So many fallacies, this is propaganda at its finest (read edward burnays book)
ignores these countries are former colonies, health care decreases with wealth inequality, uses 1000% of todays spending (compress 75 years into 1), false extrapolation of debt rates. using public sector growth until 2009, and only highlighting unemployment after 2009. lists compliance costs, for example preserving renewable resources, instead of compliance related employment.
@aceone1988 your fears of de-regulation are partially misguided in the type of deregulation. There's a balance there to be found of eliminating the compliance regulations that crush small business and entrants to the market. Corporations are able to manipulate the system because they lobby for legislation that favors them. The regulations that they want are mainly compliance type things, they force smaller competitors to keep up with standards that are bloated and unnecessary in most cases.
This video is a Trojan horse for the corporations the problem is not regulation it's the lake of regulation & income inequality. All those country's that are above the US in the economic freedom chart including Canada has more regulations then the US, Swaziland is a socialist nation that means a lot of regulation & it's ranked much higher then Canada, regulation is put in place so the rich don't screw you over. Regulations stops company's for shipping job overseas & banks from corrupt practices.
@aceone1988 Regulation creates monopolies because the expense is a barrier to competition. Banking is the most regulated industry in the US and there are now six banks that account for 60%+ of GDP, which is real scary when you consider that they contribute little of real value to the economy and certainly do not improve the employment situation (although they have certainly improved the income for a few politically well-connected).
If it weren't for all of the innocent people who were murdered by Stalin, I would find it laughable that the Koch Bros, who owe their wealth to their daddy helping Stalin nationalize Russian oil would dare to make a video tauting freedom.
The Koch Bros are corporatists, not capitalists. What they call 'free market' is actually government controlled monopolies where they control the government and reap the profits of limited competition. These theories were precursers to Facsism in the 30's.
@Wikipunani "The entire fall of America was planned and executed dilligently for decades". I actually don't think so,, look at former sovjet (communism). I don't thing Lenins goal was to destroy, starve and exterminate 100 million people from the beginning.
The policy doesn't work,, it is just like with Central Economic Planning,, IT DOESN'T WORK. Central Banking doesn't work because it is top down control on the marked,, and NOT bottom up (like a free marked is).
In 1929 the stock-market crashed and the US plummeted into a deprecation and took the entire world with it. It took 10 years, and one global war, to restore the world economy.
Following the deprecation, regulatory laws and bills were passed to prevent the stock-market players from repeating what they did in 1929.
It took 80 years - Law after law, bill by bill, were removed and the market became more and more "free" - and what did we got in return?
@picabu5 Correctly; the 1929 crash happened due to cheap credit from the Fed skewing investment in the market. The crash was the correction to the misaligned investment. The gov't intervened and prolonged the correction, even caused another mini-depression, and drug it out until WW2. After the war's end, capital and capital goods were finally freed up to invest into the starved private sector starting the biggest stint of economic growth in U.S. history.
It is the gov't and Fed's intervention into the market that causes boom and busts. We do not have free markets in the United States. We have a form of mercantilism known as corporatism where those close to the power structure are favored over those who are not. Most regulation of the economy involve things such as monopoly rights, licensing restrictions, rent controls, price controls and trade controls. Big business actually doesn't like free competition in the market.
@dschatsky You know, the government is not a profit making machine right? All money comes from taxpayers. So the more the govt spends, the more money leave the economy, and the more the tax payers pay, etc. The GOVT mutes unemployment #'s by only classifying you as unemployed if you receive socialist benefits. Millions don't qualify as unemployed that are off the list. The govt kills the private sector every time, because govt spending = taxes, and taxes = economic downturn.
All you need to know about this video is contained in the final assertion: that the current high rate of unemployment in the U.S. is due to high government spending. There is absolutely no basis for that statement. The high rate of unemployment is due to a recession caused by a financial sector crisis. Government spending has demonstrably muted the unemployment numbers.
Great production. 81,000 pages of regulations. Geez. It is time to get the f**king government out of our lives in in their proper place. They are public SERVANTS, nothing more. Their "rule" is up. ~Chris
@Atrack212 Also that is a false dichotomy. Because you are not in favor of state regulations, does not mean you are in favor of banks stealing from the wealth of the population. Free market liberalism is absolutely in conflict with state imposed monopolies, like national banks and monopolistic investment firms. As long as the state has the power to regulate these industries, they will be bought off and they will pick the winners (banks) and throw the losers (you and I) under the bus.
@Atrack212 Understanding the current crisis and market economies?... fail. The root of any corruption is the gun. Does BOA have guns? Does Goldman have guns? Who controls the guns, prisons, and laws? The government does. At least, focus you anger toward the actual culprit. Its funny how the state caused this whole problem of inviting malinvestment with perverse incentives and subsidized loss, and now people are calling to give it MORE power to do the very same. Baffling.
Why do people take propaganda materials like this seriously anyways? Not that regulation is good, but proving that regulations cause a lower standard of living would require huge academic research.
@1tephania Understanding logical fallacies...FAIL? The Logical Fallacy you are describing applies to isolated observations. If an observation is repeatable using the same criteria, it can be assumed it is systemic. Granted more research and proof is required to make it law. In economics, most variables are impossible to quantify. Here logic and reason need to be employed if one wishes to understand the real world, and not just a model. Your argument also attempts to discredit science.
Have you not even heard of ceteris paribus? We may assume causation only if the observation is repeatable under the same conditions, and tweaking one variable leads to a result that is predicted by the hypothesis. Gzillion factors other than government spending come into the play. Who's to say that the rise of BRIC countries, and not regulations, is the real reason behind America losing competitiveness? Why not even consider other factors?
That's why this vid is propaganda. Because it already made up its mind before even presenting evidence, so there's obviously going to be some agenda setting here. In fact, the video only has one argument against gov't regulation, and that's "Richest countries rank high on economic freedom, dirt poor African countries don't". Uh, I am pretty sure African countries are poor for more important reasons such as civil war or general lack of structured civil governance.
@1tephania Well, you made up your mind (I'm sure, before you even watched this video)... and you presented no evidence at all for your argument, just assumptions. I guess that means by your own standards, your comment is even more full of propaganda than this video, huh?
Do you even hear when you talk? Pointing out the logical fallacies in an argument is not the same as making a counter-argument against it.
And since I have not made any argument such as 'regulations are good for the economy!', while this video has made the exact opposite argument and is trying to convince people to its point of view, the burden of proof lies on this video, not I.
@1tephania I wasn't talking about you pointing out logical fallacies.
"African countries are poor for more important reasons such as civil war or general lack of structured civil governance." You don't back that up with any actual facts or even direct it at any specific country. You make an assumption.
And you ignore the fact that this is a SERIES of videos, each focusing on different aspects and details, with more videos to come. How much did you expect in something less than 3 minutes long?
This is also why the decent thing to do for people making videos like this, is to look at as many factors and evidences as possible and present them all, as opposed to presenting one or two.
@1tephania Interesting points. Is Mauritius considered part of Africa? Data had been taken from all parts of the globe, while not exclusive, is a fairly adequate sampling. As I said before, economics is a very abstract social science, most of its variables are impossible to quantify, so one needs to employ logic and reason. Is violence universally preferable? No. Then logically the universally preferable social interaction would be voluntarism, or in other words, economic and social freedom.
@aseredy Admittedly, that is nonsequiter logic, but given the 255 character limit, forgivable. In short; violence = immoral, the state = violent, therefore the state = immoral. Any action taken by the state, beyond the defense of it citizen's rights is immoral because it's members must necessarily employ violence, or the threat of, to achieve the objectives. This includes wealth redistribution, education, economic regulation, social regulation, and most military action.
i would consider minimum wage a good example of regulation and it can easily be shown to lower societies standard of living... or did they not teach you that one at your "liberal" university?
There are certain myths about our economy. The first is that our government prints most of the money in circulation. Wrong...private commercial banks do.
@truevoice08 FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING DOES NOT NEED A CENTRAL BANK, but a central banks help them in their quest for a monopoly. Remember Andrew Jackson did away with the central bank but look at the latter part of the 1800s and particularly during the civil war years with Abraham Lincoln. Recession after recession. The only way that a recession could occur is if there is not enough money circulating.
@se7ensnakes You obviously did not read the article. If you did, you could reinterpret the history you've been taught in government school in light of economic logic.
@truevoice08 I have many of Rothbards PDF books and read them, none of them say that fractional reserve banking need a central bank. When FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING was first discovered...THERE WAS NO CENTRAL BANK. The central bank is only necessary to consolidate the banks authority. The central bank is used to bankrupt smaller independent banks so they could be bought up by a few insider banks.
@se7ensnakes You're now resorting to intellectual dishonesty. You can beat your chest in outrage against indisputable economic truth and bitch about "the rich" but to be dishonest is different. Surely, you leftists are better than that.
There are certain myths about our economy. The first is that private commercial banks create most of the money in circulation. This is called fractional reserve banking. So no matter what happens, if we dont go into debt, there will not be any money. debt = money. The banks create the money for loans. This is where most of our money come from, from people borrowing money. This scheme called fractional reserve banking have given these bankers immense money and power.
This video is more rich man propaganda. Our debt is caused by wars & the wealthiest Americans paying the lowest taxes in decades. Regulations are important because they protect people against predatory capitalism. For example if a chemical plant decides to move in next door there is no way the community or the individual could pay the court costs to protect you. The predatory capitalism will always have deeper pockets thus justice goes to the highest bidder. Don't be fooled by this video.
This video is more rich man propaganda. Our debt is caused by the wars and the wealthiest Americans paying the lowest taxes in decades. Regulations are important because they protect people against predatory capitalism. For example if a chemical plant decides to move in next door there is no way the community or the individual could pay the court costs to protect you. The predatory capitalism will always have deeper pockets thus justice goes to the highest bidder. Don't be fooled by this video.
@yummyorganic This video really does not get to the core of the problem, but perhaps the next episode will. One thing is certain, more taxes even to the rich will not solve the problem. And I agree, do we need to dump the planet to sustain our way of living. But you are entirely wrong about "OUR DEBT". The fact is that this country is under a small group of very powerful and dominant man. And they have set up a debt system.
@yummyorganic "Our debt is caused by the wars" and the welfare state "...and the wealthiest Americans paying the lowest taxes in decades" so its always the fault of those who are coerced to give money to the State and never the fault of the spenders?!? Nice logic bro. As for regulations, let's just increase it by another 81,000 pages. I'm sure that will work.
Is this what's taught in government school these days? That government is a cornucopia to all our problems?
Funny how video excluded scandinavia, germany where the poorest earn more than many of the countries on the left, yet have "less economic freedoms". what these people call economic freedom is just another word for corporate socialism.
countries on the left had not had a war on their soil in past 100 years. countries on the right have had almost constant wars sans Venezuela. economic freedom is not the sole reason. war is the major culprit of stagnant growth and low life span.
to viewers of this video, you can keep drinking the GOP koolaid, or you can watch this video and see the REAL reason we're at where we're at... youtube video "JTzMqm2TwgE"
@Noriko23 those pages of regulation include enormous amounts of deregulation. that's why these videos are so successful; they present incomplete facts such as this to make stupid people feel like they're getting smarter. whether regulations are getting stricter or more lenient, the changes are going to be recorded on pages of "regulations" in whatever book this dumbass video was referencing. so more pages does NOT equal more regulation.
in short: the recession was caused by deregulation.
@eisenschiml regulation is just a nice word to say you're taking away someones freedom. the government exists to protect us from force and fraud, not so you can tell other people how to live their life. recession caused by deregulation is utter bullshit. it was caused by the business cycle, interest rates, the fed, fanny mae and freddie mac and the housing bubble. stop getting your news from the daily show and you might learn something.
@boristhepython LOL as if you know where I get my news from. as if your skewed view of the world determines what the word "regulation" means. think about this: this video is full of shit. "economic freedom" isn't a real thing, and if it WERE a real thing, and actually meant deregulation like this video would have you believe, don't you think third world countries with completely unregulated economies would be ranked above the United States on the list? YOU ARE BEING HAD. USE YOUR BRAIN.
@eisenschiml ....ahhhh idiot?...hello? Those third world countries lack the things that make the first world work...like private property rights,limited rights protecting governments, the rule of objective law etc etc....Without these things the prosperity that capitalism crates cannot occur.
@eisenschiml that's the entire point of the video, the countries that are the poorest have the LEAST economic freedom, which means they have the MOST government intervention into their economy. Economic freedom is very real and very important. Look at marijuana, it is an product people demand, but the government has decided to prohibit the use and give no legitimate explanation as to why the government gets to decide if I can choose to smoke. Economic freedom is as important as any other freedom
@boristhepython yes i get the point of the video and i'm telling you it is a straight up fabrication and is making you look like a damn fool for buying into it. the poorest countries have the freest markets, not the most restrictive. i do agree with you that there is no legit reason for marijuana to be illegal, and also for economic reasons, but what you're missing is that the market for pot is freer than it would be if it were legalized, and that's a bad thing because it creates no revenue.
@eisenschiml you're calling me a damn fool, but you're so brain washed you actually believe it's a bad thing that the government isn't getting revenue for cannabis sales. Why is giving money to the government supposed to be a good thing? taxation is theft. Period. It's not their money they didn't work for it. Find a country that their government largely supports free markets and is poor - Somalia is not an option because they have literally zero government, and I do not advocate that.
@boristhepython there are plenty of countries with incredibly free economies but very little money. they all rank incredibly low on the Economic Freedom Index because the Economic Freedom Index is a complete joke that by default ranks richer countries as more free and poorer countries as less free. basically, it's a trick of math that falsely links successful economies to contrived measures of freedom. also, "taxation is theft" is wrong. thieves don't provide infrastructure/services.
@eisenschiml ..What countries are these that have "incredibly free economies" but very little money? A free economy in the true free market sense means having a strong but small and limited state to referee any acts of force or fraud occurring within it. Free market Capitalism is not anarchy.
@Riellysdad it's incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to have such a strong (albeit small) government WITHOUT already having a developed economy. see what i'm getting at here? your definition of "economically free" INCLUDES the idea of being economically strong. thus every example is going to fit the model, but not because the model says a lot, rather because it says nothing. it's like freudian analysis: it's universal nature exposes it as a fraud, no a stroke of genius.
@eisenschiml you didn't answer my question, and taxation is theft, regardless of what it is spent on you don't get to CHOOSE to pay for it, nor does one have a choice of which services to pay for. I would much rather pay a toll to get on a road then trust the government to build and maintain it because then i can make the choice of which roads i want to support with my hard earned money.
@eisenschiml and instead of welfare i'd prefer a system where there was NO government wealth distributions and private charities would quickly pick up the tab, and people would actually have funds to give because they would keep more of their money and have the CHOICE to support a particular charity. And if it truly cannot be done privately, it should be done by the states. It is immoral to make me, in Delaware, pay for your medicaid in Arizona.
@boristhepython i don't think there are many sociologists or economists that truly believe that private means would "pick up the tab" if compulsory social programs were disbanded. that's just not realistic. and your entire argument is based on the misguided belief that property rights are absolute, which is incredibly rarely held outside the libertarian camp, and is a very real moral and philosophical mark against libertarianism. so, in summation, "that's just like, your opinion, man."
@eisenschiml how are property rights not absolute? You did not come to my place of employment and help me do my job today you are also not entitled to tell me what the money I earn should be spent on and how much I deserve to keep. When people believe what you believe that means the majority can make any rule or steal anything it wants. The reason it can't is our government is limited to the constitution.
@boristhepython property rights feel absolute with an egocentric worldview, but that's not how the world works. all property derives its value from a natural resource, and that resource cannot legitimately be claimed by any one person, being natural. so money that you worked for, at best, is partially owned by whoever pays it to you, in the moral sense. so yes, legally you own it, but your moral claim to it is incomplete. that's why taxation is a moral imperative, not theft.
@eisenschiml Bullshit.....the banking sector was regulated up the whazoo......under Clinton it was made law that banks had to make loans to bad risk minorities that were never going to be able to pay them back. Do learn some facts...
@Riellysdad and under clinton our economy was stronger than under any other president in recent history. go figure. and then Bush deregulated like crazy. And every act of deregulation that occurred, i guarantee you, is included in those 81,000 pages of 'regulations' that you are supposed to pop an anger-boner over. it's not like regulation takes up pages and deregulation somehow destroys them.
@eisenschiml ...Right.....go look at the video again...Bush doubled the debt so that will not have "deregulated anything. The Dems and the Reps are basically the same party....both spend like madmen and have indebted the US to chronic levels.
@Riellysdad i hope that winky face is for like "i understand that what i said made no actual sense; thank you for enlightening me" or "i concede that we have irreconcilable differences in our understanding of economics and social values" and that you're not actually trying to insinuate that i didn't understand something about you regurgitating buzz words interchangeably as if they don't actually have real meanings in the english language. allay my worst fears, please.
@se7ensnakes like what happens when a lack of oversight allows the financial sector to systematically bet against lower-working class mortgage-holders until it collapses under the weight of its own internal contradictions and all of those families are bankrupt and all of those bankers keep the money and put it in their mattresses while their companies have done under and no longer employ workers?
recessions ARE insufficient monetary circulation. that's the definition, not the cause.
I don't get it. How is "economic freedom" being defined? Fewer rules on corporations? That's not economic freedom, that's just deregulation. Economic freedom is the ability for individuals (not corporations) to move among economic classes. As corporations have grown wealthier, the economic divide has grown, plain and simple.
Awesome video! Finally, a criterion that explains that socialist policies like big spending cause a mega decline in economic freedom! That's why Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Finland with big government spending/social democracies are ranked so low... as the 8th, 17th, most economically free nations in the world... ummm... yeah
Friggen EPA keeping our water and air clean... dont they know businesses would do this without regulation? Like Koch industries putting 900 times the legal limits of benzine in the air and reporting it was 0.6% of normal levels... and the banks dont need regulation either...wallstreet would do so much better too...
@ushtemanushteunchaga Mega problem is that companies get away with this stuff--and you are right, companies do this stuff indeed--but the problem is that these same companies who get away with this are the same ones who finance politicians and influence legislation to write their own regulations which puts them above law and consequence. Best example is the private federal reserve which was written by Wall Street banksters, who financed Wilson's campaign who signed the Fed into law
@LordoftheKaty I agree completely. Until we can separate the money from the politicians the people will never truly be represented. I am taxed without representation because I cant afford a lobbyist.
Even if I give you the environmental side of regulation that doesn't justify economic regulation. No need to throw up a straw man. I won't tilt at it. One fact I will point out, the greater the economic standing of a city, county, state or nation, the greater the concern the people, and through them the companies they buy from and the politicians that claim to represent them, for the state of the environment. Simple hierarchy of needs.
@KaelinSaint my only points were that companies need regulating from environmental and economic aspects. Their goal is to make money, not protect people/environments. No straw man intended. I don't understand your associating hierarchy of needs to the regulations of Goldman Sachs, Koch Brothers, Bank of America, et al.. care to elaborate?
Yeah, hierarchy of needs. Basically, if your standard of living is so low you struggle to feed, clothe and house yourself you don't care about the environment. This means the higher your standard of living, the more likely you are to have the time or inclination to care about the environment. Economic regulations and taxes slow or reverse growth in the standard of living. This means people will become less likely to care about the environment, a bad thing all around.
I would also contend that consumers have been the drive behind companies becoming more environmentally sound than any of the governments regulations or punishments. A great example would be New Belgium Brewery. With no pressure from the government they started and became increasingly environmentally friendly. People liked that and have made them the 8th largest brewer in the US. Guess who a few years ago decided to become more green? Coors. Consumer choice works there too
@KaelinSaint I see and kind of agree with what you are saying, but have doubts on the direct correlation between more income = greener choices. As for regulations, I still believe that companies need regulations otherwise they would not operate with integrity in regards to racism, sexism, environmental health, or employee health. The businesses weren't until regulations were enacted. As for taxes, tax businesses just like the "people" they supposedly are...
You are right that more income doesn't necessarily mean one will make greener choices. But lower income practically guarantees that they won't. Wealthier people eat healthier, exercise more, are more concerned about the environment, mainly because they can be. Markets were fixing racism, sexism and health and safety issues without government regulation. In fact, government regulation either did nothing or made those issues worse. You can't tax businesses, simple fact.
On or before Nov 5th, if You have a financial account with one of the Big 6 criminal banks, or there Affiliate's. I Admonish you to close your account, Take you money OUT. Put ALL your money, checking, savings, and investments in a Smaller Independent bank, or Local credit union.
Put your Money where you Mouth is, not there Pockets. If you Oppose what them, do not let blood money-ed hands, play with your cash
@MilwaukeeF40C ....waling into the ER with almost no knowledge of the procedures they're asking for, yet since it's forwarded to their insurance, they hardly have the reason to look for it.
@MilwaukeeF40C like I said, I'm in favor of more transparency. If we input better incentives (both for patients and doctors), our healthcare system can get much better. The main issue is that there is almost no comprehensive, data-driven healthcare system because doctors aren't given the incentive to coordinate. Only to provide billable procedures. I can agree with you, that patients should be enabled to pay for themselves, and to know what they pay for. You get too many instances of people wal
@MiluakeeF40C this resulted in wage increased of 33%, and better healthcare and unemployment benefits. Unions only took up about 1/3 of businesses though, because as you said, it ended up being competition that motivated them to implement better rights. But it can still be drawn back to the precedent set forward by the Federal government.
@MilwaukeeF40C most of these concessions were made under Harry Truman's presidency actually, like the one where wages were increased by 33% for most laborers. It was things like these that were pushed by the federal government, that placed great demand for employment in businesses, provided more disposable income for workers, and ended up leading to a fair amount of economic prosperity and responsible business management.
@MiluakeeF40C And I also addressed the point made on benefits. The basis for these healthcare/labor standards was established by the government when it made corporations provide concessions to laborers in the 1940s.
@DrOst. There is nothing requiring an employer to provide health insurance or most other benefits. They do so because benefits are taxed very little compared to wages. FDR's labor concessions were unconstitutional and most were repealed.
@DrOst. Medical providers are able to easily bill for unnecessary procedures because insurance pays for it, with the cost hidden from the consumer. This happens when ins. policies are required to cover anything and everything, and increases costs for those who don't have insurance. Things like regular medical tests, dental, prescriptions, and minor injuries would be cheaper if consumers payed for them directly. Insurance should be for major emergencies and illnesses only, with high deductibles.
@MilwaukeeF40C America spends the greatest amount of money on it's healthcare than any other nation in the world, yet we can't even insure every American citizen. While there should definitely be more transparency and competition in how our healthcare is managed, we need to redo the payment incentives for our doctors. ER physicians are incentivized to simply administer a billable procedure to their patients than provide actual care. You think regulations drive up costs? Just look at the amount
@AriesLudzik I will watch the video, and recognize that it makes no mention to Norway, a country with an extremely high standard of living, and is also under huge amounts of state/community ownership. Look up Norway yourself, and question this channel's lack of mention towards it.
@MilwaukeeF40C I did say discretionary. You are correct that entitlement programs are a massive part of overall government spending. Of course, SS is funded through its own tax and should not, in my opinion, be included in discussions about spending increases. SS could be maintained with fairly minor modifications, whether by means testing or by increasing the maximum taxable amounts. US health system is all broken; I believe we need universal basic coverage.
@brikelike I really don't care if social security can be maintained or not. It is a direct transfer of my labor to others and it should some day be eliminated, keeping in mind those who were already forced to give up their resources to it. I would stop paying in to it now if I could and I expect nothing from it. People are capable of making their own investments.
@MilwaukeeF40C I am glad you feel so confident about your ability to invest in the marketplace. I feel fairly savvy about such matters but have a ten year return of just over 3.3% on my investments (that is not average annual return, but total return). IMHO iit is not a direct transfer of your labor to others, unless you truly have so little confidence in the future of our nation as to believe SS will not exist in the future to repay you with interest. You may be right but I hope you are wrong.
@Milwaukee You honestly think that leaving healthcare in the hands of the doctors is better than making more changes to our for-profit incentives? Healthcare in the US is awful, and it's not because it's been manipulated by the government. And do you know who organized the 1963 march on the Lincoln memorial? The socialist A. Philip Randolph. It was also followers of Karl Marx who helped to energize the abolition of slavery, and end the reign of greedy profiteering by southern slave owners.
@DrOst. Medical services are made less available because the gov does not allow it to operate as a market. Insurance should be for major expense emergencies only but companies are required to pay for routine things that should be cheap enough for people to pay for out of pocket. Gov health boards restrict the number of doctors, facilities, and technology available in a given area. FDA regulations increase the cost of medicine. Regulation is the cause of high prices. Still better than UK and Ca.
@DrOst. Labor benefits and "the middle class" are often credited to unionization but the truth is that all of these things are a RESULT of prosperity due to the free market and protection of property rights and individual rights. Wealth mobility and purchasing power come from individual liberty, not forceful transfers of wealth. As for public roads (and all infrastructure), public education, and medical services, all of these things have been massively manipulated and made less efficient by gov.
@MilwaukeeF40C It was also a federal incentive that led to the wages, benefits, and overall standards for laborers increasing. Corporations decried the idea of providing their laborers with such basic healthcare benefits and payment increases as "UnAmerican socialism." It was in the post-WWII years when this was happening, and economic prosperity increased as a result of lower-class commoners getting more disposable income with their wages and healthcare benefits increasing.
@DrOst. Someone else already addressed your benefits point. Companies offered benefits to attract more productive workers, and because benefits are a form of compensation for labor that is less prone to taxation than pure wages. Higher wages and more benefits were made possible simply because the wealth became available to do so, because of economic growth. The problem with healthcare as benefit is that it hides the true costs of health and people demand too much from it, raising overall costs.
@MilwaukeeF40C I'm not necessarily arguing that the government is the unyielding hand that will guide us all. Not at all. I hate teachers unions, governments intervention in our public school system (which I admit needs fixing), and I am all for forms of competition in our free market, which could be hampered by our federal government. A lot of our current problems can be pointed towards our governments inability to apply the right amount of regulation at the right spot.
@MilwaukeeF40C But it doesn't appear that the history of socialist principles, of every individual making personal sacrifices to benefit the community, has been acknowledged. Where would your private businesses be without the law enforcement, electricity and water plants, and public education services all provided by our federal government? I admit that they are all in need of a lot of fixing, but the basis of all of this prosperity you keep mentioning is built off of this foundation.
@DrOst. The civil rights movement actually has a strong foundation from classical liberalism- the opposite of socialism. Activists like Frederick Douglas used ideas of self ownership and property rights to promote freedom. Moorfield Storey, Lysander Spooner, Louis Marshall, and Theodore Howard are more examples of civil rights leaders you never heard of because they don't fit your collectivist worldview. Institutionalized racism has a lot of progressive style social control behind it.
Since most discretionary government spending is for the miltary, isn't the response a drastic reduction in our military and military expenses around the world? we spend as much as the rest of the world combined on our military and it represents the biggest increase in government since 2001.
I completely understand why you'd disown Mr.57 States.
Wow, this is how desperate you've become that you're now using Lincoln of all people to support the failed ideology of socialism. That would be akin to using Fidel Castro as the standard bearer for advancing human rights.
Nice try. Socialism has had a horrible track record of ruining people's lives and making everyone who lives under such a system miserable. Watch the video and ask yourself why some countries are so poor
Everyone should shut the hell up about the name Koch. There is no logic in using it to attack the message of this video or of groups that have received donations. I don't recall ever being affected by something called Koch. Meanwhile things called GM, GE, banks, unions, and all kinds of other shit keep taking my money with help from the government. If Koch is expending their own money and resources to call this crap out, I say good. Screw democracy, maximum individual freedom is better.
Why do people keep mentioning the Koch Foundation? This video is supported by data and it doesn't matter who funds this. Why is that so hard to see?
I have never seen any real arguments against free-market in the comments, only the same bullshit story that this is false because it is funded by Koch. Damn it, check the data if you think it's false.
Some decent statistics. Yet it is a Koch Foundation funded video. Koch Brothers are neo-conservative/Ultra conservative billionaires. They care not for democracy or a truly free market they certainly do not give a damn about the environment or carcinogenic pollution. Follow the money.
Comment removed
mgrey24 22 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
checkout L.C. johnson problems of the world to hear the real dirt
PlayazOfLife 1 week ago
So many fallacies, this is propaganda at its finest (read edward burnays book)
ignores these countries are former colonies, health care decreases with wealth inequality, uses 1000% of todays spending (compress 75 years into 1), false extrapolation of debt rates. using public sector growth until 2009, and only highlighting unemployment after 2009. lists compliance costs, for example preserving renewable resources, instead of compliance related employment.
endomorphosis 2 weeks ago 2
Why don't you include the stupid URL in the comments instead of a lame facebook link?
zacharycollier 2 weeks ago
If you pinch the rich, it is the poor who feels the squeeze
killerbee2k 3 weeks ago
how can they compare venezuela with congo.
virconsin 3 weeks ago
This is pure propaganda!!!
304desmond 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So I just thought I'd throw this in real quick...
RON PAUL FOR PRES
NikoVlogsGud 1 month ago
Comment removed
NikoVlogsGud 1 month ago
@aceone1988 your fears of de-regulation are partially misguided in the type of deregulation. There's a balance there to be found of eliminating the compliance regulations that crush small business and entrants to the market. Corporations are able to manipulate the system because they lobby for legislation that favors them. The regulations that they want are mainly compliance type things, they force smaller competitors to keep up with standards that are bloated and unnecessary in most cases.
dbraddillon 1 month ago
This video is a Trojan horse for the corporations the problem is not regulation it's the lake of regulation & income inequality. All those country's that are above the US in the economic freedom chart including Canada has more regulations then the US, Swaziland is a socialist nation that means a lot of regulation & it's ranked much higher then Canada, regulation is put in place so the rich don't screw you over. Regulations stops company's for shipping job overseas & banks from corrupt practices.
aceone1988 1 month ago
@aceone1988 Regulation creates monopolies because the expense is a barrier to competition. Banking is the most regulated industry in the US and there are now six banks that account for 60%+ of GDP, which is real scary when you consider that they contribute little of real value to the economy and certainly do not improve the employment situation (although they have certainly improved the income for a few politically well-connected).
matahaari in reply to aceone1988 (Show the comment) 2 weeks ago
Nice work
MegaZarada 2 months ago
If it weren't for all of the innocent people who were murdered by Stalin, I would find it laughable that the Koch Bros, who owe their wealth to their daddy helping Stalin nationalize Russian oil would dare to make a video tauting freedom.
The Koch Bros are corporatists, not capitalists. What they call 'free market' is actually government controlled monopolies where they control the government and reap the profits of limited competition. These theories were precursers to Facsism in the 30's.
mrzeman1 2 months ago
How can anybody dispute this? This is how it is, the facts are right there.
masoncurry1 2 months ago
We owe it to our soldiers to fix our country. They died for it.
Charlie12241 3 months ago
@Charlie12241 absolutely!
IMBIDHITTER in reply to Charlie12241 (Show the comment) 3 months ago
What are the chances of the brainwashed drones ever being impacted by the truth so artfully communicated in this media presentation.
As Yuri Bezmenov -- ex Ideological Subversion agent for the KGB -- warned us, the individual that has been "demoralized" is almost beyond hope.
I adjure you to watch Bezmenov's interview on utube.
The entire fall of America was planned and executed dilligently for decades
Wikipunani 3 months ago in playlist More videos from EconFree
@Wikipunani "The entire fall of America was planned and executed dilligently for decades". I actually don't think so,, look at former sovjet (communism). I don't thing Lenins goal was to destroy, starve and exterminate 100 million people from the beginning.
The policy doesn't work,, it is just like with Central Economic Planning,, IT DOESN'T WORK. Central Banking doesn't work because it is top down control on the marked,, and NOT bottom up (like a free marked is).
bjarnet3 in reply to Wikipunani (Show the comment) 3 months ago
In 1929 the stock-market crashed and the US plummeted into a deprecation and took the entire world with it. It took 10 years, and one global war, to restore the world economy.
Following the deprecation, regulatory laws and bills were passed to prevent the stock-market players from repeating what they did in 1929.
It took 80 years - Law after law, bill by bill, were removed and the market became more and more "free" - and what did we got in return?
In 2008 the US tanks the world economy, again.
picabu5 3 months ago
@picabu5 Correctly; the 1929 crash happened due to cheap credit from the Fed skewing investment in the market. The crash was the correction to the misaligned investment. The gov't intervened and prolonged the correction, even caused another mini-depression, and drug it out until WW2. After the war's end, capital and capital goods were finally freed up to invest into the starved private sector starting the biggest stint of economic growth in U.S. history.
bmac6446 in reply to picabu5 (Show the comment) 3 months ago
It is the gov't and Fed's intervention into the market that causes boom and busts. We do not have free markets in the United States. We have a form of mercantilism known as corporatism where those close to the power structure are favored over those who are not. Most regulation of the economy involve things such as monopoly rights, licensing restrictions, rent controls, price controls and trade controls. Big business actually doesn't like free competition in the market.
bmac6446 in reply to bmac6446 (Show the comment) 3 months ago 2
@bmac6446 I totally agree on this point...
bjarnet3 in reply to bmac6446 (Show the comment) 3 months ago
@dschatsky You know, the government is not a profit making machine right? All money comes from taxpayers. So the more the govt spends, the more money leave the economy, and the more the tax payers pay, etc. The GOVT mutes unemployment #'s by only classifying you as unemployed if you receive socialist benefits. Millions don't qualify as unemployed that are off the list. The govt kills the private sector every time, because govt spending = taxes, and taxes = economic downturn.
playmaka2007 3 months ago
All you need to know about this video is contained in the final assertion: that the current high rate of unemployment in the U.S. is due to high government spending. There is absolutely no basis for that statement. The high rate of unemployment is due to a recession caused by a financial sector crisis. Government spending has demonstrably muted the unemployment numbers.
dschatsky 3 months ago
The puppeteers of OWS are not for getting spending under control, they're for controlling other peoples spending.
thexcount 3 months ago
After being unemployed for three years now since the recession hit, I don't give a shit what happens to this Nation
townkevin59 4 months ago
Great video!
freesk8 4 months ago
Not enough regulation!!!!!
TheVertigoFLY 4 months ago
Great production. 81,000 pages of regulations. Geez. It is time to get the f**king government out of our lives in in their proper place. They are public SERVANTS, nothing more. Their "rule" is up. ~Chris
sharkhearted1 4 months ago
@SBubbaW lolfu :P... i'm the older brother in my family.
jbkibs in reply to SBubbaW (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@Atrack212 Also that is a false dichotomy. Because you are not in favor of state regulations, does not mean you are in favor of banks stealing from the wealth of the population. Free market liberalism is absolutely in conflict with state imposed monopolies, like national banks and monopolistic investment firms. As long as the state has the power to regulate these industries, they will be bought off and they will pick the winners (banks) and throw the losers (you and I) under the bus.
aseredy in reply to Atrack212 (Show the comment) 4 months ago 6
@aseredy well said
swag909 in reply to aseredy (Show the comment) 4 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@Atrack212 Understanding the current crisis and market economies?... fail. The root of any corruption is the gun. Does BOA have guns? Does Goldman have guns? Who controls the guns, prisons, and laws? The government does. At least, focus you anger toward the actual culprit. Its funny how the state caused this whole problem of inviting malinvestment with perverse incentives and subsidized loss, and now people are calling to give it MORE power to do the very same. Baffling.
aseredy in reply to Atrack212 (Show the comment) 4 months ago 2
Kiwis are higher up on the list because of their small demographic.
LyleVertigo 4 months ago
Comment removed
biggiea1 4 months ago in playlist More videos from EconFree
3 WORDS
BUSH STARTED IT!!!!!!!!!!
cv2ar 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cv2ar said: 3 WORDS BUSH STARTED IT!!!!!!!!!!
3 words... Obama finished it.
emtpilot132 in reply to cv2ar (Show the comment) 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What is the name of this song?
UnbelievableProd 4 months ago
Correlation does not equal causation. Done.
Why do people take propaganda materials like this seriously anyways? Not that regulation is good, but proving that regulations cause a lower standard of living would require huge academic research.
1tephania 4 months ago
@1tephania Understanding logical fallacies...FAIL? The Logical Fallacy you are describing applies to isolated observations. If an observation is repeatable using the same criteria, it can be assumed it is systemic. Granted more research and proof is required to make it law. In economics, most variables are impossible to quantify. Here logic and reason need to be employed if one wishes to understand the real world, and not just a model. Your argument also attempts to discredit science.
aseredy in reply to 1tephania (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@aseredy
Have you not even heard of ceteris paribus? We may assume causation only if the observation is repeatable under the same conditions, and tweaking one variable leads to a result that is predicted by the hypothesis. Gzillion factors other than government spending come into the play. Who's to say that the rise of BRIC countries, and not regulations, is the real reason behind America losing competitiveness? Why not even consider other factors?
1tephania in reply to aseredy (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@aseredy
That's why this vid is propaganda. Because it already made up its mind before even presenting evidence, so there's obviously going to be some agenda setting here. In fact, the video only has one argument against gov't regulation, and that's "Richest countries rank high on economic freedom, dirt poor African countries don't". Uh, I am pretty sure African countries are poor for more important reasons such as civil war or general lack of structured civil governance.
1tephania in reply to aseredy (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@1tephania Well, you made up your mind (I'm sure, before you even watched this video)... and you presented no evidence at all for your argument, just assumptions. I guess that means by your own standards, your comment is even more full of propaganda than this video, huh?
DarthMohammed in reply to 1tephania (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@DarthMohammed
Do you even hear when you talk? Pointing out the logical fallacies in an argument is not the same as making a counter-argument against it.
And since I have not made any argument such as 'regulations are good for the economy!', while this video has made the exact opposite argument and is trying to convince people to its point of view, the burden of proof lies on this video, not I.
1tephania in reply to DarthMohammed (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@1tephania I wasn't talking about you pointing out logical fallacies.
"African countries are poor for more important reasons such as civil war or general lack of structured civil governance." You don't back that up with any actual facts or even direct it at any specific country. You make an assumption.
And you ignore the fact that this is a SERIES of videos, each focusing on different aspects and details, with more videos to come. How much did you expect in something less than 3 minutes long?
DarthMohammed in reply to 1tephania (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@DarthMohammed
This is also why the decent thing to do for people making videos like this, is to look at as many factors and evidences as possible and present them all, as opposed to presenting one or two.
1tephania in reply to DarthMohammed (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@1tephania Interesting points. Is Mauritius considered part of Africa? Data had been taken from all parts of the globe, while not exclusive, is a fairly adequate sampling. As I said before, economics is a very abstract social science, most of its variables are impossible to quantify, so one needs to employ logic and reason. Is violence universally preferable? No. Then logically the universally preferable social interaction would be voluntarism, or in other words, economic and social freedom.
aseredy in reply to 1tephania (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@aseredy Admittedly, that is nonsequiter logic, but given the 255 character limit, forgivable. In short; violence = immoral, the state = violent, therefore the state = immoral. Any action taken by the state, beyond the defense of it citizen's rights is immoral because it's members must necessarily employ violence, or the threat of, to achieve the objectives. This includes wealth redistribution, education, economic regulation, social regulation, and most military action.
aseredy in reply to aseredy (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@1tephania
i would consider minimum wage a good example of regulation and it can easily be shown to lower societies standard of living... or did they not teach you that one at your "liberal" university?
swag909 in reply to 1tephania (Show the comment) 4 months ago
This video can be retitled "A handout to leftists who think Bush was a free market extremist"
truevoice08 4 months ago
What about ending the Fed?
petrosmedia 4 months ago 28
@petrosmedia End The Fed > Stable currency production > Monetary manipulation gone mad.
LoweLeif in reply to petrosmedia (Show the comment) 1 month ago
@petrosmedia We're not living in the 1800s anymore
claton95 in reply to petrosmedia (Show the comment) 1 month ago
I feel like this channel is gonna become something like LearnLiberty, except more generally based on economics and finance. Subscribed :)
WhatAxBrit 4 months ago
There are certain myths about our economy. The first is that our government prints most of the money in circulation. Wrong...private commercial banks do.
se7ensnakes 4 months ago
@se7ensnakes Google "fractional reserve banking murray rothbard". FRB is only possible because of a central bank
truevoice08 in reply to se7ensnakes (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@truevoice08 FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING DOES NOT NEED A CENTRAL BANK, but a central banks help them in their quest for a monopoly. Remember Andrew Jackson did away with the central bank but look at the latter part of the 1800s and particularly during the civil war years with Abraham Lincoln. Recession after recession. The only way that a recession could occur is if there is not enough money circulating.
se7ensnakes in reply to truevoice08 (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@se7ensnakes You obviously did not read the article. If you did, you could reinterpret the history you've been taught in government school in light of economic logic.
truevoice08 in reply to se7ensnakes (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@truevoice08 I have many of Rothbards PDF books and read them, none of them say that fractional reserve banking need a central bank. When FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING was first discovered...THERE WAS NO CENTRAL BANK. The central bank is only necessary to consolidate the banks authority. The central bank is used to bankrupt smaller independent banks so they could be bought up by a few insider banks.
se7ensnakes in reply to truevoice08 (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@truevoice08 its funny, you keep telling me to read the article and i am practically paraphrasing it.
se7ensnakes in reply to truevoice08 (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@se7ensnakes You're now resorting to intellectual dishonesty. You can beat your chest in outrage against indisputable economic truth and bitch about "the rich" but to be dishonest is different. Surely, you leftists are better than that.
truevoice08 in reply to se7ensnakes (Show the comment) 4 months ago
There are certain myths about our economy. The first is that private commercial banks create most of the money in circulation. This is called fractional reserve banking. So no matter what happens, if we dont go into debt, there will not be any money. debt = money. The banks create the money for loans. This is where most of our money come from, from people borrowing money. This scheme called fractional reserve banking have given these bankers immense money and power.
se7ensnakes 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video is more rich man propaganda. Our debt is caused by wars & the wealthiest Americans paying the lowest taxes in decades. Regulations are important because they protect people against predatory capitalism. For example if a chemical plant decides to move in next door there is no way the community or the individual could pay the court costs to protect you. The predatory capitalism will always have deeper pockets thus justice goes to the highest bidder. Don't be fooled by this video.
yummyorganic 5 months ago
This video is more rich man propaganda. Our debt is caused by the wars and the wealthiest Americans paying the lowest taxes in decades. Regulations are important because they protect people against predatory capitalism. For example if a chemical plant decides to move in next door there is no way the community or the individual could pay the court costs to protect you. The predatory capitalism will always have deeper pockets thus justice goes to the highest bidder. Don't be fooled by this video.
yummyorganic 5 months ago
@yummyorganic This video really does not get to the core of the problem, but perhaps the next episode will. One thing is certain, more taxes even to the rich will not solve the problem. And I agree, do we need to dump the planet to sustain our way of living. But you are entirely wrong about "OUR DEBT". The fact is that this country is under a small group of very powerful and dominant man. And they have set up a debt system.
se7ensnakes in reply to yummyorganic (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@yummyorganic "Our debt is caused by the wars" and the welfare state "...and the wealthiest Americans paying the lowest taxes in decades" so its always the fault of those who are coerced to give money to the State and never the fault of the spenders?!? Nice logic bro. As for regulations, let's just increase it by another 81,000 pages. I'm sure that will work.
Is this what's taught in government school these days? That government is a cornucopia to all our problems?
Wake up, slave!
truevoice08 in reply to yummyorganic (Show the comment) 4 months ago
Funny how video excluded scandinavia, germany where the poorest earn more than many of the countries on the left, yet have "less economic freedoms". what these people call economic freedom is just another word for corporate socialism.
nnossov 5 months ago
countries on the left had not had a war on their soil in past 100 years. countries on the right have had almost constant wars sans Venezuela. economic freedom is not the sole reason. war is the major culprit of stagnant growth and low life span.
nnossov 5 months ago
Ha I found this video as an advertisement on a collegehumor video.
Subscribed, liked, etc....
kerrywsmyth 5 months ago
Respond to this video...
JoeDope813 5 months ago in playlist More videos from EconFree
bla bla bla :) after all i can say cool video effects ;D
madmax10101 5 months ago
"This page is a project of the Charles Koch Institute." All I need to know. Bullshit Koch Brother Propoganda.
craniumdesigns 5 months ago
to viewers of this video, you can keep drinking the GOP koolaid, or you can watch this video and see the REAL reason we're at where we're at... youtube video "JTzMqm2TwgE"
craniumdesigns 5 months ago
i wonder who commissioned this video. hilarious. poor corporations. too many regulations! :( so sad! waaaa waaaa waaaaaa.
craniumdesigns 5 months ago
Look at those 81,000 pages of regulation, and tell me again that the recession was caused by deregulation.
Noriko23 5 months ago
@Noriko23 those pages of regulation include enormous amounts of deregulation. that's why these videos are so successful; they present incomplete facts such as this to make stupid people feel like they're getting smarter. whether regulations are getting stricter or more lenient, the changes are going to be recorded on pages of "regulations" in whatever book this dumbass video was referencing. so more pages does NOT equal more regulation.
in short: the recession was caused by deregulation.
eisenschiml in reply to Noriko23 (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@eisenschiml regulation is just a nice word to say you're taking away someones freedom. the government exists to protect us from force and fraud, not so you can tell other people how to live their life. recession caused by deregulation is utter bullshit. it was caused by the business cycle, interest rates, the fed, fanny mae and freddie mac and the housing bubble. stop getting your news from the daily show and you might learn something.
boristhepython in reply to eisenschiml (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@boristhepython LOL as if you know where I get my news from. as if your skewed view of the world determines what the word "regulation" means. think about this: this video is full of shit. "economic freedom" isn't a real thing, and if it WERE a real thing, and actually meant deregulation like this video would have you believe, don't you think third world countries with completely unregulated economies would be ranked above the United States on the list? YOU ARE BEING HAD. USE YOUR BRAIN.
eisenschiml in reply to boristhepython (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@eisenschiml ....ahhhh idiot?...hello? Those third world countries lack the things that make the first world work...like private property rights,limited rights protecting governments, the rule of objective law etc etc....Without these things the prosperity that capitalism crates cannot occur.
Riellysdad in reply to eisenschiml (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@eisenschiml that's the entire point of the video, the countries that are the poorest have the LEAST economic freedom, which means they have the MOST government intervention into their economy. Economic freedom is very real and very important. Look at marijuana, it is an product people demand, but the government has decided to prohibit the use and give no legitimate explanation as to why the government gets to decide if I can choose to smoke. Economic freedom is as important as any other freedom
boristhepython in reply to eisenschiml (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@boristhepython yes i get the point of the video and i'm telling you it is a straight up fabrication and is making you look like a damn fool for buying into it. the poorest countries have the freest markets, not the most restrictive. i do agree with you that there is no legit reason for marijuana to be illegal, and also for economic reasons, but what you're missing is that the market for pot is freer than it would be if it were legalized, and that's a bad thing because it creates no revenue.
eisenschiml in reply to boristhepython (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@eisenschiml you're calling me a damn fool, but you're so brain washed you actually believe it's a bad thing that the government isn't getting revenue for cannabis sales. Why is giving money to the government supposed to be a good thing? taxation is theft. Period. It's not their money they didn't work for it. Find a country that their government largely supports free markets and is poor - Somalia is not an option because they have literally zero government, and I do not advocate that.
boristhepython in reply to eisenschiml (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@boristhepython there are plenty of countries with incredibly free economies but very little money. they all rank incredibly low on the Economic Freedom Index because the Economic Freedom Index is a complete joke that by default ranks richer countries as more free and poorer countries as less free. basically, it's a trick of math that falsely links successful economies to contrived measures of freedom. also, "taxation is theft" is wrong. thieves don't provide infrastructure/services.
eisenschiml in reply to boristhepython (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@eisenschiml ..What countries are these that have "incredibly free economies" but very little money? A free economy in the true free market sense means having a strong but small and limited state to referee any acts of force or fraud occurring within it. Free market Capitalism is not anarchy.
Riellysdad in reply to eisenschiml (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@Riellysdad it's incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to have such a strong (albeit small) government WITHOUT already having a developed economy. see what i'm getting at here? your definition of "economically free" INCLUDES the idea of being economically strong. thus every example is going to fit the model, but not because the model says a lot, rather because it says nothing. it's like freudian analysis: it's universal nature exposes it as a fraud, no a stroke of genius.
eisenschiml in reply to Riellysdad (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@eisenschiml you didn't answer my question, and taxation is theft, regardless of what it is spent on you don't get to CHOOSE to pay for it, nor does one have a choice of which services to pay for. I would much rather pay a toll to get on a road then trust the government to build and maintain it because then i can make the choice of which roads i want to support with my hard earned money.
boristhepython in reply to eisenschiml (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@eisenschiml and instead of welfare i'd prefer a system where there was NO government wealth distributions and private charities would quickly pick up the tab, and people would actually have funds to give because they would keep more of their money and have the CHOICE to support a particular charity. And if it truly cannot be done privately, it should be done by the states. It is immoral to make me, in Delaware, pay for your medicaid in Arizona.
boristhepython in reply to eisenschiml (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@boristhepython i don't think there are many sociologists or economists that truly believe that private means would "pick up the tab" if compulsory social programs were disbanded. that's just not realistic. and your entire argument is based on the misguided belief that property rights are absolute, which is incredibly rarely held outside the libertarian camp, and is a very real moral and philosophical mark against libertarianism. so, in summation, "that's just like, your opinion, man."
eisenschiml in reply to boristhepython (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@eisenschiml how are property rights not absolute? You did not come to my place of employment and help me do my job today you are also not entitled to tell me what the money I earn should be spent on and how much I deserve to keep. When people believe what you believe that means the majority can make any rule or steal anything it wants. The reason it can't is our government is limited to the constitution.
boristhepython in reply to eisenschiml (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@boristhepython property rights feel absolute with an egocentric worldview, but that's not how the world works. all property derives its value from a natural resource, and that resource cannot legitimately be claimed by any one person, being natural. so money that you worked for, at best, is partially owned by whoever pays it to you, in the moral sense. so yes, legally you own it, but your moral claim to it is incomplete. that's why taxation is a moral imperative, not theft.
eisenschiml in reply to boristhepython (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@eisenschiml Bullshit.....the banking sector was regulated up the whazoo......under Clinton it was made law that banks had to make loans to bad risk minorities that were never going to be able to pay them back. Do learn some facts...
Riellysdad in reply to eisenschiml (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@Riellysdad and under clinton our economy was stronger than under any other president in recent history. go figure. and then Bush deregulated like crazy. And every act of deregulation that occurred, i guarantee you, is included in those 81,000 pages of 'regulations' that you are supposed to pop an anger-boner over. it's not like regulation takes up pages and deregulation somehow destroys them.
eisenschiml in reply to Riellysdad (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@eisenschiml ...Right.....go look at the video again...Bush doubled the debt so that will not have "deregulated anything. The Dems and the Reps are basically the same party....both spend like madmen and have indebted the US to chronic levels.
Riellysdad in reply to eisenschiml (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@Riellysdad OHHHH my bad! I didn't know that debt and regulation were the same thing. my apologies! (they're actually not) ... (at all) ...
eisenschiml in reply to Riellysdad (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@eisenschiml ...If its over your head just say so kid...;-)
Riellysdad in reply to eisenschiml (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@Riellysdad i hope that winky face is for like "i understand that what i said made no actual sense; thank you for enlightening me" or "i concede that we have irreconcilable differences in our understanding of economics and social values" and that you're not actually trying to insinuate that i didn't understand something about you regurgitating buzz words interchangeably as if they don't actually have real meanings in the english language. allay my worst fears, please.
eisenschiml in reply to Riellysdad (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@eisenschiml recession is caused by not having sufficient money in circulation.
se7ensnakes in reply to eisenschiml (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@se7ensnakes like what happens when a lack of oversight allows the financial sector to systematically bet against lower-working class mortgage-holders until it collapses under the weight of its own internal contradictions and all of those families are bankrupt and all of those bankers keep the money and put it in their mattresses while their companies have done under and no longer employ workers?
recessions ARE insufficient monetary circulation. that's the definition, not the cause.
eisenschiml in reply to se7ensnakes (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@se7ensnakes Lol by that logic, we should be in good shape. More money is in circulation than ever before. Try again.
09jake12 in reply to se7ensnakes (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@09jake12 sevensnakes pretends to be knowledgeable in economics. He's not fooling anybody.
truevoice08 in reply to 09jake12 (Show the comment) 4 months ago
I don't get it. How is "economic freedom" being defined? Fewer rules on corporations? That's not economic freedom, that's just deregulation. Economic freedom is the ability for individuals (not corporations) to move among economic classes. As corporations have grown wealthier, the economic divide has grown, plain and simple.
prisonfood 5 months ago
subd awesome vid
TeamHazem 5 months ago
Awesome video! Finally, a criterion that explains that socialist policies like big spending cause a mega decline in economic freedom! That's why Scandinavian nations like Denmark and Finland with big government spending/social democracies are ranked so low... as the 8th, 17th, most economically free nations in the world... ummm... yeah
koolhanddavey 5 months ago
@@holyzombie. Nice post. We truly been enlightened by your counterargument
MrPastrychef100 5 months ago
Sooooo many assumptions and weak correlations in this video.
HolyZombiJesus 5 months ago
The protesters demand more socialism, what we really need is people who can sestain the our spending
AJ627 5 months ago
Friggen EPA keeping our water and air clean... dont they know businesses would do this without regulation? Like Koch industries putting 900 times the legal limits of benzine in the air and reporting it was 0.6% of normal levels... and the banks dont need regulation either...wallstreet would do so much better too...
ushtemanushteunchaga 5 months ago
@ushtemanushteunchaga Mega problem is that companies get away with this stuff--and you are right, companies do this stuff indeed--but the problem is that these same companies who get away with this are the same ones who finance politicians and influence legislation to write their own regulations which puts them above law and consequence. Best example is the private federal reserve which was written by Wall Street banksters, who financed Wilson's campaign who signed the Fed into law
LordoftheKaty in reply to ushtemanushteunchaga (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@LordoftheKaty I agree completely. Until we can separate the money from the politicians the people will never truly be represented. I am taxed without representation because I cant afford a lobbyist.
ushtemanushteunchaga in reply to LordoftheKaty (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@ushtemanushteunchaga
Fair Tax!
KaelinSaint in reply to ushtemanushteunchaga (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@ushtemanushteunchaga
Even if I give you the environmental side of regulation that doesn't justify economic regulation. No need to throw up a straw man. I won't tilt at it. One fact I will point out, the greater the economic standing of a city, county, state or nation, the greater the concern the people, and through them the companies they buy from and the politicians that claim to represent them, for the state of the environment. Simple hierarchy of needs.
KaelinSaint in reply to ushtemanushteunchaga (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@KaelinSaint my only points were that companies need regulating from environmental and economic aspects. Their goal is to make money, not protect people/environments. No straw man intended. I don't understand your associating hierarchy of needs to the regulations of Goldman Sachs, Koch Brothers, Bank of America, et al.. care to elaborate?
ushtemanushteunchaga in reply to KaelinSaint (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@ushtemanushteunchaga
Yeah, hierarchy of needs. Basically, if your standard of living is so low you struggle to feed, clothe and house yourself you don't care about the environment. This means the higher your standard of living, the more likely you are to have the time or inclination to care about the environment. Economic regulations and taxes slow or reverse growth in the standard of living. This means people will become less likely to care about the environment, a bad thing all around.
KaelinSaint in reply to ushtemanushteunchaga (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@ushtemanushteunchaga
I would also contend that consumers have been the drive behind companies becoming more environmentally sound than any of the governments regulations or punishments. A great example would be New Belgium Brewery. With no pressure from the government they started and became increasingly environmentally friendly. People liked that and have made them the 8th largest brewer in the US. Guess who a few years ago decided to become more green? Coors. Consumer choice works there too
KaelinSaint in reply to ushtemanushteunchaga (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@KaelinSaint I see and kind of agree with what you are saying, but have doubts on the direct correlation between more income = greener choices. As for regulations, I still believe that companies need regulations otherwise they would not operate with integrity in regards to racism, sexism, environmental health, or employee health. The businesses weren't until regulations were enacted. As for taxes, tax businesses just like the "people" they supposedly are...
ushtemanushteunchaga in reply to KaelinSaint (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@ushtemanushteunchaga
You are right that more income doesn't necessarily mean one will make greener choices. But lower income practically guarantees that they won't. Wealthier people eat healthier, exercise more, are more concerned about the environment, mainly because they can be. Markets were fixing racism, sexism and health and safety issues without government regulation. In fact, government regulation either did nothing or made those issues worse. You can't tax businesses, simple fact.
KaelinSaint in reply to ushtemanushteunchaga (Show the comment) 5 months ago
I sincerely hope this channel is nonpartisan.
F7dim 5 months ago
@F7dim I'd hope so too, because we all know the left vs right paradigm is bullshit.
LordoftheKaty in reply to F7dim (Show the comment) 5 months ago
Excellent job of showing how our rotten federal government is destroying our nation by over-regulating and spending us into bankruptcy!
booboobear1701 5 months ago
good job, keep going guys!
przeor1989 5 months ago
Great video! Socialism/fascism ensures we will all be equally poor.
chufow 5 months ago
Burdensome regulations? Wasn't it lack of regulation on Wall St. that got us into this mess?
Gafaton 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HIT the P.T.B's where they will feel it the most.
On or before Nov 5th, if You have a financial account with one of the Big 6 criminal banks, or there Affiliate's. I Admonish you to close your account, Take you money OUT. Put ALL your money, checking, savings, and investments in a Smaller Independent bank, or Local credit union.
Put your Money where you Mouth is, not there Pockets. If you Oppose what them, do not let blood money-ed hands, play with your cash
take it ALL BACK.
theonlyPiper 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@theonlyPiper fuggers marked your post as spam....
ushtemanushteunchaga in reply to theonlyPiper (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@MilwaukeeF40C ....waling into the ER with almost no knowledge of the procedures they're asking for, yet since it's forwarded to their insurance, they hardly have the reason to look for it.
DrOstentorious 5 months ago
@MilwaukeeF40C like I said, I'm in favor of more transparency. If we input better incentives (both for patients and doctors), our healthcare system can get much better. The main issue is that there is almost no comprehensive, data-driven healthcare system because doctors aren't given the incentive to coordinate. Only to provide billable procedures. I can agree with you, that patients should be enabled to pay for themselves, and to know what they pay for. You get too many instances of people wal
DrOstentorious 5 months ago
@MiluakeeF40C this resulted in wage increased of 33%, and better healthcare and unemployment benefits. Unions only took up about 1/3 of businesses though, because as you said, it ended up being competition that motivated them to implement better rights. But it can still be drawn back to the precedent set forward by the Federal government.
DrOstentorious 5 months ago
@MilwaukeeF40C most of these concessions were made under Harry Truman's presidency actually, like the one where wages were increased by 33% for most laborers. It was things like these that were pushed by the federal government, that placed great demand for employment in businesses, provided more disposable income for workers, and ended up leading to a fair amount of economic prosperity and responsible business management.
DrOstentorious 5 months ago
@MiluakeeF40C And I also addressed the point made on benefits. The basis for these healthcare/labor standards was established by the government when it made corporations provide concessions to laborers in the 1940s.
DrOstentorious 5 months ago
@DrOst. There is nothing requiring an employer to provide health insurance or most other benefits. They do so because benefits are taxed very little compared to wages. FDR's labor concessions were unconstitutional and most were repealed.
MilwaukeeF40C in reply to DrOstentorious (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@MilwuakeeF40C ...that doctors charge for unnecessary treatment.
DrOstentorious 5 months ago
@DrOst. Medical providers are able to easily bill for unnecessary procedures because insurance pays for it, with the cost hidden from the consumer. This happens when ins. policies are required to cover anything and everything, and increases costs for those who don't have insurance. Things like regular medical tests, dental, prescriptions, and minor injuries would be cheaper if consumers payed for them directly. Insurance should be for major emergencies and illnesses only, with high deductibles.
MilwaukeeF40C in reply to DrOstentorious (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@MilwaukeeF40C America spends the greatest amount of money on it's healthcare than any other nation in the world, yet we can't even insure every American citizen. While there should definitely be more transparency and competition in how our healthcare is managed, we need to redo the payment incentives for our doctors. ER physicians are incentivized to simply administer a billable procedure to their patients than provide actual care. You think regulations drive up costs? Just look at the amount
DrOstentorious 5 months ago
@AriesLudzik I will watch the video, and recognize that it makes no mention to Norway, a country with an extremely high standard of living, and is also under huge amounts of state/community ownership. Look up Norway yourself, and question this channel's lack of mention towards it.
DrOstentorious 5 months ago
@MilwaukeeF40C I did say discretionary. You are correct that entitlement programs are a massive part of overall government spending. Of course, SS is funded through its own tax and should not, in my opinion, be included in discussions about spending increases. SS could be maintained with fairly minor modifications, whether by means testing or by increasing the maximum taxable amounts. US health system is all broken; I believe we need universal basic coverage.
brikelike in reply to MilwaukeeF40C (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@brikelike I really don't care if social security can be maintained or not. It is a direct transfer of my labor to others and it should some day be eliminated, keeping in mind those who were already forced to give up their resources to it. I would stop paying in to it now if I could and I expect nothing from it. People are capable of making their own investments.
MilwaukeeF40C in reply to brikelike (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@MilwaukeeF40C I am glad you feel so confident about your ability to invest in the marketplace. I feel fairly savvy about such matters but have a ten year return of just over 3.3% on my investments (that is not average annual return, but total return). IMHO iit is not a direct transfer of your labor to others, unless you truly have so little confidence in the future of our nation as to believe SS will not exist in the future to repay you with interest. You may be right but I hope you are wrong.
brikelike in reply to MilwaukeeF40C (Show the comment) 5 months ago
Comment removed
DrOstentorious 5 months ago
@Milwaukee You honestly think that leaving healthcare in the hands of the doctors is better than making more changes to our for-profit incentives? Healthcare in the US is awful, and it's not because it's been manipulated by the government. And do you know who organized the 1963 march on the Lincoln memorial? The socialist A. Philip Randolph. It was also followers of Karl Marx who helped to energize the abolition of slavery, and end the reign of greedy profiteering by southern slave owners.
DrOstentorious 5 months ago
@DrOst. Medical services are made less available because the gov does not allow it to operate as a market. Insurance should be for major expense emergencies only but companies are required to pay for routine things that should be cheap enough for people to pay for out of pocket. Gov health boards restrict the number of doctors, facilities, and technology available in a given area. FDA regulations increase the cost of medicine. Regulation is the cause of high prices. Still better than UK and Ca.
MilwaukeeF40C in reply to DrOstentorious (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@DrOst. Labor benefits and "the middle class" are often credited to unionization but the truth is that all of these things are a RESULT of prosperity due to the free market and protection of property rights and individual rights. Wealth mobility and purchasing power come from individual liberty, not forceful transfers of wealth. As for public roads (and all infrastructure), public education, and medical services, all of these things have been massively manipulated and made less efficient by gov.
MilwaukeeF40C in reply to DrOstentorious (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@MilwaukeeF40C It was also a federal incentive that led to the wages, benefits, and overall standards for laborers increasing. Corporations decried the idea of providing their laborers with such basic healthcare benefits and payment increases as "UnAmerican socialism." It was in the post-WWII years when this was happening, and economic prosperity increased as a result of lower-class commoners getting more disposable income with their wages and healthcare benefits increasing.
DrOstentorious in reply to MilwaukeeF40C (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@DrOst. Someone else already addressed your benefits point. Companies offered benefits to attract more productive workers, and because benefits are a form of compensation for labor that is less prone to taxation than pure wages. Higher wages and more benefits were made possible simply because the wealth became available to do so, because of economic growth. The problem with healthcare as benefit is that it hides the true costs of health and people demand too much from it, raising overall costs.
MilwaukeeF40C in reply to DrOstentorious (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@MilwaukeeF40C I'm not necessarily arguing that the government is the unyielding hand that will guide us all. Not at all. I hate teachers unions, governments intervention in our public school system (which I admit needs fixing), and I am all for forms of competition in our free market, which could be hampered by our federal government. A lot of our current problems can be pointed towards our governments inability to apply the right amount of regulation at the right spot.
DrOstentorious in reply to MilwaukeeF40C (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@MilwaukeeF40C But it doesn't appear that the history of socialist principles, of every individual making personal sacrifices to benefit the community, has been acknowledged. Where would your private businesses be without the law enforcement, electricity and water plants, and public education services all provided by our federal government? I admit that they are all in need of a lot of fixing, but the basis of all of this prosperity you keep mentioning is built off of this foundation.
DrOstentorious in reply to MilwaukeeF40C (Show the comment) 5 months ago
@DrOst. The civil rights movement actually has a strong foundation from classical liberalism- the opposite of socialism. Activists like Frederick Douglas used ideas of self ownership and property rights to promote freedom. Moorfield Storey, Lysander Spooner, Louis Marshall, and Theodore Howard are more examples of civil rights leaders you never heard of because they don't fit your collectivist worldview. Institutionalized racism has a lot of progressive style social control behind it.
MilwaukeeF40C in reply to DrOstentorious (Show the comment) 5 months ago
Since most discretionary government spending is for the miltary, isn't the response a drastic reduction in our military and military expenses around the world? we spend as much as the rest of the world combined on our military and it represents the biggest increase in government since 2001.
brikelike 5 months ago
@DrOstentorious
I completely understand why you'd disown Mr.57 States.
Wow, this is how desperate you've become that you're now using Lincoln of all people to support the failed ideology of socialism. That would be akin to using Fidel Castro as the standard bearer for advancing human rights.
Nice try. Socialism has had a horrible track record of ruining people's lives and making everyone who lives under such a system miserable. Watch the video and ask yourself why some countries are so poor
AriesLudzik in reply to DrOstentorious (Show the comment) 5 months ago
The Half Truth is the Biggest Lie
henfiber 5 months ago
Everyone should shut the hell up about the name Koch. There is no logic in using it to attack the message of this video or of groups that have received donations. I don't recall ever being affected by something called Koch. Meanwhile things called GM, GE, banks, unions, and all kinds of other shit keep taking my money with help from the government. If Koch is expending their own money and resources to call this crap out, I say good. Screw democracy, maximum individual freedom is better.
MilwaukeeF40C 5 months ago
Love this video. Hate everything presented in it. Our steadily dropping freedom is infuriating. For the "Land of the Free" we sure aren't very free.
InfinityDragonIV 5 months ago
Why do people keep mentioning the Koch Foundation? This video is supported by data and it doesn't matter who funds this. Why is that so hard to see?
I have never seen any real arguments against free-market in the comments, only the same bullshit story that this is false because it is funded by Koch. Damn it, check the data if you think it's false.
williamb90 5 months ago
@0:45...all I see is Forza 4 Upgrade Shop.
tbtregenza 5 months ago
Comment removed
EnragedSaxon 5 months ago
The shit has hit the fan. The Eagle has crashed.
MSCompuServ 5 months ago
Some decent statistics. Yet it is a Koch Foundation funded video. Koch Brothers are neo-conservative/Ultra conservative billionaires. They care not for democracy or a truly free market they certainly do not give a damn about the environment or carcinogenic pollution. Follow the money.
shantiwsun 5 months ago
Just listen to the guys voice...the sounds of BS
shantiwsun 5 months ago