@mba2ceo you are an idiot. welfare is a form of socialism, a perversion of capitalism. criminal activity, which involves the violation of someone else's rights is independent of any economic system. it simply indicates a lack of basic morality.
@seeqr9 ... that is 100 % my dream in life, if I ever become wealthy, is to create a "Boy's & Girl's Town" were all the underprivileged children can be educate to serve humanity ... but we all have dreams. I think wealth is wasted on the RICH. I think the greatest hindrance to human prosperity is human stupidity. But as I get older I losing faith in humanity.
@mba2ceo I have similar dreams hopwever I would teach the children that "humanity" and "society" r not a single thing to b served but are a collection of individuals. Individuals educated to b wise and logical will prosper and need to b "served" very little thus enabling them to serve those truly in need. Voluntarily of course. This would help the maximum amount of individuals even if it didnt look as warm n fuzy as "sacrificing" all u have for others or as "heroic" as steal from "the rich" etc
It is no longer called Health Education and Welfare, HEW, It is now Heath Human Services,HHS. This video might be from the late 1970s of early 1980s. Blame horrendous policies by US elected officials especially the federal to include the president. Outsourcing is the result that has positive aspects, but overall is dividing Americans.
Go to 3:30 and you get your answer to the current dilemma to black families. Black men don't get welfare. Black women get daycare, child support, welfare, 4k+ cash from EIC, more food stamps than they could possibly use, better housing than they can afford, job training and job assistance and all they have to do is kick out that negro who's working at a gas station in order to get it. Get pregnant then kick your man out, rinse and repeat, it's the new black woman's career.
@Kandimann Another low life cracker no doubt!!! Welfare was alright when white trash got it and used food stamps to by cocaine! Welfare was a perk of being white and was part of the new deal, You would know that if you did anything other than be white. Maybe you should read what your own white scholars have ot say about welfare and its origin. "WHEN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS WHITE" Ira Katznelson. Get it and read for a fucking change!
This is so true... You got to live in a country with widespread socialism to actually understand this. In my country I've seen more than enough absurd situations that were caused because of the welfare system.
It actually got to a degree that we have a whole population of unproductive people that live from the normal people's taxes, they don't work and raise whole generations of more people like them. There is no other way of describing it...
remember, the minimum wage permanently keeps a certain percentage of the potential workforce from ever entering the job market
in california, for example, the minimun wage is 8 dollars
therefore, i am unable to hire somebody to come into my small business and do some light work for, say, $5----> then develop some skills that would make his work worth $10, say with some new added responsibilities as well as the original job ($5) requirements
@2dum2getsocialism That is such a lie. The minimum wage does not prevent you from hiring them, it protects the citizens through enabling any employer to grossly exploit them by paying measley sums for income. It helps the economy too by keeping them out of poverty, and thus can spend, generating futher jobs, and further prosperity
@2dum2getsocialism Where do you morons come from??? The minumum wage is to keep up with the cost of living which it does not ever. Paying people less than they need to survive would not lesson the need for welfare and that is not at all hard to see. Just say you are so involved in making a profit, you would like to increase it by paying your help less!
@REASONINFUSION Anyone skilled in using the tools of reason would immediately recognize the result of wages without increasing productivity.
Such a person would also inquire as to why the cost of living goes up even though productivity goes up, rather than mindlessly accepting it as a fact of life.
@jeffiek Anyone challenging someone skilled in using the tools of reason should know the freezing of wages has more to do with retaining a profit margin than the cost to produce. Capitalism is not a moral system that is concerned with paying any wage beyond that which keeps labor loyal. if you got your nose out of your 50 year old micro economics text book and into the real world, you would know that.
@jeffiek Are you saying wages are low and have not kept up with the cost of products because of low productivity? I am too busy to play games so I need a means of proving you have no idea of what you are talking about.
@Kunguskang But it does prevent the same number of people from getting jobs. This does not apply in the situation which you remarked upon, but what a minimum wage does do is give less people higher paying jobs, instead of more people lower paying jobs
@2dum2getsocialism Unlimited greed has struck the employers who were raised to think that labor isn't important. If it were up to them, there would be NO LABOR save a few guys to maintain and feed supplies to the machines that do all the work. In the year 2000, some thought they could get one guy to do three people's work and lay off two people to maximize profit. They forgot all the employees and their labor that made them rich. We are seeing the downfall of capitalism that Marx predicted.
The church wants third world countries full of starving people, that is why the pope won't allow contraception. They make money from despair. So does the Federal Reserve and they control the minimum wage. The Fed's whole job is to make the poor poorer and the rich richer. They profit from both. If the whole U.S. wasn't over populated with illegal aliens, refugees, and stupid people who have more children than they can feed, we would all have jobs and money.
People can't live on minimum wage as it is, but you think spending his life working for you is an education? He knew how to work before you and will work after you. If you gave him the responsibility to begin with, you are going to experience good and bad employees, the cost of doing business. But you think you shouldn't have an over head like everyone else. That is what is ruining the job market. We don't live in the fifties anymore when people could buy land and a house for 15 to 19,000
Watch the movie "A Christmas Carol" with the lead role, Scrooge and see the end over again. The part where he tells Bob Cratchet that he wants to start helping take care of his family. That was America in the fifites. That loyalty died LONG AGO. Don't talk to me about what an employer deserves. He can only get what the people who do the work do for him in business. American corporations need to remember that. They sent all the Jobs over seas but want American workers to buy their products.
@2dum2getsocialism, many will find legal ways to keep payroll as close to the minimum! Some owners want to eliminate the minimum wage and lower the working age. The US has a legally documented and researched history of abuse of employees by business owners and their management. Business owners,politicians,and unions have questionable histories. America needs businesses and labor to cooperate instead of being antagonistic.
@2dum2getsocialism Yea, I cant even find a goddamn job because of the minimum wage here in Canada, and altough I surely would have loved to get paid 9,65$/hour, I dont give a damn since I can`t get one. The lucky ones that got a job are being spoiled.
At 3:44 exactly correct, the system is //designed// to break up every family.
This video does not even begin to address the 52 MILLION abortions performed since Roe v. Wade under economic deprivation with government payouts, a slaughter of what would have been 1/7 of the entire American population.
his point of that he will automatically get a job if his social welfare was cut some how doesn't seem realistic. I live in Ireland and there r so many people emigrating now because they can't get a job...any job regardless of whether it doesn't have the incentive of earning much more money than the welfare. Yet, if you did cut the welfare and the family still cant get a job..what are they supposed to do...resort to crime...or starve to death.
No, the person who recently had his welfare cut, would be incentivized to either seek employment or start his own services. If he couldn't find a job -- which is unlikely in an Ireland with a free market -- he would run a road side food stall (without having to get a permit) from borrowed resources from relatives and his own resources and skills; or offer to mow his neighbors' lawns; rely on charities, relatives, until he can figure out a similar way.
@LogicalFlawDetector That would be the incentive, but if you TRY that in America you'll be arrested and all your capital will be stolen by the government. There are Acts/Statute/Code color-of-law that FORBID selfreliance, or charity that allows people to provide their own means of income.
@mooeythemooseman Climb the system? Is that another Cato Institute motto? The system doesn't exist except in the minds of propagandists and unemployment isn't like a ladder. You get a set wage, period. Do you live off of fuck all? What the fuck does that mean? You aren't making sense just typing nonsense. Did you think you had a point or are you just mad because your party fucked up the economy? Quit being an internet troll. Learn about the actual means of economy.
@azmildman What's nonsense is the the idea that you can assign blame for the current financial crisis to a particular administration when it is clearly the result of a perfect storm effect--converging interdependent forces and distortions built up over a significant period of time (5 years plus). Get over yourself and your pathetically and inarticulate generalizations.
Respond to this video...Learn about the actual means of economy? A. What does that even mean in the context you never provided? B. If you had studied economics you would not made such simpleton statement.
@mooeythemooseman Milton Friedman's idea is based on the assumption that the people know what's best for them and what they are entitled too. The truth is, those in power will take advantage of the people and only give them just enough to get away with so that there is no revolt, and keep the majority of production for themselves. This is why we have unions, they are a function of the market, contrary to what Friedman believes. They function to inform people that they are being taken advantageof
@mooeythemooseman Not true, if someone feels like they are better off on welfare then they are working then they will stay on it. As he mentioned in the video, support should be removed slowly. This will allow people to enter temporary work without the fear of being cut off completely. Also if you remove the support slowly it will give people the support they may still need while working in low payed jobs.
@gucylucy24 well be happy that you do not live in Greece where whole country went over board with welfare and is going default. however Ireland is welfare state it has high risk of get too much debt too. U.S.A it is the same. every one in government refuse to cap spending and do not report welfare spending.
@loeghat it's a matter of principle. If I'm a hard working citizen, why should I pay for someone who doesn't want to earn their own money? on a truly free market, there will be some poverty, yes, but also a lot more productivity from the people who actually work. the most powerful economies in the world (hong kong is a great example) are the ones with less welfare and lower taxes, but strong anti fraud rules
@Chaaarge you have this illusion that unemployment is a choice. in a true free market there will be more productivity from the people who work? why, because they earn more money? already proven false...
@Darusdei not because they will earn more money, but because they will actually have to fight to get something. So it's about allowing people to strive to get more money, not actually making them earn more money. Look at the world, the countries with the most productivity are not socialist nations. Free markets will create a higher GDP. That's pretty much proven if you just compare socialist/communist(except for china which is still a free market in a way) nations with free market nations
@Chaaarge China doesn't have a free market. They have state controlled capitalism, coupled with government corruption. However, I agree with your point that free markets promote economic growth. Hence, the higher GDP.
friedmans main flaw seems to be the thinking that through free market both sides gain, even if they just seek their own profit. as proven over and over again, this win win situation doesnt exist in most places.without government regulation you will get fucked in the ass really really bad...
Friedman's point is that throughout history, the only systems in which the poor have been able to escape crushing poverty has been under free market systems. The "Government regulations" are, by definition, immoral-- since they compel individuals to do something they may not be willing to do.
Government is comprised of people. The same people that you so distrust to be charitable and help take care of their friends and neighbors are the ones that comprise the government.
@unvergebeneid Ha, actually, it proved almost his every word true. The only thing he got wrong, is he was a minarchist. He believed that "little" government could be managable. It isnt.
I mean really; 'This guy is really, really scary.'
When did we stop respecting people's opinion in favor of dismissing them for no apparent reason? This is an opinion (one which I agree with (largely), but that's besides the point), an idea that holds appeal to many people. Respect their opinions and please don't fear that which you don't understand.
@uninterestingentity I respect his opinion; I just find the implications scary. Would you please respect that by your own line of argument, instead of presuming that I just don't understand the matter?
or he could've lived in Canada and gotten universal healthcare and still worked as an orderly
the problem in this example isn't welfare, but the fact that his medical insurance company discriminates based on income levels, no different than private insurance companies discriminating based on pre-existing conditions.
Good to see a black family in tact in this video. If we had more of that in this country, rather than see the black race disintegrate, we would see the problems in the black community disintegrate.
What about the people who can't work due to injuries for example? How would they make a living in the society which Milton Friedman would like to see?
@Paddis92 Charity, first and foremost, which would be under a free system much more efficient, would be there to care for such people. Charity would be more efficient because it would be relying on the donations of others to survive as such like a business they would have to produce results, results, that governments are not bound to produce.
That is of course assuming they don't have family to take care of them who would be earning more and thus be more capable of helping said person.
@Canadadude125 Furthermore, that this injured person would be so injured that he couldn't find any job, perhaps I'm being optimistic but there are jobs that people with disabilities can do with the same efficiency as the able.
@Canadadude125 If there are no jobs for able bodied people, how could there be jobs for disabled people. We have 1 in 5 able bodied people unemployed, would employers employ a disabled person, before they would an able bodied person. How can the working poor help anyone, half the country does not pay taxes now, that is because they do not earn enough to meet the qualification to pay taxes. Freidman just speaks on behalf of his multinational friends who sponsers him.
Fair enough. Let's assume that he is corporately funded. However, any and every system will have corporations. In the case of socialism, the corporation is the state. I would prefer to have a discussion with an outcome based on logical argument rather than on visceral reactions. Please respond to the first part of my post.
@louiethegreater ? In all countries where there is government-owned industry, the government is 'the corporation'; they are not 'a' corporation, but it is a euphemism that means the government incorporates that particular industry's profits and shortfalls within its budget. 'Corporation' is just a euphemism for state-owned industry, I should think it fairly plain to see.
@UnOxonien But could you give me a state where the government is the corporation. Would the USPS be a government owned corporation, insomush as it competes, with Fedex, and UPS.
@louiethegreater Certainly, but perhaps the USPS isn't the best example because it has quite a lot of autonomy, I think. All industry in the USSR was state-owned. British Telecom, National Rail, British Airways &c. were all instances of government literally being 'the corporation' until they were incrementally privatised by Thatcher's government. When governments bought shares of failing banks using tax money in the recession, that is another instance. This is all socialism in varying degrees.
@UnOxonien So we here in the U.S. has been a very successful, economy, as shining light to the world as a mixed economy. So what motive would be present with the sudden push to privatize our infrastructure.
@louiethegreater In fact not; the US has been a shining example of how well privatisation works. Compared to European countries, America has *far fewer* government-owned services and companies, and lower taxes. The USPS stands alone as a big state corporation in the US; the UK has a completely socialised medical system (more than France even) and is very inefficient and cost ineffective, for example. I'm afraid your argument reflects the strengths of the free market, not of state-ownership.
@UnOxonien Privatisation worked just fine in a pre 1970 environment where domestic manufacturing was, protected from multinationals manufacturing in the third world and shipping to the U.S. duty free. Domestic Industries cannot compete with cheap third world labor. Deindustrialization of the U.S. has been accomplished by the neo-liberal policies of globalizaion. Countries who have been brought into subjection of globalization, has been force to sacrafice their domestic industries for globalizato
@louiethegreater On the contrary, international competition and globalisation is how you prevent monopolies from developing. Protectionism, as you have just described, is precisely the policy that worsens depressions - the market is global, and if you attempt to give your corner of that market unfair advantages, or a competitive edge, other countries will mirror you and everyone is worse off. Globalisation might be unpalatable, but it is not the reason for countries' poverty; it remedies that.
@UnOxonien International competition could be defined as manufacturing in asia, and applying that .20/hr wage as downward pressure on global wages, and calling it efficiency. Less populated nations must apply protectionist strategies to their economies or they will end up like the US. Our unemployment in manufacturing has passed that of the great depression years. I heard CNN interview Henry Kessinger a couple of weeks ago, when ask about our alarming unemployment rates, reindustrialize the U.S
@louiethegreater The answer is not for government to step in with protectionist strategies, that is how you *guarantee* that US industry will *fail*. If the US wants more domestic industry, its industry needs to make itself cost-effective! You can't 'protect' yourself from Asia. If you enorse protectionism, other countries will stop buying American goods, and your industries will be even worse. Protectionism never works in the long-run, and it certainly doesn't work in today's globalised market.
@UnOxonien Our trade deficit is growing exponentially since free trade has become the economic buzz word for deindustrialization. I believe the U.S. industries have already failed, at least here in Ohio, literally every large multinational corporation has left the state.The U. S. always protected domestic industries from cheap third world labor, up untill the 1970 protectectionism was working well for us. We have went south when free trade and neo-libralism became the strategies out of Washingto
@UnOxonien Protectionism worked for 200 years, how do you figure it never worked. Labor Unions built he American Middleclass, and Industry became very rich and prosperous in the process. Yes we can protect ourselves from Asia, simply by implementing the attitude: if you make it in Asia sell it in Asia. If these multinational corporations who no longer want to be called ameican, and want to manufacture in Asia, they sould sell in Asian markets in order to help the asian people. That makes sense!
@louiethegreater I think you're putting post-WW2 American economic success down to factors that don't deserve the credit. Before the 1970s, there was far less capacity for developing industrial economies to compete with America! You didn't have to have protectionism. If you want to protect American industries from competition, then the short-sightedness of this policy will be proved when other countries turn to Europe, China, Japan, and India for things that America currently supplies.
@UnOxonien Before the 1970 there were was not the, ferver for globalizaiton either. We actually protected american workers from cheap foreign peasant labor. I am not against competion, Asia is free to compete with Asia. If a multinational wants to manufacture in China, why not create products that the chinses can afford to buy, why products for export. Answer: the big bang for the buck is in using peasant labor, and shipping the products to the U.S. or W.Europe has nothing to do with efficiency.
@louiethegreater What you need is for American businesses to level with their international competitors, seek more efficient production strategies and more successful international and domestic sales strategies - if American businesses are *not as good* (cost and/or quality) as others, then it only hurts the American consumer by limiting him to the domestic market. The only way you get rid of monopolies and bad companies that waste taxpayer money with frivolous investment is competition.
@UnOxonien You mean efficiency in Asia is greater than efficiency in the US, I don't think so. The difference in the bottom line is wages, now should americns work for .20/hr like the Chinese do, or would you prefure a global wage.
The ameican consumer is not damaged by domestic industries, americns in general are damaged by wage slave manufactured imports, and the deindustrializaton of the country. By bad companys do you mean companys that actually pay living wages?
@UnOxonien The US has a half a trillion trade deficit, do we really have to worry about our exports, I don't believe the world is buying them anyway. One thing I do know, they sure love our retail markets, and the oursurcing philosophy of Walmart. Tariffs is the soultion to saving our domestic industries, or the U.S. must become the third world. I assure you giving all the industry to asia will not improve the welfare of the common asian people, they will remain a peasant class.
@crossxlui The new deal, don't get your drift. The new deal is to deindustrialize the U.S. and get her ready for the NAU (North Ameican Union) after the EU model. The American middleclass must be destroyed. Is that the new deal you are talkin about.
@louiethegreater as a minority woman from a blue collar family, the power of the market is doing what I did, pay my way through college, working two jobs for ten years, and buying a house. I sold it 10 years later and doubled my money. It's called sacrifice and hard work. No one owes me anything, and I don't have my hand in anyone else's pocket.
@esp0661 The very entity you are praising is the very reason you are blue collar. Have you ever thought about why you are a blue collar family. Here it is, listen real close:::::: You are a chicken rooting for colonal sanders.
@louiethegreater Dear, I am no longer blue collar. The reason why my mother was, because she dropped out of HS and had two kids before the age of 21. I have done splendidly by anyone's standards.
@esp0661 In ten years the value of your house doubled without any effort of hard work on your part. Many others homes doubled in price, through no effort on their part. Mine doubled, but it wasn,t from some great ecomonic plan on my part. The disonest, deregulated housing market caused the bubble. Your mom could have landed a job paying $15.00 and hour in her day, now you are a college graduate what does your job pay? H1B visas are filling the high tech jobs at half the wage paid, before neo
@louiethegreater You have jumped to one inaccurate conclusion after another about me, and my background, and have been wrong every time.My house value doubled because I renovated it completely with my own hands.That house has lost ZERO value in this market (I am a realtor now and I check) while my current home has lost nearly 200K. I am not worried, because I am renovating this house as well. Don't worry about me, Louie. I will be just fine, I don't rely on Obama's hopey changey thing.
@esp0661 I don't rely on Obama either, I voted for Chuck Baldwin, Constitutional Party. I don't take the word of a sponsered professonal speaker like Mr Friedman. either. Your mother was in a better position as a high school drop out, as you are wiith a college degree. When she entered the work force the country had 5 million more jobs in manufactureing to apply for. She could have earned $200,000.00 by the time you got through college. That opportunity was taken from you by the very people yo
@louiethegreater Thank God your antiquated ideas about jobs did not win the day 200 years ago. Imagine your logic used on agriculture. These machines are taking the jobs of farmers! This will lead to hundreds of thousands unemployed! The reality is that the market will create new jobs. And as far as I am lucky enough to have a job, not true. I am actually underemployed right now. I was laid off. But now I pick myself up. Good thing that I haven't fallen for the class envy path that you have.
@th3gr8juan I believe you are the chicken rooting for colonel sanders. If you are unemployed now your will not be employed anytime soon, at least not a living wage job. I really don't see how you could confuse my comment as a rejection of innovation, and technical advancement.
At least allow me to make it clear to you, I reject globalization, and neo- liberal policies, not technology and automation.
@louiethegreater Let me make this perfectly clear for you. Throwing out stupid one liners and claiming that everyone that disagrees with you as "brainwashed" and "hoodwinked" does not win an argument. You haven't even thrown out any facts as to how the loss of manufacturing jobs leads to decrease in pay. You remind me of the liberal of the 80's who told us that America's best days were behind us. That the future was one of scarcity. To quote Reagan, I utterly reject that view. And he was right.
@th3gr8juan America's best days are behing her. You must be very young if you believe Regan helped america. I believe Reagan was a good man who, was tricked into believeing neo-liberal philosophy. Much the same a Woodrow Wilson wans with the Federal Reserve. Allow me to break the news to you America has gone downhill everysince the neo- liberals took over Washington in the late 60s. They were put in office by the two political parties, who are owned by the plutocracy, that is why nothing changes
What you're proposing has already been tried and tested before: quotas, sanctions, tariffs, you name it. It prolonged the depression, creating double digit unemployment for a prolong period. The fallacy in your thinking is that someone must suffer in order for someone to gain. That's not always true. The third world and the US can mutually cooperate for mutual benefits.
@crossxlui Yes what I am proposing had been tried for 200 years, and had produced the greatest nation in history. Tariffs and quotas have been used to protect domestic industries since the country began. Every founding father was a protectionist. Tariffs did not cause the depression nor did Smoot- Hawley worsen it.
There is no fallacy in my thinking, sameone must suffer, for another to gain. That someone is the american worker who supported their families in manufacturing, multinationals won.
@louiethegreater The great deperssion was caused by an out of controll, Wall Street. That is the same thing that caused it this time. When Senatior Phil Gramm moved the congress to end the provision in Glass-Steagall to controll the merger of banks, investment housed, and insurance companys, that caused the creation of these giant unregulated industries to conn the world into buy toxic assets, that only they understood or prospered off their creation. Someone won and someone lost.
@louiethegreater You clearly have flawed logic and have too much theory jumbled up in your head lol. Do you really think that Asians are that "peasants" that you think they are? Have you ever traveled to Asia 10 years back and compared it to the current state? Bah, if you're not going to even bother checking facts out and believing in your flawed thinking, I guess I can't do much convincing lol. Good day.
@crossxlui My logic is as sound as the dollar was when it was applied to our economy. Yes those asians are the peasants I think they are. Just because the top 10% of asian investors are looking better, that doesn't mean the peasants are getting any of the new prosperity. Their prosperity is simply the redistribution of the american middleclasses wealth. The wealth of ameicans who earned a living in manufacturing has gone to the investment class of Asia. Take a hike.
@crossxlui To much theory, what a laugh, the whole premise of your post is nothing but theory. Laissez-Faire free trade is a theory, Austrin economics is a theory. My posts are facts, all one would have to do is look around at the country, and to normal people it so obvious.
@louiethegreater "someone must suffer, for another to gain" - actually that's the fallacy in your thinking. Economics is not a zero sum game. Trade works only when both sides have something to gain. If I go to the shop to buy something, neither of us are worse off than we were before - if we were then the shopkeeper would not sell or I would not buy. We are not all fighting for a slice of the same pie. Trade allows us to make a bigger pie.
@iansimcox Would you consider manufacuring in one hemispher using cheap labor, and sending the product to another hemisphere to sell, trade. To put it another way if an ameican company moves to China and uses .20/hr. labor, than ships the products back to the U.S for sale, do you call that trade. Wouldn't that activity be considered a job killer, one company oursources, and all the rest have to follow to compete, thus the race to the bottom, that means the race ot the bottom of the pay scale.
@iansimcox Hey allow me to inform you, in order for the multinational corporations to earn 300% profits, than american workers in manufacturing must loose. That is not a fallacy that is a fact. Deindustrializing ameica has thrown 15 million workers out of a job since the 70s. They lost, multinational corporations gained, that is a fact not a fallacy.
@louiethegreater You sir are using highy overblown statements of the profit international companies make. 300%!! No corporation makes that unless they are temporarily the only one in the market selling that good, that wouldn't last long. You must understand that international trade is a balance sheet. America can only import lets say $100 B from China if we also export $100B in goods back. If we didn't trade with China at all both countries lose $100B to their consumers. NOBODY LOSES with trade.
@bryce2197 Oh yes, that must explain our enormous trade deficit with china. Your exlanation is trade balance, you are being decietful. That must explain our trillion dollar trade deficit.
@louiethegreater The current high unemployment is not the result of free trade. Its the recession. Americans can and do compete well with the rest of the world. America is the leading exporter in High tech equipment in agriculture. If you think putting up trade barriers to will lower American unemployment you are sadly mistaken. Recall Smoot-Hawley act in the 1930s. Unemployment has been at a low rate of 4.5 to 5.5 the last 30 years with free trade, and American incomes have risen accordingly.
@bryce2197 You mean you would want me to believe that 40,000 manufacturing facilities have been outsource and that didn't create unemployment. Have you walked through Walmart lately, I dare you to find american made products. Smoot-Hawley was passed 8 months after the crash of 1929. Passing that legislation was an attempt to fend off the massive unemployment. The depression was caused by the same unregulated activity as today, all the fed would have had to do was renew the banks cash reserves.
@louiethegreater I find alot of stuff at Wal-Mart that is American made. Nearly all food. I've never seen very many cosmetics and hygene products not American made. No 40,000 shoe factory jobs outsourced doens't, but increased Catapiller manufacturing, Dockworkers, trucking, agriculture, pharmecutical, electronic, healthcare, Oil, Refined Crude kind of jobs in the millions lowers unemployment. Trade isn't one sided. And Smoot-Hawley virtually halted internat trade, making the depression worse.
@bryce2197 So Catapiller is one of the few companys still in the US. What about our Appliance, Ceramics, Auto, Auto Parts, Electronics, Machine Tools, Textiles, Plastics, steel, wood products, paper products, light bulbs, building materials, radio and t.v. Industries. I could go on and on. By the way I know we export corn, wheat, and soy beans, but 65% of the food we consume is imported, from Bushes trade agreement latin american countries.
@louiethegreater Yes, Yes, and yes many of those industries are still here. America is a very competitive maunfatcturer. Cars, electronics, auto parts, machine tools are very much made here. And no you are wrong on the amount of food improted, the USDA has it at about 12%. And the Latin American trade agreement has done nothing but bring us more money from exports and cheaper imports that can't be grown in the US like coffee and bannanas.
@bryce2197 Coffee and Bananas, wow what a example, I beleive it is common knowledge that we always have imported some foodstuff, but wait: didn't we import these products without a outsorcing ageement. Why don't you go to the Walmart, and find me one of those electronic products made in the U.S. You won't because they arent there. If latin american trade agreements are bringing us more exports than why is our deficit growing so large.
@louiethegreater Yeah well you painted an obscure picture that America imports 65% of its food and you were wrong. And I used coffee and Bananas as examples of what gets made cheaper to us through free trade with latin America. Not only do we get cheaper goods and a more diverse market, so are they. We now sell to them agriulture, high tech machinery, etc with 0% tarrifs. As far as the trade deficits its the same as Asia, they reivest so much in the US it gives us even more money to buy more.
@bryce2197 The only investment foreign nationals are making in the U.S. is buying up the country at bargain basement prices, because our economy is deflating, because of lack of manufacturing. The only thing we export to latin america is corn and soybeans. We do not sell latin america high tech machinery, because with the exception of catapiller we do not make any. However I just heard on the news China is starting production on their own line of agricultural equipment.
@louiethegreater Heres a list of top ten things we sell just to Brazil.Civilian aircraft and parts,Computer accessories, Organic chemicals, Plastic materials, Telecommunications equipment,Metallurgical grade coal,Oilfield equipment, Semiconductors,Pharmaceutical preparations, Chemical fertilizers. Most of which grew in sales even in 2009. And just because China is getting in the ag. equipment market means nothing, the Indians, Koreans, and Japanese have too for a long time but the US dominates
@bryce2197 Look, You can quit giving me those list of yours, if we are selling Brazil so much why do we have a trade deficit with them. Besides that why do we want to destroy Brazils domestic industries, in the same way Asia has destroyed ours. Ameicans cannot compete with cheap third world labor, I don't care what you fantasize. Multinationals can employ 47 Chinese for one american, we cannot work that smart, fact is all labor intrensic manufacuting has been outsourced to Asia, we need tariffs.
@louiethegreater I'll stop giving you a list of things we sell to other nations when you quit falsely saying that America doesn't export anything to them. I've proven to you that we do in fact export many goods. And I'll stop telling you why we have trade deficits with nations when you stop asking me why. There are trade deficits beause American exports are sold worldwide, and Americans choose where to spend there money in different places. Do you only spend money in the town you earn income?
@bryce2197 I didn't say we don't export, I said we have a massive trade deficit, which translates massive job loss. Excuse me, but you did not prove anything except you have the ability to walk through the store and stay oblivious of who is making the products you buy. How could you possible believe we make things when it is obvious we import everything we consume. Here I will go so far as to give you some things to look at, Clothes, TVs, Computers, VCRs, lighting, plastic products, toys, on,on
@louiethegreater See you don't understand the point to this discussion. Its not about how many things at WalMart you see American made. And it is MUCH than you think. Low cost consumer products are not the only thing America manufacures. America manufactures and exports high tech goods equal in dollars to the amount it imports. If this was untrue and we would see declining incomes and higher unemployment in the last 20 years. We havn't see a rise in unemployment and incomes have grown.
@bryce2197 We have seen declining incomes and higher unemployment in the last 20 years. What world do you live in. Forty thousand factories outsourced from 2001 untill 2008. How could you possibly believe that would not create unemployment, 2.3 million jobs lost in the same period to China alone. That doesn't even include the race south during the NAFTA years. Heres what happened, Silicone valley produced same high paying jobs that is being filled by H1B visas, you flaunt those jobs.
@louiethegreater That fact is despite the loss of many many factory jobs the gains in job growth since free trade have more than been sufficient to keep up with the needs of the American work force. The unemployment numbers you speak of with out any actual data just don't match up to this sob story. Incomes are rising as I have proven to you at every turn with actual data. And unemployment hasn't risen. Why do you keep saying untrue things?
@bryce2197 I am not fudging the information you are. You mean 40,000 factories have not been outsouced, you mean unemployment is not 20% you mean americans are not being ask to compete with .20/hr. third world labor. You mean 8 million jobs have not been lost since the 90s. None of this is false information it is all produced by the people who stands against globalizaion, and neo-liberal policies coming out of washington. You have been hoodwinked by the plutocracy.
@louiethegreater Look I've never said that alot of factories haven't left America. Its sad, its emotional, but the net gain in jobs through more high tech exports is larger. I've never said unemployment is not high because of this recession. Thats really an unrelated issue. You're problem is you've not talked about the millions more jobs that have been created since the early 90s. I've not denied low skilled jobs left America, and I'm not a billionaire corporatist, most of all I'm not liberal.
@bryce2197 What high tech jobs, where do you get that, we have not gained jobs, we have lost jobs, especially for those who need them the most. You miss the point that the people who prefirmed these low tech jobs, are not filling the high tech jobs. These folks are simply filling the welfare rolls. The high tech jobs are being filled by H1B visas. Silicone Valley has immigrated 700,000 Chinese and Indians to fill these jobs. Most factory jobs are low skilled, or at the least moderatly skilled.
@bryce2197 The U.S. will not dominate for long. The wonderful traitorous CEOs of Catapillar will abondon the country at first notice of loosing market shares. Don't be decieved, I told you before, they can hire 47 chinese for one american, they have begun outsourcing certain elemient of their production, the same way GM, Ford, and Chrysler did in the 60s. When american auto makers had to compete with state subsidized Japanese Companys, while they were protected by 50% tariffs on american cars.
@louiethegreater As far as Catapillar type industries, look at the last 30 years. We've been trading freely with Japan and Korea. Both nation had cheap labor. Both, just like us now produce similar high tech CAT like products. Did all of those jobs pack up from America and leave for there. No. My dad actually works for a high tech Japanese ownd Turbocharger manufacturer that setup a plant in America. Just another example of the fact free trade results in more US jobs in the high tech industries.
@bryce2197 Japan and Korea both protect their markets, they actually care about their citizens. Japan and Korea's economies were built on american labors backs. You probably are much to young to know that. Our electronic industry thrived in the 50, and 60 but they were given Japan who had 50% tariffs on ameican made products. They built their economies on protectionism, and so did the U.S. untill neo-liberal policies invaded washington. Globalization, riding on the back of free trade.
@bryce2197 American workers loose, the trade deficit proves that. Twenty percent unemployment proves that. American labor cannot compete with cheap third world labor. We need to reindustrialize the country. My statement are not over blown they are completely accurate.
@louiethegreater The trade deficit is explained. Americans borrow extra to pay for extra Chinese goods. It is not a trillion dollars in trade deficit anyway its much smaller. You must see past the mere trade deficit number between just China and the US. On the International level including all countries it is balanced. Think of it this way instead of just the US and China. US exports 100B and Imports 100B. Credit makes up part of that Equation that you don't see in the trade deficit numbers.
@bryce2197 Americans borrowing has nothing to do with the trade deficit. The deficit is caused by multinationals creating the race to the bottom. The bottom means the bottom wages of Asian peasant labor. We have been deindustrialized of labor intrensic manufacturing. That creates massive unemployment, and massive government dependency. We need to make things to pay our way in the world, we cannot survive as a sovereign nation without reindustializing the country, and providing jobs for citizens.
@louiethegreater Yes Americans borrowing does have everything to do with trade deficits. You can't buy goods from overseas without money. Why do you think the Chinese own alot of our debt. America is an extremely attractive place to invest. Trade deficits are not a sign of a drag on our economy its a result of large growth. You have it so backwards, if you were to set a worlwide wage you wouldn't make Asians and Americans better. You'll just leave Asians unemployed and Americans with less goods.
@bryce2197 Are you saying that our trade deficit is the result of our large growth. Are you advocating global wages, Asia more Americans less is that what you mean. The U.S. protected our economy with tariffs or the threat of tariffs since her inseption. When Free trade was introduced and washington was infiltrated with neo-liberal policies, dedicated toward globalization that is when tariffs were removed and the WTO was given controll of our economy. Smoot-Hawley did not prolong the depression.
@louiethegreater Yes I am saying that our trade deficit is a result of our large growth. Unemployment drops more and believe it or not American manufaturing hires more workers in years the trade deficit rises. Its a result of Large consumer confidence and intenational investment in the U.S. No I'm not advocating global wages, it sounded like you were. Absolutely not would I want less for America and more Asia. Yes Smoot-Hawley did make the depression worse. Its not even debatedable that it did.
@bryce2197 You said believe it or not, well thanks for the choice, but I do not believe it. Our trade deficit, says we are buying more than we are selling. The reason we buy more imports is because we have no choice. We do not manufacture the products needed to sustain our lives. All labor intrensic manufacturing has been exported to asian cheap labor.
Smoot-Hawley had no effect on the depression at all, the fed not issueing cash to cover the runs, sustained the depression. Try no TARP ok.
@louiethegreater You are correct that it was federal reserve to caused the depression and made it as bad as it was. After Smoot-Hawley international trade delined by 66%. American exports declined 21%. International Trade was shutdown. I'm saying it is undeniably true trade barriers didn't "Reindustrialize" America. It won't happen if you do it now either. The reason we buy more exports than imports is because the market WANTS cheaper good and has available credit to buy extra. Its a good thing!
@bryce2197 That is on proof that Smoot-Hawley cause the decline in exports, or international trade, that would have happed anyhow, simply because of the global ramifications of the collapsed economy.
You are living a fantasy, it you believe ameicans want foreign goods, they buy them because they have no choice. listen; all you have to do is go the the store and look around, that should be proof enough. Don't tell me you can find american made products, you cannot.
@louiethegreater I do regularly look at products I buy and their origin. You do find alot of american made products, I'm not making this up. Yes I can say that Smoot-Hawley was in a part of the reason for the depression I've read several articles on it that show adjusted for declining aggregrate demand real GDP decline was 21% part of fall in GDP. I'm not saying Americans prefer buying foreign goods, I myself only buy American cars. I'm saying they obviously don't care enough to stop buying them
@bryce2197 You make a mistake, Americans have no choice but to buy them. We do not make the products we consume. You pick out a few of the rarities one would find in the store on occasion, and justify deindustrializing the country , and abondoning the workers who earned a living in manufacturining, to a life of public assistance. One in five americans are unemployed and will not be going back to work. These government created infrastructure jobs only drives the debt to unsustainable levels.
@louiethegreater Its not a mistake, Americans have had choices in the past to buy American only, clearly they chose. We don't make socks and t-shirts because America is no longer a labor intensive economy, we're capital intensive. You just don't understand that it doesn't matter and we are better off not making everything we buy. We export hightech goods and import low skilled goods. If you think the American consumer was richer in the 70's then they are today why are incomes higher today?
@bryce2197 Incomes are highter for fewer people. When you export manufacturing, all the people who once fed their families working on assmbley lines, are now on government assistance. I believe what you are saying is that capital is doing quite well, but if you happen to be one of the folks who made light bulbs for a living you are just forever on the government dole. Finally you admit we are deindustialized, and american do not have a choice in consumer goods. Go to walmart check out U.S. made
@louiethegreater Incomes are not higher for fewer people. They are higher across the board and have risen substantially from around $10,000 real income in 1980 to today of about $35,000 real income. And that is the Median household income. You keep obsessively talking about what is known as structural unemploymen, it has not plagued our economy as you claim. Unemployment has been very low the last two decades. You just keep talking about stuff that is not true.
@bryce2197 Single family incomes have dropped $700.00 from a generation ago. Family incomes have risen because in the 70s moms went into the workforce. That is the increase you are talking about. Real living cost has consumed much more than any raise in income. Plus all those manufacturing jobs that have been outsorced are not on the unemployment rolls now, they are on public assistance. So pleas spare me the con job of the employment rolls, acturally we have 20% unemployment, and massive welf
@louiethegreater No you are incorrect, I took the time to research this just for you. According to burea of labor statistics the data for single mother houshold income has risen from $13529 in year 2000 to $17948 in Oct 2010. And as far as the rise in income both married housholds, women going into the labor force has no doubt increased family income substantially, but both incomes have been rising. The labor force has been growing not shrinking in the last 20 years with average 5% unemployment.
@bryce2197 Did you watch the Elizabeth Warren video. I don't know how the DOL manages to fudge the figures to the degree you support, but Elizabeth Warren Video so no support the DOLs data. You are award that the DOL has been cited several times for fudging the data to make the numbers come out on favor of the administation. I can not find the numbers you post, can you tell me which catagory you found them in. Regardless of where you found them they are wrong. Elizabeth is much more reliable
@louiethegreater You know if you are just gong to reduce this discussion to calling the DOL a bunch of number smudgers then its not really worth talking to you. If you have contradicting data I'll look at it. No I didnt watch the Video because your link was incorrect. Send it to me again I'll be glad to watch it.
@bryce2197 I would like to know where on the DOL webpage you found those rediculious figures. Could you show me where you found them. I cannot find anything that come close to them. All I can find is that 3 in 5 single paycheck families have gone below the poverty line. I do not care if you continue this conversation or not. Actually if you have nothing but DOL statistics than you actually have nothing to add to the convesation. The DOL fudges the information the publish. You should know that.
@louiethegreater Fine call them liars I don't care. I'm not going continuously argue with you over what you think over what the facts are. And if adding Statistics to a conversation about an economic issue is adding nothing to this conversation then you are a senseless debater. As far as that 3 out of 5 paychecks, I believe the poverty line is drawn rediculously too high by people like you. On the BLS website go to databases and you'll see several selections. Choose "On screen data search"
@bryce2197 I have been to the BLS webpage the informaton you posted is not on there. Are you sure you are not pulling my leg. Did you watch the Elizabeth Warren Video.
"Mr Brown knows" lol
schmoukiz 1 week ago
$5 a month!!!
Moionfire 2 months ago in playlist More videos from LibertyPen
welfare & crime is a symptom of capitalism
mba2ceo 5 months ago
@mba2ceo you are an idiot. welfare is a form of socialism, a perversion of capitalism. criminal activity, which involves the violation of someone else's rights is independent of any economic system. it simply indicates a lack of basic morality.
fzqlcs 5 months ago
@fzqlcs my morality is take from the rich give to the poor. See we have an impasse ... who's morality is right.
mba2ceo 5 months ago
@mba2ceo redistribution of wealth is the morality of every thief. thanks for identifying yourself.
fzqlcs 5 months ago
@mba2ceo If u really cared and where moral it would be "make yourself rich and give to the poor"
seeqr9 5 months ago
@seeqr9 ... that is 100 % my dream in life, if I ever become wealthy, is to create a "Boy's & Girl's Town" were all the underprivileged children can be educate to serve humanity ... but we all have dreams. I think wealth is wasted on the RICH. I think the greatest hindrance to human prosperity is human stupidity. But as I get older I losing faith in humanity.
mba2ceo 5 months ago
@mba2ceo I have similar dreams hopwever I would teach the children that "humanity" and "society" r not a single thing to b served but are a collection of individuals. Individuals educated to b wise and logical will prosper and need to b "served" very little thus enabling them to serve those truly in need. Voluntarily of course. This would help the maximum amount of individuals even if it didnt look as warm n fuzy as "sacrificing" all u have for others or as "heroic" as steal from "the rich" etc
seeqr9 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mba2ceo "the greatest hindrance to human prosperity is human stupidity."
Included in a comment along with...
"wealth is wasted on the RICH" & " I losing faith in humanity"
=
fail.
daPlumber702 5 months ago
@fzqlcs "it simply indicates a lack of basic morality." ...or excessive regulations/"laws", also symptoms of socialism and lack of true free market.
seeqr9 5 months ago
It is no longer called Health Education and Welfare, HEW, It is now Heath Human Services,HHS. This video might be from the late 1970s of early 1980s. Blame horrendous policies by US elected officials especially the federal to include the president. Outsourcing is the result that has positive aspects, but overall is dividing Americans.
lamourlupus 5 months ago
Capitalism is ending.
eatcarpet 5 months ago
Comment removed
riverlioness 5 months ago
Go to 3:30 and you get your answer to the current dilemma to black families. Black men don't get welfare. Black women get daycare, child support, welfare, 4k+ cash from EIC, more food stamps than they could possibly use, better housing than they can afford, job training and job assistance and all they have to do is kick out that negro who's working at a gas station in order to get it. Get pregnant then kick your man out, rinse and repeat, it's the new black woman's career.
Kandimann 6 months ago
@Kandimann Another low life cracker no doubt!!! Welfare was alright when white trash got it and used food stamps to by cocaine! Welfare was a perk of being white and was part of the new deal, You would know that if you did anything other than be white. Maybe you should read what your own white scholars have ot say about welfare and its origin. "WHEN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS WHITE" Ira Katznelson. Get it and read for a fucking change!
REASONINFUSION 6 months ago
This is so true... You got to live in a country with widespread socialism to actually understand this. In my country I've seen more than enough absurd situations that were caused because of the welfare system.
It actually got to a degree that we have a whole population of unproductive people that live from the normal people's taxes, they don't work and raise whole generations of more people like them. There is no other way of describing it...
AlexNOSAM 7 months ago
remember, the minimum wage permanently keeps a certain percentage of the potential workforce from ever entering the job market
in california, for example, the minimun wage is 8 dollars
therefore, i am unable to hire somebody to come into my small business and do some light work for, say, $5----> then develop some skills that would make his work worth $10, say with some new added responsibilities as well as the original job ($5) requirements
2dum2getsocialism 8 months ago 14
@2dum2getsocialism That is such a lie. The minimum wage does not prevent you from hiring them, it protects the citizens through enabling any employer to grossly exploit them by paying measley sums for income. It helps the economy too by keeping them out of poverty, and thus can spend, generating futher jobs, and further prosperity
Kunguskang 8 months ago
@Kunguskang sure it does; i cant hire somebody to come in and do light work in my shop for $5
once he gets good (reliable, follows directions,etc) ill give him more responsibility and pay him $10 an hour when he gets more skills
an arbitrary minimum wage inhibits me from ever hiring those people-- the very ones who the minimum wage is supposed to help (what a surprise)
btw: charity does not promote prosperity; get out of neverland mr daydreamer
2dum2getsocialism 8 months ago 2
@2dum2getsocialism Where do you morons come from??? The minumum wage is to keep up with the cost of living which it does not ever. Paying people less than they need to survive would not lesson the need for welfare and that is not at all hard to see. Just say you are so involved in making a profit, you would like to increase it by paying your help less!
REASONINFUSION 6 months ago
@REASONINFUSION Anyone skilled in using the tools of reason would immediately recognize the result of wages without increasing productivity.
Such a person would also inquire as to why the cost of living goes up even though productivity goes up, rather than mindlessly accepting it as a fact of life.
jeffiek 6 months ago
@jeffiek Anyone challenging someone skilled in using the tools of reason should know the freezing of wages has more to do with retaining a profit margin than the cost to produce. Capitalism is not a moral system that is concerned with paying any wage beyond that which keeps labor loyal. if you got your nose out of your 50 year old micro economics text book and into the real world, you would know that.
REASONINFUSION 6 months ago
@REASONINFUSION Clearly, you are skilled in the art of avoidance.
I made no mention of "freezing wages", I made no mention of "capitalism". You responded to things I did not mention.
You avoided any mention of the results of increasing wages without increasing productivity and the ever increasing cost of living.
Keep it up, in a few more years you may succeed in avoiding life in its entirety.
jeffiek 6 months ago
@jeffiek Are you saying wages are low and have not kept up with the cost of products because of low productivity? I am too busy to play games so I need a means of proving you have no idea of what you are talking about.
REASONINFUSION 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@REASONINFUSION Ooops. Typo. The original post should read:
Anyone skilled in using the tools of reason would immediately recognize the result of RAISING wages without increasing productivity.
jeffiek 6 months ago
@Kunguskang But it does prevent the same number of people from getting jobs. This does not apply in the situation which you remarked upon, but what a minimum wage does do is give less people higher paying jobs, instead of more people lower paying jobs
DTfan5191 7 months ago
@2dum2getsocialism Unlimited greed has struck the employers who were raised to think that labor isn't important. If it were up to them, there would be NO LABOR save a few guys to maintain and feed supplies to the machines that do all the work. In the year 2000, some thought they could get one guy to do three people's work and lay off two people to maximize profit. They forgot all the employees and their labor that made them rich. We are seeing the downfall of capitalism that Marx predicted.
azmildman 5 months ago
The church wants third world countries full of starving people, that is why the pope won't allow contraception. They make money from despair. So does the Federal Reserve and they control the minimum wage. The Fed's whole job is to make the poor poorer and the rich richer. They profit from both. If the whole U.S. wasn't over populated with illegal aliens, refugees, and stupid people who have more children than they can feed, we would all have jobs and money.
azmildman 5 months ago
@azmildman I do not really think the church want third world counties. after all the church support education.
spark300c 5 days ago
People can't live on minimum wage as it is, but you think spending his life working for you is an education? He knew how to work before you and will work after you. If you gave him the responsibility to begin with, you are going to experience good and bad employees, the cost of doing business. But you think you shouldn't have an over head like everyone else. That is what is ruining the job market. We don't live in the fifties anymore when people could buy land and a house for 15 to 19,000
azmildman 5 months ago
Watch the movie "A Christmas Carol" with the lead role, Scrooge and see the end over again. The part where he tells Bob Cratchet that he wants to start helping take care of his family. That was America in the fifites. That loyalty died LONG AGO. Don't talk to me about what an employer deserves. He can only get what the people who do the work do for him in business. American corporations need to remember that. They sent all the Jobs over seas but want American workers to buy their products.
azmildman 5 months ago
@2dum2getsocialism, many will find legal ways to keep payroll as close to the minimum! Some owners want to eliminate the minimum wage and lower the working age. The US has a legally documented and researched history of abuse of employees by business owners and their management. Business owners,politicians,and unions have questionable histories. America needs businesses and labor to cooperate instead of being antagonistic.
lamourlupus 5 months ago
@2dum2getsocialism Yea, I cant even find a goddamn job because of the minimum wage here in Canada, and altough I surely would have loved to get paid 9,65$/hour, I dont give a damn since I can`t get one. The lucky ones that got a job are being spoiled.
TheMarksmenCat 4 months ago
@2dum2getsocialism A point of fact lost on way too many, most of which approve of the minimum wage.
gdbalck 2 months ago in playlist Cnoservatism
I felt awful for this guy in Harlem when I first saw this. The system sucks, and it's barely changed in 30 years.
jrsub3 8 months ago in playlist Milton Friedman - Power of the Market
At 3:44 exactly correct, the system is //designed// to break up every family.
This video does not even begin to address the 52 MILLION abortions performed since Roe v. Wade under economic deprivation with government payouts, a slaughter of what would have been 1/7 of the entire American population.
centurion180ad 9 months ago
his point of that he will automatically get a job if his social welfare was cut some how doesn't seem realistic. I live in Ireland and there r so many people emigrating now because they can't get a job...any job regardless of whether it doesn't have the incentive of earning much more money than the welfare. Yet, if you did cut the welfare and the family still cant get a job..what are they supposed to do...resort to crime...or starve to death.
gucylucy24 10 months ago
@gucylucy24
No, the person who recently had his welfare cut, would be incentivized to either seek employment or start his own services. If he couldn't find a job -- which is unlikely in an Ireland with a free market -- he would run a road side food stall (without having to get a permit) from borrowed resources from relatives and his own resources and skills; or offer to mow his neighbors' lawns; rely on charities, relatives, until he can figure out a similar way.
LogicalFlawDetector 9 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector That would be the incentive, but if you TRY that in America you'll be arrested and all your capital will be stolen by the government. There are Acts/Statute/Code color-of-law that FORBID selfreliance, or charity that allows people to provide their own means of income.
centurion180ad 9 months ago
@gucylucy24
You are gonna be shocked to hear this, but if you remove the minimum wage, involuntary unemployment would disappear overnight.
They might be living off fuck all, but if you are in the system. You can climb the system. It beats sitting on welfare.
mooeythemooseman 8 months ago 11
@mooeythemooseman Climb the system? Is that another Cato Institute motto? The system doesn't exist except in the minds of propagandists and unemployment isn't like a ladder. You get a set wage, period. Do you live off of fuck all? What the fuck does that mean? You aren't making sense just typing nonsense. Did you think you had a point or are you just mad because your party fucked up the economy? Quit being an internet troll. Learn about the actual means of economy.
azmildman 5 months ago
@azmildman What's nonsense is the the idea that you can assign blame for the current financial crisis to a particular administration when it is clearly the result of a perfect storm effect--converging interdependent forces and distortions built up over a significant period of time (5 years plus). Get over yourself and your pathetically and inarticulate generalizations.
eorobinson3 5 months ago
@azmildman pathetic* :-)
eorobinson3 5 months ago
Respond to this video...Learn about the actual means of economy? A. What does that even mean in the context you never provided? B. If you had studied economics you would not made such simpleton statement.
eorobinson3 5 months ago
@eorobinson3 s* excuse me I am a bit drunk.
eorobinson3 5 months ago
@eorobinson3 have made* well those goes my credibility
eorobinson3 5 months ago
@mooeythemooseman Milton Friedman's idea is based on the assumption that the people know what's best for them and what they are entitled too. The truth is, those in power will take advantage of the people and only give them just enough to get away with so that there is no revolt, and keep the majority of production for themselves. This is why we have unions, they are a function of the market, contrary to what Friedman believes. They function to inform people that they are being taken advantageof
dwightbe 3 months ago
@mooeythemooseman Not true, if someone feels like they are better off on welfare then they are working then they will stay on it. As he mentioned in the video, support should be removed slowly. This will allow people to enter temporary work without the fear of being cut off completely. Also if you remove the support slowly it will give people the support they may still need while working in low payed jobs.
cozmoz365 2 months ago
@gucylucy24 well be happy that you do not live in Greece where whole country went over board with welfare and is going default. however Ireland is welfare state it has high risk of get too much debt too. U.S.A it is the same. every one in government refuse to cap spending and do not report welfare spending.
spark300c 5 days ago
@loeghat it's a matter of principle. If I'm a hard working citizen, why should I pay for someone who doesn't want to earn their own money? on a truly free market, there will be some poverty, yes, but also a lot more productivity from the people who actually work. the most powerful economies in the world (hong kong is a great example) are the ones with less welfare and lower taxes, but strong anti fraud rules
Chaaarge 11 months ago
@Chaaarge you have this illusion that unemployment is a choice. in a true free market there will be more productivity from the people who work? why, because they earn more money? already proven false...
Darusdei 11 months ago
@Darusdei not because they will earn more money, but because they will actually have to fight to get something. So it's about allowing people to strive to get more money, not actually making them earn more money. Look at the world, the countries with the most productivity are not socialist nations. Free markets will create a higher GDP. That's pretty much proven if you just compare socialist/communist(except for china which is still a free market in a way) nations with free market nations
Chaaarge 11 months ago 2
@Chaaarge there are no socialist or communist countries, those which claim that are all totalitarian dictatorships
Darusdei 11 months ago
@Chaaarge China doesn't have a free market. They have state controlled capitalism, coupled with government corruption. However, I agree with your point that free markets promote economic growth. Hence, the higher GDP.
papertiger7 10 months ago
friedmans main flaw seems to be the thinking that through free market both sides gain, even if they just seek their own profit. as proven over and over again, this win win situation doesnt exist in most places.without government regulation you will get fucked in the ass really really bad...
armatus99 11 months ago
Friedman's point is that throughout history, the only systems in which the poor have been able to escape crushing poverty has been under free market systems. The "Government regulations" are, by definition, immoral-- since they compel individuals to do something they may not be willing to do.
Government is comprised of people. The same people that you so distrust to be charitable and help take care of their friends and neighbors are the ones that comprise the government.
georgop39 11 months ago
@georgop39
the difference is that these'people' who comprised of the government have the power to take from one another.
the nazi party were also made up of people ..... so is their anything wrong with the nazi party?
YESobamaCANfuckupUSA 11 months ago
This guy is really, really scary. I'm happy the recent near-breakdown of the financial system proved so many points wrong he makes.
unvergebeneid 1 year ago
@unvergebeneid Ha, actually, it proved almost his every word true. The only thing he got wrong, is he was a minarchist. He believed that "little" government could be managable. It isnt.
PeterTheEvilBastard 1 year ago
@unvergebeneid PH33R DAH MARKUT!
I mean really; 'This guy is really, really scary.'
When did we stop respecting people's opinion in favor of dismissing them for no apparent reason? This is an opinion (one which I agree with (largely), but that's besides the point), an idea that holds appeal to many people. Respect their opinions and please don't fear that which you don't understand.
uninterestingentity 1 year ago
@uninterestingentity I respect his opinion; I just find the implications scary. Would you please respect that by your own line of argument, instead of presuming that I just don't understand the matter?
unvergebeneid 10 months ago
or he could've lived in Canada and gotten universal healthcare and still worked as an orderly
the problem in this example isn't welfare, but the fact that his medical insurance company discriminates based on income levels, no different than private insurance companies discriminating based on pre-existing conditions.
warwize 1 year ago
this man is a fuckin jeanyyyusss!!!!
mutantofnature 1 year ago
Good to see a black family in tact in this video. If we had more of that in this country, rather than see the black race disintegrate, we would see the problems in the black community disintegrate.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
What about the people who can't work due to injuries for example? How would they make a living in the society which Milton Friedman would like to see?
Paddis92 1 year ago
@Paddis92 Charity, first and foremost, which would be under a free system much more efficient, would be there to care for such people. Charity would be more efficient because it would be relying on the donations of others to survive as such like a business they would have to produce results, results, that governments are not bound to produce.
That is of course assuming they don't have family to take care of them who would be earning more and thus be more capable of helping said person.
Canadadude125 1 year ago
@Canadadude125 Furthermore, that this injured person would be so injured that he couldn't find any job, perhaps I'm being optimistic but there are jobs that people with disabilities can do with the same efficiency as the able.
Canadadude125 1 year ago
@Canadadude125 If there are no jobs for able bodied people, how could there be jobs for disabled people. We have 1 in 5 able bodied people unemployed, would employers employ a disabled person, before they would an able bodied person. How can the working poor help anyone, half the country does not pay taxes now, that is because they do not earn enough to meet the qualification to pay taxes. Freidman just speaks on behalf of his multinational friends who sponsers him.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater
What the government would not take in taxes could be spent on goods and services. The need for this would create jobs.
But from the last sentence of your comment, I doubt any kind of debate would sway your opinion, so I'm probably wasting my time.
jbuckaroo82 1 year ago
@jbuckaroo82 You cannot deny the Hoover Institute, is Corporate funded. If that is not corporate funding: what is?
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater
Fair enough. Let's assume that he is corporately funded. However, any and every system will have corporations. In the case of socialism, the corporation is the state. I would prefer to have a discussion with an outcome based on logical argument rather than on visceral reactions. Please respond to the first part of my post.
jbuckaroo82 1 year ago
@jbuckaroo82 First I must ask you, in what socialist state is the government the corporation?
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater ? In all countries where there is government-owned industry, the government is 'the corporation'; they are not 'a' corporation, but it is a euphemism that means the government incorporates that particular industry's profits and shortfalls within its budget. 'Corporation' is just a euphemism for state-owned industry, I should think it fairly plain to see.
UnOxonien 1 year ago
@UnOxonien But could you give me a state where the government is the corporation. Would the USPS be a government owned corporation, insomush as it competes, with Fedex, and UPS.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater Certainly, but perhaps the USPS isn't the best example because it has quite a lot of autonomy, I think. All industry in the USSR was state-owned. British Telecom, National Rail, British Airways &c. were all instances of government literally being 'the corporation' until they were incrementally privatised by Thatcher's government. When governments bought shares of failing banks using tax money in the recession, that is another instance. This is all socialism in varying degrees.
UnOxonien 1 year ago
@UnOxonien So we here in the U.S. has been a very successful, economy, as shining light to the world as a mixed economy. So what motive would be present with the sudden push to privatize our infrastructure.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater In fact not; the US has been a shining example of how well privatisation works. Compared to European countries, America has *far fewer* government-owned services and companies, and lower taxes. The USPS stands alone as a big state corporation in the US; the UK has a completely socialised medical system (more than France even) and is very inefficient and cost ineffective, for example. I'm afraid your argument reflects the strengths of the free market, not of state-ownership.
UnOxonien 1 year ago
@UnOxonien Privatisation worked just fine in a pre 1970 environment where domestic manufacturing was, protected from multinationals manufacturing in the third world and shipping to the U.S. duty free. Domestic Industries cannot compete with cheap third world labor. Deindustrialization of the U.S. has been accomplished by the neo-liberal policies of globalizaion. Countries who have been brought into subjection of globalization, has been force to sacrafice their domestic industries for globalizato
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater On the contrary, international competition and globalisation is how you prevent monopolies from developing. Protectionism, as you have just described, is precisely the policy that worsens depressions - the market is global, and if you attempt to give your corner of that market unfair advantages, or a competitive edge, other countries will mirror you and everyone is worse off. Globalisation might be unpalatable, but it is not the reason for countries' poverty; it remedies that.
UnOxonien 1 year ago
@UnOxonien International competition could be defined as manufacturing in asia, and applying that .20/hr wage as downward pressure on global wages, and calling it efficiency. Less populated nations must apply protectionist strategies to their economies or they will end up like the US. Our unemployment in manufacturing has passed that of the great depression years. I heard CNN interview Henry Kessinger a couple of weeks ago, when ask about our alarming unemployment rates, reindustrialize the U.S
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater The answer is not for government to step in with protectionist strategies, that is how you *guarantee* that US industry will *fail*. If the US wants more domestic industry, its industry needs to make itself cost-effective! You can't 'protect' yourself from Asia. If you enorse protectionism, other countries will stop buying American goods, and your industries will be even worse. Protectionism never works in the long-run, and it certainly doesn't work in today's globalised market.
UnOxonien 1 year ago
@UnOxonien Our trade deficit is growing exponentially since free trade has become the economic buzz word for deindustrialization. I believe the U.S. industries have already failed, at least here in Ohio, literally every large multinational corporation has left the state.The U. S. always protected domestic industries from cheap third world labor, up untill the 1970 protectectionism was working well for us. We have went south when free trade and neo-libralism became the strategies out of Washingto
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@UnOxonien Protectionism worked for 200 years, how do you figure it never worked. Labor Unions built he American Middleclass, and Industry became very rich and prosperous in the process. Yes we can protect ourselves from Asia, simply by implementing the attitude: if you make it in Asia sell it in Asia. If these multinational corporations who no longer want to be called ameican, and want to manufacture in Asia, they sould sell in Asian markets in order to help the asian people. That makes sense!
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater I think you're putting post-WW2 American economic success down to factors that don't deserve the credit. Before the 1970s, there was far less capacity for developing industrial economies to compete with America! You didn't have to have protectionism. If you want to protect American industries from competition, then the short-sightedness of this policy will be proved when other countries turn to Europe, China, Japan, and India for things that America currently supplies.
UnOxonien 1 year ago
Comment removed
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@UnOxonien Before the 1970 there were was not the, ferver for globalizaiton either. We actually protected american workers from cheap foreign peasant labor. I am not against competion, Asia is free to compete with Asia. If a multinational wants to manufacture in China, why not create products that the chinses can afford to buy, why products for export. Answer: the big bang for the buck is in using peasant labor, and shipping the products to the U.S. or W.Europe has nothing to do with efficiency.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater What you need is for American businesses to level with their international competitors, seek more efficient production strategies and more successful international and domestic sales strategies - if American businesses are *not as good* (cost and/or quality) as others, then it only hurts the American consumer by limiting him to the domestic market. The only way you get rid of monopolies and bad companies that waste taxpayer money with frivolous investment is competition.
UnOxonien 1 year ago
@UnOxonien You mean efficiency in Asia is greater than efficiency in the US, I don't think so. The difference in the bottom line is wages, now should americns work for .20/hr like the Chinese do, or would you prefure a global wage.
The ameican consumer is not damaged by domestic industries, americns in general are damaged by wage slave manufactured imports, and the deindustrializaton of the country. By bad companys do you mean companys that actually pay living wages?
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@UnOxonien The US has a half a trillion trade deficit, do we really have to worry about our exports, I don't believe the world is buying them anyway. One thing I do know, they sure love our retail markets, and the oursurcing philosophy of Walmart. Tariffs is the soultion to saving our domestic industries, or the U.S. must become the third world. I assure you giving all the industry to asia will not improve the welfare of the common asian people, they will remain a peasant class.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater 3 words: The New Deal. Read up on how successful it actually is. :D
crossxlui 1 year ago
@crossxlui The new deal, don't get your drift. The new deal is to deindustrialize the U.S. and get her ready for the NAU (North Ameican Union) after the EU model. The American middleclass must be destroyed. Is that the new deal you are talkin about.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
Friedman's statements remind me of some of PT Barnum's quotes.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
This man was so smart!
TylerHinds 1 year ago
I haven't seen a lot of power in the market for working americans. Just what power is Friedman refuring to.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater as a minority woman from a blue collar family, the power of the market is doing what I did, pay my way through college, working two jobs for ten years, and buying a house. I sold it 10 years later and doubled my money. It's called sacrifice and hard work. No one owes me anything, and I don't have my hand in anyone else's pocket.
esp0661 1 year ago
@esp0661 The very entity you are praising is the very reason you are blue collar. Have you ever thought about why you are a blue collar family. Here it is, listen real close:::::: You are a chicken rooting for colonal sanders.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater Dear, I am no longer blue collar. The reason why my mother was, because she dropped out of HS and had two kids before the age of 21. I have done splendidly by anyone's standards.
esp0661 1 year ago
@esp0661 In ten years the value of your house doubled without any effort of hard work on your part. Many others homes doubled in price, through no effort on their part. Mine doubled, but it wasn,t from some great ecomonic plan on my part. The disonest, deregulated housing market caused the bubble. Your mom could have landed a job paying $15.00 and hour in her day, now you are a college graduate what does your job pay? H1B visas are filling the high tech jobs at half the wage paid, before neo
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater You have jumped to one inaccurate conclusion after another about me, and my background, and have been wrong every time.My house value doubled because I renovated it completely with my own hands.That house has lost ZERO value in this market (I am a realtor now and I check) while my current home has lost nearly 200K. I am not worried, because I am renovating this house as well. Don't worry about me, Louie. I will be just fine, I don't rely on Obama's hopey changey thing.
esp0661 1 year ago
@esp0661 I don't rely on Obama either, I voted for Chuck Baldwin, Constitutional Party. I don't take the word of a sponsered professonal speaker like Mr Friedman. either. Your mother was in a better position as a high school drop out, as you are wiith a college degree. When she entered the work force the country had 5 million more jobs in manufactureing to apply for. She could have earned $200,000.00 by the time you got through college. That opportunity was taken from you by the very people yo
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater what year are you talking about the manufacturing jobs?
Bloodsport1 1 year ago
@Bloodsport1 From 2001 - 2008 we lost 2.3 million jobs to China alone. There has been 40,000 factories outsourced since the 1970s.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater Thank God your antiquated ideas about jobs did not win the day 200 years ago. Imagine your logic used on agriculture. These machines are taking the jobs of farmers! This will lead to hundreds of thousands unemployed! The reality is that the market will create new jobs. And as far as I am lucky enough to have a job, not true. I am actually underemployed right now. I was laid off. But now I pick myself up. Good thing that I haven't fallen for the class envy path that you have.
th3gr8juan 1 year ago
@th3gr8juan I believe you are the chicken rooting for colonel sanders. If you are unemployed now your will not be employed anytime soon, at least not a living wage job. I really don't see how you could confuse my comment as a rejection of innovation, and technical advancement.
At least allow me to make it clear to you, I reject globalization, and neo- liberal policies, not technology and automation.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater Let me make this perfectly clear for you. Throwing out stupid one liners and claiming that everyone that disagrees with you as "brainwashed" and "hoodwinked" does not win an argument. You haven't even thrown out any facts as to how the loss of manufacturing jobs leads to decrease in pay. You remind me of the liberal of the 80's who told us that America's best days were behind us. That the future was one of scarcity. To quote Reagan, I utterly reject that view. And he was right.
th3gr8juan 1 year ago
@th3gr8juan America's best days are behing her. You must be very young if you believe Regan helped america. I believe Reagan was a good man who, was tricked into believeing neo-liberal philosophy. Much the same a Woodrow Wilson wans with the Federal Reserve. Allow me to break the news to you America has gone downhill everysince the neo- liberals took over Washington in the late 60s. They were put in office by the two political parties, who are owned by the plutocracy, that is why nothing changes
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater htt p://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/The_new_deal
What you're proposing has already been tried and tested before: quotas, sanctions, tariffs, you name it. It prolonged the depression, creating double digit unemployment for a prolong period. The fallacy in your thinking is that someone must suffer in order for someone to gain. That's not always true. The third world and the US can mutually cooperate for mutual benefits.
crossxlui 1 year ago
@crossxlui Yes what I am proposing had been tried for 200 years, and had produced the greatest nation in history. Tariffs and quotas have been used to protect domestic industries since the country began. Every founding father was a protectionist. Tariffs did not cause the depression nor did Smoot- Hawley worsen it.
There is no fallacy in my thinking, sameone must suffer, for another to gain. That someone is the american worker who supported their families in manufacturing, multinationals won.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater The great deperssion was caused by an out of controll, Wall Street. That is the same thing that caused it this time. When Senatior Phil Gramm moved the congress to end the provision in Glass-Steagall to controll the merger of banks, investment housed, and insurance companys, that caused the creation of these giant unregulated industries to conn the world into buy toxic assets, that only they understood or prospered off their creation. Someone won and someone lost.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater You clearly have flawed logic and have too much theory jumbled up in your head lol. Do you really think that Asians are that "peasants" that you think they are? Have you ever traveled to Asia 10 years back and compared it to the current state? Bah, if you're not going to even bother checking facts out and believing in your flawed thinking, I guess I can't do much convincing lol. Good day.
crossxlui 1 year ago
@crossxlui My logic is as sound as the dollar was when it was applied to our economy. Yes those asians are the peasants I think they are. Just because the top 10% of asian investors are looking better, that doesn't mean the peasants are getting any of the new prosperity. Their prosperity is simply the redistribution of the american middleclasses wealth. The wealth of ameicans who earned a living in manufacturing has gone to the investment class of Asia. Take a hike.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater I actually agree, but you ruin your argument by the way you called people peasants. Makes you look like a cunt.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@crossxlui To much theory, what a laugh, the whole premise of your post is nothing but theory. Laissez-Faire free trade is a theory, Austrin economics is a theory. My posts are facts, all one would have to do is look around at the country, and to normal people it so obvious.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@louiethegreater "someone must suffer, for another to gain" - actually that's the fallacy in your thinking. Economics is not a zero sum game. Trade works only when both sides have something to gain. If I go to the shop to buy something, neither of us are worse off than we were before - if we were then the shopkeeper would not sell or I would not buy. We are not all fighting for a slice of the same pie. Trade allows us to make a bigger pie.
iansimcox 1 year ago
@iansimcox Would you consider manufacuring in one hemispher using cheap labor, and sending the product to another hemisphere to sell, trade. To put it another way if an ameican company moves to China and uses .20/hr. labor, than ships the products back to the U.S for sale, do you call that trade. Wouldn't that activity be considered a job killer, one company oursources, and all the rest have to follow to compete, thus the race to the bottom, that means the race ot the bottom of the pay scale.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@iansimcox Hey allow me to inform you, in order for the multinational corporations to earn 300% profits, than american workers in manufacturing must loose. That is not a fallacy that is a fact. Deindustrializing ameica has thrown 15 million workers out of a job since the 70s. They lost, multinational corporations gained, that is a fact not a fallacy.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater You sir are using highy overblown statements of the profit international companies make. 300%!! No corporation makes that unless they are temporarily the only one in the market selling that good, that wouldn't last long. You must understand that international trade is a balance sheet. America can only import lets say $100 B from China if we also export $100B in goods back. If we didn't trade with China at all both countries lose $100B to their consumers. NOBODY LOSES with trade.
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 Oh yes, that must explain our enormous trade deficit with china. Your exlanation is trade balance, you are being decietful. That must explain our trillion dollar trade deficit.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater The current high unemployment is not the result of free trade. Its the recession. Americans can and do compete well with the rest of the world. America is the leading exporter in High tech equipment in agriculture. If you think putting up trade barriers to will lower American unemployment you are sadly mistaken. Recall Smoot-Hawley act in the 1930s. Unemployment has been at a low rate of 4.5 to 5.5 the last 30 years with free trade, and American incomes have risen accordingly.
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 You mean you would want me to believe that 40,000 manufacturing facilities have been outsource and that didn't create unemployment. Have you walked through Walmart lately, I dare you to find american made products. Smoot-Hawley was passed 8 months after the crash of 1929. Passing that legislation was an attempt to fend off the massive unemployment. The depression was caused by the same unregulated activity as today, all the fed would have had to do was renew the banks cash reserves.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater I find alot of stuff at Wal-Mart that is American made. Nearly all food. I've never seen very many cosmetics and hygene products not American made. No 40,000 shoe factory jobs outsourced doens't, but increased Catapiller manufacturing, Dockworkers, trucking, agriculture, pharmecutical, electronic, healthcare, Oil, Refined Crude kind of jobs in the millions lowers unemployment. Trade isn't one sided. And Smoot-Hawley virtually halted internat trade, making the depression worse.
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 So Catapiller is one of the few companys still in the US. What about our Appliance, Ceramics, Auto, Auto Parts, Electronics, Machine Tools, Textiles, Plastics, steel, wood products, paper products, light bulbs, building materials, radio and t.v. Industries. I could go on and on. By the way I know we export corn, wheat, and soy beans, but 65% of the food we consume is imported, from Bushes trade agreement latin american countries.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater Yes, Yes, and yes many of those industries are still here. America is a very competitive maunfatcturer. Cars, electronics, auto parts, machine tools are very much made here. And no you are wrong on the amount of food improted, the USDA has it at about 12%. And the Latin American trade agreement has done nothing but bring us more money from exports and cheaper imports that can't be grown in the US like coffee and bannanas.
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 Coffee and Bananas, wow what a example, I beleive it is common knowledge that we always have imported some foodstuff, but wait: didn't we import these products without a outsorcing ageement. Why don't you go to the Walmart, and find me one of those electronic products made in the U.S. You won't because they arent there. If latin american trade agreements are bringing us more exports than why is our deficit growing so large.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater Yeah well you painted an obscure picture that America imports 65% of its food and you were wrong. And I used coffee and Bananas as examples of what gets made cheaper to us through free trade with latin America. Not only do we get cheaper goods and a more diverse market, so are they. We now sell to them agriulture, high tech machinery, etc with 0% tarrifs. As far as the trade deficits its the same as Asia, they reivest so much in the US it gives us even more money to buy more.
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 The only investment foreign nationals are making in the U.S. is buying up the country at bargain basement prices, because our economy is deflating, because of lack of manufacturing. The only thing we export to latin america is corn and soybeans. We do not sell latin america high tech machinery, because with the exception of catapiller we do not make any. However I just heard on the news China is starting production on their own line of agricultural equipment.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater Heres a list of top ten things we sell just to Brazil.Civilian aircraft and parts,Computer accessories, Organic chemicals, Plastic materials, Telecommunications equipment,Metallurgical grade coal,Oilfield equipment, Semiconductors,Pharmaceutical preparations, Chemical fertilizers. Most of which grew in sales even in 2009. And just because China is getting in the ag. equipment market means nothing, the Indians, Koreans, and Japanese have too for a long time but the US dominates
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 Look, You can quit giving me those list of yours, if we are selling Brazil so much why do we have a trade deficit with them. Besides that why do we want to destroy Brazils domestic industries, in the same way Asia has destroyed ours. Ameicans cannot compete with cheap third world labor, I don't care what you fantasize. Multinationals can employ 47 Chinese for one american, we cannot work that smart, fact is all labor intrensic manufacuting has been outsourced to Asia, we need tariffs.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater I'll stop giving you a list of things we sell to other nations when you quit falsely saying that America doesn't export anything to them. I've proven to you that we do in fact export many goods. And I'll stop telling you why we have trade deficits with nations when you stop asking me why. There are trade deficits beause American exports are sold worldwide, and Americans choose where to spend there money in different places. Do you only spend money in the town you earn income?
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 I didn't say we don't export, I said we have a massive trade deficit, which translates massive job loss. Excuse me, but you did not prove anything except you have the ability to walk through the store and stay oblivious of who is making the products you buy. How could you possible believe we make things when it is obvious we import everything we consume. Here I will go so far as to give you some things to look at, Clothes, TVs, Computers, VCRs, lighting, plastic products, toys, on,on
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater See you don't understand the point to this discussion. Its not about how many things at WalMart you see American made. And it is MUCH than you think. Low cost consumer products are not the only thing America manufacures. America manufactures and exports high tech goods equal in dollars to the amount it imports. If this was untrue and we would see declining incomes and higher unemployment in the last 20 years. We havn't see a rise in unemployment and incomes have grown.
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 We have seen declining incomes and higher unemployment in the last 20 years. What world do you live in. Forty thousand factories outsourced from 2001 untill 2008. How could you possibly believe that would not create unemployment, 2.3 million jobs lost in the same period to China alone. That doesn't even include the race south during the NAFTA years. Heres what happened, Silicone valley produced same high paying jobs that is being filled by H1B visas, you flaunt those jobs.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater That fact is despite the loss of many many factory jobs the gains in job growth since free trade have more than been sufficient to keep up with the needs of the American work force. The unemployment numbers you speak of with out any actual data just don't match up to this sob story. Incomes are rising as I have proven to you at every turn with actual data. And unemployment hasn't risen. Why do you keep saying untrue things?
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 I am not fudging the information you are. You mean 40,000 factories have not been outsouced, you mean unemployment is not 20% you mean americans are not being ask to compete with .20/hr. third world labor. You mean 8 million jobs have not been lost since the 90s. None of this is false information it is all produced by the people who stands against globalizaion, and neo-liberal policies coming out of washington. You have been hoodwinked by the plutocracy.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater Look I've never said that alot of factories haven't left America. Its sad, its emotional, but the net gain in jobs through more high tech exports is larger. I've never said unemployment is not high because of this recession. Thats really an unrelated issue. You're problem is you've not talked about the millions more jobs that have been created since the early 90s. I've not denied low skilled jobs left America, and I'm not a billionaire corporatist, most of all I'm not liberal.
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 What high tech jobs, where do you get that, we have not gained jobs, we have lost jobs, especially for those who need them the most. You miss the point that the people who prefirmed these low tech jobs, are not filling the high tech jobs. These folks are simply filling the welfare rolls. The high tech jobs are being filled by H1B visas. Silicone Valley has immigrated 700,000 Chinese and Indians to fill these jobs. Most factory jobs are low skilled, or at the least moderatly skilled.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@bryce2197 This is the title " The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class" If this link doesn't work will you just type the title in the youtube search.
akVL7QY0S8A&playnext=1&list=PL3E2FF0C57B8C0AEC&index=2
louiethegreater 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bryce2197 If you will watch this video it will educate you on the condition of the american middleclass.
v=akVL7QY0S8A
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@bryce2197 The Video is called ' The Coming Collapse of the Middleclass' by Elizabety Warren.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@bryce2197 The U.S. will not dominate for long. The wonderful traitorous CEOs of Catapillar will abondon the country at first notice of loosing market shares. Don't be decieved, I told you before, they can hire 47 chinese for one american, they have begun outsourcing certain elemient of their production, the same way GM, Ford, and Chrysler did in the 60s. When american auto makers had to compete with state subsidized Japanese Companys, while they were protected by 50% tariffs on american cars.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater As far as Catapillar type industries, look at the last 30 years. We've been trading freely with Japan and Korea. Both nation had cheap labor. Both, just like us now produce similar high tech CAT like products. Did all of those jobs pack up from America and leave for there. No. My dad actually works for a high tech Japanese ownd Turbocharger manufacturer that setup a plant in America. Just another example of the fact free trade results in more US jobs in the high tech industries.
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 Japan and Korea both protect their markets, they actually care about their citizens. Japan and Korea's economies were built on american labors backs. You probably are much to young to know that. Our electronic industry thrived in the 50, and 60 but they were given Japan who had 50% tariffs on ameican made products. They built their economies on protectionism, and so did the U.S. untill neo-liberal policies invaded washington. Globalization, riding on the back of free trade.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@bryce2197 American workers loose, the trade deficit proves that. Twenty percent unemployment proves that. American labor cannot compete with cheap third world labor. We need to reindustrialize the country. My statement are not over blown they are completely accurate.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater The trade deficit is explained. Americans borrow extra to pay for extra Chinese goods. It is not a trillion dollars in trade deficit anyway its much smaller. You must see past the mere trade deficit number between just China and the US. On the International level including all countries it is balanced. Think of it this way instead of just the US and China. US exports 100B and Imports 100B. Credit makes up part of that Equation that you don't see in the trade deficit numbers.
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 Americans borrowing has nothing to do with the trade deficit. The deficit is caused by multinationals creating the race to the bottom. The bottom means the bottom wages of Asian peasant labor. We have been deindustrialized of labor intrensic manufacturing. That creates massive unemployment, and massive government dependency. We need to make things to pay our way in the world, we cannot survive as a sovereign nation without reindustializing the country, and providing jobs for citizens.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater Yes Americans borrowing does have everything to do with trade deficits. You can't buy goods from overseas without money. Why do you think the Chinese own alot of our debt. America is an extremely attractive place to invest. Trade deficits are not a sign of a drag on our economy its a result of large growth. You have it so backwards, if you were to set a worlwide wage you wouldn't make Asians and Americans better. You'll just leave Asians unemployed and Americans with less goods.
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 Are you saying that our trade deficit is the result of our large growth. Are you advocating global wages, Asia more Americans less is that what you mean. The U.S. protected our economy with tariffs or the threat of tariffs since her inseption. When Free trade was introduced and washington was infiltrated with neo-liberal policies, dedicated toward globalization that is when tariffs were removed and the WTO was given controll of our economy. Smoot-Hawley did not prolong the depression.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater Yes I am saying that our trade deficit is a result of our large growth. Unemployment drops more and believe it or not American manufaturing hires more workers in years the trade deficit rises. Its a result of Large consumer confidence and intenational investment in the U.S. No I'm not advocating global wages, it sounded like you were. Absolutely not would I want less for America and more Asia. Yes Smoot-Hawley did make the depression worse. Its not even debatedable that it did.
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 You said believe it or not, well thanks for the choice, but I do not believe it. Our trade deficit, says we are buying more than we are selling. The reason we buy more imports is because we have no choice. We do not manufacture the products needed to sustain our lives. All labor intrensic manufacturing has been exported to asian cheap labor.
Smoot-Hawley had no effect on the depression at all, the fed not issueing cash to cover the runs, sustained the depression. Try no TARP ok.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater You are correct that it was federal reserve to caused the depression and made it as bad as it was. After Smoot-Hawley international trade delined by 66%. American exports declined 21%. International Trade was shutdown. I'm saying it is undeniably true trade barriers didn't "Reindustrialize" America. It won't happen if you do it now either. The reason we buy more exports than imports is because the market WANTS cheaper good and has available credit to buy extra. Its a good thing!
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 That is on proof that Smoot-Hawley cause the decline in exports, or international trade, that would have happed anyhow, simply because of the global ramifications of the collapsed economy.
You are living a fantasy, it you believe ameicans want foreign goods, they buy them because they have no choice. listen; all you have to do is go the the store and look around, that should be proof enough. Don't tell me you can find american made products, you cannot.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater I do regularly look at products I buy and their origin. You do find alot of american made products, I'm not making this up. Yes I can say that Smoot-Hawley was in a part of the reason for the depression I've read several articles on it that show adjusted for declining aggregrate demand real GDP decline was 21% part of fall in GDP. I'm not saying Americans prefer buying foreign goods, I myself only buy American cars. I'm saying they obviously don't care enough to stop buying them
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 You make a mistake, Americans have no choice but to buy them. We do not make the products we consume. You pick out a few of the rarities one would find in the store on occasion, and justify deindustrializing the country , and abondoning the workers who earned a living in manufacturining, to a life of public assistance. One in five americans are unemployed and will not be going back to work. These government created infrastructure jobs only drives the debt to unsustainable levels.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater Its not a mistake, Americans have had choices in the past to buy American only, clearly they chose. We don't make socks and t-shirts because America is no longer a labor intensive economy, we're capital intensive. You just don't understand that it doesn't matter and we are better off not making everything we buy. We export hightech goods and import low skilled goods. If you think the American consumer was richer in the 70's then they are today why are incomes higher today?
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 Incomes are highter for fewer people. When you export manufacturing, all the people who once fed their families working on assmbley lines, are now on government assistance. I believe what you are saying is that capital is doing quite well, but if you happen to be one of the folks who made light bulbs for a living you are just forever on the government dole. Finally you admit we are deindustialized, and american do not have a choice in consumer goods. Go to walmart check out U.S. made
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater Incomes are not higher for fewer people. They are higher across the board and have risen substantially from around $10,000 real income in 1980 to today of about $35,000 real income. And that is the Median household income. You keep obsessively talking about what is known as structural unemploymen, it has not plagued our economy as you claim. Unemployment has been very low the last two decades. You just keep talking about stuff that is not true.
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 Single family incomes have dropped $700.00 from a generation ago. Family incomes have risen because in the 70s moms went into the workforce. That is the increase you are talking about. Real living cost has consumed much more than any raise in income. Plus all those manufacturing jobs that have been outsorced are not on the unemployment rolls now, they are on public assistance. So pleas spare me the con job of the employment rolls, acturally we have 20% unemployment, and massive welf
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater No you are incorrect, I took the time to research this just for you. According to burea of labor statistics the data for single mother houshold income has risen from $13529 in year 2000 to $17948 in Oct 2010. And as far as the rise in income both married housholds, women going into the labor force has no doubt increased family income substantially, but both incomes have been rising. The labor force has been growing not shrinking in the last 20 years with average 5% unemployment.
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 Did you watch the Elizabeth Warren video. I don't know how the DOL manages to fudge the figures to the degree you support, but Elizabeth Warren Video so no support the DOLs data. You are award that the DOL has been cited several times for fudging the data to make the numbers come out on favor of the administation. I can not find the numbers you post, can you tell me which catagory you found them in. Regardless of where you found them they are wrong. Elizabeth is much more reliable
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater You know if you are just gong to reduce this discussion to calling the DOL a bunch of number smudgers then its not really worth talking to you. If you have contradicting data I'll look at it. No I didnt watch the Video because your link was incorrect. Send it to me again I'll be glad to watch it.
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 I would like to know where on the DOL webpage you found those rediculious figures. Could you show me where you found them. I cannot find anything that come close to them. All I can find is that 3 in 5 single paycheck families have gone below the poverty line. I do not care if you continue this conversation or not. Actually if you have nothing but DOL statistics than you actually have nothing to add to the convesation. The DOL fudges the information the publish. You should know that.
louiethegreater 1 year ago
@louiethegreater Fine call them liars I don't care. I'm not going continuously argue with you over what you think over what the facts are. And if adding Statistics to a conversation about an economic issue is adding nothing to this conversation then you are a senseless debater. As far as that 3 out of 5 paychecks, I believe the poverty line is drawn rediculously too high by people like you. On the BLS website go to databases and you'll see several selections. Choose "On screen data search"
bryce2197 1 year ago
@bryce2197 I have been to the BLS webpage the informaton you posted is not on there. Are you sure you are not pulling my leg. Did you watch the Elizabeth Warren Video.
louiethegreater 1 year ago