13:36 - I love that smirk."Typical example of how one intervention leads to another one or two government interventions." Pretty sure I heard him say the exact same thing today. And yesterday... and for the last decade.
Ok question: What's to keep a corporation once they have a monopoly from turning around and screwing consumers over after they establish their position and wipe out competition?
@eirefrance Standard Oil also delivered a 95% (i think that's about right) reduction in Kerosene prices and opened up a completely new market in energy. Even though he dominated the market with his company he still provided much cheaper prices than anyone could offer (and Rockefeller obviously still made a profit) so there was no need for competition since he still offered a superior product that the consumers willingly paid for without government intervention.
@eirefrance At the height of Standard Oil, it had something like 85% of the market share (of course it did create the kerosene market). By the time the antitrust case was brought against them, the share had already started falling to the 60% range.
RON PAUL CALLS AMERICAN PEOPLE WAR CRIMINALS, RON PAUL GIVES AMERICAN PEOPLE BAD REPUTATION AROUND THE WORLD. NOW NOBODY WILL BUY PRODUCTS MADE IN USA, THANK YOU SO MUCH RON PAUL UR REAL PATRIOT! GOD BLESS UR FAMILY MAY UR CHILDREN LOOSE THEIR JOBS , I WILL PRAY !
@hiyukenmusic Ok, but you haven't explained to us how the profit motive and competition are laughable. See, you're supposed to persuade us to your views. Saying it is so doesn't make it true. By the way, youtube is a product of corporation and they're not so bad.
I've gotta ask Ron Paul how he has kept from getting extremely disillussioned with government and the people having to wait so long for opinions to catch up to him.
@hiyukenmusic The Enron mess demonstrates that the marriage of reckless entrepreneurs and irresponsible government is always a recipe for disaster. Enron had nothing to do with the free market, which the two gentlemen in the video are advocating for. Two completely different concepts. Look up the difference between capitalism and crony capitalism.
@vanraizen That is what I need a clear explanation of. What is a true "FREE" market? What does it look like. Because common sense tells me we need import tariffs at the very least or massive anti-trust lawsuits so how what exactly does this free market mean without a managed fall into it. To me it seems like they are saying...we have done the prep work so now we are going to throw you to the wolves of monopolization.
@hiyukenmusic In a free market system there is no corporate welfare or corrupt politicians giving one corporation advantage over another. Companies must truly compete for profits. Before the massive expansion of regulations, taxation and government there was a much more competitive free enterprise system. Monopoly, price fixing, customer gouging etc. were rarities. It was the corporations using the corrupt government that desired regulations in order to stifle their competition.
@vanraizen You just lost me with that bullshit line. The idea that corporations and the profit motive leads to necessary competition required for a free market is laughable. And the idea that there actually was a time period that could be described as a period before regulations to site from is laughable as well. I do see redundancy in law but even with redundancy taken out, corporations are still second only to a tyrannical government in its threat to a free society.
@hiyukenmusic You work for profit. If you couldn't profit you wouldn;t work. Profit means producing more than you consume yourself due to being produced combining your labor with others to over produce with one fixed goal. You then take your profits and exchange it for other's production inwhich you want. You need to understand what money is and why society uses it. Also what gives money in general value.
@bellcord Whenever Ron Paul is insulted with no justification by a low-life scum such as yourself, it just makes me support him even more. Makes me realize how ignorant and out-of-touch his severest opponents are.
@PoetsLight Okay, In light of Congressman Paul's being only one of 4 Republicans NOT to have voted for gutting Medicare this week I officially take back half of all the mean things I said about him
As long as there are no significant barriers to entry, a rival firm could easily set a lower price, and destroy the monopoly that is fixing the price.
@joshua1auhsoj I think there is two parts to that. First is assuming the market is very de-regulated so anyone can enter into said market, someone who is in a good position who already has resources would immediatly see the oppurtunity to be had in that market and compete against AT&T. The other is that AT&T probably couldn't raise their prices indefinatly, consumer media may see the big scandal and inform consumers who would refuse AT&T's services. Both of these together would ruin AT&T.
@joshua1auhsoj Also there isn't much precedent for this in history except for in a case where violent force backs it, which tends to be government (or you could point at organized crime). The only issue I'm still researching as far as deregulation is issues of longterm health or some such thing. I could see that maybe consumer media would inform consumers, it would be big news and viewership for them that a big U.S. toy company is using lead. I don't know much about that side.
@joshua1auhsoj I remember when AT&T was broken up in trhe 80's under anti-trust laws. And I also remember what happened to the prices for phone services IMMEDIATELY after. They went up sharply.
In other words, yes trustbusting is misguided and hits the wrong monopolies, however, the free market, although effective to many standards, does lack in that certain areas are simply not competitive. These areas are when demand is inelastic, and this leads to monopolies as well. When companies absorb all the smaller companies to refuse entrance, its a monopoly. When a company is simply really good at what it does, it isn't, so i think they're using an irrelevant arguement.
First of all, I have enormous respect for the congressman, and I believe he is one of the few intelligent men in congress today. However, I do have to add in on what he said earlier about competitive monopolies. A pure monopoly is when demand is completely inelastic, meaning, changes to the supply will not effect changes to the quanitity demanded. In their example, the monopoly is not a pure monopoly because price changes still effect quantity demand.
Its the stunning irony of Libral "Progressive" type of ideas that actually kills progression! Look how he described bell telephones of how they had a government watched monopoly and franchise while the market was calling for more players! This is one of the thousands of things that happens when you have government regulation and intervenion.
well be that doing something is right as well as nothing- depending on the situation. for example epidemics. the organizational skills of the state would be very useful kind of like in a war. enough Paul will probably get my vote anyways cause i like freedom.
@pankskink The state is good in managing epidemics and war? Have you looked into the performance of the UN in battling AIDS and malaria in Africa? Have you read about the war in the Middle East? With the sheer size of government spending they are bound to create some good effects, but the good that the state does is just that, accidental in nature.
yeah laws cannot stop human intent. "War is a racket." and secret corporate interests start them. and that is the truth. What we in America are experiencing in our lifetimes is a SECRET GOVERNMENT of, for, and by Wall Street interests at the expense of our individual liberties and those of Americans still yet to come. Secrecy does not belong in a government based on rule of law. In fact, secrecy is the best ally of those who wish to take our rights.
@truevoice08 Before the ban on DDT malaria was only an annoying disease that affected very few & was easily cured (usually). Now millions are infected and many die. Who gets hit hardest? The worlds POOR of course. Screw the EPA & all the politicians!
@pankskink you should read 'economics in one lesson' by Hazlitt.
describes by pretty much the whole school of Austrian economics as the best introductory book into understanding economics. just read the Amazon reviews.
And btw, just as evolution is sometimes unintuitive, allowing religious propaganda to take hold in the mainstream thought, Austrian economics and classical liberalism in general is exactly the same. except with this, it has more say on our lives and the right side is losing :(
anti-trust was the one thing that i thought i could disprove from paul. always seemed like Libertarianism is akin to fanatic nationalism. anyways i take hold of the 'effect' that a law has verses what its 'intent' was. "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" but blind faith has its drawbacks. IF all the choices that the govt MIGHT take away from individuals could be analyzed into the "all, nothing or something" then paul's right, but in the real world the solution could very
There's a very interesting article called "the case for antitrust enforcement" by Jonathan B. Baker. It dealts if most of the criticism presented here and does a very good job debunking it.
The article assumes that the laws are applied evenly but they are not and this is why they fail.
This is evendent by the recent bank melt down. Where are large corporations buying out all the small firms and become "to big to fail".
Two things happened they were allowed to grow regardless of the anti trust laws and when they failed the people bailed them out. The Federal Reserve has a monopoly.
This is exactly what Ron was talking about years before it happened.
Actually I think it's more accurate to say that it was the relaxed application of antitrust rules that allowed banks to merge and become bigger and bigger.
Today's crisis is an example on why people should return to a stricter economic regulation. Not a reason to strip the regulation further as some in the libertarian movement argue.
yawn. If these loans weren't insured by the government, it wouldn't have been profitable to take the risk.
There are two parts to a functioning market: greed and fear. The pro regulation crowd always forgets the fear part and sets up moral hazards all over the place.
I wouldn't call the government backing of loans regulation. It was more a case of social engineering.
I agree that regulation sometimes creates moral hazards. However the "free market crowd" always forget market imperfections like the agent problem, and assimetric information.
The problem was not only the poorly made loans but also their repackaging and lack of oversight on the products being sold in the financial market.
if the loans werent required by the government, they never would have happened, at least to the degree in which they did, and we wouldnt be talking about this now. regulation caused this problem, not a free market. in fact, a truly free market would have prohibited this problem.
@smashing86 Asymmetric information in the market arises because of human imperfection. It is a leap to conclude that we need government intervention because of these alleged problems.
The moralities of humanitarianism and ecology (altruism, responsibility, stewardship, etc.) have been disregarded in favor of short-term 'market efficiency', benefiting only those who will buy their product and be content with its quality and origins, be they ignorant, distracted, or numb. A company like this could use its influence to buy-out or silence most competition, so that most innovation is controlled. How would the market system intervene to address this destructive, excessive behavior?
This libertarian view of the argues in favor of a free-market utopia, failing to see the immoral nature of the profit motive at the heart of capitalist ideology. If monopolies are allowed to naturally exist they will seek to keep prices down by the easiest means, such as exploiting workers and ecosystems.
I do not agree that a company can spend trillions over 50 years just to attempt to compete with an existing business, but I sincerely appreciate that you answered the question directly. It's a lot more than I've gotten from other folks I've argued this with, so thank you. Best of luck
This is absolutely voodoo nonsense. The idea that we can't get in the way of monopolies because they wouldn't be monopolies if they weren't doing such a wonderful job is ludicrous. Once a monopoly is allowed to form it can then turn right around and fuck consumers, fuck workers and fuck the economy and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. That's what a monopoly is. You cannot compete against it. It's anti-competitive and anti-capitalist.
Monopolies and large corporations only become truly powerful when they are protected by regulations. The big guys have plenty of lawyers to deal with them, and the little guy gets screwed. We need to make sure there is free entry, so there is at least the threat of competition at all times. Also, corporate persohood is a government invention in the first place..
I'd particularly like to see the coercive monopoly that government enjoys broken up. They're particularly abusive.
If a phone company owns an entire infrastructure, phone lines, all that crap, how can another company compete? Build an entirely new infrastructure that costs trillions over 50 years? No one has the capital to do that and no one would be willing to take the risk even if they did. That's why it's a monopoly, because it prevents competition.
A company that makes the best tasting hamburgers and so sells 90% of all hamburgers is not a monopoly, because anyone can make hamburgers and compete.
Cell phones provide a clear counterexample to your phone example, with many companies building their own infrastructure basically from zero.
Even before that, MCI challenged AT&T's government-enforced monopoly by developing a new technological way of delivering phone service. Of course, AT&T tried to fight this initially... not through competition but through government.
Eventually the government did a 180 and broke up AT&T, after protecting it for decades.
It would be less likely for competitors to enter the market, especially if the first company does a decent job. If the first phone company became abusive enough, however, competitors would put up the money.
Yay, monopolies are great! Who needs competition? Let's just give the corporations more power. It will all work out. Trust this guy. I mean look at that mustache. Clearly this is a man you can trust.
In the 80s when there were less than 30 channels on television this was what they put on? Now we have over 400 channels, and quality public information programming like this is absent from the air waves. Lovely how we've completed the cycle of brainwashing so that nothing in the media these days is factual.
Yes, but what your saying simply proves the principle. When the free market works, the stations that receive more views succeed. So the stations with people killing each other or reality shows succeeded over two guys talking about economics. Regrettable yes. But remember, TV reflects our society. A channel only succeeds if people watch it. So it is only regrettable in the sense that the true nature of our society is more animalistic than we would have hoped.
Too true. I just find it rather sad that we have succumb to such an obvious distraction from the real world. It's odd to think that our lives are so bad that millions of people turn to television 4 hours daily to escape reality, and quite ironic when we call the TV we watch "reality TV" when it reflects no reality I've been a part of.
@sedatedlife18 I was thinking the exact same thing as I was watching this. You'll never see an intelligent discussion like this in the mainstream media
It is a fantasy to have the assumption of "things will work themself out" in a reasonable and rational period of time without them being a pyrrhic correction.
If you look at the federal reserve they have just created a slowly building ponzi scheme that keeps creating more bubbles faster and faster. But again the federal reserve is a private institution. It is in a essence, a corporate monopoly that is held in power by the government which is... controlled by corporations.
They make some good points here but they are definitely stuck on the fantasy of free markets. Two competitors in Utopian libertarian theory will compete and create the best product. That is not how things work however. Two competitors either buy one another out(merge) or seek to destroy each other to achieve a monopoly.
Competition is a continual process, not a destination. A company trying to put another out of business IS competition. If a business becomes a sole competitor in any market and uses that position to raise prices or lower quality, it simply opens up room for a new competitor to enter the market and take some or all of that market share away from them.
That is clearly a utopian view of things. Once a monopoly is established every form of coercion will be used via taking control of government what it may be to maintain that monopoly. Sure EVENTUALLY that monopoly will die just like Rome fell. Is that really a realistic or useful form of government?
I agree with you on the third point, and the second. But as to the first point if the corporation is larger than the government and more powerful how can they prevent coercion and fraud? Corporations will simply create their own laws (similar to home owners groups' rules), get their own miltiias, police, fire, prisons, etc and become their own governments.
Voluntary contracts are different from laws. Since corporations are funded voluntarily, must produce something of value to continue to be funded, and are concerned with money rather than world conquest, I'm a bit doubtful that your concern is very valid. Even if it were, it's no worse than a powerful government like we have today. It's up to the people to hold both accountable.
That again is back to the utopian idealist view of the free markets. Most corporations start out as voluntary contracts. When your water system is privatized, when your prisons are privatized, when your electricity is privatized, it is not a voluntary contract. You either move (which isn't a realistic solution) to a region that doesn't have that, or you suffer living under corporate tyrants in which you have no power to change.
Your only power to change them is through the government which would be significantly smaller than the corporate power. So how would it have any power of enforcement?
Government is definitely imperfect. But it is a product of imperfect people. The thing about government is at least we can change government. We cannot change corporations without first using government.
That is completely false. Businesses cannot survive without consumers funding them. Not only that, but they must answer to their shareholders.
Businesses are also imperfect because they are the product of imperfect people. However, businesses must compete and better themselves to survive. Governments don't have to compete or better themselves.
That is the fantasy and it only true in the case of an emerging business. The idea of any business is to create a monopoly or have an exclusive contract so that there is no comp
on a micro level the consumer does not get choices. There are no restaurants that serve coke or pepsi. Each one makes a discounted bid that if they only carry their product exclusively they will receive a much cheaper price. If they do no agree they will be forced to pay a premium just to provide a consumer choices.
Absolutely not. Arbitragers and other parasitic occupations neither produce nor consume. They merely extract value from producers or consumers. I've spent my entire life as a parasite :)
A restaurant or store owner is providing a service, and one that must be provided in one way or another, regardless of whether the provider is a distinct legal entity from the original producer or not. The fact that you don't understand that is evidence of your complete ignorance of economics.
it's good to know you've forfeited the argument. Hopefully a libertarian who understands economics can chime in. You've proven you've exhausted all of your de facto statements and are out of gas.
The obvious counterargument would be "Well you can choose not to live there." But realistically once oligarchs started seeing this as profitable they would all start doing this. There would be no reason for them not to.
It's hardly a utopian view. By definition, competition is unstable. It's dynamic. There will be highs and lows for both consumers and businesses as the market changes, but the overall trend will be toward greater prosperity for all. All based on freedom and voluntary exchange.
It's a separation of powers. It says we should keep business doing business and government doing government.
Please explain to me how it is "utopian" to accept imperfections in the marketplace, yet not utopian to assume one can "fix" those imperfections?
No one said anything about "surges of extreme high variance." If you want to talk about business cycles, just look at what the Federal Reserve's attempts to 'smooth out' the economy have brought us--the exact opposite.
Finally, where does anyone get the rightful authority to mess with else's affairs anyway?
The rightful authority comes from political power which comes from the barrel of a gun ultimately. These corporations don't do the right thing because we ask them to. The reason we have building codes and all sorts of standards is because people, and corporations could not be trusted to do the right thing left alone. Government didn't just step in because they were bored and someone wanted to make money issuing permits.
is't Tom DiLorenzo's latest book. It's a wonderfully written and researched work that that gives a free market history of America and her policies toward capitalism. Today I just got to the chapter called: Antitrust myths.
(how did youtube recommend this vid. for me kinda scary) anyway its neat to see a young Ron Paul. Keep learning!
paulleyton is 100% right. you all need to read some books, not just the ones endorsed by mises institute. we on the left have come to it through critical examination of BOTH sides and not just taking the voice that appeals to your gut and blindly following it. as you mature you'd be doing a disservice to yourself to ignore the utter falsehood of your ideas, which you will inevitably observe over and over again. Keep an open mind or you're likely to lose it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What is required is not "no" regulation but "intelligent" regulation as unregulated free markets lead to monopolies and increasingly unbalanced societies, ie privatised socialism for the rich.
And any logical person can also see that our market is far from being laissez-faire. I challenge you to point out one aspect of this economic crisis that doesn't point to the government.
The free market is not free from error, but it pales in comparison to government.
Banks giving credit to people with no credit worthiness has nothing to do with government except in the sense that government should enforce stricter controls on such irresponsible behaviour.
Madoffs scam similarly has nothing to do with government rather with an irresponsible organisation that managed to skirt controls and game the system!!!
Banks lent out to people with no credit because of The Community Reinvestment Act... passed by government!! Also, the Madoff scam was fraud(which is fairly rare) and the market caught the scam... because it self regulates!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"The market caught the scam because it self regulates"
how wonderful countless people and banks have lost everything, several people have committed suicide, 50 billion dollars appears to have vanished but we can be thankful because the market self regulates!
Doh, wouldnt it be better if there were proper regulations in place to prevent things getting that far???
What are these magical bureaucratic regulations that will solve a random crime that rarely happens?
There are already many federal, state and local statutes against fraud and misrepresentation, and businesses that behave badly can be dealt with through normal civil and criminal legal means.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Crap! The regulations have been eaten away since Friedmanite thinking took a hold of those in power since the Reagan years. We've had three decades of progressive deregulation and its led nowhere.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well for a start banks not being allowed to leveredge beyond their assets! And dont start on about markets self regulating as by the time they've done that the investors money is lost.
A civilised society should have safeguards to prevent this (which for me kind of suggests that the free market as you see it and civilised society are two incongruous concepts).
You stupid turd, your dumb free market deregulation idiocy has screwed up the world economy and you appear to believe deregulation didnt go far enough? You must be totally nuts, unbelievably naive or just malignant.
Fuck you retard, it was government who got us into this problem. It was also your beloved regulations that couldn't catch Madoff, if there were no regulations with companies like Madoff was running investors wold have been more skeptical instead of depending on the incompetent government. You obviously don't have a clue about how the free market works. Do some fucking studying before you make ignorant comments like that.
PAULLEYTON is a fuking idiot... hes one of those people who read naomi kleins shock doctrine and now he believes it was milton friedmans ideology that got us into this mess.... and he conveniently forgets that it was government that created both fannie and freddie and not to mention the Federal Reserve System...
And security corporations in a free market wouldnt face conflicts of interest? Wishful thinking. Deregulation has weakened the effectiveness of the SEC as too many people believed the erroneous Friedmanite mindset that markets can control themselves.
This mindset has now come to an end.
Any logical thinking person can see that markets cannot control themselves, at least not in a half way fair and civilised society.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are grasping at any corn to hold up your dodgy free market doctrine. If you are looking for reasons rather look at the explosion of derivatives trading since the 80s, over leveredging, and the selling on of motgage debt, ostensibly freeing the banks of possible comeback on bad debt thus freeing brokers to aggressively pursue the fees that came with any signed deal, regardless of the genuine creditworthiness of the deal.
The SEC, a huge government run portion of the government, is allowed to investigate corporations to prevent precisely this form of criminal activity. It replaces normal market security corporations which could exist in a free, deregulated market. Yet it failed in every aspect to investigate an thwart this activity.
This is a waste of government expenditure to try and regulate markets which otherwise could naturally deter this activity. Instead there is a perceived false sense of safety.
Regulation caused the Madoff scandal and allowed it to happen. Government as a watchdog eventually falls in to ambivalence, corruption, inefficiency, or all three.
Effective regulation should prevent such occurrences, however the trend to deregulation has allowed tricksters to get away with more than they should.
If the market had been allowed to dictate the fate of Madoff the results would have been exactly as they played out. Therefore the very deregulation you appear to support is the cause, as no regulation took place in this case!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There are a lot of interesting points being made here but what they fail to realize is that the general public is stupid. A monopoly CAN thrive on giving a disproportional market price. What we need is organized consumerism!
I agree with that most people are idiots. However, monopolies and price predation are not as easy at it seems. You should look into what Robber Baron Jay Gould did to Western Union, lol.
Who are you to decide what is a disproportional market price? You can think it's stupid for people to buy a good at price X, but it's what these people are willing to pay.
I've read Professor Armentano's book "Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure" and strongly recommend it to anybody who wants an extensive analysis of antitrust policies since their creation and how they've evolved over the years. There is no way anybody could read that book and see the evidence and still support antitrust, it's a must-read for anybody who supports capitalism!
We are all born unto this Earth, and we all should have an inherent right to all Life Sustainable Natural Resources.
No One Man or Corporation should be Allowed to Profit, or Control, or Refuse, or make Unaffordable these Life Preserving Sustainable Rights. Jack Griffith
Air, Water, Gas, Electricity,Oil,Airwaves.
We need to organize a State by State Coalition to make Public Service Commisions exercise the right of the People and control Big Business, and imprison the Replutatcrats.
Yeah, definitely. In today's talk shows, people jump from one topic to another without exploring far enough into each topic at hand. The shows today are very superficial and unsubstantive, compared to this one. Even in the channels that specialize in reporting on the economy, economic theory is rarely, if ever discussed.
Webster defines Freedom as; All that's fair in Heaven. Rights defined from two key words.
FAIR,FREEDOM.
The Anti Trust Laws were designed to keep the winners of Boardwalk and Park Place from cleaning the board and then offering you
$600. to keep playing. This interview is a well defined explanation of how corrupt organized business has squashed competition and seized our Government.
They knew exactly what they were doing, and their business practice can only be defined in one word, TREASON.
You know you wont see this on the front page of youtube in the 'videos being watched' part. But you'll see alot of Obama, Britney, sports and other silly th
This video needs to get viral.
BIackOp 5 minutes ago
13:36 - I love that smirk."Typical example of how one intervention leads to another one or two government interventions." Pretty sure I heard him say the exact same thing today. And yesterday... and for the last decade.
qFxGaming 1 month ago
RON PAUL 2012? yup!
MrGiggity890 1 month ago
Ok question: What's to keep a corporation once they have a monopoly from turning around and screwing consumers over after they establish their position and wipe out competition?
IcyScythe 2 months ago
@IcyScythe Potential competition ;)
TheNonAntiAnarchist 2 months ago
@IcyScythe You can't kill competition without the government. THe bigger you get, the more you have to fuel (pensions, medical etc...)
It's always easy to undercut the big guy
GtheMVP 1 month ago
5:20 Standard Oil?
eirefrance 2 months ago
@eirefrance Standard Oil also delivered a 95% (i think that's about right) reduction in Kerosene prices and opened up a completely new market in energy. Even though he dominated the market with his company he still provided much cheaper prices than anyone could offer (and Rockefeller obviously still made a profit) so there was no need for competition since he still offered a superior product that the consumers willingly paid for without government intervention.
Kaasperav 1 week ago
@Kaasperav Which isn't a trust how?
eirefrance 2 days ago
@eirefrance At the height of Standard Oil, it had something like 85% of the market share (of course it did create the kerosene market). By the time the antitrust case was brought against them, the share had already started falling to the 60% range.
shannoncarissa82 2 days ago
Ten members of the fed dislike this video.
tripzero0 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Youtube this:
"How To Vote For Ron Paul - Watch And Understand"
Then pass it on to help others elect Dr. Paul POTUS.
Vote4RonPaulLiberty 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm still left wondering about electricity, telephone, water, and such. Surely can't do anything about what they charge?
vechorik 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL CALLS AMERICAN PEOPLE WAR CRIMINALS, RON PAUL GIVES AMERICAN PEOPLE BAD REPUTATION AROUND THE WORLD. NOW NOBODY WILL BUY PRODUCTS MADE IN USA, THANK YOU SO MUCH RON PAUL UR REAL PATRIOT! GOD BLESS UR FAMILY MAY UR CHILDREN LOOSE THEIR JOBS , I WILL PRAY !
democratsaresmart 6 months ago
@hiyukenmusic Ok, but you haven't explained to us how the profit motive and competition are laughable. See, you're supposed to persuade us to your views. Saying it is so doesn't make it true. By the way, youtube is a product of corporation and they're not so bad.
Mofostrobujo 7 months ago
I've gotta ask Ron Paul how he has kept from getting extremely disillussioned with government and the people having to wait so long for opinions to catch up to him.
MandragGanon 7 months ago
idiots.
nthought 8 months ago
Because deregulation worked so fucking well with Enron and with utility California
hiyukenmusic 8 months ago
@hiyukenmusic The Enron mess demonstrates that the marriage of reckless entrepreneurs and irresponsible government is always a recipe for disaster. Enron had nothing to do with the free market, which the two gentlemen in the video are advocating for. Two completely different concepts. Look up the difference between capitalism and crony capitalism.
vanraizen 7 months ago
@vanraizen That is what I need a clear explanation of. What is a true "FREE" market? What does it look like. Because common sense tells me we need import tariffs at the very least or massive anti-trust lawsuits so how what exactly does this free market mean without a managed fall into it. To me it seems like they are saying...we have done the prep work so now we are going to throw you to the wolves of monopolization.
hiyukenmusic 7 months ago
@hiyukenmusic In a free market system there is no corporate welfare or corrupt politicians giving one corporation advantage over another. Companies must truly compete for profits. Before the massive expansion of regulations, taxation and government there was a much more competitive free enterprise system. Monopoly, price fixing, customer gouging etc. were rarities. It was the corporations using the corrupt government that desired regulations in order to stifle their competition.
vanraizen 7 months ago
@vanraizen You just lost me with that bullshit line. The idea that corporations and the profit motive leads to necessary competition required for a free market is laughable. And the idea that there actually was a time period that could be described as a period before regulations to site from is laughable as well. I do see redundancy in law but even with redundancy taken out, corporations are still second only to a tyrannical government in its threat to a free society.
hiyukenmusic 7 months ago
@hiyukenmusic You work for profit. If you couldn't profit you wouldn;t work. Profit means producing more than you consume yourself due to being produced combining your labor with others to over produce with one fixed goal. You then take your profits and exchange it for other's production inwhich you want. You need to understand what money is and why society uses it. Also what gives money in general value.
residentzombie 3 months ago
This discussion thus far has not accepted the existence of a monopoly at all. Why did the Sherman Antitrust act get passed in the first place???
hiyukenmusic 8 months ago
@hiyukenmusic Because businessmen who couldn't compete in the markets always go crying to congress for special privileges.
shamgar001 7 months ago
WOW this is bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!
hiyukenmusic 8 months ago
Ron Paul needs his own TV show
YoungIvyScholar 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul : A shiteating moron since 1983...
bellcord 9 months ago
@bellcord Whenever Ron Paul is insulted with no justification by a low-life scum such as yourself, it just makes me support him even more. Makes me realize how ignorant and out-of-touch his severest opponents are.
PoetsLight 9 months ago 2
@PoetsLight Okay, In light of Congressman Paul's being only one of 4 Republicans NOT to have voted for gutting Medicare this week I officially take back half of all the mean things I said about him
bellcord 9 months ago
@bellcord People like you just don't get it. Must suck to live a life like that.
TheSWTORMMO 2 months ago
This clip is priceless, Thank You!
bjarnet3 10 months ago 2
what about if a company gets so rich that they can buy out all of there competition?
for example right now at&t is about to take over tmoblie. they can make the price whatever they want once they have eliminated the competition.
can someone please explain to me how the free market will fix this problem?
they talked about it briefly in this video but they really didnt answer my question, or atleast i dont feel like it was explained in detail.
joshua1auhsoj 10 months ago
@joshua1auhsoj
As long as there are no significant barriers to entry, a rival firm could easily set a lower price, and destroy the monopoly that is fixing the price.
amartin7889 10 months ago 2
@joshua1auhsoj I think there is two parts to that. First is assuming the market is very de-regulated so anyone can enter into said market, someone who is in a good position who already has resources would immediatly see the oppurtunity to be had in that market and compete against AT&T. The other is that AT&T probably couldn't raise their prices indefinatly, consumer media may see the big scandal and inform consumers who would refuse AT&T's services. Both of these together would ruin AT&T.
zoogle1 9 months ago
@joshua1auhsoj Also there isn't much precedent for this in history except for in a case where violent force backs it, which tends to be government (or you could point at organized crime). The only issue I'm still researching as far as deregulation is issues of longterm health or some such thing. I could see that maybe consumer media would inform consumers, it would be big news and viewership for them that a big U.S. toy company is using lead. I don't know much about that side.
zoogle1 9 months ago
@joshua1auhsoj I remember when AT&T was broken up in trhe 80's under anti-trust laws. And I also remember what happened to the prices for phone services IMMEDIATELY after. They went up sharply.
pocoapoco2 9 months ago
In other words, yes trustbusting is misguided and hits the wrong monopolies, however, the free market, although effective to many standards, does lack in that certain areas are simply not competitive. These areas are when demand is inelastic, and this leads to monopolies as well. When companies absorb all the smaller companies to refuse entrance, its a monopoly. When a company is simply really good at what it does, it isn't, so i think they're using an irrelevant arguement.
reddiandwhalewhale 1 year ago
Comment removed
reddiandwhalewhale 1 year ago
First of all, I have enormous respect for the congressman, and I believe he is one of the few intelligent men in congress today. However, I do have to add in on what he said earlier about competitive monopolies. A pure monopoly is when demand is completely inelastic, meaning, changes to the supply will not effect changes to the quanitity demanded. In their example, the monopoly is not a pure monopoly because price changes still effect quantity demand.
reddiandwhalewhale 1 year ago
Its the stunning irony of Libral "Progressive" type of ideas that actually kills progression! Look how he described bell telephones of how they had a government watched monopoly and franchise while the market was calling for more players! This is one of the thousands of things that happens when you have government regulation and intervenion.
Bigturns33 1 year ago
well be that doing something is right as well as nothing- depending on the situation. for example epidemics. the organizational skills of the state would be very useful kind of like in a war. enough Paul will probably get my vote anyways cause i like freedom.
pankskink 1 year ago
@pankskink The state is good in managing epidemics and war? Have you looked into the performance of the UN in battling AIDS and malaria in Africa? Have you read about the war in the Middle East? With the sheer size of government spending they are bound to create some good effects, but the good that the state does is just that, accidental in nature.
truevoice08 1 year ago
@truevoice08
yeah laws cannot stop human intent. "War is a racket." and secret corporate interests start them. and that is the truth. What we in America are experiencing in our lifetimes is a SECRET GOVERNMENT of, for, and by Wall Street interests at the expense of our individual liberties and those of Americans still yet to come. Secrecy does not belong in a government based on rule of law. In fact, secrecy is the best ally of those who wish to take our rights.
pankskink 1 year ago
@truevoice08 Before the ban on DDT malaria was only an annoying disease that affected very few & was easily cured (usually). Now millions are infected and many die. Who gets hit hardest? The worlds POOR of course. Screw the EPA & all the politicians!
doughtymqan 1 year ago
@pankskink you should read 'economics in one lesson' by Hazlitt.
describes by pretty much the whole school of Austrian economics as the best introductory book into understanding economics. just read the Amazon reviews.
And btw, just as evolution is sometimes unintuitive, allowing religious propaganda to take hold in the mainstream thought, Austrian economics and classical liberalism in general is exactly the same. except with this, it has more say on our lives and the right side is losing :(
CytherLynx 1 year ago
anti-trust was the one thing that i thought i could disprove from paul. always seemed like Libertarianism is akin to fanatic nationalism. anyways i take hold of the 'effect' that a law has verses what its 'intent' was. "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" but blind faith has its drawbacks. IF all the choices that the govt MIGHT take away from individuals could be analyzed into the "all, nothing or something" then paul's right, but in the real world the solution could very
pankskink 1 year ago
There's a very interesting article called "the case for antitrust enforcement" by Jonathan B. Baker. It dealts if most of the criticism presented here and does a very good job debunking it.
smashing86 2 years ago
The article assumes that the laws are applied evenly but they are not and this is why they fail.
This is evendent by the recent bank melt down. Where are large corporations buying out all the small firms and become "to big to fail".
Two things happened they were allowed to grow regardless of the anti trust laws and when they failed the people bailed them out. The Federal Reserve has a monopoly.
This is exactly what Ron was talking about years before it happened.
Zooni2 1 year ago
Actually I think it's more accurate to say that it was the relaxed application of antitrust rules that allowed banks to merge and become bigger and bigger.
Today's crisis is an example on why people should return to a stricter economic regulation. Not a reason to strip the regulation further as some in the libertarian movement argue.
smashing86 1 year ago
economic regulation is why we had the credit crisis. these banks were required by regulators to sell bad loans that they wouldnt have otherwise sold.
mjdillaha 1 year ago
Today's crisis is an example of human nature. One wealthy party may get favour over another.
One Polition may care about anti trust another may not.
Making it a system that is used soley by businesses to attack other businesses.
Zooni2 1 year ago
@smashing86
yawn. If these loans weren't insured by the government, it wouldn't have been profitable to take the risk.
There are two parts to a functioning market: greed and fear. The pro regulation crowd always forgets the fear part and sets up moral hazards all over the place.
savemyplaylist 1 year ago
Kinda disagree with that on two points.
I wouldn't call the government backing of loans regulation. It was more a case of social engineering.
I agree that regulation sometimes creates moral hazards. However the "free market crowd" always forget market imperfections like the agent problem, and assimetric information.
The problem was not only the poorly made loans but also their repackaging and lack of oversight on the products being sold in the financial market.
smashing86 1 year ago
if the loans werent required by the government, they never would have happened, at least to the degree in which they did, and we wouldnt be talking about this now. regulation caused this problem, not a free market. in fact, a truly free market would have prohibited this problem.
mjdillaha 1 year ago
@smashing86 Asymmetric information in the market arises because of human imperfection. It is a leap to conclude that we need government intervention because of these alleged problems.
truevoice08 1 year ago
The moralities of humanitarianism and ecology (altruism, responsibility, stewardship, etc.) have been disregarded in favor of short-term 'market efficiency', benefiting only those who will buy their product and be content with its quality and origins, be they ignorant, distracted, or numb. A company like this could use its influence to buy-out or silence most competition, so that most innovation is controlled. How would the market system intervene to address this destructive, excessive behavior?
zmcg 2 years ago
everbody looked gay in the 80s
This libertarian view of the argues in favor of a free-market utopia, failing to see the immoral nature of the profit motive at the heart of capitalist ideology. If monopolies are allowed to naturally exist they will seek to keep prices down by the easiest means, such as exploiting workers and ecosystems.
zmcg 2 years ago
If prices are low it is called "dumping."
If prices are the same it is called "conspiring"
If prices are high it is called "gouging."
Entropy56 2 years ago
These guys look gay
Entropy56 2 years ago
Very powerful statement. Hats off to you!
yammyspeed13 2 years ago
Corporate America... sigh.
IBM, Intel, all large pharms, seed and fertilizer companies.
solobackpacking 2 years ago
I do not agree that a company can spend trillions over 50 years just to attempt to compete with an existing business, but I sincerely appreciate that you answered the question directly. It's a lot more than I've gotten from other folks I've argued this with, so thank you. Best of luck
- RA
TheRamenAvenger 2 years ago
Ma Bell.
TheRamenAvenger 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Libertarians are quite literally mentally retarded. They think anti-trust laws lead to monopolies and more guns leads to less gun violence.
StandupShowcase 2 years ago
This is absolutely voodoo nonsense. The idea that we can't get in the way of monopolies because they wouldn't be monopolies if they weren't doing such a wonderful job is ludicrous. Once a monopoly is allowed to form it can then turn right around and fuck consumers, fuck workers and fuck the economy and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. That's what a monopoly is. You cannot compete against it. It's anti-competitive and anti-capitalist.
History is littered with examples. Read.
TheRamenAvenger 2 years ago
Monopolies and large corporations only become truly powerful when they are protected by regulations. The big guys have plenty of lawyers to deal with them, and the little guy gets screwed. We need to make sure there is free entry, so there is at least the threat of competition at all times. Also, corporate persohood is a government invention in the first place..
I'd particularly like to see the coercive monopoly that government enjoys broken up. They're particularly abusive.
ninjabunnyman 2 years ago 8
If a phone company owns an entire infrastructure, phone lines, all that crap, how can another company compete? Build an entirely new infrastructure that costs trillions over 50 years? No one has the capital to do that and no one would be willing to take the risk even if they did. That's why it's a monopoly, because it prevents competition.
A company that makes the best tasting hamburgers and so sells 90% of all hamburgers is not a monopoly, because anyone can make hamburgers and compete.
TheRamenAvenger 2 years ago
Cell phones provide a clear counterexample to your phone example, with many companies building their own infrastructure basically from zero.
Even before that, MCI challenged AT&T's government-enforced monopoly by developing a new technological way of delivering phone service. Of course, AT&T tried to fight this initially... not through competition but through government.
Eventually the government did a 180 and broke up AT&T, after protecting it for decades.
jhorpeda 2 years ago
It would be less likely for competitors to enter the market, especially if the first company does a decent job. If the first phone company became abusive enough, however, competitors would put up the money.
ninjabunnyman 2 years ago
@TheRamenAvenger with lots of competition, that business would go out of business over night...we don't have competition in this country right no
Tackleqb 1 year ago
Yay, monopolies are great! Who needs competition? Let's just give the corporations more power. It will all work out. Trust this guy. I mean look at that mustache. Clearly this is a man you can trust.
TheRamenAvenger 2 years ago
government is a monopoly
how could it protect against monopoly?
libertyplayground 2 years ago
back in the day, where you could have civilized intellectual discussions
Sivels 2 years ago 2
That is quite the complexion.
priapus512 2 years ago
and a great moustache.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
In the 80s when there were less than 30 channels on television this was what they put on? Now we have over 400 channels, and quality public information programming like this is absent from the air waves. Lovely how we've completed the cycle of brainwashing so that nothing in the media these days is factual.
sedatedlife18 2 years ago 29
Yes, but what your saying simply proves the principle. When the free market works, the stations that receive more views succeed. So the stations with people killing each other or reality shows succeeded over two guys talking about economics. Regrettable yes. But remember, TV reflects our society. A channel only succeeds if people watch it. So it is only regrettable in the sense that the true nature of our society is more animalistic than we would have hoped.
fluff125 2 years ago 2
Too true. I just find it rather sad that we have succumb to such an obvious distraction from the real world. It's odd to think that our lives are so bad that millions of people turn to television 4 hours daily to escape reality, and quite ironic when we call the TV we watch "reality TV" when it reflects no reality I've been a part of.
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
Well, we have advanced somewhat in that anyone can see this video on youtube, at least for now.
TV is an entertainment medium,
Radio is best for news/talk.
Internet is best for educational information like this.
ForzaJersey 2 years ago 2
@sedatedlife18 I was thinking the exact same thing as I was watching this. You'll never see an intelligent discussion like this in the mainstream media
ACDC7369 7 months ago 2
@sedatedlife18 That what you get for being an American.
TVperson1 4 months ago
It is a fantasy to have the assumption of "things will work themself out" in a reasonable and rational period of time without them being a pyrrhic correction.
If you look at the federal reserve they have just created a slowly building ponzi scheme that keeps creating more bubbles faster and faster. But again the federal reserve is a private institution. It is in a essence, a corporate monopoly that is held in power by the government which is... controlled by corporations.
RainFall2112 2 years ago
It is a fantasy to expect government to be big enough to control corporations while simultaneously not be controlled by those same corporations.
thomasw78 2 years ago
If only more people realized this!
ZakeD3 2 years ago
They make some good points here but they are definitely stuck on the fantasy of free markets. Two competitors in Utopian libertarian theory will compete and create the best product. That is not how things work however. Two competitors either buy one another out(merge) or seek to destroy each other to achieve a monopoly.
RainFall2112 2 years ago
Competition is a continual process, not a destination. A company trying to put another out of business IS competition. If a business becomes a sole competitor in any market and uses that position to raise prices or lower quality, it simply opens up room for a new competitor to enter the market and take some or all of that market share away from them.
PorpoiseMuffins 2 years ago
That is clearly a utopian view of things. Once a monopoly is established every form of coercion will be used via taking control of government what it may be to maintain that monopoly. Sure EVENTUALLY that monopoly will die just like Rome fell. Is that really a realistic or useful form of government?
RainFall2112 2 years ago
The government's role would be to prevent the businesses from using coercion or fraud--not to prevent the "monopoly" from being achieved.
I fail to see your point, considering that big business is in bed with government right now anyway, and anti-trust laws are part of that partnership.
Either way, the only way to prevent that is for the public to know enough to be able to hold the government accountable.
PorpoiseMuffins 2 years ago
I agree with you on the third point, and the second. But as to the first point if the corporation is larger than the government and more powerful how can they prevent coercion and fraud? Corporations will simply create their own laws (similar to home owners groups' rules), get their own miltiias, police, fire, prisons, etc and become their own governments.
RainFall2112 2 years ago
Voluntary contracts are different from laws. Since corporations are funded voluntarily, must produce something of value to continue to be funded, and are concerned with money rather than world conquest, I'm a bit doubtful that your concern is very valid. Even if it were, it's no worse than a powerful government like we have today. It's up to the people to hold both accountable.
PorpoiseMuffins 2 years ago
That again is back to the utopian idealist view of the free markets. Most corporations start out as voluntary contracts. When your water system is privatized, when your prisons are privatized, when your electricity is privatized, it is not a voluntary contract. You either move (which isn't a realistic solution) to a region that doesn't have that, or you suffer living under corporate tyrants in which you have no power to change.
RainFall2112 2 years ago
Your only power to change them is through the government which would be significantly smaller than the corporate power. So how would it have any power of enforcement?
RainFall2112 2 years ago
If I have a utopian view of corporations, then you sure as hell have a utopian view of government.
PorpoiseMuffins 2 years ago 2
Government is definitely imperfect. But it is a product of imperfect people. The thing about government is at least we can change government. We cannot change corporations without first using government.
RainFall2112 2 years ago
That is completely false. Businesses cannot survive without consumers funding them. Not only that, but they must answer to their shareholders.
Businesses are also imperfect because they are the product of imperfect people. However, businesses must compete and better themselves to survive. Governments don't have to compete or better themselves.
PorpoiseMuffins 2 years ago
That is the fantasy and it only true in the case of an emerging business. The idea of any business is to create a monopoly or have an exclusive contract so that there is no comp
on a micro level the consumer does not get choices. There are no restaurants that serve coke or pepsi. Each one makes a discounted bid that if they only carry their product exclusively they will receive a much cheaper price. If they do no agree they will be forced to pay a premium just to provide a consumer choices.
RainFall2112 2 years ago
that should say Coke AND Pepsi.
RainFall2112 2 years ago
The restaurant IS a consumer.
PorpoiseMuffins 2 years ago
Middle men are not consumers, they are arbitragers.
RainFall2112 2 years ago
Don't be ridiculous. Everyone is a producer and a consumer. That's what trade is.
PorpoiseMuffins 2 years ago 3
Absolutely not. Arbitragers and other parasitic occupations neither produce nor consume. They merely extract value from producers or consumers. I've spent my entire life as a parasite :)
RainFall2112 2 years ago
A restaurant or store owner is providing a service, and one that must be provided in one way or another, regardless of whether the provider is a distinct legal entity from the original producer or not. The fact that you don't understand that is evidence of your complete ignorance of economics.
PorpoiseMuffins 2 years ago
it's good to know you've forfeited the argument. Hopefully a libertarian who understands economics can chime in. You've proven you've exhausted all of your de facto statements and are out of gas.
RainFall2112 2 years ago
The obvious counterargument would be "Well you can choose not to live there." But realistically once oligarchs started seeing this as profitable they would all start doing this. There would be no reason for them not to.
RainFall2112 2 years ago
It's hardly a utopian view. By definition, competition is unstable. It's dynamic. There will be highs and lows for both consumers and businesses as the market changes, but the overall trend will be toward greater prosperity for all. All based on freedom and voluntary exchange.
It's a separation of powers. It says we should keep business doing business and government doing government.
PorpoiseMuffins 2 years ago
It's very utopian. Many of us do not want economic anarchy and want to avoid surges of extreme high variance.
RainFall2112 2 years ago
Please explain to me how it is "utopian" to accept imperfections in the marketplace, yet not utopian to assume one can "fix" those imperfections?
No one said anything about "surges of extreme high variance." If you want to talk about business cycles, just look at what the Federal Reserve's attempts to 'smooth out' the economy have brought us--the exact opposite.
Finally, where does anyone get the rightful authority to mess with else's affairs anyway?
PorpoiseMuffins 2 years ago 2
The rightful authority comes from political power which comes from the barrel of a gun ultimately. These corporations don't do the right thing because we ask them to. The reason we have building codes and all sorts of standards is because people, and corporations could not be trusted to do the right thing left alone. Government didn't just step in because they were bored and someone wanted to make money issuing permits.
RainFall2112 2 years ago
Well
the evidence suggests that we need regulation such as competition watchdogs and progressive taxations
markgg1 2 years ago
This is such a great video. I learned so much.
DevieBoy66 2 years ago
Once again, misesmedia schools the world...
MaxLibertas 2 years ago
I wish Ron Paul would run for Gov. of Texas.
dax313xab 2 years ago 18
or president again
capitalist4life 2 years ago 4
no joke... and this time with paper bailots
dax313xab 2 years ago 4
@dax313xab He misght be running for Senate.
YoungIvyScholar 9 months ago
18:00 - 20:00 is a priceless example of the free market and how the big money lobbyist are destroying America.
dax313xab 2 years ago
The big money lobbyists are actually in favor of extensive government intervention on their behalfs.
...The more you know...
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
"HOW CAPITALISM SAVED AMERICA"
is't Tom DiLorenzo's latest book. It's a wonderfully written and researched work that that gives a free market history of America and her policies toward capitalism. Today I just got to the chapter called: Antitrust myths.
(how did youtube recommend this vid. for me kinda scary) anyway its neat to see a young Ron Paul. Keep learning!
joeymackaroni 2 years ago 3
Thanks for sharing joe.
dax313xab 2 years ago
you trust companies or not, you trust government or not. or illiminate trust and regulate by a large governing body.
farber2 2 years ago
paulleyton is 100% right. you all need to read some books, not just the ones endorsed by mises institute. we on the left have come to it through critical examination of BOTH sides and not just taking the voice that appeals to your gut and blindly following it. as you mature you'd be doing a disservice to yourself to ignore the utter falsehood of your ideas, which you will inevitably observe over and over again. Keep an open mind or you're likely to lose it.
crabsbarc 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What is required is not "no" regulation but "intelligent" regulation as unregulated free markets lead to monopolies and increasingly unbalanced societies, ie privatised socialism for the rich.
PAULLEYTON 3 years ago
And any logical person can also see that our market is far from being laissez-faire. I challenge you to point out one aspect of this economic crisis that doesn't point to the government.
The free market is not free from error, but it pales in comparison to government.
bob12285 3 years ago
Banks giving credit to people with no credit worthiness has nothing to do with government except in the sense that government should enforce stricter controls on such irresponsible behaviour.
Madoffs scam similarly has nothing to do with government rather with an irresponsible organisation that managed to skirt controls and game the system!!!
PAULLEYTON 3 years ago
Banks lent out to people with no credit because of The Community Reinvestment Act... passed by government!! Also, the Madoff scam was fraud(which is fairly rare) and the market caught the scam... because it self regulates!!
return135 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"The market caught the scam because it self regulates"
how wonderful countless people and banks have lost everything, several people have committed suicide, 50 billion dollars appears to have vanished but we can be thankful because the market self regulates!
Doh, wouldnt it be better if there were proper regulations in place to prevent things getting that far???
PAULLEYTON 3 years ago
What are these magical bureaucratic regulations that will solve a random crime that rarely happens?
There are already many federal, state and local statutes against fraud and misrepresentation, and businesses that behave badly can be dealt with through normal civil and criminal legal means.
return135 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Crap! The regulations have been eaten away since Friedmanite thinking took a hold of those in power since the Reagan years. We've had three decades of progressive deregulation and its led nowhere.
PAULLEYTON 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well for a start banks not being allowed to leveredge beyond their assets! And dont start on about markets self regulating as by the time they've done that the investors money is lost.
A civilised society should have safeguards to prevent this (which for me kind of suggests that the free market as you see it and civilised society are two incongruous concepts).
PAULLEYTON 3 years ago
You are a narrow minded dolt who has distorted perceptions.
return135 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You stupid turd, your dumb free market deregulation idiocy has screwed up the world economy and you appear to believe deregulation didnt go far enough? You must be totally nuts, unbelievably naive or just malignant.
PAULLEYTON 3 years ago
Fuck you retard, it was government who got us into this problem. It was also your beloved regulations that couldn't catch Madoff, if there were no regulations with companies like Madoff was running investors wold have been more skeptical instead of depending on the incompetent government. You obviously don't have a clue about how the free market works. Do some fucking studying before you make ignorant comments like that.
return135 3 years ago 4
PAULLEYTON is a fuking idiot... hes one of those people who read naomi kleins shock doctrine and now he believes it was milton friedmans ideology that got us into this mess.... and he conveniently forgets that it was government that created both fannie and freddie and not to mention the Federal Reserve System...
ganderdip 3 years ago
Lew Rockwell set her a bit straight when he interviewed her.
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
And security corporations in a free market wouldnt face conflicts of interest? Wishful thinking. Deregulation has weakened the effectiveness of the SEC as too many people believed the erroneous Friedmanite mindset that markets can control themselves.
This mindset has now come to an end.
Any logical thinking person can see that markets cannot control themselves, at least not in a half way fair and civilised society.
PAULLEYTON 3 years ago
You are severely misinformed. Do a little research on free market before you make a stupid comment like that.
return135 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are grasping at any corn to hold up your dodgy free market doctrine. If you are looking for reasons rather look at the explosion of derivatives trading since the 80s, over leveredging, and the selling on of motgage debt, ostensibly freeing the banks of possible comeback on bad debt thus freeing brokers to aggressively pursue the fees that came with any signed deal, regardless of the genuine creditworthiness of the deal.
PAULLEYTON 3 years ago
The SEC, a huge government run portion of the government, is allowed to investigate corporations to prevent precisely this form of criminal activity. It replaces normal market security corporations which could exist in a free, deregulated market. Yet it failed in every aspect to investigate an thwart this activity.
This is a waste of government expenditure to try and regulate markets which otherwise could naturally deter this activity. Instead there is a perceived false sense of safety.
tealghsuftuba 3 years ago
In the wake of the Madoff scandal all you Ron Paul /Friedmanite deregulation freaks should slink off into the shadows but i'm sure you wont
PAULLEYTON 3 years ago
Regulation caused the Madoff scandal and allowed it to happen. Government as a watchdog eventually falls in to ambivalence, corruption, inefficiency, or all three.
tealghsuftuba 3 years ago
Regulation allowed it to happen?
Isnt that a contradiction in terms?
Effective regulation should prevent such occurrences, however the trend to deregulation has allowed tricksters to get away with more than they should.
If the market had been allowed to dictate the fate of Madoff the results would have been exactly as they played out. Therefore the very deregulation you appear to support is the cause, as no regulation took place in this case!!!
PAULLEYTON 3 years ago
Everyone should be forced to study Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard, not just adam smith and john Maynard Keynes
mikeyooh7 3 years ago 4
yay!! a young ron paul!!
Gangularis 3 years ago
Obama said he wants to strengthen Antitrust laws on a video I just watched of him at Google.
:/
Danster82 3 years ago 2
Yep, Obama wants to do everything according to any of his speeches. Too bad he will do nothing...except perpetuate the current problems.
bn6658 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
social darwinists shilling for the super rich!
PAULLEYTON 3 years ago
Yeah, because unproductive idiots should be monopolized.
Chainedorlo 3 years ago 3
All the governmental, fat cat bureaucrats should watch this video, then shoot themselves.
MicheasTheMighty 3 years ago 6
and the modern day example is Microsoft suing Google...which was just announced....timeless stuff.
Nickelodeon2002 3 years ago 4
Im pretty sure Fox News is not yet invented during this time! Heheh
gearzone2611 3 years ago
power and market by murray rothbard covers the same issues talked about here
barneyhoot 3 years ago 3
Good stuff. Thanks for posting.
brizzlie 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There are a lot of interesting points being made here but what they fail to realize is that the general public is stupid. A monopoly CAN thrive on giving a disproportional market price. What we need is organized consumerism!
catbuffalo 3 years ago
No wait that will just end up corrupt too, the world sucks what can i say?
catbuffalo 3 years ago
I agree with that most people are idiots. However, monopolies and price predation are not as easy at it seems. You should look into what Robber Baron Jay Gould did to Western Union, lol.
Elasaltaculos 3 years ago
Who are you to decide what is a disproportional market price? You can think it's stupid for people to buy a good at price X, but it's what these people are willing to pay.
Cometgreen 3 years ago 3
i hear u
sasa110 3 years ago
I've read Professor Armentano's book "Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure" and strongly recommend it to anybody who wants an extensive analysis of antitrust policies since their creation and how they've evolved over the years. There is no way anybody could read that book and see the evidence and still support antitrust, it's a must-read for anybody who supports capitalism!
readthepaper 3 years ago 5
I wish there were more TV shows like this.
vicnameless 3 years ago 4
Man, I wish TV was like this today! Journalists suck now...
Chainedorlo 3 years ago
Having intelligent, calm people sit down and discuss one topic for half an hour is quite refreshing.
All current news can provide is three talking heads screeching shrill echoes of talking points.
No wonder the general public is so clueless.
Its the reason libertarian candidates so rarely get elected.
harryogre 3 years ago 3
At the end of the interview he said there would be another show with ron paul in 2 weeks.
Did Dr. Paul do more of these? What show was this, and where can we get more of these? Or are they lost in time...
cowbot2 3 years ago 3
very nice, however, I'd have liked to see an advocate of big government in the debate as well.
chokin2 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We are all born unto this Earth, and we all should have an inherent right to all Life Sustainable Natural Resources.
No One Man or Corporation should be Allowed to Profit, or Control, or Refuse, or make Unaffordable these Life Preserving Sustainable Rights. Jack Griffith
Air, Water, Gas, Electricity,Oil,Airwaves.
We need to organize a State by State Coalition to make Public Service Commisions exercise the right of the People and control Big Business, and imprison the Replutatcrats.
javikspach 3 years ago
Very nice discussion. Nothing like today's interviews.
jivjago 3 years ago 5
That discussion was soo intellectual.
Kudos to the interviewer... what real journalism was like. Amazing, Amazing. Respect to all involved here.
Conza88 3 years ago 12
Yeah, definitely. In today's talk shows, people jump from one topic to another without exploring far enough into each topic at hand. The shows today are very superficial and unsubstantive, compared to this one. Even in the channels that specialize in reporting on the economy, economic theory is rarely, if ever discussed.
teejay1618 3 years ago 3
One more comment I would like to add.
What about the Pirating of our Airwaves?
The Government has sold our rights to big business, and has plans to scramble all remaining airwaves by 2009.
This has been done for 2 purposes.
1. Eliminate our ability to Airwave communications.
2. Controlling Corporate Profits
javikspach 3 years ago
Thanks to the founders of the Antitrust principles from the States...
Here in Europe , we are making a new effort to promote the above.
To watch this video, means that you are interested on the stuff.
So visit us at stop cartel, one word,point ,organization .and be informed.
We would like to have your oppinion.
0cart 3 years ago
Webster defines Freedom as; All that's fair in Heaven. Rights defined from two key words.
FAIR,FREEDOM.
The Anti Trust Laws were designed to keep the winners of Boardwalk and Park Place from cleaning the board and then offering you
$600. to keep playing. This interview is a well defined explanation of how corrupt organized business has squashed competition and seized our Government.
They knew exactly what they were doing, and their business practice can only be defined in one word, TREASON.
javikspach 3 years ago
You know you wont see this on the front page of youtube in the 'videos being watched' part. But you'll see alot of Obama, Britney, sports and other silly th