Nice to see that BBC actually has some form of debate! Cheers to the Brits! Here in the US having this guy on would be an absolute dream... either he wouldn't ever be invited or he would be shouted out in a second.
the problem is for many Marx is associated with Stalin or Kim Il Sun. Marx was a philosopher who analysed (rightly) and noted the inherent issues within capitalism which has appeared numerously. I'm no Marxist but understanding his theories and analysis is not the same as supporting mass deportations and prison camps in Siberia!
We need to all ban together and charge at these corrupt rich people and make them do all the shit see how it feels. And spend their money on the poor and all those poor people.
Note the key word there "Over Thrown" marxism is a evil ideology and it`s behind the very things that are destroying our western society. I despise that evil ideology
@Renegen1 The whole point is that challenging questions are asked. Disputing something is a good way of better understanding it. The opinion of the presenter is not expressed. The programme is not meant to be adversarial.
I LOVE THAT QUESTION!! (@5:23) "Whatever conclusion they come to, how do you think it'll play out?" Wow! That's what they learn at the elite journalism universities, huh? No womder I was "too dumb to go"!!!
Crisis? That's the reason it's not working? They will always be because man will always make mistakes.What about the communist crisis that took them to their knees? Yes, we should try to make the world more fair. Is it fair that babies are born blind? Should we stop babies from being born then? Let's do what nature does. Let's give freedom and make changes as they are needed, instead of putting all Earth in a straight jacket and give power just to the ones who puts them on us. Read Keynes
David Harvey has a great mind and his academic understanding of Capitalism should inform practise (politics) much more than it currently does. He is right to highlight the systemic failures of Capitalism and to remind us that a new configuration of social, political and economical governance is required if we are to avoid another crises. Put simply, if we are to reduce the inequitable gap between those who have and those who do not Capitalism (in its current form) must be overthrown.
@deedutty Is Marx's construct even falsifiable? Can I ever provide any evidence that would eliminate with high probability the concept of competition induced crisis. If its unfalsifiable, its pseudo-scientific babble.
@axe863 Marx can be falsified simply enough. If businesses spontanously raise wages and shorten the working day then Marx is falsified. If the finance sector spontanously disappears and all that capital is instead used to increase production and purchasing power (through more jobs with higher wages) then crises will not appear and Marx is falsified. If greed stops being good in capitalism then Marx is falsified.
@MajorRoy 1) a much better long term metric, X/L, would be wages (with benefits)/ effective labor hours adjusted for inflation accounting for the degree of substitutiability of consumption portfolios, inherent systematic risk in their specialization, technical improvements in said consumption portfolios etc.
2) The financial sector exists for the mere fact of informational imperfections & imperfect risk sharing.
3). Most economicists agree that self -interest is a good thing
@axe863 1) I have no clue of what you are trying to say.
2) The financial sector grows because there is an increasing demand of its services over time. The reason for this is increased profits through automation while the returns in investment in production is diminishing, relatively. Therefore, other ways to invest are demanded. Therefore, financial bubbles and systemic crisis.
@MajorRoy I listed the imperfections which give rise to a real economic benefit from financial intermediation. FS, also, alter the liquidty structure etc but I wont get into that. This is my subfield of study and I want to praise you for single handingly solving the financial bubbles and systemic crisis with such a grossly simplistic explanation.
@axe863 You have to give me pardon for my supidity, but alas i am no economist, so when you are debating using academic short hand you are not debating at all, just confounding. I still have no idea what you are trying to say. But it still stands, if the average working day would be spontanously decreased, then Marx would be falsified. His prediction is the opposite, and the reason we are not working 12 hour shifts anymore is because of efforts from unions and the like.
@axe863 3)Self interest is good, greed is not. Greed is destructive, as the crisis beyond a doubt shows. Self interest should lead people to hang the greedy, whos speculations jepordize the future of all, just as you would put down a rabid dog. Greed is pathological and dangerous, and a threat to all. Contemporary economists does not see it, since they have no understanding of why crisis systematically occur. They lack in effect a basic understanding of capitalism.
I think some people posting here really need to go away and read Marx's OWN writings on the state. Try Critique of Hegels Philosphy of Right, 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, The Jewish Question, The German Ideology, or any of his writings on the Paris Commune. Or are they just going to take Vladmir Lenins out and out peversion of Marxism at face value? The truth is Marx had more libertarianism in one of his carbunicles than the fraudsters of US corporate 'Libetarianism' combined.
@CosmosLoyal You are the fraud, Marx had more statism in him it is just that he set himself up as an saviour when he really was a exploiter himself. Yes, he recognized the state as violent. But so did many before him and his main focus; economics and politics shows an evil and statist mind at work.
Concerning US Libertarianism, try regarding Murray Rothbard and see what you say then.
@CosmosLoyal Maybe you should go and worship that CURRENT COMMUNIST STATE!
As the US and all "capitalist" countries have undergone a "communist" revolution and have most of the planks of Marx program implemented: Central banking, Progressive Income Tax, Agriculture subsidies, Socialised school system and more. David Harvey what a oblivous LOSER!
@iagopseleme No doubt those austrian economists will attempt to explain the meltdown because of too much state intervention while lauding the bail out initiated by that those same states. The truth is the crisi s is a crisis of neo-liberal economic policies of last 40 years
out of all the videos i have been watching and things I have been reading for a few years on these subjects this one is probably the best economic analysis and diagnosis that I have encountered.
David has a very strong point indeed and I agree that the future of capitalism will benefit the few, not the many. The downfall of socialist measures is that they are controlled my humans, which can result is biasty and potential greed towards friends of the state and people in government (watch the politicians in The Lives Of Others). I guess the main benefit in a change would be an easing off of the need to keep peddling the hamster wheel, which most of us in London are currently doing. This
It's not capitalism, it's corporatism...we should overthrow corporatism and install a capitalistic society. We already have a lot of socialism/facism identities, and we're being crushed by it, why would be push closer to it?
@tougemaster I think we both have different ideologies, and I think it is ok and healthy for the discussion. However, my argument is based on facts. Zapatero is closer to Harvey than Krugman (personal friend of Zapatero). I just want a good explanation why Economies based on Marxism are that unsuccessful. I said 'based on' because it is a fact that as much radical the government the worst the, the most corrupt are their representatives and the most inequality is the society. See Cuba & Venezuela
@lescobedop I would argue that Capitalism creates the most inequality in the world. Consider how much the top 1% in America control and then compare that with the WORST Marxist based economic systems.
@trippinlikegod Capitalism creates wealth, the people who control it created it, it is their wealth. Without them there would be no wealth and everyone would be poor, except the government, oh thats socialism. Socialism is about governments controlling wealth, greed and excess of the governing few. Poverty of the masses.
@lescobedop People create wealth, governs cannot do this. Also socialism is about greed and excess of the government, total power means total corruption. Governments have a small number of minds, whereas people have all the population.
@lescobedop Marxism is not a system of economics, which is why you didn't understand my argument. It is a critique of capital. Nothing more, nothing less.
How about capitalist South Korea under Rhee Syngman in the late 1940s/50s? Over 100 thousand people were murdered, youth gangs terrorised the nation, corruption ruled, elections were tampered with, people were jailed without trail, little economic progress (remember it was not until the 1970s under the state cntroled economy of Pak Chong Hee that South Korea made economic progress).
To be honest in many ways it was much much worse than Cuba is today.
The one big thing here that is going over peoples heads which is understandable is that individuals in the legislature bailed out the banks that they had their money at. In effect this gave unlimited FDIC insurance to a very small powerful elite. Everyone else got shafted especially smaller depositors at smaller banks. Also not every bank in America was involved in the speculation. This process also hurt municipals and non-financial corporations. The answer not better banking more Gov.
@Tougemaster Spain has 20.5% of unemployment and Zapatero has reduced public expenses, although he increases it since he was elected. Moreover, its competitiveness was always lower than other capitalist countries, like Germany. Furthermore, the money that Zapatero gave to autonomy regions was absurd. Tell me where the Euro comes in this context? (I firmly support Krugman's point of view, nobel prize in economics in 2008... what Harvey has won?)
@lescobedop Considering the nobel prize has been given to Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama, a liberal imperialist; I don't think receiving a Nobel prize means much lol. Krugman is a smart man but he is still a bourgeoisie economist. Krugman needs to learn to add the words "corporation" and "exploitation" to his critiques of what is wrong with economics.
Secondly, you are trying to apply an umbrella currency in a global economy defined by economic anarchy. Stupidity if you ask me lol...
@lescobedop The EU i going under due to socialism. Tax and spend policies have brought a continent to disaster. Capitalism has always saved socialism, now it cannot as taxes are too high.
I think you all that like Harvey have to experienced communism to see what I'm talking about. Now you're sitting in your desk and writing in your computer, because is yours, and it was bought with capitalist money... I will be delighted to see if you can deal with REAL oppression, no freedom speech and no possessions.
@Hanshenable: I think you have to be more informed about what you're saying. Communist political systems have always been disastrous and communist governments have generated the greater inequality in the world. I bet you can not name an example of communism that has triumphed. You have to look at Cuba or Venezuela. These governments have import food to meet domestic demand. Argentina has an unprecedented inflation. European countries are going down... I really do not understand your point.
@lescobedop Europe's problem have to do with the eurozone and the systemic failiures that are inherent in capitalism. Welfare policies are not why capitalism falls apart lol.
@Tougemaster06 Proof? I can say magical unicorns cause the tides....Of course this is ridiculous and goes against well established physics ... To even entertain such an extraordinary claim, one requires extraordinary evidence.. Please demonstrate the extraordinary evidence that counters over 100 years of established economics.
I've never said that only poor people can say something about Capitalism, I think he should be consistent in terms of life style and philosophy. Radical discourse clearly states that the only way to change the world is changing the system to a communist model. Since Marxism is an economic theory, and economic processes are based on political decisions, the main goal of radicals is political: Emancipation through revolution. Actually, Harvey is criticized because he has never proposed anything!
Yeh, he lives in a capitalist society. What do you expect him to sit on? You think only poor people can say that the current system of capitalism is flawed? He WANTS more equality, not so he can be richer, but so the poor can be richer.
If he was poor, you'd just say he complains about capitalism because he's not benefiting from it. Like it or not, huge wealth divisions are socially damaging.
@lescobedop Clearly not much of one, no offence. Harvey's Marxist interpretation of "neo"liberalism is inspired. It is undeniable to see the damage neoliberal policies have done around the world... just look at the influence of SAPs and creation of dependency in Latin America, and throughout the global South. Now I am no dependency theorist, nor am I a marxist geographer, HOWEVER I still have endless respect for the biggest heavy weight in our discipline.
@tonyg0123 You really don't have a clue. What the hell are you referring to when you declare: "it is the socialist polices that destroy small businesses". As in, what policies? WHAT?
@EclecticSceptic overregulations, taxes, bailouts, subsidies. All of these policies of government are making small businesses non competitive. Socialist policies is when goverment nationalizes private sector entities (i.e. banks, home mortgages, auto industry, health care..etc) to understand any of this though, you left wing clowns have to understand where jobs come from...and I'm not going to assume that u know. Maybe you should start by researching Keynesian economics vs. Austrian economics?
@tonyg0123 Oh yeah I'm sure you know more about him. What an ignorant fool - reading books, a waste of time I say! He'd be better off running a spread sheet betting company... God you right-wingers wear me out.
Capitalism is 99.99% going to fail because it ignored this key dilemma: the finiteness of EARTH (or say: cyclic nature of nature) VS EXPONENTIAL economic growth.
Capitalism require Money (wealth) to grow at an EXPONENTIAL rates (namely time value of money, i.e. interest rates, or, magnitude of greed). In reality, Exponential growth is unachievable (Watch: Most important video you ever seen).
Then, money created becomes debt, derivatives, etc with nothing ever never behind it.
Capitalism all just lies. They say Communist atrocities. But Wikileak wrote what? Why must we follow capitalism? When the progress of their policies are copied from communism? And their work more cruel than communist?
Ha, i love those people who are adamant that Capitalism works, and that Socialism is evil Capitalist by nature are the very ones who usually either are indoctrinated by Capitalist propaganda (i.e the American education system, advertising, neoliberal political ideology) or they are they ones who directly benefit from the Capitalist exploitation of both the poor working classes in America and cheap third world labour.
@noc7Labs If you look at who is doing the nudging it is not walstreet but the Uber Elite Progressives who want to run a Global Governance to control the Workers. Believe it or not it is a truly Marxist view of things. The Global Elite want to run everything hence a NEW WORLD ORDER.
David Harvey points out why money should be the only reason. What do you with the money?Make more money for what? Buying assets, assisting relatives, donating .Interesting that he does think much about the reform currently in focus. He thinks there is something radical to be done. What is that?
@wiithershiins as for crises being solved I first think we must realize what stimulus bailouts, subsides, regulations, and taxes are doing to the free market system. I also think we must relize the impact the fed reserve has when we artifically lower interest rates creating bubbles in the economy...and again, I don't know anyone more intelligent and experienced who can explain this as clearly to the public as Mr. Schiff....but that will be a step in the right direction. Peace
@tonyg0123 Everyone may be taught Keyneism principles but those in power for the last 30 or so years have been neoliberals, and look where that has got us. Out of Keyneism and Neoliberalism which one is responsible for the 'Golden age' of capitalism and which is responsible for the current economic crash? Instead of just repeating that Schiff proves your points why not offer some evidence of your own.
viva la revolucion . BBC is a joke. That bitch is a narrowminded servent. This guy knows more than she could ever hope to know.. yet she defends her pro capitalist view so blindly. Ignorance is everywhere.
First off Harvey, the banks failed due to socialism, not capitalism. Banks would never take a risk of making the bad loans if they weren't backed by the government. That's common sense. Secondly, even though we are in a tight spot we are still eating pretty well thanks to what's left of the free market capitalism. You see Harvey, there is something called greed, but there is also something called risk in a capitalistic market, which limits greed. Socialism/communism is failure. Peter Schiff
@tonyg0123 When you say 'we are eating pretty well' who is this 'we' that you refer to. Is it the chinese factory worker, the iraqi orphan or you and your friends. The banks only started making bad loans after Reagan reduced regulation in the eighties. It was under-regulation, not over-regulation that led to the crash.
@TheZajac123 first off, we have basic difference in the fundamentals of capitalism...so this argument isn't going to go anywhere. you are taking the neo-marxist central vs. peripheral countries approach, whearas I would argue that it's the foreign leaders who have continuously kept American capital (for labor) out of their country due to foreign special interests, which keeps leaders in power, and their people hungry. I think open borders and free trade is the answer for ALL people to eat well
@TheZajac123 all of these bad loans took place once the government stepped in and backed them. Banks would have never sold off bad loans to freddie and fannie with a triple A rating (on subprime mortgages) if gov. hadn't insured them. The Chinese are not eating nearly as well as U.S. because they have been working for U.S. IOUs. This 400 billion dollar trade deficits American's are running up will have to stop and will have to get back to savings and investing and producing manufactured goods
@tonyg0123 The government was backing good loans since the fifties as a way to create a home-owning democracy, it only started backed the bad loans in the eighties after Reagan allowed them to by cutting regulation. If the goverment hadn't backed the loans previously less people would own homes giving them less to borrow agaisnt, making it harder for them to set up their own businesses.
@TheZajac123 the government shouldn't be backing any loans including student loans! that's not their job. Once the government starts backing loans we get a false premise in the supply and demand market...it throws the whole system off and of course, now we are seeing the results. Distorting the markets makes people greedy and buying things they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford b/c risk is eliminated. Since government was involved in this scheme, it was gauranteed to fail from day one.
@tonyg0123 We are seeing the results of the government backing sub-prime loans, not all loans. The system in which the government backed prime mortgages lasted for decades, it was the deregulation in the eighties that gave government backing to sub-prime loans as well as allowing mortgages being bundled together and sold to the highest bidder that caused the crash. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
@tonyg0123 If you are worried about the deficits just make cuts to the military since it currently gobbles up over $6.5 billion. Companies go abroad for labour simply because it's cheaper. Why pay $10/ an hour when you can pay $1/a day? Without unions & minimum wage companies will pay whatever they like due to the excess of labour.
@TheZajac123 because eventually you would run into the law of diminishing returns and labor will fall scarce (over time of course). So, is why is it cheaper to outsource jobs? Government intrusion on jobs (especially small businesses in America). One of which is minimum wage. Minimum wage has to be one of the worst laws in history. It does nothing but discriminate among the poor and minorities and keep them unemployed. Businesses don't feel that a person bagging groceries is worth $8/hour.
@tonyg0123 what are the unemployed supposed to do until things even out without being in receipt of any money? It is cheaper to outsource to other countries because they do not protect their workers from exploitation and so they can force them to work 35 hour shifts for 40/cents an hour like in China. The government has an obligation to protect the poorest and most vunerbale members of society, things like labour laws and minimum wage do this.
@TheZajac123 I don't believe in removing all regulations, we just should be carefull not to overburden the markets with over-regulations. I believe that is what we have become as a nation. Again, I don't know how people assume that a business=evil, and government=saint. As far as I'm concerned, their is good and bad in both sectors. People that go into government may not have they best interests in mind and only want to impose their will once they lie to their constituents and retain power.
@tonyg0123 For me the difference between government and business is that the governments role is to improve society and is answerable to the people, wheras businesses role is to maximise profits and are answerable to the shareholders. It is easier to do help society through government than it is through business as one of them is (in theory) for helping society and one is not. IMO too much regulation is better than too little, I'd rather a business grow slowly than poision the pacific with oil
@tonyg0123 Removing all regulation from the free markets would simply return us to the gilded age. If not for regulation we would see the rise of sweatshops and the human battery farms that they have in china and just like we had in the mid 19th century. In those situations those not born to the upperclasses would spend a lifetime toiling in poverty to serve those above as history has proven. Governments must regulate business as they will act immorally if it imrpoves profit.
@TheZajac123 at the same token, who is governing the governed? Is it the 5% of the American people that actually pay attention to politics? And how come we assume the government are a bunch of angels that are gonna orginize society for us? How do they know what is best for us? Do they...or are they just doing it for political means and pleasing special interests? At least with free markets we have somewhat of a choice on what business we want to support, whereas the government uses force.
@tonyg0123 The Government has a series a checks and balances through the 3 differents bracnhes as well as being answerable to the people in elections, wheras business are only answerable to their shareholders. In free markets we seem to have a choice, but not everyone has the choice between supporting their local grocery store or buying at wal-mart sue to their financial situation. Larger, more amoral businesses will almost always be more sucessful than smaller, more moral businesses.
@tonyg0123 I can't believe you would say that the minimum wage harms the working class. Your paragon "businesses" don't "feel" that bagging groceries is worth so much because they want surplus value. Your LODMR reason for scarcity of labour is rubbish. Without a minimum wage employers have greater bargaining power and will push down wages. If the workers are discontent they will (hypothetically) seek other work for more pay. The demand for such employment is huge. = Bargaining power for employer
@EclecticSceptic LODR holds true. Lower wages would be a deflation of the dollar increasing its value. And, if that happened, living expenses would also go down in price. And, of course, you are missing the fact that more small business would exist with less lack of government regs requiring more workers and more competition for labor,this ultimetly leads to a wage increase. With minimun wage, the government makes it illegal for me to work for someone for $5 an hour. What if I want to?
@EclecticSceptic u have this idea that government must control the free markets otherwise we will all be taken advantage of by the greedy capitalists. This is 1 of the biggest fallicies. Who are the people regulating the government? The individual capitalist runs a ponzi scheme, he goes to jail, the government runs ponzi schemes daily with our currency and people think nothing of it. The govt and all its bureaucracies are a joke and 1 day u will realize what they have done to this country.
@tonyg0123 Government is the friend of big business. Together they run the ponzi scheme. Free capitalism ALWAYS leads to big business and to the disappearance of free capitalism. When some succesful capitalist has made it big, he always wants and needs a state to defend his assets.
@ilkkavu exactly, but free market capitalism could never grow to monopolies without the assistance of the government through regulatory measures. A smaller business would have undercut their profits before they reached a monopolistic status. This is why government interference in the free markets do more harm than good. Large corporations love regulations and taxes. Why?...because they are the only ones that can survive the impact of the government, hence whipping out all their competition.
@ilkkavu well, I don't believe in any form of utopia...whatever system you implement into society, there are gonna be losers and winners followed by copius amounts of greed...that's just human nature. Capitalism is the best form that allows most people to "win" sort of speak. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. I believe governments should exist, and will always exist, but my argument is we must be aware of their strengths and understand their motives and essentially limit their powers.
@ilkkavu check out the hour long lecture on "the myth of natural monoply" by Thomas Dilorenzo on Youtube. Dilorenzo is a well known economic historian and has several great hour long videos on youtube.
if anyone understood history, they wouldn't take this guy seriously. The Communist Manifesto should be in the science fiction section. David Harvey and professors like him are not about the term "equality" like most people understand it, they are about power. Pure and simple: power. These are the people that favor social engineering and eugenics and would like to see their opposition in a "camp". Carefull of these intellectual ideologues, people. They are sick in the head. search Yuri Bezmenov
In the words of Ludwig von Mises (author and economist):
"Many pioneers of these industrial changes, it is true, became rich. But they acquired their wealth by supplying the public with motor cars, airplanes, radio sets, refrigerators, moving and talking pictures, and variety of less spectacular but no less useful innovations. These new products were certainly not an achievement of offices and bureaucrats."
Dave, this is not a sophisticated era , the average industrialized country middle class is lame, flat, low minded and has a lot more cars, TVs, travel and free time than what they deserve ...thanks solely to a ficticious hard currency
The beginning: "Capitalism: What makes the world go round and allows us to spend on some of the luxuries of life."
____
Who is this woman speaking to? Imagine her speaking these words as she walks through a slum outside Caracas or Tijuana or Quito or Santiago or Mexico City ... etc etc etc. What brainless twaddle.
Obama trying to reign in the worst excesses of capitalism? He himself said he approves of bank CEO bonuses because that's how "the free market works."
There is a very childish and antagonistic tone to this interviewer. Like all interviewers for major news companies she has absolutely no clue what capitalism is. Ask her to give an elaborate definition and you will most likely receive a long uncomfortable pause, a quote from Adam Smith, and possibly a vague and ambiguous mention about a person's inalienable right to hold a garage sale.
@LilywhiteMcLenin a fan of decent sweater vests, actually. i simply cannot take seriously any such comments from mr harvey while he sits there with such an atrocious garment on.
Good to see David talking in non Marx-friendly places. The huge majority of the society does not think like we do, so we must be prepared to defend our point of view in front of such criticism and questioning. Of course no one does it like David!!!
They also take away focus on the real capitalist institutional conspiracies. Check out what Michael Parenti has to say about conspiracy in his talk called "The gangster nature of the state" Just youtube it
@iisadoraf its hard to tell dude, just remain aware. either way the elite which 'bilderberg' is probably an important part of, still has some interest in keeping humanity at a reasonable quality of life... but enough pessimistic conspiracy speculation... you should check out the second zeitgeist movie (it's not as conspiracy-style like the first) because it proposes some things with a lot of potential :) - (zeitgeist addendum: find it at zeitgeis tmovie .c o m)
Because 90% of the people have little-to-no drive, shitty government, or are unintelligent fools (usually caused by the shitty government's lack of public school provision).
@23ssamuel Utter nonsense. In western Europe and North America the average income is around $36,000 a year. In communist and under developed countries it is less than $3000. If the whole world had turned to capitalism then there would be no poverty and no need for far left politicians and the BBC. The far left wants poverty hence the tax rises to slow growth.
@warriorprince1010 your statistical evidence is shockingly skewed, the conclusions you draw from them are worse. if you think 70% of people live in 'wealth' (neatly undefined by yourself, of course) in capitalist countries you are either stupid, a nutcase or a liar.
just so you know, most of the under developed countries you refer to (with of course, a tiny number of exceptions) are capitalist. they function on wage labour, free markets and international finance
@warriorprince1010 true. but you never said just UK. you said 'capitalist countries'
if you can demonstrate that there are similar statistics for other capitalist countries such then i will concede. you may have quite some trouble though - excluding the US, the top 20 most populous countries in the world (all capitalist) come no where near to your 70% figure
@RagoBiscuit UK,France,USA,Norway, Sweden, Netherlands are all capitalist democracies. 70% of people in these countries are middle class, the rest are rich by global standards, but poor only by wealthy standards.
@warriorprince1010 yes, but what does that prove? none of the nations you mentioned (excluding the US) are in the top 20 most populous countries.
what about congo? what about indonesia? what about china? what about india? what about mexico? what about turkey? the list goes on.
what it shows is that your 70% figure, when considered in view of global capitalism is incorrect. conveniently leaving MOST of the worlds population out of your analysis is, as i have already said, skewed
@RagoBiscuit "what about congo? what about indonesia? what about china? what about india? what about mexico? what about turkey? the list goes on."... What on earth are you talking about? It shows all those countries should have turned to capitalism and they would also be rich.
they are all capitalist. and (china aside) have been so for the most part of the last century. where do you think all the credit for US bail outs come from? china. which country was hailed as a paragon of neoliberalism by the US? indonesia. which country is part of nafta? mexico. which country was supported by the US as a bullwark against communism in africa? congo. which country is now being talked up as the acceptable face of islam, and a hotbed of US investment? turkey
@RagoBiscuit These countries are not well run nor are they modern capitalist countries, they have corrupt leaders and fail to educate their people. They allow cartels to run their country, they are not democratic capitalist countries.
@warriorprince1010 There has never existed a democratic capitalist country. I am not fond of indeliberate oxymorons. Parlimentarianism - where the wealthy rule vicariously through the elected or where only members of the ruling class enter goverment - is not democracy.
@EclecticSceptic "democratic capitalist country"..Europe and North America. If you agree that politicians are often corrupt...why do you want socialism which gives more power to these corrupt politicians? Capitalism gives power to people. Cutting taxes gives people power.
@warriorprince1010 Thus you demonstrate both that you know not what a democracy is and that you know nothing of socialism. Good show. Love the deliberate vagueness in your last 2 sentences. "Capitalism/Cutting taxes gives people power" - Yeah, about three people.
@EclecticSceptic please tell me you understand that the U.S. is not a democracy, but actually a constitutional republic?...unless you added the word "democracy" in the constitution?
@23ssamuel I think it's much less than that. I think how it works is this:
TOP 10%: Screw the little people! Haha!
a few years later:
TOP 2% to the rest of TOP 10%: You thought you guys were part of the club? We just needed you to help us dominate the bottom 90. Now that's done, we'll take what you got.
a few years later:
TOP 1% to TOP 2%: Guess what? We're taking all your shit.
a few years later:
TOP 0.1% to TOP 1%: You really didn't think you were part of the club too, did you?
The look on her face at 2:07 (sarcasm ---> )Oh, I'll bet her husband can't WAIT to get home to her at night.
bapyou 7 months ago in playlist David Harvey
Nice to see that BBC actually has some form of debate! Cheers to the Brits! Here in the US having this guy on would be an absolute dream... either he wouldn't ever be invited or he would be shouted out in a second.
Ermal8711 8 months ago
the problem is for many Marx is associated with Stalin or Kim Il Sun. Marx was a philosopher who analysed (rightly) and noted the inherent issues within capitalism which has appeared numerously. I'm no Marxist but understanding his theories and analysis is not the same as supporting mass deportations and prison camps in Siberia!
boils 8 months ago
We need to all ban together and charge at these corrupt rich people and make them do all the shit see how it feels. And spend their money on the poor and all those poor people.
blackhole73 8 months ago
Note the key word there "Over Thrown" marxism is a evil ideology and it`s behind the very things that are destroying our western society. I despise that evil ideology
FeignofCordor 8 months ago
This BBC anchor is so annoying, she tried so hard to disprove him and instead he did great.
Renegen1 9 months ago
@Renegen1 The whole point is that challenging questions are asked. Disputing something is a good way of better understanding it. The opinion of the presenter is not expressed. The programme is not meant to be adversarial.
yes21190 8 months ago
I LOVE THAT QUESTION!! (@5:23) "Whatever conclusion they come to, how do you think it'll play out?" Wow! That's what they learn at the elite journalism universities, huh? No womder I was "too dumb to go"!!!
ajames95 11 months ago
I would so love to chat with this guy :-)
asgloki 1 year ago
Crisis? That's the reason it's not working? They will always be because man will always make mistakes.What about the communist crisis that took them to their knees? Yes, we should try to make the world more fair. Is it fair that babies are born blind? Should we stop babies from being born then? Let's do what nature does. Let's give freedom and make changes as they are needed, instead of putting all Earth in a straight jacket and give power just to the ones who puts them on us. Read Keynes
ritavhutchins 1 year ago
David Harvey has a great mind and his academic understanding of Capitalism should inform practise (politics) much more than it currently does. He is right to highlight the systemic failures of Capitalism and to remind us that a new configuration of social, political and economical governance is required if we are to avoid another crises. Put simply, if we are to reduce the inequitable gap between those who have and those who do not Capitalism (in its current form) must be overthrown.
deedutty 1 year ago 3
@deedutty Is Marx's construct even falsifiable? Can I ever provide any evidence that would eliminate with high probability the concept of competition induced crisis. If its unfalsifiable, its pseudo-scientific babble.
axe863 11 months ago
@axe863 Marx can be falsified simply enough. If businesses spontanously raise wages and shorten the working day then Marx is falsified. If the finance sector spontanously disappears and all that capital is instead used to increase production and purchasing power (through more jobs with higher wages) then crises will not appear and Marx is falsified. If greed stops being good in capitalism then Marx is falsified.
MajorRoy 10 months ago
@MajorRoy 1) a much better long term metric, X/L, would be wages (with benefits)/ effective labor hours adjusted for inflation accounting for the degree of substitutiability of consumption portfolios, inherent systematic risk in their specialization, technical improvements in said consumption portfolios etc.
2) The financial sector exists for the mere fact of informational imperfections & imperfect risk sharing.
3). Most economicists agree that self -interest is a good thing
axe863 10 months ago
@axe863 1) I have no clue of what you are trying to say.
2) The financial sector grows because there is an increasing demand of its services over time. The reason for this is increased profits through automation while the returns in investment in production is diminishing, relatively. Therefore, other ways to invest are demanded. Therefore, financial bubbles and systemic crisis.
MajorRoy 10 months ago
@MajorRoy I listed the imperfections which give rise to a real economic benefit from financial intermediation. FS, also, alter the liquidty structure etc but I wont get into that. This is my subfield of study and I want to praise you for single handingly solving the financial bubbles and systemic crisis with such a grossly simplistic explanation.
1). Is a realistic simplification.
axe863 10 months ago
@axe863 You have to give me pardon for my supidity, but alas i am no economist, so when you are debating using academic short hand you are not debating at all, just confounding. I still have no idea what you are trying to say. But it still stands, if the average working day would be spontanously decreased, then Marx would be falsified. His prediction is the opposite, and the reason we are not working 12 hour shifts anymore is because of efforts from unions and the like.
MajorRoy 10 months ago
@axe863 3)Self interest is good, greed is not. Greed is destructive, as the crisis beyond a doubt shows. Self interest should lead people to hang the greedy, whos speculations jepordize the future of all, just as you would put down a rabid dog. Greed is pathological and dangerous, and a threat to all. Contemporary economists does not see it, since they have no understanding of why crisis systematically occur. They lack in effect a basic understanding of capitalism.
MajorRoy 10 months ago
@MajorRoy I see that there is no reason to debate you. Bye
axe863 10 months ago
I think some people posting here really need to go away and read Marx's OWN writings on the state. Try Critique of Hegels Philosphy of Right, 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, The Jewish Question, The German Ideology, or any of his writings on the Paris Commune. Or are they just going to take Vladmir Lenins out and out peversion of Marxism at face value? The truth is Marx had more libertarianism in one of his carbunicles than the fraudsters of US corporate 'Libetarianism' combined.
CosmosLoyal 1 year ago 22
@CosmosLoyal The thing is most people don't read any more and are lazy. But I totally agree with you. Marx hit the nail.
blackhole73 8 months ago
@CosmosLoyal You are the fraud, Marx had more statism in him it is just that he set himself up as an saviour when he really was a exploiter himself. Yes, he recognized the state as violent. But so did many before him and his main focus; economics and politics shows an evil and statist mind at work.
Concerning US Libertarianism, try regarding Murray Rothbard and see what you say then.
100percenteri 8 months ago
@CosmosLoyal Maybe you should go and worship that CURRENT COMMUNIST STATE!
As the US and all "capitalist" countries have undergone a "communist" revolution and have most of the planks of Marx program implemented: Central banking, Progressive Income Tax, Agriculture subsidies, Socialised school system and more. David Harvey what a oblivous LOSER!
100percenteri 8 months ago
What else could we expect from a STATE-OWNED channel? I'm waiting for BBC to interview Austrian economists someday...
iagopseleme 1 year ago
@iagopseleme No doubt those austrian economists will attempt to explain the meltdown because of too much state intervention while lauding the bail out initiated by that those same states. The truth is the crisi s is a crisis of neo-liberal economic policies of last 40 years
fizywig 1 year ago
out of all the videos i have been watching and things I have been reading for a few years on these subjects this one is probably the best economic analysis and diagnosis that I have encountered.
sgtmcwallace 1 year ago
@sgtmcwallace "this one is probably the best economic analysis and diagnosis that I have encountered"
You need to read more.....
axe863 1 year ago
David has a very strong point indeed and I agree that the future of capitalism will benefit the few, not the many. The downfall of socialist measures is that they are controlled my humans, which can result is biasty and potential greed towards friends of the state and people in government (watch the politicians in The Lives Of Others). I guess the main benefit in a change would be an easing off of the need to keep peddling the hamster wheel, which most of us in London are currently doing. This
roscobrady 1 year ago
It's not capitalism, it's corporatism...we should overthrow corporatism and install a capitalistic society. We already have a lot of socialism/facism identities, and we're being crushed by it, why would be push closer to it?
norty117 1 year ago
When was the date of this interview.
Prophetic statement about 'protecting the banks'.
That's exactly what a US Senator said last month. Shocking.
macpduff 1 year ago
@tougemaster I think we both have different ideologies, and I think it is ok and healthy for the discussion. However, my argument is based on facts. Zapatero is closer to Harvey than Krugman (personal friend of Zapatero). I just want a good explanation why Economies based on Marxism are that unsuccessful. I said 'based on' because it is a fact that as much radical the government the worst the, the most corrupt are their representatives and the most inequality is the society. See Cuba & Venezuela
lescobedop 1 year ago
@lescobedop I would argue that Capitalism creates the most inequality in the world. Consider how much the top 1% in America control and then compare that with the WORST Marxist based economic systems.
trippinlikegod 1 year ago
@trippinlikegod Capitalism creates wealth, the people who control it created it, it is their wealth. Without them there would be no wealth and everyone would be poor, except the government, oh thats socialism. Socialism is about governments controlling wealth, greed and excess of the governing few. Poverty of the masses.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 That's easily the dumbest thing I've ever heard in relation to government theories. Go watch more American television.
trippinlikegod 1 year ago
@lescobedop People create wealth, governs cannot do this. Also socialism is about greed and excess of the government, total power means total corruption. Governments have a small number of minds, whereas people have all the population.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@lescobedop Marxism is not a system of economics, which is why you didn't understand my argument. It is a critique of capital. Nothing more, nothing less.
Tougemaster06 11 months ago
@lescobedop "See Cuba & Venezuela"
How about capitalist South Korea under Rhee Syngman in the late 1940s/50s? Over 100 thousand people were murdered, youth gangs terrorised the nation, corruption ruled, elections were tampered with, people were jailed without trail, little economic progress (remember it was not until the 1970s under the state cntroled economy of Pak Chong Hee that South Korea made economic progress).
To be honest in many ways it was much much worse than Cuba is today.
marxian00 10 months ago
The one big thing here that is going over peoples heads which is understandable is that individuals in the legislature bailed out the banks that they had their money at. In effect this gave unlimited FDIC insurance to a very small powerful elite. Everyone else got shafted especially smaller depositors at smaller banks. Also not every bank in America was involved in the speculation. This process also hurt municipals and non-financial corporations. The answer not better banking more Gov.
JeremyKonstenius 1 year ago
@Tougemaster Spain has 20.5% of unemployment and Zapatero has reduced public expenses, although he increases it since he was elected. Moreover, its competitiveness was always lower than other capitalist countries, like Germany. Furthermore, the money that Zapatero gave to autonomy regions was absurd. Tell me where the Euro comes in this context? (I firmly support Krugman's point of view, nobel prize in economics in 2008... what Harvey has won?)
lescobedop 1 year ago
@lescobedop Considering the nobel prize has been given to Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama, a liberal imperialist; I don't think receiving a Nobel prize means much lol. Krugman is a smart man but he is still a bourgeoisie economist. Krugman needs to learn to add the words "corporation" and "exploitation" to his critiques of what is wrong with economics.
Secondly, you are trying to apply an umbrella currency in a global economy defined by economic anarchy. Stupidity if you ask me lol...
Tougemaster06 1 year ago
@lescobedop The EU i going under due to socialism. Tax and spend policies have brought a continent to disaster. Capitalism has always saved socialism, now it cannot as taxes are too high.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
There is another not so nice word for capitalism--greed.
sam7748 1 year ago
I think you all that like Harvey have to experienced communism to see what I'm talking about. Now you're sitting in your desk and writing in your computer, because is yours, and it was bought with capitalist money... I will be delighted to see if you can deal with REAL oppression, no freedom speech and no possessions.
lescobedop 1 year ago
@Hanshenable: I think you have to be more informed about what you're saying. Communist political systems have always been disastrous and communist governments have generated the greater inequality in the world. I bet you can not name an example of communism that has triumphed. You have to look at Cuba or Venezuela. These governments have import food to meet domestic demand. Argentina has an unprecedented inflation. European countries are going down... I really do not understand your point.
lescobedop 1 year ago
@lescobedop Europe's problem have to do with the eurozone and the systemic failiures that are inherent in capitalism. Welfare policies are not why capitalism falls apart lol.
Tougemaster06 1 year ago 11
@Tougemaster06 Proof? I can say magical unicorns cause the tides....Of course this is ridiculous and goes against well established physics ... To even entertain such an extraordinary claim, one requires extraordinary evidence.. Please demonstrate the extraordinary evidence that counters over 100 years of established economics.
axe863 11 months ago
I've never said that only poor people can say something about Capitalism, I think he should be consistent in terms of life style and philosophy. Radical discourse clearly states that the only way to change the world is changing the system to a communist model. Since Marxism is an economic theory, and economic processes are based on political decisions, the main goal of radicals is political: Emancipation through revolution. Actually, Harvey is criticized because he has never proposed anything!
lescobedop 1 year ago
Don't trust this guy. He criticizes the 'system' at the same time that he takes
advantage of it. It is very easy to talk shit about capitalism from a very nice city, in a
very nice chair, typing in a very nice computer and having savings in a very nice
bank. This guy sucks!! I'm a geographer by the way =P
lescobedop 1 year ago
@lescobedop
Yeh, he lives in a capitalist society. What do you expect him to sit on? You think only poor people can say that the current system of capitalism is flawed? He WANTS more equality, not so he can be richer, but so the poor can be richer.
If he was poor, you'd just say he complains about capitalism because he's not benefiting from it. Like it or not, huge wealth divisions are socially damaging.
underdonkey5 1 year ago
@lescobedop Clearly not much of one, no offence. Harvey's Marxist interpretation of "neo"liberalism is inspired. It is undeniable to see the damage neoliberal policies have done around the world... just look at the influence of SAPs and creation of dependency in Latin America, and throughout the global South. Now I am no dependency theorist, nor am I a marxist geographer, HOWEVER I still have endless respect for the biggest heavy weight in our discipline.
Hanshenable 1 year ago
Making money out of money is actually theft.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
This woman needs a slap
pastrychef1985 1 year ago
was it only me who wanted to strangle that journalist?
MrJauBau 1 year ago
@tonyg0123 You really don't have a clue. What the hell are you referring to when you declare: "it is the socialist polices that destroy small businesses". As in, what policies? WHAT?
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
@EclecticSceptic overregulations, taxes, bailouts, subsidies. All of these policies of government are making small businesses non competitive. Socialist policies is when goverment nationalizes private sector entities (i.e. banks, home mortgages, auto industry, health care..etc) to understand any of this though, you left wing clowns have to understand where jobs come from...and I'm not going to assume that u know. Maybe you should start by researching Keynesian economics vs. Austrian economics?
tonyg0123 1 year ago
@tonyg0123 Oh yeah I'm sure you know more about him. What an ignorant fool - reading books, a waste of time I say! He'd be better off running a spread sheet betting company... God you right-wingers wear me out.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
David Harvey is a great man.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Listen:
Capitalism is 99.99% going to fail because it ignored this key dilemma: the finiteness of EARTH (or say: cyclic nature of nature) VS EXPONENTIAL economic growth.
Capitalism require Money (wealth) to grow at an EXPONENTIAL rates (namely time value of money, i.e. interest rates, or, magnitude of greed). In reality, Exponential growth is unachievable (Watch: Most important video you ever seen).
Then, money created becomes debt, derivatives, etc with nothing ever never behind it.
zshuai 1 year ago
The interviewer is totally an ignorant bitch.
mavishill 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Capitalism all just lies. They say Communist atrocities. But Wikileak wrote what? Why must we follow capitalism? When the progress of their policies are copied from communism? And their work more cruel than communist?
hungdirect 1 year ago
I've always liked Harvey! Good interview.
sportsportsport 1 year ago
Amazing intelligent and very revealing interview
Thank God for London and BBC World News
God bless
IDIOTES1982 1 year ago
Ha, i love those people who are adamant that Capitalism works, and that Socialism is evil Capitalist by nature are the very ones who usually either are indoctrinated by Capitalist propaganda (i.e the American education system, advertising, neoliberal political ideology) or they are they ones who directly benefit from the Capitalist exploitation of both the poor working classes in America and cheap third world labour.
jemmre 1 year ago
Finally! A brilliant man being questiond about the crisis that speaks the truth and doesn't repeat the same trickle down theory lie.
1984vrs 1 year ago
@1984vrs He repeats the same old communist nonsense. North Korea,Cuba, Russia, all dirt poor.[Communism]
Norway, USA, Switzerland all rich. [Capitalism]
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 So, David Harvey distinguished professor of anthropology and geography as well as a leading social theorist.....and you are?
clean3 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 Norway has oil, USA is getting poorer.
ilkkavu 1 year ago
@noc7Labs If you look at who is doing the nudging it is not walstreet but the Uber Elite Progressives who want to run a Global Governance to control the Workers. Believe it or not it is a truly Marxist view of things. The Global Elite want to run everything hence a NEW WORLD ORDER.
drstonesr 1 year ago
David Harvey points out why money should be the only reason. What do you with the money?Make more money for what? Buying assets, assisting relatives, donating .Interesting that he does think much about the reform currently in focus. He thinks there is something radical to be done. What is that?
deshkal 1 year ago
D.H., truth-speaker, hero in human form.
CaptainBluebear08 1 year ago
@wiithershiins as for crises being solved I first think we must realize what stimulus bailouts, subsides, regulations, and taxes are doing to the free market system. I also think we must relize the impact the fed reserve has when we artifically lower interest rates creating bubbles in the economy...and again, I don't know anyone more intelligent and experienced who can explain this as clearly to the public as Mr. Schiff....but that will be a step in the right direction. Peace
tonyg0123 1 year ago
@tonyg0123 Everyone may be taught Keyneism principles but those in power for the last 30 or so years have been neoliberals, and look where that has got us. Out of Keyneism and Neoliberalism which one is responsible for the 'Golden age' of capitalism and which is responsible for the current economic crash? Instead of just repeating that Schiff proves your points why not offer some evidence of your own.
TheZajac123 1 year ago
viva la revolucion . BBC is a joke. That bitch is a narrowminded servent. This guy knows more than she could ever hope to know.. yet she defends her pro capitalist view so blindly. Ignorance is everywhere.
Tribecalledquest15 1 year ago
First off Harvey, the banks failed due to socialism, not capitalism. Banks would never take a risk of making the bad loans if they weren't backed by the government. That's common sense. Secondly, even though we are in a tight spot we are still eating pretty well thanks to what's left of the free market capitalism. You see Harvey, there is something called greed, but there is also something called risk in a capitalistic market, which limits greed. Socialism/communism is failure. Peter Schiff
tonyg0123 1 year ago
Comment removed
ilkkavu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tonyg0123 They failed because of capitalism. The capitalists are backed by government because they own the government with their capital.
Capitalism is failure. There is no unlimited growth.
ilkkavu 1 year ago
@ilkkavu Good comment.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
Comment removed
ilkkavu 1 year ago
@tonyg0123 When you say 'we are eating pretty well' who is this 'we' that you refer to. Is it the chinese factory worker, the iraqi orphan or you and your friends. The banks only started making bad loans after Reagan reduced regulation in the eighties. It was under-regulation, not over-regulation that led to the crash.
TheZajac123 1 year ago
@TheZajac123 first off, we have basic difference in the fundamentals of capitalism...so this argument isn't going to go anywhere. you are taking the neo-marxist central vs. peripheral countries approach, whearas I would argue that it's the foreign leaders who have continuously kept American capital (for labor) out of their country due to foreign special interests, which keeps leaders in power, and their people hungry. I think open borders and free trade is the answer for ALL people to eat well
tonyg0123 1 year ago
@TheZajac123 all of these bad loans took place once the government stepped in and backed them. Banks would have never sold off bad loans to freddie and fannie with a triple A rating (on subprime mortgages) if gov. hadn't insured them. The Chinese are not eating nearly as well as U.S. because they have been working for U.S. IOUs. This 400 billion dollar trade deficits American's are running up will have to stop and will have to get back to savings and investing and producing manufactured goods
tonyg0123 1 year ago
@tonyg0123 The government was backing good loans since the fifties as a way to create a home-owning democracy, it only started backed the bad loans in the eighties after Reagan allowed them to by cutting regulation. If the goverment hadn't backed the loans previously less people would own homes giving them less to borrow agaisnt, making it harder for them to set up their own businesses.
TheZajac123 1 year ago
@TheZajac123 the government shouldn't be backing any loans including student loans! that's not their job. Once the government starts backing loans we get a false premise in the supply and demand market...it throws the whole system off and of course, now we are seeing the results. Distorting the markets makes people greedy and buying things they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford b/c risk is eliminated. Since government was involved in this scheme, it was gauranteed to fail from day one.
tonyg0123 1 year ago
@tonyg0123 We are seeing the results of the government backing sub-prime loans, not all loans. The system in which the government backed prime mortgages lasted for decades, it was the deregulation in the eighties that gave government backing to sub-prime loans as well as allowing mortgages being bundled together and sold to the highest bidder that caused the crash. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
TheZajac123 1 year ago
@tonyg0123 If you are worried about the deficits just make cuts to the military since it currently gobbles up over $6.5 billion. Companies go abroad for labour simply because it's cheaper. Why pay $10/ an hour when you can pay $1/a day? Without unions & minimum wage companies will pay whatever they like due to the excess of labour.
TheZajac123 1 year ago
@TheZajac123 because eventually you would run into the law of diminishing returns and labor will fall scarce (over time of course). So, is why is it cheaper to outsource jobs? Government intrusion on jobs (especially small businesses in America). One of which is minimum wage. Minimum wage has to be one of the worst laws in history. It does nothing but discriminate among the poor and minorities and keep them unemployed. Businesses don't feel that a person bagging groceries is worth $8/hour.
tonyg0123 1 year ago
@tonyg0123 what are the unemployed supposed to do until things even out without being in receipt of any money? It is cheaper to outsource to other countries because they do not protect their workers from exploitation and so they can force them to work 35 hour shifts for 40/cents an hour like in China. The government has an obligation to protect the poorest and most vunerbale members of society, things like labour laws and minimum wage do this.
TheZajac123 1 year ago
@TheZajac123 I don't believe in removing all regulations, we just should be carefull not to overburden the markets with over-regulations. I believe that is what we have become as a nation. Again, I don't know how people assume that a business=evil, and government=saint. As far as I'm concerned, their is good and bad in both sectors. People that go into government may not have they best interests in mind and only want to impose their will once they lie to their constituents and retain power.
tonyg0123 1 year ago
@tonyg0123 For me the difference between government and business is that the governments role is to improve society and is answerable to the people, wheras businesses role is to maximise profits and are answerable to the shareholders. It is easier to do help society through government than it is through business as one of them is (in theory) for helping society and one is not. IMO too much regulation is better than too little, I'd rather a business grow slowly than poision the pacific with oil
mrzajac99999 1 year ago
@mrzajac99999 those below are me fyi, forgot to lot out of my brothers accoutn
TheZajac123 1 year ago
@tonyg0123 Removing all regulation from the free markets would simply return us to the gilded age. If not for regulation we would see the rise of sweatshops and the human battery farms that they have in china and just like we had in the mid 19th century. In those situations those not born to the upperclasses would spend a lifetime toiling in poverty to serve those above as history has proven. Governments must regulate business as they will act immorally if it imrpoves profit.
TheZajac123 1 year ago
@TheZajac123 at the same token, who is governing the governed? Is it the 5% of the American people that actually pay attention to politics? And how come we assume the government are a bunch of angels that are gonna orginize society for us? How do they know what is best for us? Do they...or are they just doing it for political means and pleasing special interests? At least with free markets we have somewhat of a choice on what business we want to support, whereas the government uses force.
tonyg0123 1 year ago
@tonyg0123 The Government has a series a checks and balances through the 3 differents bracnhes as well as being answerable to the people in elections, wheras business are only answerable to their shareholders. In free markets we seem to have a choice, but not everyone has the choice between supporting their local grocery store or buying at wal-mart sue to their financial situation. Larger, more amoral businesses will almost always be more sucessful than smaller, more moral businesses.
mrzajac99999 1 year ago
@tonyg0123 I can't believe you would say that the minimum wage harms the working class. Your paragon "businesses" don't "feel" that bagging groceries is worth so much because they want surplus value. Your LODMR reason for scarcity of labour is rubbish. Without a minimum wage employers have greater bargaining power and will push down wages. If the workers are discontent they will (hypothetically) seek other work for more pay. The demand for such employment is huge. = Bargaining power for employer
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
@EclecticSceptic LODR holds true. Lower wages would be a deflation of the dollar increasing its value. And, if that happened, living expenses would also go down in price. And, of course, you are missing the fact that more small business would exist with less lack of government regs requiring more workers and more competition for labor,this ultimetly leads to a wage increase. With minimun wage, the government makes it illegal for me to work for someone for $5 an hour. What if I want to?
tonyg0123 1 year ago
@tonyg0123 How the hell would the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns create scarcity of labour?
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
@EclecticSceptic u have this idea that government must control the free markets otherwise we will all be taken advantage of by the greedy capitalists. This is 1 of the biggest fallicies. Who are the people regulating the government? The individual capitalist runs a ponzi scheme, he goes to jail, the government runs ponzi schemes daily with our currency and people think nothing of it. The govt and all its bureaucracies are a joke and 1 day u will realize what they have done to this country.
tonyg0123 1 year ago
@tonyg0123 Government is the friend of big business. Together they run the ponzi scheme. Free capitalism ALWAYS leads to big business and to the disappearance of free capitalism. When some succesful capitalist has made it big, he always wants and needs a state to defend his assets.
ilkkavu 1 year ago
@ilkkavu exactly, but free market capitalism could never grow to monopolies without the assistance of the government through regulatory measures. A smaller business would have undercut their profits before they reached a monopolistic status. This is why government interference in the free markets do more harm than good. Large corporations love regulations and taxes. Why?...because they are the only ones that can survive the impact of the government, hence whipping out all their competition.
tonyg0123 1 year ago
@tonyg0123 But monopolies WILL always develop in the real world. World without governments is an utopia.
ilkkavu 1 year ago
@ilkkavu well, I don't believe in any form of utopia...whatever system you implement into society, there are gonna be losers and winners followed by copius amounts of greed...that's just human nature. Capitalism is the best form that allows most people to "win" sort of speak. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. I believe governments should exist, and will always exist, but my argument is we must be aware of their strengths and understand their motives and essentially limit their powers.
tonyg0123 1 year ago
@tonyg0123 So you think that governments are the root of all society's economic problems yet you "believe governments should exist".
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
@ilkkavu check out the hour long lecture on "the myth of natural monoply" by Thomas Dilorenzo on Youtube. Dilorenzo is a well known economic historian and has several great hour long videos on youtube.
tonyg0123 1 year ago
if anyone understood history, they wouldn't take this guy seriously. The Communist Manifesto should be in the science fiction section. David Harvey and professors like him are not about the term "equality" like most people understand it, they are about power. Pure and simple: power. These are the people that favor social engineering and eugenics and would like to see their opposition in a "camp". Carefull of these intellectual ideologues, people. They are sick in the head. search Yuri Bezmenov
tonyg0123 1 year ago
Comment removed
tonyg0123 1 year ago
This guy's pretty smart, it's a shame he's a statist shill.
DelanoGoesToDenmark 1 year ago
In the words of Ludwig von Mises (author and economist):
"Many pioneers of these industrial changes, it is true, became rich. But they acquired their wealth by supplying the public with motor cars, airplanes, radio sets, refrigerators, moving and talking pictures, and variety of less spectacular but no less useful innovations. These new products were certainly not an achievement of offices and bureaucrats."
museofive 1 year ago
Dave, this is not a sophisticated era , the average industrialized country middle class is lame, flat, low minded and has a lot more cars, TVs, travel and free time than what they deserve ...thanks solely to a ficticious hard currency
nicodurancomes 1 year ago
the rich play with the poor die
SparTAKKY 1 year ago 2
The beginning: "Capitalism: What makes the world go round and allows us to spend on some of the luxuries of life."
____
Who is this woman speaking to? Imagine her speaking these words as she walks through a slum outside Caracas or Tijuana or Quito or Santiago or Mexico City ... etc etc etc. What brainless twaddle.
bapyou 1 year ago
an excellent video and a brilliant man
Sorcoral 1 year ago
I love how Harvey doesnt respond when she says "Welcome to hard talk." LOL He's so above her.
Xephon212 1 year ago 2
Obama trying to reign in the worst excesses of capitalism? He himself said he approves of bank CEO bonuses because that's how "the free market works."
AndrewMann552 1 year ago
OMG Capitalism is bad ?
aymericism2 1 year ago
There is a very childish and antagonistic tone to this interviewer. Like all interviewers for major news companies she has absolutely no clue what capitalism is. Ask her to give an elaborate definition and you will most likely receive a long uncomfortable pause, a quote from Adam Smith, and possibly a vague and ambiguous mention about a person's inalienable right to hold a garage sale.
SirLoin21 1 year ago 11
I posted my comment at the kasmaprojectDOTorg look for it there.
karlmarxism 1 year ago
that is a terrible sweater vest mr harvey!
theodorewolfgang 1 year ago
@theodorewolfgang what a devastating critique there - let me guess a fan of captialism eh?
LilywhiteMcLenin 1 year ago 2
@LilywhiteMcLenin a fan of decent sweater vests, actually. i simply cannot take seriously any such comments from mr harvey while he sits there with such an atrocious garment on.
theodorewolfgang 1 year ago
Good to see David talking in non Marx-friendly places. The huge majority of the society does not think like we do, so we must be prepared to defend our point of view in front of such criticism and questioning. Of course no one does it like David!!!
jerinhom 1 year ago 3
Oh Christ, the dullard conspiracists even pollute David Harvey videos.
Pedros325 1 year ago 23
@Pedros325
They also take away focus on the real capitalist institutional conspiracies. Check out what Michael Parenti has to say about conspiracy in his talk called "The gangster nature of the state" Just youtube it
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
@Pedros325 They are fucking fascists. Was just searching and saw the BNP supports Alex Jones and his bullshit.
ipwnorcs 1 year ago
Obama is a puppet of bilderberg the main enemyes of humanity
iisadoraf 1 year ago
@iisadoraf its hard to tell dude, just remain aware. either way the elite which 'bilderberg' is probably an important part of, still has some interest in keeping humanity at a reasonable quality of life... but enough pessimistic conspiracy speculation... you should check out the second zeitgeist movie (it's not as conspiracy-style like the first) because it proposes some things with a lot of potential :) - (zeitgeist addendum: find it at zeitgeis tmovie .c o m)
cheers ;)
BLCKSBTH5 1 year ago
capitalism holds this veil of perception over you dont see these things until it is too late, why is the worlds wealth only held by 10 % of people
23ssamuel 1 year ago 41
@23ssamuel
Because 90% of the people have little-to-no drive, shitty government, or are unintelligent fools (usually caused by the shitty government's lack of public school provision).
jmachol 1 year ago
@23ssamuel Utter nonsense. In western Europe and North America the average income is around $36,000 a year. In communist and under developed countries it is less than $3000. If the whole world had turned to capitalism then there would be no poverty and no need for far left politicians and the BBC. The far left wants poverty hence the tax rises to slow growth.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@23ssamuel The wealth is held by 70%. That is how many people own homes and live in wealth in capitalist countries.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 your statistical evidence is shockingly skewed, the conclusions you draw from them are worse. if you think 70% of people live in 'wealth' (neatly undefined by yourself, of course) in capitalist countries you are either stupid, a nutcase or a liar.
just so you know, most of the under developed countries you refer to (with of course, a tiny number of exceptions) are capitalist. they function on wage labour, free markets and international finance
RagoBiscuit 1 year ago
@RagoBiscuit 70% of people in the Uk own their own homes, so yes they have massive wealth by the standards of the world we live in.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 true. but you never said just UK. you said 'capitalist countries'
if you can demonstrate that there are similar statistics for other capitalist countries such then i will concede. you may have quite some trouble though - excluding the US, the top 20 most populous countries in the world (all capitalist) come no where near to your 70% figure
RagoBiscuit 1 year ago
@RagoBiscuit UK,France,USA,Norway, Sweden, Netherlands are all capitalist democracies. 70% of people in these countries are middle class, the rest are rich by global standards, but poor only by wealthy standards.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 yes, but what does that prove? none of the nations you mentioned (excluding the US) are in the top 20 most populous countries.
what about congo? what about indonesia? what about china? what about india? what about mexico? what about turkey? the list goes on.
what it shows is that your 70% figure, when considered in view of global capitalism is incorrect. conveniently leaving MOST of the worlds population out of your analysis is, as i have already said, skewed
RagoBiscuit 1 year ago
@RagoBiscuit "what about congo? what about indonesia? what about china? what about india? what about mexico? what about turkey? the list goes on."... What on earth are you talking about? It shows all those countries should have turned to capitalism and they would also be rich.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010
they are all capitalist. and (china aside) have been so for the most part of the last century. where do you think all the credit for US bail outs come from? china. which country was hailed as a paragon of neoliberalism by the US? indonesia. which country is part of nafta? mexico. which country was supported by the US as a bullwark against communism in africa? congo. which country is now being talked up as the acceptable face of islam, and a hotbed of US investment? turkey
RagoBiscuit 1 year ago
@RagoBiscuit These countries are not well run nor are they modern capitalist countries, they have corrupt leaders and fail to educate their people. They allow cartels to run their country, they are not democratic capitalist countries.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 There has never existed a democratic capitalist country. I am not fond of indeliberate oxymorons. Parlimentarianism - where the wealthy rule vicariously through the elected or where only members of the ruling class enter goverment - is not democracy.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
@EclecticSceptic "democratic capitalist country"..Europe and North America. If you agree that politicians are often corrupt...why do you want socialism which gives more power to these corrupt politicians? Capitalism gives power to people. Cutting taxes gives people power.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 Thus you demonstrate both that you know not what a democracy is and that you know nothing of socialism. Good show. Love the deliberate vagueness in your last 2 sentences. "Capitalism/Cutting taxes gives people power" - Yeah, about three people.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
@EclecticSceptic please tell me you understand that the U.S. is not a democracy, but actually a constitutional republic?...unless you added the word "democracy" in the constitution?
tonyg0123 1 year ago
@23ssamuel I think it's much less than that. I think how it works is this:
TOP 10%: Screw the little people! Haha!
a few years later:
TOP 2% to the rest of TOP 10%: You thought you guys were part of the club? We just needed you to help us dominate the bottom 90. Now that's done, we'll take what you got.
a few years later:
TOP 1% to TOP 2%: Guess what? We're taking all your shit.
a few years later:
TOP 0.1% to TOP 1%: You really didn't think you were part of the club too, did you?
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
capitolism isnt as bad as portrayed. Its more the people in control. aka fedrel reserve and jews.
MrJambones 1 year ago
capitalism always reaps the rewards of peoples misery
this is proof and people HAVE TO OPEN THEIR EYES
23ssamuel 1 year ago