U.S. is Becoming an Underdeveloping Nation Part 2 - Democracy NOW!

[Aliothemage]

When we are interdependent we can't go to war with each other, it would hurt too much just to stop trading with each other.

Within 3 minutes this guy has completely eviscerated his own credibility. His opinion that humans are causing an increase in volcanic activity is just icing on the fruit cake.

If anything the guy gets even worse after this point (other than his volcanic comment).

[Aliothemage]

2:18 "Economists don't take into pollution and whatnot" If pollution is given a per unit tax/fine like economists have demanded for decades then it WOULD be accounted for. 2:28 "it's subsidized" Yep, that's a problem, he's right for once. But economists are NOT supporting subsidies, they hate subsidies. 3:00 "the economy is dehumanized" This is a GOOD thing because it allows even bitter enemies to peacefully cooperate through trade and it makes us interdependent on one another.

[Aliothemage]

3:50

Capitalism causes earth quakes and volcanoes....  *cough*wacko*cough*

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Is that all you caught up from these 2 video's totalling 20 minutes? Also he doesn't say that Capitalism causes this at all. He's merely saying that there are alot of things going wrong, economically but also in nature itself.

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens Nope, he said a lot of dumb stuff before that. This was just the first time i realized he was flat out nuts. Humans don't effect earth quakes, sorry but he's just too ridiculous to counter more seriously.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Shamefully humans are capable of effecting earth quakes.Just look into our mining history.There have been earthquakes through mining,or at least massive landslides.It's not all out of the blue

I do agree that it sounds a bit weird and totally unnecessary for him to say such a thing but that doesn't allow you to put aside all the other valid information he has said,which are true.A detail in a story do not make the entire story false.Esp.since earthquakes and economics are unrelated

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage And especially since i'm sure that you've got fucked up ideas about some subjects aswell ( everyone has fucked up ideas about things ). BUT does that make the things you actually know a lot about, be it cars, economics, politics or drugs, invalid? Or is that just unrelated information that you need to ignore? Since economics has nothing to do with cars, say someone says that cars can fly, does that make everything he says about economics untrue? Of course not.Learn to filter info;)

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens But it's not just that one comment... That was just the final one that made me give up on him.

0:20 He wants us to understand economics growth as an impossibility. 1:24 "Bring consumption closer to production", meaning he doesn't understand the benefits of comparative advantage and trade. 2:00 "Economists don't know how to calculate costs". The free market automatically accounts for all costs so long as no negative externalities occur. And nothing else can do a better job.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage He is right about the economic growth. It's impossible to have economic growth forever. The simple explanation for this is: Nature is finite, forever economic growth demand infinity.

He's right about economists being unable to calculate costs. For an example: They say that nuclear energy is the cheapest form of energy, this is false. It's the most expensive energy provider ever. It's HEAVILY subsidized and costs for cleaning up the mess isn't calculated in (Fukushima/Cherno)

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens

"Nature is finite, forever economic growth demand infinity"

But we can always accomplish more with less which does give us room for infinite growth. People have been predicting resource problems for centuries, this is just neo-malthusian nonsense that has been repeatedly proven wrong.

You're simply ignorant of economic calculations if you don't think economists take into account subsidies and clean up costs. That's ridiculous.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage They actually don't take in account these costs.... They've NEVER taken up the clean up costs of nucleair plant malfunctions into the cost prices of nucleair energy. Hence why it seems to be so cheap.

Nature is finite. Whom are you to disagree with one of nature's laws? There's only an X amount of coal, oil, land etc. EVEN if we can reduce the usage of oil to 0.0000000000000000000000000000­00000001% of what we use now, it's still not finite. It's merely postponing the end.

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens "They've NEVER taken up the clean up costs of nucleair plant malfunctions into the cost prices of nucleair energy."

Who? Economists? Of course they have. But they're not the ones running things...

"Nature is finite. Whom are you to disagree with one of nature's laws?"

First off, you're calling it finite. It isn't simply a natural law that it is finite. Nature is a pretty big place and quite possibly infinite. 2nd: It's clearly big enough to be PRACTICALLY infinite.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage It's not even close to practically infinite. Our country had a huge gas reserve. In a few years this has ran out. Meaning no more gas, no more gas incomes. Thus not infinite.

Things run out eventually, no matter how long it takes.

Nature is a pretty big place, but it takes millions of years to create oil. We're through our reserves within these millions of years, thus not infinite.

It (oil) won't be infitnite unless we can reduce our oil usage to that at which it regenerates.

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens "Our country had a huge gas reserve."

Actually the US is a net exporter of gasoline this year. So much for that theory.

Also, us running out of gasoline wouldn't mean anything. We will never run out of a world wide supply of gas for the same reason we've not run out of copper after mining it for millenia;prices will rise as it becomes more scarce. A certain PLACE might run out of it, but that doesn't matter in the least.

Also, I'm not saying there is an infinite amount of oil..

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Uhmmmm.... My country is The Netherlands. Not everyone lives in the USA. So don't assume that.

So the theory is still standing. Especially since the government and economists and Minister of Finance etc are planning on the "no gas left" thing.

You're not saying ther's infinity amount of oil? So you agree, that nature is not infinite? Same goes for coal, gas, copper etc. It's NOT infinite sir. 1 Place may run out of it, increasing preasure on the other places... Domino effect.

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens "Not everyone lives in the USA. So don't assume that."

You can assume I'm from the Netherlands too, it won't bother me, lol.

"So the theory is still standing."

No... I explained that it doesn't matter if some places don't have oil... it is the supply of the resource in the entire market that matters. No resource has EVER been run out of when it was possessed privately in the free market. Just name one, I challenge you.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage I know there have no resource ran out YET. Not am i saying any WILL run out any time soon.

As you say, the prices RISE of things that get scarce. Let's pick the example of OIL.

Name me ONE product that has nothing to do with oil.

Now, i think we all want to keep our society at the point it's now right? And NOT fall back into the stone ages?

What if oil runs scarce? What if it reaches 1000 dollar a barrel? That'd mean barely anybody could produce at that cost.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Meaning EVERYTHING and litelary EVERYTHING would be halded down to nill. It'd be the end of our civilization as we know it.

This is not a doomscenario, it's a mere fact. Since the free market corrects it's prices to scracity. It won't run out ( unless people are giving the oil away for free or below the market price, thus creating the "unbalanced demand/supply" thus running out ).

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens " EVERYTHING would be halded down to nill."

No... When energy or some other resource becomes more scarce and expensive it just makes it economically viable to find other forms of energy. Until we start running out of energy that we collect from the gravity wells of black holes we really have nothing to worry about. And by then I would not be surprised in the least if we really did reach perpetual motion or some such thing.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage "When energy or some other resource becomes more scarce and expensive it just makes it economically viable to find other forms of energy."

You would be right there IF Oil was merely for energy consumption. It's not. Oil is used in products themselves. Look at tires for example and there are many other products. So many infact, that our society IS dependant on oil. Hence another reason to go to renewable energies,so we at least buy ourselves more time to convert from oil to som.else

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens "You would be right there IF Oil was merely for energy consumption. It's not"

What does that change? There are substitutes for oil in that realm too... And as oil rises in price its substitutes become more attractive. It works the exact same way as it did with energy.

"how many more will starve if the oil decreases 50%"

None will. Not a single person. Just look at where starvation has occured in recent history. The USSR, China, and parts of Africa outside of the free market.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Yet since we all have a free market ( or at least most do right now ) are dependant on Oil. There will be people starving, since there will be no more shipping of Bottles of Ice tea from China to Canada and the production in canada won't be high enough to produce it theirselves ( in the short amount it has to create food before starvation starts ).

There will be people starving. Very easy example: Africa. We, with a free market, can't even feed people. Then what are we?

night.

[Aliothemage]

" Very easy example: Africa. We, with a free market, can't even feed people. Then what are we?"

Ohh nice one. So I guess that means that the 10s of millions who starved in the USSR and China did so due to the failure of the free market economy too, huh?

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage I'm not bothered with assuming i'm from the USA or Netherlands either. It's merely that you misunderstood what i said ( our gas reserves running out in the next decade ). Thus you assumed i ment the USA and giving a false comment to it. So the theory is in fact still standing.

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens "1 Place may run out of it, increasing preasure on the other places... Domino effect."

This sounds reasonable. In that case you should be able to point out where this has occurred in the free market with privately owned resources, right? Go ahead and do that for me Mr. Malthus. You can end the argument right there if you do so.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage See my previous comment on what happens if things happen in the way you say it will. Prices running up ( which it will indeed ). It'd mean the end of the civilized world as we know it ( which is not a doom scenario, but a direct effect of increasing prices ).

Therefore, free market is limited extremely by the finite availability of resources ( something you say it does not ).

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens

"EVEN if we can reduce the usage of oil to 0.0000000000000000000000000000­­00000001% of what we use now, it's still not finite. It's merely postponing the end."

But energy isn't just used up, first of all, it is just converted. The amount of energy in nature is static unless it is converted into matter or visa versa. In that way nature really is infinite.

Also, what practical point does this make? Capitalism SELF REGULATES limited resources! The scarcer they become they cost!

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage What you basicly said is: If i have 100 candies and i eat 10 a day, i could last 10 days. Buttt if i get innovative and only eat 1 a day, i can last till infinity.

Sorry sir but that idea is false.

So no, i'm not ignorant of economic calculations. I make them daily.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage If anything were to occur in our nucleair reactor in Brosele, Zeeland. Then our entire country could move. Only my province and 4 others would remain out of the 12 ( 1/5th of the population lives in the 5 provinces left. ). Meaning a massive move of 12 MILLION people.

So he has good points, besides, most companies are in fact moving towards his point of view. Since most companies are becoming more environmentally aware ( due to customer demands ).

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Therefore companies are more likely to buy/produce products closer at home than on the other side of the world. So apperantly he DOES have a good point if companies are actually moving in his environmental/costs that are not directly financial position.

Remember: Not everything can be put into € or $. That's what he is practicly saying. :)

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens "companies are more likely to buy/produce products closer at home than on the other side of the world."

You don't want that. You want them to buy the cheapest available to them with all costs accounted for. Some times this will be home grown stuff some times it will come from other parts of the world. This is exactly what economists want, they don't support subsidies or negative externalities.

"Not everything can be put into € or $"

Measuring in $ is the best we can manage...

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Yep we can only manage to measure in $ meaning that our economic system is not yet fully developed and therefore still has to develop itself. Right now we're seeing this "green" movement in companies. Including the buying closer to home trend. This will reduce a lot of costs and usage of transport, oil, etc etc.

Remember this important economic rule: NOT all growth is GOOD growth. Even tho a couple of economists think it is, more and more agree that it's not.

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens "we can only manage to measure in $ meaning that our economic system is not yet fully developed"

No... That is simply the best that can be done. Other methods have been tried such as in units of "utility", and in fact much of economics is based on that, but measuring things in dollars is simply much more practical and objective since utility and any other attempt to measure value is inherently subjective.

"NOT all growth is GOOD growth"

So? I'm arguing for the free market not growth

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Free market is great and all but it has it's limitations. Just like every system does. Nothing we've thought up has ever been perfect nor will it be ( there are always ways to improve it ). The current system we have is taking into account that everything is infinite, yet not everything is. One of the only things that is infinite is the money supply, since we can always print money ( since it's backed by air ).

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens "Free market is great and all but it has it's limitations."

Sure it does. But there is NO BETTER WAY. Every other system ever tried has much worse aspects. It's not perfect but its better than everything else. The current system is most definitely not assuming resources are infinite. Why do you think gas prices are rising? The free market automatically accounts for finite resource restraints.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Yes, yet it assumes it's infinite, since it will run out eventually, no matter how high the price. It's not being balanced to the replenishing rate.

Free market is how old? A few hundreds of years? Like 600 or so? Well it was invented at some point. Before this point we had other systems, out of which one was the best at it's time. Right now, it's the free market but that doesn't mean we will come up with a in the next hundreds of years. So there are better ways to be discovered.

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens "Yes, yet it assumes it's infinite, since it will run out eventually, no matter how high the price. It's not being balanced to the replenishing rate"

If I use up half of what is left of a non-replenishing resource every year I'll be taking more than the replenishing rate, right? And yet I'd never run out of that resource, would I? This destroys your reasoning, please address it.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage I've addresed this in the recent comments.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage And remember the definition of economics:

sparing, restrained, or efficient use, esp to achieve the maximum effect for the minimum effort

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens

Sometimes buying things from the other side of the planet IS the most efficient method... To know whether it is you don't need this guys nonsense, you just need the free market and a compensatory fine on negative externalities. That's it. The economists this guy rails against have known and said this for decades.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage So shipping a bottle of ice tea from China to say Canada ( supermarkets ) is more efficient than bottling it in canada and then shipping it to canada's supermarkets?

I'm not sure if you understand the definition of Efficiency.

More cost efficient perhaps if you mean that, since people in china will work for less an hour than canadians ( for an easy cost producer example i used labor ).

But in the big picture it's not since: It takes more gas. More labor. More boxing. More time.

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens "So shipping a bottle of ice tea from China to say Canada ( supermarkets ) is more efficient than bottling it in canada and then shipping it to canada's supermarkets?"

If no costs are externalized and its cheaper to do that that then yes. Comparative advantage can work wonders like that.

"I'm not sure if you understand the definition of Efficiency."

Seeing as how I just passed with the highest grade in my 6000 level economics course I'm pretty sure I've got a decent grip on things.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Really, since you're unable to see what Efficiency means. Besides, high grades can be achieved on low level schools aswell as high level schools. It doesn't say a lot. Then again, the same goes for me. We both study economics, yet have different opinions on economy. Isn't economics great? :)

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens

If you study economics than your teachers have failed you. Micro 101 knocks your argument to pieces. Let's do some Micro: What happens when supply decreases? Prices rise and quantity consumed falls. But quantity supplied NEVER hits 0. This is about as basic as it gets man.

" Efficiency is: To produce something at the least amount of sacrificed effort ( be it money or other products or time"

Not in economics...

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Even in economics it means that sir. Or at least, it should mean that, if you want to preserve civilization itself..

No, supplied may never reach 0. But even if the supplied oil decreases with 50% we'll live in a hell of a society. Since Oil gives us EVERYTHING. Everything around you is tied to oil, wether it's produced by oil or transported by oil. It doesn't matter. The world revolves around oil basicly.

[Aliothemage]

"it should mean that"

Says you? I understand why the economic meaning makes more sense when talking about problems of production and consumption. If you don't that's your problem. Go read up on your micro 101, it's in there.

"if the supplied oil decreases with 50% we'll live in a hell of a society"

No. We don't. We'll hardly even notice. As prices rise our use will decline, which will offset the price increases and automatically ease the transition.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Well i'm sorry that you live in a dream world where the Free Market is perfect. The disconnection is clearly there and i'm sorry that you're unable to see that. Micro 101 may be your bible, but as you know, religion is poison. Don't believe everything that's in a book. Try to think outside the box. At least, that's the way your bible was created in the first place. Since people thought outside the box of that day's economics. Don't be too religious.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage If you think we'll barely notice it if oil decrease by 50%, then i'm sorry. You've truly not been able to understand Economics itself or it's function in the world. When oil decreases 50%, there will be a HUGE demand for things. Driving up prices, of food, of anything you can imagine. This WILL create hell, since A LOT of people will run out of their needs. Such as food. Do you think we'll all keep on smiling if we don't have food? We've got 7 billion mouths to feed, yet we can't.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Let alone how many more will starve if the oil decreases 50%. Only the richest people will be able to buy things. Thankfully we are likely to be one of these people. However, this would put A LOT of people back into huge poverty/starvation and create massive unrest.

If you're unable to think in such ways. As in: What are the effects if X happens? Then you're not a true economist, or at least, not one that can think into the future. Merely one that can get short term results.

[Aliothemage]

"Then you're not a true economist, or at least, not one that can think into the future."

You're just making up nonsense scenarios that the free market doesn't allow to occur. Look up Malthus. You are IDENTICAL to him. He was wrong, history has proven you and him wrong. You can't even point to a single instance of what you are predicting actually occurring.

You have to let stuff like facts and history actually affect your beliefs if you want to deal with reality effectively.

[Aliothemage]

"Oil gives us EVERYTHING"

Who cares? There are tons of replacement fuels such as electricity for electric cars (Just this year a huge new battery innovation was discovered which is making these more viable right this moment) bio-gasoline, bio-butanol, hydrogen, cellulosic ethanol, bio-diesel, all of these are becoming more and more viable as gas prices rise and their prices fall.

Honestly, just look up Malthus. You're making his exact mistake. Learn from historic mistakes, humans can do that.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Yes, humans can do that. Hence why you need to learn from the mistakes of short sighted economics. We're in such a fase right now, where short sighted economics put us into a crises.

If something runs out, or is ran out in the way of it's demand, it will be a problem. Especially when it's a big chunk of society like food, oil etc. These things WILL cause problems.

Back then the world wasn't that reliant on specific resources. Therefore he might be wrong in his time but not this.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Bio-diesel isn't that much of a replacement either. Since we're already short on food. We can't feed every mouth in Africa. Unless you think this is normal?

Eitherway, i'm sorry, but i'm going to bad. I can't keep up all night trying to argue with a religious person claiming the world is flat. Since you're claiming the same ( but in economic terms ). In like 100 years + we'll see who's right. Shamefully we'll both be death by then.

Try not to be religious follower of bad economics

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Then in the $ terms, yet again, it is cheaper to do that yes. But not in the Human/Nature term. Then it's worse. Since the rawest definition of Efficiency is: To produce something at the least amount of sacrificed effort ( be it money or other products or time ).

Therefore, producing something in Canada and using it in Canada itself will always be more efficient than producing it in China and then using it in Canada

According to Efficiency that is

Money lives in a different world

[Aliothemage]

"In economics, the term economic efficiency refers to the use of resources so as to maximize the production of goods and services.An economic system is said to be more efficient than another (in relative terms) if it can provide more goods and services for society without using more resources. In absolute terms, a situation can be called economically efficient if:

No one can be made better off without making someone else worse off." (continuing)

[Aliothemage]

(continued)

"No additional output can be obtained without increasing the amount of inputs.

Production proceeds at the lowest possible per-unit cost."

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage I know about efficiency in economics. I've studied it myself for 6 years aswell you see. Don't have to grab your text book and write things i've read over a million times. XD

I know what efficiency means in economics and i know HOW far it's off from the real world efficiency.

Money and Modern Economics are 2 creatures that live far away from the actual realm of reality. Since both terms, money and efficiency mean and represent something totally different in the real world.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage That's where the lack of connection between those 2 realms occur ( that this guy was attempting, even tho maybe not very well, point out ).

Money in the real world would mean: Something that represents value.

In the monetary world it doesn't mean that. Since money does not represent anything of value. Money represents the people's faith in money, since money itself is not based upon anything of value ( proof me wrong if you like ).

[Aliothemage]

"Money represents the people's faith in money"

Not my problem, not economist's problem, not the free market's problem. It's the retarded government that made fiat currency, that has nothing to do with what I'm supporting.

"To produce something at the least amount of effort, time, costs or sacrifice"

But this definition is dumb because it repeats itself and confuses things. All of those things are INCLUDED in "costs". Your definition makes them seem like different things.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Economics Efficiency means: your quote "refers to the use......per-unit cost."

In real life it meant what i said: To produce something at the least amount of effort, time, costs or sacrifice of products or any other means.

THAT's the disconnection between reality and Modern Economics/Monetary System. That's where the Free Market comes at short.

Hopefully i've summed it up well enough for you to understand. :)

[Aliothemage]

"To produce something at the least amount of effort, time, costs or sacrifice of products or any other means"

All of those things, a person's time, effort, and other sacrifices are all accounted for in his pay in the free market because he would only do a job if he pay was more than what the job cost him. All of it really is translated into a monetary value.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage Yet the foundation of your religious shrine: Monetary value. Is based on quick sand. As soon as faith disappears, so does the society itself. There are enough examples of this.. One being the Weimar republic. It went down due to huge inflation, undermining everything your holy book stood for. The people went from wealthy to extremely poor within days.

So yes, you're holy book does have something to do with Fiat currency. Since it's foundings lay upon the value of money.

Good night

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens "But in the big picture it's not since: It takes more gas. More labor. More boxing. More time."

Those are parts of the cost. They are all accounted for by the free market. The only way to mess up the free market cost mechanism is by introducing externalized costs. And economists know how to deal with those to. In the case of pollution you put a per unit tax/fine on the pollution equal to something like the cost of that a unit of pollution. Economists have the answers.

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage But right now they're not applying this answer yet. Altho some are starting to, as i said. They're going more "green/environmental/self aware of it's area". Meaning they're going to produce things closer at home.

Right now free markets is rigged since it's not taking into account all the costs yet ( only the $ ones, like you're mentioning. But they're not looking at the other part of efficiency and that's the human/nature way, as i mentioned ).

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage I know that in $ counting it will be the most efficient way but it's not the most efficient way when counting in "humanity/nature".

Since it requires more oil ( and thus transport, refining, labor etc ).

Requires more ships, labor, steel

Damages the environment ( not just with C02 since that's only a tiny tiny minor damage ) but with other things that massively damage nature.

[Aliothemage]

@WGutjens " in $ counting it will be the most efficient way but it's not the most efficient way when counting in "humanity/nature"."

Actually it is because if you value somethign more for ANY reason, including for the sake of humanity or whatnot then you're willing to pay more for it. You can translate any human value into money. That's what money does; it represents value.

"Damages the environment"

That's a cost. How do we weigh it against other things if not by measuring it in money?

[WGutjens]

@Aliothemage I've tried my best explaning it to you. Shamefully you're unable to understand it. Thankfully more and more economists are starting to understand what Efficiency means and are starting to think about what Economy really means.

Right now we're not living in an economy. We're living in consumptionism. It's something entirely different.

[nalkar2]

I love the way he put the difference between growth and develop. This professor is really make sence . thank you for the video.

[hexnyc]

LIFE

[MadCoins]

What brilliance! Support and donate to Democracy Now! This is one of the only places left you can still hear such an overload of truth.

[nota2cdtime]

3:30 We're finished. We've been drinking Kool-Aid by celebrating every holiday for the past 60+ years.

[buddcinder]

The amount of events has lessened throughout history. We just have better detection instruments, and mass media.

[DHMIII]

Please don't ever stop posting ThisBoyTV!! Thank you

[ThisBoyTV]

@DHMIII

passing on the message :)

Thank You

[nalkar2]

I respect a person who says does not know when is that the case.