Our world is hostage to the insatiable rampaging of the ruling class private gain and greed, dominating,dehumanising,devaluing everyone and everything in the midst. We can and must change the wage slavery of immense humanity in a market system of artificial scarcity . We can share the world for our common needs and well being in harmony within and without.
Davesin whatever.... Nobody ever said workers competing with overseas jobs because if the WORKERS of the company had a SAY, they wouldn't ship THERE jobs overseas. Shareholders used to have a say in a corporation, not anymore. System needs 2 change and workers with a say is a great start
Capitalism is historically outdated,destructive and dagerous . since its dominanace its been the nomadic rampaging of PROFIT for minority private gain, we need to share the Earth in cooperation as one human community in a moneyless,classless,stateless divine life affirming social harmony .
Workers should help run the company? The workers would not have lowered wages as overseas competition was seriously impacting profit? Sounds like a good way to run a company out of business.
The narcotic of government largess, the rush of miilions of new (undocumented) workers into our workforce and a global employment market have made it impossible for America to maintain the living standard of the past.
I can't agree with Mr. Wolf that confiscation of US wealth would pay the bill that is due.
Economy Crisis!!After nearly two year storm is pass over?
Is better to give@loan $ 825 Billions dollars Stimulus Package for US CITIZENS@HOMEOWNERS, FARMERS, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS-INCORPORATIONS.., TO HELP THEM CREATOR MORE JOBS FOR AMERICAN WORKERS-MADE IN AMERICA?
$ 825 billions from Stimulus Package 2009 where that money gone-now..? Went to China? Spending in three war!? If Second Stimulus Package come soon! Should this time Obama@Congress Transparency Difference?
Remember, the livelyhood of any business is in jeopardy if they violate provisions of life (injured/ killed workers), liberty (having to buy subsidized food where the subsidies came from their own pockets), and property (pollution of the air, water, and environment at large with someone else's property). For each of these violations legal recourse is established means to rectify wrongs committed by any business.
If you truly believe in a democratic system, Capitalism is the best means. Look
at it from this direction. The money in your pocket is essentially your "vote" of confidence in the businessman. If you feel the businessman is not good, boycott his goods and place your confidence in another who has earned it.
Democracy in the purest sense alone is not something that ought to be pursued. That explains why our founding fathers in this country did not use that word anywhere in the Declaration of Independance or the Constitution.
Republic. Which is a democracy where the majority rules so long as the rights of an individual are not infringed.
The best example that I can think of as a pure democracy is a lynch mob. Certainly every man in the "mob" has voted against the alleged guilt of the man and certainly the man on the other end of the rope is the lone dissenting vote. We as a society agreed that some means of impartial judgement should be granted to allow for the lone man to get to provide for his defense. We also
placed the burden of proof on the state, and not on the accused individual. Again with rights protected, the state needs proof again to get a warrant to do any search or seizure of any of that man's property during an investigation. During the previous administration, the Patriot Act, Lincoln's suspension of Habeaus Corpus, and John Adam's Alien and Sedition Act were in violation to the Fourth Amendment in our bill of rights.
On this issue of "Wage Slavery" again this is yet another
unintended consequence of government intervention into the regulation of business. What has happened for the majority of this past century has been a steady progression of taxation, regulation, and placing the demands of unions (see Hazlitt for an explanation on that). As a result, America which was considered one of the largest tax havens saw an enormous amount of foriegn investment into this country, and went from being a huge debtor nation that borrowed to build factories. Eventually we
paid off those debts, and earned staggering profits to build the infrastructure, and subsequently we became the biggest creditor nation. As a result of taxation, regulation, and unions companies have now fled America in pursuit of freer conditions in Asia, and earn profits doing much of that in China. Yes, China has its problems especially with pollution, and workers rights, but that is going to change soon as they become a weathier society the people there will demand better conditions and
Additionally, when the government uses dollar printing press to create money, that dilutes the value of every dollar in society, and your purchasing power is diminished as a result of the debt the government has stacked on top of us. What we should be allowed to is exchange goods in a medium like foriegn currency, gold, and silver by repealing the legal tender laws.
Again allowing people to make their own choices on their life should be allowed.
but the problem with that is that it is democracy for those with money and those with money only, and those with more money have more say and if we have a system that allows the rich to have much more control it harbors inequality, inefficiency and leaves most people subservient to their corporate bosses. Boycotting goods sounds easy but as i stated before we have monopolies and we dont always but whats good but whatsin our price range and real wages have continued to fall for most america.
I have to say I agree with almost everything you had to say here. Yes it is true that in the early days of our country only the rich land owners had the ability to vote. Back then they would pay a very large poll tax that paid for much of the operations of governent in addition to some tarrifs and state imposed excise taxes. There is an arguement to be made that the tarriffs that were imposed on goods imported from certain industries unfairly taxed people in order to protect certain
fledgling industries that otherwise would not have been able to compete in the domestic US market. I would not support that either as that unduly takes money away from American citizens as well. Note also that those "kept" from voting were not taxed by the Federal government either, and therefore kept everything that they earned with the exception of the slaves. Please note, that I do not support any involuntary servitude under any conditions either.
on the books the Sherman and later Clayton Anti-trust and Monopoly laws that were intended to eliminate that from happening either. However, one staticist that I heard from a researcher on this issue and I can forward you the link is that 95% of the time that those laws were tried in court, they came from competing private entities that were trying to use those laws to get an unfair advantage over another company.
The types of monopolies we have today whether it be the electric company,
the dejure Federal Reserve Banking System, Amtrak, The Post Office, as well as a long list of government sponsered enterprises get the protection of government to operate free from competition.
Free Market monopolies like Walmart for instance got big because people across the country felt that it was cheaper to business with this discount retailer because they operated much more efficiently than the smaller mom and pop stores. Subsequently, they could offer the same or similar goods at
lower prices that allowed Americans to save money and get more return from every dollar.
Whether you are subservient to your own livelyhood, family member, boss, or government eventually you are in control of quality of your own life and how you choose to carry it out. Today the Amish a subserviant to their fathers and in some cases brothers. They freely carry on for the most part
I am not aware of any company out there where there is no defined management in operation for the US.
I know that mr1001nights makes many referances to Spain having a system like this. Furthmore he goes on the offensive against the chattle slavery in Brazil, and how 65,000 Americans die of work related deaths in this country, yet I do not know where his source of information on that topic is. What he does not say is that during the same period of time, the Spanish were killing off the Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs in droves. Those that were not killed directly by the Spanish settlement there were
killed by the spread of Small-pox and other European based diseases which those Indians did not have any immunity for. Not to mention the Spanish also pillaged the entire Spanish Main for gold and turned around and used that money to fund lavish lifestyles and an enormous military and Armada that streched around the world until the British put a stop to that with the destruction of the Spanish Armada. Additionally, all the money they plundered eventually evaporated, and today they still are a
it, and people use it because the precieved safety that the government, IE Department of Agriculture/ Food and Drug Administration has signed off on it as safe. In a free-market private inspectors lifelyhood as a business would go into question, and people would reject their findings if the food they were eating was tainted. This is the untended consequence of government intervention into the food industry. Again with good intentions as their basis, they are harming Americans.
sametime we lived in a country starved of capital. As a result during the era of Free-Market Capitalism we saw the building of all our metropolitan cities, canals, railroads, the emergance of the car companies, the vast majority of all out infrastructure projects outside of the interstate system. Much of the infrastructure of the American workers built back in those days remains still in use today.
Additionally on Zinn, I'm a big fan of his understanding behind the cause of 9-11.
On the topic of businessmen selling "crappy" goods and people. Those goods are being sold at the "Market Clearing" price as Adam Smith would describe it in "A Wealth of Nations." Keep in mind, no one is putting a gun to another's head and ordering them to buy the good either. In any transaction, both parties must see an mutually benifical advantage to the other's offer, or no deal will be brokered.
In regards to the genetically altered food, many of the large substudized bussinesses create
The system today of "Chrony" Capitalism where the government gives subsitites to large Agro-business, bailouts for the banks, car companies, and now wants implicit control of our medical system. Managed traded agreements like NAFTA. None of that is Free-market Capitalism. Free Market Capitalism in America from its founding until Wilson implies no/ minimal government control of private entities, and the only thing government did was to maintain an peaceful atmosphere to allow trade. During this
Restating the above point on the loss of liberty. The government confiscates your property through taxation, by conscription can for force your life into complusory service in the draft (possibly in a war that you do not support), and by laws, mandates, supreme court rulings, and executive orders, can take away your natural rights contained in the "Bill of Rights".
purpose of government was to protect life, liberty, and property. Our Declaration of Independance spells that out. These ideas are the basis of natural law and eventually our constitution. They believed that government was to be unintrusive, and people should be free to make their own decisions on their life without government sticking their nose into their personal affairs. This was so long as you do not interfere with someone else's life, liberty, or property. They are also their as an
intermediary for contract disputes, and to enforce the rule of law. This applied to contracts entered freely between two individuals.
Today the present adminstration now reserves the right to interfere with contracts and pick and choose winners. This goes in stark opposition to the constitution. The constitution was designed to limit the size and scope of government. Today the politicians disregard our governing document, and do anything the constitution doesn't expressly say they can't and
In summary, I have confidence in you as person to make your own decisions about your own life. I believe that if you make a mistake you'll be far more willing to deal with the consequences on your own terms rather than someone else making a mistake that you have to pay for. Additionally, when you make correct decisions you should be rewarded and decide how you want to spend your newly earned wealth. Naturally, people in those circumstances will find things like charity
. When you have the ability to give charity face to face with the reciever, typically they get off charity as soon as you can. When the government does it, there is no incentive to care from their stand point, and that is why we have multi-generational welfare families in this country.
Give Freedom a chance! You'll be surprised by the good-nature of Americans.
I disagree. The government so long as it operates democratically, is a very useful tool in curbing corporate monopolies ensuring the environment is protected and so on. A businessman does not neccesarily have to creat high quality goods to stay in business because we created an entire industry around manipulating consumer desires. And consumers dont always what is better quality but simply whats in their price range and as real wages continue to fall they purchase poorer quality stuff
Thats why we buy crappy genetically modified foods we cant afford all these healthy organic foods because most of them are made by small farms which have to price slightly higher because they cant compete with giant corporations that reel out boneless chicken for profit. And if their customers become unhealthy they don't care because its their profit they are worried about not the externalities. So these small business begin to cripple at the hands of agribusiness monopolies and the farmers
can either go to work for petty wages for the corporation or be satisfied with unemployment. In other words wage slavery or starvation. The government is bad done now, because of what the free market made out of it. It allowed corporations and big business stick its nose into our government and cripple our economy. CEO's don't work, they simply make deals and bargains to enrich themselves as long as we have an economy that favors unproductive people we will have crises.
For the record, I own and read the majority of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." With that said I am sympathetic to his anarcharical goals as I see that as giving the people the maximum amount of freedom.
What I to point out is that the economic system is not a pure capitalistic system, and we have not had one since before President Wilson, and after him Harding and Coolidge were pretty capitalistic as well.
"pure capitalism" was a huge problem in america because without efficient government regulation we had child labor and enormous amounts of poverty and the faith in the free market began to fade after the great depression.
On inflation, as a marxist i would not be entirely against leaning more on gold backed currency but to incorporate ideas from the Labor theory of value to do so. It is obvious that government does cause depreciation of currency and that paper money papermust not exceed in amount the gold which would actually circulate if not replaced by symbols.
others). This is the result of the "inflation tax". The most dishonest form of taxation.
That economist on this video suggested a wealth tax. Inflation is your wealth tax. It steals the purchasing power of your money in the bank and your pocket without your consent and knowledge.
It hurts the already poor, retired, and the medically disabled the worst. As they generally have no means of making up the difference in lost purchasing power.
country is to buy and hold onto gold and silver. The reason for that is that the supply of those metals are relatively low, and costs an enormous amount of money to produce them. They contain "Intrinsic value" which has for centuries giving them value and they are the preferred monetary metals. Additionally the government can't print them into existance. Hence why the Constitution of the United States says, "Only gold and silver will be legal tender."
by their nature. Before cars came into existance in New York City, the sanitation department was huge because a literal army of street cleaners had to be employed to keep up with the horse manure being produced. When cars became the preferred means of travel, those people who were formerly street cleaners moved onto either or forms of cleaning or even more productive lines of work.
As a result of freeing up these people to pursue productive lines of work increased the standard of living
for everyone because we no longer had to be taxed for services that were not needed, and those additional workers added to the real output of the country.
To summerize that, advancements in technology improves the livelyhood of everyone.
Protectionism, Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are the same "plant" just in different stages of bloom. The two you bring up Fascism which is government control of private entities, and Socialism which implies a more egalitarian meaning where all workers
get the same pay regardless of the line of work they are in. Such as a garbage man gets the same pay as a doctor.
Where this falls apart is who would sacrifice and become a doctor when at the end of the day they would get the same pay as a garbage man? No one, and that is how socialism unravels.
Facism's problem is that govenment doesn't have the profit to loss mechanism to determine what lines of work are most profitable or are loosing money operations. That is the direction Obama is
I could not agree with you more. The prices of anything can or will be unfair, but that not the result of business.
Remember, they are in the mind-set to bring us the highest quality good at the lowest price. It is that mentality that keeps them in business.
At the end of the day, all a businessman can do is please you. If he fails, then he will go bankrupt. On the other hand, all the government can do is take your liberty away in the name of helping you. I'm going to expand on that.
For instance, the government can create a jobs program and everyone seems to benifit. However, that money had to come from somewhere. The first place is direct taxation like the income tax, sales tax... whatever tax. These taxes take away property you rightfully own and worked for. Once that is maxed out then the government borrows the money and owes interest on the debt in the form of treasury bills (Which is a shorterm gain, and a long term loss of money). When you can no longer keep
borrowing, the next step is to monetize the debt. (Printing money out of thin air).
When the debt on this "make work project" comes and has to be paid, everyone else in society is compelled by confiscation of their income through direct taxation. Then when they run the dollar printing press, they debase (devalue) all the money in circulation.
When this debasement occurs, the new entry of the recently printed dollar drives up the cost of all goods existing in America. (Some faster than
Therefore, by doing so indirectly voted (with their money) against buying products that include enormous secondary cost of worker's comp, retirement, law suits, and many other additional financial burdens to the final price of the goods.
Prices themselves are not rising because of some evil capitalist is gouging the price to bring in additional profits. If that was truly the case, then another evil capitalist would move into that market and undercut their price and ultimately reduce any short
term profits to zero and potentially bring their revenue to negative amounts and ultimately bankrupt the former.
Prices are rising as AngryG hinted because of the inflation that the Federal Reserve System creates when they turn on the printing presses to bailout the banks and pay for the enormous deficits.
The definition of inflation is the increase of the base money supply. That happens when people counterfeit or the Fed drops interest rates/ buys treasuries/ buys bonds in specific
Wages are falling as I hinted at above because the highly skilled manufacturing base is being dispaced overseas, and LOW paying service jobs are replacing much of those higher skill/ higher pay jobs. This is what American workers and consumers did to themselves.
Companies investing in technology to decrease the amount of workers to put a certain good oddly enough does not cause unemployment in the long term. This has been the experience throughout the life
of man. Man domesticated animals like horses and oxen to take the burden of carrying goods on their backs and put them onto something else. What we do not want is full employment if full production does not also accompany it. For instance, if we wanted to increase employment, we could pass a law banning all automobiles, trains, airplanes, and ships so people would have to carry all goods on their backs. That would elimate unemployment, but it is a tremendous waste of resources which are scarce
Statistics show us quite the opposite, wages are falling, prices are rising, and unemployment is soaring and the wealth gap is 1 to 560. Profits really don't go to job creation corporations are too self interested, in fact they would rather invest in technology. Which would in turn cause higher unemployment but increase productivity but with more unemployment societies ability to purchase would fall here we are in a crisis of overproduction.
The only difference is now we can call it financial, even though its only financial because we created credit cards so people can buy with low wages but thats inflationary and once they dont pay back those loans were fucked. Fascism is not the answer but socialism absolutely, secondly the Name national socialist really didnt represent the ideology as much as was an attempt to divert worker antagonism from capitalists to jews.
I guess that is a good thing that you are continuing to debate this. I could not agree with you more that the wealth is disproportionately accumulating in the higher income brackets. It definately is. However, your analysis of the cause of this imbalance is totally unfounded. I would attribute the wages falling as a direct result of the staggering trade deficit that our country has engaged in. As a result, Americans freely choose to buy goods of similar quality abroad at lower prices.
Look into the Von Mises Institute... This guys idea is a non-solution. The WPA greatly failed during the Roosevelt years. We need government out of business and get them to rid themsleves of the restrictions and taxes that are strangling our productive capacity and eliminating our industries.
Well the Von Mises institute has a ton of smart guys but deregulation caused this it wont get us out. Wolff talks about exactly what you said that taxs can be counter productive, especially flat taxes, which mind you many of those libertarian economists support. Progressive taxation can be quite beneficial because over 95 percent in society experiences more purchasing power and produtivity while the few finance capitalists and large corporation simply have those huge profits taxed.
The unfortunate thing is that the understanding that you have is norm in our country. Just imagine if at the founding of our nation if we had a social welfare permanent-war state the size as it is right now? We would never have become a successful country with all those burdens of government.
Those huge profits tend to go into more job creation, and upgrading their capital to reduce costs to the consumer.
Read "Economics in One Lesson" and "Meltdown: Why the Econ tanked" for more info.
I like how he showed a screen of the Nikkei index in Japan while he talked about China. China? Japan? Those slanty-eyeds over there are all the same. Americans can't read Chinese characters anyway.
This is why I no longer watch this channel ... too many Keynesian socialists, and not enough input from Austrian economists or proponents of REAL free markets & liberty.
Ah, there it is. Question Obama or Bush or whoever and automatically it's communist. As if CNN and FOX - both sides of the equation feeding the same animal - aren't networks the Soviets could have only dreamed of.
Well of course its communist-meaning anyone who stands in the way of the multinational corporation run US. Well we are all communists now I suppose?They used to call it democracy
If u have $ 1 M and more u can say that. But usualy everyone now have $ 2-4 k a mo and next to the end u have 0 again or even worth, than u start to think about socialism and communism.
Well.. do we want to be like China(communism) or Cuba(socialism) or USA... IMO, their 3 of the same. Their all led by an oligarcky(srry for misspellings). We can't change that, and who would want to? You either want govt(their will always be bad govt.) or you can have anarky. I'd rather live in a safe govt(socialism/Communism/or capitalism) then act against the govt to form some kind of anarky. Feel free to write back, if its of anything of value i'll respond
The GOVERNMENT CAN NO LONGER BE TRUSTED. OBAMA and all the rest of the thieves need to be FIRED immediatly and beg RON PAUL to take the elm or this ship is sunk.
I would argue this: government is like a human body. Organs can be treated, transplanted, or even wholly substituted. If the body as a whole is inoperable, then it is terminal and will eventually fail. Under this analogy anyhow, the system will eventually fail. The question is how, and what will the 'failed' body leave in its wake.
Watching the way Aericans fawn and boot lick Oama is disgusting. He is nothing but a black Bush. He has kept not 1 single promise made. He has surrounded himself with the worst bunch of crooks ever. The US is screwed. I read today that Bernake just gave another 250 BILLION dollars to Bear Sterns, to save them from chapter 11 so we don't find out about the BILLION dollars in BONUSES to thier CEO's. WE HAVE BEEN ROBBED!!!! TIME FOR REVOLUTION!!!!!
All this economist knows is to ask for high salary. But why do workers deserve high salary if they don't produce real profitable product? Under this global economy, American workers have to understand they are competing w/ the entire world now. If someone in Asia produces the same good w/ only half the salary, then that Asian wins out. That's it. Trying to foolishly fight that w/ new "business organization" or "fair tax code" is useless.
Makes sense. I would support the government nationalising in order to protect jobs and trade at a loss (being able to anyway) during an economic crisis. Problem is, you would have to trust the government can hand the reins back to the private sector once it is done (with some added regulation I would hope). That said, I don't think we have the time to screw around asking ourselves that question any more lol.
well he still didn't answer how the economic activity of the government should be supported. Only option mentioned is the wealth tax. It would be working only if those wealth were sitting around doing nothing. But most of the wealth is used to back private economic activity. If you tax it, only change would be government spending instead of private spending which is in essence inefficient and wasteful.
I'm probably misquoting lol. But someone from somewhere said something along the lines of, if you believe in free speech you have to defend the right of your enemy to run his mouth ha ha! And I agree with those horribly misquoted words.
un-American? How does one act un-American? I think he is an American, if one were to define an American as one being born within the land boundaries between Canada and Mexico. He's a Marxist yup, but the days of McCarthy are over (thankfully). He will be invalidated in the long run because socialist central planning has been refuted by Hayek long ago, he will be proven wrong and that's all I need to be satisfied.
Protestantism is Christianity, but Christianity is not Protestantism. A thing that is predicable of a species is not necessarily predicable of a genus. Come on guy.
the simple solution to "changing the way we do business" as Wolfe says, is to empower the labor movement again- unions. also, it would be a radical and innovative idea to open the government to allowing syndicalism to spread, the workers take over the factories/warehouses/restaurants/ etc.
Although I agree with most of the Experts sentiments; there must be a system that provides a solution other than Nationalism, Socialism or Capitalism. National Socialism is too much concentration in the gov'ts hands and Capitalism is too much concentration in the Corporations hands.
Yeah there is, actually there is a whole range of things you missed in your black and white assessment. There is a HUGE range of thought inside socialism that you completely missed because of lingering cold war attitudes toward the word "socialism". Try looking up the Green Party, libertarian socialism, etc. Maybe just read up a bit on socialism. Lots of inspiring, practical ideas about meaningful democracy, respect for human rights, etc.
Okay, you don't have to be a dick about it. I was asking a sincere question and expecting a sensible response. Not closeminded condescension. I'm familiar with the terms you've mentioned, but, I don't feel that those solutions are being applied by the current administration. I do want a solution to the crisis, but, being sensible I am wary about too much concentration of power. If you feel that Obama is following the third option then good for you. I am unconvinced.
I didn't suggest they are being applied. I would actually assert that such ideas receive a total blackout in the public discourse, while center right people like Obama are passed off as leftists. Obama isn't change, he is just a bit more moderate than the right wing extremists we are used to. Just look at the neo-liberal(that means right wing) economists he has chosen to run his economic program. Read up on their history.
I've been paying attention though I confess the learning curve is pretty steep. I've been focusing myopically on politics and ignoring economics except where the corruption overlaps. Makes sense, though, when you think on it; follow the money. I am becoming confused by Obama, especially when I hear him forwarding a lefty wedge issue and then finding out, not really. I guess I have to accept that the permanent wing of the gov't is what has the final say.
I wouldn't say he ever promoted a "lefty" position, just a slightly less "righty" one. Interestingly enough, the continuous chorus from the corporate media about Obama's supposed socialist ideas is where people are getting this generalised left wing vibe off of Obama. Which makes perfect sense if you apply the propaganda model to analyse news coverage of him.
Not only is Obama a socialist, but so has every president (in increasing amounts) since Roosevelt. I'd be interested in finding out why you say he is not promoting a "lefty" position. Is he not advocating government intervention? If anything Obama is an extension of Neo-con dictates (government intervention, policing the world and preemptive war). Neo-cons are simply liberal extremists of the New Left. Of course the corporate media spin is only one half of the equation.
Socialism is supporting the Workers and providing a saftey net for the General Public. Concentrating Power in the hands of the Wealthy Few is not socialism, it's Plutocracy. As I've learned there is always government intervention, but, its usually on the side of the rich, not everyone else. The thumb is always on the scale, just not on our side.
I understand the theory of socialism, but my concern is what entity is required to concentrate the power into the hands of the worker? And how is this entity supposed to protect the rights of the workers when they themselves are members of the political elite? It's making the assumption that government can be a benevolent force or operate outside of human nature. Just because there has always been government intervention does not mean that government intervention is desirable.
You have formulated a damning argument against Lenin. Not socialism. Outside of the authoritarians camps of socialism stand quite a few proposals on how to abolish the class system and institute public control of resources without heavy handed bureaucracy or state intervention. One example off the top of my head would be to form syndicates as in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. Seemed reasonably successful, given the circumstances.
I don't think so. Socialism can only be maintained through central planning. How does one abolish the class system while not damning the masses to collectivist Leninism? How does one institute public control of resources? What does the public mean? The public consists of individuals, so who owns what part of the resource? How is the production capacity maintained? How are decisions made? By what means does a "classless" society progress? How are decisions made when everything is a public good?
As I suspected upon mention of Hayek, you're a particular form of internet dweller known as the "anarcho-"capitalist. Maybe if you read some anarchist theory you would have answers to those questions. I can't possibly hope to answer all of that, especially not in this forum, and I'm not really inclined for yet another debate about this nonsense. Just go read the Anarchist FAQ, it answer all of those questions. But I know you won't. I offered one ancap $500 to do it and he refused.
Internet dweller? lol oh yes I have read anarchist theory and the answers to my questions aren't sufficient from the literature. But you seem to advocate socialism, so you should have the answers. Shouldn't you? Send me the link of Anarchist FAQ and you go read The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard.
Strange accusation coming from you. So how exactly is private property to be maintained without the bludgeon of the state? The market going to do that too?
How is private property maintained now? Look at your own private property. How is it maintained? If your car is stolen, your insurance agency will replace it. If your house is broken into your renters insurance will cover it. If you are concerned about theft, buy a gun and buy a security system, hire a security guard (all free market solutions). The market is simply a word used to describe voluntary exchange. I'm not referring to corporatism or statist capitalism.
The insurance system presupposes the state in itself. ANd the gun issue is completely off the table, because the logical extension of that leads to, ta da, a state.
Why does the insurance system presuppose the state? Seriously think about it. Guns do not lead to a state. Are you kidding me? If you believe that than I truly believe our conversation cannot go any further. So owning a knife leads to a state? using rocks as weapons leads to a state. Learning karate leads to a state. Buying car insurance leads to a state. Come on man.
Government intervention is not the defining characteristic of socialism. It is interesting that you note the Strausian origins of the neo-cons, showing insight and then conflate their political and social agenda with an economic agenda. The economic policies of the neo-con camp is decidedly neo-liberal, as is Obama's(and Clinton for that matter.)
The defining characteristic of socialism is worker controlled production and egalitarianism in the realm of resources. None of those characteristics can be maintained without some system of central planning., to argue against that would mean that socialists believe society (made up of individuals) would some how self-regulate. Did I conflate their political and social agenda with an economic agenda? How are political and social agendas devised without the economic means of enforcing them?
1. In the state socialist model, the workers control nothing. The bureaucracy does.
2. The state is not the only possible model of organization, again try reading about syndicalism.
3. Neo-conservatism refers to the authoritarian, aggressive, and most of all nationalist social policies. The economic model is related, but nonetheless, neo-liberal
"socialists believe society (made up of individuals) would some how self-regulate" You mean like how the "free" market somehow will under ancap?
1.) Bureaucracy does? Would that bureaucracy be classless? Give me a break.
2.) I have read about syndicalism. It doesn't work. It's like direct democracy in the realm of production. Completely inefficient. Nothing would ever get done.
3.)You unintentionally proved my point regarding Neo-cons.
4.) The Free market regulates itself through regulatory agencies (insurance companies) and the DRO model proposed by Stefan Molyneux. There a number of free market solutions just to name a few.
I get what you're saying about media being far right so his centrist positions seem lefty. I was referring to his repeal of Bush policy on Stem Cells and then I read somewhere that it wasn't a complete reversal. When he starts bailing out the workers instead of the CEOs and Banks then, to me, he'll be a Lefty and not a centrist. Or if he actually goes green.
What do stem cells have to do with economics? That decision would show him to be less authoritarian than Bush, but not really any further to the left.
Hyperinflation two or three years down the road. Today is just borrowing Trillions of Dollars from China. Interest of $45 to 50 billion dollars. We need to help the small business.
If we'd just kill the Fed, put the power to make interest-free money back in the hands of the people, pay off the debt with that new money, and increase the bank's reserve requirements, we could pay off the debt in a couple years, and never pay an income tax again....
5:11 "one could tax the property in Stocks and Bonds that has been never been taxed as a property..." WTF ??? This guy calls himself an economist. People own stocks and bonds to raise money for their retirement...they down own them as "property" like a house. If you tax Stocks and Bonds as a property you won't make any money off them and what would be the point in owning them??? The market would crash through the floor. This "economist" clearly knows nothing about money.
China currently has little choice but to invest in US treasury bills and capital markets. What else is their central bank supposed to do with dollars from their massive trade surplus with America? If they spent them into the global economy, the dollar would weaken against the yuan, giving domestic production in the American marketplace an advantage over Chinese imports, thus creating a massive unemployment problem for them.
China is industrializing and gradually creating its own domestic market by selling cheap goods to US consumers, who are buying the goods with debt partially financed by China. This vicious circle of debt will continue until China no longer needs the US. Then the Chinese central bankers will force America to slash its budget (cut military and social spending) and sell off all its public assets and services to private investors. Wealthy Americans will be immune to this economic shock.
The Bush administration refused to join the ICC or the Human Rights Council. The U.S. said the treaty that created the ICC doesnt contain adequate provisions to protect its soldiers from politically motivated prosecutions. The decision not to stand for membership in the Human Rights Council stemmed from the bodys inclusion of Cuba, China and other countries accused of abuses.
U.S. and European envoys objected to criticism of Israel, calls for reparations for slavery and expressions of concern about defamation of religion. The new draft declaration, released today in Geneva by Russian coordinator Yuri Boychenko, addresses most of the U.S. and EU concerns and was shortened to 17 pages from 45.
China is worried about its security in the U.S. but at the sametime their is friction bt China and the U.S. The U.S. sent a destroyer when some small chinese boats intercepted a military boat of the U.S with sonar spying in and around China. China response was that it was violating international law. China sees that the U.S. destroyer was out of purportion. The U.S. boat is to keep track of China market and military movements. The U.S. is worried about China as a partner to hold its debt. GL!
definately not for nationalization!! That kills competition. What he says at the end is better: namely that those involved in production should play a larger role in determining business practice, etc...This is far from socialist. In fact, it sounds like collectivist anarchism, or even anarcho-syndicalism. Look up those terms. Take govt out of the equation, but at the same time, eliminate the corporatocracy and the extreme corporate power.
So we get into this mess by over spending and borrowing, yet this economists pushing the idea that we can only get out of it by spending and borrowing even more.
I do agree with one sentiment expressed by Mr. Wolf. The Obama administration is taking action that will have dire long term consequences.
In effect, our furnace is broken, and we are in a blizzard. Obama has decided to set the house on fire to stay warm. Because its better than sitting there doing nothing, or is it?
Mr. Wolf contradicted himself. He started the interview by saying that what Obama is doing is going to have dire consequences in terms of inflation in just 2-3 years. Then, he ends the interview on the theme that Obama isn't doing things large or fast enough.
Also, If out of work individuals want to form companies that are run by workers they are free to do so. Why does the government need to mandate such things at all?
Haha. These guys are drooling over how they think it is okay now to use words like 'socialist' and 'nationalize'. They better be careful; many Americans like myself still burn with hatred at the mention of these words.
Obama understands that this is a matter of responsibility, but does he have the will to do what must be done? We are not seeing real change now, just the half-baked ideas of Clinton-era economic advisors.
Cuba has had to endure a 40 year old embargo so how can you even judge that Castro failed. The USSR bankrupted itself in an arms race and in trying to hold its empire together.
How do u think America would fair if it were embargoed for decades?? and we already see how the maintenance of the american empire is starting to crack us economically.
kwilly Cuba is not that unsuccessful, germany is a major economy, and Russia is a major player. They showed that they could defeat an American trained, supplied, and advised military when sufficiently provoked. We are in a militarily tenuous situation. If economic problems lead to a need for more then the 20,000 troops already coming for domestic control the military situaion could get hairy. Economic bankruptcy will stop our conquests like they did the empires before.
Most Americans are too broadly uninformed to understand what socialism is and how it differs from communism, and how both of these terms have been used to describe dictatorships in the corporate press and by politicians in an (apparently successful) attempt to discredit those who wish to democratize gv't spending, and seek instead to continue and maintain elite, for-profit control of our collected tax money. Now it's upside down socialism: Welfare for the rich, the free market for everyone else.
It's kind of funny. The idea about business restructuring is not bad, but it seemed like he implied use of government intervention. That's what needs to stop. Stephen Covey has been teaching exactly what needs to happen for a long time now. Indeed our business models are dated, but we don't need intervention, we need to allow the idiots on top who couldn't change with the times to take their lesson and let them go out of business and lose their jobs.
U do realize if all those "idiots on top" were allowed to go outa business, so wud half the workers in the usa? Gov't intervention isn't THAT bad as americans tend to think. Look at Japan, they picked up their economy after WWII in a record 25 YRS!! HOW? Absolute gov't intervention & gov't directing which industry gets the money & how its spent!! When they wer forced to open their borders to the USA by Reagan in 80s, they got in recession in the 90s bcuz it messed up their usual way of business.
Actually you are incorrect. When the Nikkei hit its peak at 40000 and came crashing down in the 90s. Governments tried to build ridiculous bridges to nowhere, fund stupid government work programs and "rebuild" infrastructure. And guess what happened? You guessed it. Nothing. Government stimulus did nothing but increase their debt. They don't call that period "the lost decade" for nothing.
i can see u dont understand that this country was turned into a consumer based economy a long time ago and that the consumption of goods and services is what drives it.
What ur doing is recommending a revolution starting with the abolishment of the Federal Reserve.
lol spending less? you sure? to spend is to put money in the economy... not to spend for what? wait for your money to be useless? yes brilliant plan.. save up 10,000$ than find out in 2 years its now only paper... (example - germany money in 1930's) its quite stupid to save money now a days...
You're not making any sense. Please use proper English. At the current situation, there is only two way out. Inflation or Deflation, neither are good. We are screwed.
This crisis is a failing of the fractional reserve banking system. A crisis that's been on its way for the past 100 years. What's required is a radically new economic system. Decentralized economics.
NO MORE PUT IT ON MY credit card those day's are over NO more zero down NO money no buying power the USA is made up of FREE credit but the world is not going to put up with it any more the USA is in so much debt that it will Collapse in two more year's since it as no more PONZI SCHEME CALL SUBPRIME SCHEME BUT THE OTHER BIGGEST SCHEME MADE UP BY USA IS CALL FAKE Democracy No more super Power OR FREE MONEY NO MORE BIG GDP!! double standard"s<--- USA
Dont be fooled into thinking that the taxpayer bailouts were just designed to get the banks lending money again. The situation is much more perilous. Losses continue to be revealed, and Americas banking system is all but bankrupt—kept alive only through taxpayer blood.
A bit OT but I watched "The Obama Deception" in HQ on YT last night and I think it's a POV everyone needs to consider. Agree or disagree but at least give it a fair listen.
Not to worry about the consequences, that is hyper inflation, as the speaker avoids, is horribly irresponsible. We hear that we should embrace socialism for the benefit of the common man, yet no attention is given to the disastrous effects that hyper inflation WILL have on the common man. It WILL destroy all the said advantages said to be worth while to help folks survive. The only winners of the bailouts are the institutions.
It's good to examine all sides. Now put Schiff on.
Although I strongly disagree with the content, the interview was excellent. It explored some of the thinking behind the more liberal proponents, and likely the Obama administration. I therefore 'favoritied' it. Those who are of the traditional persuasion and subscribers of Austrian economic theory, may find the need to buy more gold and silver as a result.
Not only is Obama´s behavior disappointing but the entire foundation of this colonialistic nation is disappointing. The whole country is built by bandits, cowboys, looters, slave-traders & racists, mainly Brits. Same thing with Israel, which is a part of the British colonization of Palestine. The US, Israel, Canada and Australia are all a part of the English-created neo-colonialistic NWO that is destroying the world. If you want to criticize the US, don´t forget to criticize England as well.
The points made on this video are exactly the same points Ron Paul has been making for years! It seems the whole world is starting to hear his message. Thank God.
This has been flagged as spam show
Our world is hostage to the insatiable rampaging of the ruling class private gain and greed, dominating,dehumanising,devaluing everyone and everything in the midst. We can and must change the wage slavery of immense humanity in a market system of artificial scarcity . We can share the world for our common needs and well being in harmony within and without.
arzoyan 6 months ago
Davesin whatever.... Nobody ever said workers competing with overseas jobs because if the WORKERS of the company had a SAY, they wouldn't ship THERE jobs overseas. Shareholders used to have a say in a corporation, not anymore. System needs 2 change and workers with a say is a great start
kawika8087 1 year ago
Capitalism is historically outdated,destructive and dagerous . since its dominanace its been the nomadic rampaging of PROFIT for minority private gain, we need to share the Earth in cooperation as one human community in a moneyless,classless,stateless divine life affirming social harmony .
arzoyan 1 year ago
Workers should help run the company? The workers would not have lowered wages as overseas competition was seriously impacting profit? Sounds like a good way to run a company out of business.
The narcotic of government largess, the rush of miilions of new (undocumented) workers into our workforce and a global employment market have made it impossible for America to maintain the living standard of the past.
I can't agree with Mr. Wolf that confiscation of US wealth would pay the bill that is due.
DAVESIV 1 year ago
How much money@profit, China got from Stimulus Funding [Package] of United States in 2009.
10 per cent /% ? 8 per cent /%? 6 per cent /%?…
Each year the United States much pay Communist of China $ 100 billions for debt or more? How long the United States pay off China debt?
Vinh city Vietnam August 02, 2010
louielamson2000 1 year ago
Economy Crisis!!After nearly two year storm is pass over?
Is better to give@loan $ 825 Billions dollars Stimulus Package for US CITIZENS@HOMEOWNERS, FARMERS, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS-INCORPORATIONS.., TO HELP THEM CREATOR MORE JOBS FOR AMERICAN WORKERS-MADE IN AMERICA?
$ 825 billions from Stimulus Package 2009 where that money gone-now..? Went to China? Spending in three war!? If Second Stimulus Package come soon! Should this time Obama@Congress Transparency Difference?
Vinh Vietnam 7-30-2010
louielamson2000 1 year ago
1. Taxing the Wealthy is just ignorance of the human capacity to over come a challenge.
If we must have taxes it should be an across the board flat tax. One flat tax at no more than 5%.
2. End Free Trade!!!!!
When did we lose our steel industry > Free Trade!!!!!
When did we lose our Auto industry > Free Trade!!!!!
When did we lose Textiles > Free Trade!!!!!
When did we lose our Country > Free Trade!!!!!
When did green FED paper become more valuable than life and the Environment Free Trade
CommonSensePete 1 year ago
Government takeover industries so as to not let them fail? People should demand jobs?
Would like to hear this marxist discuss how unionized government workers are bankrupting middle class. Much greed there. That would be useful.
forwardmover 1 year ago
Also exactly how did wolff get into Yale, let alone get a PhD in economics there? And, what's up with this eyes? Psychotropic meds?
forwardmover 1 year ago
the thing is capitalism doesn't work for everyone
it only allows the haves too capitalize on the havenots and that the gap just gets bigger
capitalism is not a good thing for humanity
the biggest lie about it is that it benefits the people
a big example is that without it there wouldn't be inventions and medical discoveries
it is evil
it breeds self importance
areyoufelson 2 years ago
Remember, the livelyhood of any business is in jeopardy if they violate provisions of life (injured/ killed workers), liberty (having to buy subsidized food where the subsidies came from their own pockets), and property (pollution of the air, water, and environment at large with someone else's property). For each of these violations legal recourse is established means to rectify wrongs committed by any business.
If you truly believe in a democratic system, Capitalism is the best means. Look
adrift122 2 years ago
at it from this direction. The money in your pocket is essentially your "vote" of confidence in the businessman. If you feel the businessman is not good, boycott his goods and place your confidence in another who has earned it.
Democracy in the purest sense alone is not something that ought to be pursued. That explains why our founding fathers in this country did not use that word anywhere in the Declaration of Independance or the Constitution.
What our founding fathers wanted was a
adrift122 2 years ago
Republic. Which is a democracy where the majority rules so long as the rights of an individual are not infringed.
The best example that I can think of as a pure democracy is a lynch mob. Certainly every man in the "mob" has voted against the alleged guilt of the man and certainly the man on the other end of the rope is the lone dissenting vote. We as a society agreed that some means of impartial judgement should be granted to allow for the lone man to get to provide for his defense. We also
adrift122 2 years ago
placed the burden of proof on the state, and not on the accused individual. Again with rights protected, the state needs proof again to get a warrant to do any search or seizure of any of that man's property during an investigation. During the previous administration, the Patriot Act, Lincoln's suspension of Habeaus Corpus, and John Adam's Alien and Sedition Act were in violation to the Fourth Amendment in our bill of rights.
On this issue of "Wage Slavery" again this is yet another
adrift122 2 years ago
unintended consequence of government intervention into the regulation of business. What has happened for the majority of this past century has been a steady progression of taxation, regulation, and placing the demands of unions (see Hazlitt for an explanation on that). As a result, America which was considered one of the largest tax havens saw an enormous amount of foriegn investment into this country, and went from being a huge debtor nation that borrowed to build factories. Eventually we
adrift122 2 years ago
paid off those debts, and earned staggering profits to build the infrastructure, and subsequently we became the biggest creditor nation. As a result of taxation, regulation, and unions companies have now fled America in pursuit of freer conditions in Asia, and earn profits doing much of that in China. Yes, China has its problems especially with pollution, and workers rights, but that is going to change soon as they become a weathier society the people there will demand better conditions and
adrift122 2 years ago
living standards.
Additionally, when the government uses dollar printing press to create money, that dilutes the value of every dollar in society, and your purchasing power is diminished as a result of the debt the government has stacked on top of us. What we should be allowed to is exchange goods in a medium like foriegn currency, gold, and silver by repealing the legal tender laws.
Again allowing people to make their own choices on their life should be allowed.
adrift122 2 years ago
but the problem with that is that it is democracy for those with money and those with money only, and those with more money have more say and if we have a system that allows the rich to have much more control it harbors inequality, inefficiency and leaves most people subservient to their corporate bosses. Boycotting goods sounds easy but as i stated before we have monopolies and we dont always but whats good but whatsin our price range and real wages have continued to fall for most america.
Psumescroat 2 years ago
I have to say I agree with almost everything you had to say here. Yes it is true that in the early days of our country only the rich land owners had the ability to vote. Back then they would pay a very large poll tax that paid for much of the operations of governent in addition to some tarrifs and state imposed excise taxes. There is an arguement to be made that the tarriffs that were imposed on goods imported from certain industries unfairly taxed people in order to protect certain
adrift122 2 years ago
fledgling industries that otherwise would not have been able to compete in the domestic US market. I would not support that either as that unduly takes money away from American citizens as well. Note also that those "kept" from voting were not taxed by the Federal government either, and therefore kept everything that they earned with the exception of the slaves. Please note, that I do not support any involuntary servitude under any conditions either.
In regards to monopolies today, we have
adrift122 2 years ago
on the books the Sherman and later Clayton Anti-trust and Monopoly laws that were intended to eliminate that from happening either. However, one staticist that I heard from a researcher on this issue and I can forward you the link is that 95% of the time that those laws were tried in court, they came from competing private entities that were trying to use those laws to get an unfair advantage over another company.
The types of monopolies we have today whether it be the electric company,
adrift122 2 years ago
the dejure Federal Reserve Banking System, Amtrak, The Post Office, as well as a long list of government sponsered enterprises get the protection of government to operate free from competition.
Free Market monopolies like Walmart for instance got big because people across the country felt that it was cheaper to business with this discount retailer because they operated much more efficiently than the smaller mom and pop stores. Subsequently, they could offer the same or similar goods at
adrift122 2 years ago
lower prices that allowed Americans to save money and get more return from every dollar.
Whether you are subservient to your own livelyhood, family member, boss, or government eventually you are in control of quality of your own life and how you choose to carry it out. Today the Amish a subserviant to their fathers and in some cases brothers. They freely carry on for the most part
I am not aware of any company out there where there is no defined management in operation for the US.
adrift122 2 years ago
I know that mr1001nights makes many referances to Spain having a system like this. Furthmore he goes on the offensive against the chattle slavery in Brazil, and how 65,000 Americans die of work related deaths in this country, yet I do not know where his source of information on that topic is. What he does not say is that during the same period of time, the Spanish were killing off the Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs in droves. Those that were not killed directly by the Spanish settlement there were
adrift122 2 years ago
killed by the spread of Small-pox and other European based diseases which those Indians did not have any immunity for. Not to mention the Spanish also pillaged the entire Spanish Main for gold and turned around and used that money to fund lavish lifestyles and an enormous military and Armada that streched around the world until the British put a stop to that with the destruction of the Spanish Armada. Additionally, all the money they plundered eventually evaporated, and today they still are a
adrift122 2 years ago
it, and people use it because the precieved safety that the government, IE Department of Agriculture/ Food and Drug Administration has signed off on it as safe. In a free-market private inspectors lifelyhood as a business would go into question, and people would reject their findings if the food they were eating was tainted. This is the untended consequence of government intervention into the food industry. Again with good intentions as their basis, they are harming Americans.
adrift122 2 years ago
sametime we lived in a country starved of capital. As a result during the era of Free-Market Capitalism we saw the building of all our metropolitan cities, canals, railroads, the emergance of the car companies, the vast majority of all out infrastructure projects outside of the interstate system. Much of the infrastructure of the American workers built back in those days remains still in use today.
Additionally on Zinn, I'm a big fan of his understanding behind the cause of 9-11.
adrift122 2 years ago
On the topic of businessmen selling "crappy" goods and people. Those goods are being sold at the "Market Clearing" price as Adam Smith would describe it in "A Wealth of Nations." Keep in mind, no one is putting a gun to another's head and ordering them to buy the good either. In any transaction, both parties must see an mutually benifical advantage to the other's offer, or no deal will be brokered.
In regards to the genetically altered food, many of the large substudized bussinesses create
adrift122 2 years ago
The system today of "Chrony" Capitalism where the government gives subsitites to large Agro-business, bailouts for the banks, car companies, and now wants implicit control of our medical system. Managed traded agreements like NAFTA. None of that is Free-market Capitalism. Free Market Capitalism in America from its founding until Wilson implies no/ minimal government control of private entities, and the only thing government did was to maintain an peaceful atmosphere to allow trade. During this
adrift122 2 years ago
Comment removed
adrift122 2 years ago
with government, not with business.
Restating the above point on the loss of liberty. The government confiscates your property through taxation, by conscription can for force your life into complusory service in the draft (possibly in a war that you do not support), and by laws, mandates, supreme court rulings, and executive orders, can take away your natural rights contained in the "Bill of Rights".
To sum that up, government is force and coercion.
Our founders believed that the
adrift122 2 years ago
purpose of government was to protect life, liberty, and property. Our Declaration of Independance spells that out. These ideas are the basis of natural law and eventually our constitution. They believed that government was to be unintrusive, and people should be free to make their own decisions on their life without government sticking their nose into their personal affairs. This was so long as you do not interfere with someone else's life, liberty, or property. They are also their as an
adrift122 2 years ago
intermediary for contract disputes, and to enforce the rule of law. This applied to contracts entered freely between two individuals.
Today the present adminstration now reserves the right to interfere with contracts and pick and choose winners. This goes in stark opposition to the constitution. The constitution was designed to limit the size and scope of government. Today the politicians disregard our governing document, and do anything the constitution doesn't expressly say they can't and
adrift122 2 years ago
sometimes even do that.
In summary, I have confidence in you as person to make your own decisions about your own life. I believe that if you make a mistake you'll be far more willing to deal with the consequences on your own terms rather than someone else making a mistake that you have to pay for. Additionally, when you make correct decisions you should be rewarded and decide how you want to spend your newly earned wealth. Naturally, people in those circumstances will find things like charity
adrift122 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
. When you have the ability to give charity face to face with the reciever, typically they get off charity as soon as you can. When the government does it, there is no incentive to care from their stand point, and that is why we have multi-generational welfare families in this country.
Give Freedom a chance! You'll be surprised by the good-nature of Americans.
adrift122 2 years ago
I disagree. The government so long as it operates democratically, is a very useful tool in curbing corporate monopolies ensuring the environment is protected and so on. A businessman does not neccesarily have to creat high quality goods to stay in business because we created an entire industry around manipulating consumer desires. And consumers dont always what is better quality but simply whats in their price range and as real wages continue to fall they purchase poorer quality stuff
Psumescroat 2 years ago
Thats why we buy crappy genetically modified foods we cant afford all these healthy organic foods because most of them are made by small farms which have to price slightly higher because they cant compete with giant corporations that reel out boneless chicken for profit. And if their customers become unhealthy they don't care because its their profit they are worried about not the externalities. So these small business begin to cripple at the hands of agribusiness monopolies and the farmers
Psumescroat 2 years ago
can either go to work for petty wages for the corporation or be satisfied with unemployment. In other words wage slavery or starvation. The government is bad done now, because of what the free market made out of it. It allowed corporations and big business stick its nose into our government and cripple our economy. CEO's don't work, they simply make deals and bargains to enrich themselves as long as we have an economy that favors unproductive people we will have crises.
Psumescroat 2 years ago
For the record, I own and read the majority of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." With that said I am sympathetic to his anarcharical goals as I see that as giving the people the maximum amount of freedom.
What I to point out is that the economic system is not a pure capitalistic system, and we have not had one since before President Wilson, and after him Harding and Coolidge were pretty capitalistic as well.
adrift122 2 years ago
"pure capitalism" was a huge problem in america because without efficient government regulation we had child labor and enormous amounts of poverty and the faith in the free market began to fade after the great depression.
Psumescroat 2 years ago
On inflation, as a marxist i would not be entirely against leaning more on gold backed currency but to incorporate ideas from the Labor theory of value to do so. It is obvious that government does cause depreciation of currency and that paper money papermust not exceed in amount the gold which would actually circulate if not replaced by symbols.
Psumescroat 2 years ago
others). This is the result of the "inflation tax". The most dishonest form of taxation.
That economist on this video suggested a wealth tax. Inflation is your wealth tax. It steals the purchasing power of your money in the bank and your pocket without your consent and knowledge.
It hurts the already poor, retired, and the medically disabled the worst. As they generally have no means of making up the difference in lost purchasing power.
The only way you can have real savings in this
adrift122 2 years ago
country is to buy and hold onto gold and silver. The reason for that is that the supply of those metals are relatively low, and costs an enormous amount of money to produce them. They contain "Intrinsic value" which has for centuries giving them value and they are the preferred monetary metals. Additionally the government can't print them into existance. Hence why the Constitution of the United States says, "Only gold and silver will be legal tender."
So the blame for rising prices belongs
adrift122 2 years ago
by their nature. Before cars came into existance in New York City, the sanitation department was huge because a literal army of street cleaners had to be employed to keep up with the horse manure being produced. When cars became the preferred means of travel, those people who were formerly street cleaners moved onto either or forms of cleaning or even more productive lines of work.
As a result of freeing up these people to pursue productive lines of work increased the standard of living
adrift122 2 years ago
for everyone because we no longer had to be taxed for services that were not needed, and those additional workers added to the real output of the country.
To summerize that, advancements in technology improves the livelyhood of everyone.
Protectionism, Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are the same "plant" just in different stages of bloom. The two you bring up Fascism which is government control of private entities, and Socialism which implies a more egalitarian meaning where all workers
adrift122 2 years ago
get the same pay regardless of the line of work they are in. Such as a garbage man gets the same pay as a doctor.
Where this falls apart is who would sacrifice and become a doctor when at the end of the day they would get the same pay as a garbage man? No one, and that is how socialism unravels.
Facism's problem is that govenment doesn't have the profit to loss mechanism to determine what lines of work are most profitable or are loosing money operations. That is the direction Obama is
adrift122 2 years ago
taking us by taking control of the banks and car industry.
adrift122 2 years ago
the price could still be unreasonable or unfair
Psumescroat 2 years ago
I could not agree with you more. The prices of anything can or will be unfair, but that not the result of business.
Remember, they are in the mind-set to bring us the highest quality good at the lowest price. It is that mentality that keeps them in business.
At the end of the day, all a businessman can do is please you. If he fails, then he will go bankrupt. On the other hand, all the government can do is take your liberty away in the name of helping you. I'm going to expand on that.
adrift122 2 years ago
For instance, the government can create a jobs program and everyone seems to benifit. However, that money had to come from somewhere. The first place is direct taxation like the income tax, sales tax... whatever tax. These taxes take away property you rightfully own and worked for. Once that is maxed out then the government borrows the money and owes interest on the debt in the form of treasury bills (Which is a shorterm gain, and a long term loss of money). When you can no longer keep
adrift122 2 years ago
borrowing, the next step is to monetize the debt. (Printing money out of thin air).
When the debt on this "make work project" comes and has to be paid, everyone else in society is compelled by confiscation of their income through direct taxation. Then when they run the dollar printing press, they debase (devalue) all the money in circulation.
When this debasement occurs, the new entry of the recently printed dollar drives up the cost of all goods existing in America. (Some faster than
adrift122 2 years ago
Therefore, by doing so indirectly voted (with their money) against buying products that include enormous secondary cost of worker's comp, retirement, law suits, and many other additional financial burdens to the final price of the goods.
Prices themselves are not rising because of some evil capitalist is gouging the price to bring in additional profits. If that was truly the case, then another evil capitalist would move into that market and undercut their price and ultimately reduce any short
adrift122 2 years ago
term profits to zero and potentially bring their revenue to negative amounts and ultimately bankrupt the former.
Prices are rising as AngryG hinted because of the inflation that the Federal Reserve System creates when they turn on the printing presses to bailout the banks and pay for the enormous deficits.
The definition of inflation is the increase of the base money supply. That happens when people counterfeit or the Fed drops interest rates/ buys treasuries/ buys bonds in specific
adrift122 2 years ago
banks that they want to prop up.
Wages are falling as I hinted at above because the highly skilled manufacturing base is being dispaced overseas, and LOW paying service jobs are replacing much of those higher skill/ higher pay jobs. This is what American workers and consumers did to themselves.
Companies investing in technology to decrease the amount of workers to put a certain good oddly enough does not cause unemployment in the long term. This has been the experience throughout the life
adrift122 2 years ago
of man. Man domesticated animals like horses and oxen to take the burden of carrying goods on their backs and put them onto something else. What we do not want is full employment if full production does not also accompany it. For instance, if we wanted to increase employment, we could pass a law banning all automobiles, trains, airplanes, and ships so people would have to carry all goods on their backs. That would elimate unemployment, but it is a tremendous waste of resources which are scarce
adrift122 2 years ago
Statistics show us quite the opposite, wages are falling, prices are rising, and unemployment is soaring and the wealth gap is 1 to 560. Profits really don't go to job creation corporations are too self interested, in fact they would rather invest in technology. Which would in turn cause higher unemployment but increase productivity but with more unemployment societies ability to purchase would fall here we are in a crisis of overproduction.
Psumescroat 2 years ago
The only difference is now we can call it financial, even though its only financial because we created credit cards so people can buy with low wages but thats inflationary and once they dont pay back those loans were fucked. Fascism is not the answer but socialism absolutely, secondly the Name national socialist really didnt represent the ideology as much as was an attempt to divert worker antagonism from capitalists to jews.
Psumescroat 2 years ago
I guess that is a good thing that you are continuing to debate this. I could not agree with you more that the wealth is disproportionately accumulating in the higher income brackets. It definately is. However, your analysis of the cause of this imbalance is totally unfounded. I would attribute the wages falling as a direct result of the staggering trade deficit that our country has engaged in. As a result, Americans freely choose to buy goods of similar quality abroad at lower prices.
adrift122 2 years ago
Look into the Von Mises Institute... This guys idea is a non-solution. The WPA greatly failed during the Roosevelt years. We need government out of business and get them to rid themsleves of the restrictions and taxes that are strangling our productive capacity and eliminating our industries.
adrift122 2 years ago
Well the Von Mises institute has a ton of smart guys but deregulation caused this it wont get us out. Wolff talks about exactly what you said that taxs can be counter productive, especially flat taxes, which mind you many of those libertarian economists support. Progressive taxation can be quite beneficial because over 95 percent in society experiences more purchasing power and produtivity while the few finance capitalists and large corporation simply have those huge profits taxed.
Psumescroat 2 years ago
The unfortunate thing is that the understanding that you have is norm in our country. Just imagine if at the founding of our nation if we had a social welfare permanent-war state the size as it is right now? We would never have become a successful country with all those burdens of government.
Those huge profits tend to go into more job creation, and upgrading their capital to reduce costs to the consumer.
Read "Economics in One Lesson" and "Meltdown: Why the Econ tanked" for more info.
adrift122 2 years ago
I like how he showed a screen of the Nikkei index in Japan while he talked about China. China? Japan? Those slanty-eyeds over there are all the same. Americans can't read Chinese characters anyway.
maemorri 2 years ago
Bush did it!!!!
Obama must save it!!!
Yeah right! Even the Chinese have cut up our credit card.
gringott12 2 years ago
Talk about change. Bush created the problem by spending, so Obama will save it by printing more money.
jamezbond78 2 years ago
its not spending that caused but spending on the wrong things tht produce nothing and deregulation
Psumescroat 2 years ago
What's really amazing is he said everything right the first half of the video, and then he became a socialist.
jamezbond78 2 years ago
You're an idiot.
side1981 2 years ago
hes a marxist economist haha thats his school of thought
Psumescroat 2 years ago
Didn't Paul Jay make Hitman Hart: Wrestling With Shadows?
zackvanhalen 2 years ago
US people paying taxes "to enable (China) to build up their military power"
United States Politicians... always the same move.
spiritsA 2 years ago
whats 2 trillion when the deficit is over 9 trillion this is insane and now the IMF is gonna loan us money?! I think we might be in serious trouble
DrGreenFizz 2 years ago
This is why I no longer watch this channel ... too many Keynesian socialists, and not enough input from Austrian economists or proponents of REAL free markets & liberty.
immanent 2 years ago
You want Austrain school bullshit watch fox.
side1981 2 years ago
This man is absolutely correct in saying we need a system that works from the bottom up, not from the top down
thepurplemann 2 years ago
what is this? A communist network?
jaceklupl 2 years ago
Ah, there it is. Question Obama or Bush or whoever and automatically it's communist. As if CNN and FOX - both sides of the equation feeding the same animal - aren't networks the Soviets could have only dreamed of.
petsounds75 2 years ago 6
Well of course its communist-meaning anyone who stands in the way of the multinational corporation run US. Well we are all communists now I suppose?They used to call it democracy
humanityfirstnow 2 years ago 2
Agreed. Fuck socialists and communists.
Anythingwilldo41 2 years ago
If u have $ 1 M and more u can say that. But usualy everyone now have $ 2-4 k a mo and next to the end u have 0 again or even worth, than u start to think about socialism and communism.
alxserov 2 years ago
Well.. do we want to be like China(communism) or Cuba(socialism) or USA... IMO, their 3 of the same. Their all led by an oligarcky(srry for misspellings). We can't change that, and who would want to? You either want govt(their will always be bad govt.) or you can have anarky. I'd rather live in a safe govt(socialism/Communism/or capitalism) then act against the govt to form some kind of anarky. Feel free to write back, if its of anything of value i'll respond
Anythingwilldo41 2 years ago
The GOVERNMENT CAN NO LONGER BE TRUSTED. OBAMA and all the rest of the thieves need to be FIRED immediatly and beg RON PAUL to take the elm or this ship is sunk.
000deadcalm000 2 years ago
I would argue this: government is like a human body. Organs can be treated, transplanted, or even wholly substituted. If the body as a whole is inoperable, then it is terminal and will eventually fail. Under this analogy anyhow, the system will eventually fail. The question is how, and what will the 'failed' body leave in its wake.
SarenthDricten 2 years ago
Watching the way Aericans fawn and boot lick Oama is disgusting. He is nothing but a black Bush. He has kept not 1 single promise made. He has surrounded himself with the worst bunch of crooks ever. The US is screwed. I read today that Bernake just gave another 250 BILLION dollars to Bear Sterns, to save them from chapter 11 so we don't find out about the BILLION dollars in BONUSES to thier CEO's. WE HAVE BEEN ROBBED!!!! TIME FOR REVOLUTION!!!!!
000deadcalm000 2 years ago
All this economist knows is to ask for high salary. But why do workers deserve high salary if they don't produce real profitable product? Under this global economy, American workers have to understand they are competing w/ the entire world now. If someone in Asia produces the same good w/ only half the salary, then that Asian wins out. That's it. Trying to foolishly fight that w/ new "business organization" or "fair tax code" is useless.
dlmaniac 2 years ago
Makes sense. I would support the government nationalising in order to protect jobs and trade at a loss (being able to anyway) during an economic crisis. Problem is, you would have to trust the government can hand the reins back to the private sector once it is done (with some added regulation I would hope). That said, I don't think we have the time to screw around asking ourselves that question any more lol.
chickenisafoolofatoo 2 years ago
wtf he didnt even touch on wether it will cause hyperinflation or not.
bogwarriorG 2 years ago
well he still didn't answer how the economic activity of the government should be supported. Only option mentioned is the wealth tax. It would be working only if those wealth were sitting around doing nothing. But most of the wealth is used to back private economic activity. If you tax it, only change would be government spending instead of private spending which is in essence inefficient and wasteful.
thandaminda 2 years ago
I'm probably misquoting lol. But someone from somewhere said something along the lines of, if you believe in free speech you have to defend the right of your enemy to run his mouth ha ha! And I agree with those horribly misquoted words.
teewillis1981 2 years ago
I was being facetious.
teewillis1981 2 years ago
This guy is a Communist and un-American, and I don't like using that term, but this guy is outrageous.
ggadguy 2 years ago
un-American? How does one act un-American? I think he is an American, if one were to define an American as one being born within the land boundaries between Canada and Mexico. He's a Marxist yup, but the days of McCarthy are over (thankfully). He will be invalidated in the long run because socialist central planning has been refuted by Hayek long ago, he will be proven wrong and that's all I need to be satisfied.
teewillis1981 2 years ago
1. central planning represents only a tiny portion of scoialist thought.
2. the current economic crisis refutes Hayek, as does about 30 years of neo-liberal failure.
ctvwr 2 years ago
1.) Central planning IS socialist thought
2.) The current economic crisis further buttresses Hayek's theory of money and credit as well as the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle.
teewillis1981 2 years ago 2
Protestantism is Christianity, but Christianity is not Protestantism. A thing that is predicable of a species is not necessarily predicable of a genus. Come on guy.
ctvwr 2 years ago
Richard Wolff is a self-proclaimed Marxist. Get this man off of Youtube.
teewillis1981 2 years ago
Propping up the zombies has never worked. Get ready for hyperinflation and hard times.
YouGotTheWord 2 years ago
I find what Obama said very hard to believe as everything he promised in the campaign trail has already been broken
sollycardy98 2 years ago
the simple solution to "changing the way we do business" as Wolfe says, is to empower the labor movement again- unions. also, it would be a radical and innovative idea to open the government to allowing syndicalism to spread, the workers take over the factories/warehouses/restaurants/ etc.
spartan2600 2 years ago
Although I agree with most of the Experts sentiments; there must be a system that provides a solution other than Nationalism, Socialism or Capitalism. National Socialism is too much concentration in the gov'ts hands and Capitalism is too much concentration in the Corporations hands.
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
Yeah there is, actually there is a whole range of things you missed in your black and white assessment. There is a HUGE range of thought inside socialism that you completely missed because of lingering cold war attitudes toward the word "socialism". Try looking up the Green Party, libertarian socialism, etc. Maybe just read up a bit on socialism. Lots of inspiring, practical ideas about meaningful democracy, respect for human rights, etc.
ctvwr 2 years ago
Okay, you don't have to be a dick about it. I was asking a sincere question and expecting a sensible response. Not closeminded condescension. I'm familiar with the terms you've mentioned, but, I don't feel that those solutions are being applied by the current administration. I do want a solution to the crisis, but, being sensible I am wary about too much concentration of power. If you feel that Obama is following the third option then good for you. I am unconvinced.
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
I didn't suggest they are being applied. I would actually assert that such ideas receive a total blackout in the public discourse, while center right people like Obama are passed off as leftists. Obama isn't change, he is just a bit more moderate than the right wing extremists we are used to. Just look at the neo-liberal(that means right wing) economists he has chosen to run his economic program. Read up on their history.
ctvwr 2 years ago
I've been paying attention though I confess the learning curve is pretty steep. I've been focusing myopically on politics and ignoring economics except where the corruption overlaps. Makes sense, though, when you think on it; follow the money. I am becoming confused by Obama, especially when I hear him forwarding a lefty wedge issue and then finding out, not really. I guess I have to accept that the permanent wing of the gov't is what has the final say.
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
I wouldn't say he ever promoted a "lefty" position, just a slightly less "righty" one. Interestingly enough, the continuous chorus from the corporate media about Obama's supposed socialist ideas is where people are getting this generalised left wing vibe off of Obama. Which makes perfect sense if you apply the propaganda model to analyse news coverage of him.
ctvwr 2 years ago
Not only is Obama a socialist, but so has every president (in increasing amounts) since Roosevelt. I'd be interested in finding out why you say he is not promoting a "lefty" position. Is he not advocating government intervention? If anything Obama is an extension of Neo-con dictates (government intervention, policing the world and preemptive war). Neo-cons are simply liberal extremists of the New Left. Of course the corporate media spin is only one half of the equation.
teewillis1981 2 years ago
Socialism is supporting the Workers and providing a saftey net for the General Public. Concentrating Power in the hands of the Wealthy Few is not socialism, it's Plutocracy. As I've learned there is always government intervention, but, its usually on the side of the rich, not everyone else. The thumb is always on the scale, just not on our side.
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
I understand the theory of socialism, but my concern is what entity is required to concentrate the power into the hands of the worker? And how is this entity supposed to protect the rights of the workers when they themselves are members of the political elite? It's making the assumption that government can be a benevolent force or operate outside of human nature. Just because there has always been government intervention does not mean that government intervention is desirable.
teewillis1981 2 years ago
You have formulated a damning argument against Lenin. Not socialism. Outside of the authoritarians camps of socialism stand quite a few proposals on how to abolish the class system and institute public control of resources without heavy handed bureaucracy or state intervention. One example off the top of my head would be to form syndicates as in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. Seemed reasonably successful, given the circumstances.
ctvwr 2 years ago
I don't think so. Socialism can only be maintained through central planning. How does one abolish the class system while not damning the masses to collectivist Leninism? How does one institute public control of resources? What does the public mean? The public consists of individuals, so who owns what part of the resource? How is the production capacity maintained? How are decisions made? By what means does a "classless" society progress? How are decisions made when everything is a public good?
teewillis1981 2 years ago
As I suspected upon mention of Hayek, you're a particular form of internet dweller known as the "anarcho-"capitalist. Maybe if you read some anarchist theory you would have answers to those questions. I can't possibly hope to answer all of that, especially not in this forum, and I'm not really inclined for yet another debate about this nonsense. Just go read the Anarchist FAQ, it answer all of those questions. But I know you won't. I offered one ancap $500 to do it and he refused.
ctvwr 2 years ago
Internet dweller? lol oh yes I have read anarchist theory and the answers to my questions aren't sufficient from the literature. But you seem to advocate socialism, so you should have the answers. Shouldn't you? Send me the link of Anarchist FAQ and you go read The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard.
teewillis1981 2 years ago
Socialism is nonsense. It's a Utopian fantasy land that only looks good on paper, but when examined closely it does not work.
teewillis1981 2 years ago
Strange accusation coming from you. So how exactly is private property to be maintained without the bludgeon of the state? The market going to do that too?
ctvwr 2 years ago
How is private property maintained now? Look at your own private property. How is it maintained? If your car is stolen, your insurance agency will replace it. If your house is broken into your renters insurance will cover it. If you are concerned about theft, buy a gun and buy a security system, hire a security guard (all free market solutions). The market is simply a word used to describe voluntary exchange. I'm not referring to corporatism or statist capitalism.
teewillis1981 2 years ago
The insurance system presupposes the state in itself. ANd the gun issue is completely off the table, because the logical extension of that leads to, ta da, a state.
ctvwr 2 years ago
Why does the insurance system presuppose the state? Seriously think about it. Guns do not lead to a state. Are you kidding me? If you believe that than I truly believe our conversation cannot go any further. So owning a knife leads to a state? using rocks as weapons leads to a state. Learning karate leads to a state. Buying car insurance leads to a state. Come on man.
teewillis1981 2 years ago
Government intervention is not the defining characteristic of socialism. It is interesting that you note the Strausian origins of the neo-cons, showing insight and then conflate their political and social agenda with an economic agenda. The economic policies of the neo-con camp is decidedly neo-liberal, as is Obama's(and Clinton for that matter.)
ctvwr 2 years ago
The defining characteristic of socialism is worker controlled production and egalitarianism in the realm of resources. None of those characteristics can be maintained without some system of central planning., to argue against that would mean that socialists believe society (made up of individuals) would some how self-regulate. Did I conflate their political and social agenda with an economic agenda? How are political and social agendas devised without the economic means of enforcing them?
teewillis1981 2 years ago
1. In the state socialist model, the workers control nothing. The bureaucracy does.
2. The state is not the only possible model of organization, again try reading about syndicalism.
3. Neo-conservatism refers to the authoritarian, aggressive, and most of all nationalist social policies. The economic model is related, but nonetheless, neo-liberal
"socialists believe society (made up of individuals) would some how self-regulate" You mean like how the "free" market somehow will under ancap?
ctvwr 2 years ago
1.) Bureaucracy does? Would that bureaucracy be classless? Give me a break.
2.) I have read about syndicalism. It doesn't work. It's like direct democracy in the realm of production. Completely inefficient. Nothing would ever get done.
3.)You unintentionally proved my point regarding Neo-cons.
4.) The Free market regulates itself through regulatory agencies (insurance companies) and the DRO model proposed by Stefan Molyneux. There a number of free market solutions just to name a few.
teewillis1981 2 years ago
I get what you're saying about media being far right so his centrist positions seem lefty. I was referring to his repeal of Bush policy on Stem Cells and then I read somewhere that it wasn't a complete reversal. When he starts bailing out the workers instead of the CEOs and Banks then, to me, he'll be a Lefty and not a centrist. Or if he actually goes green.
MrPlaid81 2 years ago
What do stem cells have to do with economics? That decision would show him to be less authoritarian than Bush, but not really any further to the left.
ctvwr 2 years ago
pathetic, another short-sighted liberal economist. I'm not suprised that this guy is teaching at New School..
tooltalk 2 years ago
Hyperinflation two or three years down the road. Today is just borrowing Trillions of Dollars from China. Interest of $45 to 50 billion dollars. We need to help the small business.
SilverRose09 2 years ago
One thing stuck out to me: money to China to help them build their military...
terr547 2 years ago
If we'd just kill the Fed, put the power to make interest-free money back in the hands of the people, pay off the debt with that new money, and increase the bank's reserve requirements, we could pay off the debt in a couple years, and never pay an income tax again....
Watch "Money Masters" available on google video!
brizzlie 2 years ago 2
5:11 "one could tax the property in Stocks and Bonds that has been never been taxed as a property..." WTF ??? This guy calls himself an economist. People own stocks and bonds to raise money for their retirement...they down own them as "property" like a house. If you tax Stocks and Bonds as a property you won't make any money off them and what would be the point in owning them??? The market would crash through the floor. This "economist" clearly knows nothing about money.
platinumpig 2 years ago
I agree this guy sounds like a moron, but most stock is owned by wealthy individuals who really have no need for retirement money.
ctvwr 2 years ago
China currently has little choice but to invest in US treasury bills and capital markets. What else is their central bank supposed to do with dollars from their massive trade surplus with America? If they spent them into the global economy, the dollar would weaken against the yuan, giving domestic production in the American marketplace an advantage over Chinese imports, thus creating a massive unemployment problem for them.
eryksun 2 years ago
China is industrializing and gradually creating its own domestic market by selling cheap goods to US consumers, who are buying the goods with debt partially financed by China. This vicious circle of debt will continue until China no longer needs the US. Then the Chinese central bankers will force America to slash its budget (cut military and social spending) and sell off all its public assets and services to private investors. Wealthy Americans will be immune to this economic shock.
eryksun 2 years ago
They could invest in other countries or in their own.
PorscheB06 2 years ago
So in other words the workers should control the means of production, comrade Marx strikes again.
Tiocfaidh ár lá proletarians.
coszz 2 years ago 3
The Bush administration refused to join the ICC or the Human Rights Council. The U.S. said the treaty that created the ICC doesnt contain adequate provisions to protect its soldiers from politically motivated prosecutions. The decision not to stand for membership in the Human Rights Council stemmed from the bodys inclusion of Cuba, China and other countries accused of abuses.
EmeterioBetances 2 years ago
U.S. and European envoys objected to criticism of Israel, calls for reparations for slavery and expressions of concern about defamation of religion. The new draft declaration, released today in Geneva by Russian coordinator Yuri Boychenko, addresses most of the U.S. and EU concerns and was shortened to 17 pages from 45.
EmeterioBetances 2 years ago
China is worried about its security in the U.S. but at the sametime their is friction bt China and the U.S. The U.S. sent a destroyer when some small chinese boats intercepted a military boat of the U.S with sonar spying in and around China. China response was that it was violating international law. China sees that the U.S. destroyer was out of purportion. The U.S. boat is to keep track of China market and military movements. The U.S. is worried about China as a partner to hold its debt. GL!
EmeterioBetances 2 years ago
yes
crinoid1918 2 years ago
Richard Wolfe is a f-n wolf.
sinitskyd 2 years ago
definately not for nationalization!! That kills competition. What he says at the end is better: namely that those involved in production should play a larger role in determining business practice, etc...This is far from socialist. In fact, it sounds like collectivist anarchism, or even anarcho-syndicalism. Look up those terms. Take govt out of the equation, but at the same time, eliminate the corporatocracy and the extreme corporate power.
benjis007 2 years ago
this Wolff is a socialist prick. Did he ever have a real job in his life? The real news is socialist garbage.
sinitskyd 2 years ago
You may find it is all the corporate CEO's who have never had a real job in their life.
myxomata 2 years ago
So we get into this mess by over spending and borrowing, yet this economists pushing the idea that we can only get out of it by spending and borrowing even more.
Government intervention is the problem.
Razorhawk72 2 years ago 2
I do agree with one sentiment expressed by Mr. Wolf. The Obama administration is taking action that will have dire long term consequences.
In effect, our furnace is broken, and we are in a blizzard. Obama has decided to set the house on fire to stay warm. Because its better than sitting there doing nothing, or is it?
jokertim777 2 years ago
Mr. Wolf contradicted himself. He started the interview by saying that what Obama is doing is going to have dire consequences in terms of inflation in just 2-3 years. Then, he ends the interview on the theme that Obama isn't doing things large or fast enough.
Also, If out of work individuals want to form companies that are run by workers they are free to do so. Why does the government need to mandate such things at all?
Not impressed with Mr. Wolf... not at all.
jokertim777 2 years ago
Haha. These guys are drooling over how they think it is okay now to use words like 'socialist' and 'nationalize'. They better be careful; many Americans like myself still burn with hatred at the mention of these words.
DrRobertStadler 2 years ago
Obama understands that this is a matter of responsibility, but does he have the will to do what must be done? We are not seeing real change now, just the half-baked ideas of Clinton-era economic advisors.
blackiron60 2 years ago
The United Socialist States of America. lol
pongman 2 years ago
kwilly u dont know shit.
Cuba has had to endure a 40 year old embargo so how can you even judge that Castro failed. The USSR bankrupted itself in an arms race and in trying to hold its empire together.
How do u think America would fair if it were embargoed for decades?? and we already see how the maintenance of the american empire is starting to crack us economically.
Lawlow1978 2 years ago 2
kwilly Cuba is not that unsuccessful, germany is a major economy, and Russia is a major player. They showed that they could defeat an American trained, supplied, and advised military when sufficiently provoked. We are in a militarily tenuous situation. If economic problems lead to a need for more then the 20,000 troops already coming for domestic control the military situaion could get hairy. Economic bankruptcy will stop our conquests like they did the empires before.
StephinRazin 2 years ago
Most Americans are too broadly uninformed to understand what socialism is and how it differs from communism, and how both of these terms have been used to describe dictatorships in the corporate press and by politicians in an (apparently successful) attempt to discredit those who wish to democratize gv't spending, and seek instead to continue and maintain elite, for-profit control of our collected tax money. Now it's upside down socialism: Welfare for the rich, the free market for everyone else.
FRTothus 2 years ago
It's kind of funny. The idea about business restructuring is not bad, but it seemed like he implied use of government intervention. That's what needs to stop. Stephen Covey has been teaching exactly what needs to happen for a long time now. Indeed our business models are dated, but we don't need intervention, we need to allow the idiots on top who couldn't change with the times to take their lesson and let them go out of business and lose their jobs.
dudeofopinion 2 years ago
U do realize if all those "idiots on top" were allowed to go outa business, so wud half the workers in the usa? Gov't intervention isn't THAT bad as americans tend to think. Look at Japan, they picked up their economy after WWII in a record 25 YRS!! HOW? Absolute gov't intervention & gov't directing which industry gets the money & how its spent!! When they wer forced to open their borders to the USA by Reagan in 80s, they got in recession in the 90s bcuz it messed up their usual way of business.
13LackMajik 2 years ago
Actually you are incorrect. When the Nikkei hit its peak at 40000 and came crashing down in the 90s. Governments tried to build ridiculous bridges to nowhere, fund stupid government work programs and "rebuild" infrastructure. And guess what happened? You guessed it. Nothing. Government stimulus did nothing but increase their debt. They don't call that period "the lost decade" for nothing.
teewillis1981 2 years ago
Solving a problem caused by spending by spending even more, is foolhardy. People have to wake up, work harder and spend less.
Hooper4zj 2 years ago
amen to that brother!
kwillyou22 2 years ago
"Work hard spend less"
i can see u dont understand that this country was turned into a consumer based economy a long time ago and that the consumption of goods and services is what drives it.
What ur doing is recommending a revolution starting with the abolishment of the Federal Reserve.
Lawlow1978 2 years ago
lol spending less? you sure? to spend is to put money in the economy... not to spend for what? wait for your money to be useless? yes brilliant plan.. save up 10,000$ than find out in 2 years its now only paper... (example - germany money in 1930's) its quite stupid to save money now a days...
n8iveidiot13 2 years ago
You're not making any sense. Please use proper English. At the current situation, there is only two way out. Inflation or Deflation, neither are good. We are screwed.
Hooper4zj 2 years ago
Sounds like Socialism to me. Might as well take everybody's money and merge into Communism.
Hooper4zj 2 years ago
ya so we can screw everything up just like the good ol' USSR... ya communism sucks...
kwillyou22 2 years ago
Of course it will lead to hyper inflation. It was designed to do just that.
realbluemeanie 2 years ago
another Obama zombie fest.... change you can believe in... yes indeed
dezldummi 2 years ago
Madness.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
This crisis is a failing of the fractional reserve banking system. A crisis that's been on its way for the past 100 years. What's required is a radically new economic system. Decentralized economics.
delerium2k 2 years ago
NO MORE PUT IT ON MY credit card those day's are over NO more zero down NO money no buying power the USA is made up of FREE credit but the world is not going to put up with it any more the USA is in so much debt that it will Collapse in two more year's since it as no more PONZI SCHEME CALL SUBPRIME SCHEME BUT THE OTHER BIGGEST SCHEME MADE UP BY USA IS CALL FAKE Democracy No more super Power OR FREE MONEY NO MORE BIG GDP!! double standard"s<--- USA
LILUCKSMO80 2 years ago
Dont be fooled into thinking that the taxpayer bailouts were just designed to get the banks lending money again. The situation is much more perilous. Losses continue to be revealed, and Americas banking system is all but bankrupt—kept alive only through taxpayer blood.
LILUCKSMO80 2 years ago
A bit OT but I watched "The Obama Deception" in HQ on YT last night and I think it's a POV everyone needs to consider. Agree or disagree but at least give it a fair listen.
javster420 2 years ago
Not to worry about the consequences, that is hyper inflation, as the speaker avoids, is horribly irresponsible. We hear that we should embrace socialism for the benefit of the common man, yet no attention is given to the disastrous effects that hyper inflation WILL have on the common man. It WILL destroy all the said advantages said to be worth while to help folks survive. The only winners of the bailouts are the institutions.
It's good to examine all sides. Now put Schiff on.
InTheSticks1881 2 years ago
Although I strongly disagree with the content, the interview was excellent. It explored some of the thinking behind the more liberal proponents, and likely the Obama administration. I therefore 'favoritied' it. Those who are of the traditional persuasion and subscribers of Austrian economic theory, may find the need to buy more gold and silver as a result.
InTheSticks1881 2 years ago
Not only is Obama´s behavior disappointing but the entire foundation of this colonialistic nation is disappointing. The whole country is built by bandits, cowboys, looters, slave-traders & racists, mainly Brits. Same thing with Israel, which is a part of the British colonization of Palestine. The US, Israel, Canada and Australia are all a part of the English-created neo-colonialistic NWO that is destroying the world. If you want to criticize the US, don´t forget to criticize England as well.
LILUCKSMO80 2 years ago
The points made on this video are exactly the same points Ron Paul has been making for years! It seems the whole world is starting to hear his message. Thank God.
Dedhedted71 2 years ago 2