Stossel says Greed is Good-defined as self interest-for the wealthy if so Greed-self interest- is good for other people the 99%. LITTLE FLAW IN STOSSEL STATEMENT GREED IS GOOD DEFINED AS SELF INTEREST THEN IT'S GOOD FOR EVERYONE NOT JUST WEALTHY!
Yes, you can choose between different products, but usually they are all owned by a few large corps. That's not a free market, that's oligopoly. A few powerful corps are successfully erasing competition either by buying up smaller competitors or using other tactics to prevent them from succeeding. Another thing you ignore is the fact that your ability to choose is often an illusion. There might be several brands out there, but they are often owned by the same corps anyway.
Stossel says Greed is Good-defined as self interest-for the wealthy if so Greed-self interest- is good for other people the 99%. LITTLE FLAW IN STOSSEL STATEMENT GREED IS GOOD DEFINED AS SELF INTEREST THEN IT'S GOOD FOR EVERYONE NOT JUST WEALTHY!!!!!
Make the pie bigger??? Huh???? Where did all the money come from, thin air??????? There has to be a finite amount of wealth in the world. The rich assholes have most of it and they don't want to share any of it. The problem is that the american people have no buying power anymore. Not everyone can be a millionaire, we need the middle class to
The collective of humanity will eventually one day reach a point where there will be no wealthy elite. One day Rockefeller, the Rothchilds, the Royal families will be done away with. They do not serve the betterment of all of humanity they enslave it. They might make our lives better but its tied to tricks and lies that are meant to enslave us and keep the wealth and power in there control. We do not buy the stories that Tv tells us anymore we know better now. End the FED.
@TimeWarp66 I say we whip the slate clean, spread the wealth. Not give us money but rather them not hoard all for themselves. Like the biggest land owners are people like the queen of england why on earth does one woman need so much freaking land?This world there is room for everyone we dont have to be crowded in cities nore should any of us go homeless or hungry. This is a savage time we live in and in the future things like what are happening will never happen again. Limit how rich one can be.
The queen of England is rich due to theft. Her wealth comes from tax money. On the other hand, Bill Gates got rich by providing you withe the computer you are currently using. He may be worth $60 billion, but created trillions more for the world economy. "Who needs all the money"? That quite frankly is none of your concern. If you earn the money honestly, you have EVERY moral right to keep it.
@TimeWarp66 The key word in what you said there was honesty. In a duopoly like the computer industry someone like Bill Gates does very well. As well ol Bill seems to be doing a great job killing babies funding Planned Parenthood. And none of my concern yes id say its a big concern since i know that they got the job to turn over all the medical paperwork to digital, or how connected there technology will be to the RFID chips that they are slowly introducing to the public.
Amazing how Stossel complains about crony-capitalism now, but here he claims that the Robber-barons of the 18th century made it without government-provided controls, handouts and monopoly.
The entire Republican party we know today was BUILT on kickbacks from industrialists- and the Democrats weren't far behind..
I am a capitalist and i want to be the richest person in the world.i will buy most of america by money and will buy american government.i will exploit the poor and as much people as i can because i want to become rich.i only want me to rich.i will buy other countries also and i will become ruler of superpower.anybody against me will be executed.i want everything in the world belongs to me i must be superior to everybody else - This is what capitalist thinks.
Take a pharmceutical company. Yes, better medicines is a good thing. But, it's not good that these companies charge absurd prices for these medicines so that the CEO can get his multi-million bonus every christmas. It's not good that they concentrate on producing viagra-like medicines since they are most profitable. They could accomplish so much more if they weren't greedy. The fact that greedy companies can produce good things is irrelevant. Ultimately greed is an obstacle to the common good!
@gh3860 Well, I thought you would get the point. It is hard to describe how a capitalistic economical system works in 500 letters. Yes, it is not only about the CEO. We are talking about members of the executive board, we are talking about other high officials, we are talking about share holders, etc... But in short, no. You are wrong. A large proportion of a modern CEO:s income is directly related to the company's stock value. For example derivatives...
This is the dumbest post I've seen in my life. Why produce any medicine at all if it weren't for greed? If they weren't greedy, they would produce NO medicine! They would sit on their fat ass all day, just like you.
This is so simplistic. So american. It makes me puke! The top 1% of americans today get 20% of the total income. The percentage was less than 10 a few decades ago. He describes a utopian capitalistic system where the customers decide what to buy and their is honest and good competition. This is not the case and never has been. The powerful can buy politicians. They can circumvent the rules everyone else has to follow. For example the rich generally pay much less taxes than the middle class.
This is because America is not a free market if you havn't realized. Have you ever wondered that the "do-gooder" regulations only help big corporations? This is why most free market advocates, including John Stossel, avocate smaller government. IF the government stopped medling in private markets, there would be no advantage, and no incentive for corporations to influence legislation.
@TheShaniqua1992 Do you really think a free market would lead to fair competition? Be an obstacle for big corporations? Then you are deluded. In practice a free market always leads to corporatism or chaos. The market needs to be regulated. We can argue all day to what extent and in what ways, but only an insane person thinks a totally free market is a good thing. Btw, a free market would in practice make rule of law in general impossible since the law inevitably regulates the market.
The record of history clearly shows that unregulated markets keep businesses in check far better than some elite group in Washington arbitrarily telling them what to do.
In a free society the law does not regulate market activity. It's purpose is to prevent force and fraud. Not set prices and standards. Read some Hayak. Learn.
@TimeWarp66 History? Can you even mention one example of truelly unregulated market? Yeah, Hayek is definately the author to read if you want an unbiased view of capitalism ;-) Just a brief comment. To prevent force and fraud IS to regulate the market. A free market can only exist within a framework of fair competition. Otherwise you end up with corporatism. How do you achieve this? By regulating the market so that large corporations can't distort the market by economical force. Learn...
Markets are an extraction of physical force. They cannot exist where force is present. Which is why cops and courts serve more to aid economic transactions rather than to regulate them.
Corporatism only exists when corporations are granted special protections from competition by governments. Like we have today in the United States. Theirs a great book called "Capitalism The Uknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand, where she debunks all these economic fallacy's you keep arguing.
@TimeWarp66 I asked for ONE single example of a truelly free market. No answer! The idea of a free market is a purely theoretical concept bound to fail in reality. Much like communism... Do you really think corporations are afraid of an unregulated market? What on earth are they putting in your drinking water? They would love to get rid of the government. Love to get rid of the middle hand. Christianity is not the main religion in USA, capitalism is!
@buugiman78 I answered your question. 19th century America came the closest to a completely free market. In modern times, Hong Kong and Singapore are real world examples.
Corporations hate free markets. They like the government protecting them and hurting their competitors. Just look at terrifs, minimum wage laws, zoning laws, building codes, and other stupid regulations that big corporations can absorb, while their smaller competitors cannot.
@TimeWarp66 Ever heard of the robber barons? 19th century America was a market full of ruthless corporations. If that's your idea of an ideal society then I rest my case. Hong Kong and Singapore are not turelly free markets either. Even if they were it really does not matter. They are micro states with a very specific economical nische. Do you really think that opening up the markets in a country like USA will magically turn them into an economical "sucess" like Singapore?
Robber barons are myths. No such things existed. Their are so many misconceptions about 19th century America it's not even funny. The size of Hong Kong/Singapore is irrelivent. The free market works on both large and small scales. Type in: "What is the free market" here on youtube. You may find yourself being educated.
@TimeWarp66 I'm amazed! Do you really think that 19th century America was an ideal society from an economical perspective? The fact that you idealize a society that was governed by ruthless tycoons, says something about how immensly deluded you are. I can't understand how a sane person would like to use 19th century America as an economical model for the 21th century. Btw, size isn't irrelevant. Please think before you write. Soon you'll probably start citing Friedman as an unbiased source.
It wasn't governed by ruthless tycoons at all. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or do you just not do any research and simply repeat what your idiot professors have to say?
Milton Friedman is not an unbiased source, but he also happens to be correct. Watch a few of his videos here on youtube. That should undue some of your economic fallacies.
@TimeWarp66 You ask me if I do research. No, I am sorry. I don't watch the propaganda youtube videos you watch. I've been patient enough but you constantly fail to provide me with a real argument. You just repeat the same old libertarian clichés. No, to say I am wrong because you say so is not a good argument. I am sorry to say this discussion is getting really boring. I'm out of here. Have a nice day!
@buugiman78 how free markets cause corporatism. it only exists when businesses intersect with government powers to move on controlling the people.
free-markets are non-aggresive(non initiates of force) in contrast to the government(which functions as the sole distributor of legal violence)
merriam-webster definition of corporatism: organization of society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation exercising CONTROL over persons and activities.
@Ravengaurd6 "free-markets are non-aggresive(non initiates of force) in contrast to the government(which functions as the sole distributor of legal violence)" How would you know? Have you ever witnessed a truelly free market? And even more important. A truelly free market on a large scale? If not, shut the fuck up.
@buugiman78 one can easily witness the elements of a free market in every non-coercive interaction and transaction. Most of this is why industrialization and technological innovation ever took off. free-market growth is when innovation increases efficiency enough to cut costs and create profit enough to expand. Now tell, what in the nature of regulations promotes innovations or faster,cleaner ways of doing things? better yet, do you know all of the effects of regulation on growth and employment?
@Ravengaurd6 "Most of this is why industrialization and technological innovation ever took off" What's your evidence for that? By that logic war is something to strive for as well. Btw, economical growth is not the only issue here. What about sustainable development, working conditions, distribution of wealth and solidarity in general? No, libertarians like to ignore these "trivial" issues. Exactly how is a free market going to make corporations care about other things than short term profit?
@buugiman78 First, Libertarians support common law and the defense of the individual. basically everybody is protected under that. Of all the libertarians I know, they strive for the common good without initiation of force and push for policies that actually do good instead of harm. workers and businesses need a contracting paradigm for more worker freedom and safety not regulation. wealth is the existence of goods and services not units of currency for those who earn or are given it freely.
@buugiman78 Have you seen the effects of socialism/communism/statism? Yes, we have: the gulags of soviet Russia, the concentration camps of Nazi Germany, the killing fields of Cambodia. There is no excuse for a government to initiate force against it's own citizens. Period. No matter how allegedly noble the reason. That is what you advocate when you advocate for gov interference in the economy: gov initiation of force.
@lantenec So you mean that we should get rid of the police all together. Since, you say that no matter how noble the reason is, there is no excuse for the government using force against it's own citizens. And anyone who disagrees is in fact advocating massmurder. Yeah, that is REALLY sensible! I am not sure what drugs you are on, but they sure are potent.
@buugiman78 The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force.
@buugiman78 The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.
@lantenec Libertarianism really is just overconfidence in the consumer. You think that by deregulating the market, consumers will all the sudden become rational and responsible actors voting with their feet. They will boycott actors that prefer short term profits at the expense of sustainable development or moral behaviour. In reality though factors like pricing, trendiness and accessibility are much more important. Especially since we rarely have a close relation to the companies we deal with.
@tjohn1986 But, individuals don't have the same amount of power. In a free market rich people have more power, which cumulates over time. The only way for common people to really influence a free market is to cooperate and form interest groups. A democratic government is just an extention of this behaviour. People elect delegates from an interest group (parties in this regard) to represent them. The problem is not governments per se, but that your government is utterly corrupted.
@buugiman78 No that's not the problem. Problem is that govt has too much power.
The number of giant corporation that went bankrupt is innumerable. Go on you can name a few just from the top of your head. That's the power of millions of individual consumers. Matter of it's only b/c of corporatism that many of these corporations are saved. Thus the argument - reduce the power of govt. Markets work just fine.
@tjohn1986 Nowadays it usually takes an economical crisis for a large corp to go down. It's not the consumers that bring them down, it's other corps or their own greed. You say the problem is that the gov has too much power. This is obviously not the case in USA. In Finland the gov has a lot of power, but we have few of the problems you have? Why? Because our gov, although far from perfect, is not as corrupt as the American gov. The problem is that corps have too much power in USA.
Yes, USA is much larger than Finland. It's of course much harder to rule a large country than a small one. But that goes for free markets as well. It's much harder to keep a large market free than a small one. So, at best this argument is a non-sequitur. But, I think it's actually a good argument for why libertarinism is bound to fail in a large country like USA. Btw, last time I checked you had 50 states that divide your nation into smaller administrative regions.
@buugiman78 Nope. It's regulations - legal compliance cost, start up cost (look those up) that FAVORS established businesses and corporations and works AGAINST small businesses and new businesses trying to start up. Add to that trademarks, patents etc and it is the state that creates the monopolies, not market. You need to do a lot more research into the subject.
@tjohn1986 Mmost European countries have far more regulation, still we have few of the problems you have. Why? Because the gov isn't the problem. The problem is your gov is utterly corrupted. I explained to you earlier that the government is just an extention of people cooperating in order to gain influence. Single individuals have very little power. If you form interest groups you can make a change. The solution isn't to dismantle the gov. The solution is to fight corruption!
@tjohn1986 You have this naive idea that if we remove all regulations everything will be just fine. That's just wishful thinking. The rich will still have the upper hand and they can skew the market without the help of a gov. They can buy competitors, they can run smaller companies out of business by lowering the prices. They have marketing resources smaller actors can't compete with. In fact proper regulations by an uncorrupted gov can secure fair competition and benefit small businesses.
@buugiman78 LOL which planet have you been on? Euro is on the verge of crash. Greece, now Portugal, Spain and Italy are next. European share in the global GDP have been going down steadily for decades. They haven't added any new jobs in decades.
And who said "ALL" regulations??
And why shouldn't small businesses be run out, if they are putting out inferior product at a higher price? The point is CONSUMERS get to decide. You have NO arguments.
@tjohn1986 Sweden, Norway, Germany, The Netherlands, Finland... highly regulated countries but still among the least corrupted. Yes, the whole western world is in an economical crisis. American banks are largely to blame for that. So what? My point is that the gov per se isn't the problem. I've given you many arguments why unregulating the market won't solve any problems. You ignore them but fail to present a coherent argument for libertarianism. And the burden of proof is yours.
@buugiman78 Burden of proof? You might want to grab a history book. Markets have existed long before any govt came along. Hong Kong 1961-97, almost no regulations, per capita went up 87 fold. Taiwan - little regulations - No giant corporations, only medium sized businesses.
If I am buying a product, there need not be a regulation favoring either side. Now if you don't have the mental capacity to decide what to buy, and need a bureaucrat to tell you, then that's a different story.
@tjohn1986 Libertarians always mention these highly peculiar societies. But, let's take a closer look at Honk Kong. You're heaven on earth. Income inequality is among the highest in the world. The health care for example is highly privatized and if you can't afford a private health insurance, then good luck. But, that's the libertarian heaven. Power to the rich, nevermind the rest. Well, I guess if you are a psychopath libertarianism might be the perfect system.
@tjohn1986 You were the one who claimed regulation makes it harder for small businesses to thrive. I simply pointed out that is not necessarily true. If you have a bad gov the solution is to change the gov not to dismantle it. Still, you try to change the subject and present these non-sequiturs. Seems to me you are running out of arguments... or excuse me, you didn't have any to begin with. It's impossible to reason with a person who's constantly changing the rules of conversation.
@tjohn1986 I'm glad you mentioned Spain, Italy and Greece since the problem with these countries is that they have corrupted govs who don't regulate their banks to the same degree as other countries. Finland has been much less affected by the economical crisis. Why? Because our banks are regulated. Why do you think Canada is much less affected by the economical crisis than USA? Because their banks are regulated. We don't allow banks to ruthlessly gamble with their customer's money.
@buugiman78 Nope. Banking (housing crisis) was due to govt mandate - CRA (go look it up). Sub prime mortgages were backed by Fannie and Freddie. There were plenty of regulations. Banking is the MOST regulated industry DERP.
And Spain, Italy and Greece are going to collapse due to DEBT, taken on by guess who? - The govt! Give more power to politicians, nothing will go wrong.
@tjohn1986 Yeah, Fannie and Freddie forced those poor banks to make astronomical profits from sub prime loans. You're joking right? Who do you think advised the govs in Spain, Italy and Greece to take big loans? Could it perhaps be that private banks and economical advisers were involved in this process? But, no! How dare I accuse the gracious private sectors of doing such things. No, the gov and the gov alone is the root of all evil.
@buugiman78 It's easy to point out the flaws of a society, but what you should do is look at what it would otherwise have been. Like I said, Hong Kong's per capita went up 87 fold. That's the AVG income. The poor in Hong Kong are MAGNITUDES richer. But of course, you rather have EVERYONE be poor.
Banking 101 - There is something called RISK. Of course the banks wanted to make money, but when the loans were guaranteed, the risk factor was taken out. Too hard for you to understand?
@tjohn1986 Well, these flaws are direct consequences of their economical system. Yes, these countries have been economical success stories in many regards. But, there are many reasons why it worked out so well for them. That's why I called them peculiar. But more importantly, although their economical systems have been big contributors to their progress you can also see the clear limitations of deregulated societies. It leads to highly unequal societies and concentration of wealth.
@tjohn1986 Why do you think the gov allowed the banks to make huge profits on sub prime loans while promising to bail them out when things go wrong? Because Wall Street owns the gov. But, the solution is not to deregulate the market. The solution is to fight corruption. There is no perfect gov, no more than there is a perfect market. Too much regulation is bad, but libertarians don't get that too little might be just as bad.
@buugiman78 And you just made my argument. The solution is to reduce to power of the govt. The larger the govt, the harder it is to keep it accountable.
And nope. It's the societies which aimed for egalitarianism that achieved the opposite and had the most atrocious human rights violations eg - N. Korea, Soviet Union, East Germany, Cuba etc. History is crystal clear on what works and what doesn't.
@tjohn1986 Interesting that you mention communist states. There are many similarities between libertarianism and communism. They're both dogmas with no roots in reality. One would think the disastrous communist experiment was enough for people to realize utopian dogmas are to be avoided at all cost, but clearly not. I'm no supporter of big government per se. But we need to regulate the market and a gov is really the only viable option in this regard.
@buugiman78 Hmm I just gave you plenty of empirical evidence of where markets have worked. Markets have existed long before any govt came along. This is getting sad and tedious really. If you don't have any arguments then why bother?
And no the only regulations required are to protect the 3rd party and against fraud. The best protection for a consumer is the consumer himself. But like I said, by all means concede that you're inept and thus need a bureaucrat to decide for you.
@tjohn1986 The only thing even remotely close to an argument is your mentioning of a few peculiar states. I pointed out that although their economical systems might have contributed to their success (there are many other variables as well) they are also good examples of the downsides of laissez faire markets. Inequality and concentration of wealth. These economical systems also are very new. Cumulative concentration of wealth leads to many serious problems by time. Wait and see...
@tjohn1986 "...by all means concede that you're inept and thus need a bureaucrat to decide for you." This shows how hopelessly deluded you are. You have no idea how easy it is to fool consumers. How brainwashed we are every day by marketing. You're a single individual fighting corporations with almost infinite resources and access to the smartest people on earth. And they're doing everything they can to get under your skin. But hey, that's no match for the random consumer is it...
Wealth is constantly being created? Thats not enterily true. There is transfer of wealth. And that have been seen in America the latest 30 years, anyone who says something different is a sucker för an alite exploiting you.
Don't let them fool you. The liberal communists are the greediest people in the world. They want to steal your money (by taxing you to death) so they can have it for themselves. Kudos to Stossel for injecting a little reality into an otherwise inane, dying medium known as television.
satan is all about capitalism so i'm cool with it. fuck christ and his communist idiots. hippie moron.
anyway, i hate the poor and i just want to get ahead. acts of the apostles tells us to live like communists. all republicans need to convert to satanism! i'm cursing all of you because i care. shai hulud theron popov volta satani! 666. with love, a satanist.
@orgasmicide2 He said at 2:19 that the capitalists can't use the power of government to compel you to give them money. That's nonsense. What do you think the bank bailout or the Reagan Savings and Loans bailout was? Capitalists using the power of Government to screw you. The "free market" is a fiction created to con you into believing things are fair when you're getting robbed blind.
@cookerg That is'nt capitalism,but corporatism. Under the rules of the free market system,you cannot make money via government advantages. We have a mixed economy which means we have a lot of capitalism, a lot of corporatism and a lot of socialism. The parts of our economy which are working well are the capitalist parts and the parts responsible for our economic problems are the corporatist and socialist parts.
@sleedolfine15 I agree. the problem is that nobody actually practises free-market capitalism. They practise corporatism and con you into believeing it's free market capitalism. Free market capitalism is exactly like Santa Claus - it sounds great but it doesn't exist, and people who pretend it exists do so to control you or get your money.
@sadistgear You don't have to upgrade your Windows and give money to Microsoft, if you wanted you could have kept windows 98. You could buy a mac. You could use linux.
"WEALTH ISN'T CONSTANTLY BEING CREATED IN THIS ECONOMIC DEPRESSION, AND EVERYONE IS SUFFERING TOGETHER WHILE FEW GET RICH"
Who gave those few (bankers) the power to get rich without creating wealth? Well, people did that by voting in government that support bailouts, big govt, centrally-planned-economy & socialism/corporatism.
if you look at real wages adjusted for inflation they have pretty much stagnated from the seventies....but productivity keeps increasing and working hours have increased ....corporations are squeezing more and more work out of people and not rewarding the people who actually support the system...and mr stossel never adresses externalities that huge corporations create.
@MMZen Real Wage is a dishonest measure. If you want to make an honest statement use real compensation, but it won't be very useful for making arguments about "greed". This data, and other useful data like real disposable income, can be found at the bureau of labor statistics.
I also love how you right wing shit stains say every left wing ideal is based on "anecdotal evidence" when you guys tell a fairy tale story that you can start working at mcdonalds as a janitor and one day work your way up to be a CEO..give me a break! that's laughable...that's maybe less than one percent of one percent of people that could ever possibly move up starting from the bottom...look around, how many rich people do you see, there's not really that many of them.
in a country where a few super rich people can throw a few million dollars (lobyists) to politicians for influence...how you can say that's not a plutocracy?....the very idea that regulation existed before free market's is laughable...people used to work 16 hours a day for poverty wages....the only reason you can work a 40 hour day is and not have your 6 year old kid work in a factory today is because of the whiny liberal assholes who you despise....
you're a fucking worthless jerk off and not worth talking too.....you asking me to provide specific examples is like demanding specific evidence that mob's take out hits on people....stossell says it's "naive" idea about the finite pie theory but he completely disregards the fact that sure the super rich have "created whole new pies" but the vast majority of those pies ...which are giant pies are still in the control of the super rich...fuck "trickle down" economics, we need trickle up economis
Leftists love to tout their "critical-thinking" abilities...until it collides with their "feelings". Then they pillory free-market advocates such as Stossel.
Most liberals I know are miserable narcissists who "feel" the world owes them something for simply existing.
I love how they site microsoft as an example of the magic of capitalism when they are one of the greatest examples of gangster strong tactics. Stossel sites the simplistic idea of the finite pie metaphor but he completely ignores the idea of a huge corporation using their power and money to crush smaller companies. you want a great example of this you should watch the documentary on monsanto and how they'll sue almost any small farm out of existence to gain control of seed lines.
@MMZen How exactly do corporations use their "power and money" to crush smaller companies? If they became that powerful in the first place, they must be doing something right.
You never elaborated on how mosanto "sues" any small farm out existence. It seems to me like the problem here is more with government and a sketchy legal system, as opposed to capitalism itself. You have to cite damages to be able to sue someone.
Are you really that fucking naive? You really don't think giant monopolistic companies can't or don't use their billions of dollars and army of lawyers to destroy a smaller company of they stand in their way? in most parts of the world you could have someone killed for a few hundred dollars...watch the movie "The Future Of Food"
@MMZen Ah, but "monopolistic" is the thing here. Monopolies can only form with the help of the government. It's one of the laws of the free market. Like I said, you still don't elaborate on how these billions of dollars and armies of lawyers would be able to form a case to "destroy" a smaller company. Don't make a claim you can't back up.
You can get away with hired assassins in those parts of the world because of a failure of government. They are corrupt and won't police.
@shupp90 Standard Oil was not a monopoly! It's another myth people fall for. Standard Oil caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 5.9 cents by 1897 while stimulating an enormous amount of innovation in the industry. That is not the definition of monopoly.
I usually like you Stossel... but Rockefellers a pretty evil dude man. Some of these guys aren't just businessmen. They have social goals and many are eugenicists that literally want to get rid of 80% of the world's population.
@vindician Loool what? He corrupted politicians, blackmailed the entire congress by sending mail to every banker to threaten to cut support from politicians, his company Standard Oil gave Nazi Germany a method to raise their sovereign oil production from 600.000 tons to 8.500.000 tons (using coal), without which they could not have waged war. I know you think you're doing good, being liberal and supporting the free market is awesome, but please don't think you know more about the subject than I.
@fr0ber Keep your propaganda to yourself. But even if he did what you falsely claim he did, Rockefeller gave people an option to whale oil, which very few could afford, the lowered the price of kerosene by 90% and created thousands and thousands of new jobs. As far as the Nazis go, maybe you should think a few thoughts about what all your political heroes did to help Communism.
@vindician Keep my propaganda to myself? How would you like it if I praised Adolf Hitler on a public forum? Not that I am in any way comparing the works of Hitler to the works of JDR, but you get my point - you don't just tell someone to keep to himself. Rockefeller indeed offered people the option to buy oil - but that simply isn't all he did, whether you like it or not. And what the hell are you talking about my "political heroes"? "Communism"? What are you talking about?
@vindician I assume you are (based on your subscriptions to Dawkins, Paul, Hitchens and Stossel channels) an atheist, libertarian, free market supporter. I am myself all of those things, and as such do not disagree with you that someone who owns oil and sells it is an evil man -no matter the riches he gains from it on a free market- contrary to some peoples opinions. I am not simply a "hater" that's "gonna hate" as the meme refers to, but an hardcore opposer of governmental abuse in any form.
@fr0ber Agree he is evil as well as Bill Gates who funds world depopulation programs etc. However, in the business sense stricly speaking, he did do alot of good in terms of the market. By the same token, he hated competition calling it a "sin" and did let government help him in some cases = mercantalism.
@cabgt I actually have no idea how you brought Bill Gates into this, he's an entrepreneur who made computers more accessible for businesses and homes, without state or government funding, entirely on the free market. John D. Rockefeller however abused government legislature, corrupted politicians, supported the Nazi warfare with his daughter companies and so forth, he was disgusting.
bill gates cash couldnt pay the interest on the rich euro trash families..Rockefellers are vvorth on paper 15 to 20 trillion....including thier 'tax exempt foundations' 100 trillion.....the Rothschilds 300 to 500 trillion....and the Catholic church beats em all!
American white guy good. Black guy bad. Asian guy bad. Foreigner bad. Interesting choice of examples. "Everyone wins unless someone cheats." "Cheaters rarely get that rich." Thanks to the gutting of government oversight there is plenty of cheating going on and the cheaters are getting very rich indeed while the average hardworking and honest American sees his or her wages steadily decline.
If greed is good and the democrats are the enemy then how come it wasthe republicans who blocked the extention on unemployment benefits which equals out to merely 300 bucks aweek for the people in this country who are suffering the most????
@THESExEYEZxDONTxLIE It might be due to the fact that when the government collects money it is generally through taxes which means it should be spent on things that are in line with the role of the government which is a military to protect us police to enforce rule of law and a court system to settle disputes.
Ha! We are in a pointless war. The legal system in this country has become a joke. And alot of these problems we have right now are because of our previous Republican president. Oh and in case you haven't noticed.. We are in a recession and starving american families should be a priority to our government. What he's talking about is incentive not greed. Incentive makes people do better. Greed crashes the stock market, ruins the gulf, and destroys the middle class.
Bill gates and rockafellar are simple cases of awful monopolies. Anyone that knows anything about these two will say that. Bill gates got lucky and rockafella is a documented crook.
@manoman0 You're an idiot. Capitalism does not "rock". Capitalism is how the top few percent own everything while the bottom 90+% gets left with nothing or next to it, fighting to make it day to day. That is, like said in the fantastic video above, a child's view of the way the world should work. There is MORE than enough resources for EVERYONE to be provided for, many times over.
Why do you feel entitled to the wealth created by other people?
You say that the "bottom 90% gets left with nothing", which implies you believe the world is a zero-sum game. The first few seconds of this video, demonstrates how wealth can be CREATED. You are entitled to the wealth you create in a free market. Why do you insist on creating an arbirtary standard of living you believe everyone should live by?
@TimeWarp66 I understand it all too well. I also understand that we don't even -have- true capitalism, which would be laissrx-faire capitalism, free from state intervention. What we have is capitalism regulated by a government that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the corporate -and especially the military industrial- complex. This is why these pigs receive huge government bailouts instead of being allowed to succeed or fail on their own. We already HAVE wealth redistribution.
I think the problem is that you all are assuming that what we have in america is free trade. but it is not. There is so much government intervention that we cannot look at something in america and say "See free trade caused these problems" In reality its the lack of free trade that causes economic hardships.
Where is the need? Right now in our countries there are people who NEED food water and shelter. There is no problem in being rich it is when there is no philanthropy or charity to follow. Some may define this as socialist, so be it.
Gates minipulated the H!B Visa program in order to employ emigrants at half the cost of domestic college graduates. He went before congress and ask for inlimited use of H1B visas.
Theis video is scewed toward the 2% of the populations. It is the typical laissez faire free trade, Friedman cult gospel, they keep preaching it in spite of the physical edidence it doesn't work. Look around at the country the evidence is in, free trade does not work, it is global socialism masqueraded as free trade.
if you don't like freidman try bastiat or voltaire.
if it's global socialism masqueraded as free trade then how can you say it's evidence against free trade? wouldn't the mask mean it's evidence against socialism?
but free trade can and does exist without global socialism. it exists anytime you trade anything with a friend or neighbor. that evidence is not only plentiful but easy to replicate.
so why condemn free trade & not condemn global socialism or fascism or imperialism or any of the other evils sucking the life out of what's good in the world?
I condemn free trade, as the vehicle that is driving global socialism. I condemn them both and all the other isms. Globalism is more dangerous than all the other isms put together.
Free trade displaces local farmers, who cannot compete with giant agribusinesses. Free trade destroys domestic industries, by employing subsistance labor in one hemisphere and shipping the product globally without reguard for the small farmer or those employed in domestic industries, who feeds his family off the produce he raises or earns in the local business.
Free trade produces common wages, common lifestyles. Destroys national borders, produces common ethnicity. Save the Anologies please.
what destruction? Cattlemen in Brazil don't burn barns in France, they merely win customers: the people who shop for and buy their products. where is your regard for them? or the "subsistence" laborers who've chosen to "subsist" a little better than they were before?
no one forces these people to trade with one another. Do you propose to stop them for the sake of your national border and ethnicity?
in your rejection of all "isms" you seem to have neglected nationalism and racism...
Frenchmen can't raise cattle, The people who shop and buy their products, are forced to buy them. The subsistence laborers do not live better, they live worse because the giant agribusinesses of the industrialized world is selling at proces they cannot compete with.
Yes they are forced to trade with one another. Here in the U.S. we simply do not make consumer goods, everything in the stores is made in some third world country.
don't insult your fellow Americans with comments like "we don't make consumer goods". obviously you don't make anything, but I've a blazer w/a tag that says "made in U.S.A."
and don't insult Frenchmen by saying they can't do something. They can and they do, but it costs more for them. they can adapt or go bankrupt. they're free to choose.
So who forces Brazilians to leave the slums & cane fields to raise cattle? who's forcing ppl to eat at Fogo de Chao?
You must have gotten the blazer at the Goodwill, because our textile industry has long since went to those .20/hr labor markets. I don't mean textiles alone we literally don't make anything. We have a trillion dollar trade deficit thanks to free trade. When I said (Frenchmen Can't raise cattle) was, was a queation in response to you saying that Brazilian Cattle farmers win French customers.If Frenchmen buy Brazilian Beef it is because they don't have a choice, or don't know the country of origi
Free trade forces folks off the family farms and into the cane fields and slums. Brazilians burn down the rain forest to raise cattle for export to McDonalds, the average Brazilian cannot afford the beef raised in their own country. The working class in Brazil does not eat a Fago de Chao's those places are reserved for the upper class. Rich Brazilians who are content with making their fortunes off the backs of the poor and powerless.
No i'me not making things up, everything I am saying is common knowledge. It is common knowledge that Brazil and Argentinia are burning down the rain forest in order to support the American hamburber market.
I don't know what you are talking about concerning McDonalds. I never mentioned McDonalds in the context of Brazil, I mentioned it in the context of Brazil's export only.
I think the Wall Street quote was taken out of context. If you watch that section of the movie, what he goes on to say is "I produce nothing, I own everything" since Michael Douglas' character is an investment banker. Kinda true, imo. I'm not pro enough to tell what the free market solution there is, but that's a field where people make money without producing anything. Guess it can be argued that they fund producers?
You have to understand that high reward investing involves high risk...the Wall Street guy was essentially a cheater....he used "boilier rooms" and penny stock scams...difference from investing in a small cap China company....becoming a millionaire...or losing your shirt.
John stossel is fake, he gets you to think that he is getting all the questions you want answered. and asking the questions you think you wanted to ask. don't be fooled by this fake corporate media programs and news. to get to the truth, you need to research facts on your own. not what these puppets who are controlled by the power elite tell you is truth.
don't be fooled. greed, covetousness, that's what evil people do, they put a spin on things to get you to buy into their philosophy, agenda, etc. and make you say, hey, i guess they do have a point. it's the small independent businesses that employ the majority. these corporate people destroy the american way of life. remember zero sum game?
How much wealth is enough????????
1963danno 6 days ago
Bill Gates 40 billion had to come from somewhere. It certainly didn't come from thin air. Wealth is merely transferred from one place to another
1963danno 6 days ago
@1963danno Aren't you forgetting all those billions of copies of Windows and Office? Yes you are, asshole.
raderator 2 hours ago in playlist talk16
@raderator Fuck off I own a MAC which is a much better computer
1963danno 1 hour ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stossel says Greed is Good-defined as self interest-for the wealthy if so Greed-self interest- is good for other people the 99%. LITTLE FLAW IN STOSSEL STATEMENT GREED IS GOOD DEFINED AS SELF INTEREST THEN IT'S GOOD FOR EVERYONE NOT JUST WEALTHY!
FireflyMalcolm 1 month ago
Yes, you can choose between different products, but usually they are all owned by a few large corps. That's not a free market, that's oligopoly. A few powerful corps are successfully erasing competition either by buying up smaller competitors or using other tactics to prevent them from succeeding. Another thing you ignore is the fact that your ability to choose is often an illusion. There might be several brands out there, but they are often owned by the same corps anyway.
buugiman78 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stossel says Greed is Good-defined as self interest-for the wealthy if so Greed-self interest- is good for other people the 99%. LITTLE FLAW IN STOSSEL STATEMENT GREED IS GOOD DEFINED AS SELF INTEREST THEN IT'S GOOD FOR EVERYONE NOT JUST WEALTHY!!!!!
FireflyMalcolm 1 month ago
Comment removed
1963danno 1 month ago
Make the pie bigger??? Huh???? Where did all the money come from, thin air??????? There has to be a finite amount of wealth in the world. The rich assholes have most of it and they don't want to share any of it. The problem is that the american people have no buying power anymore. Not everyone can be a millionaire, we need the middle class to
1963danno 1 month ago
Their money has to come from somewhere
1963danno 2 months ago
No way is Gates richer than Rothschild.
jimmi161 3 months ago
@jimmi161 Damn you conspiracy nuts are everywhere.
tjohn1986 1 month ago
Lol gotta love those solar powered clothes dryers.
666or999 3 months ago
1.00 Milk!
arivas713 5 months ago
Obama needs to watch this.
kurthanson2005 5 months ago
@scoves9484 I wish you were right. Sadly I don't think there's exactly a shortage of cynical libertarians out there.
buugiman78 6 months ago
The collective of humanity will eventually one day reach a point where there will be no wealthy elite. One day Rockefeller, the Rothchilds, the Royal families will be done away with. They do not serve the betterment of all of humanity they enslave it. They might make our lives better but its tied to tricks and lies that are meant to enslave us and keep the wealth and power in there control. We do not buy the stories that Tv tells us anymore we know better now. End the FED.
casinohijack 8 months ago
@casinohijack
So you'd rather all our lives be worse provided "the rich" were less rich?
TimeWarp66 7 months ago
@TimeWarp66 I say we whip the slate clean, spread the wealth. Not give us money but rather them not hoard all for themselves. Like the biggest land owners are people like the queen of england why on earth does one woman need so much freaking land?This world there is room for everyone we dont have to be crowded in cities nore should any of us go homeless or hungry. This is a savage time we live in and in the future things like what are happening will never happen again. Limit how rich one can be.
casinohijack 7 months ago
@casinohijack
The queen of England is rich due to theft. Her wealth comes from tax money. On the other hand, Bill Gates got rich by providing you withe the computer you are currently using. He may be worth $60 billion, but created trillions more for the world economy. "Who needs all the money"? That quite frankly is none of your concern. If you earn the money honestly, you have EVERY moral right to keep it.
TimeWarp66 7 months ago
@TimeWarp66 The key word in what you said there was honesty. In a duopoly like the computer industry someone like Bill Gates does very well. As well ol Bill seems to be doing a great job killing babies funding Planned Parenthood. And none of my concern yes id say its a big concern since i know that they got the job to turn over all the medical paperwork to digital, or how connected there technology will be to the RFID chips that they are slowly introducing to the public.
casinohijack 7 months ago
Amazing how Stossel complains about crony-capitalism now, but here he claims that the Robber-barons of the 18th century made it without government-provided controls, handouts and monopoly.
The entire Republican party we know today was BUILT on kickbacks from industrialists- and the Democrats weren't far behind..
postalmeter 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'Greed, for the lack of a better word, is GOOD' Gordan Gekko
gh3860 8 months ago
I am a capitalist and i want to be the richest person in the world.i will buy most of america by money and will buy american government.i will exploit the poor and as much people as i can because i want to become rich.i only want me to rich.i will buy other countries also and i will become ruler of superpower.anybody against me will be executed.i want everything in the world belongs to me i must be superior to everybody else - This is what capitalist thinks.
darknight651 8 months ago in playlist Greed & Capitalism is Good
Take a pharmceutical company. Yes, better medicines is a good thing. But, it's not good that these companies charge absurd prices for these medicines so that the CEO can get his multi-million bonus every christmas. It's not good that they concentrate on producing viagra-like medicines since they are most profitable. They could accomplish so much more if they weren't greedy. The fact that greedy companies can produce good things is irrelevant. Ultimately greed is an obstacle to the common good!
buugiman78 8 months ago
@buugiman78 Its not the CEO that gets the benefits, its the share holders.
gh3860 8 months ago
@gh3860 Well, I thought you would get the point. It is hard to describe how a capitalistic economical system works in 500 letters. Yes, it is not only about the CEO. We are talking about members of the executive board, we are talking about other high officials, we are talking about share holders, etc... But in short, no. You are wrong. A large proportion of a modern CEO:s income is directly related to the company's stock value. For example derivatives...
buugiman78 8 months ago
@buugiman78
This is the dumbest post I've seen in my life. Why produce any medicine at all if it weren't for greed? If they weren't greedy, they would produce NO medicine! They would sit on their fat ass all day, just like you.
TheShaniqua1992 8 months ago
This is so simplistic. So american. It makes me puke! The top 1% of americans today get 20% of the total income. The percentage was less than 10 a few decades ago. He describes a utopian capitalistic system where the customers decide what to buy and their is honest and good competition. This is not the case and never has been. The powerful can buy politicians. They can circumvent the rules everyone else has to follow. For example the rich generally pay much less taxes than the middle class.
buugiman78 8 months ago
@buugiman78
This is because America is not a free market if you havn't realized. Have you ever wondered that the "do-gooder" regulations only help big corporations? This is why most free market advocates, including John Stossel, avocate smaller government. IF the government stopped medling in private markets, there would be no advantage, and no incentive for corporations to influence legislation.
TheShaniqua1992 8 months ago
@TheShaniqua1992 Do you really think a free market would lead to fair competition? Be an obstacle for big corporations? Then you are deluded. In practice a free market always leads to corporatism or chaos. The market needs to be regulated. We can argue all day to what extent and in what ways, but only an insane person thinks a totally free market is a good thing. Btw, a free market would in practice make rule of law in general impossible since the law inevitably regulates the market.
buugiman78 8 months ago
@buugiman78
The record of history clearly shows that unregulated markets keep businesses in check far better than some elite group in Washington arbitrarily telling them what to do.
In a free society the law does not regulate market activity. It's purpose is to prevent force and fraud. Not set prices and standards. Read some Hayak. Learn.
TimeWarp66 7 months ago
@TimeWarp66 History? Can you even mention one example of truelly unregulated market? Yeah, Hayek is definately the author to read if you want an unbiased view of capitalism ;-) Just a brief comment. To prevent force and fraud IS to regulate the market. A free market can only exist within a framework of fair competition. Otherwise you end up with corporatism. How do you achieve this? By regulating the market so that large corporations can't distort the market by economical force. Learn...
buugiman78 7 months ago
@buugiman78
Markets are an extraction of physical force. They cannot exist where force is present. Which is why cops and courts serve more to aid economic transactions rather than to regulate them.
Corporatism only exists when corporations are granted special protections from competition by governments. Like we have today in the United States. Theirs a great book called "Capitalism The Uknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand, where she debunks all these economic fallacy's you keep arguing.
TimeWarp66 7 months ago
@TimeWarp66 I asked for ONE single example of a truelly free market. No answer! The idea of a free market is a purely theoretical concept bound to fail in reality. Much like communism... Do you really think corporations are afraid of an unregulated market? What on earth are they putting in your drinking water? They would love to get rid of the government. Love to get rid of the middle hand. Christianity is not the main religion in USA, capitalism is!
buugiman78 7 months ago
@buugiman78 I answered your question. 19th century America came the closest to a completely free market. In modern times, Hong Kong and Singapore are real world examples.
Corporations hate free markets. They like the government protecting them and hurting their competitors. Just look at terrifs, minimum wage laws, zoning laws, building codes, and other stupid regulations that big corporations can absorb, while their smaller competitors cannot.
TimeWarp66 7 months ago
@TimeWarp66 Ever heard of the robber barons? 19th century America was a market full of ruthless corporations. If that's your idea of an ideal society then I rest my case. Hong Kong and Singapore are not turelly free markets either. Even if they were it really does not matter. They are micro states with a very specific economical nische. Do you really think that opening up the markets in a country like USA will magically turn them into an economical "sucess" like Singapore?
buugiman78 7 months ago
@buugiman78
Robber barons are myths. No such things existed. Their are so many misconceptions about 19th century America it's not even funny. The size of Hong Kong/Singapore is irrelivent. The free market works on both large and small scales. Type in: "What is the free market" here on youtube. You may find yourself being educated.
TimeWarp66 7 months ago
@TimeWarp66 I'm amazed! Do you really think that 19th century America was an ideal society from an economical perspective? The fact that you idealize a society that was governed by ruthless tycoons, says something about how immensly deluded you are. I can't understand how a sane person would like to use 19th century America as an economical model for the 21th century. Btw, size isn't irrelevant. Please think before you write. Soon you'll probably start citing Friedman as an unbiased source.
buugiman78 7 months ago
@buugiman78
It wasn't governed by ruthless tycoons at all. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or do you just not do any research and simply repeat what your idiot professors have to say?
Milton Friedman is not an unbiased source, but he also happens to be correct. Watch a few of his videos here on youtube. That should undue some of your economic fallacies.
TimeWarp66 7 months ago
Comment removed
buugiman78 7 months ago
@TimeWarp66 You ask me if I do research. No, I am sorry. I don't watch the propaganda youtube videos you watch. I've been patient enough but you constantly fail to provide me with a real argument. You just repeat the same old libertarian clichés. No, to say I am wrong because you say so is not a good argument. I am sorry to say this discussion is getting really boring. I'm out of here. Have a nice day!
buugiman78 7 months ago
@buugiman78 how free markets cause corporatism. it only exists when businesses intersect with government powers to move on controlling the people.
free-markets are non-aggresive(non initiates of force) in contrast to the government(which functions as the sole distributor of legal violence)
merriam-webster definition of corporatism: organization of society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation exercising CONTROL over persons and activities.
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 "free-markets are non-aggresive(non initiates of force) in contrast to the government(which functions as the sole distributor of legal violence)" How would you know? Have you ever witnessed a truelly free market? And even more important. A truelly free market on a large scale? If not, shut the fuck up.
buugiman78 6 months ago
@buugiman78 one can easily witness the elements of a free market in every non-coercive interaction and transaction. Most of this is why industrialization and technological innovation ever took off. free-market growth is when innovation increases efficiency enough to cut costs and create profit enough to expand. Now tell, what in the nature of regulations promotes innovations or faster,cleaner ways of doing things? better yet, do you know all of the effects of regulation on growth and employment?
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 "Most of this is why industrialization and technological innovation ever took off" What's your evidence for that? By that logic war is something to strive for as well. Btw, economical growth is not the only issue here. What about sustainable development, working conditions, distribution of wealth and solidarity in general? No, libertarians like to ignore these "trivial" issues. Exactly how is a free market going to make corporations care about other things than short term profit?
buugiman78 6 months ago
@buugiman78 First, Libertarians support common law and the defense of the individual. basically everybody is protected under that. Of all the libertarians I know, they strive for the common good without initiation of force and push for policies that actually do good instead of harm. workers and businesses need a contracting paradigm for more worker freedom and safety not regulation. wealth is the existence of goods and services not units of currency for those who earn or are given it freely.
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@buugiman78 Have you seen the effects of socialism/communism/statism? Yes, we have: the gulags of soviet Russia, the concentration camps of Nazi Germany, the killing fields of Cambodia. There is no excuse for a government to initiate force against it's own citizens. Period. No matter how allegedly noble the reason. That is what you advocate when you advocate for gov interference in the economy: gov initiation of force.
lantenec 5 months ago
@lantenec So you mean that we should get rid of the police all together. Since, you say that no matter how noble the reason is, there is no excuse for the government using force against it's own citizens. And anyone who disagrees is in fact advocating massmurder. Yeah, that is REALLY sensible! I am not sure what drugs you are on, but they sure are potent.
buugiman78 5 months ago
@buugiman78 The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force.
lantenec 3 months ago
@buugiman78 The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.
lantenec 3 months ago
@lantenec Libertarianism really is just overconfidence in the consumer. You think that by deregulating the market, consumers will all the sudden become rational and responsible actors voting with their feet. They will boycott actors that prefer short term profits at the expense of sustainable development or moral behaviour. In reality though factors like pricing, trendiness and accessibility are much more important. Especially since we rarely have a close relation to the companies we deal with.
buugiman78 3 months ago
@buugiman78 Nope. But what's more logical, putting power in the hands of consumers or in the hands of politicians?
tjohn1986 1 month ago
@tjohn1986 But, individuals don't have the same amount of power. In a free market rich people have more power, which cumulates over time. The only way for common people to really influence a free market is to cooperate and form interest groups. A democratic government is just an extention of this behaviour. People elect delegates from an interest group (parties in this regard) to represent them. The problem is not governments per se, but that your government is utterly corrupted.
buugiman78 1 month ago
@buugiman78 No that's not the problem. Problem is that govt has too much power.
The number of giant corporation that went bankrupt is innumerable. Go on you can name a few just from the top of your head. That's the power of millions of individual consumers. Matter of it's only b/c of corporatism that many of these corporations are saved. Thus the argument - reduce the power of govt. Markets work just fine.
tjohn1986 1 month ago
@tjohn1986 Nowadays it usually takes an economical crisis for a large corp to go down. It's not the consumers that bring them down, it's other corps or their own greed. You say the problem is that the gov has too much power. This is obviously not the case in USA. In Finland the gov has a lot of power, but we have few of the problems you have? Why? Because our gov, although far from perfect, is not as corrupt as the American gov. The problem is that corps have too much power in USA.
buugiman78 1 month ago
@buugiman78 Nope. I can name a few just off the top of my head - AOL, Blockbuster, Circuit City etc
Finland is a small country with a small govt. It's easier to keep it accountable. That's not the case with America with a population of 310 million.
tjohn1986 1 month ago
Yes, USA is much larger than Finland. It's of course much harder to rule a large country than a small one. But that goes for free markets as well. It's much harder to keep a large market free than a small one. So, at best this argument is a non-sequitur. But, I think it's actually a good argument for why libertarinism is bound to fail in a large country like USA. Btw, last time I checked you had 50 states that divide your nation into smaller administrative regions.
buugiman78 1 month ago
@buugiman78 Nope. It's regulations - legal compliance cost, start up cost (look those up) that FAVORS established businesses and corporations and works AGAINST small businesses and new businesses trying to start up. Add to that trademarks, patents etc and it is the state that creates the monopolies, not market. You need to do a lot more research into the subject.
/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU
tjohn1986 1 month ago
@tjohn1986 Mmost European countries have far more regulation, still we have few of the problems you have. Why? Because the gov isn't the problem. The problem is your gov is utterly corrupted. I explained to you earlier that the government is just an extention of people cooperating in order to gain influence. Single individuals have very little power. If you form interest groups you can make a change. The solution isn't to dismantle the gov. The solution is to fight corruption!
buugiman78 1 month ago
@tjohn1986 You have this naive idea that if we remove all regulations everything will be just fine. That's just wishful thinking. The rich will still have the upper hand and they can skew the market without the help of a gov. They can buy competitors, they can run smaller companies out of business by lowering the prices. They have marketing resources smaller actors can't compete with. In fact proper regulations by an uncorrupted gov can secure fair competition and benefit small businesses.
buugiman78 1 month ago
@buugiman78 LOL which planet have you been on? Euro is on the verge of crash. Greece, now Portugal, Spain and Italy are next. European share in the global GDP have been going down steadily for decades. They haven't added any new jobs in decades.
And who said "ALL" regulations??
And why shouldn't small businesses be run out, if they are putting out inferior product at a higher price? The point is CONSUMERS get to decide. You have NO arguments.
tjohn1986 1 month ago
@tjohn1986 Sweden, Norway, Germany, The Netherlands, Finland... highly regulated countries but still among the least corrupted. Yes, the whole western world is in an economical crisis. American banks are largely to blame for that. So what? My point is that the gov per se isn't the problem. I've given you many arguments why unregulating the market won't solve any problems. You ignore them but fail to present a coherent argument for libertarianism. And the burden of proof is yours.
buugiman78 1 month ago
@buugiman78 Burden of proof? You might want to grab a history book. Markets have existed long before any govt came along. Hong Kong 1961-97, almost no regulations, per capita went up 87 fold. Taiwan - little regulations - No giant corporations, only medium sized businesses.
If I am buying a product, there need not be a regulation favoring either side. Now if you don't have the mental capacity to decide what to buy, and need a bureaucrat to tell you, then that's a different story.
tjohn1986 1 month ago
@tjohn1986 Libertarians always mention these highly peculiar societies. But, let's take a closer look at Honk Kong. You're heaven on earth. Income inequality is among the highest in the world. The health care for example is highly privatized and if you can't afford a private health insurance, then good luck. But, that's the libertarian heaven. Power to the rich, nevermind the rest. Well, I guess if you are a psychopath libertarianism might be the perfect system.
buugiman78 1 month ago
Comment removed
buugiman78 1 month ago
Comment removed
buugiman78 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tjohn1986 You were the one who claimed regulation makes it harder for small businesses to thrive. I simply pointed out that is not necessarily true. If you have a bad gov the solution is to change the gov not to dismantle it. Still, you try to change the subject and present these non-sequiturs. Seems to me you are running out of arguments... or excuse me, you didn't have any to begin with. It's impossible to reason with a person who's constantly changing the rules of conversation.
buugiman78 1 month ago
@tjohn1986 I'm glad you mentioned Spain, Italy and Greece since the problem with these countries is that they have corrupted govs who don't regulate their banks to the same degree as other countries. Finland has been much less affected by the economical crisis. Why? Because our banks are regulated. Why do you think Canada is much less affected by the economical crisis than USA? Because their banks are regulated. We don't allow banks to ruthlessly gamble with their customer's money.
buugiman78 1 month ago
@buugiman78 Nope. Banking (housing crisis) was due to govt mandate - CRA (go look it up). Sub prime mortgages were backed by Fannie and Freddie. There were plenty of regulations. Banking is the MOST regulated industry DERP.
And Spain, Italy and Greece are going to collapse due to DEBT, taken on by guess who? - The govt! Give more power to politicians, nothing will go wrong.
tjohn1986 1 month ago
@tjohn1986 Yeah, Fannie and Freddie forced those poor banks to make astronomical profits from sub prime loans. You're joking right? Who do you think advised the govs in Spain, Italy and Greece to take big loans? Could it perhaps be that private banks and economical advisers were involved in this process? But, no! How dare I accuse the gracious private sectors of doing such things. No, the gov and the gov alone is the root of all evil.
buugiman78 1 month ago
@buugiman78 It's easy to point out the flaws of a society, but what you should do is look at what it would otherwise have been. Like I said, Hong Kong's per capita went up 87 fold. That's the AVG income. The poor in Hong Kong are MAGNITUDES richer. But of course, you rather have EVERYONE be poor.
Banking 101 - There is something called RISK. Of course the banks wanted to make money, but when the loans were guaranteed, the risk factor was taken out. Too hard for you to understand?
tjohn1986 1 month ago
@tjohn1986 Well, these flaws are direct consequences of their economical system. Yes, these countries have been economical success stories in many regards. But, there are many reasons why it worked out so well for them. That's why I called them peculiar. But more importantly, although their economical systems have been big contributors to their progress you can also see the clear limitations of deregulated societies. It leads to highly unequal societies and concentration of wealth.
buugiman78 1 month ago
@tjohn1986 Why do you think the gov allowed the banks to make huge profits on sub prime loans while promising to bail them out when things go wrong? Because Wall Street owns the gov. But, the solution is not to deregulate the market. The solution is to fight corruption. There is no perfect gov, no more than there is a perfect market. Too much regulation is bad, but libertarians don't get that too little might be just as bad.
buugiman78 1 month ago
@buugiman78 And you just made my argument. The solution is to reduce to power of the govt. The larger the govt, the harder it is to keep it accountable.
And nope. It's the societies which aimed for egalitarianism that achieved the opposite and had the most atrocious human rights violations eg - N. Korea, Soviet Union, East Germany, Cuba etc. History is crystal clear on what works and what doesn't.
tjohn1986 1 month ago
@tjohn1986 Interesting that you mention communist states. There are many similarities between libertarianism and communism. They're both dogmas with no roots in reality. One would think the disastrous communist experiment was enough for people to realize utopian dogmas are to be avoided at all cost, but clearly not. I'm no supporter of big government per se. But we need to regulate the market and a gov is really the only viable option in this regard.
buugiman78 1 month ago
@buugiman78 Hmm I just gave you plenty of empirical evidence of where markets have worked. Markets have existed long before any govt came along. This is getting sad and tedious really. If you don't have any arguments then why bother?
And no the only regulations required are to protect the 3rd party and against fraud. The best protection for a consumer is the consumer himself. But like I said, by all means concede that you're inept and thus need a bureaucrat to decide for you.
tjohn1986 1 month ago
@tjohn1986 The only thing even remotely close to an argument is your mentioning of a few peculiar states. I pointed out that although their economical systems might have contributed to their success (there are many other variables as well) they are also good examples of the downsides of laissez faire markets. Inequality and concentration of wealth. These economical systems also are very new. Cumulative concentration of wealth leads to many serious problems by time. Wait and see...
buugiman78 1 month ago
@buugiman78 Nope. Markets are very old. U.S for example became the richest in the world in the late 1800s when there were no regulations.
And I would much rather have accumulation of wealth than power.
tjohn1986 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tjohn1986 "...by all means concede that you're inept and thus need a bureaucrat to decide for you." This shows how hopelessly deluded you are. You have no idea how easy it is to fool consumers. How brainwashed we are every day by marketing. You're a single individual fighting corporations with almost infinite resources and access to the smartest people on earth. And they're doing everything they can to get under your skin. But hey, that's no match for the random consumer is it...
buugiman78 1 month ago
@dma777able Interesting viewpoint you've got there: "Agree with me, or you're a sucker."
SoooooRich 9 months ago
Wealth is constantly being created? Thats not enterily true. There is transfer of wealth. And that have been seen in America the latest 30 years, anyone who says something different is a sucker för an alite exploiting you.
dma777able 9 months ago
Don't let them fool you. The liberal communists are the greediest people in the world. They want to steal your money (by taxing you to death) so they can have it for themselves. Kudos to Stossel for injecting a little reality into an otherwise inane, dying medium known as television.
AlexanderRozhenko 9 months ago
Yay, Capitalism.
GohModley 10 months ago
satan is all about capitalism so i'm cool with it. fuck christ and his communist idiots. hippie moron.
anyway, i hate the poor and i just want to get ahead. acts of the apostles tells us to live like communists. all republicans need to convert to satanism! i'm cursing all of you because i care. shai hulud theron popov volta satani! 666. with love, a satanist.
hailsatan666abortion 10 months ago
@orgasmicide2 He said at 2:19 that the capitalists can't use the power of government to compel you to give them money. That's nonsense. What do you think the bank bailout or the Reagan Savings and Loans bailout was? Capitalists using the power of Government to screw you. The "free market" is a fiction created to con you into believing things are fair when you're getting robbed blind.
cookerg 10 months ago
@cookerg That is'nt capitalism,but corporatism. Under the rules of the free market system,you cannot make money via government advantages. We have a mixed economy which means we have a lot of capitalism, a lot of corporatism and a lot of socialism. The parts of our economy which are working well are the capitalist parts and the parts responsible for our economic problems are the corporatist and socialist parts.
sleedolfine15 10 months ago
@sleedolfine15 I agree. the problem is that nobody actually practises free-market capitalism. They practise corporatism and con you into believeing it's free market capitalism. Free market capitalism is exactly like Santa Claus - it sounds great but it doesn't exist, and people who pretend it exists do so to control you or get your money.
cookerg 10 months ago
"The capitalists can't do that"? LOL
cookerg 11 months ago
@scoves9484 very well said.
quincee33 1 year ago
Capitalism Is Great
The391956 1 year ago
>to become rich, you must sell shit to the little man that he wants
Or just promise a vote if you're a congresswhore.
sadistgear 1 year ago
Bill Gates earned the majority of his money through shady business deals and by destroying other companies illegally.
He may have sold us something we wanted, but he also blocked competitors of his from showing us their products.
sadistgear 1 year ago 2
@sadistgear You don't have to upgrade your Windows and give money to Microsoft, if you wanted you could have kept windows 98. You could buy a mac. You could use linux.
MrKiromunist 1 year ago 5
WEALTH ISN'T CONSTANTLY BEING CREATED IN THIS ECONOMIC DEPRESSION, AND EVERYONE IS SUFFERING TOGETHER WHILE FEW GET RICH.
prettylyricsmarie 1 year ago
@prettylyricsmarie
"WEALTH ISN'T CONSTANTLY BEING CREATED IN THIS ECONOMIC DEPRESSION, AND EVERYONE IS SUFFERING TOGETHER WHILE FEW GET RICH"
Who gave those few (bankers) the power to get rich without creating wealth? Well, people did that by voting in government that support bailouts, big govt, centrally-planned-economy & socialism/corporatism.
lomocan 1 year ago
Bill Gates is the devil!!!!!!!
AM2M 1 year ago
if you look at real wages adjusted for inflation they have pretty much stagnated from the seventies....but productivity keeps increasing and working hours have increased ....corporations are squeezing more and more work out of people and not rewarding the people who actually support the system...and mr stossel never adresses externalities that huge corporations create.
MMZen 1 year ago
@MMZen Real Wage is a dishonest measure. If you want to make an honest statement use real compensation, but it won't be very useful for making arguments about "greed". This data, and other useful data like real disposable income, can be found at the bureau of labor statistics.
Ragnarokgn 11 months ago
I also love how you right wing shit stains say every left wing ideal is based on "anecdotal evidence" when you guys tell a fairy tale story that you can start working at mcdonalds as a janitor and one day work your way up to be a CEO..give me a break! that's laughable...that's maybe less than one percent of one percent of people that could ever possibly move up starting from the bottom...look around, how many rich people do you see, there's not really that many of them.
MMZen 1 year ago
@MMZen YOU are rich, my friend. Or how did you get access to Youtube? Look how rich you are compared to a poor farmer in Angola.
eric5335 1 year ago 3
in a country where a few super rich people can throw a few million dollars (lobyists) to politicians for influence...how you can say that's not a plutocracy?....the very idea that regulation existed before free market's is laughable...people used to work 16 hours a day for poverty wages....the only reason you can work a 40 hour day is and not have your 6 year old kid work in a factory today is because of the whiny liberal assholes who you despise....
MMZen 1 year ago
you're a fucking worthless jerk off and not worth talking too.....you asking me to provide specific examples is like demanding specific evidence that mob's take out hits on people....stossell says it's "naive" idea about the finite pie theory but he completely disregards the fact that sure the super rich have "created whole new pies" but the vast majority of those pies ...which are giant pies are still in the control of the super rich...fuck "trickle down" economics, we need trickle up economis
MMZen 1 year ago
Leftists love to tout their "critical-thinking" abilities...until it collides with their "feelings". Then they pillory free-market advocates such as Stossel.
Most liberals I know are miserable narcissists who "feel" the world owes them something for simply existing.
SharpShootist 1 year ago
I love how they site microsoft as an example of the magic of capitalism when they are one of the greatest examples of gangster strong tactics. Stossel sites the simplistic idea of the finite pie metaphor but he completely ignores the idea of a huge corporation using their power and money to crush smaller companies. you want a great example of this you should watch the documentary on monsanto and how they'll sue almost any small farm out of existence to gain control of seed lines.
MMZen 1 year ago
@MMZen How exactly do corporations use their "power and money" to crush smaller companies? If they became that powerful in the first place, they must be doing something right.
You never elaborated on how mosanto "sues" any small farm out existence. It seems to me like the problem here is more with government and a sketchy legal system, as opposed to capitalism itself. You have to cite damages to be able to sue someone.
LaughingMage 1 year ago
@LaughingMage
Are you really that fucking naive? You really don't think giant monopolistic companies can't or don't use their billions of dollars and army of lawyers to destroy a smaller company of they stand in their way? in most parts of the world you could have someone killed for a few hundred dollars...watch the movie "The Future Of Food"
MMZen 1 year ago
@MMZen Ah, but "monopolistic" is the thing here. Monopolies can only form with the help of the government. It's one of the laws of the free market. Like I said, you still don't elaborate on how these billions of dollars and armies of lawyers would be able to form a case to "destroy" a smaller company. Don't make a claim you can't back up.
You can get away with hired assassins in those parts of the world because of a failure of government. They are corrupt and won't police.
LaughingMage 1 year ago
Kind of brushed over the Standard Oil monopoly pretty fast.
shupp90 1 year ago
@shupp90 Standard Oil was not a monopoly! It's another myth people fall for. Standard Oil caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 5.9 cents by 1897 while stimulating an enormous amount of innovation in the industry. That is not the definition of monopoly.
cabgt 1 year ago
I usually like you Stossel... but Rockefellers a pretty evil dude man. Some of these guys aren't just businessmen. They have social goals and many are eugenicists that literally want to get rid of 80% of the world's population.
alistairproductions 1 year ago
the irony is, rockerfeller saved the whales. since he made oil cheap, whales didnt need to be killed for their oil
hint0122 1 year ago
@hint0122 a very valid point
toddviv 1 year ago
The Emergence Of Greed /watch?v=CjJE2R4sNUU
theemergenceofgreed1 1 year ago
Rockefeller was extremely evil Stossel, what the fuck?
fr0ber 1 year ago
@fr0ber He was evil because he made the lives of millions of people better? What are you smoking, you damn socialist?
vindician 1 year ago
@vindician Loool what? He corrupted politicians, blackmailed the entire congress by sending mail to every banker to threaten to cut support from politicians, his company Standard Oil gave Nazi Germany a method to raise their sovereign oil production from 600.000 tons to 8.500.000 tons (using coal), without which they could not have waged war. I know you think you're doing good, being liberal and supporting the free market is awesome, but please don't think you know more about the subject than I.
fr0ber 1 year ago
@fr0ber Keep your propaganda to yourself. But even if he did what you falsely claim he did, Rockefeller gave people an option to whale oil, which very few could afford, the lowered the price of kerosene by 90% and created thousands and thousands of new jobs. As far as the Nazis go, maybe you should think a few thoughts about what all your political heroes did to help Communism.
vindician 1 year ago
@vindician Keep my propaganda to myself? How would you like it if I praised Adolf Hitler on a public forum? Not that I am in any way comparing the works of Hitler to the works of JDR, but you get my point - you don't just tell someone to keep to himself. Rockefeller indeed offered people the option to buy oil - but that simply isn't all he did, whether you like it or not. And what the hell are you talking about my "political heroes"? "Communism"? What are you talking about?
fr0ber 1 year ago
@vindician I assume you are (based on your subscriptions to Dawkins, Paul, Hitchens and Stossel channels) an atheist, libertarian, free market supporter. I am myself all of those things, and as such do not disagree with you that someone who owns oil and sells it is an evil man -no matter the riches he gains from it on a free market- contrary to some peoples opinions. I am not simply a "hater" that's "gonna hate" as the meme refers to, but an hardcore opposer of governmental abuse in any form.
fr0ber 1 year ago
@fr0ber Lol I obviously ment "someone who owns oil and sells it isn't an evil man"
fr0ber 1 year ago
@fr0ber Agree he is evil as well as Bill Gates who funds world depopulation programs etc. However, in the business sense stricly speaking, he did do alot of good in terms of the market. By the same token, he hated competition calling it a "sin" and did let government help him in some cases = mercantalism.
cabgt 1 year ago
@cabgt I actually have no idea how you brought Bill Gates into this, he's an entrepreneur who made computers more accessible for businesses and homes, without state or government funding, entirely on the free market. John D. Rockefeller however abused government legislature, corrupted politicians, supported the Nazi warfare with his daughter companies and so forth, he was disgusting.
fr0ber 1 year ago
bill gates cash couldnt pay the interest on the rich euro trash families..Rockefellers are vvorth on paper 15 to 20 trillion....including thier 'tax exempt foundations' 100 trillion.....the Rothschilds 300 to 500 trillion....and the Catholic church beats em all!
treon123456 1 year ago
American white guy good. Black guy bad. Asian guy bad. Foreigner bad. Interesting choice of examples. "Everyone wins unless someone cheats." "Cheaters rarely get that rich." Thanks to the gutting of government oversight there is plenty of cheating going on and the cheaters are getting very rich indeed while the average hardworking and honest American sees his or her wages steadily decline.
MarcellaMarrin 1 year ago
@MarcellaMarrin You're a fucking idiot. Cheaters can get rich with or without government.
Capitalism is a fraud.
Average hardworking and honest people can succeed more in Finland than Hong Kong.
amazingyou1uber 1 year ago
Greed is Good and sleazy Democrats are the enemy
gopconservative78 1 year ago
@gopconservative78
If greed is good and the democrats are the enemy then how come it wasthe republicans who blocked the extention on unemployment benefits which equals out to merely 300 bucks aweek for the people in this country who are suffering the most????
THESExEYEZxDONTxLIE 1 year ago
@THESExEYEZxDONTxLIE It might be due to the fact that when the government collects money it is generally through taxes which means it should be spent on things that are in line with the role of the government which is a military to protect us police to enforce rule of law and a court system to settle disputes.
jddrafts 1 year ago
@jddrafts
Ha! We are in a pointless war. The legal system in this country has become a joke. And alot of these problems we have right now are because of our previous Republican president. Oh and in case you haven't noticed.. We are in a recession and starving american families should be a priority to our government. What he's talking about is incentive not greed. Incentive makes people do better. Greed crashes the stock market, ruins the gulf, and destroys the middle class.
THESExEYEZxDONTxLIE 1 year ago
@THESExEYEZxDONTxLIE Yes and the patriot act and the war is an example of gov't not acting in constitutional limits.
dukee155 1 year ago
Bill gates and rockafellar are simple cases of awful monopolies. Anyone that knows anything about these two will say that. Bill gates got lucky and rockafella is a documented crook.
MikDonsen 1 year ago
@MikDonsen Rockefeller needs to be taken out hes NWO scum.
GunsOfThePhoenix 1 year ago
@GunsOfThePhoenix yes he fucking does
scrapps212 1 year ago
Capitalism RoCkS!!!
manoman0 1 year ago 42
@manoman0 yea too bad its fading away, and so is our money
AroundSun 1 year ago
@manoman0 Yes, it rocks the core of the working man and exploits him.
BlakeBarbieDoll 1 year ago
@manoman0 You're an idiot. Capitalism does not "rock". Capitalism is how the top few percent own everything while the bottom 90+% gets left with nothing or next to it, fighting to make it day to day. That is, like said in the fantastic video above, a child's view of the way the world should work. There is MORE than enough resources for EVERYONE to be provided for, many times over.
Silvertaker 8 months ago
@Silvertaker you have just qualified yourself by calling names. have a good life.
manoman0 8 months ago
@Silvertaker
Why do you feel entitled to the wealth created by other people?
You say that the "bottom 90% gets left with nothing", which implies you believe the world is a zero-sum game. The first few seconds of this video, demonstrates how wealth can be CREATED. You are entitled to the wealth you create in a free market. Why do you insist on creating an arbirtary standard of living you believe everyone should live by?
TheShaniqua1992 8 months ago
@Silvertaker
You don't understand Capitalism.
TimeWarp66 7 months ago
@TimeWarp66 I understand it all too well. I also understand that we don't even -have- true capitalism, which would be laissrx-faire capitalism, free from state intervention. What we have is capitalism regulated by a government that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the corporate -and especially the military industrial- complex. This is why these pigs receive huge government bailouts instead of being allowed to succeed or fail on their own. We already HAVE wealth redistribution.
Silvertaker 7 months ago
Yes because nationstates got in the way. You get two cookies.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well there never has been free trade, it is a theory only. It has never been implemented anywhere in the world. Simply because it does not work.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
I think the problem is that you all are assuming that what we have in america is free trade. but it is not. There is so much government intervention that we cannot look at something in america and say "See free trade caused these problems" In reality its the lack of free trade that causes economic hardships.
DavidUmstattd 1 year ago
Wow this video sounds like it was sponsored by the US Chamber of Commerce, or one of those corporate sponsored Washington think tanks.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
Where is the need? Right now in our countries there are people who NEED food water and shelter. There is no problem in being rich it is when there is no philanthropy or charity to follow. Some may define this as socialist, so be it.
rainbowspite222 1 year ago
Gates minipulated the H!B Visa program in order to employ emigrants at half the cost of domestic college graduates. He went before congress and ask for inlimited use of H1B visas.
Theis video is scewed toward the 2% of the populations. It is the typical laissez faire free trade, Friedman cult gospel, they keep preaching it in spite of the physical edidence it doesn't work. Look around at the country the evidence is in, free trade does not work, it is global socialism masqueraded as free trade.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
if you don't like freidman try bastiat or voltaire.
if it's global socialism masqueraded as free trade then how can you say it's evidence against free trade? wouldn't the mask mean it's evidence against socialism?
natdavi 1 year ago
no, global socialism cannot exist without the tenets of free trade.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
no argument there
but free trade can and does exist without global socialism. it exists anytime you trade anything with a friend or neighbor. that evidence is not only plentiful but easy to replicate.
so why condemn free trade & not condemn global socialism or fascism or imperialism or any of the other evils sucking the life out of what's good in the world?
natdavi 1 year ago
I condemn free trade, as the vehicle that is driving global socialism. I condemn them both and all the other isms. Globalism is more dangerous than all the other isms put together.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
lol!
I reject your rejection-ISM! haha! do you also reject nihilism & defeatism?
free trade is not a vehicle driving socialism, socialism is a stow-away & hijacker.
free trade results in plentiful food which can be stolen by an invader to feed his rampaging army. would you blame farmers for the invasion?
natdavi 1 year ago
Free trade displaces local farmers, who cannot compete with giant agribusinesses. Free trade destroys domestic industries, by employing subsistance labor in one hemisphere and shipping the product globally without reguard for the small farmer or those employed in domestic industries, who feeds his family off the produce he raises or earns in the local business.
Free trade produces common wages, common lifestyles. Destroys national borders, produces common ethnicity. Save the Anologies please.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
what destruction? Cattlemen in Brazil don't burn barns in France, they merely win customers: the people who shop for and buy their products. where is your regard for them? or the "subsistence" laborers who've chosen to "subsist" a little better than they were before?
no one forces these people to trade with one another. Do you propose to stop them for the sake of your national border and ethnicity?
in your rejection of all "isms" you seem to have neglected nationalism and racism...
natdavi 1 year ago
Frenchmen can't raise cattle, The people who shop and buy their products, are forced to buy them. The subsistence laborers do not live better, they live worse because the giant agribusinesses of the industrialized world is selling at proces they cannot compete with.
Yes they are forced to trade with one another. Here in the U.S. we simply do not make consumer goods, everything in the stores is made in some third world country.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
don't insult your fellow Americans with comments like "we don't make consumer goods". obviously you don't make anything, but I've a blazer w/a tag that says "made in U.S.A."
and don't insult Frenchmen by saying they can't do something. They can and they do, but it costs more for them. they can adapt or go bankrupt. they're free to choose.
So who forces Brazilians to leave the slums & cane fields to raise cattle? who's forcing ppl to eat at Fogo de Chao?
natdavi 1 year ago
You must have gotten the blazer at the Goodwill, because our textile industry has long since went to those .20/hr labor markets. I don't mean textiles alone we literally don't make anything. We have a trillion dollar trade deficit thanks to free trade. When I said (Frenchmen Can't raise cattle) was, was a queation in response to you saying that Brazilian Cattle farmers win French customers.If Frenchmen buy Brazilian Beef it is because they don't have a choice, or don't know the country of origi
louiethegreater 1 year ago
Free trade forces folks off the family farms and into the cane fields and slums. Brazilians burn down the rain forest to raise cattle for export to McDonalds, the average Brazilian cannot afford the beef raised in their own country. The working class in Brazil does not eat a Fago de Chao's those places are reserved for the upper class. Rich Brazilians who are content with making their fortunes off the backs of the poor and powerless.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
now you're just making things up to support your position.
stereotypical american: making assumptions about people you know almost nothing of based on your own prejudice.
case in point: McDonald's is one of the more expensive places to find beef in brazil, but average & even poor people still eat there. just less often.
I'd like to continue the convo, hwvr it's getting too deep for video comments so I'll send you a YTmail
natdavi 1 year ago
No i'me not making things up, everything I am saying is common knowledge. It is common knowledge that Brazil and Argentinia are burning down the rain forest in order to support the American hamburber market.
I don't know what you are talking about concerning McDonalds. I never mentioned McDonalds in the context of Brazil, I mentioned it in the context of Brazil's export only.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
BAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! "Solar-powered clothes dryer!" OMG! That was BRILLIANT!!! And you can't even get them on false advertisement!
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
I think the Wall Street quote was taken out of context. If you watch that section of the movie, what he goes on to say is "I produce nothing, I own everything" since Michael Douglas' character is an investment banker. Kinda true, imo. I'm not pro enough to tell what the free market solution there is, but that's a field where people make money without producing anything. Guess it can be argued that they fund producers?
nochtis 2 years ago
You have to understand that high reward investing involves high risk...the Wall Street guy was essentially a cheater....he used "boilier rooms" and penny stock scams...difference from investing in a small cap China company....becoming a millionaire...or losing your shirt.
Gyrode 1 year ago
John stossel is fake, he gets you to think that he is getting all the questions you want answered. and asking the questions you think you wanted to ask. don't be fooled by this fake corporate media programs and news. to get to the truth, you need to research facts on your own. not what these puppets who are controlled by the power elite tell you is truth.
trubornagain 2 years ago
don't be fooled. greed, covetousness, that's what evil people do, they put a spin on things to get you to buy into their philosophy, agenda, etc. and make you say, hey, i guess they do have a point. it's the small independent businesses that employ the majority. these corporate people destroy the american way of life. remember zero sum game?
trubornagain 2 years ago
getting rich on lower prices is spin?
zero sum is from mercantilism, not capitalism
natdavi 1 year ago
I have allways thought greed was a great thing.
nero8289 2 years ago