-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Little poll about your priorities.
- Thread starter Kibbo
- Start date
Steeplerot
Lifer
Ending the occupation, poverty here in.the states, then climate change were mine. (In that order)
I voted terrorism simply because it threatens to change the rules of engagement as we know them. It takes the world community back several centuries in terms of warfare.
Poverty is certainly a problem, but in most cases is regional in nature. There is plenty of aid in many countries, but it just doesn't get to those in need. You can't just throw more food at a country and expect the poor to get it, you need to change the bottleneck.
Poverty is certainly a problem, but in most cases is regional in nature. There is plenty of aid in many countries, but it just doesn't get to those in need. You can't just throw more food at a country and expect the poor to get it, you need to change the bottleneck.
Well, if by regional, you mean most of Africa, the Middle East, parts of Asia and South America, and a few of the smaller countries in Eastern Europe, then yes, it's regional.
I never said that voting for poverty meant a vote for more aid. I've long held on these boards that ending the EU's and the US's agricultural subsidies would be the single easiest policy you could implement to help world poverty.
Steeplerot, I'm surprised that you prioritze domestic poverty so highly over the others. You've always struck me as pretty nation-blind in terms of your values.
Stunt
Diamond Member
I was actually thinking of posting a similar thread Kibbo, good call.
Most of those issues are important in today's world.
Ranked...1 most important, 9 least
6-Terrorism - I wouldnt rank terrorism up there as it is nothing new, new procedures and precautions are being implemented to prevent, it will never go away, but limiting it has gone pretty good i think over our history.
3-Poverty - Not really a big issue for me, as long as we keep trade open, every country has the ability to grow and accumulate wealth. The 3rd world is representing more of the world's wealth than ever before and is growing exponentially.
1-Trade - Fair trade is important, but i don't think this is accomplished through tariffs. I agree tariffs are bad, but at the same time playing by the rules is important too.
4-Globalization - Good, helps establish industry and infrastructure in developing nations. Hopefully loose labour and environmental laws are not exploited too bad, globalization should be the spread of our way of life, not the escape of our morality.
9-Iraq - I have no idea why the US is there, poor business decision, money could have been far better spent. If for democracy, why not invade 20 more countries? Fiscally this military push for democracy is illogical. Good thing is i don't have to pay the tab. Americans can do what they want.
Other Military - From a historical perspective, the world is relatively peaceful, conflict will always be there, but all in all good state of afairs in the world.
2-Climate Change - I'd like to see more of a push on this front. More science and less politics. As oil price rises new technologies will emerge, hopefully the climate effects will not have impacted us all that much by that point.
8-Other Environmental - The anti nuclear energy movement...especially with the NK/Iran issues getting so much press, nobody is looking at the good of nuclear tech. This directly relates to climate change and oil dependence.
7-Aids in Africa - Mixed feelings, throwing money at fixing the problem doesnt do much for the very poor economic situation there. Pushing regimes to recognize the problem has really helped reduce the problem in some countries, how can you help if they are unable to admit a problem. Big pharma is an issue here too...But why give pills to ppl that can't afford food?...Africa is a tough situation, if aids is solved, it could turn into the next asia equivalent for europe maybe?...so many questions, lots of money...
Mad Cow - why are ppl freaking out over this, there has been tensions between US and Canada, and there is extremely little risk, like you might as well not leave your house as there is a risk of getting hit by a meteor. Why is it that the most piddly of issues get the most press?
5-Nuke proliferation - tough call, nukes tend to be defensive, and if there is a push for military regime change as ppl advocate here on these forums, there will be more reason to get nukes. They are truely a great deterant and not as difficult to make this day in age. I don't have a huge problem with nukes, as long as there is a balance, things tend not to escallate. Maybe address the reason for these countries to get nuke tech?
Most of those issues are important in today's world.
Ranked...1 most important, 9 least
6-Terrorism - I wouldnt rank terrorism up there as it is nothing new, new procedures and precautions are being implemented to prevent, it will never go away, but limiting it has gone pretty good i think over our history.
3-Poverty - Not really a big issue for me, as long as we keep trade open, every country has the ability to grow and accumulate wealth. The 3rd world is representing more of the world's wealth than ever before and is growing exponentially.
1-Trade - Fair trade is important, but i don't think this is accomplished through tariffs. I agree tariffs are bad, but at the same time playing by the rules is important too.
4-Globalization - Good, helps establish industry and infrastructure in developing nations. Hopefully loose labour and environmental laws are not exploited too bad, globalization should be the spread of our way of life, not the escape of our morality.
9-Iraq - I have no idea why the US is there, poor business decision, money could have been far better spent. If for democracy, why not invade 20 more countries? Fiscally this military push for democracy is illogical. Good thing is i don't have to pay the tab. Americans can do what they want.
Other Military - From a historical perspective, the world is relatively peaceful, conflict will always be there, but all in all good state of afairs in the world.
2-Climate Change - I'd like to see more of a push on this front. More science and less politics. As oil price rises new technologies will emerge, hopefully the climate effects will not have impacted us all that much by that point.
8-Other Environmental - The anti nuclear energy movement...especially with the NK/Iran issues getting so much press, nobody is looking at the good of nuclear tech. This directly relates to climate change and oil dependence.
7-Aids in Africa - Mixed feelings, throwing money at fixing the problem doesnt do much for the very poor economic situation there. Pushing regimes to recognize the problem has really helped reduce the problem in some countries, how can you help if they are unable to admit a problem. Big pharma is an issue here too...But why give pills to ppl that can't afford food?...Africa is a tough situation, if aids is solved, it could turn into the next asia equivalent for europe maybe?...so many questions, lots of money...
Mad Cow - why are ppl freaking out over this, there has been tensions between US and Canada, and there is extremely little risk, like you might as well not leave your house as there is a risk of getting hit by a meteor. Why is it that the most piddly of issues get the most press?
5-Nuke proliferation - tough call, nukes tend to be defensive, and if there is a push for military regime change as ppl advocate here on these forums, there will be more reason to get nukes. They are truely a great deterant and not as difficult to make this day in age. I don't have a huge problem with nukes, as long as there is a balance, things tend not to escallate. Maybe address the reason for these countries to get nuke tech?
Poverty. It's the root cause of many ills in this world.
Just look how bad it is here in the States!
Report: Half of Alabama public school students now in poverty
http://www.gadsdentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050311/APN/503110941
Just look how bad it is here in the States!
Report: Half of Alabama public school students now in poverty
http://www.gadsdentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050311/APN/503110941
Great frickin' post Stunt, thanks. Couple small points of dissent here:
Over the past decade, more people have died per year in military conflicts than died in WW1. The Northern half of Africa has been a fireball for at least that long. It's only been peaceful for us honkys. I'm thankful for that, at least.
Regarding Aids, treatment would go a long way to helping with their poverty issues. In some mines in S. Africa, owners have found it worthwhile to pay N. American prices for HIV treatments. The labour producutivity of the worker goes up so much that the thousands spent per man is actually profitable. Imagine this productivity increase in the agricultural community, and tell me that much of the hunger there couldn't be improved. It's one of those two birds with one stone policies.
PS: You're a dirty, dirty hippy conjur. "Root cause?" Eat my Deconstructionist interpretation of your post: U R GAY.
😉
Wow, it's fun being one of the Anandtech radical rightys. Of course, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Over the past decade, more people have died per year in military conflicts than died in WW1. The Northern half of Africa has been a fireball for at least that long. It's only been peaceful for us honkys. I'm thankful for that, at least.
Regarding Aids, treatment would go a long way to helping with their poverty issues. In some mines in S. Africa, owners have found it worthwhile to pay N. American prices for HIV treatments. The labour producutivity of the worker goes up so much that the thousands spent per man is actually profitable. Imagine this productivity increase in the agricultural community, and tell me that much of the hunger there couldn't be improved. It's one of those two birds with one stone policies.
PS: You're a dirty, dirty hippy conjur. "Root cause?" Eat my Deconstructionist interpretation of your post: U R GAY.
😉
Wow, it's fun being one of the Anandtech radical rightys. Of course, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
Iraq is not a situation of 'Win' or 'Not-Win', it's festered beyond that now.
The situation there is to get Our involvement as occupiers contained,
and turn the burden over to a consortium that is not viewed as Hostile Infidels,
like what the UN would have been able to do if the Administration had not been
so pig headed about 'My Way - or the Highway' in their (lack of) diplomacy.
Second priority is to cut off the Corporate leeching 'Offshoring & Globalization'
policies that let them use Taxpayer funded breaks to set up as 'doing business
in the Bahamas', for example - so they do not have to pay their fair share of
taxes on the profits that they make at the expense of the 'Merican Worker - et al.
Third - Aids, doesn't matter if it's in Africa, Asia, or Hoboken - there had better be
a real effort to stop the spread of this or it's going to mutate through some more
changes, possibly getting even more dangerous with time.
We stop it, or it stops us.
Do I really care if some tribesmen in Africa gets to use a condom or not ?
How about the possibility of some unknown woman in China might someday
for some reason seek information on terminating a pregnancy ?
It's not about some religious zealots take on abstinance & contraception,
it's about the health and well-being of those who share this planetm, and
the survival of our species - mindkind a sorta.
Terrorism ? Hot-button panic item for the insecure. Terrorism isn't even
something that you can have a war on, where and what do you hit ?
Is there a nation call Terror with a standing army of Ist's to do battle with ?
Me thinks the Administration watrched to many 'StarWars' movies, and
never watched enough 'StarTrek' to learn diplomacy.
I've come to realize . . . there's on inteligent life on this planet . . . .
The situation there is to get Our involvement as occupiers contained,
and turn the burden over to a consortium that is not viewed as Hostile Infidels,
like what the UN would have been able to do if the Administration had not been
so pig headed about 'My Way - or the Highway' in their (lack of) diplomacy.
Second priority is to cut off the Corporate leeching 'Offshoring & Globalization'
policies that let them use Taxpayer funded breaks to set up as 'doing business
in the Bahamas', for example - so they do not have to pay their fair share of
taxes on the profits that they make at the expense of the 'Merican Worker - et al.
Third - Aids, doesn't matter if it's in Africa, Asia, or Hoboken - there had better be
a real effort to stop the spread of this or it's going to mutate through some more
changes, possibly getting even more dangerous with time.
We stop it, or it stops us.
Do I really care if some tribesmen in Africa gets to use a condom or not ?
How about the possibility of some unknown woman in China might someday
for some reason seek information on terminating a pregnancy ?
It's not about some religious zealots take on abstinance & contraception,
it's about the health and well-being of those who share this planetm, and
the survival of our species - mindkind a sorta.
Terrorism ? Hot-button panic item for the insecure. Terrorism isn't even
something that you can have a war on, where and what do you hit ?
Is there a nation call Terror with a standing army of Ist's to do battle with ?
Me thinks the Administration watrched to many 'StarWars' movies, and
never watched enough 'StarTrek' to learn diplomacy.
I've come to realize . . . there's on inteligent life on this planet . . . .
Dubya: "Dammit Jim, I'm an oilman, not a diplomat!"
I've posted on here before that it is scary how much Star Trek has moulded my values.
I find your thoughts on Aids to be interesting. Why do you find Aids to be more a threat of nasty mutation then, say, the flue? Or Ebola? Or that poultry disease in Asia? That one scares me a ton. I'm no virologist, but my unscientific gut sense tells me that it's easier for an already airborne, contagious disease to become dangerous than a dangerous disease to become more contagious.
Ebola scares me a little, since it's already shown that at least one type of it can become airborne. But the souce isn't as prevalent around the world as raising poultry is.
Terrorism # 1 - Terrorists will have the capability to destroy entires cities once they possess nuclear bombs. They already cause enough pain and suffering throughout the world, but imagine the day they get a hold of nukes. It's more specifically Islamic terrorism. Some claim that the Chechyans may already have radioactive material. 9/11 showed us how destructive terrorism can be, both in terms of human lives and economically. Never forget.
Climate Change # 2 - This may have more of a impact on the globe more so than terrorism in just a few decades. Glaciers are melting, rising ocean levels, slowing of jet stream and increasing levels of carbon dioxide all should be a major worry. Of course the SUV owners could care less, but thats their ignorance speaking. Once they realize how serious and how imminent climate change is, I hope they will change their ways and opt for a more fuel-efficient car, possibly a hybrid. China and India will add millions of cars and contribute to more Co2, but of course thats a result of globalization.
Climate Change # 2 - This may have more of a impact on the globe more so than terrorism in just a few decades. Glaciers are melting, rising ocean levels, slowing of jet stream and increasing levels of carbon dioxide all should be a major worry. Of course the SUV owners could care less, but thats their ignorance speaking. Once they realize how serious and how imminent climate change is, I hope they will change their ways and opt for a more fuel-efficient car, possibly a hybrid. China and India will add millions of cars and contribute to more Co2, but of course thats a result of globalization.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
Of course, if you wern't so lazy, you'd change your poll so we could vote on a 1-10 scale for the importance of each issue. 😛
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
I think the biggest issue is the growing disparity in value between labour and capital. As technology improves, and natural, physical resources are stretched, the value of labour threatens to fall.
Will innovation (particularly in the energy sector) eventually create a trend towards the opposite outcome here? I don't really know; I hope so.
As it is, open market forces which cannot be efficiently curbed in most cases, threaten a return to industrial revolution capital-slavery. It's pointless for me to make an ethical judgement about this, but I do think that population increase and the industrialization of China, India, and assorted third world countries raises the real possibility that the equilibrium value of even skilled labour will fall below the current western standard of living.
Will innovation (particularly in the energy sector) eventually create a trend towards the opposite outcome here? I don't really know; I hope so.
As it is, open market forces which cannot be efficiently curbed in most cases, threaten a return to industrial revolution capital-slavery. It's pointless for me to make an ethical judgement about this, but I do think that population increase and the industrialization of China, India, and assorted third world countries raises the real possibility that the equilibrium value of even skilled labour will fall below the current western standard of living.
Man, I'd be too lazy to even read the results of that poll, much less write it🙂 Division of labour, man.
Charlie, I've never heard that the productivity of Capital is tied to the value of resource rents moreso than is that of Labour. Got a linky, or even a name of the theory? Or an equation? I'd just like to learn more about this. I can sorta see the vague outlines of the reasoning from here, but I'd like something more explicit than the musings of my cortex.
By regional I mean that the problem is different in each country and can't be looked at as a global issue (solution-wise). In one country you have a lack of clean water, in another you have warlords keeping food from the populace. Considering this, the problem needs to be addressed on an individual region basis.
Stunt
Diamond Member
Kibbo, thanks for the approval 🙂
To address your two comments, that is truely an interesting statistic, i was unaware of the magnitude of death in africa. I knew it existed, but exact numbers were vague to me. I have no answer to how we can deal with these troubled regions. If you think of anything let me know. It's good to hear that some progress on aids is happening, it is these types of proven programs that can help transform whole countries and regions.
It's one thing to assess the magnitude of a problem, but it is another to fix or find a solution to these problems.
Like Poverty is an easy thing to click in the poll...but solving poverty!?...where's a genie in a bottle when you need one...
To address your two comments, that is truely an interesting statistic, i was unaware of the magnitude of death in africa. I knew it existed, but exact numbers were vague to me. I have no answer to how we can deal with these troubled regions. If you think of anything let me know. It's good to hear that some progress on aids is happening, it is these types of proven programs that can help transform whole countries and regions.
It's one thing to assess the magnitude of a problem, but it is another to fix or find a solution to these problems.
Like Poverty is an easy thing to click in the poll...but solving poverty!?...where's a genie in a bottle when you need one...
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
It's not overly complicated - population increases while resources don't, businesses can buy either resources or labour; therefore increasing labour forces, with no increase in available resources increases the payments to those resources (i.e. marginal value), which are by and large controlled by 'big' players, not small ones. Note that this is without any big business / small worker 'power inequality', this is just the expected free market outcome, ignoring any potentially coercive behaviour.
It's a pretty natural result of relatively free markets and private ownership of natural resources.
I should have been more clear - the biggest beneficiaries in such a scenario are those who control the resources (oil/land etc), rather than those who control 'money'. In some cases these are the same people, but often they are not.
Unfortunately, the outcome isn't 'incorrect', nor is there anything to really be done about it.
Stunt
Diamond Member
nuclear proliferation is reffering to warheads, not the nuclear power generation. From a power generation side, your kids are more likely to suffer negative effects from air pollutants from oil/gas/coal electricity generation than any form of nuclear power generation.
Nuclear is one of the cleanest energy sources we have. Note my comment on this topic above:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
