The debate for dummies
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 28,318
Likes: 9
From: This is not my house!
I'd really like to find out what the total net worth of the population of the developed world it vs the world popln.
I continue to think, that if the $250B net worth of the 5 richest men in the US were put to use in the third world, farms and fisheries could be established to stave off starvation. And what if the wealth of those 3rd world rulers who've hoarded national wealth for themselves (corruption etc) was distributed back.
I continue to suspect many of the starvation issues would be resolved.
Poverty, starvation and war. Much but not all can be solved with money.
Oink oink.
I continue to think, that if the $250B net worth of the 5 richest men in the US were put to use in the third world, farms and fisheries could be established to stave off starvation. And what if the wealth of those 3rd world rulers who've hoarded national wealth for themselves (corruption etc) was distributed back.
I continue to suspect many of the starvation issues would be resolved.
Poverty, starvation and war. Much but not all can be solved with money.
Oink oink.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 93,305
Likes: 820
From: Nowhere
Purchasing power parity from the CIA factbook:
GWP is $51.48 Trillion. Per Capita is $8200. World Pop (July '04 est) is 6.38B.
US: $10.99T/$37800
China: $6.45T/$5000
Japan: $3.58T/$28200
India: $3.03T/$2900
Germany: $2.27T/$27600
UK: $1.67T/$27700
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...r/2001rank.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...r/2004rank.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My 2 cents: I don't think you'll ever solve starvation issues as long as large swaths of people continue to live in areas that are not arable and not able to naturally support large populations; and likewise as long as urbanization continues to eat up land that is arable and is able to support large populations.
GWP is $51.48 Trillion. Per Capita is $8200. World Pop (July '04 est) is 6.38B.
US: $10.99T/$37800
China: $6.45T/$5000
Japan: $3.58T/$28200
India: $3.03T/$2900
Germany: $2.27T/$27600
UK: $1.67T/$27700
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...r/2001rank.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...r/2004rank.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My 2 cents: I don't think you'll ever solve starvation issues as long as large swaths of people continue to live in areas that are not arable and not able to naturally support large populations; and likewise as long as urbanization continues to eat up land that is arable and is able to support large populations.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 28,318
Likes: 9
From: This is not my house!
The other component is net worth... that is accumulated wealth. If all of the accumulated wealth were distributed evenly.... I couldn't find this type of info in my limited search.
I sort of agree with you about starvation but much could be done in non arable lands such as fish farming etc. There is also much arable land in places like Africa growing peanuts for export. Plenty of people could be fed off this land but no... the peanuts leave the continent to supply NFL games etc. Landholders get wealthy and farm worker subsist.
I also think technology can help. There may be plenty that can be done to feed people with synthesized food. Real nutrients just not 'grown'.
I sort of agree with you about starvation but much could be done in non arable lands such as fish farming etc. There is also much arable land in places like Africa growing peanuts for export. Plenty of people could be fed off this land but no... the peanuts leave the continent to supply NFL games etc. Landholders get wealthy and farm worker subsist.
I also think technology can help. There may be plenty that can be done to feed people with synthesized food. Real nutrients just not 'grown'.
Former Moderator
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 52,827
Likes: 17
From: State of Confusion
Well, this debate has certainly been an exercise in neither candidate actually responding to questions...for the most part. That said, of the two, I liked Kerry's presentation more. Bush still came across on the defensive and a bit fumbling. He did better than the first debate, but not as well as I expected. I also expected his speech coach to work on nukulur...
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 8,046
Likes: 0
From: Apparently WAY OUT
I actually got to see the whole debate yesterday (from 3-4.30 
) and if you want % I'll give Kerry 99 and Bush 1 (not sure what that timber company thing was about 
- prolly he has one and forgot 
)
I agreed TOTALLY with Kerry in ALL points. And even if only half of what he promises takes place it would be good for America and the rest of the world. Bush thinks he doesn't have to be "popular" in Europe whereas Kerry really wants to work on political relations
Apparently Kerry talks "around the bush" too much. I found his answers absolutely to the point and he explained what he wanted very well! Bush kept repeating himself and he didn't really have eye-contact with Kerry very often. I mean, he's in a debate with the man - look at him for f*** sake 
Also Bush kept putting words into Kerry's mouth. For example "you said this war is a mistake" - he said THE WAY Bush handled this situation was a mistake!
The question about the Supreme Court was great! Bush made it very clear that he will only choose a religious judge whereas Kerry said it should not matter what race a judge is or which sex or what kind of religious beliefs he or she has. I'm not religious and I would not want a president that FORCES his beliefs on me!
Kerry's point of view on abortion is VERY reasonable. He may not agree with abortions BUT he still says you can't generally say yes or no to it. It depends on the situation and as a president you cannot just say "Well I don't like it so it's not gonna happen"
Drugs from Canada. 4 years ago Bush says he'll do it and now he has Alzheimer or what
I really hope for America and the rest of the world that Kerry wins this!
Oh and Branti they said your Dad's name again 
I told my Mum "That's Brants daddy" 
) and if you want % I'll give Kerry 99 and Bush 1 (not sure what that timber company thing was about - prolly he has one and forgot )I agreed TOTALLY with Kerry in ALL points. And even if only half of what he promises takes place it would be good for America and the rest of the world. Bush thinks he doesn't have to be "popular" in Europe whereas Kerry really wants to work on political relations
Apparently Kerry talks "around the bush"
too much. I found his answers absolutely to the point and he explained what he wanted very well! Bush kept repeating himself and he didn't really have eye-contact with Kerry very often. I mean, he's in a debate with the man - look at him for f*** sake Also Bush kept putting words into Kerry's mouth. For example "you said this war is a mistake" - he said THE WAY Bush handled this situation was a mistake!
The question about the Supreme Court was great! Bush made it very clear that he will only choose a religious judge whereas Kerry said it should not matter what race a judge is or which sex or what kind of religious beliefs he or she has. I'm not religious and I would not want a president that FORCES his beliefs on me!
Kerry's point of view on abortion is VERY reasonable. He may not agree with abortions BUT he still says you can't generally say yes or no to it. It depends on the situation and as a president you cannot just say "Well I don't like it so it's not gonna happen"
Drugs from Canada. 4 years ago Bush says he'll do it and now he has Alzheimer or what
I really hope for America and the rest of the world that Kerry wins this!
Oh and Branti they said your Dad's name again
I told my Mum "That's Brants daddy"
