Why on earth do you read this stuff? No wonder you are depressed. Sometimes I feel I am emailing someone living in the Dark Ages of Europe.
Hello again, Babette,
But economics is not a study of the Dark Ages. It is a study of the distribution of society's wealth today. That is to say, it holds the causes of poverty and hunger within it. If one wants to prevent poverty, that is to say, to abolish it, then they must know it's causes. This is why Kropotkin wrote the book.
If a single family, with enough land, can grow enough to feed a hundred, why is it that there are many who must beg for work, many who must starve in the streets? Perhaps it is because the economy is organized by the private-property owner. Whereas the political order should be controlled by the people, as we call it "Democracy," the economic order is controlled by a very small handful who own everything. 1% of Britain owns more than 70% of all the land (Progress.org). When should we progress from asking "What is the cause of poverty?" to asking "How do we abolish private property?"
You may wail against "the system" all you want, but life expectancy has increased, all the indices for good health etc. are improving all the time - and would even more but for AIDS/HIV which is a totally unnecessary disease spread by promiscuity.
You operate on the principle that human beings are perfectible and that there is some perfect system out there for growing food etc. There isn't - the free enterprise, free market system is the best we have.
Hello again, Babette,
It's not improving for the 1.4 billion people in poverty. And didn't you send me an e-mail a while back that that poverty is on the increase in the United States? How is it that good health, which costs money, is increasing side-by-side with the decrease of wages available to the workers? Seems like bad mathematics here.
No, it was spread like the plague and leprosy: ignorance. And who was the individual holding the responsibility for the national healthcare system? Ronald Reagan. At that point, every hospital didn't improve the "indices for good health." They directly were responsible for bringing them down. Not only is the healthcare system unwilling to cure your diseases or even recognize them -- but it takes your money so you can't buy healthcare independently. For a doctor to take the money of a patient, and not treat them, would make them responsible for murder if their patient should die. And yet, Ronald Reagan did the exact same thing in managing the healthcare system, except he killed millions. Does any of this make sense?
First, I never said people could be perfected. And second, can you qualify that statement? What makes you think it's the best we have? Today, there is nearly 25% real unemployment in the United States, and higher elsewhere across Europe. Notice how new stations admittedly report U4 and U5, alongside real unemployment when desirable, but that they don't use the same single standard for measuring unemployment? They're certainly serving their owners by making Capitalism seem more digestible.
You've probably been hearing news that unemployment is around 9% or 12%. That's false. This is a different measurement, changing from time to time, U1-U6. It measures unemployment of certain industries, not of all the people, and therefore, it's a meaningless application. Real unemployment, as in actual unemployment, is at the same rate as the Great Depression, but the news won't even report it. So, the "best we have" is full of lies. The best we have is...
I have an honest question for you. Do you think people would rather starve to death or work to feed themselves? Given those two options, what do you think they would choose, if they could? Probably work for themselves. There is land everywhere, and much of it is usable for agriculture. The hunger that exists today is rooted in the fact that all Africans and South Americans, with most Asians, were forced off their land, and then put into virtual slavery (today given the phrase "wage slavery"). It amounts to this: the many people have nothing, but to live, they must submit to the rule of a boss. They must give themselves to those who own the land.
By giving their labor power, the workers create the profits of the Capitalist -- the capitalist who does nothing except own. If the worker wants to live, to have something to eat, they must submit to the Capitalist. Then why aren't the Capitalists opening up the fields to the workers? Because it's not profitable. Why not? The market is glutted with products. Essentially, the problem is that workers are too productive. It is more profitable for the Capitalist to hire a starving individual who is desperate than someone who lives comfortably. It's basic economics. Why would you be so opposed to those peasants seizing back those lands? After all, those lands did belong to their ancestors. Today, they are owned by the grandchildren of white, imperialism.
After all, the people would rather work than starve to death, right? What other reason could there be to this mass starvation other than that the people do not have the means available for work? And what other solution can you pose except that the means of work ought to be freely available for anyone? (i.e. a philosophy known as Revolutionary Socialism)
Poverty is increasing in the US as a direct result of Obama's socialist and other policies, and marriage breakdown. Marriage is one of the best protectors against poverty.
I agree to a certain extent that AIDS is spread by ignorance - but ignorance about the virus-spreading danger of sodomy. One homosexual airline officer, Number zero, infected 254 people and thereafter it spread like wildfire in the homosexual community - from them to the drug injectors and to the blood banks. Prior to No. zero, AIDS occasionally occurred in Africa, but there was no easy mechanism for this blood-borne disease to spread until sodomy became rampant. Sodomy causes tears in the anal lining and thereby blood contact.
I agree there is much wrong with the economic system of Europe, but mainly that they subsidize uneconomic farming and dump their farm products on the rest of the world, really in violation of GATT and WTO regulations.