Well as babies grow their food demands increase, food supplies can fluctuate to facilitate pregnancy. Food supplies can increase allowing a population to expand then expand again unto famine.
Does the argument against that ghost take into account these factors?
In message , snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com writes
Please repost enough material to provide context in follow-ups. Crystal balls are not always reliable even if their shape is appropriate.
You have a bed! E, lad, luxury. Sheer bloody luxury. Some people don't know they're born.
LUXURY! - I get up half an hour before I go to bed blah blah. And trying telling that to the young people of today. You know what? They won't believe you! :-) Luap
in
That presupposes similar intelligence. That is a big presupposition.
RI understand your point of view; I'd just got in from the pub:)
Basically what I'm saying that if debt is just cancelled you don't need to take it seriously. So you get it cancelled and can build up some more debt if someone is daft enough to lend money to you.
Ah! Now you're talking. That's exactly why we shouldn't lend them any more money until some method of making sure it's spent reasonably wisely is put into place.
Rob
The african governments borrow the money on the expectation that they won't really have to repay it. So they treat it as a donation.
African solution is an oxymoron!
They have intelligence which seems to be a pre-requisite.
Have they ever, in the history of the human race, done anything except subsist?
Poverty will continue as long as Africans govern in Africa.
R"John Redman" wrote in message news:d8l7sj$n54$ snipped-for-privacy@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Charity with someone else's money is always easier than charity with one's own.
R"Roger Dewhurst" wrote
Liberalism is basically a surrogate religion, and handing out other people's money to Africans is something liberals do to feel good about themselves, like a penance except someone else is made to suffer.
Indeed. According to the Sunday Times U2 are jointly worth about 400 million quid. If they each kept 20 million, leaving them an income of 1 million a year forever, they could then afford to give away the other 320 million to Africa. They do not do this, of course, because they want other people to pay for making them feel good about themselves.
People who vote Labour to secure benefits for themselves funded by tax rises for other people are basically doing the same thing.
"John Redman" wrote in message news:d8mghv$irn$ snipped-for-privacy@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk... [snip]
This point would only be valid if they were both
Anyway, are U2 all involved ? I thought that it was just Bono.
"Fergus O'Rourke" wrote
Nonsense. It should be in proportion to their ability to pay and the degree of their anguish at their prosperity as Africans starve. On that basis they aren't that bothered, so neither need the rest of us be.
Im expected to explain every little thing...
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required