Human Question

[Kolar]

It's not so much as limiting the food supply, but limiting what types of food gets around the world, and the big guys that decide which foods. Like I said in an earlier post, let's use fast food for an example. Without a doubt it's bad for us, yet how many Mc Donald's are there in countries all over the world? I don't just mean England or Spain, but how about Iraq, parts of Russia, Africa, etc etc. Wouldn't it benefit those people more to have healthy food be available to them, or at least moreso than they could get a big mac with fries?

Free markets and efficency. Clearly if someone can not buy an apple or grow one for that matter, they're not likely to have the money to buy over price fast food. People can't live on it, I don't see how it entered into this.. Fast food compaines will do what they want, regardless of what's "good" for people, that's capitism but they'll do what's profitable. They're not the ones who would be looking to give aid or attempt to build up the infrstructure of these countries because they're in a sweet position yet they're not the international govnerments or compaines that would benifit from doing anything else. Food chains are not killing the world, lack of basic food in places like Africa and other remote and devloping parts of the world is.

Why don't we see more "poor" countries given better standards when it comes to food, and more amounts in general? I can't be positive and speak for those guys in the suits, but I'm guessing it's because they don't think the ends justify the means. If they are going to send them food, they want to make a profit out of it. Why send them a ton of vegatables and meat (or better yet, the tools/machinery that would allow them to produce higher quantities of their own) when you can have them throw away what little money they do have on milkshakes and cheeseburgers?

There's international aid then there's exporting food. Aid only lasts so long and exporting is not an option because they have nothing else to buy with, very simple. My point was that if they did give them the technology and help them help themselves then new markets would open up and the general standard of living would rise for these areas of the world AND the "fat cats" would have complete control of it. It makes more sense to do this, it is happening slowly but still the ability to get the technology in to these places and politics rule over how fast it is happening and that's killing 25,000 or so people each day, weather the rich assholes are holding it back is unknown but it's not logical or profitable and what the fuck else, if anything, counts today besides making a buck to anyone?

[Liquid Blue]

Free markets and efficency. Clearly if someone can not buy an apple or grow one for that matter, they're not likely to have the money to buy over price fast food. People can't live on it, I don't see how it entered into this.. Fast food compaines will do what they want, regardless of what's "good" for people, that's capitism but they'll do what's profitable. They're not the ones who would be looking to give aid or attempt to build up the infrstructure of these countries because they're in a sweet position yet they're not the international govnerments or compaines that would benifit from doing anything else. Food chains are not killing the world, lack of basic food in places like Africa and other remote and devloping parts of the world is.

If they can't afford the fast food, then why do those fast food places keep popping up in these areas? Why do they keep making money, why even put money into building one out in these countries if they don't plan to get some return from it? From the troops stationed there? It's unlikely that they'd break even with the amount it costs to put up a fast food place, and we all know breaking even is the last thing companies want to do when it comes to money. Well, second to last- losing money just plain sucks. Now mind you I'm not trying to say that 85 Mickey-D's are popping up in the boondocks of africa, but they are still in areas that are low-income, and yet would benefit more, from a better quality of food. People can and do live off of fast food, but that's a derail that I won't go into- I agree that food chains aren't the main problem, that the lack of food in general is, but the question is why, and why hasn't it been more of a focus before. Sure countries have put in a little effort here and there, but more money and time has gone into self-defense plans, weapons and budgets rather than helping out other countries.

There's international aid then there's exporting food. Aid only lasts so long and exporting is not an option because they have nothing else to buy with, very simple. My point was that if they did give them the technology and help them help themselves then new markets would open up and the general standard of living would rise for these areas of the world AND the "fat cats" would have complete control of it. It makes more sense to do this, it is happening slowly but still the ability to get the technology in to these places and politics rule over how fast it is happening and that's killing 25,000 or so people each day, weather the rich assholes are holding it back is unknown but it's not logical or profitable and what the fuck else, if anything, counts today besides making a buck to anyone?

I don't really think the fat cats would have total control, like I said before (especially in Africa) some random joe-bob would drive in with his bushwhack buddies, armed with ak-47's and steal all the food for one small town or reigon. Why? Because they got high and have a bad case of the munchies? No, because it's been proven time and time again that the more scarce an item is, the higher in value it becomes. In a place where food is not plentiful (even if a company just brought in tons of food to raise the standard of living), Joe-bob would see this new food boom as a way to gain power, an escalator of sorts to financial or territorial wealth.

regardless of what's "good" for people, that's capitism but they'll do what's profitable.

but it's not logical or profitable and what the fuck else, if anything, counts today besides making a buck to anyone?

That's what I have a problem with right there

[Kolar]

Well that's my point, politics enters into it.


Not total control but they would have more control for imports. It would open a market for them to pump cheap pieces of shit into basicly.


I don't like the system the way it is either but we have our freedoms, eventaully things will settle down.