8 Beers...

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

""These are complicated economic matters. Chalking world hunger up to "greed" shows an undeveloped understanding of economic consequence.""

That sentence right there is a prime example of what I'm talking about. Its ok to dump edible foodstuffs because it is more economically viable?? There may be a price depression if the commodity is released freely?? We're talking about starving human beings here. Who cares about a few more bucks? There are people that could desperately use that food.

haven't you heard? there's no morality anymore, we're a free species

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

haven't you heard? there's no morality anymore, we're a free species

Another example: The availability of donated clothes to some areas has decimated local textile industries. If someone was giving perfectly good cars away do you think most people would buy one or just take a free one?

Economic actions have economic consequences. The motivations or intent does not matter, only the ultimate consequence. I think I linked the video in this thread (or maybe the GMO thread) Milton Friedman asked if car companies should make cars even safer if it would make each car cost $1,000,000. The answer is clearly no. We accept certain risks because the cars provide so much utility. He asked the question again with the car costing $0.05 more per unit but it would save 1,000 lives. In the case the answer is yes, the car should be more expensive.

Few people disagree with that logic. This means that we all inherently accept the idea that certain results, however individually distasteful (the poor guy who died because we didn't have $1,000,000 cars), are still necessary because of the aggregate consequence (we all have cars now).

[Kekephee]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Another example: The availability of donated clothes to some areas has decimated local textile industries. If someone was giving perfectly good cars away do you think most people would buy one or just take a free one?

Economic actions have economic consequences. The motivations or intent does not matter, only the ultimate consequence. I think I linked the video in this thread (or maybe the GMO thread) Milton Friedman asked if car companies should make cars even safer if it would make each car cost $1,000,000. The answer is clearly no. We accept certain risks because the cars provide so much utility. He asked the question again with the car costing $0.05 more per unit but it would save 1,000 lives. In the case the answer is yes, the car should be more expensive.

Few people disagree with that logic. This means that we all inherently accept the idea that certain results, however individually distasteful (the poor guy who died because we didn't have $1,000,000 cars), are still necessary because of the aggregate consequence (we all have cars now).

Like I said; capitalism is psychotic and someone has to lose for someone else to win.

[Raavak]

You don't get it.

If shipping food somewhere causes negative pressure on a business sector, it won't happen. Its not really a person who makes that choice, its the laws of economics.

[Hailto]

Originally Posted by Shea [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That you should stop drinking immediately

http://www.organics.org/8-beers-that...immediately/#1

Stopped at number 3. Propylene glycol is completely save, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Stop being an uninformed hippie.

[Glenzig]

So giving food products to people who can't afford to buy said food product will cause an economic collapse? Because these people were obviously going to buy up all the food anyway, that's why they are starving. Use your common sense. Throwing food in the landfill is doing no one any good. Economic excuses for obvious greed? Get a grip.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So giving food products to people who can't afford to buy said food product will cause an economic collapse? Because these people were obviously going to buy up all the food anyway, that's why they are starving. Use your common sense. Throwing food in the landfill is doing no one any good. Economic excuses for obvious greed? Get a grip.

No. As I mentioned, often times excess goods can, and should, be given to indigent groups that are not active marketplace participants. The Costco example seems silly, and it's unfortunate that the needy will not be given that food.

However, I am not justifying Costco's specific action. I am instead taking exception with your repeated crucifixion of "greed' when you're connecting the entire picture with the consequences of your outrage.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No. As I mentioned, often times excess goods can, and should, be given to indigent groups that are not active marketplace participants. The Costco example seems silly, and it's unfortunate that the needy will not be given that food.

However, I am not justifying Costco's specific action. I am instead taking exception with your repeated crucifixion of "greed' when you're connecting the entire picture with the consequences of your outrage.

If you can do something for someone that really needs it. Like give food products to starving families, but you don't because somewhere down the line it might affect your stock portfolio, is greed. What else would you call it?

[Raavak]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you can do something for someone that really needs it. Like give food products to starving families, but you don't because somewhere down the line it might affect your stock portfolio, is greed. What else would you call it?

You are talking like you can target someone for making this choice, either through naivety or misinformation. The truth is we all make this decision every time we shop, or do not shop but can (or sell or not sell something we produce).

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Raavak [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are talking like you can target someone for making this choice, either through naivety or misinformation. The truth is we all make this decision every time we shop, or do not shop but can (or sell or not sell something we produce).

Yeah you're right. I remember Costco giving me a ring and asking my opinion on the million jar peanut butter dump. Shopping for rood is not greedy. I don't buy more food than I can eat and then dump it in the garbage. This is a line spewed by economists and used to make us feel accountable for corporate greed. I am not responsible for the fact that millions of people starve every day. My buying food for my family to eat does not absolve corporations for making purely monetary decisions like dumping food instead of feeding people.