US food imports into developing countries are low-priced, but still unaffordable to the majority of the population.  The majority of people still purchase locally produced food, because, of course, the real, unpublicized price is cheaper.  However, even this real price is rising, because, as the developing world opens its markets to US food imports, their farmers likewise get the opportunity to export food to the US and other developed countries.  This puts inflationary pressure on prices for LOCALLY produced food.

So, let's take the average factory worker's experience for a second: Let's say her name is Sarah.  She's single. Works at a Tommy Hill Figure textile factory.  For now, she is just working to make ends meet.  She works 12 hours a day, 6 days a week.  She finishes her shift at around 8pm most evenings, and sometimes goes out with friends thereafter.  She takes the bus home and usually stops at a local grocery store to pick up a few things.  On the shelf are US-produced items like, for example, Pringles.  She knows they are American, but she's never tried them.  The package only costs the equivalent of 3 dollars.  A good price, you might think, right?  Even she could afford it.  True.  But only at a full-day's wage.  She doesn't think it would be worth it.  You see, she, makes only $2.50 a day, and so wouldn't dream of wasting such money on a mere snack.  Instead, she goes to the bulk section and gets some potatoes, some vegetables, and some tofu enough for 3 days' meals.  She goes to the checkout and the total comes to $3.00.  She's mildly concerned by the high price, because this time last year she was able to afford enough food in one day's work for three days' meals.  This year, one day's work only pays enough for her to eat for 2 days, and that is without any meat.

Why the increase in price?  Food exports from her country to the US have been increasing. Although there are regulations restricting the import of foods from underdeveloped countries to prevent inflation and / or scarcity of food in those countries, it doesn't work 100%.  There is always some cheap food-stuff entering the US market originating from economies of poor, starving populations.  Also, numbers are often fudged to conceal poverty in countries, and, for the most part, developed countries don't care.  As long as they get cheap food, they'll turn a blind eye to what's really going on.

The higher price of food in developing countries is often due to the US and other developing countries importing food stuff those countries.

That in and of itself isn't the problem, though.  The real crime occurs when governments of developed countries turn a blind eye to corruption, or independently studies on poverty estimates, living standards and average incomes.  The real crime is when people in western democracies ignore what is happening and continue voting for political parties that will just continue the exploitation of under-developed economies; the crime continues when factory and business owners in developing countries don't raise their employees' salaries in relation to food-price increases, especially when those businesses are run with investment from multinationals based in developed countries.  Yet, it is even more heinous when a country like the US exerts political and / or military pressure on these developing countries to open their markets to 'free trade', especially to US companies wishing to export food to the US.  Unfortunately, this has happened in the past, and won't be forgotten by the populations the US helped starve.

Placing such items as Pringles on the shelves in under-developed countries just adds insult to injury to people like Sara.

To people who make less than a dollar a day, it simply aggravates the injury even further.

Exporting corn to the US from countries like Mali, causes mass starvation and death.

Unfortunately, such is happening.

xeno syndicated totally convinced me that we owe his poor nation and every other corrupt government unchecked by its people a revolution. Everyone join the armed forces, we're going to need a lot of soldiers. That his poor nation's government is exploiting instead of working for its people is our fault and problem. We owe it to him to interfere with his government. People always love it when foreigners interfere with their governments to "help." GOOD IDEA.

>> You just can't see that the military / covert operation solutions your country has implement over the past 50 years is part of the problem.<<

That was my point. Good job missing it dumbass.

>>The possibility that INEQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY is the root problem here<<

It's a fact of life. There are a lot of things that can be done for the greater good. Claiming that a fact of life is the root of our biggest problems only leads to ridiculous aims.

All you do is post that technology will let us all be welfare bums and that that is ideal. I have already posted arguments against this. You don't respond to content like that; just repeat that technology will let us all be welfare bums and that that is ideal.

You don't even identify the "problem" right, let alone the "root" of the problem. Contribute to solutions? Jesus you're ridiculous.

>>your mind is utterly and completely void of any inclination to bother caring about the starving, dying, oppressed, exploited, silenced innocents in the world.<<

Ignorant nonsense doesn't do anyone good. It does harm. You're the apathetic one useless to the starving, dying, oppressed, and exploited. I volunteer my time frequently. I do not lack compassion. You do. Closing your mind and focussing on ridiculous nonsense only harms those in need.

>>If technology is at the level where the fulfillment of basic needs can be attained for all on Earth at a 0 profit margin,<<

It's not. You keep jumping from the real world today and your fantasy magical land 50 years from now.

Scarcity of basic needs? Go produce some.

In regards to: >>That was my point. Good job missing it dumbass<<

Oh. Please forgive me for not sensing your irony.  You see, with the US military's track record invading other countries and the CIA's track record in manipulating foreign governemtns, I initially assumed you were being serious.  You see, I think I am perfectly rational in assuming that the people USofA would think what you expressed: "Everyone join the armed forces, we're going to need a lot of soldiers. That his poor nation's government is exploiting instead of working for its people is our fault and problem. We owe it to him to interfere with his government."

I mean, this IS how you people think, right?  (Perhaps not the 'our fault' or 'owe' it to them business - Yes, actually on another reading, I should have sensed the irony.  How clever of you Einstein.) 

Ok.  Let me put things another way for you, because you clearly are not understanding what I am saying.   Don't you speak English in America?  Or is there really an 'American' language that causes you to misunderstand so much of what I am saying.  For you are entirely incorrect in your summary of my position in regards to the following (I'm really and honestly trying to put things to you in a simpler light - please correct me or inform me of what sorts of American idiotsychronies that might impede your comprehension of my position):

In regards to inequality of opportunity, you say: >>It's a fact of life. There are a lot of things that can be done for the greater good. Claiming that a fact of life is the root of our biggest problems only leads to ridiculous aims.<<

I believe the founding of your country rested on the assumption that inequality of opportunity was not a fact of life.  In fact, the entire premise of establishing independance from Britain, and establishing a constitution was founded on the belief that society should work towards ensuring equality of opportunity for all people.  Or are you saying that everything the founding founders stood for was a lie?  Are you saying that the founding fathers were hell-bent on establishing a police state / global military empire that the USofA has become today?  I think not.  I find your position to be incompatible with the founding father's notions of American liberalism, liberty, justice, etc..  Perhaps you would like to move to another country?  You might fit-in better in, I don't know, perhaps, no... actually.  I don't think you'd fit in anywhere, because all nations on Earth now hold the aspiration of ensuring equality of opportunity as essential to a modern democracy.

In regards to my non-existant point about welfare-bums, you state: "All you do is post that technology will let us all be welfare bums and that that is ideal."

Here I will try and clear up any misunderstanding you might have.  You see, I, for one, do not believe people want to be welfare bums.  I do not believe people want to sit around and play MORPGs everyday in their mom's basement (very sorry if I've struck a nerve here).  I believe that, if given the opportunity to do whatever they want, people will chose to do something rather than nothing.  I have discussed this using the analogy of the billionaire who still works hard even after he has ensured all of his basic needs for the rest of his life.  I don't know of any billionaire who does what a so called 'welfare bum' does.  Do you?  I have asked you repeatedly if you think billionaires (or other rich people who have all their basic needs taken care of for the rest of their lives) are a drag on the system, merely living off society like vampires, or, as you might put it like 'welfare-bums'.  Are you saying that people are inherrently vampire-like leaches on any cooperative system; and that the only way for these vampire-natured people to be motivated to participate in the economy is for them to have the whips of fear of starvation, malnutrition, sickness and death driving them.  Is this really what you think about people?  Perhaps you are thinking about what motivates you.  If so, I really do feel sorry for you.  You must live a horrible life.   

I fully expect that the vast majority of people, with the same opportunity that billionaires have to do nothing if they wish, will chose to do something productive with their time.  Of course, whatever it is that one deems to be a 'productive' activity might be very different from what another deems to be a 'productive' activity, but, nevertheless is something beneficial to society.

In regards to your point >>You don't even identify the "problem" right, let alone the "root" of the problem. Contribute to solutions? Jesus you're ridiculous.<<

I have identified the root of the problem many times.  Here let me spell it out for you clearly:

The root of the problem is that there is a scarcity of opportunity for people to attain the fulfillment of their basic human needs.

In regards to: >>I volunteer my time frequently.<<  Ok.  That's nice, but useless if your job or main occupation in your life is adding to the problem of inequality of opportunity in the world.  Maybe you should think about that.

In regards to producing food for 0 profit:  >>It's not [possible]. You keep jumping from the real world today and your fantasy magical land 50 years from now<<

You mean my idea is only 50 years ahead of its time?  Nice.  I guess this is one of the ideas I should get to work on.  Thank you for your estimate.  Since you believe it to be 50 years ahead of its time, how about you quit your job and join me in this endeavor to solve this the root of the many problems we have in the world.

Ask Aussies what language they speak, ask Hong Kong what the second language there is, ask what language Canadians speak, and what language is spoken in the old empire lands. Each has their own dialect, but it is the same source.

>>You see, with the US military's track record invading other countries and the CIA's track record in manipulating foreign governemtns, I initially assumed you were being serious.<<

You had just said that we were obligated to manipulate foreign governments and I was criticizing you.

>> You see, I think I am perfectly rational in assuming that the people USofA would think what you expressed...<<

You would, whereas You had just said it. Short memory?

>>I mean, this IS how you people think, right?<<

You're beating your own dead horse and it's ugly. Very ugly.

>>I believe the founding of your country rested on the assumption that inequality of opportunity was not a fact of life.<<

Oh no. Now he's going to tell me what he made up about my country.

>>In fact, the entire premise of establishing independance from Britain, and establishing a constitution was founded on the belief that society should work towards ensuring equality of opportunity for all people.<<

Where did you jump from our Bill of Rights and all of our freedoms to the obligation of a people to house and feed and entertain all of its bums who do not work or produce anything? You can't make the connection without making things up; which is what you're doing.

>>Or are you saying that everything the founding founders stood for was a lie?  <<

See? Once you make up what they said and did, you can make all kinds of crazy accusations! You're completely ignoring what they stood for and claiming I am. It's a good thing we're not parading this ignorant rhetoric in front of the Amerikan public; you promise them more free stuff from my labor, they might be duped.

And you just go on and on and on. With all that you have to say on the subject, one would hope you had any idea what you were talking about. Disappointing. I've already spent so much time responding to the garbage I feel bad for anyone else who reads it. I'm not going to continue. Buy a history book. Read about it online. Just learn something and stop making stuff up.

>>I don't think you'd fit in anywhere, because all nations on Earth now hold the aspiration of ensuring equality of opportunity as essential to a modern democracy.<<

People like me are why America is what it is. We're intelligent, motivated hard workers. We take care of our families and close friends but ask not that our government be our nanny. We value a noncorrupt government that protects our rights and freedoms, internationally and domestically; that otherwise does not tax us huge portions of the wealth we create because crackhead welfare queens and their many crackbabies aren't expected to work so they need food, shelter, warmth, etc.

>>You see, I, for one, do not believe people want to be welfare bums.<<

If you're ever in the area you let me know. I can show you lots of wastes of life. They'll back up your position; they'll tell you all kinds of reasons you ought to give them your money.

>>I believe that, if given the opportunity to do whatever they want, people will chose to do something rather than nothing. <<

A lot of them choose to sell crack. I hear it's good money. And for it to be, obviously a lot of them choose to do crack. It doesn't matter what you choose to believe. You pretend that everyone will work for the collective good because deep down they're just awesome people. Why aren't they doing it now? You're just plain wrong.

>> I have discussed this using the analogy of the billionaire who still works hard even after he has ensured all of his basic needs for the rest of his life.  I don't know of any billionaire who does what a so called 'welfare bum' does.  Do you?<<

I've already explained why the fact that many with millions or even billions continue to work. It offers NOTHING in support of your claims. Learn to read. Get an education. It's not even debatable.

>>I have asked you repeatedly if you think billionaires (or other rich people who have all their basic needs taken care of for the rest of their lives) are a drag on the system, merely living off society like vampires, or, as you might put it like 'welfare-bums'. <<

For them to have that wealth, they or whoever they inherited it from must have provided something society wanted. By definition anyone who pays for their own consumption isn't a bum leeching off others. You're so dense.

>>Are you saying that people are inherrently vampire-like leaches on any cooperative system; and that the only way for these vampire-natured people to be motivated to participate in the economy is for them to have the whips of fear of starvation, malnutrition, sickness and death driving them. <<

I've already explained repeatedly the motivation to attain more power after one has come to posess great wealth.

>>Is this really what you think about people?  Perhaps you are thinking about what motivates you.  If so, I really do feel sorry for you.  You must live a horrible life.<<

"[T]his" being everything you made up, after your short memory repeatedly ignored my explanations when you had nothing to respond to them with but now replace with your idiotic presumptions? It doesn't take an educated man to tell that I'm far more education than you.

>>The root of the problem is that there is a scarcity of opportunity for people to attain the fulfillment of their basic human needs.<<

You need to understand that just because it's true in China, it's not necessarily true in the USA. In fact, chances are, it's not.

>>That's nice, but useless if your job or main occupation in your life is adding to the problem of inequality of opportunity in the world.  Maybe you should think about that.<<

Think about what? I create wealth. The more we all create, the more there is for all of us to enjoy; ie, a higher standard of living. The more I create, the more I have to spare. The more I create, the more the government taxes me and wastes and gives some tiny % to those in need. Maybe you should think about this. Or anything really.

>>ou mean my idea is only 50 years ahead of its time?  Nice.<<

It's only 50 years ahead of its time in magical fairytale land. This is the level of reading comprehension I've come to expect from you.

>>Narrow-minded twit.  You DO know that our way of thinking is now global, don't you?<<

Blah blah blah blah. At what point did you explain how it's different globally than in MANY countries across the globe of varying degrees of economic development? Oh yeah, you didn't. You cried and called me names but nothing else.

>>Here, let me point it out for you clearly: USA: what maybe 200 million people).  The REST OF THE WORLD: 6 billion<<

You miss the point. What 200 million people do for themselves compared to what 6 billion people do for themselves is comparable because it's wealth divided by the number you're dealing with. The end result is standard of living. There's no inherent reason that a community of 1 billion people MUST have a lower standard of living than a community of 200 million people.

>>dialogue was supposed to be about technological solutions to solving WORLD poverty.<<

I can always count on you to bring it back to magical robots in fairytale land. But on that point, you know that this thread does not belong in politics. We could start countless threads on all the things that would be moral imperatives if some random sci fi or fantasy story was true! Too bad they'd have nothing to do with politics.

>>You've done nothing but wasted my time.<<

Quote of the thread!

>>There are two sides, lines drawn in the sand between two types of people: those who care for humanity and want to solve the problems of our GLOBAL society, and then those on your side who care only for themselves and want to perpetuate, maintain and profit from the problems in our society.<<

Its narrow-minded thinking like this which ignores my content repeatedly that makes clear how illiterate you are.

>>Get used to such discussions, and get used to being pwned all the time in them, because I will tell you this: there are many, many more people on my side of the line drawn in the sand than on yours.<<

You'll have to learn to read before you can "pwn" anyone in here kid.

And if there are so many more people "on [your] side of the line," why haven't you fixed the world yet?

Dumbest. Thread. Ever.

Wow, Kemp.  You're still debating this? 

What is bullshit is people like you coming into a forum about improved SOLUTIONS, and clamoring that there isn't any possibility of any better way.

Why do you post here?  Leave, and let us get on with the CREATIVE thinking process, without you, of course, as clearly, you have nothing but petty egoistical narrow minded pessimism to offer...

What I'd like to see is a complete re-engineering of the monetary system if not a complete switch to a purely resource-based exchange system, where resources would have an equal value worldwide, rather than there being fluctuating, intangible, easily manipulated individual national currencies.  This switch to a resource-based economy would level the playing field: there would be one set global value of each resource, changing in value over time only in relation to the changing values of other resources.  No longer would nations be able to manipulate currencies (their own nor other nations' currencies) in order to gain artificial financial dominance over other nations.  The a real economic indicators of a nation's economic might would rest solely on its ability to produce x amount of x resources per capita.

In essence, what it would look like is this: let's say you wake up tomorrow and all records of bank accounts the world over were suddenly simply deleted.

Aside from the initial panic and after a few years, having set up a resource based system, everyday would simply carry on very much like today, except you, me, everyone on the planet, would always in a position of having an abundance of resources rather than monetary debt.   

Nowadays, people would a carton of milk at the store for 5$ that they don't yet have on their credit card.  At the end of the month when your credit card bill comes in, not only are you paying interest on your purchase, but also the relative value of your country's currency has fallen so that you now actually have to pay $6.50 for the milk that was originally $5.00.  In a resource-based system, you'd buy it with, as an example, '0.00078 gold credits' or, as another example,  '1.598 orange-juice credits'.  At that time and date of purchase, 0.00078 gold credits happened to equal '1 milk credit' or 1 liter of milk, calculated by the global supply and demand for milk at that date and time.

Every transaction would be made according to the updated by the second relative value of the resource being traded.  If, perhaps, you happened to have some 'milk-credits' saved up already, you would just swipe your card and have the number of milk credits deducted for your purchase of milk.  (Perhaps you exchanged gold credits for milk credits a while back when milk wasn't in such high demand, you see.  When you are there purchasing the milk at the store, the milk credits would be deducted from your account without having to exchange anything.  It was always YOUR milk in the store, you see?  The store - all stores everywhere around the world - was simply holding your milk for you like a bank holding your cash.

The resource-based economic system, would function far more efficiently and equitably than the monetary system.  And, now the resource based economic system is POSSIBLE, PRAACTIBLE and FEASIBLE, because of the technological developments of our time.

We would now have the computing capabilities to keep track of the relative values of resources the world over in a device the size of a mobile phone.

All purchases could be made by exchanging credits based on REAL vlaue of REAL resoruces - not just gold, not just orange-juice, but EVERYTHING, all of it.

There wouldn't be any more fake 1s and 0s indicating what your wealth is in yoru bank account.  Instead, your wealth would be based on REAL, USABLE, resources.

This, I think would be a better system for the entire world, one that would make those nations with the actual resources more economically powerful, and those smaller nations with fewer resources, less economically powerful - a more balanced and ethical economic system than the system we currently have.  It would indicate economic capability and potential more accurately, freeing resource-rich nations from being exploited by the fake-1s-and-0s-rich nations.

What's so special about the gold standard? I really do not get it.

Interesting arguement.