Poverty Rate in US Rises to 12.7 Percent

[sid_galt]

With unregulated capitalism you get what we have today.

Today, we don't have unregulated capitalism. There are a vast swathe of legislations which are many times used by the politicians to grant favors and cut down talent.

So when government interferes, it does so in favor of the capitalists who keep them in power.

If the government interferes it becomes a mixed economy, a mixture of capitalism, and socialism.
The meaning of capitalism is 0 interference from the government. What you are describing is not a fault of capitalism but of mixed economy.

 

[Skyhunter]

Today, we don't have unregulated capitalism. There are a vast swathe of legislations which are many times used by the politicians to grant favors and cut down talent.

Could you provide examples.

If the government interferes it becomes a mixed economy, a mixture of capitalism, and socialism.
The meaning of capitalism is 0 interference from the government. What you are describing is not a fault of capitalism but of mixed economy.

Capitalist utopia?

I don't see how this could work. Sounds like the law of the jungle would be the only rules.

 

[sid_galt]

Could you provide examples.

That's easy enough.

Labor laws
Sarbenes-Oblonexey law
regulation on commerce laws
plently other laws.

Capitalist utopia?

Of course not. No matter which system you choose, there'll always be lazy people who don't want to work and who never will get out of poverty.

I don't see how this could work. Sounds like the law of the jungle would be the only rules.

Wrong. In the jungle, there are no laws against the use of physical force and fraud.

 

[Skyhunter]

That's easy enough.

Labor laws
Sarbenes-Oblonexey law
regulation on commerce laws
plently other laws.

I agree that it would certainly be nice to do away with regulation, especially when it creates extra effort to comply.

You don't mean all labor laws do you?

Of course not. No matter which system you choose, there'll always be lazy people who don't want to work and who never will get out of poverty.

Why should people need to get out of poverty?

In a successful society they would not be there to begin with.

Wrong. In the jungle, there are no laws against the use of physical force and fraud.

There are many ways beyond physical force and fraud to harm people.

Like creating an energy crisis for profit. Resulting in more regulation. (What a vicious cycle)

I don't believe that a society based on consumption of resources is sustainable for the next 100 years. To unleash the unfettered greed of the wealthy capitalist upon what is left of the planet would only quicken the ecological disaster that is already on an irreversible course.

You truly believe that giving the smartest guys in the room, with most of the money and influence, unfettered power to just have at, no rules, no regulations. The only recourse anyone harmed will have is the courts, and with caps on lawsuits it becomes a calculated risk, part of the cost of doing business.

You should be careful what you wish for. Because I am afraid you might just get it.

 

[sid_galt]

You don't mean all labor laws do you?

If two men come to a contract on mutual agreement, the govt. does not have any business to interefere.

Like creating an energy crisis for profit.

You and I will probably disagree on this but anyway.

1. If the company is not stealing other people's money from them, the govt. and the people have no right to steal the company's money from itself no matter how it is using its property.

2. No single company can create an energy crisis itself.

3. If a group of companies come together and decide to withhold all production if they are not offered higher prices (very unlikely), then they will likely lose money in the long term as
a) they will lose the trust of the public who will prefer other competitors
b) people will be forced to look for other energy sources - necessity is the mother of invention.
c) If they increase the price of oil too much, alternative energy sources e.g. solar cells will actually become cheaper than oil and people will start switching.

I don't believe that a society based on consumption of resources is sustainable for the next 100 years.

You mean a society based on oil? I think it is. Firstly, I don't believe there exists any method to extract more than 35% oil from oilwells before extraction starts getting too expensive.
-Someday someone might just invent a way to extract the rest of the 65% oil in a cheap way.
-Peak oil fears are frequently overhyped by environmentalists and other people and companies who want to take advantage of the situation to get their own agendas through. What you are reading in the papers might not be true.

To unleash the unfettered greed of the wealthy capitalist

While not many businessmen are ethical these days, I think greedy capitalists are quite nice. The more their greed, the more their desire for money, the more the growth of the economy.

upon what is left of the planet would only quicken the ecological disaster that is already on an irreversible course.

There is no credible scientific evidence that completely proves that we are heading towards an ecological disaster. Atleast not for another 100 years.

You truly believe that giving the smartest guys in the room, with most of the money and influence, unfettered power

The smartest guys can have no power unless it is given to them by the government like in the case of Kelo decision. The smartest guys too are bound by the market.

If they for instance, try to spike up the price of a popular product, they would lose to competitors or other market alternatives.

If they try to fluctuate prices to keep competition down, they will lose the confidence of investors and people. They'll lose business. In the marketplace appearance matters much more than quality. If people think a company is not reliable, they will not buy its products even if they are cheaper and better. E.g. AMD vs Intel. AMD is better but people still buy Intel.

to just have at, no rules, no regulations. The only recourse anyone harmed will have is the courts,

What is wrong with having courts as the only recourse to being harmed? That is how it should be infact.

One thing leads to another. If you advocate limiting the rights of men in the marketplace, the government will eventually start encroaching upon other rights too.

and with caps on lawsuits it becomes a calculated risk, part of the cost of doing business.

You mean a cap on the number of lawsuits? If that is so, then it is really bad.

You should be careful what you wish for. Because I am afraid you might just get it.

Don't worry. I don't think it's going to happen in your or my lifetime. If anything, we are moving towards a system of a bigger government. The disgusting Kelo decision is a good example of the current trend.

 

[Skyhunter]

If two men come to a contract on mutual agreement, the govt. does not have any business to interefere.

In contract negotiations the party with the least need has the advantage. It is in the interest of the employer to keep labor hungry and poor.

You and I will probably disagree on this but anyway.

1. If the company is not stealing other people's money from them, the govt. and the people have no right to steal the company's money from itself no matter how it is using its property.

2. No single company can create an energy crisis itself.

3. If a group of companies come together and decide to withhold all production if they are not offered higher prices (very unlikely), then they will likely lose money in the long term as
a) they will lose the trust of the public who will prefer other competitors
b) people will be forced to look for other energy sources - necessity is the mother of invention.
c) If they increase the price of oil too much, alternative energy sources e.g. solar cells will actually become cheaper than oil and people will start switching.

Enron was not stealing money?

You mean a society based on oil? I think it is. Firstly, I don't believe there exists any method to extract more than 35% oil from oilwells before extraction starts getting too expensive.
-Someday someone might just invent a way to extract the rest of the 65% oil in a cheap way.
-Peak oil fears are frequently overhyped by environmentalists and other people and companies who want to take advantage of the situation to get their own agendas through. What you are reading in the papers might not be true.

No. I mean a society that encourages excess consumption.

While not many businessmen are ethical these days, I think greedy capitalists are quite nice. The more their greed, the more their desire for money, the more the growth of the economy.

At the expense of the environment, and future generations.

There is no credible scientific evidence that completely proves that we are heading towards an ecological disaster. Atleast not for another 100 years.

So as long as Exxon can fund enough "scientific studies" to raise a shred of doubt, it is OK to proceed as if nothing is happening.

How well you illustrate my point.

The smartest guys can have no power unless it is given to them by the government like in the case of Kelo decision. The smartest guys too are bound by the market.

The market that they control

If they for instance, try to spike up the price of a popular product, they would lose to competitors or other market alternatives.

There is no historic evidence that this so. People manipulate the market all the time for short term gain.

If they try to fluctuate prices to keep competition down, they will lose the confidence of investors and people. They'll lose business. In the marketplace appearance matters much more than quality. If people think a company is not reliable, they will not buy its products even if they are cheaper and better. E.g. AMD vs Intel. AMD is better but people still buy Intel.

I agree appearances are important, but for you to believe that unregulated competition is healthy. I can only look back on the history of monopolies. Companies will spend vast resources to stifle competition. In your model there would be no AMD because Intel would have bought them or crushed them long ago.

What is wrong with having courts as the only recourse to being harmed? That is how it should be infact.

What is wrong with protecting people from being harmed in the first place?

One thing leads to another. If you advocate limiting the rights of men in the marketplace, the government will eventually start encroaching upon other rights too.

I am not advocating limiting market rights. I am advocating protecting the rights of others not in the market.

You mean a cap on the number of lawsuits? If that is so, then it is really bad.

I am talking about tort reform. Specifically limiting punitive damages. If all a company has to do is pay some medical bills, providing the plaintiff can prevail against the legal resources brought to bear against them by the wealthy company, there is no deterrent to making money at the expense of others.

Don't worry. I don't think it's going to happen in your or my lifetime. If anything, we are moving towards a system of a bigger government. The disgusting Kelo decision is a good example of the current trend.

The trend I see is more and more corporate government. Kelo is an example of this. This company makes an offer to the local govt, the local govt. uses eminent domain to secure the deal.

 

[sid_galt]

In contract negotiations the party with the least need has the advantage.

That does not change the fact that the deal is being done with mutual consent without any violation of rights.

It is in the interest of the employer to keep labor hungry and poor.

You're going overboard here. If the employer keeps the labor hungry, it cannot work. The employer is not interested in labor. The employer is interested in profits. Besides without the employer there wouldn't be any job for your poor hungry labor in the first place.

Enron was not stealing money?

You are misunderstanding my position. Companies forming conglomerates are not violating the rights of other men. Enron was committing fraud and thus was commiting a violation of rights.

Besides, you have not refuted or provided counterexamples to my points.

At the expense of the environment, and future generations.

Again, you provide no proof for this statement. Please note that anthropologically generated climate change is highly controversial.

So as long as Exxon can fund enough "scientific studies" to raise a shred of doubt, it is OK to proceed as if nothing is happening.

This is BS. If you want to discredit the studies, then give your reasons. You just cannot discredit a study because it is being done by Exxon.

The market that they control

The market consists of consumers. The companies do not control the consumers.
The companies can't play as they want in the market. If they play bad, the market will respond. It will stop buying their products.

There is no historic evidence that this so.

Although no historical example can currently come to my mind, can you disprove my point?

People manipulate the market all the time for short term gain.

True. I am talking of long term gains.

I agree appearances are important, but for you to believe that unregulated competition is healthy. I can only look back on the history of monopolies.

Do look at the history of monopolies. I think you'll only prove me right. The only monopolies that have been oppressive are the ones that have been helped by the government.

Companies will spend vast resources to stifle competition. In your model there would be no AMD because Intel would have bought them or crushed them long ago.

Intel could not crush them because AMD is better than Intel. Even though appearances are very important, they are not the ultimate factor in the market. Believe me, if AMD continues to splash better products for the next 10-15 years, it will eventually overtake Intel.

What is wrong with protecting people from being harmed in the first place?

The thing that is wrong is that in the name of protecting people, you are enacting legislations that violate individual rights.

Let me give an example. All of the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims. Would you support the govt. if it tells the Muslims that from now on they can only move within a 100 miles of their homes and cannot go farther? You would not.

Then by what conceivable standard do you support punishing the entire business community by slapping regulations for the wrong actions of a few?

I am not advocating limiting market rights. I am advocating protecting the rights of others not in the market.

But their rights are protected. The companies are not forcing them to buy anything.

Specifically limiting punitive damages. If all a company has to do is pay some medical bills, providing the plaintiff can prevail against the legal resources brought to bear against them by the wealthy company, there is no deterrent to making money at the expense of others.

Firstly, money is not made at the expense of others that is unless an individual or a company is rising through special govt. favors or fraud.

As for the rest of your post, I am not a legal expert. You may very well be right on that point. But that doesn't concern what we are discussing right now - whether regulations should exist or not.

The trend I see is more and more corporate government. Kelo is an example of this. This company makes an offer to the local govt, the local govt. uses eminent domain to secure the deal.

Very true. The govt. is getting more and more fascist.

 

[Skyhunter]

Very true. The govt. is getting more and more fascist.

I agree with you in principle that the less interference from government the better off we all are. The point I am trying to make is that without an effective government that is responsive to the people we will never get there. To simply repeal all the laws governing labor and commerce would be a disaster.

We would be back where we were 100-150 years ago.

Remember the http://www.wvculture.org/history/minewars.html?

As far as damage to the environment goes, I have witnessed it all my life. Superfund sites, polluted air, polluted water, mass extinction of species, deforestation, and global warming.

When you start with a conclusion and work backwards that is not science. Exxon wanted a certain result and they got it. Their intent was and is to cast doubt on the scientific conclusions of the super majority of scientists. The sceptics are fewer and fewer. the few holdouts are being paid by the energy industry.

And they worked for the Bush administration until they got caught.

BUSH AIDE EDITED CLIMATE REPORTS

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
New York Times
June 8, 2005

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase ''significant and fundamental'' before the word ''uncertainties,'' tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.

Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the ''climate team leader'' and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

The documents were obtained by The New York Times from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers.

The project is representing Rick S. Piltz, who resigned in March as a senior associate in the office that coordinates government climate research. That office, now called the Climate Change Science Program, issued the documents that Mr. Cooney edited.

A White House spokeswoman, Michele St. Martin, said yesterday that Mr. Cooney would not be available to comment. ''We don't put Phil Cooney on the record,'' Ms. St. Martin said. ''He's not a cleared spokesman.''

In one instance in an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, ''Our Changing Planet,'' Mr. Cooney amplified the sense of uncertainty by adding the word ''extremely'' to this sentence: ''The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult.''

In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was ''straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings.''

Other White House officials said the changes made by Mr. Cooney were part of the normal interagency review that takes place on all documents related to global environmental change. Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted that one of the reports Mr. Cooney worked on, the administration's 10-year plan for climate research, was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. And Myron Ebell, who has long campaigned against limits on greenhouse gases as director of climate policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group, said such editing was necessary for ''consistency'' in meshing programs with policy.

But critics said that while all administrations routinely vetted government reports, scientific content in such reports should be reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions.

In a memorandum sent last week to the top officials dealing with climate change at a dozen agencies, Mr. Piltz said the White House editing and other actions threatened to taint the government's $1.8 billion-a-year effort to clarify the causes and consequences of climate change.

''Each administration has a policy position on climate change,'' Mr. Piltz wrote. ''But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program.''

A senior Environmental Protection Agency scientist who works on climate questions said the White House environmental council, where Mr. Cooney works, had offered valuable suggestions on reports from time to time. But the scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because all agency employees are forbidden to speak with reporters without clearance, said the kinds of changes made by Mr. Cooney had damaged morale. ''I have colleagues in other agencies who express the same view, that it has somewhat of a chilling effect and has created a sense of frustration,'' he said.

Efforts by the Bush administration to highlight uncertainties in science pointing to human-caused warming have put the United States at odds with other nations and with scientific groups at home.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who met with President Bush at the White House yesterday, has been trying to persuade him to intensify United States efforts to curb greenhouse gases. Mr. Bush has called only for voluntary measures to slow growth in emissions through 2012.

Yesterday, saying their goal was to influence that meeting, the scientific academies of 11 countries, including those of the United States and Britain, released a joint letter saying, ''The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.''

The American Petroleum Institute, where Mr. Cooney worked before going to the White House, has long taken a sharply different view. Starting with the negotiations leading to the Kyoto Protocol climate treaty in 1997, it has promoted the idea that lingering uncertainties in climate science justify delaying restrictions on emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe gases.

On learning of the White House revisions, representatives of some environmental groups said the effort to amplify uncertainties in the science was clearly intended to delay consideration of curbs on the gases, which remain an unavoidable byproduct of burning oil and coal.

''They've got three more years, and the only way to control this issue and do nothing about it is to muddy the science,'' said Eileen Claussen, the president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a private group that has enlisted businesses in programs cutting emissions.

Mr. Cooney's alterations can cause clear shifts in meaning. For example, a sentence in the October 2002 draft of ''Our Changing Planet'' originally read, ''Many scientific observations indicate that the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change.'' In a neat, compact hand, Mr. Cooney modified the sentence to read, ''Many scientific observations point to the conclusion that the Earth may be undergoing a period of relatively rapid change.''

A document showing a similar pattern of changes is the 2003 ''Strategic Plan for the United States Climate Change Science Program,'' a thick report describing the reorganization of government climate research that was requested by Mr. Bush in his first speech on the issue, in June 2001. The document was reviewed by an expert panel assembled in 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. The scientists largely endorsed the administration's research plan, but they warned that the administration's procedures for vetting reports on climate could result in excessive political interference with science.

© 2005 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

Now he works for Exxon

Bush aide who doctored global warming documents joins ExxonMobil

 

[sid_galt]

I agree with you in principle that the less interference from government the better off we all are. The point I am trying to make is that without an effective government that is responsive to the people we will never get there. To simply repeal all the laws governing labor and commerce would be a disaster.

We would be back where we were 100-150 years ago.

Remember the http://www.wvculture.org/history/minewars.html?

Your example of the West Virginia Mine Wars does not disprove my point. After doing a bit of background searching on the topic, I found this article.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvcoal/essays/med1.htm

1. The land was forcibly stolen from the landowners in West Virginia by the government on the initiative of the speculators much like the Kelo decision of today. Without govt. help, no group of companies could have acquired so much land.
2. Then the speculators collaborated with the local government to pass laws to keep the miners in check
3. The speculators owned the local law enforcement, which should have been the prerogative of the government.
4. Since the speculators bribed the government to steal land from the people, there was no room left for competition.

It was a corporate+government generated fiasco, not the product of a government which had no regulations but protected individual rights. In this case, the government at the initiative of the corporate repeatedly violated the rights of the landowners who were forced to turn into miners.

If the situation had been a product of no regulation, this would have been the situation in many states in America, not just West Virginia.

Can you give an example in which without any government role, a private company or a group engaged in a business activity and made conditions worse for the workers than before leaving them with no chance to improve?

As far as damage to the environment goes, I have witnessed it all my life. Superfund sites, polluted air, polluted water, mass extinction of species, deforestation, and global warming.

Claims of an impending ecological disaster are being made since the 70s. None has come. None will most likely come in the near future.

And they worked for the Bush administration until they got caught. Now he works for Exxon

Point taken. However Exxon is not the only one which is saying global warming is false.

Also, although anthropological global warming is very controversial, even though half of the scientists believe its true doesn't mean they are right.
In the late 19th century, many physicists including people like Kelvin believed that physics was approaching its end. They were wrong.

 

[Burnsys]

Besides global warming sid_galt, i invite you to see (or swim if you have the balls..) some of the rivers of my country. They are BLACK, 100% polluted, and on it's shores, Shell, Esso (Exxon), Repsol YPF..

 

[loseyourname]

Claims of an impending ecological disaster are being made since the 70s. None has come. None will most likely come in the near future.

You know, sid, according to the World Hunger Organization, 40% of the world's population lives without access to clean water. As Burnsys points out, we've been dumping waste into rivers and lakes for over a century now at alarming rates. The California wetlands are gone, and when the Salton Sea goes, there will be no more feeding zones for all of the migratory birds that come through. We're practically going through a mass extinction as we speak. Asthma rates in places like Los Angeles and Houston are ridiculous. A good deal of lakes and rivers in eastern Canada can no longer support the fish that used to live in them because of acid rain. That combined with overfishing has decimated not only the aquatic ecosystems, but the human communities that relied on fishing. Maybe "disaster" isn't the right word for it; we have certainly seen no 'Day After Tomorrow' scenario and we aren't likely to, but it isn't like everything is hunky dory either.

 

[SOS2008]

The official 2004 poverty threshold is $19,311 for a family of four. Does anyone know the official definition of poverty? Just wondering.

 

[Anttech]

http://www.google.be/search?q=defin...ient=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

should be a start

 

[loseyourname]

The official 2004 poverty threshold is $19,311 for a family of four. Does anyone know the official definition of poverty? Just wondering.

I posted about it earlier in the thread. I don't have time for a full repost right now, but you can look for it. It's from the Census Bureau website. They use a formula devised in the 50s based on a USDA standard for how much food a family would need to take into keep from being malnourished. What they calculated to be the minimum income to buy this minimum amount of food, and still pay the bills and all, was called the poverty line. You can get the specifics and numbers and all from the Census website.

 

[SOS2008]

I posted about it earlier in the thread. I don't have time for a full repost right now, but you can look for it. It's from the Census Bureau website. They use a formula devised in the 50s based on a USDA standard for how much food a family would need to take into keep from being malnourished. What they calculated to be the minimum income to buy this minimum amount of food, and still pay the bills and all, was called the poverty line. You can get the specifics and numbers and all from the Census website.

Thank you -- it gets confusing what member posted where.

I think it would be hard to support a family of four on $19,311 even if you had no luxuries (though some things like a telephone are no longer considered a luxury), especially if you don't have medical benefits.

On August 30th the Census Bureau released new data on the income, poverty and health insurance coverage in the U.S. It found that 45.8 million people were uninsured in 2004, an increase of 800,000 people since 2003.

 

[loseyourname]

Thank you -- it gets confusing what member posted where.

I think it would be hard to support a family of four on $19,311 even if you had no luxuries (though some things like a telephone are no longer considered a luxury), especially if you don't have medical benefits.

On August 30th the Census Bureau released new data on the income, poverty and health insurance coverage in the U.S. It found that 45.8 million people were uninsured in 2004, an increase of 800,000 people since 2003.

There is somewhat of a weakness in the calculations. Food took up a much greater percentage of expenditures in the 50s than it does today. I think they figure that some people are undercounted, some are overcounted (for many other reasons) and it evens out somewhere to give somewhat of an accurate picture. Whether or not that is true, well, I don't know. Statistics can only get us so far.

 

[Burnsys]

1. If the company is not stealing other people's money from them, the govt. and the people have no right to steal the company's money from itself no matter how it is using its property.

2. No single company can create an energy crisis itself.

3. If a group of companies come together and decide to withhold all production if they are not offered higher prices (very unlikely), then they will likely lose money in the long term as
a) they will lose the trust of the public who will prefer other competitors
b) people will be forced to look for other energy sources - necessity is the mother of invention.
c) If they increase the price of oil too much, alternative energy sources e.g. solar cells will actually become cheaper than oil and people will start switching.
.

Just read "Creating an energy crisis to rise prices"

That was exactly what they did in my country 6 months ago.
We have 4 Foreing Oil corporations (Exxon, shell, Respol, Petrobras) who controls 90% of the oil market, They said we had an oil and gas crisis, they started to stop delivering gas to our industries, while at the same time they increased the exports (What crisis if they increase the export of gas??)... with the complicity of our corrupt government they decide to double the price of gas in the internal market, of course you can imagine with 50% of our population below poverty line, that would mean a LOT of people will simply won't be able to buy gas, those who can pay it, now has to pay it double.
Over here people obiusly don't trust any of this corporations, but what can we do? there is no one else to buy from.. And gas came to our houses the same way water does, you can't chose who you buy from.

While not many businessmen are ethical these days, I think greedy capitalists are quite nice. The more their greed, the more their desire for money, the more the growth of the economy.

What a narrow view, the only economy that grow is theyr personal economy, with money they take from the bulk of the population...

There is no credible scientific evidence that completely proves that we are heading towards an ecological disaster. Atleast not for another 100 years.

I invite you to swim in my city most important river, which is totaly poluted to the point it's pure black with no fishs and bubbles that emerge from the bottom (Literaly) which you can guess who are the mayor polutters. yes those same 4 foreing oil corporations...

 

[sid_galt]

That was exactly what they did in my country 6 months ago.
We have 4 Foreing Oil corporations (Exxon, shell, Respol, Petrobras) who controls 90% of the oil market, They said we had an oil and gas crisis, they started to stop delivering gas to our industries, while at the same time they increased the exports (What crisis if they increase the export of gas??)... with the complicity of our corrupt government they decide to double the price of gas in the internal market, of course you can imagine with 50% of our population below poverty line, that would mean a LOT of people will simply won't be able to buy gas, those who can pay it, now has to pay it double.
Over here people obiusly don't trust any of this corporations, but what can we do? there is no one else to buy from.. And gas came to our houses the same way water does, you can't chose who you buy from.

Burnsys,
it is difficult to come to a conclusion before examining the situation in detail.

For example, if you examine the history of the World War I superficially, you might as well come to the conclusion that the murder of the Archbishop was the main cause of WWI when that was not the case - it was only a spark.

If you just read what happened at the time of the great famine in Ireland, you'll come to the conclusion that capitalism was to blame for the poverty of the Irish when government intervention had a huge part.


In your situation too, unless one looks at the full details, one cannot answer the question.
For example,
Are there or were there restrictions on drilling for oil in Argentina? Did the government decide who was to and who was not to dig for oil in Argentina? If that's the case then it is the complicity of the government and the corporate which is to blame.
My argument only applied to an economy free from government intervention, because that is what I was debating with Skyhunter. If I implied otherwise, I apologize.

What a narrow view, the only economy that grow is theyr personal economy, with money they take from the bulk of the population...

You provide no reasoning for your argument.

1. Companies do not take money away from the public. They do not force the people to surrender their money to the company. If that were the case, then it would mean that we should have remained in the stone age as the net amount of money and prosperity was way lower then than now.
Companies MAKE money.

2. When companies make money, they invest it in new ventures, generating employement and improving the economy.

I invite you to swim in my city most important river, which is totaly poluted to the point it's pure black with no fishs and bubbles that emerge from the bottom (Literaly) which you can guess who are the mayor polutters. yes those same 4 foreing oil corporations...

What would you prefer?
A life without oil or a life without the scenic beauty of a river?

 

[Burnsys]

Burnsys,
it is difficult to come to a conclusion before examining the situation in detail.

For example, if you examine the history of the World War I superficially, you might as well come to the conclusion that the murder of the Archbishop was the main cause of WWI when that was not the case - it was only a spark.

If you just read what happened at the time of the great famine in Ireland, you'll come to the conclusion that capitalism was to blame for the poverty of the Irish when government intervention had a huge part.

In your situation too, unless one looks at the full details, one cannot answer the question.
For example,
Are there or were there restrictions on drilling for oil in Argentina? Did the government decide who was to and who was not to dig for oil in Argentina? If that's the case then it is the complicity of the government and the corporate which is to blame.
My argument only applied to an economy free from government intervention, because that is what I was debating with Skyhunter. If I implied otherwise, I apologize.

Well. the state oil company where privaticed by recomendation of the wb and the imf as one more step into a free market economy, we hadn't any "Provoqued Oil crisis" before that, Oil corporations has no limit from the government to came here and drill here or there, are the same 4 corporations the ones who limits other, they won't alow any new oil corporation to came into the market, becouse they are so powerfull they can buy any competitor, or they can even lower their prices lossing money for a moment just to destroy competitors.
And what yoy was arguing was: There is no way corporations could create an energy cirsis, i am telling you, they did it here...

What would you prefer?
A life without oil or a life without the scenic beauty of a river?

i would prefer a life first.

4.884.823 People live in it's shores. in a small town that is near the "Polo Petroquimico" the place where al this corporations has their refineries, was made an study:
They tested 200 small kids, 20% of them had more than 10 micrograms of lead per dc in their blood, also more than 140 migrograms of bencene in urine. and more than 1,5 micrograms of toluene.
More frecuent patologies are the respiratiories ones, Bronquitis, neumonia, and asma,
chromium and arsenic is found in the soil., etc etc.

 

[sid_galt]

Oil corporations has no limit from the government to came here and drill here or there, are the same 4 corporations the ones who limits other, they won't alow any new oil corporation to came into the market, becouse they are so powerfull they can buy any competitor, or they can even lower their prices lossing money for a moment just to destroy competitors.

Source? I highly doubt that any oil company has full freedom to go and drill in Argentina. Even in the freest economies in the world, a permit is required from the government.

Also could you provide a source for the oil crisis you mentioned above? It would help.

And what yoy was arguing was: There is no way corporations could create an energy cirsis, i am telling you, they did it here...

As I said before, due to the context of my discussion with Skyhunter, my commments applied only to a completely free market system which does not exist anywhere in the world.

i would prefer a life first.

4.884.823 People live in it's shores. in a small town that is near the "Polo Petroquimico" the place where al this corporations has their refineries, was made an study:
They tested 200 small kids, 20% of them had more than 10 micrograms of lead per dc in their blood, also more than 140 migrograms of bencene in urine. and more than 1,5 micrograms of toluene.
More frecuent patologies are the respiratiories ones, Bronquitis, neumonia, and asma,
chromium and arsenic is found in the soil., etc etc.

Fine. Companies can cause damage to human health. They should not be allowed to do that.

But a Day after Tomorrow crisis due to anthropological acitivity isn't coming anytime soon.

 

[sid_galt]

After reading a bit on the Argentine economic crisis, I don't blame any corporation for taking flight.

First the govt. pegged the value of the peso to the dollar.
It kept taking international loans and didn't decrease the spending.
Corruption was rampant.
The economy still had high degrees of regulations.

In an economy with govt. controls, a company will always be able to buy legislators to pass "favorable" laws restricting the freedom of other companies and will be able to create an energy crisis.


This is nothing like the scenario I am referring to - namely a completely free market economy. In such a system, a company will not be able to create an energy crisis.

 

[ron damon]

I don't think the current rate of poverty in the US has an explanation in economics.

The question would be: why does a coherent segment of the population choose not to avail themselves of opportunities for advancement that so many other diverse peoples (like illegal Latino immigrants), under much greater disadvantages, successfully exploit (to a greater degree)?

 

[Smurf]

What would you prefer?
A life without oil or a life without the scenic beauty of a river?

I'd prefer no oil. Why?

 

[Smurf]

I don't think the current rate of poverty in the US has an explanation in economics.

The question would be: why does a coherent segment of the population choose not to avail themselves of opportunities for advancement that so many other diverse peoples (like illegal Latino immigrants), under much greater disadvantages, successfully exploit (to a greater degree)?

Good question. What is your hypothesis?

 

[ron damon]

Good question. What is your hypothesis?

The answer to such a problem is the holy grail of sociology. I think I'll defer it for now

 

[Smurf]

The answer to such a problem is the holy grail of sociology.

Sure it is...

 

[MaxS]

I don't think the current rate of poverty in the US has an explanation in economics.

The question would be: why does a coherent segment of the population choose not to avail themselves of opportunities for advancement that so many other diverse peoples (like illegal Latino immigrants), under much greater disadvantages, successfully exploit (to a greater degree)?

Wow. And THIS is the fundamental ignornace of the conservative.

Do you really think that, given an opportunity to avail themselves, A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION WOULD CHOOSE TO LIVE IN POVERTY!?

Use some of those latent critical thinking skills, they've got to be somewhere under that blanket of propaganda.

 

[ron damon]

Use some of those latent critical thinking skills, they've got to be somewhere under that blanket of propaganda.

Look, you'll never get anywhere in any Science if you restrict yourself to what's palatable, or found "acceptable" in the time/place where you live.

Try to go beyond the propaganda/truth antinomy.

 

[MaxS]

Man, what the hell are you talking about.

People live in poverty because they don't have any other choice, not because the choose to do so. FFS!

 

[ron damon]

People live in poverty because they don't have any other choice, not because the choose to do so.

I'd be willing to bet my entire library (my most precious possession ) that the opposite is the case (with qualifications).

 

[MaxS]

This reply is going to be extremely sterile as I don't want to run the risk of being banned from these forums.

Suffice to say you are rather warped.

 

[Smurf]

I'd be willing to bet my entire library (my most precious possession ) that the opposite is the case (with qualifications).

Ron, if all the people in poverty were to get off their lazy butts tomorrow, go get jobs (let's assume there are some available) and start making lives for themselves. What do you think would happen? Would all impoverishment dissapear?

 

[ron damon]

Suffice to say you are rather warped.

that is true though

 

[ron damon]

Ron, if all the people in poverty were to get off their lazy butts tomorrow, go get jobs (let's assume there are some available) and start making lives for themselves. What do you think would happen? Would all impoverishment dissapear?

Oh boy, you expect me to solve the problem of economic change in a single post? What odds are you giving?

Let me just remark that wealth (in a broad sense) is not found, but created.

 

[Smurf]

Oh boy, you expect me to solve the problem of economic change in a single post? What odds are you giving?

No, i expect you to tell me what you think would happen if we hypothetically brainwashed everyone into working really really hard and assuming the most generous of circumstances (there are jobs available, they all have places to live, they all have skills and education, ect.). What would happen to proverty? Do you think it would merely cease to exist?