Hey bozo...why don't you make a video about ALL the charities that CAPITALIST run to help those that are less fortunate? And while you are at it...make a video about all the money that Socialist put into their pockets from PROGRAM funding.
Maybe that way, I MIGHT take you serious...*eyeroll*
Take a look at one of the video responses I posted about government involvement in the rebuilding of Katrina victim homes and THEN you can decide to post this kind of crap.
Re: Katrina. You get the government you pay for. In other words, when you elect to power a bunch of people who dont like government, the results are predictable. Or rather, a bunch of people who dont like government for the general public.
Oh there's socialism without planning? I've never heard of that, another idiotic economic failure. I can't comprehend what is so difficult about realizing that the market can meet the demands of all, and when you embrace freedom, it truly works. To believe that some ridiculous utopian society is created through the control of human nature is ridiculous to say the least.
You personally don't need capital, others need capital in order to invest and make the productive processes more roundabout and efficient. When this happens, what you "demand" becomes a lot cheaper. If you are mentally and physically impaired private charity can assist you. I'm sure since you are concerned with this you give money to such charities, and that's a great thing.
Ummm..... That doesn't answer the question at all.
Charity is a vague enigma and if the "market can meet all demands" but then you asterisk that anything not met will be handled by people who pity you, then the market can't really meet all demands, now can it?
Demand is when a person desires something there is a supply of, and when they have a means to obtain it. If I don't have $20 million to buy a luxury jet, there is no real demand on my part for the jet even though I may dream of buying one. You also don't define capital correctly, as it is an accumulation of savings that is invested to see a return later. A consumer buying a $15,000 car is not capital.
And how can a capitalist say that you don't need capital to survive? SOCIALISTS say you don't need capital, because then everyone is equal under needs, not worth. Capital is needed to do anything in a capitalist society. No matter how efficient you make production of a car, a costumer is still going to need $15,000 to buy it.
Add in that most industries in the country are monopolies or oligarchies and the idea of expecting equilibrium is no more fanciful than the communist's dream of everyone having an equal education and say in government.
I rarely hear the term equilibrium-maximizer. But I do hear profit-maximizer alot.
You ever notice how the only oligpolistic market conditions in this country are where the State is involved? Actually, the neoclassical competition model is the one that makes a "fanciful assumption" to assume that a monopoly can somehow exist in a free market. There hasn't been one anti-trust case in the US that resembled a monopoly.
"You ever notice how the only oligpolistic market conditions in this country are where the State is involved?"
The State is the reason why there are only three big car companies? The State wants Microsoft to be a monopoly?
I should think that these savage companies would try to kill their competitors in the crib. You are saying that they are the civil ones and it is the State that breeds monopoly?
Microsoft is a monopoly? Apple, Linux, Sun, etc. The government creates huge barriers to entry not only in the car industry but many others. Look at the tens of billions of dollars the state steals from us and gives to the car companies. They should go bankrupt and allow other competitors to form in their place. For every dollar the government steals to prop up these garbage firms it is one less dollar that could have been invested in a different company.
"Not only was the November percentage drop for Windows the biggest in two years, but Windows market share dipped below a number where it has historically held tight: 90 percent."
One company having 90% share of the market. That's as common a fact as that the cake is a lie.
And government makes barriers to entry because car lobbyists ask them.
So, are BOTH anti-capitalistic?Or only government? Government sways to the ways the rich tell them. how do we protect it?
Who cares if Windows was 90% of the operating system market share. Windows is the most in-demand operating system on the planet, why? Because people want to use it, so they buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy windows. People being successful is not anti-capitalist, the government interfering with the market is anti-capitalist. Look at intellectual property laws and tell me the government doesn't fuel monopoly.
It is, after all, being inefficient and terrible that makes a corporations product one of the most greatly demanded ones on the entire planet. Monopolies can't exist without the state, if you knew the slightest bit about economics you'd understand that. Amtrak would not exist without the state; Microsoft sure as hell would.
You are a joke, really, end of discussion. It's not even worth trying to explain. Go ahead and post the final comment or whatever imbeciles do to feel important.
And what does Amtrak being a government monopoly change anything?! It is a monopoly and it SUCKS, just like Microsoft is a monopoly that sucks.
If you agree with me that monopolies are fat, lazy bastards more interested in crushing promising stars with legal battles and lobbying, than name some more sucky monopolies.
Microsoft isn't a monopoly - you've got alternatives, even FREE ONES yet nobody (okay, I lied, more and more people are moving out of the Redmond world) takes them - I guess there's a reason to this, right? A monopoly implies that there is no possible alternative to a service/system/etc, while there is.
There is no alternative in the world of train travel to Amtrak.
If you choose to have that narrow of a view of monopolies, that is your right, but the US government and I agree that Microsoft is a monopoly, having over 95% of the US market in personal computers. They invest in Apple so that they HAVE a competitor.
And if you think researching and developing products is, alone, a business plan, you would suck in business. XD
But, truly, I'll give you the b.o.d. and assume you are sticking up for Microsoft's STELLAR record of stealing ideas from weaker companies and half-ass making them into products that we HAVE to buy because its the only viable option. Then making half-ass "updates" of said software that we HAVE to buy because they push out the older versions....
Nike for example could be rightly classified as a company whose model relies on developing new products and designs. Actual production is sub-contracted. Therefore, their business plan is one of R&D. Of course marketing is involved too, but they are both equally important components.
As for MS that is your opinion, certainly not mine. I would point out that, possibly, without companies like MS the medium on which we are communicating would not exist or would not be available to average people
Facts are, it is a monopoly. It got that way be stealing from poorer companies that couldn't fight back. It HASN'T done as much R&D as other companies BECAUSE it is a monopoly, and it has only in the past 10 years thought to change that because the Internet has created more markets than it planned for. Even BusinessWeek agrees.
I never suggested MS alone. Facts are it isn't. Mono is the Greek word for "one". Linux would disagree with your assertion that it doesn't exist.
What you mean is that MS is a de facto monopoly. MS has cornered over 90% of the market but, in my opnion, it justly earned that. Your opinion differs, but it is your humble opinion
Somewhat pedantic I concede, but there is a fundamental difference. Amtrak's monopoly is supported by the power and wherewithal of the US government. Same for the US mail service. Competing with them is extremely difficult. Also, their existence crowds out private capital because of lower government borrowing costs
It's not a monopoly, and I'm sorry but there's nothing Windows 3.1 in my Windows 7, your arguments are baseless and you don't know what a monopoly is.
Now look at the performance of these garbage companies. How could firms perform so poorly yet retain that much of a market concentration without State assistance? The only way anything close to a monopoly could exist in a free market is to be extremely efficient so it could offer lower prices than its competition while continuing to profit enough to reinvest retained earnings and pay out income. A free-market monopoly means a near perfect company, a State-propped up monopoly is garbage.
If people are trying to outdo their competitors, they have to be more efficient which is done by attracting greater investment, which is done by increasing earnings, which is done by increasing their sales. They increase their sales by offering better products at lower prices than competitors. So "killing their competitors in the crib" is done at the benefit of all of us. Unless you think the postal service and Amtrak are efficient.
I have my volume cranked all the way up and I can barely hear you. It's a shame that somebody despises individual freedom so much as to advocate a system which only sees each person as a means to the end, the end being the State. What all this comes down to is the fact that economic calculation can not occur accurately in socialism, that its planning eradicates freedom, constricts the will to succeed, and always leads to poverty where class mobility is non-existent.
You really dont understand what your talking about. Ive said it many times, central planning is only one type of economic model its not the only "Socialist" economy.
You seem intelligent and you are articulate your points well, but I do not see why you feel it is necessary to put up these disrespectful slides, and insert random insults into your videos. They don't really promote civil discourse, and they cause me to lose respect for you.
Also Ron paul has nothing to do with market anarchism, our beliefs are just aesthetically similar to people unfamiliar. Ron Paul is a conservative, he is not even a moderate libertarian.
Huh? What did you say? Speak up!
bapyou 1 year ago
Fuck Ron Paul supporters
enlightenusplz 2 years ago
aaaahhhhh!!!
i hate these videos where i cant get the sound loud enough to hear
Poisonfrogg 2 years ago
because he censors the ratings shows that he fears criticism and what other people think about his video
Eldel15 2 years ago
Oh...PS...you need to do a little bit more homework on WHY there was no deficit in Clinton years...I will give you a hint...
FUNNY MONEY...duh.
MsticalPrincess 3 years ago
Hey bozo...why don't you make a video about ALL the charities that CAPITALIST run to help those that are less fortunate? And while you are at it...make a video about all the money that Socialist put into their pockets from PROGRAM funding.
Maybe that way, I MIGHT take you serious...*eyeroll*
Take a look at one of the video responses I posted about government involvement in the rebuilding of Katrina victim homes and THEN you can decide to post this kind of crap.
Please don't vote!
MsticalPrincess 3 years ago
Re: Katrina. You get the government you pay for. In other words, when you elect to power a bunch of people who dont like government, the results are predictable. Or rather, a bunch of people who dont like government for the general public.
mrktwn 3 years ago
interesting videos but the tongue in cheek ron paul pictures cheapens the video
bmtimv 3 years ago
I can barely hear this video.
Austrolibertarian 3 years ago
Oh there's socialism without planning? I've never heard of that, another idiotic economic failure. I can't comprehend what is so difficult about realizing that the market can meet the demands of all, and when you embrace freedom, it truly works. To believe that some ridiculous utopian society is created through the control of human nature is ridiculous to say the least.
readthepaper 3 years ago
The desire to control others is also a human nature. This alone the the most difficult thing to control.
MrBr3w 3 years ago
how can the market meet your demands when you have no capital?
or if you are mentally or physically impaired?
ProserpinaFC 3 years ago
You personally don't need capital, others need capital in order to invest and make the productive processes more roundabout and efficient. When this happens, what you "demand" becomes a lot cheaper. If you are mentally and physically impaired private charity can assist you. I'm sure since you are concerned with this you give money to such charities, and that's a great thing.
readthepaper 3 years ago
Ummm..... That doesn't answer the question at all.
Charity is a vague enigma and if the "market can meet all demands" but then you asterisk that anything not met will be handled by people who pity you, then the market can't really meet all demands, now can it?
ProserpinaFC 3 years ago
Demand is when a person desires something there is a supply of, and when they have a means to obtain it. If I don't have $20 million to buy a luxury jet, there is no real demand on my part for the jet even though I may dream of buying one. You also don't define capital correctly, as it is an accumulation of savings that is invested to see a return later. A consumer buying a $15,000 car is not capital.
readthepaper 3 years ago
And how can a capitalist say that you don't need capital to survive? SOCIALISTS say you don't need capital, because then everyone is equal under needs, not worth. Capital is needed to do anything in a capitalist society. No matter how efficient you make production of a car, a costumer is still going to need $15,000 to buy it.
ProserpinaFC 3 years ago
Add in that most industries in the country are monopolies or oligarchies and the idea of expecting equilibrium is no more fanciful than the communist's dream of everyone having an equal education and say in government.
I rarely hear the term equilibrium-maximizer. But I do hear profit-maximizer alot.
ProserpinaFC 3 years ago
You ever notice how the only oligpolistic market conditions in this country are where the State is involved? Actually, the neoclassical competition model is the one that makes a "fanciful assumption" to assume that a monopoly can somehow exist in a free market. There hasn't been one anti-trust case in the US that resembled a monopoly.
readthepaper 3 years ago
"You ever notice how the only oligpolistic market conditions in this country are where the State is involved?"
The State is the reason why there are only three big car companies? The State wants Microsoft to be a monopoly?
I should think that these savage companies would try to kill their competitors in the crib. You are saying that they are the civil ones and it is the State that breeds monopoly?
ProserpinaFC 3 years ago
Microsoft is a monopoly? Apple, Linux, Sun, etc. The government creates huge barriers to entry not only in the car industry but many others. Look at the tens of billions of dollars the state steals from us and gives to the car companies. They should go bankrupt and allow other competitors to form in their place. For every dollar the government steals to prop up these garbage firms it is one less dollar that could have been invested in a different company.
readthepaper 3 years ago
Don't act so simplistic, kid.
"Not only was the November percentage drop for Windows the biggest in two years, but Windows market share dipped below a number where it has historically held tight: 90 percent."
One company having 90% share of the market. That's as common a fact as that the cake is a lie.
And government makes barriers to entry because car lobbyists ask them.
So, are BOTH anti-capitalistic?Or only government? Government sways to the ways the rich tell them. how do we protect it?
ProserpinaFC 3 years ago
Who cares if Windows was 90% of the operating system market share. Windows is the most in-demand operating system on the planet, why? Because people want to use it, so they buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy windows. People being successful is not anti-capitalist, the government interfering with the market is anti-capitalist. Look at intellectual property laws and tell me the government doesn't fuel monopoly.
readthepaper 3 years ago
"And government makes barriers to entry because car lobbyists ask them.
So, are BOTH anti-capitalistic?Or only government? Government sways to the ways the rich tell them. how do we protect it? "
Didn't you just belittle me for saying the State creates monopoly?
readthepaper 3 years ago
Because I believe the opposite. Monopolies control the State. :3
Microsoft is just a terrible and ineffective as Amtrak, but you praise Microsoft?
ProserpinaFC 3 years ago
It is, after all, being inefficient and terrible that makes a corporations product one of the most greatly demanded ones on the entire planet. Monopolies can't exist without the state, if you knew the slightest bit about economics you'd understand that. Amtrak would not exist without the state; Microsoft sure as hell would.
readthepaper 3 years ago
It is, after all, being inefficient and terrible that makes a corporations product one of the most greatly demanded ones on the entire planet.
You complain that I don't know economic theory. (One, I do kinda, but it sure ain't my major).
I complain that you don't know the technology biz. I complain it loudly and often. Also, I complain that you are being mean to me. :3
All I wanted to know was your view on stuff. And you have been super mean to me.
I wanted to ask.... nvm... :3
ProserpinaFC 3 years ago
You are a joke, really, end of discussion. It's not even worth trying to explain. Go ahead and post the final comment or whatever imbeciles do to feel important.
readthepaper 3 years ago
*whimpers and cries in her dorm*
(wow, and this guy is supposed to be a christian? good lord, he's hateful. just cuz i ask him "lol, wut?")
ProserpinaFC 3 years ago
Check your private messages, I would also hope a Christian wouldn't support the State, an institution based on murder/theft.
readthepaper 3 years ago
Micrososft invented the modern OS system
Invirtuo 2 years ago
And after that?
Invention isn't a business plan.
ProserpinaFC 2 years ago
What did Amtrak invent?
Invirtuo 2 years ago
Amtrak SUCKS and is a monopoly, so I don't see the point of your rhetorical question.
Would you mind answering mine, though?
ProserpinaFC 2 years ago
It's a government monopoly.
R & D can be a business plan, if that's your business
Invirtuo 2 years ago
And Mircomonoply doesn't DO R&D, they hack.
And what does Amtrak being a government monopoly change anything?! It is a monopoly and it SUCKS, just like Microsoft is a monopoly that sucks.
If you agree with me that monopolies are fat, lazy bastards more interested in crushing promising stars with legal battles and lobbying, than name some more sucky monopolies.
At least then, this conversation will be fun.
ProserpinaFC 2 years ago
Microsoft isn't a monopoly - you've got alternatives, even FREE ONES yet nobody (okay, I lied, more and more people are moving out of the Redmond world) takes them - I guess there's a reason to this, right? A monopoly implies that there is no possible alternative to a service/system/etc, while there is.
There is no alternative in the world of train travel to Amtrak.
Vitaminous 2 years ago
If you choose to have that narrow of a view of monopolies, that is your right, but the US government and I agree that Microsoft is a monopoly, having over 95% of the US market in personal computers. They invest in Apple so that they HAVE a competitor.
ProserpinaFC 2 years ago
Microsoft has 90% of the RETAIL (when you buy the PC) US market, the other 10% is predominantly Apple.
The US government does not believe that Microsoft is a monopoly, the EU does.
Get your facts straight or shut yo goddamn mouth.
Vitaminous 2 years ago
And if you think researching and developing products is, alone, a business plan, you would suck in business. XD
But, truly, I'll give you the b.o.d. and assume you are sticking up for Microsoft's STELLAR record of stealing ideas from weaker companies and half-ass making them into products that we HAVE to buy because its the only viable option. Then making half-ass "updates" of said software that we HAVE to buy because they push out the older versions....
Great R&D that company has...
ProserpinaFC 2 years ago
Nike for example could be rightly classified as a company whose model relies on developing new products and designs. Actual production is sub-contracted. Therefore, their business plan is one of R&D. Of course marketing is involved too, but they are both equally important components.
As for MS that is your opinion, certainly not mine. I would point out that, possibly, without companies like MS the medium on which we are communicating would not exist or would not be available to average people
Invirtuo 2 years ago
Yes, LIKE MS, but certainly not MS alone...
My opinion is that MS sucks.
Facts are, it is a monopoly. It got that way be stealing from poorer companies that couldn't fight back. It HASN'T done as much R&D as other companies BECAUSE it is a monopoly, and it has only in the past 10 years thought to change that because the Internet has created more markets than it planned for. Even BusinessWeek agrees.
ProserpinaFC 2 years ago
I never suggested MS alone. Facts are it isn't. Mono is the Greek word for "one". Linux would disagree with your assertion that it doesn't exist.
What you mean is that MS is a de facto monopoly. MS has cornered over 90% of the market but, in my opnion, it justly earned that. Your opinion differs, but it is your humble opinion
Invirtuo 2 years ago
There are other trains besides Amtrak, other postal services besides the USPS and such and such.
Don't use stupid, petty arguments.
ProserpinaFC 2 years ago
Somewhat pedantic I concede, but there is a fundamental difference. Amtrak's monopoly is supported by the power and wherewithal of the US government. Same for the US mail service. Competing with them is extremely difficult. Also, their existence crowds out private capital because of lower government borrowing costs
Invirtuo 2 years ago
It's not a monopoly, and I'm sorry but there's nothing Windows 3.1 in my Windows 7, your arguments are baseless and you don't know what a monopoly is.
Vitaminous 2 years ago
Now look at the performance of these garbage companies. How could firms perform so poorly yet retain that much of a market concentration without State assistance? The only way anything close to a monopoly could exist in a free market is to be extremely efficient so it could offer lower prices than its competition while continuing to profit enough to reinvest retained earnings and pay out income. A free-market monopoly means a near perfect company, a State-propped up monopoly is garbage.
readthepaper 3 years ago
If people are trying to outdo their competitors, they have to be more efficient which is done by attracting greater investment, which is done by increasing earnings, which is done by increasing their sales. They increase their sales by offering better products at lower prices than competitors. So "killing their competitors in the crib" is done at the benefit of all of us. Unless you think the postal service and Amtrak are efficient.
readthepaper 3 years ago
Comment removed
UnhealthySalad 3 years ago
Comment removed
UnhealthySalad 3 years ago
looks interesting... but I can't hear sh!t.
thedemoboy 3 years ago
"Snotty and pretenses people" isn't that the pot calling the kettle black
Transitiving 3 years ago
I have my volume cranked all the way up and I can barely hear you. It's a shame that somebody despises individual freedom so much as to advocate a system which only sees each person as a means to the end, the end being the State. What all this comes down to is the fact that economic calculation can not occur accurately in socialism, that its planning eradicates freedom, constricts the will to succeed, and always leads to poverty where class mobility is non-existent.
readthepaper 3 years ago
You really dont understand what your talking about. Ive said it many times, central planning is only one type of economic model its not the only "Socialist" economy.
patient0Studios 3 years ago
Great video, I have a lot of respect for you.
SPUSA
amsterdam78 3 years ago
You seem intelligent and you are articulate your points well, but I do not see why you feel it is necessary to put up these disrespectful slides, and insert random insults into your videos. They don't really promote civil discourse, and they cause me to lose respect for you.
ithinkronpaulissmart 3 years ago
Because I think anyone who tries to beguile college students into voting for him by using buzz words and sound bites is an asshole.
patient0Studios 3 years ago 3
I think that is what a lot of people do when they support any candidate. Obama supporters act identically.
ithinkronpaulissmart 3 years ago
Comment removed
UnhealthySalad 3 years ago
Also Ron paul has nothing to do with market anarchism, our beliefs are just aesthetically similar to people unfamiliar. Ron Paul is a conservative, he is not even a moderate libertarian.
AnarchyIsForMe 3 years ago