So it's developed nations' faults that third world nations run by tyrants are poor?

Henry Ford and his success have been killing infants in Afghanistan for decades?

On what do you base your presumption that the scarcity of resources is artificially imposed? There are only so many homes built to go around--they require a lot of work. There are only so many flat-screen TVs to go around--they require a lot of work.

Relatively free markets all over the world suggest your assumption is baseless. Unless you can produce more of these products for less, you have no basis for your argument that they're artificially expensive and scarce.

I take it you're going to completely ignore all of what I said about your OP. It remains bizarre and pointless.

"On what do you base your presumption that the scarcity of resources is artificially imposed?"

The financial system is a fiat system, over which a central authority ultimately has control.

"Relatively free markets"

Relative to what?  When were free market principals at work unfettered by any centralized control mechanism such as fiat currencies?

> The Yell wrote:

> poor people having all the children they can imagine and demanding other people pay for it is not fulfillment of the poor it's degradation of the children

If in fact it is by greed, lust, thievery, militarism, murder, lying, cheating, etc. (or by being complacent or complicit with such systems) by which wealth is garnered, and if it is the greedy, lustful, militaristic, murderous, lying, cheating (or those who are complacent or complicit in such) who are most biologically successful, the evolution of our species would be such that humanity would be forever prone to thievery, militarism, lying, cheating, etc.; forever prone to complacency / willingness to be complicit with unethical systems.  Our human nature would never change as a result.

If we are going to take our own evolution into our own hands; take our destiny to the stars, we have a choice, then:

1. change our economic paradigm so that it is the peaceful and cooperative (rather than the greedy, lust-driven, thieving, lying, murderous, cheating) who are more biologically successful
2.  if the economic paradigm is not changed and it continues to be one which provides for the greedy, lust-driven, thieving, murderous, cheating, etc., to garner more wealth, implement a 1 child policy on them, or sterilize them, for such their characteristics should be considered unwelcome in our gene-pool, not conducive to the survival of our species.

So, which is it going to be, one-child policy  / sterility for the rich? or change our economic paradigm?

Neither one!

Your demand to rob the producers and creators to satisfy every lifestyle whim of the poor has been tried and everywhere it is tried, it turns society and industry into a closed circle, where consumption is reduced to the lowest common denominator, production repressed to satisfy consumption, and innovation and improvement crushed lest the authority of the robbers/dividers be compromised by some smart boy with a bright idea.

Every. Time.  Its why Cuba still imports cars 60 years after glorious revolution.

YOU YOURSELF have defined oppression as denying the poor the resources to have as many kids as they themselves desire.  Won

There's no doubt that the fed is stealing from people, but the fact is that basic needs aren't that expensive and the fed isn't making everything 5x more expensive. Hell, the fed steals far less from people every year than over-taxation and wasteful spending. The fed ruling over our fiat system is a problem, but it's not numerically responsible for stealing as much wealth (artificial scarcity) as government spending annually.

Your claim that our fiat currency is responsible for an artificial scarcity of goods is bizarre, because the rate of inflation it leads to (stolen wealth) is far less theft than taxation.

"Relative to what?  When were free market principals at work unfettered by any centralized control mechanism such as fiat currencies?"

The point is that, if you can't produce something for less, your claims that it's artificially scarce are baseless. If you can't demonstrate it to be true, you're just presenting it as something you take on faith, and offering no evidence for it.

You referenced fiat currency as if it's responsible for stealing wealth from everyone, but you didn't back this up with any explanation or numbers. As I've pointed out, the extent of the theft just isn't nearly what you claim. You're just throwing out concepts and ignoring the numbers behind them. If you present ideas as if 3% inflation is a bigger loss to the average person than 40% taxation, you're just not making much sense.

I agree that US government, through the fed, pillages the American people through its fiat currency. But to claim that this artificially increases the cost of living SO MUCH that resources and goods are artificially scarce is just baseless. A few percent inflation isn't ruining the average person's ability to provide for their needs, it's just a small drain on their standard of living. It's not even anywhere near the biggest drain on their standard of living, either.

"1. change our economic paradigm so that it is the peaceful and cooperative (rather than the greedy, lust-driven, thieving, lying, murderous, cheating) who are more biologically successful"

The free market already does this. Massive government and the corruption/inefficiency/incompetence it breeds are what fights this. You have it entirely backwards in your calls for huge government control to overhaul capitalism.

"2.  if the economic paradigm is not changed and it continues to be one which provides for the greedy, lust-driven, thieving, murderous, cheating, etc., to garner more wealth...."

You never made an argument that it rewards these traits to begin with. I argued that it didn't anyway, and you never responded. This thread contains arguments that free markets reward desirable behavior, but it does not contain any arguments to the contrary. Are you planning to make a case for what you're claiming here? We're all ears.

"Our current economic paradigm acts as a eugenics program; but one which fosters in our species the qualities that are NOT conducive to our survival."

You ignored the fact that we reward the poor for having more children, and they've had more and more since we started doing this. You're ignoring the fact that the poor have more children on average than the rich. And you're ignoring every single thing I said about the OP. Are you conceding every point?

You're not really even giving us arguments to debate, discuss, or refute. You're just giving us your assumptions. When they're challenged and ripped apart, you're just repeating them. This thread contains no explanation of your assumptions, nor have you argued a case for them.

"I do not demand this.   Instead, I would say that the whole purpose of an economy should be views as to provide for an over-abundance every basic need of every human and do so in balance with the environment and with respect for other life on the planet."

We've been through this before...you imagine some Authority will judge when somebody has Too Much and give it to somebody else who deserves it more. Such as, a person who wants to have more kids.

True or False?

"" and innovation and improvement crushed lest the authority of the robbers/dividers be compromised by some smart boy with a bright idea."
This more accurately describes our current economic paradigm, not the one I would want to see come about."

Every dollar spent on a space program could be spent by somebody to raise another kid.  True or False?
Since your goal is abundance, and your chosen metric is the number of kids people want to have but aren't given the wealth to have, how do you get a space program until everybody has all the kids they want?

"We've been through this before...you imagine some Authority will judge when somebody has Too Much and give it to somebody else who deserves it more. Such as, a person who wants to have more kids.

True or False?

False. 

The free market, if it were ever permitted to function, would do this.

"False? Great, then we don't have to care who can't afford more kids."

Yes, you do.  For your current central Authority is running the economy, and doing so in your name, not the Free Market.

How will the Free market move enough resources to someone based on the children they would like to have in the future?  Increased prices demanded by potential parents?  Isn't that inflationary?

xeno syndicated hasn't provided a single argument for a single one of his baseless claims, let alone responded to their refutation.

It's just not logical.

He's conceded every single point I've made. This thread has fulfilled its purpose--or, rather, admitted that it never had one.

I thought you were making a joke. Because I was aware you weren't making sense. But then I realized that this is not the case, because of why you aren't making sense:

I am Batman. (The costume is an obvious means to hide my Vulcan ears.) And I don't particularly care for melon, even in the heat. (Also, as you may know, I'm kinda rich: I have AC and no need to bear the heat outside.)