Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NOW who wrote (38999)	10/12/2005 4:24:39 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

but almost certainly, the young and malnourished died at astonishingly higher rates than the young well nourished OK, that is believable but I have yet to see the statistics that support your view. you think conditions today rival those of 1918 for most of the planets occupants? the total numbers of those in poverty is surely higher as a function of population growth. Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me here. In terms of resources at hand to make a living, the poor today are worse off then those who lived and starved in 1918. Yes, that is my contention. One one hand we have better technology today, better "know how" in dealing with starvation issues, better communications even, but the poor and under privileged are not likely to benefit from that. There are always too many of them. Just one of those pareto things.. pages.britishlibrary.net On the other hand the natural resources available in 1918 were much better then those on offer today. If I successfully grew an edible crop in 1918, tried to catch a fish, saw a log, manufacture goods, or perform any useful human related activity, I would be in a much better position to sell that activity on at a profit in 1918 then today. Mass transport issues in 1918 had mainly been fixed by railways and steamers. Thus the poor and starving today are not in a better position in meeting any medical crisis, and the population today [6 billion] is higher then in 1918 [1.8 billion]. The effects of any pandemic will be worse both in magnitude and probably as a percentage of the human population too imho. Any statistics will probably support my argument one way or another. The basis for my argument leans on your statement the young and malnourished died at astonishingly higher rates than the young well nourished There are lots and lots of those these days.