I have news for you: The "societies that we live in" have not been "CREATED" by anyone!
The "societies that we live in" are millions of people DOING WHAT THEY CHOOSE.
My God, if you only understood not only how FUCKING MORONIC it is to actually think that society is "CREATED," but how FUCKING DANGEROUS it is. Because once you accept that premise, you accept the notion of RE-CREATING it.
How does it feel to be the intellectual brother of genocidal murderers like Hitler, Stalin and Mao?
Anthony did you have a private education? If you did it makes a bit of a mockery of everything you say. Have you been to university, any student debt or did parents pay as theyre well off? Youre bloody crackers and need your head looking at. Ive watched a few of your vids and youre bonkers.
No to distribution of wealth. There are many many self made millionaires, should they be punished for doing well, why shouldnt people use money to make more money. Theres lots of poor folk who are there as theyre lazy. Perhaps self made millionaires should be made to hand over everything apart from taking out a minimum wage? The high earners are already hammered with tax.
No to equal wealth. Work for wealth! No to 40% tax. If youre a high earner if you were paying 20% tax you would still be paying much more tax than a lower earner. Tax welfare handouts at 20%. Lets have a flat 20% tax for every1 including the welfare reliant. Ps im not a high earner and my wife works for minimum wage, no to 40% tax! Lets meet the workingmans needs first not the welfare reliant "i want some more free cash please"
No to equal wealth, no to 40% tax, its wrong. The welfare reliant are as well off as the working, why? A massive portion of the population will do ok by never working at all ever, yes they will not get rich but they will never go hungry. Youve got your head up your arse if you dont think there is people in the uk who are not happy being welfare reliant. Many folk are in this position as theyre happy that way. Lets not give them more cash for staying at home. No to equal wealth1
Funny how this guy wears a t-shirt adorned with the face of a man that fought and killed many people in an effort to prohibit people from being free to own the equipment he is using to broadcast this garbage to the world.
@951pete how pig ignorant can you be? Why don't you open a book and READ what kind of dictator was in power before the cuban revolution and what kind of standard of living the people had... why do you think you get a popular revolution? do you think it's for fun? If you had suffered in abject poverty under a fascist dictator propped up by US tax dollars you wouldn't be so quick to make lame ignorant snipes. Quality of living in Cuba massively improved in the first years after the revolution.
I think you do in fact have a very good understanding of Capitalism. I have always thought the notion of the " Trickle Down Effect " extremely patronizing to a society and very convenient for those who choose to hoard wealth, their principle motivation being to pass it on to " THEIR " genes and sod everyone else. It is also important to realize that the vast majority of great fortunes which are past on from generation to generation were made on the back of slavery. A great video! Cheers
dude wat your saying is enslaving one other to serve the other hell no its like this
EX: a chld studies hard for a test anohter chld does nothing both kids take the test the one who studied made an a but the other one made an f now the teacher says thats not fair so she makes them both have c's isn't that great huh now go to hell you communist also my grandfather dropped out of 4th grade educated himself and built a multi-million dollar company
Your full of tripe you know that........Your whole economic ideology has already failed many times in the past ! The closest to success was Pil Pots Regime of Kampuchea !
This system works for an overpopulated world, the very fact there are people in Africa Picking my coffee for virtually nothing as im speaking is a great testimony to your ancestors courage and sheer genius to ensure these people are enslaved to produce some of the finest goods for almost nothing.
Hope you giving away some of your earnings and land to the needy Ant, my bum will you, you'll be wanting a big house and a car that does obcene poor MPG. Don't deny it.
Wealth should be earned, if you're born into it you're lucky, if you got no wealth as you have no drive or ambition, lazy or play the "I got a bad back card" then you should get very little from the state. Shared wealth is not what this country needs, I got big house as I tried hard, worked hard etc.. Welfare family should not have house same as mine or an income similar or anywhere near mine, my state pension should be much bigger also. State pension should be based on work history.
IDIOT. People who work the hardest, educate themselves and have ambition deserve what they get. People who are lazy, piss about in school, are anti-social should be poor and unhappy.
Normal people shouldn't have a lot of control, or else the world would end. Just look at the BA Unite Union, it's the perfect example of why you need the few to lead the many, because as soon as the many have power, they destroy everything. BA is ruined forever now, and more staff will get sacked now. Ironic lol.
@JusticeSeeker1000 no one deserves to be poor and unhappy i think that you are slightly off with your idea that everyone who does not succeed in school turns out to be antisocial. i think that you should think about the difficulties some children face at school when the teachers do not make the pupils engage, From your attitude towards people who don't succeed at school i would guess that you have been privately educated because your talking like a first class arrogant TWAT.
Whether we like it or not, the human race needs controls. Because left uncontrolled population growth with outstrip resources on the planet. Humans like to fuck and we don't have a predator to cut down our numbers. The naive think that the majority of people have the intellect to see these problems.
I have enough intelligence to notice many, many other people are more equipped to make huge social decisions on my behalf . Although some(most) of our lords are not altruists unfortunately?
@LabRat6619 why should it be? the problem is that control is take out of the hands of individuals and put in the hands of the few at the top of governments, public bodies and rich corporations who can do with that power as they will
The major problem with the argument of this video is that it doesn't actually attempt to justify its moralistic stance. It simply assumes that there is a universal moral obligation on all people to give to the needy.
Capitalism is quite simply not built around some bizarre obligation to help poor people, it ultimately revolves around private property and market goods and skills.
You obviously dont' understand capitalism . The US has the lowest poverty rate of any country . What is greater than the US ? The very rich distibute the wealth . They hire contractors , buy cars , dine at expensive restaraunts , they buy clothing etc..... You are very confused . This is how you spread the wealth . The very rich keep this country great . The back bone of our economy are the banks and the very rich . We must keep the vultures from pecking away at the backbone of the US .
@michael32768 The US does NOT have a lower poverty rate than Many European countries
The US is Rich not because they are so hard working and Capitalist but because Western Corporations stole the property rights to resources in third world countries in South America, Africa, Asia, and the Austrailias
Please watch my video 3rd World Aid vs. Exploitation...
The US has thrived also by overthrowing leaders of other countries that threaten to redistribute wealth in poor countries
I am familiar with the evidence behind your arguments? are you familiar with the evidence behind mine?
I have nothing against rich people
but there is a big problem when you are getting something very cheap beacuse a child in Indonesia is working 16 hours a day to produce it for something like $8 a week or oftentimes Nothing at all
please watch the videos I have suggested I am very happy to respond to your comments again in future
Throughout history many people have come to the US and worked very hard and started businesses and became wealthy and employ many Americans and pay heavy taxes . This is what made America rich and great . I have learned a great deal about a disease called liberalism . Liberalism never helped anyone . Liberalism didn't save Europe in ww2. It hasn't saved an unborn child and will never help to create a healthy society .
I,m very familiar with this ideology . What you say would make sense if the truth wasn't distorted . Truth must be distorted before liberal ideology makes sense . It is sad when the poor is taken advantage of. I agree with you on that issue .
@michael32768 well why did you say that you do?? and you ask what is greater than the US.. well, that depends what you define as great- happiness? health? wealth? the US does not come top in any of these i'm afraid.
@scottishlad1987 The poor in the US are taken care of better than the poor in any other country. The US is still the most popular country in the world.People around the world dream of coming to the US. Especially the poor people of the world. You ask a poor person in any country in the world , what country would they like to move to . Most if not all would say The Great United States of America. The liberals are desperately trying to ruin this country , but they will fail.There is no greater.
@michael32768 the poor are fucked in america, and if you're poor you're not even allowed into the country! you are living in a dreamworld if you think everyone wants to live in america mate, it's just not true. i could think of at least ten countries i would live in before thinking about america. i like the way you put capital letters on the " great united states.." as though it were its proper title and not one made up by you haha.
@scottishlad1987 Why don't you leave today. None needs you here.Go to your glorious liberal paradise. Oh' and where is this great country?I let you know right now no other nationality wants you in their country.Where will you be welcomed.Do they owe you? Should that countries rich pay for you.
@michael32768 leave where? i don't live in america you retard, did my name not give anything away? or did you think scotland was somewhere near new york? the rich do owe something though, after all, it's the public who buy their goods. so paying for education and health of a population is giving back what you were given. and not to mention it's helping to create a more wealthy population, which will in turn drive demand for their products up.
@scottishlad1987 You certainly don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. I don't believe you live in scottland ,you probobly from Illinois.The rich christians in the US give more to charitable organisation than the whole world combined. How do they still owe society?You are lost . You never told me , where is that liberal paradise you spoke of? Where you headed?
@michael32768 well, i am from scotland. and if you looked at my favourite videos you might find some evidence of that. not to mention my spelling. to say that i'm probably from illionois.. well, that's just retarded and very closed minded. people do live out with the united states an believe it or not, they are intelligent and have their own views. and to answer your question, the people that got rich within a society, owe the society that made them rich.
@scottishlad1987 These people worked hard for their money.It is called being a hard working self reliant tax paying member of society. Or a conservative. You never spent one second in scottland . It's obvious. Rich people owe their success to themselves and should be able to do their will with their riches.No one owes you.Get a life . Get off you ass and make something of yourself and make some real money and than you may see things differently.
@scottishlad1987 You wont answer me ,where is this liberal paradise?What country is more giving?What country is more tolerant. what other country has more opportunity,still. What would the poor do without the rich.
@michael32768 no country is really a paradise, but a lot do help their poor, not just with money but with opportunity- free education and training programmes. countries like norway, france, denmark, sweden, finland, most european countries even countries like scotland where i got my whole degree paid for, and health care of course. now that i have been given all those things i don't mind helping to prop up the system that built me to a certain extent.
@scottishlad1987 You are lost. The United States of America has more federal funded educational programs than any country in the world .Now what you have a degree ? I doubt it. So you think that colledge and health care should be free?The US has the best medical schools and the best medical care. People come to the US from around the world to become doctors. No one I have ever known has moved to any of these counties to go to school. The US has the best School.
@michael32768 nah, i think you're the one who's lost. and you obviously don't know what you're talking about regarding universities- maybe they have the biggest libraries and the best sports facilities etc. but regarding quality of teaching (the most important factor) the US doesn't fare any better than british universities. i think if you looked at job opportunities in america aimed at europeans you would see how much our degrees are valued, very highly indeed.
@scottishlad1987 Fact- The US has the best medical schools ,law schools trade schools and teachers colledges in the world. Sorry you can't face the facts.
@michael32768 not that you would ever need to look at job opportunities for people with degrees. and if you think that nobody from the US studies in europe you are even more ignorant than i thought. even little scotland is full of yanks at our unis.
@michael32768 you really are the most ignorant person on youtube. all these so called facts are just your little fantasies. i bet you wish there was more to your little life than being american. i think you should do more reading and less talking, fucking moron.
@michael ...there are roughly 13 to 17% of Americans living below the federal poverty line at any given point in time, and roughly 40% falling below the poverty line at some point within a 10-year time span.
what is greater than the US? Norway for example.
Canada, Austrailia, there are many countries witha higher standard of living
that don't send their secret services all over the world to usurp democratically elected governments as the US gov has done.
@RevolutionaryJam I don't know where you get your stats but your a bit off. But I agree thing are not looking that good for the US economy, tha dems having controll of the house and senate for the last 4 years. Now repubs have taken over the house and hopefully things will get better. The US has the best of everything lad. The best medical and law schools. A degree from anywhere else is inferior.
@michael32768 hi those are the stats on wikipedia but I think they're about right even thought it's not the most reliable source. You have a good point about how people in the US have tvs and cell phones but I think American people are far from the happiest I think a lot of other cultures foster a feeling of self worth better than our western culture does. Personally I think both parties are bad but the Dems are the lesser of two evils as they are not openly imperialist and also...
@RevolutionaryJam I think a lot of Americans have lost sight of their identitys , becoming anti American . Growing up with parents who didn't care properly for them .This Social disease stems from liberalism.Conservative Americans have been , and still are holding this country together.
@michael32768 ...also if you look at the size of the deficit over the years statistically it has increased weven more radically under Republican administrations rather then Democratic ones even though that may seem lop sided it's bourne out by the figures check out RalphDraw's channel for precise statistics. You be lucky for things to get better under the Republicans to be honest, both parties serve the same masters the only hope is to vote 3rd party or not at all and hope no one else does.
@michael32768 oh and by the way, a deficit is just money spent by the government in one year minus money collected from taxes, it isn't total debt, genius.
@michael32768 can I have a source for that? I know that the total debt America has been in has usually increased more under the Republicans watch, even under Reagan masses were spent on military and foreign interventions (most of which I would say were pretty far from necessary, some were atrocities such as nicaragua)
also both parties are in to Keynesian spending so Obama is spending more to "couteract" the recession, thats how governments try to do it it never works.
Production for the sake of need is one of the most tenacious misapprehensions of basic economics. Being that we life in a finite world, and therefore have delimited resources with which to work, we must make sure to use all available capital efficiently. The price system allows for such a judicous use of capital. If production for need is established, expect a rapid diminution and waste of available materials.
2) I challenge you to find a single communist who advocates the type of communist country you describe which would "put me in jail for having long hair and being a freak"
3) Or find something advocating that in the Communist Manifesto
4) Yes, i'm sure you'd love to live in Capitalist Indonesia where they have no regulations and no worker protections at all. Or any of the other scores of very poor Capitalist countries.
Where do you draw the line between need and demand? Who draws that line? The fact that demand is satisfied is the reason we work as hard as we do.
To create demand, we must produce. It's like saying: "The more I want, the more I must satisfy other people's wants". It's the essence of Smith's invisible hand.
And to say that most of what we produce "aren't needed" is one elitist comment to make. I'd let people decide those kinds of things through voluntary action.
"The more things you make and sell, the more people will be employed and the better off everyone will be."
Actually we'll be better off because we have more stuff(i.e. more demand is satisfied). Even if stuff was made with only machines and no one was employed, we'd still be better off.
If an economy grows, a select few will get very rich? As long as the only way(at least the best way) of getting rich is satisfying other people's demand, there should be no problem here.
"...and they will spend that money and it will trickle down to poor people ... the trickle-down system."
No. That is not the trickle-down system. The whole point is that rich people do NOT spend all of their money, and that capital formation can happen because of their savings. And that most certainly benefits everyone.
Poor people will indeed spend more. But you're making the old keynesian mistake of thinking that spending drives growth. It doesn't, savings do.
Then you go and praise the minimum wage. It makes it illegal for people to work at a certain wage. That's all it does. Wages reflect productivity and you can't simply legislate higher wages.
Why couldn't employers keep their workers out of poverty in the 1700s? Because there was no minimum wage law? You think Chinese workers would suddenly become rich if they simply passed a min. wage law? Why isn't the law at $15/hour in the US?
There is no "Ceteris Paribus" in real life, so theory is indeed what matters. Of course if theory and 'practice' are consistently at odds with each other, then maybe the logic behind the theory needs to be looked at. But the minimum wage isn't controversial or even a debate, it's really just a classic example of price fixing.
American Samoa and the minimum wage, if you're interested: watch?v=_LaPGIIAyk4
I think the general feeling amongst supporters of the minimum wage is that if people work a full time job they should have enough money to get by - because there is enough money around to give that to them. I think people just want a little less for the share holders and a little more for the labour force since they are also creating the wealth even though they have no capital. I know at least since the min wage was introduced in the UK around 97 it has been universally regarded as a good thing.
If you start spreading the shareholder wealth around to pay higher wages, you'll end up with lower wages. Productivity often goes up with more capital. If shareholders get less returns, they have an incentive NOT to invest in that particular company and that may very well result in less capital to back every worker.
Companies fire people or don't hire as many when they cope with the minimum wage.
I'll just let Peter Schiff do the talking, because he puts it so elegantly:
thanx for like I'll check them out when I get the chance
I know the argument about having an "incentive" not to invest in that company, then again if everyone is subject to the same rules then the phenomenon will be seen across the board, I feel we're slaves to machines:
If I have a company where 40 employees work 40 hours and get a machine that does 120 hours of labour I need to sack 3 people or my competitor will undercut my product. In a sane society everyone would work 3 hours less.
don't you miss the important point the DEMAND is not everything people want or need, it's only the part of that which people can afford to pay for?
That doesn't really necessarily make a good indication of peoples quality of life, I can tell you there was $10m dollars of demend satisfied here yesterday but it might have just been one rich guy selling one of his mansions to another rich guy
...cont... like for example there might be millions of people in third world countries who WANT to be fed but they don't have the money so they don't create any DEMAND for it
so saying YAY lots of demands are being met is not necessarily a good measure of the overall welfare of a society
People in third world countries have to produce if they want to consume. If we put needs before demand, there would be no incentives to produce. If Rockefeller had had to give most of his profits to the needy, would oil refining have gone through the innovations it did(which ended up helping hundreds of millions)?
the best way of getting rich is already owning stuff and charging people rent for using it, gaining all your income from share dividends or interest on loans, I know you're probably a lover of unlimited property rights but it's a bit hypocritical that the state is allowed to intervene on behalf of the richest members of society to protect them while if they intervene on behalf of the least well off it's called socialism and the people receiving help are viewed as parasites
Charging rent is the same as to provide a service. Getting income from dividends means you've invested in a company. And the more people a company serves, the better it will normally do. Loans on the other hand can be used for many things.
The best way(not counting the political way) of getting rich IS to provide for as many as possible. There's no two ways about it.
yeah I'm all for a world where if someone owns some land but all the people who actually work on the land don't acknowledge his right to the property they can appropriate it by popular ballot.
hey man thanks so much for noticing I haven't posted in a while because I've been really busy and a bit lacklustre to be honest but I certainly intend to make more vids just taking some time out, maybe in September time when uni comes back in.
have you seen teh Michael Parenti video saying that most countries are capitalist and most countries are poor? He shows that in advanced capitalist countries such as UK and US the reason why our standards of living are higher is because the labour struggle has further advanced rather than because of having a market economy, it's quite compelling
still looking for the truth in all this theory, once is seemed so obvious and now every view seems right to a degree and wrong in another sense
5)So with this kind of system you can avoid the inherent fight of capitalism poor vs rich and develope free thinking.The cultural gains would be immense if the work has to become attractive to the worker.This would turn the tables completly.Imagine a life of your children without worries about the future.That would be real life in the present.Sorry for taking so much space here.Greetings to all
many people postulate about what the ideal system would be but none of us have very much power to change the system in place in order to bring about such a system, my best suggestion is to make our best efforts to be self-sufficient of it and choose wisely where our money should be spent so as not to support institutions that are cancerous to society
4)So how to finance it?On every product are imense insurance fees(work,health,pension/retirement)Take it away because you dont need it if you have a basic income.Instead put a steady basic income tax inside of the same ammount.prices of products could nearly stay the same but you would create a complete growing system.The demand for such a system is growing because the middleclass is going down quicker and quicker.
1)Hi!Great work again :o)I am memebr of b.i.e.n international and BGE (basic income Germany network)All my life i work as a chessgrandmaster and give lessons to students arround the world.
Its a life at the edge.Chess is a very economic game and teaches you not to be to greedy,because if you are too materialistic you will lose every game due to a combined attac of united forces of mind,space and material.I also teach my students to be objectiv and use logic.
There is only a 'select' group of people who are in charge of this planet and they ain't here for the good of mankind. 2012 is a crucial time for these people. Thank goodness people are waking up !
The problem with any economic defense of increased productivity is that economics always operates under the delusion that producing more crap makes life better. There is far, far more to the standard of living than having physical things or money that economics measures.
The good times brought by industrialization will run out soon, and the benefits we've seen may all but disappear.
yeah I get your point, and I'll mull over it for a while
the thing is it's annoying because u know that we have the resources to provide everyone with a decent wage for their labour and provide them with their needs but the system in place does not do that
also what says a CEO earning millions a year works harder that the mexican cleaning the toilet i don't get it
hey I'm familiar with anti-minimum wage arguments and I've been struggling with them,
the thing is most companies that pay minimum wage have the profit margins to allow for higher wages but they don't, and of course we have terrible anti-union laws
perhaps if we scrapped anti-union laws minimum wages would be redundant but under the current system they seem to be needed,
some people are still forced to work 3 jobs to feed their kids
Please consider giving me feedback on the following 29 minute mini-doc called "Overview of America". It is a comparison of types of government and it also defines the terms 'capitalism' and 'free market'.
I've never seen such a ridiculously weak and fallacious comment before in my life, I don't even know where to start, and it didn't even address the content of the video.
anthony. the theory you describe one minute in .... yes, it may accurately describe an awful idea and is promoted through propaganda, but it is a faulty representation of free market economics. you should study some austrian economics and throw keynes out to the trash where his theory belongs. there is a difference between state capitalism and free market capitalism. the difference can be measured by the means adopted to achieve certain goals. or just look at how many worlds apart they are.
I'm a bit familiar with Ludvig Von Mises, Adam Smith & Ayn Rand but don't really agree with their analyses on a lot of issues
I fundamentally disagree with a completely free market for at least 3 broad reasons, one is that free markets set up the wrong incentives, two, any system which allows unlimited property rights accelerates wealth to the top and three the market is based entirely on consumerism, consumerism stops, everyone goes hungry
well lets not argue somantics here, you know what I mean, most people wouldn't dispute the way I have phrased it but if you'd prefer then yes, I think there should be limits to the amount of property someone can accumulate.
i would hardly call that a matter of semantics. you may think there should be limits...but that's a far cry from taking action to enforce that idea. unless of course you believe in voluntarism and education as the answer. then i have no issue with the idea.
i'm not calling for the idea to be enforced by the state
if a corporatation or individual more land than due people in need should quite simply not recognise their claim to the property, settle on it & take it off them
in Africa, while there is tremendous poverty, there are vast ares of growing land owned by large corporations who bought them without any intention of planting, deliberately so that peasants couldn't provide for themselves and would have to work on whatever terms given to them
the first minute of this video needs some clarification. are you saying that the standards of living today are worse than they have been in world history? hasn't progress been made by providing services to people through use of capital and technology? i.e., providing for the demand?
hi I definately agree that the industrial revolution and capitalism provided a great deal of benefits to society, especially in comparison to the feudalism which preceeded it, however I think we're still evolving as a civilisation so we can still reate yet better ways to interact as a society.
I think the main problem is the benefits that we're discussing aren't usually distributed fairly amongst those who provided them thats why I advocate "tweaking" it. See vid on 3rd World for an example.
So what are you a socialist? Who gets to decide what people "need" and what they don't? You want the government making those decisions? You think the government knows what's best for you? Let people decide what's best for themselves. If they buy a bunch of petty crap, and don't have any money left over for food, then that's there fault. No need to alter the system to conform to the needs of the irresponsible. Who only make up a small portion of the market of consumerism to begin with.
no i'm not really a socialist although I used to be, I don't think the free market is the solution to everything though, I'd prefer local government to centralised, the duty of the local government would be to help ensure the community was as self sufficient as possible and less reliant on getting products from further afield, with it's backing volunteers could run programs to get people in contact with local tradesmen, help keep everyone in a job too and preferrable to the environment
lol thanks, I don't see the possibility of moving to the states any time soon but in the meantime you can forward them this video :-) ;-) thanks so much for taking an interest and commenting!
(continued from above).... so if I go out and collect a lot of food and fresh water that I've discovered shouldn't I be able to distribute what I've slaved my ass for, any way I want? Whether it be give it away or trade it for other goods? It would really piss me off if I put in all that work and some "mayor" of the island took it from me to distribute it to people that couldn't hack it on the island themselves. Or let me give it to the "poor" myself if I think that's necessary. right?
i'm all for you being able to keep the fruits of your labours, unfortunately in most cases some people have cornered the resources & people don't have equal access to collecting them
eg. something like oil out the ground is EVERYONES property, not the propety of who ever sucked it out to sell and deal with as they wish,
also a lot of income does not result from labour, the richest people make their money (ie everyone else) work for them and contribute nothing in terms of service to society
It's not as if when one person is getting more, another is getting less. Wealth is something that is constantly being created via free market innovation and creation. When you talk about how "rich people make their money" you're talking as though people who work for them are their slaves. Employers voluntarily provide their services in exchange for money. And they absolutely contribute to society. People benefit from their products so much, that they actually make a profit!
well it's a mix, obviously there is a limited amount of resources, but in a ways when someone gets more others ARE getting less because the revenues of the company aren't dealt to employees by their worth but how far up (or down) the ladder they r
have u hear of the term "wage slave"?
Having said that employees enter in a mutual contract with employers, which is true, it's not always true that employees have that much say since they r the ones who NEED the job, the employer can set the terms
That's why unions are so important. If the workers are united and don't feel they're being paid a fair or livable wage. They can go on strike. The employer needs employees just as much as they need him/her. It's not a one way street.
yeah I'm definately with with you there, people power is very important. We have very strict laws governing unions in the UK brought in by conservative icon Margaret Thatcher (& not removed by our so-called "labour" party) - centrists and conservatives that support these measures argue that unions disrupt things too much to be allowed freedom from regulation
people aren't educated on how unions should work so often they end up brokering for big business, selling their clients down the river
Margaret Thatcher was satan, Ronald Reagan was the devil and their politics had nothing to do with free markets, they gave birth to corporatism in the modern sense.
Unions have way to much power in government. The trade unions have put so many tariffs on goods from over sees, their is just no way we can compete. American soda's have to be made with corn sirup instead of sugar because of high tariffs favoring the few and hurting the many. The teachers unions have a monopoly over the education system, ruining our public schools. And yes you are extremely Left wing if you are brash enough to say that about Ronald Reagan.
you don't have to be left wing, even all your moderate democrats hate him
I am talking about labour unions here, how do you expect to have any kind of fair society when corporations are allowed to do whatever they want and the people don't have the right to unionise to fight for better rights and strike?
EITHER u have to give freedom to corporations & unions OR u need a state to dictate the rights of workers to corporations, otherwise the strong rape the weak forever, which do you prefer?
I don't accept your premise. If the employees of a corporation feel they are getting a bum deal, they have every right to strike. A corporation cannot tell consenting adults they can't organize in protest. The market always comes to equilibrium, when the government steps on everyone's toes, things unravel. It becomes harder for the Market place to work itself out.
As for Reagan, the United States grew considerably during the Reagan years. The average American household earned $4,000 more, and the GDP of the United States increased by 3.2% Moderate Democrats loved Reagan Ever heard of the Reagan Democrats? Working class Dems who were offended by the growing Liberal elitism in the Democratic Party. And voted for Reagan.
I don't understand how a libertarian advocate of the free market can be a supporter of Reagan, he was the one under whom the state was effectively delivered to corporations so that it could be weilded as a tool of the bougoise over the working class, I'm very sorry to put it in marxist terms but it's true
Reagonomics birthed to corporatism, corporate welfare and biasing the government in favour of corporations over workers, surely a free market economist should favour no bias in the state?
Could you please site some evidence of this? Milton Friedman was Reagan's top economic advisor, I don't think you could argue he was a supporter of "corporatism."
These arguments are always based on such simplistic false premises, like, you're forced to work for that corporation. You're free to quit and go work for another company. Unless government regulation has made it almost impossible for other companies to enter the market place in which case you have less choice, but again you can still quit. And even in our non free market in the us, riddled with government regulation 70 to 80% of the population work for small businesses not corporations.
If you really beleive that you are asleep. you know fine well in many places people don't havea choice because there is not enough work to go around.
Have you heard of stuctural unemployment? you know, deliberately ensuring a certain percentage of the labour force are always unemployed to keep the price of work down?
you're insulting your own intelligence.
PS. the greatest period of deregulation up until the second Bush administration was under Clinton.
You can't create things that don't naturally exist! If there is no work that sucks but you can't just create a psuedo market with faux jobs. So basically what you suggest is if the market fails to provide work we just take money from the working and give it to the non working. Why would anyone want to be the working in that scenario?
*sigh* even if there is no work there are enough resources going around to feed and clothe everyone and to make sure they dont die on the street
therefore, for example, the amount of work someone should have to do in order to make a living could be proportional to the amount of work that actually needs to be done to provide him with one
if there isn't enough work to go around maybe eveyone could work a bit less so that more people could earn a living? wouldn't that be pro-human?
If Ronald Wilson Reagan, the most popular president in American history was a "mass murderer", what does that make Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? Champions of the people?
That is the most condescending thing I have ever heard. People aren't smart enough to figure the reality of a situation out on their own? The media has complete control over their thoughts???
Of course I also agree with you that Employers provide a useful service, not to mention a wide variety of skills and they do deserve to be well remunerated, it's a question of scale though,
Can someone really earn $20m? do they work harder that the Mexican scrubbing the toilet for $4? Would the money required to give him the federal minimum wage be missed?
I know probably think differently but we don't have to agree all the time, everyone has an opinion :-)
Who decides who "works harder"? You? A bureaucrat? If the market allows for someone to make 20m a year, so be it. As for minimum wage laws. Two problems
1) It creates unemployment. Employers don't have the $ to take on as many workers. what happens is you have 1 worker doing the job of 2. Or Employers raise the prices on products to make up the difference, which hurts consumers. The only people it CAN potentially benefit are the workers in the establishment, at the expense of everyone else
2) There is a moral dilemma. What gives these people we call government officials, senators, and congressman, the right to redistribute wealth?!?! Why are they so above the common man? I didn't give them that power over me. If you can't persuade people to carry out your ideas, you have no right to force your ideology upon them. Even if you have the power to do so.
i take your point that it is a point of contention over who decides what is hard work
I DO NOT have a final position on a minimum wage but I am inclined to think that a living wage is not an unreasonable demand for a worker
I know people the unemployment argument, but it's not necessarily true, the growth in disposable income of the least wealthy leads to increased spending which leads to more jobs
I see the insanity of the system at work, people need to buy stuff or there are no jobs
Well, I think the best way to protect workers is to increase options. I do think it a roll for government to break up monopolies. The more jobs available, the more employers have to compete for workers and consumers. So exploitation out of necessity no longer exists.
well there's a problem with the 40 hour work week, and te fact that often two bread winners are now needed per household, that did not used to be the case and there will never be enough valuable work to go around when individuals have to work so many hours to put bread on the table, I think thats one of the reasons why a living wage is important
most jobs are unnecessary in a sane world as well, the problem is the elite owning the vast majority of the land
" the problem is the elite owning the vast majority of the land"
Who are the elite? And what land do they own?
Leave it up to the market. If there is a demand for work, a supply will emerge. Look at Hong Kong and Singapore. Both countries with little to no natural resources and the wealthiest countries in the region. Hong Kong has a higher GDP than both England and Canada.
love the scot accent, sorry if you're not scot, but that's what it sounds like. The whole idea of "distribution of wealth" bugs me. I like to use the "island" analogy to figure out economic problems. Any system is like a deserted island that a handful of people live on. And Just because the "island" may get bigger in bigger systems I don't see the fundamental differences as far as econ goes. So let's say you, I, and a handful of others are trapped on a deserted island..... (continue above).
Fascinating. You've taken terrestrial science to it's hilt and I see you have a grasp of the way of things. However, I'm afraid you are mistaken regarding the age of the earth. According to some recent data, the distance between the planets and the sun do not support an outward drift of millions of years. This information supports the Bible's assertion that the earth is more like 6 thousand years old. But why take my word for it, research it personally.
Haha yeah, I think this one was recorded in two major chunks cos I kept f**king up *giggles* it's the info that counts though
actually I intended to put pictures over pretty much the whole thing, I had some cool ones, but unfortunately windows movie maker only allows you to put pictures over audio recordings not to supplant video images, frustrating
maybe if you raised the mininum wage to quickly that would create inflation, which would hurt poor people the worst. Then, companies try to make up the mininum wage increase by increasing productivity, so the worker has to work harder for the pay increase. So it's not really a pay increase.
there is a risk of that of course, the idea tho is that anyone working should have a reasonable income that show society values their labour,
there are other alternative like resource-based, such as people in need recieving basic necessities such as food, locally produced clothing, etc. sounds complicated though
At the end of the day the only thing that is gonna help is people making & buying goods locally, community energy production etc. we're too reliant on government & big business
There is always "The Manifesto for a Sustainable Society" which I advise everyone to look up & read; because many of these issues have been worked out & discussed at great length over the past 40 years by the Ecology & later Green Party.
I have been involved with the Green Party all my life & yet many of these issues were recognised when I was a child. They were re-vamped in my 20s & now again in my 40s. It seems we have a flurry of eco-discussion every 20 years or so. Lets hope we 'DO' now.
The Civilization pyramid is getting wider but the pyramid itself is getting shorter. Thousands of laws, lock and key food system and promotion of greed and exploitation are the bases. To cater our needs maybe we need to abandon civilization and focus more on society, communities and tribes? Get rid of fiat money and worldwide agriculture distribution too while we are at it.
yes I always say local power and local production is absolutely key to a healthy democracy,
unfortunately it's not usually seen as "economic" ie. companies can't save money by centralising production, and people don't need to buy their products as much since they're making their own
I have news for you: The "societies that we live in" have not been "CREATED" by anyone!
The "societies that we live in" are millions of people DOING WHAT THEY CHOOSE.
My God, if you only understood not only how FUCKING MORONIC it is to actually think that society is "CREATED," but how FUCKING DANGEROUS it is. Because once you accept that premise, you accept the notion of RE-CREATING it.
How does it feel to be the intellectual brother of genocidal murderers like Hitler, Stalin and Mao?
UncleIrv 2 months ago
anthony,do you shave your asshole?
leftytwogunsruggiero 7 months ago
if i see you,id strap on your mother high heels and rape your younger brother.!!!
goodnight fuck nuts.xx
leftytwogunsruggiero 7 months ago
No to distribution of wealth.
09SRILANKA 1 year ago
Anthony did you have a private education? If you did it makes a bit of a mockery of everything you say. Have you been to university, any student debt or did parents pay as theyre well off? Youre bloody crackers and need your head looking at. Ive watched a few of your vids and youre bonkers.
09SRILANKA 1 year ago
No to distribution of wealth. There are many many self made millionaires, should they be punished for doing well, why shouldnt people use money to make more money. Theres lots of poor folk who are there as theyre lazy. Perhaps self made millionaires should be made to hand over everything apart from taking out a minimum wage? The high earners are already hammered with tax.
09SRILANKA 1 year ago
No to equal wealth. Work for wealth! No to 40% tax. If youre a high earner if you were paying 20% tax you would still be paying much more tax than a lower earner. Tax welfare handouts at 20%. Lets have a flat 20% tax for every1 including the welfare reliant. Ps im not a high earner and my wife works for minimum wage, no to 40% tax! Lets meet the workingmans needs first not the welfare reliant "i want some more free cash please"
09SRILANKA 1 year ago
No to equal wealth, no to 40% tax, its wrong. The welfare reliant are as well off as the working, why? A massive portion of the population will do ok by never working at all ever, yes they will not get rich but they will never go hungry. Youve got your head up your arse if you dont think there is people in the uk who are not happy being welfare reliant. Many folk are in this position as theyre happy that way. Lets not give them more cash for staying at home. No to equal wealth1
09SRILANKA 1 year ago
Funny how this guy wears a t-shirt adorned with the face of a man that fought and killed many people in an effort to prohibit people from being free to own the equipment he is using to broadcast this garbage to the world.
LMAO !!
951pete 1 year ago
@951pete how pig ignorant can you be? Why don't you open a book and READ what kind of dictator was in power before the cuban revolution and what kind of standard of living the people had... why do you think you get a popular revolution? do you think it's for fun? If you had suffered in abject poverty under a fascist dictator propped up by US tax dollars you wouldn't be so quick to make lame ignorant snipes. Quality of living in Cuba massively improved in the first years after the revolution.
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
I'm sure you're bloody nuts!
09SRILANKA 1 year ago
No to equal wealth!
09SRILANKA 1 year ago
@JusticeSeeker1000. IDIOT!. Ive never heard such crap.
MrJuno6 1 year ago
I think you do in fact have a very good understanding of Capitalism. I have always thought the notion of the " Trickle Down Effect " extremely patronizing to a society and very convenient for those who choose to hoard wealth, their principle motivation being to pass it on to " THEIR " genes and sod everyone else. It is also important to realize that the vast majority of great fortunes which are past on from generation to generation were made on the back of slavery. A great video! Cheers
MrJuno6 1 year ago
dude wat your saying is enslaving one other to serve the other hell no its like this
EX: a chld studies hard for a test anohter chld does nothing both kids take the test the one who studied made an a but the other one made an f now the teacher says thats not fair so she makes them both have c's isn't that great huh now go to hell you communist also my grandfather dropped out of 4th grade educated himself and built a multi-million dollar company
mexicanfoodeater 1 year ago
Your full of tripe you know that........Your whole economic ideology has already failed many times in the past ! The closest to success was Pil Pots Regime of Kampuchea !
This system works for an overpopulated world, the very fact there are people in Africa Picking my coffee for virtually nothing as im speaking is a great testimony to your ancestors courage and sheer genius to ensure these people are enslaved to produce some of the finest goods for almost nothing.
AirLockBelsen 1 year ago
Hope you giving away some of your earnings and land to the needy Ant, my bum will you, you'll be wanting a big house and a car that does obcene poor MPG. Don't deny it.
09SRILANKA 1 year ago
Wealth should be earned, if you're born into it you're lucky, if you got no wealth as you have no drive or ambition, lazy or play the "I got a bad back card" then you should get very little from the state. Shared wealth is not what this country needs, I got big house as I tried hard, worked hard etc.. Welfare family should not have house same as mine or an income similar or anywhere near mine, my state pension should be much bigger also. State pension should be based on work history.
09SRILANKA 1 year ago
IDIOT. People who work the hardest, educate themselves and have ambition deserve what they get. People who are lazy, piss about in school, are anti-social should be poor and unhappy.
Normal people shouldn't have a lot of control, or else the world would end. Just look at the BA Unite Union, it's the perfect example of why you need the few to lead the many, because as soon as the many have power, they destroy everything. BA is ruined forever now, and more staff will get sacked now. Ironic lol.
JusticeSeeker1000 1 year ago
@JusticeSeeker1000 no one deserves to be poor and unhappy i think that you are slightly off with your idea that everyone who does not succeed in school turns out to be antisocial. i think that you should think about the difficulties some children face at school when the teachers do not make the pupils engage, From your attitude towards people who don't succeed at school i would guess that you have been privately educated because your talking like a first class arrogant TWAT.
williamstrads 10 months ago
Whether we like it or not, the human race needs controls. Because left uncontrolled population growth with outstrip resources on the planet. Humans like to fuck and we don't have a predator to cut down our numbers. The naive think that the majority of people have the intellect to see these problems.
I have enough intelligence to notice many, many other people are more equipped to make huge social decisions on my behalf . Although some(most) of our lords are not altruists unfortunately?
LabRat6619 1 year ago
Comment removed
LabRat6619 1 year ago
@LabRat6619 why should it be? the problem is that control is take out of the hands of individuals and put in the hands of the few at the top of governments, public bodies and rich corporations who can do with that power as they will
power to the people
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
The major problem with the argument of this video is that it doesn't actually attempt to justify its moralistic stance. It simply assumes that there is a universal moral obligation on all people to give to the needy.
Capitalism is quite simply not built around some bizarre obligation to help poor people, it ultimately revolves around private property and market goods and skills.
'most of which aren't needed'
Define need? and how is demand not 'need'?
You are clearly a marxist.
cidseven 1 year ago
You obviously dont' understand capitalism . The US has the lowest poverty rate of any country . What is greater than the US ? The very rich distibute the wealth . They hire contractors , buy cars , dine at expensive restaraunts , they buy clothing etc..... You are very confused . This is how you spread the wealth . The very rich keep this country great . The back bone of our economy are the banks and the very rich . We must keep the vultures from pecking away at the backbone of the US .
michael32768 1 year ago
@michael32768 The US does NOT have a lower poverty rate than Many European countries
The US is Rich not because they are so hard working and Capitalist but because Western Corporations stole the property rights to resources in third world countries in South America, Africa, Asia, and the Austrailias
Please watch my video 3rd World Aid vs. Exploitation...
The US has thrived also by overthrowing leaders of other countries that threaten to redistribute wealth in poor countries
See "Born Free...
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
@michael32768 You should probably learn more
I am familiar with the evidence behind your arguments? are you familiar with the evidence behind mine?
I have nothing against rich people
but there is a big problem when you are getting something very cheap beacuse a child in Indonesia is working 16 hours a day to produce it for something like $8 a week or oftentimes Nothing at all
please watch the videos I have suggested I am very happy to respond to your comments again in future
peace
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
Throughout history many people have come to the US and worked very hard and started businesses and became wealthy and employ many Americans and pay heavy taxes . This is what made America rich and great . I have learned a great deal about a disease called liberalism . Liberalism never helped anyone . Liberalism didn't save Europe in ww2. It hasn't saved an unborn child and will never help to create a healthy society .
michael32768 1 year ago
I,m very familiar with this ideology . What you say would make sense if the truth wasn't distorted . Truth must be distorted before liberal ideology makes sense . It is sad when the poor is taken advantage of. I agree with you on that issue .
michael32768 1 year ago
@michael32768 5 months later the comment is still as great !
AirLockBelsen 1 year ago
@AirLockBelsen Thanks!
michael32768 1 year ago
@michael32768 the us does not have the lowest poverty rate!
scottishlad1987 1 year ago
@scottishlad1987 Correct.And?
michael32768 1 year ago
@michael32768 well why did you say that you do?? and you ask what is greater than the US.. well, that depends what you define as great- happiness? health? wealth? the US does not come top in any of these i'm afraid.
scottishlad1987 1 year ago
@scottishlad1987 The poor in the US are taken care of better than the poor in any other country. The US is still the most popular country in the world.People around the world dream of coming to the US. Especially the poor people of the world. You ask a poor person in any country in the world , what country would they like to move to . Most if not all would say The Great United States of America. The liberals are desperately trying to ruin this country , but they will fail.There is no greater.
michael32768 1 year ago
@michael32768 the poor are fucked in america, and if you're poor you're not even allowed into the country! you are living in a dreamworld if you think everyone wants to live in america mate, it's just not true. i could think of at least ten countries i would live in before thinking about america. i like the way you put capital letters on the " great united states.." as though it were its proper title and not one made up by you haha.
scottishlad1987 1 year ago
@scottishlad1987 Why don't you leave today. None needs you here.Go to your glorious liberal paradise. Oh' and where is this great country?I let you know right now no other nationality wants you in their country.Where will you be welcomed.Do they owe you? Should that countries rich pay for you.
michael32768 1 year ago
@michael32768 The rich of any nation owes no one .
michael32768 1 year ago
@michael32768 leave where? i don't live in america you retard, did my name not give anything away? or did you think scotland was somewhere near new york? the rich do owe something though, after all, it's the public who buy their goods. so paying for education and health of a population is giving back what you were given. and not to mention it's helping to create a more wealthy population, which will in turn drive demand for their products up.
scottishlad1987 1 year ago
@scottishlad1987 You certainly don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. I don't believe you live in scottland ,you probobly from Illinois.The rich christians in the US give more to charitable organisation than the whole world combined. How do they still owe society?You are lost . You never told me , where is that liberal paradise you spoke of? Where you headed?
michael32768 1 year ago
@michael32768 well, i am from scotland. and if you looked at my favourite videos you might find some evidence of that. not to mention my spelling. to say that i'm probably from illionois.. well, that's just retarded and very closed minded. people do live out with the united states an believe it or not, they are intelligent and have their own views. and to answer your question, the people that got rich within a society, owe the society that made them rich.
scottishlad1987 1 year ago
@scottishlad1987 These people worked hard for their money.It is called being a hard working self reliant tax paying member of society. Or a conservative. You never spent one second in scottland . It's obvious. Rich people owe their success to themselves and should be able to do their will with their riches.No one owes you.Get a life . Get off you ass and make something of yourself and make some real money and than you may see things differently.
michael32768 1 year ago
@scottishlad1987 You wont answer me ,where is this liberal paradise?What country is more giving?What country is more tolerant. what other country has more opportunity,still. What would the poor do without the rich.
michael32768 1 year ago
@michael32768 no country is really a paradise, but a lot do help their poor, not just with money but with opportunity- free education and training programmes. countries like norway, france, denmark, sweden, finland, most european countries even countries like scotland where i got my whole degree paid for, and health care of course. now that i have been given all those things i don't mind helping to prop up the system that built me to a certain extent.
scottishlad1987 1 year ago
@scottishlad1987 You are lost. The United States of America has more federal funded educational programs than any country in the world .Now what you have a degree ? I doubt it. So you think that colledge and health care should be free?The US has the best medical schools and the best medical care. People come to the US from around the world to become doctors. No one I have ever known has moved to any of these counties to go to school. The US has the best School.
michael32768 1 year ago
@michael32768 nah, i think you're the one who's lost. and you obviously don't know what you're talking about regarding universities- maybe they have the biggest libraries and the best sports facilities etc. but regarding quality of teaching (the most important factor) the US doesn't fare any better than british universities. i think if you looked at job opportunities in america aimed at europeans you would see how much our degrees are valued, very highly indeed.
scottishlad1987 1 year ago
@scottishlad1987 Fact- The US has the best medical schools ,law schools trade schools and teachers colledges in the world. Sorry you can't face the facts.
michael32768 1 year ago
@michael32768 not that you would ever need to look at job opportunities for people with degrees. and if you think that nobody from the US studies in europe you are even more ignorant than i thought. even little scotland is full of yanks at our unis.
scottishlad1987 1 year ago
@scottishlad1987 Who will the Scotts call upon if they were attacked.
michael32768 1 year ago
@scottishlad1987 And the strongest military . The Scotts would cry ''help'' to the Yanks. Cowards.
michael32768 1 year ago
@michael32768 you really are the most ignorant person on youtube. all these so called facts are just your little fantasies. i bet you wish there was more to your little life than being american. i think you should do more reading and less talking, fucking moron.
scottishlad1987 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@scottishlad1987 Help!!! Yanks Help us!!!!!!!! We have been attacked!!!! Help!!!!!
michael32768 1 year ago
@scottishlad1987 where you going?
michael32768 1 year ago
@michael ...there are roughly 13 to 17% of Americans living below the federal poverty line at any given point in time, and roughly 40% falling below the poverty line at some point within a 10-year time span.
what is greater than the US? Norway for example.
Canada, Austrailia, there are many countries witha higher standard of living
that don't send their secret services all over the world to usurp democratically elected governments as the US gov has done.
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
@RevolutionaryJam I don't know where you get your stats but your a bit off. But I agree thing are not looking that good for the US economy, tha dems having controll of the house and senate for the last 4 years. Now repubs have taken over the house and hopefully things will get better. The US has the best of everything lad. The best medical and law schools. A degree from anywhere else is inferior.
michael32768 1 year ago
@michael32768 hi those are the stats on wikipedia but I think they're about right even thought it's not the most reliable source. You have a good point about how people in the US have tvs and cell phones but I think American people are far from the happiest I think a lot of other cultures foster a feeling of self worth better than our western culture does. Personally I think both parties are bad but the Dems are the lesser of two evils as they are not openly imperialist and also...
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
@RevolutionaryJam I think a lot of Americans have lost sight of their identitys , becoming anti American . Growing up with parents who didn't care properly for them .This Social disease stems from liberalism.Conservative Americans have been , and still are holding this country together.
michael32768 1 year ago
@michael32768 what do you mean by being anti-american? what is this american-ness that people can be anti? can you explain it to me?
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
@michael32768 ...also if you look at the size of the deficit over the years statistically it has increased weven more radically under Republican administrations rather then Democratic ones even though that may seem lop sided it's bourne out by the figures check out RalphDraw's channel for precise statistics. You be lucky for things to get better under the Republicans to be honest, both parties serve the same masters the only hope is to vote 3rd party or not at all and hope no one else does.
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
@RevolutionaryJam Obama trippled Bush's eight year deficit in one year.
michael32768 1 year ago
@michael32768 oh and by the way, a deficit is just money spent by the government in one year minus money collected from taxes, it isn't total debt, genius.
scottishlad1987 1 year ago
@michael32768 can I have a source for that? I know that the total debt America has been in has usually increased more under the Republicans watch, even under Reagan masses were spent on military and foreign interventions (most of which I would say were pretty far from necessary, some were atrocities such as nicaragua)
also both parties are in to Keynesian spending so Obama is spending more to "couteract" the recession, thats how governments try to do it it never works.
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
@RevolutionaryJam The poor here in the US have flat screen TVs , cell phones, welfare and food stamps.
michael32768 1 year ago
By the way, Che would strongly disapprove of your wearing a shirt on which his visage was embroidered.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
well then thats his problem, I'm not wearing it for his benefit
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
You should just be aware that you're desecrating the memory of a great man.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
Production for the sake of need is one of the most tenacious misapprehensions of basic economics. Being that we life in a finite world, and therefore have delimited resources with which to work, we must make sure to use all available capital efficiently. The price system allows for such a judicous use of capital. If production for need is established, expect a rapid diminution and waste of available materials.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
Your post is absolutely full of fallacies:
1) I have never advocated communism
2) I challenge you to find a single communist who advocates the type of communist country you describe which would "put me in jail for having long hair and being a freak"
3) Or find something advocating that in the Communist Manifesto
4) Yes, i'm sure you'd love to live in Capitalist Indonesia where they have no regulations and no worker protections at all. Or any of the other scores of very poor Capitalist countries.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
hey im writing a speach and i think im gonna use some of the information from this video thanks jam
someguy198949 2 years ago
hey great! Thankyou, please ensure you let me know how you get on with it!
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
how did it go?
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
not as great as i hoped 68% but it was a pass so thanks ... and u remembered thanks
someguy198949 1 year ago
Let's see now.
Where do you draw the line between need and demand? Who draws that line? The fact that demand is satisfied is the reason we work as hard as we do.
To create demand, we must produce. It's like saying: "The more I want, the more I must satisfy other people's wants". It's the essence of Smith's invisible hand.
And to say that most of what we produce "aren't needed" is one elitist comment to make. I'd let people decide those kinds of things through voluntary action.
Xasew 2 years ago
"The more things you make and sell, the more people will be employed and the better off everyone will be."
Actually we'll be better off because we have more stuff(i.e. more demand is satisfied). Even if stuff was made with only machines and no one was employed, we'd still be better off.
If an economy grows, a select few will get very rich? As long as the only way(at least the best way) of getting rich is satisfying other people's demand, there should be no problem here.
Xasew 2 years ago
"...and they will spend that money and it will trickle down to poor people ... the trickle-down system."
No. That is not the trickle-down system. The whole point is that rich people do NOT spend all of their money, and that capital formation can happen because of their savings. And that most certainly benefits everyone.
Poor people will indeed spend more. But you're making the old keynesian mistake of thinking that spending drives growth. It doesn't, savings do.
Xasew 2 years ago
Then you go and praise the minimum wage. It makes it illegal for people to work at a certain wage. That's all it does. Wages reflect productivity and you can't simply legislate higher wages.
Why couldn't employers keep their workers out of poverty in the 1700s? Because there was no minimum wage law? You think Chinese workers would suddenly become rich if they simply passed a min. wage law? Why isn't the law at $15/hour in the US?
Xasew 2 years ago
Economics isn't an empirical science, so using the 1996-97 minimum wage hike as proof of anything is a failure right there.
Mechanization does not cause unemployment. The industrial revolution would've been pretty bad if it did.
Pseudo-efficiency? What does that even mean? Companies shouldn't outsource?
Xasew 2 years ago
in other words "empirical evidence doesn't matter"
only theory?????
I can have a very coherent theory but it's the results of putting it into practice which will indicate whether it reflects the real world or not
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
There is no "Ceteris Paribus" in real life, so theory is indeed what matters. Of course if theory and 'practice' are consistently at odds with each other, then maybe the logic behind the theory needs to be looked at. But the minimum wage isn't controversial or even a debate, it's really just a classic example of price fixing.
American Samoa and the minimum wage, if you're interested: watch?v=_LaPGIIAyk4
Xasew 1 year ago
I think the general feeling amongst supporters of the minimum wage is that if people work a full time job they should have enough money to get by - because there is enough money around to give that to them. I think people just want a little less for the share holders and a little more for the labour force since they are also creating the wealth even though they have no capital. I know at least since the min wage was introduced in the UK around 97 it has been universally regarded as a good thing.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
If you start spreading the shareholder wealth around to pay higher wages, you'll end up with lower wages. Productivity often goes up with more capital. If shareholders get less returns, they have an incentive NOT to invest in that particular company and that may very well result in less capital to back every worker.
Companies fire people or don't hire as many when they cope with the minimum wage.
I'll just let Peter Schiff do the talking, because he puts it so elegantly:
/watch?v=I_IMuxMXd3E
Xasew 2 years ago
thanx for like I'll check them out when I get the chance
I know the argument about having an "incentive" not to invest in that company, then again if everyone is subject to the same rules then the phenomenon will be seen across the board, I feel we're slaves to machines:
If I have a company where 40 employees work 40 hours and get a machine that does 120 hours of labour I need to sack 3 people or my competitor will undercut my product. In a sane society everyone would work 3 hours less.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
don't you miss the important point the DEMAND is not everything people want or need, it's only the part of that which people can afford to pay for?
That doesn't really necessarily make a good indication of peoples quality of life, I can tell you there was $10m dollars of demend satisfied here yesterday but it might have just been one rich guy selling one of his mansions to another rich guy
cont...
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
...cont... like for example there might be millions of people in third world countries who WANT to be fed but they don't have the money so they don't create any DEMAND for it
so saying YAY lots of demands are being met is not necessarily a good measure of the overall welfare of a society
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
People in third world countries have to produce if they want to consume. If we put needs before demand, there would be no incentives to produce. If Rockefeller had had to give most of his profits to the needy, would oil refining have gone through the innovations it did(which ended up helping hundreds of millions)?
Here Friedman on the min. wage btw:
watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk
Xasew 2 years ago
the best way of getting rich is already owning stuff and charging people rent for using it, gaining all your income from share dividends or interest on loans, I know you're probably a lover of unlimited property rights but it's a bit hypocritical that the state is allowed to intervene on behalf of the richest members of society to protect them while if they intervene on behalf of the least well off it's called socialism and the people receiving help are viewed as parasites
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Charging rent is the same as to provide a service. Getting income from dividends means you've invested in a company. And the more people a company serves, the better it will normally do. Loans on the other hand can be used for many things.
The best way(not counting the political way) of getting rich IS to provide for as many as possible. There's no two ways about it.
Xasew 2 years ago
"...but it's a bit hypocritical that the state is allowed to intervene on behalf of the richest..."
It shouldn't be allowed. I'm all for an even playing field, which means no corporate welfare. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Xasew 2 years ago
yeah I'm all for a world where if someone owns some land but all the people who actually work on the land don't acknowledge his right to the property they can appropriate it by popular ballot.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
or, more realistically, you know, pay someone else some money to provide for as many as possible while you take the lions share of the profit
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Agree. But I noticed that you haven't uploaded anything for awhile. What's up, man. Lets see more. These videos are great.
TheLeftLibertarian 2 years ago
hey man thanks so much for noticing I haven't posted in a while because I've been really busy and a bit lacklustre to be honest but I certainly intend to make more vids just taking some time out, maybe in September time when uni comes back in.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
This guy is a star seed
colloredbrothers 2 years ago
have you seen teh Michael Parenti video saying that most countries are capitalist and most countries are poor? He shows that in advanced capitalist countries such as UK and US the reason why our standards of living are higher is because the labour struggle has further advanced rather than because of having a market economy, it's quite compelling
still looking for the truth in all this theory, once is seemed so obvious and now every view seems right to a degree and wrong in another sense
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
OMG IS JESUS
r3dz0diac 2 years ago
interesting points about the minimum wage thing...
collapseofthedollar 3 years ago
5)So with this kind of system you can avoid the inherent fight of capitalism poor vs rich and develope free thinking.The cultural gains would be immense if the work has to become attractive to the worker.This would turn the tables completly.Imagine a life of your children without worries about the future.That would be real life in the present.Sorry for taking so much space here.Greetings to all
systemchange 3 years ago
many people postulate about what the ideal system would be but none of us have very much power to change the system in place in order to bring about such a system, my best suggestion is to make our best efforts to be self-sufficient of it and choose wisely where our money should be spent so as not to support institutions that are cancerous to society
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
4)So how to finance it?On every product are imense insurance fees(work,health,pension/retirement)Take it away because you dont need it if you have a basic income.Instead put a steady basic income tax inside of the same ammount.prices of products could nearly stay the same but you would create a complete growing system.The demand for such a system is growing because the middleclass is going down quicker and quicker.
systemchange 3 years ago
1)Hi!Great work again :o)I am memebr of b.i.e.n international and BGE (basic income Germany network)All my life i work as a chessgrandmaster and give lessons to students arround the world.
Its a life at the edge.Chess is a very economic game and teaches you not to be to greedy,because if you are too materialistic you will lose every game due to a combined attac of united forces of mind,space and material.I also teach my students to be objectiv and use logic.
systemchange 3 years ago
wow really interesting philosophical insights from chess! :-D i learned that everything in life teaches you about everything else
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
Capitalism's end / reform is coming. Good words and video mate.
kieronj 3 years ago
thankyou and i look forward to seeing what happens here
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
There is only a 'select' group of people who are in charge of this planet and they ain't here for the good of mankind. 2012 is a crucial time for these people. Thank goodness people are waking up !
ziggazaggy 3 years ago
The problem with any economic defense of increased productivity is that economics always operates under the delusion that producing more crap makes life better. There is far, far more to the standard of living than having physical things or money that economics measures.
The good times brought by industrialization will run out soon, and the benefits we've seen may all but disappear.
Well done videos, sir. You have my thanks.
WiredAl 3 years ago
i think you're right, needing less stuff makes life better because you have more leisure time
would be great if we all had the extra money and time to help out in our communities and fix the place
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
yeah I get your point, and I'll mull over it for a while
the thing is it's annoying because u know that we have the resources to provide everyone with a decent wage for their labour and provide them with their needs but the system in place does not do that
also what says a CEO earning millions a year works harder that the mexican cleaning the toilet i don't get it
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
hey I'm familiar with anti-minimum wage arguments and I've been struggling with them,
the thing is most companies that pay minimum wage have the profit margins to allow for higher wages but they don't, and of course we have terrible anti-union laws
perhaps if we scrapped anti-union laws minimum wages would be redundant but under the current system they seem to be needed,
some people are still forced to work 3 jobs to feed their kids
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
Please consider giving me feedback on the following 29 minute mini-doc called "Overview of America". It is a comparison of types of government and it also defines the terms 'capitalism' and 'free market'.
chucksheen 3 years ago
This guy will grow up soon enough.
Ever wonder why the Industrial Revolution resulted in a population explosion?
Because capitalism has been the greatest bringer of life onto this planet in history.
In just 250 years, we have managed to more than DOUBLE our average life expectancy and slash infant mortality rates to a fraction of what they were.
And this guy things that capitalism "doesn't cater to people's needs."
Human life is the standard of value. Capitalism is pro-human.
NameNotaNumber 3 years ago
I've never seen such a ridiculously weak and fallacious comment before in my life, I don't even know where to start, and it didn't even address the content of the video.
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
you are fucking awesome.
endertrask 3 years ago
why thankyou, i'm blushing :-)
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
anthony. the theory you describe one minute in .... yes, it may accurately describe an awful idea and is promoted through propaganda, but it is a faulty representation of free market economics. you should study some austrian economics and throw keynes out to the trash where his theory belongs. there is a difference between state capitalism and free market capitalism. the difference can be measured by the means adopted to achieve certain goals. or just look at how many worlds apart they are.
thisisbunk 3 years ago
hey thisisbunk & thanks so much for the feedback,
I'm a bit familiar with Ludvig Von Mises, Adam Smith & Ayn Rand but don't really agree with their analyses on a lot of issues
I fundamentally disagree with a completely free market for at least 3 broad reasons, one is that free markets set up the wrong incentives, two, any system which allows unlimited property rights accelerates wealth to the top and three the market is based entirely on consumerism, consumerism stops, everyone goes hungry
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
lol. those three people are very disctint from one another.
property rights are not unlimited. it seems to me that what you mean is the accumulation of property itself should be limited.
thisisbunk 3 years ago
well lets not argue somantics here, you know what I mean, most people wouldn't dispute the way I have phrased it but if you'd prefer then yes, I think there should be limits to the amount of property someone can accumulate.
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
i would hardly call that a matter of semantics. you may think there should be limits...but that's a far cry from taking action to enforce that idea. unless of course you believe in voluntarism and education as the answer. then i have no issue with the idea.
thisisbunk 3 years ago
i'm not calling for the idea to be enforced by the state
if a corporatation or individual more land than due people in need should quite simply not recognise their claim to the property, settle on it & take it off them
in Africa, while there is tremendous poverty, there are vast ares of growing land owned by large corporations who bought them without any intention of planting, deliberately so that peasants couldn't provide for themselves and would have to work on whatever terms given to them
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
the first minute of this video needs some clarification. are you saying that the standards of living today are worse than they have been in world history? hasn't progress been made by providing services to people through use of capital and technology? i.e., providing for the demand?
thisisbunk 3 years ago
hi I definately agree that the industrial revolution and capitalism provided a great deal of benefits to society, especially in comparison to the feudalism which preceeded it, however I think we're still evolving as a civilisation so we can still reate yet better ways to interact as a society.
I think the main problem is the benefits that we're discussing aren't usually distributed fairly amongst those who provided them thats why I advocate "tweaking" it. See vid on 3rd World for an example.
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
PREACH ON!!!!!!!! Check my vids!
MV951 3 years ago
So what are you a socialist? Who gets to decide what people "need" and what they don't? You want the government making those decisions? You think the government knows what's best for you? Let people decide what's best for themselves. If they buy a bunch of petty crap, and don't have any money left over for food, then that's there fault. No need to alter the system to conform to the needs of the irresponsible. Who only make up a small portion of the market of consumerism to begin with.
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
no i'm not really a socialist although I used to be, I don't think the free market is the solution to everything though, I'd prefer local government to centralised, the duty of the local government would be to help ensure the community was as self sufficient as possible and less reliant on getting products from further afield, with it's backing volunteers could run programs to get people in contact with local tradesmen, help keep everyone in a job too and preferrable to the environment
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
PLEASE MOVE TO AMERICA.
liberals here need to understand this.
SmeagolDoll 3 years ago
lol thanks, I don't see the possibility of moving to the states any time soon but in the meantime you can forward them this video :-) ;-) thanks so much for taking an interest and commenting!
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
(continued from above).... so if I go out and collect a lot of food and fresh water that I've discovered shouldn't I be able to distribute what I've slaved my ass for, any way I want? Whether it be give it away or trade it for other goods? It would really piss me off if I put in all that work and some "mayor" of the island took it from me to distribute it to people that couldn't hack it on the island themselves. Or let me give it to the "poor" myself if I think that's necessary. right?
freezazoid 3 years ago 2
i'm all for you being able to keep the fruits of your labours, unfortunately in most cases some people have cornered the resources & people don't have equal access to collecting them
eg. something like oil out the ground is EVERYONES property, not the propety of who ever sucked it out to sell and deal with as they wish,
also a lot of income does not result from labour, the richest people make their money (ie everyone else) work for them and contribute nothing in terms of service to society
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
It's not as if when one person is getting more, another is getting less. Wealth is something that is constantly being created via free market innovation and creation. When you talk about how "rich people make their money" you're talking as though people who work for them are their slaves. Employers voluntarily provide their services in exchange for money. And they absolutely contribute to society. People benefit from their products so much, that they actually make a profit!
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
well it's a mix, obviously there is a limited amount of resources, but in a ways when someone gets more others ARE getting less because the revenues of the company aren't dealt to employees by their worth but how far up (or down) the ladder they r
have u hear of the term "wage slave"?
Having said that employees enter in a mutual contract with employers, which is true, it's not always true that employees have that much say since they r the ones who NEED the job, the employer can set the terms
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
That's why unions are so important. If the workers are united and don't feel they're being paid a fair or livable wage. They can go on strike. The employer needs employees just as much as they need him/her. It's not a one way street.
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
yeah I'm definately with with you there, people power is very important. We have very strict laws governing unions in the UK brought in by conservative icon Margaret Thatcher (& not removed by our so-called "labour" party) - centrists and conservatives that support these measures argue that unions disrupt things too much to be allowed freedom from regulation
people aren't educated on how unions should work so often they end up brokering for big business, selling their clients down the river
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
The government and unions shouldn't have anything to do with each other. And Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were awesome.
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
Margaret Thatcher was satan, Ronald Reagan was the devil and their politics had nothing to do with free markets, they gave birth to corporatism in the modern sense.
They also busted unions.
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
Unions have way to much power in government. The trade unions have put so many tariffs on goods from over sees, their is just no way we can compete. American soda's have to be made with corn sirup instead of sugar because of high tariffs favoring the few and hurting the many. The teachers unions have a monopoly over the education system, ruining our public schools. And yes you are extremely Left wing if you are brash enough to say that about Ronald Reagan.
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
you don't have to be left wing, even all your moderate democrats hate him
I am talking about labour unions here, how do you expect to have any kind of fair society when corporations are allowed to do whatever they want and the people don't have the right to unionise to fight for better rights and strike?
EITHER u have to give freedom to corporations & unions OR u need a state to dictate the rights of workers to corporations, otherwise the strong rape the weak forever, which do you prefer?
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
I don't accept your premise. If the employees of a corporation feel they are getting a bum deal, they have every right to strike. A corporation cannot tell consenting adults they can't organize in protest. The market always comes to equilibrium, when the government steps on everyone's toes, things unravel. It becomes harder for the Market place to work itself out.
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
As for Reagan, the United States grew considerably during the Reagan years. The average American household earned $4,000 more, and the GDP of the United States increased by 3.2% Moderate Democrats loved Reagan Ever heard of the Reagan Democrats? Working class Dems who were offended by the growing Liberal elitism in the Democratic Party. And voted for Reagan.
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
I don't understand how a libertarian advocate of the free market can be a supporter of Reagan, he was the one under whom the state was effectively delivered to corporations so that it could be weilded as a tool of the bougoise over the working class, I'm very sorry to put it in marxist terms but it's true
Reagonomics birthed to corporatism, corporate welfare and biasing the government in favour of corporations over workers, surely a free market economist should favour no bias in the state?
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
Could you please site some evidence of this? Milton Friedman was Reagan's top economic advisor, I don't think you could argue he was a supporter of "corporatism."
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
watch?v=NZCFUB_W6MA
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
Haha, I just read this, good post.
Liberty654 3 years ago
These arguments are always based on such simplistic false premises, like, you're forced to work for that corporation. You're free to quit and go work for another company. Unless government regulation has made it almost impossible for other companies to enter the market place in which case you have less choice, but again you can still quit. And even in our non free market in the us, riddled with government regulation 70 to 80% of the population work for small businesses not corporations.
Liberty654 3 years ago
If you really beleive that you are asleep. you know fine well in many places people don't havea choice because there is not enough work to go around.
Have you heard of stuctural unemployment? you know, deliberately ensuring a certain percentage of the labour force are always unemployed to keep the price of work down?
you're insulting your own intelligence.
PS. the greatest period of deregulation up until the second Bush administration was under Clinton.
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
You can't create things that don't naturally exist! If there is no work that sucks but you can't just create a psuedo market with faux jobs. So basically what you suggest is if the market fails to provide work we just take money from the working and give it to the non working. Why would anyone want to be the working in that scenario?
Liberty654 3 years ago
*sigh* even if there is no work there are enough resources going around to feed and clothe everyone and to make sure they dont die on the street
therefore, for example, the amount of work someone should have to do in order to make a living could be proportional to the amount of work that actually needs to be done to provide him with one
if there isn't enough work to go around maybe eveyone could work a bit less so that more people could earn a living? wouldn't that be pro-human?
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
Mate, I think you'll find a lot of people think that about Ronald Reagan. He was a mass murderer.
IAmTheResurrection2 3 years ago
(facepalm)
If Ronald Wilson Reagan, the most popular president in American history was a "mass murderer", what does that make Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? Champions of the people?
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
have you even heard of Nicaragua?
Just because someone is popular doesn't mean anything, it's all the way the politician is sold or destroyed by the media.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
That is the most condescending thing I have ever heard. People aren't smart enough to figure the reality of a situation out on their own? The media has complete control over their thoughts???
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
true his foreign policy was murderous
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
@TimeWarp66 watch?v=8Fia5ooifB4#
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
Of course I also agree with you that Employers provide a useful service, not to mention a wide variety of skills and they do deserve to be well remunerated, it's a question of scale though,
Can someone really earn $20m? do they work harder that the Mexican scrubbing the toilet for $4? Would the money required to give him the federal minimum wage be missed?
I know probably think differently but we don't have to agree all the time, everyone has an opinion :-)
Ant
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
Who decides who "works harder"? You? A bureaucrat? If the market allows for someone to make 20m a year, so be it. As for minimum wage laws. Two problems
1) It creates unemployment. Employers don't have the $ to take on as many workers. what happens is you have 1 worker doing the job of 2. Or Employers raise the prices on products to make up the difference, which hurts consumers. The only people it CAN potentially benefit are the workers in the establishment, at the expense of everyone else
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
2) There is a moral dilemma. What gives these people we call government officials, senators, and congressman, the right to redistribute wealth?!?! Why are they so above the common man? I didn't give them that power over me. If you can't persuade people to carry out your ideas, you have no right to force your ideology upon them. Even if you have the power to do so.
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
i take your point that it is a point of contention over who decides what is hard work
I DO NOT have a final position on a minimum wage but I am inclined to think that a living wage is not an unreasonable demand for a worker
I know people the unemployment argument, but it's not necessarily true, the growth in disposable income of the least wealthy leads to increased spending which leads to more jobs
I see the insanity of the system at work, people need to buy stuff or there are no jobs
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
Well, I think the best way to protect workers is to increase options. I do think it a roll for government to break up monopolies. The more jobs available, the more employers have to compete for workers and consumers. So exploitation out of necessity no longer exists.
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
well there's a problem with the 40 hour work week, and te fact that often two bread winners are now needed per household, that did not used to be the case and there will never be enough valuable work to go around when individuals have to work so many hours to put bread on the table, I think thats one of the reasons why a living wage is important
most jobs are unnecessary in a sane world as well, the problem is the elite owning the vast majority of the land
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
" the problem is the elite owning the vast majority of the land"
Who are the elite? And what land do they own?
Leave it up to the market. If there is a demand for work, a supply will emerge. Look at Hong Kong and Singapore. Both countries with little to no natural resources and the wealthiest countries in the region. Hong Kong has a higher GDP than both England and Canada.
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
love the scot accent, sorry if you're not scot, but that's what it sounds like. The whole idea of "distribution of wealth" bugs me. I like to use the "island" analogy to figure out economic problems. Any system is like a deserted island that a handful of people live on. And Just because the "island" may get bigger in bigger systems I don't see the fundamental differences as far as econ goes. So let's say you, I, and a handful of others are trapped on a deserted island..... (continue above).
freezazoid 3 years ago
thanks, well noticed, it's a scot accent
cheers for taking the time to check out the video and comment, most appreciated :-)
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
Fascinating. You've taken terrestrial science to it's hilt and I see you have a grasp of the way of things. However, I'm afraid you are mistaken regarding the age of the earth. According to some recent data, the distance between the planets and the sun do not support an outward drift of millions of years. This information supports the Bible's assertion that the earth is more like 6 thousand years old. But why take my word for it, research it personally.
riclos08 3 years ago
Interesting! Thanks for such interesting and out of the ordinary feedback! :-)
Hope to hear more from you soon,
Ant
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
Damn, nightfall comes quick in your town eh?
TheDrunkenCelt 3 years ago
Haha yeah, I think this one was recorded in two major chunks cos I kept f**king up *giggles* it's the info that counts though
actually I intended to put pictures over pretty much the whole thing, I had some cool ones, but unfortunately windows movie maker only allows you to put pictures over audio recordings not to supplant video images, frustrating
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
maybe if you raised the mininum wage to quickly that would create inflation, which would hurt poor people the worst. Then, companies try to make up the mininum wage increase by increasing productivity, so the worker has to work harder for the pay increase. So it's not really a pay increase.
rjshmo 3 years ago
there is a risk of that of course, the idea tho is that anyone working should have a reasonable income that show society values their labour,
there are other alternative like resource-based, such as people in need recieving basic necessities such as food, locally produced clothing, etc. sounds complicated though
At the end of the day the only thing that is gonna help is people making & buying goods locally, community energy production etc. we're too reliant on government & big business
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
There is always "The Manifesto for a Sustainable Society" which I advise everyone to look up & read; because many of these issues have been worked out & discussed at great length over the past 40 years by the Ecology & later Green Party.
I have been involved with the Green Party all my life & yet many of these issues were recognised when I was a child. They were re-vamped in my 20s & now again in my 40s. It seems we have a flurry of eco-discussion every 20 years or so. Lets hope we 'DO' now.
ejbh3160 3 years ago
The Civilization pyramid is getting wider but the pyramid itself is getting shorter. Thousands of laws, lock and key food system and promotion of greed and exploitation are the bases. To cater our needs maybe we need to abandon civilization and focus more on society, communities and tribes? Get rid of fiat money and worldwide agriculture distribution too while we are at it.
Peace YT
yellowtreat 3 years ago
yes I always say local power and local production is absolutely key to a healthy democracy,
unfortunately it's not usually seen as "economic" ie. companies can't save money by centralising production, and people don't need to buy their products as much since they're making their own
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago