Why Banks get More Money than Starving Children

[turquoise]

I made a search but I didn't find a previous thread on this. Forgive me if there was.

There are many reports now, in the light of the current financial crisis, of people and organizations saying they wonder why the worldwide banks get so much money so quickly, and any NGO projet against hunger in the world does not get that much and never has.

This IS of course an argument, and fortunately points our our hybris in this crisis, and reminds us of other goals in life than to make a fortune on the stock market.

BUT, there are things to be said in favour of saving our banking system (or saving 'some' big corporations - although I'm less sure of that...).

This leads me to the question of people really understand the concept of world economics (of course they don't, mostly, don't give me that..;))

And why it seems to have that much appeal for people to plead that funds should rather go to pension systems, unemployed etc.

What I am probably trying to say is, (words don't come easy...) why don't we still have a politically neutral, pedagocial concept of vulgarizing economics without immediately falling into political camps or old dichotomies.
Is it just the complexity of the system or are there other factors that influence this?

Are we particularly unrational when dealing with something from real life as money? Particularly prone to delusions? (ourselves, media...)


Behavioral Decision Theory - Episode One
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/10/125122/913
Brain Chemical Underpins Social Interaction, And Why People Make Irrational Decisions
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071106124858.htm

I hope I haven't been too unclear.. arghm...

[Ferrus]

You do realise the French government has given vast sums to the financial industry too?

Anyway, the problem with the economy is, most people don't need to know how it works, they just get their jobs and their food come in. They wouldn't even care especially about what their tax money was spent on were it not for the media reporting it ad nauseam.

And I don't think economics has ever been politically neutral, in fact the early French and Scottish economists were poltical radicals in their own day.

[Archvile]

And I don't think economics has ever been politically neutral
Oh no, politics are based on economics which, in turn, are again based on energy management. So politics is nothing more than a complicated form of resource/energy management.

.

[Ferrus]

Oh no, politics are based on economics which, in turn, are again based on energy management. So politics is nothing more than a complicated form of resource/energy management.

.
But then, really, so is psychology, as is the biology that underpins it, as is the chemistry behind that and the physics that underpins that. Which is to say that, perhaps it is a truism.

[NoahFence]

People, rich and poor, want maximum return on the time/effort/energy they spend.

Who cares if you don't pay taxes if you end up paying more for the services the taxes would have brought you? Even Joe the Plumber can understand that, when it's not obscured by smokescreen.

And I think even Joe the Plumber can understand that if 700,000,000,000 is spent on large banks...that it's not going to be spent on his kid's school, or his roads, or protecting him corporate shenanigans, etc. You can't spend the same dollar twice.

However, the trap is sprung. We're =already= screwed. The spice must flow! If the financial system collapses, there will be all kinds of money not being spent. In fact there will be all kinds of money just plain not existing any more. So yes, we need the bailout, and unfortunately it is going to protect mostly the people with assloads who put far-too-massive bets on a longshot and got burned.

"Trickle down" economics may not work...but there's -something- that trickles down, and that's SHIT, and if we don't fix the top, you can bet it's going to break the bottom as well. Then we'll have starving banks -and- starving children, and more of 'em, and no real easy way out...the wealth will have to be created again from scratch, as after the Depression.

I do, however, advocate using the intestines of the current adminstration as a tourniquet, who IMO both allowed and encouraged the behavior that led to this so they all could shit on solid gold toilets. Legalized criminals, that's all they are.

[Chunes]

But then, really, so is psychology, as is the biology that underpins it, as is the chemistry behind that and the physics that underpins that. Which is to say that, perhaps it is a truism.

I'm fairly sure there is a disconnect between physics, which grants us a million times more energy than we could possibly use, and politics. If politics reflected physics, then there would be no starving, homeless, or cold.

I blame either ignorance or malice. Not quite sure which it generally is, yet.

[Ferrus]

I'm fairly sure there is a disconnect between physics, which grants us a million times more energy than we could possibly use, and politics. If politics reflected physics, then there would be no starving, homeless, or cold.

I blame either ignorance or malice. Not quite sure which it generally is, yet.
I talking about causal determinism. Every action in the universe being ultimately derivable from physics.

Anyway, politics can't reflect physics because of the innate complexities in human civilisation and the irrationalities of the human social and economic system.

[Archvile]

But then, really, so is psychology, as is the biology that underpins it, as is the chemistry behind that and the physics that underpins that. Which is to say that, perhaps it is a truism.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png

[EmmaPeel]

Oh, I thought you were talking about Tyra.

[walfin]

Where do economists fit in on the scale? And lawyers?


And I think even Joe the Plumber can understand that if 700,000,000,000 is spent on large banks...that it's not going to be spent on his kid's school, or his roads, or protecting him corporate shenanigans, etc. You can't spend the same dollar twice.
First may be true, but last sentence isn't quite right.
You're forgetting the multiplier, and the whole idea of the reserve banking system.

[EmmaPeel]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png

Please don't insult biology that way.

[A Schnitzel]

Please don't insult biology that way.

You might be interested to learn that scientific fields don't have feelings.

[AllAboutSoul]

I do, however, advocate using the intestines of the current adminstration as a tourniquet, who IMO both allowed and encouraged the behavior that led to this so they all could shit on solid gold toilets. Legalized criminals, that's all they are.


+1

[dubbeltop]

Why Banks get More Money than Starving Children

Seeing starving children with bags of money is such a no no ..no?

[Ferrus]

Please don't insult biology that way.
Maths however could in fact be said to be auxilary and founded within the patterns of them all, thus its 'purity' is simply the same 'purity' found in metaphysics.

[joft]

Math has its roots deep down in the earth, but the tree has grown into outer-space, man.

re: OP. Banks get more money because they have more money. Money doesn't grow on trees, but it does grow on itself.

re: Economics. What a fucking horrible misuse of math to justify subjective ideology. It's like the schizophrenic babblings of Anthony Hopkins' character in Proof:

"Let X equal the quantity of all quantities of X. Let X equal the cold. It is cold in December. The months of cold equal November through February. There are four months of cold, and four of heat, leaving four months of indeterminate temperature. In February it snows. In March the Lake is a lake of ice. In September the students come back and the bookstores are full. Let X equal the month of full bookstores. The number of books approaches infinity as the number of months of cold approaches four. I will never be as cold now as I will in the future. The future of cold is infinite. The future of heat is the future of cold. The bookstores are infinite and so are never full except in September..."

[Limey]

Starving children are only starving because they couldn't be afforded and shouldn't have been born.
Becoming a parent isn't a universal right and it's not the responsibility of developed nations to fund the third world's food problems and by extension, the problems of sovereign states, far away, most of these excess starving children only exist because there's nothing else to do but constantly procreate.

If there was a charity fund that I could donate to for just voluntary sterilization (or sterilization with a bonus payment) and contraception for the third world (and maybe China and India) I would give gladly and generously.

[joft]

that's glaringly obvious. the world needs more condoms, more IUDs, more morning after pills, more abortions, desperately.

that would be the best thing for the starving children. but it would also be a malthusian catastrophe. no rapidly expanding populations for markets to grow into? no inexhaustible underclass of cheap labor? how then will the Fat Cats fund their super-yacht addictions?

[Ferrus]

Math has its roots deep down in the earth, but the tree has grown into outer-space, man.
True, but only through progressive modelling. It is wrapped up in logic. And both can tell us something essential about the universe, but only through a via negativa - through telling us what is logically inconsistent. It remains meaningless without application, which is why to assume maths is more fundamental than physics would be a mistake - it is meaningless without physics, or without an external world whatsoever, and perhaps also without human brains.

[CEOofRawness]

True, but only through progressive modelling. It is wrapped up in logic. And both can tell us something essential about the universe, but only through a via negativa - through telling us what is logically inconsistent. It remains meaningless without application, which is why to assume maths is more fundamental than physics would be a mistake - it is meaningless without physics, or without an external world whatsoever, and perhaps also without human brains.

The beauty about math is that even if there is no application for it, math can exist in and of itself. You can argue that the universe was created through a creationist point of view or that it was created by the Big Bang. Even if one theory has a chance of 99.99% true, it's impossible to arrive at 100%. While on the other hand, theorems proven in mathematics hundreds of years ago are still valid today. The three angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees, period. This fact is inflexible because it is simple. It only takes in the concept of numbers (180) and the concept of degrees.

Math is the purest because it is the easiest subject to study. Take another look at that "chart." You'll notice that the less "pure" fields contain more variables than the ones that are more "pure." The reason why medicine is so complicated is because of the near-infinite variables you have to account for. Physics on the other hand, is only so pure because it is closely tied to mathematics.

Mathematics itself becomes more complex by building on its own simpler concepts. The simplest concepts (think kindergarten) are those that are observed in the world around us, while the more complex concepts are an extension of these simple concepts (which are often abstract).


Starving children are only starving because they couldn't be afforded and shouldn't have been born.
Becoming a parent isn't a universal right and it's not the responsibility of developed nations to fund the third world's food problems and by extension, the problems of sovereign states, far away, most of these excess starving children only exist because there's nothing else to do but constantly procreate.

If there was a charity fund that I could donate to for just voluntary sterilization (or sterilization with a bonus payment) and contraception for the third world (and maybe China and India) I would give gladly and generously.

1) Americans are the most wasteful of earth's resources. I believe the figure is that if every human lived like an American we would need four Earths to fulfill our resource needs. If you notice, the immediate problem isn't if the undeveloped world continues to grow, it's if they begin to adopt wasteful tendencies like developed nations. While the population of undeveloped countries does have a limit before all their resources are depleted, this limit shrinks exponentially if they become a developed nation.

Basically anyone that has more than one kid is adding onto our worldwide overpopulation problem. And once we reach an unsustainable population (which some argue we've already reached), having even two children is too much.

2) A professor of mine once noted that human beings have a reproductive growth similar to viruses. Just thought that would be an interested note to bring up.

I like individuals but I despise people as a whole. Any even that causes massive population reduction is welcome, seeing as we're unable (the human race as a whole) to take responsibility of our own well-being. Just like a kid that learns not to touch the stove after getting burned, our infantile species is gonna have to learn things the hard way.

[floid]

Banks get more money than starving children because, in our current system of accounting, one banker is worth at least a few million starving children and preserving the lifestyle to which the banker, their family, and entourage of friends and associates have become accustomed is astronomically more important than providing a modicum of daily sustenance to starving children who will shortly die and become no more than a little more soil on the face of the earth anyway.

This is what is said by what is actually done.

I am sure, however, if asked to justify their absolutely unearned and completely unjustifiable amounts of paper wealth they would find a far more euphemistic terminology to employ.

And they would be, in every sense that made any sense, lying.

[eyebyte_atWork]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png

That's right mother fuckers - Math and Physics are on Top... Mu ha ha ha ha

[CEOofRawness]

Most professions provide some degree of utility to the rest of the population. Even an usher at the movies aids in properly helping people enjoy their chosen entertainment (in which this case is the movies). Banks on the other hand, are just entities that have a ridiculous amount of money and charge people for borrowing that money. In this case, their utility is having more money than the average person, which in turn makes them MORE money. They've turned usury into a profitable business. The rich lend money to the poor, then charge them for doing so. You can argue about fairness all you want, but this is a positive feedback system that favors the rich.

The entire concept of banking is broken.

PS. I let someone borrow a penny in high school with a daily interest rate of 100%. That was back in 2001 so you do the math. Too bad I didn't get that in writing.

[CEOofRawness]

That's right mother fuckers - Math and Physics are on Top... Mu ha ha ha ha

Technically math and physics are on the right, not on top.

[turquoise]

You do realise the French government has given vast sums to the financial industry too?

Anyway, the problem with the economy is, most people don't need to know how it works, they just get their jobs and their food come in. They wouldn't even care especially about what their tax money was spent on were it not for the media reporting it ad nauseam.

And I don't think economics has ever been politically neutral, in fact the early French and Scottish economists were poltical radicals in their own day.

I agree tnat the man on the street does not necessarily need to know about economics... it is the irrational kind of news I suppose that contributes to the crisis (cf irrational decisions.. in the links)

Aside. Interesting discussion about sciences. But what about the more metaphysical part? Decision-making processes?
Personally, I agree that physics determines much. Math is a language to understand physics. Our greatest common denominator is that we all live on earth. Let's see what becomes important when we go to outer space...
(I hope we will also have a linguist on board... grin)

[airjaw]

I think the problem with feeding starving children is that its a purely emotional / short-term solution. You want to feed them cuz you don't want them to suffer or die.. ok fine. That doesn't actually solve anything though. It's been theorized that some of the 3rd world countries aren't doing so well precisely because they've come to rely on foreigners for help. That kind of system is not sustainable. Instead of the society evolving in a way which works for the people there, it gets screwed up by all the influences from outsiders. This is also related to the long-standing issues African-Americans have faced in this country.

[Chunes]

That doesn't actually solve anything though. It's been theorized that some of the 3rd world countries aren't doing so well precisely because they've come to rely on foreigners for help. That kind of system is not sustainable.

You and I rely on foreigners for food too. The foreigners I speak of produce our food—a process in which we have no part. So theoretically, intercountry food aid is no different than intracountry food aid. You would be right, of course—unsustainable either way. Just not to the extent we're seeing in most of Africa now.


Instead of the society evolving in a way which works for the people there, it gets screwed up by all the influences from outsiders. This is also related to the long-standing issues African-Americans have faced in this country.

I think you're giving the people there too little credit for their efforts to rid their tyrants of the corruption that is causing the majority of the sustenance problems there.

[turquoise]

Starving children are only starving because they couldn't be afforded and shouldn't have been born.
Becoming a parent isn't a universal right and it's not the responsibility of developed nations to fund the third world's food problems and by extension, the problems of sovereign states, far away, most of these excess starving children only exist because there's nothing else to do but constantly procreate.

If there was a charity fund that I could donate to for just voluntary sterilization (or sterilization with a bonus payment) and contraception for the third world (and maybe China and India) I would give gladly and generously.

Yucks, what a comment!!! (I'll swallow some of the things this makes me want to say... )

On what do you think 'developed nations' have funded their wealth? (=> colonies, raw materials, resources...?)

Also, do you realize you are talking about 'aborting' and 'sterilizing' potential markets? (=> China, India, pull worldwide growth today...)

Allow me to quote myself: "Are we particularly unrational when dealing with something from real life as money? Particularly prone to delusions? (ourselves, media...)"

...

[Limey]

Yucks, what a comment!!! (I'll swallow some of the things this makes me want to say... )

On what do you think 'developed nations' have funded their wealth? (=> colonies, raw materials, resources...?)

Also, do you realize you are talking about 'aborting' and 'sterilizing' potential markets? (=> China, India, pull worldwide growth today...)

Allow me to quote myself: "Are we particularly unrational when dealing with something from real life as money? Particularly prone to delusions? (ourselves, media...)"

...

I'll just say that I've spent my whole life watching video of some nation or another with its people starving, while they war with neighboring nations and I'm completely de-sensitized to it and their plight.
It's not just about money, it's about the fact that there are already too many humans and it's not a basic right to reproduce irresponsibly.

For the most part AIDS and other STDs (as well as pandemic disease) will do much of the job of curtailing many of the irresponsible attitudes, albeit slower.

[turquoise]

I'll just say that I've spent my whole life watching video of some nation or another with its people starving, while they war with neighboring nations and I'm completely de-sensitized to it and their plight.
It's not just about money, it's about the fact that there are already too many humans and it's not a basic right to reproduce irresponsibly.

For the most part AIDS and other STDs (as well as pandemic disease) will do much of the job of curtailing many of the irresponsible attitudes, albeit slower.

For my part, I admit that I don't think about starving kids all the time, but sometimes I think what a wonderful life I have, running clean water, relatively unpolluted environment, enough to eat, retirement, in short, economic wealth, I really marvel sometimes if I have deseved this....and what for.

[CEOofRawness]

For my part, I admit that I don't think about starving kids all the time, but sometimes I think what a wonderful life I have, running clean water, relatively unpolluted environment, enough to eat, retirement, in short, economic wealth, I really marvel sometimes if I have deseved this....and what for.

Genetics determine 90% of your life. And since you have no input in determining genetics it's based solely on luck. But a lot of things that are outside of your control that happen to you are based on luck as well. Therefore, your life is determined 99% of the time by luck.

Just be thankful you were born here and not somewhere like Bosnia or Darfur.


I think the problem with feeding starving children is that its a purely emotional / short-term solution. You want to feed them cuz you don't want them to suffer or die.. ok fine. That doesn't actually solve anything though. It's been theorized that some of the 3rd world countries aren't doing so well precisely because they've come to rely on foreigners for help. That kind of system is not sustainable. Instead of the society evolving in a way which works for the people there, it gets screwed up by all the influences from outsiders. This is also related to the long-standing issues African-Americans have faced in this country.

This relates to the whole "give a man a fish"/"teach a man to fish" saying. The problem is that it's much more complicated than that. We often give aid to corrupt regimes that don't give their resources to the people. Multi-national corporations drive the prices of their resources down, preventing them from having a stable economy. Other nations then lend them money (which the corrupt regimes often use for themselves and leave the next generations with the bill) and drive them into debt.

Why else do you think 50% of the human population lives off of less than $2 a day?

[Chunes]

Just be thankful you were born here and not somewhere like Bosnia or Darfur.

You say that as if his soul is floating around waiting for a random body. He is where he is because his parents fucked. He could be nowhere else.

[CEOofRawness]

You say that as if his soul is floating around waiting for a random body. He is where he is because his parents fucked. He could be nowhere else.

Then be thankful your parents didn't move to Bosnia or Darfur before fucking.

[airjaw]

This relates to the whole "give a man a fish"/"teach a man to fish" saying. The problem is that it's much more complicated than that. We often give aid to corrupt regimes that don't give their resources to the people. Multi-national corporations drive the prices of their resources down, preventing them from having a stable economy. Other nations then lend them money (which the corrupt regimes often use for themselves and leave the next generations with the bill) and drive them into debt.

Why else do you think 50% of the human population lives off of less than $2 a day?

Well, my underlying point was that it IS more complicated than just throwing money at the countries and expecting that to solve their problems. The problem comes from so many angles like you said: gov't intervention (propping up harmful regimes or dictators?), corporate rapacity, broken cultures, etc. So, I agree with you. And I'm not even sure how we came to discussing this. What were we talking about again?

[skip]

What's a "broken culture?"

[Chunes]

See: middle-class American culture.

[skip]

Can you be more specific?

[Limey]

Genetics determine 90% of your life. And since you have no input in determining genetics it's based solely on luck. But a lot of things that are outside of your control that happen to you are based on luck as well. Therefore, your life is determined 99% of the time by luck.

Just be thankful you were born here and not somewhere like Bosnia or Darfur.

I disagree with this. I would say that self determination governs life and the evidence of migration backs that up.
Take South Florida, for example and the movement of the willing from Cuba and Haiti, I asked various Cubans why there weren't more mulllato/black Cubans migrating and they had various reasons, none of which were genetic - all cultural.
This is also true of Mexico and the entire continent of Africa (with the exception of S.A.) migrating north to Europe via Spain and East Europe/former Soviet bloc into West Europe.

Also, "you" and "luck" somewhat assume that "you" would still be "you" if you were born in another locale, which would not be the case. You are whom you are almost entirely because of subjectivity - Environment always has more effect on temperament and personality than predisposition, there have been numerous studies indicating as much.

//Flaco

EDIT: There's a cool Bosnian guy I know at the Hilton Garden Inn in Miramar (working the bar) - his story of migration out of the war torn region is very interesting and indicative of intuitive self-determination.

[airjaw]

What's a "broken culture?"

This is way too controversial, even for me, to discuss. Lets just say, any society or culture which clearly isn't working out too well.

[Ferrus]

What's a "broken culture?"
I think he means a society in which atomisation has led to a non-existent or fissured cultural identity.

[g_vartan]

Capitalism's next great frontier:

http://www.amazon.com/Fortune-Bottom-Pyramid-Eradicating-Poverty/dp/0131467506