LOL@ you can have leverage by using resignation as a threat. Guess what, there aren't enough jobs to go around on this planet, if you quit, 10 others are ready and willing to take your place. The power is in the hand that gives, and the hand that gives is the employer. At least, in this current economic structure. Which I don't agree with, Google "Resource Based Economy".
@4HahaTwo To an extent. The lower skill the job, the less power resignation has and the lower wage the job can demand. The answer? Become highly skilled or start your own business. Here in the US that is still an option.
@ecuadmail If everyone gets highly skilled then the power shifts for those lower skilled jobs. Same problem, shifted. Let's say there is an even distribution of lower and higher skilled people, still the problem remains the same.
Conclusion: not enough jobs to go around, not to a certain extent, just period.
Not enough jobs to go around, period.
Those that do have power by using their resignation is an extreme minority. So you're focusing only on that extreme minority and ignoring the rest.
@tzmbelgium Your argument hinges on the idea that the distribution of skilled and unskilled labor is always the same or that it is "even". Such is not and never will be the case. Upward mobility in the US is a fact for everyone who actually works for a living. Some people are willing to do 8 years of college, some are only willing to do four, some are not willing to do any. While its true to an extent that low jobs are the most available and the lowest paying these jobs are meant to
be held by teenagers. If you're 45 and working at Walmart or McDonalds as a cashier, you have bigger problems. The ruinous effect of the minimum wage law is that kids can't get jobs in high school (because they're occupied by desperate adults) and adults who are content with that meager living are never forced to improve and grow as professionals in order to maintain or improve their standard of living or wage. In the end if a business wants to offer 5 cents an our for someone to fold
shirts or flip burgers then that should be their option. If someone wants to take them up on that offer, that should be their option. If no one is willing to work for that, no one will and the employer will have to raise his wage offer. The market will deem what each job is worth and everyone who wants to make more will have to become more educated or skillful as a means to that end. I'd research the history of minimum wage laws a bit if I were you. White South African construction
Unions used the minimum wage law (for which they lobbied in that country) in order to keep Blacks, who at the time were lower skilled because of the apartheid discrimination with regard to education and labor, from competing for the jobs. They KNEW what effect they would have and they lobbied for it to achieve that goal. Its only obvious it would, and does, have the same effect here.
Around 4:50, you begin with the assumption that the employers didn't inherit their fortunes with which to generate business. This has the ultimate effect of ignoring the fact that through this practice of inheritance, more and more wealth is concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer individuals.
Yeah, I took economics in high school too, however you have to move away from the oversimplification of the labour market equilibrium and realise that in countries with no minimum wage not everyone is employed in a job that pays all the bills. Reality isn't always the same as theory, measures that protect workers interests are usually in place to prevent a situation reminiscent of Dickensian England with it's sweatshops and child labour.
Between equal rights, there exists only force. Employers have force, employees on the average do not, unless they by force restructure the wage system in some way through organizing themselves. When there exists a surplus of labor, that is more labor than there exists a demand for labor, there's far more levying power against laborers. Laborers lack capital entirely, employers, collectively, hold all of the capital and means of subsistence in society. Who controls production controls society.
Your analysis is overly simplistic. Employers pay employees significantly less than their production value, thus giving employers a massive advantage. The threat of an employee quitting is mute as there is a long line out the door of potential applicants for most positions. In the end only one thing remains true: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and this is the root of the problem. Plus, get real, most of these rich guys got big breaks in life.
Except their are no unions & in a slow economy the boss can pay u squat & the GOP will keep the min wage at a dollar squat, your a elitist hiding in his college speech class spew. How many minorities are their compared to your standard white gray haired fart ceo?. Im surprised you didnt use the word pardigm, thats a favorite word of the ivy league to use when spouting about how important they are. As with everything the truth is in the middle, in compromise, in EMPATHY. Take a class in that
to say that the wage is determined by supply and demand is silly. Independent on how much money a company makes for selling a specific item its still up to the company to choose how much they should pay their workers.
@BennoTheDutch Golly, where 2 start? Supply/Demand models only work where theres no limit or interference on either side of the equation...which is NEVER the case in reality (realpolitik). This twat claims free marketeering is all fair and even, ignoring the fact that a non-unionised & non wage protected "unit of labour" (or human being for those of us with a brain) is DIVIDED & readily CONQUERED by accumulators of capital/power (oligarchs) who unite against labour = wage slavery (China!)
I would rather have treatment from a physician who decided to to help the sick and dying out of compassion, not for the chance to make more money than a street sweeper.
@Harrymfink Ya, and I bet he can feed his family and pay his mortgage off of comapsion too. Get real, Doctors go to school for years. Streat sweepers don't.
I think this guy got his ass kicked alot when he was in school. And he seems uneducated. Probably because he was too preoccupied with getting his ass kicked during recess.
@MarkyMarkDenver maybe I don't want to start a business,but if i did I would pay my employees as much as I could possibly afford to and still make a modest profit. the problem with companies today they want to pay shit wages and make tons of cash and then pay little or no taxes.
The minimum wage thing is bit off tbh. If it was abolished, people could get payed less than consumer price indexes put for items, thus negating your first point that people would contribute to others. If the objective is that most people have a job, sure, abolish minimum wage, however, if the objective is that people get payed justly and humanely, don't. The minimum wage is there to make sure people are PAYED for their labor, instead of ENSLAVED for their labor.
@Faerlon123 You are basically saying all employers are evil idiots and all employees are dumb cows. To employers: you get what you pay for. To employees: Read your contract before you sign it. A minimum wage accomplishes nothing, as all prices are set artificially high. You are forgetting that prices all around will drop - basically this will create a new, more efficient standard of living. If people want to work for less than the minimum wage, should you leave them jobless?
@BennoTheDutch Well usually employers don't really have anyone's interest at heart except their companies growth. There's not exactly a shortage of workers in the world, so they can, usually, hire anyone they want to depending on what kind of area of business they are in. If people want to work for less, then sure. I'm not saying people should be left jobless, i'm just saying there's moral dimension here, which I care about, and most capitalists don't.
@Faerlon123 You are again neglecting the employees. They want to exploit the employer as much as he wants to exploit them.
There's the problem: there IS a shortage of workers (it's not an infinite resource). There's always supply/demand. The minimum wage introduces another discrimination, e.g.: when someone is not able to work as fast as someone else (maybe a handicapped person) you take away their ability to offer to work for less. Congratulations! Another jobless person.
@BennoTheDutch True. They do want to exploit their employer. But that is mainly because they know they are being fucked in the ass by the person they are working for. i'm not entirely sure where my stance is on these libertarian ideas, some of them i like wholeheartedly, others I think are liable to scrutiny before they are put into practice.
@Faerlon123 A libertarian society is probably unachievable - most people ridicule the ideas before they think them through. I did, before I got proper education. 'Socialist' sounds nice, so they vote for those parties. There are some things that I do like about socialism, e.g. the Dutch healthcare system. Of course it isn't perfect, but what is?
@BennoTheDutch The biggest problem I have with it is that it reminds of when I was young as a communist. I really believed then that a classless utopia was possible. I do of course not believe that anymore. But, it seems to me that libertarianism is an ideology somewhere a long that line, because it's so utopian. Of course it might work better than communism ever would but, whenever there's a utopian fringe to something, I never really take it seriously.
@Faerlon123 I'm thinking the same thing about the utopia part, but it's better to stand behind your ideals, as political agreements will always be just a bit worse than your personal utopia in most cases.
this is called "margins and centre". Even if u reject black & white ideals/extremism, when someone tries to push u toward THEIRS, u must push back equally hard toward YOURS, just to maintain yr position. Now, while diplomacy would dictate taking up positions in the middle (centrism), we should accept that both sides naturally form extreme/marginal factions & these forces r vital in finding/creating a robust/dynamic balance - bland centrism can drift insidiously without u noticing!
let us not forget tht th political spectrum is more like a circle than a line with "left" and "right" wings. Go too far either way and u get 2 Anarchism (certain forms of which actually do work, but need 2 get themselves a new name!). I meet so many hard out Libertarians tht are confused as hell...when u push them on key points u inevitably discover some Freudian dream of freedom ultimately backed by a miraculously un-funded & shadowy army of "loser" control/eradication. Uh-oh!
@kuntyfucstik I understand that a divided workforce is unlikely to be able to stand up to e.g. oligarchs, but why do supply/demand models only work without this undefined 'interference'? And isn't the whole point of supply/demand that there are limits? I never saw the political spectrum as a line by the way, with all those different political parties over here, they just don't 'fit' in a line...
Supply/deamnd models are based on "pure" assumptions, that's why. I'm not talking about quantitative limits/interference of the demand or supply itself, but on the social & political forces which skew the equations. Let's not forget that demand is artificially created, supply is artificially withheld. Capitalism requires the most idealistic and utopian notions to become reality in the world - never gonna happen. Capitalists are the WORST at breaking their own rules (corruption)
@kuntyfucstik Corruption exists everywhere, but the worst corruption I encountered was in a socialist country. I still don't see why supply/demand wouldn't work - artificial supply and artificial demand is still supply/demand. The artificial stuff is only created by price fixing/subsidizing - which clearly doesn't work.
I think u mean "communist" country, don't u? Sadly, there are virtually no Socialist enterprises allowed on planet Earth. I can assure u there is corruption aplenty wherever there is concentration of wealth/power. U might consider shifting yr current paradigm outside the standard boxes to progress yr ideas. Closure of The Commons/Anarcho Syndicalism/Commoditisation. We have deep problems to address, but at present everyone's just burying their heads in sand...same old, same old.
@kuntyfucstik Communist, yes, sorry. I agree about people just sticking their heads in the sand - most of those have trouble enough getting food for their family, so they don't really bother with politics at all. Let alone thinking about different standpoints than current political parties.I am not familiar with 'Closure of The Commons/Anarcho Syndicalism/Commoditisation', what do these terms mean?
also, watch videos by Adam Curtis for a good overview of the dangers of modern capitalism (there's quite a few on YouTube) Sorry to refer you to Wikipedia, but it's a good start and there's no room here for long discussions.
@Faerlon123 I just love how people have their opinions about workers rights, but never have ran a business themselves. And if you don't want to be criticized, than don't post your opinion. You seem just like another troll. And that's Sir Dipshit to you.
@MarkyMarkDenver No, I have never ran a business. And I don't intend to. I'm not saying all corporations are bad, but their motive, is just as evil as the governments you guys try to paint with a bad brush. People who are at the top social ladders in a society, either it gov't officials or corporate CEO's, all have their agenda, which is basicly the same thing. More power for them, less for everyone else.There is such a thing as good government, it just needs a decent purge.
@Faerlon123 Okay, very valid point. Thats why I believe a limited size government and in theory limited power for all politicians and Corporations(GE). A lot of corporations get their sweet heart deals, a lot of this due to a big powerful government. So my theory and solution will always be less and limited government. At the end, this will lead to less power for the assholes at the top.
@MarkyMarkDenver If I had my way, I would crush corporatism. I think by doing that I'd solve a multitude of problems. Corporatist politicians and greedy CEO's are the ones doing most damage to America so, they need to be restrained.
@BennoTheDutch Ya, why don't you tell this to the homeowner who has lost 50 percent of the value of his home, because its good prices dropped? A better standard of living? ya right.
I love your enthusiasm but please read and think more before you post videos. I hate the idea that someone could stumble upon your video and think it makes good sense.
I'm so sick of idiots blaming the current economy on "free markets". People who do that, have absolutely no idea what the term "free market" even means. They are somehow blind to the millions of rules & regulations, the constant tinkering from the govt, the horrific imbalances of power that come with political influence, the immoral economics of the federal reserve, etc. Just sheer ignorance.
This economy is "free", in the same way that the former USSR was a "worker's paradise".
@nickcruis HaHa! You think the current economy, under current regulations (how many laws affecting commerce & taxation have been made so far?), and under the influence of the federal reserve and its completely immoral system of fractional reserve banking, and the politics involved, is a "free market"?!?
Please, don't make the same tired old mistake of calling this system a free market, and using it's gov't-influenced failings as the benchmark for discussing hypothetical free markets.
because it's a soul-sucking corp that takes out life insurance on its workers, profiting whenever they kick the bucket? This sounds like another misguided attempt at defending unregulated capatalism. You might also want to think about how illogical a paradigm based on constant growth will be in the long term. There's too many holes in the arguement, I don't see why people still even try to glorify such a clusterf*** of a system.
Go to any fast food joint here in the U.S. There's usually 1 or 2 guys at the register, 1 or 2 cooks and an MOD. What happens when the store gets hit with a rush of customers? Service gets backed up, food is delayed coming out, and the dining room gets messy because no one is available to clean it.
I've visited the Philippines, and their fast food joints have 3 times as many people on any given shift. Why? Because wages are lower so more people are employed. It's ALWAYS clean in the dining.
Okay Jacob you really lost me at your 'why do some earn money while we labor?' example. You're answer was not correct, certainly not universally: that they (1) took the risk, (2) worked harder and (3) were abstemious and frugal. Aside from implying that working people with less are the opposite of all of this, which is bullshit, it is the old meritocracy argument and it only goes so far.
You need to think about cummulative capital, across generations, and power. Maybe I'll make a video.
Did you make your video to look like those Big Think videos, with the bright white backgrounds?
I want to correct you on something: the employee-employer relationship is not always as symmetrical as you made out, when we consider the third world. The cheerful push-pull give and take examples you gave are extremely US biased. I think you're smart but I want you to travel.
I would also have added to your second point not just threatening to quit, but Unions too.
Who REALLY runs our world? search "israel Did 911 All Proof in the World" and search "ZionCrimeFactory" for proof.
Reporting on the death of supremacist Zionist leader David Wolffsohn, the September 17, 1914, edition of THE NEW YORK TIMES tells us that during his closing address at the Zionist Congress at the Hague in 1907 Wolffsohn “pleaded for greater unity among the Jews and said that eventually they must conquer the world.”
w(dot)zioncrimefactory com/jew-world-order SPREAD THE TRUTH!
Some of this is right, but there has to be regulation to protect employees, like the minimum wage. Employers can exploit employees much more easily than employees can defend themselves, its simple numbers - do you think it is easy for the Trade Unions to work in unison, drum up support and agree with each other? Definitely not. However, for employers a single CEO or a small board of executives make a decision and the exploitation can happen just like that.
There are many similar examples where the employer base is quite concentrated, and there is no way they wouldn't pay rubbish wages if the government didn't make them pay a living wage.
This kind of thinking works really well in the case where significant sectors of the economy are have low barriers to entry. In many countries, such as the UK, France, Australia, Denmark, the supermarket sector is controlled by a few main companies (sometimes as little as two). Competition is only at the fringe because of the large capital cost of setting up warehouses, RFID, logistics, etc. Therefore, retail employees trained in this career DON'T have the opportunity to just quit over wages.
The people who have the capital have the leverage, and without government oversight, they can use that leverage to exploit the people. Example: you know you're paying WAY too much for gas, yet you still buy it b/c you can't go w/o gas, just like someone works for slave wages b/c they can't go w/o income. Companies do set labor prices.
In science, you don't get to ignore reality because your "trickle down" theory works so neatly in your head.
Every country that has ever relied on Laissez Faire capitalism has been a sweatshop pseudo-slavery country with a small group possessing all of the wealth while the masses are kept near starvation. Examples: Mexico, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, USA during the time of the Industrial Revolution (before labor laws). Meanwhile, the countries with the highest standards of living (e.g. Norway, which is higher than the US) use a combo of capitalism and socialism.
being by lower prices or larger advertising campaigns
if everyone started from the same spot and same oportunities and businesses started all from zero it would be fair
but the truth is that it is increasingly difficult to compete against what are now very large businesses and increasingly wealthy families, and there will be a breaking point
as the need for minimal needs creates unsteady states on unemplyed there will always be a big supply of workers willing to get paid a low wage (little is better than nothing) and this affect those already unemployed
people who start businesses are have mostly not underconsumed, just inherited businesses or family wealth that allows higher education
also if a business cannot compete other businesses is mostly because an older bigger businesses has more means to attract costumers
Communism: "capitalism is evil because it "creates" inequality. At least in communism, we will ALL be poor together! Will will have perfect economic equality!!! Isn't that wonderful????"
@stebecool actually no, money will have less value but supply of goods (stuff you really need to live and what you want money for) is way beyond demand. food and medicine are two simple examples this makes money only good for luxuries (stuff you dont really need but want anyway)
@Lievcocijo They have basic needs (which 95% of people in developed capitalist countries have anyway and the gov provides if they don't), but we're all bored as fuck (no luxuries). That's not a life I would like to live. The whole idea isn't even true in North Korea, not only are they bored as fuck, they also can't feed themselves. Cuba is as good as it gets, everyone has the basics, they make the equivalent of less than $10k a year, no luxuries, but they have nice beaches to sit on I suppose.
@stebecool that depends on what you call developed country, if youre including the top 15 countries on the world about the first third has basic needs covered, the second third covers them through working the entire (or more) shift which allows no further personal developement and the last third (still on the top 10% of the world) most of the population struggle to get the very basic needs everyday
add to that how most of the big markets are controlled by few foreign (for the 90% of the world)
@stebecool which makes, say a few electronics companies that sell out of their countries and leaves local companies with no chance, or even within their own territories
cuba for example has the basic needs covered no matter what, and their academic level is above a lot of these big countries. lots of rich people in the US go to medical treatment in cuba
NK is another example of failure like soviet union because of the same leadership issue, that turns into fanatism for a leader
@Lievcocijo First, all you care about is because the label, they have their basic needs covered, without any evidence what so ever, second all that free stuff, was it all possible with or without the use of force. And Capitalist countries? That's an oxymoron, Please try again statist, as always your arguments are like from an uneducated uncared for beaten child.
more than the label im focusing on the type of society cooperation and wealth distribution
i live in Mexico an can tell you for most, working the entire shift doesnt cover the basic needs, same goes in china India Russia Brazil and pretty much all South America
@Lievcocijo First, I'm going to give you a benefit of the doubt so you're english isn't the best, I have never said anything about you're a liar, I said what you said is a contradiction, a true free society is with boarders, because only true boarders are a person's property. And I only need to point to the drug laws, minimum wage laws, central banks and democracy as proof, that you live in a market socialism, aka fascist society. There is plenty of force in mexico.
@SarionFetecuse thank you for statiing your arguments, now i can see where youre aiming at
I agree we are actually in a disguised fascist society (actually NaZi stands for national socialism) they are similar in the way that socialism and fascism has the control of the state in the hands of the party, the big difference lies that real socialism is only a transition point while classes are eliminated, its real objective is comunism, where the state (and party) are absorbed into society
@SarionFetecuse fascism never has that intention of disolution. it pretends to remain with everything in control of the party, never to give it to the people. Thasts what happened in Russia. The party was supposed to integrate the state into society but it took only some ambicious individuals to corrupt the system in its state of transition, and turn it into a fascist state, and the same happened to the subsequent so-called communist states.
@SarionFetecuse the class diference was not eliminated as it was supposed to, only heightened, between the party members and the rest of the people. Fascism works on a right-wing philosophy of survival of the fittest, Actually hitler's biggest opposition was the communists, this was the party that he fought the most
@Lievcocijo But don't you realize a central bank screws the working class the most and the drug laws? Like that is socialism through and through! Comprehend what people who believe in freedom say! Not just dismiss it because you think what you live is a free society you are totally mistaken!
@SarionFetecuse now, here is where the thing gets tricky: you do know that US federal reserve is a PRIVATE organization, right? it actually LENDS money to the goverment, and the goverment has to pay back with interest. You should also be aware that most of those oppresive laws (if not all) are pushed on by private interests that have influence in politics through the economic support they invest in polititians, so the laws that benefit only them and their corporations get passed
@Lievcocijo here in Mexico it functions in a more blatant way, big institutions like PEMEX, the water company or the electricy company (CFE) are in paper part of the goverment, but the also function as private corporations. They suck up money from the goverment (taxes) and they still charge you for the service
A corporation (spawned of capitalism) has the function of producing money, what ever means it takes, if it can go over the law to get better dividends, it will do it
@SarionFetecuse a drug cartel is the extreme example of a corporation: there is a market, there is a demand and they are the supply, they can keep the laws as they are so their product gets overpriced and uncontrolled, they can threaten its employees into conformity by sheer fear, they have nothing to hinder their operations, and if one market gets into trouble, they can change to a different market, or even create it out of their resources (i.e. attacks to provoke protection payments)
@SarionFetecuse there is this documentary "The corporation" that explains how an entity inside a capitalist system works and why it works that way. This entities only goal is to produce money, most of the time whatever the means necesary, including infiltrating the state. Its in youtube
Also there is a book called Political Ponerology that explain these means to take advantage in a competitive system
@SarionFetecuse the thing that screws you as part of a society is not the state per se, but actually the interests of certain groups that leech off the state (and your taxes) and society at the same time, these interests are way closer in my opinion to competitive market than to the elimination of classes through socialist cooperation
@stebecool a leader makes their country to adore him though fanatism and repression, kim jong-il, stalin, castro and all their policies that fuck their own people shouldnt even have that much power in a real socialist system
@stebecool add to that the arbitrary blockades by capitalist countries and of course their people and the country in general dont get to develop as a whole
@Lievcocijo Silly statist, and your statist friends running and controlling countries, regulating, and taxing them, and rebranding it as free market capitalism! YOUR FRIENDS ARE GENIUSES!
@jeffiek oh, you mean my internet bill that would be non-existent in a socialist system?
seriously, theres a lot of places where free network access is getting implemented, this, plus connected computers free to use in subway stations are two programs promoted by left wing in my city
that would also apply to sites financed by society, like in venezuela. so yes, a socialist sopported digital platform is possible
@jeffiek not sure of what you imply, the fact thast i was born and live in a so-called capitalist system (agreeing with you) doesnt alter my beliefs of the fact that i think there could be better ways
@jeffiek what two deceptions? the fact that i live in a capitalist country and therefore pay for my internet? what has that anything to do with if i believe socialism is a better option or not?
or that free access to information is a socialist idea? internet after its military genesis began to grow at universities for academic purposes, that means concentrating on giving resources to the biggest amount of interest posible
that someone decided to charge for the service THAT is a capitalist idea
but im not an employee, the way our company works is that my "boss" is also my client, and I "sell" him my work for what its valued, not for how much time i spend with my ass in an office, he does the same with several "employees" that also sell him their work as to a client he gets the percentage he sees fit for a final project to get sold, so he gets his money from the part that belongs to him, that is managing and getting clients as the face of the company
@jeffiek if that company system was inside a socialist country instead of a capitalist country i would get the food and goods instead of the money i get to buy food and goods
@Lievcocijo ir in other types of system i would do get money but with less value, still i would buy stuff for the value its actually worth (cost) not the added value created by a competitive capitalist market
@jeffiek you do aklowledge that by saying that you are recognizing current systems as a corruption of capitalism you are recognizing them like failed systems right?
at first neither socialism nor capitalism are evil, its just the way we implement them is what makes them evil
in the bottom line we as people are just stupid to manage these systems
@JacobSpinney u say dat da employees r greedy cause dey want a little more pay but in reality bcause of our want nd need to b paid more, corporations just go to poor countries nd pay some kid 1/10th of wat we'd get... but u probably no dis... nd another thing communism doesnt make everyone the same, it just leaves people to persue career goals just for the fun of it and common necessity...i bet wen u were a kid u wanted to be something not cause of da paycheck but because u thought it was cool.
minimum wage. But really what Marx demonstrated with unemployment was that in a free market, full employment itself induced a reduced supply and drove up the cost of labour, this effectively means that even in a perfect free market there is permanent structural unemployment.
Jacob, I think you demonstrate a very shallow understanding of the Marxist critique of capitalism here in a number of ways. Firstly it ignores even the insight that Adam Smith had, which was that the concentration of wealth itself has a massively distorting effect on the political sphere - in effect this creates wealth incumbancy, and effectively chokes off a lot of social mobility. Secondly, unemployment existed even in the 19th century when the state was relatively tiny and there was no...
You've oversimplified this far too much, your treating workers as if they have just as much power as the employer which in out society and environment is just not true.
I am curious what you think about sweat shops? In a system with no bottom wage, you may have people who will work for so little they can not save to ever have anything "nice". If you are working just to make enough to stay alive, that is not really living. But if some people will do that, then workers don't have the power to get better wages. Just for a second, I think some people want more than they deserve, but minimum wage in WV is enough to stay alive, but not enough to actually live.
FOR DECADES, corporate profits have increased dramatically, the rich have hoarded immense wealth, and the wealth gap has increased to historic levels. Wages have STAGNATED all while worker productivity has INCREASED. Stop blaming the victims and defending Capitalism. You're being a useful idiot for Capitalism much as Communism's supporters were useful idiots for it. Both have lead to unacceptable tyranny of different flavors.
@IngeniousEpithet You have explained what has happened, but have ignored why it's happened. The wealth gap has continually increased for the simple reason that the government has removed the mechanisms the free market would otherwise have to stop it. How could you possibly point to a business bribing politicians to make competition illegal and then exploiting their customers and their employees precisely because the government has made competition illegal . . . and call that a free market?!
lol right... and what are these magical mechanisms that the government has somehow removed?
As for a free-market giving rise to corporatism/cronyism... that's just natural, Jacob. It's really a simple politico-economic equation:
In a free market there are, essentially, zero or very few regulations. If there are no regulations which PREVENT private entities from bribing politicians (so long as politicians/governments exist alongside "free markets"), then they will do so to WIN.
@IngeniousEpithet The ability to have legitimate competition. It's impossible to be able to compete against another business when that business has bribed politicians to make all competition illegal. And it's extremely difficult to compete against a business when it bribes politicians to create a bunch of loops you have to jump through (that it doesn't) just to be able to compete against them. Competition is what keeps businesses in check from being able to exploit customers and employees.
@IngeniousEpithet If you remove competition, which is exactly what governments do, then they will indeed exploit customers and employees. Is this the fault of a free market? No. It's the fault of the government for making competition illegal. What you need to be focusing on are ways to stop businesses from being able to bribe politicians, or even from removing the power of politicians to set rules and regulations that grant special privileges to the businesses who bribed them in the first place.
So essentially, without regulations of for-profit private entities... they are allowed to do as they wish. If they are allowed to do as they wish, then there is nothing preventing them from opportunistically RE-HIJACKING government to secure their dominance/monopoly. It's actually BRILLIANT economics to utilize government to maintain/increase profits/expansion!!! There is nothing in Capitalism that inherently prevents this phenomenon, not even competition; only regulation.
@IngeniousEpithet But you are imposing regulation over the wrong people. It is not the bribers who need regulating. There will always be people trying to find shortcuts. It is the bribe takers you need to be regulating. If these politicians who take these bribes did not have the power in the first place to grant their bribers market advantages, THEN THERE WOULD BE NOTHING TO BRIBE!
It goes both ways and both sides should be regulated and/or punished effectively.
Also... when you say "these politicians ... did not have the power in the first place", it seems you're advocating Anarchism, meaning, the elimination of positions/structures of power... which, as an Anarchist, I'm all for (eventually). However... Capitalism and ownership do not jive with Anarchist society, simple as that. Capitalism/property were born alongside nation-states, they're kin.
@IngeniousEpithet You are not able to gain market advantages within a market, you can only do so outside of the market, which is why it's politicians who need the regulating, not businesses. Since regulation is EXACTLY the guise that politicians use by which to grant businesses market advantages!
its the same reason why anybody even bothers trying to pay anyone else. You pay the mechanic for his 'auto' expertise and his ability to service your vehicle properly. But if you try to pay the grocer for the same service, regardless 'how much you pay', the grocer likely won't be able to service your vehicle properly. Same thing with bureaucrats- its only cuz they are given the illusionary power to control other people's lives that people would pander to them
Once again... whatever the barriers are doesn't matter. Both sides need to be regulated from bribery of elected officials, there is almost no legitimacy in such conflicts of interest and therefore any proper regulation of either side is appropriate.
Also... you cannot gain market advantages within a market?? Wha?? C'mon man... that's half the game of dominating markets!! Markets are not some pure economic island that has been fettered by regulation... it is all-encompassing/dirty
So essentially, without regulations of for-profit private entities... they are allowed to do as they wish. If they are allowed to do as they wish, then there is nothing preventing them from opportunistically RE-HIJACKING government to secure their dominance/monopoly. It's actually BRILLIANT economics to utilize government to maintain/increase profits/expansion!!! There is nothing in Capitalism that inherently prevents this phenomenon, not even competition; only regulation.
So essentially, without regulations of for-profit private entities... they are allowed to do as they wish. If they are allowed to do as they wish, then there is nothing preventing them from opportunistically RE-HIJACKING government to secure their dominance/monopoly. It's actually BRILLIANT economics to utilize government to maintain/increase profits/expansion!!! There is nothing in Capitalism that inherently prevents this phenomenon, not even competition; only regulation.
...So essentially, without regulations of for-profit private entities, they are allowed to do as they wish. If they are allowed to do as they wish, then there is nothing preventing them from opportunistically RE-HIJACKING government to secure their dominance/monopoly. It's actually BRILLIANT economics to utilize government to maintain/increase profits and expansion!! There is nothing in Capitalism that inherently prevents this phenomenon, not even competition, only regulation.
Essentially, without regulation of for-profit private entities, they are allowed to do as they wish. If they are allowed to do as they wish then there is nothing preventing them from opportunistically RE HIJACKING government to secure their dominance & monopoly. It's actually BRILLIANT economics to utilize government to maintain/increase profits and expansion!! There is nothing in Capitalism that inherently prevents this phenomenon, not even competition, only regulation.
i lost you on the training the skills part (around 2:30 ). where i live, if you graduate from university (which is free if you want it) you have better chances to get a job and a better salary and all that crap.
We've heard this crap for a long time. Just work hard and you'll get a good job. You used to be able to go to college, get a degree, and basically be ensured a good job. People listened and now you have to go to college to get any decent job at all, and get a masters to be more likely to get satisfactory pay.
Only the colleges and loan companies have really benefited. Just to get a decent job you now have to throw yourself into debt, which makes it harder to start a company.
To a certain degree yes, private charities, even the ones that spend 90% of donations on salaries, bonuses and expenses still do a good job (better than nothing). However. That does not mean that you can rely on them doing everything. Healthcare for uninsured in farm barns? are you guys kidding? this looks sad and people in europe pity america for it. what next you gonna expect police to run entirely from donations? Just because extreme left is bad doesn't mean anything slightly left is.
@1963danno Right-to-work states have a cost of living that is 83% of union states. Right-to-work states per capita income in 91.3% of union states. That means the people in right-to-work states are MAKING MORE MONEY than union states.
And BTW, I have the facts, you don't. What is your state?
Worst joke ever.
TonyPro79 2 days ago
LOL@ you can have leverage by using resignation as a threat. Guess what, there aren't enough jobs to go around on this planet, if you quit, 10 others are ready and willing to take your place. The power is in the hand that gives, and the hand that gives is the employer. At least, in this current economic structure. Which I don't agree with, Google "Resource Based Economy".
4HahaTwo 3 days ago
@4HahaTwo To an extent. The lower skill the job, the less power resignation has and the lower wage the job can demand. The answer? Become highly skilled or start your own business. Here in the US that is still an option.
ecuadmail 2 days ago
@ecuadmail If everyone gets highly skilled then the power shifts for those lower skilled jobs. Same problem, shifted. Let's say there is an even distribution of lower and higher skilled people, still the problem remains the same.
Conclusion: not enough jobs to go around, not to a certain extent, just period.
Not enough jobs to go around, period.
Those that do have power by using their resignation is an extreme minority. So you're focusing only on that extreme minority and ignoring the rest.
tzmbelgium 2 days ago
@tzmbelgium Your argument hinges on the idea that the distribution of skilled and unskilled labor is always the same or that it is "even". Such is not and never will be the case. Upward mobility in the US is a fact for everyone who actually works for a living. Some people are willing to do 8 years of college, some are only willing to do four, some are not willing to do any. While its true to an extent that low jobs are the most available and the lowest paying these jobs are meant to
ecuadmail 2 days ago
be held by teenagers. If you're 45 and working at Walmart or McDonalds as a cashier, you have bigger problems. The ruinous effect of the minimum wage law is that kids can't get jobs in high school (because they're occupied by desperate adults) and adults who are content with that meager living are never forced to improve and grow as professionals in order to maintain or improve their standard of living or wage. In the end if a business wants to offer 5 cents an our for someone to fold
ecuadmail 2 days ago
shirts or flip burgers then that should be their option. If someone wants to take them up on that offer, that should be their option. If no one is willing to work for that, no one will and the employer will have to raise his wage offer. The market will deem what each job is worth and everyone who wants to make more will have to become more educated or skillful as a means to that end. I'd research the history of minimum wage laws a bit if I were you. White South African construction
ecuadmail 2 days ago
Unions used the minimum wage law (for which they lobbied in that country) in order to keep Blacks, who at the time were lower skilled because of the apartheid discrimination with regard to education and labor, from competing for the jobs. They KNEW what effect they would have and they lobbied for it to achieve that goal. Its only obvious it would, and does, have the same effect here.
ecuadmail 2 days ago
Around 4:50, you begin with the assumption that the employers didn't inherit their fortunes with which to generate business. This has the ultimate effect of ignoring the fact that through this practice of inheritance, more and more wealth is concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer individuals.
frankleeseaux 3 days ago
Yeah, I took economics in high school too, however you have to move away from the oversimplification of the labour market equilibrium and realise that in countries with no minimum wage not everyone is employed in a job that pays all the bills. Reality isn't always the same as theory, measures that protect workers interests are usually in place to prevent a situation reminiscent of Dickensian England with it's sweatshops and child labour.
Sammyboy27007 3 days ago
What a bunch of bullshit!!
MPArmstrong84 3 days ago
what a base level of thinking.
gonzopoet00 5 days ago
who blinks that slow? WHO?
kuntyfucstik 6 days ago
*ALERT*ALERT*ALERT* this guy sucks *ALERT*ALERT*ALERT*
azambuja666 6 days ago
All in all, you're a fucking idiot. you're an anti-social internetmongrel. Also you have an annoying voice. Therefore, stfu.
joekopor 1 week ago
@joekopor I wonder if you have any criticism beyond ad hominem and superficial patter; because I know I do.
SuperSdrawkcab 5 days ago
Yeah logic, that's what I'm talking about. I love people that know their basic economics.
bjlayd61 1 week ago
Your views are way too simplified and do not reflect the reality.
TruthAndLoyalty 1 week ago
Between equal rights, there exists only force. Employers have force, employees on the average do not, unless they by force restructure the wage system in some way through organizing themselves. When there exists a surplus of labor, that is more labor than there exists a demand for labor, there's far more levying power against laborers. Laborers lack capital entirely, employers, collectively, hold all of the capital and means of subsistence in society. Who controls production controls society.
TheMarxistMind 1 week ago
Your analysis is overly simplistic. Employers pay employees significantly less than their production value, thus giving employers a massive advantage. The threat of an employee quitting is mute as there is a long line out the door of potential applicants for most positions. In the end only one thing remains true: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and this is the root of the problem. Plus, get real, most of these rich guys got big breaks in life.
SnugglePuma 1 week ago
Except their are no unions & in a slow economy the boss can pay u squat & the GOP will keep the min wage at a dollar squat, your a elitist hiding in his college speech class spew. How many minorities are their compared to your standard white gray haired fart ceo?. Im surprised you didnt use the word pardigm, thats a favorite word of the ivy league to use when spouting about how important they are. As with everything the truth is in the middle, in compromise, in EMPATHY. Take a class in that
guitargold77 1 week ago
to say that the wage is determined by supply and demand is silly. Independent on how much money a company makes for selling a specific item its still up to the company to choose how much they should pay their workers.
gulbirk 1 week ago
"employees exploit employers by threatening to quit". I stopped listening at that point
incaayoub 1 week ago
simplistic moronic uncontorversially disproven rubbish. Read a book...a real one, not propaganda. That is all. Next?
kuntyfucstik 2 weeks ago
@kuntyfucstik All I see are nobel prize winners proving this stuff. What should I read?
BennoTheDutch 2 weeks ago
@BennoTheDutch Golly, where 2 start? Supply/Demand models only work where theres no limit or interference on either side of the equation...which is NEVER the case in reality (realpolitik). This twat claims free marketeering is all fair and even, ignoring the fact that a non-unionised & non wage protected "unit of labour" (or human being for those of us with a brain) is DIVIDED & readily CONQUERED by accumulators of capital/power (oligarchs) who unite against labour = wage slavery (China!)
kuntyfucstik 2 weeks ago
I would rather have treatment from a physician who decided to to help the sick and dying out of compassion, not for the chance to make more money than a street sweeper.
Harrymfink 2 weeks ago
@Harrymfink Ya, and I bet he can feed his family and pay his mortgage off of comapsion too. Get real, Doctors go to school for years. Streat sweepers don't.
MarkyMarkDenver 1 week ago
I think this guy got his ass kicked alot when he was in school. And he seems uneducated. Probably because he was too preoccupied with getting his ass kicked during recess.
thecrouchmonster 2 weeks ago
@thecrouchmonster Another troll....
MarkyMarkDenver 1 week ago
dude this video is great. but I really thought there was a joke coming.
compositesoul 2 weeks ago
Why not just pay people decent
dbistrumalot 2 weeks ago
@dbistrumalot Go out and start your own business, and at that point you can pay employees whatever you want...
MarkyMarkDenver 1 week ago
@MarkyMarkDenver maybe I don't want to start a business,but if i did I would pay my employees as much as I could possibly afford to and still make a modest profit. the problem with companies today they want to pay shit wages and make tons of cash and then pay little or no taxes.
dbistrumalot 1 week ago
The minimum wage thing is bit off tbh. If it was abolished, people could get payed less than consumer price indexes put for items, thus negating your first point that people would contribute to others. If the objective is that most people have a job, sure, abolish minimum wage, however, if the objective is that people get payed justly and humanely, don't. The minimum wage is there to make sure people are PAYED for their labor, instead of ENSLAVED for their labor.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 You are basically saying all employers are evil idiots and all employees are dumb cows. To employers: you get what you pay for. To employees: Read your contract before you sign it. A minimum wage accomplishes nothing, as all prices are set artificially high. You are forgetting that prices all around will drop - basically this will create a new, more efficient standard of living. If people want to work for less than the minimum wage, should you leave them jobless?
BennoTheDutch 2 weeks ago
@BennoTheDutch Well usually employers don't really have anyone's interest at heart except their companies growth. There's not exactly a shortage of workers in the world, so they can, usually, hire anyone they want to depending on what kind of area of business they are in. If people want to work for less, then sure. I'm not saying people should be left jobless, i'm just saying there's moral dimension here, which I care about, and most capitalists don't.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 You are again neglecting the employees. They want to exploit the employer as much as he wants to exploit them.
There's the problem: there IS a shortage of workers (it's not an infinite resource). There's always supply/demand. The minimum wage introduces another discrimination, e.g.: when someone is not able to work as fast as someone else (maybe a handicapped person) you take away their ability to offer to work for less. Congratulations! Another jobless person.
BennoTheDutch 2 weeks ago
@BennoTheDutch True. They do want to exploit their employer. But that is mainly because they know they are being fucked in the ass by the person they are working for. i'm not entirely sure where my stance is on these libertarian ideas, some of them i like wholeheartedly, others I think are liable to scrutiny before they are put into practice.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 A libertarian society is probably unachievable - most people ridicule the ideas before they think them through. I did, before I got proper education. 'Socialist' sounds nice, so they vote for those parties. There are some things that I do like about socialism, e.g. the Dutch healthcare system. Of course it isn't perfect, but what is?
BennoTheDutch 2 weeks ago
@BennoTheDutch The biggest problem I have with it is that it reminds of when I was young as a communist. I really believed then that a classless utopia was possible. I do of course not believe that anymore. But, it seems to me that libertarianism is an ideology somewhere a long that line, because it's so utopian. Of course it might work better than communism ever would but, whenever there's a utopian fringe to something, I never really take it seriously.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 I'm thinking the same thing about the utopia part, but it's better to stand behind your ideals, as political agreements will always be just a bit worse than your personal utopia in most cases.
BennoTheDutch 2 weeks ago
@BennoTheDutch Yeah, I agree to that.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123
this is called "margins and centre". Even if u reject black & white ideals/extremism, when someone tries to push u toward THEIRS, u must push back equally hard toward YOURS, just to maintain yr position. Now, while diplomacy would dictate taking up positions in the middle (centrism), we should accept that both sides naturally form extreme/marginal factions & these forces r vital in finding/creating a robust/dynamic balance - bland centrism can drift insidiously without u noticing!
kuntyfucstik 2 weeks ago
@BennoTheDutch
let us not forget tht th political spectrum is more like a circle than a line with "left" and "right" wings. Go too far either way and u get 2 Anarchism (certain forms of which actually do work, but need 2 get themselves a new name!). I meet so many hard out Libertarians tht are confused as hell...when u push them on key points u inevitably discover some Freudian dream of freedom ultimately backed by a miraculously un-funded & shadowy army of "loser" control/eradication. Uh-oh!
kuntyfucstik 2 weeks ago
@kuntyfucstik I understand that a divided workforce is unlikely to be able to stand up to e.g. oligarchs, but why do supply/demand models only work without this undefined 'interference'? And isn't the whole point of supply/demand that there are limits? I never saw the political spectrum as a line by the way, with all those different political parties over here, they just don't 'fit' in a line...
BennoTheDutch 1 week ago
@BennoTheDutch
Supply/deamnd models are based on "pure" assumptions, that's why. I'm not talking about quantitative limits/interference of the demand or supply itself, but on the social & political forces which skew the equations. Let's not forget that demand is artificially created, supply is artificially withheld. Capitalism requires the most idealistic and utopian notions to become reality in the world - never gonna happen. Capitalists are the WORST at breaking their own rules (corruption)
kuntyfucstik 1 week ago
@kuntyfucstik Corruption exists everywhere, but the worst corruption I encountered was in a socialist country. I still don't see why supply/demand wouldn't work - artificial supply and artificial demand is still supply/demand. The artificial stuff is only created by price fixing/subsidizing - which clearly doesn't work.
BennoTheDutch 6 days ago
@BennoTheDutch
I think u mean "communist" country, don't u? Sadly, there are virtually no Socialist enterprises allowed on planet Earth. I can assure u there is corruption aplenty wherever there is concentration of wealth/power. U might consider shifting yr current paradigm outside the standard boxes to progress yr ideas. Closure of The Commons/Anarcho Syndicalism/Commoditisation. We have deep problems to address, but at present everyone's just burying their heads in sand...same old, same old.
kuntyfucstik 6 days ago
@kuntyfucstik Communist, yes, sorry. I agree about people just sticking their heads in the sand - most of those have trouble enough getting food for their family, so they don't really bother with politics at all. Let alone thinking about different standpoints than current political parties.I am not familiar with 'Closure of The Commons/Anarcho Syndicalism/Commoditisation', what do these terms mean?
BennoTheDutch 6 days ago
@BennoTheDutch @BennoTheDutch
Wikipedia articles:
Enclosure
Tragedy of the commons
Anarcho-syndicalism
Libertarian socialism
Commoditisation
also, watch videos by Adam Curtis for a good overview of the dangers of modern capitalism (there's quite a few on YouTube) Sorry to refer you to Wikipedia, but it's a good start and there's no room here for long discussions.
Happy reading!
kuntyfucstik 5 days ago
@kuntyfucstik Thanks, I'll try!
BennoTheDutch 5 days ago
@Faerlon123 If you don't like being "fucked in the ass" than go out and start your own business.
MarkyMarkDenver 1 week ago
@Faerlon123 Than go out and start your own business and support yourself. Quit crying and being dependent on someone else.
MarkyMarkDenver 1 week ago
@MarkyMarkDenver I'm not crying and I'm entitled to an opinion Mr.Dipshit freedom fighter libertarian. Try and go be cool somewhere else.
Faerlon123 1 week ago
@Faerlon123 I just love how people have their opinions about workers rights, but never have ran a business themselves. And if you don't want to be criticized, than don't post your opinion. You seem just like another troll. And that's Sir Dipshit to you.
MarkyMarkDenver 1 week ago
@MarkyMarkDenver No, I have never ran a business. And I don't intend to. I'm not saying all corporations are bad, but their motive, is just as evil as the governments you guys try to paint with a bad brush. People who are at the top social ladders in a society, either it gov't officials or corporate CEO's, all have their agenda, which is basicly the same thing. More power for them, less for everyone else.There is such a thing as good government, it just needs a decent purge.
Faerlon123 1 week ago
@Faerlon123 Okay, very valid point. Thats why I believe a limited size government and in theory limited power for all politicians and Corporations(GE). A lot of corporations get their sweet heart deals, a lot of this due to a big powerful government. So my theory and solution will always be less and limited government. At the end, this will lead to less power for the assholes at the top.
MarkyMarkDenver 1 week ago
@MarkyMarkDenver If I had my way, I would crush corporatism. I think by doing that I'd solve a multitude of problems. Corporatist politicians and greedy CEO's are the ones doing most damage to America so, they need to be restrained.
Faerlon123 1 week ago
@BennoTheDutch Ya, why don't you tell this to the homeowner who has lost 50 percent of the value of his home, because its good prices dropped? A better standard of living? ya right.
MarkyMarkDenver 1 week ago
@MarkyMarkDenver That doesn't matter if your money gets you twice as much. What are you responding to, by the way?
BennoTheDutch 1 week ago
@BennoTheDutch The fact that deflation is not necessarily good.
MarkyMarkDenver 1 week ago
@MarkyMarkDenver Well, agreed, but deflation =/= price drop.
BennoTheDutch 1 week ago
I love your enthusiasm but please read and think more before you post videos. I hate the idea that someone could stumble upon your video and think it makes good sense.
kangchenjunga 2 weeks ago
false headline, I hate that.
rpoet60 2 weeks ago
I'm so sick of idiots blaming the current economy on "free markets". People who do that, have absolutely no idea what the term "free market" even means. They are somehow blind to the millions of rules & regulations, the constant tinkering from the govt, the horrific imbalances of power that come with political influence, the immoral economics of the federal reserve, etc. Just sheer ignorance.
This economy is "free", in the same way that the former USSR was a "worker's paradise".
rmcdaniel423 2 weeks ago
I like the music, didn't really listen to what the guy was saying though
gabel13 2 weeks ago
when the economy crashes in 2016 if you're still alive I'd love to know how much you love the free market.
nickcruis 2 weeks ago
@nickcruis HaHa! You think the current economy, under current regulations (how many laws affecting commerce & taxation have been made so far?), and under the influence of the federal reserve and its completely immoral system of fractional reserve banking, and the politics involved, is a "free market"?!?
Please, don't make the same tired old mistake of calling this system a free market, and using it's gov't-influenced failings as the benchmark for discussing hypothetical free markets.
rmcdaniel423 2 weeks ago
why wouldn't everyone just ie work at walmart?
because it's a soul-sucking corp that takes out life insurance on its workers, profiting whenever they kick the bucket? This sounds like another misguided attempt at defending unregulated capatalism. You might also want to think about how illogical a paradigm based on constant growth will be in the long term. There's too many holes in the arguement, I don't see why people still even try to glorify such a clusterf*** of a system.
nerull247 2 weeks ago
Go to any fast food joint here in the U.S. There's usually 1 or 2 guys at the register, 1 or 2 cooks and an MOD. What happens when the store gets hit with a rush of customers? Service gets backed up, food is delayed coming out, and the dining room gets messy because no one is available to clean it.
I've visited the Philippines, and their fast food joints have 3 times as many people on any given shift. Why? Because wages are lower so more people are employed. It's ALWAYS clean in the dining.
HumbleWillis 2 weeks ago
@HumbleWillis So it's better to hire more workers at a lower wage????
dbistrumalot 2 weeks ago
@dbistrumalot If thats all the employer can pay for, and if the employee will have no other job, than yes.
MarkyMarkDenver 1 week ago
Okay Jacob you really lost me at your 'why do some earn money while we labor?' example. You're answer was not correct, certainly not universally: that they (1) took the risk, (2) worked harder and (3) were abstemious and frugal. Aside from implying that working people with less are the opposite of all of this, which is bullshit, it is the old meritocracy argument and it only goes so far.
You need to think about cummulative capital, across generations, and power. Maybe I'll make a video.
Neanderthalcouzin 2 weeks ago
Did you make your video to look like those Big Think videos, with the bright white backgrounds?
I want to correct you on something: the employee-employer relationship is not always as symmetrical as you made out, when we consider the third world. The cheerful push-pull give and take examples you gave are extremely US biased. I think you're smart but I want you to travel.
I would also have added to your second point not just threatening to quit, but Unions too.
Neanderthalcouzin 2 weeks ago
fucking shit... i was expecting a joke
footpot 2 weeks ago
BOOOOORRRRIIIIIINNNGGG!
yurismir1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who REALLY runs our world? search "israel Did 911 All Proof in the World" and search "ZionCrimeFactory" for proof.
Reporting on the death of supremacist Zionist leader David Wolffsohn, the September 17, 1914, edition of THE NEW YORK TIMES tells us that during his closing address at the Zionist Congress at the Hague in 1907 Wolffsohn “pleaded for greater unity among the Jews and said that eventually they must conquer the world.”
w(dot)zioncrimefactory com/jew-world-order SPREAD THE TRUTH!
LordLindsey12 3 weeks ago
When I was a kid, 5$ an hour WAS AWESOME!!!!!
rlong19 3 weeks ago
This is a simple explanation of how capitalism works. I wish everybody would listen to this.
farmmur 3 weeks ago
Some of this is right, but there has to be regulation to protect employees, like the minimum wage. Employers can exploit employees much more easily than employees can defend themselves, its simple numbers - do you think it is easy for the Trade Unions to work in unison, drum up support and agree with each other? Definitely not. However, for employers a single CEO or a small board of executives make a decision and the exploitation can happen just like that.
RandomNameName 3 weeks ago
There are many similar examples where the employer base is quite concentrated, and there is no way they wouldn't pay rubbish wages if the government didn't make them pay a living wage.
happyhappynuts 3 weeks ago
This kind of thinking works really well in the case where significant sectors of the economy are have low barriers to entry. In many countries, such as the UK, France, Australia, Denmark, the supermarket sector is controlled by a few main companies (sometimes as little as two). Competition is only at the fringe because of the large capital cost of setting up warehouses, RFID, logistics, etc. Therefore, retail employees trained in this career DON'T have the opportunity to just quit over wages.
happyhappynuts 3 weeks ago
You'll be interested to know that Australia has a minimum wage and has lower unemployment than the USA….
happyhappynuts 3 weeks ago
@happyhappynuts Were you aware of the fact the US also has minimum wage laws when you wrote this?
Xtro2005 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
neuropakho 3 weeks ago
(Continued from previous comment)
The people who have the capital have the leverage, and without government oversight, they can use that leverage to exploit the people. Example: you know you're paying WAY too much for gas, yet you still buy it b/c you can't go w/o gas, just like someone works for slave wages b/c they can't go w/o income. Companies do set labor prices.
In science, you don't get to ignore reality because your "trickle down" theory works so neatly in your head.
IseeRightThrough2you 4 weeks ago
Every country that has ever relied on Laissez Faire capitalism has been a sweatshop pseudo-slavery country with a small group possessing all of the wealth while the masses are kept near starvation. Examples: Mexico, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, USA during the time of the Industrial Revolution (before labor laws). Meanwhile, the countries with the highest standards of living (e.g. Norway, which is higher than the US) use a combo of capitalism and socialism.
IseeRightThrough2you 4 weeks ago
Wow, you just exploded communism. Where have you been for 142 years???
OzP89 4 weeks ago
great video... also great smile and cute eyes ;)
libertarianismoArg 1 month ago
This guy is an idiot!
ANIOLATORV 1 month ago
for example: a walmart opens up in a town with several small stores
wallmart has more resources so they can afford lower prizes and bigger ad campaigns so they attract the public that used to go to the small stores
soon the small stores that cant afford to have walmarts prizes will soon go out of business
walmart didnt start with the same resoruces as the stores, didnt play fair and of course isnt expected to do so
and that doesnt seem neither moral not fair
Lievcocijo 1 month ago
being by lower prices or larger advertising campaigns
if everyone started from the same spot and same oportunities and businesses started all from zero it would be fair
but the truth is that it is increasingly difficult to compete against what are now very large businesses and increasingly wealthy families, and there will be a breaking point
Lievcocijo 1 month ago
as the need for minimal needs creates unsteady states on unemplyed there will always be a big supply of workers willing to get paid a low wage (little is better than nothing) and this affect those already unemployed
people who start businesses are have mostly not underconsumed, just inherited businesses or family wealth that allows higher education
also if a business cannot compete other businesses is mostly because an older bigger businesses has more means to attract costumers
Lievcocijo 1 month ago
@Lievcocijo those already employed**
Lievcocijo 1 month ago
Communism: "capitalism is evil because it "creates" inequality. At least in communism, we will ALL be poor together! Will will have perfect economic equality!!! Isn't that wonderful????"
stebecool 1 month ago
@stebecool actually no, money will have less value but supply of goods (stuff you really need to live and what you want money for) is way beyond demand. food and medicine are two simple examples this makes money only good for luxuries (stuff you dont really need but want anyway)
Lievcocijo 1 month ago
@Lievcocijo They have basic needs (which 95% of people in developed capitalist countries have anyway and the gov provides if they don't), but we're all bored as fuck (no luxuries). That's not a life I would like to live. The whole idea isn't even true in North Korea, not only are they bored as fuck, they also can't feed themselves. Cuba is as good as it gets, everyone has the basics, they make the equivalent of less than $10k a year, no luxuries, but they have nice beaches to sit on I suppose.
stebecool 1 month ago
@stebecool that depends on what you call developed country, if youre including the top 15 countries on the world about the first third has basic needs covered, the second third covers them through working the entire (or more) shift which allows no further personal developement and the last third (still on the top 10% of the world) most of the population struggle to get the very basic needs everyday
add to that how most of the big markets are controlled by few foreign (for the 90% of the world)
Lievcocijo 1 month ago
@stebecool which makes, say a few electronics companies that sell out of their countries and leaves local companies with no chance, or even within their own territories
cuba for example has the basic needs covered no matter what, and their academic level is above a lot of these big countries. lots of rich people in the US go to medical treatment in cuba
NK is another example of failure like soviet union because of the same leadership issue, that turns into fanatism for a leader
Lievcocijo 1 month ago
@Lievcocijo First, all you care about is because the label, they have their basic needs covered, without any evidence what so ever, second all that free stuff, was it all possible with or without the use of force. And Capitalist countries? That's an oxymoron, Please try again statist, as always your arguments are like from an uneducated uncared for beaten child.
SarionFetecuse 3 weeks ago
@SarionFetecuse whatever floats your boat man
more than the label im focusing on the type of society cooperation and wealth distribution
i live in Mexico an can tell you for most, working the entire shift doesnt cover the basic needs, same goes in china India Russia Brazil and pretty much all South America
Lievcocijo 3 weeks ago
@Lievcocijo First, I'm going to give you a benefit of the doubt so you're english isn't the best, I have never said anything about you're a liar, I said what you said is a contradiction, a true free society is with boarders, because only true boarders are a person's property. And I only need to point to the drug laws, minimum wage laws, central banks and democracy as proof, that you live in a market socialism, aka fascist society. There is plenty of force in mexico.
SarionFetecuse 3 weeks ago
@SarionFetecuse thank you for statiing your arguments, now i can see where youre aiming at
I agree we are actually in a disguised fascist society (actually NaZi stands for national socialism) they are similar in the way that socialism and fascism has the control of the state in the hands of the party, the big difference lies that real socialism is only a transition point while classes are eliminated, its real objective is comunism, where the state (and party) are absorbed into society
Lievcocijo 3 weeks ago
@SarionFetecuse fascism never has that intention of disolution. it pretends to remain with everything in control of the party, never to give it to the people. Thasts what happened in Russia. The party was supposed to integrate the state into society but it took only some ambicious individuals to corrupt the system in its state of transition, and turn it into a fascist state, and the same happened to the subsequent so-called communist states.
Lievcocijo 3 weeks ago
@SarionFetecuse the class diference was not eliminated as it was supposed to, only heightened, between the party members and the rest of the people. Fascism works on a right-wing philosophy of survival of the fittest, Actually hitler's biggest opposition was the communists, this was the party that he fought the most
Lievcocijo 3 weeks ago
@SarionFetecuse but as always, you can just cry out "U LIE!" and self-assert your superiority through name-calling
Lievcocijo 3 weeks ago
@Lievcocijo But don't you realize a central bank screws the working class the most and the drug laws? Like that is socialism through and through! Comprehend what people who believe in freedom say! Not just dismiss it because you think what you live is a free society you are totally mistaken!
SarionFetecuse 3 weeks ago
@SarionFetecuse now, here is where the thing gets tricky: you do know that US federal reserve is a PRIVATE organization, right? it actually LENDS money to the goverment, and the goverment has to pay back with interest. You should also be aware that most of those oppresive laws (if not all) are pushed on by private interests that have influence in politics through the economic support they invest in polititians, so the laws that benefit only them and their corporations get passed
Lievcocijo 3 weeks ago
@Lievcocijo here in Mexico it functions in a more blatant way, big institutions like PEMEX, the water company or the electricy company (CFE) are in paper part of the goverment, but the also function as private corporations. They suck up money from the goverment (taxes) and they still charge you for the service
A corporation (spawned of capitalism) has the function of producing money, what ever means it takes, if it can go over the law to get better dividends, it will do it
Lievcocijo 3 weeks ago
@SarionFetecuse a drug cartel is the extreme example of a corporation: there is a market, there is a demand and they are the supply, they can keep the laws as they are so their product gets overpriced and uncontrolled, they can threaten its employees into conformity by sheer fear, they have nothing to hinder their operations, and if one market gets into trouble, they can change to a different market, or even create it out of their resources (i.e. attacks to provoke protection payments)
Lievcocijo 3 weeks ago
@SarionFetecuse there is this documentary "The corporation" that explains how an entity inside a capitalist system works and why it works that way. This entities only goal is to produce money, most of the time whatever the means necesary, including infiltrating the state. Its in youtube
Also there is a book called Political Ponerology that explain these means to take advantage in a competitive system
Lievcocijo 3 weeks ago
@SarionFetecuse the thing that screws you as part of a society is not the state per se, but actually the interests of certain groups that leech off the state (and your taxes) and society at the same time, these interests are way closer in my opinion to competitive market than to the elimination of classes through socialist cooperation
Lievcocijo 3 weeks ago
@stebecool a leader makes their country to adore him though fanatism and repression, kim jong-il, stalin, castro and all their policies that fuck their own people shouldnt even have that much power in a real socialist system
Lievcocijo 1 month ago
@stebecool add to that the arbitrary blockades by capitalist countries and of course their people and the country in general dont get to develop as a whole
Lievcocijo 1 month ago
@Lievcocijo Silly statist, and your statist friends running and controlling countries, regulating, and taxing them, and rebranding it as free market capitalism! YOUR FRIENDS ARE GENIUSES!
SarionFetecuse 1 month ago
@SarionFetecuse im not sure what youre talking about
i just made a few searchs and did simple math
free knowledge and equal access to information from the last few decades, instead of having to pay someone to get it
thats a very socialist idea :D
Lievcocijo 1 month ago
@Lievcocijo "i just made a few searchs and did simple math"
And conveniently forgot YOUR INTERNET BILL, not to mention the ADVERTISING REVENUE youtube/google operate on.
YOU operate on deception, half-truth, and outright lies.
jeffiek 1 month ago
@jeffiek oh, you mean my internet bill that would be non-existent in a socialist system?
seriously, theres a lot of places where free network access is getting implemented, this, plus connected computers free to use in subway stations are two programs promoted by left wing in my city
that would also apply to sites financed by society, like in venezuela. so yes, a socialist sopported digital platform is possible
Lievcocijo 4 weeks ago
@Lievcocijo "oh, you mean my internet bill that would be non-existent in a socialist system?"
No, I mean the one you ARE ACTUALLY USING. Not the one in your imagination.
jeffiek 4 weeks ago
@jeffiek not sure of what you imply, the fact thast i was born and live in a so-called capitalist system (agreeing with you) doesnt alter my beliefs of the fact that i think there could be better ways
Lievcocijo 4 weeks ago
@Lievcocijo I mean exactly what I write. Unlike you, I do not base my opinions on half-truths and deceptions.
You have been called on TWO deceptions. You fail to acknowledge them.
Instead, you continue with nonsense in an effort to avoid/hide your nonsense.
You FAIL
jeffiek 4 weeks ago
@jeffiek what two deceptions? the fact that i live in a capitalist country and therefore pay for my internet? what has that anything to do with if i believe socialism is a better option or not?
or that free access to information is a socialist idea? internet after its military genesis began to grow at universities for academic purposes, that means concentrating on giving resources to the biggest amount of interest posible
that someone decided to charge for the service THAT is a capitalist idea
Lievcocijo 4 weeks ago
@Lievcocijo Don't get all cute and innocent with me.
1)"blockades by capitalist countries"
2)"i just made a few searchs and did simple math"
I called bullshit on both. You fail to admit it.
Go yank somebody else's crank.
jeffiek 4 weeks ago
@jeffiek NATO and soviet union on each other
NATO on cuba
budget blockade from US to Venezuela
to confirm what i said about the countries with problems on basic goods google "top 15 economies"
Lievcocijo 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lievcocijo You dishonest little fuck. Here's my original post:
"blockades by capitalist countries"
Correction: blockades by the GOVERNMENTS of SO-CALLED capitalist countries.
Reference: wikipedia. org/wiki/Capitalism
Go ahead show me where blockades are a part of the definition.
NOW PUT UP OR SHUT UP
jeffiek 4 weeks ago
@jeffiek i do work and i do get paid
but im not an employee, the way our company works is that my "boss" is also my client, and I "sell" him my work for what its valued, not for how much time i spend with my ass in an office, he does the same with several "employees" that also sell him their work as to a client he gets the percentage he sees fit for a final project to get sold, so he gets his money from the part that belongs to him, that is managing and getting clients as the face of the company
Lievcocijo 4 weeks ago
@jeffiek if that company system was inside a socialist country instead of a capitalist country i would get the food and goods instead of the money i get to buy food and goods
Lievcocijo 4 weeks ago
@Lievcocijo ir in other types of system i would do get money but with less value, still i would buy stuff for the value its actually worth (cost) not the added value created by a competitive capitalist market
Lievcocijo 4 weeks ago
@jeffiek you know why leftists would want to invest in such things?
because having people that educate themselves is a lot cheaper in resources for a goverment in the end
Lievcocijo 4 weeks ago
@Lievcocijo "blockades by capitalist countries"
Correction: blockades by the GOVERNMENTS of SO-CALLED capitalist countries.
Reference: wikipedia. org/wiki/Capitalism
Go ahead show me where blockades are a part of the definition.
jeffiek 1 month ago
@jeffiek you do aklowledge that by saying that you are recognizing current systems as a corruption of capitalism you are recognizing them like failed systems right?
at first neither socialism nor capitalism are evil, its just the way we implement them is what makes them evil
in the bottom line we as people are just stupid to manage these systems
but a lot is going on these years...
Lievcocijo 4 weeks ago
@JacobSpinney u say dat da employees r greedy cause dey want a little more pay but in reality bcause of our want nd need to b paid more, corporations just go to poor countries nd pay some kid 1/10th of wat we'd get... but u probably no dis... nd another thing communism doesnt make everyone the same, it just leaves people to persue career goals just for the fun of it and common necessity...i bet wen u were a kid u wanted to be something not cause of da paycheck but because u thought it was cool.
BadboyzBs2 1 month ago
employees cant charge as much as possible because we can get fire if we ask for better paid simple as that.
juanlmesl 1 month ago
/watch?v=xo32jlgrR9Y&feature=related
juanlmesl 1 month ago
minimum wage. But really what Marx demonstrated with unemployment was that in a free market, full employment itself induced a reduced supply and drove up the cost of labour, this effectively means that even in a perfect free market there is permanent structural unemployment.
TheLightness0fBeing 1 month ago
Jacob, I think you demonstrate a very shallow understanding of the Marxist critique of capitalism here in a number of ways. Firstly it ignores even the insight that Adam Smith had, which was that the concentration of wealth itself has a massively distorting effect on the political sphere - in effect this creates wealth incumbancy, and effectively chokes off a lot of social mobility. Secondly, unemployment existed even in the 19th century when the state was relatively tiny and there was no...
TheLightness0fBeing 1 month ago
You've oversimplified this far too much, your treating workers as if they have just as much power as the employer which in out society and environment is just not true.
EuphorikVisions1 1 month ago
@EuphorikVisions1They are only equal if the workers are all in the same Union.
DjPyro2010 1 month ago
I am curious what you think about sweat shops? In a system with no bottom wage, you may have people who will work for so little they can not save to ever have anything "nice". If you are working just to make enough to stay alive, that is not really living. But if some people will do that, then workers don't have the power to get better wages. Just for a second, I think some people want more than they deserve, but minimum wage in WV is enough to stay alive, but not enough to actually live.
Bl19358 1 month ago
Nice work Jacob!
ostralopithicus 1 month ago
☼ SOLAR ♫ LOVE ♥ Liberty ∞
GreenGoSolar 1 month ago
Dear Jacob Spinney,
FOR DECADES, corporate profits have increased dramatically, the rich have hoarded immense wealth, and the wealth gap has increased to historic levels. Wages have STAGNATED all while worker productivity has INCREASED. Stop blaming the victims and defending Capitalism. You're being a useful idiot for Capitalism much as Communism's supporters were useful idiots for it. Both have lead to unacceptable tyranny of different flavors.
IngeniousEpithet 1 month ago
@IngeniousEpithet You have explained what has happened, but have ignored why it's happened. The wealth gap has continually increased for the simple reason that the government has removed the mechanisms the free market would otherwise have to stop it. How could you possibly point to a business bribing politicians to make competition illegal and then exploiting their customers and their employees precisely because the government has made competition illegal . . . and call that a free market?!
JacobSpinney 1 month ago
@JacobSpinney
lol right... and what are these magical mechanisms that the government has somehow removed?
As for a free-market giving rise to corporatism/cronyism... that's just natural, Jacob. It's really a simple politico-economic equation:
In a free market there are, essentially, zero or very few regulations. If there are no regulations which PREVENT private entities from bribing politicians (so long as politicians/governments exist alongside "free markets"), then they will do so to WIN.
IngeniousEpithet 1 month ago
@IngeniousEpithet The ability to have legitimate competition. It's impossible to be able to compete against another business when that business has bribed politicians to make all competition illegal. And it's extremely difficult to compete against a business when it bribes politicians to create a bunch of loops you have to jump through (that it doesn't) just to be able to compete against them. Competition is what keeps businesses in check from being able to exploit customers and employees.
JacobSpinney 1 month ago
@IngeniousEpithet If you remove competition, which is exactly what governments do, then they will indeed exploit customers and employees. Is this the fault of a free market? No. It's the fault of the government for making competition illegal. What you need to be focusing on are ways to stop businesses from being able to bribe politicians, or even from removing the power of politicians to set rules and regulations that grant special privileges to the businesses who bribed them in the first place.
JacobSpinney 1 month ago
@JacobSpinney
So essentially, without regulations of for-profit private entities... they are allowed to do as they wish. If they are allowed to do as they wish, then there is nothing preventing them from opportunistically RE-HIJACKING government to secure their dominance/monopoly. It's actually BRILLIANT economics to utilize government to maintain/increase profits/expansion!!! There is nothing in Capitalism that inherently prevents this phenomenon, not even competition; only regulation.
IngeniousEpithet 1 month ago
@IngeniousEpithet But you are imposing regulation over the wrong people. It is not the bribers who need regulating. There will always be people trying to find shortcuts. It is the bribe takers you need to be regulating. If these politicians who take these bribes did not have the power in the first place to grant their bribers market advantages, THEN THERE WOULD BE NOTHING TO BRIBE!
JacobSpinney 1 month ago
@JacobSpinney
...
It goes both ways and both sides should be regulated and/or punished effectively.
Also... when you say "these politicians ... did not have the power in the first place", it seems you're advocating Anarchism, meaning, the elimination of positions/structures of power... which, as an Anarchist, I'm all for (eventually). However... Capitalism and ownership do not jive with Anarchist society, simple as that. Capitalism/property were born alongside nation-states, they're kin.
IngeniousEpithet 4 weeks ago
@IngeniousEpithet You are not able to gain market advantages within a market, you can only do so outside of the market, which is why it's politicians who need the regulating, not businesses. Since regulation is EXACTLY the guise that politicians use by which to grant businesses market advantages!
JacobSpinney 1 month ago
@JacobSpinney
i wholly agree!
its the same reason why anybody even bothers trying to pay anyone else. You pay the mechanic for his 'auto' expertise and his ability to service your vehicle properly. But if you try to pay the grocer for the same service, regardless 'how much you pay', the grocer likely won't be able to service your vehicle properly. Same thing with bureaucrats- its only cuz they are given the illusionary power to control other people's lives that people would pander to them
swu880 1 month ago
@JacobSpinney
Once again... whatever the barriers are doesn't matter. Both sides need to be regulated from bribery of elected officials, there is almost no legitimacy in such conflicts of interest and therefore any proper regulation of either side is appropriate.
Also... you cannot gain market advantages within a market?? Wha?? C'mon man... that's half the game of dominating markets!! Markets are not some pure economic island that has been fettered by regulation... it is all-encompassing/dirty
IngeniousEpithet 4 weeks ago
@JacobSpinney
So essentially, without regulations of for-profit private entities... they are allowed to do as they wish. If they are allowed to do as they wish, then there is nothing preventing them from opportunistically RE-HIJACKING government to secure their dominance/monopoly. It's actually BRILLIANT economics to utilize government to maintain/increase profits/expansion!!! There is nothing in Capitalism that inherently prevents this phenomenon, not even competition; only regulation.
IngeniousEpithet 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JacobSpinney
So essentially, without regulations of for-profit private entities... they are allowed to do as they wish. If they are allowed to do as they wish, then there is nothing preventing them from opportunistically RE-HIJACKING government to secure their dominance/monopoly. It's actually BRILLIANT economics to utilize government to maintain/increase profits/expansion!!! There is nothing in Capitalism that inherently prevents this phenomenon, not even competition; only regulation.
IngeniousEpithet 1 month ago
@JacobSpinney
...So essentially, without regulations of for-profit private entities, they are allowed to do as they wish. If they are allowed to do as they wish, then there is nothing preventing them from opportunistically RE-HIJACKING government to secure their dominance/monopoly. It's actually BRILLIANT economics to utilize government to maintain/increase profits and expansion!! There is nothing in Capitalism that inherently prevents this phenomenon, not even competition, only regulation.
IngeniousEpithet 1 month ago
@JacobSpinney
Essentially, without regulation of for-profit private entities, they are allowed to do as they wish. If they are allowed to do as they wish then there is nothing preventing them from opportunistically RE HIJACKING government to secure their dominance & monopoly. It's actually BRILLIANT economics to utilize government to maintain/increase profits and expansion!! There is nothing in Capitalism that inherently prevents this phenomenon, not even competition, only regulation.
IngeniousEpithet 1 month ago
very funny u r must be from us.u r very
balkar83 1 month ago
i lost you on the training the skills part (around 2:30 ). where i live, if you graduate from university (which is free if you want it) you have better chances to get a job and a better salary and all that crap.
xbuster17 1 month ago
We've heard this crap for a long time. Just work hard and you'll get a good job. You used to be able to go to college, get a degree, and basically be ensured a good job. People listened and now you have to go to college to get any decent job at all, and get a masters to be more likely to get satisfactory pay.
Only the colleges and loan companies have really benefited. Just to get a decent job you now have to throw yourself into debt, which makes it harder to start a company.
CoatsandLinen 1 month ago
To a certain degree yes, private charities, even the ones that spend 90% of donations on salaries, bonuses and expenses still do a good job (better than nothing). However. That does not mean that you can rely on them doing everything. Healthcare for uninsured in farm barns? are you guys kidding? this looks sad and people in europe pity america for it. what next you gonna expect police to run entirely from donations? Just because extreme left is bad doesn't mean anything slightly left is.
arseniyonline1234555 1 month ago
@1963danno Right-to-work states have a cost of living that is 83% of union states. Right-to-work states per capita income in 91.3% of union states. That means the people in right-to-work states are MAKING MORE MONEY than union states.
And BTW, I have the facts, you don't. What is your state?
svvmichael1 1 month ago