by AgentR » Wed 08 Oct 2008, 09:41:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hubbertspeak7777777', 'H')ow does the fact that we have more luxuries than people who lived in the past help someone who can't afford food, is about to be evicted or is about to lose their job? It doesn't.
Because we and they can afford food; one way or another, more food than we can possibly eat; even if they are evicted and lose their jobs.
Yes, there will always be a certain small segment of any population that has difficulty feeding itself for a variety of reasons, but that isn't the result of our current economic situation; it is the natural state of human life. For the most part; we don't let them starve, despite their disfunctionality. There are also, at all times, people that endure periodic hardship as a result of natural or individual economic disasters; but again; these things are in no way unique or even over represented in our current situation.
The question was "worst".
The answer is "not even close".
That does not imply that some people aren't suffering some hardships; but even the ones that are suffering the strongest effects of the current situation are NOT dieing of starvation.
When, and it WILL happen, the streets of American cities are openly littered with people dieing of starvation and its associated diseases, then we can start talking about "worst". As it is now, you're more likely to be arrested for loitering, thrown in a box, sandwich and cup of water placed firmly in your hand.
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.