I agree with Bill Maher and disagree with TYT host. Saying that capitalism has an upside does not negate the fact that “Corporations and their incredible strength are what has ruined this country so far”
Lobbyists are the sole reason we do not have the democracy we’re reputed to have.
I love how both Maher and Cenk have moved to the left since all the shit that has wrong since! No way would I be hearing him defending corporations now. Makes me happy
Safety costs money. And the top 1% people (the mighty 400. The corporations) Why would they want to spend money. "I can always hire another set of drones to go into one of my mines. But my Gulfstream fleet needs upkeep. That's expensive and more important."
free markets will never work, you need monopoly laws etc(socialism) to prevent business from becoming controlling beasts of the masses, it will fall into corporatism and finally into imperialism.
what you need is a HEALTHY market. TO MUCH regulation is not good either, it is the same as the company having a monopoly and evily controlling the masses(take apple for example?). except it is the government controlling the market and not the company.
it's imposing a lot of regulations for standards and labels and things like that; Cenk just pointed out in this video why they are necessary;
you should see how Euroskeptics are flipping out about that; they're similar,some of them, somewhat, to the Republicans; they view the taxes and regulations of the EU as neo-imperialism or something;
Euroskeptics like that need to look at the US and see how the opposite is worse;
XCLUSIVE!! into my profile and see a video of OSAMA BIN LADEN, being thrown into the sea BY NORTH AMERICAN soldiers ... a part of your body all charred, but give it to see the face of his face a little visible ... And the soldiers play more, I got a very popular site of the United States, Being Portuguese subtitles ..... PLEASE NOTE: These scenes are very strong forbidden to minors under 18 years ... big hug guys!
He's an idiot who clearly got beat up every day he walked to school. Now he has security guards that allow him to get on a set and show what a complete fool he actually is. He's not even a smart liberal.
@duganator100 I wouldn't go as far as to say they are "complete opposites." Libertarians (at least in pure form) are socially Liberal, fiscally Conservative. A case can be made that Libertarian philosophy is Liberal in concerns to personal liberties, and Conservative in terms of the economy.
@duganator100 I wouldn't go as far as to say they are "complete opposites." Libertarians (at least in pure form) are socially Liberal, fiscally Conservative. A case can be made that Libertarian philosophy is Liberal in concerns to personal liberties, and Conservative in terms of the economy.
@orgasmicide2 Well, one could be a hardcore Liberal and still be a staunch supporter of Israel, I don't see a contradiction there. As for supporting the war in Vietnam, yeah that is kind of weird coming from Bill Maher seeing as that most people (at least Liberal) nowadays see Vietnam as a mistake that the United States shouldn't have taken part in. Or if you take Ron Paul's position, you could argue that being anti-war is also a hardcore Conservative.
@JoKo203 If so many people see veitnam as bein a big mistake than how come we don't c iraq as bein one 2? how come it didn't stop us from goin in there? oh yeah, we're greedy for oil and god forbid we put some decent work and fundin in2 green energy
Obamacare was signed on March 2010 with 59% of the people disapproving according to a CNN poll. The CBO scored Obamacare on six years of coverage for 10 years of taxes, which is how the CBO showed the bill to be deficit neutral . It’s unconstitutional mandating all citizens to purchase health care. Even Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill, so you can find out what is in it.” watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To It’s also meant to take over industry watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk
@Oktoberfesting LoL, how can 59% of the people disapprove now? Obama WON on the premise that he was going to "reform healthcare." You say it's "unconstitutional" mandating citizens to purchase health insurance, but why should we look at it as a product. I agree, it's unconstitutional for the gov't to force people to buy a product, but this isn't a product. Also, then it would be "unconstitutional" for the gov't to force us to buy car insurance, why isn't the Right upset about this?
Obama didn't "WIN" Obamacare. He and Congress rammed it through against the will of the American people. CNN poll showed March 2010 59% disapproved of it. A new Rasmussen Reports (Feb 4 2011) national telephone survey 58% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law.
.
You don't have own a car to be a citizen. Put on your thinking cap.
Revisionist history says the founding founders gave us small government which then devolved into big government. The constitution suggest otherwise. It gives us "general health and welfare" and free markets UNDER the commerce clause. In short, it gives us a democratic republic based on the common good and COMMON SENSE. The corporations are building a corporatist/socialist structure in the NAME of capitalism. Its understandable they want power. What I don't understand is why we give it to them.
Communism and Socialism do work. It has been proven. What doesn't work, and what the rightwing is not mentally able to understand, is that corporate socialism does not work. Extreme Nationalism, like the Soviet Union, Iran, North Korea, do not work.
Capitalism does work. It's Corporatism & Fascism that doesn't work. Even if you don't like Capitalism, please, just realize that it's different than Fascism & Corporatism. How would you leftists like me to say Socialism & Hitler are the same as Communism & Stalin?... you wouldn't...
Yeah lets not be bi-partisan and compromise lets just spew our talking points and not do shit for a few years, sounds good. Due to compromise we had DADT repealed, START approved, and a food safety bill passed. If we had not compromised then those things would not have been accomplished.
@OdinLowe Know, corporatism can work very well with democracy, fascism can't. Fascism is an ideology that glorifies street violence and war. We must stop calling eachother extremists.
i mostly do not like this young turk guy... but i have to applaud him for speaking out and speaking on the difference between capitalism and corporatism.. ty vvv m sir
mr young turk, enjoy most of your stuff, but youre a bit mainstream brainwashed.
do your learnin friend....you need more edumacation: political philosophies and economics for certain.
corporatism = capitalism. capitalism has CREATED corporatism. they are one and the same system. one would not be able to exist without the other, they are 2 parts of the same rule system. just like nationalization = socialism, they are one and the same system, they are fundamental (yet separate) parts of it.
@effep uuuuh yah.. we are aware of that.. but he is like me in the sense that we promote a healthy balance of capitalism and socialism... enough capitalism to not let socialism go too far... and enough socialism to not let capitalism go too far.. a healthy balance.. it is the only way to go
fuck off from my screen,i plugt in for BILL MAHER not to support your opinion.
although your a socialist,i do not want to hear your opinion,i want to hear bill maher,s opinion.
i am viewing from holland i enjoy bill,so would you please vanisch from my screen,i am not interested in your opinion,i am interested in the opinion of BILL MAHER.
so fuck of from the screen and let bill do the talking.
thank you very much,for your total useless comments.
I like Bill Maher, he makes some real excellent points, but how is he a Libertarian? He supports Universal Health Care, Gun Control, High Taxes on the Rich and other ideals that Progressives/Liberals fight for that aren’t Libertarian. I can see Gay Marriage, Legalization of Marijuana, and cutting the Military Budget, those ideals are Libertarian. I'd say that Maher is more of a Progressive or a Left-Populist, I really don't see how he is Libertarian, unless I am missing something?
@JoKo203 because if obama is suposedly a liberal yet he doesnt fight for universal health care, gun control, high taxes for the rich or any of the things bill maher calls for then how could you lump bill maher with someone like obama. but maybe maher is liberal but that would mean that obama and all the so called liberals in this govt arent liberal
@xvizionsx I would say that Obama is more of a Centrist than a Liberal, the fact that he's not fighting for the above that you listed, and he also came out recently in opposition to gay marriage, definitely not Liberal, much more of a Centrist.
you are absolutely right, from maher´s stand up comedy from 2000 he said that guns were really the only thing that he wanted his government to stand up to. But it seems that so much is changing around him, like the financial crisis and the oil spill that it has become more complicated than just drug regulations
@JoKo203 He's a fiscal conservative and social libertarian. Like me, he thinks there should be rules for things that affect all people, but there should be limited rules for things that only affect the people who are doing the actions. Example we should all pay a fair ammount of taxes cause taxes maintain our public stuffs, but if I want to smoke weed and get a working girl and pay her to give me some sexual service that's my business and I should not be arrested for things like that.
@JoKo203 you're right but it seems like when he supports these ideas, he's operating in the framework of the existing system. i also happen to think universal health care doesn't necessarily counterpose libertarianism. :)
@JoKo203 it could be possible that he has ideas that don't have to fit into everyones nice pretty scale of political right or left.... could he just be a realist and who doesn't care about left and right but what actually makes sense?
@graysonb14 Well, I used to believe that, but as I hear him speak more and more about specific political problems, he most definitely comes across as the standard Left Winger. He's for expanding the welfare state and modeling the U.S. off of the European Socialist states of Europe. I can provide other specific examples where Maher tows the standard Left Wing political line. Jesse Ventura is a good example of someone who is harder to define politically.
all four men in this video have no business acumen and have never worked a real job or ever gotten their hands dirty. 2 liberal academia jounalists, a comedian and a community organizer.
Could you imagine Maher as president he would say something sarcastic to the congress and they would be too stupid to understand the difference between a joke and a real statement. To me congress is dumb rich people who couldn't keep a real job. I think the president should trick them into getting paid minimum wage that way they can see the world through real americans eyes.
this is also why i believe the goverment needs to be involde in certain markets like heath care, tanspotation like airlines, and such, to enfroe their minimum standard so that other companies can adher to that. basially if you have a gov heath company that is open to everyone but is shit, the privates will try and get some market away by offering better, at high but resionable prices, heath care and not turn people away.
now should the goverment be involved in making video games or 3CP sodas?
@KangaKucha NO! that be foolish to be involded in those produts.
but milltary should be more involded in weapons, right now weapons making companies are running the american foriegn policy and war machine. need to crack down on that asap.
I think i like this guy, i dont know why but i search or find heaps of random clips from all across youtube... and i just always find myself coming back to another video from him
More regulations lead to corporatism. Bigger corporations are able to comply easier to gov't reg. , than smaller buisnesses. And many times corporations lobby Washington for more regulations. Corporatism is an element of the left, and yeah many on the right love it too.
@Orgyfan6 idk if i'd call it corportalism, cuz thats like state capatalism when the state actaly regulates the industry to expolt the economy and workers for a higher goal, like nazi germant and facist italy.
@KangaKucha and the USSR. But look at the USA now. the lest Regulated 1st world nation. And it is run my corporations. In my view capitalism will lead to ether Corporatism or state capitalism.
while i recpect you communist views, being a former communist, and s/o who misses the ussr and the cold war, i think capalism is good as long as its controled and regulated, or it will destpory you like a monester that it is.
@Orgyfan6 ok, it was socailist to the extreme, right or wrong, and was never communist expect for a few secs after the USSR fell, cuz if you take karl marx word litterally, its a scientic path back to man's natural state, which is for all intensive properces, anarchy.
@Orgyfan6 well not enough power, people did have some voice, but very little in comparision to the USA, although thats a bad comparision, yet when the USSR wanted to build a dam that people didn't like, it was protested, and the people won out as the dam was never build.
your lucky you live in Canada, I wish I did, then I could vote NDP, a party I mostly agree with, not this democratic bullshit in the USA, or hit or miss with Labor in Australia.
@Orgyfan6...Look at what I wrote"man". "More regulations lead to corporatism. Bigger corporations are able to comply easier to gov't reg. , than smaller buisnesses. And many times corporations lobby Washington for more regulations".......Makes sense. I believe that there needs to be regulation, but not excessive restrictive regulation. It's regulation that many times causes the buisnesses to get in bed with the gov't....read the book Liberal Facsism.
theres nothing america has that the rest of the world wants or need. if americas economy collapses, countries like china or russia will not be affected.
you are sooooooo right.. on that.. usa will keep going down the hill if they let these pest repuliscum dominate the government ,,, these people have no logic anymore .. everyday they are cranking out tea baggers , gun welding nuts , corrupted politician
Does that mean that corporations should be abolished no I don't think so.I agree with you there.There should be regulations that tell you when a business has gotten too large to be sustainable.
In trading I don't think it's unreasonable to have it where you can only invest money that you actually have.Which wasn't being done before.Noone knew what the other guy had, everyone was fudging numbers and so when the shit hit the fan everything froze up cause noone knew who to trust with loans.
The free market has been here for some time but I don't think that just because something has been here for awhile that automatically qualifies it as a good thing.Free Market on it's face isn't a bad concept.Businessmen are trading with other businessmen for goods.They decide among themselves if the price offered is fair.The "free" part is that they believe this should be done without restriction or regulation.Which I disagree on.(My previous comment didn't show so I redid it the best I could)
Uh.... America is not the most powerful economic powerhouse in the world, America is trillions of dollars in debt to China. The world economy is changing to the euro and most countries aren't even accepting American currency anymore. Good job doing your research.
Uhhh America has a very low export trade value so how would the rest of the world go under if America does? They won't, would be nice if you had some evidence to support what you say.
"It's part of our capitalist system to have corporations so there's nothing wrong with that"
Corporations don't allow for a real democracy so why does YoungTurks even have this pointless show? Slavery was once a part of our system was that right?
@Orgyfan6 They've worked for us for 200 yeras, so why not now? Socialism and communism hasn't worked either, because perfection / utopias are impossible to achieve.
It's more about what is important to you. Freedom, security, etc.
@Orgyfan6 it would work with a healthy balance of socialism and capitalism... enough capitalism to not let socialism become communism... and enough socialism to not let capitalism become corporatism.. look at history before you start spouting slogans.. every nation that had no free market became a corrupt dictatorship.. and some of them were atrocious.. think before you speak
@Orgyfan6 Not if you're careful. Socialism can also mutate into Corporatism or Communism. Socialism, Communism, & Corporatism/ Fascism don't work. Look at history. Pure Capitalism doesn't always work that well, however, you need to have a good chunk of it. I like the idea of mixed economies between Capitalism & Socialism, however, they need to be leaning towards Capitalism. Examples: U.S.A. before it was screwed up, Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand, and, arguably, The Netherlands & Sweden.
I think we're on the eve of that 'free market' bullshit finally falling apart. It won't be now, but Obama won't reverse the debt, and eventually the next Republican will continue Bush-style and the US will collapse economically. (It's already vulnerable.)
The US will eventually bounce back (after a REAL crisis.) But people will finally realize the system they worshipped just benefitted the rich, and allowed for the collapse, and then abandon all this capitalism nonsense.
Capitalism is kind of like a religion. It's assumed by the believers that everything good is capitalism, and that if you aren't capitalist you're some form of dictatorship. Which is like saying that if you aren't a christian, you're per definition an atheist.
I say that you can have a healthy economy and trade with a better system then capitalism. Namely one with checks, balances and better rights for the common citizen. And that will become clear enough in the near future.
Good analogy Shavarnarak. Free market gets worshipped as the be-all end-all with no room for improvement. It's almost like reverse-Orwellian language, to assume anything government with fascism or communism or the like.
@joegood you seem to have no idea what you are asking for.. obama is a far left extremist and would put in place a system that could POTENTIALLY become a seriously tyrannical dictatorship.. whether it is his intention or not.. you have to look at the risks of what he or some future leader could do with that power if they deemed it necessary... we need a balance of socialism and capitalism.. enough of each system to not let the other go too far.. watch how great it becomes and the world follows
@Egarrett01, yeah, that's worked so well on toxic lead painted toys, toxic e-coli food, lead paint for homes, exploding Ford Pintos, and the stock market prior to the SEC.
What planet are you from in where nobody ever cheats or takes a shortcut because they're worried about their reputation?
Great point. Add to that arsenic in Tylenol, microsoft´s monopoly, the Exxon Valdez and god forbid you get into a car accident with someone that has the same insurance as you.
That actually does not change or effect what I said in the least.
"...they have INCENTIVE to make them safe and inspect them themselves, even before people do."
The government can enforce property rights and punish for physically harming other people, which are two of their roles in a free market. The government is NOT needed to insure quality of product...the market automatically pushes for that.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I have no idea what the hell Cenk (the anchor) is talking about...except that he apparently knows very little about capitalism.
If the government is helping corporations destroy their competition, then the problem is THE GOVERNMENT, not the corporations or "corporatism."
You also don't need the government to inspect elevators in his example. The companies will make safe elevators on their own because they'll know that people won't buy their elevators if they aren't safe.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Because people WILL use the elevators, and the companies know that people will so they have incentive to make them safe and inspect them themselves, even before people do.
There is NO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE NECESSARY. Please learn something about how the free market works.
You can have a lazy government inspector also. The possibility that a quality insurance person may be lazy has no effect whatsoever on this point on either side.
No offense but it's very exhausting to have these types of discussions with people who don't understand the point at all. Explaining something over and over is tiresome.
You'd think that the market would demand a video game console that works, especially when it costs up to $400. But here we see Microsoft's 360 have a 30% premature failure rate. I guess market incentive doesn't always ensure quality control does it?
I don't mean to sound condescending. I saw some videos on your channel and thoroughly enjoyed them, especially your response to theist J Miller. I agree with a lot of that. But I believe government is more integral than it appears to me that you believe it is. For instance, when it comes to quality control, things like medications may have long-term side effects that may not be discovered for years if untested. It would take gov. regulation to try to ensure that these products are safe.
If your product kills people then you can be brought up on criminal charges. One of the few roles of government in a free market is to enforce property rights and core laws like stopping people from murdering other people.
HOWEVER, when it comes to general quality control in a product, this is the same point as the elevators. The free market provides an incentive to companies to make a quality product. No government is needed.
As a matter of fact, I DID study economics. Telling everybody who disagrees with you to study more doesn't refute their points.
Also, I provided you with an example of how the free market fails to ensure quality. Sometimes other incentives take precedence over the incentive to make a quality product, like beating another product's release date or offering more features, etc. Try making a good point instead of being condescending.
You're right, telling people to study doesn't refute their points. But maybe all those funny words I wrote in the TWO PARAGRAPHS before I said to study do. Why don't you try reading and responding to those two paragraphs instead of pretending they're not there?
I'm just curious about something though. The area of contention in this debate is whether government should oversee quality control. It's not like we're talking about something that could potentially infringe upon human rights, issues like censorship or abortion.
Some people may wish to pay taxes to allow government to ensure quality so that they don't have to worry about it themselves. Others don't. Beyond this it has no implications, sets no precedence for any other type of gov. control.
You assume that there is no quality-control if the government is not involved, or that individual people need to "worry about it" if the government isn't involved.
Please look up a grade-school introduction to the free market and how competition functions. You don't get it in the least.
Oh and this may be difficult for you to get, but telling people to study something more doesn't pass as a credible response. It's not like studying free markets invariably leads to support for them. I guess that's all you've got.
A medication that damages or kills doesn't always bring the right people up on charges, nor is it always successful or fair in the courtroom.
Even if there were always successful criminal charges, I'd rather have the FDA establish some sort of criterion for medication as opposed to having to sue or press charges against the company later, so the benefits may only be reaped by future generations while I'm irreversibly sick. Assuming I win, of course.
If the right people aren't brought up on charges, then we need to make sure we find the right people. Stopping people from being killed is just fine as a role for the government in a free market system. Insuring quality in a product is not.
Regarding your last point, this is not a response to what I said. Companies still have an incentive not to make you sick. Losing all their money, their reputation, their business and future earning potential, on top of potential criminal charges.
And how do you propose you find the right people to press charges against? Should we, the people, launch our own sort of vigilante investigation into the inner workings of a company?
"And how do you propose the right people to press charges against?"
Read my reply that starts with "if the right people aren't brought up on charges." You didn't get it, because you asked a question that was already answered.
Furthermore, assuming that government investigations are more effective at pushing for quality than the free market is frighteningly ignorant. If you ever read ANYTHING about what happens when government tries to run an economy, you wouldn't be asking this.
"If you ever read ANYTHING about what happens when government tries to run an economy, you wouldn't be asking this."
I have actually. The difference is that I have used examples to support my points, whereas you make stupid generalizations with no support whatsoever.
Also, the response that "we have to make sure the right people are brought up on charges just so that the government doesn't" shows your idiocy as I aptly proved earlier. Try reading my responses.
Your fallacy is that you dwell in idealism. In the REAL world, products are continuously recalled, be they agricultural, automotive, medicinal, etc. due to unforseen problems. While this is partly the fault of poor regulation by the government, it demonstrates that in the real world the free market DOES NOT ensure quality control. It is merely an incentive, balanced against numerous other business incentives.
In your words, study some basic history (or business for that matter) please.
I didn't say products don't get recalled or that quality products are always made. I said that there are MARKET FORCES THAT ENCOURAGE QUALITY ALREADY. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT NECESSARY TO INSURE QUALITY.
If you ignore this again and make up some idiotic strawman argument I'm just going to leave. It's like trying to point something out to a dog that will only stare at your finger.
Leave then. It's impossible to speak reasonably with someone as arrogant as yourself. You try to explain why the free market can do everything. Constantly saying that there are market forces isn't enough. As I've demonstrated, that doesn't always cut it, sometimes the government does do it better. You might try using specific examples rather than making assertions with no backing.
I didn't say the free market can do everything. In fact, I explained several things that the government MUST do in order to allow a free market to exist. Trying to insure product quality is not one of those things.
I'm not going to keep repeating myself though. This conversation is nothing but me repeatedly trying to explain basic economics to you and correct your endless series of strawman arguments. It's pathetic.
Lol, all you did was try to make the pedantic argument that there is an incentive to ensure quality in a free market. Nobody disagreed, people just tried to explain that the government does it better. Seeing as you can't argue with that with any examples or support, you've fallen to pedantics. And made feeble comments about other people's education. You were talking about pathetic?
What part of rhetorical question didn't you understand? (that's another rhetorical question, btw)
We all knew the answer was "because they're pussies"; also because they always know the ratings aren't on their quack side, just as the public isn't. Pussy ass little bitchwads afraid of reality.
"oh no OH NO THOSE FAGGOTS AND DEATH THREATS" ~ now that's some fucking irony, pussy ass motherfuckers.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Massachusetts has healthcare for all. Just like Obamas plan, residents are required to have healthcare. But the plan has failed miserably. Insurance costs have skyrocketed over the last 20 years. Lawmakers cannot find the money to pay for services for the state-insured people. Hospitals are suing the state for inadequate payment. Now they are dropping people from the program. Why should we take a plan that failed miserably in Massachusetts and to the entire country? It makes no sense.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
About 80% of Americans like their present health insurance. Obama says you can keep your insurance plan if you like it. Not true. Pages 16-17 of the bill say no new health plans can be offered by private insurance companies. Do you understand what that means? Insurance plans change every year. They change coverage slightly or change the co-pay or the co-insurance. Every tweak creates a new plan. So you keep your current plan for one year, then it is on to the govt plan for you! Ripoff!
In the words of Mary Poppins, Obama is making pie crust promises - "easily made, easily broken." People have good reason not to believe him when he says there will not be any long lines. This plan is destroying the Democrat party. According to Rasmussen Reports, in a generic poll Republicans beat Democrats 43% to 38%. Republicans will probably take over Congress in 2010. Google Rasmussen Reports Generic Congressional Ballot and see for yourself.
People do want healthcare reform but not Obama's plan. Obama and the Democrats are making a big mistake. Perhaps they do not remember when the Clintons tried to take over healthcare in 1993 and the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. According to Quinnipiac University poll, by a 72-21 margin voters do not believe Obama will keep his promise to reform healthcare without adding to the deficit. By 57-37 margin, voters think healthcare reform should be scrapped if it will add to the deficit.
love how he's so close minded when it comes to politics. If your left your argument is right if your right you are obviously crazy and wrong. Doesn't even give the argument a chance or try to see any other way of thinking, even worse doesn't result to any facts or history to support his arguments. and all his arguments are just liberal talking points.
It's funny he's blaming the right for "corperatism" when it was the Dem house, and the Dem president. That TOOK OVER GM. While the right was screaming "let them fail". THAT is corperatism
exactly not only that but doesnt he realize it was his party that bailed out some of the most currupt banks in America with tax payers money! How is that looking out for the small guy? thats making the small guy pay for big greedy business mans' mistakes!
I agree. Corporations are destroying this country. Not necessarily capitalism, not necessarily corporations per se, but the corporations we're letting screw us in the arse day in, day out.
I agree with Bill Maher and disagree with TYT host. Saying that capitalism has an upside does not negate the fact that “Corporations and their incredible strength are what has ruined this country so far”
Lobbyists are the sole reason we do not have the democracy we’re reputed to have.
JRobson1955 1 week ago
I love how both Maher and Cenk have moved to the left since all the shit that has wrong since! No way would I be hearing him defending corporations now. Makes me happy
lynottlives 2 weeks ago
Darwin saw in an ape, Marilyn Monroe.
AntiChrista4WPeace 4 months ago
I <3 Bill Maher. I'm so high.
pokemonmaster19 5 months ago
Safety costs money. And the top 1% people (the mighty 400. The corporations) Why would they want to spend money. "I can always hire another set of drones to go into one of my mines. But my Gulfstream fleet needs upkeep. That's expensive and more important."
djakew77 6 months ago
free markets will never work, you need monopoly laws etc(socialism) to prevent business from becoming controlling beasts of the masses, it will fall into corporatism and finally into imperialism.
what you need is a HEALTHY market. TO MUCH regulation is not good either, it is the same as the company having a monopoly and evily controlling the masses(take apple for example?). except it is the government controlling the market and not the company.
mitsukai89 6 months ago
i'l like whatever makes the economy better capitalism or more government whatever works
Superfresh602 7 months ago
wtf, the host is like "BILL may have went to far with what he said" then goes on to say more or less what bill said anyways
greyfox5000 8 months ago
LOL, that's what the EU is doing;
it's imposing a lot of regulations for standards and labels and things like that; Cenk just pointed out in this video why they are necessary;
you should see how Euroskeptics are flipping out about that; they're similar,some of them, somewhat, to the Republicans; they view the taxes and regulations of the EU as neo-imperialism or something;
Euroskeptics like that need to look at the US and see how the opposite is worse;
bbphnix 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
XCLUSIVE!! into my profile and see a video of OSAMA BIN LADEN, being thrown into the sea BY NORTH AMERICAN soldiers ... a part of your body all charred, but give it to see the face of his face a little visible ... And the soldiers play more, I got a very popular site of the United States, Being Portuguese subtitles ..... PLEASE NOTE: These scenes are very strong forbidden to minors under 18 years ... big hug guys!
thiagopalmares20 9 months ago
cenk is nothing compared to maher
headbanger2510 9 months ago
He's an idiot who clearly got beat up every day he walked to school. Now he has security guards that allow him to get on a set and show what a complete fool he actually is. He's not even a smart liberal.
Maestrohbill 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I agree with quite a bit of what you say about FOX News, they are ENTIRELY FALSE...even when they tell the truth they are lying.
LightningBoltFACE 10 months ago
Obama is a center right, just like the way democrats hav been actin for a while. its aggravating quite frankly
cruelbusiness1984 11 months ago
29 people r lobbyists
cruelbusiness1984 11 months ago
@duganator100 I wouldn't go as far as to say they are "complete opposites." Libertarians (at least in pure form) are socially Liberal, fiscally Conservative. A case can be made that Libertarian philosophy is Liberal in concerns to personal liberties, and Conservative in terms of the economy.
JoKo203 11 months ago
@duganator100 I wouldn't go as far as to say they are "complete opposites." Libertarians (at least in pure form) are socially Liberal, fiscally Conservative. A case can be made that Libertarian philosophy is Liberal in concerns to personal liberties, and Conservative in terms of the economy.
JoKo203 11 months ago
@orgasmicide2 Well, one could be a hardcore Liberal and still be a staunch supporter of Israel, I don't see a contradiction there. As for supporting the war in Vietnam, yeah that is kind of weird coming from Bill Maher seeing as that most people (at least Liberal) nowadays see Vietnam as a mistake that the United States shouldn't have taken part in. Or if you take Ron Paul's position, you could argue that being anti-war is also a hardcore Conservative.
JoKo203 1 year ago
@JoKo203 If so many people see veitnam as bein a big mistake than how come we don't c iraq as bein one 2? how come it didn't stop us from goin in there? oh yeah, we're greedy for oil and god forbid we put some decent work and fundin in2 green energy
cruelbusiness1984 11 months ago
@cruelbusiness1984 I concur, we need to bring our men and women in uniform home.
JoKo203 11 months ago
Maher is a sissy bitch Libtard
MrNiggerfoot 1 year ago
Obamacare was signed on March 2010 with 59% of the people disapproving according to a CNN poll. The CBO scored Obamacare on six years of coverage for 10 years of taxes, which is how the CBO showed the bill to be deficit neutral . It’s unconstitutional mandating all citizens to purchase health care. Even Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill, so you can find out what is in it.” watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To It’s also meant to take over industry watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk
Allen West 2012
Oktoberfesting 1 year ago
@Oktoberfesting LoL, how can 59% of the people disapprove now? Obama WON on the premise that he was going to "reform healthcare." You say it's "unconstitutional" mandating citizens to purchase health insurance, but why should we look at it as a product. I agree, it's unconstitutional for the gov't to force people to buy a product, but this isn't a product. Also, then it would be "unconstitutional" for the gov't to force us to buy car insurance, why isn't the Right upset about this?
JoKo203 11 months ago
@JoKo203
.
Obama didn't "WIN" Obamacare. He and Congress rammed it through against the will of the American people. CNN poll showed March 2010 59% disapproved of it. A new Rasmussen Reports (Feb 4 2011) national telephone survey 58% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law.
.
You don't have own a car to be a citizen. Put on your thinking cap.
Oktoberfesting 11 months ago
Revisionist history says the founding founders gave us small government which then devolved into big government. The constitution suggest otherwise. It gives us "general health and welfare" and free markets UNDER the commerce clause. In short, it gives us a democratic republic based on the common good and COMMON SENSE. The corporations are building a corporatist/socialist structure in the NAME of capitalism. Its understandable they want power. What I don't understand is why we give it to them.
justwannaseehisface 1 year ago
Communism and Socialism do work. It has been proven. What doesn't work, and what the rightwing is not mentally able to understand, is that corporate socialism does not work. Extreme Nationalism, like the Soviet Union, Iran, North Korea, do not work.
deskset24 1 year ago
@deskset24 i don't think communism's ever been proven to work. but socialism, sure.
webmaster2089 1 year ago
Capitalism does work. It's Corporatism & Fascism that doesn't work. Even if you don't like Capitalism, please, just realize that it's different than Fascism & Corporatism. How would you leftists like me to say Socialism & Hitler are the same as Communism & Stalin?... you wouldn't...
YoungIvyScholar 1 year ago
Obama is a keynesian
Bipartisanship is already at work in Washington, on the drug war, federal reserve, war, empire, nation building.
RyanR3volution 1 year ago
Yeah lets not be bi-partisan and compromise lets just spew our talking points and not do shit for a few years, sounds good. Due to compromise we had DADT repealed, START approved, and a food safety bill passed. If we had not compromised then those things would not have been accomplished.
HolyTacoProductions 1 year ago
Corporatism, otherwise known as Fascism...
OdinLowe 1 year ago
@OdinLowe Know, corporatism can work very well with democracy, fascism can't. Fascism is an ideology that glorifies street violence and war. We must stop calling eachother extremists.
Imhornydadcomeinside 1 year ago
@Imhornydadcomeinside
Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.
Benito Mussolini
OdinLowe 1 year ago 7
i mostly do not like this young turk guy... but i have to applaud him for speaking out and speaking on the difference between capitalism and corporatism.. ty vvv m sir
Illuminoctis 1 year ago
Bill i really like you, but if you and Jesses Ventura ran for president i will vote for Jesses he is an atheist, but he speaks politically correct.
tuffythetiger 1 year ago
mr young turk, enjoy most of your stuff, but youre a bit mainstream brainwashed.
do your learnin friend....you need more edumacation: political philosophies and economics for certain.
corporatism = capitalism. capitalism has CREATED corporatism. they are one and the same system. one would not be able to exist without the other, they are 2 parts of the same rule system. just like nationalization = socialism, they are one and the same system, they are fundamental (yet separate) parts of it.
effep 1 year ago
@effep uuuuh yah.. we are aware of that.. but he is like me in the sense that we promote a healthy balance of capitalism and socialism... enough capitalism to not let socialism go too far... and enough socialism to not let capitalism go too far.. a healthy balance.. it is the only way to go
Illuminoctis 1 year ago
fuck off from my screen,i plugt in for BILL MAHER not to support your opinion.
although your a socialist,i do not want to hear your opinion,i want to hear bill maher,s opinion.
i am viewing from holland i enjoy bill,so would you please vanisch from my screen,i am not interested in your opinion,i am interested in the opinion of BILL MAHER.
so fuck of from the screen and let bill do the talking.
thank you very much,for your total useless comments.
ThePeeterd 1 year ago
Bill Maher for president!
guppyworld540 1 year ago 2
Capitalism = Crapitalism
ILLA1G 1 year ago
why do you think whe cannot think of our own?
ThePeeterd 1 year ago
I like Bill Maher, he makes some real excellent points, but how is he a Libertarian? He supports Universal Health Care, Gun Control, High Taxes on the Rich and other ideals that Progressives/Liberals fight for that aren’t Libertarian. I can see Gay Marriage, Legalization of Marijuana, and cutting the Military Budget, those ideals are Libertarian. I'd say that Maher is more of a Progressive or a Left-Populist, I really don't see how he is Libertarian, unless I am missing something?
JoKo203 1 year ago 21
@JoKo203 I'm pretty sure he's stated that he no longer considers himself libertarian, but he definitely did when he worked on politically incorrect
EnergizerBunny804 1 year ago
@JoKo203 because if obama is suposedly a liberal yet he doesnt fight for universal health care, gun control, high taxes for the rich or any of the things bill maher calls for then how could you lump bill maher with someone like obama. but maybe maher is liberal but that would mean that obama and all the so called liberals in this govt arent liberal
xvizionsx 11 months ago
@xvizionsx I would say that Obama is more of a Centrist than a Liberal, the fact that he's not fighting for the above that you listed, and he also came out recently in opposition to gay marriage, definitely not Liberal, much more of a Centrist.
JoKo203 11 months ago
you are absolutely right, from maher´s stand up comedy from 2000 he said that guns were really the only thing that he wanted his government to stand up to. But it seems that so much is changing around him, like the financial crisis and the oil spill that it has become more complicated than just drug regulations
icerevolution 10 months ago
@JoKo203 He's a fiscal conservative and social libertarian. Like me, he thinks there should be rules for things that affect all people, but there should be limited rules for things that only affect the people who are doing the actions. Example we should all pay a fair ammount of taxes cause taxes maintain our public stuffs, but if I want to smoke weed and get a working girl and pay her to give me some sexual service that's my business and I should not be arrested for things like that.
Thinker9713 10 months ago
@JoKo203 He's a SOCIAL Libertarian. He often forgets to add the word social. But he's said it many times in more serious interviews.
rightsideofhistory 9 months ago
@rightsideofhistory He called himself one because he smokes marijuana. He is not even that much of a social libertarian
rhcprh 9 months ago
@JoKo203 he usually refers to himself as libertarian.
lovebaked 8 months ago
@JoKo203 just call him a liberaltarian you won't have that probelm
Superfresh602 7 months ago
@JoKo203 you're right but it seems like when he supports these ideas, he's operating in the framework of the existing system. i also happen to think universal health care doesn't necessarily counterpose libertarianism. :)
carovski 5 months ago
@JoKo203 After your argument, I HOPE, that Maher is no Libertarian.
baseballplayer1251 3 months ago
@JoKo203 it could be possible that he has ideas that don't have to fit into everyones nice pretty scale of political right or left.... could he just be a realist and who doesn't care about left and right but what actually makes sense?
graysonb14 3 months ago
@graysonb14 Well, I used to believe that, but as I hear him speak more and more about specific political problems, he most definitely comes across as the standard Left Winger. He's for expanding the welfare state and modeling the U.S. off of the European Socialist states of Europe. I can provide other specific examples where Maher tows the standard Left Wing political line. Jesse Ventura is a good example of someone who is harder to define politically.
JoKo203 3 months ago
I thought the clip said Osama
hempartist420 1 year ago
excellent overview , i totally agree this is something to do with the fucking cnn who gets more views than the young turks
druha10304 1 year ago
all four men in this video have no business acumen and have never worked a real job or ever gotten their hands dirty. 2 liberal academia jounalists, a comedian and a community organizer.
leonarddaccardi 1 year ago
I want this man president.
2010ZAH 1 year ago
There is nothing free about the free market, everything is got a price.
DrPepperBeatsCoke 1 year ago
@DrPepperBeatsCoke That's not what...he means... Nevermind.
AcoustiksDrumnBass 1 year ago
@AcoustiksDrumnBass I know
DrPepperBeatsCoke 1 year ago
Could you imagine Maher as president he would say something sarcastic to the congress and they would be too stupid to understand the difference between a joke and a real statement. To me congress is dumb rich people who couldn't keep a real job. I think the president should trick them into getting paid minimum wage that way they can see the world through real americans eyes.
carnypimp 1 year ago
this guy is seriously really smart...
alex220296 1 year ago 2
this is also why i believe the goverment needs to be involde in certain markets like heath care, tanspotation like airlines, and such, to enfroe their minimum standard so that other companies can adher to that. basially if you have a gov heath company that is open to everyone but is shit, the privates will try and get some market away by offering better, at high but resionable prices, heath care and not turn people away.
now should the goverment be involved in making video games or 3CP sodas?
KangaKucha 1 year ago
@KangaKucha NO! that be foolish to be involded in those produts.
but milltary should be more involded in weapons, right now weapons making companies are running the american foriegn policy and war machine. need to crack down on that asap.
KangaKucha 1 year ago
Gotta say, out of all the libertarians, Maher is by far my favorite, we dont always see eye to eye, but i like the guy.
KangaKucha 1 year ago
corporations are what happened to kennedy that's why I think Obama is "backing off" btw this country is fucked
hempartist420 1 year ago
You can't have refs if we're all playing the game.
JiffyNo0b 1 year ago
@JiffyNo0b how?
hempartist420 1 year ago
I think i like this guy, i dont know why but i search or find heaps of random clips from all across youtube... and i just always find myself coming back to another video from him
It's kinda spooky .__.
Bodzilla1 1 year ago
More regulations lead to corporatism. Bigger corporations are able to comply easier to gov't reg. , than smaller buisnesses. And many times corporations lobby Washington for more regulations. Corporatism is an element of the left, and yeah many on the right love it too.
r12w 1 year ago
@r12w what are you a fucking Idiot? Christ man what is wrong with you? Less regulations lead to Corporatism!
you are not makeing any Senses at all man. With out regulations the power or the corporations will grow unchecked. Like it is now.
If what you are saying is true why is it. Nations with more regulations have much smaller and weaker corporations?
Just shut it man. You are making a fool of yourself.
Orgyfan6 1 year ago
@Orgyfan6 idk if i'd call it corportalism, cuz thats like state capatalism when the state actaly regulates the industry to expolt the economy and workers for a higher goal, like nazi germant and facist italy.
KangaKucha 1 year ago
@KangaKucha and the USSR. But look at the USA now. the lest Regulated 1st world nation. And it is run my corporations. In my view capitalism will lead to ether Corporatism or state capitalism.
Orgyfan6 1 year ago
@Orgyfan6 well ussr under stalin definaly.
while i recpect you communist views, being a former communist, and s/o who misses the ussr and the cold war, i think capalism is good as long as its controled and regulated, or it will destpory you like a monester that it is.
KangaKucha 1 year ago
@KangaKucha umm the USSR was not communist man it was state capitalist
Orgyfan6 1 year ago
@Orgyfan6 ok, it was socailist to the extreme, right or wrong, and was never communist expect for a few secs after the USSR fell, cuz if you take karl marx word litterally, its a scientic path back to man's natural state, which is for all intensive properces, anarchy.
KangaKucha 1 year ago
@KangaKucha it was not near socailist. workers had no power. under socailisim all power is in the hands of the workers. in the USSR they had none
Orgyfan6 1 year ago
@Orgyfan6 well not enough power, people did have some voice, but very little in comparision to the USA, although thats a bad comparision, yet when the USSR wanted to build a dam that people didn't like, it was protested, and the people won out as the dam was never build.
your lucky you live in Canada, I wish I did, then I could vote NDP, a party I mostly agree with, not this democratic bullshit in the USA, or hit or miss with Labor in Australia.
KangaKucha 1 year ago
@Orgyfan6...Look at what I wrote"man". "More regulations lead to corporatism. Bigger corporations are able to comply easier to gov't reg. , than smaller buisnesses. And many times corporations lobby Washington for more regulations".......Makes sense. I believe that there needs to be regulation, but not excessive restrictive regulation. It's regulation that many times causes the buisnesses to get in bed with the gov't....read the book Liberal Facsism.
r12w 1 year ago
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism, because it the merger of state and corporate power."
Il Duce
jerryhello100 1 year ago
theres nothing america has that the rest of the world wants or need. if americas economy collapses, countries like china or russia will not be affected.
chafaclon 1 year ago
you are sooooooo right.. on that.. usa will keep going down the hill if they let these pest repuliscum dominate the government ,,, these people have no logic anymore .. everyday they are cranking out tea baggers , gun welding nuts , corrupted politician
superwhiz88 1 year ago
Healthcare reform, how about Jailing American reform. Our right/freedom to spend our $ vs Jail time. Don't mess with Uncle Obama!!!!
yesilike101 1 year ago
Fuck Bill Maher he can rot in hell along with Obama and these young turk fags
bountyhunter60 1 year ago
Bipartisanship means twice as bad! Keep opposing Obama!
john51880 2 years ago 2
Look at these comments! What a bunch of fucking retards! "corporations should be abolished"......"Free market das not work"???????
WTF?? LOL!! Gee the free market only made America the most powerful & economic powerhouse in the world!
flyboymd82 2 years ago 2
Does that mean that corporations should be abolished no I don't think so.I agree with you there.There should be regulations that tell you when a business has gotten too large to be sustainable.
In trading I don't think it's unreasonable to have it where you can only invest money that you actually have.Which wasn't being done before.Noone knew what the other guy had, everyone was fudging numbers and so when the shit hit the fan everything froze up cause noone knew who to trust with loans.
gamesmaster35 2 years ago
The free market has been here for some time but I don't think that just because something has been here for awhile that automatically qualifies it as a good thing.Free Market on it's face isn't a bad concept.Businessmen are trading with other businessmen for goods.They decide among themselves if the price offered is fair.The "free" part is that they believe this should be done without restriction or regulation.Which I disagree on.(My previous comment didn't show so I redid it the best I could)
gamesmaster35 2 years ago
Uh.... America is not the most powerful economic powerhouse in the world, America is trillions of dollars in debt to China. The world economy is changing to the euro and most countries aren't even accepting American currency anymore. Good job doing your research.
Moosoulja1 1 year ago
Retard, just because a Country is in debt doesn't mean it isn't a powerful & economic powerhouse. If America fails, the world fails.
Good job understanding your research genius!!
flyboymd82 1 year ago
Uhhh America has a very low export trade value so how would the rest of the world go under if America does? They won't, would be nice if you had some evidence to support what you say.
Moosoulja1 1 year ago
You might wanna recheck your "facts" lil buddy. America is the 2nd highest exporting Country in the world.
flyboymd82 1 year ago
America is the fourth highest export country in the world, not the second.
Moosoulja1 1 year ago
"It's part of our capitalist system to have corporations so there's nothing wrong with that"
Corporations don't allow for a real democracy so why does YoungTurks even have this pointless show? Slavery was once a part of our system was that right?
canaan1967 2 years ago
Ralph Nader 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vote 3rd party for every office everywhere. People want democracy.
catbuffalo 2 years ago
Corporations should be completely abolished.
badmuffy 2 years ago 2
Free market das not work
Orgyfan6 2 years ago 38
@Orgyfan6 shut up commie JK, but if i was a fucking right winger thats exactly what i would say, they are so fucking nuts
hempartist420 1 year ago
@Orgyfan6 nope, but welfare economies do! :) unlike the communist command economy that idoits like beck say we want, its simply made up.
KangaKucha 1 year ago
@Orgyfan6 They've worked for us for 200 yeras, so why not now? Socialism and communism hasn't worked either, because perfection / utopias are impossible to achieve.
It's more about what is important to you. Freedom, security, etc.
Edustin 1 year ago
@Orgyfan6 it would work with a healthy balance of socialism and capitalism... enough capitalism to not let socialism become communism... and enough socialism to not let capitalism become corporatism.. look at history before you start spouting slogans.. every nation that had no free market became a corrupt dictatorship.. and some of them were atrocious.. think before you speak
Illuminoctis 1 year ago
@Illuminoctis so canada
Dasconscripts 1 year ago
@Orgyfan6 Your confused with Corporatism
YoungIvyScholar 1 year ago
@YoungIvyScholar Corporatism is what Capitalism will allows degenerate in too.
Orgyfan6 1 year ago
@Orgyfan6 Not if you're careful. Socialism can also mutate into Corporatism or Communism. Socialism, Communism, & Corporatism/ Fascism don't work. Look at history. Pure Capitalism doesn't always work that well, however, you need to have a good chunk of it. I like the idea of mixed economies between Capitalism & Socialism, however, they need to be leaning towards Capitalism. Examples: U.S.A. before it was screwed up, Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand, and, arguably, The Netherlands & Sweden.
YoungIvyScholar 1 year ago
@Orgyfan6 so you don't think people should trade? what do you mean by free markets?
Chaaarge 10 months ago
@Orgyfan6 If free marketism doesn't work, then freedom doesn't work. Political and social freedom cannot be achieved without economic freedom.
BoAbkal 9 months ago
@Orgyfan6 It could work if corporations weren't classified as people with the rights of a person.
burlearth 9 months ago
@burlearth I do not think so the free market is very short sighted it does not look at the long term effects of anything only immediate gain.
Orgyfan6 8 months ago
I think we're on the eve of that 'free market' bullshit finally falling apart. It won't be now, but Obama won't reverse the debt, and eventually the next Republican will continue Bush-style and the US will collapse economically. (It's already vulnerable.)
The US will eventually bounce back (after a REAL crisis.) But people will finally realize the system they worshipped just benefitted the rich, and allowed for the collapse, and then abandon all this capitalism nonsense.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
Capitalism is kind of like a religion. It's assumed by the believers that everything good is capitalism, and that if you aren't capitalist you're some form of dictatorship. Which is like saying that if you aren't a christian, you're per definition an atheist.
I say that you can have a healthy economy and trade with a better system then capitalism. Namely one with checks, balances and better rights for the common citizen. And that will become clear enough in the near future.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago 2
Good analogy Shavarnarak. Free market gets worshipped as the be-all end-all with no room for improvement. It's almost like reverse-Orwellian language, to assume anything government with fascism or communism or the like.
Darklogic112358 2 years ago 3
"Again, please learn how a free market works."
I know how a free market works -
Badly.
Very, very badly.
Look at what we got just from relaxing regulation a LITTLE.
rhytonen 2 years ago 2
*I don't think Bill Maher was referring to all corporations, but the ones who are ruining this country.
JUST1KI 2 years ago
Its time for Obama to show some f*cking balls.
joegood 2 years ago 62
@joegood Amen brotha.
AshyKnucks 1 year ago
@joegood I believe his balls are in wallstreet's purse.
Condition1Latin 1 year ago
@joegood you seem to have no idea what you are asking for.. obama is a far left extremist and would put in place a system that could POTENTIALLY become a seriously tyrannical dictatorship.. whether it is his intention or not.. you have to look at the risks of what he or some future leader could do with that power if they deemed it necessary... we need a balance of socialism and capitalism.. enough of each system to not let the other go too far.. watch how great it becomes and the world follows
Illuminoctis 1 year ago
Obama's a bitch! there's nothing else to say! if Clinton was in office right now we would get that damn bill passed!
akanovels 2 years ago 2
@Egarrett01, yeah, that's worked so well on toxic lead painted toys, toxic e-coli food, lead paint for homes, exploding Ford Pintos, and the stock market prior to the SEC.
What planet are you from in where nobody ever cheats or takes a shortcut because they're worried about their reputation?
mikec64 2 years ago
Great point. Add to that arsenic in Tylenol, microsoft´s monopoly, the Exxon Valdez and god forbid you get into a car accident with someone that has the same insurance as you.
oalemdemadrid 2 years ago
That actually does not change or effect what I said in the least.
"...they have INCENTIVE to make them safe and inspect them themselves, even before people do."
The government can enforce property rights and punish for physically harming other people, which are two of their roles in a free market. The government is NOT needed to insure quality of product...the market automatically pushes for that.
Again, please learn how a free market works.
EGarrett01 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I have no idea what the hell Cenk (the anchor) is talking about...except that he apparently knows very little about capitalism.
If the government is helping corporations destroy their competition, then the problem is THE GOVERNMENT, not the corporations or "corporatism."
You also don't need the government to inspect elevators in his example. The companies will make safe elevators on their own because they'll know that people won't buy their elevators if they aren't safe.
EGarrett01 2 years ago
"because they'll know that people won't buy their elevators if they aren't safe."
But how would people know they're safe or not, unless they purchase the elevators?
So are you willing to risk poeple's lives just so you could stick to your idiotic Repug position?
gunnerfan87 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's called word of mouth, you god-damned idiot.
EGarrett01 2 years ago
But how would the word of mouth get out you idiot, if no one has used the elevators?
The only way to stop the production of mal-functioning elevators would be through gov't legislation and inspection.
gunnerfan87 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Because people WILL use the elevators, and the companies know that people will so they have incentive to make them safe and inspect them themselves, even before people do.
There is NO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE NECESSARY. Please learn something about how the free market works.
EGarrett01 2 years ago
Apparently you have never had a lazy super before.
nolanatora 2 years ago
You can have a lazy government inspector also. The possibility that a quality insurance person may be lazy has no effect whatsoever on this point on either side.
No offense but it's very exhausting to have these types of discussions with people who don't understand the point at all. Explaining something over and over is tiresome.
EGarrett01 2 years ago
You'd think that the market would demand a video game console that works, especially when it costs up to $400. But here we see Microsoft's 360 have a 30% premature failure rate. I guess market incentive doesn't always ensure quality control does it?
Darklogic112358 2 years ago
I don't mean to sound condescending. I saw some videos on your channel and thoroughly enjoyed them, especially your response to theist J Miller. I agree with a lot of that. But I believe government is more integral than it appears to me that you believe it is. For instance, when it comes to quality control, things like medications may have long-term side effects that may not be discovered for years if untested. It would take gov. regulation to try to ensure that these products are safe.
Darklogic112358 2 years ago
If your product kills people then you can be brought up on criminal charges. One of the few roles of government in a free market is to enforce property rights and core laws like stopping people from murdering other people.
HOWEVER, when it comes to general quality control in a product, this is the same point as the elevators. The free market provides an incentive to companies to make a quality product. No government is needed.
Study some basic economics please.
EGarrett01 2 years ago
As a matter of fact, I DID study economics. Telling everybody who disagrees with you to study more doesn't refute their points.
Also, I provided you with an example of how the free market fails to ensure quality. Sometimes other incentives take precedence over the incentive to make a quality product, like beating another product's release date or offering more features, etc. Try making a good point instead of being condescending.
Darklogic112358 2 years ago
You're right, telling people to study doesn't refute their points. But maybe all those funny words I wrote in the TWO PARAGRAPHS before I said to study do. Why don't you try reading and responding to those two paragraphs instead of pretending they're not there?
EGarrett01 2 years ago
I'm just curious about something though. The area of contention in this debate is whether government should oversee quality control. It's not like we're talking about something that could potentially infringe upon human rights, issues like censorship or abortion.
Some people may wish to pay taxes to allow government to ensure quality so that they don't have to worry about it themselves. Others don't. Beyond this it has no implications, sets no precedence for any other type of gov. control.
Darklogic112358 2 years ago
You assume that there is no quality-control if the government is not involved, or that individual people need to "worry about it" if the government isn't involved.
Please look up a grade-school introduction to the free market and how competition functions. You don't get it in the least.
EGarrett01 2 years ago
Oh and this may be difficult for you to get, but telling people to study something more doesn't pass as a credible response. It's not like studying free markets invariably leads to support for them. I guess that's all you've got.
Darklogic112358 2 years ago 2
A medication that damages or kills doesn't always bring the right people up on charges, nor is it always successful or fair in the courtroom.
Even if there were always successful criminal charges, I'd rather have the FDA establish some sort of criterion for medication as opposed to having to sue or press charges against the company later, so the benefits may only be reaped by future generations while I'm irreversibly sick. Assuming I win, of course.
Darklogic112358 2 years ago
If the right people aren't brought up on charges, then we need to make sure we find the right people. Stopping people from being killed is just fine as a role for the government in a free market system. Insuring quality in a product is not.
Regarding your last point, this is not a response to what I said. Companies still have an incentive not to make you sick. Losing all their money, their reputation, their business and future earning potential, on top of potential criminal charges.
EGarrett01 2 years ago
And how do you propose you find the right people to press charges against? Should we, the people, launch our own sort of vigilante investigation into the inner workings of a company?
Darklogic112358 2 years ago
Comment removed
EGarrett01 2 years ago
"And how do you propose the right people to press charges against?"
Read my reply that starts with "if the right people aren't brought up on charges." You didn't get it, because you asked a question that was already answered.
Furthermore, assuming that government investigations are more effective at pushing for quality than the free market is frighteningly ignorant. If you ever read ANYTHING about what happens when government tries to run an economy, you wouldn't be asking this.
EGarrett01 2 years ago
"If you ever read ANYTHING about what happens when government tries to run an economy, you wouldn't be asking this."
I have actually. The difference is that I have used examples to support my points, whereas you make stupid generalizations with no support whatsoever.
Also, the response that "we have to make sure the right people are brought up on charges just so that the government doesn't" shows your idiocy as I aptly proved earlier. Try reading my responses.
Darklogic112358 2 years ago
Your fallacy is that you dwell in idealism. In the REAL world, products are continuously recalled, be they agricultural, automotive, medicinal, etc. due to unforseen problems. While this is partly the fault of poor regulation by the government, it demonstrates that in the real world the free market DOES NOT ensure quality control. It is merely an incentive, balanced against numerous other business incentives.
In your words, study some basic history (or business for that matter) please.
Darklogic112358 2 years ago
I didn't say products don't get recalled or that quality products are always made. I said that there are MARKET FORCES THAT ENCOURAGE QUALITY ALREADY. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT NECESSARY TO INSURE QUALITY.
If you ignore this again and make up some idiotic strawman argument I'm just going to leave. It's like trying to point something out to a dog that will only stare at your finger.
EGarrett01 2 years ago
Leave then. It's impossible to speak reasonably with someone as arrogant as yourself. You try to explain why the free market can do everything. Constantly saying that there are market forces isn't enough. As I've demonstrated, that doesn't always cut it, sometimes the government does do it better. You might try using specific examples rather than making assertions with no backing.
Darklogic112358 2 years ago 3
I didn't say the free market can do everything. In fact, I explained several things that the government MUST do in order to allow a free market to exist. Trying to insure product quality is not one of those things.
I'm not going to keep repeating myself though. This conversation is nothing but me repeatedly trying to explain basic economics to you and correct your endless series of strawman arguments. It's pathetic.
EGarrett01 2 years ago
Lol, all you did was try to make the pedantic argument that there is an incentive to ensure quality in a free market. Nobody disagreed, people just tried to explain that the government does it better. Seeing as you can't argue with that with any examples or support, you've fallen to pedantics. And made feeble comments about other people's education. You were talking about pathetic?
Darklogic112358 2 years ago
I like the elevator analogy.
conoba 2 years ago
I think Bill was referring to Lobbyist of big corporations.
Drewriders 2 years ago 2
does anybody know who that guy was at the end, "mr. wener" or something? that guy was intense
foomaaa 2 years ago
Why do pussy ass cuntswervative youtube channels deny ratings and filter comments like pussy boy fuckheads?
(rhetorical question)
shadowcnidarian 2 years ago
Because you psychotic faggots always raid their fucking pages with death threats and shit.
0ldBloo 2 years ago
What part of rhetorical question didn't you understand? (that's another rhetorical question, btw)
We all knew the answer was "because they're pussies"; also because they always know the ratings aren't on their quack side, just as the public isn't. Pussy ass little bitchwads afraid of reality.
"oh no OH NO THOSE FAGGOTS AND DEATH THREATS" ~ now that's some fucking irony, pussy ass motherfuckers.
shadowcnidarian 2 years ago
you sound very educated and intelligent.
matt2kvx 2 years ago
Thanks. You don't.
shadowcnidarian 2 years ago
you are very welcome...tard
matt2kvx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Massachusetts has healthcare for all. Just like Obamas plan, residents are required to have healthcare. But the plan has failed miserably. Insurance costs have skyrocketed over the last 20 years. Lawmakers cannot find the money to pay for services for the state-insured people. Hospitals are suing the state for inadequate payment. Now they are dropping people from the program. Why should we take a plan that failed miserably in Massachusetts and to the entire country? It makes no sense.
roncram 2 years ago
Pure lies and goofy slants.
shadowcnidarian 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
About 80% of Americans like their present health insurance. Obama says you can keep your insurance plan if you like it. Not true. Pages 16-17 of the bill say no new health plans can be offered by private insurance companies. Do you understand what that means? Insurance plans change every year. They change coverage slightly or change the co-pay or the co-insurance. Every tweak creates a new plan. So you keep your current plan for one year, then it is on to the govt plan for you! Ripoff!
roncram 2 years ago
Lies.
shadowcnidarian 2 years ago
In the words of Mary Poppins, Obama is making pie crust promises - "easily made, easily broken." People have good reason not to believe him when he says there will not be any long lines. This plan is destroying the Democrat party. According to Rasmussen Reports, in a generic poll Republicans beat Democrats 43% to 38%. Republicans will probably take over Congress in 2010. Google Rasmussen Reports Generic Congressional Ballot and see for yourself.
roncram 2 years ago
People do want healthcare reform but not Obama's plan. Obama and the Democrats are making a big mistake. Perhaps they do not remember when the Clintons tried to take over healthcare in 1993 and the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. According to Quinnipiac University poll, by a 72-21 margin voters do not believe Obama will keep his promise to reform healthcare without adding to the deficit. By 57-37 margin, voters think healthcare reform should be scrapped if it will add to the deficit.
roncram 2 years ago
love how he's so close minded when it comes to politics. If your left your argument is right if your right you are obviously crazy and wrong. Doesn't even give the argument a chance or try to see any other way of thinking, even worse doesn't result to any facts or history to support his arguments. and all his arguments are just liberal talking points.
Laxinlovin08 2 years ago
It's funny he's blaming the right for "corperatism" when it was the Dem house, and the Dem president. That TOOK OVER GM. While the right was screaming "let them fail". THAT is corperatism
venik88 2 years ago
exactly not only that but doesnt he realize it was his party that bailed out some of the most currupt banks in America with tax payers money! How is that looking out for the small guy? thats making the small guy pay for big greedy business mans' mistakes!
Laxinlovin08 2 years ago
borrrrrrinnnnnnnnnnng
GorillaDude94 2 years ago
I agree. Corporations are destroying this country. Not necessarily capitalism, not necessarily corporations per se, but the corporations we're letting screw us in the arse day in, day out.
SweetSweetWaldo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
maher is a cocksucking piece of shit
albundyphd 2 years ago
dude you are a cocksucking piece of shit
ryan0883926 2 years ago 5
well said
feedyourmind420 2 years ago 2