Even though this video tries to suggest "class envy", or suggest one in a hundred of us own everything, the truth is a career and sound money sense gets you along just fine in life. Ten percent of American 60+'s are millionaires! What's your excuse to not do as well as one in ten?
@NikovK oh that makes sense. If you're not rich you must be doing something wrong....People aren't upset they're not rich, they're upset because they're barely getting by.
Are you not shocked to learn the richest 10% of 20-29 year olds have less than the median retiree? That the median 40 year old working stiff is worth ten times what he was twenty years prior? That the super rich are also the super old, Zuckermann excluded?
This might make you think there's some class divide. But consider an age divide. Age: 20-29 Median Net Worth: $7,900 Top 25%: $36,000 Top 10%: $119,300 Age: 30-39 Median Net Worth: $44,200 Top 25%: $128,100 Top 10%: $317,800 Age: 40-49 Median Net Worth: $117,800 Top 25%: $338,100 Top 10%: $719,800 Age: 50-59 Median Net Worth: $182,300 Top 25%: $563,800 Top 10%: $1,187,600 Age: 60-69 Median Net Worth: $209,200 Top 25%: $647,200 Top 10%: $1,429,500
Don't let the financial crisis bring you down. I started working from home and I'm now making 200 dollars a day... Don't be the victim, create your own luck! It's really worth checking out the website below, this guy is amazing...
Go to 2012bestoffers(.)com & Click the guy in front of the lamborghine's...
capitalism. ill go be a good person and make this world a better place by working.
communism. ill think ill be a greedy shit and sit here all day while some one else work his ass off. tomorow i think ill go murder 10 0000 people for the laugh.
@pivot1nerf2starwars3 wrong again. Capitalism = my motive is profit. Communism= we the workers have a surplus, we should share this with people. Read the manifesto before you go around spreading half a century old propaganda. There has never been a communist country. Communism is stateless as control of resources is vested in the worker.
The First thing Hitler did as supreme ruler of Germany was outlaw labor unions.
@illahham Collectivism works in a small community where everyone knows everyone else. Those who are lazy or cheats or liars or mean, are known to everyone, and people can employ a tit for tat approach to helping each other. That system breaks down in large anonymous communities, where people can cheat the system undetected. They even feel good about their cheating, because they are disconnected from those who pay the price for their dishonesty.
@dalriada842 that is all based on the morality of a society therefore your statement that it will not work on a large scale society is an overstatement and a fallacy because it has not been tried on a large scale society with the morality for communism to work. In every society communism has been tried on there is the idea of private property. The idea of private property is rooted the judaeo-christian religions which are the elementary basis for all current western societies.
@illahham The lack of the concept of private property only exists in primitive societies. They need such a concept to become complex societies in the first place. All complex societies, not just J-C based ones, require it.
How do you propose to motivate someone to work hard, when doing so will make essentially no difference to their material standard of living, as everything is shared in common? Much easier to skive, since your individual laziness will also not materially affect your lifestyle.
@dalriada842 Yet again a misconception. Communism does not say working hard won't make a difference to your standard of living. In fact it says it will better it. It says in fact by not working hard you will only suffer as with everyone else. You're asserting that human nature suggests the only rewards we recognize are material objects. That is not true of human nature, that is true of our society and the societies communism has been tried on.
@illahham I was giving my view of how I think it would work. I agree that people would suffer by not working hard. However, this is too remote for most people. People cheat insurance companies, even though everyone ends up paying higher premiums as a result! Most people aren't like Boxer in 1984. Selflessly working for the common good. Real people are more selfish than that. I believe all societies stem from human nature, and that human nature isn't as pliable as I think you believe it is.
@dalriada842 take for example the Huron and the Iroquis they both had a very communal approach to how they operated and historical writings will show they were quite efficient.
@illahham They had relatively small populations, even at their height. From my brief Googling, it seems they farmed their own land, even though they didn't own it. They seem to have directly benefited from their own labour. Is this incorrect?
@illahham It's trite to say there "has never been a communist country." It's been tried many times. It wasn't achieved, because it's a hopeless Utopian fantasy that ignores too much of human nature.
Capitalism isn't a perfect system, but it has produced far more prosperity, even for those at the bottom, than any other system. This is because it leverages individual self-interest in an atomised society.
@dalriada842 It has not been tried. Russia, China, Cuba- all state capitalist societies. The mere fact that communism was tried by the state contradicts the basis of communism and therefore the outcome in each case is not nor can be communism.
@illahham No competition, price mechanism, or the creative destruction of bankruptcy for incompetently run enterprises. How can these societies be called capitalist? Even Western societies are more socialist/corporatist, than they are capitalist. Hence the nature of our economic and social troubles! A capitalist society wouldn't have bailed out the banks.
So how would you run things? Are you an Anarcho-syndicalist? How would you organise things?
@dalriada842 haha I don't pigeon hole myself into any 'school of thought'. I'm a pragmatist, there are 'good economics and bad economics'. capitalist societies would have bailed out the banks, Keynes was a capitalist. I think you're right about why we are where we are, we didn't follow capitalisms teachings, not even keynes's.
@illahham Keynes isn't my idea of a capitalist. Feckless banks should be allowed to fail! To bail them out is a clear moral hazard, that encourages irresponsibility on their part. Banks have been allowed to fail before.
@dalriada842 But government's primary responsibility was to the people it was in their interest to limit how often and how severe the failure. Keynes suggested deficit spending would bring us out of a liquidity trap and in many ways it did after the depression. Hence WW2 growth. But for some reason against all of keynes's teachings that system was abused by so called 'keynesians' to try and make bank failures impossible.
@dalriada842 Keynes suggested that expansionary fiscal policy only be implemented in the case of a liquidity trap and only when the free market failed to get rid of high, persistent unemployment. It was not to be a tool to fine tune the business cycle at every turn. He specifically advised against it saying it would cause speculative bubbles. Therefore when Greenspan lowered the interest rate to 1% in early-2000s when unemployment was hovering around 4% he was breaking the rules.
@dalriada842 In my opinion the best economy would be one that is for the most part free market. We should not have too much government involvement in matured markets like oil and car manufacturing. Those are industries that have come far enough for employee and employer to negotiate 'fair' wages and as it stands government involvement is mostly a burden on the tax payer and itself.
@dalriada842 I still think government has a role to play. Between 1970-2009 we've spent $30trillion on oil and electric infrastructure(coal&nuclear) research/technology. This has helped improve efficiency in every step of the process. Carter spent billions on 'synfuels' and although it failed the research done created processes we use today like coal gasification and carbon capture.
@illahham The research is interesting, but given the bureaucratic inefficiency of government, the money may have been invested more efficiently, had the government not interfered. The utilities and fuel providers can predict for themselves the inevitable decline in fossil fuels. They will want to survive by developing alternative fuel sources. Of course this is made harder the more they are taxed and regulated.
@dalriada842 Yes that is true but it would then be their incentive to prolong the research. Right now companies are developing alternative fuel sources because of government intervention that pushed them and consumer demand. It was back in the 60s that we started pushing alternative energy. If oil companies had full reign they would be drilling not researching right now; our oil reserves are large enough to sustain us for many more decades.
@illahham Arguably, allowing full exploitation of existing reserves, would provide the cheap energy to grow our economy. We would therefore have more resources available to develop alternatives when they were required. Necessity is the mother of invention. Have the researchers been dragging their feet to stay on-board the gravy train? Does developing alternatives really require decades? Intensive research can achieve a lot in a short period of time.
But how long have people been refining oil? Yet how often are there oil spills? And what of prudhoe bay where oil companies had full reign? and there was 'a spill a day'? Or were gov't regulations indirectly causing these spill bc of their safety net? Wouldn't it make more sense if I was an owner to minimize spills to maximize profit regardless of tax or subsidies?
@illahham Their interest is to minimise cost, and maximise profit. You would have to determine whether the cost of eliminating spills, was less than the benefit of having the oil to sell, that would have otherwise leaked. Ignoring environmental concerns and bad publicity of course. Public opinion is increasingly vocal on such matters. That can damage sales and profits too.
@dalriada842 yes it can but that depends on volume. People had been complaining about the oil spills quite frequently, and quite frequently to the oil company in prudhoe bay but it persisted.
@illahham In my younger days, I was a socialist. As I've gotten older I've become more right wing in my economic views, and more liberal in my social views. Where once I loathed Milton Friedman, now I am a great admirer of him. I've only heard the term Austrian economics relatively recently. But yeah if you like. I guess that must make me another idiot in your eyes! ;)
I too don't really conform to any pigeon-hole, and don't take an inflexible ideological view on such issues. Continued.
@dalriada842 I took my first macro class last year and I've been little interested else since. I am a bit skeptic of Austrian economics; anyone telling me to turn the other way while they work their magic is to be watched very carefully. Likewise so is anyone asking to borrow my wallet
@illahham But there are so many people espousing various forms of anti-capitalist view on the internet, that it is useful to play Devil's advocate. Although I do genuinely support Capitalism as the best economic system.
@dalriada842 haha really? I'm always running into the -free market is the answer to all our problems- type. In those cases it's entertaining to defend communism a bit.
@illahham I don't believe in the abolition of the state. I too, think it is a necessary evil. But I think its functions should be kept as limited as possible. I'm over-egging the pudding by suggesting that allowing oil companies to pollute should be a purely commercial issue. They should not be allowed to internalise profits, and externalise costs/losses. Hence my objection to bailing out the banks!
Your politics sounded communistic at first, but less so with later posts. Mmm
@dalriada842 I think the relationship works best when good judgement is used. I like what keynes says, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" I think government wasn't aggressive enough. If they wanted to bail out the banks some real spending cuts in other areas like military namely (end the wars) and health care reform should have been made.
@dalriada842 Hartford financial group did a poll of small business owners on what they felt was the biggest hinder to growth. 9% said regulation, 2% said taxes, the rest said demand.
@dalriada842 my view is government is a necessary evil that can be used for good. Just look at Standard oil, a hands off approach allowed them to vertically and horizontally integrate, controlling production and distribution; killing competition. Gov't came in and broke them up returning competition and it did not kill or hurt the oil industry. Exxon was one of the companies created from that and up until Apple passed them, Exxon was the world's largest company.
@dalriada842 In my opinion it is smarter to develop the renewable energy but preserve our oil reserves and the demand for fossil fuels for when there is an actual oil crisis. Then we can allow companies to drill and really make a killing.
Also it was not just the $100million that helped get algae started a lot of the research used was done at universities that get gov't funding, like UC: San Diego
@dalriada842 A few years ago we spent $100million for Sapphire to develop 300 acres for algae biofuel demonstrations. Since then Sapphire has gotten billions from private companies like Exxon-Mobile to produce algae-based fuels. By 2018 they will be producing 100 million gallons/yr and 1 billion gallons/yr by 2020. This is also genetically engineered algae, both genetic engineering and algae refining are relatively new so there is no reason to believe the process won't become more efficient
@dalriada842 "produced far more prosperity"- That is again a fallacy because in relation to communism, capitalism has had a much longer application for us to judge and thus there is not enough substantial evidence to suggest communism would be better. So, far more prosperity than what?
I do however agree that communism will not work on our society and capitalism is far better only but in THIS case. And that is because of the underlying aspects/origins of our society; philosophy and morality.
@illahham I disagree that capitalism has had a longer run. What about the vast span of time that humans have existed as hunter-gatherers. Shouldn't at least one great civilisation have emerged espousing communist principles?
If it was a viable system...Which I don't believe it is!
Not a damn thing to do with capitalism, but a lot to do with chrony corporatism. This country hasn't seen good austrian free market capitalism in like forever. Free people read Mises!
Holy Crap. I'm glad I watched this video or I wouldn't have known that rich people have a lot of money and non-rich people don't have as much. Enlightening!
The United States of America doesn't promise everyone will have everything. If you want the same as another without the gamble the other takes good luck finding the Government which allows that. In the U.S. you have "opportunity". That's it. You get nothing else. Life isn't free and it never has been. Cavemen lived by the club just like communism. You get that choice or you move to America. Most given a choice choose America. Land of 100% opportunity. NO FREE RIDES.
@BobSteward1 100% opportunity? LOL you're hilarious. Russia isn't communist never was to be honest but they did have dictatorship masked as communism. Communism and socialism are the end results of a democratic capitalist society.
Strawman. That is what the name of the video should be. Communist always prep you with the argument of who has the most wealth? The Wealthy or the poor? As if capitalism is a sum-zero proposition. Name me an economy where there are no Have and have nots? Communism? Socialism? Vladimere Putin lives the same lifestyle as the average Soviet? Chavez lives the same lifestyle as a venezuelin peasant? Every government on the planet has rich and poor. Show me a society ever created where there is none?
and they pay 37% of all federal income taxes and the bottom 46% pay NO federal income tax at all and in fact, in most cases get money back, so your point is?
The Fed prints money, the Crony-Wealthy get to collect on political "investments", then each of our dollars is worth less and if we are not careful they will become worthless. Who do you think that inflation affects more, the people living paycheck to paycheck or the top 1%. It's the fault of the government, not the successful people of our country.
@Breeegz SO basically what you're saying is that the rich guy who has 7 summer houses has to loose 3 of them, while those *lazy poor ones* don't have to loose any summer houses because they don't have any to begin with? So the rich ones have it so much harder? Oh that pesky government! They should feel sorry for those struggling rich with just a measly 4 summer houses left!
@PineappleNicole You missed my point. Someone that you might consider Wealthy has more tools available to protect themselves from the perils of inflation. Someone who depends on their paycheck every two weeks will not have the same protections.They will not see their pay increase at the same rate of inflation, thus seeing their money not last as long as it used to.To be fair, someone who owns 7 houses outright is not at risk to lose them just from inflation, only if they have Mortgages on them.
@HapplyFace have fucking fun becoming part of the 1%. Guarantee you'd end up working in an office everyday of your life and get fucking no where. The only way you would is if you were in the family of an owner of a corporation or if you invented something good which you could do in a socialist country and still become rich. THE 1% CONTROLS THE FUCKING MARKET ANYWAYS. They control the media and the government. They lobby for everything they want.
@wafcake oh really? well guess what, you are wrong. Apparently i live above the top 2% with a normal wage in CA. Pretty sad actually, the top minority are people only doing somewhat decent in life.
@wafcake top 400 is not the top 1% of the entire us population when the us population is about 312.8 million people. The top 1% is actually 3,130,000 americans, which is a lot more than a mere 400. The top 400 only are actually around 0.000001277 % of the us population. Forgive me if my calculations on that last problem are incorrect, but it was rather difficult working with numbers that small.
@HapplyFace no shit but thats what i was meaning to say is that the top 400 are the ones that control everything. The corporations should still be taxed more like they used to be so like 50%
or you can exterminate all those damned kulaks in the top 20% (and the economy along with them) and give the remaining 80% of the population 135k in blood soaked money (that the political class will end up with in a few years). just remember not to do anything capitalistic, (like sell vegetables) or it's catch rats in a rainbarrel for you!
yea divide the us personal income total by 340,000,000, and everyone gets 35k/yr! what a perfect world! don't forget though, you can't start a business, or profit in any way, or its off to the gulag! oh yea, and the political class? will accumulate all the wealth!
If you think this is free capitalism... with all these bailouts and subsidies and welfare and gov. medicare... you are wrong. The reason we have such splits is because the government encourages people to be poor and gives the tax money of Americans to a select few of the rich in the form of bailouts and subsidies. Get rid of socialism and America will be free again.
@djcatron11 What socialism and communism ? WTF you talking about ? You know about some Communist banks , corporations running the World and our own Gov that I don't about about ? Can you name these Communist institutions and oil companies telling our last several if not more Presidents what to do ?
@wikitdevil Relax. Take your meds dude. It was a joke. You think those numbers are a fact? I made NO REFERENCE to our country, oil companies, corporations or any of the prozac induced stupidity you're spewing about. Your asking for examples for facts that I didn't say. So before you ask what the fuck I'm talking about, take a nap first.
So what? Would it make you feel better if the top ten percent owned 75% of the wealth?
All this is saying is that "rich people...are rich". Duh, dumbass. Now, show a graph displaying how much production and jobs are financed by the top one percent.
If the 100% were on a desert island and the "wealth" and property of the island was split up this way the poorest 80% would have already killed the top 1% and took their stuff!!
I'm not saying this is what should happen, but if the setting were changed that is what WOULD happen. I wish every American studied the French Revolution, or at least read Dickens "A Tale of Two Cities". The Rich should be afraid, VERY afraid...
and what does this have to do with capitalism. its fascism, saying capitalism is bad for whats going on today is like if the italians said capitalisms bad in the 20's and 30's. you can call it fascism corporatism croney-capitalism or whatever, its all the same thing, and its no where near being capitalism.
Good riddance to the braying jackass Christ' Hitchens who supported the sanctions and the war of pelf against Iraq. [Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"; Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." — "60 Minutes" (5/12/96)]
true, but capitalism isnt zero sum. That is to say the top 1 % doesnt get its wealth by stealing your wealth (under Capitalism which we have strayed from), but instead by consumer AND producer better off under any deals which they benefit from. Your wealth is independent of their wealth so this numbers mean nothing. If bill gates burned all his money i wouldnt be better off, If he instead made Windows 8 and profited from me i would. Please thumb this up so others can see the fallacy in this.
@nigrah8ter said [[true, but capitalism isnt zero sum.]]
"Pinkos" don't understand terms like zero sum, positive sum and win-win. Personally, I'm looking for animation software to start making explanatory vids.
@nigrah8ter That depends on where the top 1% earned their wealth. Over the past two decades especially, a most of those 1% wealth have, in fact, come directly from the bottom 90%'s share. They own or own stock in corporations that lay off workers, reduce pay and benefits and send jobs overseas. These cuts have not resulted in lower product prices they resulted in massive increases in executive pay and huge gains in stock prices. This is the 1% getting more by taking directly from the 90%.
@nigrah8ter when did any windoz operating system benefit anyone other than Bill Gates? Microsoft added billions to the cost of doing business for most, just to make that profit. Their predatory business practice is the poster child for regulation.
So ridiculous it's hard to know where to start with a 500 character limit but in short Bill could make me better off by simply making his software cheaper to buy. He earns less money but I have more left in my pocket. See how fucking clearly dependent that was?
@nigrah8ter yes, instead the 1% gets its wealth by exploiting your labor, providing minimal compensation in order to maximize profit. One's wealth is not independent. The worker's wealth depends on compensation. The owner's on profit. Both are related. If Bill burned all his money there would be billions less in circulation, making your money slightly more valuable.
@nigrah8ter Yes, but the socialists or Marxists don't want his money burned. They want to steal it through taxation. This is the politics of envy!
Strictly speaking, if he did burn his money, you may be undetectably better off by reducing the money supply. It's the increases in the money supply through 'money printing' that is fuelling price inflation.
Without Yoko by his side, Yukio Mishima would've been sad & lonely. [Lou Reed is weak, as weak as a reed. Why can't Oprah & Gayle swap brassieres? Because Oprah's Winnebagos are more undulant & pendulant. Oprah was arrested at the airport after 40 pounds of crack was discovered under her skirt.]
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery. --- March 14, 1861
What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races. --- 7-17-1858, fr. a speech delivered in Springfield, Ill.
I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, or of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. --- September 15, 1858
Marxism? Owenism? Lovely. Let's device a 5-yr. plan to distribute oleo to the burbs by unelected central planners. They shall determine how much dog food & penicillin & antiseptic will be appropriated to sector 32. Who needs the free market anyway? Let 1982 Czechoslovakia be our touchstone. The Czechs loved waiting in line 7 hrs. for a pound of fatty, fly-blown ham. It broke the monotony of a grueling day of idling 6 hours in line for 2 gallons of petrol.
The free-market works when it is not rigged. It is rigged.
Products of production:
1. LAND & RESOURCES - we can't live without this
2. CAPITAL - everything man made
3. LABOR - human effort
1 & 3 are rigged
LVT prevents harmful speculation in LAND preventing CRASHES
Corporations were created to isolate themselves from the free-market. Their influence in the Republican Party is 100%, less so with Democrats but they still pull the strings.
Corporations were also created as government charters. The right to incorporate was restricted in the early US to those who subscribed to time-limited charters that had to be renewed by the government or else they would expire. The government based decisions regarding such renewals around the performance of the corporation in meeting the needs of the public.
That's how the Founders thought corporations should run. Funny how when that changed things started to go wrong, eh?
Things did not improve when corporations (multi-nationals) spouted up all over. But the base is not stable. Land Valuation Taxation, the SINGLE TAX, with no income tax and controls to ensure a free-market makes a solid base.
Since 2008 all the media, and most others, have whittered on about are the symptoms not the root cause. Unless the foundations are right, it will happen again. World-wide crashes happened twice in 80 years. It would have been sooner only WW2 got in the way
This has nothing to do with American Patriots. This is and has been true throughout all of history, in almost every society, independent of government and economic policies.
"I mean in capitalism the top 1% have to add value to a lot of people's lives to gain 37% of the wealth."
That they do not do. Corporations came about to shield themselves from the free-market - rigging the market in monopolies,. etc. A free system? No more than the old USSR. There the state ran it, in the US faceless unaccountable corporations run it.
Money is not wealth. The free market goes way beyond Wall Street. Everything that you trade for is wealth. That sandwich you ate yesterday is wealth. Your house is wealth. Your car is wealth. money is a worthless piece of paper.
The rich own a majority of the money because they are the entrepreneurs, they direct labor, land and capital goods into production. They put their minds to work for mankind. The working class only works of their hands, and keeps their mind carefree. It is all wealth.
@Skyler827 the rich control stock and product to prevent the poor from getting a foothold.... the working class may be more capable of the job than the rich people, but the rich people maintain a monopoly for their own selfish gain.... but the idea of capital is a bad idea as bartering is an equaly useful system, maybe even better.... the only standardised currancy should be something that is of value anyways
No, Rupert murdoc, bill o'reilly, etc all have really high salaries, Capitalism is all about the opportunity to make the money through college or however.
@DarkosApprentice Bill o'reilly joke in itself. A representation of a lie that will be told over and over. Stupid people watch fox news and believe in this American Dream. Sorry to break it to you, but that dream is getting harder to achieve. You can thank assholes like O rizzle for misinformation and no journalistic integrity.
@doombybbr Bill gates got most of his money by being a patent troll. Patents are antithetical to a genuine free market because they are government enforced monopolies. Taken to their logical end, patents and copyrights imply that no one can control their own real property because we must respect the imaginary intellectual property of people whom we owe royalties. Without patents, Windows would be better, more open and there would probably be far less profits for the big tech companies.
@doombybbr Windows and MS Office are worse off because of patents. The monopoly privilege gives Microsoft and Apple an incentive to keep the quality down. The source code is kept secret, only a few dozen Microsoft employees have power over it. People cannot observe their machines under the hood as easily and if there's a virus or other problem it's as hard as possible to detect and remove bad software, bugs or code. Redundant systems to keep it up slow down performance.
@doombybbr Without patents, Windows and OSX would be open source. People would need to fund and build them voluntarily, like Wikipedia. The same applies to churches, political campaigns, most revolutions, every non profit organization and any of the thousands of open source projects that people freely do for expertise or recognition. Obviously that would never work. Oh wait.
It's not unjust to own more than someone else if you acquired your wealth through just means, aka mutually beneficial trade. Saying that some have more than others is deceiving and worthless. As long as the rich got that way without the use of force or fraud, they earned their wealth, and should be celebrated for it, not made into straw men and scapegoats. Attack the source of unjust wealth: the use of government force and redistribution.
@toddg562 the point of my comment is that discussing the distribution of wealth is pointless. The only thing that matters is the system that wealth is distributed in, and our current economy is a mix of corporatism and fascism. The wealthy are not kept in check by government, they are enriched by it. Your unregulated comment makes me chuckle. Regulations on the financial industry have exploded over the past decade, and they were all written by those you want to regulate.
@DavidCaddock Is it just means that investment bankers lobbied to repeal the Glass-Steagal Act,
and then used this unregulated power to increase profits at such a high risk level that it eventually resulted in a taxpayer bailout? Is it just means that Americans lost their homes, equity, and retirement value in the process, and got stuck with the bill, while the bankers that created the mess took home record bonuses?
If you agree this is just means I will doing more than chuckling at you.
Modern Capitalism today is a pyramid scheme. If too many people rise to the top, that increases inflation and the pyramid colapses. That is why the fed has to intervene and raise interest rates to throw people back toward the bottom to keep the pyramid stable. A recession is simply capitalism's reset button. And just like a pyramid scheme, the top requires the downline (ie. middle and lower class) to keep it going.
The fallacy of your reasoning is "the nation's wealth". Wealth is not community property. The wealthy will obviously have more OF THEIR OWN MONEY than will the poor... by definition.
The issue isn't how comparatively wealthy they are, but how they got there. If they bribed the gov't, that's crony capitalism, and is wrong. If they made products and sold the crap out of them, that's real capitalism, and is good.
But, crony capitalism is the fault of government, not business.
@wikitdevil SO does BP and every other corporation you give almost 97% of the total budget of welfare to. lol To be fair we give some of it to farms to grow crap we can't eat it. lol
Another thing we are importing willing slaves to the USA today. We don't have to go to other countries to bring them here. Our population went up 50% since 1971 from 204 million to 314 million today. Many of those are immigrants who are modern day slaves. Many of the immigrants don't have health insurance and live llike sardines in apartments/homes. They are part of the 99%.
This video completely overlooks the fact that wealth is created, it treats wealth like it is a zero sum game, and doesn't acknowledge that in an attempt to redistribute wealth, the incentives to create it are destroyed.
Thats what george carlin ment when he said: "They own you, you are not free". Occupy Wallstreet is an attempt to get this freedom back. No matter how the numbers came about - THE WORLD BELONGS TO EVERYBODY and not only TO A SMALL NUMBER! No matter which positive law is blocks this - we have to fight for our natural right.
Um.. a first step from the 90%, to harm the richest 1% would be, to get the money OFF the banks, to stay completely out of mafiosy-wall street.
I don't understand how this is even possible. The top 10% may own the means of production and lots of money, but they certainly don't own most of the real wealth. Also, there is the problem of diminishing returns. A wealthy man may own a Rolls Royce, but is he any better off than someone who owns a ford escort? Once basic needs are met, the returns fall of a cliff. How much better off are you in a mansion than a row home? Are you better off eating caviar vs chips and dip?
What you didn't mention is social mobility. Poor people, kids who leave school and get a job, move up. You don't just have a minimum wage job your entire life; you move up, you gain more money, you get promotions. This isn't some kind of caste system.
I'm not sure why there're some people having an argument. What's there to argue about? The video is nice, interesting and informative. So? What's your problem?
@TheMisterKibe I personally felt the video was implying that there is something wrong with 1% having more wealth then 90% and unless they actually forced someone to give them that money (the way the government does) I disagree with the video's message. If Oprah wants $10 per magazine she makes and her fans want her magazine, and they make that trade and now she's a billionair, I fail to see what's wrong with that.
@sloan9787 no that's wrong, it's not that simple. It's possible that the wealth has been trickling down, but the wealthy are creating new wealth faster then it can trickle down. The bottom 90% have been receiving that trickle down effect put the total amount of wealth has been rising. For instance it's better to have 28% of $1million then %28 of 1 thousand. The rich aren't doing anything wrong, our government is.
True, but then you give another man the control over your quality of life. i.e. living standards, personal luxuries, and the number of children you can bear.
Yea, but it steals somebody's hard-earned wealth by the helping hands of government they redistribute the wealth of others, its a thief. While the ones that receive the wealth assuming they are irresponsible and a corpse of society, who is happy to receive the wealth of others hardship through socialism? fair?
CAPITALISM creates ELITE CRIMINALS. BANKERS. DRUG LORDS. INEQUALITY. INSECURITY. GREED. RUTHLESS COMMUNISM. NWO. NAZI. TERRORISM. LAZY PEOPLE. REBEL POLITICIAN. ANARCHY. worst is WAR etc.. etc..
CAPITALISM was designed only for CORRUPT OPPORTUNISTIC MANIPULATIVE LAZY POLITICIAN. BANKERS. LAWYERS. DRUG LORDS. JUDGES. CRIMINALS. DICTATORS. RULERS. KING. SULTANATE. EMPEROR etc. etc..
HARD WORKING PEACE LOVING HAPPY HONEST SOCIETY were always the slave victim and poorly starve to death. :(
Even though this video tries to suggest "class envy", or suggest one in a hundred of us own everything, the truth is a career and sound money sense gets you along just fine in life. Ten percent of American 60+'s are millionaires! What's your excuse to not do as well as one in ten?
NikovK 1 month ago
@NikovK oh that makes sense. If you're not rich you must be doing something wrong....People aren't upset they're not rich, they're upset because they're barely getting by.
illahham 2 weeks ago
Are you not shocked to learn the richest 10% of 20-29 year olds have less than the median retiree? That the median 40 year old working stiff is worth ten times what he was twenty years prior? That the super rich are also the super old, Zuckermann excluded?
NikovK 1 month ago
NikovK 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't let the financial crisis bring you down. I started working from home and I'm now making 200 dollars a day... Don't be the victim, create your own luck! It's really worth checking out the website below, this guy is amazing...
Go to 2012bestoffers(.)com & Click the guy in front of the lamborghine's...
Enjoy life!
bewustwording 1 month ago
capitalism. ill go be a good person and make this world a better place by working.
communism. ill think ill be a greedy shit and sit here all day while some one else work his ass off. tomorow i think ill go murder 10 0000 people for the laugh.
pivot1nerf2starwars3 1 month ago
@pivot1nerf2starwars3 wrong again. Capitalism = my motive is profit. Communism= we the workers have a surplus, we should share this with people. Read the manifesto before you go around spreading half a century old propaganda. There has never been a communist country. Communism is stateless as control of resources is vested in the worker.
The First thing Hitler did as supreme ruler of Germany was outlaw labor unions.
illahham 2 weeks ago
@illahham Collectivism works in a small community where everyone knows everyone else. Those who are lazy or cheats or liars or mean, are known to everyone, and people can employ a tit for tat approach to helping each other. That system breaks down in large anonymous communities, where people can cheat the system undetected. They even feel good about their cheating, because they are disconnected from those who pay the price for their dishonesty.
Even brutal tyranny fails to make communism work!
dalriada842 6 days ago
@dalriada842 that is all based on the morality of a society therefore your statement that it will not work on a large scale society is an overstatement and a fallacy because it has not been tried on a large scale society with the morality for communism to work. In every society communism has been tried on there is the idea of private property. The idea of private property is rooted the judaeo-christian religions which are the elementary basis for all current western societies.
illahham 6 days ago
@illahham The lack of the concept of private property only exists in primitive societies. They need such a concept to become complex societies in the first place. All complex societies, not just J-C based ones, require it.
How do you propose to motivate someone to work hard, when doing so will make essentially no difference to their material standard of living, as everything is shared in common? Much easier to skive, since your individual laziness will also not materially affect your lifestyle.
dalriada842 6 days ago
@dalriada842 Yet again a misconception. Communism does not say working hard won't make a difference to your standard of living. In fact it says it will better it. It says in fact by not working hard you will only suffer as with everyone else. You're asserting that human nature suggests the only rewards we recognize are material objects. That is not true of human nature, that is true of our society and the societies communism has been tried on.
illahham 6 days ago
@illahham I was giving my view of how I think it would work. I agree that people would suffer by not working hard. However, this is too remote for most people. People cheat insurance companies, even though everyone ends up paying higher premiums as a result! Most people aren't like Boxer in 1984. Selflessly working for the common good. Real people are more selfish than that. I believe all societies stem from human nature, and that human nature isn't as pliable as I think you believe it is.
dalriada842 6 days ago
@dalriada842 take for example the Huron and the Iroquis they both had a very communal approach to how they operated and historical writings will show they were quite efficient.
illahham 6 days ago
@illahham They had relatively small populations, even at their height. From my brief Googling, it seems they farmed their own land, even though they didn't own it. They seem to have directly benefited from their own labour. Is this incorrect?
dalriada842 6 days ago
@illahham It's trite to say there "has never been a communist country." It's been tried many times. It wasn't achieved, because it's a hopeless Utopian fantasy that ignores too much of human nature.
Capitalism isn't a perfect system, but it has produced far more prosperity, even for those at the bottom, than any other system. This is because it leverages individual self-interest in an atomised society.
dalriada842 6 days ago
@dalriada842 It has not been tried. Russia, China, Cuba- all state capitalist societies. The mere fact that communism was tried by the state contradicts the basis of communism and therefore the outcome in each case is not nor can be communism.
illahham 6 days ago
@illahham No competition, price mechanism, or the creative destruction of bankruptcy for incompetently run enterprises. How can these societies be called capitalist? Even Western societies are more socialist/corporatist, than they are capitalist. Hence the nature of our economic and social troubles! A capitalist society wouldn't have bailed out the banks.
So how would you run things? Are you an Anarcho-syndicalist? How would you organise things?
dalriada842 6 days ago
@dalriada842 haha I don't pigeon hole myself into any 'school of thought'. I'm a pragmatist, there are 'good economics and bad economics'. capitalist societies would have bailed out the banks, Keynes was a capitalist. I think you're right about why we are where we are, we didn't follow capitalisms teachings, not even keynes's.
illahham 6 days ago
@illahham Keynes isn't my idea of a capitalist. Feckless banks should be allowed to fail! To bail them out is a clear moral hazard, that encourages irresponsibility on their part. Banks have been allowed to fail before.
dalriada842 6 days ago
@dalriada842 But government's primary responsibility was to the people it was in their interest to limit how often and how severe the failure. Keynes suggested deficit spending would bring us out of a liquidity trap and in many ways it did after the depression. Hence WW2 growth. But for some reason against all of keynes's teachings that system was abused by so called 'keynesians' to try and make bank failures impossible.
illahham 6 days ago
@dalriada842 Keynes suggested that expansionary fiscal policy only be implemented in the case of a liquidity trap and only when the free market failed to get rid of high, persistent unemployment. It was not to be a tool to fine tune the business cycle at every turn. He specifically advised against it saying it would cause speculative bubbles. Therefore when Greenspan lowered the interest rate to 1% in early-2000s when unemployment was hovering around 4% he was breaking the rules.
illahham 6 days ago
@dalriada842 In my opinion the best economy would be one that is for the most part free market. We should not have too much government involvement in matured markets like oil and car manufacturing. Those are industries that have come far enough for employee and employer to negotiate 'fair' wages and as it stands government involvement is mostly a burden on the tax payer and itself.
illahham 6 days ago
@dalriada842 I still think government has a role to play. Between 1970-2009 we've spent $30trillion on oil and electric infrastructure(coal&nuclear) research/technology. This has helped improve efficiency in every step of the process. Carter spent billions on 'synfuels' and although it failed the research done created processes we use today like coal gasification and carbon capture.
illahham 6 days ago
@illahham The research is interesting, but given the bureaucratic inefficiency of government, the money may have been invested more efficiently, had the government not interfered. The utilities and fuel providers can predict for themselves the inevitable decline in fossil fuels. They will want to survive by developing alternative fuel sources. Of course this is made harder the more they are taxed and regulated.
dalriada842 6 days ago
@dalriada842 Yes that is true but it would then be their incentive to prolong the research. Right now companies are developing alternative fuel sources because of government intervention that pushed them and consumer demand. It was back in the 60s that we started pushing alternative energy. If oil companies had full reign they would be drilling not researching right now; our oil reserves are large enough to sustain us for many more decades.
illahham 6 days ago
@illahham Arguably, allowing full exploitation of existing reserves, would provide the cheap energy to grow our economy. We would therefore have more resources available to develop alternatives when they were required. Necessity is the mother of invention. Have the researchers been dragging their feet to stay on-board the gravy train? Does developing alternatives really require decades? Intensive research can achieve a lot in a short period of time.
dalriada842 6 days ago
@dalriada842 In a perfect world perhaps.
But how long have people been refining oil? Yet how often are there oil spills? And what of prudhoe bay where oil companies had full reign? and there was 'a spill a day'? Or were gov't regulations indirectly causing these spill bc of their safety net? Wouldn't it make more sense if I was an owner to minimize spills to maximize profit regardless of tax or subsidies?
illahham 6 days ago
@illahham Their interest is to minimise cost, and maximise profit. You would have to determine whether the cost of eliminating spills, was less than the benefit of having the oil to sell, that would have otherwise leaked. Ignoring environmental concerns and bad publicity of course. Public opinion is increasingly vocal on such matters. That can damage sales and profits too.
dalriada842 6 days ago
@dalriada842 yes it can but that depends on volume. People had been complaining about the oil spills quite frequently, and quite frequently to the oil company in prudhoe bay but it persisted.
illahham 6 days ago
@dalriada842 you seem to be the austrian economics type
illahham 6 days ago
@illahham In my younger days, I was a socialist. As I've gotten older I've become more right wing in my economic views, and more liberal in my social views. Where once I loathed Milton Friedman, now I am a great admirer of him. I've only heard the term Austrian economics relatively recently. But yeah if you like. I guess that must make me another idiot in your eyes! ;)
I too don't really conform to any pigeon-hole, and don't take an inflexible ideological view on such issues. Continued.
dalriada842 6 days ago
@dalriada842 I took my first macro class last year and I've been little interested else since. I am a bit skeptic of Austrian economics; anyone telling me to turn the other way while they work their magic is to be watched very carefully. Likewise so is anyone asking to borrow my wallet
illahham 5 days ago
@illahham But there are so many people espousing various forms of anti-capitalist view on the internet, that it is useful to play Devil's advocate. Although I do genuinely support Capitalism as the best economic system.
dalriada842 6 days ago
@dalriada842 haha really? I'm always running into the -free market is the answer to all our problems- type. In those cases it's entertaining to defend communism a bit.
illahham 5 days ago
@illahham I don't believe in the abolition of the state. I too, think it is a necessary evil. But I think its functions should be kept as limited as possible. I'm over-egging the pudding by suggesting that allowing oil companies to pollute should be a purely commercial issue. They should not be allowed to internalise profits, and externalise costs/losses. Hence my objection to bailing out the banks!
Your politics sounded communistic at first, but less so with later posts. Mmm
dalriada842 6 days ago
@dalriada842 I think the relationship works best when good judgement is used. I like what keynes says, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" I think government wasn't aggressive enough. If they wanted to bail out the banks some real spending cuts in other areas like military namely (end the wars) and health care reform should have been made.
illahham 5 days ago
@illahham With regards to my admiration of Friedman, this isn't unreserved.
bit. ly/9t4WMe
This is an article I found interesting. Remove the space after the period.
dalriada842 5 days ago
@dalriada842 Hartford financial group did a poll of small business owners on what they felt was the biggest hinder to growth. 9% said regulation, 2% said taxes, the rest said demand.
illahham 6 days ago
@dalriada842 my view is government is a necessary evil that can be used for good. Just look at Standard oil, a hands off approach allowed them to vertically and horizontally integrate, controlling production and distribution; killing competition. Gov't came in and broke them up returning competition and it did not kill or hurt the oil industry. Exxon was one of the companies created from that and up until Apple passed them, Exxon was the world's largest company.
illahham 6 days ago
@dalriada842 In my opinion it is smarter to develop the renewable energy but preserve our oil reserves and the demand for fossil fuels for when there is an actual oil crisis. Then we can allow companies to drill and really make a killing.
Also it was not just the $100million that helped get algae started a lot of the research used was done at universities that get gov't funding, like UC: San Diego
illahham 6 days ago
@dalriada842 A few years ago we spent $100million for Sapphire to develop 300 acres for algae biofuel demonstrations. Since then Sapphire has gotten billions from private companies like Exxon-Mobile to produce algae-based fuels. By 2018 they will be producing 100 million gallons/yr and 1 billion gallons/yr by 2020. This is also genetically engineered algae, both genetic engineering and algae refining are relatively new so there is no reason to believe the process won't become more efficient
illahham 6 days ago
@dalriada842 "produced far more prosperity"- That is again a fallacy because in relation to communism, capitalism has had a much longer application for us to judge and thus there is not enough substantial evidence to suggest communism would be better. So, far more prosperity than what?
I do however agree that communism will not work on our society and capitalism is far better only but in THIS case. And that is because of the underlying aspects/origins of our society; philosophy and morality.
illahham 6 days ago
@illahham I disagree that capitalism has had a longer run. What about the vast span of time that humans have existed as hunter-gatherers. Shouldn't at least one great civilisation have emerged espousing communist principles?
If it was a viable system...Which I don't believe it is!
dalriada842 6 days ago
Not a damn thing to do with capitalism, but a lot to do with chrony corporatism. This country hasn't seen good austrian free market capitalism in like forever. Free people read Mises!
bbarrick8383 1 month ago
@bbarrick8383 lol i can tell you're an idiot from you mentioning Mises. And I suppose next you're going to suggest we go back to gold.
illahham 2 weeks ago
Holy Crap. I'm glad I watched this video or I wouldn't have known that rich people have a lot of money and non-rich people don't have as much. Enlightening!
jfuex 1 month ago
Taxing corporations doesn't do anything people.
When you tax a corporation they raise their prices and lower their employees wages so we end up paying for it.
thejacobandjason 1 month ago
The United States of America doesn't promise everyone will have everything. If you want the same as another without the gamble the other takes good luck finding the Government which allows that. In the U.S. you have "opportunity". That's it. You get nothing else. Life isn't free and it never has been. Cavemen lived by the club just like communism. You get that choice or you move to America. Most given a choice choose America. Land of 100% opportunity. NO FREE RIDES.
BobSteward1 1 month ago
@BobSteward1 Some people are just downright plain and simple more equal than the rest of us...
thehoundchannel 1 month ago
@BobSteward1 100% opportunity? LOL you're hilarious. Russia isn't communist never was to be honest but they did have dictatorship masked as communism. Communism and socialism are the end results of a democratic capitalist society.
illahham 2 weeks ago
Strawman. That is what the name of the video should be. Communist always prep you with the argument of who has the most wealth? The Wealthy or the poor? As if capitalism is a sum-zero proposition. Name me an economy where there are no Have and have nots? Communism? Socialism? Vladimere Putin lives the same lifestyle as the average Soviet? Chavez lives the same lifestyle as a venezuelin peasant? Every government on the planet has rich and poor. Show me a society ever created where there is none?
BobSteward1 1 month ago
the USA masses are slaves to corruporations.
mba2ceo 1 month ago
Communism, how is that working out?
QUIETONE9999 2 months ago
This is not a product of capitalism. It's a product of "crony socialism" (often mistakenly referred to as "crony capitalism")
orange11emilie 2 months ago
Who cares if someone owns 400, 4.000 or 4 million times more? As long as I can buy what I need and live comfortably and with dignity.
Bosgek0 2 months ago
and they pay 37% of all federal income taxes and the bottom 46% pay NO federal income tax at all and in fact, in most cases get money back, so your point is?
screwedbysears 2 months ago
SO WHAT
knight6479 2 months ago
The Fed prints money, the Crony-Wealthy get to collect on political "investments", then each of our dollars is worth less and if we are not careful they will become worthless. Who do you think that inflation affects more, the people living paycheck to paycheck or the top 1%. It's the fault of the government, not the successful people of our country.
Breeegz 2 months ago 12
@Breeegz SO basically what you're saying is that the rich guy who has 7 summer houses has to loose 3 of them, while those *lazy poor ones* don't have to loose any summer houses because they don't have any to begin with? So the rich ones have it so much harder? Oh that pesky government! They should feel sorry for those struggling rich with just a measly 4 summer houses left!
PineappleNicole 2 months ago
@PineappleNicole You missed my point. Someone that you might consider Wealthy has more tools available to protect themselves from the perils of inflation. Someone who depends on their paycheck every two weeks will not have the same protections.They will not see their pay increase at the same rate of inflation, thus seeing their money not last as long as it used to.To be fair, someone who owns 7 houses outright is not at risk to lose them just from inflation, only if they have Mortgages on them.
Breeegz 2 months ago
@Breeegz The Fed can't print money...
illahham 2 weeks ago
So? Get off your ass and go be the 1% then.
TheRaleighRocket 2 months ago
@TheRaleighRocket but people would rather complain until it is handed to them instead of working for it.
HapplyFace 2 months ago
@HapplyFace have fucking fun becoming part of the 1%. Guarantee you'd end up working in an office everyday of your life and get fucking no where. The only way you would is if you were in the family of an owner of a corporation or if you invented something good which you could do in a socialist country and still become rich. THE 1% CONTROLS THE FUCKING MARKET ANYWAYS. They control the media and the government. They lobby for everything they want.
wafcake 1 month ago
@wafcake oh really? well guess what, you are wrong. Apparently i live above the top 2% with a normal wage in CA. Pretty sad actually, the top minority are people only doing somewhat decent in life.
HapplyFace 1 month ago
@HapplyFace i bet you're not even a millionaire wich isnt even part of the actual 1%
wafcake 1 month ago
@wafcake actually top 2% is making $200,000 a year...
HapplyFace 1 month ago
@HapplyFace well one you're only talking about CA. But im talking about the top 400 people in the country that control everything
wafcake 1 month ago
@wafcake top 400 is not the top 1% of the entire us population when the us population is about 312.8 million people. The top 1% is actually 3,130,000 americans, which is a lot more than a mere 400. The top 400 only are actually around 0.000001277 % of the us population. Forgive me if my calculations on that last problem are incorrect, but it was rather difficult working with numbers that small.
HapplyFace 1 month ago
@HapplyFace no shit but thats what i was meaning to say is that the top 400 are the ones that control everything. The corporations should still be taxed more like they used to be so like 50%
wafcake 1 month ago
or you can exterminate all those damned kulaks in the top 20% (and the economy along with them) and give the remaining 80% of the population 135k in blood soaked money (that the political class will end up with in a few years). just remember not to do anything capitalistic, (like sell vegetables) or it's catch rats in a rainbarrel for you!
SunTzuLao 2 months ago
yea divide the us personal income total by 340,000,000, and everyone gets 35k/yr! what a perfect world! don't forget though, you can't start a business, or profit in any way, or its off to the gulag! oh yea, and the political class? will accumulate all the wealth!
SunTzuLao 2 months ago
If you think this is free capitalism... with all these bailouts and subsidies and welfare and gov. medicare... you are wrong. The reason we have such splits is because the government encourages people to be poor and gives the tax money of Americans to a select few of the rich in the form of bailouts and subsidies. Get rid of socialism and America will be free again.
azbpro 2 months ago
Under socialism and communism 99.99% own nothing and the .01% is the government.
djcatron11 2 months ago
@djcatron11 What socialism and communism ? WTF you talking about ? You know about some Communist banks , corporations running the World and our own Gov that I don't about about ? Can you name these Communist institutions and oil companies telling our last several if not more Presidents what to do ?
wikitdevil 2 months ago
@wikitdevil , Oop's "That I don't know about".
wikitdevil 2 months ago
@wikitdevil Relax. Take your meds dude. It was a joke. You think those numbers are a fact? I made NO REFERENCE to our country, oil companies, corporations or any of the prozac induced stupidity you're spewing about. Your asking for examples for facts that I didn't say. So before you ask what the fuck I'm talking about, take a nap first.
djcatron11 2 months ago
So what? Would it make you feel better if the top ten percent owned 75% of the wealth?
All this is saying is that "rich people...are rich". Duh, dumbass. Now, show a graph displaying how much production and jobs are financed by the top one percent.
LucisFerre1 2 months ago
If the 100% were on a desert island and the "wealth" and property of the island was split up this way the poorest 80% would have already killed the top 1% and took their stuff!!
I'm not saying this is what should happen, but if the setting were changed that is what WOULD happen. I wish every American studied the French Revolution, or at least read Dickens "A Tale of Two Cities". The Rich should be afraid, VERY afraid...
randy109 2 months ago
@randy109, how much of that wealth did the top one percent CREATE?
LucisFerre1 2 months ago
this just basicly proves evolution and natural selection
emilio124567 2 months ago
That's why we need to give them more tax breaks so they can own 90% of it...! ( sarcasm )
METALMAN4Wii 2 months ago
at least capitalists have something to share. comunists have nothing. lol
and i bet that 100% of american people can afford a computer, for example. in a comunist country we cant.
TheAmericanFreeBird 2 months ago
what does this video have to do with capitalism
cminksful 2 months ago
and what does this have to do with capitalism. its fascism, saying capitalism is bad for whats going on today is like if the italians said capitalisms bad in the 20's and 30's. you can call it fascism corporatism croney-capitalism or whatever, its all the same thing, and its no where near being capitalism.
d3ltadrive 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good riddance to the braying jackass Christ' Hitchens who supported the sanctions and the war of pelf against Iraq. [Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"; Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." — "60 Minutes" (5/12/96)]
YourUTubeMonitor 2 months ago
true, but capitalism isnt zero sum. That is to say the top 1 % doesnt get its wealth by stealing your wealth (under Capitalism which we have strayed from), but instead by consumer AND producer better off under any deals which they benefit from. Your wealth is independent of their wealth so this numbers mean nothing. If bill gates burned all his money i wouldnt be better off, If he instead made Windows 8 and profited from me i would. Please thumb this up so others can see the fallacy in this.
nigrah8ter 3 months ago 22
@nigrah8ter said [[true, but capitalism isnt zero sum.]]
"Pinkos" don't understand terms like zero sum, positive sum and win-win. Personally, I'm looking for animation software to start making explanatory vids.
LucisFerre1 2 months ago
@nigrah8ter That depends on where the top 1% earned their wealth. Over the past two decades especially, a most of those 1% wealth have, in fact, come directly from the bottom 90%'s share. They own or own stock in corporations that lay off workers, reduce pay and benefits and send jobs overseas. These cuts have not resulted in lower product prices they resulted in massive increases in executive pay and huge gains in stock prices. This is the 1% getting more by taking directly from the 90%.
Oddwun 2 months ago
@nigrah8ter when did any windoz operating system benefit anyone other than Bill Gates? Microsoft added billions to the cost of doing business for most, just to make that profit. Their predatory business practice is the poster child for regulation.
MartyCarducci 2 months ago
@nigrah8ter I would contest that; capitalism is fundamentally designed to rob people of the fruits of their labor.
Keinlicht 2 months ago
@nigrah8ter
I find that most people who try and criticize capitalism, are actually criticizing corporatism which is a whole different animal.
KyleSkullz 1 month ago
@nigrah8ter
So ridiculous it's hard to know where to start with a 500 character limit but in short Bill could make me better off by simply making his software cheaper to buy. He earns less money but I have more left in my pocket. See how fucking clearly dependent that was?
TheBrutalDeluxe 3 weeks ago
@nigrah8ter yes, instead the 1% gets its wealth by exploiting your labor, providing minimal compensation in order to maximize profit. One's wealth is not independent. The worker's wealth depends on compensation. The owner's on profit. Both are related. If Bill burned all his money there would be billions less in circulation, making your money slightly more valuable.
illahham 2 weeks ago
@nigrah8ter Yes, but the socialists or Marxists don't want his money burned. They want to steal it through taxation. This is the politics of envy!
Strictly speaking, if he did burn his money, you may be undetectably better off by reducing the money supply. It's the increases in the money supply through 'money printing' that is fuelling price inflation.
dalriada842 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Without Yoko by his side, Yukio Mishima would've been sad & lonely. [Lou Reed is weak, as weak as a reed. Why can't Oprah & Gayle swap brassieres? Because Oprah's Winnebagos are more undulant & pendulant. Oprah was arrested at the airport after 40 pounds of crack was discovered under her skirt.]
YourUTubeMonitor 3 months ago
Lincoln on Slavery:
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery. --- March 14, 1861
What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races. --- 7-17-1858, fr. a speech delivered in Springfield, Ill.
I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, or of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. --- September 15, 1858
YourUTubeMonitor 3 months ago
Marxism? Owenism? Lovely. Let's device a 5-yr. plan to distribute oleo to the burbs by unelected central planners. They shall determine how much dog food & penicillin & antiseptic will be appropriated to sector 32. Who needs the free market anyway? Let 1982 Czechoslovakia be our touchstone. The Czechs loved waiting in line 7 hrs. for a pound of fatty, fly-blown ham. It broke the monotony of a grueling day of idling 6 hours in line for 2 gallons of petrol.
YourUTubeMonitor 3 months ago
@YourUTubeMonitor
"Who needs the free market anyway?"
The free-market works when it is not rigged. It is rigged.
Products of production:
1. LAND & RESOURCES - we can't live without this
2. CAPITAL - everything man made
3. LABOR - human effort
1 & 3 are rigged
LVT prevents harmful speculation in LAND preventing CRASHES
Corporations were created to isolate themselves from the free-market. Their influence in the Republican Party is 100%, less so with Democrats but they still pull the strings.
NearAbbeyRoad 3 months ago
@NearAbbeyRoad
Corporations were also created as government charters. The right to incorporate was restricted in the early US to those who subscribed to time-limited charters that had to be renewed by the government or else they would expire. The government based decisions regarding such renewals around the performance of the corporation in meeting the needs of the public.
That's how the Founders thought corporations should run. Funny how when that changed things started to go wrong, eh?
Lodatzor 3 months ago
@Lodatzor
Things did not improve when corporations (multi-nationals) spouted up all over. But the base is not stable. Land Valuation Taxation, the SINGLE TAX, with no income tax and controls to ensure a free-market makes a solid base.
Since 2008 all the media, and most others, have whittered on about are the symptoms not the root cause. Unless the foundations are right, it will happen again. World-wide crashes happened twice in 80 years. It would have been sooner only WW2 got in the way
NearAbbeyRoad 3 months ago
@YourUTubeMonitor
"Marxism? Owenism? Lovely"
You are very confused person.
NearAbbeyRoad 3 months ago
What's the point?
tadpole256 3 months ago
The free-market is rigged.
1. Unrig the market
2. Tax the values of land using Land valuation Tax
3. Abolish income tax.
Then no booms and busts and a "fair" distribution of wealth.
NearAbbeyRoad 3 months ago
@NearAbbeyRoad : You're dangerous! You're proposing a Constitutional Republic!
YourUTubeMonitor 3 months ago
@YourUTubeMonitor
"You're dangerous! You're proposing a Constitutional Republic!"
A tax shift plays with the constitution? My oh my! With LVT business behavior stays the same. All does, land ownership, etc.
NearAbbeyRoad 3 months ago
less money for drugs :(((
5m1nutes 3 months ago
This has nothing to do with American Patriots. This is and has been true throughout all of history, in almost every society, independent of government and economic policies.
daemonkrog 3 months ago
This is why I support capitalism. Let's make sure the 1% deserve the 37%.
Ron Paul 2012.
djw11111 3 months ago
@djw11111
You are barking mad.
NearAbbeyRoad 3 months ago
@NearAbbeyRoad I mean in capitalism the top 1% have to add value to a lot of people's lives to gain 37% of the wealth.
djw11111 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djw11111
"I mean in capitalism the top 1% have to add value to a lot of people's lives to gain 37% of the wealth."
That they do not do. Corporations came about to shield themselves from the free-market - rigging the market in monopolies,. etc. A free system? No more than the old USSR. There the state ran it, in the US faceless unaccountable corporations run it.
NearAbbeyRoad 3 months ago
Money is not wealth. The free market goes way beyond Wall Street. Everything that you trade for is wealth. That sandwich you ate yesterday is wealth. Your house is wealth. Your car is wealth. money is a worthless piece of paper.
The rich own a majority of the money because they are the entrepreneurs, they direct labor, land and capital goods into production. They put their minds to work for mankind. The working class only works of their hands, and keeps their mind carefree. It is all wealth.
Skyler827 3 months ago
@Skyler827
Can I have all of your worthless pieces of paper money?
I am not asking for your wealth...you can keep that, just let me have your worthless paper money please.
toddg562 3 months ago
@Skyler827 pro-athletes making $10 million a year are putting their minds to work, while schoolteachers making minimum wage aren't?
mentalrectangle 3 months ago
@Skyler827 the rich control stock and product to prevent the poor from getting a foothold.... the working class may be more capable of the job than the rich people, but the rich people maintain a monopoly for their own selfish gain.... but the idea of capital is a bad idea as bartering is an equaly useful system, maybe even better.... the only standardised currancy should be something that is of value anyways
doombybbr 3 months ago
most of that money belongs to bill gates though.
doombybbr 4 months ago
@doombybbr
No, Rupert murdoc, bill o'reilly, etc all have really high salaries, Capitalism is all about the opportunity to make the money through college or however.
DarkosApprentice 4 months ago
@DarkosApprentice Bill o'reilly joke in itself. A representation of a lie that will be told over and over. Stupid people watch fox news and believe in this American Dream. Sorry to break it to you, but that dream is getting harder to achieve. You can thank assholes like O rizzle for misinformation and no journalistic integrity.
Thetruenihilus 3 months ago
@doombybbr Bill gates got most of his money by being a patent troll. Patents are antithetical to a genuine free market because they are government enforced monopolies. Taken to their logical end, patents and copyrights imply that no one can control their own real property because we must respect the imaginary intellectual property of people whom we owe royalties. Without patents, Windows would be better, more open and there would probably be far less profits for the big tech companies.
Skyler827 3 months ago
@Skyler827 without patents people would be using linux.
doombybbr 3 months ago
@doombybbr Windows and MS Office are worse off because of patents. The monopoly privilege gives Microsoft and Apple an incentive to keep the quality down. The source code is kept secret, only a few dozen Microsoft employees have power over it. People cannot observe their machines under the hood as easily and if there's a virus or other problem it's as hard as possible to detect and remove bad software, bugs or code. Redundant systems to keep it up slow down performance.
Skyler827 3 months ago
@doombybbr Without patents, Windows and OSX would be open source. People would need to fund and build them voluntarily, like Wikipedia. The same applies to churches, political campaigns, most revolutions, every non profit organization and any of the thousands of open source projects that people freely do for expertise or recognition. Obviously that would never work. Oh wait.
Skyler827 3 months ago
FDR CAPITALISM WORKED ! GOP CAPITALISM NO WORKEE !!!
kn9ioutom 4 months ago in playlist Liked
FREE TRADE AND TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS ARE A HOAX
kn9ioutom 4 months ago
@kn9ioutom If you think we now have a capitalistic economy, you're dead wrong. Advocates of capitalism hate the status quo as much as you do.
Skyler827 3 months ago
It's not unjust to own more than someone else if you acquired your wealth through just means, aka mutually beneficial trade. Saying that some have more than others is deceiving and worthless. As long as the rich got that way without the use of force or fraud, they earned their wealth, and should be celebrated for it, not made into straw men and scapegoats. Attack the source of unjust wealth: the use of government force and redistribution.
DavidCaddock 4 months ago
@DavidCaddock just means? who are you kidding?
do you even know what you are talking about?
you are being very naive with your statement.
maybe you need some education?
do you even know how we got into this mess?
It was not from just means at all, but by unregulated wall street execs selling bogus derivatives.
go to theotherschoolofeconomics. org and search for "Inside Job" to get an education.
toddg562 4 months ago
@toddg562 the point of my comment is that discussing the distribution of wealth is pointless. The only thing that matters is the system that wealth is distributed in, and our current economy is a mix of corporatism and fascism. The wealthy are not kept in check by government, they are enriched by it. Your unregulated comment makes me chuckle. Regulations on the financial industry have exploded over the past decade, and they were all written by those you want to regulate.
DavidCaddock 4 months ago
@DavidCaddock Is it just means that investment bankers lobbied to repeal the Glass-Steagal Act,
and then used this unregulated power to increase profits at such a high risk level that it eventually resulted in a taxpayer bailout? Is it just means that Americans lost their homes, equity, and retirement value in the process, and got stuck with the bill, while the bankers that created the mess took home record bonuses?
If you agree this is just means I will doing more than chuckling at you.
toddg562 4 months ago
You guys are fucking morons.
GnarDawwg 4 months ago
capitalism and communism are the same shit! systems that exist to control the rest of us, and i use control loosely.
jroman692 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Modern Capitalism today is a pyramid scheme. If too many people rise to the top, that increases inflation and the pyramid colapses. That is why the fed has to intervene and raise interest rates to throw people back toward the bottom to keep the pyramid stable. A recession is simply capitalism's reset button. And just like a pyramid scheme, the top requires the downline (ie. middle and lower class) to keep it going.
shoresofinfinity 4 months ago
The fallacy of your reasoning is "the nation's wealth". Wealth is not community property. The wealthy will obviously have more OF THEIR OWN MONEY than will the poor... by definition.
The issue isn't how comparatively wealthy they are, but how they got there. If they bribed the gov't, that's crony capitalism, and is wrong. If they made products and sold the crap out of them, that's real capitalism, and is good.
But, crony capitalism is the fault of government, not business.
Hiraghm 4 months ago 7
@Hiraghm Yes , ENRON had more of their own money ! lol
wikitdevil 2 months ago
@wikitdevil SO does BP and every other corporation you give almost 97% of the total budget of welfare to. lol To be fair we give some of it to farms to grow crap we can't eat it. lol
wikitdevil 2 months ago
@wikitdevil You are spot on about cronyism for sure !
wikitdevil 2 months ago
Another thing we are importing willing slaves to the USA today. We don't have to go to other countries to bring them here. Our population went up 50% since 1971 from 204 million to 314 million today. Many of those are immigrants who are modern day slaves. Many of the immigrants don't have health insurance and live llike sardines in apartments/homes. They are part of the 99%.
PIANOPHUNGUY 4 months ago
This video completely overlooks the fact that wealth is created, it treats wealth like it is a zero sum game, and doesn't acknowledge that in an attempt to redistribute wealth, the incentives to create it are destroyed.
poopster102 4 months ago
Thats what george carlin ment when he said: "They own you, you are not free". Occupy Wallstreet is an attempt to get this freedom back. No matter how the numbers came about - THE WORLD BELONGS TO EVERYBODY and not only TO A SMALL NUMBER! No matter which positive law is blocks this - we have to fight for our natural right.
Um.. a first step from the 90%, to harm the richest 1% would be, to get the money OFF the banks, to stay completely out of mafiosy-wall street.
SecondBonham 4 months ago
Well maybe if that 90% got off their fat asses! lol
OhmgrownCron 4 months ago
I don't understand how this is even possible. The top 10% may own the means of production and lots of money, but they certainly don't own most of the real wealth. Also, there is the problem of diminishing returns. A wealthy man may own a Rolls Royce, but is he any better off than someone who owns a ford escort? Once basic needs are met, the returns fall of a cliff. How much better off are you in a mansion than a row home? Are you better off eating caviar vs chips and dip?
christo930 4 months ago
@christo930 I think they base it off annual non-taxed income. Also what you are talking about is diminishing returns, i think.
poopster102 4 months ago
@poopster102 Yes, that is why I mention the problem of diminishing returns.
christo930 4 months ago
What you didn't mention is social mobility. Poor people, kids who leave school and get a job, move up. You don't just have a minimum wage job your entire life; you move up, you gain more money, you get promotions. This isn't some kind of caste system.
xxpeniskingxx 4 months ago
that's what the american way of life is - a criminal ponzi scheme. thank god the bottom 99% are beginnig to realize that!
Caballingus 4 months ago
@Caballingus Poor Americans live better than the majority of people on the earth and in history.
christo930 4 months ago 2
The top 1% don't need all that money, lets take it away. Who cares about capital formation and investment.
mcbain434444 4 months ago
I'm not sure why there're some people having an argument. What's there to argue about? The video is nice, interesting and informative. So? What's your problem?
TheMisterKibe 1 year ago 8
@TheMisterKibe I personally felt the video was implying that there is something wrong with 1% having more wealth then 90% and unless they actually forced someone to give them that money (the way the government does) I disagree with the video's message. If Oprah wants $10 per magazine she makes and her fans want her magazine, and they make that trade and now she's a billionair, I fail to see what's wrong with that.
landwalker88 4 months ago
soooo, basically. this is giving an example of how the trickle down theory doesnt work?
sloan9787 1 year ago 4
@sloan9787 no that's wrong, it's not that simple. It's possible that the wealth has been trickling down, but the wealthy are creating new wealth faster then it can trickle down. The bottom 90% have been receiving that trickle down effect put the total amount of wealth has been rising. For instance it's better to have 28% of $1million then %28 of 1 thousand. The rich aren't doing anything wrong, our government is.
landwalker88 4 months ago
incidently 90% of American's aren't go-getters.
hillmedia22 2 years ago 3
Americans got owned by teh top 10%.
MocroNL 2 years ago
Allahu Akbar!!!
Istina09 3 years ago
what about the 9% between the 1 and 90%?
tenbears2421 3 years ago
@tenbears2421 Try using basic math.
TheIr0nMike 1 year ago
Get a Job!!!
smartestmanalive101 3 years ago 2
Wrong.
People come with corruption built in =)
Socialism is one of the fairer systems of living, it means that you have a right to live healthy regardless of wealth status.
TemporaryTroll 3 years ago
True, but then you give another man the control over your quality of life. i.e. living standards, personal luxuries, and the number of children you can bear.
HUSTLE258 3 years ago
Yea, but it steals somebody's hard-earned wealth by the helping hands of government they redistribute the wealth of others, its a thief. While the ones that receive the wealth assuming they are irresponsible and a corpse of society, who is happy to receive the wealth of others hardship through socialism? fair?
gearzone2611 2 years ago
land of the oppurtunity? hhahahahahahahahaha fat losers
alipindahouse123 3 years ago 27
This has been flagged as spam show
CAPITALISM creates ELITE CRIMINALS. BANKERS. DRUG LORDS. INEQUALITY. INSECURITY. GREED. RUTHLESS COMMUNISM. NWO. NAZI. TERRORISM. LAZY PEOPLE. REBEL POLITICIAN. ANARCHY. worst is WAR etc.. etc..
CAPITALISM was designed only for CORRUPT OPPORTUNISTIC MANIPULATIVE LAZY POLITICIAN. BANKERS. LAWYERS. DRUG LORDS. JUDGES. CRIMINALS. DICTATORS. RULERS. KING. SULTANATE. EMPEROR etc. etc..
HARD WORKING PEACE LOVING HAPPY HONEST SOCIETY were always the slave victim and poorly starve to death. :(
kopellhinex 3 months ago
Go fucking live in Peru or other parts of the world, and then when you come back you will understand why this is the land of opportunity.