His data for life expectancy is totally false; and he is not off by a few years, he is totally lying when he says his life is 3 times longer or 25 times longer than in other systesm.
For example: whether you look at life expectance or median age, the US is bellow many communist countries... including most eastern Europe, and Cuba; and only 1 year difference from China.
Poor Canadians? HA HA HA. A "poor" Canadian is RICHER THAN 80% of Americans...BY FAR BY ANY STANDARD. LOL!
This guy is such an idiot, all of his arguments fail basic logic tests. By any serious measure America is way down the list in terms of standard of living vs ALL socialist countries and getting worse. It is very clear.
The facts don't lie, ideological Ayn Rand nut jobs do lie..
@uveski he doesn't mean that Canadians are poor. He explains that poor Canadians need to stand in a line at the hospital and rich Canadians can go to private hospitals, he doesn't say that all Canadians are poor or that a poor Canadian is poorer than an american. Try to get the facts right.
@uveski But you've left out- RAPE, RACISM, Genocide etc-, all in the name of Socialism.
The developments you mentioned were based off capitalists advancements. Please argue me, I know your wrong. It is impossible to defend socialism with logic.
@dallasluce so you are trying to argue that Capitalist socitet like America does not commit RAPE, RACISM, Genocide, ect...? Are you brainwashed or just not very bright?
When is the last time a modern socialist society such as Norway (richest country on Earth by a county mile) commited anyt human rights violations and crimes close to what the USA commits every year?
@dallasluce ha ha ha when China invented Paper is was based on capitalist advancements? LOL! I hope you nuts jobs are correct and the earth ends in 2012 so the human race gets cleared out of all these idiots.
So who cares if there's soot everywhere. No answer to polluting water supply and dumping in rivers of course. The corporation over the individual. These people think in terms of the industrial revolution 1890's
This is the most WACK discussion. "Capitalism creates pollution?" MANUFACTURING creates pollution. How to make "efficient" manufacturing is the real question, not does Capitalism create pollution. Wrong answer to the wrong question. More efficient manufacturing, a better use of resources, yields not only innovation (creation of product), improvement in existence (self-promotion) and still gives the benefits. But a reality of what benefits one wants needs to be discussed. SIMPLISTIC! tea-bagger!
The problem is capitalism requires perpetual computed growth to overcome the falling rate of profit and even then there its ability to over come the falling rate of profit is debatable. Thus a stable industrial system that's inputs are limited to the finite resources is not compatible with capitalism as those inputs have to grow at a computed rate which is not possible.
@Psy500 The problem is your argument determines "growth" based on "manufacturing". The vast majority of real growth has been in innovation and discovery. It wasn't the "manufacturing" of the "telephone" that has been growth, but now a telephone is part computer, part GPS, part typewriter as well as a telephone. Your argument is "industrialization", not "capitalism". For if knowledge is an "asset", then it is the frontier for new capitalism, unless you don't feel knowledge an asset.
You obviously don't understand commodity devaluation and the overall decline in the rate of profit. It is not a problem with manufacturing as all commodities are effected by commodities devaluation due the exchange value being linked to the total labor value required to produce the commodity.
Thus as production efficiency is increased the total value produced is spread across more commodities, this means just for the rate of profit to stay the same more units of the commodity needs to be sold. Of course we are talking about capitalists as a class, as what really devalues commodities once the less labor is required is compeition between capitalists.
The rate of profit does decline when demand not being able to absorb the increased efficiency in production but also simply due fixed capital and the need for capitalists to re-invest in newer fixed capital to deal with lower profit margins and capitalists getting less out of fixed capital due to the devaluation of the commodity.
@Psy500 LOL. So in your world, efficiencies don't exist and commodities never grow obsolete, for in your world innovation is a "spontaneous" uncoordinated thing that just envelopes the masses like "sunlight in the morning". Really. Just one question: Is it "over the counter" or are you borrowing someone else's prescription? I'm just asking. Can I have some?
What efficiencies? In capitalism you have competition meaning you'd inevitably have waste since capitalists will fail thus all the labor that was invested in their commodity would be wasted so I really don't see efficiency as a strong point of capitalism.
@Psy500 Well that just solves it then. ALL CAPITALISTS WILL FAIL. So sayeth the Linux guru of the Rand Institute. LOL. The process of "innovation" will change "who" is manufacturing, or what is requested in the economy, but "fail"? Please tell the folks that built the Empire State Building that they failed, because the labor was wasted. Capitalism says that resources will rush to the highest profits. And they do. Starkist only wants Tuna that tastes good.
Capitalism will fail not through competition or innovation but through the process of devaluation of commodities that spreads the value produced across more units of commodities, this drags the rate of profit down making a overall trend for the rate of profit to fall in the long run which this crisis supports as if we subtract the speculation we are left with a rate of exchange smaller then in the 1960's and a crisis worse then that previous up to the long boom.
@Psy500 "Obviously" you are an expert, BUT, your "ASSUMPTION" is that the economy - real not the "theoretical" version you are working with - is based on a "commodity". By all means, "commoditize" innovation, creation, and re-purpose. You can't because the "commodity" that is being innovated, re-created, and re-purposed changes "value" as these items are added. Again, it isn't the "telephone" that has the value, it's the "apps" added to the iPhone that makes it a hot item, and one sought after.
Even with commodities that have zero impact on the production capacity on Earth for them to solve the environmental problem their market would have to not only perpetually grow but adsorb the other sectors not growing. Also innovation is commodified since labor is commodified, if a capitalists wants innovation they buy they labor that is innovative also since innovation is a labor process it still means value comes from labor in the production process.
@Psy500 So to you "labor" = "innovation"? What you are describing is obsolescence, and "this" is new to you? Really? Market and production inefficiencies are driven out by innovation, sooner of later. Trust me. I live in Detroit. You go on and on under a video that extols Ayn Rand, who basically said "greed is good" (to quote "Wall Street") That by your assertion = Capitalism, in your world. So which side of this fence to you intend to continue to straddle?
@Psy500 I don't have it backward, I don't even equate the two. As Western Union said in 1912 "I don't need a man for his mind, I value him for the amount of pig iron he can lift". That was 1912. I'd dare say, Silicon Valley, Bos-Wash Corridor, Seattle, are hardly the bastions of "labor". By all means, "invent" on an "assembly line". Please. "Invent" me something by 7am tomorrow worth $5,00,000. I'll hire YOU right now! We'll market to "capitalist" and have lunch at Sardis at noon. lol
You misunderstand the meaning of labor, inventing is still laboring, the inventor still has to sit down and labor transform his ideas into designs and refine his ideas to work in the real world.
@Psy500 Then in your definition, EVERYBODY is "labor"....wait for it.....INCLUDING the "Capitalist". For he is laboring as well. In fact, he "physically" labors as well as using his money to "labor".
The capitalist does labor but their labor is non productive as it does not add value or utility to the produce. For example all the capitalists could go on strike and if workers keep working there would be no less value or utility produced.
@Psy500 How the Hell does a Capitalist "go on strike"? This is more "Atlas Shrugged" crap. For the capitalist to go on strike he would have to pull all of his money out and wait on the sidelines, as by definition, his only value is his money. If they do that, it's called "liquidate the company". How does labor continue to work in a liquidated company? You HAVE to be in some think tank in Academia!
You just proved Marx's point, all capitalists have is their capital they are no skills useful for production of utility/commodities, also labor can continue if capitalists go on strike by simply no acknowledging the capitalist's claim on means of production (meaning the workers simply keep running the factories and simply boot the capitalists out for having no productive role).
@Psy500 LOL. You're going to have the workers "boot out" the owners of the company. How do you propose to do that? Seizure of property? WTF is a "capitalist"? Your theoretical mosh is hard to follow. Since "product" is a function of both "owners" and "workers", and I hardly know of an "owner" who does not have some input to the product - even stockholders have a say, legally - what the "theoretical" f**k are you talking about? Like I said, someone who's been in college too long. Get a job.
Product is not a function of both owners and workers, it is only a function of workers. Owners only claim entitlement to the product, they for the most part have zero input in production and are just a modern version of the feudal lord just instead of claiming the products produced by peasantry they claim ownership the capitalists claims products produced in means of production they claim title to.
@Psy500 So in your world, products "sprout spontaneously" from the earth? and factories must be built by Samantha from Bewitched and Jennie from "I Dream of Jennie". You know that "retirement" you plan on having? Don't. You must work till you die, for your "retirement" is funded through investment, else your money doesn't work. Oh...you must not believe in money too??
Products sprout from labor, factories are built by construction workers, designed by engineers and manned by more workers. Capitalists simply invested capital yet capital comes from unequal exchange meaning either the workers are consumer were cheated of value and the capitalist pocketed the difference.
@Psy500 "sprout"? "When you wish upon a star...". Does this ideal world of yours start with "Once upon a time, in a land far far away..."? So since "investment" doesn't exist in your world, please, for all us other idiots, DEFINE: "Capitalist". Oh, and do it without a "circular reason" or "circular definition".
@Psy500 I think the real issue you have is you resent the concept of "profit". I only have an issue with "excessive" profit or profit derived by fraudulent, or deceptive means. Bernie Madoff made a "profit" by deceiving. Bill Gates - though somewhat stole "DOS" way back when, took those profits, and now, likely, the computer you rally on, has an OS based on innovations from those original "profits".
I don't run Windows, I run Linux so I don't rely on the Bil Gates products also Microsoft is known for defeating better products meaning consumers have less utility thanks to the success of Microsoft as Microsoft's competitors offered better utility at lower prices.
As for profit yes I do have an issue since value comes from productive labor not exchange/
@psy500 BTW, BING will still not overrun Google.Google came not from "capitalist", but workers who MADE it SO useful, it's now a "verb". Also, BTW, profit is based on an agreed upon "value", and the excess thereof. Otherwise there is no way to determine "profit". It's a relative to the transaction" kind of deal. Not some absolute. And since the "value" changes, whether or not there's a "profit" also changes.
Profit does not determine value nor does value determine profit. Profit comes from unequal exchange as it is what is left over from what the consumer thinks the commodity is worth and the value invested in its production.
@Psy500 hm...and the "investment" comes from...where? Or does it spring from the same "theoretical" place and your ubiquitous "capitalists" come from. The closest thing I can think of that even remotely resembles your "capitalists" would be republicans. They - as demonstrated by the last 8 years - believe you can go on forever and the "bill will not come due". At least till they are out of power and now are "fiscal hawks" (which is laughable).
Investments come from product claimed by capitalists from unequal exchange in the form of profits. If exchange was equal then commodities would be the same value as the value invested in their production thus expenses would equal revenue thus no surplus value thus no profits thus no investments. Thus a rate of profit is proof of a normal unequal exchange in the economy.
@Psy500 By your account, the, forgive, I live in the real world not academia, though I hear it's "theoretically" an interesting place - "investors" provide no value. Oh, other than their "capital" to make your "proletariat's" ideas come to fruition? Hm, so "you only want me for my money", then "kicked to the curb..."? Interesting view. And what "value" did Marx provide? I've never "worn" a "Marx", eaten a "Marx", and though I hear they are fun to wear, can't afford one. I have a job.
Actually no, the value investors provide is not really theirs, it is value siphoned off in the exchange process. For example if a car is worth $X worth of labor to produce then it would logically sell for $X dollars, X-X is zero thus profit would be zero.
You could argue that capitalists deserve profits for risk taking but it doesn't explain where profits come from if we are to assume that capitalism is fair and commodities mostly exchange at their value on the market. It also begs the question if true why does risk exist in the system, why is it logical to reward a capitalist surplus value for doing well and punish another for doing badly when this results in wasted labor value in the form of the labor invested by the losing capitalists?
@Psy500 Who said capitalism is fair? What is "fair"? Who defines it? I'll assure you that the guy who lost won't think it's all that "fair" and the one who won will think it "well deserved". You talk in circles. If you are willing to take a risk, then there should be a reward whether working for "gratis" or putting one's money up to bring a thing about. A "missed cue" gets punished, that lesson leads to better utilization of resources. But without the "try", no one leaves the "cave".
You missed my point if exchanges in capitalist markets are for the most part fair they would be equal. Meaning labor would be exchanging their labor for its value that would be equal to the value their labor created that would be equal to the value the consumer exchanges meaning where does profits come from if capitalism is fair?
If you are saying capitalism is not fair then why should workers support capitalism? Why should they go against their interests to support capitalists?
@Psy500 Because "workers" aren't a class. They are an intellectual concept for elitist to make broad generalizations. The reality is that each person who works, by your definition, is also a "capitalist" (again only a "label"). They/We each seek to earn above basic production for "savings". Those "savings" maybe invested in a car, a business, or retirement. From your description, the secretary is a "capitalist" for she "invests" in a savings account. So much for "objectivism"!
You don't understand class. Workers are a class through their relation to the means of production, they are not capitalists as they don't own means of production at a scale that can support their consumption thus why workers sell their labor on the market and capitalists don't.
@Psy500 But I both own a business AND work at another. So I must straddle your definition, for I own my means of production AND "sell my labour" (as you call it) in the market place. Hm. Alone, I debunk your "class" definition. You ARE a good Tea-Partier. You need to "box" complex relationships and simplify (Reductio ad absurdum) to the point of "news nibblet" (not to be confused with a "sound bite"). Ah, to dissolve complex relationships, down to a "bumper sticker". I like your world.
Not really there is also the class petite-bourgeoisie or small capitalists that don't earn enough from their entitlements from ownership to cover all their consumption, yet they are insignificant in the larger picture as they have the capital to have a significant survival rate and numbers are shrinking as capitalists consolidate capital in times of crisis at discounted prices.
@Psy500 Good. Then YOU don't mind working for free. Because you are not a "material" additive to the process. And therefore, you have no right or need to exist. And of course, in your world, time has no value, especially when you need to get that "product" to market. Again, tell that to the people stranded in Europe during the volcano who were running out of money, and needed to get back to work.
Why do you think I'd work for free, my point is that labor produces value thus would logically have a right to the value they produce. Lets say capitalists do add value to the commodity that would not explain profits as it would only entitle capitalists to a wage for the labor value they invested in production.
@Psy500 Because, YOU DON'T. You can't "barter for the electricity that is powering your Linux computer. Of all the human failings, the only one I can't stand is Hypocrisy! You are a hypocrite for you get some form of money, it most certainly hasn't been hashed down to the scintilla of effort put into it, and with all the hyperbole, you had some form of "education" and I'll ask you, "what have you produced today"? lol. Romanticize your fantasies and that's fine, just remember they are fantasies.
@Psy500 So when I sacrifice by not doing something that normally would cost me money and saving it, and I decide to put my money into an "idea", this is not REALLY my money. It was "siphoned off the exchange process", eh? So my sacrifice has no value. Then when can I come get your car and your computer? Pray tell, where did you "get" your Linux box, and what did you do to get it? "Barter" circular gibberish?
Profits don't come from frugalness, any money the capitalists saves in the production of commodities would devalue said commodity thus lower revenue thus cancel out the cost saving meaning that is not the source of profits.
@Psy500 ...oh, by all means, go buy me some "cancer cure". Maybe the ideas for the next "iPad"? You can buy an "idea" but you can't buy "innovation", otherwise, your "horrific capitalists" would buy up all the "innovation" and there would be no new inventions. JUST like the U.S. Patent office said in 1899, when they declared that "all that was to be invented has been" and were ready to close up shop. Hm. What then would you be typing a reply to me on now? A "New Apple Quill and Paper"?
I said they by innovative labor, meaning they buy labor of workers that are innovative then order them to create innovative commodities for them. Capitalists are not innovate they don't have to be as they have the capital to hire people to be innovate for them and as a class dominate the means of production so innovate people have to sell their talents to the capitalist class else can't make their innovative ideas into a reality.
@Psy500 "buy labor of workers that are innovative"? Where do you get this stuff? Inventors, artists, etc. may sell their work, but that is just an "instance". "Think Pools" is some "Metropolis" circa 1930's view of how things work. Yes, people with creative talents will sell an invention, but that invention will become obsolete eventually due to more innovation. You ever heard of Thomas Alva Edison? Henry Ford? Geroge Westinghouse? Even the capitalists you excoriate had philanthropy. Carnegie?
Most innovation comes from wage workers meaning they sell the skilled labor as a inventor not their invention to the capitalist thus it is not just an instance but a continuous class relationship, even with freelance inventors they mostly don't earn enough capital to advance into the capitalist class.
@Psy500 Intermittent wiper blades came from "necessity", and a "better mousetrap", but not from "skilled labor" hired by this "Capitalist". You seem way too worried about a "class" relationship.
@Psy500 That is the unique thing about America, like 15% of the "working class" become rich and 15% of the rich lose their wealth. The process comes from those who "innovate". Some are rewarded by their innovation by becoming rich; those who don't "change" go broke. It's that "hope" of "class change" that makes them to aspire. All don't make it, but there are enough examples to justify the try. For that reason, there isn't really a "cast" of "capitalist"
For crying out loud, Psy500.You have commented on every part of this video with your left-leaning-government-should-try-to-solve-all-of-life's-little-problems-because-capitalism-simply-cannot-be-trusted mentality. If you disagree so much with Yaron Brook specifically, and with free market capitalism, in general, then why don't you go watch something that appeals to your welfare- statist, pro-socialistic line of thinking and leave the rest of us alone?
yes and no, you must remember he is likely talking pre-global warming, he would likely respond much different if he knew about global warming. it's only been taken seriously quite recently....
Even so the idea that feudal and tribal economies polluted more is illogical, yes people lived less but that was a lack of technology not an issue of pollution.
Also he doesn't have a realistic idea of property rights, health risks from pollution from cars is well documented but you can't sue the automakers for diminishing your health as capitalists property rights exists to protect the capitalists (ruling class) from the proletariat not for some egalitarian idea of justice.
An example would be that it is well documented that health diminished when electric trolleys were replaced with more automobiles and buses and the US government even found General Motors guilty of anti-trust but only gave GM a token fine and nothing was done about the rise of pollution in the major city centers as the bourgeois government didn't care about the property rights of the common workers, they only cared about the property rights of the capitalist class.
yes i completely agree with you, from my understanding of objectivism a carbon tax would be the most rational thing to do, since the environment invariably belongs to everyone.
Well game theory (that is much more scientific then objectivism) shows that private property has problems with externalities when it comes to stuff like pollution since each player in the market rather have the profits from pollution then suffer the costs of being environmentally conscious while their competitors reap the rewards for doing nothing this is because they are indivisible and non-excludable meaning the market can't solve the dilemma.
the market could solve the dilema with a well implemented carbon tax though, right? and it's not even anti-independance since like everyone will concede, one single person can't own the right to pollute, it belongs to all of us equally, so we should all get to decide how much we value not polluting...
A carbon tax would cause polluters to re-evaluate the costs of polluting and if it is more costly to pollute then the calculated benefits rational polluters would cut back their pollution accordingly.
exactly, and the nice thing about a carbon tax as opposed to strong caps or anti-choice legislation is that you can adjust it quite easily, so you could lower it to get the country through an economic slump and then raise it in a period of growth and development...
@bradmanthethird Taxing only works if there are alternatives, that by raising a "tax" will even the playing field between the polluter and the alternative. Otherwise, if the thing being taxed is a necessity (all debatable on what is necessary), then the tax is also just passed along to the user base, with the added disincentive that the polluter/owner doesn't adjust the price down when the tax is relieved. See the cost of cigarettes, gas, electricity, etc.
@bradmanthethird Ok, I've invested in my existing automobile. My alternative to gasoline is..? Please note: You said "means for producing". The "electricity" is no longer the "item", it is the resultant "product" of a "means". Yes, you can get electricity from sunlight, but the cost is not competitive with cheap coal because of the additional technology needed. Tax the coal, then the solar becomes an alternative. Change the "mindset" on coal, or innovate to lower the solar. Electric either way.
@rodeojim1 Ok, I've invested in my existing automobile. My alternative to gasoline is..?
well automobiles are not a one-time investment for the vast majority of people, that makes them a sort of "long term consumeable" meaning that they're used up over a period of 10-20 years.
@bradmanthethird Thank you. Although an automobile is a long term "expenditure/consumable", supposedly we use them as an "investment" in time. You could bike, walk or bus, but the flexibility of the automobile affords "discretionary time". If used wisely, can give more "utility". Again, "innovation" is the key, not the "manufacturing". That's why the argument against "capitalism" here is off. All "value" does not come from manufacturing. So "what is the limit to innovation" is the real question.
Automobiles gives no surplus time due to the labor requires to maintain and fuel them at least with the average value of labor time. Most people buy automobiles not to get discretionary time but because there is no alternative on the market as automobiles have significantly higher profit margins then mass transit and bicycles thus the market denies consumes choice as capitalists only care about accumulating capital and not providing utility to their consumers.
@Psy500 LOL. Tell that to the soccer-mom who has to get the kid to ballet AND develop a marketing plan, and has 30 minutes to get across town. She uses/needs her vehicle, though she could just "walk" the distance (an alternative, less polluting, but she misses her deadlines). Your arguments all base on some "societal whole". Society is not a single organism. People don't buy a "p.o.s" car for the "higher profit margin", they do it because, unlike the pioneers, walking to Boston takes too long.
The Soccer-mom would have more time if the household didn't need to earn money to upkeep the car, also the car does not transport people any faster then the public transit that was wide spread in the early 20th century. Also I did not say people buy cars for higher profit margins, I said capitalists produce cars for the higher profit margins.
@Psy500 LOL. You are on the computer and you can't look up facts? Top speed for the Model T was 30 miles per hour, and they thought THAT was too fast! There are higher margins in selling a $30 billion mass transit system than a $50,000 Lexus. Hate to tell you, the reason she works is not for the "car", the "car" gets her through her running faster than walking, and yes, even Mass Transit, since it runs on a "schedule" and the car "runs on gas". Ever carry groceries 20 blocks? lord...(sigh). lol
Model T was not mass transit, steam trains at the time ran at speeds up to 100 MPH way faster then 30 MPH of the Model T and no one though that was too fast at the time as even faster steam trains were being built. As for your argument that that car saved energy well joule of energy has to be exerted in selling labor power to operate the car and there are alternative technologies that require less labor value to maintain due to economy of scale for example trams.
@Psy500 AGAIN! Check your hyperbole! Steam trains ran at the astronomical speeds of 50 miles per hour, which was fast relative to the time. The track couldn't take your speeds. Speed on I-75 is in excess of 70 mph. And a "steam train" doesn't run from Kroger to your house. Your examples are relegated to "resort travel", not day-2-day, which accounts for most of our time. PLUS this "maintenance" factor of labor adds to the economy because of the necessity of their need. So the "pie" expands.
LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard had a top speed of 126 MPH thus you don't know what you are talking about as you don't even know how fast passenger steam trains ran. Also at the time trolleys did take you from near your house to the train station unless you lived on a farm or in a rural area. Also maintenance factor of labor does not add to the economy as the pie can only expand so much thus all that is happening is industrial capacity is wasted on cars.
@Psy500 Fella, you must still be living in some Beaux-Arts fantasy of 1930's. "Steam trains"?? "A Night in the Museum" is a movie, it wasn't real. Take the 3-D glasses off. Folks are commuting upwards of 50 miles from home to work. Cities spread out since your 1930's. The pie expands for many reasons, immigration, innovation, elevation of new resources. Also all capacities are not interchangable. Car factories can't make computers, bub.
You know nothing of steam trains, the LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard on on 3 July 1938 broke the previous speed record set by the German DRG Class 05 002 record of 124 MPH in 1936 by reaching a top speed of 126 MPH at milepost 90¼, between Little Bytham and Essendine.
Basically you are calling historical fact fantasy. As for sprawl that was caused by capitalism inability to plan long term thus proves capitalism's inefficiency.
@Psy500 And frankly, DON'T CARE about steam trains. Well that's not true. I love my model railroad, which exists in the same fantasy world that you live in. The TVG has a land speed of 357.3 mph, oops, built by "government". Shame on them for not using "steam".
My point was not steam trains are better then diesel or electric they are of course not but in 1908 when the Model T was released steam technology on railways allowed faster travel then the Model T and up to WWII steam technology would develop faster passenger trains and heavier freight trains.
@Psy500 Ok, again.....AND? Fine, Firestone, GM and the Rockefellers with Standard Oil pushed the auto on American and had us sell off our street cars. Can't "undo" history, and it was greedy and foolish, but then hindsight is 20/20.
And planned economies did not go the suburban route not even planned capitalist economies like Japan. Thus as I said free-market capitalism has a real issue with making logical plans.
@Psy500 "Sprawl" is a characteristic of Americans. The "Central Planning Authority" idea didn't catch on here as it did in your Soviet Russia, China, or Europe. I do know that much was done for "Urban Planning" (a field taught in the same school I went to for Architecture), but Americans had the space, energy was cheap, and the whole concept of "freedom" said "live where you will". It's a "character flaw" in your view. I don't care for it, but much of it was built before I was born to fix it.
Sprawl is the opposite of freedom as it forces residence to have a car for survival turning a luxury item into a necessity for survival. It uprooted countless communities so the government could expand road networks to deal with the huge land inefficiency automotive have. It also divides communities as you know have road corridors much wider then the rail corridors that would have been needed to move the same amount people at the same rate.
Then you have the maze like suburbs that make it a nightmare to build public transit service after the fact as you can't have efficient route grids, it also a nightmare to delivery trucks that regularly gets lost in suburbs as they were not engineered for easy navigation.
Thus you have the capitalist market making very bad decisions due its inability to make logical plans.
@Psy500 By the way, please tell your local mechanic that he adds nothing to the economy. Especially with the level of tools he needs to fix your LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard "Steam Train". BTW, what powered the engine to make the "steam"? Hopefully something that doesn't pollute and is readily available in downtown Manhattan.
A mechanic does add to the economy but it he doesn't add more then mass transit system would. Yes steam trains burn either wood, cool or a gas yet even in the 1930's we started to see the electrification of trains.
@Psy500 Oh oh. Hm, then he as a "worker class" kind of person, who may ALSO own his business, he must feel really oppressed by himself. And the hauling of "wood, coal (good choice), or gas (another good choice)" must be done for their benefit to stay "in class". Well, I'll tell my "self-oppressive-worker-capitalist" mechanic that he defies your stereotypes. He'll promptly sell his business because his capitalist side is going to reduce his "product" until no profit for his investment remains.
@Psy500 You crack me up! You sit here, typing away on YouTube about the horrors of capitalism. What's your monthly bill to go on and on about "theoretical" capitalism here? You, at worst, "swapped" your e-mail address for this "pleasure", in exchange for YouTube's ability to make money back by selling P&G the info, so that you may one day buy "Zest". You get to rant for free in exchange for the opportunity to sell you soap. Leave college for a little and go enter the real workplace for a change
@Psy500 Not necessarily. Unless there are "alternatives" to the products polluters make, then the polluters just pass along the costs, only adding to the spiral upward on prices. If there are alternatives - and the problem is that they usually cost more - the objective is to bring down the costs, then you can use the "persuasion" of the public. There are more ways to change behavior than only the wallet, but you have to hedge the bet.
I believe that the actual issue is: How much pollution are we willing to tolerate. We dont wash our hands in order to eliminate every single germ inhabiting them, but to clean them to a certain degree of satisfaction. The same thing goes with the issue of pollution: How much pollution are you willing to eliminate at the expense of the commodities that we as productive individuals enjoy?
How does he equate pollution with longer life expectancy? I thought sanitation and clean drinking water, (Scientific innovation), was the reason we live longer. If anything wouldnt you say pollution is a detriment to our life expectancy? They live longer than we do in Germany and Japan with less pollution and they are just as capitalist.
His statement is not that pollution=increased life expectancy, conversely it is that pollution produced by capitalist economies in relation to non-capitalist economies is relatively much lower. The life expectancy at birth for the U.S., Germany, and Japan are as follows:78,78,79. Very minimal difference. Also, Germany and Japan, although very industrialized, are not as productive as the United States.
As always, Dr. Brook was spot on but I'm surprised he didn't mention the "brain drain" of doctors that would occur under socialized medicine. Not only would there be the long lines he spoke about but the quality of health care would deteriorate.
there are several thousands of people that can document that the pollution created by cars has led to lung/heart disease...Do we have the right to take legal action against car owners- for the illness it has created? Our bodies- our property. right?
Why take legal action against car owners, most would take public transit if public transit was properly funded, just look at Europe.
Speaking of public transit, private cars are less convenient,less efficient and causes more pollution on a large scale then mass transit but they are far more profitable then mass transit thus why General Motors bought up private mass transit companies and liquidated them to remove them as competition to the automobile.
People aren't equal. You have to understand that. Some people are smarter, some dumber. Some are taller, some are shorter. Some are faster/slower. Work hard/don't work hard, etc. To ask that everyone be the same, or that everyone be treated the same goes against the facts.
Sure, finding JFK's killer is justice. Sure, people by their nature don't deserve to starve. They deserve capitalism. But if they are for dictatorships, they deserve to starve.
Economist Ha-Joon Chang counters that argument asking if you take a child and throw them directly into the job market what are the odds they they will earn as much then if they were subsidized by the parents thus free to get an educated.
Ha-Joon Chang also points out that every world power became a world power through subsiding their industrialization, the American economy still be geared to agriculturally exports if not for the US government subsidizing industry.
But the government doesn't have a right to have any sort of subsidies. And, wealth is created by men who use their mind to produce products that benefit mankind, not by government help.
Why is being a "world power" a value? What does that even mean?
Industrialization requires a great amounts of capital and they pay for themselves for sometime. The free-market only started industrializing when regulated market raised the living conditions of workers that the underdeveloped world had a advantage of cheaper labor (which is why Americans don't flock to these free-market miracles).
That should be don't pay for themselves for sometime, in my previous post.
Anyway the idea that governments don't have a right to subsidize comes from a individualist point of view. For example most everyone within society has benefited from the industrialization that was brought be government subsidies, would you rather be working for little pay because the US didn't industrialize and instead let market forces lock it into agricultural exports thus dooming the US to a 3rd world nation?
You are talking about some organic collective. Who and what required capital? Was it individual businessmen with their own agenda or was it a single thing called "industrialization"?
That doesn't make sense. The free market made the increased standard of living. Regulations don't make life better, they simply leech off of the productivity of businessmen and force them to do things with their businesses. Governments didn't create better housing, sanitation, technology, medicine...
Did you look up the works of Ha-Joon Chang? He shows how free-market economists got economic history upside down.
The the world powers all industrialized through subsidizing their economies (USA,UK, Germany, Japan, Italy, France,ect) the peak of US living standards is at the peak of Keynesianism. The free-market only builds industry where labor is cheaper, thus why Americans don't flock to the free-market miracles. The Internet your using right now was invented by government subsides.
...and here is one of the great problems of communication on the subject. Think about what you just wrote for a second. Laissez-faire, by definition means that Government is not involved in the market - at all. The fact that Government intervenes in the market means that it is not free.
I doubt you can name a time in history when there was actually Capitalism - meaning Laissez-faire.
"The Internet your using right now was invented by government subsides."
No. That makes no sense. The government doesn't produce anything or invent anything. The government is a group of individuals with the power to use force. The guy who invented the internet...made the internet.
the fact that the internet was made by a guy who was subsidized by the gov. doesn't mean the gov. is special. It just means that invention usually takes investment. It doesn't matter if the money came from the government, it could have easily come from a rich man, and probably would have been used more effectively.
"The government played the role of capitalist when it came to the Internet as it was developed by people employed by the government."
First developed as a tool for the military yes, in a primitive form. It were capitalists that gave it to the world. By this definition government invented WD-40.
Wrong, prior to capitalists getting involved with the Internet the academic world did most of the work to make the Internet useful for the average person, this is why most protocols of the Internet are public domain since the Internet was not created by the profit motive.
Not really, the Internet provided a very useful and efficent medium for Universities and other scientific institutions to share data. Even Mosiac was created by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications that is funded by the High-Performance Computing and Communications Initiative.
Wrong the Internet was privatized in 1992, yet prior to that the Internet already grew into a large academic network much larger then just what the military used. And since regular students had access to the large network there was already on-line communities on the Internet before the Internet was privatized, thus why if you look at the archives of the usenet you see a wide array of discussions even before 1992.
Should also point out that when the Internet was run by the US government privacy on the Internet was an issue, the Government at the time didn't care what people said on the Internet, it was capitalists that paid engineers to created the tools to spy on people on the Internet as capitalists wanted to invade everyone's privacy in order to better market their products to them (the equivalent of AT&T listening in on every phone call so they can tell telemarketers what would be interested in)
Governments, i.e. regulations, only have the power to use force, i.e destroy things. The threat of force doesn't create new products or the drive to create better products that make our standard of living so high.
Free-market miracles are underdeveloped nations rapidly industrialize without serious government subsidies, they are pointed by free-market supporters as proof that all poor nations need to do is work hard and they can prosper. The problem is that what really drives this growth is these underdeveloped nations having cheaper labor, they are actually less productive as the workers are less skilled and using sub-standard equipment but since the labor it is more profitable.
Justice is about judging and rewarding people rationally.
Africans are human beings who deserve capitalism, that is justice. No JFK didn't deserve to get shot.
Justice applies only to an individual's free actions. It is about judgment and appropriate action, but sometimes accidents happen and we can't do anything about it.
he's talking crap about 'socialized' medicine i live in britian and the 'lines' for medicine are the same lenth if not shorter than america and we dont decide who goes first by 'who they know', i have really never seen that happen and we dont decide by 'who's quickest'! but by severity of the injury where as a purly captialist system will judge by who has the most money, but it doesnt have ot be either/or u can (and do) regulate capitalism with social values such as education/rights for all
As far as I know, we don't have any lines in the US.
Yes, you can have socialism and capitalism, but socialism will always grow into an eventual dictatorship.
free education is against individual rights. It violates property rights by taxing people, then necessarily indoctrinates children, forces them from their homes, and most of the time teach them nonsense (especially true in the US).
I live in Canada. Private medicine is banned. We have chronic doctor shortages and must wait in the ER for hours, in pain before a doctor and a hospital bed can be found.
My dad was diagnosed with "mild" (whatever that means?) cancer in November. He has just now, been scheduled for surgery for mid-May.
Socialized medicine charges you wait times instead of dollars.
I'd rather pay more and have prompt service than have "free" coverage and be subject to long waits and slow service.
True Said! I'm Canadian too! Socialized medicine is bullshit, your lucky if a doctor sees you within 8 hours of the time you arrive, my aunt was diagnosed with cancer before Christmas and is just getting seen now.
There is nothing in the free-market that prevents long wait times, just look at British Rail were being privatized resulted in longer wait times not shorter as the capitalists cut back services to increase profits.
@Fibelow Yes it can since in free market capital accumulates into large centralized means of production, this because the more fixed capital the less valuable commodities become thus capitalists with more fixed capital have less production costs.
A capitalist would never have built British Rail in the first place, because the tremendous cost could not be recouped. It's a money pit. A public rail system can survive with subsidies at taxpayer expense. A private system cannot, so they try their best to limit the lost revenue by running trains mainly during peak periods. Should the people who run the trains operate at a loss for the benefit of the public? Should everyone in business operate at a loss?
You do know that British Rail competes with the road network also built with tax dollars, the only difference is railways move far more tonnage then highway networks at a lower cost. So anyway you look at it the state has to subsidize transportation.
Does British Rail carry freight? That would be worthwhile. A train can carry many more boxes than it can carry passengers. But by hiding the true cost of passenger trains you foster the illusion that they are a benefit rather than a drain on society. Nothing can consume more than it produces without screwing somebody.
Any way Psy500 looks at it the state has to subsidize transportation. Are you willing to put a gun to my head to make it so?
Trains can also carry more passengers then cars for less energy. The reason is simply, rails has less resistance thus use less energy. It is basic physics, once a train is moving they want to keep moving more then a car does (due to less friction), since trains are guided that is no problem and dynamic braking means some of the energy is recovered when they slow down.
----
Well I don't want to subsidize highways, I'd rather subsidize rails as they give more utility for their cost.
Energy consumption is just one of the factors in the cost of building and running a train. If the ticket revenue for passenger trains can be higher than the operational cost, then by all means reap the profits. If the revenue consistently falls short, then you must force the people living in the country to pay up the difference (if they use the train or not). That is not a peaceful action. First-strike force has negative consequences (and it's habit-forming).
We are forced to pay operating costs of highways as gas taxes can't cover all the money required for roads, gas taxes only covers 57% of the cost of highways and that doesn't count other roads.
no, justice and equality are different ideas, and you have to clearly define them.
Justice is based on moral worth--if a man is a criminal or a jerk, he should be shunned or punished. A productive man or an honest man should be admired and rewarded.
Equality is good in a legal sense--we are all equal before the law. Other than that, we all get what we deserve and have different hands dealt to us.
«so, what is the usefulness of one man..one vote..???»
Voting is only meant to keep government in check. That's why we have a representative, layered government, a republic. You have no right to demand government to place weights in athletes that run more than you. Or regulate and loot people that produce more than you. Things never work as you intend them anyway. You disincentive production, reducing jobs and services opportunities, while incentivating entrepreneurs of the pull.
"Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict which each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time."
The Ayn Rand philosophy is a waste product of the industrial revolution not unlike the CO2 it helped add to our skies.
They had the luxury back then to promote unregulated capitalism because oil was plentiful and cheap.. life was getting better for everyone, right libertarian? How's that going, by the way?
This age of oil we're in gave birth to poisionous idealogies like these myopic tribal thinkers. Libertarianism cant work in large societies.
"This age of oil we're in gave birth to poisionous idealogies like these myopic tribal thinkers. Libertarianism cant work in large societies."
the reason why we've been stuck in this age of oil is beause of the corporate-welfare state keeping us dependant on fossil fuels, rather than finding new energy sources.
And if you think capitalism is the only system that has done harm to the environment, I suggest you walk through Chenorbyl sometime.
Excellent point, Dr. Brook. People seem to have the backward notion that pre-industrial life was a wonderful, Disney-esue paradise (a la "Pocahontas" and all those fairytale pictures glorifying the Medieval Period) while the Industrial Revolution was a Charles Dickensian/William Blakish nightmare infested with "dark satanic mills."
They need to learn that life was nasty, brutish, & short before capitalism emerged, & capitalism improved living standards.
I find that capitalism's modern critics sound rather "spoiled." They reap the benefits of capitalism and industrialization, such as modern medicine and modern telecommunication, and then they ungraciously spit on it.
And since we are there; Is there another place that could had seen the birth of the Disney Corporation? Do Walt Disney World in Florida, who was builded in a swamp and got millions of visitors a day could operate in a non-Capitalist system?
It all started with a man who was free to capitalize on the drawing of a mouse. Yup, capitalism works for kids and the Magic Kingdom(tm) is the proof.
His data for life expectancy is totally false; and he is not off by a few years, he is totally lying when he says his life is 3 times longer or 25 times longer than in other systesm.
For example: whether you look at life expectance or median age, the US is bellow many communist countries... including most eastern Europe, and Cuba; and only 1 year difference from China.
flyermay 6 months ago in playlist Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Center on Capitalism (Q&A)
Poor Canadians? HA HA HA. A "poor" Canadian is RICHER THAN 80% of Americans...BY FAR BY ANY STANDARD. LOL!
This guy is such an idiot, all of his arguments fail basic logic tests. By any serious measure America is way down the list in terms of standard of living vs ALL socialist countries and getting worse. It is very clear.
The facts don't lie, ideological Ayn Rand nut jobs do lie..
uveski 8 months ago
@uveski he doesn't mean that Canadians are poor. He explains that poor Canadians need to stand in a line at the hospital and rich Canadians can go to private hospitals, he doesn't say that all Canadians are poor or that a poor Canadian is poorer than an american. Try to get the facts right.
snoekaars 1 month ago
He constantly attributes all types of 20th century human advances to capitalism.
* Penicillin was invented by a Scottish scientist under SOCIALISM
* modern heart surgery - COMMUNISM
* the blood transfusion machine -COMMUNISM
* "Father of the space program. Yes a U.S.S.R COMMUNIST.
* The Cathode Ray Tube - You know TELEVISION - Yes invent in Russia.
There were major human advances under every political system during the 19th and 20th century. None of them were due to capitalism.
uveski 1 year ago
@uveski But you've left out- RAPE, RACISM, Genocide etc-, all in the name of Socialism.
The developments you mentioned were based off capitalists advancements. Please argue me, I know your wrong. It is impossible to defend socialism with logic.
dallasluce 1 year ago
@dallasluce so you are trying to argue that Capitalist socitet like America does not commit RAPE, RACISM, Genocide, ect...? Are you brainwashed or just not very bright?
When is the last time a modern socialist society such as Norway (richest country on Earth by a county mile) commited anyt human rights violations and crimes close to what the USA commits every year?
uveski 8 months ago
@dallasluce ha ha ha when China invented Paper is was based on capitalist advancements? LOL! I hope you nuts jobs are correct and the earth ends in 2012 so the human race gets cleared out of all these idiots.
uveski 8 months ago
So who cares if there's soot everywhere. No answer to polluting water supply and dumping in rivers of course. The corporation over the individual. These people think in terms of the industrial revolution 1890's
jrmsher33 1 year ago
@jrmsher33 What the fuck is that garbage your writing?
dallasluce 1 year ago
This is the most WACK discussion. "Capitalism creates pollution?" MANUFACTURING creates pollution. How to make "efficient" manufacturing is the real question, not does Capitalism create pollution. Wrong answer to the wrong question. More efficient manufacturing, a better use of resources, yields not only innovation (creation of product), improvement in existence (self-promotion) and still gives the benefits. But a reality of what benefits one wants needs to be discussed. SIMPLISTIC! tea-bagger!
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
The problem is capitalism requires perpetual computed growth to overcome the falling rate of profit and even then there its ability to over come the falling rate of profit is debatable. Thus a stable industrial system that's inputs are limited to the finite resources is not compatible with capitalism as those inputs have to grow at a computed rate which is not possible.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 The problem is your argument determines "growth" based on "manufacturing". The vast majority of real growth has been in innovation and discovery. It wasn't the "manufacturing" of the "telephone" that has been growth, but now a telephone is part computer, part GPS, part typewriter as well as a telephone. Your argument is "industrialization", not "capitalism". For if knowledge is an "asset", then it is the frontier for new capitalism, unless you don't feel knowledge an asset.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
You obviously don't understand commodity devaluation and the overall decline in the rate of profit. It is not a problem with manufacturing as all commodities are effected by commodities devaluation due the exchange value being linked to the total labor value required to produce the commodity.
Psy500 1 year ago
-continued-
Thus as production efficiency is increased the total value produced is spread across more commodities, this means just for the rate of profit to stay the same more units of the commodity needs to be sold. Of course we are talking about capitalists as a class, as what really devalues commodities once the less labor is required is compeition between capitalists.
Psy500 1 year ago
-continued II-
The rate of profit does decline when demand not being able to absorb the increased efficiency in production but also simply due fixed capital and the need for capitalists to re-invest in newer fixed capital to deal with lower profit margins and capitalists getting less out of fixed capital due to the devaluation of the commodity.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 LOL. So in your world, efficiencies don't exist and commodities never grow obsolete, for in your world innovation is a "spontaneous" uncoordinated thing that just envelopes the masses like "sunlight in the morning". Really. Just one question: Is it "over the counter" or are you borrowing someone else's prescription? I'm just asking. Can I have some?
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
What efficiencies? In capitalism you have competition meaning you'd inevitably have waste since capitalists will fail thus all the labor that was invested in their commodity would be wasted so I really don't see efficiency as a strong point of capitalism.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 Well that just solves it then. ALL CAPITALISTS WILL FAIL. So sayeth the Linux guru of the Rand Institute. LOL. The process of "innovation" will change "who" is manufacturing, or what is requested in the economy, but "fail"? Please tell the folks that built the Empire State Building that they failed, because the labor was wasted. Capitalism says that resources will rush to the highest profits. And they do. Starkist only wants Tuna that tastes good.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
Capitalism will fail not through competition or innovation but through the process of devaluation of commodities that spreads the value produced across more units of commodities, this drags the rate of profit down making a overall trend for the rate of profit to fall in the long run which this crisis supports as if we subtract the speculation we are left with a rate of exchange smaller then in the 1960's and a crisis worse then that previous up to the long boom.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 Well Nostradamus, we'll look for your predictions and see how they fair.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@Psy500 "Obviously" you are an expert, BUT, your "ASSUMPTION" is that the economy - real not the "theoretical" version you are working with - is based on a "commodity". By all means, "commoditize" innovation, creation, and re-purpose. You can't because the "commodity" that is being innovated, re-created, and re-purposed changes "value" as these items are added. Again, it isn't the "telephone" that has the value, it's the "apps" added to the iPhone that makes it a hot item, and one sought after.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
Even with commodities that have zero impact on the production capacity on Earth for them to solve the environmental problem their market would have to not only perpetually grow but adsorb the other sectors not growing. Also innovation is commodified since labor is commodified, if a capitalists wants innovation they buy they labor that is innovative also since innovation is a labor process it still means value comes from labor in the production process.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 So to you "labor" = "innovation"? What you are describing is obsolescence, and "this" is new to you? Really? Market and production inefficiencies are driven out by innovation, sooner of later. Trust me. I live in Detroit. You go on and on under a video that extols Ayn Rand, who basically said "greed is good" (to quote "Wall Street") That by your assertion = Capitalism, in your world. So which side of this fence to you intend to continue to straddle?
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
You got it backwards innovation is labor, you can't innovate without labor thus innovation is not something outside LTV but apart of LTV
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 I don't have it backward, I don't even equate the two. As Western Union said in 1912 "I don't need a man for his mind, I value him for the amount of pig iron he can lift". That was 1912. I'd dare say, Silicon Valley, Bos-Wash Corridor, Seattle, are hardly the bastions of "labor". By all means, "invent" on an "assembly line". Please. "Invent" me something by 7am tomorrow worth $5,00,000. I'll hire YOU right now! We'll market to "capitalist" and have lunch at Sardis at noon. lol
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
You misunderstand the meaning of labor, inventing is still laboring, the inventor still has to sit down and labor transform his ideas into designs and refine his ideas to work in the real world.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 Then in your definition, EVERYBODY is "labor"....wait for it.....INCLUDING the "Capitalist". For he is laboring as well. In fact, he "physically" labors as well as using his money to "labor".
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
The capitalist does labor but their labor is non productive as it does not add value or utility to the produce. For example all the capitalists could go on strike and if workers keep working there would be no less value or utility produced.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 How the Hell does a Capitalist "go on strike"? This is more "Atlas Shrugged" crap. For the capitalist to go on strike he would have to pull all of his money out and wait on the sidelines, as by definition, his only value is his money. If they do that, it's called "liquidate the company". How does labor continue to work in a liquidated company? You HAVE to be in some think tank in Academia!
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
You just proved Marx's point, all capitalists have is their capital they are no skills useful for production of utility/commodities, also labor can continue if capitalists go on strike by simply no acknowledging the capitalist's claim on means of production (meaning the workers simply keep running the factories and simply boot the capitalists out for having no productive role).
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 LOL. You're going to have the workers "boot out" the owners of the company. How do you propose to do that? Seizure of property? WTF is a "capitalist"? Your theoretical mosh is hard to follow. Since "product" is a function of both "owners" and "workers", and I hardly know of an "owner" who does not have some input to the product - even stockholders have a say, legally - what the "theoretical" f**k are you talking about? Like I said, someone who's been in college too long. Get a job.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
Product is not a function of both owners and workers, it is only a function of workers. Owners only claim entitlement to the product, they for the most part have zero input in production and are just a modern version of the feudal lord just instead of claiming the products produced by peasantry they claim ownership the capitalists claims products produced in means of production they claim title to.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 So in your world, products "sprout spontaneously" from the earth? and factories must be built by Samantha from Bewitched and Jennie from "I Dream of Jennie". You know that "retirement" you plan on having? Don't. You must work till you die, for your "retirement" is funded through investment, else your money doesn't work. Oh...you must not believe in money too??
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
Products sprout from labor, factories are built by construction workers, designed by engineers and manned by more workers. Capitalists simply invested capital yet capital comes from unequal exchange meaning either the workers are consumer were cheated of value and the capitalist pocketed the difference.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 "sprout"? "When you wish upon a star...". Does this ideal world of yours start with "Once upon a time, in a land far far away..."? So since "investment" doesn't exist in your world, please, for all us other idiots, DEFINE: "Capitalist". Oh, and do it without a "circular reason" or "circular definition".
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@Psy500 I think the real issue you have is you resent the concept of "profit". I only have an issue with "excessive" profit or profit derived by fraudulent, or deceptive means. Bernie Madoff made a "profit" by deceiving. Bill Gates - though somewhat stole "DOS" way back when, took those profits, and now, likely, the computer you rally on, has an OS based on innovations from those original "profits".
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
I don't run Windows, I run Linux so I don't rely on the Bil Gates products also Microsoft is known for defeating better products meaning consumers have less utility thanks to the success of Microsoft as Microsoft's competitors offered better utility at lower prices.
As for profit yes I do have an issue since value comes from productive labor not exchange/
Psy500 1 year ago
@psy500 BTW, BING will still not overrun Google.Google came not from "capitalist", but workers who MADE it SO useful, it's now a "verb". Also, BTW, profit is based on an agreed upon "value", and the excess thereof. Otherwise there is no way to determine "profit". It's a relative to the transaction" kind of deal. Not some absolute. And since the "value" changes, whether or not there's a "profit" also changes.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
Profit does not determine value nor does value determine profit. Profit comes from unequal exchange as it is what is left over from what the consumer thinks the commodity is worth and the value invested in its production.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 hm...and the "investment" comes from...where? Or does it spring from the same "theoretical" place and your ubiquitous "capitalists" come from. The closest thing I can think of that even remotely resembles your "capitalists" would be republicans. They - as demonstrated by the last 8 years - believe you can go on forever and the "bill will not come due". At least till they are out of power and now are "fiscal hawks" (which is laughable).
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
Investments come from product claimed by capitalists from unequal exchange in the form of profits. If exchange was equal then commodities would be the same value as the value invested in their production thus expenses would equal revenue thus no surplus value thus no profits thus no investments. Thus a rate of profit is proof of a normal unequal exchange in the economy.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 By your account, the, forgive, I live in the real world not academia, though I hear it's "theoretically" an interesting place - "investors" provide no value. Oh, other than their "capital" to make your "proletariat's" ideas come to fruition? Hm, so "you only want me for my money", then "kicked to the curb..."? Interesting view. And what "value" did Marx provide? I've never "worn" a "Marx", eaten a "Marx", and though I hear they are fun to wear, can't afford one. I have a job.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
Actually no, the value investors provide is not really theirs, it is value siphoned off in the exchange process. For example if a car is worth $X worth of labor to produce then it would logically sell for $X dollars, X-X is zero thus profit would be zero.
Psy500 1 year ago
You could argue that capitalists deserve profits for risk taking but it doesn't explain where profits come from if we are to assume that capitalism is fair and commodities mostly exchange at their value on the market. It also begs the question if true why does risk exist in the system, why is it logical to reward a capitalist surplus value for doing well and punish another for doing badly when this results in wasted labor value in the form of the labor invested by the losing capitalists?
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 Who said capitalism is fair? What is "fair"? Who defines it? I'll assure you that the guy who lost won't think it's all that "fair" and the one who won will think it "well deserved". You talk in circles. If you are willing to take a risk, then there should be a reward whether working for "gratis" or putting one's money up to bring a thing about. A "missed cue" gets punished, that lesson leads to better utilization of resources. But without the "try", no one leaves the "cave".
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
You missed my point if exchanges in capitalist markets are for the most part fair they would be equal. Meaning labor would be exchanging their labor for its value that would be equal to the value their labor created that would be equal to the value the consumer exchanges meaning where does profits come from if capitalism is fair?
If you are saying capitalism is not fair then why should workers support capitalism? Why should they go against their interests to support capitalists?
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 Because "workers" aren't a class. They are an intellectual concept for elitist to make broad generalizations. The reality is that each person who works, by your definition, is also a "capitalist" (again only a "label"). They/We each seek to earn above basic production for "savings". Those "savings" maybe invested in a car, a business, or retirement. From your description, the secretary is a "capitalist" for she "invests" in a savings account. So much for "objectivism"!
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
You don't understand class. Workers are a class through their relation to the means of production, they are not capitalists as they don't own means of production at a scale that can support their consumption thus why workers sell their labor on the market and capitalists don't.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 But I both own a business AND work at another. So I must straddle your definition, for I own my means of production AND "sell my labour" (as you call it) in the market place. Hm. Alone, I debunk your "class" definition. You ARE a good Tea-Partier. You need to "box" complex relationships and simplify (Reductio ad absurdum) to the point of "news nibblet" (not to be confused with a "sound bite"). Ah, to dissolve complex relationships, down to a "bumper sticker". I like your world.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
Not really there is also the class petite-bourgeoisie or small capitalists that don't earn enough from their entitlements from ownership to cover all their consumption, yet they are insignificant in the larger picture as they have the capital to have a significant survival rate and numbers are shrinking as capitalists consolidate capital in times of crisis at discounted prices.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 Good. Then YOU don't mind working for free. Because you are not a "material" additive to the process. And therefore, you have no right or need to exist. And of course, in your world, time has no value, especially when you need to get that "product" to market. Again, tell that to the people stranded in Europe during the volcano who were running out of money, and needed to get back to work.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
Why do you think I'd work for free, my point is that labor produces value thus would logically have a right to the value they produce. Lets say capitalists do add value to the commodity that would not explain profits as it would only entitle capitalists to a wage for the labor value they invested in production.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 Because, YOU DON'T. You can't "barter for the electricity that is powering your Linux computer. Of all the human failings, the only one I can't stand is Hypocrisy! You are a hypocrite for you get some form of money, it most certainly hasn't been hashed down to the scintilla of effort put into it, and with all the hyperbole, you had some form of "education" and I'll ask you, "what have you produced today"? lol. Romanticize your fantasies and that's fine, just remember they are fantasies.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@Psy500 So when I sacrifice by not doing something that normally would cost me money and saving it, and I decide to put my money into an "idea", this is not REALLY my money. It was "siphoned off the exchange process", eh? So my sacrifice has no value. Then when can I come get your car and your computer? Pray tell, where did you "get" your Linux box, and what did you do to get it? "Barter" circular gibberish?
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
Profits don't come from frugalness, any money the capitalists saves in the production of commodities would devalue said commodity thus lower revenue thus cancel out the cost saving meaning that is not the source of profits.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 ...oh, by all means, go buy me some "cancer cure". Maybe the ideas for the next "iPad"? You can buy an "idea" but you can't buy "innovation", otherwise, your "horrific capitalists" would buy up all the "innovation" and there would be no new inventions. JUST like the U.S. Patent office said in 1899, when they declared that "all that was to be invented has been" and were ready to close up shop. Hm. What then would you be typing a reply to me on now? A "New Apple Quill and Paper"?
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
I said they by innovative labor, meaning they buy labor of workers that are innovative then order them to create innovative commodities for them. Capitalists are not innovate they don't have to be as they have the capital to hire people to be innovate for them and as a class dominate the means of production so innovate people have to sell their talents to the capitalist class else can't make their innovative ideas into a reality.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 "buy labor of workers that are innovative"? Where do you get this stuff? Inventors, artists, etc. may sell their work, but that is just an "instance". "Think Pools" is some "Metropolis" circa 1930's view of how things work. Yes, people with creative talents will sell an invention, but that invention will become obsolete eventually due to more innovation. You ever heard of Thomas Alva Edison? Henry Ford? Geroge Westinghouse? Even the capitalists you excoriate had philanthropy. Carnegie?
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
Most innovation comes from wage workers meaning they sell the skilled labor as a inventor not their invention to the capitalist thus it is not just an instance but a continuous class relationship, even with freelance inventors they mostly don't earn enough capital to advance into the capitalist class.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 Intermittent wiper blades came from "necessity", and a "better mousetrap", but not from "skilled labor" hired by this "Capitalist". You seem way too worried about a "class" relationship.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@Psy500 That is the unique thing about America, like 15% of the "working class" become rich and 15% of the rich lose their wealth. The process comes from those who "innovate". Some are rewarded by their innovation by becoming rich; those who don't "change" go broke. It's that "hope" of "class change" that makes them to aspire. All don't make it, but there are enough examples to justify the try. For that reason, there isn't really a "cast" of "capitalist"
rodeojim1 1 year ago
For crying out loud, Psy500.You have commented on every part of this video with your left-leaning-government-should-try-to-solve-all-of-life's-little-problems-because-capitalism-simply-cannot-be-trusted mentality. If you disagree so much with Yaron Brook specifically, and with free market capitalism, in general, then why don't you go watch something that appeals to your welfare- statist, pro-socialistic line of thinking and leave the rest of us alone?
globbo100 2 years ago
So you don't want a debate then?
Psy500 2 years ago
this man is retarded
roserh6 2 years ago
yes and no, you must remember he is likely talking pre-global warming, he would likely respond much different if he knew about global warming. it's only been taken seriously quite recently....
bradmanthethird 2 years ago
this lecture is from April 14, 2008 though...and i don't think people like him have ever taken global warming seriously or ever will.
roserh6 2 years ago
Even so the idea that feudal and tribal economies polluted more is illogical, yes people lived less but that was a lack of technology not an issue of pollution.
Also he doesn't have a realistic idea of property rights, health risks from pollution from cars is well documented but you can't sue the automakers for diminishing your health as capitalists property rights exists to protect the capitalists (ruling class) from the proletariat not for some egalitarian idea of justice.
Psy500 2 years ago
An example would be that it is well documented that health diminished when electric trolleys were replaced with more automobiles and buses and the US government even found General Motors guilty of anti-trust but only gave GM a token fine and nothing was done about the rise of pollution in the major city centers as the bourgeois government didn't care about the property rights of the common workers, they only cared about the property rights of the capitalist class.
Psy500 2 years ago
yes i completely agree with you, from my understanding of objectivism a carbon tax would be the most rational thing to do, since the environment invariably belongs to everyone.
bradmanthethird 2 years ago
Well game theory (that is much more scientific then objectivism) shows that private property has problems with externalities when it comes to stuff like pollution since each player in the market rather have the profits from pollution then suffer the costs of being environmentally conscious while their competitors reap the rewards for doing nothing this is because they are indivisible and non-excludable meaning the market can't solve the dilemma.
Psy500 2 years ago
the market could solve the dilema with a well implemented carbon tax though, right? and it's not even anti-independance since like everyone will concede, one single person can't own the right to pollute, it belongs to all of us equally, so we should all get to decide how much we value not polluting...
bradmanthethird 2 years ago
A carbon tax would cause polluters to re-evaluate the costs of polluting and if it is more costly to pollute then the calculated benefits rational polluters would cut back their pollution accordingly.
Psy500 2 years ago
exactly, and the nice thing about a carbon tax as opposed to strong caps or anti-choice legislation is that you can adjust it quite easily, so you could lower it to get the country through an economic slump and then raise it in a period of growth and development...
bradmanthethird 2 years ago
@bradmanthethird Taxing only works if there are alternatives, that by raising a "tax" will even the playing field between the polluter and the alternative. Otherwise, if the thing being taxed is a necessity (all debatable on what is necessary), then the tax is also just passed along to the user base, with the added disincentive that the polluter/owner doesn't adjust the price down when the tax is relieved. See the cost of cigarettes, gas, electricity, etc.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
well there is an alternative to gas...and there are alternative means for producing electricity.
bradmanthethird 1 year ago
@bradmanthethird Ok, I've invested in my existing automobile. My alternative to gasoline is..? Please note: You said "means for producing". The "electricity" is no longer the "item", it is the resultant "product" of a "means". Yes, you can get electricity from sunlight, but the cost is not competitive with cheap coal because of the additional technology needed. Tax the coal, then the solar becomes an alternative. Change the "mindset" on coal, or innovate to lower the solar. Electric either way.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1 Ok, I've invested in my existing automobile. My alternative to gasoline is..?
well automobiles are not a one-time investment for the vast majority of people, that makes them a sort of "long term consumeable" meaning that they're used up over a period of 10-20 years.
with everything else you said I agree.
bradmanthethird 1 year ago
@bradmanthethird Thank you. Although an automobile is a long term "expenditure/consumable", supposedly we use them as an "investment" in time. You could bike, walk or bus, but the flexibility of the automobile affords "discretionary time". If used wisely, can give more "utility". Again, "innovation" is the key, not the "manufacturing". That's why the argument against "capitalism" here is off. All "value" does not come from manufacturing. So "what is the limit to innovation" is the real question.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
Automobiles gives no surplus time due to the labor requires to maintain and fuel them at least with the average value of labor time. Most people buy automobiles not to get discretionary time but because there is no alternative on the market as automobiles have significantly higher profit margins then mass transit and bicycles thus the market denies consumes choice as capitalists only care about accumulating capital and not providing utility to their consumers.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 LOL. Tell that to the soccer-mom who has to get the kid to ballet AND develop a marketing plan, and has 30 minutes to get across town. She uses/needs her vehicle, though she could just "walk" the distance (an alternative, less polluting, but she misses her deadlines). Your arguments all base on some "societal whole". Society is not a single organism. People don't buy a "p.o.s" car for the "higher profit margin", they do it because, unlike the pioneers, walking to Boston takes too long.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
The Soccer-mom would have more time if the household didn't need to earn money to upkeep the car, also the car does not transport people any faster then the public transit that was wide spread in the early 20th century. Also I did not say people buy cars for higher profit margins, I said capitalists produce cars for the higher profit margins.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 LOL. You are on the computer and you can't look up facts? Top speed for the Model T was 30 miles per hour, and they thought THAT was too fast! There are higher margins in selling a $30 billion mass transit system than a $50,000 Lexus. Hate to tell you, the reason she works is not for the "car", the "car" gets her through her running faster than walking, and yes, even Mass Transit, since it runs on a "schedule" and the car "runs on gas". Ever carry groceries 20 blocks? lord...(sigh). lol
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
Model T was not mass transit, steam trains at the time ran at speeds up to 100 MPH way faster then 30 MPH of the Model T and no one though that was too fast at the time as even faster steam trains were being built. As for your argument that that car saved energy well joule of energy has to be exerted in selling labor power to operate the car and there are alternative technologies that require less labor value to maintain due to economy of scale for example trams.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 AGAIN! Check your hyperbole! Steam trains ran at the astronomical speeds of 50 miles per hour, which was fast relative to the time. The track couldn't take your speeds. Speed on I-75 is in excess of 70 mph. And a "steam train" doesn't run from Kroger to your house. Your examples are relegated to "resort travel", not day-2-day, which accounts for most of our time. PLUS this "maintenance" factor of labor adds to the economy because of the necessity of their need. So the "pie" expands.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard had a top speed of 126 MPH thus you don't know what you are talking about as you don't even know how fast passenger steam trains ran. Also at the time trolleys did take you from near your house to the train station unless you lived on a farm or in a rural area. Also maintenance factor of labor does not add to the economy as the pie can only expand so much thus all that is happening is industrial capacity is wasted on cars.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 Fella, you must still be living in some Beaux-Arts fantasy of 1930's. "Steam trains"?? "A Night in the Museum" is a movie, it wasn't real. Take the 3-D glasses off. Folks are commuting upwards of 50 miles from home to work. Cities spread out since your 1930's. The pie expands for many reasons, immigration, innovation, elevation of new resources. Also all capacities are not interchangable. Car factories can't make computers, bub.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
You know nothing of steam trains, the LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard on on 3 July 1938 broke the previous speed record set by the German DRG Class 05 002 record of 124 MPH in 1936 by reaching a top speed of 126 MPH at milepost 90¼, between Little Bytham and Essendine.
Basically you are calling historical fact fantasy. As for sprawl that was caused by capitalism inability to plan long term thus proves capitalism's inefficiency.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 And frankly, DON'T CARE about steam trains. Well that's not true. I love my model railroad, which exists in the same fantasy world that you live in. The TVG has a land speed of 357.3 mph, oops, built by "government". Shame on them for not using "steam".
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
My point was not steam trains are better then diesel or electric they are of course not but in 1908 when the Model T was released steam technology on railways allowed faster travel then the Model T and up to WWII steam technology would develop faster passenger trains and heavier freight trains.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 Ok, again.....AND? Fine, Firestone, GM and the Rockefellers with Standard Oil pushed the auto on American and had us sell off our street cars. Can't "undo" history, and it was greedy and foolish, but then hindsight is 20/20.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
And planned economies did not go the suburban route not even planned capitalist economies like Japan. Thus as I said free-market capitalism has a real issue with making logical plans.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 WTF Are you talking about?
dallasluce 1 year ago
@rodeojim1 The automobile was invented in Germany, a soclalist country.
uveski 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The automobile was invented in Germany, a socialist country.
uveski 8 months ago
@Psy500 "Sprawl" is a characteristic of Americans. The "Central Planning Authority" idea didn't catch on here as it did in your Soviet Russia, China, or Europe. I do know that much was done for "Urban Planning" (a field taught in the same school I went to for Architecture), but Americans had the space, energy was cheap, and the whole concept of "freedom" said "live where you will". It's a "character flaw" in your view. I don't care for it, but much of it was built before I was born to fix it.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
Sprawl is the opposite of freedom as it forces residence to have a car for survival turning a luxury item into a necessity for survival. It uprooted countless communities so the government could expand road networks to deal with the huge land inefficiency automotive have. It also divides communities as you know have road corridors much wider then the rail corridors that would have been needed to move the same amount people at the same rate.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500
Then you have the maze like suburbs that make it a nightmare to build public transit service after the fact as you can't have efficient route grids, it also a nightmare to delivery trucks that regularly gets lost in suburbs as they were not engineered for easy navigation.
Thus you have the capitalist market making very bad decisions due its inability to make logical plans.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 Yeah, and? As I said, I was born a little late to stop the "suburbanization of America" but in the NEXT life, I'll get to it a bit "earlier".
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@Psy500 By the way, please tell your local mechanic that he adds nothing to the economy. Especially with the level of tools he needs to fix your LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard "Steam Train". BTW, what powered the engine to make the "steam"? Hopefully something that doesn't pollute and is readily available in downtown Manhattan.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@rodeojim1
A mechanic does add to the economy but it he doesn't add more then mass transit system would. Yes steam trains burn either wood, cool or a gas yet even in the 1930's we started to see the electrification of trains.
Psy500 1 year ago
@Psy500 Oh oh. Hm, then he as a "worker class" kind of person, who may ALSO own his business, he must feel really oppressed by himself. And the hauling of "wood, coal (good choice), or gas (another good choice)" must be done for their benefit to stay "in class". Well, I'll tell my "self-oppressive-worker-capitalist" mechanic that he defies your stereotypes. He'll promptly sell his business because his capitalist side is going to reduce his "product" until no profit for his investment remains.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@Psy500 You crack me up! You sit here, typing away on YouTube about the horrors of capitalism. What's your monthly bill to go on and on about "theoretical" capitalism here? You, at worst, "swapped" your e-mail address for this "pleasure", in exchange for YouTube's ability to make money back by selling P&G the info, so that you may one day buy "Zest". You get to rant for free in exchange for the opportunity to sell you soap. Leave college for a little and go enter the real workplace for a change
rodeojim1 1 year ago
@Psy500 Not necessarily. Unless there are "alternatives" to the products polluters make, then the polluters just pass along the costs, only adding to the spiral upward on prices. If there are alternatives - and the problem is that they usually cost more - the objective is to bring down the costs, then you can use the "persuasion" of the public. There are more ways to change behavior than only the wallet, but you have to hedge the bet.
rodeojim1 1 year ago
The Soviet Union polluted the environment much more than the United States.
pllpls 2 years ago 2
absolute bullshit
brob1108 2 years ago
I love this playlist
AndyMH182 3 years ago 2
I believe that the actual issue is: How much pollution are we willing to tolerate. We dont wash our hands in order to eliminate every single germ inhabiting them, but to clean them to a certain degree of satisfaction. The same thing goes with the issue of pollution: How much pollution are you willing to eliminate at the expense of the commodities that we as productive individuals enjoy?
GZorangutan 3 years ago
Decide with your wallet. Voluntarily.
chulahagh 3 years ago 2
How does he equate pollution with longer life expectancy? I thought sanitation and clean drinking water, (Scientific innovation), was the reason we live longer. If anything wouldnt you say pollution is a detriment to our life expectancy? They live longer than we do in Germany and Japan with less pollution and they are just as capitalist.
KhanSlayer 3 years ago
His statement is not that pollution=increased life expectancy, conversely it is that pollution produced by capitalist economies in relation to non-capitalist economies is relatively much lower. The life expectancy at birth for the U.S., Germany, and Japan are as follows:78,78,79. Very minimal difference. Also, Germany and Japan, although very industrialized, are not as productive as the United States.
GZorangutan 3 years ago
Indeed
KhanSlayer 3 years ago
As always, Dr. Brook was spot on but I'm surprised he didn't mention the "brain drain" of doctors that would occur under socialized medicine. Not only would there be the long lines he spoke about but the quality of health care would deteriorate.
AuntGrace11 3 years ago
there are several thousands of people that can document that the pollution created by cars has led to lung/heart disease...Do we have the right to take legal action against car owners- for the illness it has created? Our bodies- our property. right?
petergullestrup 3 years ago
Why take legal action against car owners, most would take public transit if public transit was properly funded, just look at Europe.
Speaking of public transit, private cars are less convenient,less efficient and causes more pollution on a large scale then mass transit but they are far more profitable then mass transit thus why General Motors bought up private mass transit companies and liquidated them to remove them as competition to the automobile.
Psy500 3 years ago
Great!!!
TheUndercurrent 3 years ago
you can believe whatever nonsense you want, pal
shovelcharge 3 years ago
You are absolutely wrong.
Explain to me how what I am saying logically leads to me advocating that we murder certain people.
shovelcharge 3 years ago
People aren't equal. You have to understand that. Some people are smarter, some dumber. Some are taller, some are shorter. Some are faster/slower. Work hard/don't work hard, etc. To ask that everyone be the same, or that everyone be treated the same goes against the facts.
Sure, finding JFK's killer is justice. Sure, people by their nature don't deserve to starve. They deserve capitalism. But if they are for dictatorships, they deserve to starve.
I don't know of hitler's non-productive humans
shovelcharge 3 years ago
Economist Ha-Joon Chang counters that argument asking if you take a child and throw them directly into the job market what are the odds they they will earn as much then if they were subsidized by the parents thus free to get an educated.
Ha-Joon Chang also points out that every world power became a world power through subsiding their industrialization, the American economy still be geared to agriculturally exports if not for the US government subsidizing industry.
Psy500 3 years ago
But the government doesn't have a right to have any sort of subsidies. And, wealth is created by men who use their mind to produce products that benefit mankind, not by government help.
Why is being a "world power" a value? What does that even mean?
shovelcharge 3 years ago
Industrialization requires a great amounts of capital and they pay for themselves for sometime. The free-market only started industrializing when regulated market raised the living conditions of workers that the underdeveloped world had a advantage of cheaper labor (which is why Americans don't flock to these free-market miracles).
Psy500 3 years ago
That should be don't pay for themselves for sometime, in my previous post.
Anyway the idea that governments don't have a right to subsidize comes from a individualist point of view. For example most everyone within society has benefited from the industrialization that was brought be government subsidies, would you rather be working for little pay because the US didn't industrialize and instead let market forces lock it into agricultural exports thus dooming the US to a 3rd world nation?
Psy500 3 years ago
You are talking about some organic collective. Who and what required capital? Was it individual businessmen with their own agenda or was it a single thing called "industrialization"?
That doesn't make sense. The free market made the increased standard of living. Regulations don't make life better, they simply leech off of the productivity of businessmen and force them to do things with their businesses. Governments didn't create better housing, sanitation, technology, medicine...
shovelcharge 3 years ago
Did you look up the works of Ha-Joon Chang? He shows how free-market economists got economic history upside down.
The the world powers all industrialized through subsidizing their economies (USA,UK, Germany, Japan, Italy, France,ect) the peak of US living standards is at the peak of Keynesianism. The free-market only builds industry where labor is cheaper, thus why Americans don't flock to the free-market miracles. The Internet your using right now was invented by government subsides.
Psy500 3 years ago
...and here is one of the great problems of communication on the subject. Think about what you just wrote for a second. Laissez-faire, by definition means that Government is not involved in the market - at all. The fact that Government intervenes in the market means that it is not free.
I doubt you can name a time in history when there was actually Capitalism - meaning Laissez-faire.
dclewis 3 years ago
"The Internet your using right now was invented by government subsides."
No. That makes no sense. The government doesn't produce anything or invent anything. The government is a group of individuals with the power to use force. The guy who invented the internet...made the internet.
shovelcharge 3 years ago
the fact that the internet was made by a guy who was subsidized by the gov. doesn't mean the gov. is special. It just means that invention usually takes investment. It doesn't matter if the money came from the government, it could have easily come from a rich man, and probably would have been used more effectively.
shovelcharge 3 years ago 2
The government played the role of capitalist when it came to the Internet as it was developed by people employed by the government.
Psy500 3 years ago
"The government played the role of capitalist when it came to the Internet as it was developed by people employed by the government."
First developed as a tool for the military yes, in a primitive form. It were capitalists that gave it to the world. By this definition government invented WD-40.
chulahagh 3 years ago
Wrong, prior to capitalists getting involved with the Internet the academic world did most of the work to make the Internet useful for the average person, this is why most protocols of the Internet are public domain since the Internet was not created by the profit motive.
Psy500 3 years ago
Prior to capitalists getting involved, the internet was worthless. There was nothing worth having a computer for. This is a fact.
greenfury87 3 years ago 4
Not really, the Internet provided a very useful and efficent medium for Universities and other scientific institutions to share data. Even Mosiac was created by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications that is funded by the High-Performance Computing and Communications Initiative.
Psy500 2 years ago
Would there be YouTube without capitalists? Google?
pllpls 2 years ago
Were would YouTube and Google be without countless military dollars spent in computer and communications R&D?
Psy500 2 years ago
If the private sector had never got its hands on the Internet it would still be just a defense communications network.
pllpls 2 years ago
Wrong the Internet was privatized in 1992, yet prior to that the Internet already grew into a large academic network much larger then just what the military used. And since regular students had access to the large network there was already on-line communities on the Internet before the Internet was privatized, thus why if you look at the archives of the usenet you see a wide array of discussions even before 1992.
Psy500 2 years ago
Should also point out that when the Internet was run by the US government privacy on the Internet was an issue, the Government at the time didn't care what people said on the Internet, it was capitalists that paid engineers to created the tools to spy on people on the Internet as capitalists wanted to invade everyone's privacy in order to better market their products to them (the equivalent of AT&T listening in on every phone call so they can tell telemarketers what would be interested in)
Psy500 2 years ago
Norm Larson of the San Diego Rocket Company invented WD-40.
blummedia 2 years ago
Governments, i.e. regulations, only have the power to use force, i.e destroy things. The threat of force doesn't create new products or the drive to create better products that make our standard of living so high.
shovelcharge 3 years ago
What are "these free-market miracles"?
shovelcharge 3 years ago
Free-market miracles are underdeveloped nations rapidly industrialize without serious government subsidies, they are pointed by free-market supporters as proof that all poor nations need to do is work hard and they can prosper. The problem is that what really drives this growth is these underdeveloped nations having cheaper labor, they are actually less productive as the workers are less skilled and using sub-standard equipment but since the labor it is more profitable.
Psy500 3 years ago
opps last bit is since the labor is cheaper it is more profitable. Don't think it would have fit into the 500 character limit anyway.
Psy500 3 years ago
Justice is about judging and rewarding people rationally.
Africans are human beings who deserve capitalism, that is justice. No JFK didn't deserve to get shot.
Justice applies only to an individual's free actions. It is about judgment and appropriate action, but sometimes accidents happen and we can't do anything about it.
shovelcharge 3 years ago
he's talking crap about 'socialized' medicine i live in britian and the 'lines' for medicine are the same lenth if not shorter than america and we dont decide who goes first by 'who they know', i have really never seen that happen and we dont decide by 'who's quickest'! but by severity of the injury where as a purly captialist system will judge by who has the most money, but it doesnt have ot be either/or u can (and do) regulate capitalism with social values such as education/rights for all
bodah44 3 years ago
As far as I know, we don't have any lines in the US.
Yes, you can have socialism and capitalism, but socialism will always grow into an eventual dictatorship.
free education is against individual rights. It violates property rights by taxing people, then necessarily indoctrinates children, forces them from their homes, and most of the time teach them nonsense (especially true in the US).
shovelcharge 3 years ago
I live in Canada. Private medicine is banned. We have chronic doctor shortages and must wait in the ER for hours, in pain before a doctor and a hospital bed can be found.
My dad was diagnosed with "mild" (whatever that means?) cancer in November. He has just now, been scheduled for surgery for mid-May.
Socialized medicine charges you wait times instead of dollars.
I'd rather pay more and have prompt service than have "free" coverage and be subject to long waits and slow service.
kleinjc 2 years ago 9
True Said! I'm Canadian too! Socialized medicine is bullshit, your lucky if a doctor sees you within 8 hours of the time you arrive, my aunt was diagnosed with cancer before Christmas and is just getting seen now.
dffs0029 2 years ago 2
There is nothing in the free-market that prevents long wait times, just look at British Rail were being privatized resulted in longer wait times not shorter as the capitalists cut back services to increase profits.
Psy500 2 years ago
@Psy500 The so-called 'Privatization' of British Rail can hardly be held up as an example of the free market in operation.
fibelow 2 years ago
@Fibelow Yes it can since in free market capital accumulates into large centralized means of production, this because the more fixed capital the less valuable commodities become thus capitalists with more fixed capital have less production costs.
Psy500 2 years ago
A capitalist would never have built British Rail in the first place, because the tremendous cost could not be recouped. It's a money pit. A public rail system can survive with subsidies at taxpayer expense. A private system cannot, so they try their best to limit the lost revenue by running trains mainly during peak periods. Should the people who run the trains operate at a loss for the benefit of the public? Should everyone in business operate at a loss?
hapspir 2 years ago
You do know that British Rail competes with the road network also built with tax dollars, the only difference is railways move far more tonnage then highway networks at a lower cost. So anyway you look at it the state has to subsidize transportation.
Psy500 2 years ago
Does British Rail carry freight? That would be worthwhile. A train can carry many more boxes than it can carry passengers. But by hiding the true cost of passenger trains you foster the illusion that they are a benefit rather than a drain on society. Nothing can consume more than it produces without screwing somebody.
Any way Psy500 looks at it the state has to subsidize transportation. Are you willing to put a gun to my head to make it so?
hapspir 2 years ago
Trains can also carry more passengers then cars for less energy. The reason is simply, rails has less resistance thus use less energy. It is basic physics, once a train is moving they want to keep moving more then a car does (due to less friction), since trains are guided that is no problem and dynamic braking means some of the energy is recovered when they slow down.
----
Well I don't want to subsidize highways, I'd rather subsidize rails as they give more utility for their cost.
Psy500 2 years ago
Energy consumption is just one of the factors in the cost of building and running a train. If the ticket revenue for passenger trains can be higher than the operational cost, then by all means reap the profits. If the revenue consistently falls short, then you must force the people living in the country to pay up the difference (if they use the train or not). That is not a peaceful action. First-strike force has negative consequences (and it's habit-forming).
hapspir 2 years ago
We are forced to pay operating costs of highways as gas taxes can't cover all the money required for roads, gas taxes only covers 57% of the cost of highways and that doesn't count other roads.
Psy500 2 years ago
no, justice and equality are different ideas, and you have to clearly define them.
Justice is based on moral worth--if a man is a criminal or a jerk, he should be shunned or punished. A productive man or an honest man should be admired and rewarded.
Equality is good in a legal sense--we are all equal before the law. Other than that, we all get what we deserve and have different hands dealt to us.
shovelcharge 3 years ago
«so, what is the usefulness of one man..one vote..???»
Voting is only meant to keep government in check. That's why we have a representative, layered government, a republic. You have no right to demand government to place weights in athletes that run more than you. Or regulate and loot people that produce more than you. Things never work as you intend them anyway. You disincentive production, reducing jobs and services opportunities, while incentivating entrepreneurs of the pull.
picapauengracado 3 years ago
"Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict which each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time."
Get yourself Hayek's Road to Serfdom.
picapauengracado 3 years ago
He didn't discuss "equality". I don't think he believes that everyone should be treated equally. I think he believes in justice instead.
shovelcharge 3 years ago
"Libertarians give us atheists a bad name."
...well, I'd say the history of marxist governments have given us atheists a bad name.
lakeviewviking 3 years ago
The Ayn Rand philosophy is a waste product of the industrial revolution not unlike the CO2 it helped add to our skies.
They had the luxury back then to promote unregulated capitalism because oil was plentiful and cheap.. life was getting better for everyone, right libertarian? How's that going, by the way?
This age of oil we're in gave birth to poisionous idealogies like these myopic tribal thinkers. Libertarianism cant work in large societies.
Libertarians give us atheists a bad name.
epii10 3 years ago
"This age of oil we're in gave birth to poisionous idealogies like these myopic tribal thinkers. Libertarianism cant work in large societies."
the reason why we've been stuck in this age of oil is beause of the corporate-welfare state keeping us dependant on fossil fuels, rather than finding new energy sources.
And if you think capitalism is the only system that has done harm to the environment, I suggest you walk through Chenorbyl sometime.
lakeviewviking 3 years ago 2
We aren't libertarians, thanks. And libertarianism has nothing essential to do with atheism.
shovelcharge 3 years ago
Excellent point, Dr. Brook. People seem to have the backward notion that pre-industrial life was a wonderful, Disney-esue paradise (a la "Pocahontas" and all those fairytale pictures glorifying the Medieval Period) while the Industrial Revolution was a Charles Dickensian/William Blakish nightmare infested with "dark satanic mills."
They need to learn that life was nasty, brutish, & short before capitalism emerged, & capitalism improved living standards.
legendre007 3 years ago 4
Sorry; I meant to type "Disney-esque."
I find that capitalism's modern critics sound rather "spoiled." They reap the benefits of capitalism and industrialization, such as modern medicine and modern telecommunication, and then they ungraciously spit on it.
legendre007 3 years ago 4
And since we are there; Is there another place that could had seen the birth of the Disney Corporation? Do Walt Disney World in Florida, who was builded in a swamp and got millions of visitors a day could operate in a non-Capitalist system?
It all started with a man who was free to capitalize on the drawing of a mouse. Yup, capitalism works for kids and the Magic Kingdom(tm) is the proof.
SatanicCod 3 years ago 2