No, public ownership is bad, SOCIAL ownership is good! Companies can be owned by their workers or by consumers without coercive government intervention. The government is a mob; companies should be owned by voluntary associations of workers and consumers (i.e.- cooperatives)
Worker self-management is the way to go. Companies like Mondragon are, at least to some extent, owned and managed by their workers. Mondragon is one of the most successful, innovative businesses in Spain, and it is essentially a federation of worker coops. The same is true of the worker cooperatives in Emilia-Romagna, France, and Argentina. Workers are perfectly capable of taking control of production. AND THEY DON'T NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO DO IT!!!!!!!!!!
@AugustusOctavianus You imply a disparity that doesn't exist. Companies like Goldman-Sachs wouldn't exist without the government. In a totally free market (i.e.- no government intervention at all), the economy would be dominated by small businesses, many of which would be owned and managed by their workers.
"In a totally free market (i.e.- no government intervention at all), the economy would be dominated by small businesses, many of which would be owned and managed by their workers."
So you are claiming that a small business cannot grow into a large one taking control of most of an industry without government assistance. Any proof of this? I have not seen an economy without any government. I do not think that a country can even exist without a government to define its territories.
@kmarinas86 I'm saying that natural diseconomies of scale (such as transportation and protection of property) would, in a free market, limit the size that a firm could reach before it stopped being profitable. These diseconomies of scale exist in the real world, but they are compromised by government regulation and subsidiation.
The fact that no such society has existed yet doesn't mean one can't exist. Until 1800, there were probably no societies without slavery. But clearly they can exist.
"Also, politicians shouldn't have the freedom to invest in companies in which they may be able to help in terms of changing laws. It's soo simple. Just make it illegal to do these things..."
@AugustusOctavianus I don't understand why it can't be both- greedy shareholders who can't think beyond next quarter's earnings and business corruption of democracy.
@AugustusOctavianus Yeah so, he might not have said it in the interview, but Ha-Joon Chang would agree with you that big economic actors invest in controlling government policy. He's written about these types of problems in "Bad Samaritan."
Welcome to Chinese hypocrisy! They turned the population into slaves with "humanist" justifications. First they were building communism, now they are just socialist and nationalistic to the core. Anyhow, an oligarchy lives well without the risks of capitalist competition. Whenever they criticize American capitalism they should be reminded that the little people acquired decent standards of living only in free market societies.
@AugustusOctavianus business ethics? WTF have business ethics got to do with a shareholder who has a portfolio of however many shares that they never bother to check up on and then wonder why they are getting a** raped by corporations every whch way they turn. If you choose to acquire shares od anything you better play an active role or YOU will be to blame for not pulling the reigns when things go wrong.
I bet you blame referees when sporting teams lose games as well. You're backward.
@AugustusOctavianus difference between ur rambant excuse for an analogy and my analogy is that I tried to explain it to you so you could comprehend what was going on. Shareholders are the ONLY ones responsible when a company/corporation does something wrong. Shareholders decide with their vote/shares what happens and can shape a company with their shares. Shareholders can have a CEO REMOVED if their investment is being abused. Shareholders ARE the company therefore shareholders ARE responsible.
I love guys like this, they always write books like this, lets put some socialism into capitalism. Does he think the company owners who pretty much run the country let that happen? They are working on having less public ownership, not more. More public ownership is almost sacrilegious.
@AugustusOctavianus so shareholders , who demand incessant returns, most of them these days who have shares managed through portfolios and who NEVER know exactly where their money is being invested, are NOT to blame?
That would be akin to saying that the owner of a rabid dog is not responsible for the dog attacking and mauling a small child.
I think Paul Jay should interview the most dangerous philosopher in the West Slavoj Zizek. He's a brilliant thinker. However, he does have a bad accent... So I suppose he can't be smart unless he has an American or British accent lol.
Unfortunately no one asks the big questions anymore as Zizek would say. Will there be capitalism? Will there still be nation-state's? All of us are de-facto Fukayama's. As Mr.Chang himself indicates capitalism itself is inconsistent with it's own values and constantly going through periods of turbulence. Today's ecological, social, bio-genetic and economic problems are so large that the "free" market nor the state can handle. We need an emancipatory radical left more than ever.!
They don't tell you that the game is rigged either....the FED prints the money backed by nothing and sets the interest rates!....shame on you Paul Jay.
I also will not be buying Ho-Joon Chang's book either.
@xxbobdeexx the money isn't backed by nothing. it's backed by the laws of supply and demand. and if free markets worked the way the theorist claim they should, interest rates being too high or low shouldn't be a problem. get over your ron paul nonsense. no one expects you to buy anything without ron paul's name on it. we all ready know you're completely brainwashed.
@iluminatr462 um."The money isnt backed by nothing"? Watch your double negatives. The money IS backed by nothing, unless you mean to say it is backed by the labour of the PEOPLE, then yes but it is NOT backed by anything else (or gold & silver) as those two commodities were taken as security when the country went bankrupt after the great depression. Think about it.
@venuecam if you wanna give grammar lessons, you should really learn how to use puncuation first, genius. and if you're gonna respond to my comment try addressing my comment. give me something to think about and i will. vacuous platitudes don't inspire thought.
@iluminatr462 I'll tell ya what...when the idiots at the helm crash the system go try and buy some hard goods with your supply and demand backed paper. If the free markets worked the way the theorist claim??? theorists? theorists determine how free markets work or run? Interest rates being to high or low shouldn't be a problem? Unreal. I never mentioned Ron Paul but I'll tell ya what I'll take Ron Paul and you can have Ho-Joon Chang. It appears you left thinking for left thinking.
@xxbobdeexx please learn how to read if you want to reply any further. and quit making insane inferences and speaking in platitudes. it's really fucking obnoxious.
@xxbobdeexx I agree about The FED printing the money supply. But the money is backed by the PEOPLE's labour if anything. And yes FED notes are as worthless as monopoly money... or was that the other way around?
CAPITALISM: Is that they system where a grandfather subsidizes the weaker grandson with the share of inheritance money that should have gone to the more independent granddaughter-- maintaining the status of the all-important family name?
we don't have a free market. we have a market controlled by a super wealthy family(Rothschilds) who use other super wealthy families(much less combined than Rothschilds) who in turn use media and political front men to do their bidding. they must not believe in God because they would know that their are terrible consequences for their oppression.
@stanjz believing in god isn't important. Believing in electrons & paper notes which are controlling debt which no one can issue at will except the central dictatorship, that is a problem, and calling this "money" (it is not money, it is debt) is even more a problem. This article of faith, being born into the Matrix, is what keeps people enslaved. They know only this so they will work very hard to protect it even if it is their prison.
Countdown to even more cries from ideologues, "THAT'S NOT THE REAL CAPITALISM!!!!! THAT ISN'T REAL CAPITALISM!!!! THAT'S 'CORPORATISM'!!!! RON PAUL SAID SO!!!!"
What does this have to do with capitalism? If your government can practically be bought by corporations, so that you have a plutocracy, then that's a political problem and it doesn't mean that you don't have capitalism, it just means that your politcians are corrupt.
@DrakeIcn plutocracy & corporatism are the natural condition of tribal humanity - it doesn't matter if we have free markets or not. People will collect together the powerful, the followers and form what acts like & owns what is typical of a corporation to form a plutocracy. It is only by CULTURE, by rules, by laws, that we can stop such a thing.
Allowing companies to have "private" shareholders inexorably leads to Fascism. The only kind of shareholding that wouldn't do that is where CUSTOMERS own all profits as shares, where if I buy a McD's hamburger, I own a share in McD's. In my view, this has never been tried, for those representing a small percentage of consumers of a product (i.e. holders of private and/or public stock of the company and/or employees, as in employee stock-ownership) tend to have 100% control over a company.
@kmarinas86 private ownership by shares or other means of a company that is not a part of government is precisely NOT Fascism. Fascism requires corporate GOVERNMENT not private ownership of shares of any company. You are not allowed to change definitions from reality & remain credible.
I said that, "Allowing companies to have 'private' shareholders inexorably leads to Fascism." I didn't say that "Allowing companies to have 'private' shareholders" is Fascism. You are not allowed to misinterpret what I said & remain credible.
In other words, something that is precisely NOT Fascism (i.e. "private ownership of shares") can lead to a process (accumulation of private wealth through disproportionate private ownership of profits -> using private wealth to lobby government for special privileges -> corporate welfare) the result of which is Fascism.
How can you prevent govt officials from receiving money from anyone they like? Whether you have a law or not the money flows, in your face or covertly. The incentive and root of this problem is govt being involved in commerce so much. You remove this ability then people cannot lobby for economic privileges.
"Whether you have a law or not the money flows, in your face or covertly. The incentive and root of this problem is govt being involved in commerce so much. You remove this ability then people cannot lobby for economic privileges."
All lobbying takes is a load of cash and a message to send, so if you want the government to not be involved in commerce, you'll have to make sure no in business wants to influence the government for their own benefit.
"And how do you stop businesses from wanting to influence the govt?"
The reality is that you can't. Even if you use force, you can't.
As long as people work for a business, this won't change.
The only things which can stop business from doing this is making business irrelevant in the world. Anybody who doubts that humanity could be free from the obligation to work anytime soon would laugh at that notion. Any notion of attaining it would simply beyond most people's comprehension.
@asperin you can remove politicians from office, if you have the balls, for ever being caught using money from elsewhere, thereby ensuring whoever is busted is out. For now we have no such system. We should push for something like it.
That still does not remove the ability for govt to intrude commerce. That should be the priority, making commerce as private(and voluntary) as possible.
"This is because of the import of cheap goods from China and the inability to create quality products that other people will buy!!!!"
You forgot to state the causes::::People with wealth know they can make more money if they fire expensive workers in the first world and hire cheap abundant labor in the third world. Cheaper processes of course mean non-quality products and more money for Goldman and their ilk. It has nothing to do with "inability" of the Chinese people.
@AugustusOctavianus If you think closely everyday everybody around the world spend their money in thing they do not want such taxes.. Why is that every time someone criticizes or wishes to reform capitalism ends up marginalised as a communist? Maybe just common idiosyncrasy
"You CAN'T force people to spend THEIR money on things THEY don't don't want to do. Unless you want Fascism or Communism..."
Even if fascism and communism disappeared, idiot boxes, product propaganda, classified ads, and sales pitches would each be enough to coerce people into spending money, which they would rather save, on things they are influenced to want, yet don't want to make.... so I disagree with you.
@kmarinas86 coercive ads are not force. Blocking all access to food & water then forcing people to trade for it is force. As in violence. As in threats of death & physical suffering.
"Sometimes the term “coercion” is used in popular speech with a quite broad sense. For instance, one hears “coercion” used to describe social pressures; or the constraining or manipulative effects of advertising, one's upbringing, or the structuring of society more generally. It is also sometimes treated as a quite general concept encompassing almost any sort of interpersonal infringement on one's rights."
@kmarinas86 Now you've been proven wrong THREE TIMES. Advertising is no more manipulative - which is to say not at all - than hearing anything, anywhere, seeing anything, anywhere, and feeling you MUST copy it. if you're older than 2 years old & doing this you have a mental problem, this is not normal for adults.
"Sometimes the term “coercion” is used in popular speech with a quite broad sense. For instance, one hears “coercion” used to describe social pressures; or the constraining or manipulative effects of advertising, one's upbringing, or the structuring of society more generally. It is also sometimes treated as a quite general concept encompassing almost any sort of interpersonal infringement on one's rights."
In the corporate world, free market mantra is most often used as a cloak for fascism.
In the grassroots world, it is used in favor of proposals of a debt-free currency system, SOME of which propose a return to a metal currency standard. In exceptional cases, it is used to attract people to a monetary system where money is issued by the full faith and credit of the government such that it corresponds to tangible productivity to a greater extent than is possible with a metal currency standard.
@kmarinas86 there is no productivity greater than possible with a metal currency. Fiat only steals from people by central decree where people who otherwise have tangible gold & silver money refuse to be robbed & you can't just take something without a gun. This is stealing with less use (not zero) of guns. It's not efficient or productive, it's central bank command+control empire.
"there is no productivity greater than possible with a metal currency." This is only true if the issuance of metal varies proportionately with economic activity. This was possible in the early days when you had massive gold rushes and only a few developing countries. Today it's not. Countries like China need their companies to cash in their profits as a prerequisite for growth, but the rate of cash profit required exceeds the growth in the quantity of gold, silver, etc. on the market.
@kmarinas86 it's impossible for metal production to be anything BUT correlated, proportional, to economic activity because it is an economic activity. It depends on food, energy & machine prices & it feeds into later construction prices & many metals are often found together, although one might find concentrations of gold or of silver. "cash in your profits" : no. This is only a manifestation of the influence of centrally-controlled debt-notes & otherwise doesn't happen.
"'cash in your profits' : no. This is only a manifestation of the influence of centrally-controlled debt-notes & otherwise doesn't happen."
You're making the assumption that cash is the same as fiat. Cash covers more than fiat. Cash includes metal coins. Learn the words you use to make your arguments. Otherwise they will lack sense.
When I said "issuance of metal" I was not referring to rate of issuance, but rather the accumulated issuance of metal over time, which can only increase if the metal is not lost at a faster rate than it is mined. If you are going to have profits, you will of course need revenues to exceed expenses. If markets profit on average 10%, then a 10% money supply growth minimum is required to sustain that, and any less than this mathematically entails false income reporting (i.e. fraud).
I am tired of hearing those rants by so many Americans, whom can't understand a person with an accent. This economist is very well versed, and not at all hard to understand, at least linguistically. People who have troubles understanding,(and I say this in all humbleness) please travel outside of your radius of comfort to see the world. You might get to know more people that speak English with all kinds of different accents, and you might just learn something and get accustomed to it.
@RedGaribaldi The book is actually well structured and well written. I think its the linguistic barrier which makes this interview one of the "least enlightening," due to Chang's accent- an assertion I do not agree with. But, I assure you, his writing style is lucid and convincing.
@RedGaribaldi This economist has a lot of wisdom and depth, what you probably don't like is him not being a sensationalalist. Also your comment is typical of a very shallow mind.
@thebytegrill In my humble opinion he is a well-intentioned but uninspiring and 'safe' heterodox economist who clings to the idea of capitalism with a human face.
For this reason (his belief in a reformed capitalism that has humanistic 'rules'), I'm sure he will be a favourite with coffee-shop Guardian/New York Times/Huffington post readers and sell a lot of books. He's a little bit nonconformist, a little bit lefty, a little bit unorthodox. But a little bit is not enough for me. Sorry.
my impression about why share-holder & trading of shares ownership is good, is despite problems, shareholders can pull out when they feel too much is wrong, shareholders can buy in at low prices when perhaps the company needs the money the most & big shareholders have a say at the table. Some won't. I'm a swing-trader so I never do anything but profit in paper from shares (for now). I also refuse to buy into companies that act unethically by my standards no matter the profits passed by
re 3 min 30 sec "unholy alliance" ? We call this FREEDOM. People can choose to do bad things or can be stupid but we can't legislate or otherwise restructure business for that. It's not fraud. It's not theft. It's not force. It might be stupidity or impatience causing a problem. As for CEO's doing bad things, customers & shareholders can get informed & STAY away from those companies. I do, best I can, to punish bad companies & hopefully bad CEO's.
@ytgv3fc7 No, you call THIS robbery. Freedom does not mean that you can steal or take more than is required to live a full life. That is GREED. The problem is fear of death and greed. As citizens, it is our duty to legislate behavior that could harm the body politic. If you want to live in the wild, wild west--devoid of rules---then you should slide into the nearest John Wayne western. As for the rest of us, we WILL hold people accountable when they engage in criminal activity.
@SandCmpbll maybe you are miscalculating what it does take to live a full life. If I estimate my remaining life-span to be about 80 years maximum & calculate how much gold + silver purchasing is required to do that, I'd estimate either 4 gold ounces or 200 silver ounces, depending on fluctuation ratios, per year, just to survive & not in any way look or feel wealthy. It is absolutely NOT our duty to protect the body politic - it is our duty to protect ourselves FROM the body politic.
@SandCmpbll if you seek to take what I have earned against my will then you will be the robber. If that's how it turns out then you will find out how wild, wild west it is. I play for keeps.
re 3 min 50 portion: sacking everyone & investing in nothing is bad fundamentals & some investors are still informed fundamentals-investors. A blind computer algorithm might not see what's wrong but a person letting their computer invest FOR them is an idiot. I use mine to predict prices, very accurately, but I still do what I can to be informed about what is not in the prices, revenue, what is wrong, what is an action now (like mining exploration) for future benefit (selling products)
@RedGaribaldi I do not agree, I think he's primarily an academic not an activist, so his conclusions will naturally be more conservative. In terms of scholarship Ha-Joon Chang is among the best economic historians, I would urge everyone to read "Kicking Away the Ladder". You might dislike the tone, which is relatively conservative as already mentioned, but you have to admire the content.
stupidity! Companies need to serve the interest of the consumers if they want to serve their own interest. This is not a criticism of capitalism just of the structure of ownership of any given company.
No, public ownership is bad, SOCIAL ownership is good! Companies can be owned by their workers or by consumers without coercive government intervention. The government is a mob; companies should be owned by voluntary associations of workers and consumers (i.e.- cooperatives)
QuatFax 10 months ago
Worker self-management is the way to go. Companies like Mondragon are, at least to some extent, owned and managed by their workers. Mondragon is one of the most successful, innovative businesses in Spain, and it is essentially a federation of worker coops. The same is true of the worker cooperatives in Emilia-Romagna, France, and Argentina. Workers are perfectly capable of taking control of production. AND THEY DON'T NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO DO IT!!!!!!!!!!
QuatFax 10 months ago
@AugustusOctavianus You imply a disparity that doesn't exist. Companies like Goldman-Sachs wouldn't exist without the government. In a totally free market (i.e.- no government intervention at all), the economy would be dominated by small businesses, many of which would be owned and managed by their workers.
QuatFax 10 months ago
@QuatFax
"In a totally free market (i.e.- no government intervention at all), the economy would be dominated by small businesses, many of which would be owned and managed by their workers."
So you are claiming that a small business cannot grow into a large one taking control of most of an industry without government assistance. Any proof of this? I have not seen an economy without any government. I do not think that a country can even exist without a government to define its territories.
kmarinas86 10 months ago
@kmarinas86 I'm saying that natural diseconomies of scale (such as transportation and protection of property) would, in a free market, limit the size that a firm could reach before it stopped being profitable. These diseconomies of scale exist in the real world, but they are compromised by government regulation and subsidiation.
The fact that no such society has existed yet doesn't mean one can't exist. Until 1800, there were probably no societies without slavery. But clearly they can exist.
QuatFax 10 months ago
Ha Joon Chang I think is Implying on the nature of MUTANT CAPITALISM! he is very right on most of the issues he talks about...
marumito 10 months ago
@AugustusOctavianus
"Also, politicians shouldn't have the freedom to invest in companies in which they may be able to help in terms of changing laws. It's soo simple. Just make it illegal to do these things..."
Simple? That's ridiculous.
kmarinas86 10 months ago
@AugustusOctavianus On top of that, corporate shareholders were the driving force behind corporatism and the CEO's the architects.
"the allowance of government officials to accept monies from anyone they like!"
Why do you think this is?!?!
spartan2600 10 months ago
@AugustusOctavianus I don't understand why it can't be both- greedy shareholders who can't think beyond next quarter's earnings and business corruption of democracy.
spartan2600 10 months ago
@AugustusOctavianus Yeah so, he might not have said it in the interview, but Ha-Joon Chang would agree with you that big economic actors invest in controlling government policy. He's written about these types of problems in "Bad Samaritan."
Uwoiame 10 months ago
Welcome to Chinese hypocrisy! They turned the population into slaves with "humanist" justifications. First they were building communism, now they are just socialist and nationalistic to the core. Anyhow, an oligarchy lives well without the risks of capitalist competition. Whenever they criticize American capitalism they should be reminded that the little people acquired decent standards of living only in free market societies.
schmoukiz 11 months ago
@schmoukiz He's Korean.
Uwoiame 10 months ago
@Uwoiame :))) maybe he's from the North
schmoukiz 10 months ago
Hanoo Ching Chang Choong Chong rocks!
grease714 11 months ago
this guy is a sham......he even admints we dont have real capitalism but proceds to speak against it....againts a free market which we dont have....
mtklaric 11 months ago
@AugustusOctavianus business ethics? WTF have business ethics got to do with a shareholder who has a portfolio of however many shares that they never bother to check up on and then wonder why they are getting a** raped by corporations every whch way they turn. If you choose to acquire shares od anything you better play an active role or YOU will be to blame for not pulling the reigns when things go wrong.
I bet you blame referees when sporting teams lose games as well. You're backward.
venuecam 11 months ago
@AugustusOctavianus difference between ur rambant excuse for an analogy and my analogy is that I tried to explain it to you so you could comprehend what was going on. Shareholders are the ONLY ones responsible when a company/corporation does something wrong. Shareholders decide with their vote/shares what happens and can shape a company with their shares. Shareholders can have a CEO REMOVED if their investment is being abused. Shareholders ARE the company therefore shareholders ARE responsible.
venuecam 11 months ago
I love guys like this, they always write books like this, lets put some socialism into capitalism. Does he think the company owners who pretty much run the country let that happen? They are working on having less public ownership, not more. More public ownership is almost sacrilegious.
rring88 11 months ago
There should be a law like this;
The CEO can not have a salary (including bonuses etc) larger than 10 x the least payed worker in the company + 100 dollars per employee.
That will encourage companies to pay higher salaries, and to employ more people.
DrakeIcn 11 months ago
@AugustusOctavianus so shareholders , who demand incessant returns, most of them these days who have shares managed through portfolios and who NEVER know exactly where their money is being invested, are NOT to blame?
That would be akin to saying that the owner of a rabid dog is not responsible for the dog attacking and mauling a small child.
venuecam 11 months ago
I think Paul Jay should interview the most dangerous philosopher in the West Slavoj Zizek. He's a brilliant thinker. However, he does have a bad accent... So I suppose he can't be smart unless he has an American or British accent lol.
Alberto2382 11 months ago
Unfortunately no one asks the big questions anymore as Zizek would say. Will there be capitalism? Will there still be nation-state's? All of us are de-facto Fukayama's. As Mr.Chang himself indicates capitalism itself is inconsistent with it's own values and constantly going through periods of turbulence. Today's ecological, social, bio-genetic and economic problems are so large that the "free" market nor the state can handle. We need an emancipatory radical left more than ever.!
Alberto2382 11 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
got his book
xknowledgeisfreex 11 months ago
The Elites shelter their wealth from Corporate demise.
mba2ceo 11 months ago
da da da
khanriza 11 months ago
They don't tell you that the game is rigged either....the FED prints the money backed by nothing and sets the interest rates!....shame on you Paul Jay.
I also will not be buying Ho-Joon Chang's book either.
xxbobdeexx 11 months ago
@xxbobdeexx the money isn't backed by nothing. it's backed by the laws of supply and demand. and if free markets worked the way the theorist claim they should, interest rates being too high or low shouldn't be a problem. get over your ron paul nonsense. no one expects you to buy anything without ron paul's name on it. we all ready know you're completely brainwashed.
iluminatr462 11 months ago
@iluminatr462 um."The money isnt backed by nothing"? Watch your double negatives. The money IS backed by nothing, unless you mean to say it is backed by the labour of the PEOPLE, then yes but it is NOT backed by anything else (or gold & silver) as those two commodities were taken as security when the country went bankrupt after the great depression. Think about it.
venuecam 11 months ago
@venuecam if you wanna give grammar lessons, you should really learn how to use puncuation first, genius. and if you're gonna respond to my comment try addressing my comment. give me something to think about and i will. vacuous platitudes don't inspire thought.
iluminatr462 11 months ago
@iluminatr462 I'll tell ya what...when the idiots at the helm crash the system go try and buy some hard goods with your supply and demand backed paper. If the free markets worked the way the theorist claim??? theorists? theorists determine how free markets work or run? Interest rates being to high or low shouldn't be a problem? Unreal. I never mentioned Ron Paul but I'll tell ya what I'll take Ron Paul and you can have Ho-Joon Chang. It appears you left thinking for left thinking.
xxbobdeexx 11 months ago
@xxbobdeexx please learn how to read if you want to reply any further. and quit making insane inferences and speaking in platitudes. it's really fucking obnoxious.
iluminatr462 11 months ago
@xxbobdeexx I agree about The FED printing the money supply. But the money is backed by the PEOPLE's labour if anything. And yes FED notes are as worthless as monopoly money... or was that the other way around?
venuecam 11 months ago
CAPITALISM: Is that they system where a grandfather subsidizes the weaker grandson with the share of inheritance money that should have gone to the more independent granddaughter-- maintaining the status of the all-important family name?
carefulcarpenter 11 months ago
we don't have a free market. we have a market controlled by a super wealthy family(Rothschilds) who use other super wealthy families(much less combined than Rothschilds) who in turn use media and political front men to do their bidding. they must not believe in God because they would know that their are terrible consequences for their oppression.
stanjz 11 months ago
@stanjz believing in god isn't important. Believing in electrons & paper notes which are controlling debt which no one can issue at will except the central dictatorship, that is a problem, and calling this "money" (it is not money, it is debt) is even more a problem. This article of faith, being born into the Matrix, is what keeps people enslaved. They know only this so they will work very hard to protect it even if it is their prison.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
Countdown to even more cries from ideologues, "THAT'S NOT THE REAL CAPITALISM!!!!! THAT ISN'T REAL CAPITALISM!!!! THAT'S 'CORPORATISM'!!!! RON PAUL SAID SO!!!!"
Give it a break, guys.
juliaisafilmbuff123 11 months ago 18
@juliaisafilmbuff123 you could at least spell ideology correctly if you want to be taken seriously.
FutureKnut 6 months ago
@FutureKnut You could at least understand what the word ideologue means before you attempt to be a grammar fascist.
Epic fail.
justnotcricket 6 months ago
@justnotcricket sorry my bad, on the positive side I've learn't something new, thank you.
FutureKnut 6 months ago
@FutureKnut Fair enough, maybe the failure wasn't that epic :)
justnotcricket 6 months ago
Not this Ivory tower idiiot again. WE DONT HAVE CAPITALISM IN AMERICA>
We have a corporate plutocracy. Mr. Wang/wong needs to get out more.
A terrible interview.
cpgone 11 months ago
@cpgone How do you define "capitalism"?
juliaisafilmbuff123 11 months ago
@cpgone
What does this have to do with capitalism? If your government can practically be bought by corporations, so that you have a plutocracy, then that's a political problem and it doesn't mean that you don't have capitalism, it just means that your politcians are corrupt.
xknowledgeisfreex 11 months ago
@cpgone Plutocracy and corporatism are inevitable consequences of a free market.
You can not separate the two. It would be like saying that you did not expect a potato flower to grow after you planted the potato.
DrakeIcn 11 months ago
@DrakeIcn "@cpgone Plutocracy and corporatism are inevitable consequences of a free market." Maybe.
When the lobbyists twist the laws to benefit the elite then it happens. It doesn't have to be that way.
BUt you got a point. The elites are going to ride it all into the ground ,board the jets, wait for the dust to clear
and come back to buy it for chicken feed.
cpgone 11 months ago
@DrakeIcn plutocracy & corporatism are the natural condition of tribal humanity - it doesn't matter if we have free markets or not. People will collect together the powerful, the followers and form what acts like & owns what is typical of a corporation to form a plutocracy. It is only by CULTURE, by rules, by laws, that we can stop such a thing.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
Weak Sauce!!!
ameshabyebye 11 months ago
Allowing companies to have "private" shareholders inexorably leads to Fascism. The only kind of shareholding that wouldn't do that is where CUSTOMERS own all profits as shares, where if I buy a McD's hamburger, I own a share in McD's. In my view, this has never been tried, for those representing a small percentage of consumers of a product (i.e. holders of private and/or public stock of the company and/or employees, as in employee stock-ownership) tend to have 100% control over a company.
kmarinas86 11 months ago
@kmarinas86 private ownership by shares or other means of a company that is not a part of government is precisely NOT Fascism. Fascism requires corporate GOVERNMENT not private ownership of shares of any company. You are not allowed to change definitions from reality & remain credible.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
I said that, "Allowing companies to have 'private' shareholders inexorably leads to Fascism." I didn't say that "Allowing companies to have 'private' shareholders" is Fascism. You are not allowed to misinterpret what I said & remain credible.
kmarinas86 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
In other words, something that is precisely NOT Fascism (i.e. "private ownership of shares") can lead to a process (accumulation of private wealth through disproportionate private ownership of profits -> using private wealth to lobby government for special privileges -> corporate welfare) the result of which is Fascism.
kmarinas86 11 months ago
@AugustusOctavianus
How can you prevent govt officials from receiving money from anyone they like? Whether you have a law or not the money flows, in your face or covertly. The incentive and root of this problem is govt being involved in commerce so much. You remove this ability then people cannot lobby for economic privileges.
asperin 11 months ago
@asperin
"Whether you have a law or not the money flows, in your face or covertly. The incentive and root of this problem is govt being involved in commerce so much. You remove this ability then people cannot lobby for economic privileges."
All lobbying takes is a load of cash and a message to send, so if you want the government to not be involved in commerce, you'll have to make sure no in business wants to influence the government for their own benefit.
kmarinas86 11 months ago
@kmarinas86
And how do you stop businesses from wanting to influence the govt?
asperin 10 months ago
@asperin
"And how do you stop businesses from wanting to influence the govt?"
The reality is that you can't. Even if you use force, you can't.
As long as people work for a business, this won't change.
The only things which can stop business from doing this is making business irrelevant in the world. Anybody who doubts that humanity could be free from the obligation to work anytime soon would laugh at that notion. Any notion of attaining it would simply beyond most people's comprehension.
kmarinas86 10 months ago
@asperin you can remove politicians from office, if you have the balls, for ever being caught using money from elsewhere, thereby ensuring whoever is busted is out. For now we have no such system. We should push for something like it.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
That still does not remove the ability for govt to intrude commerce. That should be the priority, making commerce as private(and voluntary) as possible.
asperin 10 months ago
"This is because of the import of cheap goods from China and the inability to create quality products that other people will buy!!!!"
You forgot to state the causes::::People with wealth know they can make more money if they fire expensive workers in the first world and hire cheap abundant labor in the third world. Cheaper processes of course mean non-quality products and more money for Goldman and their ilk. It has nothing to do with "inability" of the Chinese people.
kmarinas86 11 months ago
@AugustusOctavianus If you think closely everyday everybody around the world spend their money in thing they do not want such taxes.. Why is that every time someone criticizes or wishes to reform capitalism ends up marginalised as a communist? Maybe just common idiosyncrasy
LadyCharlotte 11 months ago
Comment removed
kmarinas86 11 months ago
@AugustusOctavianus
"You CAN'T force people to spend THEIR money on things THEY don't don't want to do."
Ever heard of McAdvertising?
kmarinas86 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AugustusOctavianus
"You CAN'T force people to spend THEIR money on things THEY don't don't want to do. Unless you want Fascism or Communism..."
Even if fascism and communism disappeared, idiot boxes, product propaganda, classified ads, and sales pitches would each be enough to coerce people into spending money, which they would rather save, on things they are influenced to want, yet don't want to make.... so I disagree with you.
kmarinas86 11 months ago
@kmarinas86 coercive ads are not force. Blocking all access to food & water then forcing people to trade for it is force. As in violence. As in threats of death & physical suffering.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
"coercive ads are not force."
Coerciveness implies coercion. Coercion implies force. Try to prove me wrong about that. You can't.
kmarinas86 11 months ago
@kmarinas86 I just proved you wrong twice. Ads have no force, all claims that coercion is force are wrong.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
You are wrong.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/coercion/
"Sometimes the term “coercion” is used in popular speech with a quite broad sense. For instance, one hears “coercion” used to describe social pressures; or the constraining or manipulative effects of advertising, one's upbringing, or the structuring of society more generally. It is also sometimes treated as a quite general concept encompassing almost any sort of interpersonal infringement on one's rights."
kmarinas86 11 months ago
@kmarinas86 Now you've been proven wrong THREE TIMES. Advertising is no more manipulative - which is to say not at all - than hearing anything, anywhere, seeing anything, anywhere, and feeling you MUST copy it. if you're older than 2 years old & doing this you have a mental problem, this is not normal for adults.
ytgv3fc7 10 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
You are wrong.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/coercion/
"Sometimes the term “coercion” is used in popular speech with a quite broad sense. For instance, one hears “coercion” used to describe social pressures; or the constraining or manipulative effects of advertising, one's upbringing, or the structuring of society more generally. It is also sometimes treated as a quite general concept encompassing almost any sort of interpersonal infringement on one's rights."
kmarinas86 10 months ago
Comment removed
kmarinas86 11 months ago
In the corporate world, free market mantra is most often used as a cloak for fascism.
In the grassroots world, it is used in favor of proposals of a debt-free currency system, SOME of which propose a return to a metal currency standard. In exceptional cases, it is used to attract people to a monetary system where money is issued by the full faith and credit of the government such that it corresponds to tangible productivity to a greater extent than is possible with a metal currency standard.
kmarinas86 11 months ago
@kmarinas86 there is no productivity greater than possible with a metal currency. Fiat only steals from people by central decree where people who otherwise have tangible gold & silver money refuse to be robbed & you can't just take something without a gun. This is stealing with less use (not zero) of guns. It's not efficient or productive, it's central bank command+control empire.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
"there is no productivity greater than possible with a metal currency." This is only true if the issuance of metal varies proportionately with economic activity. This was possible in the early days when you had massive gold rushes and only a few developing countries. Today it's not. Countries like China need their companies to cash in their profits as a prerequisite for growth, but the rate of cash profit required exceeds the growth in the quantity of gold, silver, etc. on the market.
kmarinas86 11 months ago
@kmarinas86 it's impossible for metal production to be anything BUT correlated, proportional, to economic activity because it is an economic activity. It depends on food, energy & machine prices & it feeds into later construction prices & many metals are often found together, although one might find concentrations of gold or of silver. "cash in your profits" : no. This is only a manifestation of the influence of centrally-controlled debt-notes & otherwise doesn't happen.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
"it's impossible for metal production to be anything BUT correlated, proportional, to economic activity because it is an economic activity."
Nonsense. The quantity of metal does not go down in economic recession.
kmarinas86 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
"'cash in your profits' : no. This is only a manifestation of the influence of centrally-controlled debt-notes & otherwise doesn't happen."
You're making the assumption that cash is the same as fiat. Cash covers more than fiat. Cash includes metal coins. Learn the words you use to make your arguments. Otherwise they will lack sense.
kmarinas86 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7
When I said "issuance of metal" I was not referring to rate of issuance, but rather the accumulated issuance of metal over time, which can only increase if the metal is not lost at a faster rate than it is mined. If you are going to have profits, you will of course need revenues to exceed expenses. If markets profit on average 10%, then a 10% money supply growth minimum is required to sustain that, and any less than this mathematically entails false income reporting (i.e. fraud).
kmarinas86 11 months ago
2:56 that your company is ah da taken over by ah nya hostile da da :( nya oink
Diosukekun 11 months ago
He sounds like Mrs. Swan from MAD TV. Either way, I think the guys is great and love many of these ideas.
atheistveganheathan 11 months ago
I am tired of hearing those rants by so many Americans, whom can't understand a person with an accent. This economist is very well versed, and not at all hard to understand, at least linguistically. People who have troubles understanding,(and I say this in all humbleness) please travel outside of your radius of comfort to see the world. You might get to know more people that speak English with all kinds of different accents, and you might just learn something and get accustomed to it.
covertcovenant 11 months ago 2
Sorry TRNN, I really appreciate your work, but this interview has been one of your least enlightening.
Suffice to say I won't be buying Ho-Joon Chang's book!
RedGaribaldi 11 months ago
@RedGaribaldi The book is actually well structured and well written. I think its the linguistic barrier which makes this interview one of the "least enlightening," due to Chang's accent- an assertion I do not agree with. But, I assure you, his writing style is lucid and convincing.
2pac4life7777 11 months ago
@2pac4life7777 Nothing to do with his accent, I just don't think he has anything original or interesting to say.
RedGaribaldi 11 months ago
@RedGaribaldi This economist has a lot of wisdom and depth, what you probably don't like is him not being a sensationalalist. Also your comment is typical of a very shallow mind.
thebytegrill 11 months ago
@thebytegrill In my humble opinion he is a well-intentioned but uninspiring and 'safe' heterodox economist who clings to the idea of capitalism with a human face.
For this reason (his belief in a reformed capitalism that has humanistic 'rules'), I'm sure he will be a favourite with coffee-shop Guardian/New York Times/Huffington post readers and sell a lot of books. He's a little bit nonconformist, a little bit lefty, a little bit unorthodox. But a little bit is not enough for me. Sorry.
RedGaribaldi 11 months ago 5
@RedGaribaldi Then move somewhere you can be happy
mikeoli 11 months ago
@RedGaribaldi
Well said!
Alberto2382 11 months ago
my impression about why share-holder & trading of shares ownership is good, is despite problems, shareholders can pull out when they feel too much is wrong, shareholders can buy in at low prices when perhaps the company needs the money the most & big shareholders have a say at the table. Some won't. I'm a swing-trader so I never do anything but profit in paper from shares (for now). I also refuse to buy into companies that act unethically by my standards no matter the profits passed by
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
re 3 min 30 sec "unholy alliance" ? We call this FREEDOM. People can choose to do bad things or can be stupid but we can't legislate or otherwise restructure business for that. It's not fraud. It's not theft. It's not force. It might be stupidity or impatience causing a problem. As for CEO's doing bad things, customers & shareholders can get informed & STAY away from those companies. I do, best I can, to punish bad companies & hopefully bad CEO's.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@ytgv3fc7 No, you call THIS robbery. Freedom does not mean that you can steal or take more than is required to live a full life. That is GREED. The problem is fear of death and greed. As citizens, it is our duty to legislate behavior that could harm the body politic. If you want to live in the wild, wild west--devoid of rules---then you should slide into the nearest John Wayne western. As for the rest of us, we WILL hold people accountable when they engage in criminal activity.
SandCmpbll 11 months ago
@SandCmpbll maybe you are miscalculating what it does take to live a full life. If I estimate my remaining life-span to be about 80 years maximum & calculate how much gold + silver purchasing is required to do that, I'd estimate either 4 gold ounces or 200 silver ounces, depending on fluctuation ratios, per year, just to survive & not in any way look or feel wealthy. It is absolutely NOT our duty to protect the body politic - it is our duty to protect ourselves FROM the body politic.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@SandCmpbll if you seek to take what I have earned against my will then you will be the robber. If that's how it turns out then you will find out how wild, wild west it is. I play for keeps.
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
re 3 min 50 portion: sacking everyone & investing in nothing is bad fundamentals & some investors are still informed fundamentals-investors. A blind computer algorithm might not see what's wrong but a person letting their computer invest FOR them is an idiot. I use mine to predict prices, very accurately, but I still do what I can to be informed about what is not in the prices, revenue, what is wrong, what is an action now (like mining exploration) for future benefit (selling products)
ytgv3fc7 11 months ago
@RedGaribaldi I do not agree, I think he's primarily an academic not an activist, so his conclusions will naturally be more conservative. In terms of scholarship Ha-Joon Chang is among the best economic historians, I would urge everyone to read "Kicking Away the Ladder". You might dislike the tone, which is relatively conservative as already mentioned, but you have to admire the content.
Cosbibi 11 months ago
The failure of shareholder capitalism
salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/29/failure_of_shareholder_capitalism/
ari100teles 11 months ago
Comment removed
ari100teles 11 months ago
stupidity! Companies need to serve the interest of the consumers if they want to serve their own interest. This is not a criticism of capitalism just of the structure of ownership of any given company.
ferrozm 11 months ago
Baadap bup ba daa, I'm loving it.
Joeybagadounuts08 11 months ago 2