johnhemming2 wrote:
You can measure by the amount of malnourished people, but not by the numbers attending food banks which is strongly influenced by the numbers of food banks and availability of food through that route.
You don't think it might be even more strongly influenced by the number of hungry people?
Peter.
Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the seconds to hours?
johnhemming2 wrote:
You can measure by the amount of malnourished people, but not by the numbers attending food banks which is strongly influenced by the numbers of food banks and availability of food through that route.
You don't think it might be even more strongly influenced by the number of hungry people?
Peter.
No because if there is no food bank it is not possible for someone to get food from it.
johnhemming2 wrote:
You can measure by the amount of malnourished people, but not by the numbers attending food banks which is strongly influenced by the numbers of food banks and availability of food through that route.
You don't think it might be even more strongly influenced by the number of hungry people?
Peter.
No because if there is no food bank it is not possible for someone to get food from it.
But if there weren't any hungry people, you wouldn't set up a food bank,
Peter.
Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the seconds to hours?
Blue Peter wrote:But if there weren't any hungry people, you wouldn't set up a food bank,
The question is one of need. Historically people have scavenged from supermarkets and hence not always been hungry. I do think that it is better to have food banks and a structure that gets people back on their feet rather than sustaining people, however.
Hence it is worth having food banks even if people are not hungry per se.
That we are even having this conversation is a shameful indictment of society in general and all who have supported the government of this country in particular. 239 years since the publication of Adam Smith's 'An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations', and it's come to this.
The amount of fresh food available to food banks is also a matter for discussion. Supermarkets throwing away vast quantities of fresh edible food should be a scandal as well as the amount of food which is grown and then thrown away for not reaching Cosmetic standards. The "Cosmetic" standards should be reduced/expanded so that a lot more food comes into the Grade 1 standard.
johnhemming2 wrote:What is wrong with having a conversation as to whether or not western civilisation is in terminal decline?
Additionally I think it is a good idea to have systems which deal with when people fall through the cracks of the welfare system.
Those cracks are becoming wider by the week.
Wednesday should be interesting.
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
I agree that a lot of food is unnecessarily wasted and we should look at mechanisms to reduce this.
I also agree that some of the government's proposals on welfare are wrong.
However, there is nothing to be gained from claiming that things are worse than they actually are. To say welfare is getting worse by the week is not the case. There are changes that happen from time to time. Some are the right thing to do some are wrong.
We can debate what support should be provided when someone's asylum claim is rejected (for example). I have argued for support to assist people leaving the country. However, if they stay I don't think they should get state funding. That does leave some people without state funds.
You cannot have it both ways. These people are often people who make use of food banks. I would not stop that, however.
Either, however, you can provide financial support for people whose claim for asylum is rejected or you can stop the support.
johnhemming2 wrote:What is wrong with having a conversation as to whether or not western civilisation is in terminal decline?
It is actually not just western civilisation which is in terminal decline. The whole of our civilisation is in terminal decline because the world economy is so interrelated and complex the decline of one area will have an effect on other areas. A big decline in Europe and/or the US would have a massive effect of the Chinese economy as so much of that economy is based of providing cheap sh*t to Europe/US.
In the next 10 to 20 years there is going to be a sharp decline in the supply of CHEAP oil. When that happens economies are going to crash even if oil is still available because we have so much going on that is supported by the availability of cheap energy. The whole financial system is supported by cheap energy. Once energy becomes expensive the economic overhead of the parasitic financial system won't be supportable. The bleeding of money out of the general economy won't work because there won't be any surplus money to bleed.
The availability of cheap raw materials will also lessen as the holes in the ground get deeper, the energy needed to haul the ores out of these holes gets more expensive and the ores get even less concentrated requiring even more expensive energy to refine them. The "Limits to Growth" end of civilisation scenario is coming soon to not just a cinema near you!
johnhemming2 wrote:What is wrong with having a conversation as to whether or not western civilisation is in terminal decline?
It is actually not just western civilisation which is in terminal decline. The whole of our civilisation is in terminal decline because the world economy is so interrelated and complex the decline of one area will have an effect on other areas. A big decline in Europe and/or the US would have a massive effect of the Chinese economy as so much of that economy is based of providing cheap sh*t to Europe/US.
In the next 10 to 20 years there is going to be a sharp decline in the supply of CHEAP oil. When that happens economies are going to crash even if oil is still available because we have so much going on that is supported by the availability of cheap energy. The whole financial system is supported by cheap energy. Once energy becomes expensive the economic overhead of the parasitic financial system won't be supportable. The bleeding of money out of the general economy won't work because there won't be any surplus money to bleed.
The availability of cheap raw materials will also lessen as the holes in the ground get deeper, the energy needed to haul the ores out of these holes gets more expensive and the ores get even less concentrated requiring even more expensive energy to refine them. The "Limits to Growth" end of civilisation scenario is coming soon to not just a cinema near you!
Or perhaps the antibiotics crisis will put an even quicker end to everything.
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
I've just noticed the $40 oil price. At the rate of pumping that the Saudis must be achieving to keep the price that low their oil can't last many decades longer especially as their water fraction is already very noticeable! once their oil goes the price will go up very quickly!
kenneal - lagger wrote:I've just noticed the $40 oil price.
Wow!! way to stay on top of things. Do you not drive? I've been enjoying $2.25 gas here in the US but contemplate the ramifications of it at every fill up.
