-some development and structure. I'm not an econamist, so I don't know too well. I generally think it's over the top and an over emphasised, negative dehumanising way to be. I want us to head to a rationalised society where problems are reasoned without ego or emotionally bias agenda and knowledge is encouraged and people have respect for other humans, not based on faith but because it's the good thing to do.
I don't agree. I would like to believe and also rationally form the opinion that human care and respect need to be instilled for us to survive, there are exceptional individuals not motivated by money and possesion, freegans, charity workers, off griders, scientists and teachers choosing their field/where they want to be over better payed jobs. Then on the other hand there are those that choose paths they don't want to be at because they need money. Greed in the form of consumerism might fund-
Objectivism or pursing your own interests ends when criminal activity begins. The problem is that we do not practice the rule of law. We have the wealthy who control the law and the law which controls the masses. When people defraud millions of dollars causing anguish for thousands of people get caught they go to a cushy country club prison. fraud is a violent crime, its hurts people. Someone poor gets caught with some weed and they get thrown into hard core prison with violent criminals. ???
@LibertyDownUnder I know but it does not change the fact that the wealthy are able to get away with more. If greed were punished when it obviously rears its head through criminal activities instead of often times being rewarded as with the wholesale extortion of the government by the banking industry. I am not looking for more programs I am looking for the ones we have to be able to act without being so strongly influenced by wealthy factions.
@grecorivera941, you cannot get corporations and banks away from a big spending Government, it's inevitable. The only way to fight this is to shrink the broken programs and cut spending.
For Government to "punish" greed, as you suggest, it would mean that someone in Government would be powerful enough to decide what's considered greed and what's not.
I've never met anyone that's smart enough or incoruptable enough to regulate the entire economy.
@LibertyDownUnder You don't have to judge what greed is if you just prosecute the actual criminal offenses that exist. I understand that we are to the point were there needs to be a social revolution. There is an inertia of corruption within the revolving door between corporations, lobbyists and government and it won't change until a major populist campaign to push out absolutely every incumbent or insider takes place. Libertarians will need to have congressional candidates in every state.
@LibertyDownUnder Well, that is a no brainer, protectionism is eager to trade, protectionism is not isolationism. Hamilton did not advocate isolationism he simply passed tariff laws to fund government, and protect domestic industry. As a result of that foresight America became a great manufacturing economy, produced the greatest middle class in history. The wealth was spread across the whole of society, through wage inflation and union activity. Today wealth is being concentrated into a few.
@LibertyDownUnder Are you aware that the richest 400 people in america owns more wealth than the bottom 50% of the country. Is that what you call capitalism, I hardly think so. I am a capitalist, and I assure you free markets work inside nation states. Free markets brings wages and family incomes to equilibrium, that is a great concept inside a nation state, but it is a terrible notion relative to the 4 billion Asians who will work for pennies a day. It has only destroyed the U.S. economy.
@louiethegreater, well I agere with most of that, but just not with the solution you're suggesting.
As I said, the tarriffs back then were tiny compared to today's taxes. And the US still imported a lot more than it exported back then.
If you want to go back to the tarrifs rates from the 19th century, AND go back to the same level of industry regulations, taxes and Government spending - most conservatives & Libertarians would have no problem with this.
@LibertyDownUnder Tariffs are, and have been historically low since the1940s. Actually the period of time the U.S. decided to rebuild the economies of W. Europe and Japan under the Marshall Plan. That was accomplished by allowing them to feed off the american economy. Even by those standards the U.S. economy was so large that we still ran merchandise trade surpluses. Actually the U.S. ran trade surpluses from 1893 until 1967. In the late 60 when globalization became mainstream the U.S. economy
@LibertyDownUnder Well, I agree we are not in that much disagreement here. But you must admit we are in a different world today. More regulation is needed because more science is available today. The welfare system should be eliminated for able bodied people, however full employment, a job for every able bodied american must be the alternative to welfare. When jobs are available than social programs can be phased out. That is not the condition today low skilled assembly jobs are outsourced.
@louiethegreater, if you listen to the CEOs of the companies moving overseas, most of them say the same thing. Wages are NOT the reason for them leaving.
It's them drowning in regulations, workforce requirements, the fact that they have become the punching bag of every law firm in the US, combing through thousands of pages of laws and finding minor breaches and scamming millions out of them. Healthcare mandates cost GM more than steel does.
@LibertyDownUnder You said taxes and regulation was the reason for leaving the country. How can that be correct if 18,000 major corporations locate in the Cayman Islands and pay no, or little taxes. That is the connection of my statement to your post.
@LibertyDownUnder Well- No, not at all, they are leaving the country for cheap labor, and they want to use the U.S. economy for retail only. Holding their capital offshore while while using the US economy and infrastructure to produce greater wealth for Wall Street is not in the interest of the american people. Tariffs on the products produced by these multinationals is the simple solution. That produces jobs in the U.S. instead of Asia.
@louiethegreater, and what about retaliation from other countries? Wouldn't US exporters be hurt by this? This is what made the great depresion go global, and it sure didn't help the US.
Please watch the clip I sent you, it took me w hile to find it.
@LibertyDownUnder No, US exporters would not be damaged, wouldn't we need to have trade surpluses before we would worry about retaliatory tariffs. What manufactured goods so we have surpluses in. Smoot-Hawley had nothing to do with the depression of 1929.
@LibertyDownUnder The first thing you should understand is that Sowell is a mouthpiece for the industrial supported Hoover Institute. Secondly he is explaining the newly contrived explanation that tariffs cause or deepened the great depression. Sowell spreads the globalist message of Hoover, they give him a forum for the lecture circuit and book sales. He has no clue of the cause of the great depression.
@LibertyDownUnder First of all imports in 1930 was only 4% of GNP. Smoot- Hawley only applied to 1/3 of that, or about 1.3% of GNP. You mean that small change triggered the collapse of 5000 banks, destroyed 5/6 to the stock market, caused a drop of 46% in GDP and sent unemployment to 25%. Net exports fell by 1.5% of the fall in GDP, but domestic demand fell the remaining 98.5%. How can you believe the 1.5% caused the problem and ignore the 98.5%. The depression was caused by the FED.
@LibertyDownUnder You really should educate yourself on other research done on the great depression. Sowell was chosen by the republicans during the Gingrich years a speaker, when supply side economics was being pushed onto Americans. They gave him his media coverage, to counter the flow of the black community to the democratic party. Remember he spreads Hoover ideology and has became very rich through the lecture circuit, and book sales, by spreading the free trade ideology.
@louiethegreater, A gree that the Fed caused the crash, But where did you get the 1.5% figure from?
This is from the State dep. site (future.state.gov):
"U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934. More generally, Smoot-Hawley did nothing to foster trust and cooperation among nations in either the political or economic realm during a perilous era in international relations."
@LibertyDownUnder If you agree that the FED caused the depression, than why are you referring me to his video. He does not believe the FED is the culprit, he believes the it was the action of the Hoover and Roosevelt governments attempt to kick start the economy that caused it. The fact is the traditional view that if the FED would have renewed the money supply, it would never have happened. Sowell view is relatively new, it appeared when free trade became the official government policy.
@louiethegreater, just to clarify, the Fed's monetary expansion & then contraction caused the INITIAL crash. Hoover & FDR's interventionist policies caused the depression to last as long as it did.
This is not a new theory. If you look at Henry Morganthou, which worked for FDR, already back then he argued that all their efforts made no positive impact and just raised their debt levels.
@LibertyDownUnder Yes, the FED not renewing the money supply was the cause to the initial crash. A mad rush for cash to pay the margin calls, produced the runs on the banks. The FED not renewing the money supply also cause the deepening of the depression. FED Banks bought up mega businesses for pennies on the dollar, so it was in their interest to delay recovery. Cannot understand why you would choose to believe that a small bump in tariffs on 1.3% of GNP caused the deepening.
@LibertyDown Well, the theory was out there but it was very obscure. It was not until the late 1960s, when free trade, and neo-liberalism became the dominant political ideology that the distortion of facts became popular. Austrian Economic Theory needs tariffs to be the villain, they will do anything to justify the de-industrialization of the country. Globalization needs a tariff free world, so equilibrium in wages, lifestyles can occur. Interdependence in nation states is the next step.
@LibertyDownUnder I,me talking about exports relative to US GNP you are talking about world trade.I am talking about the US economy not the global economy.
@LibertyDownUnder imports made up 4% of the U.S, GDP in 1930. Smoot - Hawley applied to one third of that 4%. OK now 1/3 or ( 33.33 X .04 = 1.33 ) the 1.33 rounded off is 1.3% of GDP. You are attempting to convince me that the Smoot - Hawley Tariff caused the collapse of the U.S. economy. You continue to believe that a tariff applied to such a small part of the GDP (1.33%) sustained the depression. You completely miss the point that imports was only 4% of GDP.
@LibertyDownUnder Think of it like this if exports dropped by 100% that would only represent 4% of the U.S -- GNP in 1930. Even using your numbers exports would only represent 2.4% of the U.S. -- GNP.
@louiethegreater, the flow on effects of a collapse in imports & Exports would be devastating to both GDP and GNP.
Your analysis is over simplifying the issue and looking at single figures on a chart.
For example if I have a factory that needs to import raw materials (lets say copper), my operation would be wiped out over night and so will all my contribution to GDP & my staff's salaries.
@LibertyDownUnder Yes if your industries import needs just happen to fall inside the 4% that would be a problem, but the chances of that happening is as great as winning the lottery. But you should consider that in 1929 we were a self sufficient nation. We made the products here and consumed them here. Trade was a insignificant part of our GNP, that is why blaming Smoot-Hawley is so laughable.
@blake1617 You're right he himself isn't a slave however he is the descendant of slaves & that can never be discounted. Although blacks do have the freedom of choice rarely have those choices not been guided by slavery in some form Education/integration/diet/religion/ etc all have been influenced by slavery. I often find it amusing when the beneficiary of the oppressor speaks on the plight of the oppressed. For a black person in this country whatever they think you are to them u will always be
Greed is the sickness of an insatiable ego. The truly greedy person is never satisfied, never happy. Better to take what you need and leave the rest, which makes for a happier life.
I think a better summary is provided by Jim Robbery "enlightened self interest. Not profiting at the expense of others, but at the service of others." I think this is an important distinction to make, but kudos to prof Williams for bringing up a controversial subject
A good example of why greed is necessary, after the New York example, would be to explore the food queues of say, the Soviet Union, where there was theoretically no greed. No greed....? Everyone waits in line for bread for three days. Eventually the shop brings in Lithuanian made stockings and everyone can buys them in the hope of trading that for bread...because there is still no bread.
Or maybe talk about the Soviet TVs nailed together just to get them made. Screws? Care? Takes too long!
I agree in principle, but have a hard time calling genuine self interest greed. Not to get into semantics but the two seem detached. Greed is wanting more than you need or could need. Self interest is not greed except in the foggiest, morally pretentious veiw.
And as Milton Freidman said "who's greedy? I am not greedy. It's the other guy that's greedy". OWS is just as greedy as Wall Street and Washington. They are pissed off because they are not as effective at stealing your money as Wall Street and Washington.
Essentially Christianity works under the same rules - if you want to go to heaven, you must do good to others. Now - how Obama's pastor can preach robbery (redistribution - sounds better) is incomprehensible...
@grraadd oh is that how it works? I thought in Christianity held that any kind of reprehensible behavior is fine as long as one is in a constant state of begging forgiveness. No?
@fzqlcs I don't think so, but some people may - medieval kings usually believed what you are saying :-) Also - all rulers love religion - when it's useful... so state religions or government-run religions are usually bad.
Check watch?v=_m_VlGPBfn8 - interesting points on religion generally.
Its ironic to hear how Mr. Williams speaks about Adam Smith & the admiration he has for him, when Mr. Williams would've probably been bought, sold & considered chattel by Adam Smith if he were around during that time. Mr. Williams could've gotten killed for reading much less thinking.
A black man in this country might not get all he pays for but damn sure pays for all he gets!
@hesh2 It makes it that much more impressive that he chooses to evaluate the principles instead of worrying about the person enunciating those principles. Walter E Williams is indeed a brilliant and intellectually honest fellow.
@hesh2 Aren't you aware that Dr. Williams has never been a slave?
By the way, Adam Smith opposed slavery on both Moral and Economic grounds, as he mentions in his Wealth of Nations. However, for Williams to reject the ideas of Adam Smith if he had owned slaves, Williams would be acknowledging that every black's life has been guided by a "legacy of slavery" rather than by individual choices. As many of William's books display, the problems of black society stem from beyond the effects of slavery.
In response to all of you trusting in government food safety, I could never trust a bureaucrat to tell me what foods are safe and what foods are not safe. Take a look at the refined carbohydrate industry thriving with government permission (licensing). . . so many products invented to create sugar addictions. Cancer lives on sugar. Homo sapiens are mainly carnivores who ate nuts, fruit and roots, etc as a supplement when they couldn't catch something - millions of years ago.
In response to all of you trusting in government food safety, I could never trust a bureaucrat to tell me what foods are safe and what foods are not safe. Take a look at the refined carbohydrate industry thriving with government permission (licensing). . . so many products invented to create sugar addictions. Cancer lives on sugar. Homo sapiens are mainly carnivores who ate nuts, fruit and roots, etc as a supplement when they couldn't catch something - millions of years ago.
The stupidity of the notion that all greed is negative is probably the most misunderstood faucet in capitalism. The computer you're utilizing right now is only affordable because solid state chemist, physicist, engineers, investors, & programmers, in its purest form, ran on greed to create computers that at one time only governments could afford, into something the masses could afford. Oh yes, what government institution or communist society has given the masses such great innovation?
@1czelaya surely concentration camps (or work camps in USSR) were suitable for masses and cheap (free to join) too ;-)
And look at propaganda machine - great innovation of American fascist state used by many others through the years and in use till now all over the world. That's a success story!
New York thanks Walter for his condescension. Thank God not many people live in the New York area that might want to vote Republican or choose Conservativism.
@sheepOG: What is that to me, so long as I'm not the one being stlolen from & I am the recipient of the gov't largesse, from the perspective of greee & selfishness taking gov't handouts makes perfect sense. So long as I keep voting for politicians who do such things, I won't have to work. Like they say, "Vote Democrat, it's easier then working."
@VictorLepanto Well, to a non-libertarian recipient it may be nothing, but I'm quite certain that there are very few people who call themselves libertarian, who would want somebody or something to steal for them. That's why there's the non-aggression principle.
@sheepOG: Libertarianism & greed are 2 different issues. Whether or not libertarianism principles are the best principles for managing a modern society, those principles can be be defended on various grounds. This video celebrates "greed." The issue I'm raising is if a defense or greed is the basis for defending libertarianism. A person doesn't only start a business out of mere avarice.
Many businesses are eager to get gov't contracts, they bring in lots of money.
@666or999: Actually, the gov't is a hightly efficient thief. If try to steal on my own initiative, I would be liable to be arrested on under backwards "reactionary" laws. A good "progressive" gov't can set up a bureaucracy to do all my stealing for me.
You are exactly right, why not seek gov't handouts, but your fatal flaw in thinking is that the gov't handouts and subsidies should not be available. Libertarians don't blame the businesses or people that stand in line for the handouts, thats just human nature, we blame the government and politicians that are willing to give the handout.
@VictorLepanto Seeking handouts is a roundabout way of seeking to take the property of others. Selfishness or, put differently, self-interest requires the utilization of your skill or ability to produce in order for you to gain the desired reward. The competing concepts are production vs theft. Libertarians see this clearly. What fails is the notion of the common good. I am sure you and I could not even agree as to what that is.
@VictorLepanto Seeking handouts is a roundabout way of seeking to take the property of others. Selfishness or, put differently, self-interest requires the utilization of your skill or ability to produce in order for you to gain the desired reward. The competing concepts are production vs theft. Libertarians see this clearly. What fails is the notion of the common good. I am sure you and I could not even agree as to what that is.
@VictorLepanto Greed is not a vice; it is a motivation, like pleasure seeking or even hunger. An executive at McDonalds is greedy and so is a thief, but while the former makes money by selling stuff that people want, the latter gets money through force or deception. So it is not greed, it is the means by which one acquires things; through force and deception? (As thieves and governments use) or through peaceful, voluntary trade? Libertarians are very clear on which they prefer.
Greed is not the problem. Corporations and Fascism are the Problem. In the end, everything can be attributed accurately to the formation of the State, and the idea that Humans can externalized altruism through coercion to someone else to adjudicate themselves from personal responsibility. It's the externalization of guilt based upon false morality that continues this cycle of idiocy. Understand what Morality is and the problem essentially solves itself.
What a sick human. Answer to his question, New York would have all the beef they wanted without the giant beef producers. The beef would be much healthier to consume, the cattle would be raised in a natural progression instead of a feed lot. They would not be fed growth hormones, and protein from animal sources. We would never have heard of mad cow disease.These intellectuals are really repulsive people.
Thats the dumbest comment Ive read in a while. Where is all this beef going to come from then? You expect it to magically appear in New York? We dont have one of those replicators like on Star Trek you fool. Your comment sounds like it is from someone with ZERO real world experience.
@louiethegreater New York MIGHT have all the beef they wanted without giant beef producers, but it would have much of anything at all if it were all dependent on charity, rather than the profit motive. The healthier beef is available already, but it costs much more, thus the demand for it isn't as high. Also your way requires much MUCH more land, if you care about the environment. You start and end your comment with insults, then fill your comment with irrelevant material.
@KayamaTaker The reason the healthier beef cost more is because the giant beef industry is willing to poison the consumer in order to make a few more bucks a head. Feedlot cattle fed grain from cradle to butcher's block is not healthy. Actually the only reason that practice can work at all is through the use of antibiotics. No, I am afraid your zeal to defend greed is also defending the right to kill folks for profit. Beef in itself isn't bad, but beef for cattle raised in an 1/2 acre feedlot is
@louiethegreater Food is safer now than at any time in history in large part to the use of this thing called science so food producers can make food tastier and safer - go figure.
@FrankiePoker Food in the U.S was kept safe by the activity of the U.S.D.O.A. It is being compromised no by the activity of corporate mouth pieces, like Williams, Friedman, and Sowell.
@louiethegreater The USDOA has about 100,000 employees, but there are about 5 fold more restaurants in the US. If every DOA employee was an inspector, all of them, not a single accountant or administrator, or paper pusher, there still wouldn't be enough to inspect all restaurants, much less every farm, cattle ranch, chicken coop, farmers market, grocery store, import, and packing factory. The industry is largely self regulating because there is financial incentive to do so.
@louiethegreater Lets say that beef industry produces poisonous beef(doesn't matter is it true or false for now),nobody is forcing you to buy that product,since obviously you know that it's bad,government could force them to make more expensive "non poisoned" beef or force them out of business,but why,Don't like it don't buy it,simple.
@olhsaoagpaigfbp No,It is the responsibility of Government to keep a countries food supply safe. Bet you support smoking bans, but are willing to allow people to be poisoned by the food industry. Regulation is the answer, William is little more than a libertarian mouth piece attempting to force the laissez-faire free markets on the american people. I really don't know what Williams political ideology is, but he sure sounds like libertarian dogma to me.
@louiethegreater Love how you slam him for his dogma, but never address any of his premises or conclusions. You are slamming him for being an intellectual, but everything you say is "I know better than him, or you, or consumers". You and I are done professionally.
@louiethegreater At what point do you draw the line? If the government's job is to protect the food supply, full stop, then an agent has every right to come into your home and dictate when you must throw out certain foods, what you can and cannot eat and how things should be cooked. Besides, why on earth would the "food industry" want to poison customers?
@kev3d The DOA has kept Americas food supply safe. I never heard anyone say anything about coming into peoples houses and policing food. Only those non thinkers runs to the extremes, attempting to make a point.
@louiethegreater@louiethegreater Which part of the food supply? They cannot be everywhere at all times. And farmers markets and home gardening are hardly regulated at all, yet, despite their popularity, when was the last time you heard of anyone getting sick from buying from a farmers market? It almost never happens yet you want to expand the agency (with what money, I wonder) because you seem to think the beef industry "poisons" people.
@louiethegreater And don't be so sure about the govt staying out of the way of people's personal eating habits. Some schools have banned home-brought lunches. San Francisco attempted to ban happy meals. NYC attempted banned salt. Raw food stores have been raided and so on. It has gone so far beyond simple food inspection, to actual dictating how people should live. One has to wonder what the next step in govt. control will be.
Government has always attempted to control the ignorance of the masses. Happy Meals should not be fed to children as their staple food. Anytime parents do not consider the health of their children than government will attempt to legislate that activity on behalf of the child. If citizens were more responsible, than government would not have to legislate. Child restraining devices, seat belt, mandatory auto insurance, soon it will be texting while driving, or talking on a cell phone while drivin
@louiethegreater The ignorance of the masses? There it is. That is the hubris which oppresses man. First of all, there are no "masses". People are not algae colonies, they are individuals. Some of whom make unwise choices, but those are THEIR choices. Not mine, nor yours and not the government's. Why must people conform to the government's vision of utopia? How about you let people make their own choices and mind your own fucking business.
@kev3d Well, in spite of your desire to see the great individualism posture. You are a part of society, and you are part of the government that imposes laws on us. If you want something to whine about, why don't you complain about the government removing protective tariffs, encouraging outsourcing, de-industrialization of our manufacturing, globalization, the new world order, NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, The grab for american privacy rights, the use of SS Numbers to track citizens.
@louiethegreater American privacy rights? What could be more private than people's eating habits? And Protective tariffs? If I want to buy French wine, Australian beef, Colombian Coffee, then that is my business. The government has far too many "protective" tariffs anyway. Sugar, for instance, was made so expensive (to protect domestic corn syrup) that the Brachs candy company had to move its operations outside the US.
@kev3d Branches moved in pursuit of the race to the bottom, the same as the rest of our manufacturing that really employed people did. The are chasing Hershey move to the cheap free trade zone labor of Mexico. I'me not objective them moving to Mexico, but if they make it in Mexico sell it in Mexico. American labor cannot compete with cheap third world labor.
@louiethegreater Do you believe in free speech? Free access to ideas? Freedom of association? Freedom to enter mutually voluntary contracts? Freedom to travel openly?
You might be inclined to say yes, but is it not inconsistent to then say that the government must restrict the rights of others from their voluntary purchasing habits? If someone wants to buy a mexican coke with mexican sugar or an american coke with american corn syrup how is that any of your business?
@kev3d I agree, people should be free to buy from whomever they choose. But american have the right to impose tariffs on that Mexican Coke if that is in the interest of job creation in the U.S. You must adore NAFTA, because after NAFTA, G.M. became the largest employer in Mexico, instead of Ohio, Michigan, ect. Alexander Hamilton passed the first tariff laws 8 years after he signed the Constitution. As a result of that the U.S. became a great manufacturing economy.
@louiethegreater Then that is not a right because tariffs are a cost imposed from some other body to support some other special interest. That is like saying "People have the right to free speech...as long as they agree with the government." I question your sense of freedom when special interest's and government's "rights" to dictate how others should buy and sell supersedes the right of the individual to make his or her own decision.
@kev3d Absolutely WRONG, Tariffs are a means of leveling the playing field, of developed economies of the west from being decimated by multinational corporations, forcing the race to the bottom. Tariff have nothing to do with free speech, do not attempt to associate the two. Tariffs simply give domestic industries of a fighting chance against those who wish to manufacture in the third world and export the products to developed economies, thus destroying the economy they sell in.
@louiethegreater Then why doesn't New York impose tariffs on oranges from Florida to protect a greenhouse based orange grove outside Manhattan? The US is a large free trade zone (due to the interstate commerce clause) and it has worked out very well. It has also worked out well for nations like Hong Kong and Singapore. Your arguments are based on sensationalism and not fact.
@louiethegreater And by the way, what a horrible, defeatist attitude; "American labor cannot compete with cheap third world labor." You are assuming that American labor must try to do the same as a cheap foreign counterpart; if there is a t-shirt factory in Mexico then there must be American t-shirt makers out of job. This is a fallacy because no one is permanently slotted into any job or industry.
@kev3d That is exactly what I believe, if Japan makes cars sold in the U.S., than Ameican labor who builds cars is unemployed, that includes t-shirts. You are a globalist not an American, you would just as soon see a Chinese employed as one of your own countrymen. Tell me would you trade your american citizenship in for a global one?
@louiethegreater Well considering, my parents are from two different countries, I have lived in 4 nations and worked in a dozen others, I must be a "globalist". But again, you assume that jobs are one for one and once a car maker always a car maker. The fact is careers are dynamic, fluid and should not be seen as finite commodities. And my "countrymen"? I support the best, regardless of nationalist or racial delusions.
@kev3d It is apparent you are a globalist. Actually you should not have citizenship in any nation. Your parents failed to teach you the fundamentals of patriotism, nationalism, and warn you of the hazards of globalization, and the NWO. Your parents probably taught you that wealth created off the backs of third world peasants was completely acceptable. Start a business outsource jobs to cheap labor markets, and use the West as retail only; am I correct?
@louiethegreater NWO? Tin foil hat time! No, what my parents and experience has told me is that people in the third world like having money and if they can sell a product that I want, we can come to a mutually beneficial agreement. In the broadest sense, free trade, by definition, means people acting freely. Some win, some lose and things evolve with the best, most efficient and most innovative techniques and products usually coming out ahead.
@kev3d No, you are a globalist, you would welcome a NWO, because you hold no loyalty to any nation. You really have a through brainwashing, Friedman has done the job on you. Allowing the third world to feed off the American economy is not beneficial to the segment of the economy that labors for a living. You are just sit in a classroom long enough to have all common sense trained out of your thinking. You are completely willing to have society divided into winners and losers.
@louiethegreater I hold loyalty to the rights of the individual. Yes, there are winners and losers, so what? Do you think the Government should have bailed out the horse drawn coach industry? You want an intelligent designer government, a god in washington to dictate trade between people and nations. I believe in evolution. I believe in freedom and yes, I believe in a profit and loss system.
@kev3d You might believe in the rights of the individual business person, but you do not believe in the right of citizens inside a nation state to decide their own future. If you did you would understand that tariffs are to protect domestic industries for low wage exploited economies like Communist China. While you claim to believe in individual freedom you gladly embrace investment in Communism and the concept of planned economies.
@louiethegreater Yes I do believe in INDIVIDUAL rights, see how that works? I don't believe in 51% oppressing the 49% by simple majority vote. Secondly, have you actually been to China? I have, 5 times. In the major cities you will find Coke and KFC and McDonalds and Apple and Microsoft and other western and Japanese brands. The state may be "communist", but the nation as a whole is not, and they have done a good job of embracing markets.
@kev3d So you believe that markets trumps political ideology. You should know that Communist China is still Communist China. You are self deceived, if you believe China did anything but offer its peasant workers to multinationals as cheap labor, in order to attract western investment. The communist have figured out that people like you are willing to throw peasant factory labor under the bus, in order to gain a few more bucks in profits. You ignore any form of worker protections or rights.
@louiethegreater The numbers state otherwise; tens of millions of chinese, along with indians, south east asians and increasingly, south americans, are being lifted out of poverty and forming a new middle class. So yes, markets, which address the needs and wants of the individual, DO trump political ideology, which are very often responsible for prohibition, wars and violations of rights. Do they have a long way to go? Sure, but growth is often painful.
@kev3d There is no actual evidence that dismantling the american economy, and destroying the american middle class is in any way improving the lives of third world subsistence labor. The top 10% of these economies are being well rewarded, just like in the US. The wealth in these economies is no more trickling down than it is in the U.S. The top 1% in the U.S. wealth has increased by 275% since 1970 but the workers wages have stayed flat. Those statements you make are soooooo hypocritical.
@louiethegreater "Flat" wages compared to what? Look at the average american; Starbucks, Iphones, Lap Tops, Cable, Flat Panel TVs, better cars...hardly poor. And naturally, you are confusing terms; subsistence labor, by definition, works for subsistence, not in a factory or retail. And if the lot of the average Chinese or Indian or Vietnamese is NOT being improved, who is buying the hundreds of millions of cell phones in those countries and for what?
@louiethegreater Another privacy issue is smoking. Why can you not smoke in a restaurant or bar in many cities anymore? Is it not the private business owners and patron's choice? And de-industrialization? Unions are Detroit, along with Washington's bailouts, not free trade. And as far as encouraging outsourcing, the US has one of the highest corporate income taxes in the world, right? Thank goodness they outsource to help keep products cheap as possible.
@kev3d Actually, allowing Europe and Japan to feed off the U.S. Auto Industry is the problem with Detroit. Labor unions only forced the Robber Barons to share the wealth with the people who produced it for them. Over 25 years Japan bought 400,000 cars off the US we bought 40 million off the Japanese. That is because they subsidized their auto industries, and laid a 50% on U.S. made cars. While we gave them free access to our markets, and lost market shares of our domestic industries.
@louiethegreater . Who cares if foreign entities are subsidized? If Japanese taxpayers want to partially cover the cost, why should the government punish the consumer by slapping a tariff on imports? Hardly "free access". And of course the US auto industry is subsidized; with ridiculous bailouts, and in a faustian pact with Mephistopheles, they are forced to build cars that no one wants like the Chevy Volt.
@kev3d Where is it carved in stone that "free access" should be given to those who choose to sell in the U.S. economy below manufacturing costs. One of the few intelligent things Ronald Reagan did was tariff large Japanese motorcycles being sold in the US. below manufacturing costs, with the intent of destroying Harley Davidson. With the 50% tariff he saved Harley, the same could have been accomplished in the 60s when Sony flooded the U.S. with electronics sold below manufacturing cost.
@louiethegreater If Harley wasn't able to adapt then they should have gone under. What Reaghan did was make American consumers pay more money for stuff they didn't have to. Those decisions don't help the economy, they hurt it. Read "Free to Choose", its got a good chapter on international trade.
@ecuadmail A little reading you desperately need.
1- Bad Samaritans - by Ha-Joon Chang
2- "Free Trade, Protectionism and the Founding Fathers" -by Edward Bowlin lll
3- " Free Trade Doesn't Work"- by Ian Fletcher
4- " Myths of Free Trade"- by Sherrod Brown
You really should avoid Friedman he is little more than a mouth piece for multinationals who fund the Hoover Institute. Free trade works fine inside nation states, but will only produce a global wages, lifestyles, ethnicity.
@louiethegreater Rights are not carved in stone either; so shall we also restrict speech, free assembly, free press and others? If someone wants to lose money on selling below cost then that is their choice, just as it is the choice of anyone who wants to buy from them. Basically you are saying the government should force people to pay more or buy something they not otherwise buy. This affects the poor and small businesses the most, by the way.
@kev3d You are very naive, the reason foreign businessmen choose to sell below manufacturing costs is to destroy the domestic manufacturer, and control the market themselves. It is the responsibility of government to protect the industries providing jobs for the citizens of a country. The U.S. produced the greatest middle class in history through the protectionist policies, enacted by Hamilton. When free trade became the dominant ideology in Washington American workers began to loose.
@louiethegreater If "protectionist" policies produced wealth then North Korea ought to be swimming in cash and resources. No, the middle class in America was created because, at the time, there were few federal, state and local regulations aside from property rights and business and industry flourished. You are also completely ignoring the ideas of Jefferson and Madison, who were opposed to "protective" tariffs.
@kev3d Yes Jefferson supported a agrarian society, he loved the peace and harmony that came from working the land. The problem evolves when one realizes that Jefferson was not the one working the land, it was the descendants of black Africans forced from their homeland into slavery that was working the soil. If Jefferson would have had his way the U.S. would never have developed into a great manufacturing nation, and the middle class would have never evolved.
@louiethegreater Once again, you assume the middle class was this thing that was invented by government action, when it was free people acting freely. Yes, Jefferson was a disappointment with Slavery; most of the founding fathers were. But an error in one area does not diminish their ideas in another. After all, I don't bring up Hamilton's preferred method of conflict resolution to discredit tariffs, do I? The fact is, tariffs are a form of government control, of force.
@kev3d Yes, you do embrace winners and losers, you would be perfectly happy with a two tiered system of rich and poor. I am not opposed to automation, you horse drawn carriage scenario doesn't pass muster. No, I don't believe government is the answer, but I also do not believe that invisible hand theory works either. Yes it is the function of government to dictate trade policy, and act in behalf of the citizens of a country. I trust in the fact that $15.00 hr. labor cannot compete with .50/hr la
@louiethegreater No, not a two tiered "system". People are not subject to such simple classifications. Everyone is an individual and I want everyone, everywhere, so long as they do not violate the life, liberty or property of another, to be able to earn as much as his talents allow, or, if he is not interested in making money, then to do whatever he wants. You also think so little of american labor that they are too stupid to find ways to innovate and compete beyond mere pay.
@ You believe exactly in a two tiered system, of haves and have nots. You would outsource every low skilled manufacturing industry that actually employ people. Your words suggests that all Americans fit into the cognitive elite status. What you don't realize is that all Americans are not equipped by nurture or nature to claim the third wave information age jobs. How will the market structure that segment of society. The answer is exactly what is happening today, half of all Americans in poverty.
@louiethegreater First of all, "half of all americans" of NOT in poverty. Secondly, those that are poor are comparatively rich to much of the world's poor. Thirdly, the current woes and stubbornly high unemployment were caused by government interference in the housing and banking markets, which led to a speculative bubble and inflated prices, which crashed. Fourthly, how dumb do you think americans are?
@kev3d You are wrong half of all Americans are in poverty or near poverty. The social programs in place to support them, is what is bankrupting the country. After the Clinton GATT rounds of the 90s allowed the U.S. Fortune 500 Companies to leave the country, manufacture in the third world and ship back the the U.S. free of charge. Those actions coupled with the desire of the cold war presidents to allow the economies of the Asian Tigers and Japan to feed off the american economy is the cause.
@louiethegreater Yes, social entitlements, as well as excessive military spending, bailouts and confusing tax policy have drained the nation's coffers, but once again, government, not trade, is to blame. The US has one of the highest corporate income taxes and an extremely complex regulatory structure. Steve Jobs himself said it was easier to build a factory in China than the US.
@kev3d Steve Jobs was a typical profiteer of the free market mentality. That included (among other things) manufacturing in the third world and using the west as retail only. Even a small child could figure that out. Jobs was a globalist, little wonder you admire him, but to thinking Americans he and his ilk are the destructive forces behind the plight of the protectionist economy created by the founders. Whose example served all citizens of a great nation so well for so many years, until FT.
@louiethegreater Steve Jobs was a great visionary, an innovator and one of the greatest minds of the 20th and 21st centuries...and I don't even own a Mac! He employed tens of thousands all over the world, mostly in America but more important than that, he helped create things that people wanted. Along with Microsoft, Cisco, IBM and a handful of others, Apple created a revolution of peaceful commerce, technological innovation and information exchange.
-some development and structure. I'm not an econamist, so I don't know too well. I generally think it's over the top and an over emphasised, negative dehumanising way to be. I want us to head to a rationalised society where problems are reasoned without ego or emotionally bias agenda and knowledge is encouraged and people have respect for other humans, not based on faith but because it's the good thing to do.
Hellsconsort 1 week ago
I don't agree. I would like to believe and also rationally form the opinion that human care and respect need to be instilled for us to survive, there are exceptional individuals not motivated by money and possesion, freegans, charity workers, off griders, scientists and teachers choosing their field/where they want to be over better payed jobs. Then on the other hand there are those that choose paths they don't want to be at because they need money. Greed in the form of consumerism might fund-
Hellsconsort 1 week ago
Not that I don't think Williams is great but Ayn Rand said this 65 years ago and more aptly called it "rational self-interest".
ace625 1 week ago
Your figure does not contradict mine, you give exports to Europe, then declare that is world trade. Do you consider Europe the world?
louiethegreater 4 weeks ago
Brilliant, as always.
RCWorks 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
Objectivism or pursing your own interests ends when criminal activity begins. The problem is that we do not practice the rule of law. We have the wealthy who control the law and the law which controls the masses. When people defraud millions of dollars causing anguish for thousands of people get caught they go to a cushy country club prison. fraud is a violent crime, its hurts people. Someone poor gets caught with some weed and they get thrown into hard core prison with violent criminals. ???
grecorivera941 1 month ago
@grecorivera941, most poverty is a result of Govenrment attempts to 'help' the community.
If you have some time, this is a clip from 1980 called "Good Intentions" presented by the same guy, Walter E Williams:
/watch?v=P1r-r6iLBEI
LibertyDownUnder 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder I know but it does not change the fact that the wealthy are able to get away with more. If greed were punished when it obviously rears its head through criminal activities instead of often times being rewarded as with the wholesale extortion of the government by the banking industry. I am not looking for more programs I am looking for the ones we have to be able to act without being so strongly influenced by wealthy factions.
grecorivera941 1 month ago
@grecorivera941, you cannot get corporations and banks away from a big spending Government, it's inevitable. The only way to fight this is to shrink the broken programs and cut spending.
For Government to "punish" greed, as you suggest, it would mean that someone in Government would be powerful enough to decide what's considered greed and what's not.
I've never met anyone that's smart enough or incoruptable enough to regulate the entire economy.
LibertyDownUnder 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder You don't have to judge what greed is if you just prosecute the actual criminal offenses that exist. I understand that we are to the point were there needs to be a social revolution. There is an inertia of corruption within the revolving door between corporations, lobbyists and government and it won't change until a major populist campaign to push out absolutely every incumbent or insider takes place. Libertarians will need to have congressional candidates in every state.
grecorivera941 1 month ago
@grecorivera941, I agree that there should congressional candidates in every state
But at this stage just about everyone still expects the Government fix everything instead of looking for candidates that advocate smaller Government.
LibertyDownUnder 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder All that is needed is for the U.S. to return the the protectionist economy that made her great.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater, if protectionism worked so well, then why isn't North Korea thriving?
The protectionism in 19th century US was minor compared to today's taxations and import restrictions.
LibertyDownUnder 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder Well, that is a no brainer, protectionism is eager to trade, protectionism is not isolationism. Hamilton did not advocate isolationism he simply passed tariff laws to fund government, and protect domestic industry. As a result of that foresight America became a great manufacturing economy, produced the greatest middle class in history. The wealth was spread across the whole of society, through wage inflation and union activity. Today wealth is being concentrated into a few.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder Are you aware that the richest 400 people in america owns more wealth than the bottom 50% of the country. Is that what you call capitalism, I hardly think so. I am a capitalist, and I assure you free markets work inside nation states. Free markets brings wages and family incomes to equilibrium, that is a great concept inside a nation state, but it is a terrible notion relative to the 4 billion Asians who will work for pennies a day. It has only destroyed the U.S. economy.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater, well I agere with most of that, but just not with the solution you're suggesting.
As I said, the tarriffs back then were tiny compared to today's taxes. And the US still imported a lot more than it exported back then.
If you want to go back to the tarrifs rates from the 19th century, AND go back to the same level of industry regulations, taxes and Government spending - most conservatives & Libertarians would have no problem with this.
LibertyDownUnder 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder Tariffs are, and have been historically low since the1940s. Actually the period of time the U.S. decided to rebuild the economies of W. Europe and Japan under the Marshall Plan. That was accomplished by allowing them to feed off the american economy. Even by those standards the U.S. economy was so large that we still ran merchandise trade surpluses. Actually the U.S. ran trade surpluses from 1893 until 1967. In the late 60 when globalization became mainstream the U.S. economy
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater, ok, but it doesn't seem like we disagree here...
Or did I miss something?
Tarrifs are lower today, but regulations & taxes are higher.
LibertyDownUnder 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder Well, I agree we are not in that much disagreement here. But you must admit we are in a different world today. More regulation is needed because more science is available today. The welfare system should be eliminated for able bodied people, however full employment, a job for every able bodied american must be the alternative to welfare. When jobs are available than social programs can be phased out. That is not the condition today low skilled assembly jobs are outsourced.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater, if you listen to the CEOs of the companies moving overseas, most of them say the same thing. Wages are NOT the reason for them leaving.
It's them drowning in regulations, workforce requirements, the fact that they have become the punching bag of every law firm in the US, combing through thousands of pages of laws and finding minor breaches and scamming millions out of them. Healthcare mandates cost GM more than steel does.
You can't create jobs like that.
LibertyDownUnder 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder Who could you say that after learning that GE paid on taxes last year.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater, there is no connection between what I wrote to GE's tax bill.
GE is one of the most well connected corporations out there, with very close ties with the Obama adminstration.
LibertyDownUnder 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder You said taxes and regulation was the reason for leaving the country. How can that be correct if 18,000 major corporations locate in the Cayman Islands and pay no, or little taxes. That is the connection of my statement to your post.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater. Well isn't this proof they are leaving the country due to high taxes?
If they're moving their finances to the Cayman Islands, is this a case for MORE taxes?
I don't follow.
If you have 4 spare minutes, please take a look at this one: /watch?v=hJtMApKsK_E
It's a pretty simple, yet very unpopular explanation.
LibertyDownUnder 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder Well- No, not at all, they are leaving the country for cheap labor, and they want to use the U.S. economy for retail only. Holding their capital offshore while while using the US economy and infrastructure to produce greater wealth for Wall Street is not in the interest of the american people. Tariffs on the products produced by these multinationals is the simple solution. That produces jobs in the U.S. instead of Asia.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater, and what about retaliation from other countries? Wouldn't US exporters be hurt by this? This is what made the great depresion go global, and it sure didn't help the US.
Please watch the clip I sent you, it took me w hile to find it.
LibertyDownUnder 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder No, US exporters would not be damaged, wouldn't we need to have trade surpluses before we would worry about retaliatory tariffs. What manufactured goods so we have surpluses in. Smoot-Hawley had nothing to do with the depression of 1929.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater, I beg to differ: /watch?v=AQQon4tjlSA
LibertyDownUnder 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder You can differ but you are still wrong.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater did you watch it?
LibertyDownUnder 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder The first thing you should understand is that Sowell is a mouthpiece for the industrial supported Hoover Institute. Secondly he is explaining the newly contrived explanation that tariffs cause or deepened the great depression. Sowell spreads the globalist message of Hoover, they give him a forum for the lecture circuit and book sales. He has no clue of the cause of the great depression.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder First of all imports in 1930 was only 4% of GNP. Smoot- Hawley only applied to 1/3 of that, or about 1.3% of GNP. You mean that small change triggered the collapse of 5000 banks, destroyed 5/6 to the stock market, caused a drop of 46% in GDP and sent unemployment to 25%. Net exports fell by 1.5% of the fall in GDP, but domestic demand fell the remaining 98.5%. How can you believe the 1.5% caused the problem and ignore the 98.5%. The depression was caused by the FED.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder You really should educate yourself on other research done on the great depression. Sowell was chosen by the republicans during the Gingrich years a speaker, when supply side economics was being pushed onto Americans. They gave him his media coverage, to counter the flow of the black community to the democratic party. Remember he spreads Hoover ideology and has became very rich through the lecture circuit, and book sales, by spreading the free trade ideology.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater, A gree that the Fed caused the crash, But where did you get the 1.5% figure from?
This is from the State dep. site (future.state.gov):
"U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934. More generally, Smoot-Hawley did nothing to foster trust and cooperation among nations in either the political or economic realm during a perilous era in international relations."
LibertyDownUnder 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder If you agree that the FED caused the depression, than why are you referring me to his video. He does not believe the FED is the culprit, he believes the it was the action of the Hoover and Roosevelt governments attempt to kick start the economy that caused it. The fact is the traditional view that if the FED would have renewed the money supply, it would never have happened. Sowell view is relatively new, it appeared when free trade became the official government policy.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater, just to clarify, the Fed's monetary expansion & then contraction caused the INITIAL crash. Hoover & FDR's interventionist policies caused the depression to last as long as it did.
This is not a new theory. If you look at Henry Morganthou, which worked for FDR, already back then he argued that all their efforts made no positive impact and just raised their debt levels.
LibertyDownUnder 1 month ago
@LibertyDownUnder Yes, the FED not renewing the money supply was the cause to the initial crash. A mad rush for cash to pay the margin calls, produced the runs on the banks. The FED not renewing the money supply also cause the deepening of the depression. FED Banks bought up mega businesses for pennies on the dollar, so it was in their interest to delay recovery. Cannot understand why you would choose to believe that a small bump in tariffs on 1.3% of GNP caused the deepening.
louiethegreater 4 weeks ago
@LibertyDown Well, the theory was out there but it was very obscure. It was not until the late 1960s, when free trade, and neo-liberalism became the dominant political ideology that the distortion of facts became popular. Austrian Economic Theory needs tariffs to be the villain, they will do anything to justify the de-industrialization of the country. Globalization needs a tariff free world, so equilibrium in wages, lifestyles can occur. Interdependence in nation states is the next step.
louiethegreater 4 weeks ago
@louiethegreater, well you still haven't told me where you got the "1.3% of GNP" tarrifs figure from.
The State Department figures show a much bigger impact, as I quoted above.
LibertyDownUnder 4 weeks ago
@LibertyDownUnder I,me talking about exports relative to US GNP you are talking about world trade.I am talking about the US economy not the global economy.
louiethegreater 4 weeks ago
@louiethegreater, why are exports relative to GNP relevant here?
Exports dropped by over 60%, where did you get theis 1.3% from?
LibertyDownUnder 4 weeks ago
@LibertyDownUnder imports made up 4% of the U.S, GDP in 1930. Smoot - Hawley applied to one third of that 4%. OK now 1/3 or ( 33.33 X .04 = 1.33 ) the 1.33 rounded off is 1.3% of GDP. You are attempting to convince me that the Smoot - Hawley Tariff caused the collapse of the U.S. economy. You continue to believe that a tariff applied to such a small part of the GDP (1.33%) sustained the depression. You completely miss the point that imports was only 4% of GDP.
louiethegreater 4 weeks ago
@LibertyDownUnder Think of it like this if exports dropped by 100% that would only represent 4% of the U.S -- GNP in 1930. Even using your numbers exports would only represent 2.4% of the U.S. -- GNP.
louiethegreater 4 weeks ago
@louiethegreater, the flow on effects of a collapse in imports & Exports would be devastating to both GDP and GNP.
Your analysis is over simplifying the issue and looking at single figures on a chart.
For example if I have a factory that needs to import raw materials (lets say copper), my operation would be wiped out over night and so will all my contribution to GDP & my staff's salaries.
LibertyDownUnder 4 weeks ago
@LibertyDownUnder Yes if your industries import needs just happen to fall inside the 4% that would be a problem, but the chances of that happening is as great as winning the lottery. But you should consider that in 1929 we were a self sufficient nation. We made the products here and consumed them here. Trade was a insignificant part of our GNP, that is why blaming Smoot-Hawley is so laughable.
louiethegreater 4 weeks ago
@louiethegreater, well obviously the state department figures do not support this view.
I don't know what else I can add here.
LibertyDownUnder 4 weeks ago
@LibertyDownUnder Actually there is nothing you can add.
louiethegreater 4 weeks ago
I disagree -- the farmer's actions are not "Sacrifices" -- they are trade-offs. Chasing down loose cattle is a cost, not a sacrifice.
thedoctor26 1 month ago
If it weren't for greedy Texas ranchers New York and California would starve to death.
I love this guy.
karozans 1 month ago
@blake1617 You're right he himself isn't a slave however he is the descendant of slaves & that can never be discounted. Although blacks do have the freedom of choice rarely have those choices not been guided by slavery in some form Education/integration/diet/religion/ etc all have been influenced by slavery. I often find it amusing when the beneficiary of the oppressor speaks on the plight of the oppressed. For a black person in this country whatever they think you are to them u will always be
hesh2 1 month ago
Greed is the sickness of an insatiable ego. The truly greedy person is never satisfied, never happy. Better to take what you need and leave the rest, which makes for a happier life.
tanukibrahma 1 month ago
There are those occupy-Wall-Street protestors who decry business greed yet want their college debts forgiven. How is their own greed any better?
Sacratease 1 month ago
Lol damn autocorrect. Jim ROHN
ThisAintKyle 1 month ago
I think a better summary is provided by Jim Robbery "enlightened self interest. Not profiting at the expense of others, but at the service of others." I think this is an important distinction to make, but kudos to prof Williams for bringing up a controversial subject
ThisAintKyle 1 month ago
A good example of why greed is necessary, after the New York example, would be to explore the food queues of say, the Soviet Union, where there was theoretically no greed. No greed....? Everyone waits in line for bread for three days. Eventually the shop brings in Lithuanian made stockings and everyone can buys them in the hope of trading that for bread...because there is still no bread.
Or maybe talk about the Soviet TVs nailed together just to get them made. Screws? Care? Takes too long!
Siegetower 1 month ago
I agree in principle, but have a hard time calling genuine self interest greed. Not to get into semantics but the two seem detached. Greed is wanting more than you need or could need. Self interest is not greed except in the foggiest, morally pretentious veiw.
pablocoon 1 month ago
Ron Paul 2012! or bust.
pablocoon 1 month ago
They just put up a show on Hulu from John Stossel. Episode 96 talks about businesses and greed.
Awesome program. Go watch.
karozans 1 month ago
I think greed is eating those steaks and expecting others to pay for it...Got that you OWS losers??
jamo387 1 month ago 17
@jamo387
Exactly.
Why is it greedy for the 1% to want to keep the money they earned, yet it's not greed to want to steal their money like OWS wants?
TimeWarp66 1 month ago
Its self-interest if I do it. Its greed if you do it.
fzqlcs 1 month ago 8
And as Milton Freidman said "who's greedy? I am not greedy. It's the other guy that's greedy". OWS is just as greedy as Wall Street and Washington. They are pissed off because they are not as effective at stealing your money as Wall Street and Washington.
666sigma 1 month ago
Essentially Christianity works under the same rules - if you want to go to heaven, you must do good to others. Now - how Obama's pastor can preach robbery (redistribution - sounds better) is incomprehensible...
grraadd 1 month ago
@grraadd oh is that how it works? I thought in Christianity held that any kind of reprehensible behavior is fine as long as one is in a constant state of begging forgiveness. No?
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@fzqlcs I don't think so, but some people may - medieval kings usually believed what you are saying :-) Also - all rulers love religion - when it's useful... so state religions or government-run religions are usually bad.
Check watch?v=_m_VlGPBfn8 - interesting points on religion generally.
grraadd 1 month ago
@grraadd Matthew 19:24
allmanjoy 1 month ago
Its ironic to hear how Mr. Williams speaks about Adam Smith & the admiration he has for him, when Mr. Williams would've probably been bought, sold & considered chattel by Adam Smith if he were around during that time. Mr. Williams could've gotten killed for reading much less thinking.
A black man in this country might not get all he pays for but damn sure pays for all he gets!
hesh2 1 month ago
@hesh2 It makes it that much more impressive that he chooses to evaluate the principles instead of worrying about the person enunciating those principles. Walter E Williams is indeed a brilliant and intellectually honest fellow.
jamo387 1 month ago
@hesh2 Aren't you aware that Dr. Williams has never been a slave?
By the way, Adam Smith opposed slavery on both Moral and Economic grounds, as he mentions in his Wealth of Nations. However, for Williams to reject the ideas of Adam Smith if he had owned slaves, Williams would be acknowledging that every black's life has been guided by a "legacy of slavery" rather than by individual choices. As many of William's books display, the problems of black society stem from beyond the effects of slavery.
bake1617 1 month ago
Williams is great. I wouldn't mind if RON PAUL picked him as VP.
SuperSneakySteve 1 month ago
GREED IS GOOD!!
superesterhazy 1 month ago
I like bad people too... they are good ways to test the system. People need to stop hating the players and start hating the game.
deshaebeasley 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In response to all of you trusting in government food safety, I could never trust a bureaucrat to tell me what foods are safe and what foods are not safe. Take a look at the refined carbohydrate industry thriving with government permission (licensing). . . so many products invented to create sugar addictions. Cancer lives on sugar. Homo sapiens are mainly carnivores who ate nuts, fruit and roots, etc as a supplement when they couldn't catch something - millions of years ago.
timberskid 1 month ago
In response to all of you trusting in government food safety, I could never trust a bureaucrat to tell me what foods are safe and what foods are not safe. Take a look at the refined carbohydrate industry thriving with government permission (licensing). . . so many products invented to create sugar addictions. Cancer lives on sugar. Homo sapiens are mainly carnivores who ate nuts, fruit and roots, etc as a supplement when they couldn't catch something - millions of years ago.
timberskid 1 month ago
If Idaho potato farmers and Texas cattle ranchers got up in the morning and started an all day drum circle, we would have so much more.
noontimespender 1 month ago 2
Just as a note: Adam Smith was a decline in economics, Scholastics had it worked out much better.
rumco 1 month ago
The stupidity of the notion that all greed is negative is probably the most misunderstood faucet in capitalism. The computer you're utilizing right now is only affordable because solid state chemist, physicist, engineers, investors, & programmers, in its purest form, ran on greed to create computers that at one time only governments could afford, into something the masses could afford. Oh yes, what government institution or communist society has given the masses such great innovation?
1czelaya 1 month ago 41
@1czelaya Faucet means a device for controlling the flow of liquid from a pipe, you have one attached to your kitchen sink.
utuebmakeustupid 1 month ago
@1czelaya Kim Jong Il invented a table that moves up and down for the perfect writing height....
metzger90 1 month ago
@1czelaya Extremely well spoken, I agree.
HotMustard420 1 month ago
@1czelaya yeah but the goberment invented the internet hERP DERP
siftyfour 1 month ago
@1czelaya surely concentration camps (or work camps in USSR) were suitable for masses and cheap (free to join) too ;-)
And look at propaganda machine - great innovation of American fascist state used by many others through the years and in use till now all over the world. That's a success story!
grraadd 1 month ago
Beautiful. Very well put.
Jazzper79 1 month ago
The best way to defend greed is to remind everyone that it is good because it will stand in the place of violence.
Ravengaurd6 1 month ago
New York thanks Walter for his condescension. Thank God not many people live in the New York area that might want to vote Republican or choose Conservativism.
kroovyandcal 1 month ago
If we are to treat vices like greed or selfishness as virtues, why not seek government hand outs? This the point where libertarianism fails.
As for his farm examples, talk about government subsidies.
VictorLepanto 1 month ago
@VictorLepanto Because the government is a violent entity which steals wealth in order to provide these handouts.
sheepOG 1 month ago 5
@sheepOG: What is that to me, so long as I'm not the one being stlolen from & I am the recipient of the gov't largesse, from the perspective of greee & selfishness taking gov't handouts makes perfect sense. So long as I keep voting for politicians who do such things, I won't have to work. Like they say, "Vote Democrat, it's easier then working."
VictorLepanto 1 month ago
@VictorLepanto Well, to a non-libertarian recipient it may be nothing, but I'm quite certain that there are very few people who call themselves libertarian, who would want somebody or something to steal for them. That's why there's the non-aggression principle.
sheepOG 1 month ago
@sheepOG: Libertarianism & greed are 2 different issues. Whether or not libertarianism principles are the best principles for managing a modern society, those principles can be be defended on various grounds. This video celebrates "greed." The issue I'm raising is if a defense or greed is the basis for defending libertarianism. A person doesn't only start a business out of mere avarice.
Many businesses are eager to get gov't contracts, they bring in lots of money.
VictorLepanto 1 month ago
@VictorLepanto Greed does best when government is at it's weakest.
666or999 1 month ago
@666or999: Actually, the gov't is a hightly efficient thief. If try to steal on my own initiative, I would be liable to be arrested on under backwards "reactionary" laws. A good "progressive" gov't can set up a bureaucracy to do all my stealing for me.
VictorLepanto 1 month ago
@VictorLepanto Ah i'm sorry what i meant by 'greed does best' is that greed has it's best outcome not thgat it's at it's highest efficiency.
666or999 1 month ago
@VictorLepanto
You are exactly right, why not seek gov't handouts, but your fatal flaw in thinking is that the gov't handouts and subsidies should not be available. Libertarians don't blame the businesses or people that stand in line for the handouts, thats just human nature, we blame the government and politicians that are willing to give the handout.
jjrglobal 1 month ago 3
@VictorLepanto Seeking handouts is a roundabout way of seeking to take the property of others. Selfishness or, put differently, self-interest requires the utilization of your skill or ability to produce in order for you to gain the desired reward. The competing concepts are production vs theft. Libertarians see this clearly. What fails is the notion of the common good. I am sure you and I could not even agree as to what that is.
fzqlcs 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VictorLepanto Seeking handouts is a roundabout way of seeking to take the property of others. Selfishness or, put differently, self-interest requires the utilization of your skill or ability to produce in order for you to gain the desired reward. The competing concepts are production vs theft. Libertarians see this clearly. What fails is the notion of the common good. I am sure you and I could not even agree as to what that is.
fzqlcs 1 month ago 2
@VictorLepanto You clearly know little about libertarianism.
californiarednek 1 month ago
@VictorLepanto Greed is not a vice; it is a motivation, like pleasure seeking or even hunger. An executive at McDonalds is greedy and so is a thief, but while the former makes money by selling stuff that people want, the latter gets money through force or deception. So it is not greed, it is the means by which one acquires things; through force and deception? (As thieves and governments use) or through peaceful, voluntary trade? Libertarians are very clear on which they prefer.
kev3d 1 month ago
I have heard this before.
H1TMANactual 1 month ago
Greed is not the problem. Corporations and Fascism are the Problem. In the end, everything can be attributed accurately to the formation of the State, and the idea that Humans can externalized altruism through coercion to someone else to adjudicate themselves from personal responsibility. It's the externalization of guilt based upon false morality that continues this cycle of idiocy. Understand what Morality is and the problem essentially solves itself.
Joe11Blue 1 month ago
@Joe11Blue Obviously my statement is very short and leaving out quite a bit to fit properly here.
Joe11Blue 1 month ago
What a sick human. Answer to his question, New York would have all the beef they wanted without the giant beef producers. The beef would be much healthier to consume, the cattle would be raised in a natural progression instead of a feed lot. They would not be fed growth hormones, and protein from animal sources. We would never have heard of mad cow disease.These intellectuals are really repulsive people.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater
Thats the dumbest comment Ive read in a while. Where is all this beef going to come from then? You expect it to magically appear in New York? We dont have one of those replicators like on Star Trek you fool. Your comment sounds like it is from someone with ZERO real world experience.
jjrglobal 1 month ago
@louiethegreater New York MIGHT have all the beef they wanted without giant beef producers, but it would have much of anything at all if it were all dependent on charity, rather than the profit motive. The healthier beef is available already, but it costs much more, thus the demand for it isn't as high. Also your way requires much MUCH more land, if you care about the environment. You start and end your comment with insults, then fill your comment with irrelevant material.
KayamaTakeru 1 month ago
@KayamaTaker The reason the healthier beef cost more is because the giant beef industry is willing to poison the consumer in order to make a few more bucks a head. Feedlot cattle fed grain from cradle to butcher's block is not healthy. Actually the only reason that practice can work at all is through the use of antibiotics. No, I am afraid your zeal to defend greed is also defending the right to kill folks for profit. Beef in itself isn't bad, but beef for cattle raised in an 1/2 acre feedlot is
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater Food is safer now than at any time in history in large part to the use of this thing called science so food producers can make food tastier and safer - go figure.
FrankiePoker 1 month ago
@FrankiePoker Food in the U.S was kept safe by the activity of the U.S.D.O.A. It is being compromised no by the activity of corporate mouth pieces, like Williams, Friedman, and Sowell.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater Was American food inedible and killing people before the USDOA?
Food is one of the best examples of an industry where the incentives of the sellers and buyers are almost perfectly aligned.
FrankiePoker 1 month ago
@louiethegreater The USDOA has about 100,000 employees, but there are about 5 fold more restaurants in the US. If every DOA employee was an inspector, all of them, not a single accountant or administrator, or paper pusher, there still wouldn't be enough to inspect all restaurants, much less every farm, cattle ranch, chicken coop, farmers market, grocery store, import, and packing factory. The industry is largely self regulating because there is financial incentive to do so.
kev3d 1 month ago
@louiethegreater Lets say that beef industry produces poisonous beef(doesn't matter is it true or false for now),nobody is forcing you to buy that product,since obviously you know that it's bad,government could force them to make more expensive "non poisoned" beef or force them out of business,but why,Don't like it don't buy it,simple.
olhsaoagpaigfbp 1 month ago
@olhsaoagpaigfbp No,It is the responsibility of Government to keep a countries food supply safe. Bet you support smoking bans, but are willing to allow people to be poisoned by the food industry. Regulation is the answer, William is little more than a libertarian mouth piece attempting to force the laissez-faire free markets on the american people. I really don't know what Williams political ideology is, but he sure sounds like libertarian dogma to me.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater Love how you slam him for his dogma, but never address any of his premises or conclusions. You are slamming him for being an intellectual, but everything you say is "I know better than him, or you, or consumers". You and I are done professionally.
KayamaTakeru 1 month ago
@louiethegreater At what point do you draw the line? If the government's job is to protect the food supply, full stop, then an agent has every right to come into your home and dictate when you must throw out certain foods, what you can and cannot eat and how things should be cooked. Besides, why on earth would the "food industry" want to poison customers?
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d The DOA has kept Americas food supply safe. I never heard anyone say anything about coming into peoples houses and policing food. Only those non thinkers runs to the extremes, attempting to make a point.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater @louiethegreater Which part of the food supply? They cannot be everywhere at all times. And farmers markets and home gardening are hardly regulated at all, yet, despite their popularity, when was the last time you heard of anyone getting sick from buying from a farmers market? It almost never happens yet you want to expand the agency (with what money, I wonder) because you seem to think the beef industry "poisons" people.
kev3d 1 month ago
@louiethegreater And don't be so sure about the govt staying out of the way of people's personal eating habits. Some schools have banned home-brought lunches. San Francisco attempted to ban happy meals. NYC attempted banned salt. Raw food stores have been raided and so on. It has gone so far beyond simple food inspection, to actual dictating how people should live. One has to wonder what the next step in govt. control will be.
kev3d 1 month ago
Government has always attempted to control the ignorance of the masses. Happy Meals should not be fed to children as their staple food. Anytime parents do not consider the health of their children than government will attempt to legislate that activity on behalf of the child. If citizens were more responsible, than government would not have to legislate. Child restraining devices, seat belt, mandatory auto insurance, soon it will be texting while driving, or talking on a cell phone while drivin
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater The ignorance of the masses? There it is. That is the hubris which oppresses man. First of all, there are no "masses". People are not algae colonies, they are individuals. Some of whom make unwise choices, but those are THEIR choices. Not mine, nor yours and not the government's. Why must people conform to the government's vision of utopia? How about you let people make their own choices and mind your own fucking business.
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d Well, in spite of your desire to see the great individualism posture. You are a part of society, and you are part of the government that imposes laws on us. If you want something to whine about, why don't you complain about the government removing protective tariffs, encouraging outsourcing, de-industrialization of our manufacturing, globalization, the new world order, NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, The grab for american privacy rights, the use of SS Numbers to track citizens.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater American privacy rights? What could be more private than people's eating habits? And Protective tariffs? If I want to buy French wine, Australian beef, Colombian Coffee, then that is my business. The government has far too many "protective" tariffs anyway. Sugar, for instance, was made so expensive (to protect domestic corn syrup) that the Brachs candy company had to move its operations outside the US.
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d Branches moved in pursuit of the race to the bottom, the same as the rest of our manufacturing that really employed people did. The are chasing Hershey move to the cheap free trade zone labor of Mexico. I'me not objective them moving to Mexico, but if they make it in Mexico sell it in Mexico. American labor cannot compete with cheap third world labor.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater Do you believe in free speech? Free access to ideas? Freedom of association? Freedom to enter mutually voluntary contracts? Freedom to travel openly?
You might be inclined to say yes, but is it not inconsistent to then say that the government must restrict the rights of others from their voluntary purchasing habits? If someone wants to buy a mexican coke with mexican sugar or an american coke with american corn syrup how is that any of your business?
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d I agree, people should be free to buy from whomever they choose. But american have the right to impose tariffs on that Mexican Coke if that is in the interest of job creation in the U.S. You must adore NAFTA, because after NAFTA, G.M. became the largest employer in Mexico, instead of Ohio, Michigan, ect. Alexander Hamilton passed the first tariff laws 8 years after he signed the Constitution. As a result of that the U.S. became a great manufacturing economy.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater Then that is not a right because tariffs are a cost imposed from some other body to support some other special interest. That is like saying "People have the right to free speech...as long as they agree with the government." I question your sense of freedom when special interest's and government's "rights" to dictate how others should buy and sell supersedes the right of the individual to make his or her own decision.
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d Absolutely WRONG, Tariffs are a means of leveling the playing field, of developed economies of the west from being decimated by multinational corporations, forcing the race to the bottom. Tariff have nothing to do with free speech, do not attempt to associate the two. Tariffs simply give domestic industries of a fighting chance against those who wish to manufacture in the third world and export the products to developed economies, thus destroying the economy they sell in.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater Then why doesn't New York impose tariffs on oranges from Florida to protect a greenhouse based orange grove outside Manhattan? The US is a large free trade zone (due to the interstate commerce clause) and it has worked out very well. It has also worked out well for nations like Hong Kong and Singapore. Your arguments are based on sensationalism and not fact.
kev3d 1 month ago
@louiethegreater And by the way, what a horrible, defeatist attitude; "American labor cannot compete with cheap third world labor." You are assuming that American labor must try to do the same as a cheap foreign counterpart; if there is a t-shirt factory in Mexico then there must be American t-shirt makers out of job. This is a fallacy because no one is permanently slotted into any job or industry.
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d That is exactly what I believe, if Japan makes cars sold in the U.S., than Ameican labor who builds cars is unemployed, that includes t-shirts. You are a globalist not an American, you would just as soon see a Chinese employed as one of your own countrymen. Tell me would you trade your american citizenship in for a global one?
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater Well considering, my parents are from two different countries, I have lived in 4 nations and worked in a dozen others, I must be a "globalist". But again, you assume that jobs are one for one and once a car maker always a car maker. The fact is careers are dynamic, fluid and should not be seen as finite commodities. And my "countrymen"? I support the best, regardless of nationalist or racial delusions.
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d It is apparent you are a globalist. Actually you should not have citizenship in any nation. Your parents failed to teach you the fundamentals of patriotism, nationalism, and warn you of the hazards of globalization, and the NWO. Your parents probably taught you that wealth created off the backs of third world peasants was completely acceptable. Start a business outsource jobs to cheap labor markets, and use the West as retail only; am I correct?
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater NWO? Tin foil hat time! No, what my parents and experience has told me is that people in the third world like having money and if they can sell a product that I want, we can come to a mutually beneficial agreement. In the broadest sense, free trade, by definition, means people acting freely. Some win, some lose and things evolve with the best, most efficient and most innovative techniques and products usually coming out ahead.
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d No, you are a globalist, you would welcome a NWO, because you hold no loyalty to any nation. You really have a through brainwashing, Friedman has done the job on you. Allowing the third world to feed off the American economy is not beneficial to the segment of the economy that labors for a living. You are just sit in a classroom long enough to have all common sense trained out of your thinking. You are completely willing to have society divided into winners and losers.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater I hold loyalty to the rights of the individual. Yes, there are winners and losers, so what? Do you think the Government should have bailed out the horse drawn coach industry? You want an intelligent designer government, a god in washington to dictate trade between people and nations. I believe in evolution. I believe in freedom and yes, I believe in a profit and loss system.
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d You might believe in the rights of the individual business person, but you do not believe in the right of citizens inside a nation state to decide their own future. If you did you would understand that tariffs are to protect domestic industries for low wage exploited economies like Communist China. While you claim to believe in individual freedom you gladly embrace investment in Communism and the concept of planned economies.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater Yes I do believe in INDIVIDUAL rights, see how that works? I don't believe in 51% oppressing the 49% by simple majority vote. Secondly, have you actually been to China? I have, 5 times. In the major cities you will find Coke and KFC and McDonalds and Apple and Microsoft and other western and Japanese brands. The state may be "communist", but the nation as a whole is not, and they have done a good job of embracing markets.
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d So you believe that markets trumps political ideology. You should know that Communist China is still Communist China. You are self deceived, if you believe China did anything but offer its peasant workers to multinationals as cheap labor, in order to attract western investment. The communist have figured out that people like you are willing to throw peasant factory labor under the bus, in order to gain a few more bucks in profits. You ignore any form of worker protections or rights.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater The numbers state otherwise; tens of millions of chinese, along with indians, south east asians and increasingly, south americans, are being lifted out of poverty and forming a new middle class. So yes, markets, which address the needs and wants of the individual, DO trump political ideology, which are very often responsible for prohibition, wars and violations of rights. Do they have a long way to go? Sure, but growth is often painful.
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d There is no actual evidence that dismantling the american economy, and destroying the american middle class is in any way improving the lives of third world subsistence labor. The top 10% of these economies are being well rewarded, just like in the US. The wealth in these economies is no more trickling down than it is in the U.S. The top 1% in the U.S. wealth has increased by 275% since 1970 but the workers wages have stayed flat. Those statements you make are soooooo hypocritical.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater "Flat" wages compared to what? Look at the average american; Starbucks, Iphones, Lap Tops, Cable, Flat Panel TVs, better cars...hardly poor. And naturally, you are confusing terms; subsistence labor, by definition, works for subsistence, not in a factory or retail. And if the lot of the average Chinese or Indian or Vietnamese is NOT being improved, who is buying the hundreds of millions of cell phones in those countries and for what?
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d Flat wages compared to living cost and inflation. That is a no brainer.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kev3d Flat wages compared to living cost and inflation. That is a no brainer.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater Another privacy issue is smoking. Why can you not smoke in a restaurant or bar in many cities anymore? Is it not the private business owners and patron's choice? And de-industrialization? Unions are Detroit, along with Washington's bailouts, not free trade. And as far as encouraging outsourcing, the US has one of the highest corporate income taxes in the world, right? Thank goodness they outsource to help keep products cheap as possible.
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d Actually, allowing Europe and Japan to feed off the U.S. Auto Industry is the problem with Detroit. Labor unions only forced the Robber Barons to share the wealth with the people who produced it for them. Over 25 years Japan bought 400,000 cars off the US we bought 40 million off the Japanese. That is because they subsidized their auto industries, and laid a 50% on U.S. made cars. While we gave them free access to our markets, and lost market shares of our domestic industries.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater . Who cares if foreign entities are subsidized? If Japanese taxpayers want to partially cover the cost, why should the government punish the consumer by slapping a tariff on imports? Hardly "free access". And of course the US auto industry is subsidized; with ridiculous bailouts, and in a faustian pact with Mephistopheles, they are forced to build cars that no one wants like the Chevy Volt.
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d Where is it carved in stone that "free access" should be given to those who choose to sell in the U.S. economy below manufacturing costs. One of the few intelligent things Ronald Reagan did was tariff large Japanese motorcycles being sold in the US. below manufacturing costs, with the intent of destroying Harley Davidson. With the 50% tariff he saved Harley, the same could have been accomplished in the 60s when Sony flooded the U.S. with electronics sold below manufacturing cost.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater If Harley wasn't able to adapt then they should have gone under. What Reaghan did was make American consumers pay more money for stuff they didn't have to. Those decisions don't help the economy, they hurt it. Read "Free to Choose", its got a good chapter on international trade.
ecuadmail 1 month ago
@ecuadmail A little reading you desperately need.
1- Bad Samaritans - by Ha-Joon Chang
2- "Free Trade, Protectionism and the Founding Fathers" -by Edward Bowlin lll
3- " Free Trade Doesn't Work"- by Ian Fletcher
4- " Myths of Free Trade"- by Sherrod Brown
You really should avoid Friedman he is little more than a mouth piece for multinationals who fund the Hoover Institute. Free trade works fine inside nation states, but will only produce a global wages, lifestyles, ethnicity.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater Rights are not carved in stone either; so shall we also restrict speech, free assembly, free press and others? If someone wants to lose money on selling below cost then that is their choice, just as it is the choice of anyone who wants to buy from them. Basically you are saying the government should force people to pay more or buy something they not otherwise buy. This affects the poor and small businesses the most, by the way.
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d You are very naive, the reason foreign businessmen choose to sell below manufacturing costs is to destroy the domestic manufacturer, and control the market themselves. It is the responsibility of government to protect the industries providing jobs for the citizens of a country. The U.S. produced the greatest middle class in history through the protectionist policies, enacted by Hamilton. When free trade became the dominant ideology in Washington American workers began to loose.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater If "protectionist" policies produced wealth then North Korea ought to be swimming in cash and resources. No, the middle class in America was created because, at the time, there were few federal, state and local regulations aside from property rights and business and industry flourished. You are also completely ignoring the ideas of Jefferson and Madison, who were opposed to "protective" tariffs.
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d Yes Jefferson supported a agrarian society, he loved the peace and harmony that came from working the land. The problem evolves when one realizes that Jefferson was not the one working the land, it was the descendants of black Africans forced from their homeland into slavery that was working the soil. If Jefferson would have had his way the U.S. would never have developed into a great manufacturing nation, and the middle class would have never evolved.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater Once again, you assume the middle class was this thing that was invented by government action, when it was free people acting freely. Yes, Jefferson was a disappointment with Slavery; most of the founding fathers were. But an error in one area does not diminish their ideas in another. After all, I don't bring up Hamilton's preferred method of conflict resolution to discredit tariffs, do I? The fact is, tariffs are a form of government control, of force.
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d Yes, you do embrace winners and losers, you would be perfectly happy with a two tiered system of rich and poor. I am not opposed to automation, you horse drawn carriage scenario doesn't pass muster. No, I don't believe government is the answer, but I also do not believe that invisible hand theory works either. Yes it is the function of government to dictate trade policy, and act in behalf of the citizens of a country. I trust in the fact that $15.00 hr. labor cannot compete with .50/hr la
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater No, not a two tiered "system". People are not subject to such simple classifications. Everyone is an individual and I want everyone, everywhere, so long as they do not violate the life, liberty or property of another, to be able to earn as much as his talents allow, or, if he is not interested in making money, then to do whatever he wants. You also think so little of american labor that they are too stupid to find ways to innovate and compete beyond mere pay.
kev3d 1 month ago
@ You believe exactly in a two tiered system, of haves and have nots. You would outsource every low skilled manufacturing industry that actually employ people. Your words suggests that all Americans fit into the cognitive elite status. What you don't realize is that all Americans are not equipped by nurture or nature to claim the third wave information age jobs. How will the market structure that segment of society. The answer is exactly what is happening today, half of all Americans in poverty.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater First of all, "half of all americans" of NOT in poverty. Secondly, those that are poor are comparatively rich to much of the world's poor. Thirdly, the current woes and stubbornly high unemployment were caused by government interference in the housing and banking markets, which led to a speculative bubble and inflated prices, which crashed. Fourthly, how dumb do you think americans are?
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d You are wrong half of all Americans are in poverty or near poverty. The social programs in place to support them, is what is bankrupting the country. After the Clinton GATT rounds of the 90s allowed the U.S. Fortune 500 Companies to leave the country, manufacture in the third world and ship back the the U.S. free of charge. Those actions coupled with the desire of the cold war presidents to allow the economies of the Asian Tigers and Japan to feed off the american economy is the cause.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater Yes, social entitlements, as well as excessive military spending, bailouts and confusing tax policy have drained the nation's coffers, but once again, government, not trade, is to blame. The US has one of the highest corporate income taxes and an extremely complex regulatory structure. Steve Jobs himself said it was easier to build a factory in China than the US.
kev3d 1 month ago
@kev3d Steve Jobs was a typical profiteer of the free market mentality. That included (among other things) manufacturing in the third world and using the west as retail only. Even a small child could figure that out. Jobs was a globalist, little wonder you admire him, but to thinking Americans he and his ilk are the destructive forces behind the plight of the protectionist economy created by the founders. Whose example served all citizens of a great nation so well for so many years, until FT.
louiethegreater 1 month ago
@louiethegreater Steve Jobs was a great visionary, an innovator and one of the greatest minds of the 20th and 21st centuries...and I don't even own a Mac! He employed tens of thousands all over the world, mostly in America but more important than that, he helped create things that people wanted. Along with Microsoft, Cisco, IBM and a handful of others, Apple created a revolution of peaceful commerce, technological innovation and information exchange.
kev3d 1 month ago