Resource Prosperity & Reducing Poverty

guerilla

guerilla

All we do is win
Aug 18, 2007
11,424
428
0
No
From Mises Blog

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y]YouTube - Are we running out of resources?[/ame]

---

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8]YouTube - Are the poor getting poorer?[/ame]

:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1yerrot


According to the Census Bureau, 12.6 percent of Americans were poor in 2005. Out of those persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau:

- Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

- Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

- Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

- Ninety-eight percent report that they always had "enough food to eat" during the past four months, although not always the kinds of food they would have preferred.

How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America | The Heritage Foundation
 
tell that dude to stfu


no water = no mankind
find a substitute for that, bitch!
 
oldgym said:
tell that dude to stfu


no water = no mankind
find a substitute for that, bitch!
Click to expand...

There is a maximum possible price of water, it is tied to the price of electricity, due to osmosis of sea water, of which there is enough for billions more people.

Guerrilla, great videos, nice when they're not 4 hours long ;)
 
I feel like smacking them in the face when poor people bitch about being poor. STFU AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
 
Yeah, fuck those greenies, we are an ingenious species, we will pervail, no matter what we do to the earth, the resources will always be there, even when the earth turns to fucking wasteland we will find ways to turns sulphuric dust to gold which we'll turn to food which we'll eat.

The solution to everything is to make it very expensive, simple, fucking 101

MWAHAHAHAHAH *evil laugh*
 
oldgym said:
tell that dude to stfu


no water = no mankind
find a substitute for that, bitch!
Click to expand...

if that were ever the case, forgetting that ocean water can be desalinized, there are plenty of chemical reactions in which the byproduct is water. at that point I doubt cost would matter.

one good example:

NaOH + HCl => H2O + NaCl

just made water and salt, congrats
 
Just saw these G, was that first one meant for me? ;)

I agree wholeheartedly with the second film; and have long ago proposed open hunting season on welfare families.

This is why I don't have any liberal friends; they think I'm one of them until I go off on a tear about how ppl taking advantage of the system will always be their downfall so let's go grab some guns tonight... :angryfire:

However, as you could guess, that first film doesn't quite jive with good logic for me.

Yes, he makes a point that incentive creates more barrels. I don't argue with any of that... But the logical conclusion on this planet is that we WILL run out sometime regardless, because we simply ain't making no more dinosaurs!

All of those peak oil estimates were just estimates based on the existing production at the time... And then the next year someone finds a new vein and taps it.

One of these days the next new vein isn't going to be there. -And there is no way of estimating when that will be, so I'm not going to stick my head out and pick a decade... But it'll start to get obvious when we're already drilling everywhere above 1 mile below.

Also, he totally didn't take into consideration the rate of population explosion. He's basing all those numbers on time (the entire history before us) when man numbered fewer. Can it keep up when there is 10 Billion? 20? Doubtful.

If we can't get these developing countries off of oil before the world's population hits 10 Billion then it's a completely different ballgame than the one he described.

Otherwise, cool films.
 
^ That's why he pointed out that as resources become more limited (like copper did in his example) and prices rise as a result of supply & demand innovation happens and new materials are used (in the copper example it was the use of fiberop).
 
lukep said:
Just saw these G, was that first one meant for me? ;)

I agree wholeheartedly with the second film; and have long ago proposed open hunting season on welfare families.

This is why I don't have any liberal friends; they think I'm one of them until I go off on a tear about how ppl taking advantage of the system will always be their downfall so let's go grab some guns tonight... :angryfire:

However, as you could guess, that first film doesn't quite jive with good logic for me.

Yes, he makes a point that incentive creates more barrels. I don't argue with any of that... But the logical conclusion on this planet is that we WILL run out sometime regardless, because we simply ain't making no more dinosaurs!

All of those peak oil estimates were just estimates based on the existing production at the time... And then the next year someone finds a new vein and taps it.

One of these days the next new vein isn't going to be there. -And there is no way of estimating when that will be, so I'm not going to stick my head out and pick a decade... But it'll start to get obvious when we're already drilling everywhere above 1 mile below.

Also, he totally didn't take into consideration the rate of population explosion. He's basing all those numbers on time (the entire history before us) when man numbered fewer. Can it keep up when there is 10 Billion? 20? Doubtful.

If we can't get these developing countries off of oil before the world's population hits 10 Billion then it's a completely different ballgame than the one he described.

Otherwise, cool films.
Click to expand...

Just like we ran out of copper!
 
Another good one. Comparative advantage is a tricky topic, but once it is understood, it has enormous explanatory power. It's also crucial that business people understand this IMO.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0gGyeA-8C4]YouTube - "Trade is Made of Win," Part 1: Wealth Creation[/ame]
 
Let me just toss this grenade in the middle of this circle jerk right quick....

Now let's factor in the increase of total hours worked to achieve that increase in pay, women having to enter the workforce to help increase those family incomes in order to afford those rising costs of living and the end result of less parenting in the house on children's education and development.

...slowly backing away...
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
Now let's factor in the increase of total hours worked to achieve that increase in pay, women having to enter the workforce to help increase those family incomes in order to afford those rising costs of living and the end result of less parenting in the house on children's education and development.
Click to expand...
How does that invalidate anything in the video?
 
guerilla said:
How does that invalidate anything in the video?
Click to expand...

Because the most valuable resource we have is time. There is nothing more valuable and it is how we ultimately measure everything. To put it in simple terms, would the average American rather work 80 hours/week to earn $60k or 40 hours/week to earn $50k. If all you look at is the pay, you're missing the most important factor - time.

And yes, you know I'm holding some aces up my sleeve...
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
If all you look at is the pay, you're missing the most important factor - time.
Click to expand...

I assumed you were talking about the fungible definition of a "household". A household with a single wage earner earning $30,000 in 1975 is comparatively less poor than a household with two wage earners (mom has to go to work to make ends meet) who each make $20,000 (for a total of 40K) in 1995. Thus the appearance of income mobility. The video doesn't make that distinction so your point doesn't invalidate it.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
Because the most valuable resource we have is time. There is nothing more valuable and it is how we ultimately measure everything.
Click to expand...
This is only true for people with a low time preference. You should look up time preference theory on Wikipedia. It's a good read. You're right that time is valuable, but not everyone values it as highly, which is why a factor in the different fiscal attitudes of individuals.

Unarmed Gunman said:
To put it in simple terms, would the average American rather work 80 hours/week to earn $60k or 40 hours/week to earn $50k. If all you look at is the pay, you're missing the most important factor - time.
Click to expand...
Well, Steve Horowtiz (the guy in the video) is an Austrian, and the Austrian school is the only one which rigorously accounts for time as a factor in economics.

I still haven't seen where what you're saying invalidates anything the video. Could you specifically indicate what he said that was wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom