Utinomen, I have to call you out on your factual accuracy of this famine happening under capitalism. It didn't, it happened in the Northern part of Holland that was occupied by the Nazis at that moment. The Nazis were Socialist, and therefore this didn't happen during a time of Capitalism NOR rule of law. Therefore this argument is dead.
@Slipknotyk06 The Nazis called themselves Socialist, sure. Hitler also called himself a Christian, quote: "My feelings as a Christian ... recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them ..." Labels aside, the real question is whether the Dutch famine happened under market conditions, though I take your point that wartime conditions had more to do with the famine in Holland. An example of famine under market conditions is the Bangladesh famine.See the linked study
@utinomen - That linked study tells me little. So, I google it and find that it was basically started by a flood that demolished rice fields. Also, it was vastly exacerbated by corrupt government officials which runs contrary to the "rule of law" premise. NEXT!
@Slipknotyk06 The linked study explains that it was caused by a failure of distribution and hoarding of crops. It is obvious that you should to write to the authors of the study and disabuse them of their glib conclusion that famines aren't always caused by a lack of rule of law and market forces. I think I can speak for the whole of humanity in thanking you for your invaluable insights.
@utinomen - On the link you provide, I can only see an ABSTRACT of the paper. So, if you are citing the entire paper, give me a link that I can use to debunk your claims. Otherwise, I don't even know if the paper states what you claim, which actually makes YOUR insight invaluable.
Also, does the paper go into detail about WHO hoarded those crops after a natural disaster? It was corrupt government officials operating outside of "rule of law" which you have still failed to address!
@Slipknotyk06 Click the link, then click the words that say "One Click Download" near the top. That link will provide the WHOLE paper. I make no claims to any personal insight, I merely report that there are serious minded people in the world other than HTWW who would disagree with his glib commentary. I did not fail to do that which I did not begin to attempt, I merely praise your insight that enables you to feel superior to authors of a carefully researched paper.
@utinomen - They say nothing of the fact that at the time Bangladesh was recovering from years of wars. They had sustained wars with West Pakistan (Bangladesh is formerly East Pakistan) for their independence. In addition to sluggish recovery from war, they had dozens of floods, an unstable government, and many issues with corruption. Over 3 million had fled Bangladesh to India in the years leading up to this, so you've taken the weakest possible nation as your case study. Simply disingenuous.
@Slipknotyk06 So you claim it was all to do with other factors. *rolls eyes* Nevermind that the economy was working fine with no starvation, and then the publicity of the possibility of famine caused a run on the supply chain.
Those researchers spent hours researching a subject by reading other research papers about famines and their causes (see the references), come to another conclusion altogether, and you expect me to be impressed by your bombast?
@utinomen - If they really spent 'hours' researching that topic, they'd say something of the weakened state of Bangladesh's government. Also, they'd document that there was starvation in 1972-1973 Bangladesh roughly equal to the proportion of starvation cases in India.
No, I don't expect you to be impressed, you're never impressed even when proven wrong.
@Slipknotyk06 Yes, yes, please feel free to entertain your own fantasies about the incompetence and possible malign intentions of those researchers, but I prefer to give more weight to the conclusions of the researchers.
Obviously, for them to read 50 or so research papers and books only takes a minute or two. *rolls eyes*
@Slipknotyk06 The study says famines occur in both capitalistic and socialistic countries, under a variety of conditions, and seems to make it clear that the facile assessment offered by HTWW that no famines occur under market conditions is a false one. You appear to have a similarily unnuanced opinion, and do prefer to believe the researchers are unaware or incapable of considering the points you have mentioned, and expect me to discount their research in favour of your few google searches
@utinomen - I believe they chose not to, because they spend more of the paper trying to utterly discredit capitalism for the famine in Bangladesh and glossing over major contributing factors. They go on and on about Bangladesh while not hitting on the Holodomor, or Mao's Famine. I read 35 pages into the paper and found ONE mention of Mao's China, and NONE of the holodomor, along with ONE of Nazi-Controlled Holland.
@Slipknotyk06 You were denying believing they had malign intentions and incompetence a post back! Now they "chose not to" and are out to "utterly discredit capitalism"! Clearly you *do* believe the researchers are incompetent or blinded by ideology or somesuch malign influence!
The study aside, why is it so (apparently) important to you that market conditions that must reign supreme as the ultimate solution to preventing famines?
@Slipknotyk06 Aside from that well known Communist propaganda machine, the World Bank, handing out papers purportedly to be aimed at understanding and reducing famines, but really just attacking the sacrosanct institution of Capitalism, and not worried if people starve more as a result of taking the research seriously ... let me ask you a question:
Why is it so important to you that market conditions that must reign supreme as the ultimate solution to preventing famines?
"If the majority of people thought that industrial capitalism was a fair system, then unions would not exist." You make the false assumption that unions seek fairness. They don't. They seek to unfairly benefit themselves at the expense of others. That's why teachers unions in the U.S. have destroyed the quality of education in our country by using government to set up and protect their coercive monopoly.
@truthadvocate Yes, that's exactly their motive when they helped end child labour, whilst being beaten up and killed by hired goons of corporations. Perhaps you'd like to make a less sweeping statement?
Both corporations and unions initiate force against others through the state. They both have "hired goons."
There is nothing wrong with child labor. Many children enjoy contributing in a productive way to help their family. It gives them a sense of pride, self discipline, & experience that can help them achieve success.
We don't owe better working conditions to unions nor the government. It resulted primarily from advances in technology & competition between employers.
@truthadvocate truthadvocate, the final arbitor of fairness and truth, in his superior intellect has deemed child labour to be fine and good, so all complaints about its exploitative nature are hereby declared illegitmate and void.
Also, history is to be rewritten such that the business community and market forces are to be given credit for the end of child labour, and nothing to do with decades of popular protest and struggle.
@utinomen, I thought I was just giving my opinion, but if you want to bestow me with that lofty title, I'm flattered ;)
The history with which we were indoctrinated is just a series of theories. When valid evidence is presented that proves those theories false, we need to replace them with theories that are consistent with the evidence. Scientifically this is how we travel closer to the truth. You call it "re-writing history." I call it correcting misinterpretations of the past.
@truthadvocate Yes your opinion seems to be that all unions are evil, and that those who campaigned against child labour were stupid to be so unhappy. Perhaps you would also claim that slavery was ended by market forces, and not a war and a shift in public opinion. But yes, science and empiricism is the best method for gaining reliable knowledge. Exactly why almost all economics should be dismissed for its reliance on normative theory, including Von Mises' praxelogy.
@utinomen, If you want to know my opinion, just re-read my quotes or ask me. I never said "all" unions are "evil." I never said child labor opponents are "stupid" for being so unhappy. I did not address slavery. I also never said empiricism is the "best" method for gaining knowledge. Empiricism can be relatively worthless if one fails to correctly apply logic & reason. In certain situations misinterpretations are more likely, in which case logic & reason may serve us better than observation.
@truthadvocate Yes, you said (paraphrase) that unions do not seek fairness. That seems - note, as before, SEEMS - to represent the opinion that all or most unions seek unfairness, and it would seem make sense that they must have bad motivations ("evil"). A fair response to such an assertion is that unions are mostly motivated by what they see as fair, such as the end of child labour. I would take your responses more seriously if only I was not responded with the idea that child labour is good.
Do you support age discrimination? It "SEEMS" like you do. Do you believe some people should forcefully be denied equal rights based on their age alone?
Why is it so hard for you to believe that a job might be valued by someone who is under the arbitrary age you use to define "child labor?"
Not all child labor involves severe physical hardship & pain. There are many jobs that are safe, painless, and even enjoyable.
@truthadvocate If you'd like a serious response, perhaps you could first explain what that kind of child labour has to do with all or most unions aiming for unfairness, in light of the fact that unions have campaigned against the vile kind of child labour in the past?
I'm sure there were people that found child labor personally offensive & pushed for its prohibition. As many do, they probably failed to compare their current situation with a realistic alternative. If they did, they might have found that children were better off working in factories than starving to death. I'm also certain there were workers who just didn't want the competition. Unions campaigned. Things happened. Correlation does not equal causation nor does it prove good intentions
@truthadvocate so it would seem that you do indeed think that those who fought against child labour were stupid because they, quote, "failed to compare their current situation with a realistic alternative." It would also seem that you are taking your idea of fairness, seeing that it does not correspond with the outcomes you think are fair, and concluding that unions et al must therefore be motivated by unfairness, isn't that so? What is your idea of fairness?
I'm tired of the way you reword my statements. A person does not have to be "stupid" to make an error. Making errors is part of human nature. You think Einstein never made errors?
For a system of ethics to be fair, you must be able to apply it consistently to everything & everyone.
I'm also tired of the way you keep demanding answers to questions yet are unwilling to answer the few simple questions that I posed two comments ago.
@truthadvocate I am playing back how your statements sound, since they do sound to me to be outrageous. OK ... your questions (that did not seem at all serious but nonetheless) no - don't support age discrimination, no - no age based discrimination, it's not hard but that kind of child labour isn't even remotely relevant to the discussion about unions "seeking unfairness". Einstein likely made errors, but again, it seems outrageous to dismiss union organising as a "mistake" - kinda patronising
That's not how he put it. What is a "free" country? And tell me if you think Holland is a "free" country, and if it is, why their famine doesn't count.
If money is property then all governments take away property in the form of taxes, so it is going to be difficult to find a country that fits that criterion. And incidently, there have been countires which have had famines caused solely by hoarding and panic.
If you have watched my video then you know that I was critical of "wack job communist governments". If you are at all interested in what causes famines, so that people may understand how to prevent them then you will neither accept the dogmatisms coming from Communist governments nor How The World Works
Due to a relatively unregulated food industry food is cheaper and more readily available than ever. The cost perhouse hold of food has gone from 15% of income in 1950 of to 5% in 2000.
Cite your source please. Does your source explain how regulation causes lower costs and not, for example, technological improvements in agriculture and huge agro-businesses creating economies of scale, or increased trade or any number of other possibilities, or are you just making that bit up? Also note that Bangladesh must have very little in the way of regulation and yet in their market system there was still a famine.
Note that if improvements in agricultural technology accounts for a large increase in living standards and lowered costs, then we should be getting technology to poor countries, not just imposing free markets. Also note that, as with all other tecnological developments, there have been decades of public research to thank. Computers were invented in the public sector in the 40's - 60's without business involvement. The internet was invented late 1960's (ARPANET). Regulation has no effect on that.
I know its good practice to let the people you are commenting on "speak for themselves" but ouch! listening to "howtheworldworks" is like having someone give me a swift rub with some sandpaper. Hmm, let me put in a request for a comment on some nice folks like AdamHintz, bbbleaver, zzz33333, or donHooiigan.
Hope you enjoy them. They all gravitate to Derrick Jensen, but they are sweet people...zzz is often funny, although possibly somewhat unintentionally at times. He's even evolved in his ideas which is cool, but then he's quite young.
Thanks for pausing to understand my comment about the if-only-it-were-"normal" disgust for retinal scan personal marketing.
You have a nice voice in this video. I'm going to be off youtube for a few days I think.
Utinomen, I have to call you out on your factual accuracy of this famine happening under capitalism. It didn't, it happened in the Northern part of Holland that was occupied by the Nazis at that moment. The Nazis were Socialist, and therefore this didn't happen during a time of Capitalism NOR rule of law. Therefore this argument is dead.
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@Slipknotyk06 The Nazis called themselves Socialist, sure. Hitler also called himself a Christian, quote: "My feelings as a Christian ... recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them ..." Labels aside, the real question is whether the Dutch famine happened under market conditions, though I take your point that wartime conditions had more to do with the famine in Holland. An example of famine under market conditions is the Bangladesh famine.See the linked study
utinomen 1 year ago
@utinomen - That linked study tells me little. So, I google it and find that it was basically started by a flood that demolished rice fields. Also, it was vastly exacerbated by corrupt government officials which runs contrary to the "rule of law" premise. NEXT!
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@Slipknotyk06 The linked study explains that it was caused by a failure of distribution and hoarding of crops. It is obvious that you should to write to the authors of the study and disabuse them of their glib conclusion that famines aren't always caused by a lack of rule of law and market forces. I think I can speak for the whole of humanity in thanking you for your invaluable insights.
utinomen 1 year ago
@utinomen - On the link you provide, I can only see an ABSTRACT of the paper. So, if you are citing the entire paper, give me a link that I can use to debunk your claims. Otherwise, I don't even know if the paper states what you claim, which actually makes YOUR insight invaluable.
Also, does the paper go into detail about WHO hoarded those crops after a natural disaster? It was corrupt government officials operating outside of "rule of law" which you have still failed to address!
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@Slipknotyk06 Click the link, then click the words that say "One Click Download" near the top. That link will provide the WHOLE paper. I make no claims to any personal insight, I merely report that there are serious minded people in the world other than HTWW who would disagree with his glib commentary. I did not fail to do that which I did not begin to attempt, I merely praise your insight that enables you to feel superior to authors of a carefully researched paper.
utinomen 1 year ago
@utinomen - They say nothing of the fact that at the time Bangladesh was recovering from years of wars. They had sustained wars with West Pakistan (Bangladesh is formerly East Pakistan) for their independence. In addition to sluggish recovery from war, they had dozens of floods, an unstable government, and many issues with corruption. Over 3 million had fled Bangladesh to India in the years leading up to this, so you've taken the weakest possible nation as your case study. Simply disingenuous.
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@Slipknotyk06 So you claim it was all to do with other factors. *rolls eyes* Nevermind that the economy was working fine with no starvation, and then the publicity of the possibility of famine caused a run on the supply chain.
Those researchers spent hours researching a subject by reading other research papers about famines and their causes (see the references), come to another conclusion altogether, and you expect me to be impressed by your bombast?
utinomen 1 year ago
@utinomen - If they really spent 'hours' researching that topic, they'd say something of the weakened state of Bangladesh's government. Also, they'd document that there was starvation in 1972-1973 Bangladesh roughly equal to the proportion of starvation cases in India.
No, I don't expect you to be impressed, you're never impressed even when proven wrong.
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@Slipknotyk06 Yes, yes, please feel free to entertain your own fantasies about the incompetence and possible malign intentions of those researchers, but I prefer to give more weight to the conclusions of the researchers.
Obviously, for them to read 50 or so research papers and books only takes a minute or two. *rolls eyes*
utinomen 1 year ago
@utinomen - I didn't state they were malign. I didn't state they were incompetent.
I believe you're cherry-picking a study that says what you want it to say. You conceded Holland so easily, but don't concede this one.
Do you have a different case study?
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@Slipknotyk06 The study says famines occur in both capitalistic and socialistic countries, under a variety of conditions, and seems to make it clear that the facile assessment offered by HTWW that no famines occur under market conditions is a false one. You appear to have a similarily unnuanced opinion, and do prefer to believe the researchers are unaware or incapable of considering the points you have mentioned, and expect me to discount their research in favour of your few google searches
utinomen 1 year ago
@utinomen - I believe they chose not to, because they spend more of the paper trying to utterly discredit capitalism for the famine in Bangladesh and glossing over major contributing factors. They go on and on about Bangladesh while not hitting on the Holodomor, or Mao's Famine. I read 35 pages into the paper and found ONE mention of Mao's China, and NONE of the holodomor, along with ONE of Nazi-Controlled Holland.
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@Slipknotyk06 You were denying believing they had malign intentions and incompetence a post back! Now they "chose not to" and are out to "utterly discredit capitalism"! Clearly you *do* believe the researchers are incompetent or blinded by ideology or somesuch malign influence!
The study aside, why is it so (apparently) important to you that market conditions that must reign supreme as the ultimate solution to preventing famines?
utinomen 1 year ago
@Slipknotyk06 Aside from that well known Communist propaganda machine, the World Bank, handing out papers purportedly to be aimed at understanding and reducing famines, but really just attacking the sacrosanct institution of Capitalism, and not worried if people starve more as a result of taking the research seriously ... let me ask you a question:
Why is it so important to you that market conditions that must reign supreme as the ultimate solution to preventing famines?
utinomen 1 year ago
"If the majority of people thought that industrial capitalism was a fair system, then unions would not exist." You make the false assumption that unions seek fairness. They don't. They seek to unfairly benefit themselves at the expense of others. That's why teachers unions in the U.S. have destroyed the quality of education in our country by using government to set up and protect their coercive monopoly.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate Yes, that's exactly their motive when they helped end child labour, whilst being beaten up and killed by hired goons of corporations. Perhaps you'd like to make a less sweeping statement?
utinomen 1 year ago
@utinomen,
Both corporations and unions initiate force against others through the state. They both have "hired goons."
There is nothing wrong with child labor. Many children enjoy contributing in a productive way to help their family. It gives them a sense of pride, self discipline, & experience that can help them achieve success.
We don't owe better working conditions to unions nor the government. It resulted primarily from advances in technology & competition between employers.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate truthadvocate, the final arbitor of fairness and truth, in his superior intellect has deemed child labour to be fine and good, so all complaints about its exploitative nature are hereby declared illegitmate and void.
Also, history is to be rewritten such that the business community and market forces are to be given credit for the end of child labour, and nothing to do with decades of popular protest and struggle.
utinomen 1 year ago
@utinomen, I thought I was just giving my opinion, but if you want to bestow me with that lofty title, I'm flattered ;)
The history with which we were indoctrinated is just a series of theories. When valid evidence is presented that proves those theories false, we need to replace them with theories that are consistent with the evidence. Scientifically this is how we travel closer to the truth. You call it "re-writing history." I call it correcting misinterpretations of the past.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate Yes your opinion seems to be that all unions are evil, and that those who campaigned against child labour were stupid to be so unhappy. Perhaps you would also claim that slavery was ended by market forces, and not a war and a shift in public opinion. But yes, science and empiricism is the best method for gaining reliable knowledge. Exactly why almost all economics should be dismissed for its reliance on normative theory, including Von Mises' praxelogy.
utinomen 1 year ago
@utinomen, If you want to know my opinion, just re-read my quotes or ask me. I never said "all" unions are "evil." I never said child labor opponents are "stupid" for being so unhappy. I did not address slavery. I also never said empiricism is the "best" method for gaining knowledge. Empiricism can be relatively worthless if one fails to correctly apply logic & reason. In certain situations misinterpretations are more likely, in which case logic & reason may serve us better than observation.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate Yes, you said (paraphrase) that unions do not seek fairness. That seems - note, as before, SEEMS - to represent the opinion that all or most unions seek unfairness, and it would seem make sense that they must have bad motivations ("evil"). A fair response to such an assertion is that unions are mostly motivated by what they see as fair, such as the end of child labour. I would take your responses more seriously if only I was not responded with the idea that child labour is good.
utinomen 1 year ago
@utinomen,
Do you support age discrimination? It "SEEMS" like you do. Do you believe some people should forcefully be denied equal rights based on their age alone?
Why is it so hard for you to believe that a job might be valued by someone who is under the arbitrary age you use to define "child labor?"
Not all child labor involves severe physical hardship & pain. There are many jobs that are safe, painless, and even enjoyable.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate If you'd like a serious response, perhaps you could first explain what that kind of child labour has to do with all or most unions aiming for unfairness, in light of the fact that unions have campaigned against the vile kind of child labour in the past?
utinomen 1 year ago
@utinomen,
I'm sure there were people that found child labor personally offensive & pushed for its prohibition. As many do, they probably failed to compare their current situation with a realistic alternative. If they did, they might have found that children were better off working in factories than starving to death. I'm also certain there were workers who just didn't want the competition. Unions campaigned. Things happened. Correlation does not equal causation nor does it prove good intentions
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate so it would seem that you do indeed think that those who fought against child labour were stupid because they, quote, "failed to compare their current situation with a realistic alternative." It would also seem that you are taking your idea of fairness, seeing that it does not correspond with the outcomes you think are fair, and concluding that unions et al must therefore be motivated by unfairness, isn't that so? What is your idea of fairness?
utinomen 1 year ago
@utinomen,
I'm tired of the way you reword my statements. A person does not have to be "stupid" to make an error. Making errors is part of human nature. You think Einstein never made errors?
For a system of ethics to be fair, you must be able to apply it consistently to everything & everyone.
I'm also tired of the way you keep demanding answers to questions yet are unwilling to answer the few simple questions that I posed two comments ago.
truthadvocate 1 year ago
@truthadvocate I am playing back how your statements sound, since they do sound to me to be outrageous. OK ... your questions (that did not seem at all serious but nonetheless) no - don't support age discrimination, no - no age based discrimination, it's not hard but that kind of child labour isn't even remotely relevant to the discussion about unions "seeking unfairness". Einstein likely made errors, but again, it seems outrageous to dismiss union organising as a "mistake" - kinda patronising
utinomen 1 year ago
His claim is that free countries have never experienced famine.
simontimon2 2 years ago
That's not how he put it. What is a "free" country? And tell me if you think Holland is a "free" country, and if it is, why their famine doesn't count.
utinomen 2 years ago
Because food can be imported from other countries if theres a crop failure.
So yes Holland has free trade in the food sector.
So yes Holland is a relative free country in which government doesn't run the food industry and the government can't take away your property.
simontimon2 2 years ago
So it is false that free countries have never experienced famine.
utinomen 2 years ago
If money is property then all governments take away property in the form of taxes, so it is going to be difficult to find a country that fits that criterion. And incidently, there have been countires which have had famines caused solely by hoarding and panic.
utinomen 2 years ago
Like the communist Chinese famine caused by government planning which killed 50 million.
simontimon2 2 years ago
If you have watched my video then you know that I was critical of "wack job communist governments". If you are at all interested in what causes famines, so that people may understand how to prevent them then you will neither accept the dogmatisms coming from Communist governments nor How The World Works
utinomen 2 years ago
Due to a relatively unregulated food industry food is cheaper and more readily available than ever. The cost perhouse hold of food has gone from 15% of income in 1950 of to 5% in 2000.
simontimon2 2 years ago
Cite your source please. Does your source explain how regulation causes lower costs and not, for example, technological improvements in agriculture and huge agro-businesses creating economies of scale, or increased trade or any number of other possibilities, or are you just making that bit up? Also note that Bangladesh must have very little in the way of regulation and yet in their market system there was still a famine.
utinomen 2 years ago
Comment removed
simontimon2 2 years ago
So the standered of life is higher than it's ever been. So quit bitching.
simontimon2 2 years ago
Note that if improvements in agricultural technology accounts for a large increase in living standards and lowered costs, then we should be getting technology to poor countries, not just imposing free markets. Also note that, as with all other tecnological developments, there have been decades of public research to thank. Computers were invented in the public sector in the 40's - 60's without business involvement. The internet was invented late 1960's (ARPANET). Regulation has no effect on that.
utinomen 2 years ago
I know its good practice to let the people you are commenting on "speak for themselves" but ouch! listening to "howtheworldworks" is like having someone give me a swift rub with some sandpaper. Hmm, let me put in a request for a comment on some nice folks like AdamHintz, bbbleaver, zzz33333, or donHooiigan.
givebirthathome 2 years ago
I'll look at those channels. HTWWs is a dogmatic mentalist. I don't think he bothered to watch this.
utinomen 2 years ago
Hope you enjoy them. They all gravitate to Derrick Jensen, but they are sweet people...zzz is often funny, although possibly somewhat unintentionally at times. He's even evolved in his ideas which is cool, but then he's quite young.
Thanks for pausing to understand my comment about the if-only-it-were-"normal" disgust for retinal scan personal marketing.
You have a nice voice in this video. I'm going to be off youtube for a few days I think.
givebirthathome 2 years ago
Bravo
mrwretham 2 years ago