If the Bush administration succeeds in its latest request for funding for the
war in Iraq, the total cost would rise to $611.5 billion, according to the
National Priorities Project, a nonprofit research group.

The amount got us wondering: What would $611 billion buy?


According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation
and malnutrition globally by 2015, while $30 billion would provide a year of
primary education for every child on earth.

At the upper range of those estimates, the $611 billion cost of the war could
have fed and educated the world's poor for seven years


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/gallery/251007war_costs/

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'ice_sculpture.png' (230 KB)

Preview of image 'ice_sculpture.png'

"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> The amount got us wondering: What would $611 billion buy?

seemingly, strategic oil reserves and "feardom".

> According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation
> and malnutrition globally by 2015, while $30 billion would provide a year of
> primary education for every child on earth.

Where's the profit in that?  Sure, there are lots of indirect profitable goods,
like less infectious diseases spreading around, economic uprisings thanks to
educated worker force etc.  But none of that compares to direct money making in
the war industry:  arms deals, conquests, pilleage etc.

BTW, is that image you just posted a render?! o_O

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> BTW, is that image you just posted a render?! o_O


If only I were that good with pov, I might be employed.
Artist unknown, came in an email.
As far as I have seen, a real photo is (unmistakably) not a render.

Post a reply to this message

alphaQuad wrote:
> If the Bush administration succeeds in its latest request for funding for the
> war in Iraq, the total cost would rise to $611.5 billion, according to the
> National Priorities Project, a nonprofit research group.
> 
> The amount got us wondering: What would $611 billion buy?
> 
> According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation
> and malnutrition globally by 2015, while $30 billion would provide a year of
> primary education for every child on earth.

But if you don't do anything about the general lack of human rights in 
the areas afflicted by this poverty, the poverty will return far sooner 
than the World Bank is interested in admitting.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

alphaQuad <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation
> and malnutrition globally by 2015

  That's a completely naive and unrealistic assertion. Charity only makes
the problems in Africa worse. Not only it increases dependency on foreign
charity as well as increasing corruption, it also kills local small
entrepreneurship, worsening the economical problems in the long run.
It's the proverbial fish-instead-of-fishing-rod problem, at a huge scale.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/news/20071123_bono.shtml
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> alphaQuad <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation
> > and malnutrition globally by 2015
>
>   That's a completely naive and unrealistic assertion. Charity only makes
> the problems in Africa worse. Not only it increases dependency on foreign
> charity as well as increasing corruption, it also kills local small
> entrepreneurship, worsening the economical problems in the long run.
> It's the proverbial fish-instead-of-fishing-rod problem, at a huge scale.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/news/20071123_bono.shtml
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

Of course it is unrealistic and repairs nothing to simply give a pile money. The
more you care about others, the more ideas you'll have for helping.

First you feed them then you educate with the goal of independence. I'd much
rather be independent than taking assistance just like most people.


shortcut.

Absolutely, it is an unrealistic goal for any uncaring government assistance
program when there are only careless morons in government, only there by a
personal gain motive.

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> alphaQuad wrote:
> > If the Bush administration succeeds in its latest request for funding for the
> > war in Iraq, the total cost would rise to $611.5 billion, according to the
> > National Priorities Project, a nonprofit research group.
> >
> > The amount got us wondering: What would $611 billion buy?
> >
> > According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation
> > and malnutrition globally by 2015, while $30 billion would provide a year of
> > primary education for every child on earth.
>
> But if you don't do anything about the general lack of human rights in
> the areas afflicted by this poverty, the poverty will return far sooner
> than the World Bank is interested in admitting.
>
> Regards,
> John


Kind of like here in America where humans rights have been trampled for profit
for something like the last 100 years. And we're still here.

The right to bear arms was also trampled to death because an armed society is a
polite society; Human rights enforcement of the highest order.

There should been no lawmakers because they would only make corrupt law. I
believe the founding fathers lacked the guidance and intelligence to write a
workable constitution.

Post a reply to this message

Warp nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/24 09:38:
> alphaQuad <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>> According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation
>> and malnutrition globally by 2015
> 
>   That's a completely naive and unrealistic assertion. Charity only makes
> the problems in Africa worse. Not only it increases dependency on foreign
> charity as well as increasing corruption, it also kills local small
> entrepreneurship, worsening the economical problems in the long run.
> It's the proverbial fish-instead-of-fishing-rod problem, at a huge scale.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/news/20071123_bono.shtml
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
> 
Who said anything about "charity"?
If you invest that money into education, formation, infrastructures, and such, 
you get long term benefits.
With investment instead of charity, you actualy reduce corruption. Not to say 
about improving local entrepreneurship.
You improve the living quality of whole populations, making them more autonomous 
and potential economic partners. You also undermine terrorism breading grounds!
Build schools, hospitals and dispensaries. Plant fields. Build water treatment 
plans. Help building industries. Help improve railways and roads. Bring 
electricity to comunities.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
If you're ever about to be mugged by a couple of clowns, don't hesitate - go for 
the juggler.

Post a reply to this message

Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Warp nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/24 09:38:
> > alphaQuad <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> >> According to World Bank estimates, $54 billion a year would eliminate starvation
> >> and malnutrition globally by 2015

> Build schools, hospitals and dispensaries. Plant fields. Build water treatment 
> plans. Help building industries. Help improve railways and roads. Bring 
> electricity to comunities.

  Doing that to all areas in Africa (and other parts of the world with
similar problems) which need help would probably require a lot more than
54 billions a year, especially taking into account how many years it takes
to build a civilization which can support itself.

  I have hard time believing that 54 billions a year would eliminate
starvation (on a permanent basis) globally by 2015. Temporarily perhaps,
but if the 54 billions/year is cut right after 2015, I'm quite certain
that the same problems would reappear in a few years again.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> especially taking into account how many years it takes
> to build a civilization which can support itself.

I suspect you'd mostly have to replace the government with something 
that respected basic property rights before pouring money in would help 
anything. If you're going to kick out successful farmers and hand the 
land over to cronies who don't know how to manage it, you're going to 
have famines regardless of how much cash gets dumped into the economy.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message