America - The Official Thread

[Diego440]

Before going forward, and just to clear the issue, I have to go back on some things

last time he visited [Venezuela], he says the social changes are making it hard for the rich and a bit better for the poor people. still, he [Chavez]does some things right, ...

Some things right... When Chavez came into power (1999) minimum wage was around $500/month, in 2004 it was less than $100. Of course, it has been better for poor people because in 1999 the country had about 60% poor people, in 2004 that percentage was above 87%. Unemployment in 1999 was less than 10%, in 2004 it was above 30%, but about 60% of the workforce was in "informal" employment, which basically means selling pirated software/music/games on the street or cheap clothing; which would mean that 90% of the workforce doesn't have a formal job... that would make it a 90% unemployment. And as a last point, until 2003 the most dangerous place on earth were the favelas of Sao Paolo... in 2004 it was Petare (a poor area in Caracas).

The war in Iraq has lasted for too long, and the death toll for it is around 2,000 US deaths. Every weekend there are 150 violent deaths in Caracas alone. During a week there are close to 600, which would make any given month deadlier than the whole Iraqi war...

i used him, because the mainstream of the media sees him as a dictator,

Is he not?

A great country is achieved by strengthening the weak, not by weakening the strong. If you make everyone poor, and everyone's the same, you have a communist system. 👎

 

[Joey D]

The media is very liberal, the only conservative channel I know of is Fox News, everything thing else is more to the left I think. I mean look at all the shows on TV today, most of them poke fun at Bush in some way. Frankly I find Bush jokes played out and not funny any more. I was too young to care about Clinton jokes but I'm sure I would have gotten sick of them too.

News flash, I don't watch SNL to watch them make fun of the president because I don't find it funny. Sure there are some jokes about Bush I do laugh about, but they are getting old.

 

[fasj6418]

And as a last point, until 2003 the most dangerous place on earth were the favelas of Sao Paolo... in 2004 it was Petare (a poor area in Caracas).

The war in Iraq has lasted for too long, and the death toll for it is around 2,000 US deaths. Every weekend there are 150 violent deaths in Caracas alone. During a week there are close to 600, which would make any given month deadlier than the whole Iraqi war...

oh yes, that is true... são paulo is more dangerous than iraq... really a mess there and we have favelas in all major cities, like rio de janeiro and salvador...

its being tough on south america this past...

500 years???

yes, i´m afraid... blame portugal and spain... (but i don´t know if you can pinpoint someone like that...)

that´s what they do around here...
and also, the US gets a lot of that blame because of the system... strange thing is, even fot capitalists haters (or those who say that someday capitalism will end) they say we have to find a different system... but nobody knows what´s next...

 

[Diego440]

Capitalism rules 👍 If you work hard, you can have better things. If you don't, then you suffer the consequences...

 

[livemusic]

Capitalism rules 👍 If you work hard, you can have better things. If you don't, then you suffer the consequences...

But sometimes it doesn't work like that, specially here.

 

[Joey D]

Capitalism rules 👍 If you work hard, you can have better things. If you don't, then you suffer the consequences...

I wish the US was pure capialist, but I don't see that ever happening. But I argee I think the whole bases for capitalism is good.

 

[Diego440]

But sometimes it doesn't work like that, specially here.

exreme poverty, specially in third world countries as Brazil and Venezuela (just an example, since you're from Brazil and I'm from Venezuela), is the consequence of the downside of capitalism... as is extreme richness

 

[Zardoz]

...they say we have to find a different system... but nobody knows what´s next...

All of us, without exception, will have to adopt some sort of new system in the future.

The capitalism which has worked well for us so far can not be sustained. We pretend that we live in an infinitely-exploitable world, with infiniite resources, which allow infinite economic growth. We all know we've been kidding ourselves, but now we will soon have to face reality.

Perhaps very soon, as the world supply of oil may be starting to run short much sooner than we had thought it would.

You're correct about nobody knowing what's next. That's the most troubling thing about it. It seems that we will have to develop some sort of no-growth, constant-level capitalism, but how we would actually make that work is a difficult question...

 

[FoolKiller]

The media is not liberal... It's conservative.

You have to be joking!

If not could you please back that up?

Let me back up my belief:

Pew Research: Values and Media
How the Media Vote
Journalist's Political Views
How the Public Views the Media
Admissions and Denials of Liberal Bias

 

[Danoff]

The capitalism which has worked well for us so far can not be sustained. We pretend that we live in an infinitely-exploitable world, with infiniite resources, which allow infinite economic growth. We all know we've been kidding ourselves, but now we will soon have to face reality.

Capitalism is the best answer to a world of finite resources, it would not work as well in a world of infinite resources.

 

[Swift]

Capitalism is the best answer to a world of finite resources, it would not work as well in a world of infinite resources.

That makes sense, because capitalism is driven by supply and demand. If we have infinite resources, then where's the "demand"?

 

[Danoff]

That makes sense, because capitalism is driven by supply and demand. If we have infinite resources, then where's the "demand"?

That's right.

(just to reinforce what Swift said)

If you consider a world where the only thing people buy is firewood, and there are a finite number of trees. Capitalism works to conserve that resource by increasing the prices - so that only those who want the firewood really really badly get it. Capitalism rewards the landowner for his trees (investment) AND his work in that instance and rations the consumption through increasing prices as supply falls off.

With an infinite amount of trees there is no rationing, there is little price fluctuation, there is no conservation, and the landowner is rewarded only for his work - which is the best possible scenario in that instance - but the real beauty of capitalism isn't used.

If you consider New Orleans shortly after hurricane Katrina hit, there was a huge demand for drinking water and little supply. When capitalism is allowed the drinking water price skyrockets, ensuring that only those who are willing to pay dearly get the water. This does two things, it makes sure that the ones who need the water most desperately are the ones that get it, and it prevents the water supply from running out (because the price keeps going up as the supply dwindles).

If, in the aftermath of Katrina, we pretended that water was NOT a scarce resource by preventing prices from reflecting the supply (which is what we did - by putting suppliers in jail if they raised prices), then the supply runs out.

Imagine you go to the store after a hurricane looking for drinking water and you find that the water is still 75 cents a gallon!! You're going to buy as much as you can carry! Then when someone who is on death's door and needs drinking water super badly comes along - no amount of money in the world can buy the water, because it's gone - stockpiled or consumed.


(the rest of this post is a tangent)

The issue in most people's minds is when the price of a "basic necessity" goes above the level of some people's capability. If water costs 20 dollars/gallon and you find some destitute homeless, totally broke person who doesn't have 20 dollars to his name... he cannot purchase any water at all. In many people's minds this is an injustice because they feel that everyone is entitled to have water supplied to them. My position on that is this, if you're going to allow yourself to be completely without purchasing power you're relying one of two things: your physical ability, and the charity of others. That's fine, if you can find a way to provide water to yourself (by boiling or distilling) or find someone who is willing to give you the water for free, good job. If those fail, then the person must go without. If the person chooses to rely on force to obtain water immorally - then a crime against society has been commited (specifically, someone's property rights have been violated) and those invovled should be removed from society.

 

[Swift]

That's right.

(just to reinforce what Swift said)


If, in the aftermath of Katrina, we pretended that water was NOT a scarce resource by preventing prices from reflecting the supply (which is what we did - by putting suppliers in jail if they raised prices), then the supply runs out.

Imagine you go to the store after a hurricane looking for drinking water and you find that the water is still 75 cents a gallon!! You're going to buy as much as you can carry! Then when someone who is on death's door and needs drinking water super badly comes along - no amount of money in the world can buy the water, because it's gone - stockpiled or consumed.

And the worst part is, they did the OPPOSITE with the gas prices. They raised gas prices just BECAUSE. There was no need for the 1.50$ average raise in gas per gallon except the oil companies used the hurricane as an excuse.

But a quick not about the water in a hurricane situation. I think there should be a cap on it, but the prices should go up(to the average you would pay at any professional sporting event) to do what Danoff said, conserve so that everyone can get some instead of the first come getting all.

 

[Danoff]

And the worst part is, they did the OPPOSITE with the gas prices. They raised gas prices just BECAUSE. There was no need for the 1.50$ average raise in gas per gallon except the oil companies used the hurricane as an excuse.

The answer to that ones is that they raised prices "because they can". Basically the demand for gasoline doesn't respond quickly, so they felt that if they raised the price for a while and then lowered it again the market would not respond... and that's a judgement call for every person who purchases a car. They know ahead of time that the price of gas can fluctuate and have to decide how much that extra fuel efficiency is worth. I think it may have backfired on the oil industry because a lot of Americans woke up to the possibility of high gas prices during Katrina - which is why Toyota had a run on the Prius.

But a quick not about the water in a hurricane situation. I think there should be a cap on it, but the prices should go up(to the average you would pay at any professional sporting event) to do what Danoff said, conserve so that everyone can get some instead of the first come getting all.

By placing a cap on prices you're saying that the market can adjust to changes in supply and demand to a point. But after that point the market is unable to adjust. I don't see why that is better than allowing the market to adjust at all points. A cap simply means that if the supply gets really low, or the demand gets really high, or both, then the supply will be drained and nobody will be able to purchase no matter how badly they need it.

 

[Zardoz]

If you consider New Orleans shortly after hurricane Katrina hit, there was a huge demand for drinking water and little supply. When capitalism is allowed the drinking water price skyrockets, ensuring that only those who are willing to pay dearly get the water. This does two things, it makes sure that the ones who need the water most desperately are the ones that get it, and it prevents the water supply from running out (because the price keeps going up as the supply dwindles).

If, in the aftermath of Katrina, we pretended that water was NOT a scarce resource by preventing prices from reflecting the supply (which is what we did - by putting suppliers in jail if they raised prices), then the supply runs out.

Imagine you go to the store after a hurricane looking for drinking water and you find that the water is still 75 cents a gallon!! You're going to buy as much as you can carry! Then when someone who is on death's door and needs drinking water super badly comes along - no amount of money in the world can buy the water, because it's gone - stockpiled or consumed.


(the rest of this post is a tangent)

The issue in most people's minds is when the price of a "basic necessity" goes above the level of some people's capability. If water costs 20 dollars/gallon and you find some destitute homeless, totally broke person who doesn't have 20 dollars to his name... he cannot purchase any water at all. In many people's minds this is an injustice because they feel that everyone is entitled to have water supplied to them. My position on that is this, if you're going to allow yourself to be completely without purchasing power you're relying one of two things: your physical ability, and the charity of others. That's fine, if you can find a way to provide water to yourself (by boiling or distilling) or find someone who is willing to give you the water for free, good job. If those fail, then the person must go without. If the person chooses to rely on force to obtain water immorally - then a crime against society has been commited (specifically, someone's property rights have been violated) and those invovled should be removed from society.

Yes, of course. That most basic necessity of life, water, should be controlled by the "market" for it after a natural disaster grinds through, disrupting or destroying all the normal systems that have been set up to supply it to a large urban population.

Many thousands of people escaped death with nothing but the clothes they were wearing, but that's just too damned bad, isn't it? It is, after all, their fault for living below sea level, isn't it? They condemned themselves to death by dehydration when they made the conscious decision to trust the levees and seawalls, didn't they? They should have started walking for higher ground, pulling carts full of drinking water bottles, right through the hurricane, dodging flying debris, and gotten out of the Ninth Ward on foot.

You're right. Those people that were washed out of their homes by the onrushing flood and slogged through chest-deep water to the Superdome without so much as a wallet or purse should have simply accepted death and died right there on the spot from lack of fluids, in full view of the camera crews.

They had no right to the water that was brought in for them. They were immoral, low-life scum, and the police should have removed them from society with automatic weapons fire for not believing in the holy sanctity of the free market, and having the nerve to demand water.

Excellent example, danoff. It all makes such exquisite sense.

 

[Danoff]

Yes, of course. That most basic necessity of life, water, should be controlled by the "market" for it after a natural disaster grinds through, disrupting or destroying all the normal systems that have been set up to supply it to a large urban population.

Of course.

Many thousands of people escaped death with nothing but the clothes they were wearing, but that's just too damned bad, isn't it?

Most of the people invovled kept some cash on them and had drinking water ready in case of an emergency. But if they did escape with absolutely nothing left - then they had to rely on the charity pouring forth from every corner of the country.

It is, after all, their fault for living below sea level, isn't it?

They do have to take responsibility for that, and take responsibility for their well-being. I can tell you for certain that if I had lived in NO I would NOT have needed any of the charity that many of the people got. It was not an insurmountable task for those people to care for themsevles and their family. I personally have family that lived in NO prior to the hurricane - and they did not need to rely on government or charity to provide for themselves.

They condemned themselves to death by dehydration when they made the conscious decision to trust the levees and seawalls, didn't they?

Certainly not - though it was a bad decision to trust the levees and seawalls, especially in light of the fact that the people who built them were telling everyone to get the hell out of there. I think I'd have listened to them.

They should have started walking for higher ground, pulling carts full of drinking water bottles, right through the hurricane, dodging flying debris, and gotten out of the Ninth Ward on foot.

They should have left (on foot if need be) days before the hurricane arrived.

You're right. Those people that were washed out of their homes by the onrushing flood and slogged through chest-deep water to the Superdome without so much as a wallet or purse should have simply accepted death and died right there on the spot from lack of fluids, in full view of the camera crews.

I never said they should have died. I said that if they didn't keep emergency money or supplies with them then they needed to rely on their own physical ability or charity - which is what they did. Re-read my quote below.

That's fine, if you can find a way to provide water to yourself (by boiling or distilling) or find someone who is willing to give you the water for free, good job.

They had no right to the water that was brought in for them.

No, they had no right to the water that was brought in to them. Not until it was freely given to them by those who donated it. They did not have a RIGHT to water that belonged to others. They did have a right to that water once it was donated by charitable people.

They were immoral, low-life scum, and the police should have removed them from society with automatic weapons fire for not believing in the holy sanctity of the free market, and having the nerve to demand water.

If they attacked others to steal water or food then they are criminals and should be removed from society (after being given a fair trial).

 

[a6m5]

I think there should be a cap on it, but the prices should go up(to the average you would pay at any professional sporting event) to do what Danoff said, conserve so that everyone can get some instead of the first come getting all.

This makes sense to me. 20oz water bottle selling for $100 just because of the demand is what I call out of control. Either Swift's idea or maybe a limit on how much water one person can buy?

 

[Danoff]

This makes sense to me. 20oz water bottle selling for $100 just because of the demand is what I call out of control. Either Swift's idea or maybe a limit on how much water one person can buy?

What if there isn't enough water for everyone to buy some? What if one person needs more water than another person. What if some people provided water for themselves and didn't need to buy any while others were in desperate need.

Prices are the only way to sort that out. Price controls work against rationing efforts.

If 20oz of water is selling for $100, only the people who REALLY want it are going to buy it. But if nobody has $100 on them then the price won't go that high.

Here's an excellent article about this very issue:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/JohnStossel/2005/09/07/155361.html

 

[Zardoz]

Yes, of course. That most basic necessity of life, water, should be controlled by the "market" for it after a natural disaster grinds through, disrupting or destroying all the normal systems that have been set up to supply it to a large urban population.

Of course.

So the "market", even in its most Darwinian viciousness, should determine every aspect of life, no matter what the circumstance?

Katrina-sized natural disaster or not, it's every man for himself, devil take the hindmost, survival of the fittest, put up or shut up, money talks and bull***t walks, and "natural" selection determines who survives and who dies of thirst?

 

[Danoff]

So the "market", even in its most Darwinian viciousness, should determine every aspect of life, no matter what the circumstance?

Katrina-sized natural disaster or not, it's every man for himself, devil take the hindmost, survival of the fittest, put up or shut up, money talks and bull***t walks, and "natural" selection determines who survives and who dies of thirst?

I'd suggest that you read that article. It explains quite clearly how the market works quite well in disaster cases.

 

[FoolKiller]

So the "market", even in its most Darwinian viciousness, should determine every aspect of life, no matter what the circumstance?

Katrina-sized natural disaster or not, it's every man for himself, devil take the hindmost, survival of the fittest, put up or shut up, money talks and bull***t walks, and "natural" selection determines who survives and who dies of thirst?

Capitalism does make room for charitable donations, which Danoff did cover. He never once said that the Red Cross shouldn't have been there at all.

However, it does not make room for anyone under any circumstance to take my water without asking, even if I don't need it.

Without raising prices in an emergency the first guy to show up with a wad of cash will buy all the water whether he needs it or not and everyone who is desperate will still have no water.

 

[Zardoz]

I'd suggest that you read that article. It explains quite clearly how the market works quite well in disaster cases.

I did. Stossel makes the same mistake you did. You ignore the fact that the natural disaster stripped thousands of people of everything. At most, some only had a few bucks on them. You and Stossel condemn them to death at the hands of the "market". You leave them with no choice but to take water by force. The only other option is death. You and Stossel would turn Louisiana into Somalia.

This is not a good example to use. Its a special condition, and normal concepts of how the market works are not applicable.

 

[Danoff]

I did. Stossel makes the same mistake you did. You ignore the fact that the natural disaster stripped thousands of people of everything. At most, some only had a few bucks on them. You and Stossel condemn them to death at the hands of the "market". You leave them with no choice but to take water by force. The only other option is death.

Another option is charity - which there was plenty of.

Fixing prices only REDUCES the number of people who will be able to purchase water. Fixing prices INCREASES death.

Here's the simple version:

Price Fixing = Death
Free Market = Less Death.

 

[Joey D]

But what I don't understand about the whole Katrina thing is why they aren't back trying to fix things? They want the government to support them. I'm sorry, I feel bad for you and everything but I want my tax dollars to go to something other then putting people up in hotel rooms for months at a time.

 

[Diego440]

Apprently we're getting into ethical issues of right and wrong here... anyway, that's why donations exist during these cataclysms, so that people can survive and not have to steal/loot. If help/aid doens't get there, it's whoever is in charge of getting it there's fault. If your life is on the line, then we getinto the pre-mentioned right and wrong concept.

 

[Zardoz]

But what I don't understand about the whole Katrina thing is why they aren't back trying to fix things? They want the government to support them. I'm sorry, I feel bad for you and everything but I want my tax dollars to go to something other then putting people up in hotel rooms for months at a time.

Because "things" can't be "fixed". Vast areas of New Orleans will be uninhabitable for the foreseeable future. I've read many stories of people returning, seeing the reality of the situation, and leaving for good. That's why the mayor is publicly begging for people to return. Most are seeing that there is nothing to return to, and have opted to try to start over somewhere else, as difficult as that may be.

Hard as it is to grasp, our awareness of the scope and magnitude of the disaster only increases with time.

 

[Joey D]

But I'm sick of paying for them, if they don't have insurence to pay for their homes then that isn't my problem. My tax dollars should go to more useful things.

 

[Zardoz]

But I'm sick of paying for them, if they don't have insurence to pay for their homes then that isn't my problem. My tax dollars should go to more useful things.

We'll pay to house them for a while until they get on their feet, somewhere, or we'll pay many times more to house them in prisons after we jail them for going out and taking what they need to survive.

They've lost everything, including their places of employment. Katrina destroyed 450,000 jobs. We either keep them alive until they can rebuild their lives, or huge portions of the country disintegrate into something out of a Mad Max movie.

Do you think all those people will just sit quietly and starve to death, and watch their children die? No, they'll do exactly what you and I would do.

Our tax dollars will be used to feed and house them, or it will be needed to supply us with ammunition to hold them off.

Its called "civilization". Your tax dollars at work. Without this system, we really do end up in a Mad Max/Somalia scenario.

 

[Danoff]

We'll pay to house them for a while until they get on their feet, somewhere, or we'll pay many times more to house them in prisons after we jail them for going out and taking what they need to survive.

They've had long enough. My family members who were displaced by Katrina moved on without ever needing to resort to government or charitable assistance. Surely those who got the assistance have had ample time to start new.

 

[Joey D]

They've had long enough. My family members who were displaced by Katrina moved on without ever needing to resort to government or charitable assistance. Surely those who got the assistance have had ample time to start new.

Agreed, I mean what it's been since August or something? Hell I know I would have gotten off my ass and fixed things.