'Ghettopoly' game causes outrage

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 12, 2003, 3:03 am

That wasn't what I meant, I mean it a similar, but not identical situation when both are living in America. Its the same for any under privledged class in America... but I agree this thread is dead.

Marb

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 12, 2003, 7:49 am

You can argue that anyone, regardless of their environment, can succeed in today's society. I almost agree with you but it is an extreme point of view. Fact is that it is much much harder to climb out of poverty than you are willing to admit. I lived in the ghetto as a kid.

It takes more than just drive. It takes a certain amount of intelligence, planning, and patience to climb into the next tax bracket. Most people do not possess these qualities, regardless of which step they are on the ladder.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 12, 2003, 9:41 pm

everytime someone has so much money...other people have so much less money, thats just common sense

Becouse of someone like Bill Gates, there is so many more americans in poverty, and starving children in sumalia etc

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 13, 2003, 12:01 am

Xzion wrote:everytime someone has so much money...other people have so much less money, thats just common sense

Becouse of someone like Bill Gates, there is so many more americans in poverty, and starving children in sumalia etc

Often stated as common sense, but its incorrect. Wealth is not a zero-sum game, it can be created. Say we both have identical plots of land. I then build a cabin on my land. I have created wealth for myself (in the form of a cabin). I didn't take anything away from you to do it. Zero-sum thinking ignores the fact that human effort moves resources from lower to higher value usages.

emmer · Post by **emmer** » October 13, 2003, 1:19 am

I think Dregor made a good point earlier in this thread. Black comedians have been getting laughs with jokes about the stereotypes between different races for years.

Wait! I can already hear the response. "It's ok for black comedians to stereotype for laughs, because they get the short end of the stick being opressed by upper class white people and whatnot" The thing is, that's not really a valid point in this case because the creator of this game is asian. So unless you are saying blacks are the only minority who can stereotype other races for laughs, you shouldn't really have a problem with ghettopoly.

Edit: I just saw there is a Martin Luther King Jr. peice in the game, which I think is a bit of bad taste. I can certainly see why people would get upset over that.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » October 13, 2003, 8:58 am

kyoukan wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:now we're getting somewhere with you, and thanks for not responding anymore with your ignorant posts. Your argument on this thread has been a joke anyway. Fighting my logic with your emotions will have you on the losing end everytime. adios.
nice edit. must be tough squeezing two whole thoughts out your brain at one time. exactly what logic are you employing in this thread?

I thought you were done on this thread? Oh, you meant you were finished debating and you will just resort to stupid insults now. Check, and Check. I don't blame you, I could hardly suffer through supporting your point of view myself.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 13, 2003, 10:34 am

everytime someone has so much money...other people have so much less money, thats just common sense

Take an econ class before you spread this common sense, please.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 13, 2003, 4:13 pm

reading is fundamental. I said I was done arguing against your fucking retarded "everyone who lives in a ghetto is there because they don't work hard enough; I know this because of the chinese" mentality. I hope one day somebody whacks you on the head and you somehow discover how much of a moron you are, because you really are not a very smart person.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » October 13, 2003, 4:24 pm

kyoukan wrote:reading is fundamental. I said I was done arguing against your fucking retarded "everyone who lives in a ghetto is there because they don't work hard enough; I know this because of the chinese" mentality. I hope one day somebody whacks you on the head and you somehow discover how much of a moron you are, because you really are not a very smart person.

You know, I just went over all of Krimson's posts on this thread, and I do not see where he states this. I see you trying to swing it that way, but I don't see him even implying "everyone who lives in a ghetto is there because they don't work hard enough; I know this because of the chinese".

Clarification please?

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 13, 2003, 6:06 pm

I detect masturbatory overtones. Where you been bud?

Acies · Post by **Acies** » October 13, 2003, 7:05 pm

Xyun wrote:I detect masturbatory overtones. Where you been bud?

Masterbating

Seriously though, I have just been recouping from what apparently is multipule Ulcers. How have you been Xyun?

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » October 14, 2003, 8:51 am

kyoukan wrote: ok I guess that pretty much ends the thread because I am not going to waste my time arguing against such a fucking moronic position.

If only you had kept your word and stopped posting, you probably could have saved face. Now you are resorting to twisting my words and looking silly, but what else is new in spinworld. I hope you one day realize that a strong work ethic can carry a people a very long way, and that's really the basis of my argument concerning ghettos. I am in no way saying that blacks don't start out disadvantaged when growing up in ghettos, I am saying they can still be something and overcome their economic hardships. It's done everyday, despite your fire-breathing.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » October 14, 2003, 8:59 am

/sarcasm on
But gub'ment assistance is the only path to success, you should know that Krimson!
/sarcasm off

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » October 14, 2003, 9:37 am

Don King is a living testament. He was imprisoned on gub'ment dollers, and now look at his education.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 14, 2003, 9:53 am

wealth can be created, but what i was going at is not every single person on earth can live in wealth and luxury, there arnt enough resources

knock off 2 or 3 billion and stop bitching about abortions, and maybe this oculd be possible

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 14, 2003, 11:00 am

Xzion wrote:wealth can be created, but what i was going at is not every single person on earth can live in wealth and luxury, there arnt enough resources

knock off 2 or 3 billion and stop bitching about abortions, and maybe this oculd be possible

Resources aren't as big of a constraint as you might think. Generally speaking our ability to extract resources and use them more efficiently has outstripped the greater demand presented by a larger and wealthier population.

As Julian Simon pointed out ...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n2-1.html

Simon’s central premise was that people are the ultimate resource. "Human beings," he wrote, "are not just more mouths to feed, but are productive and inventive minds that help find creative solutions to man’s problems, thus leaving us better off over the long run." As Ben Wattenberg of the American Enterprise Institute explained in his brilliant tribute to Simon in the Wall Street Journal, "Simon’s central point was that natural resources are not finite in any serious way; they are created by the intellect of man, an always renewable resource."

And of course the results of his famous bet.

http://www.mega.nu:8080/batf/www.boogie ... onbet.html

Economist Julian Simon wrote The Ultimate Resource in the late 1970's in response to a wave of false environmental pessimism arising from the now thoroughly discredited Club of Rome's Limits to Growth. Simon presented evidence that natural resources are getting less scarce, the world's food supply is improving, pollution in the richer countries is decreasing and population growth is evidence of economic success.

In October 1980, Simon challenged famous environmental doomster Paul Ehrlich and colleagues to a $1,000 bet that in ten years the price of any raw material they selected would fall (measured in constant 1980 dollars).

In October 1991, Ehrlich paid up. The prices of the five minerals chosen (copper, chrome, nickel, tin and tungsten) had dropped substantially. Simon wanted to renew his bet, upping the ante to $20,000, but the ecologists were not interested.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » October 14, 2003, 11:49 am

Simon presented evidence that natural resources are getting less scarce, the world's food supply is improving, pollution in the richer countries is decreasing and population growth is evidence of economic success

We may have improved our efficiency at extracting resources but I'm not convinced more reserves have magically sprung into being.
Pollution is increasing, though the definitions have probably changed since the 70s. If the UK is anything to go by "official" pollutions is under control but "real" pollution is crazy. That's a rant for another day though, and specific to my country.
Food supply is increasing yet the same drought and famine crises strike the same areas over and over again.
Population growth slowing in the developed world I'll grant you.
And then in the news of just the last few weeks thre's record increses in slum dwelling around the world and sea grass, north sea cod and all coral are all under severe threat from pollution or overfishing.

To suggest that the lifestyle currently enjoyed by the developed western world is sustainable or extensible to all seems incredible to me.

Simon wanted to renew his bet, upping the ante to $20,000, but the ecologists were not interested

I'd take that bet if the timeframe was 20 years rather than 10.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 14, 2003, 1:26 pm

http://www.cato.org/pubs/chapters/marlib21.html

As noted by MIT professor Morris Adelman, one of America's foremost energy experts, "The great oil shortage is like the horizon, always receding as one moves toward it."6 The world has nearly 10 times the amount of proven oil reserves that it had in 1950 and almost twice the known reserves of 1970. In fact, proven oil reserves are greater today than at any other time in recorded history.

Oil prices have dropped 35 percent in constant dollars since 1980. When indexed to U.S. wages, oil prices have dropped 43 percent since 1980 and show steady and continuing declines in price from as far back as 1870.7 The decline in oil prices has been reflected in the price of gasoline at the pump. Fuel prices in constant dollars are 6 percent lower today than they were in 1972 (just before the OPEC oil embargo), 25 percent lower than in 1963, and 30 percent lower than in 1947.8 Whereas 3.2 percent of total household expenditures were devoted to gasoline in 1972 (the lowest such rate since 1952), American households today devote but 2.6 percent of total expenditures to gasoline purchases.9

Proven natural gas reserves have also shown dramatic increases in the past 20 years; they have increased by 84 percent since 1974. At current rates of consumption, proven gas reserves alone will be sufficient for approximately 58 years.10 The fact that natural gas prices, after adjusting for inflation, have dropped only 3 percent since 1980 is largely a function of price and production controls that lingered into the 1980s and discouraged optimum product levels.

Likewise, between 1979 and 1989 proven coal reserves grew by 84 percent, an amount sufficient for 238 years given current levels of consumption.11 On an energy equivalent basis, proven reserves of coal are 43 percent greater than the world's combined total proven oil and natural gas reserves.12 Since 1980 the price of coal has dropped 91 percent when adjusted for inflation and 243 percent when indexed to U.S. wages.13

<table>
<tr>
<td colspan="4">
<div align="center"><a name="#table1"></a>Table 21.1 
Proven Reserves of Various Resources, 1950-90 
(Million Metric Tons)</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Resource</td>
<td>1950</td>
<td>1990</td>
<td>Change (%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Bauxite</td>
<td>1,400</td>
<td>21,500</td>
<td>1,436</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Chromium</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>420</td>
<td>500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Copper</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>350</td>
<td>250</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Iron Ore</td>
<td>19,000</td>
<td>145,000</td>
<td>663</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lead</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>75</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Manganese</td>
<td>500</td>
<td>980</td>
<td>96</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Nickel</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>247</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Oila</td>
<td>104</td>
<td>1,002</td>
<td>863</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Tin</td>
<td>6.0</td>
<td>4.2</td>
<td>-30</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Zinc</td>
<td>70</td>
<td>145</td>
<td>107</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4">SOURCE: Kahn, Brown, and Martel, p. 92; U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Mineral Commodities Summary, January 1990; Resources for Freedom,
Report of the President's Materials Policy Commission, 1952, vol. 2, p.
27; and Energy Statistics Resource Book (New York: PennWell, 1991),
pp. 143, 151. 
NOTE: Information on proven reserves of coal, magnesium, natural gas,
and titanium in 1950 is unavailable. 
aBillion barrels.</td>
</tr>
</table>

An examination of the price of 13 metals and minerals (aluminum, antimony, copper, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, nickel, platinum, silver, tin, tungsten, and zinc) shows a net 31 percent decline in real prices from 1980 to 1990. When indexed to wages, those price declines are even more dramatic. "Most of the minerals and metals at the turn of the century were five to ten times more expensive than they are today in terms of numbers of hours of work needed to purchase them."16

Declines in metal and mineral prices are reflected in the equally dramatic declines in raw material costs. From 1980 to 1990 the real price of glass fell 33 percent, cement prices fell 40 percent, metal price dropped 18 percent, and rubber prices declined by 40 percent.17

The disturbing, ongoing pattern of famine and drought in Africa and Asia has added credibility to the argument that the earth is approaching a point at which it will not be able to continue to feed the "teeming masses" of the planet. Yet by any analysis, this is a time of agricultural abundance unprecedented in the history of the world. Economist Thomas De Gregori observes that "if there is hunger in the world-and so there is, in abundance, even in wealthy countries-it is because of maldistribution of food, not insufficient global production.20 "Ten times as many people died of famine in the last quarter of the 19th century as have died of famine in the third quarter of the 20th century, despite our much larger present population and the massive engineered famines in Cambodia during the 1970s.21

An examination of 15 representative agricultural commodities (barley, broilers, carrots, cattle, corn, cotton, eggs, milk, oats, oranges, rice, sorghum, soybeans, wheat, and wool) reveals that real prices in the United States dropped by an average of 38 percent from 1980 to 1990. When indexed to wages, the price of those foodstuffs has declined 83 percent since 1950.22 Clearly, if the earth's agricultural productivity were being outpaced by voracious demand for food as a result of the population explosion, agricultural prices would be rising sharply rather than falling dramatically as the data indicate.

Likewise, it is clear that the agricultural output of the planet has increased exponentially over the past several centuries. Since 1960 technological advances in farm equipment, pesticides, fertilizers, irrigation techniques, bioengineering, and soil management have led to a doubling of world food production and 30 percent increases in farmland productivity.23 Technological advances have more than kept pace with the explosion in global population. Since 1948 world food production has surpassed population increases by about 1 percent a year.24 Although global population has doubled since World War II, world grain production has tripled.

The Malthusian view of mankind about to outgrow its resources has been wrong for the last 200 years. This is of course no guarantee of future conditions, but until substantial evidence to the contrary presents itself, I'll go with the Simon view.

P.S. Sorry for the big chunk of white space, I'll see if I can clean it up later.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » October 14, 2003, 1:33 pm

Good info Chmee.

So, given that the above is true and has been true for 53 years, and couple that with our more efficient extraction of said reserves, how come global poverty is still a problem, slums are swelling to record levels and the problems of marine pollution, air pollution and "the greenhouse effect" are still with us? How come in the US and UK the rich ARE getting richer and the poor aren't?

Could it be that my observation that "wealth creation" only creates wealth for the all ready wealthy is true?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 14, 2003, 2:15 pm

What on earth does "proven reserves" mean? Does it mean that they tapped that resource in places where it wasn't known to exist or does it mean that this resource magically regenerated itself?

You can keep sticking pipes in the ground, eventually, there won't be places to stick those pipes.

As far as the rich getting richer goes, it's beyond easy to make money if you have it already. Shit, if I had about 50k is reserves just to work for me, I could make about 25% on that amount annually, easily. Hell, if I wasn't generally risk averse because I'm now married, I could probably do it w/out even having the start-up just by knowing how to jack around with money.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 14, 2003, 3:19 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:Good info Chmee.

So, given that the above is true and has been true for 53 years, and couple that with our more efficient extraction of said reserves, how come global poverty is still a problem, slums are swelling to record levels and the problems of marine pollution, air pollution and "the greenhouse effect" are still with us?

Haven't you been reading the thread dude? Because poor people don't work hard enough. I mean seriously man: duh. Try and pay attention.

My evidence supporting my position is China.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 14, 2003, 6:08 pm

So, given that the above is true and has been true for 53 years, and couple that with our more efficient extraction of said reserves, how come global poverty is still a problem, slums are swelling to record levels and the problems of marine pollution, air pollution and "the greenhouse effect" are still with us? How come in the US and UK the rich ARE getting richer and the poor aren't?

Efficiency in resource useage and reductions in pollution take place in developed countries. Third world countries are still an ecological nightmare. One day the ELF freaks will realize that a fuckload more pollution is created burning down a few square miles of jungle than building a Hummer. Of course, they will have to get over their guilt trips first...

Tanc, you want to watch leaning on air pollution and the greenhouse effect. Except for very localized issues, no one has been able to show the atmosphere in any worse condition over the last decade. The 'greenhouse effect" is pretty much a mockery considering the stability of global temps.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » October 14, 2003, 6:31 pm

kyoukan wrote:
vn_Tanc wrote:Good info Chmee.

So, given that the above is true and has been true for 53 years, and couple that with our more efficient extraction of said reserves, how come global poverty is still a problem, slums are swelling to record levels and the problems of marine pollution, air pollution and "the greenhouse effect" are still with us?
Haven't you been reading the thread dude? Because poor people don't work hard enough. I mean seriously man: duh. Try and pay attention.

My evidence supporting my position is China.

Anyone ever tell you that you are a sore loser?

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » October 14, 2003, 7:10 pm

Yes we are finding new oil resources but we have to.

In 1960 the world was consuming 21.34 Million Barrels Per Day. In 1993 we were consuming 66.71 Million Barrels Per Day.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 14, 2003, 8:11 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:Good info Chmee.

So, given that the above is true and has been true for 53 years, and couple that with our more efficient extraction of said reserves, how come global poverty is still a problem, slums are swelling to record levels and the problems of marine pollution, air pollution and "the greenhouse effect" are still with us? How come in the US and UK the rich ARE getting richer and the poor aren't?

Could it be that my observation that "wealth creation" only creates wealth for the all ready wealthy is true?

Tanc,

There are still too many people in poverty in the world, but the trends there are generally positive as well. This has some information on various indicators of well being (warning pdf file).

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa447.pdf

Was looking for some long term numbers for poverty, but didn't really see any (I know I have seen some in the past).

Pollution is on the downward trend in most of the wealthier nations.

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/

Since 1970, aggregate emissions of the six principal pollutants have been cut 48 percent. During that same time, U.S. gross domestic product increased 164 percent, energy consumption increased 42 percent, and vehicle miles traveled increased 155 percent.

That is not necessarily true in the developing world. When faced with a choice between a clean environment and providing the basics, food, clothing, housing, less affluent people frequently choose the stables. People in general though do prefer to live in a cleaner environment and as societies become wealthier they can afford it and pollution typically decreases.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 14, 2003, 8:16 pm

Chidoro wrote:What on earth does "proven reserves" mean? Does it mean that they tapped that resource in places where it wasn't known to exist or does it mean that this resource magically regenerated itself?

You can keep sticking pipes in the ground, eventually, there won't be places to stick those pipes.

As far as the rich getting richer goes, it's beyond easy to make money if you have it already. Shit, if I had about 50k is reserves just to work for me, I could make about 25% on that amount annually, easily. Hell, if I wasn't generally risk averse because I'm now married, I could probably do it w/out even having the start-up just by knowing how to jack around with money.

By my understanding, proven reserves is what is considered to be feasible to extract economically from various resource deposits based on their estimated size by geological surveys etc. The number trends upward as we develope more economical ways of extracting the resources and better ways of finding them.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 14, 2003, 8:30 pm

kyoukan wrote:
vn_Tanc wrote:Good info Chmee.

So, given that the above is true and has been true for 53 years, and couple that with our more efficient extraction of said reserves, how come global poverty is still a problem, slums are swelling to record levels and the problems of marine pollution, air pollution and "the greenhouse effect" are still with us?
Haven't you been reading the thread dude? Because poor people don't work hard enough. I mean seriously man: duh. Try and pay attention.

My evidence supporting my position is China.

China is an excellent example. Since allowing portions of its economy to privatize, it has enjoyed a very high rate of growth. It still has too much of its economy tied in the state sector, and the government is still not nearly supportive enough of human rights and freedom, but it has made some progress in the right direction.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 14, 2003, 8:35 pm

Chmee wrote:China is an excellent example. Since allowing portions of its economy to privatize, it has enjoyed a very high rate of growth. It still has too much of its economy tied in the state sector, and the government is still not nearly supportive enough of human rights and freedom, but it has made some progress in the right direction.

yes that's a brilliant example of asian worth ethic making the country's population more prosperous.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » October 15, 2003, 7:54 am

Was looking for some long term numbers for poverty, but didn't really see any (I know I have seen some in the past).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3161812.stm

Is the latest I've seen.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 15, 2003, 8:58 am

Chmee wrote:By my understanding, proven reserves is what is considered to be feasible to extract economically from various resource deposits based on their estimated size by geological surveys etc. The number trends upward as we develope more economical ways of extracting the resources and better ways of finding them.

In other words, finding another hole or digging deeper in the current one, ie. finite. Cute use of the english language though.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 15, 2003, 9:23 am

Chidoro wrote:
Chmee wrote:By my understanding, proven reserves is what is considered to be feasible to extract economically from various resource deposits based on their estimated size by geological surveys etc. The number trends upward as we develope more economical ways of extracting the resources and better ways of finding them.
In other words, finding another hole or digging deeper in the current one, ie. finite. Cute use of the english language though.

Just to clarify, proven reserves are the amount of economically extractable resources we know of at any one point in time. My comment about the amount trending upward refers to looking at the proven resources over time. Proven reserves at any one point do not take into account potential advances in technology.

Although ultimately finite in the sense of how much of any material exists on the planet (ignoring the possibility of mining beyond earth), the current trends have not shown any indication of coming near those constraints yet. It is also important to remember that ultimately a resource is useful for the purposes we put it towards. If a given resource does start becoming scarce, it starts becoming less economically feasible to use and other materials are substituted.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 15, 2003, 9:28 am

Yes, that's why we're so separated from fossil fuel dependancy.

Now we're digging in space?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » October 15, 2003, 11:14 am

Every resource humanity could possibly use for the next 100 centuries is sitting unharnessed in our asteroid belt, and on the moon.

It is actually at the point now that economic development of this potential is a win financially. Orbital production facilities could cut planetary pollution, and it is easy to drop things into a gravity well, it is expensive to leave it.

Of course with the money needed for R&D being tied up paying welfare checks it will not happen in a hurry.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 15, 2003, 11:29 am

you're a funny guy

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 15, 2003, 11:59 am

I specifically excluded mining outside of earth. Although it may be economically feasible at some point, given how cheap resources are generally on earth (and as I have pointed out, trending downward) it would probably be quite some ways into the future before it would be desirable. I have always been a space enthusiast and would love to see more happen in that arena, but I don't think resource extraction will be a pratical driving force for it in the near future (although you never know how technological advances may change that equation).

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » October 15, 2003, 12:24 pm

Tom Toles = teh win~

http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/tt/200 ... index.html

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » October 15, 2003, 12:29 pm

Kylere wrote:Every resource humanity could possibly use for the next 100 centuries is sitting unharnessed in our asteroid belt, and on the moon.

It is actually at the point now that economic development of this potential is a win financially. Orbital production facilities could cut planetary pollution, and it is easy to drop things into a gravity well, it is expensive to leave it.

Of course with the money needed for R&D being tied up paying welfare checks it will not happen in a hurry.

Every resource? What are you, nuts?