But I didn't say unadulterated, I said extreme. It's an important difference.
I do think that the Chicago school economic model could be called extreme.
Her point is that this model has been unfairly imposed (with the support of the Chicago school) on electorates who didn't support it, and that it has failed.
@DrunkenPoetic Like most radical malcontents, Klein can articulate grievances but when it comes to alternatives, she is deliberately evasive. Komrade Klein can only muster the failed "ideas" regurgitated from the New Deal nanny-state era and Marxist wealth distribution gimmicks, salvaged from the socialism graveyard. In other writings its an untested workers co-op, to land redistribution and a green zero-profit serfdom.
Perhaps, the most Extreme & feckless ideas deposited in the Leftist Creed.
@DrunkenPoetic What is extreme about a condition that is so fundamentally instinctive, it intrinsically exists on its own, without being implemented by man? If you put 100 people on a deserted island, how extreme could the natural occurance be, that man would find themselves engaged in, by biological instinct alone? How could one consider the spontaneous phenomenon that would naturaly develop in place, if it were possible erase any existence of a random society's economy structure?
@DrunkenPoetic What is with you people? Is it ignorance, dishonesty, mental health? What do you think she's implying with the terms 'opposing ideas' and 'alternatives to Capitalism'? When speaking of The Debate/War of IDEAS with capitalism, what else would the opponent? Anarchy? If you "read a single word" of hers and not seen this obvious connotation, then you are ignorant of Marxist theory or have a mental illness.
Look up "Democratic Socialists" at Wiki. Klein = Notable Democratic Socialist.
Dude how do you not? First you start out with a knowledge of history. Then you lock your pens in a desk drawer so one can't stab themselves in the face during Klein's delusion. Naomi simply recited the vile history of Communism, only switching the term with Capitalism. She maliciously misquotes Friedman with blatant libel to implant a Stalin character in her fable.
Klein's end goal is to reinvent Capitalism's image with a revision of truth, reducing it the level of a new discussion.
@BustyerUniongoon as Mr sowell said "There are few things more dishonorable than misleading the young" Klein is an idiot. Plain and simple. Typical liberal that tried to put words into friedmans mouth as if he said it.
What a bunch of delusional projection. She just explained the entire theory and strategy of Socialism/Communism, which is exactly what the sneaky skank is referring to with their "ideas" and their "side of the argument", if you didn't know. It is nonsense to consider Communism an "idea", as if it was new. It is a despicable fraud which has purported on mankind and responsible for 100's of millions of deaths. WTF.
I wonder if she knows how hypocritical she sounds being a Global Warming Alarmist.
The Shock Doctrine, a must read book by Naomi Klein... It will shock you.and enlighten and bring you to reality...reading this book was like a shock therapy is been applied on you..then you will be calm..is it a sense of helplessness?
The Shock Doctrine, a must read book by Naomi Klein... It will shock you.and enlighten and bring you to reality..when you realize the whole concept of modern capitalism and what is and was going on around the world..reading this book was like a shock therapy is been applied on you..then you will be calm..is it a sense of helplessness?
That we're being played by sociopathic gangsters who manipulate major world politics is hardly news, but it is somewhat interesting to peek at their cards, uncovering their total lack of empathy and morality.
Is the resulting suffering something earthlings need in order to evolve out of the hellish state of affairs? Are we in for WW3, a nuclear holocost starting with an all out war against Iran? Or are there already enough humane people on the world stage to stop the collective madness?
@pear928 Sexist Republicans shouldn't post on YouTube. As shown by pear928, they don't know jackshit about ANYTHING OR ANYBODY. Fuck off. Nobody likes people like you pear.
@EuroTrash201 I'm actually a liberal. But that's ok. Categorizing and labeling people through online comments is exactly what a follower of Naomi Klein would do. By the way, sexist isn't a bad word. Women should stay in the kitchen. It's just a simple truth.
@pear928 Dude just shut up. Your stupid backwards beliefs die more and more every day. Women are now the primary breadwinners in 57 percent of American households. 60 percent of college students are girls which means soon the country will be dominated by women. You're not a real man. When was the last time a woman touched you? LOL. Don't ever call yourself a liberal again. You're not. You're a fucking loser. You're RETARDED. Nobody's going back to the kitchen. Just kill yourself dude.
@EuroTrash201 Does your life feel validated because you're in the 'top comments'? Do you feel good about yourself? Like you achieved something? Fucking sad little prick.
@EuroTrash201 You're not reading me properly. Even if 90% of college students were women and even if women were the primary breadwinners in 99% of homes, that doesn't debunk my point that women are worthless when it comes to political and economic discussion, because they can never separate emotion from rationality. Just like your hero Naomi Klein isn't able to. You see the way you're reacting with all emotion and bringing about irrelevant statistics? You're just proving my point.
@pear928 The emotional arguement is so overused. You should come with something more original to make a strong case. Also, saying that all women are unable to separate rationality from emotion is like saying that guys can't think but with their dicks (not to mention that a lot of classics written by men - since you seem to discard women's opinion- make the same point). Not all women are fit for politics just like not all men are.
@velvetdust333 How does the fact that an argument is overused take anything away from its truth? That's an irrational if not an emotional argument itself. You're probably a woman. Thinking with a dick is only applicable when it comes to an interaction with a women. Not about politics or economics, fields that require rationality. Just stay in the kitchen next time.
@pear928 How is it emotional? If you don't understand how politics and a dick may be linked, you should read (or reread hopefully) the Illiad. An arguement that is overused shows that 1- you can't think for yourself and 2- it has way too many debates on it already, essays and books written against it. I will not spend my time teaching you something that you could explore by yourself. I suppose you have passed kindergarden and can do it on your own if you really are interested in the subject.
@velvetdust333 No. You're not reading me carefully, which again proves that you're a woman. I asked how an overused argument refutes a truth, not the effects of an overused argument. So what if I can't think for myself and the argument has too many debates? Does that debunk or refute the argument itself? Attack the reason, the logic of the debate, go straight to the heart. Don't doodle around an irrelevant point in your pathetic little attempt to 'correct' me.
@pear928 And I said go make your own research (talking of not knowing how to read carefully -.-), because I can't possibly summarize you de Beauvoir to explain how ignorant you are. You bold assertiveness and your generalizations doom you from the beginning. But you are too strong headed to see it. I was hoping to conclude here.
@pear928 Oh and let me put it more clearly: if you want a counter-argument "that doesn't doodle and attacks your stupid ungrounded assumptions that women can't think but with their glands, there is this thing called google, which will summarize what has been said so far on the subject, and then if you have an interesting point, with specific proofs to make, I will be delighted to hear it.
@velvetdust333 Why would I go on google when you're the one starting a debate with me? When you're the one starting this nonsense and asserting how 'wrong' I am, why would the burden be on me to 'correct' myself? If you think I'm wrong, fine, then prove it. If all you can say is 'google it' just shut the fuck up and clean my washroom. Thus far, all you've been able to say is, 'Your argument is wrong because it's overused', which you fucking know does not refute anything.
@pear928 I gave an opinion and I am defending it. I did not attack. Actually, if u reread i made a middle ground point from the beginning. I partially agree with you. I don't agree with how you stated your argument. You are trying to make me do a counter-argument on an argument that you never made. You said all women are emotional. I said it's an incorrect generalization.
@velvetdust333 It's not like I am not trying to prove that all women would make better politicians. It's funny how you pic on one detail of what I say and you develop from there. ANd don't you think you are getting aggressive? Aren't you *gasp* getting a little bit too emotionally involved here?
@velvetdust333 All women are emotional. It's just the truth. Even when they're rational, it's simply a veneer for the emotional base of her reasoning. Speaking of my getting aggressive and 'emotional', there is nothing wrong with it. My point is that there are certain discourses and fields where emotion has no value. My 'emotions' and aggression arises from my frustrations in dealing with you. That's perfectly fine because my assertion that you haven't refuted me, remains intact.
@pear928 Well according to Freud, almost everything we do is due to early childhood traumatic experiences (for both men and women). So basically, these negative emotions/memories/experiences are pushed in our subconscious, but have very strong influence on everything we do. In that sense, men act upon emotions too. You think guys like Hitler didn't? :). Now this is getting boring. What would be interesting however is what traumatic experience has been a trigger to your sexism? Aww.
@velvetdust333 There is no doubt that men at times act on emotion too when there is no place for emotion. But with women, it's all the time, for all women. As for the Illiad, Achilles chose self-honour in place of Troy. The chick merely represents that honour. And she was a sex slave. Achilles didn't choose her because he was some degenerate sex addict or was in love with her, which is the one and only case where your argument that 'men too think with their dicks' would be valid. Nice try though
@pear928 God, I can't believe I'm here again. Narcissism is such a flaw. Well according to Freud, we are pretty equal when facing emotions (as a matter of fact, since they are in your SUBconscious, you have no way of pin-pointing them and thus, comparingl). As for the Illiad, I was thinking of Paris. Nice try though.
ps: Paris was not a sex addict too. But you do need to read the book to know the details.
@velvetdust333 Ah, gotcha. And was Freud right? His thoughts are still debated today and as to their truths. You're essentially saying, 'someone said this which sort of contradicts you. therefore, you're wrong'. Let me make myself clear. Women are definitely more emotional than man where emotion isn't required. Invoking Freud's name doesn't do shit to refute me. Invoking Illiad doesn't do shit either. Why? Because men act on emotions too. But not to the degree and extent the way women do.
@pear928 Freud studied psychoanalysis much more than you did. I think his opinions weight a little more than yours do. Following the same logic, you haven't really provided any proof as well. You also just discard my opinions on thin air and lack of logic, so you are no one to cast the first rock. So far what you do is: you try to contradict me on what I say, you fail miserably, you discard my argument in the first place.
@velvetdust333 Why does it matter when someone has studied more? The point is that his thoughts are still debated to this day, and you're using his thoughts as some eternal truth in order to refute me. It doesn't work that way. Why would I need to prove anything? I made an assertion, you chose to 'refute' it. I don't owe you anything. It's on you to prove me wrong, which you've failed since you think like a woman. You have no argument. You're just blabbering on about some random shit that has
@pear928 It means they know more than you do. And he is the father of psychoanalysis for a reason. It's the childhood sexuality part that is controversial and debated, everything else is used (maybe further developed but still used). But I don't expect you to know that since you obvious just write based on thin air. You over-developed male ego doesn't allow you to see beyong your nose.
@pear928 Well I guess a pussy never falls on its back. But you are right about one thing. I guess women are more susceptible than men to emotions. And right know I have a strong case of boredom, with a hint of resignation and frustration that someone like you do exist. Oh well, next generation your genes are gone. Thank God.
@velvetdust333 Instead of blindly sucking on Freud's cock and saying that I'm wrong because he's right, instead of keep talking about my ego and my progenitors, bring me proof which you have to refute me. If not, just SHUT THE FUCK MOTHER FUCK UP.
@pear928 You would've attacked my argument right away if you really considered it as having a bullshit logic. My thesis: Not all women are fit for politics just like not all men are.
What you have admitted so far:
“There is no doubt that men at times act on emotion too when there is no place for emotion.”
(you being the first one since you got emotional on a debate that is supposed to be based on pure logic)
@pear928 “Even when [women]'re rational, it's simply a veneer for the emotional base of her reasoning”
(So women can be rational after all? Simply their rationality is triggered by an emotion in the first place. But isn’t everything we do based on an emotion? You go in politics with a goal. This goal is intricately linked with emotions/feelings. You might feel proud, optimistic, zest, longing and etc.)
@velvetdust333 So what have you really proved? Your logic thus far consists of, 'an argument is wrong when it's overused', 'someone said something a 100 years ago that is still debated regarding its truth', 'a poem written 3000 years ago said men act on emotion, therefore, men and women are equally emotional'. You're essentially just using the label of a 'classic' to refute a point, which it does not. You need to learn logic and reasoning, the lack of which just proves that you're a woman.
@velvetdust333 Also. No one gives a fuck if you can recite the Illiad in your fucking sleep or if you can memorize every single word spewed out by Beauvoir or Wollstonecraft. Do you actually think having read the classics lends any credence to your arguments? So what if you read some classics? Who the fuck cares? Your logic (i.e. overused) still remains that of a kindergartner despite all that liberal education. Fucking sad really.
@pear928 Ouch now that was a little too assertive. Classics are classics for a reason. Instead of dismissing them, you should read and understand the point they make. Anyways they are much better supported than any of your arguments. I gave you my reasons behind the word overused, we are spinning in circles here.
Ps: Never mentioned Wallstonecraft. I am vary happy if you read something of hers though.
@velvetdust333 I'm not dismissing the classics. I'm making the point that you keep bringing up these authors as if that refutes my points magically without actually facing the argument yourself.
@pear928 Illiad: Simply put, a dude, due to his lust, ends up destroy Troy and fucks up everything. He had the choice from three goddesses: power, the most beautiful women and something else (don't remember unfortunately) like money, and he picks the chick. He ends up losing everything.
Beauvoir: I spammed already too much, if you want and extended essay with quotations, you got to give me your e-mail, but I doubt you will, have a good night and happy new year :)
@PiercingKnight Agreed. I can't stand this woman's economic analysis either. She is also certain that plant food (CO2) is going to destroy the planet. Her discourse is the result of her public education (brainwashing) courtesy of the rag-tag commie profs (i.e. social 'scientists').
@bongo155 Yes, I really deny that CO2 is a GHG. The theory is nonsense. I am a chemical engineer (PhD) and the term GHG has only recently been introduced into the general discourse (PV=nRT; n is undefined - natural gas law). There are over 9,000 PhDs (sciences) in the USA alone that state that the theory is total nonsense. The truth is that wo/men are not capable of augmenting the amount of CO2 (plant food) in the atmosphere because the plants will gobble it up.
can t be more inaccurate. All these communist shitholes (USSR, China (30 yrs ago), East-Eur) were communist countries from the beginning. Lenin, who is regarded as the communist 'thinker', started terrorizing and killing people in the millions when he took power. In theory and practice you need a brutal dictatorship to shove the idiotic comm. ideology down the throat of people because none is so stupid to accept it freely. And this is exactly what happened.
@26libertarian No need to spread the "news". Everybody knows that communism is the bloodiest, most oppressive, most despotic ideology that only brought death, ecological and economic disasters where it reigned. No need to spread the "news" about communism. Planned economy is the epitomacy of idiocy. What is good about communism?? What problem did communism effectively solve in history?? Name me only ONE country where communism did not end up in a rotten shithole?
lOuch !! ook at me I m pretty and intellectual. Wonder if she does care about anything important or that actually strikes a chord with normal ordinary people. some of these issues are important and should not be used as a means to demonstrate how well read you are and what research you have delved into. She s only after chat show invites and intellectual recognition along with book sales. learn to talk straight like Michael Moore you impress no one with your vague jargonised theory drivel.
@arfurlife Perhaps you have trouble following her while she's speaking and prefer less intellectual "straight taking" people like Michael Moore because you are not well read in history or geo politics? That would be my first (and only) guess. For the REST of us, she is a godsend. Not everyone is as uninformed as you.
@52tincup He did not plan anything, he say an opertunity and he used it for his own means. You can not deny that he could have passed things like the Partiot Act or invade Iraq without something to distract the people of the US.
I only recently read excerpts from her book "Disaster Capitalism", a few chapters.
If the few chapters I read was any indication of her book, she's dead WRONG about so called "Capitalism". I'm talking wrong in a way that should be embarrassing. Her fallacies are grossly wide and not even sensible.
@RandomShellAccount: It is always a good idea to refrain from commenting on a book until you have actually read the entire book, not just "excerpts" from "a few chapters". Criticizing a book that you admit you have not read is pretty lame unless you can come up with specific, cogent examples to illustrate the ways in which you are so much smarter and see so much more clearly into the nature of reality than the author you are being critical of.
@RandomShellAccount So she's wrong, eh? Care to give even a single example? I don't think you read ANY of the book. "Disaster Capitalism", btw, isn't the title, but part of the subtitle.
@ParagramTree Does having ALL CAPS mean you're yelling? Klein is actually Jewish and if you have any evidence about her "HOLOCAUST DENYING", please, share it. Otherwise, crawl back into your sad little hole and go back to jerking off to anime. Thanks.
@dermotjm Many Jews hate Israel that is a fact and many Jews are anti-Jewish as ironic as it sounds. Furthermore Judiasm is a religion not a race. Just as many people from Christian backgrounds hate christianity so many people from Jewish background hate Judaism. My country for example is officially christian but go out and preach the gospel on the street and you will endure a torrent of abuse from christian hating christians(people who were baptised christian but hate the religion).
@408ss Guess what, the citizens of 100+ years ago were also consumers always looking for horses, saddles, bread, tobacco, beer, whiskey, baby clothes, suits, guns, entertainment, shoes, tools, houses, farm equipment, lamps, cosmetics, furniture, well pumps, ammo, firewood, etc, etc.
Let's stop pretending that those before us didn't "consume" and seek the finer things in life that made it easier & more comfortable to live.
@dgl1962 The point was that politicians are hand picked by economic interests more powerful than what is really representive a typical 'citizen' (on both sides, but much more so on one side of the aisle). Its not profound to point out that we are all dependent and in some sort of trade, i.e., economics. But if the combination of cosmetics, beer and guns are the finer things in your life - guess what, I can't help ya there bucko. (But I can agree with you on whiskey - irish or bourbon only.)
@408ss That is a different point altogether from saying that "we're now consumers & not citizens".
I agree that money from not just corporations infects and corrupts politicians, but so does the $450 million spent by unions as well.
My main concern is that we don't fall for yet another huckster who claims to know of a better way to organize society and that it will be a "workers paradise", but that it must come with the total disarmament of the citizens first..
@JagjeetMann Regardless of whether or not you like klein, you don't think capitalist-political interests haven' t used what she has described? Not that its a bad strategy, its exactly and undeniably what was used in Iraq. Whether or not you like her, it's not really compelling to me (rather obvious), she outlines how modern government works: people's vote can drastically change politics 'democratically' and still not be what they want.
@JagjeetMann: You really thought it was worth your while to post this? Especially considering your impeccable credentials as an "anarcho/communist" who loves Noam Chomsky ... seems like you'd have your hands full already, raging against the system that oppresses you ...
The word free and market is a contradiction in terms , just as CAPITAL enslaves and exploites WAGE LABOR . The dynamics of World Capitalism whether Corporate dominated or State dictated is the abstract PROCESS of CAPITAL ACCUMULATION and CONCENTRATION. This abstract process is not smooth or linear but DESTRUCTIVE and enforced by MILLITARY MIGHT. The INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION was underpinned by built up of the BRITISH NAVY and US DOLLAR by world wide millitary bases
The monetary serfdom of the WORLD WORKING CLASS in a politically manipulated market system of artificial scarcity is the template of our common alienation,exploitation and suffering. Capitalism is historically outdated and a tyrannical imposition for minority private gain. A democratic,conscious, majority movement for a world of cooperation for our common needs and well being expressing our creative energies in a MONEYLESS,CLASSSLESS,STATELESS COMMUNITIES OF HUMNAITY
I recommend "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" published in 2007. Naomi explains well how capitalism works.
First the shock of war or disaster, then the so-called reconstruction. That's always the same strategy. Whether in Baghdad or Afghanistan after the invasion, whether in New Orleans after "Katrina" or after a Tsunami: While people are still paralyzed by the disaster, another economic treatment after neo-liberal ideas: Destroyed existences by sellout to Western companies.
@tagaphon Huh WWI? Oh no, that was when you got fucked so deep by Germany your entire empire collapsed. WWII? Oh no, that was when with a lot of allied help you managed to beat Germany and not "united Europe" whatever that would be. Was it after WWII? Oh no, that is when you crushed some Eastern European countries and used coup detats and gross violence and war to "convince them of your "superior system".
@Sivels ur a fucking moron...why dont u actually listen to her with an open mind once and do ur own research to see if what she is saying is true or false....retards like u are the reason why the world is the way it is!
@1202388 I did my research, I have an open mind and conclusions are that Naomi Klein and radical socialists like her are braindead twisted individuals who you cannot reason with. "retards like u are the reason why the world is the way it is!"... *Facepalm*.
@larsiemannen ... fake democracy. those in power are in it for themselves. they lie to us. use us. subjugate us. control us. it was a good idea originally, just as was communism. but just as also was with communism, they just corrupted it. "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
> No, the democracy is the reason why the world is the way it is.
@alexticule OH PLEASE. not one thing in this video is true. that is how sad and pathetic it is. you morons don't even know the difference between corporatism and capitalism. tell me you are a 'truther' moron too...
@alexticule nope, your wrong. i watched it, critiqued it, debunked it, and laughed at it. all just rhetorical nonsense and leftist propaganda. nothing in this video is FACTUALLY CORRECT. THIS IS WHY YOU ARE FUCKING DUMB.
Kleins book is over 500 pages long, and she says that it was the type of friedmanite 'shocks' like wars, that free-marketers look forward for, so they can force through the 'unpopular' free-market reforms, however she fails to mention that Friedman was against the war in Iraq, that no free-marketer has ever said such things or advocated them, moreover, she fails to give any proof that free-markets are always unpopular. She tries to defame market liberalization with association to tyrants. Idiot.
This is not a new thing. They are employing criminal colonization techniques. The purpose is not to shock people into some better state it is to take them over and repress them. They are criminals-- psychopaths. They do endless harm to genuine U.S. interests, both financial and to our national spirit. If people do not view us as a legitimate and kind people then we lose support so vital to countless aspects of our national life and position our in the world; so vital to our ability to thrive.
There has never been a socialist country both democratic or prosperous, simple fact. Capitalism is the best and most effective system for removing poverty, another fact.
There is a reason why the bulk of countries have now liberalised their markets, and relied more on the private enterprise system, its because it works and socialism hasnt and never could.
Thank god for capitalism, the most moral and efficient system for everyone, especially the ordinary man.
@spader49 I agree that capitalism has lots of good aspects, but just like any system, it isn't perfect. Due in part to economies of scale theory, capitalism will always lead to the concentration of wealth
.
OBAMA 2012 - RICK PERRY SHOULD STAY IN TEXAS AND ROMNEY CAN STAY IN HIS CALIFORNIA MANSION
@Someideasandstuff Obama seriously? Even though he is trying to socialise healthcare? Even though he tries yesterdays failed keynesianism? Even though in his foreign policy he has done everything he said he was against, in so doing embracing or expanding on the Bush's core tenets: rendition, renewing the Patriot Act, keeping open Guantanamo, increasing the use of predator drones fivefold compared to bush, killing thousands of terrorist suspects (where his lofy demand for due process now?) etc
@spader49 the US needs socialized medicine badly. And do you think the only Republicans with a chance of winning are gonna slow down the war in the middle east??? LOL
@Someideasandstuff The government provides goods and services much less effectively than the market. If that were not true then socialism, would have been more succesful than capitalism. Why do people think healthcare is any different, its not economically. There is already medicare etc for the very poor. True, reform is needed, but it should be market based reform. In Canada, tens of thousands leave annually to PAY for healthcare in the US even though its 'free' there. Look past the rhetoric.
@Someideasandstuff socilaised medicine is the same as saying monopolic medicine. all you get is big corporations issuing the medical care. if you want good medicine you must allow free market medicine to exist then you get the best result. competition will drive the cost of medicine down and improve the service. with socilaised there is zero cures and zero progress.
A lot of the rage is aimed at corporations that are monopolies, acting as powerful special interest groups controlling the political levers from afar. The fear of corporatism is not a reasonable justification for attacking free-market capitalism. There is nothing more incompatible with the former than the latter, the private-entreprise system has been the most powerful machine at getting rid of corporate monopolies, its the government that keeps then from falling, which is anti-capitalism.
There has never been a socialist country both democratic or prosperous, simple fact. Capitalism is the best and most effective system for removing poverty, another fact.
There is a reason why the bulk of countries have now liberalised their markets, and relied more on the private enterprise system, its because it works and socialism hasnt and never could.
Thank god for capitalism, the most moral and efficient system for everyone, especially the ordinary man.
I agree with everything you say, except for the idea that capitalism is "moral." On the contrary, free markets are completely AMORAL. (Capitalism may be, in some sense, more moral than communism, but that's not saying much.)
Businesses have one primary goal: to make money. And we all know that where money is involved, people often act in distinctly IMMORAL ways.
@ClumsyRoot I tend to get death threats or slurs from numerous Marxists, its good to get someone who agrees in part with what i've said.The profit motive is greatly misunderstood in my view, it is simply not in the interests of producers, businesses, corporations etc to act immorally towards everyone else; it is in their interests to provide commodities that consumers want, and thats what they do. Its irrelevant that they make money; in a free society, people go and purchase goods that they want
untested theories put in place by powerful people are what destroy societies...people who think because they "think" something should go a certain way are the real problem....if you have not been exposed to any other experience but your own you should not be in charge of shit...
Rightwingers are so fucking stupid. They rely on all this bullshit emotional anti-Marxist argument rather than looking at hardcore scientific facts, like anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
They preach their free-market cult ideology, but then they demand government step in and protect private property. I shouldn't have ONE CENT of my money go to taxes to defend a fucking rich corporations' property.
@mphello I've got an idea. Why is the government not sold to the highest bidder? As in: There would be no taxes but voluntary contributions and the power share is proportional to the contributions. That way, people like you wouldn't have to pay a cent to "defend a fucking rich corporations' property" and the corporation would probably still pay less than they do now, because they could get rid of all the stuff they don't need (such as pensions and health care). Fair, isn't it?
"highest bidder" I assume you mean money, right? Because people like you are mentally capable of thinking only in those terms. Why should it be based upon who happens to have the most money?
How about the one with the most moral credits - i.e. vegetarian, pollutes least?
If you base it on money, then all those Goldman Sachs employees with all that money now,
that they got by stealing and doing no work, have an unfair advantage.
capitalism is brilliant its the governemnt that screws it up. it needs to back off and let capitalism rip we all would be better off. fuk capitalism gets blamed for everything yet gives us everuthign we have. africans have nothing for a reason they dont have any capitalism.
HE was not admitting that a crisis is a planned experience, but that througfh crisis as a fact, does change come. Capitalism is not what happened in Iraq. It was a Socialistic/capitalistic infusion, which never works but for the elite. Don't throw in a protestant ethic capitalism interjected in your analysis, it does not follow. Nevertheless, this idea sounds like 1984. The cause of these actions is athiesm and evolution Ideology. Friedman was a free market man and brilliant.
Chile, has the lowest rate of corruption in all of Latin America, the lowest infant mortality rate, the lowest level of people living below the poverty line, and the richest people in income per capita terms. All this is the result of Milton Friedman's free market reforms. But facts are not very important for the liberal left-wing nutty crusaders, who care more about being self-righteous, utopian and emotional than they do about 'irrelevant' matters like the truth.
It is you that is making baseless emotional rubbish.
Capitalism cannot make the world rich. For every winner there's millions of losers.
Believing that markets will save us all is utopian as it doesn't deal with the reality of what capitalism really is which is wasteful pyramid scheme designed to only benefit the top 3%.
@kingmafi6699 its very obvious that not only do you not have the slightest grasp of basis economics, but that you are very dogatic ideologically. I bet you have never picked up an economic textbook. The phrase 'for every winner, there's millions of losers' reflects a common fallacy, is known as the zero-sum fallacy, its factually wrong to assume that one person can only benefit at anothers expense. Look up the principle of comparative advantage, debunks it in the context of global capitalism.
"I bet you have never picked up an economic textbook"
That's supposed to reinforce your argument?
"its factually wrong to assume that one person can only benefit at anothers expense."
I don't think so. The nature of capitalism is that one person benefits over another or one class over another. Throughout history that has been true and still holds true today.
@kingmafi6699 crap. capitalisms number one goal is give to the consumer exactly what it needs and want. anything away from this is not capitalism.mits the best system ever devised by man
@kingmafi6699 look up the principle of comparative advantage. It disproves the popular fallacy that one person can only benefit at the expense of another. The 'zero-sum' fallacy. Why would a person or nation voluntarily trade with another if it was not in their self-interest? Anyway, you probably wont look it up, from the tone of the intellectually vacuous nonsense that youve written, its obvious that the facts dont really matter, as long as you have a crusade, thats whats important.
"Why would a person or nation voluntarily trade with another if it was not in their self-interest?"
I'm not arguing that nations don't trade because of self interest but that such relationships are fundamentally exploitative. We can look at the example of NAFTA where Mexican farmers could no longer compete with highly subsidized North American agriculture produce. It destroyed their society to the point that they had no alternatives but to grow narcotics causing violence and terror.
Klein is a very ignorant and intellectual vacuous dogmatic ideologue, even by left-wing standards. Her book is worthless and abound with wrong assumptions and blatant factual errors.
There is not enough space to mention them all, but for people who actually care about facts, and not confirmation bias. A synopsis of the distortions are encapsulated in the youtube video
Johan Norberg vs. Naomi Klein and The Shock Doctrine
Capitalism is hegemonic today, not because it is the best we fallible humans can do, but because it supports, and is supported by special interests of immense power. What we need is Economic Democracy: a competitive economy of democratically run enterprises that replaces capitalist financial markets with more egalitarian, more democratic institutions. That would be a true "Free Market". But, under our present wretched system we can't even achieve worker control over production! It's terrible.
Due in part to economies of scale theory, capitalism will always lead to the concentration of wealth. This would happen even if you removed all regulation. Also, check out the latest Zeitgeist film. It's called Moving Forward and is on youtube
@Epicnerdgasm no, government isn't the problem. Corruption is the problem. These are different issues. The amount of money in politics needs to be addressed if we want to limit corruption. More campaign finance reform is needed
@Epicnerdgasm A good point, here's the 'but', for over a century there have been measures enacted to try prevent that sort of stuff, but it never goes away, capitalism will always act towards the profit motive, any obstacle in it's way is either of any negative connotation words that end in 'ism'. They don't even have to bribe, just threaten to offshore jobs/cut production/monopolize/terrorize, they will always act in their best interests, not anyone elses, least of all the uninformed public.
@Epicnerdgasm Don't you think that crony capitalism is the inevitable result of capitalism? It's about the profit motive, if it's profitable, it shall be done, laws are only respected if it's profitable to abide them. It starts by companies getting bigger and controlling more means of production and the economic lives of citizens, when big enough they can start making off hand threats to unions and the government to serve their own goals.
i love that book it is one of my favs. and free economics bull shit, the free market the poor are oppressed by the rich. so only 2% get to be free, talk about a full of shit ideology.
@whedonfreak976 So North Korea or Russia is more to your liking? Why are only 2% free?
Do you understand that you can have equality or freedom but not both? Which is most important to you?
You cannot have equality of outcome without sacrificing freedom... think about it ( or look at societies where equality has been enforced ) and you'll see this is the truth.
@westcoast1965 that is the dumbest thing i have ever heard, in sweden they have both, in germany they have both, what a nolan chart bull shit question to ask. and equality is freedom, which we actually we are not, so many people are oppressed it is not funny, especially the poor. and only 2% have it good. and no that is not the truth and you damn well know it. i call bull shit.
How do you have equality of wealth without using force? You can't. Let me spell it out for you. We're not talking about 'equal rights' and we're not talking about 'equality before the law'. Both are obvious and morally required. We're talking about 'equality of outcome'.
You can't REDISTRIBUTE wealth without using force. What people need is equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. Does that make sense to you?
@westcoast1965 and you cannot deregulate without force, every law is used by force, even your so called free market ask chilie in the 70's pinochet anyone? or argintina in the late 70's or bolivia in the 80's or poland in the 90's argentina used a junta to keep the people quiet while the corporations and the government ran wild. again a nolan chart crap question and answer, so you would not have used force to free the slaves? 2 can play that game.
I'm in favour of liberty.. and I'm asking questions of principle. You're changing the subject. What I'm espousing has nothing to do with atrocities committed in banana republics. You're wrong about requiring force to deregulate though. It takes force to control and regulate not to leave people to their free choices. Also using force to free people who are already subjected to force is a totally different situation. You don't seem to want to answer the question.
nope, you are dodging mine, and yes i am for forcing the rich oppressive bastards who want to keep the poor in the gutter starving, yes i do want them to share the wealth. boo hoo, they have to share, and again, even deregulation is forced every law is forced, just look up, the 5th amendment in the bill of rights. now i answered your question, you answer mine. free market is just code language for the rich to screw the rest. your turn. would you have used for, to end slavery.
@whedonfreak976 So are you a communist? How is wealth generated? The free market generates wealth. Collectivist systems don't generate wealth and they use force to keep people in line. You don't really understand what free markets are supposed to be. How many times can I state it... I'm in favour of liberty and against coercion. Then you start talking about slavery. Why is the free market oppressive? I don't think you understand what you're really opposing. I'll leave you with that.
@westcoast1965 generates how? i mean with no over sight, how can you be sure that the big corporations will not just run gun shot over people? and smaller companies, remember that is how we got here in the first place thank you ronald reagan, and alan greenspan for stripping away the glass stegal regulations. then corporations bought up, smaller companies, banks gave out bad loans, and a debt mounted. and how am i a communist? a communist is for giving all of the power to the people cont.
and dissolving the government, of course you are thinking of USSR and china, but they misused it, i am more for people getting wealth through a people owned government, that is socialism. big difference. and you are not answering the questions, just straw manning them. and how is the free market oppessive? when the people do not want it, and it is FORCED on them by a military junta cough pinochet cough. and again argentina, i could go on. people do not want a free market, it is a failure cont
of a system. if there was no corporations, i would not be opposed, but as long as corporations, exist, and please tell me you do not really think, that in a "free market" that the corporations would just turn over equal control. again bull shit. how would you take the power away from them? and how do you deregulate banks? F O R C E. that is how, and did you look up, the 5th amendment? or the 16th amendment? did you? probably not
The shock doctrine... ok, FDR after the great depression, "media reform" (aka restriction) after the NOTW scandal... yes, the shock doctrine exists (no shit, not exactly a revolutionary idea) but it exists on both sides...
The only ones who complain about capitalism are
A. The ones who aren't doing anything inorder to benifit from it
or
B. The ones who are benefiting from it by selling ideas that are mostly against it
tehatemachine 4 days ago
Tantrum over?
What she seems to advocate in her books is third way thinking. A third way between capitalism and socialism.
She makes it very clear that she opposes any extreme ideology, whether it's communism or extreme laissez faire.
DrunkenPoetic 1 week ago
@DrunkenPoetic mumbles ~ "She makes it very clear that she opposes any extreme ideology, whether it's communism or extreme laissez faire."
Who doesn't?
Would a 100% absolute operation of either philosophy be a realistic option, possible of choosing?
No.
Even the brilliant Milton Friedman wouldn't think of advocating an unchecked laissez faire economy.
3rd way thinking? Don't insult your intelligence.
Can you name an individual who would support an unadulterated version of either system?
No.
BustyerUniongoon 1 week ago
@BustyerUniongoon
But I didn't say unadulterated, I said extreme. It's an important difference.
I do think that the Chicago school economic model could be called extreme.
Her point is that this model has been unfairly imposed (with the support of the Chicago school) on electorates who didn't support it, and that it has failed.
DrunkenPoetic 1 week ago
@DrunkenPoetic Like most radical malcontents, Klein can articulate grievances but when it comes to alternatives, she is deliberately evasive. Komrade Klein can only muster the failed "ideas" regurgitated from the New Deal nanny-state era and Marxist wealth distribution gimmicks, salvaged from the socialism graveyard. In other writings its an untested workers co-op, to land redistribution and a green zero-profit serfdom.
Perhaps, the most Extreme & feckless ideas deposited in the Leftist Creed.
BustyerUniongoon 1 week ago
@BustyerUniongoon What you describe as extreme left-wing is better described as centre-left or centre-right, depending on one's perspective.
Extreme left-wingers would call them extreme right-wing, while you call them extreme left-wing.
What Klein talks about most is democracy.
Every electorate in the world saw Friedman as a right-wing lunatic.
So he and his cohorts had to go to South America, eastern Europe and the Middle-East and impose their ideas from above on people too weak to resist.
DrunkenPoetic 1 week ago
@DrunkenPoetic What is extreme about a condition that is so fundamentally instinctive, it intrinsically exists on its own, without being implemented by man? If you put 100 people on a deserted island, how extreme could the natural occurance be, that man would find themselves engaged in, by biological instinct alone? How could one consider the spontaneous phenomenon that would naturaly develop in place, if it were possible erase any existence of a random society's economy structure?
You from US?
BustyerUniongoon 1 week ago
If you think Klein is a socialist you obviously haven't read a single word she has written.
DrunkenPoetic 2 weeks ago
@DrunkenPoetic What is with you people? Is it ignorance, dishonesty, mental health? What do you think she's implying with the terms 'opposing ideas' and 'alternatives to Capitalism'? When speaking of The Debate/War of IDEAS with capitalism, what else would the opponent? Anarchy? If you "read a single word" of hers and not seen this obvious connotation, then you are ignorant of Marxist theory or have a mental illness.
Look up "Democratic Socialists" at Wiki. Klein = Notable Democratic Socialist.
BustyerUniongoon 1 week ago
dude how did you get all of that from what she just said??
jmus 2 weeks ago
@jmus
Dude how do you not? First you start out with a knowledge of history. Then you lock your pens in a desk drawer so one can't stab themselves in the face during Klein's delusion. Naomi simply recited the vile history of Communism, only switching the term with Capitalism. She maliciously misquotes Friedman with blatant libel to implant a Stalin character in her fable.
Klein's end goal is to reinvent Capitalism's image with a revision of truth, reducing it the level of a new discussion.
BustyerUniongoon 1 week ago
@BustyerUniongoon as Mr sowell said "There are few things more dishonorable than misleading the young" Klein is an idiot. Plain and simple. Typical liberal that tried to put words into friedmans mouth as if he said it.
tehatemachine 4 days ago
What a bunch of delusional projection. She just explained the entire theory and strategy of Socialism/Communism, which is exactly what the sneaky skank is referring to with their "ideas" and their "side of the argument", if you didn't know. It is nonsense to consider Communism an "idea", as if it was new. It is a despicable fraud which has purported on mankind and responsible for 100's of millions of deaths. WTF.
I wonder if she knows how hypocritical she sounds being a Global Warming Alarmist.
BustyerUniongoon 2 weeks ago
The Shock Doctrine, a must read book by Naomi Klein... It will shock you.and enlighten and bring you to reality...reading this book was like a shock therapy is been applied on you..then you will be calm..is it a sense of helplessness?
raviparam09 2 weeks ago
The Shock Doctrine, a must read book by Naomi Klein... It will shock you.and enlighten and bring you to reality..when you realize the whole concept of modern capitalism and what is and was going on around the world..reading this book was like a shock therapy is been applied on you..then you will be calm..is it a sense of helplessness?
raviparam09 2 weeks ago
That we're being played by sociopathic gangsters who manipulate major world politics is hardly news, but it is somewhat interesting to peek at their cards, uncovering their total lack of empathy and morality.
Is the resulting suffering something earthlings need in order to evolve out of the hellish state of affairs? Are we in for WW3, a nuclear holocost starting with an all out war against Iran? Or are there already enough humane people on the world stage to stop the collective madness?
Stright1 2 weeks ago
Fuck all you Republicans
EuroTrash201 1 month ago
Women shouldn't talk about politics and economics. As shown by Klein here, they know jackshit about either. Stay in the motherfucking kitchen sister.
pear928 1 month ago
@pear928 Sexist Republicans shouldn't post on YouTube. As shown by pear928, they don't know jackshit about ANYTHING OR ANYBODY. Fuck off. Nobody likes people like you pear.
EuroTrash201 1 month ago
@EuroTrash201 I'm actually a liberal. But that's ok. Categorizing and labeling people through online comments is exactly what a follower of Naomi Klein would do. By the way, sexist isn't a bad word. Women should stay in the kitchen. It's just a simple truth.
pear928 1 month ago
@pear928 Dude just shut up. Your stupid backwards beliefs die more and more every day. Women are now the primary breadwinners in 57 percent of American households. 60 percent of college students are girls which means soon the country will be dominated by women. You're not a real man. When was the last time a woman touched you? LOL. Don't ever call yourself a liberal again. You're not. You're a fucking loser. You're RETARDED. Nobody's going back to the kitchen. Just kill yourself dude.
EuroTrash201 1 month ago
@EuroTrash201 Oh, one more thing- I'M IN THE TOP COMMENTS. You're not. ;P
EuroTrash201 1 month ago
@EuroTrash201 Does your life feel validated because you're in the 'top comments'? Do you feel good about yourself? Like you achieved something? Fucking sad little prick.
pear928 1 month ago
@EuroTrash201 You're not reading me properly. Even if 90% of college students were women and even if women were the primary breadwinners in 99% of homes, that doesn't debunk my point that women are worthless when it comes to political and economic discussion, because they can never separate emotion from rationality. Just like your hero Naomi Klein isn't able to. You see the way you're reacting with all emotion and bringing about irrelevant statistics? You're just proving my point.
pear928 1 month ago
@pear928 The emotional arguement is so overused. You should come with something more original to make a strong case. Also, saying that all women are unable to separate rationality from emotion is like saying that guys can't think but with their dicks (not to mention that a lot of classics written by men - since you seem to discard women's opinion- make the same point). Not all women are fit for politics just like not all men are.
velvetdust333 4 weeks ago
@velvetdust333 How does the fact that an argument is overused take anything away from its truth? That's an irrational if not an emotional argument itself. You're probably a woman. Thinking with a dick is only applicable when it comes to an interaction with a women. Not about politics or economics, fields that require rationality. Just stay in the kitchen next time.
pear928 4 weeks ago
@pear928 How is it emotional? If you don't understand how politics and a dick may be linked, you should read (or reread hopefully) the Illiad. An arguement that is overused shows that 1- you can't think for yourself and 2- it has way too many debates on it already, essays and books written against it. I will not spend my time teaching you something that you could explore by yourself. I suppose you have passed kindergarden and can do it on your own if you really are interested in the subject.
velvetdust333 4 weeks ago
@velvetdust333 No. You're not reading me carefully, which again proves that you're a woman. I asked how an overused argument refutes a truth, not the effects of an overused argument. So what if I can't think for myself and the argument has too many debates? Does that debunk or refute the argument itself? Attack the reason, the logic of the debate, go straight to the heart. Don't doodle around an irrelevant point in your pathetic little attempt to 'correct' me.
pear928 4 weeks ago
@pear928 And I said go make your own research (talking of not knowing how to read carefully -.-), because I can't possibly summarize you de Beauvoir to explain how ignorant you are. You bold assertiveness and your generalizations doom you from the beginning. But you are too strong headed to see it. I was hoping to conclude here.
velvetdust333 4 weeks ago
@velvetdust333 You're just a living proof of my points. Thanks.
pear928 4 weeks ago
@pear928 Oh and let me put it more clearly: if you want a counter-argument "that doesn't doodle and attacks your stupid ungrounded assumptions that women can't think but with their glands, there is this thing called google, which will summarize what has been said so far on the subject, and then if you have an interesting point, with specific proofs to make, I will be delighted to hear it.
velvetdust333 4 weeks ago
@velvetdust333 Why would I go on google when you're the one starting a debate with me? When you're the one starting this nonsense and asserting how 'wrong' I am, why would the burden be on me to 'correct' myself? If you think I'm wrong, fine, then prove it. If all you can say is 'google it' just shut the fuck up and clean my washroom. Thus far, all you've been able to say is, 'Your argument is wrong because it's overused', which you fucking know does not refute anything.
pear928 4 weeks ago
@pear928 I gave an opinion and I am defending it. I did not attack. Actually, if u reread i made a middle ground point from the beginning. I partially agree with you. I don't agree with how you stated your argument. You are trying to make me do a counter-argument on an argument that you never made. You said all women are emotional. I said it's an incorrect generalization.
velvetdust333 4 weeks ago
@velvetdust333 It's not like I am not trying to prove that all women would make better politicians. It's funny how you pic on one detail of what I say and you develop from there. ANd don't you think you are getting aggressive? Aren't you *gasp* getting a little bit too emotionally involved here?
velvetdust333 4 weeks ago
@velvetdust333 All women are emotional. It's just the truth. Even when they're rational, it's simply a veneer for the emotional base of her reasoning. Speaking of my getting aggressive and 'emotional', there is nothing wrong with it. My point is that there are certain discourses and fields where emotion has no value. My 'emotions' and aggression arises from my frustrations in dealing with you. That's perfectly fine because my assertion that you haven't refuted me, remains intact.
pear928 4 weeks ago
@pear928 Well according to Freud, almost everything we do is due to early childhood traumatic experiences (for both men and women). So basically, these negative emotions/memories/experiences are pushed in our subconscious, but have very strong influence on everything we do. In that sense, men act upon emotions too. You think guys like Hitler didn't? :). Now this is getting boring. What would be interesting however is what traumatic experience has been a trigger to your sexism? Aww.
velvetdust333 4 weeks ago
@velvetdust333 There is no doubt that men at times act on emotion too when there is no place for emotion. But with women, it's all the time, for all women. As for the Illiad, Achilles chose self-honour in place of Troy. The chick merely represents that honour. And she was a sex slave. Achilles didn't choose her because he was some degenerate sex addict or was in love with her, which is the one and only case where your argument that 'men too think with their dicks' would be valid. Nice try though
pear928 4 weeks ago
@pear928 God, I can't believe I'm here again. Narcissism is such a flaw. Well according to Freud, we are pretty equal when facing emotions (as a matter of fact, since they are in your SUBconscious, you have no way of pin-pointing them and thus, comparingl). As for the Illiad, I was thinking of Paris. Nice try though.
ps: Paris was not a sex addict too. But you do need to read the book to know the details.
velvetdust333 4 weeks ago
@velvetdust333 Ah, gotcha. And was Freud right? His thoughts are still debated today and as to their truths. You're essentially saying, 'someone said this which sort of contradicts you. therefore, you're wrong'. Let me make myself clear. Women are definitely more emotional than man where emotion isn't required. Invoking Freud's name doesn't do shit to refute me. Invoking Illiad doesn't do shit either. Why? Because men act on emotions too. But not to the degree and extent the way women do.
pear928 4 weeks ago
@pear928 Freud studied psychoanalysis much more than you did. I think his opinions weight a little more than yours do. Following the same logic, you haven't really provided any proof as well. You also just discard my opinions on thin air and lack of logic, so you are no one to cast the first rock. So far what you do is: you try to contradict me on what I say, you fail miserably, you discard my argument in the first place.
velvetdust333 4 weeks ago
@velvetdust333 Why does it matter when someone has studied more? The point is that his thoughts are still debated to this day, and you're using his thoughts as some eternal truth in order to refute me. It doesn't work that way. Why would I need to prove anything? I made an assertion, you chose to 'refute' it. I don't owe you anything. It's on you to prove me wrong, which you've failed since you think like a woman. You have no argument. You're just blabbering on about some random shit that has
pear928 4 weeks ago
@pear928 It means they know more than you do. And he is the father of psychoanalysis for a reason. It's the childhood sexuality part that is controversial and debated, everything else is used (maybe further developed but still used). But I don't expect you to know that since you obvious just write based on thin air. You over-developed male ego doesn't allow you to see beyong your nose.
velvetdust333 4 weeks ago
@pear928 Well I guess a pussy never falls on its back. But you are right about one thing. I guess women are more susceptible than men to emotions. And right know I have a strong case of boredom, with a hint of resignation and frustration that someone like you do exist. Oh well, next generation your genes are gone. Thank God.
velvetdust333 4 weeks ago
@velvetdust333 Instead of blindly sucking on Freud's cock and saying that I'm wrong because he's right, instead of keep talking about my ego and my progenitors, bring me proof which you have to refute me. If not, just SHUT THE FUCK MOTHER FUCK UP.
pear928 3 weeks ago
@velvetdust333 nothing to do with my assertions. What the fuck did you learn reading all those classics? You still can't think rationally.
pear928 4 weeks ago
@pear928 You would've attacked my argument right away if you really considered it as having a bullshit logic. My thesis: Not all women are fit for politics just like not all men are.
What you have admitted so far:
“There is no doubt that men at times act on emotion too when there is no place for emotion.”
(you being the first one since you got emotional on a debate that is supposed to be based on pure logic)
velvetdust333 4 weeks ago
@pear928 “Even when [women]'re rational, it's simply a veneer for the emotional base of her reasoning”
(So women can be rational after all? Simply their rationality is triggered by an emotion in the first place. But isn’t everything we do based on an emotion? You go in politics with a goal. This goal is intricately linked with emotions/feelings. You might feel proud, optimistic, zest, longing and etc.)
velvetdust333 4 weeks ago
@velvetdust333 Zeal is a really crappy one that has doomed many actually. Ouuh. A bit like you when I think of it .
velvetdust333 4 weeks ago
@velvetdust333 So what have you really proved? Your logic thus far consists of, 'an argument is wrong when it's overused', 'someone said something a 100 years ago that is still debated regarding its truth', 'a poem written 3000 years ago said men act on emotion, therefore, men and women are equally emotional'. You're essentially just using the label of a 'classic' to refute a point, which it does not. You need to learn logic and reasoning, the lack of which just proves that you're a woman.
pear928 4 weeks ago
@velvetdust333 specific proof as support**
velvetdust333 4 weeks ago
@velvetdust333 Also. No one gives a fuck if you can recite the Illiad in your fucking sleep or if you can memorize every single word spewed out by Beauvoir or Wollstonecraft. Do you actually think having read the classics lends any credence to your arguments? So what if you read some classics? Who the fuck cares? Your logic (i.e. overused) still remains that of a kindergartner despite all that liberal education. Fucking sad really.
pear928 4 weeks ago
@pear928 Ouch now that was a little too assertive. Classics are classics for a reason. Instead of dismissing them, you should read and understand the point they make. Anyways they are much better supported than any of your arguments. I gave you my reasons behind the word overused, we are spinning in circles here.
Ps: Never mentioned Wallstonecraft. I am vary happy if you read something of hers though.
velvetdust333 4 weeks ago
@velvetdust333 I'm not dismissing the classics. I'm making the point that you keep bringing up these authors as if that refutes my points magically without actually facing the argument yourself.
pear928 4 weeks ago
@pear928 Illiad: Simply put, a dude, due to his lust, ends up destroy Troy and fucks up everything. He had the choice from three goddesses: power, the most beautiful women and something else (don't remember unfortunately) like money, and he picks the chick. He ends up losing everything.
Beauvoir: I spammed already too much, if you want and extended essay with quotations, you got to give me your e-mail, but I doubt you will, have a good night and happy new year :)
velvetdust333 4 weeks ago
Sounds like someones confusing corporatism with capitalism again. Dear God. Why people are so dumb now days.
PiercingKnight 2 months ago
@PiercingKnight You're a jackass. LOL
stylosism 1 month ago
@PiercingKnight Agreed. I can't stand this woman's economic analysis either. She is also certain that plant food (CO2) is going to destroy the planet. Her discourse is the result of her public education (brainwashing) courtesy of the rag-tag commie profs (i.e. social 'scientists').
MsChapman77 1 month ago
@MsChapman77 You really deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Ever heard of the planet Venus?
bongo155 1 month ago
@bongo155 Yes, I really deny that CO2 is a GHG. The theory is nonsense. I am a chemical engineer (PhD) and the term GHG has only recently been introduced into the general discourse (PV=nRT; n is undefined - natural gas law). There are over 9,000 PhDs (sciences) in the USA alone that state that the theory is total nonsense. The truth is that wo/men are not capable of augmenting the amount of CO2 (plant food) in the atmosphere because the plants will gobble it up.
MsChapman77 1 month ago
I can't decide who is more intellectual: Naomi Klein or Meghan McCain. Any thoughts?
RoboSlater 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
stop the new world order an the police state, end thed feds ron paul 2012
d0ct0rd3ath 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
can t be more inaccurate. All these communist shitholes (USSR, China (30 yrs ago), East-Eur) were communist countries from the beginning. Lenin, who is regarded as the communist 'thinker', started terrorizing and killing people in the millions when he took power. In theory and practice you need a brutal dictatorship to shove the idiotic comm. ideology down the throat of people because none is so stupid to accept it freely. And this is exactly what happened.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@26libertarian No need to spread the "news". Everybody knows that communism is the bloodiest, most oppressive, most despotic ideology that only brought death, ecological and economic disasters where it reigned. No need to spread the "news" about communism. Planned economy is the epitomacy of idiocy. What is good about communism?? What problem did communism effectively solve in history?? Name me only ONE country where communism did not end up in a rotten shithole?
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
lOuch !! ook at me I m pretty and intellectual. Wonder if she does care about anything important or that actually strikes a chord with normal ordinary people. some of these issues are important and should not be used as a means to demonstrate how well read you are and what research you have delved into. She s only after chat show invites and intellectual recognition along with book sales. learn to talk straight like Michael Moore you impress no one with your vague jargonised theory drivel.
arfurlife 2 months ago
@arfurlife Perhaps you have trouble following her while she's speaking and prefer less intellectual "straight taking" people like Michael Moore because you are not well read in history or geo politics? That would be my first (and only) guess. For the REST of us, she is a godsend. Not everyone is as uninformed as you.
dminortheory 1 month ago
Comment removed
HolyShizzle 2 months ago
isnt America great Naomi! you can talk shit about the greatest American intellects of the 20th century and you can still making a living
HolyShizzle 2 months ago
Comment removed
HolyShizzle 2 months ago
Comment removed
HolyShizzle 2 months ago
My head hurts after watching that. Very deep and twisted individual. Do you think Bush was smart enough to plan all this Noami ? She's nuts !
52tincup 2 months ago
@52tincup He did not plan anything, he say an opertunity and he used it for his own means. You can not deny that he could have passed things like the Partiot Act or invade Iraq without something to distract the people of the US.
dave19941000 2 months ago
She is full of shit!
tjohn1986 2 months ago
I only recently read excerpts from her book "Disaster Capitalism", a few chapters.
If the few chapters I read was any indication of her book, she's dead WRONG about so called "Capitalism". I'm talking wrong in a way that should be embarrassing. Her fallacies are grossly wide and not even sensible.
Again I just read a few chapters but....oh boy.
RandomShellAccount 2 months ago
@RandomShellAccount: It is always a good idea to refrain from commenting on a book until you have actually read the entire book, not just "excerpts" from "a few chapters". Criticizing a book that you admit you have not read is pretty lame unless you can come up with specific, cogent examples to illustrate the ways in which you are so much smarter and see so much more clearly into the nature of reality than the author you are being critical of.
Mr512austintexas 2 months ago
@RandomShellAccount So she's wrong, eh? Care to give even a single example? I don't think you read ANY of the book. "Disaster Capitalism", btw, isn't the title, but part of the subtitle.
dermotjm 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The last time that Jews like Naomi Klein created a "decent egalitarian society", over 30 million Christians were killed in the Soviet Union.
We see them once again trying to form their disarmament & enlsavement of non-Jews under the guise of "social fairness" and other horseshit.
NEVER AGAIN!
dgl1962 2 months ago
TELL THIS JEW HATING HOLOCAUST DENYING ISRAEL HATING PALESTINIAN TERRORIST SUPPORTING BITCH TO FUCK OFF!
ParagramTree 2 months ago
@ParagramTree: Wow - your logic is so compelling! You really are a genius, aren't you?
Mr512austintexas 2 months ago
@ParagramTree Does having ALL CAPS mean you're yelling? Klein is actually Jewish and if you have any evidence about her "HOLOCAUST DENYING", please, share it. Otherwise, crawl back into your sad little hole and go back to jerking off to anime. Thanks.
dermotjm 2 months ago
@dermotjm Many Jews hate Israel that is a fact and many Jews are anti-Jewish as ironic as it sounds. Furthermore Judiasm is a religion not a race. Just as many people from Christian backgrounds hate christianity so many people from Jewish background hate Judaism. My country for example is officially christian but go out and preach the gospel on the street and you will endure a torrent of abuse from christian hating christians(people who were baptised christian but hate the religion).
ParagramTree 2 months ago
What a idiot girl!
milenko27887 2 months ago
We were once citizens, we are now consumers. All hail milton and ann.
408ss 2 months ago
@408ss Guess what, the citizens of 100+ years ago were also consumers always looking for horses, saddles, bread, tobacco, beer, whiskey, baby clothes, suits, guns, entertainment, shoes, tools, houses, farm equipment, lamps, cosmetics, furniture, well pumps, ammo, firewood, etc, etc.
Let's stop pretending that those before us didn't "consume" and seek the finer things in life that made it easier & more comfortable to live.
dgl1962 2 months ago
@dgl1962 The point was that politicians are hand picked by economic interests more powerful than what is really representive a typical 'citizen' (on both sides, but much more so on one side of the aisle). Its not profound to point out that we are all dependent and in some sort of trade, i.e., economics. But if the combination of cosmetics, beer and guns are the finer things in your life - guess what, I can't help ya there bucko. (But I can agree with you on whiskey - irish or bourbon only.)
408ss 2 months ago
@408ss That is a different point altogether from saying that "we're now consumers & not citizens".
I agree that money from not just corporations infects and corrupts politicians, but so does the $450 million spent by unions as well.
My main concern is that we don't fall for yet another huckster who claims to know of a better way to organize society and that it will be a "workers paradise", but that it must come with the total disarmament of the citizens first..
Liberty & freedom is the answer
dgl1962 2 months ago
naomi klein is so full of shit, sorry im an anarcho/communist i love chomsky and such, but i cant stand this woman
JagjeetMann 3 months ago
@JagjeetMann Regardless of whether or not you like klein, you don't think capitalist-political interests haven' t used what she has described? Not that its a bad strategy, its exactly and undeniably what was used in Iraq. Whether or not you like her, it's not really compelling to me (rather obvious), she outlines how modern government works: people's vote can drastically change politics 'democratically' and still not be what they want.
408ss 2 months ago
@JagjeetMann: You really thought it was worth your while to post this? Especially considering your impeccable credentials as an "anarcho/communist" who loves Noam Chomsky ... seems like you'd have your hands full already, raging against the system that oppresses you ...
Mr512austintexas 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The word free and market is a contradiction in terms , just as CAPITAL enslaves and exploites WAGE LABOR . The dynamics of World Capitalism whether Corporate dominated or State dictated is the abstract PROCESS of CAPITAL ACCUMULATION and CONCENTRATION. This abstract process is not smooth or linear but DESTRUCTIVE and enforced by MILLITARY MIGHT. The INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION was underpinned by built up of the BRITISH NAVY and US DOLLAR by world wide millitary bases
arzoyan 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The monetary serfdom of the WORLD WORKING CLASS in a politically manipulated market system of artificial scarcity is the template of our common alienation,exploitation and suffering. Capitalism is historically outdated and a tyrannical imposition for minority private gain. A democratic,conscious, majority movement for a world of cooperation for our common needs and well being expressing our creative energies in a MONEYLESS,CLASSSLESS,STATELESS COMMUNITIES OF HUMNAITY
arzoyan 3 months ago
I recommend "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" published in 2007. Naomi explains well how capitalism works.
First the shock of war or disaster, then the so-called reconstruction. That's always the same strategy. Whether in Baghdad or Afghanistan after the invasion, whether in New Orleans after "Katrina" or after a Tsunami: While people are still paralyzed by the disaster, another economic treatment after neo-liberal ideas: Destroyed existences by sellout to Western companies.
LesMarvelous 3 months ago
Talk about OVER-THINKING a subject. Naomi, you should call Coast to Coast. Those freaks will believe you.
evolutionist101 3 months ago
naomi klein is a freakin genius!
anyway, please check out my twitter, i hope u find it funny: twitter.com/#!/sexandpolitix
rabbitsareweird 3 months ago
hottie!
pchiekrie 3 months ago
@tagaphon Huh WWI? Oh no, that was when you got fucked so deep by Germany your entire empire collapsed. WWII? Oh no, that was when with a lot of allied help you managed to beat Germany and not "united Europe" whatever that would be. Was it after WWII? Oh no, that is when you crushed some Eastern European countries and used coup detats and gross violence and war to "convince them of your "superior system".
Efteling4Ever 3 months ago
blah shock, blablabla shock, blahblah shock, blablablabla, shooock, shock bla shock, shock followed by shock, blah blah blah TRIPLESCHOCK... blah, blah, blah, Shock, blahblah, shocktherapy, blahblah, shocktorture, blah blah CIA, blah, Shock, blah in state of shock blah, radical freemarket schock, shock, radical privatization blah crisis, shock, milton friedman shock, shock crisis.
bitch.....
Sivels 4 months ago
@Sivels ur a fucking moron...why dont u actually listen to her with an open mind once and do ur own research to see if what she is saying is true or false....retards like u are the reason why the world is the way it is!
1202388 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1202388 I did my research, I have an open mind and conclusions are that Naomi Klein and radical socialists like her are braindead twisted individuals who you cannot reason with. "retards like u are the reason why the world is the way it is!"... *Facepalm*.
Sivels 4 months ago
@1202388 No, the democracy is the reason why the world is the way it is.
larsiemannen 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@larsiemannen ... fake democracy. those in power are in it for themselves. they lie to us. use us. subjugate us. control us. it was a good idea originally, just as was communism. but just as also was with communism, they just corrupted it. "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
> No, the democracy is the reason why the world is the way it is.
intuitiveexplorer 3 months ago
@alexticule No, Im sick of listening to smear campaign and DISINFORMATION being spread like wildfire.
AroundSun 4 months ago
A valuable insight. Thank you Naomi.
reverenceforall 4 months ago 9
@alexticule OH PLEASE. not one thing in this video is true. that is how sad and pathetic it is. you morons don't even know the difference between corporatism and capitalism. tell me you are a 'truther' moron too...
AroundSun 4 months ago
@alexticule nope, your wrong. i watched it, critiqued it, debunked it, and laughed at it. all just rhetorical nonsense and leftist propaganda. nothing in this video is FACTUALLY CORRECT. THIS IS WHY YOU ARE FUCKING DUMB.
AroundSun 4 months ago
@alexticule oooo im sorry, did i offend your savior? you fucking uneducated historical and economic illiterate, just like this retarded bitch
AroundSun 4 months ago
..
PROTECT THE WEALTHIEST THREE PERCENT OF AMERICANS
..
BE SURE TO VOTE REPUBLICAN 2012
..
NO, I'M NOT BEING SERIOUS
..
Someideasandstuff 4 months ago
what a bunch of crap propaganda from this lying bias cunt
AroundSun 4 months ago
Kleins book is over 500 pages long, and she says that it was the type of friedmanite 'shocks' like wars, that free-marketers look forward for, so they can force through the 'unpopular' free-market reforms, however she fails to mention that Friedman was against the war in Iraq, that no free-marketer has ever said such things or advocated them, moreover, she fails to give any proof that free-markets are always unpopular. She tries to defame market liberalization with association to tyrants. Idiot.
spader49 4 months ago
This is not a new thing. They are employing criminal colonization techniques. The purpose is not to shock people into some better state it is to take them over and repress them. They are criminals-- psychopaths. They do endless harm to genuine U.S. interests, both financial and to our national spirit. If people do not view us as a legitimate and kind people then we lose support so vital to countless aspects of our national life and position our in the world; so vital to our ability to thrive.
TruthInjector 4 months ago
Comment removed
TruthInjector 4 months ago
There has never been a socialist country both democratic or prosperous, simple fact. Capitalism is the best and most effective system for removing poverty, another fact.
There is a reason why the bulk of countries have now liberalised their markets, and relied more on the private enterprise system, its because it works and socialism hasnt and never could.
Thank god for capitalism, the most moral and efficient system for everyone, especially the ordinary man.
Capitalism has won.
spader49 4 months ago
@spader49 I agree that capitalism has lots of good aspects, but just like any system, it isn't perfect. Due in part to economies of scale theory, capitalism will always lead to the concentration of wealth
.
OBAMA 2012 - RICK PERRY SHOULD STAY IN TEXAS AND ROMNEY CAN STAY IN HIS CALIFORNIA MANSION
.
Someideasandstuff 4 months ago
@Someideasandstuff Obama seriously? Even though he is trying to socialise healthcare? Even though he tries yesterdays failed keynesianism? Even though in his foreign policy he has done everything he said he was against, in so doing embracing or expanding on the Bush's core tenets: rendition, renewing the Patriot Act, keeping open Guantanamo, increasing the use of predator drones fivefold compared to bush, killing thousands of terrorist suspects (where his lofy demand for due process now?) etc
spader49 4 months ago
@spader49 the US needs socialized medicine badly. And do you think the only Republicans with a chance of winning are gonna slow down the war in the middle east??? LOL
.
Someideasandstuff 4 months ago
Comment removed
spader49 4 months ago
@Someideasandstuff The government provides goods and services much less effectively than the market. If that were not true then socialism, would have been more succesful than capitalism. Why do people think healthcare is any different, its not economically. There is already medicare etc for the very poor. True, reform is needed, but it should be market based reform. In Canada, tens of thousands leave annually to PAY for healthcare in the US even though its 'free' there. Look past the rhetoric.
spader49 4 months ago
@Someideasandstuff socilaised medicine is the same as saying monopolic medicine. all you get is big corporations issuing the medical care. if you want good medicine you must allow free market medicine to exist then you get the best result. competition will drive the cost of medicine down and improve the service. with socilaised there is zero cures and zero progress.
RPJunky 4 months ago
@RPJunky you need to take a trip to Europe and turn off your TV/internet for a bit
.
Someideasandstuff 4 months ago
@Someideasandstuff why do u say that mr capitalist hater ?
RPJunky 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A lot of the rage is aimed at corporations that are monopolies, acting as powerful special interest groups controlling the political levers from afar. The fear of corporatism is not a reasonable justification for attacking free-market capitalism. There is nothing more incompatible with the former than the latter, the private-entreprise system has been the most powerful machine at getting rid of corporate monopolies, its the government that keeps then from falling, which is anti-capitalism.
spader49 4 months ago
Comment removed
spader49 4 months ago
se puede ver en castellano o subtitulado?
ccandelmi 4 months ago
There has never been a socialist country both democratic or prosperous, simple fact. Capitalism is the best and most effective system for removing poverty, another fact.
There is a reason why the bulk of countries have now liberalised their markets, and relied more on the private enterprise system, its because it works and socialism hasnt and never could.
Thank god for capitalism, the most moral and efficient system for everyone, especially the ordinary man.
Capitalism has won.
spader49 4 months ago
@spader49
I agree with everything you say, except for the idea that capitalism is "moral." On the contrary, free markets are completely AMORAL. (Capitalism may be, in some sense, more moral than communism, but that's not saying much.)
Businesses have one primary goal: to make money. And we all know that where money is involved, people often act in distinctly IMMORAL ways.
ClumsyRoot 4 months ago
@ClumsyRoot I tend to get death threats or slurs from numerous Marxists, its good to get someone who agrees in part with what i've said.The profit motive is greatly misunderstood in my view, it is simply not in the interests of producers, businesses, corporations etc to act immorally towards everyone else; it is in their interests to provide commodities that consumers want, and thats what they do. Its irrelevant that they make money; in a free society, people go and purchase goods that they want
spader49 4 months ago
untested theories put in place by powerful people are what destroy societies...people who think because they "think" something should go a certain way are the real problem....if you have not been exposed to any other experience but your own you should not be in charge of shit...
Iwillslapyoutwice 4 months ago
Rightwingers are so fucking stupid. They rely on all this bullshit emotional anti-Marxist argument rather than looking at hardcore scientific facts, like anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
They preach their free-market cult ideology, but then they demand government step in and protect private property. I shouldn't have ONE CENT of my money go to taxes to defend a fucking rich corporations' property.
mphello 4 months ago
@mphello I've got an idea. Why is the government not sold to the highest bidder? As in: There would be no taxes but voluntary contributions and the power share is proportional to the contributions. That way, people like you wouldn't have to pay a cent to "defend a fucking rich corporations' property" and the corporation would probably still pay less than they do now, because they could get rid of all the stuff they don't need (such as pensions and health care). Fair, isn't it?
john42t 3 months ago
@john42t
"highest bidder" I assume you mean money, right? Because people like you are mentally capable of thinking only in those terms. Why should it be based upon who happens to have the most money?
How about the one with the most moral credits - i.e. vegetarian, pollutes least?
If you base it on money, then all those Goldman Sachs employees with all that money now,
that they got by stealing and doing no work, have an unfair advantage.
mphello 3 months ago
capitalism is brilliant its the governemnt that screws it up. it needs to back off and let capitalism rip we all would be better off. fuk capitalism gets blamed for everything yet gives us everuthign we have. africans have nothing for a reason they dont have any capitalism.
RPJunky 4 months ago
HE was not admitting that a crisis is a planned experience, but that througfh crisis as a fact, does change come. Capitalism is not what happened in Iraq. It was a Socialistic/capitalistic infusion, which never works but for the elite. Don't throw in a protestant ethic capitalism interjected in your analysis, it does not follow. Nevertheless, this idea sounds like 1984. The cause of these actions is athiesm and evolution Ideology. Friedman was a free market man and brilliant.
doobersmanster 4 months ago
Chile, has the lowest rate of corruption in all of Latin America, the lowest infant mortality rate, the lowest level of people living below the poverty line, and the richest people in income per capita terms. All this is the result of Milton Friedman's free market reforms. But facts are not very important for the liberal left-wing nutty crusaders, who care more about being self-righteous, utopian and emotional than they do about 'irrelevant' matters like the truth.
spader49 4 months ago
@spader49
It is you that is making baseless emotional rubbish.
Capitalism cannot make the world rich. For every winner there's millions of losers.
Believing that markets will save us all is utopian as it doesn't deal with the reality of what capitalism really is which is wasteful pyramid scheme designed to only benefit the top 3%.
kingmafi6699 4 months ago
@kingmafi6699 its very obvious that not only do you not have the slightest grasp of basis economics, but that you are very dogatic ideologically. I bet you have never picked up an economic textbook. The phrase 'for every winner, there's millions of losers' reflects a common fallacy, is known as the zero-sum fallacy, its factually wrong to assume that one person can only benefit at anothers expense. Look up the principle of comparative advantage, debunks it in the context of global capitalism.
spader49 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I bet you have never picked up an economic textbook"
That's supposed to reinforce your argument?
"its factually wrong to assume that one person can only benefit at anothers expense."
I don't think so. The nature of capitalism is that one person benefits over another or one class over another. Throughout history that has been true and still holds true today.
You haven't debunked anything.
kingmafi6699 4 months ago
@kingmafi6699 crap. capitalisms number one goal is give to the consumer exactly what it needs and want. anything away from this is not capitalism.mits the best system ever devised by man
RPJunky 4 months ago
@kingmafi6699 look up the principle of comparative advantage. It disproves the popular fallacy that one person can only benefit at the expense of another. The 'zero-sum' fallacy. Why would a person or nation voluntarily trade with another if it was not in their self-interest? Anyway, you probably wont look it up, from the tone of the intellectually vacuous nonsense that youve written, its obvious that the facts dont really matter, as long as you have a crusade, thats whats important.
spader49 4 months ago
"Why would a person or nation voluntarily trade with another if it was not in their self-interest?"
I'm not arguing that nations don't trade because of self interest but that such relationships are fundamentally exploitative. We can look at the example of NAFTA where Mexican farmers could no longer compete with highly subsidized North American agriculture produce. It destroyed their society to the point that they had no alternatives but to grow narcotics causing violence and terror.
kingmafi6699 4 months ago
Klein is a very ignorant and intellectual vacuous dogmatic ideologue, even by left-wing standards. Her book is worthless and abound with wrong assumptions and blatant factual errors.
There is not enough space to mention them all, but for people who actually care about facts, and not confirmation bias. A synopsis of the distortions are encapsulated in the youtube video
Johan Norberg vs. Naomi Klein and The Shock Doctrine
and the article 'Defaming Milton Friedman'
spader49 4 months ago
Capitalism is hegemonic today, not because it is the best we fallible humans can do, but because it supports, and is supported by special interests of immense power. What we need is Economic Democracy: a competitive economy of democratically run enterprises that replaces capitalist financial markets with more egalitarian, more democratic institutions. That would be a true "Free Market". But, under our present wretched system we can't even achieve worker control over production! It's terrible.
CosmicFork 4 months ago
stupid woman
qwert4327able 4 months ago
she looks like a horse
987Mars 5 months ago
Meh. It's very unlikely anyone here actually understands economics.
DrunkenPoetic 5 months ago
.
Due in part to economies of scale theory, capitalism will always lead to the concentration of wealth. This would happen even if you removed all regulation. Also, check out the latest Zeitgeist film. It's called Moving Forward and is on youtube
.
Someideasandstuff 5 months ago
@Epicnerdgasm no, government isn't the problem. Corruption is the problem. These are different issues. The amount of money in politics needs to be addressed if we want to limit corruption. More campaign finance reform is needed
Someideasandstuff 5 months ago
@Epicnerdgasm A good point, here's the 'but', for over a century there have been measures enacted to try prevent that sort of stuff, but it never goes away, capitalism will always act towards the profit motive, any obstacle in it's way is either of any negative connotation words that end in 'ism'. They don't even have to bribe, just threaten to offshore jobs/cut production/monopolize/terrorize, they will always act in their best interests, not anyone elses, least of all the uninformed public.
JeanLouie1106 5 months ago
@Epicnerdgasm Don't you think that crony capitalism is the inevitable result of capitalism? It's about the profit motive, if it's profitable, it shall be done, laws are only respected if it's profitable to abide them. It starts by companies getting bigger and controlling more means of production and the economic lives of citizens, when big enough they can start making off hand threats to unions and the government to serve their own goals.
JeanLouie1106 5 months ago
Damn she's hot.
UncleFred34 5 months ago
What does government action have to do with capitalism? Nothing - it's just authoritarian crap.
sharperguy 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
she is literally the dumbest person in the entire world america does not have a free market
Freak08701 5 months ago
i love that book it is one of my favs. and free economics bull shit, the free market the poor are oppressed by the rich. so only 2% get to be free, talk about a full of shit ideology.
whedonfreak976 5 months ago
@whedonfreak976 So North Korea or Russia is more to your liking? Why are only 2% free?
Do you understand that you can have equality or freedom but not both? Which is most important to you?
You cannot have equality of outcome without sacrificing freedom... think about it ( or look at societies where equality has been enforced ) and you'll see this is the truth.
westcoast1965 5 months ago
@westcoast1965 that is the dumbest thing i have ever heard, in sweden they have both, in germany they have both, what a nolan chart bull shit question to ask. and equality is freedom, which we actually we are not, so many people are oppressed it is not funny, especially the poor. and only 2% have it good. and no that is not the truth and you damn well know it. i call bull shit.
whedonfreak976 5 months ago
@whedonfreak976
How do you have equality of wealth without using force? You can't. Let me spell it out for you. We're not talking about 'equal rights' and we're not talking about 'equality before the law'. Both are obvious and morally required. We're talking about 'equality of outcome'.
You can't REDISTRIBUTE wealth without using force. What people need is equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. Does that make sense to you?
westcoast1965 5 months ago
@westcoast1965 and you cannot deregulate without force, every law is used by force, even your so called free market ask chilie in the 70's pinochet anyone? or argintina in the late 70's or bolivia in the 80's or poland in the 90's argentina used a junta to keep the people quiet while the corporations and the government ran wild. again a nolan chart crap question and answer, so you would not have used force to free the slaves? 2 can play that game.
whedonfreak976 5 months ago
@whedonfreak976
I'm in favour of liberty.. and I'm asking questions of principle. You're changing the subject. What I'm espousing has nothing to do with atrocities committed in banana republics. You're wrong about requiring force to deregulate though. It takes force to control and regulate not to leave people to their free choices. Also using force to free people who are already subjected to force is a totally different situation. You don't seem to want to answer the question.
westcoast1965 5 months ago
Comment removed
whedonfreak976 5 months ago
nope, you are dodging mine, and yes i am for forcing the rich oppressive bastards who want to keep the poor in the gutter starving, yes i do want them to share the wealth. boo hoo, they have to share, and again, even deregulation is forced every law is forced, just look up, the 5th amendment in the bill of rights. now i answered your question, you answer mine. free market is just code language for the rich to screw the rest. your turn. would you have used for, to end slavery.
whedonfreak976 5 months ago
@whedonfreak976 So are you a communist? How is wealth generated? The free market generates wealth. Collectivist systems don't generate wealth and they use force to keep people in line. You don't really understand what free markets are supposed to be. How many times can I state it... I'm in favour of liberty and against coercion. Then you start talking about slavery. Why is the free market oppressive? I don't think you understand what you're really opposing. I'll leave you with that.
westcoast1965 5 months ago
@westcoast1965 generates how? i mean with no over sight, how can you be sure that the big corporations will not just run gun shot over people? and smaller companies, remember that is how we got here in the first place thank you ronald reagan, and alan greenspan for stripping away the glass stegal regulations. then corporations bought up, smaller companies, banks gave out bad loans, and a debt mounted. and how am i a communist? a communist is for giving all of the power to the people cont.
whedonfreak976 5 months ago
and dissolving the government, of course you are thinking of USSR and china, but they misused it, i am more for people getting wealth through a people owned government, that is socialism. big difference. and you are not answering the questions, just straw manning them. and how is the free market oppessive? when the people do not want it, and it is FORCED on them by a military junta cough pinochet cough. and again argentina, i could go on. people do not want a free market, it is a failure cont
whedonfreak976 5 months ago
@whedonfreak976 Best comment on this video so far!
mphello 4 months ago
@mphello Wow , thank you. That was very nice of you to say.
whedonfreak976 4 months ago
@mphello Wow , thank you. That was very nice of you to say.
whedonfreak976 4 months ago
@mphello Wow , thank you. I am just a big fan of the book, and was just printing what i think about what is going on and what has happened.
whedonfreak976 4 months ago
@mphello Thank you, i just love the book, and i think everyone should read it.
whedonfreak976 4 months ago
of a system. if there was no corporations, i would not be opposed, but as long as corporations, exist, and please tell me you do not really think, that in a "free market" that the corporations would just turn over equal control. again bull shit. how would you take the power away from them? and how do you deregulate banks? F O R C E. that is how, and did you look up, the 5th amendment? or the 16th amendment? did you? probably not
whedonfreak976 5 months ago
The shock doctrine... ok, FDR after the great depression, "media reform" (aka restriction) after the NOTW scandal... yes, the shock doctrine exists (no shit, not exactly a revolutionary idea) but it exists on both sides...
fredNielssen 5 months ago