I should be free to set up a factory to employ children. Yet, I am stuck in this country PAYING for the free education of children for families I don't even know! What B.S. What happened to MY liberties?!
This does not seem to cover the effects of what happens when a disadvantaged group such as blacks or women are suddenly paid substantially more and thus become an economic and social force in changing spending behaviours. Nor does it cover what happens when the situations of not regulating pay leads to a vicious circle of playing off one disadvantaged group against another, for example poor white sharecroppers versus tenant/labourer blacks.
"india's resurgence as an economic powerhouse is due to it's cultural integrity rather than the infrastructure and the language of english the british left us."
Actually, it's privatization. Cultural integrity? Who are you kidding? India has one of the most corrupt public sectors in the world?
@mballzhari What I can say about that is that any system of ideas that lets you think it's right to steal by force what someone else has made or worked for has a serious flaw in its ethics. That goes for Islam, conquistadors, the East India Trading Company or socialism.
None of the empires so created can ever long endure, for the simple reason that the slaves eventually stop working. That's the trick Gandhi eventually stumbled upon, and he most certainly wasn't the first to do so in history.
@mballzhari Actually in the US the British were more benevolent than the colonists, at least to the native Indians. The French were the best, treating the natives mostly like equals. The British were greedy and patronizing, but the Americans were murderous. The colonists only wanted to get rid of the native Americans, and did so.
There's certainly one thing both of us can agree on, I think, without equivocation. The Indian people themselves should be the ones to run India - yes?
@mballzhari Maybe you know something about the period that I don't. I'm glad you're apologetic about exchanging insults, and you have sufficiently shamed me by doing so that I am moved to apologize too. But you will have to be much more convincing to get me to believe that the Muslim invasion of India was in any way "benevolent".
I've heard Muslims say things like this about "Andalusia" and their "benevolent conquest". I assure you, the Portuguese and Spaniards have a different story to tell.
@mballzhari When the Turks conquered the Armenians, the wealth the Turks stole from the Armenians mostly stayed in Anatolia. When they finally exterminated the Armenians, their land and even their corpses stayed in Anatolia too. I don't consider that something for an Armenian to celebrate.
The British did not deliberately knock down the holiest sites in Hindu India and build mosques on top of them. They did not enslave and murder the Indian population. They built railroads instead.
@mballzhari I shall give you a solid "no", and go even further than that. Over 200 years ago, the colonists in the country of my birth faced a similar situation from the same people, doing the same thing. Their reaction was to arm themselves and go to war. We celebrate the result every July 4th.
But don't tell me that the Muslim Moghuls were better - and then call me a "bullshitter" for telling you otherwise. Because then you're just being a bald-faced liar and an arse.
“My principal object in coming to Hindustan… has been to accomplish two things. The first was to war with the infidels, the enemies of the Mohammadan religion; and by this religious warfare to acquire some claim to reward in the life to come. The other was… that the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the infidels: plunder in war is as lawful as their mothers’ milk to Musalmans who war for their faith.” -Amir Timur
@mballzhari No. I'm a descendant of Armenian grandparents who saw the end process of Muslim rule firsthand. I'm also someone who has Indian friends, and am familiar with the topic from reading works on the period.
Don't know much about baseball. More of a chess player myself.
Feel free to take you and your bullshit elsewhere, whenever you like. I won't stop you.
@mballzhari And yet, the system and technology that the British brought to India did better the lives of average Indians, for the most part. They certainly had a better record of public service than the Muslim invaders, who came to rob, enslave and exterminate the indigenous people.
You must either be an idiot or a soulless ass to try to push the idea that the Muslims in India were benevolent. I'd have to have an IQ less than 75 to buy your bullshit.
@mballzhari Now you're going to argue that the indians were better off under Muslim conquerors. Strange that the people of the time did not share your beliefs - thus how a small group of Brits outnumbered over 50-1 could run things for so long.
I say it's because they did a good job, and weren't religious fanatics. Of course, you have some other reason why they were able to do it. Care to explain how it was done then?
@RadioFreeWisconsin Absolutely bang on. If you're a team owner and you are a racist, and you say that you don't want any black players on your team, you are going to be at a disadvantage. Your team will lose, your fans will want you out.
The free market solution, the idea that a man should pay for his prejudices, is the most effective solution to discrimination I've ever heard. Government rules are all well and good, but they are hard to enforce which renders them ineffective.
@CarlosMarti123 I'm kind of happy that firefighters don't stop to look around for insurance plaques in the house on fire and surrounding houses, that they don't fight with other crews who show up at the house, they simply put out fires for anyone in their area.
@newguy33X If we lived in a world where supermarkets were government run, people would say "private supermarkets would lead to mass starvation on the streets as they would only feed their rich friends who can pay the most for the food". These scenerios greatly distort the reality of economics and the human spirit.
Yeah, like rural electrification, the Interstate Highway System, public libraries, the Federal Aviation Administration, land titles registries, and the like?
Plenty of government programs are more than fine; we wouldn't have a functioning society without them.
People should be paid equally for equal work. Communism didn't work because everyone got paid the same regardless of the work that they did. If someone wants to take LESS pay for a job, there's NOTHING stopping them from doing so, but they will be selling themselves short, which is a bad idea.
@sc0pl355 Not necessarily true. Suppose you're going for a job against 3 other people and by chance it turns out you're all equally competent. The person who gets the job will be the one who sells himself short, as you say. However, that person will have a job, compared to the other three who won't. So who has really sold himself short? The guy who got the job, or the three that didn't?
@markm8080 Look, if you put yourself out there as a worthless mule, then that's what you'll be. Sell yourself short and your bosses will use you up and toss you to the wayside. By standing your ground, you're making a declaration that your work has value. "Equally competent" does NOT exist there will always be people that are a little better, a little worse and have good/bad personality traits. Your mentality is the main why so many people are living paycheck to paycheck while getting nowhere.
@sc0pl355 Check out the Grapes of Wrath.. The scene where only few jobs but hundreds of men/families in need.. Then they start outbiding (undercutting) each othr 2 get them.. In the end, same few jobs went 2 few 'lucky' men, who then had 2 work for $1 a day (when initially offered $5, be4 bidding competition 4 jobs began).. So NONE of them do well after.. And the farm owners make off like bandits. -- When I saw that, suddenly I TOTALLY understood why/how unions 1st formed.. It was an epiphany!.
@LittleDesertFlower78 Yeah, exactly. The road to a zero sum game ends with the working man doing a lot of work for nothing and still starving at the end of the day. The working man needs someone to fight for his interests. The business owners need goods and services as much as workers need money. If the workers stick to their guns, then they'll all benefit.
The very reason that Detroit is populated by Black people is because, in the middle of the 20th century, Black workers were much cheaper than White workers and much less likely to be union members. That "White flight" talked about was the process whereby White workers steadily lost their jobs and were replaced by Blacks.
What finally crippled Detroit's industry was the eventual unionization of these Black replacements. Simply put, it finally became uneconomical to make marketable cars there.
@DrCruel No one was giving labor unions credit when the auto industry was making record profits. What nearly ruined Detroit was the unbelievable arrogance of management. Management made incredibly stupid business decisions, like making over 30 different kinds of instrument cluster options for one vehicle model. That merely scratches the surface of their insane business ideas. Exhorbitant executive pay (like giving Ross Perot 5 Billion, yes Billion with a B to resign) didn't help any.
@bddc201 Of course no one gave labor unions credit for the success of American automotive companies. The success of American automotive companies preceded the rise of automotive unions. Automotive unions are not about making US auto companies successful - their objective is to wring out as much cash from these companies for their membership, in particular for the union leadership.
But I may be wrong. There's a simple way to find out. Why don't the unions open their own auto company?
@DrCruel You're missing the point. American auto companies made record profits, even with unions. Unions are not to blame for the auto industries problems. If you make shitty cars that no one wants (which unions have no control over) you will lose money if there is genuine competition. Unions were created because businesses were treating workers like slaves and government failed to intervene (for their own citizens). Unions don't open businesses, they get justice for their membership.
@bddc201 Why don't unions open up businesses - co-ops, for example? Might it be because I am correct, in that unions are interested in looting created wealth from someone else rather than co-operating to generate wealth? Or are you telling me that unions don't involve themselves in actual production because of tradition?
There are plenty of instances in foreign countries where organised workers and management work together to make the company successful. Sadly, none of these involve the UAW.
@DrCruel Unions aren't in the business of opening up businesses, and that really misses the point. It's just not what they do. A certain airline tried their hand at the car rental business and failed miserably, because that's not their expertise. Unions aren't "looters" or any other sort of criminal enterprise. Unions are about getting economic justice for workers and keeping the balance of power in check so the workers don't get screwed. Unions were instrumental in the civil rights movement.
@bddc201 Unions are protection rackets that monopolize the supply of labor to other businesses, and extort as much as they can for it. They also control access to labor, and extort cash from workers as well (in the form of dues or fees).
Unions control the people that are supposed to be most skilled at making products, and regularly accuse managers and business owners of corruption and incompetance. If they are right, union bosses should be able to do a much better job. So why don't they try?
@DrCruel What you call extortion is the legal exercise of collective bargaining rights via the Wagner act. Unions are necessary BECAUSE of the incompetence, corruption and greed of corporate management. I already answered your other question.
@bddc201 I've lost a job because I refused to join a union. The union leader said the place I worked at was a "closed" shop, and that I would not be allowed to work there unless I joined up and paid dues to them.
And this was meant to protect my "civil rights"? How dare they. How dare you.
The Dred Scott decision legitimized the ownership of people by other people, based on race. This did not justify slavery. Nor does the Wagner Act justify these labor-based extortion rackets.
@DrCruel Oh, boo hoo for you. You wanted union-negotiated benefits and pay without the responsibility. You wanted something for nothing. Unions don't represent you for free. Most unions set their rate at one hour of pay per employee per month. If you can't spare that paltry sum because of your "ideology", then you deserve a shitty job. You didn't lose that job, you quit it. Only a thief expects to be served for free.
@bddc201 Not at all. I don't want unions standing between me and my employers at all. I don't want them involved in my life, but they insist - and demand to be paid off if I'm to be allowed to work.
Unions are unbelievably corrupt. As an example, my uncle married the daughter of a union leader - and because of it became a union head himself. He eventually got divorced from her - and lost his job as a result.
Nepotism and cronyism have NOTHING to do with enhancing our civil rights.
@DrCruel Corruption is a human problem. Corporations have plenty of their own corruption, so does government, churches and all kinds of enterprise. Being imperfect is no reason to dispose of unions. As for your uncle, would it make you feel better if he had been illegally fired from a scab shop? Happens all the time.
@bddc201 And what makes you think a group of people unrelated to tthe running of a business, rahter than the person or persons who actually opened and run the business, are better qualified to decide who does and doesn't work at a shop? And what possible explanation is there for unions amongst government employees, like teachers and policemen, who have a virtual monopoly on the services they provide - and who, in the case of teachers, insist on maintaining their ruinous monopoly?
@DrCruel So boo hoo for YOU. You say your employer doesn't treat you well enough? You say he keeps all teh profits for himself, and doesn't give you a sufficiently lucrative health and pansion plan on a silver platter/ Fine - then get off your buttock, go out into teh real world and start your own business. Stop trying to rip off some other successful entrepreneur by forming a gang of thugs and strong-arming his workers.
Unions are criminal enterprises. The laws should reflect that reality.
@bddc201 "Civil rights" involves a respect for the rights of other people. But unions prevent workers from freely seeking employment without the approval of the union, and force businesses to pay unjustified wages. In the case of government unions, where the pool of taxpayer money can simply be increased by legal fiat, and where the unions have monopolies granted to them by law, pay and benefits transcend absurdity .
Unions are an abuse against civil rights. They do not expand them.
@bddc201 A lack of respect for the rights of business people is why unions are allowed to exist. Unions prosper only by consuming the success of the businesses they afflict. They enrich their parasitic members at the expense of their host. In time businesses that tolerate them go out of business.
An employer "justifies" a wage based on what value for a worker's labor is negotiated. In the case of unions, this relationship between workers and bosses is hijacked by a gang of monopolistic thugs.
@DrCruel Let's say that a state like, say, Texas, succeeded from the Union... Would Texas then be entitled to the rights, protections and privileges that an actual US state gains from being in the Union despite being scabs in this case?
@sc0pl355 Let's say a group of people decide to form a gang and thereafter shake down all the companies in their home city. Let's say anyone who works or owns a shop in the city is either compelled to pay them protection money or be forced out. Should such a criminal mafia be put in jail, or should they instead be supported by the police?
Socialist countries are economic ghettos run by hereditary criminal elites. Why would you expect socialism in the US to work any differently?
@DrCruel There's a problem with your assessment. Nobody is forced to do business with a union. Unions are intended to fight for worker's rights.
"Socialist countries are economic ghettos run by hereditary criminal elites."
So, Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland, The Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Austria are echonomic ghettos... despite the fact that they are some of the riches countries in the world a few of which have twice the wealth of the US? Oh boy.
@DrCruel "Socialist countries are economic ghettos run by hereditary criminal elite"
Norway. Largely Socialist nation. GDP per capita is over $84k.
Also, unions fight for workers rights, which is a good thing because corporatists have proven to be more than willing to take gruesome advantage of their employees.
@DrCruel An employer doesn't have to negotiate when he has all the bargaining power, which is the case in non-union jobs. He can behave like a petty dictator and rob his employees blind (which many do). Employers and corporations have way too many rights as it is. There is not one documented case of a U.S. company going out of business because of artificially high wages being paid to hourly union members. Unions are just a convenient target of greedy sociopaths who want to return to slavery.
@bddc201 Then FORM YOUR OWN BUSINESS. If the advantage is so overwhelmingly in favor of the business owner or boss, this should be a snap. You'd become instantly wealthy, and can then pay workers whatever ridiculously high wages and benefits you demand - that is, up until all the bills and sales figures come in.
As for businesses that have gone out of business because of unions, where did the US steel industry go? Why are all our products made in the PRC now and shipped across the Pacific?
@DrCruel The U.S. steel industry went bust in large measure because the government has consistently forced it's own citizens to compete with Chinese slave labor. People in China are working in near death-camp conditions with poor safety, lousy wages, and virtually no benefits. You want to see free-market capitalism at work, go to India. India was a modern wealthy country until the English brought their corporations in and began systematically skinning them alive.
@bddc201 India was in the midst of a Muslim conquest when the British arrived. Much of the infrastructure in teh country, particularly the rail system, was put in by those "English exploiters". As for the misery of mainland China, that didn't begin in earnest until the rise of the Maoists - who have turned virtually all of China into one huge union shop. Meanwhile in Taiwan (where the legitimate government of China resides), free market capitalism has led to prosperity for the people.
@DrCruel The Brits robbed India blind, that is undeniable historical fact. And they did it using the corporations. China is one huge union shop? They must have shitty unions. Mao was a sociopathic dictator who murdered millions of his own people. Taiwan is modestly prosperous, and only so because the U.S. is protecting her.
@bddc201 Mao was indeed a sociopathic dictator. He killed his people in the name of socialism. The same can be said for the leaders of the Soviet Union.
Businesses can't be set up freely. They're owned by the government, whether or not they are managed by foreigners, and must pay a cut of their profits to the Party. Workers cannot work freely either - many of the people in laogais were caught working in the cities "illegally".
The Marxists have turned China into a huge union shop.
@bddc201 As for the Brits "robbing India blind", that's more typical Leftist propaganda. Certainly the British entrepreneurs of teh Empire era were out to make a profit, buthte problems of India did not magically arrive with them. India was in the midst of a Muslim conquest (the Mughal Empire), and their system of castes explained away the vast poverty of most of the people, so nothing was done about it. The British brought development and prosperity, just as they did for Hong Kong.
@DrCruel The British brought prosperity to India?!!! I never heard an Indian say that, I've never even heard a Brit say that. Hong Kong? You have got to be kidding. I'm not going to debate you anymore as you are obviously a liar. Enjoy your shitty scab job and try not to get cum stains on your shirt when your boss demands oral pleasure.
@2dum2getsocialism I counterd DrCruel in many previous posts, he's full of shit and it's obvious. You and DrCruel have benefitted tremendously from labor unions and that is undeniable fact. If you truly belive that vile little turd Milton Friedman, who never risked proving his theories outside the classroom, then you should have your head examined. Hong Kong sucks. BTW, one of the first official acts of Adolf Hitler's third reich was to criminalize labor unions, anti labor is pro-Nazi.
@bddc201 labor unions unnecessarily raise wages to forever prohibit the least skilled to ever enter the work force- labor unions promote unemployment- how does this help anyone who is not in the union?; history has proven friedman correct time and time again-- what system other than freemarket capitalism gives the least fortunate to best chance to better himself? BTW Hitler never banned trade unions-- he replaced them with his own-- please get your revised history straight please-- move along
@2dum2getsocialism You're full of it. Unions sponsor all kinds of apprenticeship programs. Friedman has been proven wrong over and over again. Hitler criminalized labor unions, this is well documented historicial fact. I bet you troll around on other vids claiming there was no holocaust.
@paragshah2112 if you think capitalism is slavery, you better better pick up a macroeconomics book and read up on socialism, communism, and other command economies, and then tell me which is better. Trust me, you have it a lot better in the U.S then any other place in the world. But as I see it, we are moving towards a more Keynesian eco.(which never worked in our past and never will) /government everyday. So your wish for socialism in the US may come true one day.
@xsumuhdihx The U.S. has been almost entirely Keynesian since 1932. I have no beef with petrol producers, but they are clearly being subsidized (=socialism) by among others the American government to entrench a system which can seriously hurt the welfare of the U.S. and these oil producers, and which (ironically) Democrats dislike. True, the U.S. does have a smaller government in many ways than many European ones, but govt spending in the U.S. accounts for ca. 40% of GDP, which is shameful.
It seems equally difficult for some people to see the difference between totalitarian socialism and, say, a universal health care system like they have in Canada, the UK, Sweden, and most other modern democracies.
Not every government program amounts to Stalinism.
If you looked into those matters deeply and have numbers or sources, or you live in one of these countries and
experienced thier medical care first hand. And tell me about it, i'll be happy to get more knowledge. My research showed so far that universal health care systems are inferior. ( but i am not an expert at all ) .
communism and socialism are not the same. as far as north korea, even if they are truly socialist (idk if they or are not) that still is not the only country with socialist elements so that is not the only society to look to. also, the u.s., though not " a socialist nation" has some elements of socialist policies here. i.e., welfare and social security. which is ironic seeing as americans bitch abt socialism but take advantage of socialist programs
@DivinelyMochaDipped communism is a subcategory of socialism. so yes they very much are the same. Socialism has only worked in small communities where everyone knows eachother,. But on a large scale it's obsolete.
@23lFrench capitalism is freedom. i work as hard as i want to buy the things that i want to live the life that i want. i don't think you think of freedom in the same way i do. you don't want freedom - you want things for free. and free is always paid for by someone else.
@dastechnoviking Definition of freedom: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
I want freedom, too. Oddly enough, capitalism supporters are often the first people to support the war on drugs, alcohol prohibition, etc. Basically, they wish to strip others of freedoms, while barking at others for not supporting unfettered captialism.
You are either free, or you are not. By definition, Americans have never been free.
@georgelopezblows Again noooo....Listen to what Friedman said about drug prohibition. Listen to what Ron Paul says about it. It's the government who advocate and enforce prohibition. Not free-market capitalists. Maybe corporations and certain businesses, as they don't want their profits under cut by competition.
@gshooting I do agree with the premise that certain corporations would not want to suffer losses from competition.
Ron and Milton are expections to the rule. Conservatives are generally for prohibition. My argument was that staunch capitalism supporters -- which are generally Republican -- are hypocrites for not allowing the market to function, unhindered. Much like alcohol prohibition, the drug trade has been forced into black markets.
@georgelopezblows The problem with such hypocritical capitalism supporters is that they are not pure liberty supporters. Today most liberalists who support legal intoxicants are named libertarians. The keyword to look for if you want to find hypocricy is "conservative". The conservative outlook is - rhetoric notwithstanding - a basic collectivist/socialist philosophy and it pulls in the exact opposite direction from all the freedom loving ideals that Republicans subscribe to
@23lFrench In precisely which reality does one not have to work to survive? Sit on your duff in a socialist world conjtemplating your inner wants and desires (along with all the other socialists) and see just how quickly you remove yourselves from the gene pool. That human beings have to do certain things in order to survive is not a condition of capitalism; it's a condition of basic reality (from which you are apparently divorced.
@xsumuhdihx You've been tricked. You don't have capitalism in the US. You have corporativism. And out of corporativism and socialism I'd allmost rather choose socialism.
@xsumuhdihx Not, that I consider myself a socialist. Simply because of the nature of corporativism; which is to bennefit certain corporations and then ultimately hide who is benefitting from goverment interference.
... His brother (being a lawyer himself for one of the older lawyer's most lucrative clients) came in one day for a briefing. The old lawyer started off, but then let the female give the details. Upon some questioning, only the female lawyer could explain the bond issue to the brother. He subsequently and privately invited her to dinner, and offered her a job with him, at double the pay and with a secretary and personal assistant. She accepted. Her old boss was furious.
@DrCruel [...a young female lawyer as a junior partner.]
Great anecdotal story about 'paying a price for discrimination' in the free market. More "do-gooders" should hear stuff like this. Thomas Sowell wrote a book about the detrimental effects of affirmative action around the world. India was particularly detailed and disastrous.
I knew a lawyer who employed a young female lawyer as a junior partner. She was a brilliant expert at her job, and the older male lawyer took full advantage of her skills and naivete - not only did she do most of the work, but she also washed the dishes in the conference room and did some other clerical duties ...
its unbelieveable, that even in death, this dark demonic soul milton friedman still serves as a center of attraction for all the vile psychopaths that have belched up from the sewers of the lower astral plane (and have unfortunately found this planet).
"milton friedman still serves as a center of attraction for all the vile psychopaths that have belched up from the sewers of the lower astral plane (and have unfortunately found this planet)."
That's okay. You don;t need to keep coming back. Rational people who grasp the benefits of capitalism will always be around to trounce socialist fools (as you've experienced even though remaining in obvious denial about the outcome of the debates).
@FfF you havent won, you just continue to prove every one of my assessments. your replies are not solicited yet you instigate with malice. you constantly talk down to everyone you reply to, you lace your responses with denegrating rhetoric, a demeaning tone, the ideology of a psychopath, all premised with garbage for facts. if milton was so wonderful, why does his legacy have to be honored by a mentally deformed bully like you, overtly harassing the general public? milton would be proud of you.
dont worry about that asshole fletch. his sources are not credible. they are the same sources that propagate his stunted and deformed concepts. they are all just like friedman and (*ugh*) palin. he is a toxic keyboard commando for some insideous right wing propaganda machine. i have a hunch he knows that he is rallying for a serfdom. he just believes that his corpoarte overlords will keep him as a pet or a guard. fletch is a treasonous jerkoff who dont know history for shit.
@paragshah2112I thought about demanding some sound reasoning from you at one point, but then quickly realized that doing so would be contradictory. Thankfully, we are on youtube, and your voice is as a result rather insignificant, just like the rest of those of you who are somewhat challenged. Friedman is an exceptionally honoured scholar, and insulting him does you no credit. One might just as well start a much more worthy discussion about the lack of merit in F.D.R.'s Keynesian administration.
@EsdaileApe good, cuz i wouldnt have wasted my energy on you anyway. i've come to the realization that your kind is beyond redemption. you are akin to junkies, and psychopaths like friedman are your junk. when rock bottom hits it will be on your head. yours, motherfucker. even when you are broken down into slavery by these right wing monsters, you still wont recognize what really happened.
@paragshah2112 if you are going to call names, it would be far more appropriate to refer to me as being one of the "right wing monsters", and not a (ha ha) "slave". You are in fact the slave here, the slave to social democracy and "progressive" conceit.
@paragshah2112 I don't know if you are American or not, but your perception of our, that is European, styled social democracy as being a good economic/political system is extremely naive. The only reason why it is sustainable in say Norway (mitt fedreland) is because the expensive and unjust welfare state is subsidized by the government's revenue off of oil. In all other examples of European social democracies, nobody with brains is boasting of the institution's success.
@EsdaileApe ok, here's my take: you're a fat rich oil guy, and i'm a meager worm. you sit behind your desk and make lots of money making "big important decisions" that determine whether you'll be rich or rich :) meanwhile, i pave your roads, take out your trash, and make sure your kids dont have worry for their saftey. i'm loyal nevertheless but you know what? my hands hurt at the end the day. since you havent paid for anything else, its only fair that you pitch in if you're a part of us, dig?
@paragshah2112 Decisions made by chairmen, etc. are vital in helping everyone in an economy. Business leaders do far more most of the time to benefit their own company than their own wealth. Energy companies play a pivotal role in allowing for economies to function, without which there would be a depressionary supply shock. Those roads are just as much yours as mine, but I don't wish to be forced to contribute more in taxes (as a % of income) than those who make less than myself, comprenez-vous?
@EsdaileApe oui. i understand that you're naive as to how capitalism really works, how it's predatory by nature, and how it has nothing but bad intentions. but i also know that 500 char aint enough to get into it with you. i'm NOT trying to insult you in any way, and if you are honestly trying to see my point, i suggest you do a youtube search for chris hedges and check out his stuff for starters. i am a democratic solcialist and i vote. nothing anyone says here on youtube will ever change that.
@paragshah2112 I know who Hedges is and what he represents. I am myself not fond of the U.S. having a war-oriented economy, which is one of his chief concerns, but this only proves the vices of government support for private industries (by acting as a major buyer), which does nothing to promote a REAL market-based economy.
@Esda and thats just one example. i can give you more. free market unchecked unregulated capitalism is a bloodsport. businesses make money and hire more based on consumer demand not on lower taxes and zero regulation. zero taxes means zero infrastructure (3rd wrld). zero regulation means in order to be competitive labor costs (standard of living) must be plunged. an economy is more prosperous and advanced when the masses have money to spend. these oligarchs really just want power at our expense.
@Esda the objectives of citizens and the objectives of companies are 2 totally contrasting goals. capitalism as a form of govt will neccessarily lend itself to corruption because when certain key industries are privitized, any locale is now at the mercy of these corporations. govt whose sole purpose is to represent and protect its citizens now tend to the desires of these corporations instead. and these companies dont care about day to day business. what they want is godlike power over us.
@paragshah2112 Its not in a company's interests to have NO taxes, because then there will be no law enforcement to maintain contractual obligations. If wages are minimized, don't forget that demand will contract, because as you say, they are the base. Ergo there IS an equilibrium which companies seek. You talk like some market cynic out of Syriana.
@paragshah2112 Please take this as constructive criticism - your failure to capitalize the first letter of every sentence makes it difficult to read your comments.
"the objectives of citizens and the objectives of companies are 2 totally contrasting goals."
The objective of a company is to meet the objectives of citizens. A company will have a competitive advantage if it acts fairly and in a sociably responsible manner. If not, why Fair trade products? Look up The Ultimatum Game.
@mangoswiss I know i'm bad about capitalizing. As for the companies caring for the citizens as an objective, simply put, that is not accurate. Planetary wellbeing is of no concern to them. Capital is the ONLY concern of companies. They are a-moral entities by nature. Free markets only create the drive for cheapest labor (slavery), and then lowest standard of living for those slaves (3rd wrld) cuz lowest price possible is paramount. Even if that means GMOs, pollution, and slavery, then so be it.
@paragshah2112 If the lowest price is paramount, this implys that the companies are striving for a lower price for a reason. What is that reason? To sell their product to those who can afford it. This cannot be the "slaves" you mention. Nor do corporations mass produce products to appeal to the limited number of "elites". Therefore, there has to be a relatively well off middle class that the corporations are competing to attract. The corporations cannot kill off their bread and butter.
@lane not quite. but i cant educate you in <500 char. i have left this comment thread. if you want to learn a more practical angle to how this actually plays out and who it really favors, i can recommend some stuff for you to check out but i will not do so in this thread. i'm not intrested in another flame war. it seems friedman is a magnet for the floating ghouls in his wake, even well after his death. they wander aimlessly in cyber-space cuz they have nowhere else to go :) PM me if you care.
@paragshah2112 The "ghouls" I've heard from on the Internet follow the debunked Karl Marx and his dubious acolytes. By contrast, Friedman's fans seem more interested in protecting the public from thievery.
Mind, I can see how some thieves might take offense at this sort of thing, and even get quite irrational in response. So I'm not at all shocked at the inferences.
@DrCruel not quite. but i cant educate you in <500 char. i have left this comment thread. if you want to learn a more practical angle to how this actually plays out and who it really favors, i can recommend some stuff for you to check out but i will not do so in this thread. i'm not intrested in another flame war.
PM me if you genuinely care. otherwise tell fletchforfreedom i said "hi".
@paragshah2112 You claim you have justifications for why people of the Chicago Scool of Economics are "ghouls", but cannot explain yourself in so many words. You mock the views of others, claim no need to justify yourself for it, and then accuse those who bring you to task for it as trolls trying to start a flame war.
Why should I take any of this seriously? If you have written cites, put them up - a few book titles and authors can be posted with well under 500 characters. Else, off with you.
@DrCruel not that i cant, but that i wont ... to you ... hmmkay! this world dont owe you shit, old man ... tagging up on something i said to someone else 3 weeeks ago ...
you know, you write just like fletch, you use the same rhetoric as he does, and you even share the same antagonization technique. you two must be married. i wonder which one you two tards is "the wife"? hehehe you are a moody bitch, if anyone's catching in that relationship its gotta be you.
@paragshah2112 So then, you have no means by which to present your case, and feel no need to do so regardless. Your pronouncements need no justification - indeed we deserve "no such shit". Fair enough.
But now you seem to have devolved to open trolling. No problem with the character limits in this regard. In that light, might I suggest your dearth of character is not Youtube's fault.
@DrCruel for all your keyboard kommando'ing you just dont get it. you arent real about yourself or anything else. youre such a natural born asshole that its hard for me to care about enlightening you. kill yourself.
@paragshah2112 Might I suggest instead - and I mean this in the most polite way I can manage - that you go fuck yourself? You won't have to engage further with me, and will have something entertaining to occupy your time with. I won't have to worry about another parasite after the fruits of my hard work, if only for a temporary respite, and we can both reach our own respective, well-deserved ends.
It's much better than trying to argue against the Chicago school with fart jokes and the like.
@DrCruel did i hurt your little cheerleader feelings cuz i didnt accept your propaganda? good, i'm not wasting my energy on you. i've come to the realization that your kind is beyond redemption. you are akin to junkies, and psychopaths like friedman are your junk. when rock bottom hits it will be on your head. yours, motherfucker. even when you are broken down into slavery by these right wing monsters, you still wont recognize what really happened. in better times you'd have hung for treason.
@paragshah2112 Not at all. When I tell you to go fuck yourself, I'm trying to be positive and helpful. You have no undertstanding of the issues involved, are clearly not bright enough to learn them, and thus really can't be better occupied. Dogs that lick their own balls don't feel compelled to make erroneous insights on economics, so I thought the same might work with you.
As for when "rock bottom hits' it will be the fault of socialists. I thought I made that clear, but ah well ...
@E your cheerleading for facism is an abomination to your dignity. people see right through your sad efforts at lying to us and laugh at your feeble minded attempts at indoctrination. my rants are not corporate sponsored drivel in the intrest of some transnational oligarch. yours plainly are. for all your keyboard kommando'ing you just dont get it. you arent real about yourself or anything else. youre such a natural born a-hole that its hard for me to care about enlightening you. kill yourself.
@FletchforFreedom yup the voices in my head being chris hedges and bruce edinburg to name a few. the sources you mention are in league with sarah palin and other asswipes like yourself.
again this guy is fucking full of shit ... unbelievable ... every time he opens his mouth he shows the world how much of a fucking puppet he is ... i swear to god the whole chicago school of economics was setup as a false credential by the oligarchs to send this shill out to hypnotise the masses with rhetoric and other mind control techniques ... vile hateful motherfuckers ... i wonder just how large was the slot up his ass? its a curiousity how he had so many hands up there at once ...
Thanks for demonstrating with your complete lack of actual argument, your heavy reliance on ad hominem attacks and profanity and your apparent need to state paranoid delusions as fact the utter and complete intellectual bankruptcy of your criticism.
Comments such as yours do more to vindicate Friedman's positions than a whole host of his defenders.
@FletchforFreedom no, again, you are trying to goad me into a war of words bc you're an asshole. actually you arent an asshole, you're a fucking retard. and an asshole. listen troll, i told you in another thread that i dont have the character space to illustrate how this motherfucker is so full shit. it would be like fact checking the algebra of a squirrel. you are what the likes of friedman refer to as "a useful idiot". i'm not wasting any more time on you, so leave me alone motherfucker.
You are the one who made the baseless comment initially; you are the one demonstrating an inability to function without profanity. Character space is nothing more than an excuse to cover the fact that you HAVE no argument (even one that a squirrel would not laugh at).
You were aware of course that the term "useful idiot" was developed by Lenin to describe those with YOUR viewpoint, were you not?
@Fletch and all you do is demonstrate ignorance. i'm not a totalitarian communist. YOU actually ARE. a proper rhetorical analysis cant be done with these character space restrictions. it might be for you, but you see, i dont fart ideas out and call it good like you do. i dont make make stuff up and call them facts like you do. i research and verify like a normal person. that takes time and space that a 500 char blurb wont cover. the likes of you wouldnt understand that. you are a failed human.
I never said you were a "totalitarian communist" (albeit in actual practice the phrase is redundant). That you are incapable of making a cogent point with brevity is a failure on no one;s fault but your own. I haven't made anything up nor have you even attempted to demonstrate that such is the case (since you can't). You have posted more than sufficient tomes to make at least one cogent point; instead all you've demonstrated is that the best you can manage is personal attacks.
@FletchforFreedom fair enough. i havent read your other comment yet but up to this point, for the first time you have behaved in a way i can respect. lets take your first phrase there. totalitarian and communist are not redundant. your understanding of communism must be what they have in the former ussr but it indeed is no where close. it is a perfected capitalism. they have merely perverted the word communism. it has been over 500 yrs since real communism was last seen on earth.
The USSR is one example. Theoretical communism is utopian based upon the premise that economic decision making can be made at the societal level (which requires a unanimity of agreement that is unachievable for human beings). Given that constraint, actual practice requires some group or individual making such decisions (and enforcing them upon dissenters). Aside from being grossly inefficient (resulting in poverty) such a system is prone to co-opting by totalitarians (as history shows).
Further, theoretical communism is based upon concepts that have long been disproved - the historical structuralism supposedly making it inevitable, the viability of a system without prices to determine value, the labor theory of value, etc.
You are confusing communalism (small group egalitarianism within a greater societal framework) with communism (a societal system) which has, in fact, never existed because it is impossible.
@FletchforFreedom you're not seeing the forest for the trees. the taino folks were the group i was referring to. they were marx's communism. according to colombus's journal they fit every requirement. not a subset for them to be considered merely a communalism. now, look at the definitions of capitalism, fascism, and feudalism and see if do you see the common thread? can't you see past the supposed ideological differences and see how its merely different stages of the same ugly creature?
@paragshah2112 the reason friedman and guys like him are so dangerous is that they have historically provided the nourishment for that creature as it metamorphs from one stage to the next, getting more and more sinister and unredeemable with each passing phase. serfdoms are never the result of a lost rebellion or resistance, but rather they are insisted upon by the corrupt and ignorant and they are ushered in with thunderous appluase. motherfuckers like friedman are deeply familiar with this ...
Even a cursory search shows the Taino had two classes (including nobles), maintained private property and inheritance (multiple sources, only a blurb on cave paintings disagreed), engaged in trade and used money (though Columbus thought the small gold trinkets they used were just barter). Can't see any links to communism there. And fascism, like communism, is a form of socialism so to that extent I agree about the same ugly creature, but there's no connection to capitalism.
@Fletch then the example may have been a poor one. i was going on the whole bit about how they "knew not of sin, had no crime or jails," etc. they may not have been a pure communism, but totalitarianism and communism are not the same. there has been totalitarianism, and it looks nothing like marx's vision. to say socialism is anything like totalitarianism is only the purest perversion of language and thought (which happens to be the first steps in the metamorphasis of capitalism into fascism).
@paragshah2112 Yep, Orwellian double speak to the max. I was on this channel that was lauding Orwell as some visionary against the totalitarian state mean while the usual groups of poorly read yanks screamed Big gov at everyone..... when I mentioned Orwell actually was a socialist revolutionary of the purest kind, they had absolutely no idea. They literally have had there heads filled with misinformation.
@CmdrTobs you're tellin me ... i hear this drivel 24 hrs , 7 days a wk without let-up. its border to border coast to coast. its not just a simple issue of misinformation as much as it is willful ignorance. most americans have been conditioned to trust the tv. its a pure disaster for us as a society. honestly how can the advertisers be expected to act? in their own interest of course. thats why americans are so easily duped and manipulated by tools like friedman.
Whether they had no crime is certainly debateable (based on an extremely limited experience), but the point remains that the society bore absolutely no resemblance to communism whatsoever. That there has been totalitarianism and it bears no resemblance to Marx's vision is a point I have already conceded. The very point I was making is that, since Marx's vision is pure utopian fantasy, REAL WORLD attempts to implement it yield totalitarian results. And fascism is socialistic, not capitalistic.
@Fletch nobody could have HONESTLY tried to implement communism, cuz requisite predecessors have never existed. what that woud be i dont even know cuz i have never lived in a world decent enough to know. based on observable patterns, i'm guessing democratic socialism would probably be just the seed cuz something so high minded would have to be an expression of the ADVANCED stages of something already enlightened. communism's good name was used as a tool in a totalitarian overthrow of a serfdom.
Quite the contrary, while you are correct about the implementation of communism (as it is impossible), the concept of collectivism is not "advanced". To the contrary, the maintenance of such a societal ordering (in order for it to function) requires the abandonment of the advance (the monetary system, the division of labor and the free flow of capital) that makes advance possible. Advocating a hybrid system devolves to a debate about the relative utility of the hybrid parts - capitalism wins.
@FletchforFreedom no, you're wrong. its just hard for the mind to wrap itself around because we have never seen what all this looks like. doing it the right way will clear those issues up if its given a unified, clairvoyant effort. capitalism wins like evil wins. its not a sports team. this is very real. you and your family would be far more prosperous like eveybody else (irrelative to how prosperous you may be right now) but for this subjugative shackle around the neck of the whole damn planet.
No, you're wrong. In fact this has been written about extensively by scholars across even the political spectrum (thouigh I personally prefer Hayek's "the Fatal Conceit" as both comprehensive and reasonably concise. Capitalism wins by facilitating individual liberty (how is that evil?). It has freed up the resources responsible for ALL of the technological innovation we enjoy (without which me, my family and everyone else would still be living at the subsistence level ... if at all).
@FletchforFreedom you are grossly misinformed about capitalism. you are blending it with several other concepts, which are unrelated, yet have been wrongfully latched onto by this foul insitution (as a technique mid you). your vision of it is simply the result of friedman's propaganda. every source you have mentioned are all propaganda. they have been extensively discredited. if these are your sources, you are no more a teacher than a propagandist.
The problem is that you are attributing problems to capitalism that have nothing to do with it (problems of state intervention) and ignoring the benefits that it provides. Thechnology REQUIRES capitalism. It cannot come into existence without private (several) property, a monetary system, prices, the division of labor and the free flow of investment capital. You are simply in denial.
And as I've taught economics on more than one occassion, I'll give your assessment the credit it deserves.
@FletchforFreedom state intervention is mostly for the evil purpose. case in point, the TABC ... actually watch the movie beer wars for a great example of capitalism at work. actually thats all i got to say. until you watch and let me know i'm done with you on this thread. as for "technology" i wasnt referring to objects. i meant technology in ideology, and philosophy by whicvh to apply to governance. but what you said about advances being a result of only capitalism is also waaaay off base.
I certainly am not arguing in favor of state interventionism - again, I am OPPOSED to socialism because in the real world as has been long established capitalism and state action are INCOMPATIBLE.
What I said about technological advances being the result of capitalism is established fact. Only under capitalism is it possible for someone to build jet engines or typically just parts and receive what he needs to survive. Only with capitalist monetary exchange is that at all possible.
@FfF your definitions are completely fabricated and you obviously dont know jack shit about how jets are made or how the technology came about in developing them or you wouldnt be popping off with your kind blatantly incorrect remarks ... or maybe you would ...
private research has been the way of the dark past, affordable only to the children of oligarchs. with limited success and expensive failure. ask Lavoisier. jet tech is an example of socialised money for research (paid for by the army).
My definitions are exactly those used by economists, historians and political scientists. There's no dioubt my historical research exceeds yours. Private research is STILL what drives the world. The vast majority of research is conducted in the private sector (more than 2/3 in OECD countries and by an even greqater percentage in the US. Net of military research, the percentages are orders of magnitude higher. And jet engine technology, while finished by the army, began in the private sector
@FletchforFreedom "And fascism, like communism, is a form of socialism" categorically wrong. This is why people need good teachers.
Sure, a Fascist may be happy to nationalise key industries for war etc... but that does not make them socialist. In the same way using currency does not make a communist a kind of capitalist. Either you have not been taught correctly or you are deliberately misleading others.
Yes you are categorically wrong. It is not my fauult that you are glaringly ignorant. You should try doing actual research without cherry-picking your sources. The nationalization of ANY industry for ANY reason is BY DEFINITION socialism in every case. At the same time, the use of currency would preclude communism but not socialism.
I've not merely been taught correctly, I have been studying and teaching these concepts for decades - that you missed the memo doesn't reflect poorly upon ME.
@Fletch as long as there is representative govt THEN AND THEN ONLY can such a thing be called democratic socialism. but it IS FASCISM if that exclusive ownership is an expression of private corporations getting the benefit of the nationalizing for their own personal profit while at the same time being subsidized by the people's tax dollars for their impending extravagencies (ie big oil). capitalism is the seed, fascism is the sprout, totailitarianism is the blossom, serfdom is the bloom.
That democracy is necessary for the democratic version of socialism undermines my position not in the slightest. I never argued that fascism was a variant of democratic socilialism, but that it met the definition of socialism, particularly since the initial definitions of fascism were corporatist (a socialist variant that does not mean corporate ownership) and in practice private exercise of the powers of ownership were almost entirey fictional. Capitalism has NOTHING to do with fascism.
@FfF its not just a variant. its a completely different species. it takes a lot for the groundwork to be laid down for such a difference to exist. it may look like a few changes of written words but the practicality is a gaping chasm of difference (that doesnt happen overnight either). this world has so much advanced technology in governance for expressions of corruption and contempt. it has never known of the other side. guys like friedman always crawl up out of the sewers to ruin everything.
Yes, they are variants just as gold, iron and mercury are variants of metals even though many of their properties differ dramatically - the only issue that matters is the collective exercise of ownership powers (which encompasses all forms of sociaist - including fascist - activity). The issue has never been that it is inappropriate to discuss them separately but that it is equally inappropriate to ignore the definition.
To the extent Friedman is heeded, liberty and prosperity follow.
@FfF by your reasoning an alfa-alfa sprout would be a variant of a venus fly trap. such is NOT the case. you are correct that the main issue here is power. communism is heaven (power to the people), serfdom is hell (power to .01% of the people). capitalism yields a serfdom. not a communism. we reap what we sow. the best would be to plant the seeds that yield a communism, and we have to not only abandon sowing capitalism, but also disinfect the earth of its presence, in order to do that.
To the contrary, by my reasoning both would be PLANTS and not ANIMALS. That all of the variants of socialism, including fascism, fall under the greater category of collective economic decision making is not controversial. Communism is fiction; socialism impoverishes. Capitalism is economic liberty (again, this is definitional) and has always lead to the opposite of serfdom. You've moved beyond clear errors with definitions to clear errors with history.
@FletchforFreedom "Capitalism is economic liberty (again, this is definitional)", WTF?!?! what comic book would EVER have a definition that is SOOOO subjective? have you lost your mind!?!? and now you are sliding the scale of measure when you are talking about what is a variant of what. if you are going to keep shifting the standards for basis then we cannot continue ... you are resorting to stupid see through tricks. face it dude, the rug has been pulled and you are flat on your ass.
This has been flagged as spam show
I should be free to set up a factory to employ children. Yet, I am stuck in this country PAYING for the free education of children for families I don't even know! What B.S. What happened to MY liberties?!
JoshMan522 1 month ago
mass immigration is destroying the west. The EEOC is unconstitutional. The cult of equality and democracy is wrong.
knightschwartz 1 month ago
Zombie Friedman for President!
samsamm77 1 month ago
This does not seem to cover the effects of what happens when a disadvantaged group such as blacks or women are suddenly paid substantially more and thus become an economic and social force in changing spending behaviours. Nor does it cover what happens when the situations of not regulating pay leads to a vicious circle of playing off one disadvantaged group against another, for example poor white sharecroppers versus tenant/labourer blacks.
HollyLimbo 1 month ago
Holy fuck this guy knows things back in 1978 that our governments can't figure out in 2011...
raptors11111 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mballzhari
"india's resurgence as an economic powerhouse is due to it's cultural integrity rather than the infrastructure and the language of english the british left us."
Actually, it's privatization. Cultural integrity? Who are you kidding? India has one of the most corrupt public sectors in the world?
RavingDissension 5 months ago
@mballzhari What I can say about that is that any system of ideas that lets you think it's right to steal by force what someone else has made or worked for has a serious flaw in its ethics. That goes for Islam, conquistadors, the East India Trading Company or socialism.
None of the empires so created can ever long endure, for the simple reason that the slaves eventually stop working. That's the trick Gandhi eventually stumbled upon, and he most certainly wasn't the first to do so in history.
DrCruel 7 months ago
@mballzhari Actually in the US the British were more benevolent than the colonists, at least to the native Indians. The French were the best, treating the natives mostly like equals. The British were greedy and patronizing, but the Americans were murderous. The colonists only wanted to get rid of the native Americans, and did so.
There's certainly one thing both of us can agree on, I think, without equivocation. The Indian people themselves should be the ones to run India - yes?
DrCruel 7 months ago
@mballzhari Maybe you know something about the period that I don't. I'm glad you're apologetic about exchanging insults, and you have sufficiently shamed me by doing so that I am moved to apologize too. But you will have to be much more convincing to get me to believe that the Muslim invasion of India was in any way "benevolent".
I've heard Muslims say things like this about "Andalusia" and their "benevolent conquest". I assure you, the Portuguese and Spaniards have a different story to tell.
DrCruel 7 months ago
@mballzhari When the Turks conquered the Armenians, the wealth the Turks stole from the Armenians mostly stayed in Anatolia. When they finally exterminated the Armenians, their land and even their corpses stayed in Anatolia too. I don't consider that something for an Armenian to celebrate.
The British did not deliberately knock down the holiest sites in Hindu India and build mosques on top of them. They did not enslave and murder the Indian population. They built railroads instead.
DrCruel 7 months ago
@mballzhari I shall give you a solid "no", and go even further than that. Over 200 years ago, the colonists in the country of my birth faced a similar situation from the same people, doing the same thing. Their reaction was to arm themselves and go to war. We celebrate the result every July 4th.
But don't tell me that the Muslim Moghuls were better - and then call me a "bullshitter" for telling you otherwise. Because then you're just being a bald-faced liar and an arse.
DrCruel 7 months ago
“My principal object in coming to Hindustan… has been to accomplish two things. The first was to war with the infidels, the enemies of the Mohammadan religion; and by this religious warfare to acquire some claim to reward in the life to come. The other was… that the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the infidels: plunder in war is as lawful as their mothers’ milk to Musalmans who war for their faith.” -Amir Timur
DrCruel 8 months ago
@mballzhari No. I'm a descendant of Armenian grandparents who saw the end process of Muslim rule firsthand. I'm also someone who has Indian friends, and am familiar with the topic from reading works on the period.
Don't know much about baseball. More of a chess player myself.
Feel free to take you and your bullshit elsewhere, whenever you like. I won't stop you.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@mballzhari And yet, the system and technology that the British brought to India did better the lives of average Indians, for the most part. They certainly had a better record of public service than the Muslim invaders, who came to rob, enslave and exterminate the indigenous people.
You must either be an idiot or a soulless ass to try to push the idea that the Muslims in India were benevolent. I'd have to have an IQ less than 75 to buy your bullshit.
Let me guess. A Leftist, yes?
DrCruel 8 months ago
@mballzhari Now you're going to argue that the indians were better off under Muslim conquerors. Strange that the people of the time did not share your beliefs - thus how a small group of Brits outnumbered over 50-1 could run things for so long.
I say it's because they did a good job, and weren't religious fanatics. Of course, you have some other reason why they were able to do it. Care to explain how it was done then?
DrCruel 8 months ago
He is better than Vivaldi !
Armando7654 8 months ago
What ended segregation in sports? Great black athletes, not government quoatas!
RadioFreeWisconsin 9 months ago
@RadioFreeWisconsin Absolutely bang on. If you're a team owner and you are a racist, and you say that you don't want any black players on your team, you are going to be at a disadvantage. Your team will lose, your fans will want you out.
The free market solution, the idea that a man should pay for his prejudices, is the most effective solution to discrimination I've ever heard. Government rules are all well and good, but they are hard to enforce which renders them ineffective.
markm8080 2 months ago
Isn't it amazing how every government policy ends up having the opposite results and consequences of its intentions?
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago 27
@CarlosMarti123 I'm kind of happy that firefighters don't stop to look around for insurance plaques in the house on fire and surrounding houses, that they don't fight with other crews who show up at the house, they simply put out fires for anyone in their area.
newguy33X 6 months ago
@newguy33X If we lived in a world where supermarkets were government run, people would say "private supermarkets would lead to mass starvation on the streets as they would only feed their rich friends who can pay the most for the food". These scenerios greatly distort the reality of economics and the human spirit.
chameleonquest 5 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 Makes you wonder, what are the true intentions of the do-gooders? Hmmmmm
gdbalck 3 months ago in playlist Economic theory
@CarlosMarti123
Ok so when both soviet russia AND capitalist USA, via governments, started a space programme both got into space?
alfienoaks 2 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
Yeah, like rural electrification, the Interstate Highway System, public libraries, the Federal Aviation Administration, land titles registries, and the like?
Plenty of government programs are more than fine; we wouldn't have a functioning society without them.
UdallIn72 2 months ago 2
@CarlosMarti123 Describes OBAMA to a tee.
UCSDEngineerDoctor 3 days ago
Milton friedman's advice: Sell yourself short
People should be paid equally for equal work. Communism didn't work because everyone got paid the same regardless of the work that they did. If someone wants to take LESS pay for a job, there's NOTHING stopping them from doing so, but they will be selling themselves short, which is a bad idea.
sc0pl355 9 months ago
@sc0pl355 Not necessarily true. Suppose you're going for a job against 3 other people and by chance it turns out you're all equally competent. The person who gets the job will be the one who sells himself short, as you say. However, that person will have a job, compared to the other three who won't. So who has really sold himself short? The guy who got the job, or the three that didn't?
markm8080 2 months ago
@markm8080 Look, if you put yourself out there as a worthless mule, then that's what you'll be. Sell yourself short and your bosses will use you up and toss you to the wayside. By standing your ground, you're making a declaration that your work has value. "Equally competent" does NOT exist there will always be people that are a little better, a little worse and have good/bad personality traits. Your mentality is the main why so many people are living paycheck to paycheck while getting nowhere.
sc0pl355 2 months ago
@sc0pl355 Check out the Grapes of Wrath.. The scene where only few jobs but hundreds of men/families in need.. Then they start outbiding (undercutting) each othr 2 get them.. In the end, same few jobs went 2 few 'lucky' men, who then had 2 work for $1 a day (when initially offered $5, be4 bidding competition 4 jobs began).. So NONE of them do well after.. And the farm owners make off like bandits. -- When I saw that, suddenly I TOTALLY understood why/how unions 1st formed.. It was an epiphany!.
LittleDesertFlower78 1 month ago
@LittleDesertFlower78 Yeah, exactly. The road to a zero sum game ends with the working man doing a lot of work for nothing and still starving at the end of the day. The working man needs someone to fight for his interests. The business owners need goods and services as much as workers need money. If the workers stick to their guns, then they'll all benefit.
sc0pl355 1 month ago
The very reason that Detroit is populated by Black people is because, in the middle of the 20th century, Black workers were much cheaper than White workers and much less likely to be union members. That "White flight" talked about was the process whereby White workers steadily lost their jobs and were replaced by Blacks.
What finally crippled Detroit's industry was the eventual unionization of these Black replacements. Simply put, it finally became uneconomical to make marketable cars there.
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel No one was giving labor unions credit when the auto industry was making record profits. What nearly ruined Detroit was the unbelievable arrogance of management. Management made incredibly stupid business decisions, like making over 30 different kinds of instrument cluster options for one vehicle model. That merely scratches the surface of their insane business ideas. Exhorbitant executive pay (like giving Ross Perot 5 Billion, yes Billion with a B to resign) didn't help any.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 Of course no one gave labor unions credit for the success of American automotive companies. The success of American automotive companies preceded the rise of automotive unions. Automotive unions are not about making US auto companies successful - their objective is to wring out as much cash from these companies for their membership, in particular for the union leadership.
But I may be wrong. There's a simple way to find out. Why don't the unions open their own auto company?
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel You're missing the point. American auto companies made record profits, even with unions. Unions are not to blame for the auto industries problems. If you make shitty cars that no one wants (which unions have no control over) you will lose money if there is genuine competition. Unions were created because businesses were treating workers like slaves and government failed to intervene (for their own citizens). Unions don't open businesses, they get justice for their membership.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 Why don't unions open up businesses - co-ops, for example? Might it be because I am correct, in that unions are interested in looting created wealth from someone else rather than co-operating to generate wealth? Or are you telling me that unions don't involve themselves in actual production because of tradition?
There are plenty of instances in foreign countries where organised workers and management work together to make the company successful. Sadly, none of these involve the UAW.
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel Unions aren't in the business of opening up businesses, and that really misses the point. It's just not what they do. A certain airline tried their hand at the car rental business and failed miserably, because that's not their expertise. Unions aren't "looters" or any other sort of criminal enterprise. Unions are about getting economic justice for workers and keeping the balance of power in check so the workers don't get screwed. Unions were instrumental in the civil rights movement.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 Unions are protection rackets that monopolize the supply of labor to other businesses, and extort as much as they can for it. They also control access to labor, and extort cash from workers as well (in the form of dues or fees).
Unions control the people that are supposed to be most skilled at making products, and regularly accuse managers and business owners of corruption and incompetance. If they are right, union bosses should be able to do a much better job. So why don't they try?
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel What you call extortion is the legal exercise of collective bargaining rights via the Wagner act. Unions are necessary BECAUSE of the incompetence, corruption and greed of corporate management. I already answered your other question.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 I've lost a job because I refused to join a union. The union leader said the place I worked at was a "closed" shop, and that I would not be allowed to work there unless I joined up and paid dues to them.
And this was meant to protect my "civil rights"? How dare they. How dare you.
The Dred Scott decision legitimized the ownership of people by other people, based on race. This did not justify slavery. Nor does the Wagner Act justify these labor-based extortion rackets.
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel Oh, boo hoo for you. You wanted union-negotiated benefits and pay without the responsibility. You wanted something for nothing. Unions don't represent you for free. Most unions set their rate at one hour of pay per employee per month. If you can't spare that paltry sum because of your "ideology", then you deserve a shitty job. You didn't lose that job, you quit it. Only a thief expects to be served for free.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 Not at all. I don't want unions standing between me and my employers at all. I don't want them involved in my life, but they insist - and demand to be paid off if I'm to be allowed to work.
Unions are unbelievably corrupt. As an example, my uncle married the daughter of a union leader - and because of it became a union head himself. He eventually got divorced from her - and lost his job as a result.
Nepotism and cronyism have NOTHING to do with enhancing our civil rights.
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel Corruption is a human problem. Corporations have plenty of their own corruption, so does government, churches and all kinds of enterprise. Being imperfect is no reason to dispose of unions. As for your uncle, would it make you feel better if he had been illegally fired from a scab shop? Happens all the time.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 And what makes you think a group of people unrelated to tthe running of a business, rahter than the person or persons who actually opened and run the business, are better qualified to decide who does and doesn't work at a shop? And what possible explanation is there for unions amongst government employees, like teachers and policemen, who have a virtual monopoly on the services they provide - and who, in the case of teachers, insist on maintaining their ruinous monopoly?
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel So boo hoo for YOU. You say your employer doesn't treat you well enough? You say he keeps all teh profits for himself, and doesn't give you a sufficiently lucrative health and pansion plan on a silver platter/ Fine - then get off your buttock, go out into teh real world and start your own business. Stop trying to rip off some other successful entrepreneur by forming a gang of thugs and strong-arming his workers.
Unions are criminal enterprises. The laws should reflect that reality.
DrCruel 9 months ago
@bddc201 "Civil rights" involves a respect for the rights of other people. But unions prevent workers from freely seeking employment without the approval of the union, and force businesses to pay unjustified wages. In the case of government unions, where the pool of taxpayer money can simply be increased by legal fiat, and where the unions have monopolies granted to them by law, pay and benefits transcend absurdity .
Unions are an abuse against civil rights. They do not expand them.
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel A lack of respect for the basic human rights of workers is why Unions are necessary. How do you "JUSTIFY" a wage?
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 A lack of respect for the rights of business people is why unions are allowed to exist. Unions prosper only by consuming the success of the businesses they afflict. They enrich their parasitic members at the expense of their host. In time businesses that tolerate them go out of business.
An employer "justifies" a wage based on what value for a worker's labor is negotiated. In the case of unions, this relationship between workers and bosses is hijacked by a gang of monopolistic thugs.
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel Let's say that a state like, say, Texas, succeeded from the Union... Would Texas then be entitled to the rights, protections and privileges that an actual US state gains from being in the Union despite being scabs in this case?
Why expect the workplace to be any different?
sc0pl355 9 months ago
@sc0pl355 Let's say a group of people decide to form a gang and thereafter shake down all the companies in their home city. Let's say anyone who works or owns a shop in the city is either compelled to pay them protection money or be forced out. Should such a criminal mafia be put in jail, or should they instead be supported by the police?
Socialist countries are economic ghettos run by hereditary criminal elites. Why would you expect socialism in the US to work any differently?
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel There's a problem with your assessment. Nobody is forced to do business with a union. Unions are intended to fight for worker's rights.
"Socialist countries are economic ghettos run by hereditary criminal elites."
So, Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland, The Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Austria are echonomic ghettos... despite the fact that they are some of the riches countries in the world a few of which have twice the wealth of the US? Oh boy.
sc0pl355 9 months ago
@DrCruel "Socialist countries are economic ghettos run by hereditary criminal elite"
Norway. Largely Socialist nation. GDP per capita is over $84k.
Also, unions fight for workers rights, which is a good thing because corporatists have proven to be more than willing to take gruesome advantage of their employees.
sc0pl355 9 months ago
@DrCruel An employer doesn't have to negotiate when he has all the bargaining power, which is the case in non-union jobs. He can behave like a petty dictator and rob his employees blind (which many do). Employers and corporations have way too many rights as it is. There is not one documented case of a U.S. company going out of business because of artificially high wages being paid to hourly union members. Unions are just a convenient target of greedy sociopaths who want to return to slavery.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 Then FORM YOUR OWN BUSINESS. If the advantage is so overwhelmingly in favor of the business owner or boss, this should be a snap. You'd become instantly wealthy, and can then pay workers whatever ridiculously high wages and benefits you demand - that is, up until all the bills and sales figures come in.
As for businesses that have gone out of business because of unions, where did the US steel industry go? Why are all our products made in the PRC now and shipped across the Pacific?
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel The U.S. steel industry went bust in large measure because the government has consistently forced it's own citizens to compete with Chinese slave labor. People in China are working in near death-camp conditions with poor safety, lousy wages, and virtually no benefits. You want to see free-market capitalism at work, go to India. India was a modern wealthy country until the English brought their corporations in and began systematically skinning them alive.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 India was in the midst of a Muslim conquest when the British arrived. Much of the infrastructure in teh country, particularly the rail system, was put in by those "English exploiters". As for the misery of mainland China, that didn't begin in earnest until the rise of the Maoists - who have turned virtually all of China into one huge union shop. Meanwhile in Taiwan (where the legitimate government of China resides), free market capitalism has led to prosperity for the people.
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel The Brits robbed India blind, that is undeniable historical fact. And they did it using the corporations. China is one huge union shop? They must have shitty unions. Mao was a sociopathic dictator who murdered millions of his own people. Taiwan is modestly prosperous, and only so because the U.S. is protecting her.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 Mao was indeed a sociopathic dictator. He killed his people in the name of socialism. The same can be said for the leaders of the Soviet Union.
Businesses can't be set up freely. They're owned by the government, whether or not they are managed by foreigners, and must pay a cut of their profits to the Party. Workers cannot work freely either - many of the people in laogais were caught working in the cities "illegally".
The Marxists have turned China into a huge union shop.
DrCruel 9 months ago 2
@bddc201 As for the Brits "robbing India blind", that's more typical Leftist propaganda. Certainly the British entrepreneurs of teh Empire era were out to make a profit, buthte problems of India did not magically arrive with them. India was in the midst of a Muslim conquest (the Mughal Empire), and their system of castes explained away the vast poverty of most of the people, so nothing was done about it. The British brought development and prosperity, just as they did for Hong Kong.
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel The British brought prosperity to India?!!! I never heard an Indian say that, I've never even heard a Brit say that. Hong Kong? You have got to be kidding. I'm not going to debate you anymore as you are obviously a liar. Enjoy your shitty scab job and try not to get cum stains on your shirt when your boss demands oral pleasure.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 then counter drcruel's "lies" and try to refrain from idiotic statements like the last sentence of your post
have you ever watched uncle miltie's video using hong kong (pre-china's re taking)?
i suggest you watch it
2dum2getsocialism 8 months ago
@2dum2getsocialism I counterd DrCruel in many previous posts, he's full of shit and it's obvious. You and DrCruel have benefitted tremendously from labor unions and that is undeniable fact. If you truly belive that vile little turd Milton Friedman, who never risked proving his theories outside the classroom, then you should have your head examined. Hong Kong sucks. BTW, one of the first official acts of Adolf Hitler's third reich was to criminalize labor unions, anti labor is pro-Nazi.
bddc201 8 months ago
@bddc201 labor unions unnecessarily raise wages to forever prohibit the least skilled to ever enter the work force- labor unions promote unemployment- how does this help anyone who is not in the union?; history has proven friedman correct time and time again-- what system other than freemarket capitalism gives the least fortunate to best chance to better himself? BTW Hitler never banned trade unions-- he replaced them with his own-- please get your revised history straight please-- move along
2dum2getsocialism 8 months ago
@2dum2getsocialism You're full of it. Unions sponsor all kinds of apprenticeship programs. Friedman has been proven wrong over and over again. Hitler criminalized labor unions, this is well documented historicial fact. I bet you troll around on other vids claiming there was no holocaust.
bddc201 8 months ago
@paragshah2112 if you think capitalism is slavery, you better better pick up a macroeconomics book and read up on socialism, communism, and other command economies, and then tell me which is better. Trust me, you have it a lot better in the U.S then any other place in the world. But as I see it, we are moving towards a more Keynesian eco.(which never worked in our past and never will) /government everyday. So your wish for socialism in the US may come true one day.
xsumuhdihx 11 months ago 24
@xsumuhdihx The U.S. has been almost entirely Keynesian since 1932. I have no beef with petrol producers, but they are clearly being subsidized (=socialism) by among others the American government to entrench a system which can seriously hurt the welfare of the U.S. and these oil producers, and which (ironically) Democrats dislike. True, the U.S. does have a smaller government in many ways than many European ones, but govt spending in the U.S. accounts for ca. 40% of GDP, which is shameful.
EsdaileApe 9 months ago
@EsdaileApe yah.... it is pretty shameful :/
xsumuhdihx 9 months ago
@xsumuhdihx "Trust me, you have it a lot better in the U.S then any other place in the world."
What? No.
Maybe 10-20 years ago, but right now, America is sucking pretty bad.
sc0pl355 9 months ago
@xsumuhdihx I come from former USSR. Middle class family. Well to all those
who born in USA let say, and promote socialist ideas, why don't you buy a ticket
to north korea and go live there for a year. In USSR where we had central planning
economy ( where they tell stores what goods to stock on, and what prices to use ), you could NOT
get simple things like : jeans, video players,etc. To buy a car you had to go on a waiting list for years.
I guess it's hard for people to see that
kenzaifun 6 months ago 12
@kenzaifun
that a man who makes tons of money is a good guy, because most likely he also creates many jobs for other people.
kenzaifun 6 months ago
@kenzaifun
It seems equally difficult for some people to see the difference between totalitarian socialism and, say, a universal health care system like they have in Canada, the UK, Sweden, and most other modern democracies.
Not every government program amounts to Stalinism.
UdallIn72 2 months ago 2
Comment removed
kenzaifun 2 months ago
@UdallIn72
If you looked into those matters deeply and have numbers or sources, or you live in one of these countries and
experienced thier medical care first hand. And tell me about it, i'll be happy to get more knowledge. My research showed so far that universal health care systems are inferior. ( but i am not an expert at all ) .
kenzaifun 2 months ago
@kenzaifun
ussr= communist
communism and socialism are not the same. as far as north korea, even if they are truly socialist (idk if they or are not) that still is not the only country with socialist elements so that is not the only society to look to. also, the u.s., though not " a socialist nation" has some elements of socialist policies here. i.e., welfare and social security. which is ironic seeing as americans bitch abt socialism but take advantage of socialist programs
DivinelyMochaDipped 2 months ago
@DivinelyMochaDipped communism is a subcategory of socialism. so yes they very much are the same. Socialism has only worked in small communities where everyone knows eachother,. But on a large scale it's obsolete.
tehatemachine 1 month ago
@kenzaifun They Eat 3 square meals a day, They sleep on a warm bed at night, But their mom wouldn't buy them an Ipad. They are the 99% :D
tehatemachine 1 month ago
@kenzaifun Well said.
UCSDEngineerDoctor 3 days ago
@xsumuhdihx Capitalism is slavery, you have to work to survive. What a great life. Forget about all of your other inner wants and desires.
23lFrench 4 months ago
@23lFrench capitalism is freedom. i work as hard as i want to buy the things that i want to live the life that i want. i don't think you think of freedom in the same way i do. you don't want freedom - you want things for free. and free is always paid for by someone else.
dastechnoviking 4 months ago
@dastechnoviking Definition of freedom: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
I want freedom, too. Oddly enough, capitalism supporters are often the first people to support the war on drugs, alcohol prohibition, etc. Basically, they wish to strip others of freedoms, while barking at others for not supporting unfettered captialism.
You are either free, or you are not. By definition, Americans have never been free.
georgelopezblows 3 months ago
@georgelopezblows i am free to deny you your freedoms. this is the paradox of "freedom".
dastechnoviking 3 months ago
@dastechnoviking Nooo.....You are free to as you wish as long as it doesn't infrige on other's rights and freedom. That's freedom.
gshooting 3 months ago
@georgelopezblows Again noooo....Listen to what Friedman said about drug prohibition. Listen to what Ron Paul says about it. It's the government who advocate and enforce prohibition. Not free-market capitalists. Maybe corporations and certain businesses, as they don't want their profits under cut by competition.
gshooting 3 months ago
@gshooting I do agree with the premise that certain corporations would not want to suffer losses from competition.
Ron and Milton are expections to the rule. Conservatives are generally for prohibition. My argument was that staunch capitalism supporters -- which are generally Republican -- are hypocrites for not allowing the market to function, unhindered. Much like alcohol prohibition, the drug trade has been forced into black markets.
georgelopezblows 3 months ago
@georgelopezblows The problem with such hypocritical capitalism supporters is that they are not pure liberty supporters. Today most liberalists who support legal intoxicants are named libertarians. The keyword to look for if you want to find hypocricy is "conservative". The conservative outlook is - rhetoric notwithstanding - a basic collectivist/socialist philosophy and it pulls in the exact opposite direction from all the freedom loving ideals that Republicans subscribe to
hrvad 4 days ago
@23lFrench In precisely which reality does one not have to work to survive? Sit on your duff in a socialist world conjtemplating your inner wants and desires (along with all the other socialists) and see just how quickly you remove yourselves from the gene pool. That human beings have to do certain things in order to survive is not a condition of capitalism; it's a condition of basic reality (from which you are apparently divorced.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@xsumuhdihx You've been tricked. You don't have capitalism in the US. You have corporativism. And out of corporativism and socialism I'd allmost rather choose socialism.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@xsumuhdihx Not, that I consider myself a socialist. Simply because of the nature of corporativism; which is to bennefit certain corporations and then ultimately hide who is benefitting from goverment interference.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
CRYSTAL CLEAR MILT!
BrokHomz 1 year ago
... His brother (being a lawyer himself for one of the older lawyer's most lucrative clients) came in one day for a briefing. The old lawyer started off, but then let the female give the details. Upon some questioning, only the female lawyer could explain the bond issue to the brother. He subsequently and privately invited her to dinner, and offered her a job with him, at double the pay and with a secretary and personal assistant. She accepted. Her old boss was furious.
The market works.
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel [...a young female lawyer as a junior partner.]
Great anecdotal story about 'paying a price for discrimination' in the free market. More "do-gooders" should hear stuff like this. Thomas Sowell wrote a book about the detrimental effects of affirmative action around the world. India was particularly detailed and disastrous.
danL1011 9 months ago
I knew a lawyer who employed a young female lawyer as a junior partner. She was a brilliant expert at her job, and the older male lawyer took full advantage of her skills and naivete - not only did she do most of the work, but she also washed the dishes in the conference room and did some other clerical duties ...
DrCruel 1 year ago
its unbelieveable, that even in death, this dark demonic soul milton friedman still serves as a center of attraction for all the vile psychopaths that have belched up from the sewers of the lower astral plane (and have unfortunately found this planet).
paragshah2112 1 year ago
"milton friedman still serves as a center of attraction for all the vile psychopaths that have belched up from the sewers of the lower astral plane (and have unfortunately found this planet)."
That's okay. You don;t need to keep coming back. Rational people who grasp the benefits of capitalism will always be around to trounce socialist fools (as you've experienced even though remaining in obvious denial about the outcome of the debates).
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom
yeah those socialists dont understand that capitalism is whats best for everyone inlcuding the poor
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@FfF you havent won, you just continue to prove every one of my assessments. your replies are not solicited yet you instigate with malice. you constantly talk down to everyone you reply to, you lace your responses with denegrating rhetoric, a demeaning tone, the ideology of a psychopath, all premised with garbage for facts. if milton was so wonderful, why does his legacy have to be honored by a mentally deformed bully like you, overtly harassing the general public? milton would be proud of you.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
dont worry about that asshole fletch. his sources are not credible. they are the same sources that propagate his stunted and deformed concepts. they are all just like friedman and (*ugh*) palin. he is a toxic keyboard commando for some insideous right wing propaganda machine. i have a hunch he knows that he is rallying for a serfdom. he just believes that his corpoarte overlords will keep him as a pet or a guard. fletch is a treasonous jerkoff who dont know history for shit.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
@paragshah2112I thought about demanding some sound reasoning from you at one point, but then quickly realized that doing so would be contradictory. Thankfully, we are on youtube, and your voice is as a result rather insignificant, just like the rest of those of you who are somewhat challenged. Friedman is an exceptionally honoured scholar, and insulting him does you no credit. One might just as well start a much more worthy discussion about the lack of merit in F.D.R.'s Keynesian administration.
EsdaileApe 1 year ago
@EsdaileApe good, cuz i wouldnt have wasted my energy on you anyway. i've come to the realization that your kind is beyond redemption. you are akin to junkies, and psychopaths like friedman are your junk. when rock bottom hits it will be on your head. yours, motherfucker. even when you are broken down into slavery by these right wing monsters, you still wont recognize what really happened.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
@paragshah2112 if you are going to call names, it would be far more appropriate to refer to me as being one of the "right wing monsters", and not a (ha ha) "slave". You are in fact the slave here, the slave to social democracy and "progressive" conceit.
EsdaileApe 1 year ago
@EsdaileApe damn straight and proud of it
paragshah2112 1 year ago
@paragshah2112 I don't know if you are American or not, but your perception of our, that is European, styled social democracy as being a good economic/political system is extremely naive. The only reason why it is sustainable in say Norway (mitt fedreland) is because the expensive and unjust welfare state is subsidized by the government's revenue off of oil. In all other examples of European social democracies, nobody with brains is boasting of the institution's success.
EsdaileApe 1 year ago
@EsdaileApe ok, here's my take: you're a fat rich oil guy, and i'm a meager worm. you sit behind your desk and make lots of money making "big important decisions" that determine whether you'll be rich or rich :) meanwhile, i pave your roads, take out your trash, and make sure your kids dont have worry for their saftey. i'm loyal nevertheless but you know what? my hands hurt at the end the day. since you havent paid for anything else, its only fair that you pitch in if you're a part of us, dig?
paragshah2112 1 year ago
@paragshah2112 Decisions made by chairmen, etc. are vital in helping everyone in an economy. Business leaders do far more most of the time to benefit their own company than their own wealth. Energy companies play a pivotal role in allowing for economies to function, without which there would be a depressionary supply shock. Those roads are just as much yours as mine, but I don't wish to be forced to contribute more in taxes (as a % of income) than those who make less than myself, comprenez-vous?
EsdaileApe 1 year ago
@EsdaileApe oui. i understand that you're naive as to how capitalism really works, how it's predatory by nature, and how it has nothing but bad intentions. but i also know that 500 char aint enough to get into it with you. i'm NOT trying to insult you in any way, and if you are honestly trying to see my point, i suggest you do a youtube search for chris hedges and check out his stuff for starters. i am a democratic solcialist and i vote. nothing anyone says here on youtube will ever change that.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
@paragshah2112 I know who Hedges is and what he represents. I am myself not fond of the U.S. having a war-oriented economy, which is one of his chief concerns, but this only proves the vices of government support for private industries (by acting as a major buyer), which does nothing to promote a REAL market-based economy.
EsdaileApe 1 year ago
@Esda and thats just one example. i can give you more. free market unchecked unregulated capitalism is a bloodsport. businesses make money and hire more based on consumer demand not on lower taxes and zero regulation. zero taxes means zero infrastructure (3rd wrld). zero regulation means in order to be competitive labor costs (standard of living) must be plunged. an economy is more prosperous and advanced when the masses have money to spend. these oligarchs really just want power at our expense.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
@Esda the objectives of citizens and the objectives of companies are 2 totally contrasting goals. capitalism as a form of govt will neccessarily lend itself to corruption because when certain key industries are privitized, any locale is now at the mercy of these corporations. govt whose sole purpose is to represent and protect its citizens now tend to the desires of these corporations instead. and these companies dont care about day to day business. what they want is godlike power over us.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
@paragshah2112 Its not in a company's interests to have NO taxes, because then there will be no law enforcement to maintain contractual obligations. If wages are minimized, don't forget that demand will contract, because as you say, they are the base. Ergo there IS an equilibrium which companies seek. You talk like some market cynic out of Syriana.
EsdaileApe 1 year ago
@paragshah2112 Please take this as constructive criticism - your failure to capitalize the first letter of every sentence makes it difficult to read your comments.
"the objectives of citizens and the objectives of companies are 2 totally contrasting goals."
The objective of a company is to meet the objectives of citizens. A company will have a competitive advantage if it acts fairly and in a sociably responsible manner. If not, why Fair trade products? Look up The Ultimatum Game.
mangoswiss 11 months ago
@mangoswiss I know i'm bad about capitalizing. As for the companies caring for the citizens as an objective, simply put, that is not accurate. Planetary wellbeing is of no concern to them. Capital is the ONLY concern of companies. They are a-moral entities by nature. Free markets only create the drive for cheapest labor (slavery), and then lowest standard of living for those slaves (3rd wrld) cuz lowest price possible is paramount. Even if that means GMOs, pollution, and slavery, then so be it.
paragshah2112 11 months ago
@paragshah2112 If the lowest price is paramount, this implys that the companies are striving for a lower price for a reason. What is that reason? To sell their product to those who can afford it. This cannot be the "slaves" you mention. Nor do corporations mass produce products to appeal to the limited number of "elites". Therefore, there has to be a relatively well off middle class that the corporations are competing to attract. The corporations cannot kill off their bread and butter.
lanetxgp1 10 months ago
@lane not quite. but i cant educate you in <500 char. i have left this comment thread. if you want to learn a more practical angle to how this actually plays out and who it really favors, i can recommend some stuff for you to check out but i will not do so in this thread. i'm not intrested in another flame war. it seems friedman is a magnet for the floating ghouls in his wake, even well after his death. they wander aimlessly in cyber-space cuz they have nowhere else to go :) PM me if you care.
paragshah2112 10 months ago
@paragshah2112 The "ghouls" I've heard from on the Internet follow the debunked Karl Marx and his dubious acolytes. By contrast, Friedman's fans seem more interested in protecting the public from thievery.
Mind, I can see how some thieves might take offense at this sort of thing, and even get quite irrational in response. So I'm not at all shocked at the inferences.
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel not quite. but i cant educate you in <500 char. i have left this comment thread. if you want to learn a more practical angle to how this actually plays out and who it really favors, i can recommend some stuff for you to check out but i will not do so in this thread. i'm not intrested in another flame war.
PM me if you genuinely care. otherwise tell fletchforfreedom i said "hi".
paragshah2112 9 months ago
@paragshah2112 You claim you have justifications for why people of the Chicago Scool of Economics are "ghouls", but cannot explain yourself in so many words. You mock the views of others, claim no need to justify yourself for it, and then accuse those who bring you to task for it as trolls trying to start a flame war.
Why should I take any of this seriously? If you have written cites, put them up - a few book titles and authors can be posted with well under 500 characters. Else, off with you.
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel not that i cant, but that i wont ... to you ... hmmkay! this world dont owe you shit, old man ... tagging up on something i said to someone else 3 weeeks ago ...
you know, you write just like fletch, you use the same rhetoric as he does, and you even share the same antagonization technique. you two must be married. i wonder which one you two tards is "the wife"? hehehe you are a moody bitch, if anyone's catching in that relationship its gotta be you.
paragshah2112 9 months ago
@paragshah2112 So then, you have no means by which to present your case, and feel no need to do so regardless. Your pronouncements need no justification - indeed we deserve "no such shit". Fair enough.
But now you seem to have devolved to open trolling. No problem with the character limits in this regard. In that light, might I suggest your dearth of character is not Youtube's fault.
DrCruel 9 months ago
@DrCruel for all your keyboard kommando'ing you just dont get it. you arent real about yourself or anything else. youre such a natural born asshole that its hard for me to care about enlightening you. kill yourself.
paragshah2112 9 months ago
@paragshah2112 Might I suggest instead - and I mean this in the most polite way I can manage - that you go fuck yourself? You won't have to engage further with me, and will have something entertaining to occupy your time with. I won't have to worry about another parasite after the fruits of my hard work, if only for a temporary respite, and we can both reach our own respective, well-deserved ends.
It's much better than trying to argue against the Chicago school with fart jokes and the like.
DrCruel 9 months ago
Comment removed
paragshah2112 9 months ago
@DrCruel did i hurt your little cheerleader feelings cuz i didnt accept your propaganda? good, i'm not wasting my energy on you. i've come to the realization that your kind is beyond redemption. you are akin to junkies, and psychopaths like friedman are your junk. when rock bottom hits it will be on your head. yours, motherfucker. even when you are broken down into slavery by these right wing monsters, you still wont recognize what really happened. in better times you'd have hung for treason.
paragshah2112 9 months ago
@paragshah2112 Not at all. When I tell you to go fuck yourself, I'm trying to be positive and helpful. You have no undertstanding of the issues involved, are clearly not bright enough to learn them, and thus really can't be better occupied. Dogs that lick their own balls don't feel compelled to make erroneous insights on economics, so I thought the same might work with you.
As for when "rock bottom hits' it will be the fault of socialists. I thought I made that clear, but ah well ...
DrCruel 9 months ago
@paragshah2112 Your raging rants are abominations to all of Man's good qualities.
EsdaileApe 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@E your cheerleading for facism is an abomination to your dignity. people see right through your sad efforts at lying to us and laugh at your feeble minded attempts at indoctrination. my rants are not corporate sponsored drivel in the intrest of some transnational oligarch. yours plainly are. for all your keyboard kommando'ing you just dont get it. you arent real about yourself or anything else. youre such a natural born a-hole that its hard for me to care about enlightening you. kill yourself.
paragshah2112 9 months ago
Ahh back when there was such thing as smart hot girls and feminism was innocent...
jbohler33 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom yup the voices in my head being chris hedges and bruce edinburg to name a few. the sources you mention are in league with sarah palin and other asswipes like yourself.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
What a LEGEND
adamlycett 1 year ago
again this guy is fucking full of shit ... unbelievable ... every time he opens his mouth he shows the world how much of a fucking puppet he is ... i swear to god the whole chicago school of economics was setup as a false credential by the oligarchs to send this shill out to hypnotise the masses with rhetoric and other mind control techniques ... vile hateful motherfuckers ... i wonder just how large was the slot up his ass? its a curiousity how he had so many hands up there at once ...
paragshah2112 1 year ago
Thanks for demonstrating with your complete lack of actual argument, your heavy reliance on ad hominem attacks and profanity and your apparent need to state paranoid delusions as fact the utter and complete intellectual bankruptcy of your criticism.
Comments such as yours do more to vindicate Friedman's positions than a whole host of his defenders.
Bravo!
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom no, again, you are trying to goad me into a war of words bc you're an asshole. actually you arent an asshole, you're a fucking retard. and an asshole. listen troll, i told you in another thread that i dont have the character space to illustrate how this motherfucker is so full shit. it would be like fact checking the algebra of a squirrel. you are what the likes of friedman refer to as "a useful idiot". i'm not wasting any more time on you, so leave me alone motherfucker.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
You are the one who made the baseless comment initially; you are the one demonstrating an inability to function without profanity. Character space is nothing more than an excuse to cover the fact that you HAVE no argument (even one that a squirrel would not laugh at).
You were aware of course that the term "useful idiot" was developed by Lenin to describe those with YOUR viewpoint, were you not?
Brilliant!
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@Fletch and all you do is demonstrate ignorance. i'm not a totalitarian communist. YOU actually ARE. a proper rhetorical analysis cant be done with these character space restrictions. it might be for you, but you see, i dont fart ideas out and call it good like you do. i dont make make stuff up and call them facts like you do. i research and verify like a normal person. that takes time and space that a 500 char blurb wont cover. the likes of you wouldnt understand that. you are a failed human.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
I never said you were a "totalitarian communist" (albeit in actual practice the phrase is redundant). That you are incapable of making a cogent point with brevity is a failure on no one;s fault but your own. I haven't made anything up nor have you even attempted to demonstrate that such is the case (since you can't). You have posted more than sufficient tomes to make at least one cogent point; instead all you've demonstrated is that the best you can manage is personal attacks.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom fair enough. i havent read your other comment yet but up to this point, for the first time you have behaved in a way i can respect. lets take your first phrase there. totalitarian and communist are not redundant. your understanding of communism must be what they have in the former ussr but it indeed is no where close. it is a perfected capitalism. they have merely perverted the word communism. it has been over 500 yrs since real communism was last seen on earth.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
The USSR is one example. Theoretical communism is utopian based upon the premise that economic decision making can be made at the societal level (which requires a unanimity of agreement that is unachievable for human beings). Given that constraint, actual practice requires some group or individual making such decisions (and enforcing them upon dissenters). Aside from being grossly inefficient (resulting in poverty) such a system is prone to co-opting by totalitarians (as history shows).
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Further, theoretical communism is based upon concepts that have long been disproved - the historical structuralism supposedly making it inevitable, the viability of a system without prices to determine value, the labor theory of value, etc.
You are confusing communalism (small group egalitarianism within a greater societal framework) with communism (a societal system) which has, in fact, never existed because it is impossible.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom you're not seeing the forest for the trees. the taino folks were the group i was referring to. they were marx's communism. according to colombus's journal they fit every requirement. not a subset for them to be considered merely a communalism. now, look at the definitions of capitalism, fascism, and feudalism and see if do you see the common thread? can't you see past the supposed ideological differences and see how its merely different stages of the same ugly creature?
paragshah2112 1 year ago
@paragshah2112 the reason friedman and guys like him are so dangerous is that they have historically provided the nourishment for that creature as it metamorphs from one stage to the next, getting more and more sinister and unredeemable with each passing phase. serfdoms are never the result of a lost rebellion or resistance, but rather they are insisted upon by the corrupt and ignorant and they are ushered in with thunderous appluase. motherfuckers like friedman are deeply familiar with this ...
paragshah2112 1 year ago
@paragshah2112 word
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
Even a cursory search shows the Taino had two classes (including nobles), maintained private property and inheritance (multiple sources, only a blurb on cave paintings disagreed), engaged in trade and used money (though Columbus thought the small gold trinkets they used were just barter). Can't see any links to communism there. And fascism, like communism, is a form of socialism so to that extent I agree about the same ugly creature, but there's no connection to capitalism.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@Fletch then the example may have been a poor one. i was going on the whole bit about how they "knew not of sin, had no crime or jails," etc. they may not have been a pure communism, but totalitarianism and communism are not the same. there has been totalitarianism, and it looks nothing like marx's vision. to say socialism is anything like totalitarianism is only the purest perversion of language and thought (which happens to be the first steps in the metamorphasis of capitalism into fascism).
paragshah2112 1 year ago
@paragshah2112 Yep, Orwellian double speak to the max. I was on this channel that was lauding Orwell as some visionary against the totalitarian state mean while the usual groups of poorly read yanks screamed Big gov at everyone..... when I mentioned Orwell actually was a socialist revolutionary of the purest kind, they had absolutely no idea. They literally have had there heads filled with misinformation.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs you're tellin me ... i hear this drivel 24 hrs , 7 days a wk without let-up. its border to border coast to coast. its not just a simple issue of misinformation as much as it is willful ignorance. most americans have been conditioned to trust the tv. its a pure disaster for us as a society. honestly how can the advertisers be expected to act? in their own interest of course. thats why americans are so easily duped and manipulated by tools like friedman.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
Whether they had no crime is certainly debateable (based on an extremely limited experience), but the point remains that the society bore absolutely no resemblance to communism whatsoever. That there has been totalitarianism and it bears no resemblance to Marx's vision is a point I have already conceded. The very point I was making is that, since Marx's vision is pure utopian fantasy, REAL WORLD attempts to implement it yield totalitarian results. And fascism is socialistic, not capitalistic.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@Fletch nobody could have HONESTLY tried to implement communism, cuz requisite predecessors have never existed. what that woud be i dont even know cuz i have never lived in a world decent enough to know. based on observable patterns, i'm guessing democratic socialism would probably be just the seed cuz something so high minded would have to be an expression of the ADVANCED stages of something already enlightened. communism's good name was used as a tool in a totalitarian overthrow of a serfdom.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
Quite the contrary, while you are correct about the implementation of communism (as it is impossible), the concept of collectivism is not "advanced". To the contrary, the maintenance of such a societal ordering (in order for it to function) requires the abandonment of the advance (the monetary system, the division of labor and the free flow of capital) that makes advance possible. Advocating a hybrid system devolves to a debate about the relative utility of the hybrid parts - capitalism wins.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom no, you're wrong. its just hard for the mind to wrap itself around because we have never seen what all this looks like. doing it the right way will clear those issues up if its given a unified, clairvoyant effort. capitalism wins like evil wins. its not a sports team. this is very real. you and your family would be far more prosperous like eveybody else (irrelative to how prosperous you may be right now) but for this subjugative shackle around the neck of the whole damn planet.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
No, you're wrong. In fact this has been written about extensively by scholars across even the political spectrum (thouigh I personally prefer Hayek's "the Fatal Conceit" as both comprehensive and reasonably concise. Capitalism wins by facilitating individual liberty (how is that evil?). It has freed up the resources responsible for ALL of the technological innovation we enjoy (without which me, my family and everyone else would still be living at the subsistence level ... if at all).
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom you are grossly misinformed about capitalism. you are blending it with several other concepts, which are unrelated, yet have been wrongfully latched onto by this foul insitution (as a technique mid you). your vision of it is simply the result of friedman's propaganda. every source you have mentioned are all propaganda. they have been extensively discredited. if these are your sources, you are no more a teacher than a propagandist.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
The problem is that you are attributing problems to capitalism that have nothing to do with it (problems of state intervention) and ignoring the benefits that it provides. Thechnology REQUIRES capitalism. It cannot come into existence without private (several) property, a monetary system, prices, the division of labor and the free flow of investment capital. You are simply in denial.
And as I've taught economics on more than one occassion, I'll give your assessment the credit it deserves.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom state intervention is mostly for the evil purpose. case in point, the TABC ... actually watch the movie beer wars for a great example of capitalism at work. actually thats all i got to say. until you watch and let me know i'm done with you on this thread. as for "technology" i wasnt referring to objects. i meant technology in ideology, and philosophy by whicvh to apply to governance. but what you said about advances being a result of only capitalism is also waaaay off base.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
I certainly am not arguing in favor of state interventionism - again, I am OPPOSED to socialism because in the real world as has been long established capitalism and state action are INCOMPATIBLE.
What I said about technological advances being the result of capitalism is established fact. Only under capitalism is it possible for someone to build jet engines or typically just parts and receive what he needs to survive. Only with capitalist monetary exchange is that at all possible.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FfF your definitions are completely fabricated and you obviously dont know jack shit about how jets are made or how the technology came about in developing them or you wouldnt be popping off with your kind blatantly incorrect remarks ... or maybe you would ...
private research has been the way of the dark past, affordable only to the children of oligarchs. with limited success and expensive failure. ask Lavoisier. jet tech is an example of socialised money for research (paid for by the army).
paragshah2112 1 year ago
My definitions are exactly those used by economists, historians and political scientists. There's no dioubt my historical research exceeds yours. Private research is STILL what drives the world. The vast majority of research is conducted in the private sector (more than 2/3 in OECD countries and by an even greqater percentage in the US. Net of military research, the percentages are orders of magnitude higher. And jet engine technology, while finished by the army, began in the private sector
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "And fascism, like communism, is a form of socialism" categorically wrong. This is why people need good teachers.
Sure, a Fascist may be happy to nationalise key industries for war etc... but that does not make them socialist. In the same way using currency does not make a communist a kind of capitalist. Either you have not been taught correctly or you are deliberately misleading others.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
Yes you are categorically wrong. It is not my fauult that you are glaringly ignorant. You should try doing actual research without cherry-picking your sources. The nationalization of ANY industry for ANY reason is BY DEFINITION socialism in every case. At the same time, the use of currency would preclude communism but not socialism.
I've not merely been taught correctly, I have been studying and teaching these concepts for decades - that you missed the memo doesn't reflect poorly upon ME.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@Fletch as long as there is representative govt THEN AND THEN ONLY can such a thing be called democratic socialism. but it IS FASCISM if that exclusive ownership is an expression of private corporations getting the benefit of the nationalizing for their own personal profit while at the same time being subsidized by the people's tax dollars for their impending extravagencies (ie big oil). capitalism is the seed, fascism is the sprout, totailitarianism is the blossom, serfdom is the bloom.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
That democracy is necessary for the democratic version of socialism undermines my position not in the slightest. I never argued that fascism was a variant of democratic socilialism, but that it met the definition of socialism, particularly since the initial definitions of fascism were corporatist (a socialist variant that does not mean corporate ownership) and in practice private exercise of the powers of ownership were almost entirey fictional. Capitalism has NOTHING to do with fascism.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FfF its not just a variant. its a completely different species. it takes a lot for the groundwork to be laid down for such a difference to exist. it may look like a few changes of written words but the practicality is a gaping chasm of difference (that doesnt happen overnight either). this world has so much advanced technology in governance for expressions of corruption and contempt. it has never known of the other side. guys like friedman always crawl up out of the sewers to ruin everything.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
Yes, they are variants just as gold, iron and mercury are variants of metals even though many of their properties differ dramatically - the only issue that matters is the collective exercise of ownership powers (which encompasses all forms of sociaist - including fascist - activity). The issue has never been that it is inappropriate to discuss them separately but that it is equally inappropriate to ignore the definition.
To the extent Friedman is heeded, liberty and prosperity follow.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FfF by your reasoning an alfa-alfa sprout would be a variant of a venus fly trap. such is NOT the case. you are correct that the main issue here is power. communism is heaven (power to the people), serfdom is hell (power to .01% of the people). capitalism yields a serfdom. not a communism. we reap what we sow. the best would be to plant the seeds that yield a communism, and we have to not only abandon sowing capitalism, but also disinfect the earth of its presence, in order to do that.
paragshah2112 1 year ago
To the contrary, by my reasoning both would be PLANTS and not ANIMALS. That all of the variants of socialism, including fascism, fall under the greater category of collective economic decision making is not controversial. Communism is fiction; socialism impoverishes. Capitalism is economic liberty (again, this is definitional) and has always lead to the opposite of serfdom. You've moved beyond clear errors with definitions to clear errors with history.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom "Capitalism is economic liberty (again, this is definitional)", WTF?!?! what comic book would EVER have a definition that is SOOOO subjective? have you lost your mind!?!? and now you are sliding the scale of measure when you are talking about what is a variant of what. if you are going to keep shifting the standards for basis then we cannot continue ... you are resorting to stupid see through tricks. face it dude, the rug has been pulled and you are flat on your ass.
paragshah2112 1 year ago