the value of education has went through the shitter. you need a college degree to be a mcdonalds floor manager anymore (maybe exaggerated). the problem is that the employment sector has lost most of the non-skilled employment we had in the past along with the fact that college has been made more widely available (at increased prices and easier standards to pass). thus now college just means you spent money, it doesn't make you skilled.
Investors add credit and the ability to obtain assests you couldnt nomraly afford and if you invest in good projects it make it better for everyone. So investors are makers because they do add value to the economy. Of course CDOs and black magic banking is bad but that isnt investing.
I'm really surprised, I thought that this media skew wouldn't reach youtube. Occupy Wall Street is NOT a bunch of people who want a socialist society, most of the protesters don't even fully understand the message. Occupy Wall Street was started mainly in response to the Super Inflation caused by the Big Bank Bailouts.
Instead the Occupy Supporters should all become inventors while the top 1% invests and speculates creating wealth from nothing and contributing zero to society while hoarding it all to themselves.
@cbcbarzarz You are asking what do we do when people work hard and leave a nice inheratence to their children. The answer is nothing, because its not your money.
The professor tries to make a distinction within the "1%" but the protestors don't see it that way. Based on what the people interviewed said, to them, people with wealth are greedy, regardless of how they achieved it (ethical or not). Not to mention what they advocate is more wealth redistribution which would ultimately lead to socialism. If we sit on the shoulders of the top 1% long enough, they will eventually move elsewhere. Then who will fund the entitlements the 99% loves so much?
The OWS fools protest the bailouts while they ask for socialism. Do they even realize they are asking for exactly what they are protesting or do they know but they are upset because they only want socialism that benefits themselves?
@IdeasMoveNations Really? They want student loans forgiven. They want "free" healthcare. They want "free" education. They want to tax people that have "to much" to help out those that don't have enough. What exactly do you call that again? There is a huge diff in the corruption we see in some areas (which we all want out of the system) & simply becoming wealthy through capitalism. Is your deff of FOR the people taking from the successful to give to the unproductive? Many OWS supporters want that
@shananagans5 your forgetting one thing, your basing that statement of the OWS movement on sensationalism created by the media to make all of ows look like socialist and freeloaders when thats just not true.dont get me wrong, there is A LOT of people like that at ows its kinda scary lol, but the main thing: take money out of politics. you stop the fundamental corruption in our government that way for the most part cuz its just simply legalized bribery. i do partly agree with you
im only 14 but it seems more like the ppl at the top like u say are the takers but ur leaving out a few groups there are ppl in business that sell and there are alot of ppl now that are willevery1 says this shipping jobs over seas they should till the sellers wel give u big tax breaks if u hire american this will alow more jobs that means less crime and more as u call it makers
You are absolutely right! You can think any kooky thought you like, but that does not release you from your social contract in your democratic process. If you are a citizen and the age of majority you are responsible for your government. You put them there whether you voted for them or not. And you have no right against them for the actions you authorized them to do. Yes you can elect new officials but you are responsible for their predecessors.
@Hhound Weld all the bits of wire you want. What was/is of greater value is the idea that defines what for. Seems lots of people like how the bits of wire were arranged according to Jobs ideas.
@Hhound This is the Marx view of value where value is determined only by the hands that build products. Taking this view seriously is what lead to Communism. Human Value has a much greater breadth than the purely physical. Airplane engineers, doctors and middle men in distribution are all important in the ‘Maker’ view. As long as people use them voluntarily and without deception they are Makers. Government uses force and are the most effective way to enable takers.
@Hhound Steve did a decent amount of assembly when they were in their garage. Later on he had other people do that part for him. To this day though Woz says that Apple wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for him. Woz was actually going to leave Apple because he didn't want a leading position in the company and have to do the business end of things. Woz and Steve were a team, Each bringing their own bit. And maker doesnt have to mean physically making something, it just means adding value.
well contrary to an image on your video about these "makers" Steve Jobs only got the idea a group of individuals made and then sold it and took all the credit when he presented it on behalf of apple. He has not created anything rather sold it, to the general public and profited from that. In general I'm not saying he should be categorized as a "taker" (more like a salesman) but since this video does just that, then Steve is a "taker" based on that logic.
@jamz3243 You do have a point. Steve Jobs was an amazing marketer. However in a way he was a creator. While many of his ideas came from other people, he had a way of making them better. Jobs loved the aesthetics of simplicity while many developers ignored it. He would take peoples ideas and improve on them so that they were more easily used by the general public. Jobs was more of an architect than an engineer. He was able to combine the substance with aesthetics in a way people loved.
@fojoely many of the ideas that his development team "rehashed" were changed only slightly. any "feature" you can name has literally been plagiarized from the opensource and GNU/Linux community. their new full screen apps has been a feature in gnome, kde and xfce4 since the year before mac osx even implemented it, many terminal commands come straight from the unix command line all they added was an apple logo added, prettier pictures or a shiny enclosure. l think you mean designer, not architect
@jamz3243 no i was making a comparison to building a house. The engineer makes sure the house is sturdy and stands while the "architect is the coordinator of all other disciplines involved in the building process". More of a coordinator. Exp: Xerox GUI. Xerox made a bad business decision and allowed Apple to see their GUI that is now a staple of all computers. Apple took it, cleaned it up, marketed it, and sold it with Jobs suggestions. Rip off? Partially. Contributor to society? Yes.
@fojoely well if that is the case Steve Jobs did not do that either, he just says make it work and expect things to be changed, regardless of anything.. A thief is a thief and their is a consequence should I decide to do what Steve did in my college or you at your workplace we would suffer the consequences of plagiarism regardless of how much we contribute to selling $50 devices for over $1,000.
@jamz3243 There were consequences. Apple was sued by Xerox but Xerox lost. In exchange for Apple to view their new design Xerox said Apple would have to let them in on the IPO of their stock. It was a poor business decision on Xero's part. Later on Microsoft played the "thief" with GUI and Apple sued them in turn. And then Apple lost. There is no such thing as an original idea. Ideas are passed on and are then improved on bit by bit. It's technological evolution.
@fojoely well apart from xerox which is a company, GNU/Linux is something a bunch of knowledgeable people got together to make a decent os and can not "sue" apple because it is not a company but rather maintained by the community. Nobody high up at apple has contributed in any way; ie mentioning, monetary, code, etc. While it's good to see that apple has paid for it's no no with printers, the base system on which OSX is made of has not been paid at all.
@jamz3243 Printer? GUI has nothing to do with printers.GUI is Graphic User Interface which is what you see when you turn on the computer. GUI is the interactive screen and a mouse you can move around and folders on a desktop. Before GUI you only had command lines. Apple brought GUI mainstream. And Linux is open source which is why no one has paid for it. Besides Linux OS and Mac hardware is like a match made in heaven. OSX can't touch Linux anyway because its limited to apple products.
@fojoely well you started this thing about xerox, GNU/Linux is an operating system, kinda of exactly like windows or mac but better. Furthermore I know enough about computers, I have four certifications with operating systems and programming. The GUI of apple was taken from the Xserver which was not made by anyone at apple, but the developers of that have not been endorsed. I think you should read more info about open source before jumping to any conclusions. I would be glad to send you a link.
@fojoely what? you have made no sense thus far, have you even read any of my comments? you brought up printers and GUI, not I. I simply was talking about core command line apps like xserver, sudo, nano, rm, mkdir, and the linux kernel which are all in OSx and no body at apple has paid the people who made these applications that make their stuff so "magical".
The narrow minded cannot comprehend these truths...instead they will make-up their own fact in order to promote their beliefs. They are blind in spite of how crystal clear history is about the free market and a free society!
Ron Paul is the only one who will make for change. He is the only person banks, corporate media, and those who put us here, wish not to see elected. Why? Because they know he'll not "play ball" and rob the rest of us.
@br6776 Ideas. Intellectuals in general are mostly supported by government funding or worse, by corporate funding. Science supported by an institution always reflects an opinion favoring that institution. The ill effects of tobacco funded by Philip Morris will naturally suggest that smoking does not cause any detriment to your health and may in fact, improve your health. Global warming research by Globalists will reflect the need for NWO etc.
@br6776 I suppose that all depends on a lot of factors. Are his ideas sound and useful? Will they be implemented into a system that benefits greater numbers of people than it takes from? It's all very complicated and difficult to judge from a youtube sermon. Most of us are takers and makers at some level but some of us are insane. Mother Theresa has her antithesis. Unfortunately, most people are closer to the antithesis.
@joshuadc82 His ideas? Or do you mean the ideas he has taken from someone else? Doesn't Karl Marx have the exact same idea? Makers= workers, and Takers=bourgeoisie? Has he not Taken ideas from all those books he has behind him? Academia is based around taking/learning others' ideas and maybe, just maybe, creating an original thesis.
@br6776 "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."
@joshuadc82 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."
I would venture to guess professor Coyne did not even "make" his own coffee this morning.
@br6776 that's one of my favorite verses. Matthew 23 as an entire chapter, actually. If hypocrites cannot be tolerated by Jesus then I think we should follow suit.
@bjlayd61 What exactly has he made as a professor of economics? He takes a large paycheque as a professor and recites others' ideas and opinions to people.
@br6776 teachers play a huuuge role in society. that is how we pass on information. if it weren't for teachers these ideas would not be shared. Also, teachers have influenced some of the greatest minds in society who have gone on to become creators. And professors have terrible salaries. I mean compared to a laborer yes but overall nothing. Most have to take on multiple teaching jobs and try to get their work published if they are lucky.
@br6776 You seem confused as to what a taker is. He does not 'take' a paycheck. He is given a paycheck by a university that agrees freely to pay him that amount. And again, he makes 'education.' Just because it isn't tangible doesn't mean it has no value. A taker is someone who forcibly takes money without having contributed anything. Big banks were 'takers' because they failed to make money on their own, yet the government took money from other people and gave it to them.
@bjlayd61 So what you mean is: US citizens gave their money to the government, the government gave it to the banks and the citizens got an education even though it is not tangible. I don't know why you seem to be mad about the banks, didn't you learn a lesson? Professor Coyne doesn't make money on his own the university gave it to him for preaching Marxist theory. I understand now, thank you.
@br6776 What are you talking about? Professor Coyne did not receive his money from the banks, he receives it from a private university that chooses willingly to give it to him in exchange for what they consider to be a valuable asset in education. What you consider valuable does not matter as long as you are not paying. And he teaches the opposite of Marxism. Try to form an argument with fewer non sequitors.
@br6776 Let me put this simply: taking implies a lack of consent from the party fronting the money. If you choose for someone to bake you a cake, or shine your shoes, or teach at your school in exchange for a sum of money, then no matter what other people think that person was a 'maker' because you valued their service more than you did the money, hence the transaction. If someone forcibly gets money from you, they 'took it' and are a 'taker.'
@bjlayd61 An example of this would be the government taking money from you (since they are the only institution that can legally take money from you) and giving it to certain banks to keep them from failing. Those banks are takers, because rather than producing a service people choose to utilize, they used the government to take money and transfer it to them to stay afloat.
@br6776 The extent of your argument is that citizens also receive education from the government, therefore the government taking our money and giving it to the banks is the same as a university taking its own money and giving to a professor?
@br6776 The entire point of my argument is that as long as the payers are choosing willingly to give their money to another, no one is 'taking' anything. Taking implies force. There's a big difference between a private university choosing to pay a teacher with its own funding that it procured without coercion and the federal government using tax dollars that are acquired by force to assist its friends. Do you understand this difference? Hint: it's consent and the use of one's own money.
@bjlayd61 Actually, you did consent to your government by being a citizen in a democracy. You live in a democracy; you chose your government even if you did not vote for the government. Hint: Thomas Hobbes.
@br6776 America is not a democracy, it's a republic. And regardless, we have a right to be outraged when we feel the government is protecting the wrong interests and allowing takers to prosper by abusing its power to tax and using revenue to prop up failing businesses. The government has the authority to do this, but we have the authority to elect new officials should we view the practice as an abuse of power or as ineffective.
Deregulation, which this professor argues for, is what has allowed corporations to colgomerate to such a level that they operate with more wealth and resources than the government. They not only influence government at every level but also hold the government , in particularly on the local level, ransom. Constraining government will allow the "Takers" as he likes to call them, free reign to take take take take take. If you remove the principal from a school, you don't get less bullying.
@BlackSparrow318 Gov't Regulation is the problem. Why do you think banks lended out to so many people to buy houses causing the housing bubble? Beacause gov't regulations and agencies like fannie freddie insured those loans. so the risk was greatly diminished. If we would have let the market take care of the housing market bankers wouldnt have made such risky loans and the housing bubble wouldnt have happend. We dont need gov't regulating the economy we need the market do that.
@BlackSparrow318 I agree with you to some extent and the current situation has skewed our perspective. Say the principal is doing the bullying or making it much easier to get bullied by say, mandating that you and your bully go to the bathroom together, then we get the current model. The authorities & legislators should keep things fair and currently they are purchased to do whatever they're told because apparently their 200k salaries aren't fat enough. High cost of living in D.C. I suppose?
@BlackSparrow318 This is a common misconception. It is and always has been regulation that gets business in bed with government. Regulations are, after all, the very factors businesses seek to influence. They want regulations that help them and hurt competitors. With fewer regulations, there's fewer advantages to buy. With fewer regulations, the government doesn't get to pick the winners and losers, so there's no reason to buy off the government.
@BlackSparrow318 Partially true. The deregulations happened without regard to existing laws. The government needs to enforce property rights. Exp: Pollution. If a business destroys the air or water or environment on my property they must change their operating processes.This would be a much more effective way of controlling business. Still free market but protecting peoples rights. Also business and government should be separated entirely. No lobbying for more power.
Support "Monetary Reform Act" (supported by Dr. Friedman: “I am entirely sympathetic with the objectives of your Monetary Reform Act…I am impressed by your attention to detail in your successive revisions… Milton Friedman”). Go to this site:
(.)themoneymasters(.)com/monetary-reform-act/
Want to see the FED abolished AND fractional reserve lending stopped in America? Vote Bill Still in 2012.
i am horrified by these socialist ideas in the heart of america. i already have to put up with socialists' insanity in europe. the usa was always my last refuge where i could run away to should i become so sick of socialism in europe. i guess there is no safe place any more. fuck it, i'll fight them where i stand.
@topperheartramada True that. Takers and socialists are parasites that live off healthy organism (nation) and spread like plague if they're not constrained or exterminated. Right is right left is wrong !
@fafura13 And they HATE those who create. They take everything from them and they still hate t hem because they can't take everything. I have a suggestion: put all socialists in one country and see how well they do. Let's see how a nation consisting entirely of people with a sense of entitlement will do. They will be too busy fighting over privilieges that nobody would work. And then the pot would keep diminishing. And then they would kill the dictator and ask to join the free world.
@topperheartramada They already tried many, many times in different parts of the world and always have failed. "Democracy is the road to socialism.”- Karl Marx Check this out economicfreedom(dot)org/2011/11/23/so-is-that-my-corn-or-yours/
1% "owning" an enormous proportion of wealth is a misnomer. They're blamed for both owning wealth and then profiting with the wealth they own. That's double-accounting. Consider Wall Street. About 20% of investors own about 80% of the traded wealth. Yet what this really means is that the rich are investing in corporations, which are little more than job creating and goods and service providing machines. For me to own a business that employs you, offers bonuses, 401k, etc is not "unfair".
The people interviewed proved this expert wrong. He's saying that they're frustrated about the non-productive takers while the people interviewed were pro-taking from the wealthy, whether producers or not, and distributing it to self-entitled takers. No doubt there are SOME Occupiers upset about "too big to fail" etc. But most seem to be flat out Marxist anti-capitalist self-entitled takers. My question about the "1%" owning the wealth is, how much of this wealth did they just flat out create?!
@LucisFerre1 To answer your question: some of them (like Steve Jobs) created all of the wealth they own. Every penny he owns was given to him voluntarily by people who valued his products more highly than the price they paid. Others (Lockheed-Martin, banks that were bailed out, etc) use the government to forcibly take wealth from others (via government contracts or outright redistribution of wealth). The point of this video is that we should unite against the latter and applaud the former....
@LucisFerre1 (continued from previous comment) The "bad guys" are not "the rich" in general, but those who use the gov't to get rich by taking $ from others. The answer, then is not to use the gov't to take (with force i.e. steal) even more money from the rich in the form of income taxes, death taxes, capital gains taxes, etc, (which just fuels the system) but to eliminate the power of the gov't to take money from those who produce it and give it to those who are politically well-connected...
@LucisFerre1 This is why libertarians are for "limited government." Because when the government has goodies to dole out, you can bet that those people and companies with the deepest pockets and most connections will be the ones who receive the goodies. A better system is one in which people are rewarded for producing things that people value; a true free market in which no one can use force (i.e. the government) to take money from others, but must earn their wealth through voluntary trade.
@sestraux well the government takes the taxes that they raised and bails out or "invests" in a business (usually a business that the taker either owns, knows the owner, or has invested interest in). This is corporatism.
@sestraux The government takes assets and money from the rich that many of them created for themselves, and gives it to those that have been protesting for it. No wealth is produced or created, it's just taken from some and given to others.
yet he never addressed the issue of the banks taking and not producing, then taking the bailouts and still not producing, yet the bankers still think they are the ones best at regulating them selves...
@masluxx Banks are producers in some cases. They produce lines of credit and in some instances like credit cards make transactions between a customer and store safer, easier and with less hassle. I do agree though there should not be a bank bail out or an FDIC backed accounts.
@MEPBlue1 I love how those that all pro freemarket and survival of the fittest when it come to humans, are the biggest takers when it comes to protectionist tariffs (jacking up our prices)and substitutes and bailouts...
@masluxx And I love how you lumped economists which understand the ideology and the problems caused, and corporatists who are simply doing what is of their best interest.
@masluxx You don't understand what you're talking about neither it is apparent do you have the knowledge of the English language to represent even a misguided view of the free market with any type of clarity.
One of the main rules of the free market is that nobody deserves a bailout. It's socialists and neocons/crony capitalists who give your money to companies they deem "too big to fail"
@veksink you sound like a soldier who says " I only follow orders so I'm not the one responsible for killing people". What he forgot is that he, the soldier chose to follow orders. banks wouldn't be able to buy politicians unless those politicians chose to sell themselves. Can you buy what the other is not willing to sell? then where does the ultimate power reside if not solely in the will of politicians?
@masluxx so you admit the bankers are the takers not the givers. Since the government is the giver of your money to the bankers wouldn't it make more sense to hold the giver responsible? it's not a function of banks to produce but to save. why should banks not be compensated for saving?
@masluxx He states that he was against the bailouts. Banks do fine at regulating themselves when they're allowed to fail. The bailout creates a moral hazard.
@bjlayd61 you really might want to look at the boom bust cycles that existed all thew out history when thier was no regulation. The question is do you want that or not, if you do then by all means promote deregulation and enjoy your great depresions and wars caused by stressed governments. AThe late 20th centry was marked by regulations on banks and showed the greated advancements in prosperity and world civility the planet has ever seen.. a quincidence?
@masluxx You're confusing correlation with causation. There's no reason to believe that a lack of regulation led to booms and busts; in fact frequently the busts were a result of government intervention. Youtube won't let me post the link, but if you'd like to learn more about booms and busts in an entertaining fashion, youtube keynes vs. hayek. It's a rap battle that's surprisingly informative.
@bjlayd61 you are confusing that becuase there is a correlation there can not be a cuasation...If fact the results of bust were caused by investors manipulating the market for thier gains. Booms and bust happen naturaly, look at popluation growths in nature wolves vs rabbits i believe is a famous one.
@masluxx, Actually, the long term booms and busts at the end of the 20th century were the result of a mixed economy. If you want a true gauge of how a free market works (with less busts), you need to look at the 18th and 19th centuries. Were it not for Jimmy Carter deregulating the airline industry, very few people would be traveling, business would have continued to stagnate etc. Look what deregulation of AT & T has produced. Cell phones, free calling. Your premise is incorrect.
@perfectraceway How about you look at Great Depression, and the boom busts cycles prior to it.....agian choice between boom/bust or have regulations to smooth things out.
@masluxx How about you do some reading and realize the Great Depression was caused by hyper-regulation. Look up Wickark versus Fillburn, where a farmer was fined for producing more wheat on his land than was allowed by law. How about you read some real books about how business cycles operate. Better yet, go to mises dot org and do some reading about the business cycle. Sorry, but what you think you know about the business cycle is completely incorrect. Regulation responsible boom/bust
@perfectraceway how about you cherrypick more to promote your ideas, how about you only watch/read that which you call smart, that is that which agrees with your preconcieved ideas. How about booms and bust have been going on since the begining of time. How about the govenrnment is not the devil nor is regulation. How about you read things a book that you do nto already agree with the statments int he jacket..
@masluxx ??? I gave you a supreme court case. I gave you a resource to investigate and I gave you some things to think about. You simply called me ignorant. LOL...I did not have pre-conceived notions, but apparently you do. I read a phenomenal amount of information daily. Am a published author of three books and have been granted 21 US Patents. What have you done? Please explain how you came to your premise.
@perfectraceway wow , such blant lies.... a troll no doubt...a while back in that other video you said you where an airline pilot and prior airfoce major that flew stealth bombs...
@masluxx OK, now I understand. You are insane. I have never posted that I was "an airline pilot and prior Air Force major that (sic) flew stealth bombs". I think the "troll" moniker is more aptly applied to you. "A troll will sometimes use insults to provoke other people to insult him." (Taken from the Netiquette handbook). You are, unfortunately, too stupid to learn. Ignorance can be rectified, stupidity is genetic. I certainly hope you never, ever vote for anything that impacts anyone's life.
@perfectraceway Ok, bud, you and your 3 books and 21 patents obviuosly do not believe in democracy and that just makes you plain unAmerican and unpartotic, What are you some taliban religiuos control freak whack job? Are you a terrorist? How can you say that An American should never vote? Are you so mad now you want to bomb somehting ah bud? Oh now i see thats why you are now trying to hide that you said you where a pilot....You better be more careful before you end up in Guantanamo.
@masluxx This will be the last time I reply to you. Insane people are very difficult to interact with. Your ignorance is astounding your inability to form a cogent argument is blatantly apparent. I served in the military (idiot). I have more than likely paid more taxes in one year than you will in your entire lifetime (idiot). I never posted anything about the Air Force (idiot). And yes, IDIOTS should not vote, since the duty of citizen of the REPUBLIC is to be an INFORMED voter. Later idiot.
@perfectraceway On so now you are in the miltary, with 21 patents and 3 books and fly stealth bombers but you not in the airforce. Man you are a real peice of work. I would be surprized if just one of those things is true. BTW more do and less saying you did would be in order thier bud.
the value of education has went through the shitter. you need a college degree to be a mcdonalds floor manager anymore (maybe exaggerated). the problem is that the employment sector has lost most of the non-skilled employment we had in the past along with the fact that college has been made more widely available (at increased prices and easier standards to pass). thus now college just means you spent money, it doesn't make you skilled.
we need to overhaul the education sector.
greycloud24 1 week ago
Investors add credit and the ability to obtain assests you couldnt nomraly afford and if you invest in good projects it make it better for everyone. So investors are makers because they do add value to the economy. Of course CDOs and black magic banking is bad but that isnt investing.
TyZi187 2 weeks ago
I'm really surprised, I thought that this media skew wouldn't reach youtube. Occupy Wall Street is NOT a bunch of people who want a socialist society, most of the protesters don't even fully understand the message. Occupy Wall Street was started mainly in response to the Super Inflation caused by the Big Bank Bailouts.
rufuguru 2 weeks ago
The worship of the mob, glorified.
Thedriftor 2 weeks ago
Instead the Occupy Supporters should all become inventors while the top 1% invests and speculates creating wealth from nothing and contributing zero to society while hoarding it all to themselves.
HeadshotZealot 1 month ago
@cbcbarzarz You are asking what do we do when people work hard and leave a nice inheratence to their children. The answer is nothing, because its not your money.
cooljj82 1 month ago
The professor tries to make a distinction within the "1%" but the protestors don't see it that way. Based on what the people interviewed said, to them, people with wealth are greedy, regardless of how they achieved it (ethical or not). Not to mention what they advocate is more wealth redistribution which would ultimately lead to socialism. If we sit on the shoulders of the top 1% long enough, they will eventually move elsewhere. Then who will fund the entitlements the 99% loves so much?
beachballa93 1 month ago
Ron Paul 2012
127prats 1 month ago 24
"Let us now consider the relation to the worker, to labor and its object of the person, ALIEN to labor and the worker... the non-worker."
Karl Marx
"Alienated Labor"
br6776 1 month ago
The OWS fools protest the bailouts while they ask for socialism. Do they even realize they are asking for exactly what they are protesting or do they know but they are upset because they only want socialism that benefits themselves?
shananagans5 1 month ago 17
@shananagans5 They don't dislike bailouts, they just want bailouts to them not other people.
cooljj82 1 month ago
@cooljj82 lol Exactly. That's what I was trying to say.
shananagans5 1 month ago
@shananagans5
Your divide and conquer tactics are very transparent.
Noone who has familiarized themselves with OWS would honestly say they want socialism. What they want is a government FOR the people again.
Hint: Having Fox News tell you what OWS is about isn't familiarizing yourself.
IdeasMoveNations 1 week ago
@IdeasMoveNations Really? They want student loans forgiven. They want "free" healthcare. They want "free" education. They want to tax people that have "to much" to help out those that don't have enough. What exactly do you call that again? There is a huge diff in the corruption we see in some areas (which we all want out of the system) & simply becoming wealthy through capitalism. Is your deff of FOR the people taking from the successful to give to the unproductive? Many OWS supporters want that
shananagans5 1 week ago
@shananagans5 your forgetting one thing, your basing that statement of the OWS movement on sensationalism created by the media to make all of ows look like socialist and freeloaders when thats just not true.dont get me wrong, there is A LOT of people like that at ows its kinda scary lol, but the main thing: take money out of politics. you stop the fundamental corruption in our government that way for the most part cuz its just simply legalized bribery. i do partly agree with you
darkinertia2 1 week ago
im only 14 but it seems more like the ppl at the top like u say are the takers but ur leaving out a few groups there are ppl in business that sell and there are alot of ppl now that are willevery1 says this shipping jobs over seas they should till the sellers wel give u big tax breaks if u hire american this will alow more jobs that means less crime and more as u call it makers
humanhuntero 1 month ago
You are absolutely right! You can think any kooky thought you like, but that does not release you from your social contract in your democratic process. If you are a citizen and the age of majority you are responsible for your government. You put them there whether you voted for them or not. And you have no right against them for the actions you authorized them to do. Yes you can elect new officials but you are responsible for their predecessors.
br6776 1 month ago
@Chris Coyne: I support your general ides about less government and less "takers".
What makes me wondering a bit is when you label "takers" and shows a sign of wallstreet.
People investing in companies is not takers. They are often the ones that make it possible for new companies/ inventions to get produced.
For the investors to make money the company most use the invested money and use them efficient.
If you read this, would you mind share some thoughts about this.
ariesrapid 1 month ago in playlist Economics Playlist
Sorry but Steve Jobs wasnt a Maker, I dont think he ever soldered a wire (Woz did that part)
Hhound 1 month ago
@Hhound Weld all the bits of wire you want. What was/is of greater value is the idea that defines what for. Seems lots of people like how the bits of wire were arranged according to Jobs ideas.
356pla 1 month ago
@Hhound This is the Marx view of value where value is determined only by the hands that build products. Taking this view seriously is what lead to Communism. Human Value has a much greater breadth than the purely physical. Airplane engineers, doctors and middle men in distribution are all important in the ‘Maker’ view. As long as people use them voluntarily and without deception they are Makers. Government uses force and are the most effective way to enable takers.
cashfoley 1 month ago
@Hhound Steve did a decent amount of assembly when they were in their garage. Later on he had other people do that part for him. To this day though Woz says that Apple wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for him. Woz was actually going to leave Apple because he didn't want a leading position in the company and have to do the business end of things. Woz and Steve were a team, Each bringing their own bit. And maker doesnt have to mean physically making something, it just means adding value.
fojoely 1 month ago
This is correct.
Takers are the parasites of Humanity and they exist on ALL levels.
People who take welfare are just as much part of the problem as people on wall-street or in the government.
EvenStar303 1 month ago
well contrary to an image on your video about these "makers" Steve Jobs only got the idea a group of individuals made and then sold it and took all the credit when he presented it on behalf of apple. He has not created anything rather sold it, to the general public and profited from that. In general I'm not saying he should be categorized as a "taker" (more like a salesman) but since this video does just that, then Steve is a "taker" based on that logic.
jamz3243 1 month ago
@jamz3243 You do have a point. Steve Jobs was an amazing marketer. However in a way he was a creator. While many of his ideas came from other people, he had a way of making them better. Jobs loved the aesthetics of simplicity while many developers ignored it. He would take peoples ideas and improve on them so that they were more easily used by the general public. Jobs was more of an architect than an engineer. He was able to combine the substance with aesthetics in a way people loved.
fojoely 1 month ago
@fojoely many of the ideas that his development team "rehashed" were changed only slightly. any "feature" you can name has literally been plagiarized from the opensource and GNU/Linux community. their new full screen apps has been a feature in gnome, kde and xfce4 since the year before mac osx even implemented it, many terminal commands come straight from the unix command line all they added was an apple logo added, prettier pictures or a shiny enclosure. l think you mean designer, not architect
jamz3243 1 month ago
@jamz3243 no i was making a comparison to building a house. The engineer makes sure the house is sturdy and stands while the "architect is the coordinator of all other disciplines involved in the building process". More of a coordinator. Exp: Xerox GUI. Xerox made a bad business decision and allowed Apple to see their GUI that is now a staple of all computers. Apple took it, cleaned it up, marketed it, and sold it with Jobs suggestions. Rip off? Partially. Contributor to society? Yes.
fojoely 1 month ago
@fojoely well if that is the case Steve Jobs did not do that either, he just says make it work and expect things to be changed, regardless of anything.. A thief is a thief and their is a consequence should I decide to do what Steve did in my college or you at your workplace we would suffer the consequences of plagiarism regardless of how much we contribute to selling $50 devices for over $1,000.
jamz3243 1 month ago
@jamz3243 There were consequences. Apple was sued by Xerox but Xerox lost. In exchange for Apple to view their new design Xerox said Apple would have to let them in on the IPO of their stock. It was a poor business decision on Xero's part. Later on Microsoft played the "thief" with GUI and Apple sued them in turn. And then Apple lost. There is no such thing as an original idea. Ideas are passed on and are then improved on bit by bit. It's technological evolution.
fojoely 1 month ago
@fojoely well apart from xerox which is a company, GNU/Linux is something a bunch of knowledgeable people got together to make a decent os and can not "sue" apple because it is not a company but rather maintained by the community. Nobody high up at apple has contributed in any way; ie mentioning, monetary, code, etc. While it's good to see that apple has paid for it's no no with printers, the base system on which OSX is made of has not been paid at all.
jamz3243 1 month ago
@jamz3243 Printer? GUI has nothing to do with printers.GUI is Graphic User Interface which is what you see when you turn on the computer. GUI is the interactive screen and a mouse you can move around and folders on a desktop. Before GUI you only had command lines. Apple brought GUI mainstream. And Linux is open source which is why no one has paid for it. Besides Linux OS and Mac hardware is like a match made in heaven. OSX can't touch Linux anyway because its limited to apple products.
fojoely 1 month ago
@fojoely well you started this thing about xerox, GNU/Linux is an operating system, kinda of exactly like windows or mac but better. Furthermore I know enough about computers, I have four certifications with operating systems and programming. The GUI of apple was taken from the Xserver which was not made by anyone at apple, but the developers of that have not been endorsed. I think you should read more info about open source before jumping to any conclusions. I would be glad to send you a link.
jamz3243 1 month ago
@jamz3243 And this is where the argument ends because you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
fojoely 1 month ago
@fojoely what? you have made no sense thus far, have you even read any of my comments? you brought up printers and GUI, not I. I simply was talking about core command line apps like xserver, sudo, nano, rm, mkdir, and the linux kernel which are all in OSx and no body at apple has paid the people who made these applications that make their stuff so "magical".
jamz3243 1 month ago
The narrow minded cannot comprehend these truths...instead they will make-up their own fact in order to promote their beliefs. They are blind in spite of how crystal clear history is about the free market and a free society!
plate671 1 month ago 3
Ron Paul is the only one who will make for change. He is the only person banks, corporate media, and those who put us here, wish not to see elected. Why? Because they know he'll not "play ball" and rob the rest of us.
oldschooldsl 1 month ago
great points.
shadowcii 1 month ago
What do professors of economics "make"?
br6776 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
@br6776 Ideas. Intellectuals in general are mostly supported by government funding or worse, by corporate funding. Science supported by an institution always reflects an opinion favoring that institution. The ill effects of tobacco funded by Philip Morris will naturally suggest that smoking does not cause any detriment to your health and may in fact, improve your health. Global warming research by Globalists will reflect the need for NWO etc.
joshuadc82 1 month ago
@joshuadc82 And, therefore, professor Coyne is a "maker" or a "taker"?
br6776 1 month ago
@br6776 I suppose that all depends on a lot of factors. Are his ideas sound and useful? Will they be implemented into a system that benefits greater numbers of people than it takes from? It's all very complicated and difficult to judge from a youtube sermon. Most of us are takers and makers at some level but some of us are insane. Mother Theresa has her antithesis. Unfortunately, most people are closer to the antithesis.
joshuadc82 1 month ago
@joshuadc82 His ideas? Or do you mean the ideas he has taken from someone else? Doesn't Karl Marx have the exact same idea? Makers= workers, and Takers=bourgeoisie? Has he not Taken ideas from all those books he has behind him? Academia is based around taking/learning others' ideas and maybe, just maybe, creating an original thesis.
br6776 1 month ago
@br6776 "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."
-Ecclesiastes 1:9
joshuadc82 1 month ago
@joshuadc82 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."
I would venture to guess professor Coyne did not even "make" his own coffee this morning.
br6776 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
@br6776 that's one of my favorite verses. Matthew 23 as an entire chapter, actually. If hypocrites cannot be tolerated by Jesus then I think we should follow suit.
joshuadc82 1 month ago
@br6776 What exactly has he taken from anyone as a teacher of economics? Unless you think education should have no value.
bjlayd61 1 month ago
Comment removed
joshuadc82 1 month ago
@br6776 They educate. Does education have no value? And regardless, what exactly does he take?
bjlayd61 1 month ago
@bjlayd61 What exactly has he made as a professor of economics? He takes a large paycheque as a professor and recites others' ideas and opinions to people.
br6776 1 month ago
@br6776 teachers play a huuuge role in society. that is how we pass on information. if it weren't for teachers these ideas would not be shared. Also, teachers have influenced some of the greatest minds in society who have gone on to become creators. And professors have terrible salaries. I mean compared to a laborer yes but overall nothing. Most have to take on multiple teaching jobs and try to get their work published if they are lucky.
fojoely 1 month ago
@fojoely Hypocrisy and rhetoric have little value, I would assume, in the "maker and taker" world. But what value does the "maker of takers" have?
br6776 1 month ago
@br6776 You seem confused as to what a taker is. He does not 'take' a paycheck. He is given a paycheck by a university that agrees freely to pay him that amount. And again, he makes 'education.' Just because it isn't tangible doesn't mean it has no value. A taker is someone who forcibly takes money without having contributed anything. Big banks were 'takers' because they failed to make money on their own, yet the government took money from other people and gave it to them.
bjlayd61 1 month ago
@bjlayd61 very good way of putting it. i agree entirely.
fojoely 1 month ago
@bjlayd61 So what you mean is: US citizens gave their money to the government, the government gave it to the banks and the citizens got an education even though it is not tangible. I don't know why you seem to be mad about the banks, didn't you learn a lesson? Professor Coyne doesn't make money on his own the university gave it to him for preaching Marxist theory. I understand now, thank you.
br6776 1 month ago
@br6776 What are you talking about? Professor Coyne did not receive his money from the banks, he receives it from a private university that chooses willingly to give it to him in exchange for what they consider to be a valuable asset in education. What you consider valuable does not matter as long as you are not paying. And he teaches the opposite of Marxism. Try to form an argument with fewer non sequitors.
bjlayd61 1 month ago
@br6776 Let me put this simply: taking implies a lack of consent from the party fronting the money. If you choose for someone to bake you a cake, or shine your shoes, or teach at your school in exchange for a sum of money, then no matter what other people think that person was a 'maker' because you valued their service more than you did the money, hence the transaction. If someone forcibly gets money from you, they 'took it' and are a 'taker.'
bjlayd61 1 month ago
@bjlayd61 An example of this would be the government taking money from you (since they are the only institution that can legally take money from you) and giving it to certain banks to keep them from failing. Those banks are takers, because rather than producing a service people choose to utilize, they used the government to take money and transfer it to them to stay afloat.
bjlayd61 1 month ago
@bjlayd61 citizens>government>banks=lessons
students>university>professor=lessons
The professor is given the money he is worth. The banks are given the money they are worth. This is your logic; I understand, thank you.
br6776 1 month ago
@br6776 The extent of your argument is that citizens also receive education from the government, therefore the government taking our money and giving it to the banks is the same as a university taking its own money and giving to a professor?
bjlayd61 1 month ago
@bjlayd61 The extent of your argument is people get paid what they are worth?
br6776 1 month ago
@br6776 The entire point of my argument is that as long as the payers are choosing willingly to give their money to another, no one is 'taking' anything. Taking implies force. There's a big difference between a private university choosing to pay a teacher with its own funding that it procured without coercion and the federal government using tax dollars that are acquired by force to assist its friends. Do you understand this difference? Hint: it's consent and the use of one's own money.
bjlayd61 1 month ago
@bjlayd61 Actually, you did consent to your government by being a citizen in a democracy. You live in a democracy; you chose your government even if you did not vote for the government. Hint: Thomas Hobbes.
br6776 1 month ago
@br6776 America is not a democracy, it's a republic. And regardless, we have a right to be outraged when we feel the government is protecting the wrong interests and allowing takers to prosper by abusing its power to tax and using revenue to prop up failing businesses. The government has the authority to do this, but we have the authority to elect new officials should we view the practice as an abuse of power or as ineffective.
bjlayd61 1 month ago
government cannot be constrained.
kebabkungen90007 1 month ago
I LIKE IT!
flyinbry 1 month ago
Deregulation, which this professor argues for, is what has allowed corporations to colgomerate to such a level that they operate with more wealth and resources than the government. They not only influence government at every level but also hold the government , in particularly on the local level, ransom. Constraining government will allow the "Takers" as he likes to call them, free reign to take take take take take. If you remove the principal from a school, you don't get less bullying.
BlackSparrow318 1 month ago
@BlackSparrow318 Gov't Regulation is the problem. Why do you think banks lended out to so many people to buy houses causing the housing bubble? Beacause gov't regulations and agencies like fannie freddie insured those loans. so the risk was greatly diminished. If we would have let the market take care of the housing market bankers wouldnt have made such risky loans and the housing bubble wouldnt have happend. We dont need gov't regulating the economy we need the market do that.
USfutbol 1 month ago 5
@BlackSparrow318 I agree with you to some extent and the current situation has skewed our perspective. Say the principal is doing the bullying or making it much easier to get bullied by say, mandating that you and your bully go to the bathroom together, then we get the current model. The authorities & legislators should keep things fair and currently they are purchased to do whatever they're told because apparently their 200k salaries aren't fat enough. High cost of living in D.C. I suppose?
joshuadc82 1 month ago
@BlackSparrow318 This is a common misconception. It is and always has been regulation that gets business in bed with government. Regulations are, after all, the very factors businesses seek to influence. They want regulations that help them and hurt competitors. With fewer regulations, there's fewer advantages to buy. With fewer regulations, the government doesn't get to pick the winners and losers, so there's no reason to buy off the government.
bjlayd61 1 month ago
@BlackSparrow318 Partially true. The deregulations happened without regard to existing laws. The government needs to enforce property rights. Exp: Pollution. If a business destroys the air or water or environment on my property they must change their operating processes.This would be a much more effective way of controlling business. Still free market but protecting peoples rights. Also business and government should be separated entirely. No lobbying for more power.
fojoely 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Support "Monetary Reform Act" (supported by Dr. Friedman: “I am entirely sympathetic with the objectives of your Monetary Reform Act…I am impressed by your attention to detail in your successive revisions… Milton Friedman”). Go to this site:
(.)themoneymasters(.)com/monetary-reform-act/
Want to see the FED abolished AND fractional reserve lending stopped in America? Vote Bill Still in 2012.
eric5335 1 month ago
i am horrified by these socialist ideas in the heart of america. i already have to put up with socialists' insanity in europe. the usa was always my last refuge where i could run away to should i become so sick of socialism in europe. i guess there is no safe place any more. fuck it, i'll fight them where i stand.
topperheartramada 1 month ago 19
@topperheartramada Don't give up on us yet.
visszahang 1 month ago
@topperheartramada True that. Takers and socialists are parasites that live off healthy organism (nation) and spread like plague if they're not constrained or exterminated. Right is right left is wrong !
fafura13 1 month ago
@fafura13 And they HATE those who create. They take everything from them and they still hate t hem because they can't take everything. I have a suggestion: put all socialists in one country and see how well they do. Let's see how a nation consisting entirely of people with a sense of entitlement will do. They will be too busy fighting over privilieges that nobody would work. And then the pot would keep diminishing. And then they would kill the dictator and ask to join the free world.
topperheartramada 1 month ago
@topperheartramada They already tried many, many times in different parts of the world and always have failed. "Democracy is the road to socialism.”- Karl Marx Check this out economicfreedom(dot)org/2011/11/23/so-is-that-my-corn-or-yours/
fafura13 1 month ago
That is the main thrust folks do not seem to get. Makers and and takers. Bailouts are not capitalism!
TheLibertyLog 1 month ago 2
1% "owning" an enormous proportion of wealth is a misnomer. They're blamed for both owning wealth and then profiting with the wealth they own. That's double-accounting. Consider Wall Street. About 20% of investors own about 80% of the traded wealth. Yet what this really means is that the rich are investing in corporations, which are little more than job creating and goods and service providing machines. For me to own a business that employs you, offers bonuses, 401k, etc is not "unfair".
LucisFerre1 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
The people interviewed proved this expert wrong. He's saying that they're frustrated about the non-productive takers while the people interviewed were pro-taking from the wealthy, whether producers or not, and distributing it to self-entitled takers. No doubt there are SOME Occupiers upset about "too big to fail" etc. But most seem to be flat out Marxist anti-capitalist self-entitled takers. My question about the "1%" owning the wealth is, how much of this wealth did they just flat out create?!
LucisFerre1 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
@LucisFerre1 To answer your question: some of them (like Steve Jobs) created all of the wealth they own. Every penny he owns was given to him voluntarily by people who valued his products more highly than the price they paid. Others (Lockheed-Martin, banks that were bailed out, etc) use the government to forcibly take wealth from others (via government contracts or outright redistribution of wealth). The point of this video is that we should unite against the latter and applaud the former....
strabes88 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1 (continued from previous comment) The "bad guys" are not "the rich" in general, but those who use the gov't to get rich by taking $ from others. The answer, then is not to use the gov't to take (with force i.e. steal) even more money from the rich in the form of income taxes, death taxes, capital gains taxes, etc, (which just fuels the system) but to eliminate the power of the gov't to take money from those who produce it and give it to those who are politically well-connected...
strabes88 1 month ago
@LucisFerre1 This is why libertarians are for "limited government." Because when the government has goodies to dole out, you can bet that those people and companies with the deepest pockets and most connections will be the ones who receive the goodies. A better system is one in which people are rewarded for producing things that people value; a true free market in which no one can use force (i.e. the government) to take money from others, but must earn their wealth through voluntary trade.
strabes88 1 month ago
whaaat? how do they become takers when the government taxes rich people? does not make sense.
sestraux 1 month ago
@sestraux well the government takes the taxes that they raised and bails out or "invests" in a business (usually a business that the taker either owns, knows the owner, or has invested interest in). This is corporatism.
runcheltube 1 month ago
@sestraux The government takes assets and money from the rich that many of them created for themselves, and gives it to those that have been protesting for it. No wealth is produced or created, it's just taken from some and given to others.
bjlayd61 1 month ago
Are professor Coyne's classes as full of superficial, simplistic, scapegoating as are his LearnLiberty contributions?
ginesdepasamonte 1 month ago
@ginesdepasamonte Care to elaborate?
bjlayd61 1 month ago
@bjlayd61 I would love to elaborate, but I have not attended any of his classes, as of yet.
ginesdepasamonte 1 month ago
magnanimous video
bestofantiwarradio 1 month ago
right on!
TheJohnVandivier 1 month ago in playlist Economics Playlist
I can't stand the OWS hippies..I was down there in portland and just a bunch of Druggies.
doobersmanster 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
Banks are makers for certain things. The problem is government giving them artificial power.
Jotto999 2 months ago
yet he never addressed the issue of the banks taking and not producing, then taking the bailouts and still not producing, yet the bankers still think they are the ones best at regulating them selves...
masluxx 2 months ago in playlist Featured Shorts
@masluxx Banks are producers in some cases. They produce lines of credit and in some instances like credit cards make transactions between a customer and store safer, easier and with less hassle. I do agree though there should not be a bank bail out or an FDIC backed accounts.
MEPBlue1 2 months ago in playlist Featured Shorts
@MEPBlue1 I love how those that all pro freemarket and survival of the fittest when it come to humans, are the biggest takers when it comes to protectionist tariffs (jacking up our prices)and substitutes and bailouts...
masluxx 2 months ago
@masluxx And I love how you lumped economists which understand the ideology and the problems caused, and corporatists who are simply doing what is of their best interest.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 month ago
@masluxx You don't understand what you're talking about neither it is apparent do you have the knowledge of the English language to represent even a misguided view of the free market with any type of clarity.
One of the main rules of the free market is that nobody deserves a bailout. It's socialists and neocons/crony capitalists who give your money to companies they deem "too big to fail"
daPlumber702 1 month ago
@daPlumber702 why do you promote communism, becuase i clearly support freemarket, jsut not bailout for those that use the services the most.
masluxx 1 month ago
@masluxx huh?
A Free Market would never bail out anything or anyone.
Socialists bail out.
daPlumber702 1 month ago 25
@masluxx Maybe he is smart enough to know that Banks dont make law. OWS hasn't figured that out yet. OWS are takers
PatriotWatchUSA 2 months ago in playlist Featured Shorts
@PatriotWatchUSA you might want to look at the history of the regulators, and where they go after they leave that posistion....yea smart...
masluxx 2 months ago
@PatriotWatchUSA actually banks do make law thru lobbying, that's one of the problems that OWS is pointing out...
veksink 2 months ago in playlist Economics Playlist
This has been flagged as spam show
@veksink you sound like a soldier who says " I only follow orders so I'm not the one responsible for killing people". What he forgot is that he, the soldier chose to follow orders. banks wouldn't be able to buy politicians unless those politicians chose to sell themselves. Can you buy what the other is not willing to sell? then where does the ultimate power reside if not solely in the will of politicians?
Armando7654 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
This has been flagged as spam show
@masluxx so you admit the bankers are the takers not the givers. Since the government is the giver of your money to the bankers wouldn't it make more sense to hold the giver responsible? it's not a function of banks to produce but to save. why should banks not be compensated for saving?
Armando7654 1 month ago in playlist Featured Shorts
@masluxx He states that he was against the bailouts. Banks do fine at regulating themselves when they're allowed to fail. The bailout creates a moral hazard.
bjlayd61 1 month ago
@bjlayd61 you really might want to look at the boom bust cycles that existed all thew out history when thier was no regulation. The question is do you want that or not, if you do then by all means promote deregulation and enjoy your great depresions and wars caused by stressed governments. AThe late 20th centry was marked by regulations on banks and showed the greated advancements in prosperity and world civility the planet has ever seen.. a quincidence?
masluxx 1 month ago
@masluxx You're confusing correlation with causation. There's no reason to believe that a lack of regulation led to booms and busts; in fact frequently the busts were a result of government intervention. Youtube won't let me post the link, but if you'd like to learn more about booms and busts in an entertaining fashion, youtube keynes vs. hayek. It's a rap battle that's surprisingly informative.
bjlayd61 1 month ago
@bjlayd61 you are confusing that becuase there is a correlation there can not be a cuasation...If fact the results of bust were caused by investors manipulating the market for thier gains. Booms and bust happen naturaly, look at popluation growths in nature wolves vs rabbits i believe is a famous one.
masluxx 1 month ago
@masluxx, Actually, the long term booms and busts at the end of the 20th century were the result of a mixed economy. If you want a true gauge of how a free market works (with less busts), you need to look at the 18th and 19th centuries. Were it not for Jimmy Carter deregulating the airline industry, very few people would be traveling, business would have continued to stagnate etc. Look what deregulation of AT & T has produced. Cell phones, free calling. Your premise is incorrect.
perfectraceway 1 month ago
@perfectraceway How about you look at Great Depression, and the boom busts cycles prior to it.....agian choice between boom/bust or have regulations to smooth things out.
masluxx 1 month ago
@masluxx How about you do some reading and realize the Great Depression was caused by hyper-regulation. Look up Wickark versus Fillburn, where a farmer was fined for producing more wheat on his land than was allowed by law. How about you read some real books about how business cycles operate. Better yet, go to mises dot org and do some reading about the business cycle. Sorry, but what you think you know about the business cycle is completely incorrect. Regulation responsible boom/bust
perfectraceway 1 month ago
@perfectraceway how about you cherrypick more to promote your ideas, how about you only watch/read that which you call smart, that is that which agrees with your preconcieved ideas. How about booms and bust have been going on since the begining of time. How about the govenrnment is not the devil nor is regulation. How about you read things a book that you do nto already agree with the statments int he jacket..
masluxx 1 month ago
@masluxx ??? I gave you a supreme court case. I gave you a resource to investigate and I gave you some things to think about. You simply called me ignorant. LOL...I did not have pre-conceived notions, but apparently you do. I read a phenomenal amount of information daily. Am a published author of three books and have been granted 21 US Patents. What have you done? Please explain how you came to your premise.
perfectraceway 1 month ago
@perfectraceway wow , such blant lies.... a troll no doubt...a while back in that other video you said you where an airline pilot and prior airfoce major that flew stealth bombs...
masluxx 1 month ago
@masluxx OK, now I understand. You are insane. I have never posted that I was "an airline pilot and prior Air Force major that (sic) flew stealth bombs". I think the "troll" moniker is more aptly applied to you. "A troll will sometimes use insults to provoke other people to insult him." (Taken from the Netiquette handbook). You are, unfortunately, too stupid to learn. Ignorance can be rectified, stupidity is genetic. I certainly hope you never, ever vote for anything that impacts anyone's life.
perfectraceway 1 month ago
@perfectraceway Ok, bud, you and your 3 books and 21 patents obviuosly do not believe in democracy and that just makes you plain unAmerican and unpartotic, What are you some taliban religiuos control freak whack job? Are you a terrorist? How can you say that An American should never vote? Are you so mad now you want to bomb somehting ah bud? Oh now i see thats why you are now trying to hide that you said you where a pilot....You better be more careful before you end up in Guantanamo.
masluxx 1 month ago
@masluxx This will be the last time I reply to you. Insane people are very difficult to interact with. Your ignorance is astounding your inability to form a cogent argument is blatantly apparent. I served in the military (idiot). I have more than likely paid more taxes in one year than you will in your entire lifetime (idiot). I never posted anything about the Air Force (idiot). And yes, IDIOTS should not vote, since the duty of citizen of the REPUBLIC is to be an INFORMED voter. Later idiot.
perfectraceway 1 month ago
@perfectraceway On so now you are in the miltary, with 21 patents and 3 books and fly stealth bombers but you not in the airforce. Man you are a real peice of work. I would be surprized if just one of those things is true. BTW more do and less saying you did would be in order thier bud.
masluxx 1 month ago
Give before you take, Love before you hate, Die before you kill. Solves all the worlds problems.
skb0rzn 2 months ago in playlist Economics Playlist