Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
The demand for meat is a classic example. It takes several pounds of grain feed stock to produce one pound of meat. Many people in developing nations cannot afford meat and also are losing access to grains that could sustain them so that meat can be produced for wealthier nations. The market will always satisfy the highest bidder for a good or service even at the expense of others who may have a greater human need for that good or service than the bidder.
You must be a student of DavidMoran's school of getting it wrong.
If you want to get more grain to the poor, stop using land for ethanol production to add to gasoline and channel all the subsidy money to the poor also.
If you want less grain fed beef, stop subsidies to the farmers that produce the grain. The cost of meat would rise and people would eat less of it.
Also, the vast majority of meat produced in the world -cattle, sheep, lamb - is grass fed, with grains fed to them prior the slaughter if at all.
What developing nations are losing access to grains? I doubt you can draw the link from beef to those developing nations.
The cost of food in the world is linked closer to the costs of transportation and cooking then it is to the cost of grain.
Not sure if this thread is worth prodding into a better dialogue given what it has evolved into but will try.
@LewisBraham, you seriously need to think about whether your goal is to figure out how to help the problems you are pointing to or just want to be part of the problem joining the group of people whose sole goal is the satisfaction of beating people on the head with a self-righteous viewpoint because it makes you feel better. With all due respect (and I do mean that as you seem to be a smart guy), you do come out as much more of the latter than the former.
Even if the goal is to just educate people about the problems, the approach you are taking of indiscriminate or unnecessary painting of wealth, capital or capitalists will only serve to elicit the kind of response you get which only serves to reinforce your viewpoint, makes you feel good and encourage more of it. And this is a problem with a large group of people, not just you which is why we have these gridlocks. So the problem remains.
We somehow needs to break the deadlock between people who assume Capitalism is the solution to everything and those who think Capitalism is the cause of all problems. Even if they aren't that extreme, their approach to dialogue resembles that.
For example, the article which started this incites this polarization because it is often used by people to throw draggers at "capitalists" as if that was the problem. It isn't. 60 more billionaires creating great stuff is a good thing. Bill Gates is doing more stuff with his billions than most Governments. A Russian billionaire who became that by state supported appropriation of land and resources or a Saudi prince by being born to the right parents isn't a great example of wealth as a good thing and a triumph of capitalism.
Those people acquiring the wealth isn't creating poverty, the problems go far beyond an economic doctrine, often having to do with the nature of the Governments and even more often the history through which such regions arrived. So neither assuming Capitalism is the solution to that nor assuming Capitalism is the problem can be the solution.
Capitalism has an intended use and it has delivered well in that regard more than any other doctrine, because it legitimizes what is an inescapable characteristic of human beings - self interest and compared to dark ages of history have channeled and motivated people to be much more civilized about how to manifest that self interest. Otherwise, they would have been creating fiefdoms using violent means to kill people and confiscate property instead of building corporations even if predatory in business aspects which is worse than any modern day Capitalist has ever been accused of. People forget that. Not to say it is perfect but I can't think of anything better to structure self interest without trying to suppress self interests itself as bad which is doomed to failure within humans.
Capitalism as the means to assure a minimum level of living standard for everybody is an off-label use (to use a pharma term) of this economic doctrine and predictably with mixed results when you realize this problem has a number of variables in history, demographics, natural resources, etc., that does not fit cleanly into the labeled use for a simple return on capital model.
There are problems in abuse on capitalism within the US that needs to be tackled where what happens in developing countries isn't very relevant. For example, regulatory capture by capital.
There are problems in developing countries that need to be fixed which have nothing to do with capitalism or even the US except that when you strip down what is holding them back including corruption, lack of hope, unstable governments, etc, capitalism would be a good system to introduce. India is a good example of where this is happening within a democratic framework. Surprisingly, it is happening in China as well which is more capitalistic (if you look at the country as a single corporation) than many Governments. Note that most people confuse capitalism as an economic doctrine with a social doctrine relevant to the society and hence assume capitalism will solve all of that. Capitalism as an economic doctrine can exist even in socialist or communist political doctrine for social needs. China is a good example of that blend. And it is necessary for the amount of population they have.
So rather than using incendiary populist articles or "facts" out of context to create incendiary reactions (unless that is the intent), I think it would be far more productive to identify the label uses of capitalism and its abuses and the off label uses where something more is needed rather than make it the cause of everything good or everything bad.
I am not going to address the grain/meat issue because they are the usual talking points, the situation is much more complicated than the simplistic portrayal of people going hungry to produce meat for the richer nations. Does well in echo chambers, not so well for identifying the real solutions.
So pick your cause, solving the problem even if it just means arriving at reasoned consensus or catharsism from throwing darts at the opposite and often equally superficial talking points.
@vkt, The interesting thing is you assume what you're saying is "fact" and what I'm saying is radical opinion while I think what you're saying is radical opinion and what I'm saying is fact. Somehow if I disagree with you I'm simply being "emotional" or populist. That sounds like how a lot of men argue. They assume themselves to be men of reason and utmost rationality and their opponents are irrational. I can provide you many, many examples of how your logic is flawed as I'm sure you can mine, but we won't get anywhere this way with you assuming everything I say is incendiary and constantly turning my facts into sarcastic "facts." It's sort of like MJG's presumption that everyone agrees that a man like Jeff Bezos has benefited humanity immensely when there is ample evidence on the other side of that coin. And so--fin.
@vkt Your constant sarcasm reveals the emotionalism beneath your own "facts." There, see I can use quotes to cast doubt, too. And where are we?--Nowhere. So go back to your programming and I'll go back to mine. Each person is his own universe.
Facts are tricky things and subject to interpretation.
What is one man’s facts is another man’s opinion. Often, the separation of fact from opinion is a conundrum, especially when the alleged “facts” are not fully documented with reasonably reliable references. Far too often, that is the case on MFO and other Internet sites.
From Marcus Aurelius: “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth”. There is much truth and wisdom embedded in that quote.
I have frequently commented that a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest. Of course I didn’t originate that pity saying. I lifted it from the Simon and Garfunkel song “The Boxer”. I’m sure you’re anxious to hear that earthy song so I’ve linked it as follows:
Their music tells a compelling story. Let’s all take a deep breath, stay cool, and enjoy.
Comments
If you want to get more grain to the poor, stop using land for ethanol production to add to gasoline and channel all the subsidy money to the poor also.
If you want less grain fed beef, stop subsidies to the farmers that produce the grain. The cost of meat would rise and people would eat less of it.
Also, the vast majority of meat produced in the world -cattle, sheep, lamb - is grass fed, with grains fed to them prior the slaughter if at all.
What developing nations are losing access to grains? I doubt you can draw the link from beef to those developing nations.
The cost of food in the world is linked closer to the costs of transportation and cooking then it is to the cost of grain.
Classic right you are.
@LewisBraham, you seriously need to think about whether your goal is to figure out how to help the problems you are pointing to or just want to be part of the problem joining the group of people whose sole goal is the satisfaction of beating people on the head with a self-righteous viewpoint because it makes you feel better. With all due respect (and I do mean that as you seem to be a smart guy), you do come out as much more of the latter than the former.
Even if the goal is to just educate people about the problems, the approach you are taking of indiscriminate or unnecessary painting of wealth, capital or capitalists will only serve to elicit the kind of response you get which only serves to reinforce your viewpoint, makes you feel good and encourage more of it. And this is a problem with a large group of people, not just you which is why we have these gridlocks. So the problem remains.
We somehow needs to break the deadlock between people who assume Capitalism is the solution to everything and those who think Capitalism is the cause of all problems. Even if they aren't that extreme, their approach to dialogue resembles that.
For example, the article which started this incites this polarization because it is often used by people to throw draggers at "capitalists" as if that was the problem. It isn't. 60 more billionaires creating great stuff is a good thing. Bill Gates is doing more stuff with his billions than most Governments. A Russian billionaire who became that by state supported appropriation of land and resources or a Saudi prince by being born to the right parents isn't a great example of wealth as a good thing and a triumph of capitalism.
Those people acquiring the wealth isn't creating poverty, the problems go far beyond an economic doctrine, often having to do with the nature of the Governments and even more often the history through which such regions arrived. So neither assuming Capitalism is the solution to that nor assuming Capitalism is the problem can be the solution.
Capitalism has an intended use and it has delivered well in that regard more than any other doctrine, because it legitimizes what is an inescapable characteristic of human beings - self interest and compared to dark ages of history have channeled and motivated people to be much more civilized about how to manifest that self interest. Otherwise, they would have been creating fiefdoms using violent means to kill people and confiscate property instead of building corporations even if predatory in business aspects which is worse than any modern day Capitalist has ever been accused of. People forget that. Not to say it is perfect but I can't think of anything better to structure self interest without trying to suppress self interests itself as bad which is doomed to failure within humans.
Capitalism as the means to assure a minimum level of living standard for everybody is an off-label use (to use a pharma term) of this economic doctrine and predictably with mixed results when you realize this problem has a number of variables in history, demographics, natural resources, etc., that does not fit cleanly into the labeled use for a simple return on capital model.
There are problems in abuse on capitalism within the US that needs to be tackled where what happens in developing countries isn't very relevant. For example, regulatory capture by capital.
There are problems in developing countries that need to be fixed which have nothing to do with capitalism or even the US except that when you strip down what is holding them back including corruption, lack of hope, unstable governments, etc, capitalism would be a good system to introduce. India is a good example of where this is happening within a democratic framework. Surprisingly, it is happening in China as well which is more capitalistic (if you look at the country as a single corporation) than many Governments. Note that most people confuse capitalism as an economic doctrine with a social doctrine relevant to the society and hence assume capitalism will solve all of that. Capitalism as an economic doctrine can exist even in socialist or communist political doctrine for social needs. China is a good example of that blend. And it is necessary for the amount of population they have.
So rather than using incendiary populist articles or "facts" out of context to create incendiary reactions (unless that is the intent), I think it would be far more productive to identify the label uses of capitalism and its abuses and the off label uses where something more is needed rather than make it the cause of everything good or everything bad.
I am not going to address the grain/meat issue because they are the usual talking points, the situation is much more complicated than the simplistic portrayal of people going hungry to produce meat for the richer nations. Does well in echo chambers, not so well for identifying the real solutions.
So pick your cause, solving the problem even if it just means arriving at reasoned consensus or catharsism from throwing darts at the opposite and often equally superficial talking points.
Facts are tricky things and subject to interpretation.
What is one man’s facts is another man’s opinion. Often, the separation of fact from opinion is a conundrum, especially when the alleged “facts” are not fully documented with reasonably reliable references. Far too often, that is the case on MFO and other Internet sites.
From Marcus Aurelius: “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth”. There is much truth and wisdom embedded in that quote.
I have frequently commented that a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest. Of course I didn’t originate that pity saying. I lifted it from the Simon and Garfunkel song “The Boxer”. I’m sure you’re anxious to hear that earthy song so I’ve linked it as follows:
Their music tells a compelling story. Let’s all take a deep breath, stay cool, and enjoy.
Best Wishes.