Examples of resources unprotected by private property rights: fish in the sea, many oil reserves, many mineral reserves. Your invisible hand (do you know the reference?) doesn't work unless the system is a capitalist economy. How much of human population lives under democratic, capitalistic systems. Go read some more, come up with something valid and stop miss leading people.
Wow, what a shortsighted argument. It's like you only read the fist chapter of econ and think you know everything about resource management. For example, your argument about prices. Where to begin. Free market price regulation only works when something is privately owned. Most of our earth's natural resources are not protected by private property rights. When a resource is not protected by private property rights, the incentive is to use as much as possible before some else gets it.
Watch this video which shows how a Citizen United supporter also supports the idea that those who disagree should be stripped of their voting rights and forced to take medication.
You mean to tell me they are showing this crap in schools? God help us all! We should be careful with our resources though but definitely not by government force.
Why you arguing over whether or not she is right? I think we all know she is being a bit exaggerated, but if she WASN'T who would listen? This is an on-going epidemic in our society, over consumption is becoming a bigger and bigger problem. Waste is becoming a bigger and bigger problem. We, including myself, need to stop thinking about "I" and "ME" and start focusing more on the "US", we are all a part of this world, and we need to work together to keep it beautiful and stop disputing everything
My friend your grasp of reality is slipping ,you are so totally blinded by your stupid anal approch to economics,Dare I say you short termed view is probably why we are lemmings and will go the way of lemmings. have a look at how mass produce beefs managed and then tell me your right again.Take your stupid right wing politics and stick it were the sun doesn't shine
this is a phenomenal critique. i love how you expose her inability to understand her own sources. you practically dont even need your own sources as even her own sources prove her wrong. there is absolutely no way for her or anyone to even attempt to defend her claims and you didnt quit while you were ahead. kind of like tom brady still throwing touchdown passes while up 40 pts with 4 minutes left in the game, you just put her in her place.
I feel very sorry for the maker of these videos. It is clear that he does not know what Sustainable living is in a finite planet. I doubt he went to college.
1:17, of course we have a limited place to grow, WE CAN'T MAKE TE EARHT BIGGER IF WE WANTED TO, i swear you critique makers, ur just jealous of her publicity, i suppose i agree wi th some of ur stuff, but i rly dont appreciate you guys
We call the Sonoran Desert a forest, so that data is bullshit. Let's face it, you aren't just trying to critique this propaganda. You are one of those folks who would put on a Shell advert t-shirt, and bulldoze the fuck out of America. Because you are the villain with the escape pod. You don't care, or give a fuck about generations down the line or the human race. So, I'm done. Every single bullshit "fact" you throw out can be fought, like anybody who deals in propaganda.
So, it's not a resource until we know how to use it? And earlier you said that we don't know most of our resources. And we haven't scratched the surface (though we do know what is in our Earth-if you believe science, which I wonder). So that means that we HAVE used most of our resources, according to YOUR logic.
Depleting resources means that we start to use other resources? And we aren't running out of resources? Man, that is doublespeak. If I were stupid, I might not notice that you are still just talking about depleting one resource and going to use up another.
More than our share. People who eat meat are not the problem. "MORE THAN OUR SHARE" is the problem. Also, replanting trees does not save the ecosystems and creatures that die because we take down an entire forrest. Nice of you to admit something though.
There is proof that the government caters to the corporations. Just look at who has the money and who doesn't. Really, that's a no-brainer. I know who my government is giving tax breaks to. And it's not me.
The government doesn't have to take care of us like little babies and wipe our asses for us, but our government does need to genuinely have our backs, and look out for us. THAT is definitely their job, when they are elected.
How are we using less and less space? It seems like we are still using more and more space, but at a lower rate than before. And that's great! But, we are still using space. And for garbage. So we still have a finite amount of space, and not a finite amount of garbage.
I had to watch this and the video its critiquing for an english class in college, thumbs downed the other one, thumbs uped this one. This puts that garbage in it's place.
@slayer3to10 Congratulations on finally gaining the ability to hear. Now listen to the State of the Union message and that threshold will be passed several times over.
One of the other interesting facts about the Amazon is that while they are certainly being logged, the total reduction in size over the last 500 years is 14%.
I think is good to teach kids about recycling and the impact consumerism has on the world.. But that is just my opinion.. Have to finish watching the whole thing.. But for me it is disturbing that an iphones(and all other electronics) are made with laborers who work up to 36hours a day, 0,31cents an hour in a factory whose main health problem from laborers is their tendency to commit suicide. If china and other countries could be pressured to adobt fair laborlaws,maybe the jobs would come back.
@ItIsBadForU Since no one is working 36 hours a day (obviously) or for below market wages or committing suicide over market wrking conditions, I'm not sure the issue. And as more and higher paying jobs are INsourced than are outsourced, there are none to "come back".
Laws restricting employment (minimum wage laws, etc.) serve only to make it impossible for some to find work. The biggest advocates for "sweatshops" are those who'd be unemployed without them.
@FletchforFreedom yeah true they won't come back so maybe we need to find a solution for all those over 100million unemployed in the world and there is more to come since it is impossible to find similar jobs for those who have been replaced by maschines we should consider more options how to run the world, economy, market etc. Most jobs will disapprear eventually and that is a fact. So people can't pay for things they don't really need and so the economy will decline again..
@ItIsBadForU Uh, no. the Luddites were discredited long ago (as has been the morons in the Venus project). technological advancement has always and must always CREATE jobs, not eliminate them. Your "fact" is, instead, pure drivel. Capitalism has raised the living standards of billions of people, particularly the poor and working classes, by providing precisely those opportunities and will undoubtedly continue to do so.
@FletchforFreedom global economy in danger zone yet again and improved living conditions?Well compared to the 50s yes but since 90s the decline has been drastic. In america 50% of people live at or below the poverty line so get your shit together then! I visited the stated a few years ago and the roads were horrible and unclean so yeah there could be workers working on those, but at the moment we are at a constant decline between brief climbs.New industries should be created.
@ItIsBadForU The global economy is a mess because of the same kind of collectivist intervention that has caused recessions in the past (and that the Venus Project advocates). As always, it will pass and the increase in living standards will continue.
The assertion that 50% of the people live below the poverty line is flat wrong (try 15.1%) and the US still has the wealthiest "poor" in the world.
@FletchforFreedom what is your definiton of living standards btw? Mine is access to healthcare(so you don't die from curable diseases), opportunity to do better than your parents, have a job,but also free time which is important to mental health and further education and so forth.. It isn't much of a life if you have to work two jobs to pay rent, or sell your house to get treatment or sell your house to get an education or worry if you lose your job you won't survive.Stability.
@ItIsBadForU Pick one. In fact, Americnas (including the poor) have more access to primary care physicians, diagnostic procedures and diagnostic equipment, spend more time with primary care physicians and have the finest health care in the world. If you are diagnosed with a serious illness, you'd better move to the US; you'll live longer. And pay, wealth and general well being have ALL continually improved. The well-being standards you suggest are unsurpassed in the US.
@FletchforFreedom america is 24th in "healthy life expectancy"aka. Hale list. Also 37th in WHO's list of the worlds health systems. Health performance by country you are no where near at the top even though health expenditure oper capita is the highest in the world. So if that is better then you really should still try to do something. I look at WHO and the UN too on this matter. Life expectancy By the UN you are 36th so your argument that you'll live longer doesn't hold.
@ItIsBadForU I imagine if 1) the WHO rankings hadn't been completely discredited years ago, 2) it hadn't been determined that adjusted for instant deaths from murder/accidents, the US has the highest life expectancy in the world (Ohsfeldt and Schneider), 3) every study of actual care - life expectancy upon diagnosis of a serious illness - didn't put the US on top, I'd be impressed. As all of those things ARE true, it is your argument that doesn't hold,
@FletchforFreedom 1)That ranking 36th by life expectancy was by the UN so even if you discredit the WHO's study, which is older, you claimed that the UN has better statistics.Here is a good study for that point 2)"Changes(decline) in U.S. murder and accident rates over time do not explain the lower improvement in U.S. life expectancy relative to improvements in life expectancy in other developed nations."-D.P.Berstein he aswers to Ohsfelds and Schreiders claims in the study.(3)
@ItIsBadForU I didn't dispute the 36th ranking (albeit I could, the UN uses country's official stats some of which are manipulated). Instead, I pointed out why life expectancy is useless to your argument, driven as it is primarily by genetics and behavior, which is why, adjusted for behavior (instant deaths) the US life expectancy is highest. Bernstein is correct. The difference in relatuive improvements is easily attributed to the US's higher starting point.
@FletchforFreedom to involve lower survivor rates of older Americans who are less affected by murder and
accident than younger cohorts.One possible explanation for the lagging improvement in life expectancy in the United
States relative to other countries is that the United States has a large uninsured population and that over time delays in receiving important treatments lead to medical complications and reduced life span. [2]
@ItIsBadForU The Ohsfeldt & Schneider study has survived that and other responses relatively unscathed. The chief responses to the Berstein study were obvious - that it only looked at realtive change rates, that the genetic and behavioral factors went beyond merely motor vehiocle accidents and murders, and that his response did not actually undermine the numerical conclusions in the earlier study. Were there a series of studies proved to be comparable ... but there are not.
@FletchforFreedom I can't find that study do you have a link? I am glad though if americans are taken care of better than what I've red. I now red that that infant thing is mostly due to the fact that there are a lot of teen pregnancies and teen tend to have babies with low birth weight which decreases their chances for survival so maybe something should be done about that and that would correlate to better statistics. But hey why are americans still so violent btw?
@ItIsBadForU I can't get a link now (not at home) but I'll try later - it's the study to which Berstein refers. Information on the causes of infant mortality are easily found and show the chief cause to be congenital defect. Russia and the Iron Curtain countries got caught cheating in the 90s on their infant mortality statistics and there is widespread documentation on how some countries don't use the WHO standard but don't count babies surviving up to a week.
@FletchforFreedom any theories or studies about that? I would like to look into that since from what I've searched today they all say that it is about 3times more likely in america to die from violent crime than other countries but in those articles nobody is listing the reasons. Of course gang wars is what I would think of first and drug cartels and such but what is your opinion?
@ItIsBadForU The cultural differences that result in Americans being more violent in relative terms have a lot of underlying causes and drug-related crime resulting from governmnet prohibition is certainly a very real contributor. It's one of the reasons I oppose such prohibitions. That said, I am defending capitalism (including the capitalistic approach to healthcare), NOT the United States, except inasmuch as the example helps that argument. Culture and prohibition are not capitalism.
@FletchforFreedom prohibition never works that just creates more crime and opportunities for cartels. The prisons are also filled with people who has minor non violent drug related crimes so it would actually save more money to decriminalize certain drugs and that way destroy the cartels impact in the US.. Are you a Ron Paul supporter? I tend to have more things in common with his supporters than with ordinary rebublicans...
@ItIsBadForU On this we are in complete agreement. Like Ron Paul I am a small-L libertarian (classical liberal). I oppose most interferences in the lives of oherwise free people by the state including prohibitions, prosecution of victimless crimes, playing favorites among constituencies and companies, passing regulations that more freently do harm than good (often written by the regulated industries to limit competition) including liability limitations (such as BP had). As the name says...
@FletchforFreedom cool :) Sounds about right. I just am worried about environmental effects that no regulation could have since we all breath the same air but often the wind from factoriesblow to areas where people live and the water we drink also gets polluted and that oil spill in the mexican gulf was horribly handled. So like i said before I think kids should be educated what effects consumerism could have on the environment. On this we probably will disagree though.
@ItIsBadForU Actually, if you want to send your kids to a school that warns about consumerism, you should be able to do so. As for the BP spill, I can only agree, but consider, had regulations not forced the rig so far into the Gulf (and therefore into much deeper water) the spill could have been FAR more easily fixed and regulations included a liability cap that crushed the incentives to be far more careful in the first place. It is a perfect example of regulations doing more harm than good.
@FletchforFreedom well maybe life expectansy isn't important but infant mortality is. That ranking isn't relative and cannot be alone explained by genetics.
@FletchforFreedom Infant mortality rates speak volumes of how bad health care or access to it is in countries:Here is rank by CIAworld factbook 46th United states(2009) and by the UN(2007)34th.So nothing really to brag about since you rank after Cuba,Brunei, UK etc..Can't blame murder or accidents when it comes to infant mortality. Just bad health care before and after the baby is born.If you are rich then of course you are taken care of but most aren't and that is the reality.
@ItIsBadForU Infant mortality is an even WORSE measure of health care performance. It's useless for several reasons. Infant mortality in first world nations is the direct result, overwhelmingly, of congenital defect or maternal behavior (neither have anything to do with health care). Further, the US uses the strict WHO standard, while other countries have been caught cheating in their reporting and many exclude infants that live as long as a week.
@ItIsBadForU There has been no decline in jobs either (excepting recessionary periods and the stagnating middle class myth has been utterly and completely debunked. Total real compensation has continued to climb significantly and without interruption in the US (and the poverty rate worldwide has been halved in the last 40 yeasr or so due to capitalism).
No such "decline" exists and new industries are regularly created by the market. Not one of your assertions is even CLOSE to correct.
@FletchforFreedom where are you getting your facts? Do you have some references to give? Not starting a row I am just curious.(google "half of americans live under poverty" there arent' any "rich" poor especially when you cannot come out of it) Also you rank at 5th worst at distribution of wealth also you are one of the only western countries where a person can die from a curable diseases such as dental infection just because lack of access to health care.That is a poor problem
@ItIsBadForU US poverty figures come from the Census Bureau (the BS from Democracy Now misapplied the data and has been completely refuted), world poverty figures come from the UN. Distribution of wealth is a meaningless red herring. Again, what matters is that the US has teh wealthiest "poor" in the world. And instead countries with socialized medicine kill far MORE people due to rationing. Fire your fact checker.
Just because mining has been going on since the roman empire does not give it any merit. Also I don't think people eat meat because they want to just increase their standard of living. Also eating meat for the sake of increasing your standard of living? Let me buy a phone from a cheap foreign country. What I mean is pursuit of higher standard of living in ignorance is, well just that ignorant. Btw I love meat, but the poultry and meat industry as a whole is very destructive.
I think in regards to the statistic about corp. vs country gdp that there is still some merit to it (in context of her argument). It still conveys the idea that these large institutions provide a lot of cash for these country's (therefore the governments should cater to them.) Its sloppy, but to say its totally meaningless is a little much.
Humans have an exponential growth rate? An exponent is n to the whatever power. The line goes straight up. No, humans have a LINEAR growth rate. Go back to MAth 101 lady.
@AZstarwatcher A recursive function of Tn = X * T(n-1) is exponential in nature. If X is greater than 1, it's exponentially increasing; if X is less than one, it's exponentially decreasing.
She might get some data wrong and I am not going to defend that. However, the underlying message of the video is not plain false and thought-provoking. So does the end justifie the means? I don’t think so but then again I wonder what your backup sources are. Especially with such statements as "The U.S. uses resources more efficiently than any other place on the planet (...) and we happen to feed half the population (...) the rest of the world would be dead if we didn’t (use these resources)."
@jeremiahthejuggler It's just a knee jerk reaction with you richly funded statist democrats, isn't it? You assume that since the Democratic party is so awash with corrupt money, you just have to project that even lowly political Youtube libertarian commenters like Lee Doren are being paid to do this.
@jeremiahthejuggler You too can make a video like this with iMovie if you have a Macintosh computer because I am mostly certain he used that app. Maybe you should get a Macintosh computer if you want to make videos like this.
This critique is almost wholly dependent on a highly flawed notion of how economic forces will eliminate any conceivable resource shortages. This idea, which comes from economist Julian Simon, has been thoroughly debunked by Jared Diamond with a few historical observations. Past societies have collapsed due to overuse of resources and there is no reason to think that the same thing can't happen to us. The rest of the critique falls along with that.
@Cambo13 The problem with your position is that, even if "Collapse" were not flawed (not up to the standards of "Guns, Germs and Steel"), the evidence provided in the book shows no such thing. The basic economics has existed since at least Adam Smith (Simon merely debunked the Malthusian nonsense of Paul Ehrlich). Your cricism fails along with that.
@FletchforFreedom I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. Where, exactly, does Diamond make a mistake in his reasoning? Easter Island, Nauru, the Ancient Mayans, the Greenland Norse, and the Anasazi, to name a few examples, were all real societies that collapsed due to overuse of resources. Prices and efficiency did not save them.
Physics trumps economics. Earth has a finite supply of resources and energy, and no market can ever create more. We forget that at our peril.
@Cambo13 Much of Diamond's final conclusions are speculative rather than fact (the Anasazi and Norse in particular) and others, Easter Island and the Maya have been found to be wanting on factual grounds (arrival date centiries early in the former and poor evaluation of agricultural techniques in the latter. The Norse demise he attributes mainly to "cultural conservatism", not resource scarcity and the Nauru suffered from STATE misuse of resources, not the market.
@FletchforFreedom I think you miss Diamond's point. The Norse cultural conservatism was tied to a commitment to maintain their life-style in the face of the conditions of where they lived. The factual quibbles about Easter Island and the Maya don't change the fact that both experienced a dramatic loss of resources. How would you propose the private sector would have better managed Nauru's resources? A private company would have even less incentive to rehabilitate the island's ecosystem.
@Cambo13 I understood Diamond's point and you have misstated both his and the market position. He did not attribute any of the collapses solely to resource shortages and no economist argues that resources in an isolated system cannot shrink). And, in fact, the assessment of resource shortages on Easter Island is precisely at issue as is how "dramatic" the decline was among the Maya. Nauru was destroyed by eliminatig the private ownership incentive to preserve value, not capitalism.
@FletchforFreedom I'm going to focus on Nauru, because I just wrote a paper on it. I never claimed capitalism destroyed Nauru. I am not anti-capitalist, but I do believe that the free market must be given bounds so as to avoid a tragedy of the commons situation. What destroyed Nauru was the strong economic incentive to mine the island, with no corresponding incentive to protect its ecosystem. The private sector would not have had any more incentive to environmental stewardship than the state.
@Cambo13 But the tragedy of the commons is SOLVED by the market. What destroyed Nauru was the government's insistence that mining was the fastest way to increase short term revenue into the public treasury. PRIVATE ownership of the land leads owners to consider the long term value of their assets and seek ways to utilize them while RETAINING their value. Clearly, the island had value BOTH as a mining resource AND as a tourist attraction - the market preserves BOTH.
@FletchforFreedom Nauru has no value as a tourist attraction. It's too remote, and it can't compete with other nearby islands for the tropical paradise qualities that wealthy tourists seek. If the private sector had mined Nauru, it would have been conducted by a multinational corporation, which would have had no incentive to preserve the islanders' quality of life. It would have been in their economic interest to strip the island bare, then move on to another source of phosphate.
@Cambo13 Its remotelness has a value unto itself which can be exploited by the property owners. The conclusion about corporate ownership is entirely without basis. The islanders had the incentive to retain ownership of their land and use it as they saw fit but the STATE intervened and took it from them in the first place.
@FletchforFreedom The islanders owned the state. A nationalized mining company WAS how they saw fit to use their land. And Nauruans tried to make themselves into a tourist destination. They built an airline and a shipping line for the purpose. They failed, because the island just doesn't have very many qualities that make it attractive to tourists. It's arid, small, densely populated, and it has no lagoon.
@Cambo13 No, the islanders didn't "own the state" any more than we own ours. The government always seves the interests of those WITHIN it. That they tried to accomplish economic management collectively rather than relying on private property rights was precisely their undoing.
@FletchforFreedom I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about with regards to Nauru. The Nauruan government was highly democratic and characterized by a high rate of turnover and a close connection to individual islanders. I've done a great deal of reading on Nauru, and you really don't understand their specific situation.
@Cambo13 I'm sorry but you don;t know what you're talking about with regards to Nauru. NONE of the points you make have any relevance to the issue. This is a basic problem with reverence of democracy - it presumes that the intrests of the group of individuals is protected when such is not the case. Again, the collective interest is invariably short term and destructive. private property rights foster long term asset protection.
@FletchforFreedom Furthermore, not all resource depletion is a linear process that encourages an economic response. Climate change, for example, is essentially the depletion of our atmosphere's ability to absorb greenhouse gases and maintain a stable climate, but its effects have a fifty year time lag and do not, in themselves, limit the emission of more greenhouse gases. The market cannot respond to that in the way the video suggests.
@Cambo13 Certainly not all resource depletion is linear (which bears not on the issue) but climate change is precisely the kind of thing that can be dealt with by the market via simple adaptation. There is no such thing as a "stable climate" or a "depletion of our atmosphere's ability" to do anything. That the planet is warming (not inconsistent with earlier interglacial periods) is not apocalyptic. You have to demonstrate that adaptation is not better than alarmism and you can't.
@FletchforFreedom I can quite easily demonstrate that adaptation is not better than alarmism. Climate change, which all reputable climate scientists view as anthropogenic, will have massive implications for food security around the world. Entire countries threaten to disappear under the ocean and important river systems could dry up completely. The only way this could be less costly than adaptation is if you forget the existence of the entire poorest half of the world's population.
@Cambo13 I agree that the market can adapt to climate change, but it has to be given the proper incentives. These incentives cannot come from climate change itself, because its effects are spatially and temporally displaced from its cause. If, however, a cost is placed on pollution by government, then the free market can step in and invent renewable technologies that will go a long way towards solving the problem.
@Cambo13 The incentives exist without having to be "given" and, in fact, the drive to find alterantive energy sources has continued (overwhelmingly without governmnet help that misallocates reosurces to places like Solyndra) for decades. They have become significantly more cost effective, just as fossiil fuels have done the same and become cleaner as well (meeting consumer demand).
Still, even if we could not adapt - not the case - the climate change issue is overblown FAR beyond science.
@FletchforFreedom Consumer demand is insufficient to address the problem, because a person driving an SUV does not directly feel the costs of doing so. It is an externality that must be internalized, and the government is the only institution that currently has the ability to do so.
@Cambo13 A couple of problems. You cannot demonstrate that consumer demand is insufficient (in fact, the evidence is overwhelming that the environment improves fastest where capitalism is most embraced and prosperity allows greater weight to be given to that demand. Second, you cannot demonstrate that government is capable of dealing with externalities. In fact, it has demonstrably proven to be incompetent at that task - unintended negative consequences being the norm.
@FletchforFreedom Concern for nature brought on by prosperity is all well and good, but the fact is that there is a limited amount of prosperity to go around. Capitalism cannot make the whole world as rich as we are, because that would require more resources than the Earth can provide.
As for the government dealing with externalities, while I agree that unintended consequences can and have occurred, I see no reason to think that they are the norm. Companies have the wrong incentives.
@Cambo13 NO, NO, NO! Prosperity is MASSIVELY increased by capitalism (precisely the reason world poverty has been halved in the last 40 years). The notion that there are insufficient resources to accomplish this is contrary to reality (Annie's multiple earths idiocy).
And if you don;t think unintended consequences are the norm, you need to look at the examples - SEC, FDA, CCC, TVA, welfare state and on and on.
@FletchforFreedom The problem with neoliberal economics and the current brand of Conservative politics is that they insists that the uncaring, capricious world we live in can be made to conform to their ideological definition of freedom. It can't. Nature existed long before John Locke, Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, and it doesn't care about their ideas of freedom or ownership. A sensible approach is to find ways to live according to our ideals within the unbreakable constraints of nature.
@Cambo13 The problem with modern liberals is that they presume the worst possible outcome of economic freedom entirely without basis. nature existed long before Adam Smith, but the simple fact is that what they provided to us with an expalnation of interactions AS THEY ARE. Capitalism WORKS withing "the constraints of nature". Governmnet does not. The advocacy of freedom that helps facilitate this is a bonus.
@FletchforFreedom The capitalist mechanisms you rely on are in violation of the laws of physics. We live in a closed system with limited resources and energy, and you are proposing that we can make something out of nothing just by trading our resources around in the right way and figuring out new ways of using them. This violates the second law of thermodynamics and that really is the end of the story.
@Cambo13 So you understand neither economics nor physics - gotcha. That we have finite resources is true. That there are not suffiecient resources to provide the level of prosperity we are discussing is absurd. Wealth is created by the manipulation of resources making us all better off. This is not "something out of nothing".
@Cambo13 I think this is an absurd notion given that so much of our prosperity and problem solving to the betterment of mankind over the last three decades has come about due to the typing glyphs of our own imagining into things we build out of sand.
@Cambo13 Sorry, you've failed. While it is widely agreed that climate change has an anthropogenic compenent, reputable climate scientists disagree widely on the degree of that component and whether or not such climate change is severe. The implications on food security are speculative (and often outrageous) and concerns about submergence are inconsistent with actual science (no increase in rate and the offsetting impact of uplift).
@FletchforFreedom See the IPCC's most recent report on the impacts of climate change. It disagrees with you. One choice quote is the following: "In the course of the century, water supplies stored in glaciers and snow cover are projected to decline, reducing water availability in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges, where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives".
Your last statement is an unsubstantiated assertion of neo-liberal dogma.
@Cambo13 The IPCC is not a scientific organization; it is a political one. The underlying science does not conform to its conclusions (as some of the scientists providing the data have vocally complained). That meltwater has been declining is a basic fact that characterizes every interglacial period since the beginning of life on this planet. The science also indicates addition precipitation activity as na offset and water reclamation technology is also being explored.
@FletchforFreedom I think you've fallen victim to the false balance offered by the mainstream media on the matter of climate change, where a denialist loon is brought forward to argue with every reputable scientist on the issue. There is little controversy that the consequences of climate change will be dire.
Even if you were right and there were controversy, you would still be proposing to gamble the planet's future on your favourite economic system and lifestyle.
@Cambo13 I haven't fallen for anything. the mainstream media would have you believe that the disappearance of the Kilimanjaro glacier is due to global warming and that polar bears are endangered due to climate change. You don't find alternate views in the mainstream media. You ahve to look at the actual studies in the science journals.
And everything is a gamble. The gamble on the planet's future is incredibly low risk; the proposed "solutions" are not.
@Cambo13 And my last statement is consistent with all of the scientific literature. Note: climate change, global temperature rises, the greenhouse effect and anthropogenic impacts are all very real, but the claims about significant global sea rising in anything like the near future, disappearing countries, disappearance of water supplies and additional increases in the rate of temperatiure rise are ALL in direct conflict with the actual science. Hockey stick fairy tales.
I'm not with any of the videos. Both are extremist, and in both I find true and lie. You people need to form your own vision by watching this and searching for your own information. Keep reading.
the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is
@Falstad007 i already made that point, communism like it should be, never happen. after Lenin die a dictator kick in the USSR. and the economic system that they had was state capitalism because they where the one who own everything not the people they did not have common owner ship. which is what communism is all about. Cuba north Korea and other country besides having economic embargo on them by the western powers also had bad decisions to make in their own country. /watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ
russia was fucking working until they become open to free market
go ask the russians how they liked the opening to the market
2/3 of em become poor YEAH CAPITALISM !!
Ask the libyan a true socialist country btw. they had so many benefit it was mind blowing.
why do you think it took NATO 9 MONTHS for getting khadafi he? because of the whole country resistance... and cuban live longer and more happy then americans :D
All corporations is Russia are ruled by people from the former Communist Party.
Russia sucks, it's a fascist nation...
Yes, Cuba rules... that's why my country(Brazil) needs to send 100 tons of food to those idiots every year. And who pays ? The brazilian people... that works 6 monhts per year just to pay the taxes...
You live in America ? Want to change with me ? HUAHUAH
@madtrade No need to self-describe you post. We could see it was false. Your assessment of Russia is completely at odds with reality. The Soviet economy was a disaster that stagnated for more than half a century and collapsed! Libya has a standard of living less than 30% of our own and Cuban life expectancy is LOWER than in the US (even though they have been caught manipulating the data).
STF-UP. capitalism is never good it is always about money money and money. all she`s saying is that we should be more Eco-friendly and well....more of the opposite
@TWSceptic oyea living like cavemen like this people? /watch?v=HTSKiyDWXys&list=FLolIgWY3MbF6-gP3c05TUow&index=9&feature=plcp or this peole? /watch?v=k073xobQSM0 or even this people /watch?v=n6tllem27z8 last but not least /watch?v=cR3jQOgs9gc&feature=related at least she is trying to solve the problem this guy and you are not even doing anything.
@juanlmesl Here you present anlther link-fest FAIL. First you link to Harrison's debunked nonsense (there's a reason that the Georgist School of economics is virtually non-existent and Harrison's 14-year cycle doesn't withstand scrutiny); then you link to a video showing the failures of socialism in Haiti, people (with many goods from capitalism) living in a cave), and a video showing those suffering because the government (via the Fed) tanked the economy. They HARM your case!
Does she know about the exponential population growth problem? Maybe she can make a video about why we should have less children. But she will have a hard time convincing the children that they shouldn't have been born in the first place. People will never be 100% harmless to the environment, so maybe we should do the earth a favor and all kill ourselves. She is dumb, thats why this video is show to kids, most adults with a brain (some don't have one) know better than to buy in to this garbage!
All the economic wizardry in the world can't overcome the laws of physics: the Earth has a finite amount of available energy, space, and materials for us to use.
Also, why would I care what James Madison thinks? He's dead.
So, ok, Annie fucks up a lot, and she isn't right. You aren't either. You are a clever guy and you probably figured out what my critics are already for the other videos so I won't bother to comment them. By the way, I'm not a communist, I just think the present capitalism is unfair and cruel. Good chatting with you sir. Always good to have a good chat with people that post things who matter instead of Keyboard Cats. HowTheWorldWorks, finally I found someone to talk politics with.
So, and just because unions have power, don't you think corps have more? Just cause environmental orgs have don't corps have their asses kissed? It's OK that a great part of protecting the environment is nonsense bullshit, and the world is fine, but there are some things in which environmentalists are right. If you're sincere, even the capitalists or the guy who made this video could agree with me. Some things are just obviously happening because of the interference of man in the environment.
And the government does kiss the corporations' asses. They help them a lot, save them from bankruptcy, so they can help the economy. Truth is they don't help anyone besides the company's shareholders. Why don't they save people from bankruptcy? Poor people don't have donations made to them from the government as corporations do. Isn't their goal to help the people? No. They only want to enrich themselves and the company owners. Proof is that SOPA almost got passed, and it's Anti-Constitutional.
And the government does kiss the corporations' asses. They help them a lot, save them from bankruptcy, so they can help the economy. Truth is they don't help anyone besides the company's shareholders. Why don't they save people from bankruptcy? Poor people don't have donations made to them from the government as corporations do. Isn't their goal to help the people? No. They only want to enrich themselves and the company owners. Proof is that SOPA almost got passed, and it's Anti-Constitutional.
Besides, the government also isn't there to have property by itself, or think by itself or have its own objectives. The only objective of a government is to take care of their people. Governments aren't there to fulfill their own agendas.
And the "Government Take care of Us" part is bullshit. It's Ok it isn't in the constitution, but every government should take care of their citizens. It is very wrong to indicate it isn't the government's job to take care of us just because it isn't written in the constitution. Governments aren't created to exist by themselves, they exist to cater to people's every need and solve problems, not to just rule us all with an Iron Fist and let us die because we don't have money.
And I say more, THIS video is propaganda. Americans don't want to hear what Annie Leopard says, because they know a good part of it is true, even if there are some lies/mistakes. For example, it may not be 50% of US taxes that go to the military, but it's at least 35%. In my country, just 7% of taxes go to the military (I live in Brazil) and the rest goes to life quality, living well, not defending against a inexistent threat or attacking/invading countries because of their oil.
Anvair, you're absolutely right, and I extend: I don't think this video is communist. It just says capitalism is unfair, and it is. People die for the comfort of others and who has money can afford to survive better and be at the top of the pile. You americans think you rule the world and can trash it all around while receiving nothing as penalty. You destroyed cultures and societies in many places because of that wild capitalism. And I'm not a communist. I just believe in a better capitalism.
@FillTheirVoid communism was never implemented get over it. all the crap you here about the USSR and china and Cuba ect was never communism why because communism does not called for a dictator ship and it does not call for a state controlled economic system, it call for a common owners ship not a government owner ship which is what those country had.
how is he cold if he's just stating the facts. I know that everyone on youtube is pretty much a stupid liberal fuck, but you guys should really educate yourself.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? Even if she is wrong, and even if she is wrong on purpose, she is trying to bring a more responsible way of using this planet to our minds! And is that worth critizing? The only thing YOU do is to erase the minimal chance of people changing their behaviour after they´ve watched her story. Fuck off guys.
@GohomeMr Her being wrong on purpose is a problem. She should be promoting a more responsible way of living in a better way. That said, her arguments are clearly simplified on purpose and that's a legitimate way of spreading complex ideas. In fact, it's just about the only way of spreading information without being a floating college. Also, this angry guy's logic is not better than hers. Price solutions only work, for example, is there are alternatives available, which there are not really.
@Anivair First of all, thanks for the answer. You´re right, she is simplifying, but as you mentioned its the way to spread complex ideas- What my problem is, that she might have found a way to get people to deal with our problems, and I think taht is the most important part. I think we should´t focus our eyes on her simplified way of spreading (maybe partly) wrong information, instead we should worship taht there are people fighting for our environment, the end justifies the means.
Your hand calculator example falls flat. Before transistors calculators were BIG machines that only a few could afford. They didn't make a significant addition to the pile of garbage we generated every year. Now, with transistors, calculators are so small and cheap that they freebies in ad campaigns. Hundreds of millions of them filling the junk yards and we are shipping the garbage over seas, along with computers and montiors.
The nonsense is that the SAME billionaires and corporate executives who poision the products, pay off corrupt politicians, police and judges to avoid lawsuits, and hire people at slave wages as the SAME people who promote climate change nonsense, carbon taxes, resource scarcity, de-industrialization and ultimately depopulation ARE SPONSORING THESE VIDEOS
Its not small independent workers on a farm or shoe store who hire a few workers in town, ITS THE MEGA CORPORATIONS
This critique is so biased it's not even funny. You sound to young to be this cold. I hope the sake of your soul that you some how reconsider. Nice deactivation av the ratings, didn't like the results or do you have some kind of cold answer to way this is the right thing to do aswell?
... I just hope no one actually takes this video seriously... You nitpick at semantics of scientific studies, then interject with your personal anecdotes and assumptions without any academic support.
Your critiques are... flawed to say the least. To say that price systems eliminate need to control usage of resources is idiotic. That might be true for non-essential goods. but for essential goods demand will not decrease. People will need food and water regardless of what the price is.
Maybe! Though we would need to create something which can withstand that kind of heat & pressure. And we would have to make it using resources that are on the crust layer for affordability- Which can't naturally withstand that heat or pressure. So at the very least, that technology is far away.
But even then the crust can't be considered a resource yet & we can't mine it.
In his own words: "Nothing can be considered a resource until we know how to use it." 8:15
noob....:P
MoranRightman 15 hours ago
nonsense! my eyes are bleeding. I bet i can get a better argument from a 9 year old
anyuferrari 1 day ago
Examples of resources unprotected by private property rights: fish in the sea, many oil reserves, many mineral reserves. Your invisible hand (do you know the reference?) doesn't work unless the system is a capitalist economy. How much of human population lives under democratic, capitalistic systems. Go read some more, come up with something valid and stop miss leading people.
Bradly640 1 day ago
Wow, what a shortsighted argument. It's like you only read the fist chapter of econ and think you know everything about resource management. For example, your argument about prices. Where to begin. Free market price regulation only works when something is privately owned. Most of our earth's natural resources are not protected by private property rights. When a resource is not protected by private property rights, the incentive is to use as much as possible before some else gets it.
Bradly640 1 day ago
You are a corporate fuck shit hole fuck off
howlinwolfcustoms 2 days ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
@howlinwolfcustoms Formulate a constructive, productive argument, and come back. Until then...
Lee Doren is not a corporatist, he is a pragmatist.
screechkid116 2 days ago
MsiapKETm7Y
Watch this video which shows how a Citizen United supporter also supports the idea that those who disagree should be stripped of their voting rights and forced to take medication.
2411Hellokitty 2 days ago
You mean to tell me they are showing this crap in schools? God help us all! We should be careful with our resources though but definitely not by government force.
2411Hellokitty 2 days ago
Why you arguing over whether or not she is right? I think we all know she is being a bit exaggerated, but if she WASN'T who would listen? This is an on-going epidemic in our society, over consumption is becoming a bigger and bigger problem. Waste is becoming a bigger and bigger problem. We, including myself, need to stop thinking about "I" and "ME" and start focusing more on the "US", we are all a part of this world, and we need to work together to keep it beautiful and stop disputing everything
IISPLURAL 2 days ago
My friend your grasp of reality is slipping ,you are so totally blinded by your stupid anal approch to economics,Dare I say you short termed view is probably why we are lemmings and will go the way of lemmings. have a look at how mass produce beefs managed and then tell me your right again.Take your stupid right wing politics and stick it were the sun doesn't shine
permie11 3 days ago
this is a phenomenal critique. i love how you expose her inability to understand her own sources. you practically dont even need your own sources as even her own sources prove her wrong. there is absolutely no way for her or anyone to even attempt to defend her claims and you didnt quit while you were ahead. kind of like tom brady still throwing touchdown passes while up 40 pts with 4 minutes left in the game, you just put her in her place.
edlover78 3 days ago
nasa dot gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2159.html look how green our planet looks
juanlmesl 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I feel very sorry for the maker of these videos. It is clear that he does not know what Sustainable living is in a finite planet. I doubt he went to college.
acuaman42 4 days ago
thank you, u made my project alot easier on me. it was on what you do, and DONT believe wat annie says on 'story of stuff '
greengriffin7890 4 days ago
1:17, of course we have a limited place to grow, WE CAN'T MAKE TE EARHT BIGGER IF WE WANTED TO, i swear you critique makers, ur just jealous of her publicity, i suppose i agree wi th some of ur stuff, but i rly dont appreciate you guys
doggy4070 4 days ago
We call the Sonoran Desert a forest, so that data is bullshit. Let's face it, you aren't just trying to critique this propaganda. You are one of those folks who would put on a Shell advert t-shirt, and bulldoze the fuck out of America. Because you are the villain with the escape pod. You don't care, or give a fuck about generations down the line or the human race. So, I'm done. Every single bullshit "fact" you throw out can be fought, like anybody who deals in propaganda.
mysterycity23 5 days ago
@mysterycity23 true
juanlmesl 4 days ago
Actually, life expectancy would not be decreasing if it were getting harder to live here. That's a different issue.
mysterycity23 5 days ago
So, it's not a resource until we know how to use it? And earlier you said that we don't know most of our resources. And we haven't scratched the surface (though we do know what is in our Earth-if you believe science, which I wonder). So that means that we HAVE used most of our resources, according to YOUR logic.
mysterycity23 5 days ago
Depleting resources means that we start to use other resources? And we aren't running out of resources? Man, that is doublespeak. If I were stupid, I might not notice that you are still just talking about depleting one resource and going to use up another.
mysterycity23 5 days ago
More than our share. People who eat meat are not the problem. "MORE THAN OUR SHARE" is the problem. Also, replanting trees does not save the ecosystems and creatures that die because we take down an entire forrest. Nice of you to admit something though.
mysterycity23 5 days ago
Trashing the Planet?? Have you SEEN Oregon? Oh.... right. Ummm. Well, isn't clear-cutting beautiful?
mysterycity23 5 days ago
There is proof that the government caters to the corporations. Just look at who has the money and who doesn't. Really, that's a no-brainer. I know who my government is giving tax breaks to. And it's not me.
mysterycity23 5 days ago
And... so corporations are providing the goods and services we need to survive? Really? NOPE.
mysterycity23 5 days ago
The government doesn't have to take care of us like little babies and wipe our asses for us, but our government does need to genuinely have our backs, and look out for us. THAT is definitely their job, when they are elected.
mysterycity23 5 days ago
How are we using less and less space? It seems like we are still using more and more space, but at a lower rate than before. And that's great! But, we are still using space. And for garbage. So we still have a finite amount of space, and not a finite amount of garbage.
mysterycity23 5 days ago
watch 11:40 so funny :D
Cord741 5 days ago
troll video.
brod2man 6 days ago
@brod2man somebody has to call bullshit on vids like the story of stuff and i guess lee doran took the job like it or not!
mandy26lez 5 days ago
Running out of resources??? LOOK UP!! 99% of the resources of the solar system are OUT THERE.
(including petrochemicals on Titan).
Hiraghm 6 days ago
more than 50% of our taxes should go to the military; there's very little else the government should be doing besides defending the union.
Hiraghm 6 days ago
I had to watch this and the video its critiquing for an english class in college, thumbs downed the other one, thumbs uped this one. This puts that garbage in it's place.
rawrgabbie 6 days ago
12 minutes and 34 seconds of the dumbest stuff I've ever heard.
slayer3to10 6 days ago
@slayer3to10 Congratulations on finally gaining the ability to hear. Now listen to the State of the Union message and that threshold will be passed several times over.
FletchforFreedom 6 days ago
How the hell does this NOT have at least a million views? Seriously.
EmpperorIng 6 days ago
One of the other interesting facts about the Amazon is that while they are certainly being logged, the total reduction in size over the last 500 years is 14%.
curtisls87 6 days ago
I think is good to teach kids about recycling and the impact consumerism has on the world.. But that is just my opinion.. Have to finish watching the whole thing.. But for me it is disturbing that an iphones(and all other electronics) are made with laborers who work up to 36hours a day, 0,31cents an hour in a factory whose main health problem from laborers is their tendency to commit suicide. If china and other countries could be pressured to adobt fair laborlaws,maybe the jobs would come back.
ItIsBadForU 1 week ago
@ItIsBadForU Since no one is working 36 hours a day (obviously) or for below market wages or committing suicide over market wrking conditions, I'm not sure the issue. And as more and higher paying jobs are INsourced than are outsourced, there are none to "come back".
Laws restricting employment (minimum wage laws, etc.) serve only to make it impossible for some to find work. The biggest advocates for "sweatshops" are those who'd be unemployed without them.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@FletchforFreedom yeah true they won't come back so maybe we need to find a solution for all those over 100million unemployed in the world and there is more to come since it is impossible to find similar jobs for those who have been replaced by maschines we should consider more options how to run the world, economy, market etc. Most jobs will disapprear eventually and that is a fact. So people can't pay for things they don't really need and so the economy will decline again..
ItIsBadForU 6 days ago
@ItIsBadForU Uh, no. the Luddites were discredited long ago (as has been the morons in the Venus project). technological advancement has always and must always CREATE jobs, not eliminate them. Your "fact" is, instead, pure drivel. Capitalism has raised the living standards of billions of people, particularly the poor and working classes, by providing precisely those opportunities and will undoubtedly continue to do so.
FletchforFreedom 6 days ago
@FletchforFreedom global economy in danger zone yet again and improved living conditions?Well compared to the 50s yes but since 90s the decline has been drastic. In america 50% of people live at or below the poverty line so get your shit together then! I visited the stated a few years ago and the roads were horrible and unclean so yeah there could be workers working on those, but at the moment we are at a constant decline between brief climbs.New industries should be created.
ItIsBadForU 6 days ago
@ItIsBadForU The global economy is a mess because of the same kind of collectivist intervention that has caused recessions in the past (and that the Venus Project advocates). As always, it will pass and the increase in living standards will continue.
The assertion that 50% of the people live below the poverty line is flat wrong (try 15.1%) and the US still has the wealthiest "poor" in the world.
cont
FletchforFreedom 6 days ago
@FletchforFreedom what is your definiton of living standards btw? Mine is access to healthcare(so you don't die from curable diseases), opportunity to do better than your parents, have a job,but also free time which is important to mental health and further education and so forth.. It isn't much of a life if you have to work two jobs to pay rent, or sell your house to get treatment or sell your house to get an education or worry if you lose your job you won't survive.Stability.
ItIsBadForU 6 days ago
@ItIsBadForU Pick one. In fact, Americnas (including the poor) have more access to primary care physicians, diagnostic procedures and diagnostic equipment, spend more time with primary care physicians and have the finest health care in the world. If you are diagnosed with a serious illness, you'd better move to the US; you'll live longer. And pay, wealth and general well being have ALL continually improved. The well-being standards you suggest are unsurpassed in the US.
FletchforFreedom 6 days ago
@FletchforFreedom america is 24th in "healthy life expectancy"aka. Hale list. Also 37th in WHO's list of the worlds health systems. Health performance by country you are no where near at the top even though health expenditure oper capita is the highest in the world. So if that is better then you really should still try to do something. I look at WHO and the UN too on this matter. Life expectancy By the UN you are 36th so your argument that you'll live longer doesn't hold.
ItIsBadForU 6 days ago
@ItIsBadForU I imagine if 1) the WHO rankings hadn't been completely discredited years ago, 2) it hadn't been determined that adjusted for instant deaths from murder/accidents, the US has the highest life expectancy in the world (Ohsfeldt and Schneider), 3) every study of actual care - life expectancy upon diagnosis of a serious illness - didn't put the US on top, I'd be impressed. As all of those things ARE true, it is your argument that doesn't hold,
But, hey, thanks for playing!
FletchforFreedom 6 days ago
@FletchforFreedom 1)That ranking 36th by life expectancy was by the UN so even if you discredit the WHO's study, which is older, you claimed that the UN has better statistics.Here is a good study for that point 2)"Changes(decline) in U.S. murder and accident rates over time do not explain the lower improvement in U.S. life expectancy relative to improvements in life expectancy in other developed nations."-D.P.Berstein he aswers to Ohsfelds and Schreiders claims in the study.(3)
ItIsBadForU 6 days ago
@ItIsBadForU I didn't dispute the 36th ranking (albeit I could, the UN uses country's official stats some of which are manipulated). Instead, I pointed out why life expectancy is useless to your argument, driven as it is primarily by genetics and behavior, which is why, adjusted for behavior (instant deaths) the US life expectancy is highest. Bernstein is correct. The difference in relatuive improvements is easily attributed to the US's higher starting point.
Nice try.
FletchforFreedom 6 days ago
@FletchforFreedom Life
expectancy improved in all six developed countries studied here but the change in life
expectancy was smallest for the United States between 1970 and 2005. The smaller
change in U.S. life expectancy cannot be attributed to changes in murder or motor vehicle
accident rate both of which fell substantially in the United States during this time period.
Moreover, part of the lagging performance of life expectancy in the United States appears[1]
ItIsBadForU 6 days ago
@FletchforFreedom to involve lower survivor rates of older Americans who are less affected by murder and
accident than younger cohorts.One possible explanation for the lagging improvement in life expectancy in the United
States relative to other countries is that the United States has a large uninsured population and that over time delays in receiving important treatments lead to medical complications and reduced life span. [2]
ItIsBadForU 6 days ago
@FletchforFreedom Future research should more carefully consider the relationshipbetween lack of insurance and life expectancy.[3]
ItIsBadForU 6 days ago
@ItIsBadForU The Ohsfeldt & Schneider study has survived that and other responses relatively unscathed. The chief responses to the Berstein study were obvious - that it only looked at realtive change rates, that the genetic and behavioral factors went beyond merely motor vehiocle accidents and murders, and that his response did not actually undermine the numerical conclusions in the earlier study. Were there a series of studies proved to be comparable ... but there are not.
FletchforFreedom 6 days ago
@FletchforFreedom I can't find that study do you have a link? I am glad though if americans are taken care of better than what I've red. I now red that that infant thing is mostly due to the fact that there are a lot of teen pregnancies and teen tend to have babies with low birth weight which decreases their chances for survival so maybe something should be done about that and that would correlate to better statistics. But hey why are americans still so violent btw?
ItIsBadForU 6 days ago
@ItIsBadForU I can't get a link now (not at home) but I'll try later - it's the study to which Berstein refers. Information on the causes of infant mortality are easily found and show the chief cause to be congenital defect. Russia and the Iron Curtain countries got caught cheating in the 90s on their infant mortality statistics and there is widespread documentation on how some countries don't use the WHO standard but don't count babies surviving up to a week.
FletchforFreedom 6 days ago
@FletchforFreedom any theories or studies about that? I would like to look into that since from what I've searched today they all say that it is about 3times more likely in america to die from violent crime than other countries but in those articles nobody is listing the reasons. Of course gang wars is what I would think of first and drug cartels and such but what is your opinion?
ItIsBadForU 6 days ago
@ItIsBadForU The cultural differences that result in Americans being more violent in relative terms have a lot of underlying causes and drug-related crime resulting from governmnet prohibition is certainly a very real contributor. It's one of the reasons I oppose such prohibitions. That said, I am defending capitalism (including the capitalistic approach to healthcare), NOT the United States, except inasmuch as the example helps that argument. Culture and prohibition are not capitalism.
FletchforFreedom 6 days ago
@FletchforFreedom prohibition never works that just creates more crime and opportunities for cartels. The prisons are also filled with people who has minor non violent drug related crimes so it would actually save more money to decriminalize certain drugs and that way destroy the cartels impact in the US.. Are you a Ron Paul supporter? I tend to have more things in common with his supporters than with ordinary rebublicans...
ItIsBadForU 5 days ago
@ItIsBadForU On this we are in complete agreement. Like Ron Paul I am a small-L libertarian (classical liberal). I oppose most interferences in the lives of oherwise free people by the state including prohibitions, prosecution of victimless crimes, playing favorites among constituencies and companies, passing regulations that more freently do harm than good (often written by the regulated industries to limit competition) including liability limitations (such as BP had). As the name says...
FletchforFreedom 5 days ago
@FletchforFreedom cool :) Sounds about right. I just am worried about environmental effects that no regulation could have since we all breath the same air but often the wind from factoriesblow to areas where people live and the water we drink also gets polluted and that oil spill in the mexican gulf was horribly handled. So like i said before I think kids should be educated what effects consumerism could have on the environment. On this we probably will disagree though.
ItIsBadForU 5 days ago
@ItIsBadForU Actually, if you want to send your kids to a school that warns about consumerism, you should be able to do so. As for the BP spill, I can only agree, but consider, had regulations not forced the rig so far into the Gulf (and therefore into much deeper water) the spill could have been FAR more easily fixed and regulations included a liability cap that crushed the incentives to be far more careful in the first place. It is a perfect example of regulations doing more harm than good.
FletchforFreedom 5 days ago
@FletchforFreedom well maybe life expectansy isn't important but infant mortality is. That ranking isn't relative and cannot be alone explained by genetics.
ItIsBadForU 6 days ago
@FletchforFreedom Infant mortality rates speak volumes of how bad health care or access to it is in countries:Here is rank by CIAworld factbook 46th United states(2009) and by the UN(2007)34th.So nothing really to brag about since you rank after Cuba,Brunei, UK etc..Can't blame murder or accidents when it comes to infant mortality. Just bad health care before and after the baby is born.If you are rich then of course you are taken care of but most aren't and that is the reality.
ItIsBadForU 6 days ago
@ItIsBadForU Infant mortality is an even WORSE measure of health care performance. It's useless for several reasons. Infant mortality in first world nations is the direct result, overwhelmingly, of congenital defect or maternal behavior (neither have anything to do with health care). Further, the US uses the strict WHO standard, while other countries have been caught cheating in their reporting and many exclude infants that live as long as a week.
FletchforFreedom 6 days ago
@ItIsBadForU There has been no decline in jobs either (excepting recessionary periods and the stagnating middle class myth has been utterly and completely debunked. Total real compensation has continued to climb significantly and without interruption in the US (and the poverty rate worldwide has been halved in the last 40 yeasr or so due to capitalism).
No such "decline" exists and new industries are regularly created by the market. Not one of your assertions is even CLOSE to correct.
FletchforFreedom 6 days ago
@FletchforFreedom where are you getting your facts? Do you have some references to give? Not starting a row I am just curious.(google "half of americans live under poverty" there arent' any "rich" poor especially when you cannot come out of it) Also you rank at 5th worst at distribution of wealth also you are one of the only western countries where a person can die from a curable diseases such as dental infection just because lack of access to health care.That is a poor problem
ItIsBadForU 6 days ago
@ItIsBadForU US poverty figures come from the Census Bureau (the BS from Democracy Now misapplied the data and has been completely refuted), world poverty figures come from the UN. Distribution of wealth is a meaningless red herring. Again, what matters is that the US has teh wealthiest "poor" in the world. And instead countries with socialized medicine kill far MORE people due to rationing. Fire your fact checker.
FletchforFreedom 6 days ago
Just because mining has been going on since the roman empire does not give it any merit. Also I don't think people eat meat because they want to just increase their standard of living. Also eating meat for the sake of increasing your standard of living? Let me buy a phone from a cheap foreign country. What I mean is pursuit of higher standard of living in ignorance is, well just that ignorant. Btw I love meat, but the poultry and meat industry as a whole is very destructive.
Zaimk 1 week ago
I think in regards to the statistic about corp. vs country gdp that there is still some merit to it (in context of her argument). It still conveys the idea that these large institutions provide a lot of cash for these country's (therefore the governments should cater to them.) Its sloppy, but to say its totally meaningless is a little much.
Zaimk 1 week ago
I can't stand her. Thanks for doing the critique!
ConservativesVideo 1 week ago
Humans have an exponential growth rate? An exponent is n to the whatever power. The line goes straight up. No, humans have a LINEAR growth rate. Go back to MAth 101 lady.
AZstarwatcher 1 week ago
@AZstarwatcher A recursive function of Tn = X * T(n-1) is exponential in nature. If X is greater than 1, it's exponentially increasing; if X is less than one, it's exponentially decreasing.
nick012000 1 week ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
She might get some data wrong and I am not going to defend that. However, the underlying message of the video is not plain false and thought-provoking. So does the end justifie the means? I don’t think so but then again I wonder what your backup sources are. Especially with such statements as "The U.S. uses resources more efficiently than any other place on the planet (...) and we happen to feed half the population (...) the rest of the world would be dead if we didn’t (use these resources)."
Slatibartfass1 1 week ago
You said the deepest mine is 15 miles, but to my knowledge the deepest mine is the TauTona mind of South Africa which is only around 2.5 miles deep.
Serioslump 1 week ago
gee I wonder who funded this video....
jeremiahthejuggler 1 week ago
@jeremiahthejuggler I spent $0 on this video as a hobby in 2009. I'm glad you think it was good enough to be funded. :)
HowTheWorldWorks 1 week ago
@HowTheWorldWorks Obviously that $0 was funded by a bunch of corporate elitists (sarcasm) .
JosephMFaulkner 1 week ago
@HowTheWorldWorks i think hes talking about the original video (the one your proving to be false)
tRicKyTuRok 6 days ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
@jeremiahthejuggler It's just a knee jerk reaction with you richly funded statist democrats, isn't it? You assume that since the Democratic party is so awash with corrupt money, you just have to project that even lowly political Youtube libertarian commenters like Lee Doren are being paid to do this.
johnsonfromwisconsin 1 week ago
@jeremiahthejuggler
Maybe you should question who funded the story of stuff.
Smullet90 1 week ago
@jeremiahthejuggler You too can make a video like this with iMovie if you have a Macintosh computer because I am mostly certain he used that app. Maybe you should get a Macintosh computer if you want to make videos like this.
MrConservative608 1 week ago
This critique is almost wholly dependent on a highly flawed notion of how economic forces will eliminate any conceivable resource shortages. This idea, which comes from economist Julian Simon, has been thoroughly debunked by Jared Diamond with a few historical observations. Past societies have collapsed due to overuse of resources and there is no reason to think that the same thing can't happen to us. The rest of the critique falls along with that.
Cambo13 1 week ago
@Cambo13 The problem with your position is that, even if "Collapse" were not flawed (not up to the standards of "Guns, Germs and Steel"), the evidence provided in the book shows no such thing. The basic economics has existed since at least Adam Smith (Simon merely debunked the Malthusian nonsense of Paul Ehrlich). Your cricism fails along with that.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@FletchforFreedom I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific. Where, exactly, does Diamond make a mistake in his reasoning? Easter Island, Nauru, the Ancient Mayans, the Greenland Norse, and the Anasazi, to name a few examples, were all real societies that collapsed due to overuse of resources. Prices and efficiency did not save them.
Physics trumps economics. Earth has a finite supply of resources and energy, and no market can ever create more. We forget that at our peril.
Cambo13 1 week ago
@Cambo13 Much of Diamond's final conclusions are speculative rather than fact (the Anasazi and Norse in particular) and others, Easter Island and the Maya have been found to be wanting on factual grounds (arrival date centiries early in the former and poor evaluation of agricultural techniques in the latter. The Norse demise he attributes mainly to "cultural conservatism", not resource scarcity and the Nauru suffered from STATE misuse of resources, not the market.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@FletchforFreedom I think you miss Diamond's point. The Norse cultural conservatism was tied to a commitment to maintain their life-style in the face of the conditions of where they lived. The factual quibbles about Easter Island and the Maya don't change the fact that both experienced a dramatic loss of resources. How would you propose the private sector would have better managed Nauru's resources? A private company would have even less incentive to rehabilitate the island's ecosystem.
Cambo13 1 week ago
@Cambo13 I understood Diamond's point and you have misstated both his and the market position. He did not attribute any of the collapses solely to resource shortages and no economist argues that resources in an isolated system cannot shrink). And, in fact, the assessment of resource shortages on Easter Island is precisely at issue as is how "dramatic" the decline was among the Maya. Nauru was destroyed by eliminatig the private ownership incentive to preserve value, not capitalism.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@FletchforFreedom I'm going to focus on Nauru, because I just wrote a paper on it. I never claimed capitalism destroyed Nauru. I am not anti-capitalist, but I do believe that the free market must be given bounds so as to avoid a tragedy of the commons situation. What destroyed Nauru was the strong economic incentive to mine the island, with no corresponding incentive to protect its ecosystem. The private sector would not have had any more incentive to environmental stewardship than the state.
Cambo13 1 week ago
@Cambo13 But the tragedy of the commons is SOLVED by the market. What destroyed Nauru was the government's insistence that mining was the fastest way to increase short term revenue into the public treasury. PRIVATE ownership of the land leads owners to consider the long term value of their assets and seek ways to utilize them while RETAINING their value. Clearly, the island had value BOTH as a mining resource AND as a tourist attraction - the market preserves BOTH.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@FletchforFreedom Nauru has no value as a tourist attraction. It's too remote, and it can't compete with other nearby islands for the tropical paradise qualities that wealthy tourists seek. If the private sector had mined Nauru, it would have been conducted by a multinational corporation, which would have had no incentive to preserve the islanders' quality of life. It would have been in their economic interest to strip the island bare, then move on to another source of phosphate.
Cambo13 1 week ago
@Cambo13 Its remotelness has a value unto itself which can be exploited by the property owners. The conclusion about corporate ownership is entirely without basis. The islanders had the incentive to retain ownership of their land and use it as they saw fit but the STATE intervened and took it from them in the first place.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@FletchforFreedom The islanders owned the state. A nationalized mining company WAS how they saw fit to use their land. And Nauruans tried to make themselves into a tourist destination. They built an airline and a shipping line for the purpose. They failed, because the island just doesn't have very many qualities that make it attractive to tourists. It's arid, small, densely populated, and it has no lagoon.
Cambo13 1 week ago
@Cambo13 No, the islanders didn't "own the state" any more than we own ours. The government always seves the interests of those WITHIN it. That they tried to accomplish economic management collectively rather than relying on private property rights was precisely their undoing.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@FletchforFreedom I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about with regards to Nauru. The Nauruan government was highly democratic and characterized by a high rate of turnover and a close connection to individual islanders. I've done a great deal of reading on Nauru, and you really don't understand their specific situation.
Cambo13 1 week ago
@Cambo13 I'm sorry but you don;t know what you're talking about with regards to Nauru. NONE of the points you make have any relevance to the issue. This is a basic problem with reverence of democracy - it presumes that the intrests of the group of individuals is protected when such is not the case. Again, the collective interest is invariably short term and destructive. private property rights foster long term asset protection.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@FletchforFreedom Furthermore, not all resource depletion is a linear process that encourages an economic response. Climate change, for example, is essentially the depletion of our atmosphere's ability to absorb greenhouse gases and maintain a stable climate, but its effects have a fifty year time lag and do not, in themselves, limit the emission of more greenhouse gases. The market cannot respond to that in the way the video suggests.
Cambo13 1 week ago
@Cambo13 Certainly not all resource depletion is linear (which bears not on the issue) but climate change is precisely the kind of thing that can be dealt with by the market via simple adaptation. There is no such thing as a "stable climate" or a "depletion of our atmosphere's ability" to do anything. That the planet is warming (not inconsistent with earlier interglacial periods) is not apocalyptic. You have to demonstrate that adaptation is not better than alarmism and you can't.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@FletchforFreedom I can quite easily demonstrate that adaptation is not better than alarmism. Climate change, which all reputable climate scientists view as anthropogenic, will have massive implications for food security around the world. Entire countries threaten to disappear under the ocean and important river systems could dry up completely. The only way this could be less costly than adaptation is if you forget the existence of the entire poorest half of the world's population.
Cambo13 1 week ago
@Cambo13 I agree that the market can adapt to climate change, but it has to be given the proper incentives. These incentives cannot come from climate change itself, because its effects are spatially and temporally displaced from its cause. If, however, a cost is placed on pollution by government, then the free market can step in and invent renewable technologies that will go a long way towards solving the problem.
Cambo13 1 week ago
@Cambo13 The incentives exist without having to be "given" and, in fact, the drive to find alterantive energy sources has continued (overwhelmingly without governmnet help that misallocates reosurces to places like Solyndra) for decades. They have become significantly more cost effective, just as fossiil fuels have done the same and become cleaner as well (meeting consumer demand).
Still, even if we could not adapt - not the case - the climate change issue is overblown FAR beyond science.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@FletchforFreedom Consumer demand is insufficient to address the problem, because a person driving an SUV does not directly feel the costs of doing so. It is an externality that must be internalized, and the government is the only institution that currently has the ability to do so.
Cambo13 1 week ago
@Cambo13 A couple of problems. You cannot demonstrate that consumer demand is insufficient (in fact, the evidence is overwhelming that the environment improves fastest where capitalism is most embraced and prosperity allows greater weight to be given to that demand. Second, you cannot demonstrate that government is capable of dealing with externalities. In fact, it has demonstrably proven to be incompetent at that task - unintended negative consequences being the norm.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@FletchforFreedom Concern for nature brought on by prosperity is all well and good, but the fact is that there is a limited amount of prosperity to go around. Capitalism cannot make the whole world as rich as we are, because that would require more resources than the Earth can provide.
As for the government dealing with externalities, while I agree that unintended consequences can and have occurred, I see no reason to think that they are the norm. Companies have the wrong incentives.
Cambo13 1 week ago
@Cambo13 NO, NO, NO! Prosperity is MASSIVELY increased by capitalism (precisely the reason world poverty has been halved in the last 40 years). The notion that there are insufficient resources to accomplish this is contrary to reality (Annie's multiple earths idiocy).
And if you don;t think unintended consequences are the norm, you need to look at the examples - SEC, FDA, CCC, TVA, welfare state and on and on.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@FletchforFreedom The problem with neoliberal economics and the current brand of Conservative politics is that they insists that the uncaring, capricious world we live in can be made to conform to their ideological definition of freedom. It can't. Nature existed long before John Locke, Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson, and it doesn't care about their ideas of freedom or ownership. A sensible approach is to find ways to live according to our ideals within the unbreakable constraints of nature.
Cambo13 1 week ago
@Cambo13 The problem with modern liberals is that they presume the worst possible outcome of economic freedom entirely without basis. nature existed long before Adam Smith, but the simple fact is that what they provided to us with an expalnation of interactions AS THEY ARE. Capitalism WORKS withing "the constraints of nature". Governmnet does not. The advocacy of freedom that helps facilitate this is a bonus.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@FletchforFreedom The capitalist mechanisms you rely on are in violation of the laws of physics. We live in a closed system with limited resources and energy, and you are proposing that we can make something out of nothing just by trading our resources around in the right way and figuring out new ways of using them. This violates the second law of thermodynamics and that really is the end of the story.
Cambo13 1 week ago
@Cambo13 So you understand neither economics nor physics - gotcha. That we have finite resources is true. That there are not suffiecient resources to provide the level of prosperity we are discussing is absurd. Wealth is created by the manipulation of resources making us all better off. This is not "something out of nothing".
Educate yourself.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@Cambo13 I think this is an absurd notion given that so much of our prosperity and problem solving to the betterment of mankind over the last three decades has come about due to the typing glyphs of our own imagining into things we build out of sand.
johnsonfromwisconsin 6 days ago
@Cambo13 Sorry, you've failed. While it is widely agreed that climate change has an anthropogenic compenent, reputable climate scientists disagree widely on the degree of that component and whether or not such climate change is severe. The implications on food security are speculative (and often outrageous) and concerns about submergence are inconsistent with actual science (no increase in rate and the offsetting impact of uplift).
The world's poor are best served by the market.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@FletchforFreedom See the IPCC's most recent report on the impacts of climate change. It disagrees with you. One choice quote is the following: "In the course of the century, water supplies stored in glaciers and snow cover are projected to decline, reducing water availability in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges, where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives".
Your last statement is an unsubstantiated assertion of neo-liberal dogma.
Cambo13 1 week ago
@Cambo13 The IPCC is not a scientific organization; it is a political one. The underlying science does not conform to its conclusions (as some of the scientists providing the data have vocally complained). That meltwater has been declining is a basic fact that characterizes every interglacial period since the beginning of life on this planet. The science also indicates addition precipitation activity as na offset and water reclamation technology is also being explored.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@FletchforFreedom I think you've fallen victim to the false balance offered by the mainstream media on the matter of climate change, where a denialist loon is brought forward to argue with every reputable scientist on the issue. There is little controversy that the consequences of climate change will be dire.
Even if you were right and there were controversy, you would still be proposing to gamble the planet's future on your favourite economic system and lifestyle.
Cambo13 1 week ago
@Cambo13 I haven't fallen for anything. the mainstream media would have you believe that the disappearance of the Kilimanjaro glacier is due to global warming and that polar bears are endangered due to climate change. You don't find alternate views in the mainstream media. You ahve to look at the actual studies in the science journals.
And everything is a gamble. The gamble on the planet's future is incredibly low risk; the proposed "solutions" are not.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
@Cambo13 And my last statement is consistent with all of the scientific literature. Note: climate change, global temperature rises, the greenhouse effect and anthropogenic impacts are all very real, but the claims about significant global sea rising in anything like the near future, disappearing countries, disappearance of water supplies and additional increases in the rate of temperatiure rise are ALL in direct conflict with the actual science. Hockey stick fairy tales.
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
I'm not with any of the videos. Both are extremist, and in both I find true and lie. You people need to form your own vision by watching this and searching for your own information. Keep reading.
cuakmelu 1 week ago
@madtrade
If you ever took even one history class, you'd know that everything you just said is either a subjective opinion, or just flat out wrong.
I don't know how you can be this clueless, and I hope you're not an American, seriously.
Also, in Russia, Cuba, NK, or any socialist / communist country, there is really no income inequality. Do you know why?
Because everyone is equally poor & miserable.
Falstad007 1 week ago
the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is the fact of the matter is
YankeesSuck462 1 week ago
@YankeesSuck462 the matter of the fact
the fact is th matter. the matter not the fact . the fact is i matter. to matter to the fact.
madtrade 1 week ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ
juanlmesl 1 week ago
@juanlmesl
Chomsky is a nut.
Nuff said.
FindingHeaven 1 week ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
Turn the ratings back on so I can like this video!
Falstad007 1 week ago
@juanlmesl
It's ignorance like yours that threatens the stability of the world every day.
Look at any socialist / communist state ever to exist. Notice how none of them worked, and how many of they were essentially dictatorships?
Please educate yourself.
Falstad007 1 week ago
@Falstad007 i already made that point, communism like it should be, never happen. after Lenin die a dictator kick in the USSR. and the economic system that they had was state capitalism because they where the one who own everything not the people they did not have common owner ship. which is what communism is all about. Cuba north Korea and other country besides having economic embargo on them by the western powers also had bad decisions to make in their own country. /watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ
juanlmesl 1 week ago
@Falstad007
this is false
i;m all for free market but stop saying bullshit
russia was fucking working until they become open to free market
go ask the russians how they liked the opening to the market
2/3 of em become poor YEAH CAPITALISM !!
Ask the libyan a true socialist country btw. they had so many benefit it was mind blowing.
why do you think it took NATO 9 MONTHS for getting khadafi he? because of the whole country resistance... and cuban live longer and more happy then americans :D
madtrade 1 week ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
@madtrade russia is not a freemakert...
Index of Economic Freedom of Russia -> 143
Hong Kong is number one...
All corporations is Russia are ruled by people from the former Communist Party.
Russia sucks, it's a fascist nation...
Yes, Cuba rules... that's why my country(Brazil) needs to send 100 tons of food to those idiots every year. And who pays ? The brazilian people... that works 6 monhts per year just to pay the taxes...
You live in America ? Want to change with me ? HUAHUAH
paunocu666 1 week ago
@madtrade No need to self-describe you post. We could see it was false. Your assessment of Russia is completely at odds with reality. The Soviet economy was a disaster that stagnated for more than half a century and collapsed! Libya has a standard of living less than 30% of our own and Cuban life expectancy is LOWER than in the US (even though they have been caught manipulating the data).
Fire your incompetent fact checker!
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
/watch?v=OFTjqzqZ3zU&feature=related
juanlmesl 1 week ago
STF-UP. capitalism is never good it is always about money money and money. all she`s saying is that we should be more Eco-friendly and well....more of the opposite
juanlmesl 1 week ago
@juanlmesl Capitalism is the best, without it you would have nothing and still live in a cave and die at 30.
TWSceptic 1 week ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
@TWSceptic No, thanks to SCIENCE we no longer live in caves and die at 30. It was making life easier long before capitalism came into the picture.
JessLynnElisMed 1 week ago
@JessLynnElisMed
But capitalism has allowed the medical and science industries to thrive.
What did Communism and Socialism do to these industries, remind me please.
FindingHeaven 1 week ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
@FindingHeaven
launching the first human in space.
madtrade 1 week ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
@madtrade
Ok, so the USSR put a man in space for a day or two for propaganda purposes.
Do you know what the USA's response was? Send a TEAM to the god damn MOON and put a FLAG on that mother fucker.
Yeah!
Oh, and they came back in one piece too.
Falstad007 1 week ago
@TWSceptic oyea living like cavemen like this people? /watch?v=HTSKiyDWXys&list=FLolIgWY3MbF6-gP3c05TUow&index=9&feature=plcp or this peole? /watch?v=k073xobQSM0 or even this people /watch?v=n6tllem27z8 last but not least /watch?v=cR3jQOgs9gc&feature=related at least she is trying to solve the problem this guy and you are not even doing anything.
juanlmesl 1 week ago
@juanlmesl Here you present anlther link-fest FAIL. First you link to Harrison's debunked nonsense (there's a reason that the Georgist School of economics is virtually non-existent and Harrison's 14-year cycle doesn't withstand scrutiny); then you link to a video showing the failures of socialism in Haiti, people (with many goods from capitalism) living in a cave), and a video showing those suffering because the government (via the Fed) tanked the economy. They HARM your case!
FletchforFreedom 1 week ago
Does she know about the exponential population growth problem? Maybe she can make a video about why we should have less children. But she will have a hard time convincing the children that they shouldn't have been born in the first place. People will never be 100% harmless to the environment, so maybe we should do the earth a favor and all kill ourselves. She is dumb, thats why this video is show to kids, most adults with a brain (some don't have one) know better than to buy in to this garbage!
AbsolutelyMadeinUSA 1 week ago
All the economic wizardry in the world can't overcome the laws of physics: the Earth has a finite amount of available energy, space, and materials for us to use.
Also, why would I care what James Madison thinks? He's dead.
Cambo13 1 week ago
So, ok, Annie fucks up a lot, and she isn't right. You aren't either. You are a clever guy and you probably figured out what my critics are already for the other videos so I won't bother to comment them. By the way, I'm not a communist, I just think the present capitalism is unfair and cruel. Good chatting with you sir. Always good to have a good chat with people that post things who matter instead of Keyboard Cats. HowTheWorldWorks, finally I found someone to talk politics with.
PantherPictures 1 week ago
So, and just because unions have power, don't you think corps have more? Just cause environmental orgs have don't corps have their asses kissed? It's OK that a great part of protecting the environment is nonsense bullshit, and the world is fine, but there are some things in which environmentalists are right. If you're sincere, even the capitalists or the guy who made this video could agree with me. Some things are just obviously happening because of the interference of man in the environment.
PantherPictures 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And the government does kiss the corporations' asses. They help them a lot, save them from bankruptcy, so they can help the economy. Truth is they don't help anyone besides the company's shareholders. Why don't they save people from bankruptcy? Poor people don't have donations made to them from the government as corporations do. Isn't their goal to help the people? No. They only want to enrich themselves and the company owners. Proof is that SOPA almost got passed, and it's Anti-Constitutional.
PantherPictures 1 week ago
And the government does kiss the corporations' asses. They help them a lot, save them from bankruptcy, so they can help the economy. Truth is they don't help anyone besides the company's shareholders. Why don't they save people from bankruptcy? Poor people don't have donations made to them from the government as corporations do. Isn't their goal to help the people? No. They only want to enrich themselves and the company owners. Proof is that SOPA almost got passed, and it's Anti-Constitutional.
PantherPictures 1 week ago
Besides, the government also isn't there to have property by itself, or think by itself or have its own objectives. The only objective of a government is to take care of their people. Governments aren't there to fulfill their own agendas.
PantherPictures 1 week ago
And the "Government Take care of Us" part is bullshit. It's Ok it isn't in the constitution, but every government should take care of their citizens. It is very wrong to indicate it isn't the government's job to take care of us just because it isn't written in the constitution. Governments aren't created to exist by themselves, they exist to cater to people's every need and solve problems, not to just rule us all with an Iron Fist and let us die because we don't have money.
PantherPictures 1 week ago
And I say more, THIS video is propaganda. Americans don't want to hear what Annie Leopard says, because they know a good part of it is true, even if there are some lies/mistakes. For example, it may not be 50% of US taxes that go to the military, but it's at least 35%. In my country, just 7% of taxes go to the military (I live in Brazil) and the rest goes to life quality, living well, not defending against a inexistent threat or attacking/invading countries because of their oil.
PantherPictures 1 week ago
Anvair, you're absolutely right, and I extend: I don't think this video is communist. It just says capitalism is unfair, and it is. People die for the comfort of others and who has money can afford to survive better and be at the top of the pile. You americans think you rule the world and can trash it all around while receiving nothing as penalty. You destroyed cultures and societies in many places because of that wild capitalism. And I'm not a communist. I just believe in a better capitalism.
PantherPictures 1 week ago
Communism failed ... ... ... get over it.
FillTheirVoid 1 week ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
@FillTheirVoid communism was never implemented get over it. all the crap you here about the USSR and china and Cuba ect was never communism why because communism does not called for a dictator ship and it does not call for a state controlled economic system, it call for a common owners ship not a government owner ship which is what those country had.
juanlmesl 1 week ago
@juanlmesl
Then it would also be impossible to implement without a government. Hence it has failed again.
FillTheirVoid 1 week ago
wow, in ten years she didn't learn anything. she isn't very eco friendly making garbage like this.
AbsolutelyMadeinUSA 1 week ago
how is he cold if he's just stating the facts. I know that everyone on youtube is pretty much a stupid liberal fuck, but you guys should really educate yourself.
eranaldi9 1 week ago
@eranaldi9 "everyone on youtube is pretty much a liberal fuck" -man im so glad somebody had the balls to say it.
wazpoppin9 1 week ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
What the fuck is wrong with you people? Even if she is wrong, and even if she is wrong on purpose, she is trying to bring a more responsible way of using this planet to our minds! And is that worth critizing? The only thing YOU do is to erase the minimal chance of people changing their behaviour after they´ve watched her story. Fuck off guys.
GohomeMr 2 weeks ago
@GohomeMr Her being wrong on purpose is a problem. She should be promoting a more responsible way of living in a better way. That said, her arguments are clearly simplified on purpose and that's a legitimate way of spreading complex ideas. In fact, it's just about the only way of spreading information without being a floating college. Also, this angry guy's logic is not better than hers. Price solutions only work, for example, is there are alternatives available, which there are not really.
Anivair 1 week ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
@Anivair First of all, thanks for the answer. You´re right, she is simplifying, but as you mentioned its the way to spread complex ideas- What my problem is, that she might have found a way to get people to deal with our problems, and I think taht is the most important part. I think we should´t focus our eyes on her simplified way of spreading (maybe partly) wrong information, instead we should worship taht there are people fighting for our environment, the end justifies the means.
GohomeMr 1 week ago
@GohomeMr
Yeah! so what if she's horrible, lying cunt. Heed her message, people, for it is noble!
tedatlas 1 week ago
Your hand calculator example falls flat. Before transistors calculators were BIG machines that only a few could afford. They didn't make a significant addition to the pile of garbage we generated every year. Now, with transistors, calculators are so small and cheap that they freebies in ad campaigns. Hundreds of millions of them filling the junk yards and we are shipping the garbage over seas, along with computers and montiors.
GreyGeek77 2 weeks ago
The nonsense is that the SAME billionaires and corporate executives who poision the products, pay off corrupt politicians, police and judges to avoid lawsuits, and hire people at slave wages as the SAME people who promote climate change nonsense, carbon taxes, resource scarcity, de-industrialization and ultimately depopulation ARE SPONSORING THESE VIDEOS
Its not small independent workers on a farm or shoe store who hire a few workers in town, ITS THE MEGA CORPORATIONS
mrscambuster1001 2 weeks ago
lol, "ratings have been disabled for this video". I wonder why.
orangejon 2 weeks ago
This critique is so biased it's not even funny. You sound to young to be this cold. I hope the sake of your soul that you some how reconsider. Nice deactivation av the ratings, didn't like the results or do you have some kind of cold answer to way this is the right thing to do aswell?
Jar2k 2 weeks ago
Us spends more on the military than any others so they do spend way to much on military even including medicade
greg91ification 2 weeks ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
... I just hope no one actually takes this video seriously... You nitpick at semantics of scientific studies, then interject with your personal anecdotes and assumptions without any academic support.
Nomadic813 2 weeks ago
Your critiques are... flawed to say the least. To say that price systems eliminate need to control usage of resources is idiotic. That might be true for non-essential goods. but for essential goods demand will not decrease. People will need food and water regardless of what the price is.
Nomadic813 2 weeks ago
ratings disabled because someone's a pussy!
nickybabyy24 2 weeks ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
"The use of the word "Finite" is extremely misleading"....Wait what? Because people think it means something else?!
Her use of the word it exactly as it's intended to be used. Finite means limited, regardless of what these "people" you mention think it means.
WendysART 2 weeks ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
Wait.. So you think that we can mine the core of the planet?
Oh.. Wow. You just made my day!
WendysART 2 weeks ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
@WendysART Maybe one day with technology. Who knows.
LEpicFails913 2 weeks ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
@LEpicFails913
Maybe! Though we would need to create something which can withstand that kind of heat & pressure. And we would have to make it using resources that are on the crust layer for affordability- Which can't naturally withstand that heat or pressure. So at the very least, that technology is far away.
But even then the crust can't be considered a resource yet & we can't mine it.
In his own words: "Nothing can be considered a resource until we know how to use it." 8:15
WendysART 2 weeks ago