Wow... The only "amazing" thing about this fat jackass is that he's wasted the 12+ minutes of the lives of over 88,528 viewers so far, as of 10:18 pm C 02/25/2012. The dude has ZERO understanding of economics at all, and the longer he rants, the clearer it becomes that this fat douche misses that he isn't attacking just free market capitalism, but is attacking the core concept of trade central to EVERY SINGLE system of economics imaginable. Hey, dumbass, delete this video.
Federal Reserve is the real problem, not freedom, not free-markets. Free markets produce competition which brings prices down for the consumer. You are on the bandwagon that if we don't stop rich-people from investing in politicians (like why is there a fucking law to have Insurance? Insurance companies!) then we won't be safe, but what we SHOULD do is vote out those politicians! Regulation is just a legal way to do the exact same thing.
I'de rather have dangerous freedom than peaceful slavery.
People here who think free markets would ever work need to watch some Chomsky vids, that's for sure. There's a reason we have corporatism today you know... because huge corporations wouldn't allow it any other way. Remember, 1% of the world's richest people own over 70% of the wealth. That means they own YOU. And it's always gonna stay that way as long as they want it to stay that way. Period.
I call it the unregulated market; NEVER CALL IT THE "FREE" MARKET!!! That triggers people's brains to like it....we like the word "free" so marketeers use it to sell total shit all the time--this is just another example of that.
@AFCoulthard Using economic terms does not equate to economic understanding, the same way that sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.
LOL, how many corporations do you know that support free markets?
You think Goldmans Sachs, Halliburton, Solyndra, all the cronies in the Medical industry, food industry, oil companies want to give up their state priviledges? limited liability? corporate personhood?
Marx really did have a point when he showed the flaws of the free market system, though thinking communism is any better is a bit...shall we say retarded. No system is truly perfect, and the free market system is no exception to that. Thanks for the video, TJ, it was pretty interesting.
These videos get many dislikes because most americans disagree, not because it's bad. This shows that humans are incapable of intelligence. They are probably Paulites.
I'd also like to add to this that labor is a forced sale (coercion), since the lower class people HAVE to work for food, and can't simply withhold labor until a reasonable wage comes along. Because of this, unregulated capitalism invariably results in wage slave economies, which can be seen in countries like Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, and Mexico. Laissez-Faire just doesn't work.
A more humorous explanation of essentially Capital volume 1 by Marx. Doesn't the idea of renting out your body and time to someone day in and day out, with only the incentive of basic survival through wages, while they profit immensely sound grotesque? Anyone suggesting that capitalism is the only system that works should look at what happens whenever it doesn't. Like when corporate socialism in the form of bailouts must take place, or when bubbles burst and everyone loses their job.
@chamberwindow free market capitalism, in its definition, does not promote charity or greed. It is a foundation set in place for a presumed free society. It is an ideal based on the assumption that each individual is looking out for their own self-interests. Capitalism is the economic philosophy of an individualist society. Important to note that the U.S. never had 100% capitalism, though it was closer to it a century ago. The U.S. today has FASCISM, not capitalism.
@givemearandomnamenow hahaha no. Ron Paul will not be voted in and you know that. They didn't let gore win in 2001 and he was honestly better than Ron and Gore actually won the election. Why do you honestly think they would let a 70 year old man in?
now i don't understand...why free market is wrong,Sweden has a partial free market wich is stimulated by demand and supply,and from what i can see...U.S prices change accordingly to ours in goods like...oil for example. since you're saying it's an idea that's getting popular in the U.S,i assume you don't have it,and still our economic systems are pretty similiar. pwn the ass out of me if you want,cause i'm just 16 years,and not an economic. but that's my honest opinion.
@DeltaWaveOfficial i think it works because its a partial free market. i think both system can work, if you make the necessary changes but both will fall flat on there ass if you have a corrupt government that just uses loop holes. IMO i think we are ok with what we have now if just fix the government.
in free market capitalism, there would be competition in wages, working conditions, etc as well as competition in prices. what we have now is crony capitalism
@udit15121988 it's hard to imagine because we have never recently had capitalism. rather, crony capitalism
however, competition should be pretty easy to understand... i would rather work for a company that pays me $20/hr than $10/hr... i would rather buy a product thats $5 over $10.. etc
@MarxistLeninismJuche LOL idiot, it's marxism what has failed every single time it has been tried. True capitalism works perfectly and is the only way. Learn history.
These "people" espouse the "free market" while fighting to keep massive subsidies, loopholes and corporate tax breaks in place. Doesn't this dichotomy strike anyone as hypocritical? Or has the term "free market" lost all meaning and relativity amidst the New Corporatism usurping our government?
@NotSuchAnEvilBunny The free marketers who supports subsidies and legal loopholes exist only in your head. Any group can be "hypocritical" if you aren't specific as to who the hypocrites actually are. Not even ultra-vulgar free marketers like HowTheWorldWorks support what you claim the average free marketer does.
"When it becomes easier to take welfare than to work, people will always choose welfare, since work itself is unpleasant" - Fredrick Bastiat. Economic freedom/responsibility is just as important as civil liberty
this guy knows as much about economics and free market capitalism as your average 12 year old: nothing
seriously, fellow atheists, if you want to learn about economics read a book, definitely dont listen to mr banana over here (whom undoubtely has a communist manifesto lying under his bed)
ok if you manufacture something for 15 cents and sell "it"for $15, isnt that what nike does now? that isnt fraud because you arent taking into account the time it takes to make "it" and the initial price of the factory to make "it" in. plus your competion will undercut you and you wont sell a thing if "it" truely is over priced. God damn dont you even have the slightest clue on economics.
that is the same way that wealth is generated now, asshole? alls free market means is that the markets would be free from government interference. dumbass.
@MrWellminded But you dont fucking realize that huge corporations control the whole economy and the only way to stop them is for the GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE THEM.
@MrWellminded the corporations control the government, the government doesnt control the corporations. We need someone who isn't bought off who will actually regulate them but he would be considered a "Socialist" by most americans, and yes he would be a liberal
@wafcake The regulatory boom in the United States was started by big business to crush their competition. Read "the Triumph of Conservatism" by Gabriel Kolko. It's easy to buy off regulators. The pharmaceutical companies fund pharmaceutical regulators. The problem is that the federal government was NEVER supposed to have the power to give out subsidies and bailouts and all that. It was meant to protect your life, your liberty and your property. THAT'S IT. Government is the problem.
@MagnusThiHan it isn't called "free market" for no reason. hence free. How we spend our money and how we earn it is our responsibility. don't confuse crony-capitalism over capitalism
@WorldMilitia Freedom of the market isn't freedom of the people; it is, at best, freedom of the wealthy. Capitalism is injust and oppressive by its very nature. At it's core, it gives the wealthy power over the less wealthy; empowers those who have, depowers those who have not.
@RyanR3volution And you should really read some Kropotkin or Proudhorn or Bakunin, but let's not give each other homework, eh? The market might be made up of people, but not The people, and The people aren't the market; only those with significant purchacing power are the market, and such power tends to be in the hands of the very very few in capitalist societies (I.E. the 1%). Freeing the market, thus, only brings "freedom" to the wealthy, the powerful, and they already have it
Eh, not really. The market is the people, people getting together and voluntarily trading, employing, selling...
eh, look at the poor even in a capitalist country like the USA and the poor have dramatically improved, that the bottom 1% now would be the top 1% in the 1900s.
Your not really proving your points, just speaking vaguely.
You need to produce to expect to be able to buy things.
What you are talking about is not a free market and quite contrary to history.
Look at the 1800s in England and what happened after the Reforms when the market was freed up from the alliance between big gov and big buisness, England became a economic super power.
You need to read more economics if you think that the people are not the market, human history shows us for sure that humans voluntarily get together to trade and mutaul benefit.
Look at Cuba where trading private property was illegal for such a time, people still live in squalor.
@RyanR3volution What happened in England in the victorian era? By which you mean, the time and place best known for its poverty-stricken masses - this is what you point to to show that capitalism is beneficial? What about lookin at, say, russia, post-soviet union.There were extensive reforms which released the market, and the russian populance was one of the best educated populances in terms of literacy, enginering, science and some technical disciplines - certainly very good conditions?
Again, I am bashing capitalism and talking about how free markets are totally different than capitalism, if you think that they are the same, I can't help you.
If you look at Russia and places like that, you can see what happens when the state gets involved and uses force on people, disrupting the voluntary flow of things.either a market is free or people are using force through the state to squash competition aka capitalism. Look at colonial America, to see the freest experiment
If a market is so that the rich are able to use force to squash competition, I don't know how that would be considered a free market in any way, that is capitalism, if a market is free, that means competition is the only thing that gets anyone ahead and the poor can use agorism to excel or homestead, monopolies are a very rare occurance in a free market, the only monopoly I can think of was this one aluminum processing plant that had technology that outdid their rivals.
@RyanR3volution Well, you still haven't adressed my argument that in a free market, capital will be in the hands of the few. But nevermind that - capitalism is something other than free market-ism? what? Not my a long shot; capitalists support deregulation and market freedom. Secondly, while i've often seen it said that monopolies won't happen, but I've never seen it supported; it seems logical that, over time, intrest and inheritance will make sure that one company gets ahead.
How will capital be in the hands of the few? It is a free market, all you need to do is sell something that you have to offer to get more capital, it is quite a misunderstanding of a free market and conflating it with capitalism.
Capitalists have a LONG history of using the state to quel competition, just look at the oil tycoons, the military industrial complex, the medical industry, the FDA, Intellectaul property laws, patent laws...
Again, what does that mean? That seems like a very economically ignorant reasoning, competition has winners and losers, even in the unfree market we have now, the only things that have a monopoly are the police, the post office, energy companies, and other things backed by violence.In a market equation, how can you explain how a monopoly would form? How do the laws of supply and demand, basically fly out the window?How do profit and loss go out the window?"get ahead" /=/ monopoly
@RyanR3volution Besides, what stops two or three companies from working together and outcompeting the others in that way? if it's THE LAW, then that's hardly a free market.
Companies getting together does not = a feasible way to out compete, as in a free market, using force to do anything is not permitted, so voluntarily, by the laws of supply and demand, profit and loss, there is nothing to stop others from competiting with those businesses that do that, it would be in their dentrment.
As no one questions anti trust laws as it trusts one leviathan state bought by the capitalists to suddenly act as angelic beings of good.
Funny how someone who advocates follwers of Marx would support the use of force because " a free market cannot work", that is as funny as a free marketer saying Marxism does not work so we need to use force on them.
Does not make any sense, as I am just asking to be left the hell alone and to work together with my neighbors, IDK what is so bad about that.
@RyanR3volution I've never advocated the use of force; I am an anarchist. I do not belive in using force, period. And how capital will be in the hands of the few? well, it's simple; only the few will own land and the means of productions; they will have the *real* capital in a free market, AKA Capitalist society.
I believe that we own ourselves and that people have a right to get together voluntarily to do what they want. The reason capital is in the hands of the few is 1. every single country in the world operates under this, I cannot find one system where the few did not have vast amounts of capital and 2.there are legitamate and illigatamate holdings of capital, you need to free the people of the artificial liminations that they have, like they did in the UK during the 1800s
You don't believe that through the division of labor, that people through the sweat of their brow can excel, invest, and provide for themselves and a family? Everyone has the right to do this but I think equality is a dangerous myth and people trying to enforce economic equality for example leads to the road to ruin.
Since you don't believe in force, I respect that but disagree that a middle class cannot be created through the division of labor.
@RyanR3volution Please, as i said, i'm not a (pure) communist. I don't belive in "enforced equality" in the way that you seem to think; i belive that we should tear our economic system down, root to branch, and build something better, without private property and ruleing elites. About Middle classes, i'd simply point out that in every instance, it has been labor unions and the regulation of corperations which has brought it about, never laissez-faire capitalism.
Eh, private property is part of our humanity, that explains the disasters that Murray Rothbard covered in great detail when people try to deny ownership, denying self ownership.
Not really, regulation is why the corporations are destroying this world, they write them, regulations are in essence violence being used against peaceful people.
Really, look at the founding of the US and the reforms in the UK to find out why the middle class grew, with economic freedom.
@RyanR3volution Private property is 'part of our humanity'? As far as I know, we didn't survive because private property had an advantage in our evolution. Also, you seem to have an extreme generalization of all regulations made.
How is private property a social construct, you own your body, don't you?
Property, ownership, possesion, control, same thing, it's just that you don't want to call it property.
What do you mean? England became one of the biggest economic powerhouses in the world because the elite found out that if they dumped mercanalist exploitation and had more economic freedom, agorism ensued.
Regulations are force on peaceful people by the threat of violence, not a generalization.
Dude, Britain became the richest nation in the entire world through enormous protectionism. It only adopted "free trade" towards the end of the 1850s; after it was already the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.
The US, after listening to the advice of one Alexander Hamilton, in turn became the most protectionist country during the entire 19th century.
Stop reading the nonsense of Rothbard and co. and read some history please.
I think what really is what you need to think about is your confusion between coercive government forces and market factors, the gov says to you, pay this or armed constables will arrest you, your local baker says, reward me with this and I will provide a good or service.
You just completely ignored what I said, I said England had a series of people rising up, reforms happened and then the mercantalist policies were done away with and they realized they could make even more $
cont. if they allowed the citizens to get out of the factories and set up a middle class and allow them the same rights to life, liberty, and property as the ruling class. This was the explosion of the middle class and jet setted them over France and Germany.
Rothbard is not nonsensical dude, he is a genius and provides the best critique of the irrationality and well intended but flawed Marxian ideas.
I really don't understand why this infighting is within the anarcho cicles
Middle-classes weren't (and aren't) "set up", they emerge gradually.
And there's no such thing as "market forces" that are distinct from the power structures you have interacting with it - the state being one of them; as of course, there has never existed a market economy that wasn't also a statist economy.
As far as Rothbard is concerned, his entire critique of Marxism and "socialism" is general is based entirely on false premises . . .
Yes but there are factors that go into making a middle class, you are conflating the non-voluntary forces with voluntary market forces. A buisness does not coerce you to fund them.
Not true, there were all sorts of anarchist markets, like the Quakers and elsewhere, even the native americans bartered and traded.
That is not a very sophisticated critique of Rothbard, as he points out the historical tragedy of trying to apply communism to real life, not the college clasroom
1. But in an economy where nothing but private economies of scale, people are left 90% of the time but no effective choice but to subject themselves to wage-labor and the economic rule of others.
2. Barter and non-monetary trade are not market forces. And markets themselves only ever appear throughout human history in the presence of bureaucratic state.
3. "Communism" in the original sense of the word has never existed on a large scale for an extended . . .
There is no such thing as "economic rule", a baker does not coerce you into buying bread, it is a voluntary transaction.
That is complete nonsense, you cannot seperate humanity and markets, markets are the simple act of people getting together voluntarily to trade things, I can cite many anarchist experiments only ruined by those who would use force on others, the Quakers in America are a example, that bartered with the Indians and suprisingly were never attacked by them..
A "voluntary transaction" - whether trade, a job done, or whatever else - is only truly voluntary when both parties making the agreement possess equal bargaining power. If one party possesses more power - hence decision-making ability - than the other, then that stronger party can, and does, end up subordinating the weaker party.
The very institution of wage-labor itself only exists because of the equality of bargaining power between capital and labor.
That makes no sense, when you go to a jewler and threaten that if they do not cough up the best price that you will take your buisness elsewhere is course a unequal threat of no buisness, equality is a dangerous, dangerous myth.
So, in your world, the jewlers would be destroyed, as one part has more leway than the other, it makes no economic sense.
Equality is a myth and no animal in the animal kingdom lives by that in anyway. What is with this contempt for trade?
Capital itself being concentrated in the hands of an elite is the very thing that creates the systemic coercion which compels people to for individuals and entities other than themselves.
If however, we were able to achieve a truly equitable distribution of power, then there would be no reason for any individual to rent themselves to another in exchange for remuneration to satisfy the needs of life.
That is just simply not historical, literally every single case has certain buisnesses going to the political whores and using force on others to gain a artificial advantage, this is the definition of the state.
Force on peaceful people is always wrong, that is just not hard to understand.
To produce, one needs to produce, saying that the price system or market is on par with the state is just insanity and ignores non-voluntary vs voluntary relationships.
. . . enable such a situation to exist as it alone opposes ALL forms of coercive heteronomy - whether direct/interactional or systemic.
Please note that I don't oppose markets or a free market economy per se. I would in fact happily accept a market economy if democratic enterprises were the dominant economic institutions.
What I oppose is institutions which enable some individuals to control others; as I see this as a violation of individual autonomy.
Democracy is mob rule and ad populum, mob rule has shown throughout history to be the antithesis of freedom and progress.
You have a grave misunderstanding of bargaining and the economic myth of equality, the baker does not put a gun to your head, the state does.
"control" implies force, which is absent in a free market, I'm sure people just ignore acts of violence being used on one another in a free society... such a nihilistic view of individauls is incomptible with freedom
Everything you just said in those 3 comments lacks any evidence to substantiate it.
You consistently utilize the term "equality" to falsely insinuate a desire for equality of outcome (as most right-wingers do) when it's clear upon correct reading that what I spoke of was equality of opportunity and parity of decision-making ability; which itself is the ONLY way to create an environment free of either direct or systemic coercion.
What did I just say? I said that using force to make it so that others are disadvantaged in the market, should be handled with swift haste. Everyone has the same rights under the law but you ignore how no one will ever have the same "oppurtunity" as another, what about if a guy is in charge of a buisness that sells crop machinery that makes it so that 100 million people can eat?That guys kids will always have a step higher than you, accept that
I didn't say you were a right winger, I said you were doing the same thing right-wingers do in deliberately confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.
And your proposition about a man feeding 100 people presupposes that that we require a class of wealthy elite property-owners to provide us with livelihoods and food.
Sorry, but I happen to think most people prefer being in control of their own lives.
Moving on, if you look back you'll find zero mention of me saying that the "market is on par with the state". I said that markets have never existed apart from the state.
Every market economy has been a statist economy. Hence, a stateless (privatist) market economy has no working model and is based entirely on a floating abstraction.
I also stated very clearly that I have no inherent opposition to markets, only authoritarian institutions within those markets.
In your third comment (in typical ancap fashion) you fallaciously confuse democracy with majoritarianism ("mob rule")
Participatory democracy - as advocated by all libertarian socialists - is about "decision-making input in proportion to the degree affected", is based on consensus, and structurally prevents any majority from imposing their will upon any minority.
If you attempt to remove this (and it seems you do) you remove people's ability to run their own lives
Then it would seem you need to consult a dictionary.
"Those forms of government are founded on nothing more but violence dressed up to look fashionable"
Direct-democracy is not a "form of government" it negates the very concept of government by decentralizing all decision-making power from a few elites to each individual.
Please study anarchist theory. REAL anarchist theory.
No one has a right to plan society, direct democracy is violence dressed up like something other than it is, also is ad populum. No one should be allowed to vote because that is violence on other people.
The decesion making should be up to the person, over his life, not others.
Democracy is the control of others, not yourself. a person is in control of their own life with the absense of violence, idk how you can think democracy is anything other than ad populum and force.
Again, all your claims are made completely based on nothing but assertion, assertion, assertion.
Any claims that can be made without evidence can likewise be dismissed without evidence.
It doesn't help that your rant against "democracy" are based on a gargantuan misunderstanding of what it actually is. For the second or third time now, majoritarianism IS NOT democracy.
"Removing barbaric things like democracy are a step towards a brigther future and non-violence"
The removal of democracy is the removal of the practical expression of autonomy in the political and economy spheres of life. People will NEVER voluntarily give up the right to be in control of their own lives. Sorry.
"That is complete nonsense, the market /=/ state"
And for about the forth time now, I never said it was. Are you even reading what I'm writing?
. . . period of time. In that a stateless, marketless, moneyless society has never existed in the modern era in a way compatible with modern advances. You're conflating (confusing) libertarian communism with statist-Corporatism which existed in the USSR; as did Rothbard. There also exists the fact that he used fascist historical sources to attempt to discredit the Spanish Anarchists of 1936; because he couldn't do so otherwise.
(cont) . . . in seeing all forms of political economy apart from his own as a "corruption" of a truly free market. One problem with this; a completely free market has never existed anywhere but in his own imagination.
Earlier (and much better) critiques of Marxism were made as much as a century before Rothbard by actual Anarchists such as Bakunin, Kropotkin, and many others.
With regard to anarchist "infighting", "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism.
LOL, agorism and free markets are most defintelely a part of anarchism as anarcho socialism are, in voluntarysm, neither are mutaully exclusive.
Through self ownership and the fruits of your labor, you have natural rights to keep property, land ownership is not only the most prosperous way of dealing with natural resources because it avoids the tragedy of the commons. Also, I'm pretty sure you can homestead or work for people you like, instead of thinking your entitled to food
@RyanR3volution The idea of ownership is different from control, though. You can't control a house, but you can own one (in a legal sense). And in many cultures where there were slaves, your body could be 'owned' by someone else. Furthermore, how does that pertain to ownership outside of things other than your body? Also, what does England have to do with evolution? To clear things up, I meant biological evolution, since you said private property was part of being human.
Control is a whole 1/2 of ownership, the other half is whether that control is legimate or not, whether it was justly aquired through voluntary means or force. You can't control a house? Ever try lighting a match?
Slavery is afront to liberty, so that is a bad example.
Even Marx agreed that your labor leads to things, he just messed up on how your labor works and how through your own voluntary interactions with people, no one really has a right to force you what to do.
@RyanR3volution "Regulations are force on peaceful people by the threat of violence, not a generalization." I would call that a generalization, since you are assuming said people are peaceful, and that it has to be the threat of violence rather than a fine or the shutting-down of a company. What if, without the regulations, peaceful people are being harmed?
Regulations are passed by the state, which is a violent monopoly on force which funds itself through theft and coercion, so they have no right to tell anyone what to do. Your assuming the state is peaceful, which I cannot find a state in history that did not commit the crimes it was supposedly there to stop.
I don't recall what I said about England, care to enlighten me?
People have a right to defend their life and property. Regulations benefit the capitalist ruling class and theives
@RyanR3volution I doubt there's a property gene, so i'm not sure what you mean by "Part of our humanity" - it seems, to me, a social construct. Undstand me right; what i'm talking about is owning land and the means of production, not stuff like your laptop or your car; those are called usership in anarchist parlance. And i have looked at the reforms in the UK, and i've found nothing to support your argument. Please, make it propperly instead of just telling me to see for myself.
Owning land and the means of production is essential for freedom and innovation, you seem to have a problem with the elite controlling everything,that is why I don't know why you are opposed to agorism.You have a right to take natural things and make something productive out of them, land ownership, private property rights are the essence of all of our natural rights, privacy, right to life, pursuit of happiness, through self ownership, you have a right to the fruits of your labor
@RyanR3volution exacly how does my right to self-ownership translate into a right to tell people "This field is my field, so you can't be here." Besides, what happens when all the land is already owned? When it was already owned from the second i was born? Then i can chose which coporate dick to suck, or i can die. Sure, we "own" ourself. But why not work together equaly, instead of hierachialy?
Rothbard covered this smear in great detail, individaulists have NEVER claimed that man must be in seclusion ,they recognize the benefits of working together with other individauls. You have a hostility against personal responsibility and keeping what one earns and completely ignore the tragedy of the commons and what happens when things are communely owned, everybody pushes the responsibility onto someone else and that leads to ruin. working together and agorism are not exclusive
@RyanR3volution and yet, capitalism forms hierachies and leads to exploitation. I have no hostility towards personal responsibility, but i do have hostility towards the abuse of others that is so inherent in the capitalist system.
Yes I agree, capitalism does lead to exploitation, through state coercion corporations exploit those displaced by the state in the same way that during the 1800s when the state disbanged the Catholic lands in England that people were homesteading on, then shoved them into the factories.
Again, I'm not a capitalist, I'm a free marketer or agorist.
@RyanR3volution Whatever you call yourself is of no consequence; you are, indeed, a capitalist, though you refuse to identify as such. But let me be clear, so you understand what i mean: the structure of corporations and of our society as is stands is inherently coercive and exploitative, state or no state.
LOL, you have no idea between the difference between state capitalism and free markets, they are completely different things, corporations are created through capitalism, they do not exist in free markets. They cannot exist in a free market because they would not have the special priviledges such as personhood or limited liability.
Read " Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty"
There has NEVER at any point in modern history existed a market economy that was not also a statist economy. Your desire for a truly "free market" is based, I reiterate, on a floating abstraction with no basis in reality.
If you have a history book, please then cite exactly where in the last 300 years a non-statist private-enterprise market economy has existed (besides the chaos of Somalia right now).
I just realized that I should have pointed this out earlier, basing your arguement on appeal to tradition is kinda weak. Your arguement is as valid as the slave owners that said "we can't function without slaves, it never happened before, who would pick the cotton!"
You do know Somalia is far better now than under that brutal dictatorship it was under before?
What "appeal to tradition" am I basing my advocacy for libertarian socialism on?
I was simply saying that what YOU advocate has no basis in reality for two reasons:
1. It has never existed and therefor has no working model to go by.
2. It involves the coercive elimination of the entire political sphere of social existence which would allow people to control their own lives if the state could be dissolved and replaced with a confederated system of . . .
And I'm sorry but you can NEVER achieve this except through the use of force.
Why? Because people innately want to be in control of their own lives and be free of external authority (heteronomy).
I don't want a bunch of plutocratic oligarchs controlling everything and subordinating the majority of the population to their rule. Which is the ONLY thing that can result from abolishing the state *without* transcending capitalism.
@RyanR3volution Well, no. huge economic clash, followed by years of social decline while very few people got very, very rich. So much for laissez-faire, huh? Furthermore, you haven't actualy responded to my arguments, just declared that they didn't work. please tell me WHERE i went wrong when i said why freedom of the market doesn't equal freedom of the people.
1: In any trade, BOTH traders receive Higher value than what they traded. That's the ONLY reason they are both willing to trade.
2: In a free market system, value is determined by the people doing the trading, who make up the market. That's why it's called "market price". No one can overcharge you because being a free market, other traders offer choices.
If McDonalds tried charging $10 for a hamburger would you suddenly become exploited by them? Or would you just continue on to BK?
its not fraud if both parties mutually agree on the transaction. the seller can refuse to sell if he will not make a profit, and the buyer can refuse to buy if the price is too high.
Capitalism's foundation is built on usury. A capitalist does a finite amount of labor for a piece of land and does a finite amount of labor to build a factory or office on the land, then hires people to take over the business, while he sits back and doesn't do too much labor, and gains an infinite stream of income from a finite amount of labor that he did originally. Gains in capitalism aren't equivalent to labor at all.
I don't support the free market system at all, i like taxes and such. but there is one argument that i have heard that i don't think you've addressed. that is the "reward" system. in said system people give money to others in the amount of what it is worth to society. in essence they are rewarding the person for their goods/services with what they feel is appropriate. if the price is too high folks wont reward the manufacturer with their money. but there is still a potential for profit.
Whoever said fraud is illegal in free-market capitalism? Taking advantage of the stupidity of others is, in my opinion, an essential part of any economic system. And as well in capitalism. Still, anarcho-capitalism won't work, because Rothbard presumes that in a capitalist society, information is shared instantly, which is not the case. But if the government just prohibits aggression AND enables information to flow freely and quickly, a free market would indeed make for the best results.
Whatever your views on Free Market Capitalism, it is possible to increase wealth through equivalent transaction. Let me use the example of you going to buy a burger with money. You can't eat your money, so the burger is worth more to you than the money. The person selling burgers can't use burgers in all transactions as not everyone wants burgers. Therefore, to him, the money is worth more than the burger to him. Technically speaking, both are more wealthy than they were before the exchange.
@MrTreantHugger so taking advantage of your perceptions against other peoples perception? that is pretty much the same in capitalism in that regard, just with less taxes to have building projects, ect.
You state labour has no value. But it does, it has subjective value. Maybe someone attached a lot of value to some guy just standing there without a hammer, maybe its "funny". Non-tangibles have only subjective value, but they can have value.
I personally do not believe in objective or intrinsic value because all human perception is subjective. Perhaps in the future we won't need food, so it become without value. There is no intrinsic value. But in the end its just semantics.
Fraud is when you deceive someone into thinking that something has more "subjective" value to them then it actually does.
Just become I trade something that is worth subjectively more to me for something that is worth subjectively less to me does not mean that I committed fraud. And yes, fraud-less and voluntary trade always increases the wealth of both parties involved at the instant of the trade. Of course subjective value can diminish after the trade.
Consumption of an apple usually destroys all subjective value that apple has. Wealth isn't constant, it diminishes over time (for example by consumption). This is why we must continue to produce wealth via labour. Wealth can also be intangible. The experience of eating an apple 2 years ago can be wealth, if I really enjoyed that apple. There is also wealth that can be used to produce more wealth (combined with labour) or wealth that produces more wealth on its own (automation).
but it's also easier to start your own business online, as many have, because free market principles allow for easy access to the market. whatever is gained from profits may be used to expand a business and thus hire more employees as they produce goods that are sold for profit. free market capitalism doesn't use some formula to determine what you're allowed to charge, that's closer to the socialist side of economics, like keynesian economics. over time, prices generally lower with innovation.
most of these arguments are either speculative or hypothetical. you can observe free market capitalism on the internet, so you can see it's not based on theory, but observed history. labor costs are determined by the effort needed minus liabilites/taxes to the owner. the more regulations, the more expensive it can be to hire someone, especially starting at the minimum wage. on the internet, labor costs are small because there are less regulations, so if effort is minimal the pay is minimal.
Worth of a product does equate to price. Willingness to pay equates to price. If I am willing to pay up to $15 for an object which costs $5 to produce, but I buy that product for $10, I am not being scammed. I actually end up with an consumer surplus of $5 ($15 - $10 = $5), along with the newly purchased product. Learn some basic economics before you rant and make yourself look like a complete fool.
Damn dood what are you on? Don't you notice that you're constantly moving back and forth and appear very fidgety? IDK, just something I noticed since I live in a bad neighborhood and recognize crackhead behavior... Well I made it 3.5 mins in to this video, and that was as far as I could make it without hearing interjected repudiations from fringe every now and then. Which btw is how I found this video, did fringe make his reply to this video private or something?
What will I do with that profit? Stuff it in a pillow or pile it up in my castle and sit on it like a (to borrow one of your favorite words) "fucking" dragon? Nope I will invest it or spend it..... hmm I wonder who gets THAT money? Maybe they might spend it or invest it... Damn... so if I sell for a profit(Worth more than it cost to produce) then everyone benefits. I am not angry just... disappointed.
@MrPratman How does everyone benefit from that? It seems like you're describing the trickle down economics at that point, which has pretty much been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be ineffective.
As another note: the effect of increasing net value through trade was studied by a philosopher known as Pareto. It requires that the money and the object do not have intrinsic value to each member of the exchange. Rather, the person who has $5 wants a hamburger MORE than they want the $5, so they make and exchange and end up with something they value MORE than what they had before.
As for increasing wealth, that is the effect of high productivity and is a completely separate matter.
@jmontgom10 The problem with that argument lies mostly with the concept of Price Gouging. I happened to live in SW Florida when Hurricane Charlie hit, and gas stations were selling ice for $20 A BAG before regulators put a stop to it. In a free market this would be okay, because during times of crisis those goods are worth more to those people at that point in time. Is it right for business owners to have no repercussions to taking advantage of people in a crisis situation?
@abasslinelow I can understand that concern, and it is certainly not a fun situation that no one likes to see. However, at least for the sake of argument, it might be wise to consider this: if the price of gasoline were artificially set to a lower value, then how would that affect gas consumption and distribution? S-D economics predicts that the "lucky few" who got to the station first would be allowed to guzzle away the precious gallons while many others would go without any gas at all!
@jmontgom10 I don't understand the relation between the two situations, and I would never be for artificially lowering the value of anything. I'm talking about artificially RAISING the value of something. Beyond that, I highly doubt the price of gas is going to have much affect on the amount of gas sold and traded in the United States. The price of oil has been steadily increasing, but I don't know anybody personally who's *actually* cut back their fuel consumption, and I'd wager not many have.
It's LEH-say fehr, not LAH-zay fehr. Idiot.
UnmaskedTuxedo 2 days ago
@UnmaskedTuxedo Correcting youtubers' grammar, spelling or pronunciation really is the lowest form of arrogance.
matbroomfield 1 day ago
Wow... The only "amazing" thing about this fat jackass is that he's wasted the 12+ minutes of the lives of over 88,528 viewers so far, as of 10:18 pm C 02/25/2012. The dude has ZERO understanding of economics at all, and the longer he rants, the clearer it becomes that this fat douche misses that he isn't attacking just free market capitalism, but is attacking the core concept of trade central to EVERY SINGLE system of economics imaginable. Hey, dumbass, delete this video.
diskpanic 3 days ago
@diskpanic I agree. This fellow definitely seems to lack a basic understanding of economics. What a joke.
MuffinTopExpress 1 day ago
You look like a chubby version of Adam Savage from Mythbusters heh heh.
OhJustCallMeLuke 4 days ago
Your haircut is...
*charges power into insult*
gay.
SuperFlameRing 6 days ago
Federal Reserve is the real problem, not freedom, not free-markets. Free markets produce competition which brings prices down for the consumer. You are on the bandwagon that if we don't stop rich-people from investing in politicians (like why is there a fucking law to have Insurance? Insurance companies!) then we won't be safe, but what we SHOULD do is vote out those politicians! Regulation is just a legal way to do the exact same thing.
I'de rather have dangerous freedom than peaceful slavery.
smokelotsofweed420 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People here who think free markets would ever work need to watch some Chomsky vids, that's for sure. There's a reason we have corporatism today you know... because huge corporations wouldn't allow it any other way. Remember, 1% of the world's richest people own over 70% of the wealth. That means they own YOU. And it's always gonna stay that way as long as they want it to stay that way. Period.
Faerlon123 1 week ago
Comment removed
Faerlon123 1 week ago
I call it the unregulated market; NEVER CALL IT THE "FREE" MARKET!!! That triggers people's brains to like it....we like the word "free" so marketeers use it to sell total shit all the time--this is just another example of that.
tstruss912 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Nice vid, hate these pro billionaire retards
AdamDLDixon 2 weeks ago
You need to take an economics class. You're a tad delusional.
savetheinterpod 2 weeks ago
@savetheinterpod He actually does use economics terms. Your just blinding yourself.
AFCoulthard 1 week ago
@AFCoulthard Using economic terms does not equate to economic understanding, the same way that sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.
MuffinTopExpress 1 day ago
who is john galt ?
sheepslayer70 2 weeks ago
@sheepslayer70 A negroid.
WHIREAS 4 days ago
This video is a big fail
Capitalism/=/ free market
LOL, how many corporations do you know that support free markets?
You think Goldmans Sachs, Halliburton, Solyndra, all the cronies in the Medical industry, food industry, oil companies want to give up their state priviledges? limited liability? corporate personhood?
Read "Markets Not Capitalism"
RyanR3volution 3 weeks ago
Marx really did have a point when he showed the flaws of the free market system, though thinking communism is any better is a bit...shall we say retarded. No system is truly perfect, and the free market system is no exception to that. Thanks for the video, TJ, it was pretty interesting.
xboxmime 3 weeks ago
I miss that background
SacreligiousPorkchop 4 weeks ago
Why are you so fidgety/annoying/misinformed/self-assured?
kennedyt 1 month ago
These videos get many dislikes because most americans disagree, not because it's bad. This shows that humans are incapable of intelligence. They are probably Paulites.
BaraSkit07 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I'd also like to add to this that labor is a forced sale (coercion), since the lower class people HAVE to work for food, and can't simply withhold labor until a reasonable wage comes along. Because of this, unregulated capitalism invariably results in wage slave economies, which can be seen in countries like Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, and Mexico. Laissez-Faire just doesn't work.
IseeRightThrough2you 1 month ago
A more humorous explanation of essentially Capital volume 1 by Marx. Doesn't the idea of renting out your body and time to someone day in and day out, with only the incentive of basic survival through wages, while they profit immensely sound grotesque? Anyone suggesting that capitalism is the only system that works should look at what happens whenever it doesn't. Like when corporate socialism in the form of bailouts must take place, or when bubbles burst and everyone loses their job.
chamberwindow 1 month ago
@chamberwindow free market capitalism, in its definition, does not promote charity or greed. It is a foundation set in place for a presumed free society. It is an ideal based on the assumption that each individual is looking out for their own self-interests. Capitalism is the economic philosophy of an individualist society. Important to note that the U.S. never had 100% capitalism, though it was closer to it a century ago. The U.S. today has FASCISM, not capitalism.
LifeLibertyNow 1 month ago
Support Ron Paul, he will fix this.
givemearandomnamenow 1 month ago
@givemearandomnamenow hahaha no. Ron Paul will not be voted in and you know that. They didn't let gore win in 2001 and he was honestly better than Ron and Gore actually won the election. Why do you honestly think they would let a 70 year old man in?
Fichengafter 1 month ago
now i don't understand...why free market is wrong,Sweden has a partial free market wich is stimulated by demand and supply,and from what i can see...U.S prices change accordingly to ours in goods like...oil for example. since you're saying it's an idea that's getting popular in the U.S,i assume you don't have it,and still our economic systems are pretty similiar. pwn the ass out of me if you want,cause i'm just 16 years,and not an economic. but that's my honest opinion.
DeltaWaveOfficial 1 month ago
@DeltaWaveOfficial i think it works because its a partial free market. i think both system can work, if you make the necessary changes but both will fall flat on there ass if you have a corrupt government that just uses loop holes. IMO i think we are ok with what we have now if just fix the government.
shadowmalik009 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheAmazingAtheist
No monetary system can sustain itself forever. Wake the fuck up, people. Nothing can grow ad infinitum, especially not your economies.
MrBonesoe 1 month ago
This is probably the only really bad video he has ever made. I would be ashamed and delete it if I was him.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
in free market capitalism, there would be competition in wages, working conditions, etc as well as competition in prices. what we have now is crony capitalism
Gamermatt99 1 month ago
@Gamermatt99 what what what????? in what way.. i mean how???
udit15121988 1 month ago
Comment removed
Gamermatt99 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@udit15121988 it's hard to imagine because we have never recently had capitalism. rather, crony capitalism
however, competition should be pretty easy to understand... i would rather work for a company that pays me $20/hr than $10/hr... i would rather buy a product thats $5 over $10.. etc
/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40
Gamermatt99 1 month ago
Obama's policies are corporatist, not socialist
Gamermatt99 1 month ago
This punk all ready had me decided to switch from republican to libertarian but ya I don't think ill ever be a democrat.
fbibarbie 1 month ago
Capitalism fails altogether.
MarxistLeninismJuche 1 month ago
@MarxistLeninismJuche LOL idiot, it's marxism what has failed every single time it has been tried. True capitalism works perfectly and is the only way. Learn history.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
@TWSceptic 'True capitalism' like stateless capitalist Somalia?
Also the only time Marxism ‘failed’ was because of revisionists like Gorbachev or Deng Xiaoping.
Marxism has never failed under true socialist leaders.
MarxistLeninismJuche 1 month ago
These "people" espouse the "free market" while fighting to keep massive subsidies, loopholes and corporate tax breaks in place. Doesn't this dichotomy strike anyone as hypocritical? Or has the term "free market" lost all meaning and relativity amidst the New Corporatism usurping our government?
NotSuchAnEvilBunny 1 month ago
@NotSuchAnEvilBunny The free marketers who supports subsidies and legal loopholes exist only in your head. Any group can be "hypocritical" if you aren't specific as to who the hypocrites actually are. Not even ultra-vulgar free marketers like HowTheWorldWorks support what you claim the average free marketer does.
ScientificScience 1 month ago
@ScientificScience
Spot on
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
Better discuss in real time than do a monologue.
NotOrdinaryInGames 1 month ago
SOCIAL JUSTICE IS NOT SOCIALISM !
CosmicFork 1 month ago
This man needs to take an economics class.
JasonCIAHudson 1 month ago
having no limits on welfare=socialism. Obama supports extended welfare= socialism
WorldMilitia 1 month ago
@WorldMilitia
you should go read up on socialism.
Albert Einstein was a socialist, Obama is center right
chaoszieg 1 month ago
"When it becomes easier to take welfare than to work, people will always choose welfare, since work itself is unpleasant" - Fredrick Bastiat. Economic freedom/responsibility is just as important as civil liberty
WorldMilitia 1 month ago
And how the fuck is Free market capitalism a system where the workers own the means of production???? Does not compute
FodaFascismo 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheAmazingAtheist
this guy knows as much about economics and free market capitalism as your average 12 year old: nothing
seriously, fellow atheists, if you want to learn about economics read a book, definitely dont listen to mr banana over here (whom undoubtely has a communist manifesto lying under his bed)
RexMineCraft 1 month ago
@RexMineCraft You're fucking stupid
FodaFascismo 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheAmazingAtheist
Free market capitalism would also be incompatible with anykind of democracy.
TheForwardGaze 1 month ago
ok if you manufacture something for 15 cents and sell "it"for $15, isnt that what nike does now? that isnt fraud because you arent taking into account the time it takes to make "it" and the initial price of the factory to make "it" in. plus your competion will undercut you and you wont sell a thing if "it" truely is over priced. God damn dont you even have the slightest clue on economics.
MrWellminded 1 month ago
@MrWellminded all those costs would be included in the cost of the shoe so they break even instead of making profit
MrBatsneger2 1 month ago
that is the same way that wealth is generated now, asshole? alls free market means is that the markets would be free from government interference. dumbass.
MrWellminded 1 month ago
@MrWellminded But you dont fucking realize that huge corporations control the whole economy and the only way to stop them is for the GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE THEM.
wafcake 1 month ago
@wafcake haha you douche. the government is in bed with them. lol
MrWellminded 1 month ago
@MrWellminded the corporations control the government, the government doesnt control the corporations. We need someone who isn't bought off who will actually regulate them but he would be considered a "Socialist" by most americans, and yes he would be a liberal
wafcake 1 month ago
@wafcake oh i would be all for regulations on big corps and wall street, but no one in the gov. has balls bigger then a dingle berry.
MrWellminded 1 month ago
@wafcake The regulatory boom in the United States was started by big business to crush their competition. Read "the Triumph of Conservatism" by Gabriel Kolko. It's easy to buy off regulators. The pharmaceutical companies fund pharmaceutical regulators. The problem is that the federal government was NEVER supposed to have the power to give out subsidies and bailouts and all that. It was meant to protect your life, your liberty and your property. THAT'S IT. Government is the problem.
cbuma 1 month ago
@cbuma That and capitalism. no government, no capitalism: freedom!
MagnusThiHan 1 month ago
@MagnusThiHan it isn't called "free market" for no reason. hence free. How we spend our money and how we earn it is our responsibility. don't confuse crony-capitalism over capitalism
WorldMilitia 1 month ago
@WorldMilitia Freedom of the market isn't freedom of the people; it is, at best, freedom of the wealthy. Capitalism is injust and oppressive by its very nature. At it's core, it gives the wealthy power over the less wealthy; empowers those who have, depowers those who have not.
MagnusThiHan 1 month ago
@MagnusThiHan
The people are the market, so that does not make sense.
You should really read "Free Markets Not Capitalism"
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution And you should really read some Kropotkin or Proudhorn or Bakunin, but let's not give each other homework, eh? The market might be made up of people, but not The people, and The people aren't the market; only those with significant purchacing power are the market, and such power tends to be in the hands of the very very few in capitalist societies (I.E. the 1%). Freeing the market, thus, only brings "freedom" to the wealthy, the powerful, and they already have it
MagnusThiHan 1 month ago
@MagnusThiHan
Eh, not really. The market is the people, people getting together and voluntarily trading, employing, selling...
eh, look at the poor even in a capitalist country like the USA and the poor have dramatically improved, that the bottom 1% now would be the top 1% in the 1900s.
Your not really proving your points, just speaking vaguely.
You need to produce to expect to be able to buy things.
What you are talking about is not a free market and quite contrary to history.
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@MagnusThiHan
Look at the 1800s in England and what happened after the Reforms when the market was freed up from the alliance between big gov and big buisness, England became a economic super power.
You need to read more economics if you think that the people are not the market, human history shows us for sure that humans voluntarily get together to trade and mutaul benefit.
Look at Cuba where trading private property was illegal for such a time, people still live in squalor.
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution What happened in England in the victorian era? By which you mean, the time and place best known for its poverty-stricken masses - this is what you point to to show that capitalism is beneficial? What about lookin at, say, russia, post-soviet union.There were extensive reforms which released the market, and the russian populance was one of the best educated populances in terms of literacy, enginering, science and some technical disciplines - certainly very good conditions?
MagnusThiHan 1 month ago
@MagnusThiHan
Again, I am bashing capitalism and talking about how free markets are totally different than capitalism, if you think that they are the same, I can't help you.
If you look at Russia and places like that, you can see what happens when the state gets involved and uses force on people, disrupting the voluntary flow of things.either a market is free or people are using force through the state to squash competition aka capitalism. Look at colonial America, to see the freest experiment
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@MagnusThiHan
If a market is so that the rich are able to use force to squash competition, I don't know how that would be considered a free market in any way, that is capitalism, if a market is free, that means competition is the only thing that gets anyone ahead and the poor can use agorism to excel or homestead, monopolies are a very rare occurance in a free market, the only monopoly I can think of was this one aluminum processing plant that had technology that outdid their rivals.
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution Well, you still haven't adressed my argument that in a free market, capital will be in the hands of the few. But nevermind that - capitalism is something other than free market-ism? what? Not my a long shot; capitalists support deregulation and market freedom. Secondly, while i've often seen it said that monopolies won't happen, but I've never seen it supported; it seems logical that, over time, intrest and inheritance will make sure that one company gets ahead.
MagnusThiHan 1 month ago
@MagnusThiHan
How will capital be in the hands of the few? It is a free market, all you need to do is sell something that you have to offer to get more capital, it is quite a misunderstanding of a free market and conflating it with capitalism.
Capitalists have a LONG history of using the state to quel competition, just look at the oil tycoons, the military industrial complex, the medical industry, the FDA, Intellectaul property laws, patent laws...
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@MagnusThiHan
Again, what does that mean? That seems like a very economically ignorant reasoning, competition has winners and losers, even in the unfree market we have now, the only things that have a monopoly are the police, the post office, energy companies, and other things backed by violence.In a market equation, how can you explain how a monopoly would form? How do the laws of supply and demand, basically fly out the window?How do profit and loss go out the window?"get ahead" /=/ monopoly
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution Besides, what stops two or three companies from working together and outcompeting the others in that way? if it's THE LAW, then that's hardly a free market.
MagnusThiHan 1 month ago
@MagnusThiHan
Companies getting together does not = a feasible way to out compete, as in a free market, using force to do anything is not permitted, so voluntarily, by the laws of supply and demand, profit and loss, there is nothing to stop others from competiting with those businesses that do that, it would be in their dentrment.
As no one questions anti trust laws as it trusts one leviathan state bought by the capitalists to suddenly act as angelic beings of good.
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@MagnusThiHan
Funny how someone who advocates follwers of Marx would support the use of force because " a free market cannot work", that is as funny as a free marketer saying Marxism does not work so we need to use force on them.
Does not make any sense, as I am just asking to be left the hell alone and to work together with my neighbors, IDK what is so bad about that.
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution I've never advocated the use of force; I am an anarchist. I do not belive in using force, period. And how capital will be in the hands of the few? well, it's simple; only the few will own land and the means of productions; they will have the *real* capital in a free market, AKA Capitalist society.
MagnusThiHan 1 month ago
@MagnusThiHan
I believe that we own ourselves and that people have a right to get together voluntarily to do what they want. The reason capital is in the hands of the few is 1. every single country in the world operates under this, I cannot find one system where the few did not have vast amounts of capital and 2.there are legitamate and illigatamate holdings of capital, you need to free the people of the artificial liminations that they have, like they did in the UK during the 1800s
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@MagnusThiHan
You don't believe that through the division of labor, that people through the sweat of their brow can excel, invest, and provide for themselves and a family? Everyone has the right to do this but I think equality is a dangerous myth and people trying to enforce economic equality for example leads to the road to ruin.
Since you don't believe in force, I respect that but disagree that a middle class cannot be created through the division of labor.
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution Please, as i said, i'm not a (pure) communist. I don't belive in "enforced equality" in the way that you seem to think; i belive that we should tear our economic system down, root to branch, and build something better, without private property and ruleing elites. About Middle classes, i'd simply point out that in every instance, it has been labor unions and the regulation of corperations which has brought it about, never laissez-faire capitalism.
MagnusThiHan 1 month ago
@MagnusThiHan
Eh, private property is part of our humanity, that explains the disasters that Murray Rothbard covered in great detail when people try to deny ownership, denying self ownership.
Not really, regulation is why the corporations are destroying this world, they write them, regulations are in essence violence being used against peaceful people.
Really, look at the founding of the US and the reforms in the UK to find out why the middle class grew, with economic freedom.
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution Private property is 'part of our humanity'? As far as I know, we didn't survive because private property had an advantage in our evolution. Also, you seem to have an extreme generalization of all regulations made.
151user 1 month ago
@151user
How is private property a social construct, you own your body, don't you?
Property, ownership, possesion, control, same thing, it's just that you don't want to call it property.
What do you mean? England became one of the biggest economic powerhouses in the world because the elite found out that if they dumped mercanalist exploitation and had more economic freedom, agorism ensued.
Regulations are force on peaceful people by the threat of violence, not a generalization.
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
Dude, Britain became the richest nation in the entire world through enormous protectionism. It only adopted "free trade" towards the end of the 1850s; after it was already the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.
The US, after listening to the advice of one Alexander Hamilton, in turn became the most protectionist country during the entire 19th century.
Stop reading the nonsense of Rothbard and co. and read some history please.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist
I think what really is what you need to think about is your confusion between coercive government forces and market factors, the gov says to you, pay this or armed constables will arrest you, your local baker says, reward me with this and I will provide a good or service.
You just completely ignored what I said, I said England had a series of people rising up, reforms happened and then the mercantalist policies were done away with and they realized they could make even more $
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist
cont. if they allowed the citizens to get out of the factories and set up a middle class and allow them the same rights to life, liberty, and property as the ruling class. This was the explosion of the middle class and jet setted them over France and Germany.
Rothbard is not nonsensical dude, he is a genius and provides the best critique of the irrationality and well intended but flawed Marxian ideas.
I really don't understand why this infighting is within the anarcho cicles
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
Middle-classes weren't (and aren't) "set up", they emerge gradually.
And there's no such thing as "market forces" that are distinct from the power structures you have interacting with it - the state being one of them; as of course, there has never existed a market economy that wasn't also a statist economy.
As far as Rothbard is concerned, his entire critique of Marxism and "socialism" is general is based entirely on false premises . . .
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist
Yes but there are factors that go into making a middle class, you are conflating the non-voluntary forces with voluntary market forces. A buisness does not coerce you to fund them.
Not true, there were all sorts of anarchist markets, like the Quakers and elsewhere, even the native americans bartered and traded.
That is not a very sophisticated critique of Rothbard, as he points out the historical tragedy of trying to apply communism to real life, not the college clasroom
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
1. But in an economy where nothing but private economies of scale, people are left 90% of the time but no effective choice but to subject themselves to wage-labor and the economic rule of others.
2. Barter and non-monetary trade are not market forces. And markets themselves only ever appear throughout human history in the presence of bureaucratic state.
3. "Communism" in the original sense of the word has never existed on a large scale for an extended . . .
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist
There is no such thing as "economic rule", a baker does not coerce you into buying bread, it is a voluntary transaction.
That is complete nonsense, you cannot seperate humanity and markets, markets are the simple act of people getting together voluntarily to trade things, I can cite many anarchist experiments only ruined by those who would use force on others, the Quakers in America are a example, that bartered with the Indians and suprisingly were never attacked by them..
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
A "voluntary transaction" - whether trade, a job done, or whatever else - is only truly voluntary when both parties making the agreement possess equal bargaining power. If one party possesses more power - hence decision-making ability - than the other, then that stronger party can, and does, end up subordinating the weaker party.
The very institution of wage-labor itself only exists because of the equality of bargaining power between capital and labor.
(cont)
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist
What?! lol
That makes no sense, when you go to a jewler and threaten that if they do not cough up the best price that you will take your buisness elsewhere is course a unequal threat of no buisness, equality is a dangerous, dangerous myth.
So, in your world, the jewlers would be destroyed, as one part has more leway than the other, it makes no economic sense.
Equality is a myth and no animal in the animal kingdom lives by that in anyway. What is with this contempt for trade?
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
(cont)
Capital itself being concentrated in the hands of an elite is the very thing that creates the systemic coercion which compels people to for individuals and entities other than themselves.
If however, we were able to achieve a truly equitable distribution of power, then there would be no reason for any individual to rent themselves to another in exchange for remuneration to satisfy the needs of life.
And as such, only libertarian socialism can . . .
(cont)
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist
That is just simply not historical, literally every single case has certain buisnesses going to the political whores and using force on others to gain a artificial advantage, this is the definition of the state.
Force on peaceful people is always wrong, that is just not hard to understand.
To produce, one needs to produce, saying that the price system or market is on par with the state is just insanity and ignores non-voluntary vs voluntary relationships.
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
(cont)
. . . enable such a situation to exist as it alone opposes ALL forms of coercive heteronomy - whether direct/interactional or systemic.
Please note that I don't oppose markets or a free market economy per se. I would in fact happily accept a market economy if democratic enterprises were the dominant economic institutions.
What I oppose is institutions which enable some individuals to control others; as I see this as a violation of individual autonomy.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist
Democracy is mob rule and ad populum, mob rule has shown throughout history to be the antithesis of freedom and progress.
You have a grave misunderstanding of bargaining and the economic myth of equality, the baker does not put a gun to your head, the state does.
"control" implies force, which is absent in a free market, I'm sure people just ignore acts of violence being used on one another in a free society... such a nihilistic view of individauls is incomptible with freedom
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
Everything you just said in those 3 comments lacks any evidence to substantiate it.
You consistently utilize the term "equality" to falsely insinuate a desire for equality of outcome (as most right-wingers do) when it's clear upon correct reading that what I spoke of was equality of opportunity and parity of decision-making ability; which itself is the ONLY way to create an environment free of either direct or systemic coercion.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist
LOL, calling me a right winger...
What did I just say? I said that using force to make it so that others are disadvantaged in the market, should be handled with swift haste. Everyone has the same rights under the law but you ignore how no one will ever have the same "oppurtunity" as another, what about if a guy is in charge of a buisness that sells crop machinery that makes it so that 100 million people can eat?That guys kids will always have a step higher than you, accept that
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RyanR3volution
"LOL, calling me a right winger..."
I didn't say you were a right winger, I said you were doing the same thing right-wingers do in deliberately confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.
And your proposition about a man feeding 100 people presupposes that that we require a class of wealthy elite property-owners to provide us with livelihoods and food.
Sorry, but I happen to think most people prefer being in control of their own lives.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
Moving on, if you look back you'll find zero mention of me saying that the "market is on par with the state". I said that markets have never existed apart from the state.
Every market economy has been a statist economy. Hence, a stateless (privatist) market economy has no working model and is based entirely on a floating abstraction.
I also stated very clearly that I have no inherent opposition to markets, only authoritarian institutions within those markets.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
In your third comment (in typical ancap fashion) you fallaciously confuse democracy with majoritarianism ("mob rule")
Participatory democracy - as advocated by all libertarian socialists - is about "decision-making input in proportion to the degree affected", is based on consensus, and structurally prevents any majority from imposing their will upon any minority.
If you attempt to remove this (and it seems you do) you remove people's ability to run their own lives
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist
Democracy by definiton is mob rule, it is ad populum as well, the numbers behind who supports something is not a sign of it being moral or just.
Those forms of government are founded on nothing more but violence dressed up to look fashionable.
Removing barbaric things like democracy are a step towards a brigther future and non-violence.
That is complete nonsense, the market /=/ state, and has happened before like the Quakers and other experiments.
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
"Democracy by definiton (sic) is mob rule"
Then it would seem you need to consult a dictionary.
"Those forms of government are founded on nothing more but violence dressed up to look fashionable"
Direct-democracy is not a "form of government" it negates the very concept of government by decentralizing all decision-making power from a few elites to each individual.
Please study anarchist theory. REAL anarchist theory.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist
No one has a right to plan society, direct democracy is violence dressed up like something other than it is, also is ad populum. No one should be allowed to vote because that is violence on other people.
The decesion making should be up to the person, over his life, not others.
Democracy is the control of others, not yourself. a person is in control of their own life with the absense of violence, idk how you can think democracy is anything other than ad populum and force.
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
Again, all your claims are made completely based on nothing but assertion, assertion, assertion.
Any claims that can be made without evidence can likewise be dismissed without evidence.
It doesn't help that your rant against "democracy" are based on a gargantuan misunderstanding of what it actually is. For the second or third time now, majoritarianism IS NOT democracy.
Participatory democracy requires consensus decision-making.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
"Removing barbaric things like democracy are a step towards a brigther future and non-violence"
The removal of democracy is the removal of the practical expression of autonomy in the political and economy spheres of life. People will NEVER voluntarily give up the right to be in control of their own lives. Sorry.
"That is complete nonsense, the market /=/ state"
And for about the forth time now, I never said it was. Are you even reading what I'm writing?
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
. . . period of time. In that a stateless, marketless, moneyless society has never existed in the modern era in a way compatible with modern advances. You're conflating (confusing) libertarian communism with statist-Corporatism which existed in the USSR; as did Rothbard. There also exists the fact that he used fascist historical sources to attempt to discredit the Spanish Anarchists of 1936; because he couldn't do so otherwise.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist
Eh, thats a bit like saying "no society ever existed without slavery" in the 1800s "who will pick the cotton"
Eh, thats bullshit, I've looked into Rothbards overview of Communism and to say he used "fascist sources" is both vague and false.
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
(cont) . . . in seeing all forms of political economy apart from his own as a "corruption" of a truly free market. One problem with this; a completely free market has never existed anywhere but in his own imagination.
Earlier (and much better) critiques of Marxism were made as much as a century before Rothbard by actual Anarchists such as Bakunin, Kropotkin, and many others.
With regard to anarchist "infighting", "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist
LOL, agorism and free markets are most defintelely a part of anarchism as anarcho socialism are, in voluntarysm, neither are mutaully exclusive.
Through self ownership and the fruits of your labor, you have natural rights to keep property, land ownership is not only the most prosperous way of dealing with natural resources because it avoids the tragedy of the commons. Also, I'm pretty sure you can homestead or work for people you like, instead of thinking your entitled to food
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution The idea of ownership is different from control, though. You can't control a house, but you can own one (in a legal sense). And in many cultures where there were slaves, your body could be 'owned' by someone else. Furthermore, how does that pertain to ownership outside of things other than your body? Also, what does England have to do with evolution? To clear things up, I meant biological evolution, since you said private property was part of being human.
151user 3 weeks ago
@151user
Control is a whole 1/2 of ownership, the other half is whether that control is legimate or not, whether it was justly aquired through voluntary means or force. You can't control a house? Ever try lighting a match?
Slavery is afront to liberty, so that is a bad example.
Even Marx agreed that your labor leads to things, he just messed up on how your labor works and how through your own voluntary interactions with people, no one really has a right to force you what to do.
RyanR3volution 3 weeks ago
@RyanR3volution "Regulations are force on peaceful people by the threat of violence, not a generalization." I would call that a generalization, since you are assuming said people are peaceful, and that it has to be the threat of violence rather than a fine or the shutting-down of a company. What if, without the regulations, peaceful people are being harmed?
151user 3 weeks ago
@151user
Regulations are passed by the state, which is a violent monopoly on force which funds itself through theft and coercion, so they have no right to tell anyone what to do. Your assuming the state is peaceful, which I cannot find a state in history that did not commit the crimes it was supposedly there to stop.
I don't recall what I said about England, care to enlighten me?
People have a right to defend their life and property. Regulations benefit the capitalist ruling class and theives
RyanR3volution 3 weeks ago
@RyanR3volution I doubt there's a property gene, so i'm not sure what you mean by "Part of our humanity" - it seems, to me, a social construct. Undstand me right; what i'm talking about is owning land and the means of production, not stuff like your laptop or your car; those are called usership in anarchist parlance. And i have looked at the reforms in the UK, and i've found nothing to support your argument. Please, make it propperly instead of just telling me to see for myself.
MagnusThiHan 1 month ago
@MagnusThiHan
Owning land and the means of production is essential for freedom and innovation, you seem to have a problem with the elite controlling everything,that is why I don't know why you are opposed to agorism.You have a right to take natural things and make something productive out of them, land ownership, private property rights are the essence of all of our natural rights, privacy, right to life, pursuit of happiness, through self ownership, you have a right to the fruits of your labor
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution exacly how does my right to self-ownership translate into a right to tell people "This field is my field, so you can't be here." Besides, what happens when all the land is already owned? When it was already owned from the second i was born? Then i can chose which coporate dick to suck, or i can die. Sure, we "own" ourself. But why not work together equaly, instead of hierachialy?
MagnusThiHan 1 month ago
@MagnusThiHan
Rothbard covered this smear in great detail, individaulists have NEVER claimed that man must be in seclusion ,they recognize the benefits of working together with other individauls. You have a hostility against personal responsibility and keeping what one earns and completely ignore the tragedy of the commons and what happens when things are communely owned, everybody pushes the responsibility onto someone else and that leads to ruin. working together and agorism are not exclusive
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution and yet, capitalism forms hierachies and leads to exploitation. I have no hostility towards personal responsibility, but i do have hostility towards the abuse of others that is so inherent in the capitalist system.
MagnusThiHan 1 month ago
@MagnusThiHan
Yes I agree, capitalism does lead to exploitation, through state coercion corporations exploit those displaced by the state in the same way that during the 1800s when the state disbanged the Catholic lands in England that people were homesteading on, then shoved them into the factories.
Again, I'm not a capitalist, I'm a free marketer or agorist.
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution Whatever you call yourself is of no consequence; you are, indeed, a capitalist, though you refuse to identify as such. But let me be clear, so you understand what i mean: the structure of corporations and of our society as is stands is inherently coercive and exploitative, state or no state.
MagnusThiHan 1 month ago
@MagnusThiHan
LOL, you have no idea between the difference between state capitalism and free markets, they are completely different things, corporations are created through capitalism, they do not exist in free markets. They cannot exist in a free market because they would not have the special priviledges such as personhood or limited liability.
Read " Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty"
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
"you have no idea between the difference between state capitalism and free markets, they are completely different things"
Yes. One is what we've had for the last 300 or so years; the other has never existed.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist
Yes it has, many experiments have happened with free markets and communism, cracking open a history book could help.
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
There has NEVER at any point in modern history existed a market economy that was not also a statist economy. Your desire for a truly "free market" is based, I reiterate, on a floating abstraction with no basis in reality.
If you have a history book, please then cite exactly where in the last 300 years a non-statist private-enterprise market economy has existed (besides the chaos of Somalia right now).
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist
He wont be able to point an example because your definition of a state differs from his.
@RyanR3volution
If you're gonna argue be sure that you and the other person have the same definitions in place.
ProDCloud 1 month ago
@ProDCloud
Yeah, talking past one another is the easiest way to ruin a conversation, thanks for reminding me.
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist
I just realized that I should have pointed this out earlier, basing your arguement on appeal to tradition is kinda weak. Your arguement is as valid as the slave owners that said "we can't function without slaves, it never happened before, who would pick the cotton!"
You do know Somalia is far better now than under that brutal dictatorship it was under before?
RyanR3volution 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
What "appeal to tradition" am I basing my advocacy for libertarian socialism on?
I was simply saying that what YOU advocate has no basis in reality for two reasons:
1. It has never existed and therefor has no working model to go by.
2. It involves the coercive elimination of the entire political sphere of social existence which would allow people to control their own lives if the state could be dissolved and replaced with a confederated system of . . .
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution
. . . participatory democracy.
And I'm sorry but you can NEVER achieve this except through the use of force.
Why? Because people innately want to be in control of their own lives and be free of external authority (heteronomy).
I don't want a bunch of plutocratic oligarchs controlling everything and subordinating the majority of the population to their rule. Which is the ONLY thing that can result from abolishing the state *without* transcending capitalism.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@RyanR3volution Well, no. huge economic clash, followed by years of social decline while very few people got very, very rich. So much for laissez-faire, huh? Furthermore, you haven't actualy responded to my arguments, just declared that they didn't work. please tell me WHERE i went wrong when i said why freedom of the market doesn't equal freedom of the people.
MagnusThiHan 1 month ago
this is the dumbest shit that i have ever heard. dude politics is not your forte so you should stay away. douche.
MrWellminded 1 month ago
Bill Gates traded us this operating system for $200, even though it costs him nothing to make extra copies for us to use.
And we get a program that allows our computers to type, print documents, perform tasks and calculations, and surf the internet.
So, did you get equal value like he says, or did you receive something worth MORE than $200?
If someone were to offer you that same $200 to [not] use your operating system for a whole year, would you accept? Or would you charge 10X that?
gilbet 1 month ago
1: In any trade, BOTH traders receive Higher value than what they traded. That's the ONLY reason they are both willing to trade.
2: In a free market system, value is determined by the people doing the trading, who make up the market. That's why it's called "market price". No one can overcharge you because being a free market, other traders offer choices.
If McDonalds tried charging $10 for a hamburger would you suddenly become exploited by them? Or would you just continue on to BK?
gilbet 1 month ago
you spend a lot of time at mcdonalds?
tbtab15 1 month ago
its not fraud if both parties mutually agree on the transaction. the seller can refuse to sell if he will not make a profit, and the buyer can refuse to buy if the price is too high.
poopguypenis2 1 month ago
Capitalism's foundation is built on usury. A capitalist does a finite amount of labor for a piece of land and does a finite amount of labor to build a factory or office on the land, then hires people to take over the business, while he sits back and doesn't do too much labor, and gains an infinite stream of income from a finite amount of labor that he did originally. Gains in capitalism aren't equivalent to labor at all.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
So you want a market where you are forced to buy goods and have no choices...yeah how about now
thepolice911copeland 1 month ago
I don't support the free market system at all, i like taxes and such. but there is one argument that i have heard that i don't think you've addressed. that is the "reward" system. in said system people give money to others in the amount of what it is worth to society. in essence they are rewarding the person for their goods/services with what they feel is appropriate. if the price is too high folks wont reward the manufacturer with their money. but there is still a potential for profit.
TheTravelingbard 1 month ago
Fuck that free market shit. I want my market to be enslaved, to do my bidding, to suck my dick when I want it sucked.
TearsOfWar1 1 month ago
Whoever said fraud is illegal in free-market capitalism? Taking advantage of the stupidity of others is, in my opinion, an essential part of any economic system. And as well in capitalism. Still, anarcho-capitalism won't work, because Rothbard presumes that in a capitalist society, information is shared instantly, which is not the case. But if the government just prohibits aggression AND enables information to flow freely and quickly, a free market would indeed make for the best results.
semperFi4ever100 2 months ago
Whatever your views on Free Market Capitalism, it is possible to increase wealth through equivalent transaction. Let me use the example of you going to buy a burger with money. You can't eat your money, so the burger is worth more to you than the money. The person selling burgers can't use burgers in all transactions as not everyone wants burgers. Therefore, to him, the money is worth more than the burger to him. Technically speaking, both are more wealthy than they were before the exchange.
Patience1138 2 months ago
@Patience1138 so what your saying is that to increase wealth, you must take advantage of anothers perception of wealth? :P
ubermaster94 2 months ago
@ubermaster94 Wealth itself is a perception. It's all subjective.
MrTreantHugger 1 month ago
@MrTreantHugger so taking advantage of your perceptions against other peoples perception? that is pretty much the same in capitalism in that regard, just with less taxes to have building projects, ect.
ubermaster94 1 month ago
You state labour has no value. But it does, it has subjective value. Maybe someone attached a lot of value to some guy just standing there without a hammer, maybe its "funny". Non-tangibles have only subjective value, but they can have value.
I personally do not believe in objective or intrinsic value because all human perception is subjective. Perhaps in the future we won't need food, so it become without value. There is no intrinsic value. But in the end its just semantics.
eduardkhilify 2 months ago
@eduardkhilify
Fraud is when you deceive someone into thinking that something has more "subjective" value to them then it actually does.
Just become I trade something that is worth subjectively more to me for something that is worth subjectively less to me does not mean that I committed fraud. And yes, fraud-less and voluntary trade always increases the wealth of both parties involved at the instant of the trade. Of course subjective value can diminish after the trade.
eduardkhilify 2 months ago
@eduardkhilify
Consumption of an apple usually destroys all subjective value that apple has. Wealth isn't constant, it diminishes over time (for example by consumption). This is why we must continue to produce wealth via labour. Wealth can also be intangible. The experience of eating an apple 2 years ago can be wealth, if I really enjoyed that apple. There is also wealth that can be used to produce more wealth (combined with labour) or wealth that produces more wealth on its own (automation).
eduardkhilify 2 months ago
your egotistical stance is a testimony to your emotional reason. Epic fail.
symbian7 2 months ago
money's also important. who the fuck wants a harmonica?
ThaigerDon 2 months ago
but it's also easier to start your own business online, as many have, because free market principles allow for easy access to the market. whatever is gained from profits may be used to expand a business and thus hire more employees as they produce goods that are sold for profit. free market capitalism doesn't use some formula to determine what you're allowed to charge, that's closer to the socialist side of economics, like keynesian economics. over time, prices generally lower with innovation.
ThaigerDon 2 months ago
most of these arguments are either speculative or hypothetical. you can observe free market capitalism on the internet, so you can see it's not based on theory, but observed history. labor costs are determined by the effort needed minus liabilites/taxes to the owner. the more regulations, the more expensive it can be to hire someone, especially starting at the minimum wage. on the internet, labor costs are small because there are less regulations, so if effort is minimal the pay is minimal.
ThaigerDon 2 months ago
According to you, people willing to pay $1 billion to listen to you talk is fraud, because in all reality, it's worthless. Are you a fraud?
matthewt2010 2 months ago
Worth of a product does equate to price. Willingness to pay equates to price. If I am willing to pay up to $15 for an object which costs $5 to produce, but I buy that product for $10, I am not being scammed. I actually end up with an consumer surplus of $5 ($15 - $10 = $5), along with the newly purchased product. Learn some basic economics before you rant and make yourself look like a complete fool.
matthewt2010 2 months ago
Damn dood what are you on? Don't you notice that you're constantly moving back and forth and appear very fidgety? IDK, just something I noticed since I live in a bad neighborhood and recognize crackhead behavior... Well I made it 3.5 mins in to this video, and that was as far as I could make it without hearing interjected repudiations from fringe every now and then. Which btw is how I found this video, did fringe make his reply to this video private or something?
evsnova74 2 months ago
What will I do with that profit? Stuff it in a pillow or pile it up in my castle and sit on it like a (to borrow one of your favorite words) "fucking" dragon? Nope I will invest it or spend it..... hmm I wonder who gets THAT money? Maybe they might spend it or invest it... Damn... so if I sell for a profit(Worth more than it cost to produce) then everyone benefits. I am not angry just... disappointed.
MrPratman 2 months ago
@MrPratman How does everyone benefit from that? It seems like you're describing the trickle down economics at that point, which has pretty much been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be ineffective.
abasslinelow 2 months ago
As another note: the effect of increasing net value through trade was studied by a philosopher known as Pareto. It requires that the money and the object do not have intrinsic value to each member of the exchange. Rather, the person who has $5 wants a hamburger MORE than they want the $5, so they make and exchange and end up with something they value MORE than what they had before.
As for increasing wealth, that is the effect of high productivity and is a completely separate matter.
jmontgom10 2 months ago
@jmontgom10 The problem with that argument lies mostly with the concept of Price Gouging. I happened to live in SW Florida when Hurricane Charlie hit, and gas stations were selling ice for $20 A BAG before regulators put a stop to it. In a free market this would be okay, because during times of crisis those goods are worth more to those people at that point in time. Is it right for business owners to have no repercussions to taking advantage of people in a crisis situation?
abasslinelow 2 months ago
@abasslinelow I can understand that concern, and it is certainly not a fun situation that no one likes to see. However, at least for the sake of argument, it might be wise to consider this: if the price of gasoline were artificially set to a lower value, then how would that affect gas consumption and distribution? S-D economics predicts that the "lucky few" who got to the station first would be allowed to guzzle away the precious gallons while many others would go without any gas at all!
jmontgom10 2 months ago
@jmontgom10 I don't understand the relation between the two situations, and I would never be for artificially lowering the value of anything. I'm talking about artificially RAISING the value of something. Beyond that, I highly doubt the price of gas is going to have much affect on the amount of gas sold and traded in the United States. The price of oil has been steadily increasing, but I don't know anybody personally who's *actually* cut back their fuel consumption, and I'd wager not many have.
abasslinelow