Thread: How to solve global problem of the refugies?

Developed countries accept millions of refugies for a while and recently some of them disoveried that they are not botomless and started to accept anti-immigration laws.Especially this thrend is strong in Europe.Meanwhile it seems I know the bright solution to the refugies problem.The territories where refugies are placed should be expanded for expence of developing countries rather than developed!For example on each continent there should be created large zones under rule of UN or some developed countries where all those refugies whould be placed.I think principally such territories could be found in such countries as Mongolia or Kazakhstan where huge territories are idle.In South America it could be Argentina.Territories in those countries could be rented by big 7 and later when refugies will run their own economies they will pay rent themself at least partially.

One of the reasons Khazakstan in sparsely populated is that the land is not very productive. How do you intend the refugees to make a living in such a hardh, hostile environment?

Or take Argentina - do you think they will willingly give up territory? Even if it is relatively empty how do you plan to deal with those people who do live there? Ethnic cleansing?

The plan definitely needs modification. Ophiolite is right that the land has to come from somewhere. You can't establish a legal system without some kind of territory over which it claims sovereignty. Religions and cults may come close to accomplishing this, but they can't enforce laws very well without coming into conflict with the official authorities.

I have a hard time understanding why third world countries don't just surrender their sovereignty outright to some first world country and then ask that, as part of the merger, their own citizens be granted citizenship status in the better developed country. Puerto Rico, for example, is a cesspool, but as an official territory of the USA, all of its people are free to live in the USA if they'd prefer. When I used to work with Hispanic immigrants, Puerto Ricans were always the easiest, because none of them ever had illegal status. They're citizens. (Unless that's changed in the last few years. Puerto Rico holds votes over whether to sever ties from time to time. )

I have a hard time understanding why third world countries don't just surrender their sovereignty outright to some first world country and then ask that, as part of the merger, their own citizens be granted citizenship status in the better developed country.

Answers to those questions are quite obvious and even strange that you ask them.First of all majority of rulers of third world countries will not agree to surrender their countries becouse world ``their`` often could be regared as literal.Secondly, developed countries will be against such merge because it would be not clear enough what to do with completely corrupted systems which exist there.If they will try to implement total cleansing of goverment on a new territories,corruptioners will immediately cry about ``colonialism`` and ``ethnic cleansing`` and will organize citizenship war by hiring different criminal elements.This is not what calm developed countries expect to have.

What concerns to your example of Puerto Rico,I think it may become possible only because Puerto Rico is tiny in comparison to U.S.
I guess if Mexico would ask for the same right now there is no way how it would be accepted.The great difference in level of life would be preserved for couple of decades at least and tens of millions of instant migrants is not a something that even U.S. could sustain.

Yeah. I guess the size difference is a serious advantage for Puerto Rico. If Mexico wanted to join with the USA, they'd have to let us reshape them from the outside first, until their system was basically on the same level as ours. And..... then they probably wouldn't want to merge with us anymore anyway.

Most of the third world's economies could be fixed in a decade or two if they'd just change their systems, or allow an outside force to change it for them. There's just too much cultural pride invested in the status quo. When asked to weigh financial prosperity against cultural ego, it seems most people will opt to keep their cultural ego and starve. I say let them. I just wish they'd have fewer kids so the starvation process could result in a permanent change, instead of a perpetual cycle.

Instead of 1) - have kids, 2)- subject them to conditions of abject poverty and oppression, 3)- have more kids (thus resetting the cycle), 4) - die finally........ it should be 1)- have kids, 2) - subject them to conditions of abject poverty and oppression, 3) - realize their way of life sucks and no rational human being would ever want to be born as one of their children and have to grow up amid the abuse that persists in their stupid society. 4) - die finally. Sometimes a battered women in an abusive home who feels she is unable to leave will go out of her way to ensure she doesn't get pregnant, out of a desire to avoid bringing a child into that environment. It would be nice if that mentality could persist on a larger scale.

Most of the third world's economies could be fixed in a decade or two if they'd just change their systems, or allow an outside force to change it for them.

I think that Eastern European countries are best candidates to benefit from such an option.At least level of education there is appropriate.I don`t think such transition would be easy for many other countries.There is still not uncommon countries in which people believe that thievs should be punished with slicing of their hands/hads and they have similar practices now.Level of education and general culture is just not there.
Eastern Europe is trying to solve that question in different ways.Some of countries already joined EU and believe it is their integration.Other such as Ukraine would be glad to join but still not accepted.And Russia which realize it will never be accepted.Those Ukrainians and Russians who want to integrate into Western society just try immigrate there.
What is concerning to majority of population, I do not think there is some problem with ego,rather passivity and inertness of thinking.Some people also may believe that such ideas may not sound ``patriotic`` or may be too abstract.Honesly I don`t think that Western countries are interested to ``recover`` such countries as Russia.They prefer rather enjoy vengeance on their former(?) enemies and keep it as raw materials and cheap prostitutes supplier.

realize their way of life sucks and no rational human being would ever want to be born as one of their children and have to grow up amid the abuse that persists in their stupid society

I thougt about this question myself.I think that currently thirld world may experience some negatitive selection by those who think less about future of their children having more children instead.But what do you whant from people many if not most of whom do not even have access to elementary preservatives?Partially this is fault of developed nations who didn`t provide them with free preservatives and didn`t teach with idea to regulate their fertility rates.Many of third world dwellers do not have even access to modern mass media such as TV and radio from which they could get idea to regulate fertility rates.I guess it would be not to difficult supply them with cheap radio receivers and promote attractive music channels with propaganda of fertility rate reduction.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Most of the third world's economies could be fixed in a decade or two if they'd just change their systems, or allow an outside force to change it for them.

I think that Eastern European countries are best candidates to benefit from such an option.At least level of education there is appropriate.I don`t think such transition would be easy for many other countries.There is still not uncommon countries in which people believe that thievs should be punished with slicing of their hands/hads and they have similar practices now.Level of education and general culture is just not there.
Eastern Europe is trying to solve that question in different ways.Some of countries already joined EU and believe it is their integration.Other such as Ukraine would be glad to join but still not accepted.And Russia which realize it will never be accepted.Those Ukrainians and Russians who want to integrate into Western society just try immigrate there.
What is concerning to majority of population, I do not think there is some problem with ego,rather passivity and inertness of thinking.Some people also may believe that such ideas may not sound ``patriotic`` or may be too abstract.

It's really hard to work with former Soviet nations because there is such an ingrained culture of corruption among the government officials. Bribe taking and other corruption was rampant during the Soviet era.

When the leadership at all levels of a country believes in outright extortion against the public, or as Brehznev described it, the idea that: "Nobody lives just on their wages", .... All you're going to get is talk about reform, but no action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_...its_and_family

Honesly I don`t think that Western countries are interested to ``recover`` such countries as Russia.They prefer rather enjoy vengeance on their former(?) enemies and keep it as raw materials and cheap prostitutes supplier.

I feel bad seeing that many beautiful women reduced to prostitution. If they don't get married and have kids, then where will the beautiful women of tomorrow come from? Humanity will become uglier as a species.

realize their way of life sucks and no rational human being would ever want to be born as one of their children and have to grow up amid the abuse that persists in their stupid society

I thougt about this question myself.I think that currently thirld world may experience some negatitive selection by those who think less about future of their children having more children instead.But what do you whant from people many if not most of whom do not even have access to elementary preservatives?Partially this is fault of developed nations who didn`t provide them with free preservatives and didn`t teach with idea to regulate their fertility rates.Many of third world dwellers do not have even access to modern mass media such as TV and radio from which they could get idea to regulate fertility rates.I guess it would be not to difficult supply them with cheap radio receivers and promote attractive music channels with propaganda of fertility rate reduction.

I don't know why it doesn't happen. My best guess is that the contraceptives themselves have too high a market value, and are too easy to resell. How do you stop corrupt officials from seizing and reselling it?

When the leadership at all levels of a country believes in outright extortion against the public, or as Brehznev described it, the idea that: "Nobody lives just on their wages",

All this is true.But I`m not sure that corruption is always able to completely halt any development of manufacturing.For example Italy according to world corruption index
http://www.transparency.org/policy_r...i/2010/results
Is somewhere between Ukraine and Poland in level of corruption.It didn`t completely prevent this country to develop some manufacturing in the past and get life standards closer to developed countries.The same relates to Greece.I guess that also similar picture was in South Korea,especially in the past.So most of things depend on desire of developed countries to accept some country in ``golden club`` and allow it to develop.
Unfortunately for Russians and Ukrainians they were from very beginning scheduled for extermination.Margaret Tetcher openly said that for Russia will suffice population of 10-15 millions.It will be enough for oil production.Ukrainian population was openly scheduled to be reduced from former 52 mln to 35 mln.For the last 12 years it`s reduced on seven millions!

Humanity will become uglier as a species.

It apparntly does.From what I seeng.

I don't know why it doesn't happen. My best guess is that the contraceptives themselves have too high a market value, and are too easy to resell. How do you stop corrupt officials from seizing and reselling it?

Contraceptives may be personally delievered to people.I hope officials will not visit every house and will not take them away.Also contraceptives for the third world could be marked in some special color and be prohibited for reselling in developed countries.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

When the leadership at all levels of a country believes in outright extortion against the public, or as Brehznev described it, the idea that: "Nobody lives just on their wages",

All this is true.But I`m not sure that corruption is always able to completely halt any development of manufacturing.For example Italy according to world corruption index
http://www.transparency.org/policy_r...i/2010/results
Is somewhere between Ukraine and Poland in level of corruption.It didn`t completely prevent this country to develop some manufacturing in the past and get life standards closer to developed countries.The same relates to Greece.I guess that also similar picture was in South Korea,especially in the past.So most of things depend on desire of developed countries to accept some country in ``golden club`` and allow it to develop.

The same is true of Mexico. There's lots of manufacturing, but the wealth stays concentrated. Those kinds of economies only survive by selling to countries that have better wealth distributions than their own, though. If the USA were smart, we'd start closing our borders to those guys. (Because the long term result of allowing them to sell to our market will be for our wealth distribution to gradually become screwed up too.)

Unfortunately for Russians and Ukrainians they were from very beginning scheduled for extermination.Margaret Tetcher openly said that for Russia will suffice population of 10-15 millions.It will be enough for oil production.Ukrainian population was openly scheduled to be reduced from former 52 mln to 35 mln.For the last 12 years it`s reduced on seven millions!

Ukraine and Russia definitely are in a state of population decline. I thought it was just due to a low birth rate, though.

Humanity will become uglier as a species.

It apparntly does.From what I seeng.

I don't know why it doesn't happen. My best guess is that the contraceptives themselves have too high a market value, and are too easy to resell. How do you stop corrupt officials from seizing and reselling it?

Contraceptives may be personally delievered to people.I hope officials will not visit every house and will not take them away.Also contraceptives for the third world could be marked in some special color and be prohibited for reselling in developed countries.

That's a really good idea! I wonder if anyone has tried it yet.

Ukraine and Russia definitely are in a state of population decline. I thought it was just due to a low birth rate, though.

Low birth rates are primary results of depressive economy and absence of hopes for real social progress.In comparison to thirld world dwellers Russians and Ukrainians are too well educated do not think completely about future of their children.Also huge mortality rates in Russia is also due to poor quality of food/drinks (mach of it is imported) and poor medicine.Millions people have immigrated.Most of those immigrants are illeagal and often get to bordels where they enforced to be prostitutes.Many people (nobody know exactly how much,maybe millions were kidnapped).Often people just been sold in slavery.Or sliced for their organs.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Low birth rates are primary results of depressive economy .

Or a very wealthy economy.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Ukraine and Russia definitely are in a state of population decline. I thought it was just due to a low birth rate, though.

Low birth rates are primary results of depressive economy and absence of hopes for real social progress.In comparison to thirld world dwellers Russians and Ukrainians are too well educated do not think completely about future of their children.Also huge mortality rates in Russia is also due to poor quality of food/drinks (mach of it is imported) and poor medicine.Millions people have immigrated.Most of those immigrants are illeagal and often get to bordels where they enforced to be prostitutes.Many people (nobody know exactly how much,maybe millions were kidnapped).Often people just been sold in slavery.Or sliced for their organs.

I wonder if the problem is just the excessively large standing army that was maintained during the Soviet era, including the KGB and police. There was a huge warrior class, full of people that didn't have any skills that would be useful in peace time. All they would have known how to do after the communist state ended would be to become mafia and use their skills to brutalize the rest.

It's sad to see a country with such a high level of education be limited in this way. The warrior class will never learn peaceful skills as long as they can make money by committing crimes, and there's no way to stop them except to organize an even bigger army to defeat them. But then the bigger army would take over, and everything would continue the same as before.

It's really hard to work with former Soviet nations because there is such an ingrained culture of corruption among the government officials. Bribe taking and other corruption was rampant during the Soviet era.

One more question.It is well known that most of money which are received as bribes or robbed by mafia in Russia or Ukraine, go later to Western banks.Since Gorbachev reforms at least few trillions of dollars been actually stollen from Russia and set on Western accounts.If Western nations are such non-corrupted (which should presume high moral values),why they accept all those money which they know for sure and definetly are made in illeagal ways and very often literally a ``blood money``?Also why they allow ``business immigration`` class, if you could make money in former USSR only illeagaly?(I don`t count here small percentage of world-wide known Russians such as actors or sportsmen.)
If Western nations are such white and puffy,they should immediatelly froze all suspicious assets or do not accept criminal money without very serious proves that they are made in leagal ways.Moreover there should already exist laws against money lawndering.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

It's really hard to work with former Soviet nations because there is such an ingrained culture of corruption among the government officials. Bribe taking and other corruption was rampant during the Soviet era.

One more question.It is well known that most of money which are received as bribes or robbed by mafia in Russia or Ukraine, go later to Western banks.Since Gorbachev reforms at least few trillions of dollars been actually stollen from Russia and set on Western accounts.If Western nations are such non-corrupted (which should presume high moral values),why they accept all those money which they know for sure and definetly are made in illeagal ways and very often literally a ``blood money``?Also why they allow ``business immigration`` class, if you could make money in former USSR only illeagaly?(I don`t count here small percentage of world-wide known Russians such as actors or sportsmen.)
If Western nations are such white and puffy,they should immediatelly froze all suspicious assets or do not accept criminal money without very serious proves that they are made in leagal ways.Moreover there should already exist laws against money lawndering.

You must understand there are three layers of caring here. From what I've seen of Russians and Ukrainians, they care about their families and their close people, but have no concern at all for other Russians they've never met. In America it's not like that. In America you care about your close people first, but if you see another American in trouble, even a total stranger, you also care about that person too, and try to help them if you can.

So the layers are:

1) - Family and friends

2) - Other citizens of your country

3) - Other human beings.

To an American, a Russian is another human being, but not another American, so their fate doesn't matter to us as much. We expect Russians to also not care very much about Americans, but it's total surprise when we see that Russians also don't care about each other. That's just a very alien concept to not care about other members of your own country.

It's like if you were playing on a sports team, and you saw players on the other team trying to steal the ball from each other.

I didn`t understand how exactly did you make conclusion that Russians do not care about each other?In question before I asked you about money laundering.But this is not necessarily solely Russian problem.For example there exist mafia in many developed countries.There was Al Capone in U.S. and many mafia ``families`` still exist there.Do you think that U.S. mafia wouldn`t try to get money out of U.S. is they would want?Or would not do it bacause of patriotic feelings? So how common Russians could stop their own mafia?So does existance of mafia in U.S. and such persons as Al Capone proves that Americans do not care about each other?I could morally justifiy honest competition between different countries (such as on open market) but cannot justify do not taking care about somebodies ``blood money``.
If you rejecting worldwide cooperation on fighting mafia this is quite shocking.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

I didn`t understand how exactly did you make conclusion that Russians do not care about each other?In question before I asked you about money laundering.But this is not necessarily solely Russian problem.For example there exist mafia in many developed countries.There was Al Capone in U.S. and many mafia ``families`` still exist there.Do you think that U.S. mafia wouldn`t try to get money out of U.S. is they would want?Or would not do it bacause of patriotic feelings? So how common Russians could stop their own mafia?So does existance of mafia in U.S. and such persons as Al Capone proves that Americans do not care about each other?

In the USA, the mafia has only ever been successful among immigrant cultures. Al Capone was part of the Italian mafia. There are also some Russian Mafia in the USA. However, there has never been any such thing as an "American Mafia". (Though some people refer to the American branch of the Italian Mafia as the "American Mafia")

Also Al Capone's parents were immigrants from Italy. It wouldn't be fair to judge America on the basis of what people from other countries do when they come here.

I could morally justifiy honest competition between different countries (such as on open market) but cannot justify do not taking care about somebodies ``blood money``.
If you rejecting worldwide cooperation on fighting mafia this is quite shocking.

You're right that it's wrong to take blood money. However, unless it's proven in court to be blood money, there's no way to make laws against accepting it. If it is proven to be blood money, then probably the American FBI would seize it. (However it still wouldn't be stolen by FBI agents. The organization would have the money and use it in its budget or return it.)

In the USA, the mafia has only ever been successful among immigrant cultures. Al Capone was part of the Italian mafia. There are also some Russian Mafia in the USA. However, there has never been any such thing as an "American Mafia".

Here you make one common and laughable stereotype mistake.Of course, most pronounced groups of ``Russian mafia`` are managed by non-ethnical Russians and neither by Slavs.

It wouldn't be fair to judge America on the basis of what people from other countries do when they come here.

I didn`t want to judge America here,I just pointed out on your remark that former USSR countries are dirty corrupted pigs and therefore no normal person whould deal with them.I try to anser that things are more complicated than that from worldwide perspective that and there is no easy answers.
From what I know corruption exist virtually anywhere.For example former French president Jack Chirac was under trial recently for corruption,the same relates to current Italian prime minister.So what do you expect from countries which much more poorer then that?What would be your personal reaction when there would be possibility for you to steal billions of $ and quite small possibility of getting in prison for that?Are you sure that personally you would avoid temtation?I think that even if corruption in developed countries is a bit smaller than in other it maybe due to higher life standards and higher salleries of government workers.Obviously, if some high ranking official in U.S. receives salary which is more than adequate in relative and absolute mesures,than there is much smaller temtation to take risk of some bribing.
If we again return to you former suggestion,I think that majority of population of Russia and Ukraine whould be not against of reshaping of their countries from outside and replacing their officials with non-corrupted from outside and following unification with developed countries.The main obstacle here is their elites and desire of developed countries itself.It seems they are not interested to increase number of competitors and prefer poor countries to stay poor.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

In the USA, the mafia has only ever been successful among immigrant cultures. Al Capone was part of the Italian mafia. There are also some Russian Mafia in the USA. However, there has never been any such thing as an "American Mafia".

Here you make one common and laughable stereotype mistake.Of course, most pronounced groups of ``Russian mafia`` are managed by non-ethnical Russians and neither by Slavs.

That makes me curious. I've heard that Neo-Nazis or "Skin Heads" are making a comeback in Russia. Is that a reaction to all the non-ethnic-Russian crime groups?

There are some Neo-Nazi groups in the USA as well, so I'm not trying to be judgemental about that. I'm just curious.

It wouldn't be fair to judge America on the basis of what people from other countries do when they come here.

I didn`t want to judge America here,I just pointed out on your remark that former USSR countries are dirty corrupted pigs and therefore no normal person whould deal with them.I try to anser that things are more complicated than that from worldwide perspective that and there is no easy answers.
From what I know corruption exist virtually anywhere.For example former French president Jack Chirac was under trial recently for corruption,the same relates to current Italian prime minister.So what do you expect from countries which much more poorer then that?What would be your personal reaction when there would be possibility for you to steal billions of $ and quite small possibility of getting in prison for that?Are you sure that personally you would avoid temtation?I think that even if corruption in developed countries is a bit smaller than in other it maybe due to higher life standards and higher salleries of government workers.Obviously, if some high ranking official in U.S. receives salary which is more than adequate in relative and absolute mesures,than there is much smaller temtation to take risk of some bribing.

The USA has an advantage in this area because of income tax laws. Everyone in the USA must report to the government all the money they make every year, and where it came from. If you are caught lying on your income statement you can go to prison for it. (That's actually how they caught Al Capone) For this reason it is very difficult for a government official in the USA to steal any money from the government or citizens and be assured of getting away with it. If they did steal any money they would have to keep it a secret. They could never spend any of it. (What good is stealing money if you can't spend it?)

As a reaction to this, "Money Laundering" has become a huge criminal enterprise in the USA. All the criminals want to find ways to make their crimes look like legitimate business dealings, so they don't have to keep all of their money hidden. It's ironic, because it means they're trying very hard to figure out a way to pay more taxes.

Corruption still happens, but it happens in a way that is easier to manage. Usually the way people steal from the US government is by negotiating a contract where the government hires their business to do work on its behalf, and often these contracts over pay for the services. Military contracts are the worst in this way. I think sometimes the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is just so some companies can steal from the government.

If we again return to you former suggestion,I think that majority of population of Russia and Ukraine whould be not against of reshaping of their countries from outside and replacing their officials with non-corrupted from outside and following unification with developed countries.The main obstacle here is their elites and desire of developed countries itself.It seems they are not interested to increase number of competitors and prefer poor countries to stay poor.

I think there is some truth to this. Mostly developed countries don't want to have to share the oil and other natural resources. All the other kinds of "wealth", such as manufactured goods, would become more abundant if the less developed countries became industrialized. If the amount of wealth truly increases, then there's nothing for the rich countries to worry about.

Suppose someone gives you the choice to have an entire 12 cm pizza all to yourself, or share a 18 cm pizza by cutting it in half. Which would you choose?

However, oil will not become more abundant no matter how hard everybody works. Every is happy to see Russia exporting its oil right now. If they were better industrialized, they wouldn't want to export it anymore. They'd keep it and use it to fuel their own cars.

Originally Posted by kojax

Mostly developed countries don't want to have to share the oil and other natural resources. All the other kinds of "wealth", such as manufactured goods, would become more abundant if the less developed countries became industrialized. If the amount of wealth truly increases, then there's nothing for the rich countries to worry about.

You do realize how many instances just a tiny amount of the money, if any, go back to the people. Some of the richest nations in terms of natural recourses have the poorest peoples.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by kojax

Mostly developed countries don't want to have to share the oil and other natural resources. All the other kinds of "wealth", such as manufactured goods, would become more abundant if the less developed countries became industrialized. If the amount of wealth truly increases, then there's nothing for the rich countries to worry about.

You do realize how many instances just a tiny amount of the money, if any, go back to the people. Some of the richest nations in terms of natural recourses have the poorest peoples.

Industrial nations approach this as buyers, not sellers. From a buyer's perspective, it's good to be the only buyer. If there were lots of other potential buyers bidding on that oil, the price would surely go up.

It's also preferable to buy from one person who owns all the oil. If there are too many owners, they'll want more money per barrel.

Originally Posted by kojax

It's also preferable to buy from one person who owns all the oil. If there are too many owners, they'll want more money per barrel.

I believe your assessment here is actually 100% opposite of what happens in reality. If control of the resource is held by just one owner, that owner can set any price they wish, and will generally set the highest price possible. However, with many owners, there is competition and the owner with the lower prices will make up for the lower price with higher turnover and increased customers. Again, your comment above shows a fundamental failure to understand basic economics.

Ultimately oil will end all the same and humanity will have to swith to renewables.
Problem with rare earth metals will be the next big one.
Also poor countries usually have weaker military and political power.Therefore richer countries have more influence in pushing their decisions and controling situation.

Originally Posted by kojax

Industrial nations approach this as buyers, not sellers. From a buyer's perspective, it's good to be the only buyer. If there were lots of other potential buyers bidding on that oil, the price would surely go up.

Not really. Because in a poor place even a little money in a few greased hands either essentially buys the good for next to nothing or does so by force with mercenaries and other means.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by kojax

Industrial nations approach this as buyers, not sellers. From a buyer's perspective, it's good to be the only buyer. If there were lots of other potential buyers bidding on that oil, the price would surely go up.

Not really. Because in a poor place even a little money in a few greased hands either essentially buys the good for next to nothing or does so by force with mercenaries and other means.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by kojax

It's also preferable to buy from one person who owns all the oil. If there are too many owners, they'll want more money per barrel.

I believe your assessment here is actually 100% opposite of what happens in reality. If control of the resource is held by just one owner, that owner can set any price they wish, and will generally set the highest price possible. However, with many owners, there is competition and the owner with the lower prices will make up for the lower price with higher turnover and increased customers. Again, your comment above shows a fundamental failure to understand basic economics.

I see both sides of the situation represented here.

INow, you're definitely right about situations like OPEC, where a single entity in control of over half the World's oil reserves can set a price arbitrarily as high as they want, and everyone will have to pay it. There are a few limits, such as them having to worry about losing their buyer if the industrialized economies all collapse under the weight, or Russia (which is not a member of OPEC) ramping up its production levels to capitalize, but for the most part they are in total control.


However, Lynx's scenario describes how the single seller is easy to bully. You can point guns at one guy. It's a lot harder to point guns at a whole population, as we've seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. Removing Sadam and the Taliban from office was pretty easy compared to subduing the population afterwards.

The Saudis (OPEC) have the advantage that they rule the holy land. We'd be in for a firestorm if we tried to invade and oust them because we didn't like the price they were setting (besides the sheer amount of our own economy they own now.) I'm sure they're fully aware of that too. There's no way to bully them, no matter how you cut it.

Originally Posted by kojax

INow, you're definitely right about situations like OPEC, where a single entity in control of over half the World's oil reserves can set a price arbitrarily as high as they want, and everyone will have to pay it. There are a few limits

<...>

There's no way to bully them, no matter how you cut it.

There is, though. The bullying comes in the form of offering alternatives.

If they set the price too high, then it encourages much more rapid growth of greener technologies like solar, wind, and battery. Additionally, there is a price ceiling naturally set within the market, and once the cost surpasses that threshold demand drops significantly. In the US with gasoline, for example, that ceiling is right around $4 per gallon. Once costs go above that, profits actually tend to decrease overall as fewer people can afford to fill up and hence significantly alter their habits and lifestyle, thus impacting the revenue of oil companies and producers... eliminating any benefits gained from the higher cost per unit.

My primary point, however, is that too high a cost encourages a much stronger and more vigorous search for alternatives, so a balance must be found if you're seeking to maintain a steady stream of increasing revenue and profit.

We shouldn't be so quick to assume that control of prices is unlimited or arbitrary. You seem to allude to this same point with your mention of Russia, but I wanted to reinforce the notion a bit more solidly.

Originally Posted by inow

We shouldn't be so quick to assume that control of prices is unlimited or arbitrary. You seem to allude to this same point with your mention of Russia, but I wanted to reinforce the notion a bit more solidly.

OPEC holds meetings, and sets maximum production thresholds. That is to say each member state is forbidden to produce more than their allotted amount regardless of demand or actual production capacity.

So, influencing the price is indirect, but the rules of supply and demand dictate that if you limit supply, the price will automatically go up. Russia's role in all this is that they increase their production whenever OPEC decreases its production, enabling them to benefit from the price fixing without making any sacrifices of their own. It's great for the USA, because it helps keep the price slightly lower than it would be otherwise.

Also, you're definitely right that they have to keep the price below the alternatives. If oil produced from coal ever becomes cheaper, the USA will have its own domestic supply of that. Also natural gas, if automobiles powered by that ever become popular.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

In the USA, the mafia has only ever been successful among immigrant cultures. Al Capone was part of the Italian mafia. There are also some Russian Mafia in the USA. However, there has never been any such thing as an "American Mafia".

Here you make one common and laughable stereotype mistake.Of course, most pronounced groups of ``Russian mafia`` are managed by non-ethnical Russians and neither by Slavs.

I'm still curious about this. I didn't know that most of the Russian mafia was non-Russians. I always thought that Russians and Ukrainians were doing all the horrible stuff you mentioned to each other. It makes more sense if it's minority groups or immigrant groups doing it. It's still really unfortunate, but it changes my view of Russia and Ukraine quite a lot.

I had always thought only Western Europe and the USA had a serious problem with that stuff. I can see how foolish I was to think that now that you point it out.

I'm still curious about this. I didn't know that most of the Russian mafia was non-Russians.

If you will type in google ``russian mafia is non-russian`` you will immediately find lot of interesting links...

The reason that you never heard about such things before is probably due to politically correct U.S. mass media by feeding on which solely you will get childish brain the size of wallnut.Genarally there exist criminal groups in Russia of different size and ethnic diversity but again the largest share of profits which are made in any illeagal ways are controlled by non-Slavs.The same relates to most brutal and in the sime time orginized crimes such as people kidnepping,slavery trade,human organs,mass murders and serial killing etc.

Ethnic Russians and Ukrainians are not known for inheritent tendence to create criminal mafia.For example in Canada according to official statistics live 1.3 millions of ethnic Ukrainians or people with this ancestry.In some provinces such as Manitoba they constitute large share of population.In Alberta there was governor Ed Stelmach,person with ukrainian family name and ancestry.There is nothing heard about ``Ukrainian mafia``
in Canada.Neither level of corruption is higher associated with Ukrainians.
One of the greatest problem of Slavs is their unability to create theair own ``mafia`` (not criminal,but in best sense of this word) which would be able to protect their interests.

I think this proves that racism directed by a minority against the majority is just as dangerous as racism directed by a majority against a minority.

If a half million attractive Ukrainian women (from a total population of 46 million) can disappear as a result of the racist attitudes of minority gangs in Ukraine that don't feel badly about kidnapping and enslaving them because of their different ethnicity, then it should be quite obvious that "reverse racism" is not a harmless institution. It's at least as dangerous as anything Hitler ever did.

Here is also an interesting link
http://samvak.tripod.com/brief-organ01.html

Or take Argentina - do you think they will willingly give up territory? Even if it is relatively empty how do you plan to deal with those people who do live there? Ethnic cleansing?

How than you explain example of Guantanamo base rented by U.S. while relations of U.S. and Cuba are too far from perfect?
Territories for refugies could be created on sparcely populated areas and those small population which aready live there could be offered compensations.Sparcely populated areas are not always completely infertile.Argentina has territory almost match to India,but india has population 1 billion while Argentina just 45 mln.You could make harvest in Argentina 3 times a year.Currently developed countries spend lot of money for refugies in their countries.If those money whould be spend in poor countries (where everithing is cheaper) than they could provide to refugies even more food,cloth.living space etc.Are you against?

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Developed countries accept millions of refugies for a while and recently some of them disoveried that they are not botomless and started to accept anti-immigration laws.Especially this thrend is strong in Europe.Meanwhile it seems I know the bright solution to the refugies problem.The territories where refugies are placed should be expanded for expence of developing countries rather than developed!For example on each continent there should be created large zones under rule of UN or some developed countries where all those refugies whould be placed.I think principally such territories could be found in such countries as Mongolia or Kazakhstan where huge territories are idle.In South America it could be Argentina.Territories in those countries could be rented by big 7 and later when refugies will run their own economies they will pay rent themself at least partially.

I was thinking about this very problem. I think that the UN should be able to get a hold of a moderately sized underdeveloped nation. I mean eventually they are going to find someone that would take the offer.

Then they can set up a colony, where the refugees work on building housing and supplies for the other refugees that come and if food is not easily found there, it could be imported. The UN can get money I imagine?

So once they have this refugee colony with a reasonable standard of living then they enact a new human right.

That anyone that wishes to may leave their country and travel there to live. Anyone stopping their people from leaving and its proved it they get bombed or assassinated. No exceptions.

I think the UN would need to have its own military forces as well. Expecting the US to enforce its resolutions is very very poor and leads to the US being able to 'cash in' on its good deeds when they want to invade someone the UN isn't after..

They should recruit their own forces, same rules as above.

In case you're wondering about real criminals fleeing there they'd be held for a certain amount of time on arrival until their accusers could provide evidence.

So once they have done this, in my view things get easier. The Refugees have a decent place to live. There would at first be more need to intervene, if countries tried to stop their people leaving.

The double edge to this is that the UN would not have to support endless 'revolutions' for democracy since they could argue the people are free to travel. In a sense there are no longer civilians that are 'bystanders' by having no choice but to stay and be bombed.

This might seem cold, I don't know.. but I think that demanding everywhere adopt democracy isn't a very sound plan. Democracy can be perverted and without a strong moral compass it can become a case of an oppressed majority suddenly able to oppress a former ruling minority and that seems incredibly messy.

"If you don't like it, leave" is the fairest option I can think of. The unfortunate fact of the world as it is now theres literally nowhere to go.

I would like if there -was- a place to go. Eventually with a proper country, formed of those coming to seek a better life, maybe the UN really could make the world a better place.

It may involve keeping tyrants in power, but I am personally not against the idea of someone sane, and competent ruling a nation. I would like if national leaders had the option of 'exiling' to this place, or another, smaller place. I think one of the small islands in the middle of the ocean would make a great UN-run 'Alcatraz' for the 21st century. No possible escape. The UN can run things as touchy feely as they like, but if no country wants to accept them when their sentance is over they'd have to live on the island.

I don't mean it to be cruel, and they could obviously appeal if they are political exiles. But if they were, would every country in the world refuse to take them in?

Some countries are democratic. Some aren't. Its obvious that at the moment, petty dictators just seem to ignore the UN, or at the very least push it until someone wants to invade and sort them out. But its hardly the US' job to enforce human rights.

*Sigh*

I've rambled a bit, but I hope people get the jist. As for how the country would be laid out, I suppose something similar to Japan, where every bit of space is precious. To maximize capacity.

Meh, democracies ignore the UN and manipulate resolutions to place them in superior positions to developing nations. They're no more fair or less self-interested than dictatorships.

Also, developing nations already carry the burden of most refugees and immigration. Many countries in Africa have immigration rates astronomically higher than the highest rates in the West.

Originally Posted by Scott John Walker

The double edge to this is that the UN would not have to support endless 'revolutions' for democracy since they could argue the people are free to travel. In a sense there are no longer civilians that are 'bystanders' by having no choice but to stay and be bombed.

The danger of this is that no dictatorship, no matter how brutal, could ever be held to account so long as its citizens were free to leave. They get to keep the land, and push everyone off of it by offering them increasingly unfair conditions. The government leadership would be wealthy rancher/land owning tycoons, while those willing to fight for democracy would occupy smaller and smaller amounts of land, whilst needing to cram larger and larger populations onto that land.

Basically, every country would have to compete to be the worst if it wanted to keep a favorable land/population ratio.