[vtsnowedin]

... As a result, billions of people are living without the very basic necessities of life - food, water, housing and sanitation."

Obviously the people that repeatedly write and say this are wrong. If it is a "necessity of life" and a person lacks it they will soon be dead. So there are two choices, one that people can live with much less food ,water , shelter and clothing then the authors think is "necessary"or two these people, that keep on living and increasing in population, have found ways to acquire adequate amounts of these" necessities "that the authors can't understand or measure.
At any rate the mere fact that the authors have declared these people if not dead doomed to soon be dead when they if fact persist and multiply proves that the authors are idiots.

Yes, the author erred. He/She should have said sufficient of the necessities of life. Meaning lacking in a balanced diet without sufficient nutrients or calories. Very inadequate housing lacking in sturdiness or cooking appliances or toilets etc. Lacking in clean water ie sanitation, also regular picking up and removal of waste and garbage. But I think then we ought not quibble, they are living lives that are pure squalor, endangering their health, insecure (much crime) and lack of decent medical care.

Life is a yes or no question. You are alive or you are dead. As these billions are alive they then by definition do indeed have the "necessities of life" . These idiots are trying to define "necessities" as those that provide a "good life" or a dignified life" or an "adequate life" but all of those definitions vary a lot between the extremes of Beverly Hills Ca. and the Bedouins of the Sahara.
How many gallons of clean water do you suppose a housewife in Beverley hills uses to raise her first born child for the first year of it's life. How many gallons will a Bedouin fifteen year old bride have to devote to the same task?

[ralfy]

Brought over from another thread as suggested.

This "relatively few" people keep talking about. Dose that include the 330 million Americans that have a median household income over $50K? How about the millions in the EU? Japan? China? I'm a very average American and I wouldn't consider myself a slave or even an economic slave. The poor third world is poor most often because they have socialist and dictatorial governments and economies.

According to this article, more than 60 percent of people worldwide earn only around $2 a day:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040

From this other site:

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

We gather that around 20 pct of the world's population earn $10 or more daily.

One source in this article points out that by 2020 at least three billion people will belong to the middle class:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

or around 40 percent of the world's population.

Another source from the same article defines a member of the middle class as someone who earns more than $10 a day.

The problem with this definition is that $10 daily will likely cover only basic needs and not middle class conveniences, like the ones mentioned in the article (such as cars and refrigerators). Of course, if people buy on credit and layaway plans (which is what happened in the U.S. in the past, where factory workers could buy Model Ts), then it's possible for such a class to grow to such a level even with lower pay.

If we remove the passenger vehicles (i.e., assuming that most banks will not extend credit to someone who earns only around $10 daily) and stick to figuring out what will be enough to cover necessities such as rent of furnished places (i.e, with necessities like refrigerators) as well as expenses such as insurance, then we will have to figure out how much a person should make in order to pay for these things. One source argues a family (of five) living wage should be at least $20 a day.

Following that amount, the second site estimates that around 12 percent of people worldwide earn that or more. This might explain what "relatively few" means, although the number might be higher.

Finally, I'd to add that interestingly enough, several of the economies that have been doing better in Asia during the past few decades are socialist dictatorships. These include Vietnam, and China. Others, like Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Malaysia, have partially authoritarian (or even socialist) regimes and centralized economies with export-oriented industries. And some of those that did poorly include neoliberal economies like those of the Philippines.

[ralfy]

Life is a yes or no question. You are alive or you are dead. As these billions are alive they then by definition do indeed have the "necessities of life" . These idiots are trying to define "necessities" as those that provide a "good life" or a dignified life" or an "adequate life" but all of those definitions vary a lot between the extremes of Beverly Hills Ca. and the Bedouins of the Sahara.
How many gallons of clean water do you suppose a housewife in Beverley hills uses to raise her first born child for the first year of it's life. How many gallons will a Bedouin fifteen year old bride have to devote to the same task?

Following this definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_needs

perhaps one can assume basic needs to be what is needed for human beings to experience optimal health. At the very least, that will include a balanced diet and adequate calories as determined by medical authorities, drinking water of a quality and quantity determined by the same, adequate clothing and shelter, etc. Of course, the amounts vary given circumstances (such as climate, soil arability, etc.), but it's hard to explain, say, a daily calorie intake of around 3,000 or even more.

[vtsnowedin]

Another source from the same article defines a member of the middle class as someone who earns more than $10 a day.

The problem with this definition is that $10 daily will likely cover only basic needs and not middle class conveniences, like the ones mentioned in the article (such as cars and refrigerators). Of course, if people buy on credit and layaway plans (which is what happened in the U.S. in the past, where factory workers could buy Model Ts), then it's possible for such a class to grow to such a level even with lower pay.

Buying with credit cards dose not increase purchasing power. It decreases it through the interest charges, as unlike the government all personnel bills eventually have to be paid. An item charged to a credit card often ends up costing three times as much as if it was purchased with cash. The exception to this is a home mortgage loan which lets you pay for a home while you live in it where the alternative would be to rent at almost the same monthly cost without gaining any equity in the house. A four or five percent mortgage interest (tax deductible) or even a four percent auto loan (non deductible) is a good thing on those items you have to provide anyway but a twenty five percent credit card for Christmas presents is not.

If we remove the passenger vehicles (i.e., assuming that most banks will not extend credit to someone who earns only around $10 daily) and stick to figuring out what will be enough to cover necessities such as rent of furnished places (i.e, with necessities like refrigerators) as well as expenses such as insurance, then we will have to figure out how much a person should make in order to pay for these things. One source argues a family (of five) living wage should be at least $20 a day.

Following that amount, the second site estimates that around 12 percent of people worldwide earn that or more. This might explain what "relatively few" means, although the number might be higher.

I note reading the articles that little data is available for the value of self employed poor people's productivity world wide and no figure is available for he value of the food the poor grow themselves. I grew up eating a lot of food grown on our farm that never had a cash value assigned to it. A lot of the worlds people have never been in a store but that does not mean they have not had food and water each day.

Finally, I'd to add that interestingly enough, several of the economies that have been doing better in Asia during the past few decades are socialist dictatorships. These include Vietnam, and China. Others, like Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Malaysia, have partially authoritarian (or even socialist) regimes and centralized economies with export-oriented industries. And some of those that did poorly include neoliberal economies like those of the Philippines.

You have a strange view of what has happened in these countries. Most in the list have been capitalist dynamos post WW2 and others such as China have only prospered after they adopted Capitalist business methods regardless of their government structure.

[vtsnowedin]

[quote="ralfy"

Following this definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_needs

perhaps one can assume basic needs to be what is needed for human beings to experience optimal health. [/quote]
Optimal health? That is a pretty high standard that has never been the world norm.

At the very least, that will include a balanced diet and adequate calories as determined by medical authorities, drinking water of a quality and quantity determined by the same, adequate clothing and shelter, etc. Of course, the amounts vary given circumstances (such as climate, soil arability, etc.), but it's hard to explain, say, a daily calorie intake of around 3,000 or even more.

Calorie intake varies with both the age of the person's and activity levels. A laborer has adequate food if he maintains weight and muscle mass which might require half again as much as a keyboard pounding couch potato. But yes requirements vary from a tent in the Shara to a heated cabin in Canada And a T shirt and shorts in Mexico to a seal skin coat in Siberia during the winter.

[ralfy]

Buying with credit cards dose not increase purchasing power. It decreases it through the interest charges, as unlike the government all personnel bills eventually have to be paid. An item charged to a credit card often ends up costing three times as much as if it was purchased with cash. The exception to this is a home mortgage loan which lets you pay for a home while you live in it where the alternative would be to rent at almost the same monthly cost without gaining any equity in the house. A four or five percent mortgage interest (tax deductible) or even a four percent auto loan (non deductible) is a good thing on those items you have to provide anyway but a twenty five percent credit card for Christmas presents is not.

I'm not referring to purchasing power but the definition of middle class given by the article, e.g., the ability to buy cars and refrigerators. Loans and credit cards are usually used.

That means one reason why the middle class is growing given that definition is availability of credit.

I note reading the articles that little data is available for the value of self employed poor people's productivity world wide and no figure is available for he value of the food the poor grow themselves. I grew up eating a lot of food grown on our farm that never had a cash value assigned to it. A lot of the worlds people have never been in a store but that does not mean they have not had food and water each day.

Most people worldwide can't afford to own farms or land in general.

Also, not all medicine and even medical equipment can be grown.

This explains why the global population barely grew until mechanized agriculture and mass manufacturing took on a global scale, leading to infant mortality rates plummeting and life expectancy rates doubling or tripling in most parts of the world.

You have a strange view of what has happened in these countries. Most in the list have been capitalist dynamos post WW2 and others such as China have only prospered after they adopted Capitalist business methods regardless of their government structure.

Yes, but they are also socialist, authoritarian, or both.

[ralfy]

Optimal health? That is a pretty high standard that has never been the world norm.

Actually, it's not a high standard, and it's a norm. More details in the link given earlier.

Calorie intake varies with both the age of the person's and activity levels. A laborer has adequate food if he maintains weight and muscle mass which might require half again as much as a keyboard pounding couch potato. But yes requirements vary from a tent in the Shara to a heated cabin in Canada And a T shirt and shorts in Mexico to a seal skin coat in Siberia during the winter.

I don't think calorie intake in some countries is high because most are muscular laborers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... rgy_intake

[vtsnowedin]

Optimal health? That is a pretty high standard that has never been the world norm.

Actually, it's not a high standard, and it's a norm. More details in the link given earlier.

If optimal health is the norm why are life expediencies not uniformly high throughout the world?

[onlooker]

Optimal health? That is a pretty high standard that has never been the world norm.

Actually, it's not a high standard, and it's a norm. More details in the link given earlier.

If optimal health is the norm why are life expediencies not uniformly high throughout the world?

I think V, you are conveniently missing or ignoring the point that a substantial difference exists between the quality of life or standard of living between rich country citizens and poor country citizens. That is the key point given the ratio of 20% have access to 80% of the world’s resources and vice-versa. So at best Capitalism has only benefitted 20% of the world's population

[ralfy]

If optimal health is the norm why are life expediencies not uniformly high throughout the world?

By that, I mean it's a goal by shared by many countries. What varies is anything beyond it.

[vtsnowedin]

If optimal health is the norm why are life expediencies not uniformly high throughout the world?

By that, I mean it's a goal by shared by many countries. What varies is anything beyond it.

Goals vs. realities? What liberal idiot is setting the goals?

[vtsnowedin]

I think V, you are conveniently missing or ignoring the point that a substantial difference exists between the quality of life or standard of living between rich country citizens and poor country citizens. That is the key point given the ratio of 20% have access to 80% of the world’s resources and vice-versa. So at best Capitalism has only benefitted 20% of the world's population

Yes I understand that a poor person in the USA is rich compared to the poor of say Bangladesh. My point is that several billion people living in those countries that have switched to capitalism are now doing much better then they were before and though they are not making western indulgent levels of income they have food on the table plus cloths on their backs and a roof over their families heads.

[onlooker]

That is not quite true V. First off, those people in whose regions had the basic necessities since pre-historic times. Plus if you look at the 20th century it has provided spectacular riches for quite a number of people. Why did just a few countries though truly partake in this and not others? Something very inequitable is happening. Well it turns out that what is happening is Capitalism is functioning exactly how it is suppose to function. It is about cut throat competition. It is about exploitation. Those few countries have gone about systematically exploiting the poor areas and peoples of the world.
Actually it started with the first Western Empires specifically Rome and then continued with Great Britain and its colonization of many areas and enslavement of Africans and invasions etc. Now it is done it a more subtle way, with economic coercion via Debt, sanctions, economic dictates from so called impartial International Institutions like the World Bank, IMF, World Trade Council and some others. In reality these Institutions do the bidding of the rich countries and in fact were set up to systematically exploit the entire planet. Thus we were all thrust into the age of Free Trade and Globalization to allow the transnational Corporations to seek out the highest returns by cutting costs. This is easy when all the worlds resources are at your disposal along with all the worlds workforce. Thus you make everyone bid down for the priviledge of having business with a transnational Corporation. Bidding down meaning allowing your country to be exploited to the max as that is what Corporations ultimately seek ie. the highest rate of return. So surely you are familiar with all this mode of operation it is Capitalism 101. It is might make right, in this case economic might. If you want to know how down and dirty all this got, just research by reading for starters "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" then research School of the Americas. I think you will find V, if you honestly look, how brutal the Western Neo Liberal Capitalistic model really is.
Govts are installed that invariably go against their own people because nobody likes to be abused and exploited. Well, who has monopoly on violent force. Yes Govts. and it has not been pretty in areas like South American, Middle East and Africa.

[ralfy]

Goals vs. realities? What liberal idiot is setting the goals?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Why do you refer to realities and liberal idiots?

[ralfy]

Yes I understand that a poor person in the USA is rich compared to the poor of say Bangladesh. My point is that several billion people living in those countries that have switched to capitalism are now doing much better then they were before and though they are not making western indulgent levels of income they have food on the table plus cloths on their backs and a roof over their families heads.

The catch is that same benefits also led to population booming to over seven billion. In addition, the same capitalist systems which led to that also require increasing sales of goods and services in return for increasing profits, which in turn is churned back into the system to produce and sell more. Such continuous growth coupled with a population that is expected to reach 9-11 billion will require more energy and resources than the biosphere will allow.

[onlooker]

23622159_10159634593505607_6087484539244216775_n.jpg

[KaiserJeep]

I could dispute every single line of the above as not necessarily related to Capitalism. However, the bottom line is that Capitalism, aka natural ape behaviors, extended by human intelligence and technology, has allowed a species of primate to increase it's numbers to 7.5+ billion, and to subjugate the other plants and animals and replace them with our food species.

We keep inventing means of killing one another, called Fascism, Communism, Socialism, etc. After the havoc these alternatives inflict, people get sick of death and destruction, and Capitalism spontaneously erupts from the ashes of whatever the latest experiment was, and the humans in that area start to flourish again.

There simply is no disputing the facts. By the standards that we applied for tens of thousands of years, Capitalism is the only success story there is. Whenever there was another experiment - usually a variation of some of the bogus economic theories of Marx and Engels, eventually bone chilling violence and human genocide was the result. Without any doubt whatsoever, Marxist systems have failed over three dozen times, and killed millions of humans. The only such system for which any controversy remains is China, and may I remind everyone that Mao Zedong starved over 60 million people to death in dissident provinces when he consolidated his political power? Nor is China Marxist any longer, it is a curious hybrid, both Authoritarian and Capitalistic.

It is only when one redefines "good" and "evil" that there is even room to raise questions about Capitalism, which is running up against the constraints of a limited planet. There simply is not enought "stuff", not enough food/water/energy/materials, to give 7.5+ billion humans the lifestyles of the older Capitalist Democracies.

But hey, it worked for us, and we got more than our share of that "stuff". But you can't blame Capitalism for the excess humans.

[Newfie]

Sadly each of those represent some small improvement against our biggest problem, over population.

Oh what conundrums we face.

[radon1]

Marxist systems have failed over three dozen times, and killed millions of humans. The only such system for which any controversy remains is China,

"Marxist" system was a definitely a success in the Soviet Union by all accounts of economic nature. Even now, the Russian living standards are as not awful as they could be without the investments made by the Soviet Union. And China is not Marxist now, it is fully capitalist. Don't mix up the political noise and economic basis.

[onlooker]

No, Kaiser you cannot dispute the price for many of the "success " of Capitalism for a relatively few. Every single one of those items listing the deaths and killings of many is related to the insatiable profit motive, to the imperialistic tendency of the US with the backing of western Europe in its drive to enlarge its wealth and power consistent with Capitalistic ethos of their types of Economies. And the few others is related to the extremely unjust and unequal conditions made possible by Capitalism. 80% of the planet's population consuming 20% of resources and the other 20% ,80% of resources is the byproduct of Capitalism