"They stole money" LLLOOOOOOOLLL Wealth is not a fixed pie. They created innovations which increased aggregate wealth. They obtain a percentage of said wealth for their contributions. The return they receive is based on the systematic risk factors behind said innovations.
@axe863 They created innovations? Excuse me for mistaking rich parasites for inventors and engineers who live under rather modest conditions relative to hundred room mansions occupied by said rich parasite.
I've....never found myself agreeing with Inmendham so much...then again I've seen few videos where the man presented himself with less than 4 curses per sentence, and I have to say that when he's not trying to out four-letter the next guy....he can be quite persuasive.
Nice point with "Poor people who have good credit....there's a nice idea".
They stole this money how? By being industrious? If you think letting the government redistribute the wealth is a good idea, you've got another thing coming. The lion share always goes to the Rockefellers of the world and the proletariat work for them, in manor of speaking. Competition is what, in most cases, fuels people to excel.
I mean, it's obvious that the entire basis for socialism and communism is just wealth envy. People who envy what others have and want to have the power to take it for themselves. The root of all evil ain't money, it's coercive power.
No, loving money does not make you evil. Everyone wants money. All evil starts with someone who wants to have POWER over other individuals. Every immoral action stems from lust for power or use of coercive force.
Remember, no one really loves money. Money is just a placeholder for real goods and services. If I want a certain goods or services, such as a mansion, then I have to make money. How does this make me evil?
Are you really going to say people do not love to obtain goods and services?
calling it "evil" is ambiguous. More like egoistic. The claim made by satanists like Crooper is that people would have no reason to be productive unless it was to the ends of satiating their ego (which they never acknoledge is over inflated).
the short of it is that the only reason a communal utopia wouldnt work is that people are Aholes because they lack objective morals
I don't think people "love" it, I think they want it or like it.
Fine, instead of evil, I'll call it criminal. Egoists are not criminals, those who coerce are.
Cropper is not a "satanist," he is an atheist. And of course he is right that people wouldn't be productive if they didn't get anything for themselves in return. That would be slavery, which is the opposite of voluntary employment. I don't understand what you mean by an inflated ego in this context... Continued...
"he is right that people wouldn't be productive if they didn't get anything for themselves in return"
lol and just why wouldnt anyone get anything in return? The base of human existance is sustanance. Either you forage (tough) or you farm (easier). as long as the population grows your going to get more people that dont have to grow food. if those people can get food, and the farmer can get what those other people make then there is no problem.
I still don't get why you have a problem with someone producing or buying more than they need. People would be very unhappy indeed if they only could get what they need and not what they want. This is all about the faulty pie theory. Wealth is not a pie, where one person takes a big piece and leaves none for someone else. Each individual makes their own wealth from what they do and what they have. The only free society is one in in which people can produce and trade to get what they want.
...What is "inflated" about the need or desire to own certain things?
A communal utopia wouldn't work because human beings cannot, and should not, be forced to act solely for the benefit of others. If everyone decided to volunteer themselves, sure fine, that would work. But forcing people into it is wrong and impractical. People have a right to be what you would consider an asshole. The only objective morality is the morality of non-coercion. The only true equality is power equality.
my use of "inflated" was to denote the excessive nature of those who aquire more wealth than they know what to do with (which could be the best desription of literally having sold ones soul)
No one is saying people should be forced to live as servants to eachother. Im just pointing out the superiority of that mindset, and that people generally wont accept it because their irrational sentiments grossly exaggerate the importance of desire over needs. they fail to realize they could be happier
Excessive by whose standards? Is anything that we don't need excessive? I still don't get where this idea that having lots of wealth makes you evil or soulless. It doesn't. This is just pure wealth envy, plain and simple
Why is that mindset superior? Who is putting desires over needs? Has anyone starved to death lately because they bought jewelry instead of food? You can't just blame irrational behavior on the pursuit of happiness. People decide what makes them happy, not some outside authority
@ironmonkeyheller Who said apathy isn't a virtue? I like to watch stupid shows on T.V. while knowing the world is going to shit. Who are you to tell me why I should care (opposite of being apathetic).
@technatezin Well that comment was a reply to BeingInTheMessiah's post. So this is sort of out of context, but I will discuss it anyway. Just because something isn't a virtue doesn't mean you can't like it or shouldn't do it. A virtue is something that is morally good in itself. I don't see apathy as morally necessary or good, but I don't see it as bad either. So I am not telling you that you should care. Do whatever you want, as long as you aren't impeding on the freedoms of others.
@ironmonkeyheller "Do whatever you want, as long as you aren't impeding on the freedoms of others."
That really depends doesn't it? Maybe I enjoy rape and cannibalism of libertarians. Who are you to tell me why I shouldn't rape and eat you? Aren't you impeding my freedom? Thing is I've never tasted barbecued human flesh in my entire life here on Earth. And I'm curious as to what it tastes like. Does it really taste like chicken?
Read that sentence again. Does raping and eatimg me against my will impede on my freedoms? Yes, of course it does.
I am not impeding on your freedoms by telling you that you can't rape and eat me. You never had the freedom to do those things if they impeded on my freedom in the first place.
If you understand this distinction, then any action can be judged by it.
@ironmonkeyheller Suppose a group of violent religious idiots think that you're a witch and out of fear for my own personal safety I am forced to agree with them and call you a witch.
watch?v=uJT1Sa7H0-E
They proceed to pour petroleum on you and burn you alive, but if I try to stop them the irrational, angry mob will burn me alive. Who are you to tell me I shouldn't accuse you of being a witch to save my own skin? Since you're bbq'ed already, does it matter if I hack off an arm for a taste?
You have no obligation to sacrifice your safety in order to save me, but you have no right to attack me when I have done you no harm.
If you are dying of hunger, are you allowed to kill the grocery store owner in order to steal his food? Your imposition doesn't give you the right to violate the rights of another.
@ironmonkeyheller "but you have no right to attack me when I have done you no harm."
Why not? If I agree with you I die, if I attack you I live or did you not watch the clip? If I become neutral the crowd in the scenario would question my integrity which means I have to think quick and make snap decisions to avoid being camp fire food.
"If you are dying of hunger, are you allowed to kill the grocery store owner in order to steal his food?"
@technatezin I couldn't watch any clip because your link didn't send me to anything.
You are deciding that your life justifies taking mine. You are saying that your life is more important than mine. If you concede that, then equal rights becomes meaningless. Why should I respect any of your rights if I can decide subjectively that yours are worthless? What you are arguing for is moral anarchy, the strongest and most ruthless destroy everyone else and take their property.
Everything in the world is anarchistic. Civilization itself exists within a wider sea of anarchy that is only kept from falling apart with a crude form of carrots and sticks. Carrots in this case being money and sticks being the armed security forces of the state. In a typical overloaded life boat scenario would you throw the least valuable member of the life boat overboard if you are certain of capsizing if you don't?
And those governmental institutions include armed security forces which are human which means they can also include corrupt police BECAUSE they are HUMAN or are you naive enough to think corrupt police do not exist?
"... mean they are actually less valuable."
Oh, you're a martyr *sarcasm*. So in a desperate situation you would kill yourself if you're important thus DOOMING everyone rather than save everyone by sacrificing someone?
@technatezin "And those governmental institutions include armed security forces which are human which means they can also include corrupt police BECAUSE they are HUMAN or are you naive enough to think corrupt police do not exist?"
No, where in my comments do I say that I think that? I was simply disputing your statement that everything in the world is anarchistic.
@ironmonkeyheller "No, where in my comments do I say that I think that? I was simply disputing your statement that everything in the world is anarchistic."
Just take a look around. Where do you see order exactly? There's a simple kind of haphazard disorder of trading, waste, nepotism and mutual threats and bribery, but that isn't what I would exactly call order. Perhaps organized barbarism would be a more appropriate term for it.
Everywhere. The universe creates order spontaneously. There is order in the laws of nature, in the actions of human beings, in civilization itself. When humans created civilization, they turned disorder into order. Capitlism is a system made up of numerous seemingly chaotic individual decisions, yet it creates economic order. The technological progress of humanity is also an example of order from chaos. Look at the technology you use every day.
@technatezin "Oh, you're a martyr *sarcasm*. So in a desperate situation you would kill yourself if you're important thus DOOMING everyone rather than save everyone by sacrificing someone?"
No, I wouldn't kill myself. I jjust wouldn't kill someone else that has not done anything to me. See the difference? It is solely the decision of the individual whether they want to sacrifice themselves to save others. No man has the right to decide that another man should die for the good of the group.
@ironmonkeyheller "I jjust wouldn't kill someone else that has not done anything to me."
In emergency situations people lie to themselves and lie to others in order to save themselves or do you think this is not human nature? So are you saying that you would not kill someone who is a habitual liar or criminal to save the more valuable members of the crew even if he's worthless to you if you save him and thus dooming the life boat? If you're in that situation wouldn't you lie to save yourself?
@technatezin "In emergency situations people lie to themselves and lie to others in order to save themselves or do you think this is not human nature?"
OK. What's your point?
"So are you saying that you would not kill someone who is a habitual liar or criminal to save the more valuable members of the crew even if he's worthless to you if you save him and thus dooming the life boat?"
Just because you lie doesn't mean you lose the right to live. The same goes for a criminal...
"If you're in that situation wouldn't you lie to save yourself?"
I don't see how lying would save me. I don't care about lying, I care about whether or not I'm respecting the rights of others.
This discussion isn't going anywhere. There's probably no way I can convince you that utilitarianism isn't a moral system. Utilitarianism is the lack of a moral system, where any action can be justified as "moral."
@technatezin "In a typical overloaded life boat scenario would you throw the least valuable member of the life boat overboard if you are certain of capsizing if you don't?"
No I would not. First of all, there is no such thing as a least valuable person. Maybe a person has less value to your survival in your eyes, but that doesn't mean they are actually less valuable.
@technatezin ...I would not throw anyone overboard in that situation. I'd rather die by a moral code than live through disgusting cowardice. If you can't respect the equal rights of your fellow man, you should leave society before you hurt someone.
Now back to the workers. So you say the rich are stealing from the poor by skimming off profit. But if the rich weren't doing anything and the workers had all the value, why wouldn't the workers sell directly to the market? It's because the factory owner provides the means of production. Without the means of production, the worker's skills are valueless. You people continue to forget that people own things, and if you want to use something that I own to make money, I get a share.
More retardation is apparent on the value argument. How do we calculate value? You calculate value by how much good it would do for society, but that's just a fancy way of saying lots of people want it. For example, you say a bridge would be good because lots of people would use the bridge and value it. The problem is that Rockefeller's money doesn't belong to society. That's what your fucking taxes are for. HE decides where HIS money goes, and obviously he values a mansion more than a bridge.
Are you retarded? What money did the rich steal from the poor? Where did this idea come from? The factory owner pays workers to work in his factory producing goods that he then sells. Where is the stealing? All I see is an agreement between a worker and employer. Why didn't the workers go court and get their money back if it was stolen?
I think that allowing people to be rich is a good thing. But like you said in another video, estate tax needs to be 100% to be fair. Excellent videos, by the way, thanks!
I dont know if 100% is fair. I think that leaving a home to your children, such as a cabin you acquired while alive, is not an abuse. Otherwise, there is no reason the dullard children of the rich should get million dollar trust funds for no effort on their part.
I'd be agreeable to something like that, but yes, letting someone have an easy life just because their parents were good at making money it's not good. I mean, they should already have some sort of genetic predisposition for it, so not having so much money to start out shouldn't be a problem for them.
This video is just as asinine as the one you criticise.
You are an extremist just like most of the die-hard libertarians who think government has zero role in the life of the average person.
Whether you're an anti-capitalist type or an uber-capitalist, there is literally no logical way to deny that on the whole (obviously there are exceptions) most wealthy "families" do create wealth. It is utterly impossible to argue otherwise logically.
Create wealth? There's a whole bunch a resources, land, and man-hours, and various configurations of how we distribute them. I don't think wealth is created, it's claimed, stolen, traded, or givern away.
Take the good from both sides, discard the bad. Thus a sensible middle way is achieved, harmonious just like all successful things in nature. We can learn so much from the Universe if we just pay attention. Avoid the extremes of pure capitalism or communism.
Live to create wealth by fair means, but then use that wealth to benefit others as well as yourself. No one can blame any person for such logical actions.
You are promoting death by smoking a cigarette. You are a insidious advertisement for big tobacco, just another pawn of the death squads. One billion deaths by nicotine. Thanks alot for killing our children.
Your communist theories of labor are so full of mental gaps, that it is almost sickening to listen to you talk. I have to assume you are a somewhat intelligent person, and therfore you know full well what you say is total BS. Maybe i'm giving you too much credit though. How's all those communist utopias working out right now? Idiot. Come back to reality some time.
You are an idiot. Marx's writings were not all about revolution and the overthrowing of the bourgeoise by the proletariat that appealed to so many leftist intellectuals in the 60's. Marx's theories on economics have much in common with classical liberalism, and in fact are rooted in classical liberalism. Read through Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, the Godfather of capitalism, and you discover that Marx mostly echoed Adam Smith. Just because someone uses a marxist lens does not make them a marxi
I always thought it was dumb that everyone looked at communism like it was inherently impossible to work correctly simply because it hasn't yet, when every single country that has ever used it has pretty much been a shit hole before, during, and after using it.
Ok, so every country that tried out "Communism" (even though, its never really been tried like it's stated on paper, since communism is really anarchy at the end) was a shithole during and after. How about capitalism? (Even though capitalism has never really been fully implimented in the likes of pure lassiez faire) Look at America. In 1776 it was a tiny, unpopulated land with little to no wealth creation. Fast forward to 1900, and its the evny of the world. Gee, wonder how that happens.
It's much easier to start from scratch and make something good than it is to take a pile of shit and turn it into a utopia. It isn't a proper comparison.
I doubt giving Cuba the American Capitalism treatment will make it stop being a shitty place.
I have almost all of europe as an example. Pre ww2 europe was a place full of dictatorships, monarchies, highly collectivized societies. After ww2 when America pressed a new economic system into the countries, (Such as germany for example) and look at what happened in there. How about the breakaway nations from soviet russia? Georgia is a good example of capitalism in action. Lowest tax rate in the world, business is flocking to the country. All they need is some protection from Russia.
the new economic system of Europe was not capitalists you dudu head... by the early 80s state sector contributed around 50% of the gdp of any given European country..
Georgia what a fine example of capitalism, one that Russia directly subsidize more than 15% of their gdp through energy resources primarily, and 50% of their gdp is actually the money the 1.5 million Georgian expatriates in Russia sent to Georgia.
obviously there is no laissez faire capitalist country out there for me to cite as evidence of the wonders of capitalism. I was simply showing an obvious correlation between countries that respect individual rights, property rights, and laissez faire economic policy more, do better.
You can't argue this, and the more you try, the dumber you look. Simply because all countries run a mixed economcy does not make my point any less relevant.
I'd love to respond to your statement, unfortunately it doesn't appear you're able to type in a cohernat manner.
Nonetheless, i'll try to respond.
The original 13 colonies that constituted the united states of america had 360,000 sq miles(approx) of land. (About half the size of Alaska, or about 1/3 bigger than texas.) I guess you could say my using of the word "Tiny" was a bit exaggerated, but I stand by my analysis of the impact of capitalism on society.
Lets put this into perspective. Rhode Island, the SMALLEST state in the USA is 1,545 sq miles.
It takes about 45 minutes to drive across rhode island.
And you're saying, that france AND spain are 3x as small as rhode island?
Washington D.C which is about the size of a regular city with about a million people is 68 sq miles. Please tell me you're just terribly mistaken and you dont believe this.
This is actually a very good video. People are completely bamboozled into thinking that the rich earn their money because they work harder. In fact the wealth is being SIPHONED OFF, or in other words, REDISTRIBUTED from those who create the wealth to executives and stock holders. CEOs don't work hundreds of times harder/longer and aren't hundreds of times more intelligent/educated than their average worker to justify their income.
Yes, labor is often exploited -- that's why we need laws to get some kind of balance.
We did get some balance. Its ongoing problem.
The mansions had value -- it got the owner Power, Prestige, and Pussy.
Most of what men do is for the 3P's of power, prestige and pussy. From how we dress, to how we talk, to how we wear our hair - to what car we drive to what house we want. Trappings of power, prestige-- to get the pussy.
It's a standard Marxist analysis. If you sympathize with it, you're going to like it, but if you're not, you're not going to. This is a 150+ year old debate.
I'm aware of that, but many people have not even thought of these things. Also, it's interesting to see as time has passed the critique is less and less, as the problems grow (and capitalism strays from its own ideals as well), we've created monsters instead of just wealthy land owners. There's no reason this country should need someone pointing out that we've made kings. This system has never stood for that. it gets interesting as time goes on.
You are on a good train of thought. The problems are found in what individuals FEEL they NEED to possess as instructed my their social imprinting process. The process can leave the Individual damaged, hurt and even psychically maimed to the point that their own humanity is damaged. Gain and loss of possessions is what the majority has for the vehical to regain and heal thier humanity. Art is good to learn this: Divinely Superfluous Beauty.
My thing is if they don't like it then nobody is forcing them to participate in capitalism. They can live in the woods with the savages and hunt and live a harder life if they want.
Wow, I never thought I would here shuch stupid comments commeing from some ones motuh. It is wrong to take money from someone,and give ti to another so he can have a car too.
Are you a Marxist? You talk like one. This is one of the most fallaciously self-righteous videos I've seen. You're a pretty horrifying creature. I'll be sure to never watch your videos again.
A few too many unquestioned premises at the beginning there, Inmendham.
I mean the whole idea of a "surplus value" being *stolen* from workers has been refuted so many times. Surely you must have come across these critiques on your travels?
Your claim seems rather lame if you can't even provide any links to back up your shit. Please, enlighten us all, like Inmendham is doing here.....and you are not. And please, lets have none of the idiot's retort of, "just google it."
Actually, as you should know, as I believe you have been around YT for a while, there are ways around YT web address spam filters. Like using w w w with spaces and using sites like tinyurl dott comm, no w w w in its case, to shorten up web addresses. But you did not disappoint me with this response, I expected you to balk at actually backing up what you said. Not enlightened hu, since you fail to bring more than your pithy characterizations I guess that will remain a open question.
If you're genuinely interested (which I'm skeptical of), probably the best and most complete critique would be "Socialism - An Economic and Sociological Analysis." by Ludwig Von Mises.
9:34 "you can make more money than your assets are worth"
No you can't. The most basic tool of accounting is the equation
assets = liabilities + owner's equity The purpose of business is to increase owner's equity (capital), and when owner's equity increases, that is reflected by your assets (usually cash or accounts receivable).
While the reasons cropper gives for business failure are dramatic, it's easier than you think, especially if you haven't done it before
Mr. Cropper knows what he's talking about. I don't agree with Ayn Rand 100% but her core philosophy based on freedom and selfishness is solid and can be scaled to even the largest of businesses. Socialism is the end of innovation and the quality of life. WTF indeed Suicidal.
How can you evade the fact that these corporate giants like Ford came up with the central ideas that get these companies started. All the hard work and labour in the world is useless without a central integrating idea unifing the whole operation. That is what makes any single hammer stroke or push of the button by "the workers" valuable to start with. Thats like saying,using a war analogy, that a Napoleon should get paid as much as an average soldier because they do most of the hardf work.
I think that while your point is certainly valid, there has to be some kind of perspective.
Whilst one must admire men such as Ford for their entrepreneurial spirit, there is still somewhat of a discrepancy between the $5 a day wage of Ford's workers, and the $194 Billion (by today's money) fortune of Henry Ford himself.
It makes a mockery of the idea that $5 a day, although 'generous' for the time, was the maximum Ford could afford to pay its workers.
What is the market value of pulling a lever or digging a ditch? ANyboidy can do it, its not work with a skill set thats in short supply. Now managing a giant corporation that operates all over an entire nation and sometimes the world, now thats something rare and that you cant just pull some guy off the street and get.
I agree with you that setting up and running a giant corporation requires a lot of talent (and, I would argue, a lot of luck). And I agree that men such as Ford deserve a larger slice of the profit for being the 'brains' behind the operation. But, again, $5 a day compared to $194 Billion? Is that really justified?
And although pulling a lever or digging a ditch requires no special skills, it is still productive work. Without the labourers nothing would get done. They actually 'create' value.
Massive structures of anykind dont stand by "luck". What is wrong with a man earning 194 billion dollars voluntarily? what principle is he violating by doing that?
Im not saying they stand by luck alone, just that there is some degree of luck involved. Im sure any successful person would admit there is a bit of 'right place, right time' involved.
I would say it could violate the principle of fairness. Is it really in society's interest to have one man control that amount of wealth? Is that a fair distribution of wealth in relation to work effort & value created? But even if we allow such vast fortunes, is it fair to allow that fortune to be inherited?
Well, its a choise to take an opportunity and sometimes it takes courage, how many opportunities have you had in front of your face and chosen not to take?
Again, by what standard do you judge what is fair? What magical standard floating in the sky do you use to say, "ok this is too much". There is none, especially since the implicit principles and ideas used to create that wealth and which underlies and justifies every cent they earn did not involve violence, but was free voluntary trade.
And by what RIGHT can you use force and violence to take a mans earned wealth and "redistribute" it? When is it ever FAIR to punch a man, that his violated nobodies rights, in the face. And what is this obsession with hard work? Why is hard work a good thing?
If you have a man who is willing to dig a massive trench that you need in 24 hours with a shovel. How much is he worth? How much should he get paid for all that hard work? If you have a man that knows how to use exploxives and can make trench in one hour with a handfull of TNT, how much is he worth? How much should he get paid? The standard should not be how hard you worked.
Essentially the only point I am attempting to make is that a business is almost a symbiotic system. The owners need the workers and the workers need the owners.
We need entrepreneurs and visionaries to come up with ideas such as the production line or the Windows operating system etc. But we also need the men and women who are willing to do a hard day's work for a fair day's pay. The money is not 'taken' from the owner, it belongs to the business, which was 'earned' by both the workers & owner.
I think this is the more pertinent question, who should get paid more - the man who intelligently uses TNT and explosives to create a trench or the man who says 'Hey, go blow up a trench over there'? Surely the man who has actually 'created' the trench through expertise deserves a fair proportion.
I never tried to claim that working 'harder' should earn you more money. Just that the 'workers' deserve a fair proportion of the wealth created. Is that so unreasonable?
Yes it is unreasonable, since they didnt earn it fairly, you dont define fair, there is no objective standard, its just whatever FEELS fair. Fair is the market value of what you can do, and what you AGREE to get paid to do what you do. If you agree to get paid a penny to clean my entire house, thats fair. If you dont like it, dont agree.
I dont entirely understand what you mean when you say they didnt 'earn it fairly'?
Your theory would be legitimate if people were truly free to agree or disagree to a particular wage. If you have no options then you are not truly 'free'. Its the same as saying the Soviet Union had 'free' elections as you were free to choose between Vlad the Communist and Boris the Communist.
I think we will just have to agree to diagree as we have very different ideas of what is fair and reasonable.
They didnty earn it fairly assuming that we impose the system you advocate.
How are they not afree? nobody is pointing a gun to their head, they can ask for any price they want, and the employer can reject any price they want, they are both free. You dont get killed for asking for a certain wage like you would get killed for starting your own party in a communist party, thats a terrible analogy.
Hmm. You obviously dont understand the analogy at all. It has nothing to do with being killed. Its the idea that the 'choice' you claim workers have to agree or disagree is superficial.
If you have the choice between a wage, of any description, or no wage at all, you are going to choose the wage regardless of how unfair it is. If the choice is $1 per hour or starving to death, what are you going to choose?
And what 'system' am I advocating? I am simply pointing out a discrepancy in this system
Well youre examples are contextless, but I will choose what will improve my situation overall. So choosing the $1 will do that, thank you mister employer, i would have died without you.
What if the choice was between starving to death, or your employer puts chains around your neck and ankles and officially 'owns' you. He feeds you, clothes you, provides you with shelter. Being a slave would 'improve your overall situation'. You should thank him, after all you 'would have died' without him.
So you dont really believe in paying people what they deserve, or what is fair. You believe you should pay them the bare minimum you can get away with. Exploit desperation.
Your choices in a capitalist system do not ammount to death or slavery, capitalism is the opposite of slavery. And you're British, so maybe you should read up the meaning of the saying "Give me Liberty, or Give me death", afterwords you will see why slavery is not an "improvement of my overall situation."
Thats the difference. I understand what true liberty is. I understand that forcing someone to accept wages which are not equal to the work they do - that are unfair - because they have no real choice, is an infringement of their liberties. You appear to think that as long as you pay them something, even a penny a week, its all OK. As long as you dont use the word 'slavery'. That offends American sensibilities.
You seem to think that things have an intrinsic value of some sort, but context gives meaning. In a land where everybody has no arms the two armed man is king. Why? Well the context of the situation determines his worth. He will get paid more in that situation than he would in any normal situation. But no, you seem to think that one hammer blow or one dig of the shovel has a fixed floating price., but that is not the case.
Not at all. If your hammer blow is part of building something of no value, then your hammer blow has no value.
However, if your help build a dam that creates millions of $/£ of profit a year, my argument is that the people who actually did the work, who actually built the dam, deserve a fair proportion of the profits. Thats all. Why cant everyone benefit? Why must one man be a multi-billionaire whilst the workers live in poverty and ghettos?
Because there wouldnt be a building or work there to start with without him. He has the idea, he provides the capital, he gets most of the money.
The idea that workers should get a fair share is absurd, you dont even define how that would be measured, or how you would determine what is fait because all it ammounts to is a feeling.
"The idea that workers should get a fair share is absurd". I dont really know how to respond to that. Fairness is absurd?
You could argue that any principle is 'feeling'. Liberty is a 'feeling'. The Right to life is a 'feeling'. They are not eternal truths, just human creations. Why couldn't we devise some way to distribute profits fairly just like we devised a moral code?
I agree that the entrepreneur deserves a larger share. But again, back to my original point, we need some perspective.
If you and a partner went into business together and he had an idea to build a bridge. You actually built the bridge. He became a billionaire whilst you were paid $1 per hour. You might think to yourself 'Is this really fair?'
As a society we could decide what is fair. As you have admitted, there is no universal concept of fairness, so we could define one ourselves.
You think one man being a billionaire is fair. I dont. Its a difference of opinion.
No, when has society ever decided anything? We dont come to decisions as a society, we come to them as individuals. You as an individual tell me what fair would be. If the idea gives the power and value to the work being done, and you admit taht the CEO should get paid more than an average worker, then by what arbitrary standard would you use to take fromhim and give to the workers more than they would otherwise earn?
When has society ever decided anything? Every single law we have in the world was decided by governments, which are the elected (or unelected) representatives of society.
But if you want an example, one that InMendham uses is that no one can earn more than $3 million. We could introduce some sort of law along those lines. We already have other laws governing wages and working conditions.
We 'arbitrarily' establish standards all the time. Thats how the world works. Otherwise; Anarchy.
There is no collective consciousness that decides on these laws, they are made by individuals.
What you prescribe is just tyrrany of the majority, laws should be based on the objective facts of reality, not on some feeling or whim. Individual rights are not arbitrary, and basing your laws on them doesnot leads to anarchy.
Perhaps I misunderstood the question? I thought you wanted to know how we could distribute the profits more fairly, and I mentioned that we could cap salaries.
But I dont entirely understand how individual rights are not arbitrary? Unless you believe in a God that imbues us with 'rights', all rights are arbitrary. We create them based on our conscience. It doesnt 'feel right' (for lack of a better term) to murder, so we prohibit it.
That is a bizarre way of looking at the world. We would come up with a figure after intense political discussion and we had come to some sort of consensus. The same way we decide how long a prison term should be for particular crimes or anything else. How is that dictatorship? Thats Democracy.
You must be a psychopath if rape, genocide and slavery are things you enjoy.
Where does your morality come from? The Bible I suppose? Only rules written on stones tablets from God count, is that it?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but every single law, rule or principle we have has been decided 'arbitrarily'.
There is no mystical, cosmic code of morality. We decide it based on reasoned discussion and logic. A 'pathetic' standard would be basing your morality on the dictums of ancient desert nomads.
You obviously dont understand how morality is devised, how laws are created and implemented, or how governments and democracy functions.
I know that your moral code is a complete fiction, created by you and that you 'might decide something completely different tomorrow'.
All laws are arbitrary. We decide through debate and consensus what is fair and what is not. In reality, you are 'arbitrarily' deciding what we can 'arbitrate' and what we cannot.
Why can we decide, as a society, the prison term for murder, or the national speed limit, but not the maximum wage?
Your entire stance is, Im afraid, utterly contradictory.
Pretentious? Surely I was simply stating a fact? Im not criticizing your morality alone, my morality is also a fiction of my own creation. I dont need to know what it is in order to understand that it did not come from some 'eternal truth', it came from your own conscience. No need to be so sensitive.
I would argue there is justification for it. One man being a multi-billionaire whilst his workers live in poverty strikes me as unfair.
But thats just my opinion. You are entitled to disagree.
And again I ask, how can that be fair? vThats just an arbitrary limit? What if somebodyes worth is higher than the cap?
Rights are not a social convention or whims from an unseen god. They are based on facts,i.e. the requirements of man as a rational being. Mans basic means of survival is the use of Reason and the only way to negate or destroy his basic means of survival is the use of physical force.
No, her parents gave it to her freely, she didnt pull a gun on them and say "give me all your money or ill blow your head off" like appearantly you want to do.
I suppose u teach 'your' kids to study hard in the hope of getting a 'decent' job and 'earning' a good living, right? How do you qualify this madness to them? All I say is their needs to be a cap on mega wealth inheritance. Her millions in 'birthright' money could help thousands. If we allow this to continue we will end up with the rich just getting richer and super wealthy dynasties will form and they ensure their dominance and.....wait what am I saying?
"They stole money" LLLOOOOOOOLLL Wealth is not a fixed pie. They created innovations which increased aggregate wealth. They obtain a percentage of said wealth for their contributions. The return they receive is based on the systematic risk factors behind said innovations.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 They created innovations? Excuse me for mistaking rich parasites for inventors and engineers who live under rather modest conditions relative to hundred room mansions occupied by said rich parasite.
technatezin 1 year ago
I've....never found myself agreeing with Inmendham so much...then again I've seen few videos where the man presented himself with less than 4 curses per sentence, and I have to say that when he's not trying to out four-letter the next guy....he can be quite persuasive.
Nice point with "Poor people who have good credit....there's a nice idea".
HotaruZoku 1 year ago
They stole this money how? By being industrious? If you think letting the government redistribute the wealth is a good idea, you've got another thing coming. The lion share always goes to the Rockefellers of the world and the proletariat work for them, in manor of speaking. Competition is what, in most cases, fuels people to excel.
wrdeboise 1 year ago
wow another scared, angry, illogical marxist. you are completely ignoring consent and selectively simplifying things to an absurd level.
i remember thinking marx was interesting... in high school, then i grew up.
senorfarqueso 1 year ago
Bah nonsense
Imendham is a fucking idiot
Employers don't steal from workers, only somebody devoid of common sense would believe that
Sam26100 2 years ago
I mean, it's obvious that the entire basis for socialism and communism is just wealth envy. People who envy what others have and want to have the power to take it for themselves. The root of all evil ain't money, it's coercive power.
ironmonkeyheller 2 years ago
@ironmonkeyheller the root of evil is the LOVE of money. coercive power can be the means.
BeingInTheMessiah 2 years ago
No, loving money does not make you evil. Everyone wants money. All evil starts with someone who wants to have POWER over other individuals. Every immoral action stems from lust for power or use of coercive force.
ironmonkeyheller 2 years ago
Remember, no one really loves money. Money is just a placeholder for real goods and services. If I want a certain goods or services, such as a mansion, then I have to make money. How does this make me evil?
ironmonkeyheller 2 years ago
Are you really going to say people do not love to obtain goods and services?
calling it "evil" is ambiguous. More like egoistic. The claim made by satanists like Crooper is that people would have no reason to be productive unless it was to the ends of satiating their ego (which they never acknoledge is over inflated).
the short of it is that the only reason a communal utopia wouldnt work is that people are Aholes because they lack objective morals
BeingInTheMessiah 2 years ago
I don't think people "love" it, I think they want it or like it.
Fine, instead of evil, I'll call it criminal. Egoists are not criminals, those who coerce are.
Cropper is not a "satanist," he is an atheist. And of course he is right that people wouldn't be productive if they didn't get anything for themselves in return. That would be slavery, which is the opposite of voluntary employment. I don't understand what you mean by an inflated ego in this context... Continued...
ironmonkeyheller 2 years ago
"he is right that people wouldn't be productive if they didn't get anything for themselves in return"
lol and just why wouldnt anyone get anything in return? The base of human existance is sustanance. Either you forage (tough) or you farm (easier). as long as the population grows your going to get more people that dont have to grow food. if those people can get food, and the farmer can get what those other people make then there is no problem.
the problem comes from aholes who take too much
BeingInTheMessiah 2 years ago
I still don't get why you have a problem with someone producing or buying more than they need. People would be very unhappy indeed if they only could get what they need and not what they want. This is all about the faulty pie theory. Wealth is not a pie, where one person takes a big piece and leaves none for someone else. Each individual makes their own wealth from what they do and what they have. The only free society is one in in which people can produce and trade to get what they want.
ironmonkeyheller 2 years ago
...What is "inflated" about the need or desire to own certain things?
A communal utopia wouldn't work because human beings cannot, and should not, be forced to act solely for the benefit of others. If everyone decided to volunteer themselves, sure fine, that would work. But forcing people into it is wrong and impractical. People have a right to be what you would consider an asshole. The only objective morality is the morality of non-coercion. The only true equality is power equality.
ironmonkeyheller 2 years ago
my use of "inflated" was to denote the excessive nature of those who aquire more wealth than they know what to do with (which could be the best desription of literally having sold ones soul)
No one is saying people should be forced to live as servants to eachother. Im just pointing out the superiority of that mindset, and that people generally wont accept it because their irrational sentiments grossly exaggerate the importance of desire over needs. they fail to realize they could be happier
BeingInTheMessiah 2 years ago
Excessive by whose standards? Is anything that we don't need excessive? I still don't get where this idea that having lots of wealth makes you evil or soulless. It doesn't. This is just pure wealth envy, plain and simple
Why is that mindset superior? Who is putting desires over needs? Has anyone starved to death lately because they bought jewelry instead of food? You can't just blame irrational behavior on the pursuit of happiness. People decide what makes them happy, not some outside authority
ironmonkeyheller 2 years ago
apathy is not a virtue. there is no reasoning with someone who thinks there is.
BeingInTheMessiah 2 years ago
*who thinks that it is*
BeingInTheMessiah 2 years ago
No apathy is not a virtue, but respect for other peoples' free will is.
ironmonkeyheller 2 years ago
@ironmonkeyheller Who said apathy isn't a virtue? I like to watch stupid shows on T.V. while knowing the world is going to shit. Who are you to tell me why I should care (opposite of being apathetic).
technatezin 1 year ago
@technatezin Well that comment was a reply to BeingInTheMessiah's post. So this is sort of out of context, but I will discuss it anyway. Just because something isn't a virtue doesn't mean you can't like it or shouldn't do it. A virtue is something that is morally good in itself. I don't see apathy as morally necessary or good, but I don't see it as bad either. So I am not telling you that you should care. Do whatever you want, as long as you aren't impeding on the freedoms of others.
ironmonkeyheller 1 year ago
@ironmonkeyheller "Do whatever you want, as long as you aren't impeding on the freedoms of others."
That really depends doesn't it? Maybe I enjoy rape and cannibalism of libertarians. Who are you to tell me why I shouldn't rape and eat you? Aren't you impeding my freedom? Thing is I've never tasted barbecued human flesh in my entire life here on Earth. And I'm curious as to what it tastes like. Does it really taste like chicken?
technatezin 1 year ago
@technatezin
Read that sentence again. Does raping and eatimg me against my will impede on my freedoms? Yes, of course it does.
I am not impeding on your freedoms by telling you that you can't rape and eat me. You never had the freedom to do those things if they impeded on my freedom in the first place.
If you understand this distinction, then any action can be judged by it.
ironmonkeyheller 1 year ago
@ironmonkeyheller Suppose a group of violent religious idiots think that you're a witch and out of fear for my own personal safety I am forced to agree with them and call you a witch.
watch?v=uJT1Sa7H0-E
They proceed to pour petroleum on you and burn you alive, but if I try to stop them the irrational, angry mob will burn me alive. Who are you to tell me I shouldn't accuse you of being a witch to save my own skin? Since you're bbq'ed already, does it matter if I hack off an arm for a taste?
technatezin 1 year ago
@technatezin
You have no obligation to sacrifice your safety in order to save me, but you have no right to attack me when I have done you no harm.
If you are dying of hunger, are you allowed to kill the grocery store owner in order to steal his food? Your imposition doesn't give you the right to violate the rights of another.
ironmonkeyheller 1 year ago
@ironmonkeyheller "but you have no right to attack me when I have done you no harm."
Why not? If I agree with you I die, if I attack you I live or did you not watch the clip? If I become neutral the crowd in the scenario would question my integrity which means I have to think quick and make snap decisions to avoid being camp fire food.
"If you are dying of hunger, are you allowed to kill the grocery store owner in order to steal his food?"
I might steal his food using stealth techniques.
technatezin 1 year ago
@technatezin I couldn't watch any clip because your link didn't send me to anything.
You are deciding that your life justifies taking mine. You are saying that your life is more important than mine. If you concede that, then equal rights becomes meaningless. Why should I respect any of your rights if I can decide subjectively that yours are worthless? What you are arguing for is moral anarchy, the strongest and most ruthless destroy everyone else and take their property.
ironmonkeyheller 1 year ago
@ironmonkeyheller "What you are arguing for is moral anarchy"
Everything in the world is anarchistic. Civilization itself exists within a wider sea of anarchy that is only kept from falling apart with a crude form of carrots and sticks. Carrots in this case being money and sticks being the armed security forces of the state. In a typical overloaded life boat scenario would you throw the least valuable member of the life boat overboard if you are certain of capsizing if you don't?
technatezin 1 year ago
@technatezin "Everything in the world is anarchistic."
You couldn't be more wrong. Every society in the world has some kind of moral code. Very few lack governmental institutions. Learn what anarchy means.
ironmonkeyheller 1 year ago
@ironmonkeyheller "Very few lack governmental institutions."
And those governmental institutions include armed security forces which are human which means they can also include corrupt police BECAUSE they are HUMAN or are you naive enough to think corrupt police do not exist?
"... mean they are actually less valuable."
Oh, you're a martyr *sarcasm*. So in a desperate situation you would kill yourself if you're important thus DOOMING everyone rather than save everyone by sacrificing someone?
technatezin 1 year ago
@technatezin "And those governmental institutions include armed security forces which are human which means they can also include corrupt police BECAUSE they are HUMAN or are you naive enough to think corrupt police do not exist?"
No, where in my comments do I say that I think that? I was simply disputing your statement that everything in the world is anarchistic.
ironmonkeyheller 1 year ago
@ironmonkeyheller "No, where in my comments do I say that I think that? I was simply disputing your statement that everything in the world is anarchistic."
Just take a look around. Where do you see order exactly? There's a simple kind of haphazard disorder of trading, waste, nepotism and mutual threats and bribery, but that isn't what I would exactly call order. Perhaps organized barbarism would be a more appropriate term for it.
technatezin 1 year ago
@technatezin "Where do you see order exactly?"
Everywhere. The universe creates order spontaneously. There is order in the laws of nature, in the actions of human beings, in civilization itself. When humans created civilization, they turned disorder into order. Capitlism is a system made up of numerous seemingly chaotic individual decisions, yet it creates economic order. The technological progress of humanity is also an example of order from chaos. Look at the technology you use every day.
ironmonkeyheller 1 year ago
@technatezin "Oh, you're a martyr *sarcasm*. So in a desperate situation you would kill yourself if you're important thus DOOMING everyone rather than save everyone by sacrificing someone?"
No, I wouldn't kill myself. I jjust wouldn't kill someone else that has not done anything to me. See the difference? It is solely the decision of the individual whether they want to sacrifice themselves to save others. No man has the right to decide that another man should die for the good of the group.
ironmonkeyheller 1 year ago
@ironmonkeyheller "I jjust wouldn't kill someone else that has not done anything to me."
In emergency situations people lie to themselves and lie to others in order to save themselves or do you think this is not human nature? So are you saying that you would not kill someone who is a habitual liar or criminal to save the more valuable members of the crew even if he's worthless to you if you save him and thus dooming the life boat? If you're in that situation wouldn't you lie to save yourself?
technatezin 1 year ago
@technatezin "In emergency situations people lie to themselves and lie to others in order to save themselves or do you think this is not human nature?"
OK. What's your point?
"So are you saying that you would not kill someone who is a habitual liar or criminal to save the more valuable members of the crew even if he's worthless to you if you save him and thus dooming the life boat?"
Just because you lie doesn't mean you lose the right to live. The same goes for a criminal...
ironmonkeyheller 1 year ago
@technatezin ...who has served his time in jail.
"If you're in that situation wouldn't you lie to save yourself?"
I don't see how lying would save me. I don't care about lying, I care about whether or not I'm respecting the rights of others.
This discussion isn't going anywhere. There's probably no way I can convince you that utilitarianism isn't a moral system. Utilitarianism is the lack of a moral system, where any action can be justified as "moral."
ironmonkeyheller 1 year ago
@technatezin "In a typical overloaded life boat scenario would you throw the least valuable member of the life boat overboard if you are certain of capsizing if you don't?"
No I would not. First of all, there is no such thing as a least valuable person. Maybe a person has less value to your survival in your eyes, but that doesn't mean they are actually less valuable.
ironmonkeyheller 1 year ago
@technatezin ...I would not throw anyone overboard in that situation. I'd rather die by a moral code than live through disgusting cowardice. If you can't respect the equal rights of your fellow man, you should leave society before you hurt someone.
ironmonkeyheller 1 year ago
These are all things Cropper would agree with. Does that sound bad to you?
ironmonkeyheller 2 years ago
Now back to the workers. So you say the rich are stealing from the poor by skimming off profit. But if the rich weren't doing anything and the workers had all the value, why wouldn't the workers sell directly to the market? It's because the factory owner provides the means of production. Without the means of production, the worker's skills are valueless. You people continue to forget that people own things, and if you want to use something that I own to make money, I get a share.
ironmonkeyheller 2 years ago
More retardation is apparent on the value argument. How do we calculate value? You calculate value by how much good it would do for society, but that's just a fancy way of saying lots of people want it. For example, you say a bridge would be good because lots of people would use the bridge and value it. The problem is that Rockefeller's money doesn't belong to society. That's what your fucking taxes are for. HE decides where HIS money goes, and obviously he values a mansion more than a bridge.
ironmonkeyheller 2 years ago
Are you retarded? What money did the rich steal from the poor? Where did this idea come from? The factory owner pays workers to work in his factory producing goods that he then sells. Where is the stealing? All I see is an agreement between a worker and employer. Why didn't the workers go court and get their money back if it was stolen?
Ummmm, yeah.
ironmonkeyheller 2 years ago
Hi Inmendham
Are you related to William Dafoe?
Pracedru 2 years ago
Well said Gary.
Cropper is such a moron...or is it fascist...yes he is a fascist.
His theory is complete elitist bunk a la Rand.
Drastam 2 years ago
Modern Mystic is right, your a f*ckwit Gary.
tantoi10man 2 years ago
Comment removed
PCMechanic 2 years ago
cro mag
mrfukbag 2 years ago
get off the meth gary!!
strawman007 2 years ago
I think that allowing people to be rich is a good thing. But like you said in another video, estate tax needs to be 100% to be fair. Excellent videos, by the way, thanks!
n3rdm4n 2 years ago
I dont know if 100% is fair. I think that leaving a home to your children, such as a cabin you acquired while alive, is not an abuse. Otherwise, there is no reason the dullard children of the rich should get million dollar trust funds for no effort on their part.
Antisyzygy 2 years ago
I'd be agreeable to something like that, but yes, letting someone have an easy life just because their parents were good at making money it's not good. I mean, they should already have some sort of genetic predisposition for it, so not having so much money to start out shouldn't be a problem for them.
n3rdm4n 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy is the biggest imbeccile on youtube
jloiterer 2 years ago
awsome channel
kamyarghofrani 2 years ago
what an idiot. which means that any minion of this idiot is even more of an idiot.
ericfuller187 2 years ago
instead of calling him extremist, how about anyone actually make a valueable counter argument?
you have none? well ...than you are probably WRONG
nekftw 2 years ago
This video is just as asinine as the one you criticise.
You are an extremist just like most of the die-hard libertarians who think government has zero role in the life of the average person.
Whether you're an anti-capitalist type or an uber-capitalist, there is literally no logical way to deny that on the whole (obviously there are exceptions) most wealthy "families" do create wealth. It is utterly impossible to argue otherwise logically.
Esoteric604 2 years ago
Create wealth? There's a whole bunch a resources, land, and man-hours, and various configurations of how we distribute them. I don't think wealth is created, it's claimed, stolen, traded, or givern away.
TruthBeyond 2 years ago
Take the good from both sides, discard the bad. Thus a sensible middle way is achieved, harmonious just like all successful things in nature. We can learn so much from the Universe if we just pay attention. Avoid the extremes of pure capitalism or communism.
Live to create wealth by fair means, but then use that wealth to benefit others as well as yourself. No one can blame any person for such logical actions.
matreyia 2 years ago
Comment removed
matreyia 2 years ago
Love it all, that is what we're here for.
Alexknobsob 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are promoting death by smoking a cigarette. You are a insidious advertisement for big tobacco, just another pawn of the death squads. One billion deaths by nicotine. Thanks alot for killing our children.
Zapodyopsis 2 years ago
Your communist theories of labor are so full of mental gaps, that it is almost sickening to listen to you talk. I have to assume you are a somewhat intelligent person, and therfore you know full well what you say is total BS. Maybe i'm giving you too much credit though. How's all those communist utopias working out right now? Idiot. Come back to reality some time.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
You are an idiot. Marx's writings were not all about revolution and the overthrowing of the bourgeoise by the proletariat that appealed to so many leftist intellectuals in the 60's. Marx's theories on economics have much in common with classical liberalism, and in fact are rooted in classical liberalism. Read through Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, the Godfather of capitalism, and you discover that Marx mostly echoed Adam Smith. Just because someone uses a marxist lens does not make them a marxi
DanMorgan98 2 years ago
I always thought it was dumb that everyone looked at communism like it was inherently impossible to work correctly simply because it hasn't yet, when every single country that has ever used it has pretty much been a shit hole before, during, and after using it.
IAmPhotoBucket 2 years ago
Ok, so every country that tried out "Communism" (even though, its never really been tried like it's stated on paper, since communism is really anarchy at the end) was a shithole during and after. How about capitalism? (Even though capitalism has never really been fully implimented in the likes of pure lassiez faire) Look at America. In 1776 it was a tiny, unpopulated land with little to no wealth creation. Fast forward to 1900, and its the evny of the world. Gee, wonder how that happens.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
It's much easier to start from scratch and make something good than it is to take a pile of shit and turn it into a utopia. It isn't a proper comparison.
I doubt giving Cuba the American Capitalism treatment will make it stop being a shitty place.
IAmPhotoBucket 2 years ago
I have almost all of europe as an example. Pre ww2 europe was a place full of dictatorships, monarchies, highly collectivized societies. After ww2 when America pressed a new economic system into the countries, (Such as germany for example) and look at what happened in there. How about the breakaway nations from soviet russia? Georgia is a good example of capitalism in action. Lowest tax rate in the world, business is flocking to the country. All they need is some protection from Russia.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
you are unhistorical to the bone...
the new economic system of Europe was not capitalists you dudu head... by the early 80s state sector contributed around 50% of the gdp of any given European country..
Georgia what a fine example of capitalism, one that Russia directly subsidize more than 15% of their gdp through energy resources primarily, and 50% of their gdp is actually the money the 1.5 million Georgian expatriates in Russia sent to Georgia.
better find a new case study..
amet1980 2 years ago
obviously there is no laissez faire capitalist country out there for me to cite as evidence of the wonders of capitalism. I was simply showing an obvious correlation between countries that respect individual rights, property rights, and laissez faire economic policy more, do better.
You can't argue this, and the more you try, the dumber you look. Simply because all countries run a mixed economcy does not make my point any less relevant.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
the zeitgeist movement
rhythymsofmysoul 2 years ago
if we take in mind cia factbook cuba is already in par with the richests states of latin america withou having their problems of extreme poverty..
venezualla been the richests...
scrap the embargo of cuba, let 1-2 million american turists fload cuba, cuba becomes the richest country in america outside usa and canada..
amet1980 2 years ago
usa tiny?and capitalist?
unless your parents hd spent 200 000 dollars(your education costs up to graduation) youarent really entitle to speak about capitalism..
...lets not start counting all the rest spendings of the state for you..
amet1980 2 years ago
I'd love to respond to your statement, unfortunately it doesn't appear you're able to type in a cohernat manner.
Nonetheless, i'll try to respond.
The original 13 colonies that constituted the united states of america had 360,000 sq miles(approx) of land. (About half the size of Alaska, or about 1/3 bigger than texas.) I guess you could say my using of the word "Tiny" was a bit exaggerated, but I stand by my analysis of the impact of capitalism on society.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
360 square miles the size of France and spain roughly and a pop. of 2 million.
enough to generate a wealthy society by the ratio of land to citizens alone..
find a better case analysis..
amet1980 2 years ago
did you just say that france was 360 sq miles?
If you did, i've got a nice 5 acre plot on the moon for sale.
france = 211,209 sq miles
Twiggy269 2 years ago
france and spains ,it says..
amet1980 2 years ago
think about what you're saying for a second.
France AND spain are 360 sq miles???
Lets put this into perspective. Rhode Island, the SMALLEST state in the USA is 1,545 sq miles.
It takes about 45 minutes to drive across rhode island.
And you're saying, that france AND spain are 3x as small as rhode island?
Washington D.C which is about the size of a regular city with about a million people is 68 sq miles. Please tell me you're just terribly mistaken and you dont believe this.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
i think you are a child although 24 years old and you need to grow up..
amet1980 2 years ago
this has been the biggest waste of my youtube posting life, you're just a flat out idiot and you deserve none of my time. good day
Twiggy269 2 years ago
"type in a cohernat manner. "
coherent to you that is..
that's fine.
let me give it another shot.
the state allocates around 200 000 dollars or more for your education alone,400 000 for a 2 children family 600 000 for a 3 children family..
im welcome to grant you your capitalist utopia if your parents give buck the money ..
..then the defense spending money per capita(roughly 16 000 for a family of 4)
..then all the rest ...
the social lecher you rant about is you in case you haven't gathered..
amet1980 2 years ago
"the state allocates around 200 000 dollars or more for your education alone"
Where does "The State" get the "Money" that it allocates?
Secondly, how do you decide what is necessary for the government to provide for society and what is up to the individual?
"im welcome to grant you your capitalist utopia if your parents give buck the money"
I'll enjoy hearing you try to run from your contradiction in this quote while answering the first question.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
This is actually a very good video. People are completely bamboozled into thinking that the rich earn their money because they work harder. In fact the wealth is being SIPHONED OFF, or in other words, REDISTRIBUTED from those who create the wealth to executives and stock holders. CEOs don't work hundreds of times harder/longer and aren't hundreds of times more intelligent/educated than their average worker to justify their income.
Jacnas 2 years ago
the guy has an understanding of art ive give him that.
saltfan2 2 years ago
InMendham is so funny!
Entropy56 2 years ago
cropper is a crapper.
siddhaam 2 years ago
Yes, labor is often exploited -- that's why we need laws to get some kind of balance.
We did get some balance. Its ongoing problem.
The mansions had value -- it got the owner Power, Prestige, and Pussy.
Most of what men do is for the 3P's of power, prestige and pussy. From how we dress, to how we talk, to how we wear our hair - to what car we drive to what house we want. Trappings of power, prestige-- to get the pussy.
I'm not complaining, I think its fun.
BullshipDetector 2 years ago
A man who needs to be forced to act right is a man who doesn't deserve to act.
xprincexofxsavagesx 2 years ago
Comment removed
BullshipDetector 2 years ago
if you mute him and play whitesnake int he background its awesome!
Callmebetty123 2 years ago
This video is great, I don't see why you're getting bad comments.
jedimasterbooboo 2 years ago
It's a standard Marxist analysis. If you sympathize with it, you're going to like it, but if you're not, you're not going to. This is a 150+ year old debate.
Quag7 2 years ago
I'm aware of that, but many people have not even thought of these things. Also, it's interesting to see as time has passed the critique is less and less, as the problems grow (and capitalism strays from its own ideals as well), we've created monsters instead of just wealthy land owners. There's no reason this country should need someone pointing out that we've made kings. This system has never stood for that. it gets interesting as time goes on.
jedimasterbooboo 2 years ago
You are on a good train of thought. The problems are found in what individuals FEEL they NEED to possess as instructed my their social imprinting process. The process can leave the Individual damaged, hurt and even psychically maimed to the point that their own humanity is damaged. Gain and loss of possessions is what the majority has for the vehical to regain and heal thier humanity. Art is good to learn this: Divinely Superfluous Beauty.
safeteyvalve 2 years ago
mr cropper was bullied at school.
Blockedandowned 2 years ago
there is a blue pyramid on ur forehead
mavidbabae 3 years ago
lol
anyusmoon1 2 years ago
My thing is if they don't like it then nobody is forcing them to participate in capitalism. They can live in the woods with the savages and hunt and live a harder life if they want.
jfsimard79 3 years ago
I guess MrCropper didn't address how Rockefeller got his money because he didn't expect old-line Marxism to still be alive.
You shouldn't condone productive work in your videos; you'll marginalize yourself from your hippy friends.
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
LOL
tsummerlee 3 years ago
Wow, I never thought I would here shuch stupid comments commeing from some ones motuh. It is wrong to take money from someone,and give ti to another so he can have a car too.
nero8289 3 years ago
Are you a Marxist? You talk like one. This is one of the most fallaciously self-righteous videos I've seen. You're a pretty horrifying creature. I'll be sure to never watch your videos again.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
If there's anything I enjoy more than this video, it's the fallacy-laden responses from all the butthurt Randroids.
BeagleOfRome 1 year ago
great
ogapadoga 3 years ago
A few too many unquestioned premises at the beginning there, Inmendham.
I mean the whole idea of a "surplus value" being *stolen* from workers has been refuted so many times. Surely you must have come across these critiques on your travels?
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Your claim seems rather lame if you can't even provide any links to back up your shit. Please, enlighten us all, like Inmendham is doing here.....and you are not. And please, lets have none of the idiot's retort of, "just google it."
politicomark 3 years ago
You can't post links here, in case you hadn't noticed, and if this is what passes for englighenment then you haven't got much of a chance anyway.
(Not unless "fuck you" counts as enlightenment in your neck of the woods.)
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Actually, as you should know, as I believe you have been around YT for a while, there are ways around YT web address spam filters. Like using w w w with spaces and using sites like tinyurl dott comm, no w w w in its case, to shorten up web addresses. But you did not disappoint me with this response, I expected you to balk at actually backing up what you said. Not enlightened hu, since you fail to bring more than your pithy characterizations I guess that will remain a open question.
politicomark 3 years ago
If you're genuinely interested (which I'm skeptical of), probably the best and most complete critique would be "Socialism - An Economic and Sociological Analysis." by Ludwig Von Mises.
There's plenty in there on economic calculation.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
What a waste of time replying to that fool Cropper...
Wait a minute...
What a waste of time replying to a fool who replied to that fool Cropper...
touche...
siddhaam 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@}-,-`-
Click on my name for the U R L to see how we crushed the entire atheist movement and stopped James Randi's Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
@}-,-`-
felixmab 3 years ago
Polar bear! Tremendousity!
I knew it would be interesting if you took on Mr. Cropper.
42662113 3 years ago
9:34 "you can make more money than your assets are worth"
No you can't. The most basic tool of accounting is the equation
assets = liabilities + owner's equity The purpose of business is to increase owner's equity (capital), and when owner's equity increases, that is reflected by your assets (usually cash or accounts receivable).
While the reasons cropper gives for business failure are dramatic, it's easier than you think, especially if you haven't done it before
whiteflags 3 years ago
I spoke of psudo scientists on YT before, yet even am shocked by Croppers ignorance here. WTF!I
TheSuicidalOptimist 3 years ago
Mr. Cropper knows what he's talking about. I don't agree with Ayn Rand 100% but her core philosophy based on freedom and selfishness is solid and can be scaled to even the largest of businesses. Socialism is the end of innovation and the quality of life. WTF indeed Suicidal.
AMatingMind78 3 years ago
Hi, thanks for responding to Cropper's video.
The first thing you mentioned was the theft of property from the working class. But you don't explain how that process occurs.
Springtime916 3 years ago
Addendum: If you have a video about it you want to share, I'll be receptive to it.
Springtime916 3 years ago
PS the primary coloured lines and the kind of embossed one at around 6'30 r cool
oojamaflipper 3 years ago
FUCKING AWESOME EFFECT!!!!!!!!!! very good argument, as always, but u know ur fuckin good.. AWESOME EFFECTS!!!
oojamaflipper 3 years ago
How can you evade the fact that these corporate giants like Ford came up with the central ideas that get these companies started. All the hard work and labour in the world is useless without a central integrating idea unifing the whole operation. That is what makes any single hammer stroke or push of the button by "the workers" valuable to start with. Thats like saying,using a war analogy, that a Napoleon should get paid as much as an average soldier because they do most of the hardf work.
WarVideo 3 years ago
I think that while your point is certainly valid, there has to be some kind of perspective.
Whilst one must admire men such as Ford for their entrepreneurial spirit, there is still somewhat of a discrepancy between the $5 a day wage of Ford's workers, and the $194 Billion (by today's money) fortune of Henry Ford himself.
It makes a mockery of the idea that $5 a day, although 'generous' for the time, was the maximum Ford could afford to pay its workers.
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
What is the market value of pulling a lever or digging a ditch? ANyboidy can do it, its not work with a skill set thats in short supply. Now managing a giant corporation that operates all over an entire nation and sometimes the world, now thats something rare and that you cant just pull some guy off the street and get.
WarVideo 3 years ago
I agree with you that setting up and running a giant corporation requires a lot of talent (and, I would argue, a lot of luck). And I agree that men such as Ford deserve a larger slice of the profit for being the 'brains' behind the operation. But, again, $5 a day compared to $194 Billion? Is that really justified?
And although pulling a lever or digging a ditch requires no special skills, it is still productive work. Without the labourers nothing would get done. They actually 'create' value.
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
Massive structures of anykind dont stand by "luck". What is wrong with a man earning 194 billion dollars voluntarily? what principle is he violating by doing that?
WarVideo 3 years ago
Im not saying they stand by luck alone, just that there is some degree of luck involved. Im sure any successful person would admit there is a bit of 'right place, right time' involved.
I would say it could violate the principle of fairness. Is it really in society's interest to have one man control that amount of wealth? Is that a fair distribution of wealth in relation to work effort & value created? But even if we allow such vast fortunes, is it fair to allow that fortune to be inherited?
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
Well, its a choise to take an opportunity and sometimes it takes courage, how many opportunities have you had in front of your face and chosen not to take?
Again, by what standard do you judge what is fair? What magical standard floating in the sky do you use to say, "ok this is too much". There is none, especially since the implicit principles and ideas used to create that wealth and which underlies and justifies every cent they earn did not involve violence, but was free voluntary trade.
WarVideo 3 years ago
And by what RIGHT can you use force and violence to take a mans earned wealth and "redistribute" it? When is it ever FAIR to punch a man, that his violated nobodies rights, in the face. And what is this obsession with hard work? Why is hard work a good thing?
WarVideo 3 years ago
If you have a man who is willing to dig a massive trench that you need in 24 hours with a shovel. How much is he worth? How much should he get paid for all that hard work? If you have a man that knows how to use exploxives and can make trench in one hour with a handfull of TNT, how much is he worth? How much should he get paid? The standard should not be how hard you worked.
WarVideo 3 years ago
Essentially the only point I am attempting to make is that a business is almost a symbiotic system. The owners need the workers and the workers need the owners.
We need entrepreneurs and visionaries to come up with ideas such as the production line or the Windows operating system etc. But we also need the men and women who are willing to do a hard day's work for a fair day's pay. The money is not 'taken' from the owner, it belongs to the business, which was 'earned' by both the workers & owner.
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
The more valuable man is the one who actually goes to his work and actually thinks about how to do it better each and every day.
WarVideo 3 years ago
I think this is the more pertinent question, who should get paid more - the man who intelligently uses TNT and explosives to create a trench or the man who says 'Hey, go blow up a trench over there'? Surely the man who has actually 'created' the trench through expertise deserves a fair proportion.
I never tried to claim that working 'harder' should earn you more money. Just that the 'workers' deserve a fair proportion of the wealth created. Is that so unreasonable?
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
Yes it is unreasonable, since they didnt earn it fairly, you dont define fair, there is no objective standard, its just whatever FEELS fair. Fair is the market value of what you can do, and what you AGREE to get paid to do what you do. If you agree to get paid a penny to clean my entire house, thats fair. If you dont like it, dont agree.
WarVideo 3 years ago
I dont entirely understand what you mean when you say they didnt 'earn it fairly'?
Your theory would be legitimate if people were truly free to agree or disagree to a particular wage. If you have no options then you are not truly 'free'. Its the same as saying the Soviet Union had 'free' elections as you were free to choose between Vlad the Communist and Boris the Communist.
I think we will just have to agree to diagree as we have very different ideas of what is fair and reasonable.
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
They didnty earn it fairly assuming that we impose the system you advocate.
How are they not afree? nobody is pointing a gun to their head, they can ask for any price they want, and the employer can reject any price they want, they are both free. You dont get killed for asking for a certain wage like you would get killed for starting your own party in a communist party, thats a terrible analogy.
WarVideo 3 years ago
Hmm. You obviously dont understand the analogy at all. It has nothing to do with being killed. Its the idea that the 'choice' you claim workers have to agree or disagree is superficial.
If you have the choice between a wage, of any description, or no wage at all, you are going to choose the wage regardless of how unfair it is. If the choice is $1 per hour or starving to death, what are you going to choose?
And what 'system' am I advocating? I am simply pointing out a discrepancy in this system
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
Well youre examples are contextless, but I will choose what will improve my situation overall. So choosing the $1 will do that, thank you mister employer, i would have died without you.
WarVideo 3 years ago
What if the choice was between starving to death, or your employer puts chains around your neck and ankles and officially 'owns' you. He feeds you, clothes you, provides you with shelter. Being a slave would 'improve your overall situation'. You should thank him, after all you 'would have died' without him.
So you dont really believe in paying people what they deserve, or what is fair. You believe you should pay them the bare minimum you can get away with. Exploit desperation.
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
Your choices in a capitalist system do not ammount to death or slavery, capitalism is the opposite of slavery. And you're British, so maybe you should read up the meaning of the saying "Give me Liberty, or Give me death", afterwords you will see why slavery is not an "improvement of my overall situation."
WarVideo 3 years ago
Thats the difference. I understand what true liberty is. I understand that forcing someone to accept wages which are not equal to the work they do - that are unfair - because they have no real choice, is an infringement of their liberties. You appear to think that as long as you pay them something, even a penny a week, its all OK. As long as you dont use the word 'slavery'. That offends American sensibilities.
You are, essentially, an Anarchist.
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
You seem to think that things have an intrinsic value of some sort, but context gives meaning. In a land where everybody has no arms the two armed man is king. Why? Well the context of the situation determines his worth. He will get paid more in that situation than he would in any normal situation. But no, you seem to think that one hammer blow or one dig of the shovel has a fixed floating price., but that is not the case.
WarVideo 3 years ago
Not at all. If your hammer blow is part of building something of no value, then your hammer blow has no value.
However, if your help build a dam that creates millions of $/£ of profit a year, my argument is that the people who actually did the work, who actually built the dam, deserve a fair proportion of the profits. Thats all. Why cant everyone benefit? Why must one man be a multi-billionaire whilst the workers live in poverty and ghettos?
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
Because there wouldnt be a building or work there to start with without him. He has the idea, he provides the capital, he gets most of the money.
The idea that workers should get a fair share is absurd, you dont even define how that would be measured, or how you would determine what is fait because all it ammounts to is a feeling.
WarVideo 3 years ago
"The idea that workers should get a fair share is absurd". I dont really know how to respond to that. Fairness is absurd?
You could argue that any principle is 'feeling'. Liberty is a 'feeling'. The Right to life is a 'feeling'. They are not eternal truths, just human creations. Why couldn't we devise some way to distribute profits fairly just like we devised a moral code?
I agree that the entrepreneur deserves a larger share. But again, back to my original point, we need some perspective.
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
"Fairness is absurd?"
Again, if we institute your definition, whatever that is, you refuse to give a definiton of fair........Again define fair.
I would say that the CEO getting billions of dollars is what is fair for the reasons I have already explained.
WarVideo 3 years ago
Well that is where our opinions differ.
If you and a partner went into business together and he had an idea to build a bridge. You actually built the bridge. He became a billionaire whilst you were paid $1 per hour. You might think to yourself 'Is this really fair?'
As a society we could decide what is fair. As you have admitted, there is no universal concept of fairness, so we could define one ourselves.
You think one man being a billionaire is fair. I dont. Its a difference of opinion.
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
No, when has society ever decided anything? We dont come to decisions as a society, we come to them as individuals. You as an individual tell me what fair would be. If the idea gives the power and value to the work being done, and you admit taht the CEO should get paid more than an average worker, then by what arbitrary standard would you use to take fromhim and give to the workers more than they would otherwise earn?
WarVideo 3 years ago
When has society ever decided anything? Every single law we have in the world was decided by governments, which are the elected (or unelected) representatives of society.
But if you want an example, one that InMendham uses is that no one can earn more than $3 million. We could introduce some sort of law along those lines. We already have other laws governing wages and working conditions.
We 'arbitrarily' establish standards all the time. Thats how the world works. Otherwise; Anarchy.
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
There is no collective consciousness that decides on these laws, they are made by individuals.
What you prescribe is just tyrrany of the majority, laws should be based on the objective facts of reality, not on some feeling or whim. Individual rights are not arbitrary, and basing your laws on them doesnot leads to anarchy.
But again you didnt answer my question.
WarVideo 3 years ago
Perhaps I misunderstood the question? I thought you wanted to know how we could distribute the profits more fairly, and I mentioned that we could cap salaries.
But I dont entirely understand how individual rights are not arbitrary? Unless you believe in a God that imbues us with 'rights', all rights are arbitrary. We create them based on our conscience. It doesnt 'feel right' (for lack of a better term) to murder, so we prohibit it.
And what are these 'objective facts of reality'?
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
"I thought you wanted to know how we could distribute the profits more fairly"
Fair according to who? You? Inmenham? Why don't you just declare yourself dictator and be done with it?
"no one can earn more than $3 million"
Why $3 million? Why not 4 or 2? A purely arbitrary figure.
"It doesnt 'feel right' (for lack of a better term) to murder, so we prohibit it."
And if it does "feel right" (rape, slavery, genocide), we ought to allow it?
What a pathetic standard of morality.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
That is a bizarre way of looking at the world. We would come up with a figure after intense political discussion and we had come to some sort of consensus. The same way we decide how long a prison term should be for particular crimes or anything else. How is that dictatorship? Thats Democracy.
You must be a psychopath if rape, genocide and slavery are things you enjoy.
Where does your morality come from? The Bible I suppose? Only rules written on stones tablets from God count, is that it?
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
But no question as to whether we should be having the "intense political discussion" in the first place.
"Thats Democracy."
Which, if force is initiated, is a dictatorship.
"You must be a psychopath if rape, genocide and slavery are things you enjoy."
There are a large quantity of individuals who regard a form of slavery as morally correct.
"Where does your morality come from? The Bible I suppose?"
It states clearly on my channel that I'm an atheist, had you the sense to look.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but every single law, rule or principle we have has been decided 'arbitrarily'.
There is no mystical, cosmic code of morality. We decide it based on reasoned discussion and logic. A 'pathetic' standard would be basing your morality on the dictums of ancient desert nomads.
You obviously dont understand how morality is devised, how laws are created and implemented, or how governments and democracy functions.
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
"There is no mystical, cosmic code of morality."
Yes there are. Dozens of them; all false.
"We decide it based on reasoned discussion and logic."
"We"? Yours would be decided by a committee who might decide something completely different tomorrow.
"You obviously dont understand how morality is devised, how laws are created and implemented, or how governments and democracy functions."
You don't even know what moral code I follow, so I doubt your evaluation is worth anything.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
I know that your moral code is a complete fiction, created by you and that you 'might decide something completely different tomorrow'.
All laws are arbitrary. We decide through debate and consensus what is fair and what is not. In reality, you are 'arbitrarily' deciding what we can 'arbitrate' and what we cannot.
Why can we decide, as a society, the prison term for murder, or the national speed limit, but not the maximum wage?
Your entire stance is, Im afraid, utterly contradictory.
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
"I know that your moral code is a complete fiction,"
Stop being so pretentious. You don't even know what it is.
"you 'might decide something completely different tomorrow'."
Highly unlikely.
"Why can we decide, as a society, the prison term for murder, or the national speed limit, but not the maximum wage?"
There's no justification for it. Someone else earning money does not murder you or run you over.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Pretentious? Surely I was simply stating a fact? Im not criticizing your morality alone, my morality is also a fiction of my own creation. I dont need to know what it is in order to understand that it did not come from some 'eternal truth', it came from your own conscience. No need to be so sensitive.
I would argue there is justification for it. One man being a multi-billionaire whilst his workers live in poverty strikes me as unfair.
But thats just my opinion. You are entitled to disagree.
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
" I mentioned that we could cap salaries."
And again I ask, how can that be fair? vThats just an arbitrary limit? What if somebodyes worth is higher than the cap?
Rights are not a social convention or whims from an unseen god. They are based on facts,i.e. the requirements of man as a rational being. Mans basic means of survival is the use of Reason and the only way to negate or destroy his basic means of survival is the use of physical force.
WarVideo 3 years ago
Your theories would probably work wonderfully in a utopian world, devoid of human greed, where everyone is truly free.
Its a shame it isnt this one.
TheGreaterBriton 3 years ago
1:20 "'Cause you're not going to deal with how they got their money..."
Production and trade.
MrCropper 3 years ago
Is that how Paris Hilton made her millions?
TheSuicidalOptimist 3 years ago
No, her parents gave it to her freely, she didnt pull a gun on them and say "give me all your money or ill blow your head off" like appearantly you want to do.
WarVideo 3 years ago
I suppose u teach 'your' kids to study hard in the hope of getting a 'decent' job and 'earning' a good living, right? How do you qualify this madness to them? All I say is their needs to be a cap on mega wealth inheritance. Her millions in 'birthright' money could help thousands. If we allow this to continue we will end up with the rich just getting richer and super wealthy dynasties will form and they ensure their dominance and.....wait what am I saying?
TheSuicidalOptimist 3 years ago