Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see how out of wedlock births cause or even contribute to hunger:
Out of wedlock births set up mother and child for muchos freebies, such as FREE school breakfast and lunch, plus food stamps. So kids who qualify for free school breakfast and lunch and food stamps shouldn't be hungry. Kids who don't qualify for the above programs theoretically have sufficient resources to avoid hunger. I didn't have school lunches or food stamps as a kid but I was hungry because I was raised by alcoholics who kept a refrigerator FULL of beer without any real food, and fed me ketchup sandwiches.
There's this radio commercial which goes something like this:
Kid says, "This country has more than enough food to feed everybody, yet 17 million children face hunger. This doesn't make sense..."
If kids understood economics, this would make perfect sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911
All they would need to understand is the degree to which selfishness and greed are tolerated in this country. It doesn't have much to do with economics at all.
It's not "selfishness and greed" which cause this scenario; its the stupidity, vulgarity and irresponsibility among the lowest forms of urban streetlife, and the eagerness of left-leaning urban politicians to tolerate this in order to sustain their own corruption.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 04-16-2017 at 11:03 AM..
I was making a liberal or even socialist case for teaching economics in school - the example here shows that hunger is a natural outcome of capitalism.
You can teach it, but you can't make a convincing case for it unless your audience is very young and naive.
Socialism is not an alternative economic system. It is an alternative system of economic REGULATION. And it is historically a very bad one. History shows that the more we RESTRICT the ability of people to make a living, the more we succeed in restricting their ability to prosper. North Korea is the extreme example. Venezuela today is the modest example rapidly becoming the worst case example.
There is only one human economic system. Call it what you wish. But every system of government on the planet since the beginning of governments has only REGULATED economics. Saying otherwise is like insinuating there is an alternative to gravity, or photosynthesis.
I don't see how out of wedlock births cause or even contribute to hunger:
Out of wedlock births set up mother and child for muchos freebies, such as FREE school breakfast and lunch, plus food stamps. So kids who qualify for free school breakfast and lunch and food stamps shouldn't be hungry. Kids who don't qualify for the above programs theoretically have sufficient resources to avoid hunger. I didn't have school lunches or food stamps as a kid but I was hungry because I was raised by alcoholics who kept a refrigerator FULL of beer without any real food, and fed me ketchup sandwiches.
You're making the assumption here that only welfare-eligible women have kids out of wedlock. But look at your own situation as proof it doesn't work that way.
You're not taking into account any of the negative effects of out of wedlock births on the success of the child in adulthood. Even though you've seen first hand the effects of dysfunctional family arrangements. I've seen them too.
You're only looking at some theoretical entitlements benefits that theoretically put a band aid on the problems associated with out of wedlock situations... as if the non-availability of free food was the ONLY component of hunger.
You're making the assumption here that only welfare-eligible women have kids out of wedlock. But look at your own situation as proof it doesn't work that way.
You're not taking into account any of the negative effects of out of wedlock births on the success of the child in adulthood. Even though you've seen first hand the effects of dysfunctional family arrangements. I've seen them too.
You're only looking at some theoretical entitlements benefits that theoretically put a band aid on the problems associated with out of wedlock situations... as if the non-availability of free food was the ONLY component of hunger.
I'm confident my married parents were eligible for welfare, they just didn't sign up for it.
You can teach it, but you can't make a convincing case for it unless your audience is very young and naive.
Socialism is not an alternative economic system. It is an alternative system of economic REGULATION. And it is historically a very bad one. History shows that the more we RESTRICT the ability of people to make a living, the more we succeed in restricting their ability to prosper. North Korea is the extreme example. Venezuela today is the modest example rapidly becoming the worst case example.
There is only one human economic system. Call it what you wish. But every system of government on the planet since the beginning of governments has only REGULATED economics. Saying otherwise is like insinuating there is an alternative to gravity, or photosynthesis.
I'm not advocating socialism, my point is that hunger is a natural outcome of capitalism in combination with rent serfdom. Farmers are often poor but not hungry because they can produce food; landless rent serfs cannot.
Elementary students are not old enough to understand economics at a level sophisticated enough to analyze that commercial.
What you can do at the elementary level is play some games & integrate some activities that teach supply/demand & some other basic concepts along with math, etc.... Some teachers do & there are economic disciplinary organizations dedicated to helping teachers integrate these concepts.
It took me less than 30 seconds to find this site run by the University of Nebraska at Omaha, 2nd down from the top when you google "economics in elementary school." So much for socialism.
There is only one human economic system. Call it what you wish. But every system of government on the planet since the beginning of governments has only REGULATED economics.
Quite true.
But that economic system naturally results in poverty for most and wealth for a few, with aggregate prosperity at a fairly low level compared to what is possible. Which is why every rich country has an extensive, messy, inefficient system of regulations.
Kid says, "This country has more than enough food to feed everybody, yet 17 million children face hunger. This doesn't make sense..."
It isn't an economic issue in this country since children qualify for tons of government aid. If kids are hungry it's because their idiotic parents aren't feeding them.
You could use this example for some poor countries which export food while children starve. But I think the kid is making a moral judgement anyway, which removes it from economics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
