0
dreamdancer

G20 warned unrest will sweep globe

Recommended Posts

looks like it's going to get very bad for the lower rungs of the human population...

Quote

A wave of social and political unrest could sweep through the world's poorest countries if G20 leaders fail to come to their aid, the World Bank warns today, as new research says the credit crunch will cost developing countries $750bn (£520bn) in lost output and drive millions more into poverty.

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, managing director of the World Bank, is urging G20 leaders to use the London summit in less than a fortnight's time to help protect the developing world against the worst effects of the financial crisis.

"We have to look at the impact of this on low income countries. Otherwise, without wanting to sound alarmist, social unrest and political crisis could be the result. It's in the self-interest of everyone to prevent that," she told the Observer

Her stark warning came as a new report from the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) said the collapse of the global economy would cost 90 million lives, lead to an increase to nearly a billion in the number of people going hungry and cost developing countries $750bn in lost growth.

"Tens of millions of people will be forced back below the poverty line. There will be irreversible effects on the very poorest," said Simon Maxwell, the ODI's director.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/22/g20-global-economy
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually didn't think it could get worse. For those Filipinos living in trash dumps and Africans suffering through wars and genocide, I can't see how they will get it any worse.

Those who will lose already have something to lose. Wouldn't it be the wealthy with the most to fear?


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I actually didn't think it could get worse. For those Filipinos living in trash dumps and Africans suffering through wars and genocide, I can't see how they will get it any worse.

Those who will lose already have something to lose. Wouldn't it be the wealthy with the most to fear?


Actually those on the second from the bottom probably lose the most; everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know about that ... if someone is barely surviving thanks to assistance from a relief org or such, and that assistance dries up, they go from being way underfed, to starving to death. To me, that is much worse than a rich person being perhaps a little less rich. Heaven forbid they have to make do with napkins that aren't monogrammed, or (gasp) even paper napkins ... for example!!
As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Those who will lose already have something to lose. Wouldn't it be the wealthy with the most to fear?



Well, who do you think is "alerting" the G20? Those guys living in trash heaps? I bet it's those holding political power in those countries, often non-democratically, who fear that economic unrest would topple them from their perches.

First "stimulus" package? Big bucks for screw-up executives.

Next "stimulus" package? Big bucks for third world dictators.

Go, stimulus! Yeah!
-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
meanwhile, pressure mounts at the upper levels...

Quote

Office workers face chaos next week with swaths of London in security lockdown for the G20 summit and warnings that bankers will be targeted in a series of protests aimed at causing maximum disruption.

Staff in the City are being advised to dress down and postpone non-essential meetings amid fears that they will be forced to run the gauntlet of protesters. Thousands of G20 Meltdown campaign posters show a mannequin wearing a suit being hanged, while an anarchist website has the slogan: "Burn a banker!"

Details of direct action, gleaned from chatter on anarchist websites and meetings attended by the Observer, include a rumoured plan to block the Blackwall Tunnel and cause a security scare on the London Underground by leaving bags unattended on trains. There is also speculation that protesters will drive a tank to the ExCeL conference centre in London's Docklands, where the G20 are meeting, and attempt to harass politicians with wake-up calls to their hotels in the middle of the night. None of the organisers of the peaceful demonstrations say they are aware of any such tactics.

There are growing fears for the safety of people making their way to work on 1 and 2 April. A spokesman for the London Chamber of Commerce said: "Businesses might want to consider asking their staff not to dress in a suit and tie as a lot of the protesters say they're going to target bankers. Staff should check they have their security passes and think about staggering their start and finish times. They might want to postpone for a few days meetings which aren't absolutely necessary."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/22/g20-anti-globalisation-protests
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Those who will lose already have something to lose. Wouldn't it be the wealthy with the most to fear?



Well, who do you think is "alerting" the G20? Those guys living in trash heaps? I bet it's those holding political power in those countries, often non-democratically, who fear that economic unrest would topple them from their perches.



i wonder if it will get this bad...

Quote

The Great Famine was a period of starvation, disease and mass emigration between 1845 and 1852 during which the population of Ireland was reduced by 20 to 25 percent. Approximately one million of the population died and a million more emigrated from Ireland's shores. The proximate cause of famine was a potato disease commonly known as late blight. Although blight ravaged potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, the impact and human cost in Ireland—where a third of the population was entirely dependent on the potato for food—was exacerbated by a host of political, social and economic factors which remain the subject of historical debate.

The famine was a watershed in the history of Ireland. Its effects permanently changed the island's demographic, political and cultural landscape. For both the native Irish and those in the resulting diaspora, the famine entered folk memory and became a rallying point for various nationalist movements. Modern historians regard it as a dividing line in the Irish historical narrative, referring to the preceding period of Irish history as "pre-Famine."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_famine
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

White, blue-eyed bankers are entirely to blame for the world financial crisis that has ended up hitting black and indigenous people disproportionately, the president of Brazil declared .

In an outspoken intervention as Gordon Brown stood alongside him, Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva pledged to make next week's G20 summit "spicy" as he accused the rich of forcing the poor into greater hardship.

"This crisis was caused by no black man or woman or by no indigenous person or by no poor person," Lula said after talks with the prime minister in Brasilia to discuss next week's G20 summit in London.

"This crisis was fostered and boosted by irrational behaviour of some people that are white, blue-eyed. Before the crisis they looked like they knew everything about economics, and they have demonstrated they know nothing about economics."

Challenged about his claims, Lula responded: "I only record what I see in the press. I am not acquainted with a single black banker."

The remarks by Lula, a former trade union leader who had an impoverished upbringing in the poor north-east of Brazil, enlivened Brown's five-day trip to North and South America.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/26/lula-attacks-white-bankers-crash
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

White, blue-eyed bankers are entirely to blame for the world financial crisis that has ended up hitting black and indigenous people disproportionately, the president of Brazil declared .




So us blue eyes are to blame, eh? Long live the power of the Nordics!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So us blue eyes are to blame, eh?



Damn, now that we've been called out, I guess we're going to have to cancel the weekly meetings where we chant and plan the downfall of the other races. I really enjoyed the hors devours at those meetings!

Here he is on video:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7967546.stm
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

White, blue-eyed bankers are entirely to blame for the world financial crisis that has ended up hitting black and indigenous people disproportionately, the president of Brazil declared .




So us blue eyes are to blame, eh? Long live the power of the Nordics!


you're a banker? :)
meanwhile...

Quote

The attack last week by Brazil's president, Luis da Silva, on "white blue-eyed bankers" revealed a new anger among some of the world's most populous countries at being dragged into a mess not of their making - and a determination to hold the west to account.

India's prime minister will use the summit to challenge what it says is creeping protectionism costing Asian jobs. China will exact more influence over the IMF in return for bailing it out. Chile's Michele Bachelet used a joint appearance with Brown to stress how, unlike Britain, her country saved vast revenues "during the good times" - which it is now having to spend.

Even George Soros, the currency speculator and major Africa donor, yesterday warned that the G20 must insulate developing countries "against a calamity that is not of their making".

So will a new world order emerge from this clash of nations? And if so, will it be one in which Britain - the City neutered, its seats on international institutions from the UN to the IMF under pressure, and its military prowess threatened by tightening budgets - must accept it can no longer be a first-rank power?



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/29/g20-summit-globalisation
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

looks like it's going to get very bad for the lower rungs of the human population...

Quote

A wave of social and political unrest could sweep through the world's poorest countries if G20 leaders fail to come to their aid, the World Bank warns today, as new research says the credit crunch will cost developing countries $750bn (£520bn) in lost output and drive millions more into poverty.

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, managing director of the World Bank, is urging G20 leaders to use the London summit in less than a fortnight's time to help protect the developing world against the worst effects of the financial crisis.

"We have to look at the impact of this on low income countries. Otherwise, without wanting to sound alarmist, social unrest and political crisis could be the result. It's in the self-interest of everyone to prevent that," she told the Observer

Her stark warning came as a new report from the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) said the collapse of the global economy would cost 90 million lives, lead to an increase to nearly a billion in the number of people going hungry and cost developing countries $750bn in lost growth.

"Tens of millions of people will be forced back below the poverty line. There will be irreversible effects on the very poorest," said Simon Maxwell, the ODI's director.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/22/g20-global-economy



Poverty can be solved by the application of one simple principle: if you can't feed yourself, you don't have kids.

How anyone thinks that they are doing anyone any favors by providing the means to blossom for populations that were not self-sustaining in the first place is beyond me.

Unless sterilization is a condition of receiving aid, I strongly oppose providing any.

We are past peak oil, and the days where our population could be supported by nearly free energy are coming to a close. It was fun while it lasted.

The sustainable population of this planet is around 1.5 billion people, and we have already overshot by 4.5 billion. People who think that some technological "solution" will allow our population to expand without limit (or remain at current levels, for that matter) are those who cannot distinguish between science and magic.

Things are sure to be interesting in the forseeable future.


Blue skies,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The sustainable population of this planet is around 1.5 billion people



That number was likely derived based on everyone living the lifestyle of the average American. Most people in the world do not, and so the number is far greater. For instance, in 2005, all of humanity's ecological footprint was the equivalent of 1.3 earths, so just four years ago, we were only 30% over our sustainability.

The reason that it's difficult to get actual sustainability numbers is because it depends entirely on our lifestyle. For instance, if everyone in the world suddenly became vegetarians, we could double or more the number of people that are sustainable on Earth. Lifestyle trends change too rapidly to determine what the actual number of sustainable humans on Earth really is. The UN calculates the sustainability number every year, with a three year lag to collect all the data, so this year, we'll see a 2006 sustainability number from them.
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

For instance, in 2005, all of humanity's ecological footprint was the equivalent of 1.3 earths, so just four years ago, we were only 30% over our sustainability.



What's the trend line on that WAG? And level of precision? Only to the tenth? That would likely be a nearly stable figure from year to year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi riddler,

IMO, those numbers are debateable; which is a good thing.

I think that about 30 yrs after peak oil we will know just how many folks ole Mother Earth can handle.

I won't be here but you might. ;)

JerryBaumchen

PS) For those interested, a good book ( that I do NOT take as gospel ) is THE LONG EMERGENCY by James Kunstler. It is an interesting read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The sustainable population of this planet is around 1.5 billion people, and we have already overshot by 4.5 billion. People who think that some technological "solution" will allow our population to expand without limit (or remain at current levels, for that matter) are those who cannot distinguish between science and magic.



how about if we 'sterilize' the population of the eu and the us (the ones chiefly gorging on the planet's resources) - suddenly the population is sustainable :)
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The sustainable population of this planet is around 1.5 billion people, and we have already overshot by 4.5 billion. People who think that some technological "solution" will allow our population to expand without limit (or remain at current levels, for that matter) are those who cannot distinguish between science and magic.



how about if we 'sterilize' the population of the eu and the us (the ones chiefly gorging on the planet's resources) - suddenly the population is sustainable :)


Since the population growth (removing US immigration) of those two regions is essentially zero, your claim wouldn't stand up to an actual test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The sustainable population of this planet is around 1.5 billion people, and we have already overshot by 4.5 billion. People who think that some technological "solution" will allow our population to expand without limit (or remain at current levels, for that matter) are those who cannot distinguish between science and magic.



how about if we 'sterilize' the population of the eu and the us (the ones chiefly gorging on the planet's resources) - suddenly the population is sustainable :)


Sure, on the same terms.

If you wish for state support, you are done having babies.

If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

I wish there existed such a magic wand that would result in your scenario of "suddenly the population is sustainable," but there simply is not. If you run the numbers and it looks like there is a way out, your algorithm is faulty.

Whether you like it or not, we are in for interesting times - in the sense of the Chinese curse.


Blue skies,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

so, no babies for bankers :)
(i think your processor is out of date - get a new one so you can run the latest programs)



If a banker is unemployed long enough to need welfare then yes, procreation should be over until they could personally afford to reverse the operation.

However, I suspect the ones you would like to neuter have enough reserve assets (from bonuses and golden parachutes) to last their entire lives, not just their reproductive years.

If you need a sophisticated processor to support your case, odds are your conclusion is wrong. Case in point: AlGore using CGI to bring Comic Book Physics to life to support his crusade for junk science.

GIGO does not stand for "Garbage In, Gospel Out."

The SR-71 was designed with slide rules. If you run the same algorithms on the most sophisticated computer, you get more significant digits, but you still have one hell of a fast airplane.


Blue skies,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If a banker is unemployed long enough to need welfare then yes, procreation should be over until they could personally afford to reverse the operation.



bankers have just got the biggest financial bailout in human history - how can they not be bankrupt 'state dependants' :S

(is your slide rule a bit bent)
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

If a banker is unemployed long enough to need welfare then yes, procreation should be over until they could personally afford to reverse the operation.



bankers have just got the biggest financial bailout in human history - how can they not be bankrupt 'state dependants' :S

(is your slide rule a bit bent)


Banks got the bailout.

BankERS are not necessarily broke.

The role that bankers played was largely established by the powers that be, such as Congress. Barney Frank was responsible for rules that mandated underwriting ownership of McMansions for his constituency, whether they could afford them or not, and assured all involved that "the Government" would cover the banks' exposure.

I don't think you have to worry about a Barney Frank, Jr. either way.

My slide rules work great, but be advised - there is a difference between mathematics and arithmetic. Your average CPA would not have any idea of how to solve a second order partial differential equation, and a theoretical mathematician is not the first choice of someone to do your taxes.


Blue skies,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My slide rules work great.



perhaps it's your eyesight then :)
(if your slide rule ever tells you to 'sterilise the poor' put it away and buy a calculator)
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

My slide rules work great.



perhaps it's your eyesight then :)
(if your slide rule ever tells you to 'sterilise the poor' put it away and buy a calculator)


I never said to sterilize the poor. If you want to be poor and have lots of poor kids, knock yourself out.

What I do say is that I object to underwriting their fecundity, generation after generation.

If people are poor because they have kids, they should either lay off on having kids or learn to enjoy being poor. If you want to embrace poverty by having kids you can't afford and then choose to bitch about your lot thereafter, don't expect a lot of sympathy. Also, don't expect any help from me if you insist on retaining the ability to produce more kids you can't afford.

I think we can safely check the box that reads "be fruitful and multiply" as "mission accomplished."

Why do I need another calculator? I have plenty.


Blue skies,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0