What garbage stef you cant even logically qualify money creation? ,now if you could you would know there is & never has been a free market so long as the banks you advocate obfuscate our promissory obligations we have to each other? not to a thief /bank who gives up no consideration thus controlling money by forcing a falsified debt to themselves,Yes we have no choice to volunteer interest that cause's price inflation & TERMINALLY depletes circulation that only consists of some principal at most
As long as Government or anyone else has the right to tax and start the use of force against peaceful people with only little fear of a counter attack, we will never have a free-market. The greater the fear our would be robbers have the freer the market.
25 people that watched this video are happy to be slaves to the monetary system. Bow to your masters, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgon & Chase Citigroup.
Researching the system you're proposing led me to societies in the past where Governments couldn't rule anymore, so that people had to organize themselves & installed local currencies.One of the most recent examples was Somalia. they could get rid of their governmental structures & there were no Market restrictions in the beginning.After a short while, clans took control over this situation, in a Mafia kind of way.Mafia itself is a traditional example from Sicily on the aftermath of free Markets
@Hasshasser well that's the thing, and libertarians also acknowledge that you do need a government but must be limited in power. Somalia barely even had one.
Inflation is a violation of a free market????? What rubbish, it is purely the appreciable rise in the cost of goods on services usually based on the CPI based on increasing wages! Otherwise very interesting
@TheManInBlackChannel you had 400 characters to make your point, but you used 100. I guess the other 300 are implied argument from terrorific catastrophe?
@TheManInBlackChannel "The so called 'free market' solution that Stefbot promotes to the world's ailments would be a nightmare."
I know right. The status quo is so much better with its 81k pages of regulation in the federal register, government spending constituting 40% of the economy, government enabled pharma companies pushing liver-killing prescription drugs through the HMOs, bailouts, wars, etc.
@truevoice08 And you think de-regulationis going to help? You do realize that it was specifically because of de-regulation that banks were allowed to play with toxic derivatives. Remember that banks do not own the money that they are protecting, they only own the money from interest and fees. That's their customer's money, not theirs. And doesn't a free market government protect property rights? Regulation to prevent banks from jeopardizing their customers money is a free market phenomena.
@Satarack "You do realize that it was specifically because of de-regulation that banks were allowed to play with toxic derivatives." No. Though I know that's the standard narrative presented by the corporate-State media which is ironically accepted by the "idiotically useful" (Lenin's term) Left. As I said, regulations have increased, not decreased, under the "free market extremist" George Bush. And no, I don't think we'd all starve w/o 'selfless' regulators protecting us from 'greed'.
@truevoice08 Who said it was de-regulation during the bush era? It was the repeal of earlier regulation under Clinton that allowed banks into this area of speculation. It lead to self-serving arguments of "Too big to fail." That because banks were able to take large risks, they should. And if they should fail in their risks that society is responsible for keeping them afloat. If the risk pays off, everyone wins; but if they fail, then the banks aren't responsible.
@truevoice08 But you missed my point. My point was that a free-market isn't a market without regulation; it's a market with regulation to protect the freedom of exchange OF YOUR OWN PROPERTY without interference by anyone, even the government; and with regulation to protect the property rights of individuals. Banks do not own the money they speculate with; it is the money in their charge, given to them for protection by their customers.
@truevoice08 But regulation that existed to restrict the ability of banks to speculate with their customers property was removed. This was a violation of free-market, it jeopardized the property rights of the banks' customers. Regulation to restrict banks in this regard is necessary for a free market. De-regulation on things like industry subsidies are good then; if the industry cannot survive without subsidy, the free market has spoken.
@Satarack LIE. BIG LIE. "But regulation that existed to restrict the ability of banks to speculate with their customers property was removed. This was a violation of free-market" - BIG LIE. ¿Who did that? Reagan, under Friedman's advice. FREE-MARKET was the idea. Speculation was prohibited by ROOSEVELT and should be prohibited for ever. Reagan with help of free-market fanatics destroyed that. And de-regulation was the model. So please, don't lie.
@MGGoblin Clearly, if you thought I was saying that was a good thing then you still have a lot to learn about English. Why would I say that, but then also say, "doesn't a free market government protect property rights? Regulation to prevent banks from jeopardizing their customers money is a free market phenomena."?
A free market says that banks shouldn't be allowed to make exchanges with that money, BECAUSE IT'S NOT THEIRS. It's their customer's money.
@Satarack De-regulation of derivatives and speculation was done by free-market fanatics supporting Reagan. Right now, it's immoral to support that free-market ideology when it was privatization and de-regulation the policies that have got us here. ¿How can you de-regulate everything when you know there is people with huge amounts of money and poor people, and then hope for economic prosperity to come?
@MGGoblin Why are you trying to pin de-regulation on me? I'm saying we need banking regulation, and that the repeal of regulation on banks is what led to all this mess. Like I said, you really don't seem to understand what I'm saying.
@Satarack Ok. I am attacking FREE-MARKET ideology, not you. I have no problem with you my friend, In fact I enjoy this conversation. There is no such thing as a totally de-regulated market, and de-regulation was one of the key political projects pushed by Milton Friedman and realized by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The right wing anarchocapitalist project GOT US ALL into this. Derivatives were illegal until the free-market fanatics made them legal.
@MGGoblin It's not anarchy, it's what the founding fathers wanted. And Ronald Regan was one of the best damn presidents we had. He was the only one who had the balls to stand up to the federal reserve. Which is the main currency regulator EVERYONE hates.
@MGGoblin You did nothing but agree with what I said, whether you understood that or not. But you should never, ever, ever call someone a liar. Do you think that did anything to help your case? Do you think it did anything but make me immediately get angry? Do you think it in anyway would have changed my mind now that you've called me a liar, and especially when you clearly don't even coherently understand what I said?
@MGGoblin And for the record, your cries of LIES are bullshit. I was referring to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act provision restricting banks from being both commercial and investment banks. Before then, they could only be one or the other. With that restriction gone; banks were able to start speculating with the commecial savings of the commercial side of the bank in the investment side. And guess what, the Glass-Steagall Act was put in place under Roosevelt, and repealed under Clinton.
So attitudes like "BOO Obama; regulation bad, de-regulation good." Are superficial and two-dimensional. It is not a free market attitude. The free-market attitude is "Regulation that protects property rights, and the free exchange of said property by their owners, is good Regulation. Regulations that jeopardizes these rights are bad." Each regulation/de-regulation needs to be assessed on how it affects the right to property, and the free exchange of that property.
@Satarack Von Mises and Von Hayek admit that their economy model is not based on SCIENCE and economy is a science. Von Hayek hated Roosevelt WHO BANNED derivatives and regulated speculation; yes, he did that. Before 1933 derivatives were legal and speculation was legal. Until a decent president came in and did what it has to be done. From Argentina we praise Roosevelt for being sane, among so much free-market insanity, that he was able to end the depression.
@Satarack I don't know what you're talking about. You are either deeply confused or deliberately misrepresenting the free market position. Though I think I've made my point clear. The status quo is a heavily regulated economy and that more regulations only empower the State and its corporate friends, contrary to popular superstition. Best luck to you in understanding how the world works. Stefbot channel is an excellent resource for that purpose.
I don't understand anything you said in this video! I don't live in a truly free market society, but nobody's forcing me to do shit... And the government doesn't control my currency, because the FED is a private entity, not a government one... and yet, we're in a sack of shit, with a dollar which has been loosing buying power ever since the FED was initiated 100 years ago... I'm an idiot, & you didn't make me any smarter!
And interest charges.... Where does the money to pay interest come from? Without inflation and devaluation, I don't see how that money can be paid.....
Ok, so I'm trying hard to understand the "Free-Market" Theory. I think I get it. We don't have a free market, a free market has very little in common with our current economic system. I get that.
What I don't get is how is a Free Market Economy any less a pipe dream than a Resource Based Economy? I'm not trying to be facetious. This is an honest question....
@anotherdrummer23 Your right, it may be a pipe dream, its rarely practiced. But when it is practiced you see faster innovation, poor people become middle class quicker there are less super rich people, ppl from the 3rd world immigrate and enjoy a higher standard of living and the nation's foreign policy is tamer and tends to only focus strictly on defense, not pre-emptive BS or genocide. Kind of like the US in its infancy, but we weren't completely free market, we didn't enforce kidnapping laws.
Also, how can one ensure that the judiciary/police does not become corrupt and in the hands of those with the most economic power? I have heard some proponents of free markets even suggesting that every person should find his/her own protection, so a big company can have an army if it wants/needs. What stops those big companies from breaking the law (if there are any laws) and completely taking over all of the natural resources claiming to own them.
To me, it doesn't seem like a free market can exist, and that the lowest threshold is never going to be good enough. Some entity (judiciary and police) has to ensure the free market, and this would need funding. Where would funding come from if not through taxes? So a minimum of regulation is necessary for a free market?
@Theologikos Many consumers will patronize companies that manufacture in a clean fashion, so clean companies will thrive. Also, a privatized form of the national parks will arise. There is a market for ecological parks.
I guess I just want to know if this "free market" that you and Jacob Spinney talk about will provide for all the world's people? Because if you are of the belief that some of us must "go without" because there's not enough to go around, then I simply cannot advocate what you are saying. We need a global solution, and I just don't think that a competitive market system will ever be able to provide for the global population.
I guess the real question I have is: In your "free-market" is there any the scarcity of resources that should in no way be scarce. By that I don't mean things like minerals, things that are finite, but things that we can (and do) control the scarcity of. ie: Food. We possess the technology to produce enough food to feed the world's population..... How would the billion starving people be fed if they've nothing to offer by way of exchange?
With a completely free market, you have the massive problem of negative externalities such as pollution. How about CFC gases that were tearing a hole through the ozon layer? Thanks to regulation, all production stopped and we are not all dying from skin cancer. In a completely free market, positive and negative externalities ranging from greenhouse emissions and animal exctiontion to public parks tends to be ignored. We need governments to change incentives, imperfect as they are.
There is a glaring flaw in the whole Free Market argument: the myth of the level playing field. If there truly were a level playing field, those corporations that have amassed the most capital would not be able to buy up vast chunks of our airtime, our culture and our subconscious with their advertising insane budgets.
@FBA A level playing field would limit advertising revenues in the media, and set ads at an affordable price so local, small-scale (and often superior) producers would be able to promote their wares. This would also ensure that one of the great tenets of free market economics, "competition" is *actually taking place* not just in name, but in *practice*.
Prediction: cutting emissions is going to mean a return to local industries and self-sufficiency (individual and national), and end the FTA.
WOW so a free market is like dating with no violence, how pretty! Sounds just wonderfully practical and easy to put into place, I guess that's why so many bountiful instances of free market societies have been recorded in history. Why don't we call grandpa smurf here too, so he can explain how he sells smurfberries without an oppressive state regulating him... Really study history and grow up.
Very interesting stuff about the effect of goverment. Please can you recommend some books since i'd tend to learn more by books and graphics and DIY than to listening.
@andrewsurtees I'm no fan of the Fed. But I don't think it is the real problem. We consume more than we can produce. A reduction of living standanrds seems unavoidable, and the poor will probably be hit hardest.
@DystopianEmpire01 Fair point. Before the fed everyone was eating food that hadn't been planted yet, using machines that hadn't been invented yet, etc etc. It's not the Fed's fault, the entire economy was impossible from the start.
@andrewsurtees I did swerve from the past to current ime without really indicating that I had, that made my point unclear.
GDP figures should be adjusted for inflation of the dollar and it's buying power within our economy. to reflect it's relative worth for us not the corporations, which reap the lion's share, not us.
@andrewsurtees What had the Fed got to do with time travel? And excess capital only feeds the monster, Besides, are'nt you British? Yes, I expect you have a Fed of sorts there too, but you're not so affected by our Fed as we are.
I disagree with you on capitalism. While I agree on anarchy I am not willing to trade the government control for corporate control. Trading one master for another is idiotic. I refuse.
@jaworski716 So don't expect a revolution till the unemployment rate hits at least 40%. To de-corporatize governments though political means would not be easy. Revolution really won't work either, who would be able to supply massive amounts of goods. Corporations were mainly an American invention, the earliest ones were formed in the 1700's. It's only a problem when corporations get too big and start controlling whole markets and buying people and politicians. But hey, what else is new?
@DystopianEmpire01 I'm not advocating violent revolution or overthrow, I think people will just start bypassing governments and legislation, that's what's great about the internet. Look how it's enabled people to bypass anti-capitalist intellectual property laws! I'd like to think that the internet will erode the sovereignty of states and corporations. That's my hope anyway, unless we're all forced on to internet 2..
@jaworski716 Freedom is eroding on the internet pretty fast, You hav'nt noticed? Free speach is being filtered, labeled, and tracked. As well as everything else you do on a net-connected computer, the tracking and tracing for the most part is built into the software and now the hardware as well, with redudancies buried deep and made part of critical systems so as hamper efforts to defeat it. And it's perfectly 'legal'.
@jaworski716 so u don't want state control right?well,just think about a situation like this...A woman is raising her kids alone,there is no state and no police,a group of 5 man passes by (she has a gun but she can't compete with 5 man),these man decide to rape her and her kids and take control of her house.wow,that would be such a wonderful world world to live in..right?...grow up kid and stop watching alex jones
@jaworski716 or maybe u need another example?you go into a restaurant and since there is no state control there is no food Safety and Inspection Service too.You order a steak and they serve you rat meat.you pay and walk away happily with a rat in you stomach....wow,what a beautiful planet it would be right?......please stop watching alex jones
@geiuy I don't watch alex jones, please stop making assumptions. 1st example - states don't prevent rape, they prosecute rapists (and at a pretty poor rate). second example - we have loads of food safety regulation and I still get the shits after chicken hut, and they're still open for business. The real function of food safety law is to provide disinsentives to competition. I honestly don't watch alex jones I think he's a prick, I'm quite able to form opinions on my own, thankyou very much.
@jaworski716 knowing that there is a high probability of being caught by police is what stops a lot of men from raping women and children,restaurants from serving you rat meat,banks from being robbed or killing someone for a simple disagreement.sure,the state control is full of defects and corruptions but that doesn't mean that it would be better without it.even animals are organized and have responsibilities in a group with a dominant figure.you really know nothing about human nature....
@geiuy sorry but this is all complete bollocks and I wish you'd stop being so condescending. Read 'Discipline and Punish' by Michel Foulcault, at some point every tail starts wagging the dog, yeah the only reason I don't rape or kill anyone is because there are laws against it, get a grip! Stop clinging to the conceptions you have of 'human nature', it is dogma. There is NOT a high probability of getting caught for rape, look at the statistics. You are appealling to consequence.
@jaworski716 So...without a state, you would rape people and murder people? First of all, I'd like to say you are evil and immoral. Secondly, if everyone owned a firearm, would you still take that risk? It's as though, you're only worried about going to prison, not that you're worried about a punishment for your crime. If you use force upon someone, even without a state...you will receive punishment whether it be through a group coming and beating you or killing you. It's called community.
@munkyusm jesus fuck learn to decode sarcasm, yeah I've got a pile of bodies underneath my porch and my knobs read raw from fucking dead prostitiutes, get your shit together!
@jaworski716 No, but your argument is that people will rape and kill like crazy without laws. So, you have to be saying that you would rape and kill without laws.
@munkyusm no thats the other persons argument. I'm saying that you don't need a law against walking in the road to keep people walking on the sidewalks. fucking hell
@jaworski716 Yeah, i've read your statement three times and it does not look like sarcasm. Next time, you may want to work on that. And seriously, chill with the cursing...it makes you seem mentally weak.
@jaworski716 I can't believe someone like you is on stefbot's post...this just doesn't seem like you're kind of thing. You should be on the San Diego Chargers official website or something...or maybe The Zeitgeist Movement.
You seem mentally weak and I don't think a philosophy site is the best place for you. Seriously, go to hulu...they have tons of episodes of lost and family guy.
@munkyusm what is it with this 'mentally weak' business? How much ego do you have invested in your intellect? You don't know me mate. You don't know who I am, what I do, what I read, anything about me. You need to get down off your high horse. Oh and this is fucking youtube! Stop pretending like anyone gives a fuck. Philosophy balls! Go read a fucking book.
@rimtotem corporate control gets it's power from government and it's monopoly on force. in anarchy there would be an open market for contracted armed forces and most people would probably be armed anyways.
The FED is not a government owned institution...what are you on about stef? Is your ear itching in the video or should I take you pulling on it twice and your strange facial expression as a sign that you aren't being completely honest?
The government is just the legal arm of the big corporations, the fed is privately owned. Thus the government is just a capitalist tool to control the market. Nothing more. In my mind that is the type of violence that needs to be stopped.
You cannot separate interest rates from free market money, because to control one by force is to control the other by force.
One guy I ran into says that anybody that does not support his legalized plunder and central planning he wants the STATE doing is not using their right brain, because when his STATE redistributes property it does not use force. That is well out there lost in space.
People homestead their body when they're born into it, so it's their property to do as they will.
Only a tyrant, always & everywhere, outlaws the legal self-defense of property to legalize the use of force.
The speed of evolution of property theory is the degree to which there is a competition over the process of the legal discovery of it. The more jurisdictions there are for legal force the more competition you have over the use of it. So the more pieces the state is broken up into the better
Inflation has also the function to give people an incentive to buy goods and invest rather than save the money at home in their safe, so that the money is constantly being reinjected into the economy, stimulating economical growth.
Things have changed alot since then, This isn't some wild west reality where everyone can go out and just shoot the other person.
Modern civil society requires infrastructure, rule of law, enforement of contracts etc etc If the modern day capitalist system were to run as you see it then it would not survive one hour let alone a day. I just don't see how private actors could manage would ever be interested in investing in roads or maintaining the grids properly.
"Also the only way for a person to gain more wealth is by providing wealth to others through employment or investment. "
This is precisely what capitalism does not do. Capitalists horde the means of production and invest in technologies or offshore cheaper labor in order reduce the need for workers and thus reinvest this capital in their own ultimate demise.
The majority of people in society cannot do that. That is why they enter the market and sell their labor to a capitalist because they don't have the means to produce.
Water, land, seeds, resources etc these are not free and one has to enter the market in order to
A) Purchase these items
B) Continue to maintain and resource these items in order to grow these commodities
All market exchanges mask the coercive nature of capitalism. Yes we have the freedom to choose the content of our commodities and which capitalist to sell our labor to however we don't the choice to not engage in market buying or selling, Afterall why do you enter the workplace to purchase your means of subsistance? Simply because you yourself do not have the ability produce them. There is an inequality in who owns production and property. This is the root source of problems.
Get over this obsession with 'property'. The wacko right "freemarketeers"have always tried to create the illusion that there are only two possible systems of government: theirs, where the corporations do what they like to whom they like, , no restrictions on greed and self-interest to the detriment of the majority, or a Soviet-style nightmare. Comintern or Corporation. What a load of crap. The only legitimate function for a government is to protect the interests of ALL PEOPLE, not profiteers.
Which is precisely why the free market is exactly what the title says: a myth. Like when people blame communism for the U.S.S.R.'s failing, in theory, death and poverty don't happen in communism, in theory. Just like, in theory, the free market is self regulating. Impossible, b/c human nature makes us greedy, we try to take over others, soon we have a couple of corporations calling the shots. So to keep a free market, you'd have to have gov't intervention: which violates idea of free market=myth
@JasonDamisch it's not! don't stop digging bro, stick to their foundations, you realize it's really n either. There is beautiful common ground i feel it
Interest in the modern world is like a cancer.Its impossible to pay back all theinterest because money doesnt make interest at the time it is created/printed/conjured up.The effect of Interest is mounting debt and collapse. Interest only worked when collateral consisted of livestock which produced baby livestock that was kept by the lender as the interest. That's the only time Interest was okay. Fuck Interest!!! We should be allowed to monetize our own production with certificates called money.
Interest is the cost of money. It is the price people pay for time preference.
Savers demand a fee in return for not spending the money today. Borrowers pay a fee for spending money today rather than saving until they have enough.
@CurtHowland I will check out the video you recommended as I do have an open mind, and comment thereafterwords. The problem I see with interest is about where does this money come from to pay the interest if the borrowers dont have the money in the first place? Where does this interest magically come from? Would you be able to answer this elementary question? Anyways I am off to checking out the video you recommended. I recommend you view byrondalechannel. Thanks!
@charronfamilyconnect "where does this money come from to pay the interest if the borrowers dont have the money in the first place?"
Signing a contract one cannot fulfill is fraud, a crime.
So a borrower says they will repay, with interest, because they want to spend now rather than save up and spend later.
If i want a big TV, it will take 6 months to save up for it. I get a loan to buy the TV now, and pay it back in 8 months, those two extra months of savings pay the interest.
@CurtHowland Okay I will look through the few lectures that I havent reviewed yet. Man there sure is alot. You know sometimes the principal of too much information may hold some truth to it. I find that these guys really like to complicate the subject of economics all sported out with suits and ties like typical Professors.Ever read the book called Critical path written by Buckminster Fuller?This is an amazing book that describesthe ills of society and where we need to go if we are to survive.
@CurtHowland By the way, I have been blocked from most of those Von Mises profs on those youtube channels. It seems they dont like questioning that goes beyond the subjects they cover. I was respectful and wanted to honest answers to my questions and instead of getting an intelligable response I was blocked and my questions were removed. This makes me question their integrity and left wondering what is their agenda and what are they hiding?
@charronfamilyconnect "I have been blocked from most of those Von Mises profs on those youtube channels."
Interesting.
"I was respectful and wanted to honest answers to my questions and instead of getting an intelligable response I was blocked and my questions were removed."
I've like to see one of those questions, because I've never seen them reject a question.
Have you seen the blog and forums on Mises (dot) org? If they don't block some real idiots there, why block you here?
@CurtHowland You know the saying, "Confusion masks corruption". That is how I am perceiving the Von Mises institutions agenda. Perhaps I am wrong but from the way they have handled my questioning and the manner in whick they have covered the numerous obscure topics. It reminds me of the University days with all these pompous Prof's tried to intimidate anyone that comes up with questioning that is challenging that they have no answer to.
@charronfamilyconnect "That is how I am perceiving the Von Mises institutions agenda."
As far as I can tell, their agenda is "teach". To reject questions and block people is not teaching. And yes, much of the material is college level economics, but hardly all.
Again, I'd like to see some of your questions. Care to post a few to my channel so you're not limited to 500 letters?
@CurtHowland Just so you know I was just blocked by the channel name: Nielsio. Why do these guys keep blocking me everytime I raise a question? I can never respond back to a user who comments to my questions so I am stalled at one comment. I can't believe he actually left my original question in the channel.THese Fucken guys are blocking me & I question why this is.Once this is address I would love to have open discussions about many issues that these guys cant see past the end of their nose.
@charronfamilyconnect "Why do these guys keep blocking me everytime I raise a question?"
Have you asked on /user/misesmedia ? I looked at "Nielsio", and he's just reposting various relatively "free market" videos. He also posted Zeitgeist, which is awful.
He's a poseur, don't feel bad about it.
As a real economist. Post the question to MisesMedia or on Mises.org and you won't get blocked.
@charronfamilyconnect "Fuck Interest!!! We should be allowed to monetize our own production with certificates called money."
Please don't get me wrong, the way that interest rates are manipulated by the central banks is criminal. But just like a criminal using a gun does not make guns bad, interest is a natural artifact of individual's time preference.
The central bank, however, needs to be abolished right now. Sooner! Yesterday!
Sorry, but the 'free market' offers absolutely zero to the majority, and utopia for the few. As such, it will always have limited appeal. It's just the other side of the Marxist coin really, instead of the Comintern, we'd be asking the corporations how high we should jump. Keep it.
Not true oh heavily victimized sympathizer of the illusions. A completely free market would make the price of everything go WAY down for everyone. There is only ONE justification for a government. & that is to protect property rights. Which means to police against ALL initiatory force, fraud, & threat of force. & to enforce all contracts freely made between free consenting adults
@CurtHowland Apparrently, a statement is not an argument. That, presumably, applies to both sides.
Actually, the industrial revolution (your profit seeking individuals) making lots of goods to sell cheaper to lots of people kept the people producing those goods in abject poverty and misery. 12 hour days, 7 day weeks with disease, malnutrition and squalor its only reward. Social changes for the better have come about in spite of profiteers and their representatives, not because of them.
@CurtHowland This just illustrates how the proponents of this ridiculous neocon pipedream really don't have a clue what it's like in the real world, and what it has been like for working people in the past. Non-privileged Americans have had to fight capitalists for every important social change for the better, just like the British. Every concession, every improvement in the lives and conditions of working people, and there, opposing it each time, have been the Capitalists.
I'm impressed. Neocons -hate- the free market, because they want to regulate.
"Non-privileged Americans"
So you didn't watch "Applying Economics To American History".
"opposing it each time, have been the Capitalists."
Only if you define "capitalists" as well connected government favored merchantilists, but you don't seem to get that such state favored business has nothing to do with anything like a free market.
Not true oh heavily victimized sympathizer of the illusions. A completely free market would make the price of everything go WAY down for everyone. There is only ONE justification for a government. & that is to protect property rights. Which means to police against ALL initiatory force, fraud, & threat of force. & to enforce all contracts freely made between free consenting adults
Not true oh heavily victimized sympathizer of the illusions. A completely free market would make the price of everything go WAY down for everyone. There is only ONE justification for a government. & that is to protect property rights. Which means to police against ALL initiatory force, fraud, & threat of force. & to enforce all contracts freely made between free consenting adults
Not true oh heavily victimized sympathizer of the illusions. A completely free market would make the price of everything go WAY down for everyone. There is only ONE justification for a government. & that is to protect property rights. Which means to police against ALL initiatory force, fraud, & threat of force. & to enforce all contracts freely made between free consenting adults
No doubt "state power" is detrimental to free market thinking. The free marke itself is also a tyrannical beast. Adam Smithism is alive and mindless. Contrary to what many dogmatically preach, the free market doesn't correct in any kind of way that makes for a healthy economy or fairness for all. The "invisible hand", supposedly a mysterious force that makes a market economy act in a utilitarian way, is non-existent.
The term "free market" simply means voluntary exchange between free individuals without coercion or the threat of violence. A true "socialist" system where everyone "shared" their resources would be a free market - but when you start pointing guns at people and demanding they give you their property, that's is where the free market ends and statism begins.
In other words - socialism is a great idea, as long as the government doesn't get involved.
@wraft "but the idea that there must be interest rates is mystifying BS."
.
If you borrow my hammer, I ask for my hammer and some of you're wife's wonderful cheesecake when you're done. That's called "interest".
.
Exactly the same thing happens if someone borrows my money, I charge "interest" because I have to put off buying what I want today, in order to give you the opportunity to get what you want today, instead of saving up to buy it tomorrow.
@CurtHowland The origin of interest dates back to the times when land barons/Banks lent money to a peasant and that peasant put up their cattle as Collateral. The Calves born to those cattle during the time they were held as colateral went to the Lender.That was the interest. The problem today is that Money whether gold, silver,or fiat does not make little babies of itself. Therefore where does the interest come from?It is sucked out of the other pot of mostly IOU's money? Interest is cancer.
It it's based on a monopoly, like the Federal Reserve, then yes, interest is cancer. However, interest by itself is not inherently evil as you are suggesting. The problem is with a monopoly on currency, forcing a kind of interest that is absolutely disgusting.
On the other hand, if the currency markets were free, and the monopoly broken, lending could be done without interest as we know it, and we would not be forced to use the debt-based fiat currency with this interest.
@somecomputergeek Yes, but the Federal Reserve does not exist separate from government. The only reason the "private" owners of the Fed can make the fortunes they make is because the government grants them the monopoly on legal currency.
So while it's "private" in theory, it's purely political in practice.
Of course, you're right. However, I wouldn't say that it is "purely political" in practice.
I would say that, like many state programs, the profits go toward private interests and the control of it is in the hands of privately-owned corporations, but the mechanism for maintaining the monopoly is still state coercion. A subtle distinction, but I think we may actually agree on this one.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I enjoyed your comments, although I fundamentally disagree with you. The greatest irony of this video is that you are pontificating about free markets on a medium (the internet) that was developed through taxpayer's dollars. In today's modern world, economic development stems from technological innovation. Can you name one major technological innovation of the past 50 years that came out of the free market? The answer is that there are none.
@ubernerd35 There are only a few places that don't have a local monopoly on television cable service.
.
Those places, even if they have only one provider, have service prices about half of everywhere else.
.
ISDN was invented in the early 1970s, but never "tariffed" (sold) because they decided no one would want digital service. Only when the AT&T monopoly was partially repealed did innovation and service explode, as you point out with cell phones.
it is not the failure of a free market simply because it doesn't exist. Governments sucking up vast amounts of money for their military industrial and social complex prevent innovations in other sectors.
But there are still innovations in pharma although it is questionable, in industrial development. there are innovations but you can't see them because it is not for consumer purposes.
The internet may have been started with taxpayer dollars, but it looked nothing like the internet of today. It didn't become a useful tool until private companies began to develop it further.
@ayzb5tf8 "Can you name one major technological innovation of the past 50 years that came out of the free market?"
How about the PC you're reading this with?
If you mean the 'Net, you're a fool. The 'Net was useless until after the government stopped regulating it. When it became a free market, only then did innovation and industry turn it into the ubiquitous medium you are using now.
Government nearly killed the 'Net, it did not birth it.
@Lawsome101 I appreciate your intellectual honesty - It's a rare quality these days. I was also disappointed with it when I actually took the time too look up some of its claims. I found them to be, ironically, rather propagandistic.
"Zeitgeist is crap because it's main supporter is an anarcho-communist."
What a splendid example of the ad hominem fallacy. How about, "Zeitgeist is crap because it contains some factual errors"? The film does capture the general idea, you know...
5 Stars and Favorited. As I watch this vid it occurs to me over and over that if everyone knew this stuff the governments wouldnt be able to get away with so much. Keep it up Stef, I learn more from one of your 15 min vids then in a whole year of highschool.
What garbage stef you cant even logically qualify money creation? ,now if you could you would know there is & never has been a free market so long as the banks you advocate obfuscate our promissory obligations we have to each other? not to a thief /bank who gives up no consideration thus controlling money by forcing a falsified debt to themselves,Yes we have no choice to volunteer interest that cause's price inflation & TERMINALLY depletes circulation that only consists of some principal at most
chotaboy66 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As long as Government or anyone else has the right to tax and start the use of force against peaceful people with only little fear of a counter attack, we will never have a free-market. The greater the fear our would be robbers have the freer the market.
yinzjagoffs 1 month ago
25 people that watched this video are happy to be slaves to the monetary system. Bow to your masters, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgon & Chase Citigroup.
TheOmegaeyes 1 month ago
Researching the system you're proposing led me to societies in the past where Governments couldn't rule anymore, so that people had to organize themselves & installed local currencies.One of the most recent examples was Somalia. they could get rid of their governmental structures & there were no Market restrictions in the beginning.After a short while, clans took control over this situation, in a Mafia kind of way.Mafia itself is a traditional example from Sicily on the aftermath of free Markets
Hasshasser 2 months ago
@Hasshasser well that's the thing, and libertarians also acknowledge that you do need a government but must be limited in power. Somalia barely even had one.
tehatemachine 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Google Ron Paul.
petereberle 2 months ago
Inflation is a violation of a free market????? What rubbish, it is purely the appreciable rise in the cost of goods on services usually based on the CPI based on increasing wages! Otherwise very interesting
Rasterius 2 months ago
@TheManInBlackChannel you had 400 characters to make your point, but you used 100. I guess the other 300 are implied argument from terrorific catastrophe?
RuddODragonFear 2 months ago
@TheManInBlackChannel I love how you elaborate on your point
rodrigodet 3 months ago
great vid :)
Hesheli27 3 months ago
@TheManInBlackChannel "The so called 'free market' solution that Stefbot promotes to the world's ailments would be a nightmare."
I know right. The status quo is so much better with its 81k pages of regulation in the federal register, government spending constituting 40% of the economy, government enabled pharma companies pushing liver-killing prescription drugs through the HMOs, bailouts, wars, etc.
VOTE OBAMA 2012
HOPE AND CHANGE!
*sarcasm*
truevoice08 3 months ago
@truevoice08 And you think de-regulationis going to help? You do realize that it was specifically because of de-regulation that banks were allowed to play with toxic derivatives. Remember that banks do not own the money that they are protecting, they only own the money from interest and fees. That's their customer's money, not theirs. And doesn't a free market government protect property rights? Regulation to prevent banks from jeopardizing their customers money is a free market phenomena.
Satarack 2 months ago
@Satarack "You do realize that it was specifically because of de-regulation that banks were allowed to play with toxic derivatives." No. Though I know that's the standard narrative presented by the corporate-State media which is ironically accepted by the "idiotically useful" (Lenin's term) Left. As I said, regulations have increased, not decreased, under the "free market extremist" George Bush. And no, I don't think we'd all starve w/o 'selfless' regulators protecting us from 'greed'.
truevoice08 2 months ago
@truevoice08 Who said it was de-regulation during the bush era? It was the repeal of earlier regulation under Clinton that allowed banks into this area of speculation. It lead to self-serving arguments of "Too big to fail." That because banks were able to take large risks, they should. And if they should fail in their risks that society is responsible for keeping them afloat. If the risk pays off, everyone wins; but if they fail, then the banks aren't responsible.
Satarack 2 months ago
@truevoice08 But you missed my point. My point was that a free-market isn't a market without regulation; it's a market with regulation to protect the freedom of exchange OF YOUR OWN PROPERTY without interference by anyone, even the government; and with regulation to protect the property rights of individuals. Banks do not own the money they speculate with; it is the money in their charge, given to them for protection by their customers.
Satarack 2 months ago
@truevoice08 But regulation that existed to restrict the ability of banks to speculate with their customers property was removed. This was a violation of free-market, it jeopardized the property rights of the banks' customers. Regulation to restrict banks in this regard is necessary for a free market. De-regulation on things like industry subsidies are good then; if the industry cannot survive without subsidy, the free market has spoken.
Satarack 2 months ago 2
@Satarack LIE. BIG LIE. "But regulation that existed to restrict the ability of banks to speculate with their customers property was removed. This was a violation of free-market" - BIG LIE. ¿Who did that? Reagan, under Friedman's advice. FREE-MARKET was the idea. Speculation was prohibited by ROOSEVELT and should be prohibited for ever. Reagan with help of free-market fanatics destroyed that. And de-regulation was the model. So please, don't lie.
MGGoblin 2 months ago
@MGGoblin Clearly, if you thought I was saying that was a good thing then you still have a lot to learn about English. Why would I say that, but then also say, "doesn't a free market government protect property rights? Regulation to prevent banks from jeopardizing their customers money is a free market phenomena."?
A free market says that banks shouldn't be allowed to make exchanges with that money, BECAUSE IT'S NOT THEIRS. It's their customer's money.
Satarack 2 months ago
@Satarack De-regulation of derivatives and speculation was done by free-market fanatics supporting Reagan. Right now, it's immoral to support that free-market ideology when it was privatization and de-regulation the policies that have got us here. ¿How can you de-regulate everything when you know there is people with huge amounts of money and poor people, and then hope for economic prosperity to come?
MGGoblin 2 months ago
Comment removed
Satarack 2 months ago
@MGGoblin Why are you trying to pin de-regulation on me? I'm saying we need banking regulation, and that the repeal of regulation on banks is what led to all this mess. Like I said, you really don't seem to understand what I'm saying.
Satarack 2 months ago
@Satarack Ok. I am attacking FREE-MARKET ideology, not you. I have no problem with you my friend, In fact I enjoy this conversation. There is no such thing as a totally de-regulated market, and de-regulation was one of the key political projects pushed by Milton Friedman and realized by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The right wing anarchocapitalist project GOT US ALL into this. Derivatives were illegal until the free-market fanatics made them legal.
MGGoblin 2 months ago
@MGGoblin It's not anarchy, it's what the founding fathers wanted. And Ronald Regan was one of the best damn presidents we had. He was the only one who had the balls to stand up to the federal reserve. Which is the main currency regulator EVERYONE hates.
tehatemachine 1 month ago
@MGGoblin You did nothing but agree with what I said, whether you understood that or not. But you should never, ever, ever call someone a liar. Do you think that did anything to help your case? Do you think it did anything but make me immediately get angry? Do you think it in anyway would have changed my mind now that you've called me a liar, and especially when you clearly don't even coherently understand what I said?
Satarack 2 months ago
@MGGoblin And for the record, your cries of LIES are bullshit. I was referring to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act provision restricting banks from being both commercial and investment banks. Before then, they could only be one or the other. With that restriction gone; banks were able to start speculating with the commecial savings of the commercial side of the bank in the investment side. And guess what, the Glass-Steagall Act was put in place under Roosevelt, and repealed under Clinton.
Satarack 2 months ago
So attitudes like "BOO Obama; regulation bad, de-regulation good." Are superficial and two-dimensional. It is not a free market attitude. The free-market attitude is "Regulation that protects property rights, and the free exchange of said property by their owners, is good Regulation. Regulations that jeopardizes these rights are bad." Each regulation/de-regulation needs to be assessed on how it affects the right to property, and the free exchange of that property.
Satarack 2 months ago
@Satarack Von Mises and Von Hayek admit that their economy model is not based on SCIENCE and economy is a science. Von Hayek hated Roosevelt WHO BANNED derivatives and regulated speculation; yes, he did that. Before 1933 derivatives were legal and speculation was legal. Until a decent president came in and did what it has to be done. From Argentina we praise Roosevelt for being sane, among so much free-market insanity, that he was able to end the depression.
MGGoblin 2 months ago
@Satarack I don't know what you're talking about. You are either deeply confused or deliberately misrepresenting the free market position. Though I think I've made my point clear. The status quo is a heavily regulated economy and that more regulations only empower the State and its corporate friends, contrary to popular superstition. Best luck to you in understanding how the world works. Stefbot channel is an excellent resource for that purpose.
truevoice08 2 months ago
I don't understand anything you said in this video! I don't live in a truly free market society, but nobody's forcing me to do shit... And the government doesn't control my currency, because the FED is a private entity, not a government one... and yet, we're in a sack of shit, with a dollar which has been loosing buying power ever since the FED was initiated 100 years ago... I'm an idiot, & you didn't make me any smarter!
JKolman1234 4 months ago
@craigslistflow nope, wrong, boo.
jaworski716 5 months ago
And interest charges.... Where does the money to pay interest come from? Without inflation and devaluation, I don't see how that money can be paid.....
anotherdrummer23 5 months ago
Ok, so I'm trying hard to understand the "Free-Market" Theory. I think I get it. We don't have a free market, a free market has very little in common with our current economic system. I get that.
What I don't get is how is a Free Market Economy any less a pipe dream than a Resource Based Economy? I'm not trying to be facetious. This is an honest question....
anotherdrummer23 5 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 Your right, it may be a pipe dream, its rarely practiced. But when it is practiced you see faster innovation, poor people become middle class quicker there are less super rich people, ppl from the 3rd world immigrate and enjoy a higher standard of living and the nation's foreign policy is tamer and tends to only focus strictly on defense, not pre-emptive BS or genocide. Kind of like the US in its infancy, but we weren't completely free market, we didn't enforce kidnapping laws.
ShatterNWO 5 months ago
Also, how can one ensure that the judiciary/police does not become corrupt and in the hands of those with the most economic power? I have heard some proponents of free markets even suggesting that every person should find his/her own protection, so a big company can have an army if it wants/needs. What stops those big companies from breaking the law (if there are any laws) and completely taking over all of the natural resources claiming to own them.
ihatekhomeini 5 months ago
To me, it doesn't seem like a free market can exist, and that the lowest threshold is never going to be good enough. Some entity (judiciary and police) has to ensure the free market, and this would need funding. Where would funding come from if not through taxes? So a minimum of regulation is necessary for a free market?
ihatekhomeini 5 months ago
@Theologikos Many consumers will patronize companies that manufacture in a clean fashion, so clean companies will thrive. Also, a privatized form of the national parks will arise. There is a market for ecological parks.
schwerinthegreat 5 months ago
@anotherdrummer23 It will if no one is lazy.
schwerinthegreat 5 months ago
I guess I just want to know if this "free market" that you and Jacob Spinney talk about will provide for all the world's people? Because if you are of the belief that some of us must "go without" because there's not enough to go around, then I simply cannot advocate what you are saying. We need a global solution, and I just don't think that a competitive market system will ever be able to provide for the global population.
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago in playlist * economics *
I guess the real question I have is: In your "free-market" is there any the scarcity of resources that should in no way be scarce. By that I don't mean things like minerals, things that are finite, but things that we can (and do) control the scarcity of. ie: Food. We possess the technology to produce enough food to feed the world's population..... How would the billion starving people be fed if they've nothing to offer by way of exchange?
anotherdrummer23 6 months ago in playlist * economics *
With a completely free market, you have the massive problem of negative externalities such as pollution. How about CFC gases that were tearing a hole through the ozon layer? Thanks to regulation, all production stopped and we are not all dying from skin cancer. In a completely free market, positive and negative externalities ranging from greenhouse emissions and animal exctiontion to public parks tends to be ignored. We need governments to change incentives, imperfect as they are.
Theologikos 6 months ago
@Theologikos read "free market environmentalism" by anderson and leal
jaworski716 5 months ago
There is a glaring flaw in the whole Free Market argument: the myth of the level playing field. If there truly were a level playing field, those corporations that have amassed the most capital would not be able to buy up vast chunks of our airtime, our culture and our subconscious with their advertising insane budgets.
FantasmaBAnco 7 months ago
@FBA A level playing field would limit advertising revenues in the media, and set ads at an affordable price so local, small-scale (and often superior) producers would be able to promote their wares. This would also ensure that one of the great tenets of free market economics, "competition" is *actually taking place* not just in name, but in *practice*.
Prediction: cutting emissions is going to mean a return to local industries and self-sufficiency (individual and national), and end the FTA.
FantasmaBAnco 7 months ago
@FantasmaBAnco ...Ooops! "... insane advertising budgets..."
FantasmaBAnco 7 months ago
WOW so a free market is like dating with no violence, how pretty! Sounds just wonderfully practical and easy to put into place, I guess that's why so many bountiful instances of free market societies have been recorded in history. Why don't we call grandpa smurf here too, so he can explain how he sells smurfberries without an oppressive state regulating him... Really study history and grow up.
DonVoghano 7 months ago
bravo
rgs11 7 months ago
Very interesting stuff about the effect of goverment. Please can you recommend some books since i'd tend to learn more by books and graphics and DIY than to listening.
turbofritz2 8 months ago
Back to the subject of economics, Did'nt we have a free market before the Great Depression?
DystopianEmpire01 8 months ago
@DystopianEmpire01 I wouldn't call Smoot-Hawley a free market, and really any pretense of economic liberty went in 1913 with the Fed's founding.
andrewsurtees 8 months ago
@andrewsurtees I'm no fan of the Fed. But I don't think it is the real problem. We consume more than we can produce. A reduction of living standanrds seems unavoidable, and the poor will probably be hit hardest.
DystopianEmpire01 8 months ago
@DystopianEmpire01 Fair point. Before the fed everyone was eating food that hadn't been planted yet, using machines that hadn't been invented yet, etc etc. It's not the Fed's fault, the entire economy was impossible from the start.
andrewsurtees 8 months ago
@andrewsurtees I did swerve from the past to current ime without really indicating that I had, that made my point unclear.
GDP figures should be adjusted for inflation of the dollar and it's buying power within our economy. to reflect it's relative worth for us not the corporations, which reap the lion's share, not us.
DystopianEmpire01 8 months ago
@andrewsurtees What had the Fed got to do with time travel? And excess capital only feeds the monster, Besides, are'nt you British? Yes, I expect you have a Fed of sorts there too, but you're not so affected by our Fed as we are.
DystopianEmpire01 8 months ago
@DystopianEmpire01 that's a question about correlation. you're not asking about causation.
Ravengaurd6 7 months ago
@DystopianEmpire01 nope!
jaworski716 5 months ago
Everyone should read EULA's carefully as well.
They are contracts you are electronically signing, and are legal and binding.
You should know what you're agreeing to, click, click, click.
DystopianEmpire01 8 months ago
Comment removed
DystopianEmpire01 8 months ago
I disagree with you on capitalism. While I agree on anarchy I am not willing to trade the government control for corporate control. Trading one master for another is idiotic. I refuse.
rimtotem 9 months ago
@rimtotem the state is the enabler of corporatism. If one goes then so does the other
jaworski716 9 months ago 5
@jaworski716 An enabler and a co-dependant, and they swap roles at the appropriate times.
DystopianEmpire01 8 months ago
@DystopianEmpire01 ...so....
jaworski716 8 months ago
@jaworski716 So don't expect a revolution till the unemployment rate hits at least 40%. To de-corporatize governments though political means would not be easy. Revolution really won't work either, who would be able to supply massive amounts of goods. Corporations were mainly an American invention, the earliest ones were formed in the 1700's. It's only a problem when corporations get too big and start controlling whole markets and buying people and politicians. But hey, what else is new?
DystopianEmpire01 8 months ago
@DystopianEmpire01 I'm not advocating violent revolution or overthrow, I think people will just start bypassing governments and legislation, that's what's great about the internet. Look how it's enabled people to bypass anti-capitalist intellectual property laws! I'd like to think that the internet will erode the sovereignty of states and corporations. That's my hope anyway, unless we're all forced on to internet 2..
jaworski716 8 months ago
@jaworski716 Freedom is eroding on the internet pretty fast, You hav'nt noticed? Free speach is being filtered, labeled, and tracked. As well as everything else you do on a net-connected computer, the tracking and tracing for the most part is built into the software and now the hardware as well, with redudancies buried deep and made part of critical systems so as hamper efforts to defeat it. And it's perfectly 'legal'.
DystopianEmpire01 8 months ago
@jaworski716 so u don't want state control right?well,just think about a situation like this...A woman is raising her kids alone,there is no state and no police,a group of 5 man passes by (she has a gun but she can't compete with 5 man),these man decide to rape her and her kids and take control of her house.wow,that would be such a wonderful world world to live in..right?...grow up kid and stop watching alex jones
geiuy 5 months ago
@jaworski716 or maybe u need another example?you go into a restaurant and since there is no state control there is no food Safety and Inspection Service too.You order a steak and they serve you rat meat.you pay and walk away happily with a rat in you stomach....wow,what a beautiful planet it would be right?......please stop watching alex jones
geiuy 5 months ago
@geiuy I don't watch alex jones, please stop making assumptions. 1st example - states don't prevent rape, they prosecute rapists (and at a pretty poor rate). second example - we have loads of food safety regulation and I still get the shits after chicken hut, and they're still open for business. The real function of food safety law is to provide disinsentives to competition. I honestly don't watch alex jones I think he's a prick, I'm quite able to form opinions on my own, thankyou very much.
jaworski716 5 months ago
@jaworski716 knowing that there is a high probability of being caught by police is what stops a lot of men from raping women and children,restaurants from serving you rat meat,banks from being robbed or killing someone for a simple disagreement.sure,the state control is full of defects and corruptions but that doesn't mean that it would be better without it.even animals are organized and have responsibilities in a group with a dominant figure.you really know nothing about human nature....
geiuy 5 months ago
@geiuy sorry but this is all complete bollocks and I wish you'd stop being so condescending. Read 'Discipline and Punish' by Michel Foulcault, at some point every tail starts wagging the dog, yeah the only reason I don't rape or kill anyone is because there are laws against it, get a grip! Stop clinging to the conceptions you have of 'human nature', it is dogma. There is NOT a high probability of getting caught for rape, look at the statistics. You are appealling to consequence.
jaworski716 5 months ago
@jaworski716 So...without a state, you would rape people and murder people? First of all, I'd like to say you are evil and immoral. Secondly, if everyone owned a firearm, would you still take that risk? It's as though, you're only worried about going to prison, not that you're worried about a punishment for your crime. If you use force upon someone, even without a state...you will receive punishment whether it be through a group coming and beating you or killing you. It's called community.
munkyusm 5 months ago
@munkyusm jesus fuck learn to decode sarcasm, yeah I've got a pile of bodies underneath my porch and my knobs read raw from fucking dead prostitiutes, get your shit together!
jaworski716 5 months ago
@jaworski716 No, but your argument is that people will rape and kill like crazy without laws. So, you have to be saying that you would rape and kill without laws.
munkyusm 5 months ago
@munkyusm no thats the other persons argument. I'm saying that you don't need a law against walking in the road to keep people walking on the sidewalks. fucking hell
jaworski716 5 months ago
@jaworski716 Yeah, i've read your statement three times and it does not look like sarcasm. Next time, you may want to work on that. And seriously, chill with the cursing...it makes you seem mentally weak.
munkyusm 5 months ago
@munkyusm me no stupid. me got brain. I don't give a fuck how I seem mate. You should work on your not being a cock on the internet skills.
jaworski716 5 months ago
@jaworski716 I can't believe someone like you is on stefbot's post...this just doesn't seem like you're kind of thing. You should be on the San Diego Chargers official website or something...or maybe The Zeitgeist Movement.
munkyusm 5 months ago
@munkyusm what is "my kind of thing"? who is "someone like you"? you don't know me you arrogant prick!
jaworski716 5 months ago
You seem mentally weak and I don't think a philosophy site is the best place for you. Seriously, go to hulu...they have tons of episodes of lost and family guy.
munkyusm 5 months ago
@munkyusm what is it with this 'mentally weak' business? How much ego do you have invested in your intellect? You don't know me mate. You don't know who I am, what I do, what I read, anything about me. You need to get down off your high horse. Oh and this is fucking youtube! Stop pretending like anyone gives a fuck. Philosophy balls! Go read a fucking book.
jaworski716 5 months ago
@rimtotem corporate control gets it's power from government and it's monopoly on force. in anarchy there would be an open market for contracted armed forces and most people would probably be armed anyways.
Ravengaurd6 7 months ago
The FED is not a government owned institution...what are you on about stef? Is your ear itching in the video or should I take you pulling on it twice and your strange facial expression as a sign that you aren't being completely honest?
The government is just the legal arm of the big corporations, the fed is privately owned. Thus the government is just a capitalist tool to control the market. Nothing more. In my mind that is the type of violence that needs to be stopped.
rimtotem 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
but isn't the federal reserv privatly owned?
94boppers 10 months ago
but isn't the federal reserv privatly owned?
94boppers 10 months ago
@94boppers What happens after you spend dollars you printed yourself? Who enforces the currency monopoly?
kihjin 10 months ago
You cannot separate interest rates from free market money, because to control one by force is to control the other by force.
One guy I ran into says that anybody that does not support his legalized plunder and central planning he wants the STATE doing is not using their right brain, because when his STATE redistributes property it does not use force. That is well out there lost in space.
ujisx 10 months ago
People homestead their body when they're born into it, so it's their property to do as they will.
Only a tyrant, always & everywhere, outlaws the legal self-defense of property to legalize the use of force.
The speed of evolution of property theory is the degree to which there is a competition over the process of the legal discovery of it. The more jurisdictions there are for legal force the more competition you have over the use of it. So the more pieces the state is broken up into the better
ujisx 10 months ago
Inflation has also the function to give people an incentive to buy goods and invest rather than save the money at home in their safe, so that the money is constantly being reinjected into the economy, stimulating economical growth.
xknowledgeisfreex 10 months ago
@DanteMcSparda
Things have changed alot since then, This isn't some wild west reality where everyone can go out and just shoot the other person.
Modern civil society requires infrastructure, rule of law, enforement of contracts etc etc If the modern day capitalist system were to run as you see it then it would not survive one hour let alone a day. I just don't see how private actors could manage would ever be interested in investing in roads or maintaining the grids properly.
kingmafi6699 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DanteMcSparda
"Also the only way for a person to gain more wealth is by providing wealth to others through employment or investment. "
This is precisely what capitalism does not do. Capitalists horde the means of production and invest in technologies or offshore cheaper labor in order reduce the need for workers and thus reinvest this capital in their own ultimate demise.
kingmafi6699 11 months ago
@DanteMcSparda
The majority of people in society cannot do that. That is why they enter the market and sell their labor to a capitalist because they don't have the means to produce.
Water, land, seeds, resources etc these are not free and one has to enter the market in order to
A) Purchase these items
B) Continue to maintain and resource these items in order to grow these commodities
C) Urban areas cannot facilitate your scenario
kingmafi6699 11 months ago
@DanteMcSparda
A free market without a government.
Please show me a period in history where that ever was the case.
kingmafi6699 11 months ago
@kingmafi6699 A better question would be name a free market WITH a government.
pretorious700 10 months ago
@DanteMcSparda
All market exchanges mask the coercive nature of capitalism. Yes we have the freedom to choose the content of our commodities and which capitalist to sell our labor to however we don't the choice to not engage in market buying or selling, Afterall why do you enter the workplace to purchase your means of subsistance? Simply because you yourself do not have the ability produce them. There is an inequality in who owns production and property. This is the root source of problems.
kingmafi6699 11 months ago
@DanteMcSparda
Capitalism is enforced through violence and coercion.
This is why you have the police and the military. It is to protect capitalists.
kingmafi6699 11 months ago
Very good Stef! I really enjoyed this video.
Xeogt 11 months ago
the price of money is labour..?
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
Get to the point you wacko!......
ATG0009 1 year ago
Get over this obsession with 'property'. The wacko right "freemarketeers"have always tried to create the illusion that there are only two possible systems of government: theirs, where the corporations do what they like to whom they like, , no restrictions on greed and self-interest to the detriment of the majority, or a Soviet-style nightmare. Comintern or Corporation. What a load of crap. The only legitimate function for a government is to protect the interests of ALL PEOPLE, not profiteers.
freddo27 1 year ago
The first decade is 2001-2010, so 2010 is not the beginning of a new decade. It's the end of the first one.
PluralOfEverything 1 year ago
Stop crying about crisis and make 30K a month at GetRichEasy . Us
GetRichEasyNow1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Making money online can be frustrating... Especially when all the guides out there are just using you to make money from you!
Luckily, there's a guy giving out a free guide about making a website, and creating revenue from it
The guide is 100% free, and he also gives you his email adressm so you can email him if you have problems!
Get it now at:
Tyreus {dot} net
lakishaaccelero 1 year ago
"ever piece of useless rabble in the world says..."
ouch. I was one of those for many years
XanatharEye 1 year ago
Which is precisely why the free market is exactly what the title says: a myth. Like when people blame communism for the U.S.S.R.'s failing, in theory, death and poverty don't happen in communism, in theory. Just like, in theory, the free market is self regulating. Impossible, b/c human nature makes us greedy, we try to take over others, soon we have a couple of corporations calling the shots. So to keep a free market, you'd have to have gov't intervention: which violates idea of free market=myth
pepmintpat 1 year ago
I've decided that capitalism and socialism are both the exact same thing. Civilization is evil and insane.
JasonDamisch 1 year ago
@JasonDamisch it's not! don't stop digging bro, stick to their foundations, you realize it's really n either. There is beautiful common ground i feel it
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thank god I finally found the way to buy my TF2 copy :D (keep it secret: the site is ez-casino(dot)com )
kathiAcevedovimi 1 year ago
Interest in the modern world is like a cancer.Its impossible to pay back all theinterest because money doesnt make interest at the time it is created/printed/conjured up.The effect of Interest is mounting debt and collapse. Interest only worked when collateral consisted of livestock which produced baby livestock that was kept by the lender as the interest. That's the only time Interest was okay. Fuck Interest!!! We should be allowed to monetize our own production with certificates called money.
charronfamilyconnect 1 year ago
@charronfamilyconnect You're stuck in the medieval mind set that interest is evil.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Interest is the cost of money. It is the price people pay for time preference.
Savers demand a fee in return for not spending the money today. Borrowers pay a fee for spending money today rather than saving until they have enough.
I recommend "Capital And Interest":
youtube.com/watch?v=PVW5jI3MDV8
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland I will check out the video you recommended as I do have an open mind, and comment thereafterwords. The problem I see with interest is about where does this money come from to pay the interest if the borrowers dont have the money in the first place? Where does this interest magically come from? Would you be able to answer this elementary question? Anyways I am off to checking out the video you recommended. I recommend you view byrondalechannel. Thanks!
charronfamilyconnect 1 year ago
@charronfamilyconnect "where does this money come from to pay the interest if the borrowers dont have the money in the first place?"
Signing a contract one cannot fulfill is fraud, a crime.
So a borrower says they will repay, with interest, because they want to spend now rather than save up and spend later.
If i want a big TV, it will take 6 months to save up for it. I get a loan to buy the TV now, and pay it back in 8 months, those two extra months of savings pay the interest.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@charronfamilyconnect Ah, found it, "thebyrondalechannel".
And in return, I recommend MisesMedia which is where the entire Mises University and far more is being posted.
But they have many presentations for non-scholars, this is one of my favorites: "Technology and Social Change"
youtube.com/watch?v=eHZdD3WtCHM
Jeff Tucker is one of the best public speakers I've ever seen/heard.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland Okay I will look through the few lectures that I havent reviewed yet. Man there sure is alot. You know sometimes the principal of too much information may hold some truth to it. I find that these guys really like to complicate the subject of economics all sported out with suits and ties like typical Professors.Ever read the book called Critical path written by Buckminster Fuller?This is an amazing book that describesthe ills of society and where we need to go if we are to survive.
charronfamilyconnect 1 year ago
@CurtHowland By the way, I have been blocked from most of those Von Mises profs on those youtube channels. It seems they dont like questioning that goes beyond the subjects they cover. I was respectful and wanted to honest answers to my questions and instead of getting an intelligable response I was blocked and my questions were removed. This makes me question their integrity and left wondering what is their agenda and what are they hiding?
charronfamilyconnect 1 year ago
@charronfamilyconnect "I have been blocked from most of those Von Mises profs on those youtube channels."
Interesting.
"I was respectful and wanted to honest answers to my questions and instead of getting an intelligable response I was blocked and my questions were removed."
I've like to see one of those questions, because I've never seen them reject a question.
Have you seen the blog and forums on Mises (dot) org? If they don't block some real idiots there, why block you here?
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland You know the saying, "Confusion masks corruption". That is how I am perceiving the Von Mises institutions agenda. Perhaps I am wrong but from the way they have handled my questioning and the manner in whick they have covered the numerous obscure topics. It reminds me of the University days with all these pompous Prof's tried to intimidate anyone that comes up with questioning that is challenging that they have no answer to.
charronfamilyconnect 1 year ago
@charronfamilyconnect "That is how I am perceiving the Von Mises institutions agenda."
As far as I can tell, their agenda is "teach". To reject questions and block people is not teaching. And yes, much of the material is college level economics, but hardly all.
Again, I'd like to see some of your questions. Care to post a few to my channel so you're not limited to 500 letters?
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland Just so you know I was just blocked by the channel name: Nielsio. Why do these guys keep blocking me everytime I raise a question? I can never respond back to a user who comments to my questions so I am stalled at one comment. I can't believe he actually left my original question in the channel.THese Fucken guys are blocking me & I question why this is.Once this is address I would love to have open discussions about many issues that these guys cant see past the end of their nose.
charronfamilyconnect 1 year ago
@charronfamilyconnect "Why do these guys keep blocking me everytime I raise a question?"
Have you asked on /user/misesmedia ? I looked at "Nielsio", and he's just reposting various relatively "free market" videos. He also posted Zeitgeist, which is awful.
He's a poseur, don't feel bad about it.
As a real economist. Post the question to MisesMedia or on Mises.org and you won't get blocked.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@charronfamilyconnect "Fuck Interest!!! We should be allowed to monetize our own production with certificates called money."
Please don't get me wrong, the way that interest rates are manipulated by the central banks is criminal. But just like a criminal using a gun does not make guns bad, interest is a natural artifact of individual's time preference.
The central bank, however, needs to be abolished right now. Sooner! Yesterday!
CurtHowland 1 year ago
Very interesting!
neechee1 1 year ago
Sorry, but the 'free market' offers absolutely zero to the majority, and utopia for the few. As such, it will always have limited appeal. It's just the other side of the Marxist coin really, instead of the Comintern, we'd be asking the corporations how high we should jump. Keep it.
G0IFI 1 year ago
@G0IFI A statement is not an argument...
stefbot 1 year ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
Not true oh heavily victimized sympathizer of the illusions. A completely free market would make the price of everything go WAY down for everyone. There is only ONE justification for a government. & that is to protect property rights. Which means to police against ALL initiatory force, fraud, & threat of force. & to enforce all contracts freely made between free consenting adults
ZonMann 1 year ago
@G0IFI Interesting.
So what, exactly, dragged the vast majority of people out of grinding subsistence farming that had existed for thousands of years?
(hint: it wasn't monarchy, or religion, or democracy)
Profit seeking individuals realized that it was far more profitable to sell thousands of cheap items to lots of people, than to sell 3 to the King.
Capitalism.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
Comment removed
G0IFI 1 year ago
@CurtHowland Apparrently, a statement is not an argument. That, presumably, applies to both sides.
Actually, the industrial revolution (your profit seeking individuals) making lots of goods to sell cheaper to lots of people kept the people producing those goods in abject poverty and misery. 12 hour days, 7 day weeks with disease, malnutrition and squalor its only reward. Social changes for the better have come about in spite of profiteers and their representatives, not because of them.
G0IFI 1 year ago
@G0IFI "kept the people producing those goods in abject poverty and misery"
You have much to learn about history and economics.
Here. Try "Applying economics to American History":
youtube.com/watch?v=m-LJ3wZjD4I
Your objection is specifically addressed far better than I could.
"Social changes for the better have come about in spite of profiteers and their representatives, not because of them."
Yes, because of them. There would be no improvement in living standards without capital accumulation.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland This just illustrates how the proponents of this ridiculous neocon pipedream really don't have a clue what it's like in the real world, and what it has been like for working people in the past. Non-privileged Americans have had to fight capitalists for every important social change for the better, just like the British. Every concession, every improvement in the lives and conditions of working people, and there, opposing it each time, have been the Capitalists.
G0IFI 1 year ago
@G0IFI "ridiculous neocon pipedream"
I'm impressed. Neocons -hate- the free market, because they want to regulate.
"Non-privileged Americans"
So you didn't watch "Applying Economics To American History".
"opposing it each time, have been the Capitalists."
Only if you define "capitalists" as well connected government favored merchantilists, but you don't seem to get that such state favored business has nothing to do with anything like a free market.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
Comment removed
ZonMann 1 year ago
Comment removed
ZonMann 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Not true oh heavily victimized sympathizer of the illusions. A completely free market would make the price of everything go WAY down for everyone. There is only ONE justification for a government. & that is to protect property rights. Which means to police against ALL initiatory force, fraud, & threat of force. & to enforce all contracts freely made between free consenting adults
ZonMann 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Not true oh heavily victimized sympathizer of the illusions. A completely free market would make the price of everything go WAY down for everyone. There is only ONE justification for a government. & that is to protect property rights. Which means to police against ALL initiatory force, fraud, & threat of force. & to enforce all contracts freely made between free consenting adults
ZonMann 1 year ago
@G0IFI
11 minutes ago
Not true oh heavily victimized sympathizer of the illusions. A completely free market would make the price of everything go WAY down for everyone. There is only ONE justification for a government. & that is to protect property rights. Which means to police against ALL initiatory force, fraud, & threat of force. & to enforce all contracts freely made between free consenting adults
ZonMann 1 year ago
@G0IFI Your misapprehension of the facts is staggering.
pretorious700 10 months ago
@G0IFI You couldn't have it more backwards.
pretorious700 9 months ago
Well done... so articulate... quite eloquent. My thanks.
euripideesshreds 1 year ago
There's another way to get FREE MONEY from a debit card ... legally. :)
DebitCardMillionaire 1 year ago
@DebitCardMillionaire
How??
antoconno 1 year ago
Please stay away from my children. We don't appreciate common sense in these parts.
rmcc0002 1 year ago
No doubt "state power" is detrimental to free market thinking. The free marke itself is also a tyrannical beast. Adam Smithism is alive and mindless. Contrary to what many dogmatically preach, the free market doesn't correct in any kind of way that makes for a healthy economy or fairness for all. The "invisible hand", supposedly a mysterious force that makes a market economy act in a utilitarian way, is non-existent.
childsptisblackmail 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@childsptisblackmail "The free marke itself is also a tyrannical beast."
.
The opposite. A free market means no one can be "tyrannical", or they will lose their customers and go broke.
.
The only way to gain is to serve customers better than someone else.
.
So how is increasing choice, falling prices and improving living standards "tyrannical"?
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@childsptisblackmail
The term "free market" simply means voluntary exchange between free individuals without coercion or the threat of violence. A true "socialist" system where everyone "shared" their resources would be a free market - but when you start pointing guns at people and demanding they give you their property, that's is where the free market ends and statism begins.
In other words - socialism is a great idea, as long as the government doesn't get involved.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
OK, but the idea that there must be interest rates is mystifying BS. See, for example, Silvio Gesell on negative interest money.
wraft 1 year ago
@wraft "but the idea that there must be interest rates is mystifying BS."
.
If you borrow my hammer, I ask for my hammer and some of you're wife's wonderful cheesecake when you're done. That's called "interest".
.
Exactly the same thing happens if someone borrows my money, I charge "interest" because I have to put off buying what I want today, in order to give you the opportunity to get what you want today, instead of saving up to buy it tomorrow.
.
Interest is the price of time.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland The origin of interest dates back to the times when land barons/Banks lent money to a peasant and that peasant put up their cattle as Collateral. The Calves born to those cattle during the time they were held as colateral went to the Lender.That was the interest. The problem today is that Money whether gold, silver,or fiat does not make little babies of itself. Therefore where does the interest come from?It is sucked out of the other pot of mostly IOU's money? Interest is cancer.
charronfamilyconnect 1 year ago
@charronfamilyconnect I suggest "Capital And Interest":
youtube.com/watch?v=PVW5jI3MDV8
Really, you could learn some economics.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@charronfamilyconnect
It it's based on a monopoly, like the Federal Reserve, then yes, interest is cancer. However, interest by itself is not inherently evil as you are suggesting. The problem is with a monopoly on currency, forcing a kind of interest that is absolutely disgusting.
On the other hand, if the currency markets were free, and the monopoly broken, lending could be done without interest as we know it, and we would not be forced to use the debt-based fiat currency with this interest.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
Doesn't the Federal Reserve essentially control the money and interest rates? Isn't the Federal Reserve owned and operated by private interests?
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
@somecomputergeek Yes, but the Federal Reserve does not exist separate from government. The only reason the "private" owners of the Fed can make the fortunes they make is because the government grants them the monopoly on legal currency.
So while it's "private" in theory, it's purely political in practice.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland
Of course, you're right. However, I wouldn't say that it is "purely political" in practice.
I would say that, like many state programs, the profits go toward private interests and the control of it is in the hands of privately-owned corporations, but the mechanism for maintaining the monopoly is still state coercion. A subtle distinction, but I think we may actually agree on this one.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I enjoyed your comments, although I fundamentally disagree with you. The greatest irony of this video is that you are pontificating about free markets on a medium (the internet) that was developed through taxpayer's dollars. In today's modern world, economic development stems from technological innovation. Can you name one major technological innovation of the past 50 years that came out of the free market? The answer is that there are none.
ayzb5tf8 1 year ago
ayzb5tf8: Google. Government produces shit.
pinchyfingers 1 year ago
@ayzb5tf8
Hahahaha. Fucking ha. ha. ha. If there were still one telephone company, we wouldn't have fucking cell phones.
ubernerd35 1 year ago
@ubernerd35 There are only a few places that don't have a local monopoly on television cable service.
.
Those places, even if they have only one provider, have service prices about half of everywhere else.
.
ISDN was invented in the early 1970s, but never "tariffed" (sold) because they decided no one would want digital service. Only when the AT&T monopoly was partially repealed did innovation and service explode, as you point out with cell phones.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@ayzb5tf8
well, you made a point here, but:
it is not the failure of a free market simply because it doesn't exist. Governments sucking up vast amounts of money for their military industrial and social complex prevent innovations in other sectors.
But there are still innovations in pharma although it is questionable, in industrial development. there are innovations but you can't see them because it is not for consumer purposes.
LunkwillFook 1 year ago
The internet may have been started with taxpayer dollars, but it looked nothing like the internet of today. It didn't become a useful tool until private companies began to develop it further.
KevinDolin 1 year ago 3
@ayzb5tf8 "Can you name one major technological innovation of the past 50 years that came out of the free market?"
How about the PC you're reading this with?
If you mean the 'Net, you're a fool. The 'Net was useless until after the government stopped regulating it. When it became a free market, only then did innovation and industry turn it into the ubiquitous medium you are using now.
Government nearly killed the 'Net, it did not birth it.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
Stef, I wish you'd put out more vids on the free market like this! I miss your commentary on current events!
dingerness 2 years ago
good flick
Kingery4President 2 years ago
Free market -> New Eden, New World, Heavens... we knew that from all others revolutiarists-utopists (specially socialists)...
metal87power 2 years ago
@Lawsome101 I appreciate your intellectual honesty - It's a rare quality these days. I was also disappointed with it when I actually took the time too look up some of its claims. I found them to be, ironically, rather propagandistic.
eulercircles 2 years ago
"Zeitgeist is crap because it's main supporter is an anarcho-communist."
What a splendid example of the ad hominem fallacy. How about, "Zeitgeist is crap because it contains some factual errors"? The film does capture the general idea, you know...
eulercircles 2 years ago
... or should I say "guilt by association" fallacy? Either way it's a terminally fallacious argument.
eulercircles 2 years ago
11:36 Stef slowly turns blue _ AMAZING effects!
Iseeyoursoul 2 years ago
5 Stars and Favorited. As I watch this vid it occurs to me over and over that if everyone knew this stuff the governments wouldnt be able to get away with so much. Keep it up Stef, I learn more from one of your 15 min vids then in a whole year of highschool.
Iseeyoursoul 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Good video, but you really need some more info on the concept of 'money'.
I recommend watching
Money as Debt
Zeitgeist
Zeitgeist, Addendum
Keep up the good work, fresh dissident thinking with a capital T.
Veludeus 2 years ago
The federal reserve is a private company.
lordnuck33 2 years ago