TO CALL IT QUITS -- OR, SOMEONE ELSE CALLS IT QUITS FOR THEM IF U KNOW WHAT I MEAN. IN ALMOST ALL CASES, WHERE DO THESE PPL GO? COMPETITORS? NOT UNLESS THEY GOT OFFERED HIGHER PAY. FOR THE BURNOUTS/LAYOFFS (AGAIN, MOST), THEY DO SOME SIGNIFICANTLY SHITTIER JOB WITH LIKE HALF PAY LIKE BE AN ACCOUNTANT OR SOMETHING.
WALL STREET = POOR COMPARED TO COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS / TIER 1 ENTREPRENEURS. THE IDEA OF 'OWNING' THINGS.
PPL ON WALL STREET, COMPARED TO THE GENERAL PERCEPTION, MAKE NOTHING. $150K FOR AN ANALYST - 40% - MANHATTAN RENT - MANHATTAN UHH RECREATION - MANHATTAN FOOD = LIKE NOTHING. AND THESE PPL WORK AT LEAST 14 HOURS A DAY. AND MOST -- YES MOST -- EITHER BURN OUT WITHIN 4 YEARS OR THEY FALL WITHIN THE 'JOB CUTS' CATEGORY. AND A LOT ARE FULLY AWARE OF THIS, SO EVEN THE NOT-SO-MUCH MONEY THAT THEY HAVE LEFT OVER IS MONEY THAT THEY GOTTA SAVE IN THE EVENT THAT THEY COME
INVESTING IN THE MARKET (STOCK MARKET) IS SOMETHING I WOULDN'T DO. IM A COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER. ON A BASIC LEVEL, WHEN INVEST IN LAND-
ACTUALLY IM GUNNA GET CARRIED AWAY WITH THIS SO ILL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
PPL WHO OWN PROPERTY -- EVEN IF ITS SOME APARTMENT OR CONDO IN SOME SHITTY AREA -- THAT IS GUARANTEED CASH FLOW (PPL RENTING IT OUT; WHAT Y-O-U OWN) AND IF YOU OWN MULTIPLE -- WELL, LETS JUST SAY YOU COULD BE SLEEPING AT NIGHT AND BE GENERATING MONEY. ONCE YOU START OWNING
THE PRINCIPAL REASON WHY CHINA WAS BOOMING IS NOT BC OF INNOVATION (THEY HAVE 0 I JUST DEMONSTRATED WHY). IT WAS BC OF 'CHEAP LABOR'
'CHEAP LABOR'
WHAT WILL BE THE ACHILLES HEEL FOR THAT ECONOMY IS IF/WHEN THOSE FACTORY WORKERS COLLECTIVELY SAY: "THIS IS BULLSHIT. I WANT WHAT AMERICANS WANNA GET PAID." WHAT WOULD HAPPEN THEN IS THE MANUFACTURING JOBS WOULD GO BACK TO THE U.S (COMPANIES HAVING TO PAY SIGNIFICANTLY MORE OF COURSE)
T EXAMPLE. IF UR MAKING APPLE PRODUCTS, AND IT'S BEING SOLD IN CHINA, APPLE'S BOTTOM LINE SHOULD GO UP. NOW, WHEN YOU HAVE A FAKE APPLE PRODUCT, THAT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING; DOESN'T DO SHIT FOR APPLE (HENCE THE U.S ECONOMY. AND THE KIND OF MONEY WE NEED IS MONEY F-R-O-M OTHER COUNTRIES).
PIRACY IS A BIG FUCKING PROBLEM. AND AGAIN: VIRTUALLY NO REGULATIONS IN CHINA. SO IT'S RAMPANT. YOU WANNA INVEST IN A COUNTRY LIKE THAT? NOT ME. IF I EVER DO IT'S NOT BC CHINA IS HOT SHIT; IT'S BC US AND E
ASIAN COMPANY COMES ALONG, TOTALLY BITES-OFF THAT IDEA; ESSENTIALLY MAKING IT A REPLICATE THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BEING YOU GOT AN ASIAN NAME LIKE 'BAIDU' NOT WHAT IT SHOULD BE 'BITE-OFF-OF-GOOGLE'
THE MOST PROFOUND PRODUCTS AND SERVICES THAT HAS COME OUT FOR DECADES HAS ALWAYS BEEN FROM ONE CONTINENT: THE U.S OF A.
THE "CURRENCY MANIPULATING" THING IS WAY OVERBLOWN AND OVERSTATED. QE 1 2 ETC. CAN BE ARGUED AS CURRENCY MANIPULATING. WHAT IS SERIOUS, HOWEVER, IS PIRACY. AND THAT'S ANOTHER GREA
REGULATED, YOU CAN REST ASSURED THAT YOUR MONEY IS BEING INVESTED AND YOU WON'T GET ANY UNEXPECTED CURVE BALLS THROWN AT YOU (OTHER THAN MARKET/EVENT RISK ETC. ETC. OF COURSE)
THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T INVEST IN CHINA. AND LOOK AT CHINA -- THERE'S A COMPANY CALLED 'BAIDU'. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY A COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE BITEOFF OF GOOGLE AND BING. HERE'S WHAT HAPPENS:
AN AMERICAN INNOVATOR COMES ALONG (OPERATING WITHIN AMERICAN GUIDELINES). HE CREATES THE 'NEXT GREAT THING'. OK?
TAKING A BIG RISK. FOR EXAMPLE: IF U INVESTED IN COMPANY ABC AND ALL THE HEADLINES AND REPORTS ARE THAT ABC IS THE BEST COMPANY ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET, AND ONE DAY, OUT OF NOWHERE, U FIND OUT THAT COMPANY ABC IS CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY, YOU CAN'T REALLY GO: "WHAT THE FUCK?!"
WHEN YOU INVEST IN ANYTHING THAT IS LIGHTLY OR EVEN MODERATELY REGULATED, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WTF IS HAPPENING TO UR MONEY; YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHERE IT'S GOING. CONVERSELY, IF YOU KNOW THAT THE COUNTRY YOU INVEST IN IS TIGHTLY
#2: THE REASON ASIA HAS BEEN DOING WELL FOR THE PAST ~2-3 YEARS UP UNTIL RECENTLY IS NOT BC THEY'RE SOME BADASS INNOVATIVE GREAT ECONOMY -- IT'S MORE BC WE HAVE ALL THESE HIPPIES AND SHITHEADS LIKE THE ows LOSERS AND ARE BASICALLY KICKING OURSELVES OVER AND OVER
ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY THE U.S OR EVEN EUROPE, AS BAD AS THEY ARE, IS AND WILL BE BETTER THAN ASIA IS BECAUSE: REGULATIONS.
HERE'S WHY.
IF YOU INVEST IN A COMPANY THAT HAS VERY FEW GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS, YOU ARE
OK. I HAD TO DO 'TESTING' BC IF I GOT A 'COMMENT PENDING APPROVAL!' IT WOULD NOT BE APPROVED BY THIS LOSER
OK
WHERE TO BEGIN-
WHAT I THINK ABOUT THESE IODIOTS (CHIEF AMONG THENM : jamie WITH HIS HAIRY ASSHOLE) WHEN IT COMES TO REGULATIONS IS THEY'VE GOTTEN AWAY AND USED TO DOING UENTHICAL SHIT FOR SO LONG THAT IT'S DEEPLY EMBEDDED IN THEIR MINDS. THEY'VE NEVER BEEN CONFRONTED WITH DOING BAD SHIT THAT THEY THINK THEY'RE ALMOST ENTITLED TO DO THINGS THE WAY THEY'VE ALWAYS DONE IT.
Why I can see a lot of flagged as spam comments here? Anyway, I just wanna say you have a good job Peter! Keep sharing your knowledge about financial.
Although I largely agree with you on limiting government, and I see your point with the bailouts, you fail to account for what could have happened if the companies were allowed to fail. I have listened to many economists and financial experts talk about what happened, and they concur that if the government hadn't gotten involved, the crisis could have been comparable to the Great Depression.... We need to limit government involvement, but I don't know if that was a good starting point.
@koryshipp "that if the government hadn't gotten involved, the crisis could have been comparable to the Great Depression...."
That's exactly his point!!! He already commented on that in many other videos. They should have had the recession instead of a much bigger one later on. Trying to avoid recession doesn't work and makes things worse.
but Peter, sorry I don't have time to sit through all 10 minutes of your speech, you're a smart guy, but what corruption from capitalists to government and back? That revolving door that exists today? It's like criminals paying off cops and cops doing the back job regulating...which I guess you can cops, but everyone is culprit.
This is a smart guy, I just don't know how he can make "getting it" the issue, the voters are the american people. He is blunt, I love this type of "in your face" reality check. Hope the voters in conneticut hear his message.
"socialize the losses" is a lie just like "jobless recovery" is a lie. All it really means is "steal from people who aren't rich, to make rich people MORE rich" and "create more poverty now and for all the future", respectively.
for all the "benefits" and "profits" of a single large corporation, if an equal number of dollars and people and resources were in smaller companies, smaller businesses, that all co-operated on a basis of "as needed" for larger projects and "not at all" when that suited them best, efficiency would be far higher and employment would be better. Wages would be higher and that's because out-sourcing would cease to exist.
everything is not just black and white in this world. for certain things it's better to just let the gov't take care of, and that's when socialism comes into play. the real problem with the world is there're too many idiots that don't know or can't understand that something that doesn't seem right can hold a deeper meaning to it.
Seriously ytgv3fc7 Go to mises(dot)org You need to read up on Austrian Economics, and study it. Get a wake up call on how bad the economic policies have been for the last 100+ years... You will end up deleting all your comments if you had a clue. And buy Schiff's new book "How an Economy grows, and Why it Crashes", its so easy a caveman in the Marx era can understand it.
@BIackOp I did go to Mises and I found most of it is lies when attempting to describe what socialism is, what it does, what it doesn't do. I understand Austrian Economics VERY WELL. It's far better than Keynesism, far better, but it's still fucking flawed and disgraceful because of its desire to make people poor and pretend it is no one's fault. It is everyone's fault if that happens. In capitalism it MUST HAPPEN.
@ytgv3fc7 There is no desire to make people poor. You are a Marxist, you support a philosophy that a man built off of hating money, that's it. When I trade with someone, I am valuing something he has more than what I am giving to him. This idea that trades creates poverty, or that I spend my money on X but never sell something back to him makes me poorer is non sense. You are still looking at one side of the equation. You haven't read enough at Mises....
@BIackOp I am not a Marxist. Money is not to be hated or to be loved. Money is a tool like hammers, rulers and wheels. It can't be used for everything and only a fool would worship it. PROFITEERING creates poverty by transferring wealth. It is inequal trade, 100% of the time. This is capitalism. Capitalism does not include trade that is specifically non-profit. I've read enough at Mises to know it's 98% bull. The 2% that's useful is indeed OK.
@ytgv3fc7 Really? Because it sounds like you missing the value factor, what makes trade exist in the first place... And its nice you don't actually have shit to back your claims, unlike Mises... Look up Praxeology whether your at it, maybe you will stop being logical positivist in your Utopian central planning... 98% bullshit my ass, you boys couldn't explain what is wrong with markets today, deregulation blame presumes Statism works back to positivism fallacy..
@BIackOp the value factor is a lie. All existing materials and people have value but lies and fraud permit all of that to be discarded long enough to destablize the entire economy, after which, no repair is possible. NO REPAIR IS POSSIBLE. Everyone robbed simply must continue with less, fact of life. No repair, no reversal. I can tell you everything wrong with markets today and it all stems from concentrated wealth based on fraud and not executing the sources of it. Death. The real solution
@ytgv3fc7 If the value factor is a lie, than trade is meaningless, improving our lives won't matter.
You are diverting the discussion into fraud, like one of your fetishes... It must be amazing to build your economics off emotional appeals and call them facts...
You are looking at the symptoms, not the disease. Free Markets are decentralized. Command Economies will always fail, its a product of Statism. Two main divisions among Socialists both want command economies, connect the dots.
@BIackOp the only problem with economics today is accepting fraud as totally normal and a primary factor in moving money and job allocation, setting wages, marketing and more. If you deny fraud is the most important issue, you're actually part of the worst problem we could ever have. How can you be that stupid?
Decentralized markets are good but amassing high wealth ratios is bad for all societies and must be stopped.
This is fact, no emotions are required. Stop lying to yourself and everyone.
@ytgv3fc7 Austrian economics is just economics. It has no desire to make people poor - it does the opposite. Capitalism has increased the living standard exponentially. Capitalism is just a series of voluntary exchanges of goods and services - no way that can make people poor. Government, central planning, and money creation by the banks is what makes people poor.
@CohibaSkeeza impossible lies. Capitalism has exponentially increased poverty. The living standard is not ever improved by capitalism, it is improved by invention, which is improved by intellect, NOT BY MONEY. PROFITEERING is a NON-VOLUNTARY act of THEFT shadowing an act of trade and MUST MAKE PEOPLE POOR. Predatory pricing puts people out of work and starves them and MUST MAKE PEOPLE POOR, and it MUST HAPPEN in a COMPETITIVE CAPITALIST ECONOMY. MUST HAPPEN. Impossible to not happen. Period
@ytgv3fc7 Where do you live? Poverty has decreased around the world since free markets, not increased. How can a series of voluntary exchanges create poverty? Capitalism is the voluntary exchange of invention and productivity. Without it we would be catching food with our hands 24/7. "Predatory Pricing" - WTF is that? Prices are determined by the market. You don't understand what capitalism is - all sorts of BS that has nothing to do with capitalism. You are describing economic fascism.
@CohibaSkeeza Predatory Pricing is when a business charges below market rates cutting into his profits to kill his competition. Rockefeller tried it, discovering new competition emerged, leaving him back at square one deeper in the holet. If the owner decides to cut back on wages, among other vitals instruments it will create blow-back for him. (Free Market wise) His workers would go to his competitor... In any case, customers win out, workers do to unless the boss wants an uprising...
@BIackOp Oh, thanks. With all the stuff he is making up I didn't know what he was talking about. Good answer to that too. Besides, lets ignore the fact that someone who has taken their own time and money to create a product has the right to charge whatever they want. But just as you showed, it doesn't have to work and even if it did it is unlikely that any one or a few industries could take-over with this practice without the help of government.
@CohibaSkeeza And every time a Capitalist makes good profits, it invites other Capitalists coming in and drive the cost down... I am just so tired of the myth of high cost of goods, dirt wages with free markets... Just stop for a second and think that through. If workers get paid dirt, how can Capitalists take in profits in monopolies rates, if the workers who are customers don't have enough to pay for it. They would have to lower their costs, aside from competition....
@BIackOp Any time a capitalist makes good profits this STOPS others from coming in to do the same because the market is saturated. No prospective profits = high risk = find another market, don't keep fighting for this small piece of smaller pie. The high costs of goods and dirt wages are facts of life, no myths, FACTS OF LIFE EVERY DAY IN EVERY CITY. Capitalists take in profits BECAUSE of dirt wages. The employees are not ever expected to be the consumers! The consumers are other fat-cats.
@ytgv3fc7 Totally false. If I am making a lot of money giving car washes, then there is massive demand for car washes. Other people come in and do the same thing too, thus compete. This will decrease in some matter the amount of profits I make. And it will force me to constantly come up with a better system to keep an edge against the competition to have a hand up on the market. You are failing some of the basics. Dirt wages are a product of Statism, devalued currency or restrained capital.
@BIackOp and this is also where debt-bombs come in. The costs of living have been driven up with predatory inflation (this is the government's fault) and wages have been driven down by corporations (this is not the government's fault) so that debt is required as a COST OF LIVING, rather than an option to invest/gain with some risk involved. no debt = no food = no car
debt = today you can eat, even though your wages say otherwise
I won't peg that as Capitalism's fault, as this one IS a mixed prob
@BIackOp last time I checked, Rockefeller was nothing close to poor, none of the Rockefeller descendants are poor. Owners cutting back on wages suffer no consequences due to the lack of labour mobility: it costs so much to move to another place for a better job, so that when regionally all employers decide to slash wages, they stay slashed. Many workers go homeless while migrating to look for work and many stay homeless forever after, that I've seen. Customers lose as incentive is lost to work
@BIackOp this tragic loss of quality and productivity is something I'm starting to see creep up as my employer repeatedly stresses not to expect any kind of pay for performance even over the long-term, that it's all cut rate all the way and that's just too bad. I keep stressing people will leave, and people do keep leaving. The ones who work the hardest do so due to work ethic regardless of income. These are people who will leave to find better but work right & hard before such a move.
@CohibaSkeeza From what I can gather with ytgv3fc7 he doesn't see new competition emerging, and then the business charges the monopoly rate. This would only happen in a command economy, via barriers to entry, and still doesn't guarantee customers will still be willing to pay. Depending on the product, they might just do without it... Its obvious ytgv3fc7 can't tell the difference between market entrepreneurs, and political entrepreneurs. Likewise, Corporate vs. Private...
@BIackOp I think a lot of people really don't understand how a free-market actually functions and there are many lies and misconceptions that we get in school, music/movies, and media. I think a new word needs to be used to describe free markets rather than 'Capitalism' since the term has been so tarnished in the mind of the public. Any longer its just a semantic misunderstanding.
@CohibaSkeeza My original comment that stirred the nest with ytgv3fc7 was a very old quote from Ludwig Von Mises, and back then the original term to Capitalism was already charging. They even once upon a time refereed to themselves as Liberals, today known as Classic Liberals, Libertarians. Labels can really suck when they get hijacked with a new definition.. Many of us just use Free Markets to avoid the Capitalism vs Corporatism misconception. Giving the amount of mixed meanings...
@BIackOp well if you want to work with only a layer of utility, function and process, of how freely people can trade, voluntary or not, in products and services that are not fraud and don't require slavery, then of course, the less fraud the better, the more voluntary the better. But if you want to expand this further, which is somewhat unavoidable, to the power of concentrated wealth, that's where the problem starts.
@CohibaSkeeza I think you and a lot of people like you don't understand that we're all much smarter than you think, and already witness the fraud of the free markets and don't want any more of it. If you want to split into layers of utility, for which voluntary trade is a great thing in and of itself, and beyond that layer, the amassing of wealth in groups and individuals is stopped if it exceeds a damaging ratio, that would be sensible. To function a society must have near-equals.
@CohibaSkeeza the purpose of capital (and capitalism) is to have more than others, to create inequality, not equality, and to have more power from more riches. Are you manufacturing some imaginary land where money can buy power but the potential buyers are just not interested? Golden rule: those with the gold make the rules. Capitalism can't escape that fact of life.
@BIackOp I definitely do not see new competition emerging. I see any existing competition being crushed. I see it on a regular basis. This happens not due to any command economy, only due to larger capitalization leading to an ample beating implement to damage smaller companies. Customers are willing to pay because there's nowhere else to go. When it's food, water, power, there's no choice. For cell phones? Well, turns out people need them a lot for work. Turns out to be very recession-proof
@ytgv3fc7 It has nothing to do with capital, buy them off but that doesn't sustain a barrier. Only the State can sustain a barrier, thus command economy. You socialists preach the evils of Corporatism but have LITTLE understanding HOW it functions. Capital in itself is not the cause for poverty, destruction etc... Its the way they achieve this capital that matters, and if they are funded by an institution that extracts resources involuntary then you will have chaos. For every action, reaction.
@CohibaSkeeza predatory pricing is determined by the largest asset holders, not by the markets, and dominates the markets. For example, my company sold VOIP units for only $40 and $9.99/mo to run the thing. KILLED the competitions' business as they had no such offerings and further sales were stopped as soon as they were hurt bad enough, as it was too low a price. The recovery for them will be slower than our company's profit-recovery on the move. People have contracts, fees to terminate,
@CohibaSkeeza and bundles with cell phones that go with these VOIP systems. Inside the 1st year it's $200 to cancel the contract and that's per line! So now those customers have the VOIP and the 1+ cell line required to keep it. cancel everything but the VOIP and it's cancelled AUTOMATICALLY with that termination fee. predatory pricing wins the day again.
@ytgv3fc7 This is a really weak example of predatory pricing. Those customers didn't have to buy the VOIP service to begin with. Second, that company you mentioned can't sustain such a policy even intermittently. Third, customers will think twice about returning to that company so they may have hurt future business. So, I really don't understand what your point is about this pricing method. It has both rewards and risks. If they offer something another company doesn't then good for them.
@BIackOp the fact of robber barons, not a myth: all bankers are robber barons, all pawn shops are robber barons, all payday loan companies are robber barons, all businesses that employ at the lowest legal wages and import only from China and other cheapest nations to use slave labour are robber barons, and this disconnection also means wage deflation and price inflation in North America are decoupled. Wage increases can not result anymore from price increases.
@CohibaSkeeza "didn't have to buy" well think about that. If every other provider of home phone service is more than $10 then the choice is to have none, or to have $10 phone service, or to pay a higher price for the same thing. Due to the predatory pricing, the choices are usually strongly encouraged to $10, but it's not Mind Control. Our company sold the product for over a year and got lots of business due to this strategy, a lot of contracts that are expensive to break. For EACH line.
@CohibaSkeeza further to sustainability: while the product is no longer being sold, the service is being maintained for everyone who signed up for it, so for those people the sustainability is effectively forever. We haven't hurt any future business, and in fact people were cut off so fast from new offers, they're looking for even better deals and not thinking much of the competition. It's competing smartphones that give us real price trouble. No iPhones from our stores.
@CohibaSkeeza poverty has increased around the world, not decreased. Not all of it is the fault of capitalism, sometimes it's bad climate changes which people will need to live with and some of it is population expansion beyond sensible regional density limits. But some of this is indeed capitalism, putting people into "buy or die" markets for food and clean water.
Economic fascism IS CAPITALISM. That's why I'm describing it. You couldn't even argue against my "predatory pricing" example. "weak?
@ytgv3fc7 Economic Fascism is State Invention. That has nothing to do with Free Markets, if you are defining Capitalism with Free Markets then you are wrong to compare it with Fascism. Mises and other Austrians went IN-DEPTH on the subject, taking apart every Statism model of control. You are defining a Statism model of control. Predatory Pricing was debunked a long time ago.
@CohibaSkeeza "weak?" -> all that means is you admit I'm right but you really don't like the sound of it. Well, too bad, that's how it is. I didn't say differing or unique products couldn't be offered. That restriction would be nonsensical. All that matters is competition is beaten using prices lower than possible in a non-fraudulent market, like teaser rates are used for loans. Capitalism is all about fraud and being predatory.
@CohibaSkeeza HOWEVER, the scale of socialism is also an important question because the smaller the group, the more effectively that group will benefit, until it's so small not enough people have enough skill to make an adaptive unit for most situations an economy will put that group into. Something community or nation sized can work, something international likely will lead to either collapsing debt spirals or monetizing debts or merging of nations into a single sovereign "unit".
@CohibaSkeeza there's nothing about socialism that requires people to do this, of course, but human nature and economics do not exist in entirely separate universes. While the math of what needs to be produced and consumed is very far off from a piece of opinion, for survival and modest prosperity, the typical tribal behaviour of humans is to harmonize cultural and legal frameworks to think less (which is bad) which is where the supra-national merging (e.g. EU) happens (and is very bad)
@CohibaSkeeza If Austrian economics was "just economics" it would include every benefit of socialism - stopping any controller of any economy from ever existing, ensuring poverty is brought to zero, ensuring constant deflation of pricing happens due to increases in productivity, ensuring the domination of anyone using money is impossible because no concentrated holdings or actions may exist. Instead Austrian economics pretends none of this is real. That's a sad commitment to total failure.
@ytgv3fc7 So, who is going to manage all of this poverty elimination, increasing productivity, controlling all the savings, etc. ? Because you want to eliminate any controller of the economy from existence, yet I'm not sure how you want to achieve what you are talking about if not through free-markets. I also think that you think the US is a capitalist(free-market) economy - it is not. We have central banking, central planning, and massive government programs and spending.
@CohibaSkeeza I know it's complicated to swallow, because it's not a market. It's choosing survival over assets and seeing that helping others survive is better for the long-term than having long-term assets of cash/capital while refusing to help anyone else. To ensure everyone has enough to offer to one who is down and to do so in a time of need is not a market, but it is the only way to ensure survival. It's not supposed to be charity: you help people who can help you later, all a collective
@CohibaSkeeza that being said, to be voluntary, to be decentralized, to be sensible and sustainable, this can't be legally forced, this can't be controlled by a governing body but chosen by all who are able to offer this support, and the number of people needing support can't become too large to sustain (facts of life) and someone who intends to bleed everyone else dry needs to be turfed for a long while or forever from being helped (no welfare state equivalent).
@CohibaSkeeza .. is not a good example of capitalism but it used to be, and at that time it sparked such rage that people formed unions to protect wages and worker safety and this happened because capitalism made it necessary. A force had to emerge for the sake of survival to battle the force of the market (to do harm for money). If any criticism is valid, of my argument, it is that human nature does the harm and capitalism doesn't "promote" or "prevent" it. But we need a system that does avoid
@CohibaSkeeza ... avoid promoting this and this system is within reach. Awareness is needed. All people need to know they have a choice not to do harm to people and that this choice is good long-term for survival and there are profits / gains to be had but of course smaller, since thieving from people always yields higher returns for less work until you are stopped (which we can see doesn't happen). It's a choice. Everyone gets one, but only once they understand the choice is there.
Whether you like it or not, the economy IS recovering. You can either learn to read the signs and get in on it or miss out on the opportunities available - your choice.
Like Kudlow said last night to Reich, by process of elimination, you're gonna eventually come around to a theory that actually reflects reality. Hopefully your intellect will outpace your eventual death.
@tanmoy313 recovering? You mean owing more money than before, and having more people out of work, you call that recovering? That's what's happening, do you deny these facts?
@tanmoy313 every time the job report comes out it is a fraud, pretending the employment problem is not 20% and yet adding more jobless to the pile, are you on about the same propaganda and pretending the "Good News" is anything but the shittiest lie ever told?
I'll be laughing last because I'm as smart as they get. Recovery? IMPOSSIBLE. SUPER POVERTY ABSOLUTE DEPRESSION is more like it. GENERATIONAL POVERTY maximum is more like it.
@ytgv3fc7 You sound more and more mentally unhinged as you cling on to your analysis in spite of the glaring proof that you were wrong. If you had any smarts at all, you would cut your losses, admit you were wrong and start from there. Burying your head in the sand will only result in complete disaster for you. You don't have to believe me - let's just post on here over the next year and see who is right.
@tanmoy313 you're obviously incompetent, so I will just feel bad for you. Clearly the proof is that I'm right. The job reports keep stating "gaining jobs" while the unemployment rate keeps going up and that means jobs are really going down. It's called "lying" and the US & Canadian governments each frequently do this with inflation and job numbers. I know, you're a naive 10 year old, it's hard to accept Big Daddy is a Crooked Pimp. The world is what it is.
@ytgv3fc7 Wow, that's quite a few posts today. Were you off work yesterday??? How much is Schiff paying you? More importantly, how is your laughter working out for you today?
@tanmoy313 #1 I can read about 10x faster than the average person and type at 95 words per minute. I wrote before leaving for work. #2 Schiff is still a capitalist and I am still not, so Schiff wouldn't be paying me to spread his message. #3 I'm Canadian, I can agree with Schiff's sensible arguments but I have no intention of supporting his political career. Wrong nation, no point.
@tanmoy313 so, you didn't even look? You'd think someone able to peg the price of gold 3 weeks in advance might even have a clue, daily closing prices, within $20 usd. Oh well, your loss.
@tanmoy313 As for the laughter, any time there's some crazy fools out there who fail the 3 strikes, 2 for things that are obvious, the laughter is mixed value. But 1st time around is a freebie, I pity people who have been brainwashed and try to help. I killfile people who are too far gone to be helped. I happen to put a lot of time into math to model the markets and commodities, producing daily prices, aiming for 2% error or less, weeks ahead forecasting. Takes time. No time to waste on fools
@tanmoy313 if any of this is of a curiosity to you, you can go to my channel to see the comments I posted for my gold price model, all the dates, prices, test-data, error differences, the r-squared value, the math to do it all yourself to verify results or make your own unique models, all free of charge. If you post stupid assinine channel comments I'll wipe them. If they're somewhat helpful to readers I'll let them stay even if I think you're out to lunch.
Peter made a good point. If your worst enemy (the State and their cronnies) won't follow regulations (ie: constitution saying the Fed cannot do what they did and creating the laws after the fact) then what good are regulations or even more of them anyways ? It will hurt those who you shouldn't be afraid of and those who you SHOULD be afraid of will just end up not following regulations...
@StrafingMoose true. Functional regulation is the only way to stop capitalists from destroying everything , everyone who is competition, by any means BUT if all regulations are frauds and all regulators are mafia, then you're still on the brink of collapse, at best. Nations, like people, have mortality. I think we've just discovered the real life span of the USA, legally, morally, resources-wise, intellectually. America's going down like the Roman Empire.
why hasn't peter schiff chimed in on the dishonesty of the likes of goldman sach as related to our curent predicament? Is he afraid of alienating his fellow tribesmen? When the satans of banks and governments around the world are either ex-employees or trained at goldmann, why do these talking heads concentrate on "the government" and not the people who created them?
@roughcutone2 I think you got it right. Peter Schiff had the same non-answer about corporate financing of candidates. While it would be good for him personally it's bad for all of us to make it no-limits all-in because then the voice of the people becomes zero, silenced, no single person matters. We'll all have to form corporations just to get a candidate chosen, to get funding to that candidate and then we'll be voting corporations into senate office (MD state, Murray Hill corp)
@ytgv3fc7 Excellent point! According to Peter the economy is the only issue. He needs to be more open on his views that concern the freedoms of Americe and not the freedoms of himself and his wallstreet kinsmen. China has a strong economy but limited freedoms which Peter believes in and invests in whole heartedly. It's obvious I will have to join the Patriots Freedom Law Center INC. to get my views heard. (it hasn't been formed yet, just trying out the name)
If people lose faith in markets and there is no one to provide a backstop, there is nothing to stop a complete collapse.
My rebuttal to that statement is this. Throughout our early history in the 19th century we experienced different brief economic time periods known as panics. A central bank was not needed to help control these "panics".
@corysoulier Brief economic time periods known as panics? Are you just making stuff up or do you have some agenda? Among others, the financial panic of 1837 and 1873 lasted 6 years each. The financial panic of 1893 is the second worst depression in recorded history. The financial panic of 1857 caused the stock market to decline by 66%. However, it was the financial panic of 1907 when the stock market fell by 50% in a short period, that led to the creation of the Fed. Did you know any of this?
@ytgv3fc7 Yeah, Schiff and especially his minions on here have read maybe two books in Economics and both written by Rothbard and now think that they have a complete grasp on Economics. READ BOOKS BY OTHERS AS WELL. This will give you a complete perspective. Even if you disagree with them, at least you understand their arguments. Ignorance is a poor second to informed opinions.
I've read dozens of books on political economics, not all by Rothbard--a few from Milton Friedman and technically Keynes' General Theory through Hazlitt's line-by-line critique of it. (It also helps tremendous when you have a school that correctly predicts financial and monetary events whereas the largest competing school time and again fails spectacularly; how many times has Keynesianism revised itself?)
You're countering with ad hominems. If you possess this enlightened wisdom that is logically superior, then why not simply argue it instead of about it? Finally, your "volatile" perspective of "free banking" is incorrect. You had volatility when the gov't allowed banks to suspend specie payment from bank notes (which used to be simply currency warehouses and is now more fraudulent counterfeiters).
@selfrealizedexile You are jumping around all over the place like you have ADHD and are accusing me of the things that you are doing yourself. In any case, you are blabbering about theories which you don't seem to understand completely. I am not just talking theory but actually giving you examples like China, keeping their currency cheap to encourage exports, the large number of financial panics in the 19th century before the Fed was created. Your response to these points are complete rubbish.
Ad hominems your specialty? I like how your counter argument essentially comes down to "your rubbish" rather than any kind of dissection of the financial history of the 1800s.
@tanmoy313 Yeah, but we had central banking then with the supply of money being controlled by bankers. After the elimination of the central bank by Jackson there were other things going on. So, really, all the problems are due to manipulation of credit.
@tanmoy313 Yeah, manipulation in the gold markets, fed was subsidizing railroad, etc. State banks were going crazy issuing their own currency and credit notes. The stock market went through violent swings because the people who controlled it had enough influence to cause panics by spreading lies and massive sell-offs that they engineered. All that stuff was happening in no specific order to cause some of those instances you mentioned but they were not on the scale of recessions since the Fed.
The only thing that will save us is hyperinflation. Too many powerful and dangerous interests control too much money. It needs to all vanish somehow and reset.
Always view laws and regulations from the proper perspective -- legal plunder. That's all it ever is. Gov't is not your divine protector guardian angel. It is the blood-sucking parasite telling you everything else is wrong with your body but it. When they legislate a law, they're making the jungle that much thicker for loopholes for big business at the expense of the consumer, taxpayer, and small business owner. This is what democracy wroughts; people legislating
@selfrealizedexile only legislation can stop big business for existing and causing these problems. Having no laws or regulations means having only big business, nothing else. It's a more rapid decline.
Completely backwards. I'm assuming you don't have the IQ of a mental handicap, therefore, I must conclude you have little to no exposure to political economic history. 'Regulatory capture' ring any bells? Hello?
@selfrealizedexile regulatory capture is something I understand very, very well. Nothing guarantees it and it is never worse than the lack of regulation. The lack of regulation always does all the damage of regulatory capture but the damage happens faster and additional damage always happens to society because even with regulatory capture SOME regulations are still enforced for a short time.
They knew there was a bubble in real estate, they just act fast enough. Didn't you say Greenspan praised ARM mortgages and the very next day began raising rates? Went on to raise them 17 times or something like that? He just did it too slow. I am not saying they should get more power or anything, just that they weren't too stupid to see it, they were just too stupid to stop it without crashing the economy. If he would have jacked the rates up to 5% in one shot, the economy would have tanked.
But people loose faith in markets when there is no reason to have faith in them. Just like the past few years. There is no way to provide a backstop without further throwing-off the market. A complete collapse isn't going to happen as long as there is legitimate business going on. Economies don't collapse because everyone starts running around in panic. Economies collapse because government consumes the resources necessary to revive and grow the economy.
@ytgv3fc7: Well, we already have a court system for fraud - no need for regulations. I don't know how a company can be "manipulated" into accidents... If some other company is forcing them to do stuff, that is already illegal under basic property rights and can also be handled in the court system. No purpose for regulations: 1) they don't work 2) regulators get bought-off 3) regulators aren't smart enough 4) make business inefficient - less jobs 5) hurt small business.
@CohibaSkeeza #1 without further regulations, no court system can handle the fraud because the fraud must be defined in the regulations, always an arms race, always adapting to what companies do to make new fraud schemes. #2 a company can be manipulated into seeking markets intended to fail using planted information, using money to pay people to do that. #3 a company can have their equipment destroyed by another company, using the other company's assets to finance the efforts.
@ytgv3fc7 No. Fraud is a violation of rights - it is already built-in. A company is given false information - lying, already illegal in contract law. A company gets their equipment destroyed - property rights violation.The things you listed can already be addressed in the court system without regulations. A regulation is not what you are talking about. A regulation is when government mandates certain types of record keeping, dictates business practice, licenses, manufacturing requirements, etc.
@CohibaSkeeza taking away regulation would in effect mean small business can not exist forever after. Forever. The only one way to stop big businesses from killing small business is to make big business flat out illegal. No exceptions.
@ytgv3fc7 Hey Statist, if you knew a thing about profits, not State benefits, legitimate big businesses serve the customers best. Its a reward for giving something the people wanted, making that illegal will fuck the people.. Its like taking Westwood or Ubisoft and saying... You're too big, downsize or go to the cell. This fires workers, kills competitiveness spirits to strive to be the best and outsources jobs. You aren't attacking Corporatism, just making it worse.
@BIackOp impossible. Outsourcing is only possible BECAUSE OF large corporations. If they did not exist, out-sourcing also would not exist. COULD NOT EXIST. The overhead is something only a larger corporation can afford. It doesn't really save money, it just keeps people poor who are local. By destroying all large corporations, smaller ones can co-operate TEMPORARILY for large projects and this employs MORE PEOPLE, MORE OFTEN. This DRIVES COMPETITION yet FOSTERS CO-OPERATION TOO.
@ytgv3fc7 But listen for a second, there are demands out there... People want certain stuff... If say Ubisoft or some Company is going to make this stuff, and you cap the size of the business in this country it will have to move to somewhere else to get the jobs to fulfill that demand. Government creates outsourcing the most because they make our market undesirable and uncompetitive. Again you said make Big Business illegal, and that would only restrict them here, not else where.
@BIackOp #1 the demand is low enough that smaller companies can do just fine compared to say, Ubisoft or Westwood. No companies will move elsewhere - smaller companies will work together as needed. They already do that to survive a little longer before total Annihilation by large corporations. So long as the largest exist, this is only to buy a little time before the cancer kills the patient. The least optimal economic situation is giant corporations, few employers, massive bureaucracy, scams
@ytgv3fc7 You aren't describing how a business became large in the first place, if its voluntary that means they listened to the people. If its through coercion, they are essentially part of the Government via the benefits: subsidies, land grants... If a big business became big because they listened to the people, and you say they go tyrannical that would kill their profits in a hurry. There reputation would go out the window. Corporate person-hood is a product of Statism.
Re: Your April 21st video: I couldn't agree more with your points. However, I do need to point out where you misspoke in your second reference to Mr. Paulson, but referring to him as "Henry." It was, as you correctly stated initially, "John" Paulson who participated in selecting the securities for Goldman Sachs, not the secretary of the Treasury, a former high official of GS.
@paveljeludovsky Wow, what a BS comment.There is 10 years worth of his commentary, and each is just as congruent as the other.I will tell you from personal experience, Peter is a wealthy man (he is not wanting).However, he also knows that capitalism and free markets are the only human solution to increasing the quality of life for all I recommend that you spend roughly 4 years of economic study comparing Keynes, Friedman, Hayek, Rothbard, Mises, etc, then you may be able to comment on the topic.
@tychism How is that, exactly? Are you one to be jealous of another's success. Seems to me that a career politician would be one that never created a business, and thus jobs. That a career politician would be one that never even held a real private sector job, rather they played the popularity contest in order to make a career earning their living off of the funds payed by the taxpayers. Please, explain to me the reasoning behind your assertion.
@KSTCBH23 I agree with you, hence career politician =/= free market entrepreneur, and Peter Schiff =/= Chris Dodd as asserted by paveljeludovsky. An Austrian perspective in the Senate would be a wonderful thing, and the prospect of two making it this year is quite exciting.
@paveljeludovsky I have been to both Hong Kong and Beijing. Also, I have met Peter and have talked with him on more than one occasion. Having travelled the world during my time in the Nav, and in my private life, I consider myself a good judge of character. I assure you that you will not find more of an open mind, I practice daily chakra meditation, and I indulge in the study of all topics; even those in which I do not subscribe. IMO, you are reading Mr. Schiff quite incorrectly. Just my HO.
@paveljeludovsky Yes, but there is far worse. I have seen the African and Russian prostitute trade in Dubai, I have watched a civil war take place right before my eyes in Eritrea. I have seen 12 year old girls and boys being sold into sexual slavery in Thailand. Sweatshops do not even touch the surface of the horrible acts of "humanity" that exist in this world. My goal is to increase the quality of life for all, and the only path is through INDIVIDUAL liberty and free markets. Proof 'n pudding.
@KSTCBH23 by "free" market, what do you mean with "free" ? Free of fraud? Free of concentrated wealth? Free of poverty? Free of disaster? I think some people have failed to qualify their definition and assume everyone wants the same thing, has the same plan, but somehow it's not all adding up.
@ytgv3fc7 "Free" of the coercion and compulsion of the State. That is the primary issue between a free market, and that of an interventionist market. Those that receive favor and/or privilege most certainly receive such through the system of laws of the State. The State is the only entity that can (and will) use force or violence to enforce such. Barring such a dynamic, it is the consumer that has power over that of the business, and the consumers cast their vote with every penny spent.
@KSTCBH23 We're had for the longest time interventionist monetary policies from the Government: Keynesianism right now, Mercantilism, Neo Mercantilism, Reverse Mercantilism... Haven't had true Laissez-faire in a very long time..
@KSTCBH23 impossible. You can't cast a vote if there is no ballot and the "free" market is not a diversified nor fair market, and ensures all ballots are stacked away from the consumer's benefit. you can vote on who will rip you off but the vote NOT to get ripped off is impossible - there is no ballot for that, there is no product to buy. All honest sales men are terminated by fraudsters in free markets. The profits BUY VIOLENCE to make it so, mafia style.
@paveljeludovsky While I do not pride myself in regard to the acts that I have seen, it was not all bad. Having had the chance to have visited 19 separate countries, it gives one a different perspective on life, especially if you actually talk to the people as equals on Earth, I did get kicked out of the Nav on a General discharge due to my verbalization of what I saw. However, I would not have been able to talk to those of the world and know the lives of those outside of America had I not.
@paveljeludovsky Sorry to post so many replies, but 500 characters just doesn't do it. All that I want to say in closing is that I do not have any regrets, but I sure as chit will never do it again. At least, not that way. I do travel extensively these days, but I do so with a new understanding of life on this Earth. To be honest, our worst day here in America is nothing more than a small annoyance. Needless to say, I know longer worry like I used to. I let things flow like water.
Schiff is right in line with Mises... Not some socialist tyrant.. Note mixed economies are not laissez-faire capitalism.
"A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism: is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings." - Ludwig Von Mises
@BIackOp I'm not dissing Schiff but something about your comment didn't sit well with me. How do you value a capitalist tyrant as being safer for all of us than a socialist tyrant? Socialism is co-operation, we use it in Canada for our health care and it works really damn well. The private market can't compete for access, keeping us able to work and live with far less poverty than Americans in distress.
@ytgv3fc7 Because in the true sense of the word, his power is affected by profits. Any deemed terrible service is punished by a lack of profits, and eventually bankruptcy; however, the Socialist tyrant (The State) isn't affect by profits, voting is the only means to change something that doesn't guarantee a change and you don't have a choice to go else where in that type of a system. Socialism really pisses me off, because its the opposite of what it sounds like. Coercion is not social.
@BIackOp nice idea but in reality it doesn't work. Terrible service is rewarded with profits by ensuring the competition is ruined first, using money to block further development by those competitors. The "socialist tyrant" is a fiction of your imagination. There isn't any such thing. Coercion is not part of socialism, it's the basis of capitalism. If you want something good in life, it has to be a product and someone has to be made poor. That's a stupid way to live.
@ytgv3fc7 Stop talking, you have no concept of history. Your definitions are wrong, or they don't fit to what is commonly known as Socialism and Capitalism. You have no clue that Statist interventionist monetary polices create these disasters. Regulating the market to protect people from themselves, taking away their own responsibilities and transferring that to the State is chaos. Statism is Coercion. Socialism is the ends justify the means, always.
@BIackOp I will never stop. I speak the truth and the world shall hear it. Your lies can't make it past the real truth.
What in AMERICA is commonly known as socialism is all lies and mostly refers to actual FASCISM. What the WORLD knows as capitalism is how the mafia works and how America operates. I TOTALLY understand how monetary policy, which should not exist, creates disasters and is NOT REQUIRED in any kind of socialism (or capitalism). Regulating the market prevents fraud.
@ytgv3fc7 You speak a religion, you don't give a fuck about the truth. You talk about exploitation and poverty, but you are supporting a Coercive Monopoly that steals from people, controls people, and even kills people if it does not follow their arbitrary rules. State Capitalism is still a Top Down order derived from Socialism, Fascism is a mixed economy that will always lead to Socialism after the Corporate cartel get labeled a "Free Market".
@BIackOp You're still drinking the kool-aid, I speak of no religion, no monopoly, no coercion. The very act of people co-operating in production, in investment, in sustaining survival, when it is for those priorities first and profit LAST, is socialism, even completely decentralized. In fact all decentralized systems are better than all centralized systems to avoid points of failure and fraudulent manipulation, capitalist or socialist. Fascism is not a mixed economy. Never can be.
@ytgv3fc7 Look at my channel, ffs. I am not some zombie follower... You support the State, which is a Coercive Monopoly, its a "legal" monopoly with the use of force over a given geographical area. What do you think Socialism amounts to? Its probably not your definition and that's why you were disappointed at Mises... Our actions will be determined by a board, this all knowing board will decide how to run the economy, will decide what jobs we get. That is socialism.
@BIackOp I do not support the State. I support any useful mechanism that stops fraud in markets. Socialism defined by Mises is a lie, of course I dismiss it. I'm in Canada. We use socialism. We use it for health care, we use it for EI, we use it for welfare. It works and it works very well. Capitalism has offered nothing better at any time. Your definition of socialism is the biggest lie ever told in economics because it is actually how corporate capitalism is running economies right now.
@ytgv3fc7 Its not a lie, he was referring to your end goal. If his definition is not Socialism, then wtf is it? Certainly not free markets. My definition came straight from wiki. Thanks for not reading what Capitalism was, you know it all comrade... Stop for a second read your last line. "how corporate capitalism is running right now" Right, so instead of controlling capital for your desires, they are doing it for their desires. I oppose this as well you know. Socialism for the Rich...
@BIackOp his definition is concentrated central positions which includes all end-states of capitalism and all centralized government, including those which only use capitalism. None of it is socialist. There's no such thing as "socialism for the rich" that's like saying "gravity for rainbows only". It's nonsense-talk. By definition in socialism the rich do not exist. Any time wealth is gathered from all people and moved away forever this is ALWAYS FASCISM, and NEVER SOCIALISM AT ANY TIME.
@BIackOp no, it's fascism. Socialism includes the large wealth moving TO the people to socialize the GAINS and balance all loads, burden, productivity, evenly. To move it all one way is not socialism. Can't be. A REQUIREMENT of socialism is that the individuals ALL get what they need out of what is available because they ALL contribute. There's no such thing as "socialize the losses". That's bull-terminology for "stealing by the rich".
TO CALL IT QUITS -- OR, SOMEONE ELSE CALLS IT QUITS FOR THEM IF U KNOW WHAT I MEAN. IN ALMOST ALL CASES, WHERE DO THESE PPL GO? COMPETITORS? NOT UNLESS THEY GOT OFFERED HIGHER PAY. FOR THE BURNOUTS/LAYOFFS (AGAIN, MOST), THEY DO SOME SIGNIFICANTLY SHITTIER JOB WITH LIKE HALF PAY LIKE BE AN ACCOUNTANT OR SOMETHING.
WALL STREET = POOR COMPARED TO COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS / TIER 1 ENTREPRENEURS. THE IDEA OF 'OWNING' THINGS.
Eleetnessful 2 weeks ago
PROPERTY, YOU'VE MADE IT.
PPL ON WALL STREET, COMPARED TO THE GENERAL PERCEPTION, MAKE NOTHING. $150K FOR AN ANALYST - 40% - MANHATTAN RENT - MANHATTAN UHH RECREATION - MANHATTAN FOOD = LIKE NOTHING. AND THESE PPL WORK AT LEAST 14 HOURS A DAY. AND MOST -- YES MOST -- EITHER BURN OUT WITHIN 4 YEARS OR THEY FALL WITHIN THE 'JOB CUTS' CATEGORY. AND A LOT ARE FULLY AWARE OF THIS, SO EVEN THE NOT-SO-MUCH MONEY THAT THEY HAVE LEFT OVER IS MONEY THAT THEY GOTTA SAVE IN THE EVENT THAT THEY COME
Eleetnessful 2 weeks ago
INVESTING IN THE MARKET (STOCK MARKET) IS SOMETHING I WOULDN'T DO. IM A COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER. ON A BASIC LEVEL, WHEN INVEST IN LAND-
ACTUALLY IM GUNNA GET CARRIED AWAY WITH THIS SO ILL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
PPL WHO OWN PROPERTY -- EVEN IF ITS SOME APARTMENT OR CONDO IN SOME SHITTY AREA -- THAT IS GUARANTEED CASH FLOW (PPL RENTING IT OUT; WHAT Y-O-U OWN) AND IF YOU OWN MULTIPLE -- WELL, LETS JUST SAY YOU COULD BE SLEEPING AT NIGHT AND BE GENERATING MONEY. ONCE YOU START OWNING
Eleetnessful 2 weeks ago
UROPE ARE KICKING THEMSELVES IN THE BUTT.
THE PRINCIPAL REASON WHY CHINA WAS BOOMING IS NOT BC OF INNOVATION (THEY HAVE 0 I JUST DEMONSTRATED WHY). IT WAS BC OF 'CHEAP LABOR'
'CHEAP LABOR'
WHAT WILL BE THE ACHILLES HEEL FOR THAT ECONOMY IS IF/WHEN THOSE FACTORY WORKERS COLLECTIVELY SAY: "THIS IS BULLSHIT. I WANT WHAT AMERICANS WANNA GET PAID." WHAT WOULD HAPPEN THEN IS THE MANUFACTURING JOBS WOULD GO BACK TO THE U.S (COMPANIES HAVING TO PAY SIGNIFICANTLY MORE OF COURSE)
I COULD SAY MORE
Eleetnessful 2 weeks ago
T EXAMPLE. IF UR MAKING APPLE PRODUCTS, AND IT'S BEING SOLD IN CHINA, APPLE'S BOTTOM LINE SHOULD GO UP. NOW, WHEN YOU HAVE A FAKE APPLE PRODUCT, THAT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING; DOESN'T DO SHIT FOR APPLE (HENCE THE U.S ECONOMY. AND THE KIND OF MONEY WE NEED IS MONEY F-R-O-M OTHER COUNTRIES).
PIRACY IS A BIG FUCKING PROBLEM. AND AGAIN: VIRTUALLY NO REGULATIONS IN CHINA. SO IT'S RAMPANT. YOU WANNA INVEST IN A COUNTRY LIKE THAT? NOT ME. IF I EVER DO IT'S NOT BC CHINA IS HOT SHIT; IT'S BC US AND E
Eleetnessful 2 weeks ago
ASIAN COMPANY COMES ALONG, TOTALLY BITES-OFF THAT IDEA; ESSENTIALLY MAKING IT A REPLICATE THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BEING YOU GOT AN ASIAN NAME LIKE 'BAIDU' NOT WHAT IT SHOULD BE 'BITE-OFF-OF-GOOGLE'
THE MOST PROFOUND PRODUCTS AND SERVICES THAT HAS COME OUT FOR DECADES HAS ALWAYS BEEN FROM ONE CONTINENT: THE U.S OF A.
THE "CURRENCY MANIPULATING" THING IS WAY OVERBLOWN AND OVERSTATED. QE 1 2 ETC. CAN BE ARGUED AS CURRENCY MANIPULATING. WHAT IS SERIOUS, HOWEVER, IS PIRACY. AND THAT'S ANOTHER GREA
Eleetnessful 2 weeks ago
REGULATED, YOU CAN REST ASSURED THAT YOUR MONEY IS BEING INVESTED AND YOU WON'T GET ANY UNEXPECTED CURVE BALLS THROWN AT YOU (OTHER THAN MARKET/EVENT RISK ETC. ETC. OF COURSE)
THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T INVEST IN CHINA. AND LOOK AT CHINA -- THERE'S A COMPANY CALLED 'BAIDU'. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY A COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE BITEOFF OF GOOGLE AND BING. HERE'S WHAT HAPPENS:
AN AMERICAN INNOVATOR COMES ALONG (OPERATING WITHIN AMERICAN GUIDELINES). HE CREATES THE 'NEXT GREAT THING'. OK?
THEN SOME
Eleetnessful 2 weeks ago
TAKING A BIG RISK. FOR EXAMPLE: IF U INVESTED IN COMPANY ABC AND ALL THE HEADLINES AND REPORTS ARE THAT ABC IS THE BEST COMPANY ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET, AND ONE DAY, OUT OF NOWHERE, U FIND OUT THAT COMPANY ABC IS CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY, YOU CAN'T REALLY GO: "WHAT THE FUCK?!"
WHEN YOU INVEST IN ANYTHING THAT IS LIGHTLY OR EVEN MODERATELY REGULATED, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WTF IS HAPPENING TO UR MONEY; YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHERE IT'S GOING. CONVERSELY, IF YOU KNOW THAT THE COUNTRY YOU INVEST IN IS TIGHTLY
Eleetnessful 2 weeks ago
THAT'S #1
#2: THE REASON ASIA HAS BEEN DOING WELL FOR THE PAST ~2-3 YEARS UP UNTIL RECENTLY IS NOT BC THEY'RE SOME BADASS INNOVATIVE GREAT ECONOMY -- IT'S MORE BC WE HAVE ALL THESE HIPPIES AND SHITHEADS LIKE THE ows LOSERS AND ARE BASICALLY KICKING OURSELVES OVER AND OVER
ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY THE U.S OR EVEN EUROPE, AS BAD AS THEY ARE, IS AND WILL BE BETTER THAN ASIA IS BECAUSE: REGULATIONS.
HERE'S WHY.
IF YOU INVEST IN A COMPANY THAT HAS VERY FEW GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS, YOU ARE
Eleetnessful 2 weeks ago
OK. I HAD TO DO 'TESTING' BC IF I GOT A 'COMMENT PENDING APPROVAL!' IT WOULD NOT BE APPROVED BY THIS LOSER
OK
WHERE TO BEGIN-
WHAT I THINK ABOUT THESE IODIOTS (CHIEF AMONG THENM : jamie WITH HIS HAIRY ASSHOLE) WHEN IT COMES TO REGULATIONS IS THEY'VE GOTTEN AWAY AND USED TO DOING UENTHICAL SHIT FOR SO LONG THAT IT'S DEEPLY EMBEDDED IN THEIR MINDS. THEY'VE NEVER BEEN CONFRONTED WITH DOING BAD SHIT THAT THEY THINK THEY'RE ALMOST ENTITLED TO DO THINGS THE WAY THEY'VE ALWAYS DONE IT.
Eleetnessful 2 weeks ago
LOL TESTING
Eleetnessful 2 weeks ago
I used to work in financial sales, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to start their own brokerage in this country.
thotkrime 6 months ago
Why I can see a lot of flagged as spam comments here? Anyway, I just wanna say you have a good job Peter! Keep sharing your knowledge about financial.
markfuller042 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some birds can not fly in, latin busizz4me.info
MoniRokse 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Marry a Beautiful Latino girl online **rockmycity.info**
tarraorbisonopkl 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is a good day try to find good Latino girl rockmycity.info
bnmvghjfyghjtyj 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Best place to find women # lushfmlk.info #
tanyamuriyan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Welcome onboard Russian here gettop5.info
morgantobfr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Use anastasia when you start your search ****** gettop5.info ****
angelinahollidas1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Real profiles and thousands of Russian women gettop5.info
carlyqcarmesq18 1 year ago
Congress should pass a regulation bill on itself.
DigiTan000 1 year ago
@DigiTan000 seriously
xzjatx 1 year ago
Although I largely agree with you on limiting government, and I see your point with the bailouts, you fail to account for what could have happened if the companies were allowed to fail. I have listened to many economists and financial experts talk about what happened, and they concur that if the government hadn't gotten involved, the crisis could have been comparable to the Great Depression.... We need to limit government involvement, but I don't know if that was a good starting point.
koryshipp 1 year ago
@koryshipp Except some would argue our direct involvement in that extended its lifespan then
xzjatx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@koryshipp "that if the government hadn't gotten involved, the crisis could have been comparable to the Great Depression...."
That's exactly his point!!! He already commented on that in many other videos. They should have had the recession instead of a much bigger one later on. Trying to avoid recession doesn't work and makes things worse.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
Paul/Schiff 2012
ihatemexico 1 year ago
but Peter, sorry I don't have time to sit through all 10 minutes of your speech, you're a smart guy, but what corruption from capitalists to government and back? That revolving door that exists today? It's like criminals paying off cops and cops doing the back job regulating...which I guess you can cops, but everyone is culprit.
dalecampbl5 1 year ago
you are a cool dude
dalecampbl5 1 year ago
This is a smart guy, I just don't know how he can make "getting it" the issue, the voters are the american people. He is blunt, I love this type of "in your face" reality check. Hope the voters in conneticut hear his message.
marcef100m 1 year ago
"socialize the losses" is a lie just like "jobless recovery" is a lie. All it really means is "steal from people who aren't rich, to make rich people MORE rich" and "create more poverty now and for all the future", respectively.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago 2
for all the "benefits" and "profits" of a single large corporation, if an equal number of dollars and people and resources were in smaller companies, smaller businesses, that all co-operated on a basis of "as needed" for larger projects and "not at all" when that suited them best, efficiency would be far higher and employment would be better. Wages would be higher and that's because out-sourcing would cease to exist.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago 2
everything is not just black and white in this world. for certain things it's better to just let the gov't take care of, and that's when socialism comes into play. the real problem with the world is there're too many idiots that don't know or can't understand that something that doesn't seem right can hold a deeper meaning to it.
LeeRyan2930 1 year ago
Seriously ytgv3fc7 Go to mises(dot)org You need to read up on Austrian Economics, and study it. Get a wake up call on how bad the economic policies have been for the last 100+ years... You will end up deleting all your comments if you had a clue. And buy Schiff's new book "How an Economy grows, and Why it Crashes", its so easy a caveman in the Marx era can understand it.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp I did go to Mises and I found most of it is lies when attempting to describe what socialism is, what it does, what it doesn't do. I understand Austrian Economics VERY WELL. It's far better than Keynesism, far better, but it's still fucking flawed and disgraceful because of its desire to make people poor and pretend it is no one's fault. It is everyone's fault if that happens. In capitalism it MUST HAPPEN.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 There is no desire to make people poor. You are a Marxist, you support a philosophy that a man built off of hating money, that's it. When I trade with someone, I am valuing something he has more than what I am giving to him. This idea that trades creates poverty, or that I spend my money on X but never sell something back to him makes me poorer is non sense. You are still looking at one side of the equation. You haven't read enough at Mises....
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp I am not a Marxist. Money is not to be hated or to be loved. Money is a tool like hammers, rulers and wheels. It can't be used for everything and only a fool would worship it. PROFITEERING creates poverty by transferring wealth. It is inequal trade, 100% of the time. This is capitalism. Capitalism does not include trade that is specifically non-profit. I've read enough at Mises to know it's 98% bull. The 2% that's useful is indeed OK.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Really? Because it sounds like you missing the value factor, what makes trade exist in the first place... And its nice you don't actually have shit to back your claims, unlike Mises... Look up Praxeology whether your at it, maybe you will stop being logical positivist in your Utopian central planning... 98% bullshit my ass, you boys couldn't explain what is wrong with markets today, deregulation blame presumes Statism works back to positivism fallacy..
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp the value factor is a lie. All existing materials and people have value but lies and fraud permit all of that to be discarded long enough to destablize the entire economy, after which, no repair is possible. NO REPAIR IS POSSIBLE. Everyone robbed simply must continue with less, fact of life. No repair, no reversal. I can tell you everything wrong with markets today and it all stems from concentrated wealth based on fraud and not executing the sources of it. Death. The real solution
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago 2
@ytgv3fc7 If the value factor is a lie, than trade is meaningless, improving our lives won't matter.
You are diverting the discussion into fraud, like one of your fetishes... It must be amazing to build your economics off emotional appeals and call them facts...
You are looking at the symptoms, not the disease. Free Markets are decentralized. Command Economies will always fail, its a product of Statism. Two main divisions among Socialists both want command economies, connect the dots.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp the only problem with economics today is accepting fraud as totally normal and a primary factor in moving money and job allocation, setting wages, marketing and more. If you deny fraud is the most important issue, you're actually part of the worst problem we could ever have. How can you be that stupid?
Decentralized markets are good but amassing high wealth ratios is bad for all societies and must be stopped.
This is fact, no emotions are required. Stop lying to yourself and everyone.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Austrian economics is just economics. It has no desire to make people poor - it does the opposite. Capitalism has increased the living standard exponentially. Capitalism is just a series of voluntary exchanges of goods and services - no way that can make people poor. Government, central planning, and money creation by the banks is what makes people poor.
CohibaSkeeza 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza impossible lies. Capitalism has exponentially increased poverty. The living standard is not ever improved by capitalism, it is improved by invention, which is improved by intellect, NOT BY MONEY. PROFITEERING is a NON-VOLUNTARY act of THEFT shadowing an act of trade and MUST MAKE PEOPLE POOR. Predatory pricing puts people out of work and starves them and MUST MAKE PEOPLE POOR, and it MUST HAPPEN in a COMPETITIVE CAPITALIST ECONOMY. MUST HAPPEN. Impossible to not happen. Period
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago 2
@ytgv3fc7 Where do you live? Poverty has decreased around the world since free markets, not increased. How can a series of voluntary exchanges create poverty? Capitalism is the voluntary exchange of invention and productivity. Without it we would be catching food with our hands 24/7. "Predatory Pricing" - WTF is that? Prices are determined by the market. You don't understand what capitalism is - all sorts of BS that has nothing to do with capitalism. You are describing economic fascism.
CohibaSkeeza 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza Predatory Pricing is when a business charges below market rates cutting into his profits to kill his competition. Rockefeller tried it, discovering new competition emerged, leaving him back at square one deeper in the holet. If the owner decides to cut back on wages, among other vitals instruments it will create blow-back for him. (Free Market wise) His workers would go to his competitor... In any case, customers win out, workers do to unless the boss wants an uprising...
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp Oh, thanks. With all the stuff he is making up I didn't know what he was talking about. Good answer to that too. Besides, lets ignore the fact that someone who has taken their own time and money to create a product has the right to charge whatever they want. But just as you showed, it doesn't have to work and even if it did it is unlikely that any one or a few industries could take-over with this practice without the help of government.
CohibaSkeeza 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza And every time a Capitalist makes good profits, it invites other Capitalists coming in and drive the cost down... I am just so tired of the myth of high cost of goods, dirt wages with free markets... Just stop for a second and think that through. If workers get paid dirt, how can Capitalists take in profits in monopolies rates, if the workers who are customers don't have enough to pay for it. They would have to lower their costs, aside from competition....
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp Any time a capitalist makes good profits this STOPS others from coming in to do the same because the market is saturated. No prospective profits = high risk = find another market, don't keep fighting for this small piece of smaller pie. The high costs of goods and dirt wages are facts of life, no myths, FACTS OF LIFE EVERY DAY IN EVERY CITY. Capitalists take in profits BECAUSE of dirt wages. The employees are not ever expected to be the consumers! The consumers are other fat-cats.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Totally false. If I am making a lot of money giving car washes, then there is massive demand for car washes. Other people come in and do the same thing too, thus compete. This will decrease in some matter the amount of profits I make. And it will force me to constantly come up with a better system to keep an edge against the competition to have a hand up on the market. You are failing some of the basics. Dirt wages are a product of Statism, devalued currency or restrained capital.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp and this is also where debt-bombs come in. The costs of living have been driven up with predatory inflation (this is the government's fault) and wages have been driven down by corporations (this is not the government's fault) so that debt is required as a COST OF LIVING, rather than an option to invest/gain with some risk involved. no debt = no food = no car
debt = today you can eat, even though your wages say otherwise
I won't peg that as Capitalism's fault, as this one IS a mixed prob
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza every industry so far has been doing this without serious help from government.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@BIackOp last time I checked, Rockefeller was nothing close to poor, none of the Rockefeller descendants are poor. Owners cutting back on wages suffer no consequences due to the lack of labour mobility: it costs so much to move to another place for a better job, so that when regionally all employers decide to slash wages, they stay slashed. Many workers go homeless while migrating to look for work and many stay homeless forever after, that I've seen. Customers lose as incentive is lost to work
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@BIackOp this tragic loss of quality and productivity is something I'm starting to see creep up as my employer repeatedly stresses not to expect any kind of pay for performance even over the long-term, that it's all cut rate all the way and that's just too bad. I keep stressing people will leave, and people do keep leaving. The ones who work the hardest do so due to work ethic regardless of income. These are people who will leave to find better but work right & hard before such a move.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza From what I can gather with ytgv3fc7 he doesn't see new competition emerging, and then the business charges the monopoly rate. This would only happen in a command economy, via barriers to entry, and still doesn't guarantee customers will still be willing to pay. Depending on the product, they might just do without it... Its obvious ytgv3fc7 can't tell the difference between market entrepreneurs, and political entrepreneurs. Likewise, Corporate vs. Private...
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp I think a lot of people really don't understand how a free-market actually functions and there are many lies and misconceptions that we get in school, music/movies, and media. I think a new word needs to be used to describe free markets rather than 'Capitalism' since the term has been so tarnished in the mind of the public. Any longer its just a semantic misunderstanding.
CohibaSkeeza 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza My original comment that stirred the nest with ytgv3fc7 was a very old quote from Ludwig Von Mises, and back then the original term to Capitalism was already charging. They even once upon a time refereed to themselves as Liberals, today known as Classic Liberals, Libertarians. Labels can really suck when they get hijacked with a new definition.. Many of us just use Free Markets to avoid the Capitalism vs Corporatism misconception. Giving the amount of mixed meanings...
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp well if you want to work with only a layer of utility, function and process, of how freely people can trade, voluntary or not, in products and services that are not fraud and don't require slavery, then of course, the less fraud the better, the more voluntary the better. But if you want to expand this further, which is somewhat unavoidable, to the power of concentrated wealth, that's where the problem starts.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza I think you and a lot of people like you don't understand that we're all much smarter than you think, and already witness the fraud of the free markets and don't want any more of it. If you want to split into layers of utility, for which voluntary trade is a great thing in and of itself, and beyond that layer, the amassing of wealth in groups and individuals is stopped if it exceeds a damaging ratio, that would be sensible. To function a society must have near-equals.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza the purpose of capital (and capitalism) is to have more than others, to create inequality, not equality, and to have more power from more riches. Are you manufacturing some imaginary land where money can buy power but the potential buyers are just not interested? Golden rule: those with the gold make the rules. Capitalism can't escape that fact of life.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@BIackOp I definitely do not see new competition emerging. I see any existing competition being crushed. I see it on a regular basis. This happens not due to any command economy, only due to larger capitalization leading to an ample beating implement to damage smaller companies. Customers are willing to pay because there's nowhere else to go. When it's food, water, power, there's no choice. For cell phones? Well, turns out people need them a lot for work. Turns out to be very recession-proof
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 It has nothing to do with capital, buy them off but that doesn't sustain a barrier. Only the State can sustain a barrier, thus command economy. You socialists preach the evils of Corporatism but have LITTLE understanding HOW it functions. Capital in itself is not the cause for poverty, destruction etc... Its the way they achieve this capital that matters, and if they are funded by an institution that extracts resources involuntary then you will have chaos. For every action, reaction.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza predatory pricing is determined by the largest asset holders, not by the markets, and dominates the markets. For example, my company sold VOIP units for only $40 and $9.99/mo to run the thing. KILLED the competitions' business as they had no such offerings and further sales were stopped as soon as they were hurt bad enough, as it was too low a price. The recovery for them will be slower than our company's profit-recovery on the move. People have contracts, fees to terminate,
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza and bundles with cell phones that go with these VOIP systems. Inside the 1st year it's $200 to cancel the contract and that's per line! So now those customers have the VOIP and the 1+ cell line required to keep it. cancel everything but the VOIP and it's cancelled AUTOMATICALLY with that termination fee. predatory pricing wins the day again.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 This is a really weak example of predatory pricing. Those customers didn't have to buy the VOIP service to begin with. Second, that company you mentioned can't sustain such a policy even intermittently. Third, customers will think twice about returning to that company so they may have hurt future business. So, I really don't understand what your point is about this pricing method. It has both rewards and risks. If they offer something another company doesn't then good for them.
CohibaSkeeza 1 year ago
@ytgvfc7
Emotional Economics, Prices and Wages,Loans and Interest /watch?v=WteN8W9M0mY
The Structure of Production
/watch?v=ysrUb7CeqkU
Myth of Robber Barons
1 /watch?v=xI43mAFjOM8
2 /watch?v=QyMXmFQ2HNY
3 /watch?v=UIUGJZEYHy0
4 /watch?v=YDKctATGamw
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp the fact of robber barons, not a myth: all bankers are robber barons, all pawn shops are robber barons, all payday loan companies are robber barons, all businesses that employ at the lowest legal wages and import only from China and other cheapest nations to use slave labour are robber barons, and this disconnection also means wage deflation and price inflation in North America are decoupled. Wage increases can not result anymore from price increases.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza "didn't have to buy" well think about that. If every other provider of home phone service is more than $10 then the choice is to have none, or to have $10 phone service, or to pay a higher price for the same thing. Due to the predatory pricing, the choices are usually strongly encouraged to $10, but it's not Mind Control. Our company sold the product for over a year and got lots of business due to this strategy, a lot of contracts that are expensive to break. For EACH line.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza further to sustainability: while the product is no longer being sold, the service is being maintained for everyone who signed up for it, so for those people the sustainability is effectively forever. We haven't hurt any future business, and in fact people were cut off so fast from new offers, they're looking for even better deals and not thinking much of the competition. It's competing smartphones that give us real price trouble. No iPhones from our stores.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza poverty has increased around the world, not decreased. Not all of it is the fault of capitalism, sometimes it's bad climate changes which people will need to live with and some of it is population expansion beyond sensible regional density limits. But some of this is indeed capitalism, putting people into "buy or die" markets for food and clean water.
Economic fascism IS CAPITALISM. That's why I'm describing it. You couldn't even argue against my "predatory pricing" example. "weak?
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Economic Fascism is State Invention. That has nothing to do with Free Markets, if you are defining Capitalism with Free Markets then you are wrong to compare it with Fascism. Mises and other Austrians went IN-DEPTH on the subject, taking apart every Statism model of control. You are defining a Statism model of control. Predatory Pricing was debunked a long time ago.
/watch?v=V6dD-ifIr8s
BIackOp 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza "weak?" -> all that means is you admit I'm right but you really don't like the sound of it. Well, too bad, that's how it is. I didn't say differing or unique products couldn't be offered. That restriction would be nonsensical. All that matters is competition is beaten using prices lower than possible in a non-fraudulent market, like teaser rates are used for loans. Capitalism is all about fraud and being predatory.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza HOWEVER, the scale of socialism is also an important question because the smaller the group, the more effectively that group will benefit, until it's so small not enough people have enough skill to make an adaptive unit for most situations an economy will put that group into. Something community or nation sized can work, something international likely will lead to either collapsing debt spirals or monetizing debts or merging of nations into a single sovereign "unit".
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza there's nothing about socialism that requires people to do this, of course, but human nature and economics do not exist in entirely separate universes. While the math of what needs to be produced and consumed is very far off from a piece of opinion, for survival and modest prosperity, the typical tribal behaviour of humans is to harmonize cultural and legal frameworks to think less (which is bad) which is where the supra-national merging (e.g. EU) happens (and is very bad)
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza If Austrian economics was "just economics" it would include every benefit of socialism - stopping any controller of any economy from ever existing, ensuring poverty is brought to zero, ensuring constant deflation of pricing happens due to increases in productivity, ensuring the domination of anyone using money is impossible because no concentrated holdings or actions may exist. Instead Austrian economics pretends none of this is real. That's a sad commitment to total failure.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 So, who is going to manage all of this poverty elimination, increasing productivity, controlling all the savings, etc. ? Because you want to eliminate any controller of the economy from existence, yet I'm not sure how you want to achieve what you are talking about if not through free-markets. I also think that you think the US is a capitalist(free-market) economy - it is not. We have central banking, central planning, and massive government programs and spending.
CohibaSkeeza 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza I know it's complicated to swallow, because it's not a market. It's choosing survival over assets and seeing that helping others survive is better for the long-term than having long-term assets of cash/capital while refusing to help anyone else. To ensure everyone has enough to offer to one who is down and to do so in a time of need is not a market, but it is the only way to ensure survival. It's not supposed to be charity: you help people who can help you later, all a collective
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza that being said, to be voluntary, to be decentralized, to be sensible and sustainable, this can't be legally forced, this can't be controlled by a governing body but chosen by all who are able to offer this support, and the number of people needing support can't become too large to sustain (facts of life) and someone who intends to bleed everyone else dry needs to be turfed for a long while or forever from being helped (no welfare state equivalent).
I realize the USA now is ...
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza .. is not a good example of capitalism but it used to be, and at that time it sparked such rage that people formed unions to protect wages and worker safety and this happened because capitalism made it necessary. A force had to emerge for the sake of survival to battle the force of the market (to do harm for money). If any criticism is valid, of my argument, it is that human nature does the harm and capitalism doesn't "promote" or "prevent" it. But we need a system that does avoid
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza ... avoid promoting this and this system is within reach. Awareness is needed. All people need to know they have a choice not to do harm to people and that this choice is good long-term for survival and there are profits / gains to be had but of course smaller, since thieving from people always yields higher returns for less work until you are stopped (which we can see doesn't happen). It's a choice. Everyone gets one, but only once they understand the choice is there.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
Whether you like it or not, the economy IS recovering. You can either learn to read the signs and get in on it or miss out on the opportunities available - your choice.
tanmoy313 1 year ago
@tanmoy313
Like Kudlow said last night to Reich, by process of elimination, you're gonna eventually come around to a theory that actually reflects reality. Hopefully your intellect will outpace your eventual death.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago 2
@tanmoy313 recovering? You mean owing more money than before, and having more people out of work, you call that recovering? That's what's happening, do you deny these facts?
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago 3
@tanmoy313 did you see that 1000-point market drop for the amazing continuing recovery? hahaha
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago 2
@ytgv3fc7 Did you see the job report that came out today? Keep laughing. We'll see who laughs last.
tanmoy313 1 year ago
@tanmoy313 every time the job report comes out it is a fraud, pretending the employment problem is not 20% and yet adding more jobless to the pile, are you on about the same propaganda and pretending the "Good News" is anything but the shittiest lie ever told?
I'll be laughing last because I'm as smart as they get. Recovery? IMPOSSIBLE. SUPER POVERTY ABSOLUTE DEPRESSION is more like it. GENERATIONAL POVERTY maximum is more like it.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 You sound more and more mentally unhinged as you cling on to your analysis in spite of the glaring proof that you were wrong. If you had any smarts at all, you would cut your losses, admit you were wrong and start from there. Burying your head in the sand will only result in complete disaster for you. You don't have to believe me - let's just post on here over the next year and see who is right.
tanmoy313 1 year ago
@tanmoy313 you're obviously incompetent, so I will just feel bad for you. Clearly the proof is that I'm right. The job reports keep stating "gaining jobs" while the unemployment rate keeps going up and that means jobs are really going down. It's called "lying" and the US & Canadian governments each frequently do this with inflation and job numbers. I know, you're a naive 10 year old, it's hard to accept Big Daddy is a Crooked Pimp. The world is what it is.
That 1000 point drop proved me right.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Wow, that's quite a few posts today. Were you off work yesterday??? How much is Schiff paying you? More importantly, how is your laughter working out for you today?
tanmoy313 1 year ago
@tanmoy313 #1 I can read about 10x faster than the average person and type at 95 words per minute. I wrote before leaving for work. #2 Schiff is still a capitalist and I am still not, so Schiff wouldn't be paying me to spread his message. #3 I'm Canadian, I can agree with Schiff's sensible arguments but I have no intention of supporting his political career. Wrong nation, no point.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 ooookay there, einstein. Keep on, keepin' on, buddy. r-squared, huh? At least you took Statistics II.
tanmoy313 1 year ago
@tanmoy313 so, you didn't even look? You'd think someone able to peg the price of gold 3 weeks in advance might even have a clue, daily closing prices, within $20 usd. Oh well, your loss.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@tanmoy313 3 w's newsneconomics .c om / 2009/07/us-vs-canada-in-charts-velocity-of .h tml
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@tanmoy313 As for the laughter, any time there's some crazy fools out there who fail the 3 strikes, 2 for things that are obvious, the laughter is mixed value. But 1st time around is a freebie, I pity people who have been brainwashed and try to help. I killfile people who are too far gone to be helped. I happen to put a lot of time into math to model the markets and commodities, producing daily prices, aiming for 2% error or less, weeks ahead forecasting. Takes time. No time to waste on fools
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@tanmoy313 if any of this is of a curiosity to you, you can go to my channel to see the comments I posted for my gold price model, all the dates, prices, test-data, error differences, the r-squared value, the math to do it all yourself to verify results or make your own unique models, all free of charge. If you post stupid assinine channel comments I'll wipe them. If they're somewhat helpful to readers I'll let them stay even if I think you're out to lunch.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
Peter made a good point. If your worst enemy (the State and their cronnies) won't follow regulations (ie: constitution saying the Fed cannot do what they did and creating the laws after the fact) then what good are regulations or even more of them anyways ? It will hurt those who you shouldn't be afraid of and those who you SHOULD be afraid of will just end up not following regulations...
StrafingMoose 1 year ago
@StrafingMoose true. Functional regulation is the only way to stop capitalists from destroying everything , everyone who is competition, by any means BUT if all regulations are frauds and all regulators are mafia, then you're still on the brink of collapse, at best. Nations, like people, have mortality. I think we've just discovered the real life span of the USA, legally, morally, resources-wise, intellectually. America's going down like the Roman Empire.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
GS wrote the reform bill.
havoctrend 1 year ago
why hasn't peter schiff chimed in on the dishonesty of the likes of goldman sach as related to our curent predicament? Is he afraid of alienating his fellow tribesmen? When the satans of banks and governments around the world are either ex-employees or trained at goldmann, why do these talking heads concentrate on "the government" and not the people who created them?
roughcutone2 1 year ago
@roughcutone2 I think you got it right. Peter Schiff had the same non-answer about corporate financing of candidates. While it would be good for him personally it's bad for all of us to make it no-limits all-in because then the voice of the people becomes zero, silenced, no single person matters. We'll all have to form corporations just to get a candidate chosen, to get funding to that candidate and then we'll be voting corporations into senate office (MD state, Murray Hill corp)
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Excellent point! According to Peter the economy is the only issue. He needs to be more open on his views that concern the freedoms of Americe and not the freedoms of himself and his wallstreet kinsmen. China has a strong economy but limited freedoms which Peter believes in and invests in whole heartedly. It's obvious I will have to join the Patriots Freedom Law Center INC. to get my views heard. (it hasn't been formed yet, just trying out the name)
roughcutone2 1 year ago
A few posts ago you said:
If people lose faith in markets and there is no one to provide a backstop, there is nothing to stop a complete collapse.
My rebuttal to that statement is this. Throughout our early history in the 19th century we experienced different brief economic time periods known as panics. A central bank was not needed to help control these "panics".
corysoulier 1 year ago 2
@corysoulier Brief economic time periods known as panics? Are you just making stuff up or do you have some agenda? Among others, the financial panic of 1837 and 1873 lasted 6 years each. The financial panic of 1893 is the second worst depression in recorded history. The financial panic of 1857 caused the stock market to decline by 66%. However, it was the financial panic of 1907 when the stock market fell by 50% in a short period, that led to the creation of the Fed. Did you know any of this?
tanmoy313 1 year ago
@tanmoy313 I know it's b.s.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Yeah, Schiff and especially his minions on here have read maybe two books in Economics and both written by Rothbard and now think that they have a complete grasp on Economics. READ BOOKS BY OTHERS AS WELL. This will give you a complete perspective. Even if you disagree with them, at least you understand their arguments. Ignorance is a poor second to informed opinions.
tanmoy313 1 year ago
@tanmoy313
I've read dozens of books on political economics, not all by Rothbard--a few from Milton Friedman and technically Keynes' General Theory through Hazlitt's line-by-line critique of it. (It also helps tremendous when you have a school that correctly predicts financial and monetary events whereas the largest competing school time and again fails spectacularly; how many times has Keynesianism revised itself?)
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@tanmoy313
You're countering with ad hominems. If you possess this enlightened wisdom that is logically superior, then why not simply argue it instead of about it? Finally, your "volatile" perspective of "free banking" is incorrect. You had volatility when the gov't allowed banks to suspend specie payment from bank notes (which used to be simply currency warehouses and is now more fraudulent counterfeiters).
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@tanmoy313
more and more "multiplier" effects so wealth will further abound, right? Why pick and choose when gov't gets to enter?
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile You are jumping around all over the place like you have ADHD and are accusing me of the things that you are doing yourself. In any case, you are blabbering about theories which you don't seem to understand completely. I am not just talking theory but actually giving you examples like China, keeping their currency cheap to encourage exports, the large number of financial panics in the 19th century before the Fed was created. Your response to these points are complete rubbish.
tanmoy313 1 year ago
@tanmoy313
Ad hominems your specialty? I like how your counter argument essentially comes down to "your rubbish" rather than any kind of dissection of the financial history of the 1800s.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@tanmoy313
People like you are the poster boys for Morgans and Rockefellers; congrats.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@tanmoy313 Yeah, but we had central banking then with the supply of money being controlled by bankers. After the elimination of the central bank by Jackson there were other things going on. So, really, all the problems are due to manipulation of credit.
CohibaSkeeza 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza Other things going on, huh? Sounds like some real scholarly research there.
tanmoy313 1 year ago
@tanmoy313 Yeah, manipulation in the gold markets, fed was subsidizing railroad, etc. State banks were going crazy issuing their own currency and credit notes. The stock market went through violent swings because the people who controlled it had enough influence to cause panics by spreading lies and massive sell-offs that they engineered. All that stuff was happening in no specific order to cause some of those instances you mentioned but they were not on the scale of recessions since the Fed.
CohibaSkeeza 1 year ago
The only thing that will save us is hyperinflation. Too many powerful and dangerous interests control too much money. It needs to all vanish somehow and reset.
Exposethefrauds 1 year ago
Comment removed
davidguywilson 1 year ago
He's completely right, man i hope he wins the senate seat
a4finger 1 year ago
something for nothing at the eventual destruction of that society. History will always be history. America is not (anymore) special.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Always view laws and regulations from the proper perspective -- legal plunder. That's all it ever is. Gov't is not your divine protector guardian angel. It is the blood-sucking parasite telling you everything else is wrong with your body but it. When they legislate a law, they're making the jungle that much thicker for loopholes for big business at the expense of the consumer, taxpayer, and small business owner. This is what democracy wroughts; people legislating
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile only legislation can stop big business for existing and causing these problems. Having no laws or regulations means having only big business, nothing else. It's a more rapid decline.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7
Completely backwards. I'm assuming you don't have the IQ of a mental handicap, therefore, I must conclude you have little to no exposure to political economic history. 'Regulatory capture' ring any bells? Hello?
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile regulatory capture is something I understand very, very well. Nothing guarantees it and it is never worse than the lack of regulation. The lack of regulation always does all the damage of regulatory capture but the damage happens faster and additional damage always happens to society because even with regulatory capture SOME regulations are still enforced for a short time.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7
You apparently don't understand it "very, very well" based on your exposition of the supposed results.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
They knew there was a bubble in real estate, they just act fast enough. Didn't you say Greenspan praised ARM mortgages and the very next day began raising rates? Went on to raise them 17 times or something like that? He just did it too slow. I am not saying they should get more power or anything, just that they weren't too stupid to see it, they were just too stupid to stop it without crashing the economy. If he would have jacked the rates up to 5% in one shot, the economy would have tanked.
christo930 1 year ago
But people loose faith in markets when there is no reason to have faith in them. Just like the past few years. There is no way to provide a backstop without further throwing-off the market. A complete collapse isn't going to happen as long as there is legitimate business going on. Economies don't collapse because everyone starts running around in panic. Economies collapse because government consumes the resources necessary to revive and grow the economy.
CohibaSkeeza 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza addendum: legit business needs to be able to survive being defrauded and bought out by fraudsters and manipulated into accidents.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7: Well, we already have a court system for fraud - no need for regulations. I don't know how a company can be "manipulated" into accidents... If some other company is forcing them to do stuff, that is already illegal under basic property rights and can also be handled in the court system. No purpose for regulations: 1) they don't work 2) regulators get bought-off 3) regulators aren't smart enough 4) make business inefficient - less jobs 5) hurt small business.
CohibaSkeeza 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza #1 without further regulations, no court system can handle the fraud because the fraud must be defined in the regulations, always an arms race, always adapting to what companies do to make new fraud schemes. #2 a company can be manipulated into seeking markets intended to fail using planted information, using money to pay people to do that. #3 a company can have their equipment destroyed by another company, using the other company's assets to finance the efforts.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 No. Fraud is a violation of rights - it is already built-in. A company is given false information - lying, already illegal in contract law. A company gets their equipment destroyed - property rights violation.The things you listed can already be addressed in the court system without regulations. A regulation is not what you are talking about. A regulation is when government mandates certain types of record keeping, dictates business practice, licenses, manufacturing requirements, etc.
CohibaSkeeza 1 year ago
@CohibaSkeeza taking away regulation would in effect mean small business can not exist forever after. Forever. The only one way to stop big businesses from killing small business is to make big business flat out illegal. No exceptions.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Hey Statist, if you knew a thing about profits, not State benefits, legitimate big businesses serve the customers best. Its a reward for giving something the people wanted, making that illegal will fuck the people.. Its like taking Westwood or Ubisoft and saying... You're too big, downsize or go to the cell. This fires workers, kills competitiveness spirits to strive to be the best and outsources jobs. You aren't attacking Corporatism, just making it worse.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp impossible. Outsourcing is only possible BECAUSE OF large corporations. If they did not exist, out-sourcing also would not exist. COULD NOT EXIST. The overhead is something only a larger corporation can afford. It doesn't really save money, it just keeps people poor who are local. By destroying all large corporations, smaller ones can co-operate TEMPORARILY for large projects and this employs MORE PEOPLE, MORE OFTEN. This DRIVES COMPETITION yet FOSTERS CO-OPERATION TOO.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 But listen for a second, there are demands out there... People want certain stuff... If say Ubisoft or some Company is going to make this stuff, and you cap the size of the business in this country it will have to move to somewhere else to get the jobs to fulfill that demand. Government creates outsourcing the most because they make our market undesirable and uncompetitive. Again you said make Big Business illegal, and that would only restrict them here, not else where.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp #1 the demand is low enough that smaller companies can do just fine compared to say, Ubisoft or Westwood. No companies will move elsewhere - smaller companies will work together as needed. They already do that to survive a little longer before total Annihilation by large corporations. So long as the largest exist, this is only to buy a little time before the cancer kills the patient. The least optimal economic situation is giant corporations, few employers, massive bureaucracy, scams
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 You aren't describing how a business became large in the first place, if its voluntary that means they listened to the people. If its through coercion, they are essentially part of the Government via the benefits: subsidies, land grants... If a big business became big because they listened to the people, and you say they go tyrannical that would kill their profits in a hurry. There reputation would go out the window. Corporate person-hood is a product of Statism.
BIackOp 1 year ago
Re: Your April 21st video: I couldn't agree more with your points. However, I do need to point out where you misspoke in your second reference to Mr. Paulson, but referring to him as "Henry." It was, as you correctly stated initially, "John" Paulson who participated in selecting the securities for Goldman Sachs, not the secretary of the Treasury, a former high official of GS.
IrvS9132 1 year ago
Hey Schiff, you know why you are never gonna be ellected?
Cos you're like that guy from the corner: "I aint growing the coke, i just sell it to some of my clients".
You're made of the same materriall like the GS gang. Maybe a bit more honest.
You're just upset that you didn't get a some of the action.
paveljeludovsky 1 year ago
@paveljeludovsky Straw-man.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@paveljeludovsky Wow, what a BS comment.There is 10 years worth of his commentary, and each is just as congruent as the other.I will tell you from personal experience, Peter is a wealthy man (he is not wanting).However, he also knows that capitalism and free markets are the only human solution to increasing the quality of life for all I recommend that you spend roughly 4 years of economic study comparing Keynes, Friedman, Hayek, Rothbard, Mises, etc, then you may be able to comment on the topic.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 I do have some economical background.
BUT, and now i need you to open your mind.
Schiff is basicly the same like that guy he disses, Dodd.
You, just like many others fail to comprehend a simple truth:
Slavery and exploitation are the most lucrative form of employment.
And robbery is the most profitable sort of transaction.
And that's how it works.
Go to China sometime...
That's why Schiff has no problem with saying "I sold some to my clients". He's like Dodd, just bit more honest.
paveljeludovsky 1 year ago
@paveljeludovsky Free market entrepreneur =\= career politician.
tychism 1 year ago
@tychism How is that, exactly? Are you one to be jealous of another's success. Seems to me that a career politician would be one that never created a business, and thus jobs. That a career politician would be one that never even held a real private sector job, rather they played the popularity contest in order to make a career earning their living off of the funds payed by the taxpayers. Please, explain to me the reasoning behind your assertion.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 I agree with you, hence career politician =/= free market entrepreneur, and Peter Schiff =/= Chris Dodd as asserted by paveljeludovsky. An Austrian perspective in the Senate would be a wonderful thing, and the prospect of two making it this year is quite exciting.
tychism 1 year ago
@paveljeludovsky I have been to both Hong Kong and Beijing. Also, I have met Peter and have talked with him on more than one occasion. Having travelled the world during my time in the Nav, and in my private life, I consider myself a good judge of character. I assure you that you will not find more of an open mind, I practice daily chakra meditation, and I indulge in the study of all topics; even those in which I do not subscribe. IMO, you are reading Mr. Schiff quite incorrectly. Just my HO.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 Look. I don't diss Schiff.
And i wish the ameriocan ppl to have many more guys like him in politics. I have no problem with him as a person.
I have a problem with ideology. The FREE MARKET bullshit. And my point is since he's less of a "true" capitalist in politics.
He'll lose.
BTW, have you ever been to a sweat shop? I mean actually witness the "cheap labor"?
paveljeludovsky 1 year ago
@paveljeludovsky Yes, but there is far worse. I have seen the African and Russian prostitute trade in Dubai, I have watched a civil war take place right before my eyes in Eritrea. I have seen 12 year old girls and boys being sold into sexual slavery in Thailand. Sweatshops do not even touch the surface of the horrible acts of "humanity" that exist in this world. My goal is to increase the quality of life for all, and the only path is through INDIVIDUAL liberty and free markets. Proof 'n pudding.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 by "free" market, what do you mean with "free" ? Free of fraud? Free of concentrated wealth? Free of poverty? Free of disaster? I think some people have failed to qualify their definition and assume everyone wants the same thing, has the same plan, but somehow it's not all adding up.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 "Free" of the coercion and compulsion of the State. That is the primary issue between a free market, and that of an interventionist market. Those that receive favor and/or privilege most certainly receive such through the system of laws of the State. The State is the only entity that can (and will) use force or violence to enforce such. Barring such a dynamic, it is the consumer that has power over that of the business, and the consumers cast their vote with every penny spent.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 We're had for the longest time interventionist monetary policies from the Government: Keynesianism right now, Mercantilism, Neo Mercantilism, Reverse Mercantilism... Haven't had true Laissez-faire in a very long time..
BIackOp 1 year ago
@KSTCBH23 impossible. You can't cast a vote if there is no ballot and the "free" market is not a diversified nor fair market, and ensures all ballots are stacked away from the consumer's benefit. you can vote on who will rip you off but the vote NOT to get ripped off is impossible - there is no ballot for that, there is no product to buy. All honest sales men are terminated by fraudsters in free markets. The profits BUY VIOLENCE to make it so, mafia style.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@paveljeludovsky While I do not pride myself in regard to the acts that I have seen, it was not all bad. Having had the chance to have visited 19 separate countries, it gives one a different perspective on life, especially if you actually talk to the people as equals on Earth, I did get kicked out of the Nav on a General discharge due to my verbalization of what I saw. However, I would not have been able to talk to those of the world and know the lives of those outside of America had I not.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@paveljeludovsky Sorry to post so many replies, but 500 characters just doesn't do it. All that I want to say in closing is that I do not have any regrets, but I sure as chit will never do it again. At least, not that way. I do travel extensively these days, but I do so with a new understanding of life on this Earth. To be honest, our worst day here in America is nothing more than a small annoyance. Needless to say, I know longer worry like I used to. I let things flow like water.
KSTCBH23 1 year ago
@paveljeludovsky Complete bullshit.
Schiff is right in line with Mises... Not some socialist tyrant.. Note mixed economies are not laissez-faire capitalism.
"A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism: is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings." - Ludwig Von Mises
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp I'm not dissing Schiff but something about your comment didn't sit well with me. How do you value a capitalist tyrant as being safer for all of us than a socialist tyrant? Socialism is co-operation, we use it in Canada for our health care and it works really damn well. The private market can't compete for access, keeping us able to work and live with far less poverty than Americans in distress.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Because in the true sense of the word, his power is affected by profits. Any deemed terrible service is punished by a lack of profits, and eventually bankruptcy; however, the Socialist tyrant (The State) isn't affect by profits, voting is the only means to change something that doesn't guarantee a change and you don't have a choice to go else where in that type of a system. Socialism really pisses me off, because its the opposite of what it sounds like. Coercion is not social.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp nice idea but in reality it doesn't work. Terrible service is rewarded with profits by ensuring the competition is ruined first, using money to block further development by those competitors. The "socialist tyrant" is a fiction of your imagination. There isn't any such thing. Coercion is not part of socialism, it's the basis of capitalism. If you want something good in life, it has to be a product and someone has to be made poor. That's a stupid way to live.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Stop talking, you have no concept of history. Your definitions are wrong, or they don't fit to what is commonly known as Socialism and Capitalism. You have no clue that Statist interventionist monetary polices create these disasters. Regulating the market to protect people from themselves, taking away their own responsibilities and transferring that to the State is chaos. Statism is Coercion. Socialism is the ends justify the means, always.
/watch?v=6Bxo1CIi44w
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp I will never stop. I speak the truth and the world shall hear it. Your lies can't make it past the real truth.
What in AMERICA is commonly known as socialism is all lies and mostly refers to actual FASCISM. What the WORLD knows as capitalism is how the mafia works and how America operates. I TOTALLY understand how monetary policy, which should not exist, creates disasters and is NOT REQUIRED in any kind of socialism (or capitalism). Regulating the market prevents fraud.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 You speak a religion, you don't give a fuck about the truth. You talk about exploitation and poverty, but you are supporting a Coercive Monopoly that steals from people, controls people, and even kills people if it does not follow their arbitrary rules. State Capitalism is still a Top Down order derived from Socialism, Fascism is a mixed economy that will always lead to Socialism after the Corporate cartel get labeled a "Free Market".
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp You're still drinking the kool-aid, I speak of no religion, no monopoly, no coercion. The very act of people co-operating in production, in investment, in sustaining survival, when it is for those priorities first and profit LAST, is socialism, even completely decentralized. In fact all decentralized systems are better than all centralized systems to avoid points of failure and fraudulent manipulation, capitalist or socialist. Fascism is not a mixed economy. Never can be.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Look at my channel, ffs. I am not some zombie follower... You support the State, which is a Coercive Monopoly, its a "legal" monopoly with the use of force over a given geographical area. What do you think Socialism amounts to? Its probably not your definition and that's why you were disappointed at Mises... Our actions will be determined by a board, this all knowing board will decide how to run the economy, will decide what jobs we get. That is socialism.
Its not cooperating.
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp I do not support the State. I support any useful mechanism that stops fraud in markets. Socialism defined by Mises is a lie, of course I dismiss it. I'm in Canada. We use socialism. We use it for health care, we use it for EI, we use it for welfare. It works and it works very well. Capitalism has offered nothing better at any time. Your definition of socialism is the biggest lie ever told in economics because it is actually how corporate capitalism is running economies right now.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 Its not a lie, he was referring to your end goal. If his definition is not Socialism, then wtf is it? Certainly not free markets. My definition came straight from wiki. Thanks for not reading what Capitalism was, you know it all comrade... Stop for a second read your last line. "how corporate capitalism is running right now" Right, so instead of controlling capital for your desires, they are doing it for their desires. I oppose this as well you know. Socialism for the Rich...
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp his definition is concentrated central positions which includes all end-states of capitalism and all centralized government, including those which only use capitalism. None of it is socialist. There's no such thing as "socialism for the rich" that's like saying "gravity for rainbows only". It's nonsense-talk. By definition in socialism the rich do not exist. Any time wealth is gathered from all people and moved away forever this is ALWAYS FASCISM, and NEVER SOCIALISM AT ANY TIME.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
@ytgv3fc7 So what are your comments on all these fraud business socializing their losses with the taxpayer? Isn't that socialism?
BIackOp 1 year ago
@BIackOp no, it's fascism. Socialism includes the large wealth moving TO the people to socialize the GAINS and balance all loads, burden, productivity, evenly. To move it all one way is not socialism. Can't be. A REQUIREMENT of socialism is that the individuals ALL get what they need out of what is available because they ALL contribute. There's no such thing as "socialize the losses". That's bull-terminology for "stealing by the rich".
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago