The country of the Future and why poverty is no matter of choice

[FriendlyHacker]

This is what I mean when I say the financial system is broken to the point of not mattering how many hours a person works. In Brazil, if you receive the minimum wage, you can work 18 hours a day and still not make enough to provide for your family.

 

If you're born in poverty here, odds are you will never be able to get good education, medical treatment, food, housing and access to bleeding edge technology. There are red herrings, but exceptions are not the rule.

 

So when I say that Stefan is wrong when applying his experience with poverty to places outside of Canada and the UK, what I mean is that he had access to opportunities that are almost non existent in poor countries, that is, almost non existent for the majority of the worlds population.

 

And I'm not even mentioning racism, sexism, xenophobia and other issues here, which are used by the dominant classes to ensure the poor can't compete with them, even if some individuals manage to become smarter and more technically capable than the rich, by simply having the wrong color of skin they will have trouble keeping a job or having a similar level of income when compared to the most privileged.

 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Please provide link to Stef specifically claiming people in these countries had the same opportunities as him. If you can't provide link then could you please take back the claim. 

What is the argument? Are you arguing for central planning? 

[FriendlyHacker]

If you watch/listen the show, you should be aware of what I'm replying to here.

 

The only thing I'm arguing for here, is that you can't advocate a new kind of economic system if you are not aware of what actually happens outside of your local environment. It shows that while your flavor of libertarianism might actually work where you live, it might be harmful for the rest of the world.

 

I don't have any solutions, other than working on the technology to level the playing field, which I find to be a lot more work than I'm probably capable of, while still managing to provide for myself.

[TheRobin]

It's sad for me to see the state Brazil is in and how bad the quality of life is for the poor there, but I still don't see what it is that you're arguing for or against here.

[FriendlyHacker]

While I'm considered middle class here, if you compare my standards of living to the one in rich countries, I'm actually below the poverty line, now imagine what it means to be be poor and you will understand why there are people living on landfills and eating garbage.

 

So if anyone here wants to argue about the poor being lazy and not taking their opportunities, you can go ahead and try living as a poor person in Brazil. Make sure to tell me how that works for you... if you're still alive after 1 month.

 

If you want to understand the innate structural violence in a country with low standards of living, you can try to imagine how violent people can be when their basics needs are not being met. You would be surprised to know that deaths by violence in Brazil are 60x larger than in Canada, and actually greater than most war zones (am not even talking totals here but % per 100k inhabitants).

[dsayers]

In Brazil, if you receive the minimum wage, you can work 18 hours a day and still not make enough to provide for your family.

 

So one could develop their human capital so that they are worth more than "minimum wage." And not start a family that they cannot afford to provide for, including time and nurturing directly from the parents.

 

The only thing I'm arguing for here, is that you can't advocate a new kind of economic system if you are not aware of what actually happens outside of your local environment. It shows that while your flavor of libertarianism might actually work where you live, it might be harmful for the rest of the world.

 

Freedom can be harmful?

 

I don't think you've taken the time to denote what you mean by "new kind of economic system" and "your flavor of libertarianism." It means that whatever follows couldn't be an actual conversation. I've listened to a lot of Stef's work and the only thing he's ever advocated in terms of economics, liberty, and every other aspect of life is NOT initiating the use of force against others. If that could be described as a new kind of economic system, it would only be because preceding economic systems involved the initiation of the use of force.

 

Also, the verbiage, "your flavor of libertarianism" frames the conversation as if the truth can be discarded because it's subjective, which isn't true. I implore you to elaborate on how freedom could be harmful. And of course I'm not talking about something like an unsupervised toddler.

[TheRobin]

I think you're mixing stuff up here. Obviously if the environment is shitty enough being lazy or not has no bearing on being poor or not. We just have to look at the middle ages to know that. So the argument that poor people are lazy is mostly about Western world citizens (which is where the statstics come from anyway).

 

And the other thing is, that if the environment is so shityy that people don't have enough to eat regardless of how much they work, then the question is "How did such an enivronment come about in the first palce and who/what maintains it?"

I remember hearing something about Economic Hitman which might have somthing to do with it, but ultimately there needs to be some sort of actual violence involved, else how do you explain Brazil developing the way it did over the last 100 years, especially when you can comapre it to countries liek the US?

[FriendlyHacker]

So one could develop their human capital so that they are worth more than "minimum wage." And not start a family that they cannot afford to provide for, including time and nurturing directly from the parents.

 

 

 Freedom can be harmful?

 

I don't think you've taken the time to denote what you mean by "new kind of economic system" and "your flavor of libertarianism." It means that whatever follows couldn't be an actual conversation. I've listened to a lot of Stef's work and the only thing he's ever advocated in terms of economics, liberty, and every other aspect of life is NOT initiating the use of force against others. If that could be described as a new kind of economic system, it would only be because preceding economic systems involved the initiation of the use of force.

 

Also, the verbiage, "your flavor of libertarianism" frames the conversation as if the truth can be discarded because it's subjective, which isn't true. I implore you to elaborate on how freedom could be harmful. And of course I'm not talking about something like an unsupervised toddler.

 

 

Come here and live as poor person, even if you have the human capital already you will probably not survive.There are other kinds of libertarianism, the one defended here is just one of them, Google it.

I think you're mixing stuff up here. Obviously if the environment is shitty enough being lazy or not has no bearing on being poor or not. We just have to look at the middle ages to know that. So the argument that poor people are lazy is mostly about Western world citizens (which is where the statstics come from anyway).

 

And the other thing is, that if the environment is so shityy that people don't have enough to eat regardless of how much they work, then the question is "How did such an enivronment come about in the first palce and who/what maintains it?"

I remember hearing something about Economic Hitman which might have somthing to do with it, but ultimately there needs to be some sort of actual violence involved, else how do you explain Brazil developing the way it did over the last 100 years, especially when you can comapre it to countries liek the US?

 

Brazil is the dumping ground for US technology and the major source of it's natural resources, steel might be imported from China and other places, but ever wonder where all of the minerals come from? What about orange Juice? Oranges are grown here, exported to Germany and juice goes from Germany to the US. Same for coffee and many other things.

 

We are the sole responsible for the US car makers not going completely bankrupt, they take advantage of Brazil being a growing country and people needing cars to survive, to charge as much as they want for shitty versions of the same car sold in the US. Even though their profit margin is 10x larger, in order to save money some of these cars don't have their roofs properly soldered, which can kill you in the event of a crash.

 

Try looking into the difference between exploitation based Colonization and development based Colonization, and you will understand why Brazil developed differently from USA the past 500 years, and why now it actually became one of its exploitation colonies.

 

Also you mention the Economic Hitman, if you haven`t read that already you should. It clearly shows how corporations dominate foreign countries to create a global empire, and how politicians who dare to go against profiting on the exploitation of their people end up dead. Voting does not work and democracy is a joke, politicians who actually want to improve the standards of living are either killed or bribed.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

If you watch/listen the show, you should be aware of what I'm replying to here.

 

The only thing I'm arguing for here, is that you can't advocate a new kind of economic system if you are not aware of what actually happens outside of your local environment. It shows that while your flavor of libertarianism might actually work where you live, it might be harmful for the rest of the world.

 

I don't have any solutions, other than working on the technology to level the playing field, which I find to be a lot more work than I'm probably capable of, while still managing to provide for myself.

I have watched the show and I am not aware of what you are talking about. Please provide a link.

What libertarianism are you talking about in Brazil? Briazil seems like a centrally planned semi-third world country to me. If this supposed libertarianism isn't helping then what level and kind of violence do you think should be used on those people?

Please make specific claims and arguments. What is your argument? 

[TheRobin]

Okay, so I still don't see the point you're trying to make. So Brazil was founded by some violent statist military force  and it's people basically abused economically by the same military force. Then another military force who extracts a ton of money from Americans fucks up the people even more by what is basically economic warfare via central banking.

 

All this is obviously terrible and no sane person would defend it. But what exactly is it that you're arguing for or against here? 

[dsayers]

 

Come here and live as poor person, even if you have the human capital already you will probably not survive.

 

Isn't this moving the goalpost? First you were talking about minimum wage, now it's everybody.

 

There are other kinds of libertarianism, the one defended here is just one of them, Google it.

 

Why would I google it? I understand what freedom means and your posts here are full of propaganda red flags. If you cannot articulate that which you are passionate about to the point of making this thread and these posts, which do have a little length to them, then this strikes me as an admission of overstating your case.

[FriendlyHacker]

Here is the point: If you don't understand how the economy works in poor countries, don't advocate policies for it, because if you do it will be harmful to the poor.

[Ruben Zandstra]

I don't recall Steff advocating any policies. I might be wrong, please point me in the right direction.

[FriendlyHacker]

If you say governments should stop giving food to the starving, with the kind of audience Freedomain radio has, you're advocating a policy that will kill millions of people in Brazil alone.

[dazed and confused]

the real minimum wage is zero

[TheRobin]

well, if you do not get that violence (i.e. governments) are the reason people are poor in the first place, then any solution will not only not last but make sure that things actively worse for everyone (most notably the poor) in the long run.

 

(of couse even IF you advocate the poor being able to rob from everyone else, then the solution isn't government, but to get government out of the way, so that the poor can steal from everyone without any police interference (and since they outnumber the rich anyway, that would be easy-peacy, right?))

[FriendlyHacker]

It might seen like a good idea to you, to remove food handouts, but that's only because you're not the one who is going to starve. In an ideal world, there would be no government and people would not starve, but we don't live in an ideal world, right?

[Brentb]

Here is the point: If you don't understand how the economy works in poor countries, don't advocate policies for it, because if you do it will be harmful to the poor.

 

Economics doesn't differ from region to region any more that physics differs from region to region. What differs is policies and resources.

 

What policies are preventing people from providing economic value to each other?

[FriendlyHacker]

the real minimum wage is zero

 

I like that reply.

Economics doesn't differ from region to region any more that physics differs from region to region. What differs is policies and resources.

 

What policies are preventing people from providing economic value to each other?

 

For one thing, there are a lot more resources here than North America/Europe, if you want to know where the resources/values are going, just take a look around your local Chicago.

 

Please don't compare Economics with Physics, I would have better Economic predictions from an Astrology quack than an economist.

[dsayers]

Here is the point: If you don't understand how the economy works in poor countries, don't advocate policies for it, because if you do it will be harmful to the poor.

 

The initiation of the use of force is harmful for all involved. A lack of coercion is harmful to nobody. Saying "the poor" is collectivizing.

 

You haven't actually responded to anything I've said. I draw unfavorable conclusions about people who are all output and no input.

[Brentb]

I like that reply.

 

For one thing, there are a lot more resources here than North America/Europe, if you want to know where the resources/values are going, just take a look around your local Chicago.

 

I thought so. So the poverty in Brazil is primarily due to policy?

[FriendlyHacker]

I thought so. So the poverty in Brazil is primarily due to policy?

 

If by policy you mean it's an exploitation based colony, yes.

[Brentb]

If by policy you mean it's an exploitation based colony, yes.

 

If the poor of Brazil really are slaves to colonialism, then we should absolutely feed them, just as we must feed someone locked in our basement. What other choice is there?  

[jacbot]

INDEX OF ECONOMIC FREEDOM 2014 BRAZIL

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/brazil

 

Brazil’s economic freedom score is 56.9, making its economy the 114th (United States is 12!!) freest in the 2014 Index.

 

Over the 20-year history of the Index, Brazil’s economic freedom score has improved by only 5.5 points. The combined improvement achieved in five of the 10 economic freedoms, including trade freedom, monetary freedom, and investment freedom, has been offset by deteriorations in the area of government size that measures the tax burden and government spending.

Brazil had advanced into the ranks of the “moderately free” economies in the Index during the first half of the 2000s, but since 2007, the economy has fallen back to the status of “mostly unfree.” The lack of progress toward greater economic freedom has discouraged private-sector growth and continues to undermine realization of the economy’s full potential.

 

Tuff shit,.., socialism doesnt work in brazil either

Economics doesn't differ from region to region any more that physics differs from region to region. What differs is policies and resources.

 

 

 

Very true,.., if this were not so..communism might actually work in  Brazil , while it doesnt work anywhere else. But this is of course nonsense so the lemma is proven "..Economics ( aka Economic theory: note added from me) doesn't differ from region to region.."

 

For one thing, there are a lot more resources here than North America/Europe,

 

 

What resources are you talking about?

[NGardner]

If by policy you mean it's an exploitation based colony, yes.

Is it not the leaders of Brazil allowing this exploitation to occur? If Brazil has the resources then why isn't Brazil calling the shots?

[jacbot]

Saudi Arabia, Dubai, etc are rich in resources but they are not really 3rd world nations , it didnt seem anyone was exploiting them when OPEC called aboycot in the 1970's.

 

I want to postulate that resources (if this is meant by coal, iron, etc) are a curse instead of a benefit.

 

Just look at Japan (yes,.. i know it has zombie banks etc, and what not) they have almost no resources to speak off, but still a very wealthy nation compared to others with up to their necks in natural resources.

[J-William]

This is what I mean when I say the financial system is broken to the point of not mattering how many hours a person works. In Brazil, if you receive the minimum wage, you can work 18 hours a day and still not make enough to provide for your family.

 

If you're born in poverty here, odds are you will never be able to get good education, medical treatment, food, housing and access to bleeding edge technology. There are red herrings, but exceptions are not the rule.

 

So when I say that Stefan is wrong when applying his experience with poverty to places outside of Canada and the UK, what I mean is that he had access to opportunities that are almost non existent in poor countries, that is, almost non existent for the majority of the worlds population.

 

And I'm not even mentioning racism, sexism, xenophobia and other issues here, which are used by the dominant classes to ensure the poor can't compete with them, even if some individuals manage to become smarter and more technically capable than the rich, by simply having the wrong color of skin they will have trouble keeping a job or having a similar level of income when compared to the most privileged.

Attack those strawmen attack them long and hard!

[jacbot]

I was in Brazil once (Forta Leza) and racism is indeed rampant between colored people,

Ah well, Brazil is poor for a reason and this dysfunction is just one of many.

 

 

http://brazilianbubble.com/custo-brasil-opening-a-business-in-brazil-now-takes-only-119-days-the-good-news-it-used-be-157/

 

According to the World Bank, the waiting period to open a company in Brazil has dropped 20% in the last five years. Today, the process takes 119 days; in 2007, it took 152.

The bad news? In a list of 183 countries, Brazil is only worse than Equatorial Guinea (137 days), Venezuela (141), Republic of the Congo (160) and Suriname (694 days)… it almost sounds like a joke!

According to newspaper Folha, Brazil is also considerably worse than the emerging countries known as Brics, which includes India (29 days), Russia (30), China (38) and South Africa (19 days).

 

 

Comparison: I think it takes 2 minutes in the UK (can do it online) and one day in if you do it in person at the desk of company house.

 

This this rampent government obstruction.

 

it is really not helpfull or factual to point out so called hidden dark forces that are responsible for poverty (the power elite, illuminati, <fill in talking point>).

 

It is clear brazil needs less government obstruction so the poor can legally create shops and businesses and interface properly with the economy.

[FriendlyHacker]

I was in Brazil once (Forta Leza) and racism is indeed rampant between colored people,

Ah well, Brazil is poor for a reason and this dysfunction is just one of many.

 

 

http://brazilianbubble.com/custo-brasil-opening-a-business-in-brazil-now-takes-only-119-days-the-good-news-it-used-be-157/

 

According to the World Bank, the waiting period to open a company in Brazil has dropped 20% in the last five years. Today, the process takes 119 days; in 2007, it took 152.

The bad news? In a list of 183 countries, Brazil is only worse than Equatorial Guinea (137 days), Venezuela (141), Republic of the Congo (160) and Suriname (694 days)… it almost sounds like a joke!

According to newspaper Folha, Brazil is also considerably worse than the emerging countries known as Brics, which includes India (29 days), Russia (30), China (38) and South Africa (19 days).

 

 

Comparison: I think it takes 2 minutes in the UK (can do it online) and one day in if you do it in person at the desk of company house.

 

This this rampent government obstruction.

 

it is really not helpfull or factual to point out so called hidden dark forces that are responsible for poverty (the power elite, illuminati, <fill in talking point>).

 

It is clear brazil needs less government obstruction so the poor can legally create shops and businesses and interface properly with the economy.

I for one would have opened my IT business a long time ago if it we didn't have so much governmental bullshit, I'm probably moving to another country in order to start my business. The government is on the way, but I don't see any proposals for dealing with the people who will starve if it's removed.

 

 

I was in Brazil once (Forta Leza) and racism is indeed rampant between colored people,

Don't know what you mean there.

Is it not the leaders of Brazil allowing this exploitation to occur? If Brazil has the resources then why isn't Brazil calling the shots?

If Iraq has the resources, why it's not calling the shots?

[LovePrevails]

If you want wages to go up in Brazil then you should advocate a free market in Brazil so as many entrepreneurs can go in and employ peopel as possible. Competition over employers leads to employers bidding up wages or providing perks like training as part of the job which can lead people to more gainful employment. It's that simple.

[jacbot]

"...I for one would have opened my IT business a long time ago if it we didn't have so much governmental bullshit, I'm probably moving to another country in order to start my business. The government is on the way, but I don't see any proposals for dealing with the people who will starve if it's removed..."

 

yeah, we had the same argument against the abolishment of slavery, "if we get rid of slavery who would pick our food?, poor whites would all starve"  (sarcasm mode on) yes we need to find a solution for foodpicking and preventing starvation among poor whites this before we abolish slavery.(sarcasm mode off).

No proposal is needed to end statist enslavement.

 

If Iraq has the resources, why it's not calling the shots?

I think Iraq was invaded some time ago, if i remember correctly,.., also before invasion the State of Iraq was not really serving any foreign power as you clearly suggest here. So again your premise that 3rd world States are exploited by 1st world states (as a general rule) is false. But i guess its easier to blame foreign powers then to reform a marxist economy.

 

 

Don't know what you mean there.

You made the argument racism in brazil comes from the elite, this is totally false, it comes from Brazillians themselves, especially the poor!

 

Oil  existed before monkeys walked the earth, so no labor is being stolen from anyone by harvesting these resources. Also if it werent for technology (evil capitalist invention)

that black shit would be totally worthless. The "them stealing our resources" is more a marxist argument.