Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There isn't any inconsistency he points to. He takes a clip, gives HIS characterization of what he thinks it means, then goes off on a tangent about how it doesn't align with Marxist ideology. That's not debunking, that's just disagreement.
There isn't any inconsistency he points to. He takes a clip, gives HIS characterization of what he thinks it means, then goes off on a tangent about how it doesn't align with Marxist ideology. That's not debunking, that's just disagreement.
Wrong, the Rockefeller part he explains why saying Rockefeller is a good man does nothing to support the system of capitalism. That’s like arguing Catherine the Great was a good leader so we should have a monarchy.
On a side not in the end he debunked the notion Rockefeller was some benevolent man.
The "u" after prager stands for university. A very misleading thing to do. It's just a video making website.
The first argument that people is richer now than in the past even when compared to recent years is MISSING THE POINT, and VERY MISLEADING. The argument is rich vs poor, not past vs present. Another source is an article written by himself; This is called cheating.
The only other source that mention poverty is the comparison of Vietnam and Laos: 11% vs 22% respectively in poverty.
Poverty is usually measured in how many dollars people make. This is a misleading way of comparing poverty since the purchasing power of money varies widely by country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelogo
...The video's point was that the poor are become richer at a faster rate than the rich. This is a LIE. Like I showed in my other comments it is propaganda with no source to it's main claim, using a reference of his own article, and arguments that have nothing to do with the subject (like people in the past was a lot poorer).
You are using the same flawed argument used in politics. The issue is not to choose the less of two evils. The issue is how to create a better system. We are social beings, [whether it is privately or in public], and so the economy needs to play a social role.
Of course not in the way in which was thought out by so called "socialists", those people are tyrants, not socialists. In fact, if you see how capitalists have evolved they themselves have become tyrants, full of corruption, creating monopolies and buying all sort of influence.
The economy is NOT growing. Financial bubbles are growing. This is what capitalism have become. Why take risks in doing business when they can get a bigger profit from the stock market? I can't wait for the next recession to hit, people will make excuses and the public will bail them out. Privatize the gains, socialize the loses.
There is an Norwegian economist named Erik Reinert who explained the problem of global trading. From the introduction of his book" How rich countries became rich and why poor countries stay poor":
Tightly packed into the language of economics - which the book will attempt to demystify - is the incontrovertible fact that rich countries got rich because for decades, often centuries, their states and ruling elites set up, subsidized and protected dynamic industries and services. They all emulated the most prosperous countries at the time, bringing their productive structures into those areas where technological change was being focused.
...rich countries have all moved through a stage without free trade, which - when successful - subsequently made free trade desirable.
...
Markets will not magically eradicate poverty any more than they will magically address the problems posed by global warming and environmental degradation. Only a confident and determined public in rich countries can ensure that the governments of poor countries are free to make decisions for the benefit of their own people. This means rejecting both the alleged rationality of the free trade orthodoxy and the alleged morality of a `fairer' system of global trade.
In the book he gives dozens of example that show that free trade and like policies is the reason why poor countries stay and increasingly become poorer [they are prevented from developing, keep them producing raw materials], the opposite of what PragueU is saying with no source.
Wrong, the Rockefeller part he explains why saying Rockefeller is a good man does nothing to support the system of capitalism. That’s like arguing Catherine the Great was a good leader so we should have a monarchy.
On a side not in the end he debunked the notion Rockefeller was some benevolent man.
The video by Prager doesn't attempt to "support the system of Capitalism"....that's not even an argument being made.
Capitalism is the basis for all Life. Without a profit, nothing can live. We all must consume more than we expend, or we die. All living things are consumers of raw materials, which they convert for useful purposes to sustain life....if you cannot turn an "energy surplus", you are DYING.
There is an Norwegian economist named Erik Reinert who explained the problem of global trading. From the introduction of his book" How rich countries became rich and why poor countries stay poor":
Tightly packed into the language of economics - which the book will attempt to demystify - is the incontrovertible fact that rich countries got rich because for decades, often centuries, their states and ruling elites set up, subsidized and protected dynamic industries and services. They all emulated the most prosperous countries at the time, bringing their productive structures into those areas where technological change was being focused.
...rich countries have all moved through a stage without free trade, which - when successful - subsequently made free trade desirable.
...
Markets will not magically eradicate poverty any more than they will magically address the problems posed by global warming and environmental degradation. Only a confident and determined public in rich countries can ensure that the governments of poor countries are free to make decisions for the benefit of their own people. This means rejecting both the alleged rationality of the free trade orthodoxy and the alleged morality of a `fairer' system of global trade.
In the book he gives dozens of example that show that free trade and like policies is the reason why poor countries stay and increasingly become poorer [they are prevented from developing, keep them producing raw materials], the opposite of what PragueU is saying with no source.
Poor countries have low amounts of human capital, which translates to selling their labor cheaply, at a discount to countries with high amounts of human capital.
Poverty is an inherent aspect of the human condition, not an artificial construct or artifact of monetary and economic systems.
Nations are not "prevented" from developing...they are incapable of development. Big difference.
Poor countries have low amounts of human capital, which translates to selling their labor cheaply, at a discount to countries with high amounts of human capital.
Poverty is an inherent aspect of the human condition, not an artificial construct or artifact of monetary and economic systems.
Nations are not "prevented" from developing...they are incapable of development. Big difference.
Poor countries have low amounts of human capital, which translates to selling their labor cheaply, at a discount to countries with high amounts of human capital.
Poverty is an inherent aspect of the human condition, not an artificial construct or artifact of monetary and economic systems.
Nations are not "prevented" from developing...they are incapable of development. Big difference.
Everything you have said is completely wrong. A person working in a shop in China is a lot more productive than a poor person in a rich country. The poor person in a rich country is paid a lot more than the Chinese for the mere fact that he lives in a rich country.
Poverty is not inherent, it depends in their social structures, some countries are helped out for geopolitics or any other reason, some are attacked. You certainly don't know anything about the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and many other international institutions that practical run the finances of most poor and middle income countries.
There are plenty of economic policies that prevent poor countries from development. To name one: They keep taking huge loans for "development" of roads, ports, etc. that only serves international corporations to make sure the price of raw materials are kept low. And the average poor person is taxed to pay the loans and interest, but that in no way help him be more productive or raise his wages.In fact, they are told that they need to lower their wages to be "more competitive". The inept politicians are too ignorant to know they are being conned, so they go along and try to pocket something themselves. Whoever opposes the status quote is labeled all sort of thing and taken out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
This is incorrect.
He is hopelessly wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
