You're not ENTIRELY against profits? How could you be against profits period? You want no businesses to profit, thus causing the entire economy to fail? You seem to be literate in economics but free markets are DEFINITELY more efficient than the alternative given the market is free from market failures, there is an adequate level of competition and consumers are armed with enough information to make decisions. The current health care system is NOT a free market, which complicates things.
what about government has ever been eficient? have you been to the DMV, the post office, a township building, a welfare office, any city hall even a police station to file a report any of these in you lifetime. if government offices can't run any of these things efficiently why do you think they can run healthcare. how can you not make these connections. you obviously hav'nt thaught of everthing have you.
And you didn't answer my initial question; When a company does spend money to improve the product, how does it make the public aware of the improvement?
First off, the amount spent on advertising greatly varies depending on the product being offered.
Secondly, its the other way around, for example, in 2008, apple computers only spent 13% on advertsing.
Thirdly, Even the guy in the Original Video said that insurance companies spend 10-20% on things other than the product. SO i really do not understand where you are getting this 90% number.
"I must be watching the trash they show to adults "
I hate to break this to you, but kids don't have a lot of money and are not very picky about the quality of their products, which is why ads do not describe fine intricacies of Furbys.
Adults on the other hand want to make sure they are getting a good product so they invest time into describing the product in greater detail.
I would hardly call a 16 yr old a kid. One stops being a kid at around 10 (12 at
most).
My advise to you is that you quit grasping at whatever lame strawman argument you can find in an attempt to divert your way from the idiotic statement you made in your video.
My advice to you is to open your eyes to the massive marketing fraud that wants to sell your life down the river for a buck. What are you in marketing or some other scumbag profession?
What fraud? You said ads don't talk about the product, I gave you a list. You said they spend 90% on advertising, I showed 10%.
And you're tell me to "open my eyes", you never even attempted to refute any of the stats I had given you . Thus proving you vast ignorance of the topic.
I don't need to open my eyes, you do. Your personal paranoia against corporations, does not qualify as fact.
Yup, you're marketing alright. I hardly give a shit about marketing except that I end up paying for it, mostly the trash that I have to throw away - excessive packaging, junk mail, time spent deleting spam, inane programming and the way money taints the media.
I said it once and i'll say it again. Your personal paranoia against corporations, does not qualify as fact. And I'll add the your assumptions also do not qualify as fact.
Something could be said about the character of someone who, when unable to disprove others argument or even backup his own, tries to discredit others with claims that they have an hidden agenda.
Intelligent people give facts to support their argument. People on the other end do what you do.
When it comes to distrusting corporations, it is not a matter of paranoia, it is a matter of historical record. Are you completely unaware of the recent crash and the involvement of the banks in all of it? Are you completely unaware of how the food industry is poisoning everyone is the name of productivity and profit? Are you completely unaware of the way money taints the media along with what gets reported and how?
Trying to deflect the argument yet again. And yet again your give no facts to support what you say. As you know, I first posted about you Advertising comment. So lets count how many of you posts have to do with advertising. answers 2, 2 out of 9. Instead you make posts about kids having jobs and excess packaging, then you accuse me of being in marketing, without, of course any evidence. It seems to be a trend with you.
You have made your distrust of big corporations very clear, saying things like " it is a matter of historical record", you make entire videos attacking them, and even list The Corporation as one of your favorite movies.
But when looking at you channel page, I couldn't help but notice that you show that you are employed by Cisco Systems, a multi national corporation an annual revenue of $36 billion.
I will answer that quest, but I ask you one first. Would you please explain to how you can be so opposed to big corporations and yet be employed by one?
P.S. One day I went to the video before signing in and I could help but notice that one of my comments had been marked as spam. Even though it was completely related to the discussion we were having. Now, I sure it must be a mistake because there is no way you would do something so cowardly and pathetic. would you?
I have no idea what may have happened. I get an occasional comment of mine marked as spam. It seem spurious and inexplicable.
I am not against corporations per se, I am only against the degree of power they currently have. I am not a purist and some would call me hypocritical, but there are things I don;t like about my country either, that doesn't mean I would rather be somewhere else.
Fair enough, but at the same time, but I can't help but find it hypocritical when you come down hard on so many other big companies when your own has been involved with several allegations of fraud and other suit. It just seems to me that you are against everything, as long as you wont be affected.
I don't defend it, i dont support it either. Al the things you listed above
"excessive packaging, junk mail, time spent deleting spam, inane programming"
Are just annoyances, it may waste a few minutes of my time every few months, but it is at the cost of the company to create and send those things. It is their cost not mine.
I thought all you conservative economic geniuses repeated the sacred mantra, "The cost is passed on to the consumer". It also fills up land fills and incinerators.
Than that is one thing I disagree with them on. All that "excessive marketing" will increase the price of the product, which could detour some potential customers. So business do pay a price for it.
" It also fills up land fills and incinerators."
which is not a problem, we have plenty of space for land fills ans when they are full we merely bury it and use the land above. google Tartan Golf Academy of Central Park.
I am completely aware of it, that is why I get my news from alternative sources(youtube included), this allows me to get as many view points on the news as i desire. That is the beauty of the free market, whenever there is a demand for something(untainted news) someone will find a way to supply it
This is pretty naive. If there is a demand for something in a free market, someone will try to find a way to profit from it. Actually supplying something is a second order effect and not reliable.
What I think is naive, is that you use profit as if it is a dirty word. Profit inspires innovation, Profit causes increased efficiency, Profit causes increased productivity, Profit is the reason we have most of the wonderful products and services that we do today. If you don't provide these you don't get profit.
To think that people are going to do something they don't profit off of is very navie.
" If there is a demand for something in a free market, someone will try to find a way to profit from it"
It seems to me that you are against profit, since you think that someone fulfilling a demand for profit is bad because their main concern is not providing for product/service.
But, WHO CARES, if you don't like how they run their business, then don't contribute.
P.S. who are you to decide what is reasonable profit? As long as there is no Fraud(like your employers), I do not care.
I have discussed at length the difference between opening game and end game capitalism. Free marketers like yourself extol the virtues of opening game capitalism and ignore completely the vices of end game capitalism: anticompetitive behavior, deceiving the customer, collusion and corruption with government. Who am I to decide what is a reasonable profit? I may find it difficult to come up with an exact number, but it is pretty easy to tell when you're being gouged, like with Health Insurance.
I think you have a BAD case of confirmation bias. You see what you want to see and little else. I think most ads are a WASTE that flies in the face of free marketers who insist the free market is the most efficient form of economy. Every statement you made about me is false. Who are you, some kind of free market grand inquisitor? You see me in black and white because you are colorblind.
You tell me why we need regulations forcing corporations to label products if marketing was all about informing the customer. The fact is that there is an arms race between corporations misinforming the customer and public interests informing the customer. The corporation cares not what the costs are to society in terms of human misery as long as people buy product and contribute to profits. Take a long look at the rate of depression in this country and ask yourself why.
Good lord this is pathetic. Happiness is a personal responsibility,If you are depressed than it is your responsibility to end it, not the gov't. That how it works, everybody takes care for themselves. There is no more stupid idea to than to have the gov't decide what a business can or cannot say, solely because it might depress someone.
So you don't deny that corporations are selling ideas that make people mentally ill. You just say that people should just develop immunity to it like all other sickness. How this effects society or the economy has no significance as far as your concerned. Corporations should be free to sell whatever sickness makes them the most money. Good lord YOU are pathetic.
Nope, it's still you. If you would have bothered to read my post, you would have noticed that I believe that individuals are responsible for their own mental health and that it is not the gov't job to regulate ads because they might not be politically correct.
I think individuals are primarily responsible for their own well being but I also think that corporations that weaponize misinformation for marketing purposes should be held responsible for the damage they inflict. This is nothing less than psychological warfare writ large and you are blind if you don't see it. Your simplistic ideology offers nothing to fight this battle with, I must therefore conclude that it is a fight you are willing to lose.
I am not blind, I AM SANE. Anyone who does not suffer from a severe chemical imbalance is not going to be driven insane by an ad. In fact, anyone with a shred of intelligence would see an ads as just that, AN AD.
God knows what kind of frivolous lawsuits can be made from that line of thinking and want to open the nation up to that in order to accommodate the mentally handicapped?
P.S. Change your name, its shaming a great composer.
You assumed I was advocating frivolous lawsuits, which I was not. I was just identifying a problem you refuse to see because you don't like the solution. Identify the problem first, then figure out a solution. You seem perfectly content with a toxic environment because the ONLY solution you have been trained to see is frivolous lawsuits. That is called a lack of imagination.
No, you are creating a problem that does not exist. Unless corporations have mind control technology, your argument has no merit. There is no "toxic environment", people all across the nation are exposed to several ads everyday and have no problems with it.
Also, I knew what you what talking about, but I, unlike you, can think beyond step 1. If you could read you would see that I merely stated that your "solutions" would only create more problems.
Are you suggesting that widespread depression and mental illness is NOT a problem? I have not stated any solutions for you to evaluate any unintended problems they might create. Of course corporations already have the answer and that is to sell you more pills. You are simply in denial of the extent that corporations externalize toxic effects they have on society and the environment.
Unbelievable, I am not denying depression. I am saying that ads are not the cause. Go back to 1st grade and learn how to read basic English.
"not stated any solutions "
But you did advocate corporations being "held responsible for the damage they inflict". Something that I explained would only cause problems, mainly because this problem does not exist. And no one is being forced to buy pills, they do it from their own freewill because they decided it is best for them.
Maybe the solution is public education, such as what I am doing in my own small way on youtube, but you are against that because you think you know what solutions I am going to suggest and you are dead set against them. That is the root cause of your denial.
Yes, education is good, that is why I brought up PSAs a few posts back. But your previous posts said nothing about education, they were about regulation, which is what I am against.
I am not ruling out certain kinds of regulations, like transparency and full disclosure, but some of these demand that we first eliminate corporate personhood. In general I am not in favor of restricting their speech, I am in favor of requiring them to make room for additional speech like labeling.
You say that you are not against restricting their speech, but you are in favor of them being punished for "psychological damage" done by their "psychological warfare", if you truly believe that their advertise is this strong, than you certainly for government regulation of it, hence speech.
My belief is that the cure for free speech is more free speech, or in this case, disclosure. If an ad implies that a product will make you lucky with the chicks, either prove it, or make a disclaimer.
So which free market economist advocates government interference in breaking up monopolies? Certainly not Ron Paul or any of the libertarians as far as I can see. In fact, they are quite convinced the only way monopolies form is though government interference. There are degrees of deceiving the customer that anyone with some background in psychology would understand that are not considered outright fraud. There is an entire industry devoted to convincing women they look too old and too fat.
"advocates government interference in breaking up monopolies"
good lord, you're calling me a black & white thinker. I sorry but I cant think of any thing more black and white than believing that free-marketers are the same. I am not a blind follower of anyone. Get that through your head.
"entire industry devoted to convincing women they look too old and too fat"
Why is it the gov't job to decide what people want.. If a women thinks she is "too old or too fat", that is her choice. If they're that superficial, that is their problem. We don't need to change our entire economy to stop someones feelings from being hurt.
It has everything to do with freedom of speech, especially when corporate interests are effectively able to drown out alternative voices that might shed some light on the insanity that marketing cultivates in society.
Honestly, why are you such a tool for corporate america and it's vast marketing propaganda wing? If the problem did not exist why would there be a propaganda arms race, why would there be any need for PSAs in the first place?
As far as collusion and corruption is concerned, instead of arguing that other systems have similar problems, shouldn't we be trying to find what these problematic systems share in common, and shouldn't we be devising a system that is more immune to collusion and corruption? You argue in favor of A because you see only A and B, but there is also C, D, E ad infinitum.
"devising a system that is more immune to collusion and corruption?"
No, I am against someone trying to tear down what made this country prosperous and trying an entirely new untested system, that came out of someones head.
"you see only A and B, but there is also C, D, E."
No, I am saying that, despite its flaws, A is the best system. If there are flaws we try to improve it one by one. We don't tear it down and start over. We'll never have utopia and trying to achieve it leads to disaster.
What makes you so sure it was capitalism, by itself, that made this country prosperous? You should read Howard Zinn who can shed some light on who you should thank for not being a fucking wage slave.
Oh boy, the old externality argument. You don't even seem to take into account that this economy is a fascist, cartelized economy, not a free market.
Why are health care costs so high in this country? It's because of state action in the 60's and 70's that has led to artificial scarcity, thus necessitating the rise of the insurance industry in the first place, who have cartelized, don't forget the inflation tax caused by the central bank as well (EXTERNALIZING government deficits).
Thanks for not refuting my argument but bringing up non sequitur points. I think health insurance has failed miserably in the free market, despite your claims that the market isn't "purely" free. Nice distraction, though.
The only non sequitur is saying that we need government health insurance because health care is more expensive, when it was the state that created that expense in the first place.
No distraction. You do not understand economics at all.
Health care is expensive with or without government involvement. In fact, the LACK of government involvement contributes to costs. Scarcity of doctors is driven by the AMA, not the government. A provision in medicare prohibits the government from collective bargaining with drug companies on behalf of seniors. Your tirade is devoid of examples, I gave you two.
Supply and demand work over short term, over the long term demand creates volume and volume decreases costs. Go ask Henry Ford. The scarcity of doctors is more the fault of the private educational system that forces students to go deep into debt.
Stop calling the medical insurance industry "free market" or "privatized." The fact you keep saying it is pretty much destroys your credibility.
The free market has never been as efficient as public?! Wow, where is your evidence to back that bullshit up? The evidence I'm looking at COMPLETELY contradicts that.
Hmm, free market where human interests are essentially running the economy. Yeah, what a great idea. There is a small problem with letting people run the economy... know the answer yet? It's people. If you actually understood anything about science (Which you don't, despite being completely eager to throw the word around), you would know that human nature is the biggest problem with free market. People are far too stupid (you) and greedy (them) to have it be successful without rules/regulations.
Humans are "greedy" and "stupid" so lets put these same "greedy" and "stupid" people in unlimited power. Brilliant work, man. Because as we know, the caring and compassionate bureaucrats are all perfect and all powerful.
Do you really understand science? Or do you just think you do? I'm a medical student, so my understanding of Biology, Chemistry, Psychology, ect puts your (most likely non-existent) understanding of science to complete shame.
ZamatoElite: "lets put these people in unlimited power" re- "I'm functionally a totalitarian as I have nothing but contempt for democratic institutions (hence my rejection of them in favor of a pure market "society") so I've projected my own idea of how a government runs"
Nope Zam, politicians don't have unlimited power, this is a constitutional republic not a dictatorship, much to your disappointment I'm sure.
What Constitutional Republic? You live under a corporatist oligarchy. The state heeds nothing to the Constitution. Clear your eyes.
But let's humor your "Constitutional Republic" notion. Even still, these "greedy" and "stupid" people vote for the "greedy" and "stupid" politicians. Your ideological state theory does not eliminate the "greedy" and "stupid" elements. All it does if give these normal people power (may it be limited or unlimited).
Yeah, if you put greedy and stupid people in office, then that truly reflects the will of the people. If you put people who aren't greedy or stupid in a position like that, they'll do exactly what they are meant to do. Protect people from making stupid decisions and stop corporations from exploiting the stupidity. You know why they would do that, fun fact, the government is non-profit. Not to be elitist, but I would rather have elitists running the economy because they are intelligent.
Again, you have clearly shown startling ignorance to the scientific mindset. I'd expect as much from some liberal atheist who listens to a few Dawkins lectures and thinks he's immediately a scientific expert. All I have seen you do is throw around "THATZ UNSCIENTIFIC RETARDZ," while demonstrating no clear understanding of true science (in this case, sane economics).
I understand the concept of profit. Profit and greed form the regulation mechanism in a free market (market feedback).
A politician who isn't greedy or corrupt and in the game for their own self interest? I'll keep looking.
The only way to have a smart Democracy is to have a smart populace. But in such a scenario, would a Government even be necessary?
"Not be elitist," sorry, you are an elitist. That sends a strong signal to me that you are incredibly ignorant to history (study the USSR, North Korea, maybe read some 1984 while your at it).
Are you Zamato? Or are you Captain Hyperbole? Because every time I see one of you Nihilist Austrotards, you always bring up USSR, North Korea and 1984 in that exact order (And sometimes going to Iran). Quite amazing actually how the hive mind works.
Also yes, if there was a smart populace, government would still be necessary. In fact if there was a smart populace, ideology would be synced to be the contextual to the current situation.
Hyperbole? Not really, those are your elitist societies. I can name a few more if you'd like.
The ideology would be "synced" by the use of force perhaps? By the end of a barrel? So you don't support free thought or open debate? You just use the state to "synchronize"/silence opposition?
Have you read 1984 by any chance? Opps, that is me being hyperbolic again. My apologies.
Nice, my support for moderate regulation is completely equivalent to communist nations. That isn't hyperbole (this is sarcasm!). Next you'll talk about coersion and... oh wait you did.
Damn you are all the same, quite amazing. Is there any point in talking to someone who essentially repeats the same crap as the guy next to him?
The government hands out no bid contracts to big corporations. Those big corporations are for profit. And have an unfair advantage over other competitors in the same field since they are getting government subsidy. The government is the biggest cash cow for GREEDY corporations that don't want to really compete in the free market.
So the state is not greedy? the state is not guided by human interests? The state is run by individuals, just as in the free market. However, I'd trust millions of individuals over a couple of bureaucrats. You put too much faith in a couple of people who you think can run the economy. Ha! ridiculous
Except the state in our case is governed by democratic institutions and accountable to the people, how much is up to the citizenry. This is not the case pure market "societies".
"democratic" institutions mean nothing. It does not make society better or whatever. The state is not accountable to anybody, no matter what anybody says. It only cares about power.
And in a pure free market system, individuals are accountable to each other. They have to, or they lose reputation in the society.
Thanks for proving my point about your hatred for democratic institutions. Go move to Saudi Arabia, they're more inline with your ideologies, or maybe Somalia.
But in all seriousness, thanks for being so honest about being an afactual radical. Don't let my comments disrupt your worship of Rand.
Private firms are accountable to the people as well. When they fail to deliver a quality product or service, they loose customers.
The state actually isn't accountable most of the time. The state is off in Iraq murdering thousands of innocent people, yet no one was accountable. The State is suspending habius corpus and throwing people in torture camps, yet no one is accountable.
You know what the State REALLY is? It's a firm that can't go out of business.
ZamatoElite: re- "States are acountable too, when people don't like them they simply leave"
Is that what passes for your idea of "democratic"? Of course it is, and anyone familiar with your sort of fringe ideology would know that. Sad to say that argument isn't very convincing to most people, hence why you remain in the fringe.
Word of advice, your dream of anti-statism is inherently unstable, the most powerful would simply become the defacto state. See Somalia.
Anti-statism is "inherently unstable?" It's funny you cite Somalia as an example considering it was the "Utopian Socialist State (that you masturbate to on a daily basis) that destroyed that region.
ZamatoElite: re- "I'm out to prove that facts have no effect on my positions as I've ignored your previous statement that you don't hold the opposite of the extreme position I hold."
Well there certainly isn't a state there now, I wonder why it's still a shithole? hmm...
I also wonder why warlords have filled the void left by the collapsed state? hmm...
I suppose hunter gatherer societies would be your ideal in that case, no state, no oppression. Unless you count all the murder and rape...
It was the STATE that destroyed the region. I'll repeat that once again, it was the STATE, not anarchism. Anarchism is actually HELPING the region. The region is stabilizing and experiencing economic growth.
If you want to learn about Somalia (which you don't because you're close minded, yet somehow scientific), anarchists here on Youtube have beaten that dead horse with a stick and a half.
So is the rest of "evil statist" Africa but at a much higher rate on average, plus they're growing from a better economic situation as well. It's as simple as reading the data compiled by the WB, CIA and others. Remember I mentioned science? Try doing some of it.
Actually, they've made a bunch of poor arguments on the subject which border on apologetics, if you had reasonable arguments, evidence and experimental data backing your more people would be on your side.
ONCE AGAIN. The condition is Somalia is far better without the state, than with it. The overall health of the populace has increased since the collapse of the state, the economy is growing (and will most likely surpass it's statist counterparts), it has one of the best telecommunication networks in Africa (thanks to competition), a growing transportation network, and expansion is tons of other industries.
Most anarchists acknowledge there will be violence at first. But that will settle down.
Wait, I just had to throw this bit in. It's really that fucking hilarious.
You claim to have read the CIA Factbook and Worldbank? Hey buddy, ACTUALLY go read it [dumbass]. The evidence is favorable towards the anarchist Somalia. All the studies show the quality of life is far improved in the anarchist Somalia.
But right, "I R SCIENTIFIK" right? You going to leave some smart ass comment next to cover up your retardation? I'm counting on it.
Gross misapplication of the word equal. We all know how backward libertarians are who think the world should be run as if we were still in the 18th century.
ZamatoElite: re- "If I simply attack that makes my argument right by default. Put forward a positive argument of my own? Everyone knows I couldn't do that!"
studio7manga: re- "hmmm, I DONTZ SEEM TO KNOWZ ECONOMICZ SO I JUST QOUTE GREENSPAN AND PRETEND I"M ACTUALLY EDUCATEDZ BUT MY ECONOMIC KNOWLEDGE DOEZNT EXCEED WATCHING MSMBC. I"LL PRETEND TO BE AFFLUENT IN SCIENCE BCUZ THAT IS WHAT SMARTZ PEOPLE DO AND I WANTZ TO APPEAR TO BE SMART."
Again, go grab an economics education. I'm done here. I'll give you some attention when you can present a sound argument. Thanks for playing.
ZamatoElite: re-"I keep touting my 'education' but do nothing to prove I have any, meanwhile this random guy on the internet keeps pissing me off by refusing to have a serious conversation with a nut like me. Why?WHY!?"
Protip: Affluent means having abundance of usually of material possessions, not the best choice of words, well versed would be more appropriate for example.
Just keep blaming the state for all the problems of the world Zam, you know overly simplistic ideologies are never wrong.
I'll repeat myself (yet again): Again, go grab an economics education. I'm done here. I'll give you some attention when you can present a sound argument. Thanks for playing.
I'm not playing this childish personal attack game all day. I have better things to do.
Could have taken the words out of my mouth. Since your position is essentially, "lol I'm rite ur stupid, prove me wrong".
Yes I'm sure Somalia will pull itself out of the very bottom of the barrel anytime now, given that estimates of it's rate of growth are less than 3% while Africa as a whole grows at more than 5%.
I'm sorry, you're the one who uses quotes from Greenspan and doesn't know what the free market it. All your arguemnts have been these smart ass strawmans (you think you're being clever, but it just shows you can't debate the issues).
Somolia is about in line with most of Africa. Considering the society is still developing, I'd say the 3% is very good. I know you expect the impossible with like a 10% rate growth, but that only shows your bias and unwillingness to consider all the factors.
Also, I'm not even in full support of Somalia. The region is enslaved to Islam (which I don't support as an atheist).
Most anarchists (including myself), don't consider Somalia to be a fair representation of Anarchist theory. There are better historical and present examples of anarchist theory in practice. But I'm really not counting on you actually looking at multiple historical examples. That would require an open mind, which you have shown a lacking for.
Most anarchists don't consider anything a good example of anarchist theory, nor do they bother running a simulation or experiment which is why few take them seriously.
I've heard the glowing praise heaped upon the Icelandic Commonwealth and similar by market anarchists. Now go have a beer with Michael Shermer and talk about how no one respects your opinions.
Bullshit. There are tons of examples of anarchism that are better examples than Somalia. Iceland is one example. There are tens of others.
Even if there were NO examples, that doesn't mean anything. Market anarchism is a fairly new theory, and needs to be implemented properly (just like any ideology).
"Evil statist" China seems to do it. Though one would expect an anarchist "utopia" like Somalia to at least keep up with the rest of the "evil statist" countries of Africa.
I don't recall anyone saying Somalia was an "anarchist utopia."
I find it amusing how all you can do is construct strawmans. It's pathetic. You are debating a position that only exists in your own mind.
The Somalia region is still developing. And the GDP is in the ballpark with the rest of Africa. 1-2% means very little, especially in context with Africa. In a couple years, I expect Somalia to stabilize and outrun its statist counterparts.
Do a test or run a simulation then Hoss. Don't piss and moan when you can't provide any evidence to back up your claims. By the way the Communists say the same thing about their dogma.
Making excuses for Somalia, haha funny, the largest group of new immigrants to my city are Somali, can't imagine why.
I'm not making "excuses" for Somalia. I am showing you the reality of the region, which you dogmatically refuse to even consider. You have set these impossible standards in your mind, which allows you to comfortably ignore any sort of thought that doesn't adhere to your narrow minded "liberalism."
The people probably emigrated from Somalia because it's poor as shit....just like all of Africa. This is kind of common sense, but I suppose common sense is not so common.
Let it be known that the anarchocapitalist considers growth at the same rate of similar statist countries an impossible standard for anarchic systems. I rest my case.
Really? Because that's actually all you've said, go back and read your own tripe. Way to ignore your own strawmen, and your false presumptions by the way.
Again, it's no coincidence you guys are marginal at best. Learn to make a proper argument.
It is a big myth that big business wants deregulation. They do not. The love punishing regulations because the net result is that they make more money. We have a clear documented history of this going back 100 years.
This is a problem of collusion between bureaucrats & big business. Please read the following to understand the big myth.
Oh I am sure they love regulations that are inflicted on the consumer or on their competition. That doesn't alter the fact that they are in favor of deregulation when it comes to themselves.
There hasn't been a true free market in health care since 1965 and since then every time congress tries to address the issues they created the last time, they make it worse. This is what happens when congress plays a whack-a-mole game with any industry altering legislation.
I am really tired of the excuse that the market really isn't free. The problems we're having with health insurance externalizing sick people has nothing to do with government interference. You sound like a broken record.
The facts all point to this being a long time govt created problem. Prior to the introduction of Medicaid & Medicare in 1965, medical costs and specifically insurance were easily affordable by blue collar workers. You can research that with NBER and others.
You can also read this material to see for yourself that this is in fact a big govt & business created problem through collusion.
That is funny, because the solution you are suggesting is to let old people die thereby reducing the demand on health care. Point taken. No death panels, just DEATH.
The solution is that the govt completely removes itself from a business that it has no authority to be involved in. As I already said, prior to 1965, working people could much more easily afford their own care which simple common sense tells you that we have gone in the wrong direction & just made big business richer & more powerful.
But apparently you're refusing to read the data I provided because you are too deeply entrenched in your world view. You're intelligent but you lack information.
It is the usual screed about how improving standards pushes out the little guy. The little guys are little very often because they suck, and it is one small step from desperation to criminal act. If you are arguing against standards you are arguing in vain. The world would be an economic paradise if we would only LOWER OUR STANDARDS. sheesh.
I never said anything about lowering our standards. As a matter of fact, when you look at the areas that remained untouched by the govt, the standards have gone up and the prices gone down.
LASIK is one such example. When it first came out, it wasn't easily affordable, as more doctors took it up, the procedures improved, the equipment improved and the prices went down well into the area of blue collar workers being able to afford it.
These free market types are just as bad as the creationists. No amount of proof of their favorite ideology's failure will dissuade them of their dogma. Hell, even Greenspan had to admit that his free market worship had failed and lead to the current recession, the one that nearly through the entire world into a depression had it not been for Keynesian life preservers.
ROFL! There is no evidence for your Keynesian bullshit. There is actually a host of evidence against it.
You obviously don't know what the free market is (understandable, most retarded liberals don't). LOL, the Greenspan comment made me actually lol. Greenspan says the "free market" doesn't work as he sits as chair of the fed. ROFL! I'm sorry, that is just fucking hilarious.
Go study some Austrian economics than come back and talk. MSNBC doesn't count as an education, sorry.
No, you really didn't touch a nerve. I'm used to arguing with your economically illiterate morons.
You obviously aren't to familiar with science, because your understanding of economics is laughable. I mean, you quoting Greenspan completely proves my point.
I know that Friedman is technically a neoliberal, considered a branch of neoclassical economics known as the Chicago school. So other than that, anything you wish to discuss?
This guy is completely right. In fact. I'll go way further then this dude. The problem with the current health care system is that it feels that some people should die. It's not the government that's saying that it's the so called free market. 54 million people can't be wrong. If the so called free market won't do it then let the government who I pay tones of taxes to help me out. Fuck those who want me to die because I can't afford there free market prices. Let the free market die then.
You're not ENTIRELY against profits? How could you be against profits period? You want no businesses to profit, thus causing the entire economy to fail? You seem to be literate in economics but free markets are DEFINITELY more efficient than the alternative given the market is free from market failures, there is an adequate level of competition and consumers are armed with enough information to make decisions. The current health care system is NOT a free market, which complicates things.
publicanimal 1 year ago
what about government has ever been eficient? have you been to the DMV, the post office, a township building, a welfare office, any city hall even a police station to file a report any of these in you lifetime. if government offices can't run any of these things efficiently why do you think they can run healthcare. how can you not make these connections. you obviously hav'nt thaught of everthing have you.
walktheline1998 1 year ago 2
people like you are the problem. government should not be involved in anthing social at all
walktheline1998 1 year ago 2
Question;
After a company spends money on improving the product, how does it make the public aware of the improvement?
Butchersen 2 years ago
How many commercials per day do you watch that actually talk about the features of the product? I would hazard a guess and that would be less than 1.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Actually, I Would guess about 70% of commercials talk about the features the product. Examples:
Cell Phones - better plans
Computers - Wireless internet & better HD & Speed
TV - programs guides, better picture quality, flat screen, multiple channel viewing, etc.
For insurance
Allstate includes accident forgiveness & ID restoration
Progressive allows people to "pick there price"
Geico constantly talks about how much you can save
And Almost products advertise price reductions
Butchersen 2 years ago
And you didn't answer my initial question; When a company does spend money to improve the product, how does it make the public aware of the improvement?
Butchersen 2 years ago
Spend 10% on the improvement, and 90% on the trashy advertising.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
First off, the amount spent on advertising greatly varies depending on the product being offered.
Secondly, its the other way around, for example, in 2008, apple computers only spent 13% on advertsing.
Thirdly, Even the guy in the Original Video said that insurance companies spend 10-20% on things other than the product. SO i really do not understand where you are getting this 90% number.
Butchersen 2 years ago
You're not watching the trash they show to children.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
You must be watching the trash they show to adults.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
magnificent logic here,
"I must be watching the trash they show to adults "
I hate to break this to you, but kids don't have a lot of money and are not very picky about the quality of their products, which is why ads do not describe fine intricacies of Furbys.
Adults on the other hand want to make sure they are getting a good product so they invest time into describing the product in greater detail.
Butchersen 2 years ago
"Kids" don't have any money? They sure have a lot of shit for not having any money.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Shit that was most likely purchased with their parent's money, not theirs.
Butchersen 2 years ago
My daughter is 16 and she has a job. There are a whole lot of years where kids have disposable income and no responsibilities.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
I would hardly call a 16 yr old a kid. One stops being a kid at around 10 (12 at
most).
My advise to you is that you quit grasping at whatever lame strawman argument you can find in an attempt to divert your way from the idiotic statement you made in your video.
Butchersen 2 years ago
My advice to you is to open your eyes to the massive marketing fraud that wants to sell your life down the river for a buck. What are you in marketing or some other scumbag profession?
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
What fraud? You said ads don't talk about the product, I gave you a list. You said they spend 90% on advertising, I showed 10%.
And you're tell me to "open my eyes", you never even attempted to refute any of the stats I had given you . Thus proving you vast ignorance of the topic.
I don't need to open my eyes, you do. Your personal paranoia against corporations, does not qualify as fact.
Butchersen 2 years ago
Yup, you're marketing alright. I hardly give a shit about marketing except that I end up paying for it, mostly the trash that I have to throw away - excessive packaging, junk mail, time spent deleting spam, inane programming and the way money taints the media.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
I said it once and i'll say it again. Your personal paranoia against corporations, does not qualify as fact. And I'll add the your assumptions also do not qualify as fact.
Something could be said about the character of someone who, when unable to disprove others argument or even backup his own, tries to discredit others with claims that they have an hidden agenda.
Intelligent people give facts to support their argument. People on the other end do what you do.
P.S. Film Student
Butchersen 2 years ago
When it comes to distrusting corporations, it is not a matter of paranoia, it is a matter of historical record. Are you completely unaware of the recent crash and the involvement of the banks in all of it? Are you completely unaware of how the food industry is poisoning everyone is the name of productivity and profit? Are you completely unaware of the way money taints the media along with what gets reported and how?
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Trying to deflect the argument yet again. And yet again your give no facts to support what you say. As you know, I first posted about you Advertising comment. So lets count how many of you posts have to do with advertising. answers 2, 2 out of 9. Instead you make posts about kids having jobs and excess packaging, then you accuse me of being in marketing, without, of course any evidence. It seems to be a trend with you.
Butchersen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is another point I would like to discuss.
You have made your distrust of big corporations very clear, saying things like " it is a matter of historical record", you make entire videos attacking them, and even list The Corporation as one of your favorite movies.
But when looking at you channel page, I couldn't help but notice that you show that you are employed by Cisco Systems, a multi national corporation an annual revenue of $36 billion.
Care to explain?
Butchersen 2 years ago
Why do you defend excessive marketing?
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
I will answer that quest, but I ask you one first. Would you please explain to how you can be so opposed to big corporations and yet be employed by one?
P.S. One day I went to the video before signing in and I could help but notice that one of my comments had been marked as spam. Even though it was completely related to the discussion we were having. Now, I sure it must be a mistake because there is no way you would do something so cowardly and pathetic. would you?
Butchersen 2 years ago
I have no idea what may have happened. I get an occasional comment of mine marked as spam. It seem spurious and inexplicable.
I am not against corporations per se, I am only against the degree of power they currently have. I am not a purist and some would call me hypocritical, but there are things I don;t like about my country either, that doesn't mean I would rather be somewhere else.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Fair enough, but at the same time, but I can't help but find it hypocritical when you come down hard on so many other big companies when your own has been involved with several allegations of fraud and other suit. It just seems to me that you are against everything, as long as you wont be affected.
Butchersen 2 years ago
This is some kind of joke, right?
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
no joke Just do a little research on the following
"Shareholder class action lawsuit against Cisco"
"Cisco's Brazil Tax Fraud Investigation"
"Multiven's Antitrust Lawsuit Against Cisco Systems, Inc."
"Free Software Foundation suit"
Butchersen 2 years ago
That's all you came up with?
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Is that not enough for you?
It seems to me that you are willing to give your employers a little more leeway than other corporations?
Butchersen 2 years ago
Now to answer your question
"Why do you defend excessive marketing?"
I don't defend it, i dont support it either. Al the things you listed above
"excessive packaging, junk mail, time spent deleting spam, inane programming"
Are just annoyances, it may waste a few minutes of my time every few months, but it is at the cost of the company to create and send those things. It is their cost not mine.
Butchersen 2 years ago
I thought all you free market advocates insisted that costs were always passed on to the consumer.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
I thought all you conservative economic geniuses repeated the sacred mantra, "The cost is passed on to the consumer". It also fills up land fills and incinerators.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Than that is one thing I disagree with them on. All that "excessive marketing" will increase the price of the product, which could detour some potential customers. So business do pay a price for it.
" It also fills up land fills and incinerators."
which is not a problem, we have plenty of space for land fills ans when they are full we merely bury it and use the land above. google Tartan Golf Academy of Central Park.
Butchersen 2 years ago
"money taints the media "
I am completely aware of it, that is why I get my news from alternative sources(youtube included), this allows me to get as many view points on the news as i desire. That is the beauty of the free market, whenever there is a demand for something(untainted news) someone will find a way to supply it
Butchersen 2 years ago
This is pretty naive. If there is a demand for something in a free market, someone will try to find a way to profit from it. Actually supplying something is a second order effect and not reliable.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
What I think is naive, is that you use profit as if it is a dirty word. Profit inspires innovation, Profit causes increased efficiency, Profit causes increased productivity, Profit is the reason we have most of the wonderful products and services that we do today. If you don't provide these you don't get profit.
To think that people are going to do something they don't profit off of is very navie.
Butchersen 2 years ago
I have nothing against reasonable profit. I have something against profit interfering with the quality of the product.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
" If there is a demand for something in a free market, someone will try to find a way to profit from it"
It seems to me that you are against profit, since you think that someone fulfilling a demand for profit is bad because their main concern is not providing for product/service.
But, WHO CARES, if you don't like how they run their business, then don't contribute.
P.S. who are you to decide what is reasonable profit? As long as there is no Fraud(like your employers), I do not care.
Butchersen 2 years ago
I have discussed at length the difference between opening game and end game capitalism. Free marketers like yourself extol the virtues of opening game capitalism and ignore completely the vices of end game capitalism: anticompetitive behavior, deceiving the customer, collusion and corruption with government. Who am I to decide what is a reasonable profit? I may find it difficult to come up with an exact number, but it is pretty easy to tell when you're being gouged, like with Health Insurance.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
First I want to point out that this response has nothing to do with my last comment.
Anyway, you have already proven your extremely weak understanding of economics. From this discussion alone we have counculded that you
-think ads are bad
-think companies spend 90% on ads
-think everyone who disagrees with you is baised
-are willing to excuse fraud done by your company
-never give facts to support your side
-think profit is bad
-think you are an authority to decide what is reasonable profit
Butchersen 1 year ago
I think you have a BAD case of confirmation bias. You see what you want to see and little else. I think most ads are a WASTE that flies in the face of free marketers who insist the free market is the most efficient form of economy. Every statement you made about me is false. Who are you, some kind of free market grand inquisitor? You see me in black and white because you are colorblind.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
This is hilarious
"I think you have a BAD case of confirmation bias"
As opposed to the guy who claimed I was in marketing solely because I disagreed with him. yep no bias there.
"every statement you made about me is false"
Despite the fact that you confirmed I was right about your views on ads, in YOUR PREVIOUS SENTENCE.
"Who are you, some kind of free market grand inquisitor? "
I never claimed to be such, i just a guy who has an opinion on economics. So instead of namecalling, give facts.
Butchersen 1 year ago
You tell me why we need regulations forcing corporations to label products if marketing was all about informing the customer. The fact is that there is an arms race between corporations misinforming the customer and public interests informing the customer. The corporation cares not what the costs are to society in terms of human misery as long as people buy product and contribute to profits. Take a long look at the rate of depression in this country and ask yourself why.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
Good lord this is pathetic. Happiness is a personal responsibility,If you are depressed than it is your responsibility to end it, not the gov't. That how it works, everybody takes care for themselves. There is no more stupid idea to than to have the gov't decide what a business can or cannot say, solely because it might depress someone.
Butchersen 1 year ago
So you don't deny that corporations are selling ideas that make people mentally ill. You just say that people should just develop immunity to it like all other sickness. How this effects society or the economy has no significance as far as your concerned. Corporations should be free to sell whatever sickness makes them the most money. Good lord YOU are pathetic.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
"Good lord YOU are pathetic."
Nope, it's still you. If you would have bothered to read my post, you would have noticed that I believe that individuals are responsible for their own mental health and that it is not the gov't job to regulate ads because they might not be politically correct.
Butchersen 1 year ago
I think individuals are primarily responsible for their own well being but I also think that corporations that weaponize misinformation for marketing purposes should be held responsible for the damage they inflict. This is nothing less than psychological warfare writ large and you are blind if you don't see it. Your simplistic ideology offers nothing to fight this battle with, I must therefore conclude that it is a fight you are willing to lose.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
I am not blind, I AM SANE. Anyone who does not suffer from a severe chemical imbalance is not going to be driven insane by an ad. In fact, anyone with a shred of intelligence would see an ads as just that, AN AD.
God knows what kind of frivolous lawsuits can be made from that line of thinking and want to open the nation up to that in order to accommodate the mentally handicapped?
P.S. Change your name, its shaming a great composer.
Butchersen 1 year ago
You assumed I was advocating frivolous lawsuits, which I was not. I was just identifying a problem you refuse to see because you don't like the solution. Identify the problem first, then figure out a solution. You seem perfectly content with a toxic environment because the ONLY solution you have been trained to see is frivolous lawsuits. That is called a lack of imagination.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
No, you are creating a problem that does not exist. Unless corporations have mind control technology, your argument has no merit. There is no "toxic environment", people all across the nation are exposed to several ads everyday and have no problems with it.
Also, I knew what you what talking about, but I, unlike you, can think beyond step 1. If you could read you would see that I merely stated that your "solutions" would only create more problems.
That is called lack of intelligence.
Butchersen 1 year ago
Are you suggesting that widespread depression and mental illness is NOT a problem? I have not stated any solutions for you to evaluate any unintended problems they might create. Of course corporations already have the answer and that is to sell you more pills. You are simply in denial of the extent that corporations externalize toxic effects they have on society and the environment.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
Unbelievable, I am not denying depression. I am saying that ads are not the cause. Go back to 1st grade and learn how to read basic English.
"not stated any solutions "
But you did advocate corporations being "held responsible for the damage they inflict". Something that I explained would only cause problems, mainly because this problem does not exist. And no one is being forced to buy pills, they do it from their own freewill because they decided it is best for them.
Butchersen 1 year ago
Maybe the solution is public education, such as what I am doing in my own small way on youtube, but you are against that because you think you know what solutions I am going to suggest and you are dead set against them. That is the root cause of your denial.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
Yes, education is good, that is why I brought up PSAs a few posts back. But your previous posts said nothing about education, they were about regulation, which is what I am against.
Butchersen 1 year ago
I am not ruling out certain kinds of regulations, like transparency and full disclosure, but some of these demand that we first eliminate corporate personhood. In general I am not in favor of restricting their speech, I am in favor of requiring them to make room for additional speech like labeling.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
You say that you are not against restricting their speech, but you are in favor of them being punished for "psychological damage" done by their "psychological warfare", if you truly believe that their advertise is this strong, than you certainly for government regulation of it, hence speech.
.
Butchersen 1 year ago
My belief is that the cure for free speech is more free speech, or in this case, disclosure. If an ad implies that a product will make you lucky with the chicks, either prove it, or make a disclaimer.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
anticompetitive behavior,
-which is why monopolies and price fixing are illegal,
deceiving the customer,
-Which is why fraud is illegal(something you and your employers need to learn, ehh?)
collusion and corruption with government
-which is not unique to capitalism
Butchersen 1 year ago
So which free market economist advocates government interference in breaking up monopolies? Certainly not Ron Paul or any of the libertarians as far as I can see. In fact, they are quite convinced the only way monopolies form is though government interference. There are degrees of deceiving the customer that anyone with some background in psychology would understand that are not considered outright fraud. There is an entire industry devoted to convincing women they look too old and too fat.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
"advocates government interference in breaking up monopolies"
good lord, you're calling me a black & white thinker. I sorry but I cant think of any thing more black and white than believing that free-marketers are the same. I am not a blind follower of anyone. Get that through your head.
Butchersen 1 year ago
"entire industry devoted to convincing women they look too old and too fat"
Why is it the gov't job to decide what people want.. If a women thinks she is "too old or too fat", that is her choice. If they're that superficial, that is their problem. We don't need to change our entire economy to stop someones feelings from being hurt.
Butchersen 1 year ago
It has everything to do with freedom of speech, especially when corporate interests are effectively able to drown out alternative voices that might shed some light on the insanity that marketing cultivates in society.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
You know that list I made describing you, I am going to make an addition
-Willing to make up problems that do not exist to support his claims.
I cannot even count the number PSAs I saw about girls being happy the way they are and to ignore those ads. And I'm a guy.
Honestly, are you delusion, dishonest, or just plain stupid?
Butchersen 1 year ago
Honestly, why are you such a tool for corporate america and it's vast marketing propaganda wing? If the problem did not exist why would there be a propaganda arms race, why would there be any need for PSAs in the first place?
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
Another addition
-have very poor reading comprehension
I was not refering to the marketing of women, i was talking about your bogus claim that the corporations "drown out" alternative voices.
Butchersen 1 year ago
As far as collusion and corruption is concerned, instead of arguing that other systems have similar problems, shouldn't we be trying to find what these problematic systems share in common, and shouldn't we be devising a system that is more immune to collusion and corruption? You argue in favor of A because you see only A and B, but there is also C, D, E ad infinitum.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
"devising a system that is more immune to collusion and corruption?"
No, I am against someone trying to tear down what made this country prosperous and trying an entirely new untested system, that came out of someones head.
"you see only A and B, but there is also C, D, E."
No, I am saying that, despite its flaws, A is the best system. If there are flaws we try to improve it one by one. We don't tear it down and start over. We'll never have utopia and trying to achieve it leads to disaster.
Butchersen 1 year ago
What makes you so sure it was capitalism, by itself, that made this country prosperous? You should read Howard Zinn who can shed some light on who you should thank for not being a fucking wage slave.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
Actually I got a better idea, why don't YOU be a man and make an argument for YOUR point of view, instead of having Zinn do your arguing for you
Butchersen 1 year ago
Is this guy serious? I hope not. HTWW shouldn't even dignify himself with a response to this numbskull.
courtlandreid 2 years ago
The conventional wisdom sells the opening game of capitalism. It never talks about the end game. At all.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Do you think medicare is good?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
I'd like the ability to debate you. If your up for it.
AAAV92 2 years ago 2
Oh boy, the old externality argument. You don't even seem to take into account that this economy is a fascist, cartelized economy, not a free market.
Why are health care costs so high in this country? It's because of state action in the 60's and 70's that has led to artificial scarcity, thus necessitating the rise of the insurance industry in the first place, who have cartelized, don't forget the inflation tax caused by the central bank as well (EXTERNALIZING government deficits).
GuardofLiberty 2 years ago
Thanks for not refuting my argument but bringing up non sequitur points. I think health insurance has failed miserably in the free market, despite your claims that the market isn't "purely" free. Nice distraction, though.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
The only non sequitur is saying that we need government health insurance because health care is more expensive, when it was the state that created that expense in the first place.
No distraction. You do not understand economics at all.
GuardofLiberty 2 years ago 4
*not the free market*
GuardofLiberty 2 years ago 5
Health care is expensive with or without government involvement. In fact, the LACK of government involvement contributes to costs. Scarcity of doctors is driven by the AMA, not the government. A provision in medicare prohibits the government from collective bargaining with drug companies on behalf of seniors. Your tirade is devoid of examples, I gave you two.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
No, most people could pay out of pocket before the state got heavily involved in health care.
Who do you think the AMA went to to create that scarcity? That is an example of fascism, not a free market. Read up on barriers to entry.
Medicare and Medicaid also drive up costs by subsidizing health services and thus increasing demand, creating yet more scarcity.
GuardofLiberty 2 years ago 4
Supply and demand work over short term, over the long term demand creates volume and volume decreases costs. Go ask Henry Ford. The scarcity of doctors is more the fault of the private educational system that forces students to go deep into debt.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Stop calling the medical insurance industry "free market" or "privatized." The fact you keep saying it is pretty much destroys your credibility.
The free market has never been as efficient as public?! Wow, where is your evidence to back that bullshit up? The evidence I'm looking at COMPLETELY contradicts that.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago 3
this guy obviously doesn't know what he's talking about, Zamato.
credible2 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The purely free market of which you speak can not exist in any practical sense, quit chasing your foolish pipe dream.
studio7manga 2 years ago
The purely Utopian socialist state that solves all our problems can not exist in any practical sense, quit chasing your foolish pipe dream.
You don't even know what the free market is, so your opinion means practically nothing to me.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago 2
Hmm, free market where human interests are essentially running the economy. Yeah, what a great idea. There is a small problem with letting people run the economy... know the answer yet? It's people. If you actually understood anything about science (Which you don't, despite being completely eager to throw the word around), you would know that human nature is the biggest problem with free market. People are far too stupid (you) and greedy (them) to have it be successful without rules/regulations.
snipzor 2 years ago
Ah, the classic fallacious statist argument.
Humans are "greedy" and "stupid" so lets put these same "greedy" and "stupid" people in unlimited power. Brilliant work, man. Because as we know, the caring and compassionate bureaucrats are all perfect and all powerful.
Do you really understand science? Or do you just think you do? I'm a medical student, so my understanding of Biology, Chemistry, Psychology, ect puts your (most likely non-existent) understanding of science to complete shame.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago 3
ZamatoElite: "lets put these people in unlimited power" re- "I'm functionally a totalitarian as I have nothing but contempt for democratic institutions (hence my rejection of them in favor of a pure market "society") so I've projected my own idea of how a government runs"
Nope Zam, politicians don't have unlimited power, this is a constitutional republic not a dictatorship, much to your disappointment I'm sure.
studio7manga 2 years ago
What Constitutional Republic? You live under a corporatist oligarchy. The state heeds nothing to the Constitution. Clear your eyes.
But let's humor your "Constitutional Republic" notion. Even still, these "greedy" and "stupid" people vote for the "greedy" and "stupid" politicians. Your ideological state theory does not eliminate the "greedy" and "stupid" elements. All it does if give these normal people power (may it be limited or unlimited).
ZamatoElite 2 years ago 4
Yeah, if you put greedy and stupid people in office, then that truly reflects the will of the people. If you put people who aren't greedy or stupid in a position like that, they'll do exactly what they are meant to do. Protect people from making stupid decisions and stop corporations from exploiting the stupidity. You know why they would do that, fun fact, the government is non-profit. Not to be elitist, but I would rather have elitists running the economy because they are intelligent.
snipzor 2 years ago
But good for you, way to lend yourself fake credibility. "I'm a medical student" means absolutely nothing and lends nothing to your credibility.
Do you even know what the concept for "For Profit" is? Why do you think corporate media is shit?
snipzor 2 years ago
Again, you have clearly shown startling ignorance to the scientific mindset. I'd expect as much from some liberal atheist who listens to a few Dawkins lectures and thinks he's immediately a scientific expert. All I have seen you do is throw around "THATZ UNSCIENTIFIC RETARDZ," while demonstrating no clear understanding of true science (in this case, sane economics).
I understand the concept of profit. Profit and greed form the regulation mechanism in a free market (market feedback).
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
A politician who isn't greedy or corrupt and in the game for their own self interest? I'll keep looking.
The only way to have a smart Democracy is to have a smart populace. But in such a scenario, would a Government even be necessary?
"Not be elitist," sorry, you are an elitist. That sends a strong signal to me that you are incredibly ignorant to history (study the USSR, North Korea, maybe read some 1984 while your at it).
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
Are you Zamato? Or are you Captain Hyperbole? Because every time I see one of you Nihilist Austrotards, you always bring up USSR, North Korea and 1984 in that exact order (And sometimes going to Iran). Quite amazing actually how the hive mind works.
Also yes, if there was a smart populace, government would still be necessary. In fact if there was a smart populace, ideology would be synced to be the contextual to the current situation.
snipzor 2 years ago
It is also very cute that you roughly translate my statement to 1337 speak without providing any actual defense.
snipzor 2 years ago
My translation was incredibly accurate. Any sensible person who actually knows science would agree.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
Hyperbole? Not really, those are your elitist societies. I can name a few more if you'd like.
The ideology would be "synced" by the use of force perhaps? By the end of a barrel? So you don't support free thought or open debate? You just use the state to "synchronize"/silence opposition?
Have you read 1984 by any chance? Opps, that is me being hyperbolic again. My apologies.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
Nice, my support for moderate regulation is completely equivalent to communist nations. That isn't hyperbole (this is sarcasm!). Next you'll talk about coersion and... oh wait you did.
Damn you are all the same, quite amazing. Is there any point in talking to someone who essentially repeats the same crap as the guy next to him?
snipzor 2 years ago
What do you think State regulation is? Coercion.
I'm pointing out that you support elitist ideology, which is essentially the same sentiment in USSR, North Korea, ect.
I'm not the collectivist here.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
Yeah, I heard that a billion times, get in line like every other idiot Austrotard.
snipzor 2 years ago
Ok. Please prove to me regulation is not coercion.
(This should be good)
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
Prove to me that the LAW itself is not coercion.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
dude. you're a retard who can't really argue intellectually. Go get a life son
credible2 2 years ago
The government is non profit?
What the hell does that even mean?
The government hands out no bid contracts to big corporations. Those big corporations are for profit. And have an unfair advantage over other competitors in the same field since they are getting government subsidy. The government is the biggest cash cow for GREEDY corporations that don't want to really compete in the free market.
mickeysears 2 years ago
So the state is not greedy? the state is not guided by human interests? The state is run by individuals, just as in the free market. However, I'd trust millions of individuals over a couple of bureaucrats. You put too much faith in a couple of people who you think can run the economy. Ha! ridiculous
credible2 2 years ago
Except the state in our case is governed by democratic institutions and accountable to the people, how much is up to the citizenry. This is not the case pure market "societies".
studio7manga 2 years ago
"democratic" institutions mean nothing. It does not make society better or whatever. The state is not accountable to anybody, no matter what anybody says. It only cares about power.
And in a pure free market system, individuals are accountable to each other. They have to, or they lose reputation in the society.
credible2 2 years ago 2
Thanks for proving my point about your hatred for democratic institutions. Go move to Saudi Arabia, they're more inline with your ideologies, or maybe Somalia.
But in all seriousness, thanks for being so honest about being an afactual radical. Don't let my comments disrupt your worship of Rand.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Private firms are accountable to the people as well. When they fail to deliver a quality product or service, they loose customers.
The state actually isn't accountable most of the time. The state is off in Iraq murdering thousands of innocent people, yet no one was accountable. The State is suspending habius corpus and throwing people in torture camps, yet no one is accountable.
You know what the State REALLY is? It's a firm that can't go out of business.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
ZamatoElite: re- "States are acountable too, when people don't like them they simply leave"
Is that what passes for your idea of "democratic"? Of course it is, and anyone familiar with your sort of fringe ideology would know that. Sad to say that argument isn't very convincing to most people, hence why you remain in the fringe.
Word of advice, your dream of anti-statism is inherently unstable, the most powerful would simply become the defacto state. See Somalia.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Go find me an accountable state. Have fun.
Anti-statism is "inherently unstable?" It's funny you cite Somalia as an example considering it was the "Utopian Socialist State (that you masturbate to on a daily basis) that destroyed that region.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
ZamatoElite: re- "I'm out to prove that facts have no effect on my positions as I've ignored your previous statement that you don't hold the opposite of the extreme position I hold."
Well there certainly isn't a state there now, I wonder why it's still a shithole? hmm...
I also wonder why warlords have filled the void left by the collapsed state? hmm...
I suppose hunter gatherer societies would be your ideal in that case, no state, no oppression. Unless you count all the murder and rape...
studio7manga 2 years ago
Once again... (I understand you're a little slow)
It was the STATE that destroyed the region. I'll repeat that once again, it was the STATE, not anarchism. Anarchism is actually HELPING the region. The region is stabilizing and experiencing economic growth.
If you want to learn about Somalia (which you don't because you're close minded, yet somehow scientific), anarchists here on Youtube have beaten that dead horse with a stick and a half.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
So is the rest of "evil statist" Africa but at a much higher rate on average, plus they're growing from a better economic situation as well. It's as simple as reading the data compiled by the WB, CIA and others. Remember I mentioned science? Try doing some of it.
Actually, they've made a bunch of poor arguments on the subject which border on apologetics, if you had reasonable arguments, evidence and experimental data backing your more people would be on your side.
studio7manga 2 years ago
ONCE AGAIN. The condition is Somalia is far better without the state, than with it. The overall health of the populace has increased since the collapse of the state, the economy is growing (and will most likely surpass it's statist counterparts), it has one of the best telecommunication networks in Africa (thanks to competition), a growing transportation network, and expansion is tons of other industries.
Most anarchists acknowledge there will be violence at first. But that will settle down.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
Wait, I just had to throw this bit in. It's really that fucking hilarious.
You claim to have read the CIA Factbook and Worldbank? Hey buddy, ACTUALLY go read it [dumbass]. The evidence is favorable towards the anarchist Somalia. All the studies show the quality of life is far improved in the anarchist Somalia.
But right, "I R SCIENTIFIK" right? You going to leave some smart ass comment next to cover up your retardation? I'm counting on it.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
Accountable state? How about the republican party being pretty much thrown out on its ass? Does that count?
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Not when another equally destructive party fills the void.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
Gross misapplication of the word equal. We all know how backward libertarians are who think the world should be run as if we were still in the 18th century.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
ZamatoElite: re- "I assume you're an ideological dreamer because I am one too"
Sorry Zam, I don't hold to such an ideology. Nice projection though.
"your opinion means practically nothing to me"
Facts usually mean nothing to people like you, I would imagine opinions would have the same fate. Emotions on the other hand...
studio7manga 2 years ago
Eh, there is no real content in your comment. At least snipzor managed to formulate an argument (a retarded one, but an argument on the less).
You're lecturing to me about facts, yet you don't know what the free market is, and you quote Greenspan.
Go study a little bit of economics than come back and I might give you some attention.
Kids...
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
ZamatoElite: re- "I misconstrue my own ad hominems as a cogent argument"
Protip Zam, there isn't a reason yet to take you seriously.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Says the brainchild who quoted Greenspan.
I gotta ask, are you really that fucking ignorant?
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
ZamatoElite: re- "If I simply attack that makes my argument right by default. Put forward a positive argument of my own? Everyone knows I couldn't do that!"
studio7manga 2 years ago
studio7manga: re- "hmmm, I DONTZ SEEM TO KNOWZ ECONOMICZ SO I JUST QOUTE GREENSPAN AND PRETEND I"M ACTUALLY EDUCATEDZ BUT MY ECONOMIC KNOWLEDGE DOEZNT EXCEED WATCHING MSMBC. I"LL PRETEND TO BE AFFLUENT IN SCIENCE BCUZ THAT IS WHAT SMARTZ PEOPLE DO AND I WANTZ TO APPEAR TO BE SMART."
Again, go grab an economics education. I'm done here. I'll give you some attention when you can present a sound argument. Thanks for playing.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
ZamatoElite: re-"I keep touting my 'education' but do nothing to prove I have any, meanwhile this random guy on the internet keeps pissing me off by refusing to have a serious conversation with a nut like me. Why?WHY!?"
Protip: Affluent means having abundance of usually of material possessions, not the best choice of words, well versed would be more appropriate for example.
Just keep blaming the state for all the problems of the world Zam, you know overly simplistic ideologies are never wrong.
studio7manga 2 years ago
I don't see any arguments...
I'll repeat myself (yet again): Again, go grab an economics education. I'm done here. I'll give you some attention when you can present a sound argument. Thanks for playing.
I'm not playing this childish personal attack game all day. I have better things to do.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
Could have taken the words out of my mouth. Since your position is essentially, "lol I'm rite ur stupid, prove me wrong".
Yes I'm sure Somalia will pull itself out of the very bottom of the barrel anytime now, given that estimates of it's rate of growth are less than 3% while Africa as a whole grows at more than 5%.
studio7manga 2 years ago
I'm sorry, you're the one who uses quotes from Greenspan and doesn't know what the free market it. All your arguemnts have been these smart ass strawmans (you think you're being clever, but it just shows you can't debate the issues).
Somolia is about in line with most of Africa. Considering the society is still developing, I'd say the 3% is very good. I know you expect the impossible with like a 10% rate growth, but that only shows your bias and unwillingness to consider all the factors.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
Also, I'm not even in full support of Somalia. The region is enslaved to Islam (which I don't support as an atheist).
Most anarchists (including myself), don't consider Somalia to be a fair representation of Anarchist theory. There are better historical and present examples of anarchist theory in practice. But I'm really not counting on you actually looking at multiple historical examples. That would require an open mind, which you have shown a lacking for.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
Most anarchists don't consider anything a good example of anarchist theory, nor do they bother running a simulation or experiment which is why few take them seriously.
I've heard the glowing praise heaped upon the Icelandic Commonwealth and similar by market anarchists. Now go have a beer with Michael Shermer and talk about how no one respects your opinions.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Bullshit. There are tons of examples of anarchism that are better examples than Somalia. Iceland is one example. There are tens of others.
Even if there were NO examples, that doesn't mean anything. Market anarchism is a fairly new theory, and needs to be implemented properly (just like any ideology).
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
"Evil statist" China seems to do it. Though one would expect an anarchist "utopia" like Somalia to at least keep up with the rest of the "evil statist" countries of Africa.
studio7manga 2 years ago
I don't recall anyone saying Somalia was an "anarchist utopia."
I find it amusing how all you can do is construct strawmans. It's pathetic. You are debating a position that only exists in your own mind.
The Somalia region is still developing. And the GDP is in the ballpark with the rest of Africa. 1-2% means very little, especially in context with Africa. In a couple years, I expect Somalia to stabilize and outrun its statist counterparts.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
"needs to be implemented properly"
Do a test or run a simulation then Hoss. Don't piss and moan when you can't provide any evidence to back up your claims. By the way the Communists say the same thing about their dogma.
Making excuses for Somalia, haha funny, the largest group of new immigrants to my city are Somali, can't imagine why.
studio7manga 2 years ago
I'm not making "excuses" for Somalia. I am showing you the reality of the region, which you dogmatically refuse to even consider. You have set these impossible standards in your mind, which allows you to comfortably ignore any sort of thought that doesn't adhere to your narrow minded "liberalism."
The people probably emigrated from Somalia because it's poor as shit....just like all of Africa. This is kind of common sense, but I suppose common sense is not so common.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
Let it be known that the anarchocapitalist considers growth at the same rate of similar statist countries an impossible standard for anarchic systems. I rest my case.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Once again, strawman.
You have no case to rest.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
Says the person who's pat answer is "cause of the state".
studio7manga 2 years ago
Strawman....again. Keep trying. Never give up, you'll get the hand of it one day.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
Really? Because that's actually all you've said, go back and read your own tripe. Way to ignore your own strawmen, and your false presumptions by the way.
Again, it's no coincidence you guys are marginal at best. Learn to make a proper argument.
studio7manga 2 years ago
I went back and read, and I still think your strawmaning.
In fact, that is all you have been able to do. You actually can't debate my positions, so you create your own positions to debate! How fun.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
"I still think your strawmaning"
and then
"In fact, that is all you have been able to do"
So funny.
"can't debate my positions"
You don't have a position, so I mock.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Yes I do have a position. And you know I do. You just can't debate them, so you immediately fall back on your condescending strawmans.
To me, that is funny.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
Don't keep it to yourself.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Why don't you study the evidence?
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
lol.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago 5
The extent of your argument.
studio7manga 2 years ago
lol, you are a butthurt right-wing libertarian douche, still to this day.
Seriously, who writes "lol" as a comment?
snipzor 2 years ago
It is a big myth that big business wants deregulation. They do not. The love punishing regulations because the net result is that they make more money. We have a clear documented history of this going back 100 years.
This is a problem of collusion between bureaucrats & big business. Please read the following to understand the big myth.
cato . org /research /articles /cpr28n4-1 . html
kmg501 2 years ago
Oh I am sure they love regulations that are inflicted on the consumer or on their competition. That doesn't alter the fact that they are in favor of deregulation when it comes to themselves.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
There hasn't been a true free market in health care since 1965 and since then every time congress tries to address the issues they created the last time, they make it worse. This is what happens when congress plays a whack-a-mole game with any industry altering legislation.
kmg501 2 years ago
I am really tired of the excuse that the market really isn't free. The problems we're having with health insurance externalizing sick people has nothing to do with government interference. You sound like a broken record.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
The facts all point to this being a long time govt created problem. Prior to the introduction of Medicaid & Medicare in 1965, medical costs and specifically insurance were easily affordable by blue collar workers. You can research that with NBER and others.
You can also read this material to see for yourself that this is in fact a big govt & business created problem through collusion.
Please READ the history:
cato . org /research /articles /cpr28n4-1 . html
kmg501 2 years ago
That is funny, because the solution you are suggesting is to let old people die thereby reducing the demand on health care. Point taken. No death panels, just DEATH.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
The solution is that the govt completely removes itself from a business that it has no authority to be involved in. As I already said, prior to 1965, working people could much more easily afford their own care which simple common sense tells you that we have gone in the wrong direction & just made big business richer & more powerful.
But apparently you're refusing to read the data I provided because you are too deeply entrenched in your world view. You're intelligent but you lack information.
kmg501 2 years ago
It is the usual screed about how improving standards pushes out the little guy. The little guys are little very often because they suck, and it is one small step from desperation to criminal act. If you are arguing against standards you are arguing in vain. The world would be an economic paradise if we would only LOWER OUR STANDARDS. sheesh.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
I never said anything about lowering our standards. As a matter of fact, when you look at the areas that remained untouched by the govt, the standards have gone up and the prices gone down.
LASIK is one such example. When it first came out, it wasn't easily affordable, as more doctors took it up, the procedures improved, the equipment improved and the prices went down well into the area of blue collar workers being able to afford it.
kmg501 2 years ago
HTWW and his bandwagon of illiterates do not realise that that US health system rates poorly on the international stage...
All they need to do is look around, to eye-ball how UNHEALTHY the average American is!
ashtool 2 years ago
These free market types are just as bad as the creationists. No amount of proof of their favorite ideology's failure will dissuade them of their dogma. Hell, even Greenspan had to admit that his free market worship had failed and lead to the current recession, the one that nearly through the entire world into a depression had it not been for Keynesian life preservers.
studio7manga 2 years ago
ROFL! There is no evidence for your Keynesian bullshit. There is actually a host of evidence against it.
You obviously don't know what the free market is (understandable, most retarded liberals don't). LOL, the Greenspan comment made me actually lol. Greenspan says the "free market" doesn't work as he sits as chair of the fed. ROFL! I'm sorry, that is just fucking hilarious.
Go study some Austrian economics than come back and talk. MSNBC doesn't count as an education, sorry.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
Touched a nerve obviously, too bad you didn't make your case at all, just asserted blindly. Nice attempt though.
Austrian economics: where scientific rigor is optional.
studio7manga 2 years ago
No, you really didn't touch a nerve. I'm used to arguing with your economically illiterate morons.
You obviously aren't to familiar with science, because your understanding of economics is laughable. I mean, you quoting Greenspan completely proves my point.
ZamatoElite 2 years ago
ZamatoElite: re- "My saying 'you're stupid' and 'know nothing about science' will supersede the fact that I'm talking to an engineer"
Yes, I believe this is the nerve, perhaps a pointless comment creating g-spot of sorts.
studio7manga 2 years ago
Milton Friedman does not equal "neoclassical economics," dumbshit. Don't try to sound smarter than you are.
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
I know that Friedman is technically a neoliberal, considered a branch of neoclassical economics known as the Chicago school. So other than that, anything you wish to discuss?
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
This guy is completely right. In fact. I'll go way further then this dude. The problem with the current health care system is that it feels that some people should die. It's not the government that's saying that it's the so called free market. 54 million people can't be wrong. If the so called free market won't do it then let the government who I pay tones of taxes to help me out. Fuck those who want me to die because I can't afford there free market prices. Let the free market die then.
lordcron 2 years ago
thanks john.
sisforshayla 2 years ago
Loser!
OldSchoolAmerican 2 years ago
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago