Has anyone else seen THE END OF POVERTY?

[yurbud]

It's slightly mistitled because it's mostly about the causes of poverty, but one part was particularly haunting when a history professor was talking about first acts of capitalism which were taking from the commons exclusively for private profit. This didn't just happen once at the beginning of feudalism or when colonial powers seized weaker countries' assets, it happens continuously and with greater and greater disregard for the common good like Bechtel's attempt to privatize water in Bolivia.

It occurred to me that this is exactly what privatization of government functions is--taking something that had been done solely for the common good and repurposing it primarily for private gain. Worse, they often get the government asset or function for a song and then charge us extortionate prices for it.

I have no beef with somebody running a private business for a profit, but as soon as a business takes over a government function or the government requires the public to be their customers, there is too much chance for the business to financial reward the politician who gave them the contract with campaign donations and jobs when they leave office.

That is why I am profoundly leery of health care reform with a mandate to buy from private insurance companies.

Every time a politician talks about privatizing something like Obama's education secretary and his attempts to break teacher's unions and privatize public schools, someone needs to stand up and say PRIVATIZATION IS CORRUPTION.

I'm wondering what other people thought of the film though.

[Hannah Bell]

1. i haven't seen the film, but the "taking" of public resources (as in the modern-day grabs

for the airwaves, public ed, etc.) is a time-honored path to wealth.

& the thieves will tell you they're self-made men--like al capone was.

[yurbud]

4. their virtue is figuring out how to steal from the rest of us.

[willing dwarf]

2. Having worked in the field

working directly against poverty, I have seen that there would be less poverty is the money the government allocated toward relief of poverty would go directly into the hands of the people in need. Instead it gets filtered through a receiver/distributor, usually a university study that is supposed to manage the resources better than could the people in need. But that's just an excuse to skim of 70% and then pass on the rest to the lower middle group of underpaid social workers who are given the next big idea and asked to distribute it, but by the time they get paid, all they are distributing are ideas and encouragement. And everyone shakes there head and says "what ashame such a good idea is so underfunded. Maybe if the study is successful, they'll give us more..."

Yeah, it's nothing new. Just like ancient days. Its like a feast where the rich people, the educated people, the elites of this country need to get theres before the groundlings get anything but maybe to suck on the bones and hear stories about how good the next feast is going to be.

[C_Lawyer09]

3. You have detailed in a nutshell

maybe inadvertently, exactly what is wrong with international aid, especially that meant to help Africa/ns. We have to become much more efficient at putting the resources directly where they are needed, without allowing large percentages to be siphoned off.