Jason W Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 I know this is basically what happens in Atlas, but I can't form the right reply or problems with it at the moment. Got it off another forum, by the way... Ok, I have this theory about progressively improving socio-economic conditions in the developing world. To make a long story short and sweet: an individual or group creates a network of small companies out in needy areas that allocate any/all profits back to the community. Rather than giving hand-outs, the organization creates opportunity that focuses on the long run. That help comes in the form of: - jobs - (slightly) higher wages at the companies - starting only companies based on products/services of necessity, so no luxury - (slightly) discounted prices - funding of civil projects in the community (med. clinics, schools, disaster relief reserve, etc) The main companies I think would work: - Transportation - Medical - Construction - Agriculture - Utilities - Shelter / RE - (some) Media Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 This ridiculous theory was obviously dreamed up by someone completely ignorant of economics and/or capitalism. Here are some of the assumptions it makes: A. People will risk their savings and spend their lives working to give all their profits away. B. The investment needed to start businesses will magically appear out of thin air. C. Since investment funds are obtained from thin air, the companies obviously don’t need the to keep the profits to invest in expanding business. D. “Developing” countries are poor because all the companies are motivated by “profits, not people.” Needless to say, this is classic Marxism in a capitalistic guise. Push the author on WHO will do all this, and he will inexorably fall back on the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 Also, perhaps you meant Critique this... or Criticize this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Geezer Posted March 2, 2004 Report Share Posted March 2, 2004 GC Somebody is doing it, its with the Government's money, and his name is Bill Clinton (thats one of his post presidency projects ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest heusdens Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 This ridiculous theory was obviously dreamed up by someone completely ignorant of economics and/or capitalism. Here are some of the assumptions it makes: A. People will risk their savings and spend their lives working to give all their profits away. B. The investment needed to start businesses will magically appear out of thin air. C. Since investment funds are obtained from thin air, the companies obviously don’t need the to keep the profits to invest in expanding business. D. “Developing” countries are poor because all the companies are motivated by “profits, not people.” Needless to say, this is classic Marxism in a capitalistic guise. Push the author on WHO will do all this, and he will inexorably fall back on the government. You are right. Capitalism has no solution to solving the problems of the developing world, they are the causes of these countries suffering... Let's be honest, the difference between developed countries and the third world is increasing. And it can't be solved under capitalism. Even despite all these aid programs and all kinds of benefits donated to thrid world countries, it does not solve the mysery there from increasing. What does a country need to be able to develop? One of the first things would be, education. But education in most third world countries is a problem, because to sustain themselves and their families, even the young children have to work at young ages, and their families could not afford to let go of the incomes of their children to educate them, or pay school contributions. And even if these countries could find a way out of that dilemma, and provided good training programs and education system, under capitalism, these countries would not benefit of this, cause the educated people would simply leave the country, and would want to find a job in a more developed country. Who could hold them there? Only under socialism could it be undertaken to put third world countries into development, and have the economy restored, provide education for all people, and keep the profits of the natural resources IN the country, instead of letting the profits go to the profitting foreign companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 I could have sworn the Marxists were supposed to be complaining that we were exporting the cushy jobs.... Natural resources have nearly zero effect on a country's wealth (or the wealth of its citizens).... Economics is not a zero-sum game but a very much positive-sum game, and each entity that voluntary engages in trade profits; no one can lose if it is freedom that has its way.... Investment capital tends to flow to where its return is highest - and that means to where it is most lacking and where it has the most to grow. Let us be honest, this time around. The difference between developed countries and the third world is increasing. And it can't be solved under socialism. Even despite our demands for governments there to let their citizens be, it does little to solve the misery of totalitarian oppression from increasing. What does a country need to be able to develop? First off, freedom as a moral principle enshrined in its constitution and enthroned in its philosophy. But this poses a problem, because authoritarian regimes sustained on fear cannot survive the introduction of rights as right into the minds of the citizens and so deprive them of consciousness; and in many places religion poses a yet more monstrous obstacle. Attila and the Witch Doctor. But if the people could find a way out of this dilemma, their revolution would create a paradise of opportunity, prosperity, and happiness; and an oasis of the new intellectualism we here sorely need. Individual traders and businesses from every corner of the world would flock to them: newly freed people have a great appetite for goods and services and every kind of luxury which they can buy with their newfound ability to create wealth. Who could hold them out? Only under capitalism could such countries develop; only under freedom can man's mind be free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 what i find interesting is that he says "no luxury" then procedes to list of schools, transportation, medical, etc... when you come down to it everything is luxury. in pre-industrial europe living to age five was pushing on being rare and now cars and busses are a neccesity to life. funny how as the standard of living goes up everything becomes necessary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearster Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 An interesting observation about communism is that it is antithetical to motivation. Why would people expend effort for the good of anyone but himself? Many have proposed "reeducating" people, and of course those who can't be reeducated have to die... It's true, communism is dismotivating, but that is not the principle objection to it. Another observation is that central governments can't allocate resources efficiently. For about the penultimate case study of this, Ludwig von Mises wrote _Time Will Move Backwards_. It's true, communism can't allocate resources efficiently, but that isn't the principle objection either. A third observation is that communism declares "people are starving", and takes farmers' seed stocks to use for bread. The next year, of course, everyone starves because there are no seeds to plant crops. This is also true, but this is also not the principle objection to communism. Communism is evil, folks, because it attacks the mind. Not the minds of range-of-the-moment pragmatists. Not the minds of hedonists in the drug-soaked sex orgies. Not the minds of the mystics with their candles and their bloody rituals. Communism attacks the minds of precisely those men who are responsible for every technological and business development that separates the USA from the tribal pre-stone-age savages of Africa. Africa doesn't need "education", as such. It certainly doesn't need the modern-day edukation kamps to spend another trillion dollars extorted from the US taxpayer in order to teach them that Heather has two momies. It needs the principles of individual rights, i.e. life, liberty, and property. Everything else you could name will be developed and built by men of the mind once they have the right to do so. Until then, why bother? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poohat Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 Natural resources have nearly zero effect on a country's wealth (or the wealth of its citizens) Erm, what? I suppose you could say "natrual resources dont guarantee a country success", but they often make it far easier for a country to succeed, and in some cases may be a necessary condition for success. But if the people could find a way out of this dilemma, their revolution would create a paradise of opportunity, prosperity, and happiness; and an oasis of the new intellectualism we here sorely need. Individual traders and businesses from every corner of the world would flock to them: newly freed people have a great appetite for goods and services and every kind of luxury which they can buy with their newfound ability to create wealth. Who could hold them out? Ok so what youre basically saying is that these people, (most of whom are illterate and have never heard of John Locke or Adam Smith, let alone Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman), should overthrow X hundred years of ingrained cultural values, crush their armed tyrannic oppressors, and create a never-before-seen-on-earth libertopian paradise that would make the entirity of the Western world envious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poohat Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 It needs the principles of individual rights, i.e. life, liberty, and property. Everything else you could name will be developed and built by men of the mind once they have the right to do so. Until then, why bother? And where will these notions of individual rights come from? Blank. How will the majority of Africans be persuaded to accept them when it took hundreds of years and very unique social circumstances to cause them to take off to the degree they did in the West? Blank. How would a poverty stricken nation manage to adopt and maintain a Western style economic model? Blank. Where would wealth come from in the complete absense of natural resources? Blank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 The most potent resource of any country is the minds of the people. Japan is a virtually barren country, and aside from its unfortunate government, it is wealthy. Yet Iraq, rich beyond measure in oil, is poor beyond measure. The difference in wealth is not a question of natural resources; it is a question of human resources. Slavery is often the tool to extract natural resources; but whenever it has tried to extract human resources, it has failed. Slavery guarantees a country failure, and freedom guarantees a country success, irrespective of how much natural resources it has. The presence or amount of natural resources is never a measure or guarantee of a country's success or failure; the presence of human resources always is. Where did Locke, Smith, Rand, and Friedman get their ideas? Poohat, why do you allow yourself such a degrading handle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearster Posted March 14, 2004 Report Share Posted March 14, 2004 More importantly, Poohat, do you really think that your unanswered questions were a refutation of my post? It isn't the Objectivists who are saying that western economic "models" (as if my right to keep the product of my work is a "model") will either causelessly just happen in Africa--or that they can be imposed by some sort of global uber-government. It's the Objectivists who say that a rational culture is a prerequisite to a rational government (i.e. a capistalist government). How you solve the African problem is of no concern to me, so long as you don't propose to loot my money. It isn't my Africa, and therefore it isn't my problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 Another observation is that central governments can't allocate resources efficiently. For about the penultimate case study of this, Ludwig von Mises wrote _Time Will Move Backwards_. Are you sure you don't mean "Time Will Run Back" by Henry Hazlitt? It's a great book about the rediscovery of Capitalism, but it's been out of print for a long time.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearster Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 Are you sure you don't mean "Time Will Run Back" by Henry Hazlitt? That sounds about right, but I didn't remember it as Hazlitt... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AisA Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 Here is the only "critic" of marxism/communism anyone really needs to see. The Truth about Communism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsalt Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 A is A: HA! Thanks. That is one of the most elegant examples I've ever seen provided. Talk about reduction to the perceptual! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AutoJC Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 You are right. Capitalism has no solution to solving the problems of the developing world, they are the causes of these countries suffering... The cause of such countries suffering is their own governments. An excellent example of this is Zimbabwe, with Mugabe seizing the lands owned by white farmers. Another cause of such suffering has nothing to do with capitalism, which opposes the imposition of trade barriers by nations. But European nations have given farmers supports which allow crops to be sold on the market for cheaper than crops grown anywhere in Africa, thereby denying market access for such countries, therefore augmenting the poverty and misery there. What a country needs to develop is access to a world market. That's the best thing that could happen to a country poor in its own resources. A country cannot develop unless there is a market for the goods of the producers who produce within its borders. Also, governments need to be established that can attract industries into developing nations, which would allow them to really develop. Such governments need to be established on the principle of protecting the rights of the producers. Anyhow, capitalism can play a huge role in developing nations. *looks at his shirt at the label "Made in Honduras"* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadCap Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Are you sure you don't mean "Time Will Run Back" by Henry Hazlitt? It's a great book about the rediscovery of Capitalism, but it's been out of print for a long time.. How did I miss this thread? I wrote a college level educational series, in part based upon this book. It has one of the best explanations of how a market actually functions that I have ever read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 I was only able to read half of it on the old Henry Hazlitt website (now bankrupt.) Do you know if the book is still in print anywhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 Here is the only "critic" of marxism/communism anyone really needs to see. The Truth about Communism A souce from rotten.com??? Perhaps if the source was a little more academically thought out this point would be more thought out. If you are gaining informatin from such a website on political issues, you are looking in all the wrong places.... how about some government webpages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kukyona Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 Perhaps if the source was a little more academically thought out this point would be more thought out. As the saying goes, 'a picture is worth a thousand words.' Did you even view the page? That picture is available all over the internet, rotten.com just happens to have collected a lot of useful information on the subject. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/facilit...k-dmsp-dark.jpg http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dp...k-dmsp-dark.jpg http://www.heraldmag.org/03mj_10pic.jpg http://www.buddycom.com/entertain/veejay/nk/nklights.jpg http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/0...mimg/0615p7.jpg http://rthornley.tripod.com/photos/science_photos.htm http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/49259ma...arth_nightm.jpe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 If you are gaining informatin from such a website on political issues, you are looking in all the wrong places.... how about some government webpages? Haha, now there is a dilemma. Government propaganda or rotten.com.... either way, it’s hard to argue with a photograph. For a more reputable account, I recommend The Black Book of Communism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 As the saying goes, 'a picture is worth a thousand words.' Did you even view the page? That picture is available all over the internet, rotten.com just happens to have collected a lot of useful information on the subject. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/facilit...k-dmsp-dark.jpg http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dp...k-dmsp-dark.jpg http://www.heraldmag.org/03mj_10pic.jpg http://www.buddycom.com/entertain/veejay/nk/nklights.jpg http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/0...mimg/0615p7.jpg http://rthornley.tripod.com/photos/science_photos.htm http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/49259ma...arth_nightm.jpe good argument ... definately a researcher, what i like to see! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 If you are gaining informatin from such a website on political issues, you are looking in all the wrong places.... how about some government webpages? Ah, I see. So what's the URL of the North Korean government's webpage? Do I need to speak Korean in order to read it, or can they afford an English translator? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Geezer Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 Do I need to speak Korean in order to read it, or can they afford an English translator?CF HA! That line is signature worthy.... its too bad I only have one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.