Poverty in the richest country in the World.

reply to post by West Coast

---

Well the EU has more PPP, with OVER 14 trillion, USA comes under that.

Again, the USA is not the richest country in the world. We all know that Somalia is poorer than the USA that was the point – did you miss that?

A lot of people would argue that USA is not the most powerful country in the world, just look around on ATS. I won't, as I know it’s currently the most powerful country in the world, so I don’t know what their arguments are against it.

Did I say China? No.

Mikey

Yes, however, the EU is not a nation, but rather a continent. For a fairer comparison, look at the combined GDP of all NAFTA nations, compared to the EU 27.... NAFTA would be one trillion dollars larger.



Only in the meaningless per capita terms... However, given Luxembourg's size stature, that stat is unremarkable...



Yes, I am well aware of the biased, ill-informed, anti-american opinions that flood this site. Sad for them, their arguments don't hold much water...



So, why bring up something that is so irrelevant to the discussion?



china is the popular choice amongst the ill-informed.

Luxembourg GDP (PPP) per capita - $81,511

United States GDP (PPP) per capita - $43,444

Remember, we are working on “Per Capita” otherwise it’s fruitless and that’s when the “Somalia” example comes into play.

If you want to work on total instead of per capita, then fine, USA comes in first (second if you count the EU), but then if you want to work on totals, lets look at poverty.

USA total people in poverty (2006): 36.5 million

Somalia total people in poverty (2006): 8.5 Million

So, if you wanted to go on “total” which country is poorer? See it doesn’t work, that’s why again, the financial status of a country goes on Per Capita.


So, want to explain to me how you think $43,444 is higher than $81,511?

As for China, its success on the global scale will be short lived.


Mikey


US Poverty
Soma lia Poverty

[edit on 28/3/2008 by Mikey84]

You make some good points, and this is fundamental flaw with capitalism; Capitalists cannot put limits on gaining capital. The capitalist has himself trapped in a never ending need to create more capital. He cannot remove himself from that constant desire to gain capital, above all else, or he fails. They have to be constantly feeding the market for consumers to consume, and if a market dries up a new one has to replace it. As soon as capitalism fails to grow it dies. So what ends will capitalists go to to maintain their creation of capital? 9-11? War? War has always been used when the capital stops growing...And the US particularly have been relying on war for capital since WWII.

Answer is, there can not be limits to capitalism; and that's the problem.

reply to post by ANOK

---

I wanted to find out if the particular individual who calls himself bloodthirstycapitalist had personal limitations, but he has not been around. For example, would he accept payment to troll a message board defending a certain POV for his master??

[edit on 28-3-2008 by Pilot]

reply to post by Pilot

---

LOL yeah I hear ya!

To be honest I just used your post as an excuse to get some more anti-capitalist propaganda out to our lovely ATS members... They deserve to know the truth!

Please don't feel used though mate, my intentions are good and motivated only by love...

The vast majority of Somalia's population is in poverty... So, why do you insist on sticking with such a flawed example?



You cant have it both ways!

I am not going to continue repeating myself.



Somalia's population is just barely 9 million...

Americas poverty rate measured at a percentage is 12.3%, which is as low as it was in 1974. So, it is not as though the nation is getting poorer, or that the nation is poor in general.




Luxembourg is a "nation" that is the size of some small sized US city's.

Again, a country's financial status is measured in PPP terms (how much a nation is able to buy).

While Americas PPP equals about 25% of the worlds GDP PPP, Luxembourg's PPP doesn't even equal a full percentage in those same regards.



Its not, however, if we were to properly make a comparison, a US city, with similar size in population, compared with Luxembourg, it becomes a rather unremarkable "stat."



I agree, China relies to heavily on exports to the EU and US economy's. Its future growth is unsustainable, and will eventually tail off, and in the near future, will suffer from a slower, protracted growth rate not much higher then Americas.

reply to post by ANOK

---

No worries, it's a good discussion and I wish people would realize no one is above the fray, if big pharma pushes deregulation and the result is a batch of flawed, potentially deadly narcotics into the market, poor or rich could get dead. The food and drug administration is owned by big pharma. Everybody knows that, but hey, if it drives up profit-IT"S GOOD!! If a recall of known flawed drugs hit the market, accountants would determine if it would be more fiscally responsible to recall, or pay the piper after a class action lawsuit. If you ain't in the club, you are a "disposable container."

Ask and ye shall receive.

I don't actually troll this message board for any other reason than it provides some entertainment now and again. The POV that I defend happens to be my own, although it may coincide with a similar perspective held by others. Also, what benefit would I reap from defending my POV from people on ATS? Its just my opinion that I support, and enjoy doing so with the fine people found here.



I would disagree. In the past 20 years or so there has been a huge shift in the corporate culture of being a socially responsible company. Many companies have embraced the idea of being more active within their communities (some for the warm&fuzzy's such acts inspire, othes because its been shown to improve the reputation of a company, and can make doing business easier), while others believe that a corporation's social obligations go so far as to obey the law, and no further. Honestly, most companies fall somewhere in-between. Look at companies like BP, which is investing Billions into alternative fuel research. Are they doing it to be more environmentally friendly? Sure. Are they also doing it to try to capture the greatest marketshare of an emerging market, and technology? Absolutely. When both can be done in harmony, helping the community and serving your shareholders, its an ideal situation.

As for corporations existing just to make profits, I would say that's rather obvious if its a "for-profit" company (as opposed to a non-profit). There's nothing wrong with that, as profit seeking companies employ millions of people, create massive amounts of wealth, and produce many of the things essential to modern living. Just because they earn a profit doesn't make them evil.



Its difficult to argue a subjective point. From your perspective, the consolidation of media outlets has been detrimental, but others might disagree. As it stands now, Clear Channel communications owns 1200 radio stations across the nation, clearly the dominant company in the industry; small, local owned stations are nearly extinct. Does anyone care, though? If the consolidated outlets offer a better product, and enjoy economies of scale, thereby reducing their operating costs and becoming more efficient, that is a net gain for the economy. As to whether such a thing is a benefit to society, its difficult to say. Its really just an opinion question, and IMHO I would say no. Society benefits from hearing from many perspectives, not just a few. Thankfully, more people are also looking to the internet for their news, so the concentration is becoming more diluted.

My limit when it comes to the Alimighty Dollar differs from issue to issue. I'm entirely opposed to the forced corporate philanthropy that many seem to support today because corporations are businesses, not charities. They receive their revenue from society, certainly, but society willingly buys their goods/services. Corporations provide jobs, opportunities (my company paid for my MBA), and numerous other benefits to the many people they employ, why should we now look to them to feed the hungry, house the poor and clean up society's ills? To do so is a disservice to the owners of the company (shareholders).

Honestly, I would tend to agree with Mr. Milton Friedman when he stated:
"...there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."

When this perspective can be aligned with doing business in a way that benefits societs (as in the BP example), you have the best of both worlds.

reply to post by BloodthirstyCapitalist

---

Maybe clear channel isn't the best example for your argument...

www.latimes.com...

If big business operated in a True free market, then your pov would have some validity, but this is obviously not the case. When the gummint and big business get chummy to the point that they have; e.g. rollback of antitrust law, deregulation, cronyism, etc. etc. then what you have is not free market capitalism-that is an ideal that never quite came into being...like true democracy.

You have corporatism, which some call fascism.

When the likes of BP do their earth friendly schtick, it's just another marketing ploy, they want to stay at the top of the curve, it was smart, but hardly inspired by concern for the planet. IMO.

I'm familiar with the coming collapse of the CC deal, but the company provides an interesting case study vis-a-vis media consolidation. Many people don't realize how consolidated the radio industry is, far more so than tv, but few people actually care about it. As an aside, the major reason why the CC LBO is going under is rather tenuous state of the credit market in the US. Had this same deal been brokered before last summer, I highly doubt it would have had any trouble at all. Meh, a sign of the times.



The govt has a tendency to over-regulate, IMHO. By scaling back some of the more draconian rules that were enacted in decades past, businesses can operate with greater degrees of efficiency, cut down on transaction costs, and realize greater gains for their shareholders. Increased revenue for businesses will lead to increased revenue for the govt in the form of tax revenue. Companies can also choose to reinvest their additional gains, thereby growing their company, and hiring more people. If you want American companies to remain at the top of the Global Marketplace, as free a market as possible must be present. Feel free to saddle down American enterprises with bureaucratic nonsense, government regulations, and anti-business legislation and watch the jobs and opportunities evaporate.

As for anti-trust laws, the number of industries that are actually in danger of becoming monopolized are few and far between. Sometimes there are natural monopolies, such as local energy producers, but even these are for the benefit of the consumer. To argue that if we don't wall up markets with anti-trust laws the entire country will be dominated by either Wal-Mart of ExxonMobil is completely out of touch with reality.



Ah, because everyone in the US has to be convinced to buy gasoline, right? Or perhaps investors won't want to park their money with fuel companies at present?

BP is actively trying to be as socially responsible a company as it can be. They are investing billions in R&D for cleaner fuels. Its what consumers want, and realize it or not, but the wants of consumers dictate how businesses behave, not vice-versa. Are they also doing it to try an capture a potentially huge emerging market? Absolutely, and good for them.

If you approve of the current economic policy and favor competition over cooperation, or even fair play, then how can you say you are a free-market capitalist? The market is rigged, hon. You know that.

As we discuss the consolidation of Media...you state that the danger of monopolies are few and far between???? That is a biggie. I never said I was afraid Wal-Mart was taking over-they have damaged local economies, but even they do not have access to unlimited growth-no one does.

My own company went through the same grow or die scenario and guess who paid the price?? Oh, the shareholders...and the employees. But they are still-a growin'.

All that bothersome government oversight you mention led directly to the fall of ENRON, so, yeah I guess it's bad huh? We should always trust the CEO's and CFO"s to do the right thing, afterall, they are smart guys! And always honest and fair.

Tell me something else.

What I favor is a lessening of govt regulation, and encouraging as much competition as possible. The fact is that even in oligopolistic industries, consumers come out the winners since margins are usually cut to the bone in order to maintain marketshare. Therefore, the more competition we have, the better. Anti-trust legislation is not effective at addressing this goal, since there are few industries that are absolutely monopolized. When it comes to govt intervention, the best we can hope for is a lowering of regulation. This can decrease the barriers to entry for new firms (albeit not all barriers), and can encourage business development. Trust me, if there's a firm out there that's raking in the profits in an underpopulated industry, other firms will enter.



The WalMart comment was just hyperbole, not a serious opinion. I would counter-argue though that Wal Mart has done alot to increase the buying power for consumers by virtue of their ultra-low prices, and have made serious contributions to business by developing an amazing logistics and supply chain. They are definately a company worthy of study.



Most every company is under that same gun. Increase revenue, increase marketshare, grow grow grow. This type of pressure has lead to some serious mistakes and unhealthy practices (far too many companies try to maximize their leverage position without little to no assurance of their potential solvency). Another unfortunate fact is that with the current push for increasing productivity and efficiency, firms are trying to do more with less (employees). That's a sad fact. When it comes to companies that are in a "lay off 20% of the workforce, or risk collapse", the choice is clear, but difficult: go through with the lay-offs. When they're just doing it to increase their profitability? They're either a painfully inept company (HR moves are pricey, both in terms of cost and reputation), or have become more streamlined.

May I ask what happened with your company? They screwed SH's and the employees to encourage growth, and presumably, investment?



ENRON collapsed because everyone in the top two floors were scum. They were brilliant, but crooked as a dog's leg. The interesting thing is that the accounting methods that they used were approved by GAPP, and the accountants (both in-house and Arthur Andersen) and bankers they were working with OK'd most of their shady methods. Some of their tactics are still in use today, although the practice of off-book debt is nowhere near as prevalent as it used to be. My point is, ENRON was operating largely, but not entirely, in the legal realm with alot of what they were doing. Govt oversight was in place, but it took someone actually working within the company to stand up and speak out.

A caveat: ENRON absolutely broke the law, without a doubt. They did it with structured finance vehicles, which can make exactly where they broke the law a little hard to point out, but they were crooks. I'm not arguing against that fact, merely that they weren't exactly breaking every law they could find in pursuit of dollars.

Not to sound like a prick, but the people that work for powerful Multi-Nationals are cunning and methodical in what they do. The govt doesn't exactly attract the best and brightest, so the chances of them being "caught" by a regulatory committee is not that great.

What kind of oversight are you looking for anyways? Do you believe Sarbanes-Oxley goes far enough?


Not all companies, nor people, are honest. Business works only because of a huge measure of trust on either party's behalf. Therefore, I favor culling the herd of all the crooks and ne'er-do-wells. Most of the people who work for companies are decent, good people. They have kids, families, etc. and are just trying to do their thing, and hopefully get ahead.

Cute dog, BTW... is he/she yours?

Wow, Long thread, So many words, yet not much really being said.

It comes down to the flawed idea that if we put a value on something an have someone buy it with capita they earned thru whatever means that its not going to properly regulate the system, that after a prolonged use of this idea certain people would easily acquire more wealth faster then the majority of others.

Plus, You can''t put value on something of which had none to begin with an say you have a working system, its flawed to begin with, If anything Bartering would be more regulatory since its what you do in the 1st place to get the money, just cut the money out, bam you work for what you want. an Since even the disabled can provide us with some form of work, since our minds are alway here unless we are otherwise deemed such or dead.

Cut peoples need to goto a " Work Place " an work from home an more room an resources are spared to build homes for others who didnt have such,

There is a way to reorganize Everything even when you think you have it right, theres always a better way. This is our way of life, we need to be more intelligent about it.

Also for the folks stating the Poor are there becuz they dont work, or like living off the system, Look around you, if you have bad credit, You dont get to enjoy much of what others are fronted for a debt number, You get the Invisible routine, Not to mention when you pay people that do one job that isnt really needed a insane high amount but the mass majority of Basic NEEDED jobs a Low Minimum wage, You kinda run into a problem dont yeah? We live on a flawed system, blaming anyone other then the people who created this system an the others who dont try to fix it is failing human life.

Just becuz you crawled out of the hole or even avoided the hole all together, doesnt mean the hole isnt still there an others arent traped in it.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by Trance Optic]

reply to post by BloodthirstyCapitalist

---

yes, that is my Sweetie. She is a Shih Tzu that some doofus lost/abandoned and I adopted her from a shelter, best k-9 on earth. and that is not hyperbole!

but back to the matter at hand, the scum element will not go away on it's own. The previous poster said we need a new system, and I agree. Not something that has been tried and failed, but something new, we can and should do better than this.

We need a new paradigm!

My small town just lost it's United Groc. store, and now all the groceries in town are owned by ONE COMPANY-Homeland!! WE have walmart, aldi and 2 food pyramids. I lived here as a kid, and there were lots of little independant stores, safeway, IGA and miller market. locally owned. Now it's FOOD PYRAMID. Talk about your NWO...it's creepy. Luckily, this is an agricultural area, and I can buy milk and eggs from the farm, everybody has a garden in the summer, so it's not like we have no choices.

It feels wrong because it's unsustainable, this is our inner wisdom telling us this has got to change, I don't care about milton freidman's theories, you have to listen to your heart too. I will not be a slave to my left brain and neither should you sir.

Sweetie says so.

reply to post by Pilot

---

The consolidation of industries into just a few mega-large players (such as what is happening in your town with the grocery stores) is a trend that is likely to continue. Other examples of this would be category-killers like Best Buy, or Home Depot. Its almost impossible for smaller competitors within this industry to compete against these stores, since their cost structure is so low and their advertising so massive. Therefore, the little guys get pushed out, and the mega-stores dominate. There's still competition, but I understand what you're saying.

I do have a heart, presumably, and it doesn't all just boil down to numbers. My current POV is basically that I am getting very tired, as are many others on this board, of having the Govt invade every aspect of my life. Nanny-staters are getting out of hand, to the point now where both Dem. candidates are campaigning on a platform that includes a Socialist Healthcare program. Increased govt control, increased govt legislation, and an eternally growing Federal Govt does not, by virtue of its existance, make life better. Therefore, I am loathe to support any intiative that would burden business (small or big) with further responsibilities beyond those they are supposed to address: Namely, increasing shareholder wealth. If the time comes, and it seems like it is now and then, when society sees corporations as being beholden to satisfying their demands AND curing their ills, all without some form of reciprocal benefit (e.g. profits), the infrastructure will just fall apart. The Prime Movers (thanks Ayn) will just pick up stake and move along.

We cannot demonize business and then look to it as a charity, or expect a business to willingly sacrifice itself for the benefit of others.

"Nanny-staters are getting out of hand, to the point now where both Dem. candidates are campaigning on a platform that includes a Socialist Healthcare program. Increased govt control, increased govt legislation, and an eternally growing Federal Govt does not, by virtue of its existance, make life better."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but why do the dems feel that all this is needed?
every person and every business holds some responsibility to our society. people are responsible for making some kind of contribution to the society, paying their bills, raising their kids decently, ect. businesses are responsible for providing the goods and services we need at an affordable price considering the wages they are paying. government employees and elected officials are responsible for acting in the best interest of our nation!
it isn't till there is far too many people and businesses and government agencys ignoring their responsibilities that it becomes a blight to society and the government intervenes.
So, in a country where:


and 47 million american are without health insurance.
and:


umm...ya, there's a disconnect there somewhere, don't ya see.. a family of four (or their employer), paying out over $12,000 just for health insurance for a year? they increased by over 6% in one year....my wages certainly haven't seen that kind of increase, has yours? I imagine that their are many employees of blue cross blue shield who would be left with maybe 4 or 5 thousand dollars to live on for the year after shelling out that kind of money also!
the people are ignoring their responsibility to society....we all know that one, we read the gripes about it everyday on these boards. but don't the businesses also have some responsibility? I mean, they used to. used to be that if a company wanted to make widgets to sell on the open market, well, they had to keep the costs down low enough so that enough of the people earned enough money to buy the widgets, didn't they. heck, they might even feel a enough responsibility to pay their own employees enough to be able to afford a widget also....(might keep down theft in the company also!).
It was government intervention that threw this all out of balance, now the landlords, the healthcare providers, the insurance companies, the utility companies, heck even the shoestore, can charge way more than so many people can afford, and still rent their units, provide medical care, and yes even sell $100 shoes...all the while paying pathetic salaries that wouldn't even pay for the rent and the food for their employee.
and, low and behold, their employees are still consumers!
WE NEED government intervention to get us out of this, but I doubt very much if any of these universal healthcare plans will do what is necessary. It's just more of the same ole, same ole. accepting that the people just cannot fullfill their responsibilities, and maintianing that it's somehow taboo to think the the business sector should be responsible for anything but to keep providing those record profits for their shareholders and those million dollar bonuses for their upper management.
alot of taxmoney is going into that healthcare system......it's this that gives the government the power and the right to step in and start screwing around with it anyway they want, anytime they want. if they don't do something about it soon, our local, our state, and our federal government, along with all those companies out there that are still struggling to provide affordable insurance plans for their employees are all gonna buckle and snap at the weight of it!
but, the key is to get the cost of the services, the insurance lined up with the wages that the people are earning! if that means putting some kind of restrictions onto the insurance agency regarding their premiums and forcing an increase in the lower wages, well.....that's what it will take.

reply to post by dawnstar

---

Hey, I just escaped from NY too.

Well said, it seems like the mother of all anti-nanny state actions is being proposed by Bush re the Fed gaining more control over the financial markets. Hm. Well I guess we won't have to worry about becoming socialists just yet...

The Fox enters the Henhouse: abovetopsecret.com...