Ask any middle income person or even lower middle income and higher middle income person, how they are doing since all this free enterprise shit went global around 1980. Most will tell you the FUCKING SHITS! Speaking of shit Charman Toilet paper is now made in China using Canadian lumber. I rest my case you right wing free enterprise TWAT maggots! Same goes for your toothpaste--China. the tube is printed in Lead paint..FUCK YOU all Walmart losers!
We're making fun of capitalism and consumerism with our "still using" channel. Pretending that using outdated technology is like drug use that needs to be cured. Because that's the message we get from ads and media. Gotta have the latest iPad, iPhone, etc. We're hoping that other youtubers will come and share their usage of "outdated" technology...
these mindless capitalist just dont get it!! capitalism is a disease!! the ruling uses racism, sexism, homophobia,etc to deplot thier divide and conquer strategy!! cenk is just another liberal that votes for democrats and thinks things are gonna change, he's not a leftist!! for anybody who is tired of these so called liberals its time to think like a LEFTIST, not a milquetoast liberal who believes in wage slavery, war waging, social darwinian systems of domination like capitalism.
Cenk and his TYT are social democrats. But social democrats are still capitalist. They favor social capitalism because they just believe in the system of the free market.
Micheal Moore is right about capitalism. But he fears the anticommunist media. That is why he does not want to say that democratic socialism is the solution. Moore is afraid to be called a socialist or communist. And in America all socialists are viewed as dangerous to democracy, freedom and god.
@UDSS ???? Free market social democrats? There is nowhere a free market where there is a state, people say the US has a free market but thats bullshit, its croni-capitalism, look it up
Hey TYT Guy, the biggest thing you got wrong it the Government didn't bail out the Bankers.. the people did!
Governments have NO MONEY and NO INCOME.. They TAKE from the people in the form of TAXES, with the notion of improving peoples lives. It diminishes the blow when people think it came out of someone else's pocket.
Legalize drugs, tax it, let the market deal with it, and keep it out of children's hands. Let us Americans uphold our 2nd Amendment rights for protection and carry openly. I guarantee you will see crime decrease faster than ever before. Mix the constitution with Adam Smiths principles and you will see the greatest society that has ever functioned. Open immigration, free trade, and no welfare, just like my grandparents had it. Look at the prosperity that formed during THOSE years.
@AroundSun you mean including the 1929 economic collapse, the worst in modern history? i agree with your points, but it has never been any different to how it is now, the rich just dont cover it up as well anymore
The profits will tell whether a school is doing well or not. The government however, will never fire anyone, will dump hoards of money into a failing business(education/healthcare), and will have to pay tons of people salaries that are not determined by their skills(teaching, doctoring) or the market. If government would stay out of education, colleges and schools would have to compete for more students. Parents would also have more choices. I do agree healthcare needs reform, but not GOVT!
People blindly say "tax the rich", "tax those greedy corporations", what is a greedy corp.? You are taxing the employees, the customers(middle and lower class), and stockholders (100 million people in the US). If you want to increase solely rich people income tax, then theres less money in banks. The ONLY way you can measure the success of things dems want such as Healthcare and Education is through competition, profits, and losses. Bureaucracy means wasteful spending, and less efficiency
4:23 What are right regulations? Who decides this fair treatment? And what is this "progressive" tax rate being spent on? Who is going to spend rich peoples money better, them or government? What can the government spend rich peoples money on that they can't spend it on themselves? Don't say "hoarding" because when capital is in banks, loans increase and interest rates drop. If you're saying the progressive tax should be spent on the poor, then you can't have a free market with welfare.
@shadowgeyser The reason regulation is necessitated is because we are all impacted by the actions of others. I thought this connection was obvious. Private property rights doesn't dispel social responsibility and only some form of insitutionalized authority (govt, church, etc) can enforce social responsibility. A free market if supported by institutionalized authority would be effective in enforcing social responsibility, but unregulated capitalism has proven ineffective.
@shadowgeyser The subject isn't hard to understand. It's you who are hard to understand. There is no absolute distinction between regulation and intervention. Regulation of markets is by definition intervening in those markets. The issue isn't necessarily about what is too much regulation. Rather, it's about what regulation is ineffective or oppressive. Anyway, unless you have anything actually interesting to say, I'm finished with this pointless back and forth.
@shadowgeyser I never implied regulation wouldn't exist in a free market. I was arguing a free market wouldn't exist without regulation. Connect the dots? Talking to you is like trying to follow the line of thought of someone who has spent the entire day smoking pot. As for my original comment, socialism exists to the extent exists a democracy, a country run by and for the people. This is why those on the far right hate democracy and want to instate a hierachical class system of 'meritocracy'.
@shadowgeyser Quit being silly. You were arguing that regulation leads to monopolies and so the implication is that defending regulation is defending monopolies... anyway what the hell are you talking about... 27 thumbs up, huh? I hate to tell ya, but your stream-of-consciousness style of writing is very ineffective in terms of clear communication.
@shadowgeyser There are a number of way to regulate. One way is create transparency to the public. Another way is to create agencies that can't be manipulated by politicians who are bought off with big biz campaign money & other contributions. Yet another way is to create more self-regulation within corporations such as by requiring there be more transparency to customers & investors & by requiring employees play a part in decision-making as is done in Germany. I'm sure there are many other ways
@shadowgeyser I never claimed to be for monopolies. The problem is that we live in a class-based society where the upper class holds most of the power and most wealth is inherited. This has led to cronyism & corporatism. The same people who are politicians or have influence on big govt are those who owners, investors & CEOs of big biz. The trick is either to create regulatory boundaries to separate big govt & big biz or else eliminate both big govt & big biz.
I don't get it. What he's talking about is horrible, but why is it called Capitalism? Anyone who paid attention in middle school economics knows that what is being described is a corporate oligarchy. Furthermore, how can the solution to corrupt politics be to give those politicians more regulation power? That's where the problem comes from!
The fucking dipshit, anti-American media spent practically no time reporting the facts in Capitalism, but always goes out of their way to regurgitate the racist accusations of Andrew Brietbart.
The biggest problem with capitalism is the fact that it is impossible for everyone to be successful if everyone went to harvard and received a degree who would do the jobs that nobody wants to do. Who would be the garbage man,housekeeper & handyman who would mop the floors & drive the taxi's. These are all services that we need capitalism is a flawed economic strategy that keeps the rich wealthy and the poor struggling.
@bumper302 while this is definitely a valid point, you could also look at it that if the handyman, garbage man, etc. were paid as well (or even close to) the graduates of harvard, no one would put in the work to go through college and become scientists or doctors or any of the really high paying jobs and we wouldn't make the same advancements. I definitely agree w/ ur point though, it shouldn't be such a huge difference in income
@jms8220 That's where the government is supposed to play it's role by helping those that need help iv'e noticed how americans are allways crying socialism with everything Obama does. The government was elected by the PEOPLE for the PEOPLE so when I see americans protesting against universal healthcare which is a socialised program but if you told them you were going to stop social security and medicare they cry. It just goes to show how misinformed most americans are.
@bumper302 So what happens in socialism? Do the rich just go away? No, the middle class is erased and there would be only two classes. Society is only possible because of the rich, they have pioneered society, the rich being wealthy will never change, Its taken thousands of years for society to get here. And which do you prefer, a society where you can compete for a bigger slice or a society that everyone shares from the same slice?
@trickdaddyaz03 You obviously have'nt read my earlier comments and how is society only possible because of the rich? You don't know anything about economics America is the richest country in the world yet they have so many homeless people you treat animals better than you do human beings.
@bumper302 America is the richest country in the world and we treat our poor like animals??? Try telling that to a Mexican risking his life crossing the boarder, he would be caught dead before ever going poor in America. And what is it about economics that I, according to you, have no clue about? State your claim right now so that I can take you to school or stick to your bumper sticker slogan mentality.
@trickdaddyaz03 You really have no idea how Communistic economics work. Equal rights do not mean equal status.
The physicians, company managers and the like will still earn more than a street sweeper or taxi driver, but they will earn only as much as their work is worth, hence not receiving excessive wages and premiums like the elite we dread today.
The rich will be there only because of personal excellence and hard work, not manipulation, conspiracies or inheritance.
@DamazViccar Did I not state in my earlier posting before the one above that for socialism to occur the middle class must be erased leaving society with two classes??? What you are speaking of is not communism. You are speaking of State capitalism. In the essence of communism, the means and control of production are completely owned by the PEOPLE! You obviously dont know how communism economics work.
@trickdaddyaz03 And nowhere do I state that ownership is not in the hands of the people. I don't see which part of my comment you're trying to argue against.
If you're trying to say that all people are equal in terms of status, then please show me where any Communist philosopher says so.
And when we shun McCarthy Communism that you appear to be waving about, why would there not be a middle class with people who earn medium wages in medium jobs? Accountants, lawyers, police and such?
@DamazViccar Well you claim that there will still be those who make more money correct? For that to happen there must be economic calculation to calculate prices and wages thus capitalism is necessary to some degree. So you are wrong in making that claim in defense of communism. That is statism or state capitalism where taxing the means of production provides for social services rendered by the government.
@DamazViccar Communism aimed at a classless society where in doing so would abolish human exploitation completely. In communism there is NO classes which means NO middle class BECAUSE... the people own the means of production! From each to his own ablilty, to each to his own need, if there are inequalities exploitation can occur.
@trickdaddyaz03 Go ahead and play with my words, but classless society does not mean equal financial status. Neither Marx nor any Communist philosopher mentions any of the sort.
The problem with classes to is not the disparity of income, but the excess of disparity and that worst of the worst are not deserved. Exploitation stems from ownership of productive assets, not income disparity.
You also do not understand the needs/ability theory and cut corners to "everyone receiving an equal share."
@DamazViccar "You really have no idea how Communistic economics work", well my friend, I have spent three postings proving my knowledge on the subject while all you have provided for argument is cheap uneducated claims most likely reflecting your own rationing since you have not provided any further explanations beyond your claims. To the contrary all you have done is ask me the questions. It is no wonder to me that you do not understand what I am arguing.
@trickdaddyaz03 You did not prove anything apart from not being able to answer my questions. You keep uttering the same, logically not connected misconceptions without providing any proof beyond supplying "a number of posts" - as you pointed out. Your barely finished high school education is the cheap, sub-par one, not mine.
@DamazViccar Qusetion: "If you're trying to say that all people are equal in terms of status, then please show me where any Communist philosopher says so." Answer: "From each to his own ablilty, to each to his own need, if there are inequalities exploitation can occur, Marx". Do I have to keep going? or do you not understand what Marx was saying?
@DamazViccar Question: why would there not be a middle class with people who earn medium wages in medium jobs? Accountants, lawyers, police and such? Answer: "In communism there is NO classes which means NO middle class BECAUSE... the people own the means of production!" Community ownership means that everybody owns the production distributed to them by society. Medium jobs imply medium wages hence there are lower wages thus inequalities, which can lead to exploitation.
@trickdaddyaz03 I feel like fighting a lost cause here, but:
Since there are differences in jobs and differences in people's capacities - say... physicians and street sweepers - , on an individual level, they will have certain differences in status.
The two professions carry equal responsibility, but there are much fewer people who can handle the physician's work.
To dumb it down a great deal, the physician will have much higher needs than the street sweeper to provide his share of production.
@DamazViccar "From each according to his own ability, to each according to his need". In the communist community the doctor does his job because he can, the job is noble in itself. I get you now, you are thinking perfectly rational, and I agree with you, its supply and demand. Once again you are talking about state capitalism or statism or socialistic society but not communist or socialist. Your very example is evident, to me atleast, as to how communism could not work.
@trickdaddyaz03 You have to understand the essence of communism or socialism before you can distinguish the difference between the two. Media and politics has twisted terminology around so that people will choose a side. The most socialist countries in the world, except North Korea and Cuba, still need capitalism for many reasons such as the example you provided aside from keeping up with the global market. Even communist china is phasing out of communism and has become more capitalistic.
@trickdaddyaz03 I perfectly understand the difference and know that we have only socialistic and never had a Communist system, but there are circumstances that do not allow the most ideal world of morally impervious geniuses to exist as we assume. The most obvious being scarcity in human capital and resources in general.
The philosophers admit that there will be slight disparities in wealth, but these will not present enough power and influence that could lead to one person exploiting another.
@DamazViccar I dont disagree with anything you just said. It is very true and I feel that the sooner humanity can realize that fact, the sooner we can make changes for the better. Limited resources combined with human action is the very reason communism couldnt work, and will never work in contrast to capitalism. When I say capitalism keep in mind that societies can still be socialistic, which is a great thing, sythesis of the two polars. But once again communism does not work.
@DamazViccar One more point, I noticed that you had said communistic, not communist on your first post, which means I have basically been wasting our time. sorry. I saw communistic but I read communist, I guess I gotta keep my spurs from jinglin and janglin.
@DamazViccar So what you are saying is, once again according to my opinion, perfectly right. But I have been arguing because you say this in defense of communism when in fact it is not communism in theory. However your statement can be better argued in support of statism or nationalism or SOCIALISTIC, not SOCIALIST, societies where higher incomes are taxed more but there is still a financial class structure catoring to the supplies and demand of the nation.
this very game of capitalism has been controlling for quite sme time now...capitalism & socialism can never be balanced one way or another...1 wil lead the way as always...more power in fewer hands will be disaster for the economy because wealth makes every thing blind..amzing film
@DAMHA73 To say that socialism and capitalism are fighting is like saying that the game of chess is in a struggle with the rules of chess. Modern markets don't exist without custom and regulation. The question is: what rules should our markets have? What goods should be traded in markets? Which goods are properly administered as public goods, and which for consumption and use?
the only reason they get away with all this is because we as people don't fight for it. and they as a corporation can do whatever the fuck they want because they can legalize it and make it Law...
capitalism is fine. what moore is upset about in this movie is the injustice. dishonesty, theft. that kind of bullshit. capitalism isn't about rewarding greed, it's about rewarding work and effort.
@pmaestro work and effort.. that's what the upper 1% of the american plutonomy WANT you to think.. Oh you may be able alright to get a piece of the pie by working.. it's just that its size will deceive you, since most that's left of it is already taken. Capitalism in in escence a greed catalizer.. so even if in the beginning it's about "free market" and "work and effort" there is NO limit in measuring how much is enough.. therefore capitalism is inherent to the development of greed.
disagree that people are greedy by nature. as children most are taught to share their toys and so on, and kids happily do this. its only when they start school and have to start competing and learning about the social system do they become greedy. suddenly its my property, my money, my schoolbooks, add the you have to be better than everyone else in school or you will end up as a bum, and you sow the seeds of greed. very little of our behaviour is attributed to nature as opposed to nurture
this show, The Young Turks is a liberal show. open your mind Vox. just because you dont hear what you want to in the first 4 mins doesn't mean something solid isn't said afterwards...
As I read people who say they desire a bit of both, the form of socialism that is described as a compromise between the two, market socialism, comes to mind. I've heard of it before, but definitely want to research that.
lol MarmaladeINFP your so mis imformed dem states like MI are way worse off then any rep state Cali is a mostly ran dem state and their going bankrupt so where did you get your info for ?
@jaay334 I've looked at various analyses of the data. Here is one example:
w w w.kuro5hin. org/story/2005/1/13/25325/6923
According to the book "Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State", rich people tend to vote Republican and rich states tend to vote Democrat. The reason is that the poor vote Democrat in all states, but rich people in rich states are more likely to vote Democrat.
Curryay: Just because you can throw your scat don't mean a thing. I don't care nor I'm I impressed If you want to kill Grandma to save money. Maybe the meth smokers in your trailer court would disagree. For years most the Hill Billies have lived off the Government one way or another, and yet preach the problem of Government programs helping people. However the Silly Billy Project cost 2 Bil. every day+the current war and I don't want to spend a dime of my taxes on that worthless crap.
Republican states are the poorest states that receive the most govt funding while giving the least tax money to govt. Democrat states are the richest states that give more in taxes than they receive.
In Republican states, the rich vote Republican while the poor vote Democrat. In Democrat states, both the rich and the poor vote Democrat.
The white working class poor side with rich Republicans while blaming the even more poor minorities for all of their problems such as stealing their jobs.
@bonfirejovi Neither Texas nor California are models for what other states should seek to achieve. Both Texas and California have high wealth disparity and high rates of social problems. To see the best states, just look at the states with the most stable economies. It's not a matter of wealthy or not but how the wealth of a state is invested in and distributed throughout the entire community.
@Adjei88 I sometimes wonder why there aren't more people like me in the world. I suspect people like me generally aren't found in the YouTube comments section and I doubt too many people like me ever gain much in the way of fame and power. So, people like me are just typically well hidden. :)
Having intimately known myself for many years now, I might argue that there is good reason there aren't more people like me in the world. However, I don't mean to say I'm without any positive qualities.
@soundstorm - First off you're a coward for posting this as opposed to replying to my comment to alert me. Second you should read what I posted before you come blasting in with a rebuttal; you said you "don't want to spend a dime of my taxes on that worthless crap." and the fact you should not have to pay for that is the premise of my whole argument, you ass.
I disagree with Cenk that greed is central to human nature. It's a part of human nature, but it isn't the most central part. If you look at psychological research, humans are inherently social creatures. People only act for themselves when the group tells them they should. It's not a matter of getting rid of selfishness, but the problem with our culture is that we've come to idealize greed.
The seniors in this country have been conditioned to depend on the gov't. If this country is going to make it out of this mess, you and I and the rest of the younger generations are going to have to do things for ourselves. We cannot continue to fund the welfare state.
Capitalism has been corroded and been perversed into socialism in the US for the past 150 years (it dates back to well before WW2).
For those of you that recognize that the 'capitalism' that Moore talks about is actually a 'mixed economy' with corporatism running the show- thank you.
By the way: 7:47 - 50% taxes for a free education and free healthcare...and that's a good deal? WTF
Capitalism is not about money and greed, it's about individual freedom and civil liberties.
@curryay The thing is it isn't. People who pretend it is are clueless. Pure Capitalism leads inevitably to a caste system where the rich stay on top and the poor stay on bottom. Socialism was barely being discussed 150 years ago and you're saying the US has been Socialist all along? And that 50% tax rate on the rich gets you alot more than free healthcare and education.
Socialism, as a term, has been in use for almost 200 years. However the concept of socialism -the state having a higher value that the individual life of the man and the governing system controlling means of production - has been in practice for centuries.
I clearly stated that what we have today is not capitalism, it is a mixed economy.
Please support your caste system argument, I strongly disagree. In a truely free society (which the US is not) the poor only remain poor by choice.
I'm a social capitalist. I believe capitalism works best w/ some socialism. If more things are socialized (i.e. owned by the people) then we'll have more money to spend in our capitalistic economy. Just like it would be harmful if we left our military, police, and fire fighters to private corporations, it's bad that we have to pay so much for healthcare and college. Europe is actually where capitalism works best b/c the people have more money to spend on recreation.
@MassLiberal1 totally agree with you I believe in a system that's in between Socialism and Capitalism, every person is entitled to food,clothing,shelter,health and education everything else most be worked for then. Corporate greed is killing our country and people are suffering, rich get richer and poor get poorer.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@themuslimburro - dude, that's what we have today. The US is a mixed economy; it's mixed with socialism and capitalism. What you think will work is what we already have...which is what Michael Moore is really attacking in his movie.....and what is NOT working today.
@MassLiberal - Are you saying that you believe capitalism only works when it's mixed with socialist fundamentals?
Do you realize that, a concoction like that means to mix liberty and freedom with the core principals in which leaders like Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot can rise to power? How can 'some' of that be good?
Socialism = larger government = less civil liberty.
So do you want or not want Medicare when your old enough? Do want roads to drive on? Mail delivered to your house? Police? Fire department? Military? Libraries? All progressive ideas to make these things financed by taxpayers and they have all worked. An expansion of Medicare, which is what I want for healthcare, would work. It has in Canada and Europe and they love it (look at the polls). True, too much government is bad. But too little gov. is also bad.
I want to the gov't to provide the services that protect my rights; police, military and judicial system.
Medicare is bankrupt and I want no part of it. I will work my ass off to be sure my family is provided for when I am old. Nothing that is funded by the tax payers and is bankrupt can work.
Well you're in the minority if you don't want Medicare (which of course can be better run). You saw this past year how popular Medicare was w/ American seniors has the were terrified of losing it. You'll probably change your mind about this when you're 60. True, nothing that is bankrupt can work. But stuff funded by taxpayers and well run works every day. The stuff you mentioned as well as the library, fire department, etc. It would be a disaster if we took away these socialized things.
If I took my son to the toy store and bought him a toy every week fo ran entire year, he'd throw a fit if I suddenly stopped. He can help me do yardwork around the house to make money if he likes, then he can buy his own toy. What if me buying that toy every week was forcing me to not pay my bills?
Are you saying that seniors are whiners about their healthcare? Are you saying that your taxes are to high? Or are you saying you don't want to pay for their healthcare? You do know that most seniors are to old to work and can't afford healthcare, right? Just like you're not rich enough to pave your own roads, most people aren't rich enough to afford healthcare, which like roads are a necessity. Should police not respond to crimes in poorer areas b/c they're wasting your tax dollars?
@massliberal1- we are getting more and more away from your support of socialism which is what spawned my first comment. All of the things you mentioned - socialized medicine, social security, medicare, etc. - these are things that increase our gov't, intervene with our free markets and ulitmately are socialist. THAT is the problem w/ todays economy. THAT is what Moore should have made his movie about, not call out the evils of a mixed economy and call it capitalism...which BTW enables his wealth
Everytime a liberal gets called out for their real philosphical agenda- which is supporting socialism- the topic gets changed on the argument gets shut down.
We can agree to disagree but there's a serious problem when, as we do, you continue to support policies, representatives and gov't initiatvies that only corrode what made this country great.
Of course they love it. The cost of those things, which is passed onto only certain people, is something most of them never have to pay for.
Those systems are all bankrupt!!! You think the gov't taking money from some to give to others via a system that is bankrupt is a good idea? You have yet to fact this fact.
Capitalism can only operate as a fair free market if it's based in or balanced by socialism. Our present system privatizes profits while socializing losses. The problem with our present capitalist system is that the idea of ownership often doesn't make much sense any more. No one can own nature (land, water, air, etc). If a farmer or corporation pollutes on their own property, we all suffer. Nature knows no ownership. One person's land connects to another person's land. We all share water & air.
@MarmaladeINFP Socialism is a system in which everyone owns an equal share of everything. That means there is no private ownership, so how could there be a free market? There would be nothing to buy or sell.
@coaster61 I don't wish to get in a long discussion. I only have a superficial understanding of the more 'socialist' versions of capitalism & I'm not familiar with the technical terms. I know that Noam Chomsky discusses this topic. Socialism doesn't mean no ownership. It means collective ownership. So, the workers would own the factory they work in. Most transnational corporations are run like hierarchical fascist states, but a socialist corporation would be run like a democracy.
@MarmaladeINFP Ok, so what you're saying is essentially the people who provide the labor should own the businesses. We don't have to get into a long discussion, but the thing I want to point out is that what I think you are describing is used today in America in very small LLC's such as doctor's clinics and law firms. A group of professionals run the business and equally own it. It works well with a small company of highly educated individuals.
@coaster61 There are no laws against doing this in a larger scale and with less skilled workers. The problem is, I think, it would create a huge conflict. The accountant (who owns his share) would know that wages need to be cut because revenue is down, everyone else would want their wages to remain high and democratically get their way, and so it won't last long. Now I could be wrong, maybe it would work, but no one seems to want to try it, so I'm apparently not alone in my thinking.
@coaster61 In a comment below, I gave the example of the German business model where the boards of corporations are required by law to have half of their members be worker representatives. The German economy (in terms of manufacturing & exports) is one of the most successful in the world. They aren't run as collectives, but there is an important difference. German businesses are run more democratically whereas US big businesses are run more like fascist states w/ top-down hierarchy.
@MarmaladeINFP Unfortunately, I'm not as familiar with the German economy, but a quick look at CIA.gov shows Germany's PPP was $34,100 in 2009, while the US's was $46,000. I also want to point out that your comment above about Rep and Dem states is also incorrect. Have you ever heard of the term "rust belt"? When you see that many northern states have higher incomes, you see the problem.
When you take note of the fact that everything is far more expensive in the north and that unemployment is much higher, especially since the recession (caused by the Fed), you can then figure your PPP. And it proves that the union-obsessed north has a much weaker economy. When you pay employees more, consumers have to pay more, so higher income averages mean nothing.
@coaster61 I don't know too much about the German economy either. I only mentioned it because of two videos I watched & blogged about which I linked to in a comment below. As for Rep & Dem states, I also blogged about it:
@MarmaladeINFP BTW a stronger economy may simply mean a more stable & equal economy. I pointed out in my the second link that these Northern states with economies that have remained stable also have low wealth disparity (& low rates of social problems). Germany also has an economy that's remained stable & has low wealth disparity (& low rates of social problems). My point is that a wealthy society might not have a strong economy that is beneficial for most people in that society.
@coaster61 Many small businesses, especially small family businesses, are run as collectives or close to it. There are even some intentional communities that also operate as businesses, & so they both collectively live & work together. East Wind Community is an example. They've existed since 1973. They support their community selling products they make. Their nut butters earn them $500k annually. They've also formed a collective with other egalitarian communities in order pay for healthcare.
@MarmaladeINFP Some religious communities have been run as collective businesses. The Shakers, at the height of their power, were leaders in developing agricultural technology & in growing the highest quality seeds available that farmers would buy. They were collectively so successful as a business because they saw themselves doing God's work. benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/08/07/shakers-socialists-capitalists/
@MarmaladeINFP I suspect we'd see many more different business models if we actually had a functioning free market. Small &/or collectivist businesses can't compete w/ powerful transnationals w/ their lobbyist money, teams of lawyers, tax havens, etc. The internet has helped the small &/or collectivist businesses to an extent, but they can only survive if they find a niche that big businesses don't care about so they'll be left alone.
@coaster61 Capitalism of today is very different than what was created in early America. Originally there was no such thing as a permanent corporate charter & so no such thing as an permanent corporate entity. And for damn sure corporate charters didn't imply personhood & constitutional rights. Charters were given for specific purposes of the community such as building a bridge. The charter was used for collective action & not private profit.
@coaster61 Although not socialist, Germany is closer to the idea of a socialist free market. In Germany, unions have great power & high rates of membership. It's required worker representatives be 1/2 of board members of a corporation. Owners, CEOs, & workers all have a voice in how the company is run. The result is that Germany has one of the most successful economies in the world & also has high income equality.
@coaster61 I think I see maybe where the confusion is. Socialism means collective ownership, but that doesn't necessarily mean state ownership. A collective been made up of a neighborhood group, church members, a group of friends & family, workers at a particular factory, or a particular ethnic group such as how some Native American tribes collectively own land. Each specific group collectively has private ownership & so can compete in a free market against other specific collectives.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This reviewer is as stupid and clueless as Michael Moore. There has been no real capitalism in the USA since WW2. Yes, it's easy to prop up boogeymen and knock them over. This film completely misses the root problems, but hey, why bother with facts when you have tickets to sell.
US is like former Soviet Union. They will not change their policies even tho it is clear that something is going the wrong way. There is just no people who hold enough power to change the system (Obama can't do shit without corporate and congress support much like single reformist couldn't do anything in unresponsive soviet aparatus). Nobody believed in USSR even at the end that such titanic superpower can fail niether nobody will in US. US friends as russians will be educated the hard way.
For those who believe "private/market is _always_ better," please check the data: Canada has a (more) "public" education and health care system (than the US) and produces a far better result by any measure dollar for dollar. For e.g. Better educated population & fewer infant mortalities (two basic indicators). Sweeping over-generalizations are rarely helpful.
The ancient dichotomy of public-private, govt-business is false. There is no such thing as a "Free" market. A market is not possible without a "framework" Nor is "government" (esp. as currently constituted!) preferable. We need to get ourselves explicitly, transparently and accountably organized around creating a means of maximizing human (& planetary) well-being. That is after all what ever political and economic "system" is ostensibly about.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
France a socialist country, yeah right... How ignorant you must be to really think this, incredible. Michael Moore is pure propaganda, it's so obvious. Do you really think that government can solve our problems? Or that government does things in any other manner than corps? The only difference is that government has no incentive to do things in an efficient manner. The best college's are private! Please do some basic reading on history and economics. This is absolutely ridiculous.
work hard to pay bills.charch high prices for necessary GOODS are the two ways of making either a LIVING or a KILLING.wake up from the dream;it's becoming a "day dream", and it is not fair to the hard working people
It's not the fault of government. It's the fault of corporations swaying government and its the fault of the people for being so apethetic to allow this to happen.
i liked the movie its not the fault of free markets or capitalism its the fault of government get rid of the government and all this goes away treat the source not the symptoms
@jaker2880 anyone who loves this movie is an economic illiterate. if this your first introduction to capitalism then you seriously need an econ 101 class.
Quote: "The problem with this is that it is extremely beneficial for the current order and destroys entrepreneurship, making the economy very non-dynamic."
Your wrong that it destroys entrepreneurship.
The Nordic countries with around 25 million citizens produce more patents-applications than United Kingdom and France combined, with around 100 million citizens.
6:45 !! This is not how humans are!!! That's why there are people who donate, help the sick, rescue animals and care for our planet. MONEY SCARCITY conditions people to develop greed. If there was no money there would be no theft, and don't get me started on capitalism, i don't even know how you can put capitalism and democracy in the same sentence for crying out loud. As a wise man once said "I'm mad as hell, and I can't take it any more"
WOW, just wow. Take 80 million away from the guy that made 100 mill and use it for more "Productive means". Why would he ever want to make 100 million again?
There are two types of Capitalism. There is Capitalism that promotes monopolies and dualopolies and Capitalism that supports a truely free market with competition and laws of supply and demand. We currently have the first type of Capitalism which exists of monopolies and dualopolies supported by the government by ways of campaign donations, money for government spending, and corruption so thick if Americans truely understood how deep it was they would drown in it.
the corporations have through their politicians introduced a system where they all but earn money on exploitation of everyone.
the corperations dont care about you, they want profit.
for instance wall-mark now have "dead peasant insurance". whenever a worker dies they earn money, and if the person keeps working they earn money, but in a lot of cases they actually earn more money if you die than if you live.
(on the other side wall-mart now hire more seniors and disabled people....)
the system promotes death of workers, how is that not a problem? its like me taking out a life endurance on my neighbor, there is no way im not getting him fatty food.
"clueless about economics", you are making assumptions because i disagree with your economic view. i too could say "you don't have a clue about economics if you support capitalism" without backing it up.
just saying "oh, it will fix itself one of these days by some invisible mean" strikes me as a stupendously "unsafe" position.
You assume the science of economics is based on views, it is not. Austrian economics is based on principles and logic, and there are yet to be any valid arguments against it. Instead it is proven right over and over by bubble after bubble. How many times do we have to be right before people listen? Modern economics is based on extrapolation and aggregates. Which is irrational.
Yes, voluntary interaction, a free market, will solve everything.
austrian economics are hardly based on mathematicall equations as is evident by the fact that unless the goverment redistribute wealth, then is ALWAYS gets focused at the top. having an economic elite enslaving the rest has never been in the interest of the people.
victorian england is a good example, the people were starving in squallor, but the elite as so much they couldnt possibly spend it all, you see the beguinning of exact same thing in the us, and it will only get worse.
So? Just because you use science doesn't mean that your approximation of reality is even relevant. In fact, modern economics is based on extrapolations, and that is irrational.
No, wealth doesn't always gets focused on the top when the government stays out of it, in fact the distribution of income grew more and more disperse and does so the freer a market is.
Yes, England is a good example, because with more freedoms came more prosperity for the working class...
to insure against your loss is one thing, but when you earn money on breaking it and you are not held responsable for breaking it you have a broken system.
there is a reason economics is a hotly debated topic, it is not black and white, and i dare say austrian economics remain controversial and have been known to fail (concentrate wealth in the elite). if you do not regulate industry and have taxes the system breaks down, anarchy will given the current circumstances NEVER work...
I agree, that's why I don't want government players in the markets, a pocket less player is a pocket less fish at the table that everyone sucks dry.
The premier reason economics is debated so much is that the neoclassical school has extreme flaws in the theoretical philosophy of it, in other words - it is bad science.
You dare say that? They you know nothing, because that is not true. Arguing from assumptions is a fallacy.
anarcho-capitalism will almost certainly lead to a corperate fascism where one mega-corperation controll everything, how is that different from state capitalism?
you see it in the modern world, you can buy any car you want, any brand and the money end up in one of two pockets, everything is partly owned by the same people.
does not the invisible hand (if there is such a thing) break down when supply is monopolized and competition removed?
You can't ask a question which assume I accept your premise. It wont, we wont let it. Because then we have the power, not the government.
But even if you believe it will lead to the system we have today, corporate fascism (and don't try to deny it, that is what we have, government control over the market), then you actually reject the current situation.
"same people". Not it's not. It's controlled by the state, but owned by different investors and companies. That's what competition is.
fascism is when corporations control the government. both Mussolini and Hitler were quite clear on the fact the corporations had the power in Italy and Germany respectively.
Mussolini himself said fascism should be called corporatism because its the "last stage" of capitalism, when they are powerful enough to control nations and run the nations for profits.
if you think corporations cant control the state you are sorely naive. even if you remove the state the corporations WILL take their role.
Mussolini states famously that "the government doesn't need to own the means of production if we can force the owners to do whatever we want". The government had the power, not the entrepreneurs, just look at who has the gun! You seem to think the robbed has the power in a muggery. So you clearly don't know what Mussolini said.
Corporations definitely can't control the state. They can influence it, buy favors from it, but the government has the power. Just as the mafia has the local power.
listen, if you bribe a cop you get away with some things, you bribe a mayor you get a lot more, bribe most of the senators in the US you get a hell of a lot.
you are saying corruption doesn't work? in that case the discussion just turned silly.
i cant find a single source for your "famous" Mussolini quote, and it seems kinda fabricated and inconsistent with his politics.
is military force the only power?, what about the hanseatic league?, they ruled Europe (end my home city) by economic means
Yeah, if you bribe the state, you can get away with corruption, because there is no alternative. If you do insider trading and bribe other businesses as a private entrepreneur, you will be out of a job so fast. Corruption only work with the state, the state make it possible.
I paraphrased the quote, I should not have put quotations on it, I realize that, but it's translated anyways so neither should you on yours.
Hansa? Mercantilism was an engine of wealth for the state, as all freedoms are.
Monopolizes doesn't form naturally, and they never have. Stefbot does a fairly good explanation of it, brings up all the false conclusions, and I will refer you to him because I only have 500 letters here.
Competition is made greater without government market barriers and centralized power, not worse.
Socialism is most definitely state capitalism. The very definition of it. When the STATE owns the MEANS OF PRODUCTION that is socialism, to whatever extent you might want to concede it.
socialism is when the means of production is run with the goal of bettering the people and controlled by the people, capitalism is (and i repeat) by definition when you run a business or profits.
the USSR (especially following Stalin) was state capitalistic, the state controlled the industry and ran it solely for profits.
disregarding the workers it focused profits into the arms industry, research and other things the state deemed necessary. (which is why they beat America in the space race)
Ask any middle income person or even lower middle income and higher middle income person, how they are doing since all this free enterprise shit went global around 1980. Most will tell you the FUCKING SHITS! Speaking of shit Charman Toilet paper is now made in China using Canadian lumber. I rest my case you right wing free enterprise TWAT maggots! Same goes for your toothpaste--China. the tube is printed in Lead paint..FUCK YOU all Walmart losers!
fender4444 3 months ago
We're making fun of capitalism and consumerism with our "still using" channel. Pretending that using outdated technology is like drug use that needs to be cured. Because that's the message we get from ads and media. Gotta have the latest iPad, iPhone, etc. We're hoping that other youtubers will come and share their usage of "outdated" technology...
StillUsing 1 year ago
these mindless capitalist just dont get it!! capitalism is a disease!! the ruling uses racism, sexism, homophobia,etc to deplot thier divide and conquer strategy!! cenk is just another liberal that votes for democrats and thinks things are gonna change, he's not a leftist!! for anybody who is tired of these so called liberals its time to think like a LEFTIST, not a milquetoast liberal who believes in wage slavery, war waging, social darwinian systems of domination like capitalism.
mmantech 1 year ago
@mmantech capitalism is the future. beats me what type of setup you believe in but im telling you your dead wrong.
MortTheCat 1 year ago
Cenk, you should move here to Sweden
rugbyanden 1 year ago 4
RESOUCES BASED ECONOMY IS THE SOLUTION.
fumaporros789 1 year ago
Cenk and his TYT are social democrats. But social democrats are still capitalist. They favor social capitalism because they just believe in the system of the free market.
Micheal Moore is right about capitalism. But he fears the anticommunist media. That is why he does not want to say that democratic socialism is the solution. Moore is afraid to be called a socialist or communist. And in America all socialists are viewed as dangerous to democracy, freedom and god.
UDSS 1 year ago 12
@UDSS ???? Free market social democrats? There is nowhere a free market where there is a state, people say the US has a free market but thats bullshit, its croni-capitalism, look it up
BirgirZ 8 months ago
Hey TYT Guy, the biggest thing you got wrong it the Government didn't bail out the Bankers.. the people did!
Governments have NO MONEY and NO INCOME.. They TAKE from the people in the form of TAXES, with the notion of improving peoples lives. It diminishes the blow when people think it came out of someone else's pocket.
EvilRoySlad3 1 year ago
Legalize drugs, tax it, let the market deal with it, and keep it out of children's hands. Let us Americans uphold our 2nd Amendment rights for protection and carry openly. I guarantee you will see crime decrease faster than ever before. Mix the constitution with Adam Smiths principles and you will see the greatest society that has ever functioned. Open immigration, free trade, and no welfare, just like my grandparents had it. Look at the prosperity that formed during THOSE years.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@AroundSun you mean including the 1929 economic collapse, the worst in modern history? i agree with your points, but it has never been any different to how it is now, the rich just dont cover it up as well anymore
lee250893 1 year ago
The profits will tell whether a school is doing well or not. The government however, will never fire anyone, will dump hoards of money into a failing business(education/healthcare), and will have to pay tons of people salaries that are not determined by their skills(teaching, doctoring) or the market. If government would stay out of education, colleges and schools would have to compete for more students. Parents would also have more choices. I do agree healthcare needs reform, but not GOVT!
AroundSun 1 year ago
People blindly say "tax the rich", "tax those greedy corporations", what is a greedy corp.? You are taxing the employees, the customers(middle and lower class), and stockholders (100 million people in the US). If you want to increase solely rich people income tax, then theres less money in banks. The ONLY way you can measure the success of things dems want such as Healthcare and Education is through competition, profits, and losses. Bureaucracy means wasteful spending, and less efficiency
AroundSun 1 year ago
4:23 What are right regulations? Who decides this fair treatment? And what is this "progressive" tax rate being spent on? Who is going to spend rich peoples money better, them or government? What can the government spend rich peoples money on that they can't spend it on themselves? Don't say "hoarding" because when capital is in banks, loans increase and interest rates drop. If you're saying the progressive tax should be spent on the poor, then you can't have a free market with welfare.
AroundSun 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser The reason regulation is necessitated is because we are all impacted by the actions of others. I thought this connection was obvious. Private property rights doesn't dispel social responsibility and only some form of insitutionalized authority (govt, church, etc) can enforce social responsibility. A free market if supported by institutionalized authority would be effective in enforcing social responsibility, but unregulated capitalism has proven ineffective.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser The subject isn't hard to understand. It's you who are hard to understand. There is no absolute distinction between regulation and intervention. Regulation of markets is by definition intervening in those markets. The issue isn't necessarily about what is too much regulation. Rather, it's about what regulation is ineffective or oppressive. Anyway, unless you have anything actually interesting to say, I'm finished with this pointless back and forth.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser I never implied regulation wouldn't exist in a free market. I was arguing a free market wouldn't exist without regulation. Connect the dots? Talking to you is like trying to follow the line of thought of someone who has spent the entire day smoking pot. As for my original comment, socialism exists to the extent exists a democracy, a country run by and for the people. This is why those on the far right hate democracy and want to instate a hierachical class system of 'meritocracy'.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser Quit being silly. You were arguing that regulation leads to monopolies and so the implication is that defending regulation is defending monopolies... anyway what the hell are you talking about... 27 thumbs up, huh? I hate to tell ya, but your stream-of-consciousness style of writing is very ineffective in terms of clear communication.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser There are a number of way to regulate. One way is create transparency to the public. Another way is to create agencies that can't be manipulated by politicians who are bought off with big biz campaign money & other contributions. Yet another way is to create more self-regulation within corporations such as by requiring there be more transparency to customers & investors & by requiring employees play a part in decision-making as is done in Germany. I'm sure there are many other ways
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser I never claimed to be for monopolies. The problem is that we live in a class-based society where the upper class holds most of the power and most wealth is inherited. This has led to cronyism & corporatism. The same people who are politicians or have influence on big govt are those who owners, investors & CEOs of big biz. The trick is either to create regulatory boundaries to separate big govt & big biz or else eliminate both big govt & big biz.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
I don't get it. What he's talking about is horrible, but why is it called Capitalism? Anyone who paid attention in middle school economics knows that what is being described is a corporate oligarchy. Furthermore, how can the solution to corrupt politics be to give those politicians more regulation power? That's where the problem comes from!
coaster61 1 year ago
These reporters suck. I can't get over the guy on the left, WHO HIRED THIS GUY? Pathetic reporting.
rpstiner 1 year ago
The fucking dipshit, anti-American media spent practically no time reporting the facts in Capitalism, but always goes out of their way to regurgitate the racist accusations of Andrew Brietbart.
dizzymasekela 1 year ago
ummm... goldmansachs executives running the treasury department...writing legislation to give themselves 700 Billion without oversight...
Thousands of people protest against it in Washington, congress votes no...that’s a democracy.
The next day signing a deal to go through with it behind closed doors in secret...that’s a conspiracy against the American people, not a democracy...
So sad this world is run by evil people.
hungryhippo323 1 year ago
The biggest problem with capitalism is the fact that it is impossible for everyone to be successful if everyone went to harvard and received a degree who would do the jobs that nobody wants to do. Who would be the garbage man,housekeeper & handyman who would mop the floors & drive the taxi's. These are all services that we need capitalism is a flawed economic strategy that keeps the rich wealthy and the poor struggling.
bumper302 1 year ago
@bumper302 while this is definitely a valid point, you could also look at it that if the handyman, garbage man, etc. were paid as well (or even close to) the graduates of harvard, no one would put in the work to go through college and become scientists or doctors or any of the really high paying jobs and we wouldn't make the same advancements. I definitely agree w/ ur point though, it shouldn't be such a huge difference in income
jms8220 1 year ago
@jms8220 That's where the government is supposed to play it's role by helping those that need help iv'e noticed how americans are allways crying socialism with everything Obama does. The government was elected by the PEOPLE for the PEOPLE so when I see americans protesting against universal healthcare which is a socialised program but if you told them you were going to stop social security and medicare they cry. It just goes to show how misinformed most americans are.
bumper302 1 year ago
@bumper302 So what happens in socialism? Do the rich just go away? No, the middle class is erased and there would be only two classes. Society is only possible because of the rich, they have pioneered society, the rich being wealthy will never change, Its taken thousands of years for society to get here. And which do you prefer, a society where you can compete for a bigger slice or a society that everyone shares from the same slice?
trickdaddyaz03 1 year ago
@trickdaddyaz03 You obviously have'nt read my earlier comments and how is society only possible because of the rich? You don't know anything about economics America is the richest country in the world yet they have so many homeless people you treat animals better than you do human beings.
bumper302 1 year ago
@bumper302 America is the richest country in the world and we treat our poor like animals??? Try telling that to a Mexican risking his life crossing the boarder, he would be caught dead before ever going poor in America. And what is it about economics that I, according to you, have no clue about? State your claim right now so that I can take you to school or stick to your bumper sticker slogan mentality.
trickdaddyaz03 1 year ago
@trickdaddyaz03 You really have no idea how Communistic economics work. Equal rights do not mean equal status.
The physicians, company managers and the like will still earn more than a street sweeper or taxi driver, but they will earn only as much as their work is worth, hence not receiving excessive wages and premiums like the elite we dread today.
The rich will be there only because of personal excellence and hard work, not manipulation, conspiracies or inheritance.
(This all, being theory.)
DamazViccar 1 year ago
@DamazViccar Did I not state in my earlier posting before the one above that for socialism to occur the middle class must be erased leaving society with two classes??? What you are speaking of is not communism. You are speaking of State capitalism. In the essence of communism, the means and control of production are completely owned by the PEOPLE! You obviously dont know how communism economics work.
trickdaddyaz03 1 year ago
@trickdaddyaz03 And nowhere do I state that ownership is not in the hands of the people. I don't see which part of my comment you're trying to argue against.
If you're trying to say that all people are equal in terms of status, then please show me where any Communist philosopher says so.
And when we shun McCarthy Communism that you appear to be waving about, why would there not be a middle class with people who earn medium wages in medium jobs? Accountants, lawyers, police and such?
DamazViccar 1 year ago
@DamazViccar Well you claim that there will still be those who make more money correct? For that to happen there must be economic calculation to calculate prices and wages thus capitalism is necessary to some degree. So you are wrong in making that claim in defense of communism. That is statism or state capitalism where taxing the means of production provides for social services rendered by the government.
trickdaddyaz03 1 year ago
@DamazViccar Communism aimed at a classless society where in doing so would abolish human exploitation completely. In communism there is NO classes which means NO middle class BECAUSE... the people own the means of production! From each to his own ablilty, to each to his own need, if there are inequalities exploitation can occur.
trickdaddyaz03 1 year ago
@trickdaddyaz03 Go ahead and play with my words, but classless society does not mean equal financial status. Neither Marx nor any Communist philosopher mentions any of the sort.
The problem with classes to is not the disparity of income, but the excess of disparity and that worst of the worst are not deserved. Exploitation stems from ownership of productive assets, not income disparity.
You also do not understand the needs/ability theory and cut corners to "everyone receiving an equal share."
DamazViccar 1 year ago
@DamazViccar "You really have no idea how Communistic economics work", well my friend, I have spent three postings proving my knowledge on the subject while all you have provided for argument is cheap uneducated claims most likely reflecting your own rationing since you have not provided any further explanations beyond your claims. To the contrary all you have done is ask me the questions. It is no wonder to me that you do not understand what I am arguing.
trickdaddyaz03 1 year ago
@trickdaddyaz03 You did not prove anything apart from not being able to answer my questions. You keep uttering the same, logically not connected misconceptions without providing any proof beyond supplying "a number of posts" - as you pointed out. Your barely finished high school education is the cheap, sub-par one, not mine.
DamazViccar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DamazViccar Qusetion: "If you're trying to say that all people are equal in terms of status, then please show me where any Communist philosopher says so." Answer: "From each to his own ablilty, to each to his own need, if there are inequalities exploitation can occur, Marx". Do I have to keep going? or do you not understand what Marx was saying?
trickdaddyaz03 1 year ago
@DamazViccar Question: why would there not be a middle class with people who earn medium wages in medium jobs? Accountants, lawyers, police and such? Answer: "In communism there is NO classes which means NO middle class BECAUSE... the people own the means of production!" Community ownership means that everybody owns the production distributed to them by society. Medium jobs imply medium wages hence there are lower wages thus inequalities, which can lead to exploitation.
trickdaddyaz03 1 year ago
@trickdaddyaz03 I feel like fighting a lost cause here, but:
Since there are differences in jobs and differences in people's capacities - say... physicians and street sweepers - , on an individual level, they will have certain differences in status.
The two professions carry equal responsibility, but there are much fewer people who can handle the physician's work.
To dumb it down a great deal, the physician will have much higher needs than the street sweeper to provide his share of production.
DamazViccar 1 year ago
@DamazViccar "From each according to his own ability, to each according to his need". In the communist community the doctor does his job because he can, the job is noble in itself. I get you now, you are thinking perfectly rational, and I agree with you, its supply and demand. Once again you are talking about state capitalism or statism or socialistic society but not communist or socialist. Your very example is evident, to me atleast, as to how communism could not work.
trickdaddyaz03 1 year ago
@trickdaddyaz03 You have to understand the essence of communism or socialism before you can distinguish the difference between the two. Media and politics has twisted terminology around so that people will choose a side. The most socialist countries in the world, except North Korea and Cuba, still need capitalism for many reasons such as the example you provided aside from keeping up with the global market. Even communist china is phasing out of communism and has become more capitalistic.
trickdaddyaz03 1 year ago
@trickdaddyaz03 I perfectly understand the difference and know that we have only socialistic and never had a Communist system, but there are circumstances that do not allow the most ideal world of morally impervious geniuses to exist as we assume. The most obvious being scarcity in human capital and resources in general.
The philosophers admit that there will be slight disparities in wealth, but these will not present enough power and influence that could lead to one person exploiting another.
DamazViccar 1 year ago
@DamazViccar I dont disagree with anything you just said. It is very true and I feel that the sooner humanity can realize that fact, the sooner we can make changes for the better. Limited resources combined with human action is the very reason communism couldnt work, and will never work in contrast to capitalism. When I say capitalism keep in mind that societies can still be socialistic, which is a great thing, sythesis of the two polars. But once again communism does not work.
trickdaddyaz03 1 year ago
@DamazViccar One more point, I noticed that you had said communistic, not communist on your first post, which means I have basically been wasting our time. sorry. I saw communistic but I read communist, I guess I gotta keep my spurs from jinglin and janglin.
trickdaddyaz03 1 year ago
@trickdaddyaz03 Let us not fight over theory and practical use when there is so much more we can deal with first.
DamazViccar 1 year ago
@DamazViccar So what you are saying is, once again according to my opinion, perfectly right. But I have been arguing because you say this in defense of communism when in fact it is not communism in theory. However your statement can be better argued in support of statism or nationalism or SOCIALISTIC, not SOCIALIST, societies where higher incomes are taxed more but there is still a financial class structure catoring to the supplies and demand of the nation.
trickdaddyaz03 1 year ago
read Ayn Rand
greenghost2008 1 year ago
@greenghost2008 Play Bioshock.
CommanderVolframm 1 year ago
@CommanderVolframm I have an andrew Ryan is a video game hero.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
@greenghost2008 Heroes usually succeed in making a paradise and don't get a golf club jammed in their brain case.
CommanderVolframm 1 year ago
this very game of capitalism has been controlling for quite sme time now...capitalism & socialism can never be balanced one way or another...1 wil lead the way as always...more power in fewer hands will be disaster for the economy because wealth makes every thing blind..amzing film
DAMHA73 1 year ago
@DAMHA73 To say that socialism and capitalism are fighting is like saying that the game of chess is in a struggle with the rules of chess. Modern markets don't exist without custom and regulation. The question is: what rules should our markets have? What goods should be traded in markets? Which goods are properly administered as public goods, and which for consumption and use?
hymnofashes 1 year ago
Capitalism, worse damning system ever invented, its plain evil and corrupt.
GwaishfulGuy 1 year ago
i like how he interviewed the catholic priests. it gave them a chance to look good for a change
spentronic 1 year ago
pilots only making minimum wage WTF!? Is that true or is Mike fudging a bit on those numbers?
metalreign81 1 year ago
the only reason they get away with all this is because we as people don't fight for it. and they as a corporation can do whatever the fuck they want because they can legalize it and make it Law...
darkangel21pr 1 year ago
you idiots laugh at people dying like it's no big deal...
AtanasovPeter 1 year ago
Normally I don't like the loose liberal drivel on this channel. But thanks to Jonathan Kim for bringing some facts and research to this episode!
seanseanseanseansean 1 year ago
interesting that moore hates capitalism so much, when he is filty stinking rich thanks to it. just sayin.
phunnybunny8 1 year ago
@phunnybunny8 how is he rich thanks to it?
fastchord 1 year ago
capitalism is fine. what moore is upset about in this movie is the injustice. dishonesty, theft. that kind of bullshit. capitalism isn't about rewarding greed, it's about rewarding work and effort.
pmaestro 1 year ago 2
@pmaestro work and effort.. that's what the upper 1% of the american plutonomy WANT you to think.. Oh you may be able alright to get a piece of the pie by working.. it's just that its size will deceive you, since most that's left of it is already taken. Capitalism in in escence a greed catalizer.. so even if in the beginning it's about "free market" and "work and effort" there is NO limit in measuring how much is enough.. therefore capitalism is inherent to the development of greed.
fastchord 1 year ago
@pmaestro Yeah right.
xxdiogenescynicxx 1 year ago
disagree that people are greedy by nature. as children most are taught to share their toys and so on, and kids happily do this. its only when they start school and have to start competing and learning about the social system do they become greedy. suddenly its my property, my money, my schoolbooks, add the you have to be better than everyone else in school or you will end up as a bum, and you sow the seeds of greed. very little of our behaviour is attributed to nature as opposed to nurture
fulmetalmage 1 year ago 2
I stopped this at 4:19. I would suspect that the next 12.9 minutes will be right wing propaganda. FAIL.
VoxJoxx 1 year ago
@VoxJoxx
this show, The Young Turks is a liberal show. open your mind Vox. just because you dont hear what you want to in the first 4 mins doesn't mean something solid isn't said afterwards...
pboom 1 year ago
As I read people who say they desire a bit of both, the form of socialism that is described as a compromise between the two, market socialism, comes to mind. I've heard of it before, but definitely want to research that.
SalSanMar3 1 year ago
If corporations are anti-religious, then I guess I'm a bit more pro-corporation than I thought...
mcwhite001 1 year ago
lol MarmaladeINFP your so mis imformed dem states like MI are way worse off then any rep state Cali is a mostly ran dem state and their going bankrupt so where did you get your info for ?
jaay334 2 years ago
@jaay334 I've looked at various analyses of the data. Here is one example:
w w w.kuro5hin. org/story/2005/1/13/25325/6923
According to the book "Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State", rich people tend to vote Republican and rich states tend to vote Democrat. The reason is that the poor vote Democrat in all states, but rich people in rich states are more likely to vote Democrat.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Curryay: Just because you can throw your scat don't mean a thing. I don't care nor I'm I impressed If you want to kill Grandma to save money. Maybe the meth smokers in your trailer court would disagree. For years most the Hill Billies have lived off the Government one way or another, and yet preach the problem of Government programs helping people. However the Silly Billy Project cost 2 Bil. every day+the current war and I don't want to spend a dime of my taxes on that worthless crap.
soundstorm 2 years ago
Republican states are the poorest states that receive the most govt funding while giving the least tax money to govt. Democrat states are the richest states that give more in taxes than they receive.
In Republican states, the rich vote Republican while the poor vote Democrat. In Democrat states, both the rich and the poor vote Democrat.
The white working class poor side with rich Republicans while blaming the even more poor minorities for all of their problems such as stealing their jobs.
MarmaladeINFP 2 years ago 10
@MarmaladeINFP Texas vs California... who is richer?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi Neither Texas nor California are models for what other states should seek to achieve. Both Texas and California have high wealth disparity and high rates of social problems. To see the best states, just look at the states with the most stable economies. It's not a matter of wealthy or not but how the wealth of a state is invested in and distributed throughout the entire community.
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/08/31/10-states-with-ridiculously-low-unemployment-and-why/
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP why aren't there more people like you in this world!
Adjei88 1 year ago
@Adjei88 I sometimes wonder why there aren't more people like me in the world. I suspect people like me generally aren't found in the YouTube comments section and I doubt too many people like me ever gain much in the way of fame and power. So, people like me are just typically well hidden. :)
Having intimately known myself for many years now, I might argue that there is good reason there aren't more people like me in the world. However, I don't mean to say I'm without any positive qualities.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@soundstorm - First off you're a coward for posting this as opposed to replying to my comment to alert me. Second you should read what I posted before you come blasting in with a rebuttal; you said you "don't want to spend a dime of my taxes on that worthless crap." and the fact you should not have to pay for that is the premise of my whole argument, you ass.
curryay 2 years ago
I disagree with Cenk that greed is central to human nature. It's a part of human nature, but it isn't the most central part. If you look at psychological research, humans are inherently social creatures. People only act for themselves when the group tells them they should. It's not a matter of getting rid of selfishness, but the problem with our culture is that we've come to idealize greed.
MarmaladeINFP 2 years ago 5
The seniors in this country have been conditioned to depend on the gov't. If this country is going to make it out of this mess, you and I and the rest of the younger generations are going to have to do things for ourselves. We cannot continue to fund the welfare state.
curryay 2 years ago
these guys are retards and lack any journalistic skills
MusicIzMySavior 2 years ago
Capitalism has been corroded and been perversed into socialism in the US for the past 150 years (it dates back to well before WW2).
For those of you that recognize that the 'capitalism' that Moore talks about is actually a 'mixed economy' with corporatism running the show- thank you.
By the way: 7:47 - 50% taxes for a free education and free healthcare...and that's a good deal? WTF
Capitalism is not about money and greed, it's about individual freedom and civil liberties.
curryay 2 years ago
@curryay The thing is it isn't. People who pretend it is are clueless. Pure Capitalism leads inevitably to a caste system where the rich stay on top and the poor stay on bottom. Socialism was barely being discussed 150 years ago and you're saying the US has been Socialist all along? And that 50% tax rate on the rich gets you alot more than free healthcare and education.
Mestilf22 2 years ago 3
Socialism, as a term, has been in use for almost 200 years. However the concept of socialism -the state having a higher value that the individual life of the man and the governing system controlling means of production - has been in practice for centuries.
I clearly stated that what we have today is not capitalism, it is a mixed economy.
Please support your caste system argument, I strongly disagree. In a truely free society (which the US is not) the poor only remain poor by choice.
curryay 2 years ago
I'm a social capitalist. I believe capitalism works best w/ some socialism. If more things are socialized (i.e. owned by the people) then we'll have more money to spend in our capitalistic economy. Just like it would be harmful if we left our military, police, and fire fighters to private corporations, it's bad that we have to pay so much for healthcare and college. Europe is actually where capitalism works best b/c the people have more money to spend on recreation.
MassLiberal1 2 years ago 3
@MassLiberal1 totally agree with you I believe in a system that's in between Socialism and Capitalism, every person is entitled to food,clothing,shelter,health and education everything else most be worked for then. Corporate greed is killing our country and people are suffering, rich get richer and poor get poorer.
themuslimburro 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@themuslimburro - dude, that's what we have today. The US is a mixed economy; it's mixed with socialism and capitalism. What you think will work is what we already have...which is what Michael Moore is really attacking in his movie.....and what is NOT working today.
curryay 2 years ago
@MassLiberal - Are you saying that you believe capitalism only works when it's mixed with socialist fundamentals?
Do you realize that, a concoction like that means to mix liberty and freedom with the core principals in which leaders like Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot can rise to power? How can 'some' of that be good?
Socialism = larger government = less civil liberty.
curryay 2 years ago
So do you want or not want Medicare when your old enough? Do want roads to drive on? Mail delivered to your house? Police? Fire department? Military? Libraries? All progressive ideas to make these things financed by taxpayers and they have all worked. An expansion of Medicare, which is what I want for healthcare, would work. It has in Canada and Europe and they love it (look at the polls). True, too much government is bad. But too little gov. is also bad.
MassLiberal1 2 years ago
I want to the gov't to provide the services that protect my rights; police, military and judicial system.
Medicare is bankrupt and I want no part of it. I will work my ass off to be sure my family is provided for when I am old. Nothing that is funded by the tax payers and is bankrupt can work.
curryay 2 years ago
Well you're in the minority if you don't want Medicare (which of course can be better run). You saw this past year how popular Medicare was w/ American seniors has the were terrified of losing it. You'll probably change your mind about this when you're 60. True, nothing that is bankrupt can work. But stuff funded by taxpayers and well run works every day. The stuff you mentioned as well as the library, fire department, etc. It would be a disaster if we took away these socialized things.
MassLiberal1 2 years ago 3
If I took my son to the toy store and bought him a toy every week fo ran entire year, he'd throw a fit if I suddenly stopped. He can help me do yardwork around the house to make money if he likes, then he can buy his own toy. What if me buying that toy every week was forcing me to not pay my bills?
curryay 2 years ago
Are you saying that seniors are whiners about their healthcare? Are you saying that your taxes are to high? Or are you saying you don't want to pay for their healthcare? You do know that most seniors are to old to work and can't afford healthcare, right? Just like you're not rich enough to pave your own roads, most people aren't rich enough to afford healthcare, which like roads are a necessity. Should police not respond to crimes in poorer areas b/c they're wasting your tax dollars?
MassLiberal1 2 years ago 4
@massliberal1- we are getting more and more away from your support of socialism which is what spawned my first comment. All of the things you mentioned - socialized medicine, social security, medicare, etc. - these are things that increase our gov't, intervene with our free markets and ulitmately are socialist. THAT is the problem w/ todays economy. THAT is what Moore should have made his movie about, not call out the evils of a mixed economy and call it capitalism...which BTW enables his wealth
curryay 2 years ago
Well we'll just have to agree to disagree. Peace to you.
MassLiberal1 2 years ago
Everytime a liberal gets called out for their real philosphical agenda- which is supporting socialism- the topic gets changed on the argument gets shut down.
We can agree to disagree but there's a serious problem when, as we do, you continue to support policies, representatives and gov't initiatvies that only corrode what made this country great.
Truly sad.
curryay 2 years ago
Medicare, social security, and welfare have not made this country worse. Millions have it, love it, and aren't giving it up.
MassLiberal1 2 years ago
Comment removed
curryay 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Of course they love it. The cost of those things, which is passed onto only certain people, is something most of them never have to pay for.
Those systems are all bankrupt!!! You think the gov't taking money from some to give to others via a system that is bankrupt is a good idea? You have yet to fact this fact.
curryay 2 years ago
Do you even know what socialism is?
khylate 2 years ago
@khylate - Apparently I've given you reason to think that I don't, so please enlighten me.
curryay 2 years ago
Capitalism can only operate as a fair free market if it's based in or balanced by socialism. Our present system privatizes profits while socializing losses. The problem with our present capitalist system is that the idea of ownership often doesn't make much sense any more. No one can own nature (land, water, air, etc). If a farmer or corporation pollutes on their own property, we all suffer. Nature knows no ownership. One person's land connects to another person's land. We all share water & air.
MarmaladeINFP 2 years ago 37
@MarmaladeINFP You can own the means of production.
trickdaddyaz03 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP You sir, are a wise man... or women, whichever. I like you.
WolfSyn 1 year ago
@WolfSyn Thanks! I appreciate the compliment. It's a rare thing on YouTube. :)
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Socialism is a system in which everyone owns an equal share of everything. That means there is no private ownership, so how could there be a free market? There would be nothing to buy or sell.
coaster61 1 year ago
@coaster61 I don't wish to get in a long discussion. I only have a superficial understanding of the more 'socialist' versions of capitalism & I'm not familiar with the technical terms. I know that Noam Chomsky discusses this topic. Socialism doesn't mean no ownership. It means collective ownership. So, the workers would own the factory they work in. Most transnational corporations are run like hierarchical fascist states, but a socialist corporation would be run like a democracy.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Ok, so what you're saying is essentially the people who provide the labor should own the businesses. We don't have to get into a long discussion, but the thing I want to point out is that what I think you are describing is used today in America in very small LLC's such as doctor's clinics and law firms. A group of professionals run the business and equally own it. It works well with a small company of highly educated individuals.
coaster61 1 year ago
@coaster61 There are no laws against doing this in a larger scale and with less skilled workers. The problem is, I think, it would create a huge conflict. The accountant (who owns his share) would know that wages need to be cut because revenue is down, everyone else would want their wages to remain high and democratically get their way, and so it won't last long. Now I could be wrong, maybe it would work, but no one seems to want to try it, so I'm apparently not alone in my thinking.
coaster61 1 year ago
@coaster61 In a comment below, I gave the example of the German business model where the boards of corporations are required by law to have half of their members be worker representatives. The German economy (in terms of manufacturing & exports) is one of the most successful in the world. They aren't run as collectives, but there is an important difference. German businesses are run more democratically whereas US big businesses are run more like fascist states w/ top-down hierarchy.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Unfortunately, I'm not as familiar with the German economy, but a quick look at CIA.gov shows Germany's PPP was $34,100 in 2009, while the US's was $46,000. I also want to point out that your comment above about Rep and Dem states is also incorrect. Have you ever heard of the term "rust belt"? When you see that many northern states have higher incomes, you see the problem.
coaster61 1 year ago
When you take note of the fact that everything is far more expensive in the north and that unemployment is much higher, especially since the recession (caused by the Fed), you can then figure your PPP. And it proves that the union-obsessed north has a much weaker economy. When you pay employees more, consumers have to pay more, so higher income averages mean nothing.
coaster61 1 year ago
@coaster61 I don't know too much about the German economy either. I only mentioned it because of two videos I watched & blogged about which I linked to in a comment below. As for Rep & Dem states, I also blogged about it:
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/02/05/demographics-red-states-blue-states/
And I blogged about Northern states having the strongest economies in terms of unemployment:
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/08/31/10-states-with-ridiculously-low-unemployment-and-why/
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP BTW a stronger economy may simply mean a more stable & equal economy. I pointed out in my the second link that these Northern states with economies that have remained stable also have low wealth disparity (& low rates of social problems). Germany also has an economy that's remained stable & has low wealth disparity (& low rates of social problems). My point is that a wealthy society might not have a strong economy that is beneficial for most people in that society.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@coaster61 Many small businesses, especially small family businesses, are run as collectives or close to it. There are even some intentional communities that also operate as businesses, & so they both collectively live & work together. East Wind Community is an example. They've existed since 1973. They support their community selling products they make. Their nut butters earn them $500k annually. They've also formed a collective with other egalitarian communities in order pay for healthcare.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Some religious communities have been run as collective businesses. The Shakers, at the height of their power, were leaders in developing agricultural technology & in growing the highest quality seeds available that farmers would buy. They were collectively so successful as a business because they saw themselves doing God's work. benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/08/07/shakers-socialists-capitalists/
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP I suspect we'd see many more different business models if we actually had a functioning free market. Small &/or collectivist businesses can't compete w/ powerful transnationals w/ their lobbyist money, teams of lawyers, tax havens, etc. The internet has helped the small &/or collectivist businesses to an extent, but they can only survive if they find a niche that big businesses don't care about so they'll be left alone.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@coaster61 Capitalism of today is very different than what was created in early America. Originally there was no such thing as a permanent corporate charter & so no such thing as an permanent corporate entity. And for damn sure corporate charters didn't imply personhood & constitutional rights. Charters were given for specific purposes of the community such as building a bridge. The charter was used for collective action & not private profit.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@coaster61 Although not socialist, Germany is closer to the idea of a socialist free market. In Germany, unions have great power & high rates of membership. It's required worker representatives be 1/2 of board members of a corporation. Owners, CEOs, & workers all have a voice in how the company is run. The result is that Germany has one of the most successful economies in the world & also has high income equality.
benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/08/27/capitalist-us-vs-socialist-germany/
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@coaster61 I think I see maybe where the confusion is. Socialism means collective ownership, but that doesn't necessarily mean state ownership. A collective been made up of a neighborhood group, church members, a group of friends & family, workers at a particular factory, or a particular ethnic group such as how some Native American tribes collectively own land. Each specific group collectively has private ownership & so can compete in a free market against other specific collectives.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This reviewer is as stupid and clueless as Michael Moore. There has been no real capitalism in the USA since WW2. Yes, it's easy to prop up boogeymen and knock them over. This film completely misses the root problems, but hey, why bother with facts when you have tickets to sell.
pretorious700 2 years ago
Thank you pretorious for stating the most basic argument that throws his attack on capitalism right out of the window.
curryay 2 years ago
US is like former Soviet Union. They will not change their policies even tho it is clear that something is going the wrong way. There is just no people who hold enough power to change the system (Obama can't do shit without corporate and congress support much like single reformist couldn't do anything in unresponsive soviet aparatus). Nobody believed in USSR even at the end that such titanic superpower can fail niether nobody will in US. US friends as russians will be educated the hard way.
ATMirror 2 years ago 2
For those who believe "private/market is _always_ better," please check the data: Canada has a (more) "public" education and health care system (than the US) and produces a far better result by any measure dollar for dollar. For e.g. Better educated population & fewer infant mortalities (two basic indicators). Sweeping over-generalizations are rarely helpful.
jrfergee 2 years ago 2
The ancient dichotomy of public-private, govt-business is false. There is no such thing as a "Free" market. A market is not possible without a "framework" Nor is "government" (esp. as currently constituted!) preferable. We need to get ourselves explicitly, transparently and accountably organized around creating a means of maximizing human (& planetary) well-being. That is after all what ever political and economic "system" is ostensibly about.
jrfergee 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
France a socialist country, yeah right... How ignorant you must be to really think this, incredible. Michael Moore is pure propaganda, it's so obvious. Do you really think that government can solve our problems? Or that government does things in any other manner than corps? The only difference is that government has no incentive to do things in an efficient manner. The best college's are private! Please do some basic reading on history and economics. This is absolutely ridiculous.
Krifko 2 years ago
work hard to pay bills.charch high prices for necessary GOODS are the two ways of making either a LIVING or a KILLING.wake up from the dream;it's becoming a "day dream", and it is not fair to the hard working people
maztonte 2 years ago
It's not the fault of government. It's the fault of corporations swaying government and its the fault of the people for being so apethetic to allow this to happen.
jaker2880 2 years ago 4
I just saw the movie. Man, what an eye opener! Anybody who disses this movie doesn't want the truth to be known.
jaker2880 2 years ago 25
i liked the movie its not the fault of free markets or capitalism its the fault of government get rid of the government and all this goes away treat the source not the symptoms
smallgov 2 years ago
We know capitalism without regulation works. The poor get screwed, no questions asked. It depends how you define "works."
IPlayWithFire135 2 years ago
@jaker2880 anyone who loves this movie is an economic illiterate. if this your first introduction to capitalism then you seriously need an econ 101 class.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
To Visfen
Quote: "The problem with this is that it is extremely beneficial for the current order and destroys entrepreneurship, making the economy very non-dynamic."
Your wrong that it destroys entrepreneurship.
The Nordic countries with around 25 million citizens produce more patents-applications than United Kingdom and France combined, with around 100 million citizens.
Read the numbers from the Nordic Council.
OpinionAndQuestion 2 years ago
6:45 !! This is not how humans are!!! That's why there are people who donate, help the sick, rescue animals and care for our planet. MONEY SCARCITY conditions people to develop greed. If there was no money there would be no theft, and don't get me started on capitalism, i don't even know how you can put capitalism and democracy in the same sentence for crying out loud. As a wise man once said "I'm mad as hell, and I can't take it any more"
cod2maz3 2 years ago
WOW, just wow. Take 80 million away from the guy that made 100 mill and use it for more "Productive means". Why would he ever want to make 100 million again?
Seleucid9 2 years ago
Central Banking has nothing to do with Capitalism *sigh*
MethMojimbo 2 years ago
There are two types of Capitalism. There is Capitalism that promotes monopolies and dualopolies and Capitalism that supports a truely free market with competition and laws of supply and demand. We currently have the first type of Capitalism which exists of monopolies and dualopolies supported by the government by ways of campaign donations, money for government spending, and corruption so thick if Americans truely understood how deep it was they would drown in it.
residentzombie 2 years ago
clam up pig
bushbasher46 2 years ago
i like how they didnt mention the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977
stopkitten 2 years ago
incredible movie.
deidarajunior1508 2 years ago 3
sure sounds like it.
dahvisibleinvisible 2 years ago
The formula that made America great,may not be the same as the formula that keeps it great.
trucan52 2 years ago
I'm not even going to bother to watch the entire review, when I heard the word "rampant for profit system" I stopped the video and moved on
Profit is the signal in a free market for other entrepreneurs to go into that area,without profit we have no idea how to allocate resources
Profit is not a problem, the drive to want profit is great, that is what brings with innovation and makes sure demand is maintained with supply
The entire movie is a joke, it should be called "the state, a love story"
Visfen 2 years ago
the corporations have through their politicians introduced a system where they all but earn money on exploitation of everyone.
the corperations dont care about you, they want profit.
for instance wall-mark now have "dead peasant insurance". whenever a worker dies they earn money, and if the person keeps working they earn money, but in a lot of cases they actually earn more money if you die than if you live.
(on the other side wall-mart now hire more seniors and disabled people....)
evilblades 2 years ago
So? That's not a problem. You only think so because you're clueless about economics.
Visfen 2 years ago
the system promotes death of workers, how is that not a problem? its like me taking out a life endurance on my neighbor, there is no way im not getting him fatty food.
"clueless about economics", you are making assumptions because i disagree with your economic view. i too could say "you don't have a clue about economics if you support capitalism" without backing it up.
just saying "oh, it will fix itself one of these days by some invisible mean" strikes me as a stupendously "unsafe" position.
evilblades 2 years ago
To ensure against losses is not a problem.
You assume the science of economics is based on views, it is not. Austrian economics is based on principles and logic, and there are yet to be any valid arguments against it. Instead it is proven right over and over by bubble after bubble. How many times do we have to be right before people listen? Modern economics is based on extrapolation and aggregates. Which is irrational.
Yes, voluntary interaction, a free market, will solve everything.
Visfen 2 years ago
austrian economics are hardly based on mathematicall equations as is evident by the fact that unless the goverment redistribute wealth, then is ALWAYS gets focused at the top. having an economic elite enslaving the rest has never been in the interest of the people.
victorian england is a good example, the people were starving in squallor, but the elite as so much they couldnt possibly spend it all, you see the beguinning of exact same thing in the us, and it will only get worse.
evilblades 2 years ago
So? Just because you use science doesn't mean that your approximation of reality is even relevant. In fact, modern economics is based on extrapolations, and that is irrational.
No, wealth doesn't always gets focused on the top when the government stays out of it, in fact the distribution of income grew more and more disperse and does so the freer a market is.
Yes, England is a good example, because with more freedoms came more prosperity for the working class...
Visfen 2 years ago
to insure against your loss is one thing, but when you earn money on breaking it and you are not held responsable for breaking it you have a broken system.
there is a reason economics is a hotly debated topic, it is not black and white, and i dare say austrian economics remain controversial and have been known to fail (concentrate wealth in the elite). if you do not regulate industry and have taxes the system breaks down, anarchy will given the current circumstances NEVER work...
evilblades 2 years ago
I agree, that's why I don't want government players in the markets, a pocket less player is a pocket less fish at the table that everyone sucks dry.
The premier reason economics is debated so much is that the neoclassical school has extreme flaws in the theoretical philosophy of it, in other words - it is bad science.
You dare say that? They you know nothing, because that is not true. Arguing from assumptions is a fallacy.
Anarchy will work better than state capitalism...
Visfen 2 years ago
anarcho-capitalism will almost certainly lead to a corperate fascism where one mega-corperation controll everything, how is that different from state capitalism?
you see it in the modern world, you can buy any car you want, any brand and the money end up in one of two pockets, everything is partly owned by the same people.
does not the invisible hand (if there is such a thing) break down when supply is monopolized and competition removed?
socialism is not state capitalism.
evilblades 2 years ago
You can't ask a question which assume I accept your premise. It wont, we wont let it. Because then we have the power, not the government.
But even if you believe it will lead to the system we have today, corporate fascism (and don't try to deny it, that is what we have, government control over the market), then you actually reject the current situation.
"same people". Not it's not. It's controlled by the state, but owned by different investors and companies. That's what competition is.
Visfen 2 years ago
fascism is when corporations control the government. both Mussolini and Hitler were quite clear on the fact the corporations had the power in Italy and Germany respectively.
Mussolini himself said fascism should be called corporatism because its the "last stage" of capitalism, when they are powerful enough to control nations and run the nations for profits.
if you think corporations cant control the state you are sorely naive. even if you remove the state the corporations WILL take their role.
evilblades 2 years ago
Mussolini states famously that "the government doesn't need to own the means of production if we can force the owners to do whatever we want". The government had the power, not the entrepreneurs, just look at who has the gun! You seem to think the robbed has the power in a muggery. So you clearly don't know what Mussolini said.
Corporations definitely can't control the state. They can influence it, buy favors from it, but the government has the power. Just as the mafia has the local power.
Visfen 2 years ago
listen, if you bribe a cop you get away with some things, you bribe a mayor you get a lot more, bribe most of the senators in the US you get a hell of a lot.
you are saying corruption doesn't work? in that case the discussion just turned silly.
i cant find a single source for your "famous" Mussolini quote, and it seems kinda fabricated and inconsistent with his politics.
is military force the only power?, what about the hanseatic league?, they ruled Europe (end my home city) by economic means
evilblades 2 years ago
Yeah, if you bribe the state, you can get away with corruption, because there is no alternative. If you do insider trading and bribe other businesses as a private entrepreneur, you will be out of a job so fast. Corruption only work with the state, the state make it possible.
I paraphrased the quote, I should not have put quotations on it, I realize that, but it's translated anyways so neither should you on yours.
Hansa? Mercantilism was an engine of wealth for the state, as all freedoms are.
Visfen 2 years ago
Monopolizes doesn't form naturally, and they never have. Stefbot does a fairly good explanation of it, brings up all the false conclusions, and I will refer you to him because I only have 500 letters here.
Competition is made greater without government market barriers and centralized power, not worse.
Socialism is most definitely state capitalism. The very definition of it. When the STATE owns the MEANS OF PRODUCTION that is socialism, to whatever extent you might want to concede it.
Visfen 2 years ago
socialism is when the means of production is run with the goal of bettering the people and controlled by the people, capitalism is (and i repeat) by definition when you run a business or profits.
the USSR (especially following Stalin) was state capitalistic, the state controlled the industry and ran it solely for profits.
disregarding the workers it focused profits into the arms industry, research and other things the state deemed necessary. (which is why they beat America in the space race)
evilblades 2 years ago