world coming to. I think it is time for another war. Maybe I can find some WMD under the couch (smile).
kaasinees
3.4 / 5 (10) May 14, 2012
Goldman Sachs stole trillions of dollars and euros through frauds and taking advantage of existing systems. All that money comes from YOU and other people, weather they work hard or not! Is that your idea of a free market? You liberals/conservatives are nutjobs! You want to bash everyones skull in and piss on them grave, let the disabled rot even if it is the fault of some douche-bag that drove over them! Let the hard working construction buildrt with shattered back rot in a ditch. You people make me sick, you are thugs and you will be hanged by the REAL people.
rwinners
5 / 5 (1) May 14, 2012
The cheapest way to save the world??? or the cheapest way to provide an ample supply of 'entry level' workers.
djr
5 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
"So who is really the one who is worth anything? Workers or management?" The really cool thing is - soon we will have super smart robots - that can do both the management and the labor for us. And then....wow - maybe we should start thinking about that - I wonder if any one has given it any thought - maybe a good education system would a good start - nah - a 25% drop out rate is fine - right????
Eric_B
not rated yet May 15, 2012
Before we laud the coming robot revolution and welcome our robotic overlords, we may want to consider a parallel analysis with "non-lethal" weaponry. In the brave new world on non-lethals, I can take away your civil rights without making a bruise or a body to dispose of.

With robot labor don't most human being become truly "worthless"?

What if I don't like this future? What will be my rights and recourse?

And, it may be arguable, that the only true barrier to utopia is the industry of child and adult sexual slavery. That money is bigger than drugs (whether or not your blind eye believes it is, it is.)

The future being planned includes a massive culling of the human herd and unless you are worth millions, bye, bye!
infinite_energy
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2012
As science and technology improves work becomes easier and easier.
Machines will require minimal human supervision.
As of now ATM machines can dispense cash to anybody.

Origin
1 / 5 (3) May 15, 2012
In dense aether theory the socialistic (centrally organized) and capitalistic (decentralize free market) models must be balanced. The socialistic model is not effective for controlling of economy at the communal level, whereas the the free-market economy cannot account to the strategical, global and long-term decisions, as its inherently unstable and it operates with actual prices only. We essentially have two variants, where these systems are balanced: the liberal capitalism of USA type, which is controlled with oligarchy and the centralistic capitalism of Chinese type, which is controlled with politbyro. The liberal capitalism works better in the phase of economical growth, the centralistic capitalism works better in the times of recession. We can expect, both systems will converge mutually and the day of tax freedom will converge to the mid of year.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
With robot labor don't most human being become truly "worthless"?

Depends on how you define 'worth'. If you reduce people to money (and why would you?) then: yes.

What if I don't like this future? What will be my rights and recourse?

That's the thing about life (and the universe in general). Adapt or die.

The future being planned includes a massive culling of the human herd and unless you are worth millions, bye, bye!

How much worth will millions be in a world where everything is basically for free?
djr
5 / 5 (3) May 15, 2012
"With robot labor don't most human being become truly "worthless"?" Wow - you have a very low opinion of your worth. With robot labor doing all the manual work - I become free to think and create. Sounds good to me.

What if I don't like this future?

As now - you are free to contribute to the evolution of the species in what ever way you choose - including opt out - which could include heading off to a distant planet to start your own world (or is that the mormons?), or taking a bottle of tylenol.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
With robot labor don't most human being become truly "worthless"?


No.

What if I don't like this future? What will be my rights and recourse?


None, too bad.

And, it may be arguable, that the only true barrier to utopia


The true barrier to utopia is that everyone has a different idea of it.

is the industry of sexual slavery.


Maybe sex slaves are a part of my utopia?

The future being planned includes a massive culling of the human herd and unless you are worth millions, bye, bye!


Dumb.
djr
5 / 5 (3) May 15, 2012
"The true barrier to utopia is that everyone has a different idea of it." What if utopia is just the natural course of events? Eventually we learn to stop being idiots - killing each other for nonsensical false ideological differences - and devote our energy to science (i.e. the discovery of what is). Take a deep breath - and enjoy the universe and all it has to teach us.

Maybe sex slaves are a part of my utopia? - then you will be free to go into the virtual world - and do what ever you want - with who ever you want. I think we will grow beyond such trivial distractions - and enjoy unlocking the secrets of the universe.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) May 15, 2012
killing each other for nonsensical false ideological differences

some people seem to like killing each other - and seem to love making up imagined distinctions to justify it.

The most basic reason against a utopia is: Some people like to have power over others. And some want to hand over power ovver themselves to others. So far, so good.

But the powerhungry never get enough. They don't want power over X number of people but over as many as possible (preferrably all - and 'virtual people' are certainly no substitute or politicians/industrialists would be playing Sims instead of waging wars).

As soon as there are at least two power hungry people they will come into conflict sooner or later (using their pawns to fight it out - you can bet on it.).
djr
5 / 5 (3) May 15, 2012
As soon as there are at least two power hungry people they will come into conflict sooner or later (using their pawns to fight it out - you can bet on it.)

You are probably right. Do you think we can change? That realizing that the true joy of life comes from learning together? I hold out some hope from things like the Arab Spring. Time will tell I guess. Are we evolving?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (7) May 15, 2012
The use of DDT in the battle against Malaria has never been halted.

"Responsible use of DDT to eradicate malaria." - SST

Unfortunately the vectors became immune to the chemical and it is largely lost it's utility.

Yet it is still being used.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
Even without robots, most people are truly worthless.

"With robot labor don't most human being become truly "worthless"?" - Eric_B
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (9) May 15, 2012
If you have no right to obtain something - like air - then you have no legitimate claim to it, and hence can not claim deprivation if you do not get it.

"You idiot, ACTIVELY preventing someone from obtaining something is not the same as not being ENTITLED to that thing." - Deathtard

I can think of many ways of preventing you from getting the air that you claim to have no right to.

What is your address by the way?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (9) May 15, 2012
Come get some.

"Be careful little boy, monsters really do exist, and we'll calmly eat you alive without threats or drama." - RustyBedsprings

American Cowards threaten my life at least once a year. The threats have always been a source of amusement for myself and my friends.

Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (7) May 15, 2012
Are you seriously still pretending that you don't understand the difference between being deprived of something and having no right to something? I don't have a RIGHT to own a 65" television but store owners cannot refuse to sell me such a television, that is the difference, you idiot.

No one thinks you are clever.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) May 15, 2012
Oh, that is simple. It lowers cleanup costs by realizing that Lombourg is a moron.

Once you realize that, everything falls into place.

"Early warning systems are important - but how exactly are they going to lessen cleanup costs?" - Antialias
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) May 15, 2012

OK. What is your real address and name?

"Please do, i'd LOVE for you to pay me a visit and try to deprive me of anything you feel i shouldn't have." - RustyBedsprings

I take it that you agree that you have no right to air.

So be it.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) May 15, 2012
I agree with Numentard, House fires are unsustainable, so they never happen.

Falling is unsustainable so it is impossible.

Life itself is unsustainable and must come to an end, so nothing can be alive.

"If it's "unsustainable" then that means it won't happen,.." -
NumenTard

Well done NumenTard.

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
Your claim is that you have no right to air, and I agree with you.

What is your address? I assure you that you will be able to breathe all you want. You just won't be breathing air.

"Are you seriously still pretending that you don't understand the difference between being deprived of something and having no right to something?" - DeathTard
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
It must seem that way to squeaky cogs like yourself who play a worthless part in a failed machine.

You have so much invested in your fantasy that you deny reality in order to protect your investment.

"You say that "capitalism in the USA is a pure failure", while every rational person on the planet can plainly see that the exact opposite is the case." - NumenTard

Pathetic.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (9) May 15, 2012
If you weren't entitled to own a playstation 3 then you have no legitimate claim to ownership and it may be removed from your possession without legal penalty.

It is interesting that you your choice of things to possess is a play station 3. It tells us that you are a know nothing, adolescent, punk who is not far from his mama's teats.

"If I was ENTITLED to a playstation 3 it would be someone's job to go and buy one for me if I didn't have one." - DeathTard
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) May 15, 2012
Why do you think that any thinking person cares what anyone from America thinks?

"Even Obama agrees with me." - NumenTard

God you are so desperate and pathetic.
CHollman82
2.4 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
If you weren't entitled to own a playstation 3 then you have no legitimate claim to ownership and it may be removed from your possession without legal penalty.


Jesus, you don't know what "entitled" means. Here, do some reading instead of talking for once:

http://en.wikiped...itlement

It is interesting that you select as your choice of things to possess is a play station 3. It tells us that you are a know nothing, adolescent, punk who is not far from his mama's teat.


A bit about myself, I am a 30 year old software engineer with a wife and 2 children, so, whatever...
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) May 15, 2012
There has never been anything called "Free Market Capitalism".

And the American Economic Disaster has illustrated quite nicely that any time you get close to such, you produce economic disaster.

America's current near depression is a good case in point.

"If your aim is to destroy free market capitalism, you will have a more difficult time than even controlling the global climate." - NumenTard

Free Market Capitalism = Pure Failure.

Thinking people know this. What is your excuse in not knowing it NumenTard?

Are you Poorly Educated?
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) May 15, 2012
That is horrible.

Why isn't the Free Market funding his research?

"An MIT professor is being threatened with funding cuts for his LENR device that has been outputting excess heat 14 times the input power since January." - Terriva
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) May 15, 2012
Yup. Yup. and yup.

"Free market, free to collapse the housing market, free to take advantage of the housing market as in 1 trillion dollar stolen from US american people by Goldman Sachs." - Kaas

Kaas is very much smarter than any American Conservative.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) May 15, 2012
Definition of ENTITLE

transitive verb
1: to give a title to : designate
2: to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something

"Jesus, you don't know what "entitled" means. "- Chol82

Hence if you are not entitled to something then you don't have the proper grounds for seeking or claiming the thing.

If as it was said, people have no entitlement to air, then they have no grounds for seeking or claiming air.

So again, I ask for DeathTard's address.

Deathclock
1.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2012
Jesus Christ VD, he gave you a link to the definition of the term as it is being used in this context, so you go out and find the most pedestrian definition of the word you can that ignores all context and you think you are making a valid point?

An ENTITLEMENT, in terms of rights granted by government or otherwise, has a meaning that is more specific than the one you linked to from your "Children's First Dictionary". You should read the link CH posted if you are interested in an adult conversation about entitlements.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (3) May 16, 2012
Do you think we can change?

Possibly. There are a number of ways out. Some are not so 'nice'. Sometimes it seems even beneficial to concentrate power (faster decision making process).

We are the product of an evolutionary history in which aggression and the use of "power multipliers" (as I like to call them) has been beneficial to the one using them (a power multiplier is anything that ads its power to yours without any effort on your part: a stick, a spear, a gun, followers. Probably why owning a gun or wanting to be a dictator is so enticing to some)

I do not see where we can come to the point where everyone understands this, though.
Example: Having a gun makes the gun-you-system more powerful. But the increase in power is solely due to the addition of the gun. Gunlovers confuse this gun-you-system with just a you-system (i.e. they delude themselves into believing that THEY, innately, have suddenly become more powerful). Same with 'leaders' (replace 'guns' with 'people'.)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) May 16, 2012
So how would we go about curbing this impulse to have control over others
1) Remove fear of the environment. Control over others (or owning a gun, or having lots of money, or, ... ) is a mechanism to control your environment and limit the unpredictabilities therein. If we remove that then the need to control would be extingusihed in many.

2) Strengthen feelings of self worth. If no one lets themselves be controlled then those seeking control will fall flat on their faces (unless they go for coercion). This is unlikely to happen. People are just not equal in all respects.

3)Weed out the powermongers early. That one is morally iffy.

All of these require (at the very least) good education systems and adequate parenting. Neither of which are easy to set up.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (10) May 16, 2012
Definition of ENTITLE

transitive verb
1: to give a title to : designate
2: to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something

"Jesus Christ VD, he gave you a link to the definition of the term as it is being used in this contex" - DeathTard

Hence if you are not entitled to something then you don't have the proper grounds for seeking or claiming the thing.

If as it was said, people have no entitlement to air, then they have no grounds for seeking or claiming air.

So again, I ask for DeathTard's address.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) May 16, 2012
""There are smarter ways to tackle this, for instance by investing in research and development on green energy, or looking into geo-engineering," he said"
Why not promote free markets and the protection of private property rights?
Data shows this is the most cost effective ways to 'save the world'.

All of these require (at the very least) good education systems and adequate parenting. Neither of which are easy to set up.

Yes, it is. Societies must be able to hold people accountable for their actions.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (8) May 16, 2012
Definition of ENTITLE

transitive verb
1: to give a title to : designate
2: to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something


That's not what an entitlement is, I gave you a link to a perfectly good description of what an entitlement is that makes sense in the context in which we are discussing it, not some ambiguous dictionary definition that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

You're dishonest and childish, because I believe you know the difference between the pedestrian definition of "entitled" and the definition of an entitlement in the context of rights. It's impossible to have an actual mature discussion with you when you insist on acting this way.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (8) May 16, 2012
an ENTITLEMENT, in the context of this discussion, is something for which you have guaranteed access based on an established right.

http://en.wikiped...itlement

This is the definition we are using, because the one you provided is out of context.

You're right, though, in that I don't have guaranteed access to air to breath. However, in this country, unlike your shithole, I do have a right to personal freedom, and the only way you could effectively deprive me of air to breath would be to violate that right, which would be breaking the law as it would be considered unlawful imprisonment, so your stupid fucking point fails anyway. Can we move on now for christ sake?
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) May 16, 2012
And how will we hold you responsible for your immoral actions?

Execution?

"Societies must be able to hold people accountable for their actions." - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) May 16, 2012
Your failure to respect the dictionary definition of words is noted.

It is common for ideologues to manufacture their own fantasy land reality by altering the definition of words as you have just proven yourself guilty of doing.

"That's not what an entitlement is" - DeathTard

Since you are willing to manufacture your own language in support of your own conservative ideology I must assume that you are an avid promoter of Newspeak and a New World Conservative order based upon your new language.
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (7) May 17, 2012
I manufactured it? I gave you the wikipedia link several times now, do you think I authored that page?

Either you are insanely stupid and you don't understand what context means or you're just a giant troll... It's always difficult to determine who is stupid and who is just trying to be stupid, since I believe that trying to appear stupid is legitimately stupid, so the lines tend to blur.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (1) May 17, 2012
"We are the product of an evolutionary history in which aggression and the use of "power multipliers" (as I like to call them) has been beneficial to the one using them (a power multiplier is anything that ads its power to yours without any effort on your part: a stick, a spear, a gun, followers. Probably why owning a gun or wanting to be a dictator is so enticing to some)" - antialias -

That is strongly worded concept, but quite accurate. Out of millions of years of human history, it is still the animalistic aggressiveness in us that makes practical use of the things that would destroy us and those around us. We utilise whatever is available and close to the hand to protect ourselves and what is ours, but in so doing, we negate the concept of peaceful means and find also that we have made it possible to have enemies at the gate. They also indulge their aggressiveness as they note that we have our own methods of annihilating them. We, in turn, beat the drums of war and (cont'd)
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (1) May 17, 2012
cont'd
prepare to annihilate or be annihilated, without much thought to the latter.
This is use of standing army in every country. But without standing army, it is most certain that enemies at the gate will come in since it is their wish to annihilate you first, or become your masters. Because it is a flagrant desire on part of enemies, it is necessary to keep military viable and always ready.
Russian military is always ready; Chinese military also are committed to readiness. This is why I laugh at your President's fumbling attempts to diminish greatly the American military when America's enemies are at the gate. Chinese military is fully prepared to remove Americans as top dog status. Do you think that we Russians are not aware of China's desire for future expansion attempts?
There are those who believe that China is only interested in America's money. This is false. They will be your masters in the end and it is inevitable with your system of weak girly men in power.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) May 17, 2012
Definition of ENTITLE

transitive verb
1: to give a title to : designate
2: to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something

"Jesus Christ VD, he gave you a link to the definition of the term as it is being used in this contex" - DeathTard

Hence if you are not entitled to something then you don't have the proper grounds for seeking or claiming the thing.

If as it was said, people have no entitlement to air, then they have no grounds for seeking or claiming air.

So again, I ask for DeathTard's address.
Jimee
not rated yet May 20, 2012
The haters and maggots of the world are afraid they won't be able to fleece the poor and disadvantaged as easily.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) May 20, 2012
The haters and maggots of the world are afraid they won't be able to fleece the poor and disadvantaged as easily.

That's no way to talk about the Obama regime or all the other socialist regimes.