Is this Ron Pauls dad?LOL oh it's so refreshing to hear common sense true American values.Why did you ever let all those fabian socialists change your country so?
or oreilly will cut them off and shout over them when they begin speaking profound truths and exposing the show's bs, and try and force nonsensical, loaded and carefully designed yes/no questions to both trap them into sounding wrong on principle without letting them explain but also damage them politically and socially if possible. It's far from an altruistic, fair and open medium meant to give them a platform. Tbh, I think the general idea is to "prove" how right (Fox or whoever) they really
@N1k1mon You are incorrect. Fox EMPLOYS liberal like Colmes, Beckell, Pat Caddell(sp?), and always has the liberal viewpoint represented. They discuss and let the viewer decide. I've seen O'Reilly blast conservatives just as much as liberals. If it wasn't a fair forum the liberals wouldn't show up. Kinda like a free market that you leftists hate so much, yet it is proven to work better than any other economic format.
@svvmichael1 to imply that Fox is a 'fair forum' is a moronic statement... any channel that has o'reilly employed is not something that's worth anybody,s time..
@DREwestcoast You post is moronic. You make a claim with no backing. EVERY POLL taken since 1996 concludes that Fox is fair and balanced and the most respected news source versus all others. O'Reilly is much more fair than all the other idiots on network, CNN, MSNBC you left-wing partisan troll. Fox always presents BOTH sides to a story. But sing the left-wing is so anti-intellectual devoid of any common sense that actually is bad for you idiots. bye now troll.
@svvmichael1 So are you, I never said MSNBC or CNN are better, but your love for O'reilly and fox is just amusing, as though you really believe in it, you sir, are pathetic for buying into such a propaganda platform..
@DREwestcoast Nope, I watch/listen/read all viewpoints. I watch MSNBC,networks, and Fox. Research has found that conservatives generally listen to all views, while liberals only listen to their viewpoint. HMMMM. Looks like you lose badly...again.
@DREwestcoast What a great vocabulary you have. First you have no intelligence, and no knowledge, now you show you have no class as well. Have fun making $7/hr fool.
Yeah, I know what you mean, and used to think of it that way, but I started hearing this same claim about Fox Noise and after re-evaluating some things, changed my mind. Yes, shows like Fox bring on people with other views and opinions of different sorts but the goal is actually to ridicule and crush their advocacy with the training in PC rhetoric and propagandist spin they're so skilled at. They employ other tactics when that's not going so well, like how someone like hannity
@DREwestcoast I used to love that show when I was little, then when I made the coversion from Democrat to Libertarian, I realized what a moron Donahue was. I've seen him in recent interviews. It's almost painful to hear him pontificate about matters so far above his IQ level it's laughable.
@fanadfilms Yeah, I do have some respect for donahue though, sure he's an unapologetic liberal, but at least his show received people from all kinds, it's one of the last vestiges of free media, his audiences truly are retarded though.. also, I love when Friendman snapped back: what are you gonna do when people suddenly decide to change shoes?
@DREwestcoast He was awesome, Friedman. The problem with Phil was the same problem with Mr. Suspenders. Not bright enough to actually comprehend what their guests were talking about?
I had to share this with the viewers of this page. Today, 12/08/11, I just now heard the name Milton Friedman. Actually the name rang a bell, but i think it was from conservative radio. Anyway, This guy would have been GREAT for defending "smaller gov't, tea party" types. From other videos I found of him i would say he wouldnt have liked occupy wallstreet at all, and he makes the "everyday" guy kind of argument. My political beliefs arent relevant, but bravo Mr. Friedman for your wise argument.
The problem will never be solved, pollution, because it calls into question the habits of corporations all over the planet. Their deeds must never see the light of day, for the uproar of the masses will make it impossible for them to make mistakes or abuse the rights that they're used to abusing.
@jasonwoody he's not referring to a carbon tax...(co2 emissions), he's referring to toxic pollutants which are already being dealt with in the US such as scrubber and steam systems in coal-operated factories
@DREwestcoast he's talking about negative externalities. Yes, specifically, he is talking about pollutants which have an immediate health impact, not those that have long term effects on climate, but the logic is the same. He understands that pure capitalism cannot cope with negative externalities without help. You are absolutely incorrect to say that the US has "dealt" with such pollutants. If that were so, there would never be smog alerts or air quality problems.
@jasonwoody Oh that's right, I forgot how the globe was segragated and isolated into different countries... truth is, the US coal plants are regulated heavily through sensor planes, heavy sanctions, hell Obama even claimed he was gonna make it impossible to build those on US soil, while China builds 1 a week with little to no regulation.. so spare me your smog sermon
@DREwestcoast You're telling me that smog in New York is caused by coal plants in China and the only harmful emissions from coal power plants in the USA is CO2? There are many harmful emissions relating to combustion of fossil fuels and not all of them travel around the world. Many of them are heavier than air and fall to the ground within weeks, contaminating food and water. And come on, seriously, everybody knows that smog occurs near where the fuel is burned.
Friedman is a criminal. He and his University of Chicago cohort have been responsible for the reprehensible and anti-human neo-liberal policies that have caused untold suffering throughout the world over the past 50 years.
He doesn't advocate for freedom. Where is the freedom for the hundreds of millions of poor around the world who have suffered so that the 1% can increase their profit margins?
@Bleakfacts Neoliberalism as an economic politics began in Chile in 1973. Its inauguration consisted of a US-organized coup against a democratically elected socialist president and the installment of a bloody military dictatorship notorious for systematic torture. This was the only way to turn the neoliberal model of the so-called “Chicago Boys” under the leadership of Milton Friedman – a student of Austrian-born Friedrich von Hayek – into reality.
@savetheworld When has he advise installing bloody military dictatorships? and how does this relate in anyway to free trade policy advocated by Friedman and Hayek.
More people have been risen out of poverty in the last 50 years than in any other time in history. How dare those rich people how an entire continent of people, like Asia, go from absolute poverty to a growing and thriving middle class. How dare the rich begin to turn the slums of india into a growth nation where less poverty is now, than any other time in history. You are poorly informed in what has happened in the last fifty years
@MPTPGV Your response is typical of the tunnel vision that comes along with a focus that sees economic markers to the exclusion of anything else. Even if it is true that there are fewer people in poverty than there were 50 years ago (and I do not conceed your point) is there the slightest concern people like you have for quality of life? Or dignity? Or how these policies effect national and international commons?
As always you accuse those who you disagree with as being uninformed as though that was an answer. Its not. The reality is that the unregulated flow of international capital has left the US a hollow wreck. And a lack of regulations to reign in the behavior of corporations have left China an environmental disaster and our entire planet screaming towards environmental collapse. I challenge you to live on 2 dollars a day and sing the praises of Milton Friedman. Raised out of poverty my ass.
Capitalism built this country, for the last 80 years, we've been anything but a capitalist country. We've bailed out auto-companies, we've bailed out banks, we've bailed out airliners, we've artificially tried to keep our industry pumping, instead of demanding innovation and actual inventiveness. We do not offer companies benefits like most of europe does when they become exporters of products, rather, we make it easier for them and cheaper for them to be exporters of jobs.
@MPTPGV Workers built this country. Capitalism is a system of externalization of costs. The wealth you seem to be so proud of was established on unsafe working conditions, child labor, no health care, crappy living conditions for exploited workers...the list goes on. "We" haven't provided corporate welfare; lobbyists, paid for with the profits from capitalist enterprise, convinced lawmakers to redistribute wealth to those who already had it. Unregulated capitalism = shit.
Without John D. Rockefeller most americans wouldn't have been able to afford oil for their latterns and would've had to go to bed when it got dark. He reshaped American life. Vanderbilt turned an 8 dollar ferry ride into a 3 dollar ferry ride, changing the ability to travel, and revolutionized rail-systems. Steve Jobs revolutionized the way we all communicate. Bill Gates software made computers accessible to everyone. The workers built the products, great men, created them.
Without government, Henry Ford began paying autoline workers more money, and he got the best workers, this forced the entire industry to pay more money. All wages are circular, paid out on supply and demand, when you are a great worker, the demand for you is higher and your pay is higher, when you're an average worker, the demand for you is lower and your pay is lower. When there are more need for jobs than there are jobs, pay goes down, because workers are willing to take less.
@MRmattconnell So what would you suggest? socialism is equal slavery taking money from one to give to another, communism is just as bad and no socialism and communism are not the same thing they are close but different. Anarchy? well that would be a total free trade economy.
HE WAS RIGHT THEN AND HIS MESSAGE IS RIGHT NOW! Free market and private sector would regulate all that is wanted and needed. Government just expands and creates more of a mess with out money.
the difference between socialists and libertarians is that in a libertarian society socialist communities can exist, in a socialist one, you either co-operate or go to jail.
When was the last time you saw an hour long interview with a leading economist (liberal, conservative, libertarian, regardless) on the cable news networks? They broadcast 24-hours, how can they not make time for some actual programming of sustenance?
Where was "the invisible hand" when our economy went south? Years of Friedman-inspired deregulation, executed by father and son Bush, left financial markets in the hands of -- well -- invisible hands. Now off their regulatory leashes, financial institutions could create, invest in, and manipulate new, exotic, unstable, ungrounded, risky, but highly profitable, financial products -- mainly derivatives and securitization devices, such as subprime mortgage packages.
What the heck does Creationism have to do with being a Libertarian? As for abortion, point made, but I guess he would say that in his thinking an unborn child is a life, and therefore he is defending the Libertarian virtue of the individual right to life.
@thekoollemon Need? Just look at the guy who wrote the video description. He acts like there's some sort of right and wrong that is just so clear. Not to mention people like friedman and sowell are complete smartasses to the public that actually show up to their lectures.
@1019079 There is a right and wrong. There is using force to achieve ends and then there's the free relation negotiations available via capitalism. Can you give a gray example?
@1019079 No its not. In capitalism you don't have to buy anything you don't want to. Granted essentials, like food, water etc. can get expensive, if government favors one provider to the exclusion of others. But that isn't capitalism that is corporatism. In capitalism there are several competitors and their competition reduces prices. Unless you can prove capitalism is force (which because of what capitalism is, you can't) I'm afraid you've been owned.
@ecuadmail Not really. One, there's no kind of solvency to your plan. Second, capitalism is its own kind of force. Its either rent yourself to survive or die of starvation. Kind of a depressing society isn't it? So no, I'm afraid you most certainly haven't owned me. Next time try taking more than one semester of economics and watching friedman, then get back to me.
@1019079 First, solvency is inherent in capitalism as long as everyone is free to spend their own money on what they want. They're free to take on debt, (if someone is willing to loan them the money and take that risk) and pay it back by whatever means they use to legally make money. As for "renting yourself to survive or die of starvation" I'm assuming you're referring to people having to work for a living rather than someone giving them necessities? That's actually how the world works.
@ecuadmail There you go. You just admitted yourself that capitalism is a form of force. People are not free to choose in capitalist society. Just like every economic system. Most of the things that are competitive here in the us are taxpayer subsidized, so to make it a free market is just going to kill jobs.
@1019079 In an ACTUAL capitalist society, they are free to choose. They are free to compete, work, spend or save their money. Prove people are not free to choose in a capitalist society. Your premise seems to be "if they want to eat they have to work to buy food". Figure that one out yourself? Theyre also free to let themselves starve if they want to do that. You have yet to show ACTUAL force being used. Do you have a system where no force is involved? Such a system doesn't exist.
@ecuadmail The only reason that we even have a tolerable system now is because of unions. You realize most of us would still be working the weekends if it weren't for workers rights and people standing up for themselves? It sounds like you want to go back to the days were everybody just lives in a box with no minimum wage. There is a reason no capitalist society has ever survived more than 200 years.
@1019079 The US was around long before unions and it thrived. You think people came from all over the world to be exploited? What was it that brought them here? Opportunity. Yes people should stand up for themselves, and sure organize if they want. But accept the consequences that some companies might refuse to agree to their contract terms. Your assumption that unions raised the standard of living is flawed at the most basic level. A countries amount of capital sets the standard of living.
@ecuadmail Since the US was gaining more and more capital the working conditions rose and with globalization the crappy factory jobs that paid so little have been exported to other countries and their level of capital is increasing those who refuse to get with the program lag behind and continue as "third world countries". So while unions may have forced some employers to pay them more it just caused their product to become more expensive. I notice you dodged my questions from before. No answer?
@ecuadmail By the us "thriving" you mean money in the pockets of select individuals. Which i suppose by a loose definition can be considered "thriving."
@1019079 Yeah, there are rich people in the USA. Either by their own hand or by inheritance. So what? Does them being rich stop others from earning money in a free market? No. If someone can do it cheaper or better and can convince people by persuasion (not force) to buy his product instead of the rich guys product, then he will earn money and the rich guy won't. My parents are thriving and they're not millionaires. My sisters family is thriving and her husband flies planes How do you define it?
@ecuadmail What you're doing is putting the expectation that people have the financial resources and the willigness to uproot their entire lives and families, finding a new job, and then going to a school that's becoming vastly overcrowded. 15 thousand or whatever current number the right wing has pulled out of its ass simply isn't enough money for big and overcrowded schools. In the short term its just plain disastrous.
@1019079 Proof. Give, me, proof. You seem to have this idea that unfortunate truths about reality are the fault of capitalism. In communism if they need a professional somewhere they are forced to uproot and move. Now your complaint is that good schools would be overcrowded. If class sizes are too big people won't want to go there so they won't. If the school expands and has more room than more people can go to the excellent school and get a better education. Not disastrous at all.
@ecuadmail Do you see that woman on msnbc anymore? no. There, is that evidence conclusive enough? Do I have to write an essay, or can you process that statement?
@1019079 Oh, its processable. So since I've proven bias on those other networks I guess I win. Got to get back to my actual life though. If you have any other questions that aren't just rehashed items we've already gone over then feel free to bring them up but since it appears you're just trolling I'm gonna move on. Take care buddy
@ecuadmail You only proved any kind of bias on one network, and that anchor was fired. You've yet to prove cnn or abc, so you failed in that attempt as well. So once again, sarcasm takes the place of debate and intellectual discussion. I'll be sure to "take care" though. If by trolling you mean disagreeing with you then i guess i am supposedly trolling. Heres a question: why do you do this? do you really feal that being meanspirited and sarcastic conveys your message? Its not.
@1019079 And you have proven no bias. If you take my assertion that all are biased as proof that fox is then that means there are 3 other networks that are biased to the other side. So no, I've made more progress than you have. As for being mean spirited and sarcastic I think if you'll look at the earlier posts, and most other ones, I've maintained a civil tone throughout. I wasn't the first one to drop the F-bomb here.
@1019079 Sorry I couldn't put this in earlier, (I had an appointment to get to) but you asked why do I do this? Probably for the same reason I think you do. You think the other side is wrong so you go and comment about it the best you can. I think you're wrong and I don't want the community at large to think you're the only side of the story. Bad ideas have to be challenged and when proof is brought to bear only the good ones will hold up. I've brought what I've got and you've done the same I
@1019079 Sorry I couldn't put this in earlier, (I had an appointment to get to) but you asked why do I do this? Probably for the same reason I think you do. You think the other side is wrong so you go and comment about it the best you can. I think you're wrong and I don't want the community at large to think you're the only side of the story. Bad ideas have to be challenged and when proof is brought to bear only the good ones will hold up. I've brought what I've got and you've done the same I
@1019079 think at this point the web community has enough info to decide for itself (if they have the patience or interest to read our lengthy comment conversation) or they can look outside. How many immigrants still flood here and to other capitalist countries because of the high standard of living and freedom that capitalism provides? Or they can look at countries whose standard improves because of capitalist policies ex Chile. I wish you the best in life but I have to wrap this up now Chao
@1019079 think at this point the web community has enough info to decide for itself (if they have the patience or interest to read our lengthy comment conversation) or they can look outside. How many immigrants still flood here and to other capitalist countries because of the high standard of living and freedom that capitalism provides? Or they can look at countries whose standard improves because of capitalist policies ex Chile. I wish you the best in life but I have to wrap this up now Chao
@1019079 think the Youtube community (if it has the patience to read our lengthy comment stretch) can decide for themselves who is right and wrong. Or they could step outside and look at the world around them. At the high standard of living that capitalism has brought for the USA and all the other countries whose common citizens lives are improving because of adopting capitalist policies (ex Chile). Regardless of all that, I wish you the best. I really should get back to my real life now. Chao
@ecuadmail I dodged your questions? If anything you dodged mine. You never explained how we could keep taxpayer subsidized jobs in a free market. A countries capital does not set any living standard simply because owners don't have to give any of it back. They can simply outsource. They've been doing this pretty much since "free market," bills like nafta passed. So if anything by your very logic nobody has to be employed in the united states except small businesses.
@1019079 Here are the questions: Based off your definition of "force", do you have a system where no force is involved? Can you prove people are not free to choose? As for your questions taking taxpayer subsidies away allows people to take their skills and apply them where they can get the most money for them. If public education shut down do you think the teachers would just go home and sit on their hands? No, they can open their own school, in their house if they want, and charge people to
@ecuadmail attend. Do you think construction workers would stop paving roads if the government stopped paying them? Initially yes. But some smarty pants comes along and buys that road from the fed and maintains it and can charge a toll to use it. Show me one industry that would collapse completely if it were no longer subsidized? There isn't one. If there is a need for something, people will do it because it means they can get ahead. They can earn money to support their personal pursuits.
@ecuadmail Public schools are one. The entire planets environment would suck. capitalism is basically destroying our environment, but nobody really seems to care. For education you basically advocate that aristocrats come and monopolize roads and schools. Either that or go back to one room schoolhouses with no funding. You have a very skewed sense of reality.
@1019079 You bring up pollution. Its one in which the government has a role in protecting others from third party pollution so you can have your government intervention there. As for schools I've already pointed out that private schools will pop up in the absence of public schools. Liberals I speak with turn to Europe for examples so I will also Have you seen the school systems there? Tons of private schools which produce better students than the US does. So no public schools and roads dont work
@1019079 In a voucher system their parents receive vouchers from their tax dollars so a school can be picked. In a completely free enterprise system if, for some reason, their parents can't earn enough money for them to go to school and they still want to go they appeal to private charities like they did before government started running education. There also used to be these things called "mutual aide societies" that could help with that. Of course that would force people to be part of a
@ecuadmail School vouchers do not work in acedemia. I'm sorry, they just don't. For very obvious reasons in fact. People will flock to schools that are already rich in funding, thus making the government poor loads of money into one school. This just makes a blatant problem. Some diplomas from high schools are now worth even more than what they are, and some others get you laughed right out of the fry cook station. As for charity, when the hell did this EVER work?
@1019079 School vouchers actually do work. You don't have to go very far to see the proof either. Check out Stossel's "Stupid in America". They also work for very obvious reasons, good schools will fill to capacity, poor schools will go out of business and even public schools will improve because the class sizes will be smaller. Your reasoning doesn't pan out at all. The per student cost of attendance does not equal higher test scores and smarter kids. (See the aforementioned Stossel report)
@ecuadmail Fox news is pretty much famous for doing this sort of thing. It is a conservative news station, so you're basically citing propaganda as your source. Poor schools would go out of business, you are exactly right. You're admitting the flaw in the system you just cited that was supposed to work. Welfare is such a small issue, I don't consider it of much importance, but some people really have a pet peeve about it for whatever reason.
@1019079 I don't mean poor schools as schools without money I mean poor as in poor performing. And no, that's not a flaw, that's a good thing. That shows other schools that incompetence will not be tolerated. And yeah, Fox news is a conservative station with conservative views. That doesn't make them wrong. MSNBC ABC CNN all lean left. Does that mean their coverage is a bunch of lies? No. Welfare and entitlement programs are the main sources of unfunded liabilities. That's why they're a problem.
@ecuadmail Fox misrepresents things all the time. Just like "climategate," which was proven a hoax. and i'm sorry, but i just don't believe you that you were poor. Its just not a plausible story. Its vague, and there's really no evidence. They also try and make obama a racist by talking about his bus analogy he made into a racial comment. Let me put it this way: they don't have a great track record. Anybody that tolerates glenn beck is a fucking retard.
@1019079 And CNN, MSNBC, and ABC, never do anything like that. And you're right, it is vague, since there is so much time to put my life story into a 500 character comment. You can't bemoan my lack of evidence when you have submitted none to support any of your claims. That sir, makes you not a fucking retard, but a fucking retarded hypocrite.
@1019079 Oh you're clever. Taking an obviously sarcastic comment and twisting it to suit your needs. That's the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I". Are you seriously pulling that? How old are you? 12? In case you didn't catch it before,
CNN, MSNBC, and ABC skew their reporting to favor the political left. They are not guiltless and your claims that climate gate was a hoax are about as credible as every other dis-proven theory you have put forth. Y
@ecuadmail You think I'm clever when you're the one using petty satire to convey a political belief? Only backwoods rednecks deny climate change is happening. I'm sorry, but the case is clear. Thousands of organizations of confirmed it, from oil companies to nasa. Your ideas are shallow from beginning to end. There is no debate on climate change. It now centers on what is causing the climate change.
@1019079 As for only denying climate change /watch?v=r78-bZfy8oU You can claim bias by stossel, but the scientists that used to belong to the IPCC are rednecks? What were you saying about mean spiritedness?
@ecuadmail Only in capitalist america can threatening funding be considered a means to improving education. The reality of such an incentive program is clear, schools will push students through and do whatever it takes to receive funding, obviously. When survival requires money, people will do what it takes to get it, period, and education will take a back seat to the need for funding.
@rhth79 In the free market, education wouldn't automatically receive federal funding, in that you are 100% right. But forcing students through now with no competition creates the situation of pushing students through as you describe. If the parents are allowed to choose different schools then schools that produce worthless students will go broke and close because the customers will go elsewhere. So no, education won't take a back seat like it does now, if there is real competition for customers.
Oh, by the way, come back and try answering those questions from before. If you can't, ACTUALLY can't, not just changing the subject and ignoring the question then yes, you're owned. But that's okay. Hopefully you can take something useful from our discussion. If there are any questions you've posed, (not accusations, questions) that I haven't answered feel free to bring them up again. Ill answer anything you want to know. Out of curiosity though, where are you from? What do you do for a living?
@1019079 Charity has always worked. And it has always worked better. Do you think that the government can relieve poverty if we just gave them more money? They've printed trillions of dollars and poured it into welfare and they still bemoan the amount of poor. Facts of life are these, stuff costs money, people have to earn money to get stuff, there will always be people at the bottom. Watch this, maybe you'll learn something from someone smarter than either of us /watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88
@ecuadmail Some schools that already have resources would be flocked to by everyone, thus making the amount of money available to each student less. This is really a right wing talking point. Whenever you hear someone talking about it, they throw around buzzwords like free market and competition. All a bunch of bs of course.
@1019079 Except that since the money is attached to the kids, schools would only get as much money as they have kids enrolled. So if there is a really good school with capacity to take all the kids then they get the same amount of money per kid and that school would earn money and attract good teachers. When there are too many kids they can expand or another school will compete. Your logic is so wretchedly flawed its actually kind of sad.
@ecuadmail Heres an idea the next time you want to assess reality. Walk out your door. Charity is pretty absent you'll find, but if you want to wear your ignorance around like a badge talking buzzwords and "free market," principles, then go right ahead.
@1019079 Charity is actually really easy to find. At least where I live. I grew up on charity. Our church was the reason I had clothes to wear and food to eat from age 6 to 16. So you can take your ignorance and wear that instead mkay pumpkin?
@1019079 That's not a flaw in an argument. Claiming it is is like saying I have never been bitten by a dog, therefore dogs don't bite. THAT, is a flawed argument. My example is called anecdotal evidence. Alone it doesn't support a proposition but given the red cross, salvation army, and the mutual aid societies that PRE-DATE government welfare those are evidence which prove my proposal. You on the other hand have never provided any evidence.
@ecuadmail You named charities but didn't give figures. That's not real evidence if you're trying to prove something like that. Homeless rates have been pretty bad throughout us history. I've provided plenty of evidence, you on the other hand just throw around 1st semester of economics buzzwords. If a school has too many kids, why would another school compete? It simply makes no sense. Once again, that family would have to have the financial resources to move and the school would need more money
@ecuadmail You named charities but didn't give figures. That's not real evidence if you're trying to prove something like that. Homeless rates have been pretty bad throughout us history. I've provided plenty of evidence, you on the other hand just throw around 1st semester of economics buzzwords. If a school has too many kids, why would another school compete? It simply makes no sense. Once again, that family would have to have the financial resources to move and the school would need more money
@1019079 Alright. I've watched it. And he's an idiot. His basic complaint is the one you've already brought up and I've already disproven, (that already good schools will have people flock to them and that students will therefore have less to work with). He also complains that our current system produces worthless HS graduates, then what does he say a voucher system would do? Produce worthless graduates. He's a smart cookie he is. Did you watch the Stossel report? I take it you didn't. Well done
@ecuadmail and by admitting fox news does do that, which you pretty much just did, you admitted to getting you're political views from a propaganda channel. A free marketer admitting to getting information from a bunch of commissars seems pretty ironic to me.
@1019079 Admitting fox is conservatively biased means that their reporting is false? What a fault line of reasoning you have. You also assume I only watch FOX. How would I know that the other outlets are biased unless I watched them also? And calling them commissars doesn't any point make. Is it ironic that I can choose the news sources I watch? You've got the whole idea of "freedom of choice" backwards buddy.
@ecuadmail Free market principles cause outsourcing, and outsourcing causes job loss. Free to choose is a loaded term if anything else. If by free to choose you mean free to get taken advantage of by one employer or another. Most people don't even understand what communism is. yes communism did not work, but it did pave the way to social democracy, which is still being used effectively to this day.
@1019079 Yeah, jobs that require no skills get outsourced to countries without a minimum wage law. So having that law has caused outsourcing. Were it not for that then unskilled workers could have those jobs here. And no I don't mean that by free to choose. I mean that you can negotiate your own wages commensurate with your skills. Have no skills? Get some, its in your own self interest. With that expectation, people try harder so they are marketable and our country improves as its people do.
"a countries amount of capital sets the standard of living."
please don't tell me you'r talking about stuff like "GPD" ,the "money value supply" and "inflation rate"
you truly believe that if you have all of that in a country then they have a better standard of living? ,if so I assure you,you are mistaken.
why you are mistaken?,that way Translation:because if GPD represents the "well being" of people around the country then thats mean as long as we have more money we will be
@sayroni "as long as we have more money we will be"... what? I'd like to hear what you were going to finish with. Also did you mean to say GPD or GDP? Because a high GDP means the folks have jobs and can earn their own living and negotiate their own wages. Granted that in "developing countries" that wage they can bargain for and earn is pretty low. Upon developing, like the USA has, the jobs are different, and the wages are higher. As more people earn more money from more companies, local and
international, capital is flowing into the country. As a country has more to spend, more people come to sell. As they have more needs fulfilled, more wants are also. Hence, the standard of living is higher. So feel free to finish your previous comment, but if your reply to my original comment was meant to invalidate my statement that unions weren't the cause of raising the standard of living then you might want to address that actual statement and not just a piece of ancillary evidence.
Personally no, I don't think that more money will make me happy. I personally assign very little value to it. But the freedom to choose is what matters. In a free market anyone who puts enough value on money can put effort into making it in large amounts. In a free country everyone is responsible for themselves and those they choose to take responsibility for, which means kids or less fortunate neighbors and family. Its neither right nor proper to force anyone to take care of others. The
@sayroni Evidence to which statement? I'm not disagreeing with you that people have mixed up standards but the idea that simply having massive amounts of money is enough to make you happy has been around for centuries, its not a recent invention. Not sure what we're disagreeing on at this point.
what i'm trying to say overall:is that people think that money can give people a happy life,but thats not true because in order to get money some people have to suffer meaning be poor,and some people will get rich of the expense of someone else, the poor people, meaning:the principle of the moneytary system is wrong.
and not to mention that the "rich" people arn't really happy because of the money they have,they are happy because the resource that the money gives them.
so money is a nothing thing,if you are stuck in an island with billions of dollars with no water, clean resource and food you will die out of hunger in less then a week,but if you will get to an island and you will see fish streaming,available resources like water,you can survive for a very long time.
so you see you don't need money, you need those resources..
what if will tell you that there could be a society with no money at all?
@sayroni In a small society maybe. Would you know how many apples a dell laptop is worth? What about an appendectomy? How many loafs of bread would that earn a doctor? Once a society gets larger than a small village money works as a common currency in order to relate everything. If a moneyless society worked, you'd think it would be out there somewhere.
@sayroni Yeah, I think I live in a free society. You have to realize there is a difference between just being free to do whatever they want, and living in a free society. A society still has rules, one of which is the use of common currency. So yes, in a society (a large group of people interacting in a trillion different ways for a trillion different reasons) with limited resources (because everyone wants food everyone wants what they want and they're free to go after it) money is necessary.
@sayroni I think I see the difference between our world views, you seem to believe that a world like that can exist, whereas I do not. I'll watch the movie but I've grown a touch much to believe in a world without those things, instead I try to alleviate and reduce it as much as possible keeping the right of self determination and choice paramount.
@sayroni "if want a world with no wars,poverty,crimes.death,destruction,misery,Hierarchy,Diseases..." So you are looking for the Holodeck on Star Trek?
more pleased,healthy,maybe more "happy" and shit like that,so you'r starting to think "hey how will i get more money to my country because you want all those stuff?".....
healthcare in 2009 represents 17.3% of the total USA GDP
and based on that logic it will be even better if healthcare will raise right?
do you know what represents the so called "HealthCare", SICK PEOPLE and DYING PEOPLE=HEALTHCARE,so more sick people the better the economy
@sayroni That's just that part of the economy. Let's take your 17.3% example. That means that as a nation keeping people healthy provides that much of the profit for the economy. Now how much of that is research? How much of that is preventative? Probably not enough of either case. You've created a logical fallacy by associating that with only the sick and dying. Increases in GDP come from increases in productivity. Now more people needing healthcare or using healthcare forces an increase in
productivity for the healthcare sector. But to try and state categorically that GDP has nothing to do with the standard of living is to ignore the other 63.7% of the economy. Truth be told it might be better if healthcare was more of the GDP. Controlling for other variables such as lifestyle (eating habits, participation in dangerous activities etc) an increase per person spending on current healthcare rates will mean more people want to get into the business and as more people do so and there
is more competition prices drop which means the everyman gets more for less money. Now doctors have to accept that they won't always get paid what previous generations of physicians got paid for their work even adjusted for inflation but they won't do it unless they can get a fair wage and that wage will be as low as the market demands and as high as the doctor can negotiate. The market goes up and down in a million different ways with a trillion different interactions. The best thing for
everyone is to allow every individual person to choose for themselves what they will buy, from whom, and for how much. As they get more cash, they can spend more on what they think will make them happy Whether its buying that 1100cc motorcycle or that hang glider or whatever or spending it in charitable ways Completely up to the individual. Judging from the apparently common belief that Steve Jobs "changed our lives" by creating a few gadgets it would seem that most believe toys will do the job
the so called "free market" that adam smith Defined is actually insane because he Imagined it as something that will cause people to work together to fulfill not only there own wishes but others as well, its based upon Competition and as long as there Competition there will allways be GREED and CORRUPTION,but of course adam smith Thought that it will work he never imagined that people will be greedy!,so only that proves that the so called "free market" failed,and all other
the only teaching we get from the monetary system is how to be Competitive and think about us and only us! with no obligation to our resource,and our planet.
did you know that in forty years from now there will be no oil left for any country to consume?,did you know that we have almost reached the no returnpoint?(meaning globel warming fucked us hard)
sorry it's not globel warming it's globel"greed" we have alot of clean energy that we just don't use.
"either rent yourself to survive or die of starvation. "
Are you talking about working for a living? This is not a product of Capitalism, it is a product of nature. If I toss you into an uninhabited country side somewhere by yourself, you will have to "work" in order survive. Is nature using force against you?
"either rent yourself to survive or die of starvation. "
Are you talking about working for a living? This is not a product of Capitalism, it is a product of nature. If I toss you into an uninhabited country side somewhere by yourself, you will have to "work" in order survive. Is nature using force against you?
@ecuadmail Force is replaced with public relations, marketing, corruption and coercion via capitalism. So no, right and wrong is not that simple, not to mention entirely subjective.
@rhth79 All those things you mentioned don't hold a candle to the fact that in capitalism YOU, DO, NOT, HAVE, TO, BUY, ANYTHING, FROM, ANYONE, YOU, DON'T, WANT, TO. So no, its not force and not subjective. In a free market there is never a monopoly and anyone who tries to gouge prices won't have any customers. And coercion =! force. Its just influence.
RIP Big Guy, we miss you.
mattilyons 3 days ago
@mattilyons Thomas Sowell is still around I think,
EarlRegent 1 day ago
Comment removed
ZyClave 2 weeks ago
Is this Ron Pauls dad?LOL oh it's so refreshing to hear common sense true American values.Why did you ever let all those fabian socialists change your country so?
2wheels88 2 weeks ago
or oreilly will cut them off and shout over them when they begin speaking profound truths and exposing the show's bs, and try and force nonsensical, loaded and carefully designed yes/no questions to both trap them into sounding wrong on principle without letting them explain but also damage them politically and socially if possible. It's far from an altruistic, fair and open medium meant to give them a platform. Tbh, I think the general idea is to "prove" how right (Fox or whoever) they really
N1k1mon 1 month ago
@N1k1mon That sounds more like Chris Matthews than anyone.
baller84milw 2 weeks ago
@N1k1mon You are incorrect. Fox EMPLOYS liberal like Colmes, Beckell, Pat Caddell(sp?), and always has the liberal viewpoint represented. They discuss and let the viewer decide. I've seen O'Reilly blast conservatives just as much as liberals. If it wasn't a fair forum the liberals wouldn't show up. Kinda like a free market that you leftists hate so much, yet it is proven to work better than any other economic format.
svvmichael1 1 week ago
@svvmichael1 to imply that Fox is a 'fair forum' is a moronic statement... any channel that has o'reilly employed is not something that's worth anybody,s time..
DREwestcoast 1 week ago
@DREwestcoast You post is moronic. You make a claim with no backing. EVERY POLL taken since 1996 concludes that Fox is fair and balanced and the most respected news source versus all others. O'Reilly is much more fair than all the other idiots on network, CNN, MSNBC you left-wing partisan troll. Fox always presents BOTH sides to a story. But sing the left-wing is so anti-intellectual devoid of any common sense that actually is bad for you idiots. bye now troll.
svvmichael1 1 week ago
@svvmichael1 So are you, I never said MSNBC or CNN are better, but your love for O'reilly and fox is just amusing, as though you really believe in it, you sir, are pathetic for buying into such a propaganda platform..
DREwestcoast 1 week ago
@DREwestcoast Nope, I watch/listen/read all viewpoints. I watch MSNBC,networks, and Fox. Research has found that conservatives generally listen to all views, while liberals only listen to their viewpoint. HMMMM. Looks like you lose badly...again.
svvmichael1 1 week ago
@svvmichael1 Except that I'm not a liberal, you sir, have failed hard and low...
DREwestcoast 1 week ago
@DREwestcoast Ummm, just so you know, you are a liberal. A mindless, lemming following Pelosi to hell.
svvmichael1 1 week ago
@svvmichael1 You god-fearing, scum-loving, war-mongering, sad sack of shit, you keep drinking Faux's koolaid, faggot.
DREwestcoast 1 week ago
@DREwestcoast What a great vocabulary you have. First you have no intelligence, and no knowledge, now you show you have no class as well. Have fun making $7/hr fool.
svvmichael1 1 week ago
@drewestcoast
Yeah, I know what you mean, and used to think of it that way, but I started hearing this same claim about Fox Noise and after re-evaluating some things, changed my mind. Yes, shows like Fox bring on people with other views and opinions of different sorts but the goal is actually to ridicule and crush their advocacy with the training in PC rhetoric and propagandist spin they're so skilled at. They employ other tactics when that's not going so well, like how someone like hannity
N1k1mon 1 month ago
This not only shows what a great mind Friedman had, but what a mental midget Phil is.
fanadfilms 1 month ago
@fanadfilms I swear to god his audience has to post an I.Q of below 90 to be allowed on the show...
DREwestcoast 1 month ago
@DREwestcoast I used to love that show when I was little, then when I made the coversion from Democrat to Libertarian, I realized what a moron Donahue was. I've seen him in recent interviews. It's almost painful to hear him pontificate about matters so far above his IQ level it's laughable.
fanadfilms 1 month ago
@fanadfilms Yeah, I do have some respect for donahue though, sure he's an unapologetic liberal, but at least his show received people from all kinds, it's one of the last vestiges of free media, his audiences truly are retarded though.. also, I love when Friendman snapped back: what are you gonna do when people suddenly decide to change shoes?
DREwestcoast 1 month ago
@DREwestcoast He was awesome, Friedman. The problem with Phil was the same problem with Mr. Suspenders. Not bright enough to actually comprehend what their guests were talking about?
fanadfilms 1 month ago 2
I had to share this with the viewers of this page. Today, 12/08/11, I just now heard the name Milton Friedman. Actually the name rang a bell, but i think it was from conservative radio. Anyway, This guy would have been GREAT for defending "smaller gov't, tea party" types. From other videos I found of him i would say he wouldnt have liked occupy wallstreet at all, and he makes the "everyday" guy kind of argument. My political beliefs arent relevant, but bravo Mr. Friedman for your wise argument.
ericNsarah2010 1 month ago 2
its all assumptions, either from nader or friedman about the car safety issues.
landesal 2 months ago
@TheCrookedTimber Aw that would have been excellent! Donahue's mind would have been blown by the state's greatest enemy.
Goodatconnect4 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The problem will never be solved, pollution, because it calls into question the habits of corporations all over the planet. Their deeds must never see the light of day, for the uproar of the masses will make it impossible for them to make mistakes or abuse the rights that they're used to abusing.
ALOSTAMERICAN 2 months ago
Comment removed
ALOSTAMERICAN 2 months ago
Notice that Friedman in this clip (starting at 3m30s) advocates for a tax on pollution (similar to what we now call a carbon tax)
jasonwoody 2 months ago 2
@jasonwoody Good point
TheScrubDown 2 months ago
@jasonwoody he's not referring to a carbon tax...(co2 emissions), he's referring to toxic pollutants which are already being dealt with in the US such as scrubber and steam systems in coal-operated factories
DREwestcoast 1 month ago
@DREwestcoast he's talking about negative externalities. Yes, specifically, he is talking about pollutants which have an immediate health impact, not those that have long term effects on climate, but the logic is the same. He understands that pure capitalism cannot cope with negative externalities without help. You are absolutely incorrect to say that the US has "dealt" with such pollutants. If that were so, there would never be smog alerts or air quality problems.
jasonwoody 1 month ago
@jasonwoody Oh that's right, I forgot how the globe was segragated and isolated into different countries... truth is, the US coal plants are regulated heavily through sensor planes, heavy sanctions, hell Obama even claimed he was gonna make it impossible to build those on US soil, while China builds 1 a week with little to no regulation.. so spare me your smog sermon
DREwestcoast 1 month ago
@DREwestcoast You're telling me that smog in New York is caused by coal plants in China and the only harmful emissions from coal power plants in the USA is CO2? There are many harmful emissions relating to combustion of fossil fuels and not all of them travel around the world. Many of them are heavier than air and fall to the ground within weeks, contaminating food and water. And come on, seriously, everybody knows that smog occurs near where the fuel is burned.
jasonwoody 1 month ago
Friedman is a criminal. He and his University of Chicago cohort have been responsible for the reprehensible and anti-human neo-liberal policies that have caused untold suffering throughout the world over the past 50 years.
He doesn't advocate for freedom. Where is the freedom for the hundreds of millions of poor around the world who have suffered so that the 1% can increase their profit margins?
savetheworld 2 months ago
@savetheworld What 3rd world country has ever followed Friedman's advice?
Bleakfacts 2 months ago
@Bleakfacts Neoliberalism as an economic politics began in Chile in 1973. Its inauguration consisted of a US-organized coup against a democratically elected socialist president and the installment of a bloody military dictatorship notorious for systematic torture. This was the only way to turn the neoliberal model of the so-called “Chicago Boys” under the leadership of Milton Friedman – a student of Austrian-born Friedrich von Hayek – into reality.
savetheworld 2 months ago
@savetheworld When has he advise installing bloody military dictatorships? and how does this relate in anyway to free trade policy advocated by Friedman and Hayek.
Bleakfacts 2 months ago
@savetheworld might as well use Somalia as an example, while you're on a fallacy spree....
DREwestcoast 1 week ago
@savetheworld
More people have been risen out of poverty in the last 50 years than in any other time in history. How dare those rich people how an entire continent of people, like Asia, go from absolute poverty to a growing and thriving middle class. How dare the rich begin to turn the slums of india into a growth nation where less poverty is now, than any other time in history. You are poorly informed in what has happened in the last fifty years
MPTPGV 2 months ago
@MPTPGV Your response is typical of the tunnel vision that comes along with a focus that sees economic markers to the exclusion of anything else. Even if it is true that there are fewer people in poverty than there were 50 years ago (and I do not conceed your point) is there the slightest concern people like you have for quality of life? Or dignity? Or how these policies effect national and international commons?
savetheworld 2 months ago
As always you accuse those who you disagree with as being uninformed as though that was an answer. Its not. The reality is that the unregulated flow of international capital has left the US a hollow wreck. And a lack of regulations to reign in the behavior of corporations have left China an environmental disaster and our entire planet screaming towards environmental collapse. I challenge you to live on 2 dollars a day and sing the praises of Milton Friedman. Raised out of poverty my ass.
savetheworld 2 months ago
@savetheworld
Capitalism built this country, for the last 80 years, we've been anything but a capitalist country. We've bailed out auto-companies, we've bailed out banks, we've bailed out airliners, we've artificially tried to keep our industry pumping, instead of demanding innovation and actual inventiveness. We do not offer companies benefits like most of europe does when they become exporters of products, rather, we make it easier for them and cheaper for them to be exporters of jobs.
MPTPGV 2 months ago
@MPTPGV Workers built this country. Capitalism is a system of externalization of costs. The wealth you seem to be so proud of was established on unsafe working conditions, child labor, no health care, crappy living conditions for exploited workers...the list goes on. "We" haven't provided corporate welfare; lobbyists, paid for with the profits from capitalist enterprise, convinced lawmakers to redistribute wealth to those who already had it. Unregulated capitalism = shit.
savetheworld 2 months ago
@savetheworld
Without John D. Rockefeller most americans wouldn't have been able to afford oil for their latterns and would've had to go to bed when it got dark. He reshaped American life. Vanderbilt turned an 8 dollar ferry ride into a 3 dollar ferry ride, changing the ability to travel, and revolutionized rail-systems. Steve Jobs revolutionized the way we all communicate. Bill Gates software made computers accessible to everyone. The workers built the products, great men, created them.
MPTPGV 2 months ago
Without government, Henry Ford began paying autoline workers more money, and he got the best workers, this forced the entire industry to pay more money. All wages are circular, paid out on supply and demand, when you are a great worker, the demand for you is higher and your pay is higher, when you're an average worker, the demand for you is lower and your pay is lower. When there are more need for jobs than there are jobs, pay goes down, because workers are willing to take less.
MPTPGV 2 months ago
@savetheworld you're an idiot, the power of congress of over-regulation is precisely the reason why 'lobbyists' spend so much money on them,
DREwestcoast 1 week ago
@DREwestcoast Brilliant riposte. Nonsense, but very stylish. I'm impressed.
savetheworld 1 week ago
@savetheworld empty rhetoric, great...
DREwestcoast 1 month ago
The free market is a lie and capitalism is slavery
MRmattconnell 2 months ago
@MRmattconnell So what would you suggest? socialism is equal slavery taking money from one to give to another, communism is just as bad and no socialism and communism are not the same thing they are close but different. Anarchy? well that would be a total free trade economy.
Patrick82930 2 months ago
@MRmattconnell lol I take it North Korea is an altruistic society then?...
TampaTypeS 2 months ago
@TampaTypeS So the choice is between a charismatic dictatorship or unregulated capitalism? I think there may be a few more options available to us.
savetheworld 2 months ago
@savetheworld please quote where I suggested either of the two alternatives.
TampaTypeS 2 months ago
@savetheworld ..then quote any assumptions one may have made
TampaTypeS 2 months ago
@TampaTypeS haha, North Korea is totalitarian. Nothing to do with the market.
MRmattconnell 2 months ago
@MRmattconnell you are oblivious. In more ways than one.
TampaTypeS 2 months ago
@TampaTypeS Yep.
MRmattconnell 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To all the pro-life and pro-choice, watch this award winning documentary and see where you stand at the end.
Look up 180 movie on youtube or 180movie.com
standingontruth1 3 months ago in playlist Politics
HE WAS RIGHT THEN AND HIS MESSAGE IS RIGHT NOW! Free market and private sector would regulate all that is wanted and needed. Government just expands and creates more of a mess with out money.
VORTEX1155 3 months ago
the difference between socialists and libertarians is that in a libertarian society socialist communities can exist, in a socialist one, you either co-operate or go to jail.
pragmatismnotidealis 3 months ago
When was the last time you saw an hour long interview with a leading economist (liberal, conservative, libertarian, regardless) on the cable news networks? They broadcast 24-hours, how can they not make time for some actual programming of sustenance?
xxcrysad3000xx 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where was "the invisible hand" when our economy went south? Years of Friedman-inspired deregulation, executed by father and son Bush, left financial markets in the hands of -- well -- invisible hands. Now off their regulatory leashes, financial institutions could create, invest in, and manipulate new, exotic, unstable, ungrounded, risky, but highly profitable, financial products -- mainly derivatives and securitization devices, such as subprime mortgage packages.
OrganNLou 3 months ago
Ron Paul is a creationist anti-choicer. He can hardly be called a libertarian. Milton Friedman FTW!
LogicalFlawDetector 4 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector
What the heck does Creationism have to do with being a Libertarian? As for abortion, point made, but I guess he would say that in his thinking an unborn child is a life, and therefore he is defending the Libertarian virtue of the individual right to life.
Aphoresis 4 months ago
If it wasn't for the help of the Goverment in the '80's chrysler would have been dead and long forgotten.
MrOneBlackMan 4 months ago
@MrOneBlackMan You're right. And Chrysler SHOULD be dead and long forgotten.
cuzv 4 months ago
I've yet to meet a free market capitalist who isn't pretentious and idiotic about it.
1019079 5 months ago
@1019079 I've yet to meet a socialist who isn't pretentious and idiotic about it.
And there you have it, I've proven just as much truth as you
thekoollemon 4 months ago
@thekoollemon I love how you never denied that you guys are pretentious idiots. that's pretty funny to me
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 you never proved it
thekoollemon 4 months ago
@thekoollemon Need? Just look at the guy who wrote the video description. He acts like there's some sort of right and wrong that is just so clear. Not to mention people like friedman and sowell are complete smartasses to the public that actually show up to their lectures.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 There is a right and wrong. There is using force to achieve ends and then there's the free relation negotiations available via capitalism. Can you give a gray example?
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail Capitalism is force as well. Once again, no right or wrong, just opinion.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 No its not. In capitalism you don't have to buy anything you don't want to. Granted essentials, like food, water etc. can get expensive, if government favors one provider to the exclusion of others. But that isn't capitalism that is corporatism. In capitalism there are several competitors and their competition reduces prices. Unless you can prove capitalism is force (which because of what capitalism is, you can't) I'm afraid you've been owned.
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail Not really. One, there's no kind of solvency to your plan. Second, capitalism is its own kind of force. Its either rent yourself to survive or die of starvation. Kind of a depressing society isn't it? So no, I'm afraid you most certainly haven't owned me. Next time try taking more than one semester of economics and watching friedman, then get back to me.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 First, solvency is inherent in capitalism as long as everyone is free to spend their own money on what they want. They're free to take on debt, (if someone is willing to loan them the money and take that risk) and pay it back by whatever means they use to legally make money. As for "renting yourself to survive or die of starvation" I'm assuming you're referring to people having to work for a living rather than someone giving them necessities? That's actually how the world works.
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail There you go. You just admitted yourself that capitalism is a form of force. People are not free to choose in capitalist society. Just like every economic system. Most of the things that are competitive here in the us are taxpayer subsidized, so to make it a free market is just going to kill jobs.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 In an ACTUAL capitalist society, they are free to choose. They are free to compete, work, spend or save their money. Prove people are not free to choose in a capitalist society. Your premise seems to be "if they want to eat they have to work to buy food". Figure that one out yourself? Theyre also free to let themselves starve if they want to do that. You have yet to show ACTUAL force being used. Do you have a system where no force is involved? Such a system doesn't exist.
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail The only reason that we even have a tolerable system now is because of unions. You realize most of us would still be working the weekends if it weren't for workers rights and people standing up for themselves? It sounds like you want to go back to the days were everybody just lives in a box with no minimum wage. There is a reason no capitalist society has ever survived more than 200 years.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 The US was around long before unions and it thrived. You think people came from all over the world to be exploited? What was it that brought them here? Opportunity. Yes people should stand up for themselves, and sure organize if they want. But accept the consequences that some companies might refuse to agree to their contract terms. Your assumption that unions raised the standard of living is flawed at the most basic level. A countries amount of capital sets the standard of living.
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail Since the US was gaining more and more capital the working conditions rose and with globalization the crappy factory jobs that paid so little have been exported to other countries and their level of capital is increasing those who refuse to get with the program lag behind and continue as "third world countries". So while unions may have forced some employers to pay them more it just caused their product to become more expensive. I notice you dodged my questions from before. No answer?
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail By the us "thriving" you mean money in the pockets of select individuals. Which i suppose by a loose definition can be considered "thriving."
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 Yeah, there are rich people in the USA. Either by their own hand or by inheritance. So what? Does them being rich stop others from earning money in a free market? No. If someone can do it cheaper or better and can convince people by persuasion (not force) to buy his product instead of the rich guys product, then he will earn money and the rich guy won't. My parents are thriving and they're not millionaires. My sisters family is thriving and her husband flies planes How do you define it?
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail What you're doing is putting the expectation that people have the financial resources and the willigness to uproot their entire lives and families, finding a new job, and then going to a school that's becoming vastly overcrowded. 15 thousand or whatever current number the right wing has pulled out of its ass simply isn't enough money for big and overcrowded schools. In the short term its just plain disastrous.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 Proof. Give, me, proof. You seem to have this idea that unfortunate truths about reality are the fault of capitalism. In communism if they need a professional somewhere they are forced to uproot and move. Now your complaint is that good schools would be overcrowded. If class sizes are too big people won't want to go there so they won't. If the school expands and has more room than more people can go to the excellent school and get a better education. Not disastrous at all.
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail Do you see that woman on msnbc anymore? no. There, is that evidence conclusive enough? Do I have to write an essay, or can you process that statement?
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 Oh, its processable. So since I've proven bias on those other networks I guess I win. Got to get back to my actual life though. If you have any other questions that aren't just rehashed items we've already gone over then feel free to bring them up but since it appears you're just trolling I'm gonna move on. Take care buddy
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail You only proved any kind of bias on one network, and that anchor was fired. You've yet to prove cnn or abc, so you failed in that attempt as well. So once again, sarcasm takes the place of debate and intellectual discussion. I'll be sure to "take care" though. If by trolling you mean disagreeing with you then i guess i am supposedly trolling. Heres a question: why do you do this? do you really feal that being meanspirited and sarcastic conveys your message? Its not.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 And you have proven no bias. If you take my assertion that all are biased as proof that fox is then that means there are 3 other networks that are biased to the other side. So no, I've made more progress than you have. As for being mean spirited and sarcastic I think if you'll look at the earlier posts, and most other ones, I've maintained a civil tone throughout. I wasn't the first one to drop the F-bomb here.
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@1019079 Sorry I couldn't put this in earlier, (I had an appointment to get to) but you asked why do I do this? Probably for the same reason I think you do. You think the other side is wrong so you go and comment about it the best you can. I think you're wrong and I don't want the community at large to think you're the only side of the story. Bad ideas have to be challenged and when proof is brought to bear only the good ones will hold up. I've brought what I've got and you've done the same I
ecuadmail 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1019079 Sorry I couldn't put this in earlier, (I had an appointment to get to) but you asked why do I do this? Probably for the same reason I think you do. You think the other side is wrong so you go and comment about it the best you can. I think you're wrong and I don't want the community at large to think you're the only side of the story. Bad ideas have to be challenged and when proof is brought to bear only the good ones will hold up. I've brought what I've got and you've done the same I
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@1019079 think at this point the web community has enough info to decide for itself (if they have the patience or interest to read our lengthy comment conversation) or they can look outside. How many immigrants still flood here and to other capitalist countries because of the high standard of living and freedom that capitalism provides? Or they can look at countries whose standard improves because of capitalist policies ex Chile. I wish you the best in life but I have to wrap this up now Chao
ecuadmail 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1019079 think at this point the web community has enough info to decide for itself (if they have the patience or interest to read our lengthy comment conversation) or they can look outside. How many immigrants still flood here and to other capitalist countries because of the high standard of living and freedom that capitalism provides? Or they can look at countries whose standard improves because of capitalist policies ex Chile. I wish you the best in life but I have to wrap this up now Chao
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@1019079 think the Youtube community (if it has the patience to read our lengthy comment stretch) can decide for themselves who is right and wrong. Or they could step outside and look at the world around them. At the high standard of living that capitalism has brought for the USA and all the other countries whose common citizens lives are improving because of adopting capitalist policies (ex Chile). Regardless of all that, I wish you the best. I really should get back to my real life now. Chao
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail Community and know their neighbors and be kind to one another on the off chance that some day they might need their help. Oh woe is them!
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail I dodged your questions? If anything you dodged mine. You never explained how we could keep taxpayer subsidized jobs in a free market. A countries capital does not set any living standard simply because owners don't have to give any of it back. They can simply outsource. They've been doing this pretty much since "free market," bills like nafta passed. So if anything by your very logic nobody has to be employed in the united states except small businesses.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 Here are the questions: Based off your definition of "force", do you have a system where no force is involved? Can you prove people are not free to choose? As for your questions taking taxpayer subsidies away allows people to take their skills and apply them where they can get the most money for them. If public education shut down do you think the teachers would just go home and sit on their hands? No, they can open their own school, in their house if they want, and charge people to
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail attend. Do you think construction workers would stop paving roads if the government stopped paying them? Initially yes. But some smarty pants comes along and buys that road from the fed and maintains it and can charge a toll to use it. Show me one industry that would collapse completely if it were no longer subsidized? There isn't one. If there is a need for something, people will do it because it means they can get ahead. They can earn money to support their personal pursuits.
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail Public schools are one. The entire planets environment would suck. capitalism is basically destroying our environment, but nobody really seems to care. For education you basically advocate that aristocrats come and monopolize roads and schools. Either that or go back to one room schoolhouses with no funding. You have a very skewed sense of reality.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 You bring up pollution. Its one in which the government has a role in protecting others from third party pollution so you can have your government intervention there. As for schools I've already pointed out that private schools will pop up in the absence of public schools. Liberals I speak with turn to Europe for examples so I will also Have you seen the school systems there? Tons of private schools which produce better students than the US does. So no public schools and roads dont work
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail How do poor kids attend school?
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 In a voucher system their parents receive vouchers from their tax dollars so a school can be picked. In a completely free enterprise system if, for some reason, their parents can't earn enough money for them to go to school and they still want to go they appeal to private charities like they did before government started running education. There also used to be these things called "mutual aide societies" that could help with that. Of course that would force people to be part of a
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail School vouchers do not work in acedemia. I'm sorry, they just don't. For very obvious reasons in fact. People will flock to schools that are already rich in funding, thus making the government poor loads of money into one school. This just makes a blatant problem. Some diplomas from high schools are now worth even more than what they are, and some others get you laughed right out of the fry cook station. As for charity, when the hell did this EVER work?
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 School vouchers actually do work. You don't have to go very far to see the proof either. Check out Stossel's "Stupid in America". They also work for very obvious reasons, good schools will fill to capacity, poor schools will go out of business and even public schools will improve because the class sizes will be smaller. Your reasoning doesn't pan out at all. The per student cost of attendance does not equal higher test scores and smarter kids. (See the aforementioned Stossel report)
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail Fox news is pretty much famous for doing this sort of thing. It is a conservative news station, so you're basically citing propaganda as your source. Poor schools would go out of business, you are exactly right. You're admitting the flaw in the system you just cited that was supposed to work. Welfare is such a small issue, I don't consider it of much importance, but some people really have a pet peeve about it for whatever reason.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 I don't mean poor schools as schools without money I mean poor as in poor performing. And no, that's not a flaw, that's a good thing. That shows other schools that incompetence will not be tolerated. And yeah, Fox news is a conservative station with conservative views. That doesn't make them wrong. MSNBC ABC CNN all lean left. Does that mean their coverage is a bunch of lies? No. Welfare and entitlement programs are the main sources of unfunded liabilities. That's why they're a problem.
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail Fox misrepresents things all the time. Just like "climategate," which was proven a hoax. and i'm sorry, but i just don't believe you that you were poor. Its just not a plausible story. Its vague, and there's really no evidence. They also try and make obama a racist by talking about his bus analogy he made into a racial comment. Let me put it this way: they don't have a great track record. Anybody that tolerates glenn beck is a fucking retard.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 And CNN, MSNBC, and ABC, never do anything like that. And you're right, it is vague, since there is so much time to put my life story into a 500 character comment. You can't bemoan my lack of evidence when you have submitted none to support any of your claims. That sir, makes you not a fucking retard, but a fucking retarded hypocrite.
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail You're right, cnn, msnbc, and abc never do that. Once again, lack of evidence and thank you for agreeing with me.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 Oh you're clever. Taking an obviously sarcastic comment and twisting it to suit your needs. That's the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I". Are you seriously pulling that? How old are you? 12? In case you didn't catch it before,
CNN, MSNBC, and ABC skew their reporting to favor the political left. They are not guiltless and your claims that climate gate was a hoax are about as credible as every other dis-proven theory you have put forth. Y
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail You think I'm clever when you're the one using petty satire to convey a political belief? Only backwoods rednecks deny climate change is happening. I'm sorry, but the case is clear. Thousands of organizations of confirmed it, from oil companies to nasa. Your ideas are shallow from beginning to end. There is no debate on climate change. It now centers on what is causing the climate change.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 As for only denying climate change /watch?v=r78-bZfy8oU You can claim bias by stossel, but the scientists that used to belong to the IPCC are rednecks? What were you saying about mean spiritedness?
ecuadmail 4 months ago
Look up a video called "Inane Statement?" and watch as MSNBC anchor shows her bias.
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail Only in capitalist america can threatening funding be considered a means to improving education. The reality of such an incentive program is clear, schools will push students through and do whatever it takes to receive funding, obviously. When survival requires money, people will do what it takes to get it, period, and education will take a back seat to the need for funding.
rhth79 4 months ago
@rhth79 In the free market, education wouldn't automatically receive federal funding, in that you are 100% right. But forcing students through now with no competition creates the situation of pushing students through as you describe. If the parents are allowed to choose different schools then schools that produce worthless students will go broke and close because the customers will go elsewhere. So no, education won't take a back seat like it does now, if there is real competition for customers.
ecuadmail 4 months ago
Oh, by the way, come back and try answering those questions from before. If you can't, ACTUALLY can't, not just changing the subject and ignoring the question then yes, you're owned. But that's okay. Hopefully you can take something useful from our discussion. If there are any questions you've posed, (not accusations, questions) that I haven't answered feel free to bring them up again. Ill answer anything you want to know. Out of curiosity though, where are you from? What do you do for a living?
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@1019079 Charity has always worked. And it has always worked better. Do you think that the government can relieve poverty if we just gave them more money? They've printed trillions of dollars and poured it into welfare and they still bemoan the amount of poor. Facts of life are these, stuff costs money, people have to earn money to get stuff, there will always be people at the bottom. Watch this, maybe you'll learn something from someone smarter than either of us /watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail Some schools that already have resources would be flocked to by everyone, thus making the amount of money available to each student less. This is really a right wing talking point. Whenever you hear someone talking about it, they throw around buzzwords like free market and competition. All a bunch of bs of course.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 Except that since the money is attached to the kids, schools would only get as much money as they have kids enrolled. So if there is a really good school with capacity to take all the kids then they get the same amount of money per kid and that school would earn money and attract good teachers. When there are too many kids they can expand or another school will compete. Your logic is so wretchedly flawed its actually kind of sad.
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail Heres an idea the next time you want to assess reality. Walk out your door. Charity is pretty absent you'll find, but if you want to wear your ignorance around like a badge talking buzzwords and "free market," principles, then go right ahead.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 Charity is actually really easy to find. At least where I live. I grew up on charity. Our church was the reason I had clothes to wear and food to eat from age 6 to 16. So you can take your ignorance and wear that instead mkay pumpkin?
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail You even admitted the own flaw in your comment. "At least where I grew up." that means charity is not abundant.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 That's not a flaw in an argument. Claiming it is is like saying I have never been bitten by a dog, therefore dogs don't bite. THAT, is a flawed argument. My example is called anecdotal evidence. Alone it doesn't support a proposition but given the red cross, salvation army, and the mutual aid societies that PRE-DATE government welfare those are evidence which prove my proposal. You on the other hand have never provided any evidence.
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail You named charities but didn't give figures. That's not real evidence if you're trying to prove something like that. Homeless rates have been pretty bad throughout us history. I've provided plenty of evidence, you on the other hand just throw around 1st semester of economics buzzwords. If a school has too many kids, why would another school compete? It simply makes no sense. Once again, that family would have to have the financial resources to move and the school would need more money
1019079 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ecuadmail You named charities but didn't give figures. That's not real evidence if you're trying to prove something like that. Homeless rates have been pretty bad throughout us history. I've provided plenty of evidence, you on the other hand just throw around 1st semester of economics buzzwords. If a school has too many kids, why would another school compete? It simply makes no sense. Once again, that family would have to have the financial resources to move and the school would need more money
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 youtube.com/watch?v=gmBNvnTUrfM
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail watch the video "school vouchers are a stupid idea."
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 Alright. I've watched it. And he's an idiot. His basic complaint is the one you've already brought up and I've already disproven, (that already good schools will have people flock to them and that students will therefore have less to work with). He also complains that our current system produces worthless HS graduates, then what does he say a voucher system would do? Produce worthless graduates. He's a smart cookie he is. Did you watch the Stossel report? I take it you didn't. Well done
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail and by admitting fox news does do that, which you pretty much just did, you admitted to getting you're political views from a propaganda channel. A free marketer admitting to getting information from a bunch of commissars seems pretty ironic to me.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 Admitting fox is conservatively biased means that their reporting is false? What a fault line of reasoning you have. You also assume I only watch FOX. How would I know that the other outlets are biased unless I watched them also? And calling them commissars doesn't any point make. Is it ironic that I can choose the news sources I watch? You've got the whole idea of "freedom of choice" backwards buddy.
ecuadmail 4 months ago
@ecuadmail Free market principles cause outsourcing, and outsourcing causes job loss. Free to choose is a loaded term if anything else. If by free to choose you mean free to get taken advantage of by one employer or another. Most people don't even understand what communism is. yes communism did not work, but it did pave the way to social democracy, which is still being used effectively to this day.
1019079 4 months ago
@1019079 Yeah, jobs that require no skills get outsourced to countries without a minimum wage law. So having that law has caused outsourcing. Were it not for that then unskilled workers could have those jobs here. And no I don't mean that by free to choose. I mean that you can negotiate your own wages commensurate with your skills. Have no skills? Get some, its in your own self interest. With that expectation, people try harder so they are marketable and our country improves as its people do.
ecuadmail 4 months ago
Comment removed
sayroni 3 months ago
@ecuadmail
"a countries amount of capital sets the standard of living."
please don't tell me you'r talking about stuff like "GPD" ,the "money value supply" and "inflation rate"
you truly believe that if you have all of that in a country then they have a better standard of living? ,if so I assure you,you are mistaken.
why you are mistaken?,that way Translation:because if GPD represents the "well being" of people around the country then thats mean as long as we have more money we will be
sayroni 3 months ago
@sayroni "as long as we have more money we will be"... what? I'd like to hear what you were going to finish with. Also did you mean to say GPD or GDP? Because a high GDP means the folks have jobs and can earn their own living and negotiate their own wages. Granted that in "developing countries" that wage they can bargain for and earn is pretty low. Upon developing, like the USA has, the jobs are different, and the wages are higher. As more people earn more money from more companies, local and
ecuadmail 3 months ago
international, capital is flowing into the country. As a country has more to spend, more people come to sell. As they have more needs fulfilled, more wants are also. Hence, the standard of living is higher. So feel free to finish your previous comment, but if your reply to my original comment was meant to invalidate my statement that unions weren't the cause of raising the standard of living then you might want to address that actual statement and not just a piece of ancillary evidence.
ecuadmail 3 months ago
@ecuadmail
don't you see what happend?!?!
people got mixed up with money and high standard of living
they think money=high standard of living
but thats Exactly the Opposite!!
GDP is actually a measurement to the Inefficiency of peoples lifes!!
you really think that if you have more money you will be more happy!??!
if you have more money there is got to be some Hierarchy,meaning:richer and poorer
with no Consideration to all people!!
sayroni 3 months ago
Personally no, I don't think that more money will make me happy. I personally assign very little value to it. But the freedom to choose is what matters. In a free market anyone who puts enough value on money can put effort into making it in large amounts. In a free country everyone is responsible for themselves and those they choose to take responsibility for, which means kids or less fortunate neighbors and family. Its neither right nor proper to force anyone to take care of others. The
ecuadmail 3 months ago
principle of agency is the best line of drawing the difference between right and wrong.
ecuadmail 3 months ago
@ecuadmail
i have alot of Evidence to back me up,i'm just waiting to see you'r respond.
sayroni 3 months ago
@sayroni Evidence to which statement? I'm not disagreeing with you that people have mixed up standards but the idea that simply having massive amounts of money is enough to make you happy has been around for centuries, its not a recent invention. Not sure what we're disagreeing on at this point.
ecuadmail 3 months ago
@ecuadmail
what i'm trying to say overall:is that people think that money can give people a happy life,but thats not true because in order to get money some people have to suffer meaning be poor,and some people will get rich of the expense of someone else, the poor people, meaning:the principle of the moneytary system is wrong.
and not to mention that the "rich" people arn't really happy because of the money they have,they are happy because the resource that the money gives them.
what will
sayroni 3 months ago
@ecuadmail
what will happen if people will get the available resource instead of money?
so the reall question: is do we have enough resource for everybody on the planet?
and the answer is more then enough
you have to realize money is nothing,its just a paper print.
you don't want the money, you want the resource that the money can give you.
if you don't understand that here are some examples
you don't want the money to buy food,water,a house.
you just want the food,water,and the house.
sayroni 3 months ago
@ecuadmail
so money is a nothing thing,if you are stuck in an island with billions of dollars with no water, clean resource and food you will die out of hunger in less then a week,but if you will get to an island and you will see fish streaming,available resources like water,you can survive for a very long time.
so you see you don't need money, you need those resources..
what if will tell you that there could be a society with no money at all?
it is very much possible
sayroni 3 months ago
@sayroni In a small society maybe. Would you know how many apples a dell laptop is worth? What about an appendectomy? How many loafs of bread would that earn a doctor? Once a society gets larger than a small village money works as a common currency in order to relate everything. If a moneyless society worked, you'd think it would be out there somewhere.
ecuadmail 3 months ago
@sayroni Oh, and as for what choice the poor person has, in a free society, they can study, work hard and improve their situation.
ecuadmail 3 months ago
@ecuadmail
wait,you think you live in a "free society"?
you truly think that everybody is free to do what ever they want?
everybody i being a slave to the montery system,everybody need to work all there lives just to survive and feed their children!
you know i have tons of lectures,and stuff to say,but i think you should watch zeitgeist man.
its just really informtive...
sayroni 3 months ago
@sayroni Yeah, I think I live in a free society. You have to realize there is a difference between just being free to do whatever they want, and living in a free society. A society still has rules, one of which is the use of common currency. So yes, in a society (a large group of people interacting in a trillion different ways for a trillion different reasons) with limited resources (because everyone wants food everyone wants what they want and they're free to go after it) money is necessary.
ecuadmail 3 months ago
@ecuadmail
if want a world with no wars,poverty,crimes.death,destruction,misery,Hierarchy,Diseases...
you should zeitgeist.
lets just end it like this,believe me you will be much surprised from the movie
sayroni 3 months ago
@sayroni I think I see the difference between our world views, you seem to believe that a world like that can exist, whereas I do not. I'll watch the movie but I've grown a touch much to believe in a world without those things, instead I try to alleviate and reduce it as much as possible keeping the right of self determination and choice paramount.
ecuadmail 3 months ago
@sayroni "if want a world with no wars,poverty,crimes.death,destruction,misery,Hierarchy,Diseases..." So you are looking for the Holodeck on Star Trek?
RREDDELL 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ecuadmail
see the movie "zeitgeist moving forward"
here in youtube and decide for yourself.
sayroni 3 months ago
@ecuadmail
(GDP forgive me i'm tired lol)
more pleased,healthy,maybe more "happy" and shit like that,so you'r starting to think "hey how will i get more money to my country because you want all those stuff?".....
healthcare in 2009 represents 17.3% of the total USA GDP
and based on that logic it will be even better if healthcare will raise right?
do you know what represents the so called "HealthCare", SICK PEOPLE and DYING PEOPLE=HEALTHCARE,so more sick people the better the economy
sayroni 3 months ago
@sayroni That's just that part of the economy. Let's take your 17.3% example. That means that as a nation keeping people healthy provides that much of the profit for the economy. Now how much of that is research? How much of that is preventative? Probably not enough of either case. You've created a logical fallacy by associating that with only the sick and dying. Increases in GDP come from increases in productivity. Now more people needing healthcare or using healthcare forces an increase in
ecuadmail 3 months ago
productivity for the healthcare sector. But to try and state categorically that GDP has nothing to do with the standard of living is to ignore the other 63.7% of the economy. Truth be told it might be better if healthcare was more of the GDP. Controlling for other variables such as lifestyle (eating habits, participation in dangerous activities etc) an increase per person spending on current healthcare rates will mean more people want to get into the business and as more people do so and there
ecuadmail 3 months ago
is more competition prices drop which means the everyman gets more for less money. Now doctors have to accept that they won't always get paid what previous generations of physicians got paid for their work even adjusted for inflation but they won't do it unless they can get a fair wage and that wage will be as low as the market demands and as high as the doctor can negotiate. The market goes up and down in a million different ways with a trillion different interactions. The best thing for
ecuadmail 3 months ago
everyone is to allow every individual person to choose for themselves what they will buy, from whom, and for how much. As they get more cash, they can spend more on what they think will make them happy Whether its buying that 1100cc motorcycle or that hang glider or whatever or spending it in charitable ways Completely up to the individual. Judging from the apparently common belief that Steve Jobs "changed our lives" by creating a few gadgets it would seem that most believe toys will do the job
ecuadmail 3 months ago
@ecuadmail
the so called "free market" that adam smith Defined is actually insane because he Imagined it as something that will cause people to work together to fulfill not only there own wishes but others as well, its based upon Competition and as long as there Competition there will allways be GREED and CORRUPTION,but of course adam smith Thought that it will work he never imagined that people will be greedy!,so only that proves that the so called "free market" failed,and all other
sayroni 3 months ago
@ecuadmail
Government approaches failed,Socialism failed,Communism failed,Democracy,failed.
all those things failed!
people are free to choose?
what choice do people that are born poor have?,what choice to the people of a govement have?.
the only one that truly rule is the Elites,the rich people,and politicians.
facts:40% of the world money in the world, is in the hand of 1% of The world's population. o 75%of the world jobs can be replaced by Automation
we fear Technology!!
sayroni 3 months ago
@sayroni
right and wrong?
the only teaching we get from the monetary system is how to be Competitive and think about us and only us! with no obligation to our resource,and our planet.
did you know that in forty years from now there will be no oil left for any country to consume?,did you know that we have almost reached the no returnpoint?(meaning globel warming fucked us hard)
sorry it's not globel warming it's globel"greed" we have alot of clean energy that we just don't use.
sayroni 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1019079
"either rent yourself to survive or die of starvation. "
Are you talking about working for a living? This is not a product of Capitalism, it is a product of nature. If I toss you into an uninhabited country side somewhere by yourself, you will have to "work" in order survive. Is nature using force against you?
Aphoresis 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1019079
"either rent yourself to survive or die of starvation. "
Are you talking about working for a living? This is not a product of Capitalism, it is a product of nature. If I toss you into an uninhabited country side somewhere by yourself, you will have to "work" in order survive. Is nature using force against you?
Aphoresis 4 months ago
@ecuadmail Force is replaced with public relations, marketing, corruption and coercion via capitalism. So no, right and wrong is not that simple, not to mention entirely subjective.
rhth79 4 months ago
@rhth79 All those things you mentioned don't hold a candle to the fact that in capitalism YOU, DO, NOT, HAVE, TO, BUY, ANYTHING, FROM, ANYONE, YOU, DON'T, WANT, TO. So no, its not force and not subjective. In a free market there is never a monopoly and anyone who tries to gouge prices won't have any customers. And coercion =! force. Its just influence.
ecuadmail 4 months ago
in my time on this planet I have concluded that money is not the root of all evil;but the opposite is true.The LACK of money is the root of evil.
nphanlon1973 5 months ago
We need a Murray Rothbard.
tinybones 5 months ago
the regulations placed on autos for 2025 will add $10,000 to the price of each auto. it's easy to access this info if you don't believe me.
onenikkione 5 months ago 4
Nader's greatest achievement was the removal of hood ornaments?!?? wow....
0311SPAWN 5 months ago