Prob a fitting answer though, since the question seems to suggest its immoral not to pay George Bush more money than anyone else in the world.

FWIW Bush, Cheney and their cabinet DID make more money than anyone else in the world during their run IMO. It's near impossible to prove and filtered through so many different companies and subsidiaries it's hard to tell just how much $$$ Bush, Cheney, and others in their cabinet actually made individually but the paper trails show evidence in support of my claims.

How much money one makes is not covered by "IMO."

[quote It's near impossible to prove and filtered through so many different companies and subsidiaries it's hard to tell just how much $$$ Bush, Cheney, and others in their cabinet actually made individually but the paper trails show evidence in support of my claims.[/QUOte]

You have not done the work, but are making claims. Do the work first, then make claims.

Or, at least, point us in the direction of the source and evidence of such claims.

(and I expect, with a sense of hopefulness, that this will all be sent to politics, where it belongs so I can ignore it)

I disagree. I think going back to colonialism capitalism has made life in the third world worse. I think poor governments get pressured into making decisions by the world bank and other globalist powers which don't prove to be of benefit to their people.

For example, a poor african country gets a loan for aid or otherwise, but the only way to pay off the loan is to grow a commodity crop like coffee, which people can't eat. This raises the price of food in the poor country, and makes the land less suitable for growing food later. There may be some people who are better off (in cities), but the destruction of the environment has led to the suffering of many who once lived off of it.

The third world areas have always had problems on and off. On average, if you include all areas that were third-world at some earlier date, there has been net improvement.

What you are describing is the risks of having an economy that is concentrated on one trade product because it can be traded today for excessive prices. That takes place with our without capitalism.

The caveman who made some in-fashion thing and traded it for food took similar risks. Had it not been for people taking such risks, you'd be a jack of all trades (grow your own food, build your own house, etc.) and we'd still be living in caves.

Specialization has risks. They are overwhelmed by the net gains though.

I've never understood this thinking. It's not as if the poor African country is being forced to take money from the rich World Bank Godfather. They take the loan because it's in their best interest. Is there a cost to the loan? Sure, money ain't free. (Okay well, that's not entirely true. These countries get tons of foreign aid as well.) But if they believed these loans were really hurting instead of benefiting their country, they could simply choose to not take the loan. I doubt the World Bank would break their kneecaps.

Please read these two books for a contrary view:

http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Ec.../dp/0452287081

http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-His...dp/0452289572/

That shyt is pretty scary if it's true. Seems like if this sort of high-level corruption is really taking place, someone (like the author, for example) ought to be able to produce some hard evidence. Does make me wonder though.

Edit: I actually have a couple buddies who work in D.C. on international development advocacy and implemention. I've never heard anything like this from them, and I know they both got into that line of work to do good for the world (they certainly aren't thugs). Both of them used to live overseas, one in Vietnam and the other in Tansania. I'm gonna bring this up next time I talk to them and see what they think.

pretty shocked that you didnt know these kind of things happen in 2nd or 3rd world countries.
Not saying that the author has the absolute truth buy many of the things can be easily proved by documents or actual facts.
I think this has to do with the media american media that is so controlled that every "important" message is altered (look at the events in Syria, but this is offtopic).

Are you guys disputing the fact that if a company can profit maximally by going near a health limit imposed for its products or an environmental impact threshold of its operations it will not avoid doing that? What if it can lobby to increase those limits or to assist in determining them if not done yet to levels that are reasonable for its operations? Will it simply accept much less profits but better quality for all involved? I dont think so. It may select to behave so nice only if it can secure it is known and used to create a prestige and other tangible marketing long term benefits. But if nobody knows there is no problem. This right there is the problem with unconstrained and unethical in leadership capitalism (also known as pure capitalism) but not with a scientific society. It simply doesnt care if nobody is looking. You may claim that a better company can arise that markets itself as doing a better/cleaner job but experience shows this doesnt happen easily.

It is simply not a priority to be good if this doesnt buy you something that leads to wealth, moreover the fact that if we all were good, wealth would be more for all of us eventually. That fact is missed when only short term personal gain is the criterion of behavior. It is simply unstable to reach that good behavior if defection is easy. So you need logical scientific/ethical restrictions to institute proper cooperating behavior that otherwise capitalism hates. This is by the way why we have many laws because they promote a secure society and demand cooperation in order to bypass the defection instability and reach the higher collective utility for all involved. If you have no laws to prohibit stealing the action is simply near term attractive and society breaks down. Guess what, if profit is the number one objective you will find ways to walk in areas the law doesnt protect well and do the ethical crime eventually without suffering obvious consequences. This is why you have huge legal departments to fight for you and tell you how to do it. Its a manipulation game.

Tell me if a company like Chevron that recently had a Bay area accident feels responsible for the damage to environment and the price impact on gas sold in the area why doesnt it do the honorable thing to take all losses on the excess of price of gas or simply flood the market with extra effort to support the reduced demand due to the damages?

Why do oil companies let oil be at 80-90$ per barrel or even 100-120 other times when they can simply flood the market with oil produced from areas it costs 35 to 30 $ per barrel to extract. If they did that the prices would be much lower and still have a decent 50% profit (say sold at $50). Their profits overall kept however much lower too. They instead prefer a permanent crisis that keeps world stock markets and economies at a stress for a decade now and ultimately will destroy world economy at this rate.

It costs the US 400 bil per year to buy its excess oil (imported over local production). Isnt that simply pathetic for the economy? What could you do with 200 bil per year savings if oil was 50% lower? Couldn't you use that money to fund all kinds of research and job creation projects? How about the many more times higher cost to all products that use oil as chemical source or transportation fuel etc. Higher oil prices impact many areas of the economy. So there should exist ethical incentive to lower oil prices for society and at the same time still feel the urgency stress to research for alternative sources of energy rather than use these low prices to ignore the eventual problem. Why should urgency be fueled by economic crisis and not planning? But no, of course a steady no to logic is the way to do business, its better to drill for oil at the minimum pace that keeps prices high and have permanent war/terrorism crises overseas to keep the prices high and accumulate hundreds of billions of profits for oil companies for a decade that can of course afford now all the lobbying they want to keep the situation under control with corrupt politicians that are basically almost all of them. Democracy? I dont think so. Democracy is not what capitalism buys for you even if it claims to do so initially. You can either have a more ethical capitalism or face a revolution that will install scientific society. Choose!

It's not that I doubt this sort of thing happens, no doubt corruption in industry takes place. Just to think it is so widespread as the author claims and even aided by high members of congress so the US government can control 3rd world countries reeks a bit of conspiracy lunacy. Of course, it could still be true. But these "documents and actual facts" are not as easily produced as you claim, or else why would nobody be prosecuting the World Bank or these industries for their crimes?

As far as US media being controlled, no doubt we hear a tainted view of things this side of the pond, but do you really think your media is free and clear of bias? The real question should be who's getting the least tainted view. I doubt the US media is worse than most.

During the cold war I'm sure the vast majority of Americans would have supported manipulating third world countries for U.S. interest. They probably would now as well, but might not be so honest as to admit it these days.

Since this didn't get any feedback, I just wanted to say nice post.

I completely disagree with where you think the revolution will come from and where it will go and whether it will happen in our lifetime.

I expect that we will continue doing what we do for quite a long time.

I expect that any real revolution will come too late to make a whit of difference, or we will innovate ourselves out of the problems which will make revolution not happen.

(really, I think that the only mistake you are making is that you think that people care about species survival or long-term well-being)

I don't support it now. During the cold war perhaps it was a necessary evil, or else have those same countries fall under Soviet influence. That chess game is over, and I don't see why it wouldn't be to everyone's benifit, including the US for these countries to stand on their own. I believe that is the purpose of the World Bank. Are there any examples of where it is working?

You should check out the books if you're interested. They are both available on audiobook, which is nice if you're like me and spend a lot of time in the car.