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

Democracy NOW! - DN! -While President Obama is reporting looking into tapping a former corporate executive to become his next top economic adviser, many economists question the path the United States is on. We speak to the acclaimed Chilean economist Manfred Max-Neef. He won the Right Livelihood Award in 1983, two years after the publication of his book "Outside Looking In: Experiences in Barefoot Economics." Published with written permission from democracynow.org. http://www.democracynow.org Provided to you under Democracy NOW creative commons license. Copyright for this news broadcast belongs to democracynow.org, an independent non-profit user funded news media, recognized and broadcast world wide.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Democracy NOW
• DN
• news
• politics
• Goodman
• Manfred Max-Neef
• economics
• activism
• global
• America
• Canada
• UK
• EU
• non-profit
• media
• ThisBoyTV

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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 "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 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

[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 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.

[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 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.