The crisis of neoliberalism

[ddnn3]

OFWGKTA

[FRSFreeStateES]

Its not "Neoliberalism" that there talking about but Classical Liberalism which is about freedom and equality. As well as helping the less fortunate to be Self Sufficient. Liberalism has never been about Democratic Socialism. Those are two different Political Ideology's.

[freedomthrough]

@FRSFreeStateES I have friends that call themselves classical liberals, but they all go along with social liberalism when they have to choose. The unfettered market (in modern society) is the master of coercion and a choice between liberalism for the market and liberalism for the individual has to be made. The theoretical construct of Classical Liberalism thus becomes just as impossible as all other utopias, such as Anarcho-Capitalism or Anarcho-Socialism(communism). Choices have to be made.

[freedomthrough]

@FRSFreeStateES It's funny how you mention freedom and equality as the key drivers in liberalism, while at the same time contrasting it to socialism, as that's what socialism always has been about too.

[FRSFreeStateES]

@freedomthrough

Not really, liberalism is about well liberty for the individual, they are similar words. Whereas socialism is about collectivism and communitarianism. Can't give people too much liberty or they might make a lot more then others, so we have to take from them, to prevent that. Liberalism is Anti Establishment, whereas socialism puts a lot of faith in the Welfare State, which is a big part of the establishment.

[freedomthrough]

@FRSFreeStateES No, socialism is about collective action to bring freedom for all. It's a response to the very unfree early capitalist societies. The problem with raw liberalism is that it tries to maintain too many values in one ideology. It's simply not possible to have an unfettered market at the same time as people are treated equal. Socialism puts alot of faith in the state, yes. Why should it not? It is a means to organize society and that's something we need.

[FRSFreeStateES]

@freedomthrough

Through the Central Government not individuals themselves, there's another difference between socialism and liberalism. Liberalism is not about an "Unfettered Market", that would be libertarianism. Two different ideology's. Liberalism is about Maximize Freedom and Responsibility for the Individual as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their Freedom. Big difference.

[freedomthrough]

@FRSFreeStateES Socialism doesn't necessarily -have- to go through a government. I consider myself a social-liberal. To me that means i want the gov't to produce socially acceptable outcomes with a minimum of interaction in peoples private lives. The market i don't care about. Let's have it where we must and where it's good, let's not where we don't and it's not.

[FRSFreeStateES]

@freedomthrough

As a liberal myself I see the term "Social-Liberal" as you said, which I take to meaning Socialist Liberal. And liberal to contradict each other. Because they are two different things that you put into one term. As you said you "want government to produce socially acceptable outcomes with a minimum of interaction in peoples private lives". Wheres liberalism is about Individual Liberty and Equality of Opportunity. Let people live their own lives and not hurt others.

[freedomthrough]

@FRSFreeStateES Social-liberal is not the same as socialist. It is just a less individualistic liberalism. A less ideological liberalism, if you will. Socialist and liberal don't have to contradict each other either. The egalitarian liberals and the socialists have a lot in common. What i want isn't that the government produce socially acceptable outcomes, but rather that it's there to make society as a whole do that. That basically means regulating the market. Also...

[freedomthrough]

@FRSFreeStateES Also, i agree on your last wish, but there's also the matter of how far we should let causality go. There are things that don't directly hurt anyone, but indirectly causes ripples of unhealthy effects in society. For an example drug consumption under a prohibitionist regime very often does that, due to that market being left to criminals. Drug consumers thus finance operations which are often very deadly and hurts many people. Are they to be judged? I think not.

[freedomthrough]

@FRSFreeStateES But rather, it is the job of our society as a whole to find a way around that, so that the direct and indirect damage from drug consumption is minimized. We are social beings, so focusing too much on the individual and ignoring society as a whole can lead to unwished for outcomes.

[FRSFreeStateES]

@freedomthrough

Like I said socialists believe in that, whereas liberals believe in Individual Liberty. That if the people have the liberty to live their own lives and are well educated, they'll generally make the best decisions for themselves. Whereas socialists believe that we should all do it together through Government Services.

[JohnR22926]

The economic theories of the Left have utterly failed. Primarily because it has no intellectual basis; it can all be boiled down to emotional opposition to capitalism (i.e. It's not FAIR!! Waaaah!!). Captialism, tempered by appropriate levels of govt regulation, are a modern miracle. Look at the standards of living in the West over the last 200 years (and in Asia over the last 20 years). We've never lived longer, better, more highly educated, etc. Marxism has failed. Deal with it.

[Silkspine]

@JohnR22926 I couldn't agree with you more! the only thing I disagree on is your assertion that it is "the Left" that is to blame for this mess: I'm for all purposes "Center Left".. basically just your garden-variety liberal in favour of social AND economic democracy. On that note, I have to agree with sheepblitzer that "neo-feudalism" is much more apt.. or perhaps "neo-plutocrat"

;-)

[freedomthrough]

@JohnR22926 I believe your message here can be boiled down to emotional opposition to socialism and has no intellectual basis. There have been SO many debates on SO many theories for the past 100 years and guess what, the "left" (keynesianism) has won many over the "right" (neo-classicism). I agree that a market system (you can't kill it), tempered by appropriate levels of govt regulation and intervention, is the way to go. A market society with socially acceptable outcomes is what we need.

[Malthus0]

This is just more tired Marxism. The economic order was bad because it was not consistently liberal.That is not liberal enough. It freed some sectors while keeping others on the leash. Distorting markets & maintaining a command and control attitude. Nationally and internationally. The crisis is then a crisis of interventionism. The so called neo-liberal revolution was always incomplete & pandering to power. The political class comfortable in their comfy consensus struck down by their own hubris.

[bapyou]

Reagan's firing of the air-traffic controllers was the first salvo of American elites' attack on organized labor. Far more important to the labor history of this period was the decertification of the miner's local at the Phelps-Dodge copper mine in Arizona which followed the ATC firings. The decertification was led by Ann Coulter's father (yes, THAT Ann Coulter, whore for power), an anti-union lawyer who hired scabs then locked out the long-term employees from the voting process.

[blackiron60]

The only solution is people working together for themselves and for each other - an economy based on cooperatives.

[bobsr3]

neo-sefdom, neo slavery, neo greed......all semantics.

[patarciepaul]

I suppose the only difference between liberalism and feudalism is that liberalism allows for new money.

[patarciepaul]

Neo Liberalism puts everyone in their place

[libertits]

@patarciepaul nazis also thought they placed jews, black people, communists, homosexuals in their place. Social Darwinism is not a science, it is a philosophy of what ought to be. Neoliberalism puts robber barons in the highest place, they don't deserve in the first place.

[lordblazer]

@libertits

exactly!!

[patarciepaul]

@libertits Neo Liberalism is not enough. What we need is Anachist Capitalism, the next stage. That way only the fittest will survie, companies will have enormouse profits, anybody with the slightest ailment will be thrown on the scrap heap especially disabled people because lets face it they are not very competitive, are they. The rich will get richer and none of their hard earned cash will be lost in taxes to help the lazy oops I mean needy.

[patarciepaul]

@libertits Neo Liberalism is not enough. What we need is Anachist Capitalism, the next stage. That way only the fittest will survie, companies will have enormouse profits, anybody with the slightest ailment will be thrown on the scrap heap especially disabled people because lets face it they are not very competitive, are they. The rich will get richer and none of their hard earned cash will be lost in taxes to help the lazy oops I mean needy.

[GodlessXVIII]

@patarciepaul "What we need is Anarchist Capitalism"

The funny thing is, that's exactly where we're going. The only break to this process lies in some kind of general uprising. Seeing as the great majority of people are expandable through the neoliberal looking glass, I'd say it's a matter of time (at least I hope so).

[CapitalistHolocaust]

@patarciepaul

You forgot to mention the booming trade in children for sale on the free market that Murray Rothbard promised us.

[libertits]

@patarciepaul If we wanted Anarchist Capitalism, we would need a second planet for it, since the one we have is already living the consequences of this.

[libertits]

@patarciepaul To think that only the "fittest" (a relative term and a connotation, since in idifferent environmments different abilities can imply fitness) is a very nazi-like thought and why disabled people were also killed in the nazi genocide.

Profit is not everyone's purpose in life. If it is yours, then so be it, but you have absolutely no right to decide who should live and who shouldn't and how people should live, who is lazy and who isn't.

[patarciepaul]

@libertits The market will decide who should live or die. It dictates exactly what every individual is worth according to skill set and ability.

[patarciepaul]

Neo Liberalism puts everyone in their place

[turkeyjurker]

wow, this guy is way off!

[PNACATTACKdotCOM]

Neo-Fascism. Mussolini was Socialist who became far right wing Fascist. TOday even in My country there ase even SocialDemocrate who are moreor less Neo-Fascists. Former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari and forme Finnish prime minister Paavo Lipponen are both conservative Social Democrates - but area/have been willing to clear path for neo-fascists.

[immanent]

I would love to see a Mises Institute fellow debate this guy. In a word, he would be annihilated.

[FreakishDonQuixote]

mises institute is to econ science what answersingenesis is to biology.

[isawanangel2]

@FreakishDonQuixote yes i know, i was quite pissed about my energy bills, oh well

[immanent]

@FreakishDonQuixote I suppose, if you call austrian school business cycle theory, correctly predicting macroeconomic trends, critical analyses of monetary policy, and a Nobel prize to boot something akin to answersingenesis

[sheepblitzer]

too many people are caught up in superficial divide and conquer tactics; thinking in terms of nation vs. nation, or race vs race, or religion vs religion, or political party vs political party.

people need to start looking at human society in these terms of rich vs poor, ruling elite vs masses. its the only real way to understand whats going on.

[madhavendraxxx]

So true. All these things (patriotism, race issues, religious conflicts) are used to fool people, they have not real meaning for themselves. Capitalists and governemnts just give to the People targets they can focuse. In this way no one is questioning. The thing is, people who watch these kind of videos might know it already. The masses of workers are divided, seperated, watching stupid movies, enjoying cheap cars, discussing War in Iraq as it is their own war. How can you wake up people?

[sheepblitzer]

call it neo-liberalism, i call it neo-feudalism. we work on land that isnt ours for companies we don't own. the big owners get most of the profit from our labor while we get just enough grain to live off.

[madhavendraxxx]

What about reestablishing people in the land again?:)

However to do that we would need major crisis (when I say "major" I don't mean the one we have now. I mean proper economical, social disaster). Then redistibuting land to people, orginizing small communities, educating people, so the transition period from insanity to normal life wouldn't be that hard, and here we go - the real new world order:)

[sheepblitzer]

i wish it were that simple. but those at the top of our current form of society wont allow that to happen. power is an extreme addiction.

thats why wherever there is a revolution there is a counter-revolution. the closer to success the former, the more brutal and extreme the latter.

[madhavendraxxx]

Therefore I know one thing for sure - there can not be succesfull violent revolution. Only thing that works, and it was proved over history, is civil disobedience movement. Refusing to participate people would win. To do that you would need to educate people. And that's the problem, becuase the access to the masses is monopolized (media),

[sheepblitzer]

@madhavendraxxx when has civil disobedience ever achieved the type of revolution you were talking about in your original comment?

[madhavendraxxx]

@sheepblitzer - Finishing British occupation in India. Helpess people, against powerfull, military and economical Empire.

[sheepblitzer]

@madhavendraxxx did a revolution occur which brought equality and gave the land back to the people in india? first of all no. a similar form of society exists in india as during british colonial times, and many of the people are in just as poor conditions. india's so called "independence" was just a shift from traditional colonialsm to neo-colonialism, with british corporations still profiting off indian labor and resources.

[sheepblitzer]

@madhavendraxxx second, what little improvements india did acheive were not solely the result of gandhi and civil disobendience. we seem to forget that there were many other groups fighting violently against britain, which had a far greater impact on britains willingness and ability to directly control india than peaceful movements did.

[madhavendraxxx]

@sheepblitzer - I'm not saying I have answers to this complex mess we are in. What I know for sure, that violent revolution never brings lasting solution to problem - quite opposite. Secondly - ruling elits never had so much power as they do now. Violent uprising wouldn't do. It has to be something different. What? I can not say for sure. I'm still looking for an answer.

[phillipgaley]

@madhavendraxxx Yer rationalizations are way off reasonableness--an underlying supposition that, we work in same direction to assist. "Never let a disaster wither unused.". Many there be who wish some one else's crumbled cookie as a source of benefit. But, what about those who have been thinking about how to get the lower classes in a dependent position, and keep them there? What about Carter's "Global 2000" -- reduce world pop. to "a manageable level" -- beginning with the good ole US of A?

[madhavendraxxx]

phillipgaley - sorry, but I didn't get you. I don't understand the bit about rationalizations being out off reasonableness.

[phillipgaley]

@madhavendraxxx Your side of the discussion depends upon incorrect definitions and misunderstanding of the human condition: "Refusing to participate people would win." -- read up on "The prisoners' dilemma": if, the prisoners would always refuse, they would win; but, they don't, and they always lose; read up on Spartacus and the slave rebellion and why it failed--civil disobedience works just so long as it serves the larger purpose, e.g. slavery had to be ended because it was so inefficient.

[madhavendraxxx]

Ok - I understand now. But look in this way:

We have examples of civil disobedience movement working (see Gandhi and independence of India - huge echievment), but there is not a single evidence that violent revolution may create something positive. Every revolutions that succeded, merely repleced one regime with another. When you force changes, without preparing people's counscieusness, there is going to be resistance to change and people will be easly manipulated by conterrevolution.

[madhavendraxxx]

Therefore revolutionists will be forced to use violence to maintain achievments of revolution. In this way new elits will be created. And again, and again.

I see how difficult and improbable is idea that we can change this world by civil disobedience (how to get everyone to ignore system). But the violent alternative will fail for sure. It always had.

[KapitanHaddock]

@sheepblitzer

I heard and used "neo-feudalism" quite a few times. Far from being an exaggeration, "neo-feudalism" is right to the point.

The problem with the word "neo-liberalism" is, that 'liberalism' is conceived to different in the US compared to the rest of the world.

In the US it has a left-wing connotation, whereas in the rest of the world it is associated with free-market-politics which was originally pushed by conservative parties. (Bevor left parties subordinated to TINA)

[patarciepaul]

@KapitanHaddock  I referred to neo liberalism as neo feudalism in a post about two years ago. Perhaps you pinched it from me?

[KapitanHaddock]

@patarciepaul

No, I am sure I didn't. But I give you credits for your original achievement of figuring it.

In fact more sources use it. Guess, more and more people are feeling this is the most precise term.

I think people got on the wrong track with "neo liberalism" for 'liberalism' is originally linked to the notion of freeing and protecting the individual from injust cultural chains. But as all of us watching the real news channel know, the credo "human being first" is totally perverted now.

[freedomthrough]

@sheepblitzer Yep. Profit won the battle of stagflation and since then, has been increasing it's share year after year. It's all there in the wage and productivity statistics. Since the stagflationary period, wages have fallen waaaay behind productivity. Where has the rest gone? ;D

[iknownothingnow]

Great interview with Prof. Duménil.

His Financial globalization assessment is spot on. Regulation (glass steagall, FAS 113, et. al) was circumvented. In the States, both political parties supported globalization. Evidence shows this created even a larger gap between rich and poor.

Your next segment will be interesting. What can one do when you have unrepresentive representatives and an oligarchy that has distain for the those that pay every higher taxes on threat of the friendly IRS?

[btigtime2]

I can not believe we the people are still putting up with this robbery. Maybe that Hutaree militia is not so crazy. There is coming a point soon to do nothing will be crazy. The USA is dieing.

[jsuisenface]

I would find this funny if I didn't speak French :/

[patarciepaul]

Fuck Thatcher and Reagan. Bring back Keynesianism

[Congest]

The failure of Keynesianism led to Thatcher and Reagan in the first place. How 'bout we try something other than capitalism?

[mikepalomino]

@Congest I'm curious - how did Keynesianism fail?

[Congest]

@mikepalomino

Well, for one thing it failed to bring in enough profits to satisfy the capitalist ruling class, hence they reacted by forcing neoliberalism down the world's throats. It also failed from the point of view of the working class in that it didn't do anything to end all the exploitation and contradictions inherent in the capitalist system. As long as there is a class system in place, so there will be class struggle.

[Rundstedt1]

@Congest

Comrade, I'd like to add you to my friends list but I can't access your channel.

[mikepalomino]

@Congest Ooh I see. Interesting perspective. Thanks for clearing that up :)

[dradeel]

@Congest Sorry, but that is impossible. Capitalism exists regardless of whatever intervention you chose to do into markets. Trade will always happen. You cannot avoid it. You can however try to avoid the constant negative consequences that comes with interventions into markets done by governments and stupid politicians making decisions that affect everyone. Remove the stupid element and let real free markets work like they're supposed to. That's how you avoid huge swings in the economy.

[freedomthrough]

@Congest It wasn't the failure of Keynesianism, really. It was the failure of the world to be a perfect place. Some key goods were in high-pressured markets (the energy market, the OPEC-pricehike and the failure of Britain to keep slack in the electricity market), labour was also in a high pressured environment. Once the price of oil skyrocketed and the supply of electricity fell, prices, and thus also wages were bound to follow.

[freedomthrough]

@Congest The mechanism is this: Scarcity was imposed on the economy and someone had to take the loss in real purchasing power. Labour(wages) didn't want to and capital(profit) didn't want to, so massive inflation was the result. We're still living with the "solution" to stagflation, as the unemployment is kept high to discipline wages. Basically, our politicians have chosen to depressurize the labour-market so that other markets can be high-pressured.

[Rundstedt1]

(1/3)

I guess as "Congest" says, you could say that Keynesianism has failed. But I see it as being in the nature of Capitalism in general not really Keynesianism. Capital will always seek to collect upon itself; to deregulate and to grab more power for itself. It is part of the class struggle that capital likes to deny exists. Then when a major crisis threatens its power, it has to give little ground.

[Rundstedt1]

(2/3) So Keynesianism or not, Capitalism will always remain unstable because Keynesianism itself is unsustainable against the political power of capital.

[PavedStones]

@phillipgaley

You guys live in lala land. Capitalism, I mean capitalism as in capitalism in the? real world, is not about growing tomatoes in your garden. It's about having 10 multinational corporations with a revenue superior to the GDP of the 100 poorest countries together, and letting them run the world, run our governments, control our media and send us to die and kill in oil wars, and announce record profit year after year while our incomes have been stagnating or declining for 30 years.

[phillipgaley]

@PavedStones If, than yourself, certain rich guys aren't any more business savvy, but got that wealth, primarily through insider tips from buddies, and leveraging corp. efficiency against the individual, how is any of that a capital investment in items of production?

Why do you let their hired scholars define the terms which you require for thinking?

For all the bad which you mention, I would say: "Untangle, sort out the mish-mash.", . . . -- ay?

[PavedStones]

What??

Dude, sorry if I disturbed you. Now go back to your planet, grow tomatoes in your garden, and have fun with your declining wages.

[phillipgaley]

@PavedStones "What??" -- Capitalism is not so indefinite and broadly expansive a thing as is necessary to maintain your confounding of economic principles; rather, capitalism has to do with capital (major, real, costly, primary, indispensable) extensions of effort, money, stuff--investments--as a means to making something from earthly elements: I make capital investments in educatoin and tools and labor, to do things, and sell them to support myself or do what I want to do--Capitalism, . . .

[Rundstedt1]

(3/3)

So no matter what system of reform is instituted short of socialism, the cycle will start all over again. When the social fabric is repaired and the working class has moved on, the capitalists will again start to talk about the 'power of markets' and 'government interference' and with the power of media on their side they will again call for 'deregulation' and 'privatization,' and in another 30yrs, give or take, we'll be back at the same place.

[DaHonestAbe]

I put libertarians on the same level as I do alot of liberals (particularly white ones.) Well intended, but they don't see the big picture and often avoid systemic reality. Particularly the avoidance of the term "class conflict."

[hugegiantfrogs]

you dont know what you are talking about. liberals and libertarians are nothing alike

[DaHonestAbe]

Actually they are far more alike than you may want to believe. Especially considering their views on war and foreign policy. Economically there isn't much there, I'll admit that. But if you don't believe me, watch a speech by alexander cockburn at the FFF Conference. It was a conference put together by liberals and libertarians, (including liberal Ron Paul supporters.) And Cockburn went ahead to praise both sides for coming together. Take a look and get back to me if you have the time. Peace.

[darthrevan6]

lol at the French dropping a B-bomb haha that was great.

[flyhead2]

This is just one step towards the goal. People will be begging for a cure, and it will all get far worse.

Unless people wake up.

[rickbar123]

Milton Freidman burns in Hell.

[clockworkscott]

5 stars. this is fucking awesome. why don't we have someone on msnbc saying this shit? have you ever heard a contemporary american economist use the phrase "class struggle"? oh, and the host is fucking awesome too (he reminds me of the father from arrested development).

[martymars]

Yes I like The Real News too. Wis the would have captioned this interview though. He seems like a smart man, but I don't follow everything he says.

[blugreenblu]

@jlya2012

Oui!

[genghisshmenghis]

This is the best thing i've seen on Real News in a long time.

[therobanata]

For sure.

[boysdontcry17]

6:38 yes you can ;)

[pissandwich]

Some would say The Real News has a conservative bent to it, but I see it as a way to get the straight shit without dealing with the over-the-top, dogmatic presentation of cable news and most of the bloggers.

[MarquisdeBarrabas]

Good video, but there's nothing new here.

4 stars.

[greatbroad]

Yeah, if you have not yet seen the movie: "The Corporation" I would recommend it to anyone. I have a garage that is fit for entertaining, and I had 20 people over, sitting in folding chairs, the other night to watch it. It was checked out from the "socialist" town library.

It was a very lively conversation after the movie had ended, let me tell you! We truly must educate ourselves. The rest will take care of itself; the expressed outrage-- will propel necessary change.

[Champraves311]

After watching the Real News for over a year now, I completely forgot that their interviews are not censored. Awesome.

[greenhell666]

read Chomsky - What Uncle Sam Really Wants

[madhavendraxxx]

Very interesting video (and scarry too). What you think - if the neoliberalism will continue - what will happen, how it will develope?

Are there any perspectives of changing the situation, removing the neoliberal approach to economics? I mean, when someone gets power once, he is not going to give it away. Now - the capitalists have all military and economical control. So how is will it be possible to break free?

[madhavendraxxx]

I've got some ideas about how society could function in normal way, but I can not imagine, how do we get a chance to introduce changes. Not in representative democracy anyway.

[Congest]

"Now - the capitalists have all military and economical control. So how is will it be possible to break free? "

The workers have the numbers to change things, they just have to become conscious of their position as a distinct class with material interests incompatible with those of the capitalist class.

[madhavendraxxx]

@Congest Yes - I agree with that. I failed to mention another power in the capaitalist's hands - media. How, in the times of global media control, can people become consciouss of reality? They are so stupify that they can not really think for themeselves. Sorry for sounding negative. I'm not nihilist, I try to change situation, inform as many pople as possible, but I realise I do it more for myself, my integrity, then out of faith in real change. I don't say it's not there. I just can not see it

[madhavendraxxx]

You can see how spanish anarchosydnicalist revolution almost succeded, but it was before total media influence. Workers were much more consciouss then now, much more orginised. Still it failed. Now, capitalists are much stronger then that time, and workers are so much weaker. I don't see practical way out of this situation.

Can someone venture to try to show it in concret, realistic way?

[kmarinas86]

Low cost of entering markets keeps competition high.

Low cost of entering markets keeps prices low.

Winners of competition get more seller power.

Winners of competition sell for more.

Winners of competition get more buying power.

Winners of competition buy for less.

Winners of competition take profit away from the rest of competition without whom competition would not exist.

Winners of competition can kill the competition.

Competition does not produce wealth. Opportunity does.

[MarquisdeBarrabas]

Very well put, kmarina!

[sirellyn]

Having different countries compete with free trade is very good. (as long as it's actually free trade without strings).

Competition is like exercise. Almost no one likes it, yet it's very good for you and keeps you fit. People will seek ways to avoid it, and can often be successful with protectionist measures. But in the end they are only harming themselves.

[Charles0in0charge]

No competition is not like an excercise... it conpetition, On inherient flaw competition has is that competition does not like competition. So how are you goin to force businesses into competition when competition is usually not beneficial to everyone but a selectedfew who have monopoly on competition?

[sirellyn]

@Charles0in0charge "A monopoly on competition". That statement is a paradox. You don't force competition by creating competitors or anything like that, you simply open the door to it and ensure barriers to entry are kept low.

Competition is always beneficial. It just sucks to be on the short end. Nearly every gadget or item you own would be priced out of your reach if not for competition. Things get faster, cheaper, higher quality because they have to compete. Its exactly like exercise.

[Charles0in0charge]

that isn't paradoxial at all, you are going to tell the people in power to let everyone have a equal chance? you going to force everyone back to the starting point? Competition is beneficial, but only to a few. Adn the short end of the stick not only sucks, but it destroys people's livelihood. Competition is contradictory, setting prices based on competitive pricing is absurd. the Workers are always goign to be the consumer, they work to consume. So why not workers set the prices?

[Charles0in0charge]

Free trade will never exist in the terms of capitalism. there is a very apparent relationship with the state and capitalism; capitalism need the state for many purposes. as you pointed out, protectionism i s used by countries on behave of businesses, and protectionism is often very useful, America is one of biggest protectionists since Hamilton.

[sirellyn]

@Charles0in0charge Protectionism is useful to business that aren't able to compete. One won't sink the ship but enough starts building up a lot of dead weight.

One will never get enough exercise either, but when you are dangerously overweight I try to advise healthy actions. Especially the worst offenders like any company who has been bailed out since the S&L crisis.

[MrTearsintherain]

@sirellyn Without the "evils" of protectionism America would never have developed an industrial base. Fair trade rather than the idiocy of free trade is far more effective, sane and responsible. Free trade, in reality, is endorsing child labor, near slave labor, environmental insanity and a host of other ills including a planet wide creation of a caste system filled with masses of have nots ruled by a tiny minority of insanely wealthy and powerful haves..

[sirellyn]

@MrTearsintherain I'm fine with tariffs against countries using slaves or children, generally it's not as needed however. Slaves and children lack the same incentive as normal workers, they don't work as hard or as well, and they don't innovate. Aside from that we have a repugnance towards it and tend to boycott, I don't want to buy shoes made by a slave. Poor workers would be able to compete and win against children and slaves.

Don't mistake me, I don't advocate unwilling workers ever.

[MrTearsintherain]

Not all slaves wear chains nor do they feel the lash of a whip. There is socio-economic slavery. Working conditions that make Dickens look like Rebbecca of Sunny Brook farm enforced on people with no recourse. Environmental practices that are so wretched that they are actually affecting people half the planet away from where it happens. I really could wax windy on this one. All I can say is this, keep on blindly adhering to dogmatic belief in free trade and it will end poorly for all.

[sirellyn]

@MrTearsintherain I believe in debt slavery as well. In which case many people in north america are slaves too. If you are talking strictly socio-economic. Trading with those countries are still the #1 way of bringing them out of their current status. Look at Vietnam and China for example. Not even 50 years ago 99.9% of their populations were as poor as dirt. Now there are more middle class people in China (300 mil) than the entire us population. Vietnam less but similar.

[LouieArrighi]

yeah, these guys that are preaching free market-free trade are useful idiots to the wealthy elite.

we have a fiat monetary system and it MUST be regulated. FDR was right and deregulation is also what caused the Great Depression.

[skog77]

Fiat? No wonder it's broken.

[mac163]

lol ( as a former fiat owner!)

[LouieArrighi]

@skog77 well, let me know of a currency that isn't.

[greenhell666]

@LouieArrighi most free market preachers are just tools

[Diatonic135]

4:24

[hamletundone]

25 stars if i could

[GivettheGAS]

Didn't take long to find out this guys is biased, and doesn't know what he's talking about.

[ufster81]

from china to usa, from france to argentina, from iraq to iceland, from rwanda to australia "BULLSHIT" is the only word that accurately conveys the true feelings and thoughts of the lower and middle class people on politics and economy. so, thank you once again for an excellent interview.

[kmg501]

.

Neo-liberalism? How about you call it crony capitalism or collusion instead.

Or how about addressing the biggest driver of bubble markets.

The FEDERAL RESERVE and fiat currencies.

.

[LouieArrighi]

...and that's exactly why a piece of paper needs to be regulated. we're creating money out of thin air but the Fed has worked since FDR put regulations in place.

[Charles0in0charge]

Blaming the Fed is like placing the blame on the worker of a bad corporation and not holding the whole corporation responseble. The fed is very much apart of Capitalism, collusion is often very useful for a few capitalists. Its apart of competition, the lesser capitalist loses out while the bigger one continue to get bigger. Now because the lesser capitalist loses they blame the bigger one for their problems instead of lookin to change the system the live in.

[greenhell666]

ssssshhhhhh!

watch the video and LEARN

[davematherly]

1st

END THE FED

[LouieArrighi]

@davematherly WON'T HAPPEN, so come up with a better solution.