This video is bullshit, I concider flagging it for it's lies, I don't even bother to comment those things written on blue screen, such a capitalistic brainwashing BS, unbelievable!
government is neither good of bad. it is an institution of power. it is a tool to get things done . it can be used to provide subsidies to big industry, to protect civil rights or to oppress and enslave people. it was a government that brought about the holocaust but it was also a government that liberated europe from the nazis. it depends on who controls the gov. and for what purpose?
the soviet union under communists was a highly industrialized nation, which was not the case under the tsars. Cuba was the pearl of the caribbean under Batista and it was loved by american businessmen. Under Pinochet, Chile was prosperous as well. None of these facts justify these regimes, so the fact that capitalism has been very productive says nothing about its moral superiority over other systems
you call yourself a lover of freedom but yet you justify the policy of a fascist dictator like pinochet. did you know that stalin's soviet union and hitler's germany experienced economic growth as well. Is that a justification for Fascism? Whether you agree or disagree with his policies is irrelevant because Allende was democratically elected by the people of chile.
@1sportboys your reporting skewed data from stalin's regime; the monster was only distorting numbers with the aid of his totalitarian predecessors, the tsars. Hitler's growth numbers came from confiscating private property of others, war mongering, and manipulation. To say otherwise is to either be blind to the truth or more likely, to be manipulating data as done by miss Klein. The point to all these gov "leaders" is that gov is generallybad. It is the economic policies that save or break them.
.people migrate for an opportunity,not a handout naomi.btw if you haven't dug a hole in 35 degree heat in your life there is no way i am going to be listening to you about economics.capitalism doesn't work,socialism doesn't work:YOU WORK!!!
@code933k you mean keith right?? first of all let me ask you something? do you think they guy that made this video benefits or has an agenda. He just made a video cuz he is pissed about the lies of the media. Whereas Keith... well I am sure he has to respond to his Bosses, and they surely have an agenda for us. Open your eyes bro, otherwise you might end up in situation like my country.
@code933k ya vi que eres Colombiano, hermano lea un libro porque usted es ignorante y lo demas es cuento. Ademas si odias tanto el libre mercado mudate a Venezuela (yo soy venezolano y si vienes te recibo con los brazos abiertos)
@nicazzo Antes de llamarme ignorante debería revisar su pésima forma de tutear y mediocre redacción. Es imposible que un individuo con esas costumbres escriturales lea correctamente. No obstante, pierdo mi tiempo para decírselo: Su carencia de argumentación, juicios de valor volátiles y presunciones carentes de todo contenido fáctico en una réplica tan corta sólo me llevan a decirle que busque un psiquiatra. Feliz día.
@code933k osea imbecil. En que me he equivocado, y pa que cono tengo que redactar de forma academica pa un comentarion en youtube, arrogante. Mira, dime en que estoy errado dame la prueba que lo dice este video es mentira y te lo juro que me quito el sombrero. Pero mientras tanto deja de meterte dildos por el culo y ponte a leer imbecil.
@code933k ademas ignorante, por que te concentras en como escribo, sera que no tienes prueba ni evidencia de lo que dices, simplemente diciendo que no se redactar te ayuda a evitar la cruda realidad de que no sabes un cono. Ademas no me hace falta redactar en espanol, porque yo no trabajo en espanol, no estudio en espanol, y ademas hablo 3 otros idiomas, asi que cuando aprendas algo mas que el ingles hablamos. Mal parido!
Hear hear! There was "socialism for corporations" but definitely not anything near to what Friedman advocated. The bailouts must have had him spinning so fast in grave his body traveled back in time.
This is a crock of shit from the start. America's economy was founded on tarrifs and from the Industrial Revolution to the late 70s the US was the most protectionist country in the world.
@MsZeitgeist85 Our entire wealth was built on borrowing money from Europe and then effectively spending money better then europeans to make superior goods that cost less. Protectionism had nothing to do with it. Also You say to the late 70s, but reagan was the most protective president since hoover
@isolateslowfaults The only Protectionism Reagan did was Tip O' Neals bill which was a tarrif on Japaniese motorcycles. Other than that he was drinking the Milton Friedman Kool Aid as was every president since then.
You think Protectionism had nothing to do with it. Can you name a single country that developed as a industrial power withour protectionism?
Man, I grew up with this shocking ignorance myself. But then again being indoctrinated by the public school system, it was no real surprise frankly. But this women has studied Milton Friedman (or appears to have) and yet she can so swiftly call him irrelevant. I have issues with Friedmans involvement with govt. But I cant imagine upon finding his arguments that I could still be entrenched in socialism. I guess it's in her best economic interest currently to espouse this nonsense.
I like the big massacre on china on the 80s when it was mao the one who killed 30 million and deng xiaoping who save 60 million from poverty with capitalism...
@MrReco12 "Mao did not kill 30 million." you're right it was more...
scaruffi. com/politics/dictat.html
users. erols. com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Mao
and china owes his position as a super power to deng xiaoping, who establish the new constitution in 1982 which allowed private enterprise and capitalism to flow into china which caused the boom. heres the chart
Read Mobo Goa's "The battle for China's past" which proves that the lie about Mao killing millions is completely false. Mobo Goa was a peasant during the Mao era.
Under Mao the economy grew 10% per annumn. Remember, he started off with a highly educated and poorly skilled workforce but manged to educate the population, The current chinese president benfitied from Maos rule, and put China on the path to prosperity!
@MrReco12 FALSE... haha china didn't grow at a 10% rate... who told you that? can you source it? the economy was stagnated... the china's growth began in 1980's when mao was dead already... before 1980, 85% of the population lived under the poverty rate... it was after the reforms of deng that the poverty fell extremely fast due to the rapid growth... and read "mao the unknown story" by jung chang were she explicitly says that there were 70 million...
jung chang was the daughter of a chinese official and to make this book she even interviewed other chinese officials and people very close to mao... she also lived under the cultural revolution but later left china...
A corrupt Chinese official might i add. Jung Chang was the daughter of a communist party elite who was hated by the people in his commune. During the cultural revolution, the people denoucned him as a "capitalist roader" and paraded him through the streets with a dunce cap on.
Jung Chang was out for revenge when she wrote her dishonest and vile book.
Mobo Gao, a chinese peasnt who lived in gao village, completely debunked her lies and myths.
@MrReco12 actually he didn't since mobo gao did accept the fact that the cultural revolution was extremely violent and it killed millions but he argued that this violence helped the people, and he argued that people liked mao and therefore he was good... and the fact that jung chang's parents were humiliated doesn't change the fact that she's right...
Jung Chang lied about the death toll during the GLF: She said that it was 38 million when all demographic evidence says that i is between 8.5 million and 15 million.As Goa points out, in her wild Swans book she does not recount anything about starvation in her commune.
She was sued by a realitive of one of Chnag Kai sheks Generals for claiming that he was a maoist mole in chang kai sheks government.
@MrReco12 yet "black book of communism" and "china's changing population" also cite the same numbers... there is evidence that mao did killed millions... li cheng-chung cites 78 million over all... and also there is huge evidence that shows china's growth is due to deng xiaoping reforms... the household responsibility project boosted economic output and raised standards of living in 1980s... and as I showed the chart before you can clearly see chinas gdp stagnated before 1980...
"black book of communism" was exposed as a fraud by two of the books own authors. They said that they were justing making things up to get to the figure of 100 000 000.
The "scholars" who wrote that book are not even Chinese. Again, their is no evidence that Mao killed millions! Only myths and smear campaigns. To say that the huge growth could be achieved without an educated population is ignorant in the extreme
Jung Chang is a proven liar who deserves contempt.
@MrReco12 WHAT? who says there isn't evidence... I don't think you understand the matter of this discussion... its not if mao killed millions or not... its how many millions did mao killed... there is a vast amount of evidence including the chinese government themselves which prove that mao killed millions... official chinese sources actually released files that suggest 16.5 million during the GLP... the shanghai university journal says more than 40 million...
And their were m,any famines in china before 1949, look at the mortality rate of the Chang Kai shek years,. Mao was responsible for ending the US embargo on China. After that, the chinese economy took off.
@MrReco12 mao wasn't responsible for ending the embargo... nixon was responsible for lifting the embargo and he only did it cause he saw china as a useful tool against the ussr...
Nixon did lift the embargo, thanks to Maos exclennt diplomatic skills might i add. The huge growth in China's economy would not have been possible without the masses being educated and health improvments that took place under Mao.
The Current Chinese leader, Hu Jin tao, was able to become an engineer thanks to Maos educational polices.
@MrReco12 I did and it was nearly stagnated it almost didn't grow at all... it never passed the 2000 billions... not even the 100 billion... chinas growth began on 1978 after the household responsibility project and the privatization reforms... which then accelerated the growth...
AS Mobo Goa points out: The Cultural revolution was a grass roots movement eagerly participated by millions of Chinese. Goa cites improvements of health care,education and industry in the period. He never said the cultural revolution was respoble for "millions of deaths". That was a fabrication invented by Jung Chang.
@MrReco12 jung chang didn't made that up... there are numerous pieces of work which describe, detail and denounce the millions of deaths before even the 80s... "the republic of china" was written in 1978 and it also states the same number of killings... while chang's book was written in 2005...
The author of this edited interview inserts absolutely false information in an attempt to discredit Obermann and Klein. If he had actually read Klein's book (which he claims Obermann is reading off a teleprompter), he would note that she has fully annotated her facts and figures when it comes to Chile and the exact opposite of what this is said in blue is the real truth.
Kleins "annotations" suffer only from the fact that those that are not nonsense do not support her claims. The notion that Friedman proposed the "shock doctrine" and that he advised Pinochet or that Pinochet's policies were those recommended by Friedman has been so thoroughly debunked as the pure fabrication that it is, her book only has value to the extent that your Charmin has run out.
The shock of 9/11 was used to privatize the U.S. army? Asserting that the former is a specious argument, and is not borne out by fact! I would agree that plenty of cronyism did take place under Bush's watch, however, this was a decision that was carried out by an administration, the cost of which was the tax-payer's burden. However, every war of the U.S. relies on the private sector, including major universities. The left as scrutinized the latter.
@whiff1962 I mean to say that the latter IS a specious argument. To assert that the whole of Iraq was there for the taking by Bush's corporate cronies, is, at best a cynical half-truth. The real issue was the administration seeking greater privatization, not the invasion (of Iraq) as a pretext, as Klein seems to assume.
Keith Olbermann is spreading ignorance in the name of news. Since when do people oppose freedom? Has Naomi Klein ever wondered why politicians spread free market capitalism? Perhaps to help the poor and needy and bring countries out of the third world?
America was not founded with a free market system. If you remember, Hamilton won the Hamilton vs. Jefferson debate, and America pursued a system of protectionism targeted at building up urban industry. The Tariff Act of 1789 was the second statute the US government ever passed. So your interpretation of US economic history is false.
The 1972 increase in inflation and deficit growth were planned. Inflation boosted export costs and the deficit was the result of an increase in State-spending.
Your history ... isn't. Not only didn't Hamilton win the debate but his report on manufactures was completely ignored. The tariff was adopted as the sole means of financing government (not as a protectionist measure) and remained at a low 5% - 10% level. That such protectionist bunkum has been circulating around Youtube for so long doesn't make it at all credible. That the increase in inflation was Fed-driven is true, that it was planned is imbecilic.
That's detached from reality! Have you ever read any of Hamilton or Jefferson's letters? Funding the government was a minor consideration in the debate over the tariff, and was settled by the whiskey tax. The main argument was over whether or not the United States should be based in manufacturing or engage in free trade and base its economy around agriculture.
What do you mean the ROM was ignored? The tariff and the subsidy were both enacted!!!
No need to self describe (though a colon should appear after "reality!"). Yes I have read the letters. No, there is no reading of them that supports your position. Hamilton's policy recommendations (of which a greater tariff was part was spelled out in his report on manufacturers which was tabled without consideration (read your actual history - not the silly Youtube video supposedly on the subject). It still doesn't alter the fact that protectionism has been a failure in each and every case.
I didn't see a youtube video on it. I read biographies on Hamilton and Jefferson and the letters associated with the debate. The ROM itself wasn't directly turned into legislation (unlike his first three tariff proposals) but it was the basis for Henry Clay's economic plan, which was completely enacted during the war of 1812.
If the United States hadn't engaged in protectionism, there would have never been any manufacturing here. It had to be brought about by the state.
Then you didn't read very closely, albeit you get your corrected version of the passage of the tariff largely correct.
The notion that the US would not have had manufacturing without tariffs is pure discredited economic drivel. There simply does not exist an economically valid argument in favor of tariffs. They serve only to undermine economic efficiencies, harm consumers and ensure malinvestments that must later be cleared by the economy.
Specifically, a reading of Jefferson's letters (I have the seven-volume set) shows that while he believed in the nobility of the farmer and distrusted large enterprise, he was still and advocate of liberty and disdained intervention into the economy beyond levying those taxes needed to sustain government (he ultimately had little problem with tariffs as a sole funding source. Hamilton adopted the discredited mercantilist theories that Adam Smith had so recently shredded.
Hamilton adopted protectionism, not mercantilism. As a matter of fact, he and Smith agreed on most things. The only difference came in that Hamilton believed in protecting infant industry. I read the wealth of nations, and Smith never seemed to make a legitimate argument against protecting infant industry. "Restraints on Particular Imports" (Book IV Chapter 2) just doesn't hold up economic logic. Businesses don't have a domestic bias. That's why you need protectionism.
Exactly what biography of Hamilton did you read? Protection was always part and parcel of mercantilism - interfering with otherwise free trade in order to "protect" domestic industry and ensure a greater flow of gold to a given country (much like the wrong-headed gnashing of teeth over the "trade deficit" that takes place even today). There simply is no logical counter-argument to the section of The Wealth of Nations you reference and not one modern school of economics endorses protectionism.
Protection is part of mercantilism, but Hamilton wasn't a mercantilist, and neither am I. It's possible to like an aspect of a system in a different context and not endorse the whole thing. It's not about ensuring a flow of gold to a given country, it's about making sure that your economy can compete with other economies on a level playing field, which is exactly what the US did. I like a lot of Smith's stuff, but I think that argument is weak.
I read one several years ago by McDougal (?) but more resebtly read Abrose & Martin's bio (and the treatment in Ellis's Founding Brothers).
It's rather odd that you say Smith's argument is weak considering that in the two centuries since he wrote The Wealth of Nations the verdict is in. The economic evidence of any benefits from protectionism is nonexistent and the evidence of it damage is overwhelming. Smith actually allowed for retaliatory tariffs if they worked but since they do not...
Every major economic power, and all of the European nations except for Holland and Switzerland, depend heavily on protectionist policies. As I just said, the US became powerful because it used tariffs to protect its infant industry, and still uses protectionism to extremely effective results (not very effective for workers, but corporations are still making record profits). Japan's car industry wouldn't have survived past 1958 if it wasn't for the protections put on it.
A major reason for America's success in comparison to Europe is that our protectionist measures were materially less than those in Europe (in the 5% - 10% range) and were often unenforced. The Japanese auto industry took advantage of the (largely-union driven) decline in the US industry and would have succeeded in any event. And protectionism has done nothing but harm, driving candy makers out of the US, killing more jobs in steel-using industries than were EVER "saved" by steel tariffs.
Most of Chile's economic woes came from the falling price of copper, which the Chilean government had no control over. Chile began to trade with the Soviet Union on a larger scale in 1973, which might have improved its economy, but we'll never know because the US-led coup.
Oh, I would like it if your comments were spoken and inserted or just spoken on a frozen video background. I don't want to read all this, I am mostly listening to the video and glancing at the pics while doing other things....
foreigners are selling off Iraq's oilfields to other foreigners and you don't see a problem with that? Often people they have connections to. I think it's ridiculous that the other side of the coin is to say that the only alternative was to have Sadam owning them.
Wow this video is ridiculous... how can you have so many segments to begin with to oppose such a simple idea... "Governments use times of crisis to pass laws we would never agree with normally... but when shit hits the fan we're somehow ready to roll-over and let them do "what is needed" (the stuff we don't want) to get us out"...
GDP is not a good indication of how well a country is doing. It's only an indication of how wealthy the richest people in the country are doing. There are many better ways to measure economies which consider the wealth of the average person, but those ways make the laissez-faire capitalist countries look worse, so they are not used. Let's remember that capitalism's greatest success is where it is most heavily socialized: America. Privatization of profits, socialization of debt. That's TARP.
@DoctorMandible "where it is most heavily socialized" Forgetting Europe and Latin America, there, bud? And no laissez-faire capitalist would EVER support TARP. I hope you're not referring to the Gini Index. The GDP is the AVERAGE wealth of a citizen, while the Gini is a bullshit analysis of "inequality". Well, would you rather live in "equal" Venezuela, or the US, which has a "horrible" Gini rating.
Typical leftist cant about free-enterprise. Olberman might be articulate and, I might aver, right about some things, but not about economic matters. I think it best he keep to his formulaic, tabloid news.
Thanks so much for setting the record straight. Olberman and Klein were born in a bubble and never cut the umbilical cord. It's flabbergasting that such ignorant people could hold such positions of influence.
Milton Friedman was by FAR the greatest economist and humanitarian to ever live. He has been debated by many on the left including their poster children Cloward and Piven, only to be brutally severed at the knees by Miltons intellect and charm. You cannot debate that which is correct and just. Henceforth, why they call Palin stupid and Gingrich a neo-con. When un-winable call them names and hope it sticks. Olbermann, Klein, Frank, Clintons, Obama etc... are horrid for this country. Milton? KING!
@gogetitish No. The fact that you said means you are. I do not want to take away YOUR rights, take away YOUR hard earned money, or force you to eat, drink, say, do everything I want you to. NO! YOU are the problem! Go to Cuba our Canada our something. I want to live under the constitution Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and Adams provided. You Obama and the rest of the radical leftists want to destroy it. YOU are horrid for this country and a HUGE problem. Hence why Obama us now hated!
@gogetitish How di you feel knowing this fact. The people who have the views I have are one in the same as Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, Adams, Washington. Those men who fought to rid themselves of Tyranny and serfdom to forge this country into the greatest on Earth. Those who agree y with you? Their heros are Che, Mao, Stalin, and Tyrannical dictators? Who here is the better human here and better for our country? Yeah that is what I thought. Rethink your position! Dumb ass
I actually read her book and she makes more sense than Sarah Palin, who really is shockingly ignorant. 9/11 was a perfect example of disaster capitalism. The 9/11 attack gave the capitalists an opportunity to invade Iraq and make a shit-load of MONEY.That was not a theory made up by Klein, it was an actual event. WMD my ass. The economic crisis caused by greedy capitalists gave them the opportunity to blame unions, lower wages and cut benefits for the middle class, capitalizing on disaster.
As a european, it's quite shocking for me to see the level of fanatism among lefty journalists in the USA. This Olbermann is a man of very little knowledge and decency, but of huge hate and intolerance. Truly sad what people become TV show hosts these days.
The free market creates wealth, it makes people as a whole, better off. That's great, no one disputes that... HOWEVER... invading Iraq spent a ton of our tax dollars to make a bunch of people I've never heard of rich. In fact, it seems like this was the main focus of the bush administration's attention... meanwhile, we had a bubble in housing and people having to choose which fingers they didn't want amputated(health care)... and even if she is out of her mind (Klein), I'd do her...
the 'free' market so cherished by followers of high preist milton is not 'free'. The private banks control the supply of money issued as debt. That's why likes of Milton want you to believe in the 'free' market. Though i suspect he, as high priest, succumbed to classic double-think: ardently believing in his own hype.
in general, well done. just don't forget that although pinochet did good to the economy of chile, he killed many people and suspended liberties. again, besides that, well done.
@koblinsk [This is conspiracy as much as Alex Jones' show. Keith Olbermann is despicable] You know it's not wise to totally abhor conspiracy, the Holocaust was a conspiracy until it was know fact.
You still have much to learn, sorry to disappoint you because you will find a lot of processes in this world are based off conspiracies.
You better wake your ass up before you find yourself a slave; total rejection of the existence of conspiracies also going to find you liking & wanting your slavery
If you want to force us to subsidize the lower classes and social programs through violence, than you should receive nothing less than violence. Socialism is a truly wicked idea
This woman is so pathetic. The fact that people are stupid enough to take her seriously is sad, but not surprising given the decline in American intelligence.
@MrReco12 The share of Chileans with incomes below the poverty line — roughly $90/month for a family of four — fell from 46% of the population in 1987 to 14% in 2006.....and more posted on your page....so you got one number ...i have a bunch
Watching Advocate1234's videos is like watching TV with an angry drunk man. The booze has made him blind to the most critical aspects of what's being discussed.
@MrReco12 yeah but you forget to mention the fact that the wage increases create a wage inflation effect which then snowballed into hyperinflation which in turn leave the wages with a way lower purchasing power... and the chicago boys were the ones able to rescue chile just look at hernan buchi for example... thanks to him and to aylwin poverty was cut in half...
clearly the comments in the video are written by someone too angry and offended by her thesis to be able to take any of it in, come on, her clothes and hair dye? seriously? wtf. it's not about capitalism=democracy and everything else equals tyranny, it's about much more but unfortunately the indoctrination you so clearly underwent means alternatives are automatically offensive without even trying to understand them
jefferson described EVERYTHING that keith olberman just said, as everyone knows jefferson was a free marketeer who opposed central planning and central banks. how many times does socialism and planning need to fail before people realise that capitalism is right about everything.
Your claims are ignorant from the start. America was not founded in anything like the way you describe; it was an absolute model of protectionism, as was every other state that now enjoys a position of relative wealth. From that point on, the rest is total distortion, completely irrelevant or utter fabrication and you know it (I hope). As a result, I was unable to make it past 3 and a half minutes of this nonsense.
You can't even grasp the fact that unbridled capitalism can only be reined in by a government powerful enough to drive them out. The problem is that power breeds corruption, and often, the treatment is as bad as the disease.
What a load of shit. This is an exercise in twisting the failure of greed driven privitization, proven by historical events into something that defies logic. Your comments only serve to prove out that a few misguided people in positions of power will reduce people to aboslute poverty and expect to be thanked for it.
rotschild have 500 trillion dollars and own federal reserve and all central banks in the world, world bank, oil companies, and a long etcetera... war is a business...
Is this a joke? Now Rumsfeld... stay off YouTube! We all know you were looking for an excuse to steal Iraq from the Iraqis. Something... anything... um... like 911! Here's a suggestion for your next video... how about one on how we can get to Mars, but can't make a car that gets 600 miles to a gallon. Why not do a factual list of all the battery patents snorted up like cocaine by the oil companies. Free enterprise my ass! Whatever Rumsfeld.
@AskAnAsshole Certainly not. Bureaucrats are just people with jobs. And we are their ultimate employers. The US is not a corporation. Its a government - they can't be both. And it certainly does not have a monopoly on violence. It has the guise of authority - that again, in a democracy rests in the hands of the people. Believe I'm not naive here, but I'm just shocked by so many who no longer believe in a democratic system. And they don't even realize they're standing against the ideals.
She's so stupid that she doesn't realize that Libertarians and free market supporters don't want any take-over by government by 'shock.' 'Shock' is how government expands because people then put their trust in government to find a solution, even though the problem was caused by the government itself. This allows the government to grow and seize more power. A libertarian wants to dismantle government and give people freedom. The only one calling for more government is Naomi.
A government by the people is better than a corporation who has no vested interest in the people who work there, or the communities in which they operate. The invisible hand of the market is not more intelligent than an informed citizenry. Actions based on social justice, a sense of humanity, morality, and acknowledgement of public good work better than unproven economic belief systems derived from selfishness and greed. Liberty and rights will be useless in a corporate run society.
@heathwulf what the hell is a corporate run society? that doesnt mean anything. one thing you fail to understand is that free market capitalism is about CHOICE. as a consumer you have the power to make an institution fail by withholding your capital. an incompetent corporation will fail in a true free market and when it fails we will NOT bail it out. there is no point on spending to keep an incompetent business afloat. government wage wars NOT the free market.
@heyzeusful you are an idiot. try looking at what i was replying to. the idiot i was replying to said in a free market corporations would the run the show. corporations depend on capital from us to survive while politicians have the ability to usurp absolute power. which then is more dangerous? there is a massive difference between a corporate run society and a corporate influenced society.
Dude, I loled because I was agreeing with you. "Corporate run society" or whatever he said? That's retarded. So yeah, agreeing with you. It may have sounded sarcastic but I did actually laugh out loud.
allendes had sucess until america kissinger drove the economy into poverty thus staging the coupe of picochet in 73 which led to 25% enemplyment and a brutal recession distrubuting the countries growth upwards and far out of the hands of the working poor and middleclass . eventually after pinochet relented on his brutal dictatorship and crushing economic chicago boys philosophy, ammended the economy which now is termed as the "chilean miracle " .
In the commentary, there are a lot of nonsense arguments, factual statements presented as if truths (ideologies make truths, not facts!) and that sort of "take it easy" reply that characterize the aggressive attitude when lacking an apt response, but some of them seem to apply, though. The problem being of cause that they take for granted the arguments being criticized, which is not a rebuttal!!!
Yeah, the typical support of a brutal Military dictatorship who imprisoned political dissidents and came to power by assassinating a democratically elected president.
Pretty much the same exact line they give against Cuba, going the other way
I do not understand how anybody could ever support a regime like the Pinochet's dictature. Have you met anyone from Chile who lived during that period ?
It would probalby take a completely isolated socialistic system a great many centuries to come up with something even remotly close to youtube much less the internet it self. Of course it must be all planned out in advance. lol
Sure, after the corps evacuated billions of dollars from the Iraqis with subcontract upon subcontract siphoning out money, bringing in foreign labour with no plans to open the Iraqi factories. caused years of terrible poverty leading to the radicalisation of the populace (notice how quiet and hopeful people were the first year) they ended up talking about geting the old "stalinist"nationalised factories open again, and actually had the sense to start employing local workers. Dogma's pains.
Terrible poverty wasn't caused by capitalism. Their economy grew because of Capitalism, despite being in the middle of a war zone. And since when was foreign investment a bad thing?
What I should have said before you made your sarcastic remark, was that Iraq has A TON of oil, their economy wasn't at nothing, and a 7% growth rate during a war in their country is a big achievement. And the last time you said "Brilliant" it didn't make any sense because you were the one dodging the question.
With regard to the Naomi Klein book, I remind viewers that every point in this vid wrt the book itself is a straw man, cherry pick or ad hominem, including the Chile thing. If you want to know the truth (with a dose of sensationalism) you should actually check the source, which in this case is Klein's book itself. Just send me your email address and I'll drop you a .pdf
Sure. So is capitalism: idealism. Game theory shows that big business will always move to create a corrupt government, with or without any existing corruption. They've gone a long way towards this end in America, what with all the institutionalised lobbying.
That's a bit of a crappy explanation of game theory, which states that people will pursue their dominant strategy. The government should not even be able to allocate resources in such away. Its function is to protect peoples' rights, but it's in government's interest to do what it's been doing.With the classical liberal rule of law, one good thing about it is that it forces legislators to keep their hands out of peoples' pockets, which stops the flow of money to private business.
That's the logic of the democratic system. And democracy seems to function a lot better in Europe, where there are actually more than two viable parties, which reduces the incentives for corruption. Total business is total tyranny. The service of democracy can be made competitive, but mono/oligopolies are bad in any industry. And big business will always play for either monopoly or oligopoly. They don't need an explicit, openly exposed corrupt government for that.
Your stances are factually wrong. Monopoly power is all but solely created by goovernment; capitalism actually PREVENTS monopolies from sustaining themselves. Game theory does not show that business will work for a corrupt governemnt (in fact, the problem is that government can play favorites) and Klein's examples are nonsense - Pinochet DID NOT implement laissez-faire capitalism, the Asian crisis was govt created and Ford did not engage in the DIrty War (they were terrorized).
Game theory? LOL. What theory? Game theory just refers to a kind of mathematics. I don't know what theory you're talking about. Truth be told I don't know much about these particular things. If it has something to do with prisoner's dilemma then you can see that get dealt with here: watch?v=2lVO0VT1URE
It most definitely does not say that. Game theory does not definitively say anything without be subject to a series of strict rules, constraints, and pay offs...
What an asshole thing to claim. It's like you are trying to make the economic sciences look bad.
All the arguments I've seen in 7 of these 10 vids (haven't seen the others); either straw men, ad hominem or cherry picking (or the vid maker hasn't read the book). They are entirely moronic, except for one about the US getting it wrong about Russia's economic state. Anyone half trained in reasoning could do a better job than this guy, but the whole right wing web comminuty seems to be equally dumb. I'm reading it and Klein's book is truly brilliant, any one wants a .pdf can msg me.
I wonder if Naomi is willing to talk about her version of "shock doctrine"? I think it goes like this: A gang of socialist/fascist/communist nuts take over your country, your industry, your land, everything. They extract forced payments from you under THREAT OF VIOLENCE. If you refuse to be looted, they take everything and stick you in a CAGE!
That's Naomi's utopia. She's the classic deceiver and hypocrite who propagandizes for tyranny.
Again, this affective nonsense. Capitalism's embezzlements range in the trillions. There were moments in this video, as opposed to all the other 3 parts where this seemed to make sense, as far as Chile is concerned. But remember, this is the age of the internet. Socialism is not bureaucracy as it was. The most important thing is we need to keep the people a viable voice which will not happen under the capitalism that is in the world today. Just look at the media now. This is an exception.
I do think Klein is either overestimating her viewers or underestimating them, she's not the best spokesperson but her ideas are always right. In this sense it's annoying that people do but I guess it's easy to use her as a lightning rod for criticism. I love the criticism the poster makes about her points though. For instance in an earlier segment Cuba, which suffers from US sanctions and US pressure on other countries not to trade with it. Empire and capitalism and this euphemism "statism".
I would like to make a request to to all the frustrated neo con cry babies who post silly clips: you had your turn the last 8 years or so. And you plunged the world into war, hatred, terrorism, and economic disaster. So it might not be a bad idea to hush for a hile and let the emotionally grown up people fix it, with a more positive and giving approach.
"War, hatred, terrorism, economic disaster..."- Sometimes the best way to a true, lasting peace is through war and it will take more than 7 yrs. "Hatred" is a human emotion thats been with us since the beginning of our species. Neocons are the only ones who know how to combat and defeat terrorism. And govt regulation caused the recession, not the free market. We're frustrated because we've been under siege even whil
This video is bullshit, I concider flagging it for it's lies, I don't even bother to comment those things written on blue screen, such a capitalistic brainwashing BS, unbelievable!
impula2 7 months ago
government is neither good of bad. it is an institution of power. it is a tool to get things done . it can be used to provide subsidies to big industry, to protect civil rights or to oppress and enslave people. it was a government that brought about the holocaust but it was also a government that liberated europe from the nazis. it depends on who controls the gov. and for what purpose?
1sportboys 8 months ago
the soviet union under communists was a highly industrialized nation, which was not the case under the tsars. Cuba was the pearl of the caribbean under Batista and it was loved by american businessmen. Under Pinochet, Chile was prosperous as well. None of these facts justify these regimes, so the fact that capitalism has been very productive says nothing about its moral superiority over other systems
1sportboys 8 months ago
i don't agree with friedman or klein, they both suck, it's like comparing oranges to apples and all i want is icecream.
EdgeUHF 8 months ago
you call yourself a lover of freedom but yet you justify the policy of a fascist dictator like pinochet. did you know that stalin's soviet union and hitler's germany experienced economic growth as well. Is that a justification for Fascism? Whether you agree or disagree with his policies is irrelevant because Allende was democratically elected by the people of chile.
1sportboys 8 months ago
@1sportboys your reporting skewed data from stalin's regime; the monster was only distorting numbers with the aid of his totalitarian predecessors, the tsars. Hitler's growth numbers came from confiscating private property of others, war mongering, and manipulation. To say otherwise is to either be blind to the truth or more likely, to be manipulating data as done by miss Klein. The point to all these gov "leaders" is that gov is generallybad. It is the economic policies that save or break them.
jimprjayp 8 months ago
.people migrate for an opportunity,not a handout naomi.btw if you haven't dug a hole in 35 degree heat in your life there is no way i am going to be listening to you about economics.capitalism doesn't work,socialism doesn't work:YOU WORK!!!
nphanlon1973 8 months ago
Amazingly skewed perspective... the intermittent interjection of this had no bearing on enjoying listening to Naomi lay out unfettered truth.
rebouel 8 months ago
Milton Friedman was against the war in Iraq !!!!
The biggest opponents of War where Capitalists (During the Spanish American War)
RSG132 9 months ago
Milton Friedman was against the war in Iraq !!!!
RSG132 9 months ago
whoever made this video they can killl themselves
timetochilli 9 months ago
Shut up and go instruct yourself in History to say the least. Your propagandistic video edition is so poor that you make a fool of yourself.
code933k 10 months ago
@code933k you mean keith right?? first of all let me ask you something? do you think they guy that made this video benefits or has an agenda. He just made a video cuz he is pissed about the lies of the media. Whereas Keith... well I am sure he has to respond to his Bosses, and they surely have an agenda for us. Open your eyes bro, otherwise you might end up in situation like my country.
nicazzo 9 months ago
@code933k ya vi que eres Colombiano, hermano lea un libro porque usted es ignorante y lo demas es cuento. Ademas si odias tanto el libre mercado mudate a Venezuela (yo soy venezolano y si vienes te recibo con los brazos abiertos)
nicazzo 9 months ago
@nicazzo Antes de llamarme ignorante debería revisar su pésima forma de tutear y mediocre redacción. Es imposible que un individuo con esas costumbres escriturales lea correctamente. No obstante, pierdo mi tiempo para decírselo: Su carencia de argumentación, juicios de valor volátiles y presunciones carentes de todo contenido fáctico en una réplica tan corta sólo me llevan a decirle que busque un psiquiatra. Feliz día.
code933k 9 months ago
@code933k osea imbecil. En que me he equivocado, y pa que cono tengo que redactar de forma academica pa un comentarion en youtube, arrogante. Mira, dime en que estoy errado dame la prueba que lo dice este video es mentira y te lo juro que me quito el sombrero. Pero mientras tanto deja de meterte dildos por el culo y ponte a leer imbecil.
nicazzo 9 months ago
@code933k ademas ignorante, por que te concentras en como escribo, sera que no tienes prueba ni evidencia de lo que dices, simplemente diciendo que no se redactar te ayuda a evitar la cruda realidad de que no sabes un cono. Ademas no me hace falta redactar en espanol, porque yo no trabajo en espanol, no estudio en espanol, y ademas hablo 3 otros idiomas, asi que cuando aprendas algo mas que el ingles hablamos. Mal parido!
nicazzo 9 months ago
This is crap man, stop making video's like that because what you say is not true!
lafayette086 10 months ago
what a waste of time this crap is. I'm sorry, not crap, propaganda...
zastro52 10 months ago 2
Its funny cause this was made in 2007, and now we have an economic crisis, and we didnt get more capitolism thats for damn sure!
isolateslowfaults 11 months ago
@isolateslowfaults
Hear hear! There was "socialism for corporations" but definitely not anything near to what Friedman advocated. The bailouts must have had him spinning so fast in grave his body traveled back in time.
WSWarthog 11 months ago
tbf thsi shit as bad as anything Faux News ever put out
jpkm123 11 months ago
What a load !
thirdshore 11 months ago
This is a crock of shit from the start. America's economy was founded on tarrifs and from the Industrial Revolution to the late 70s the US was the most protectionist country in the world.
Protectionsm built Americas Industrial Base.
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Our entire wealth was built on borrowing money from Europe and then effectively spending money better then europeans to make superior goods that cost less. Protectionism had nothing to do with it. Also You say to the late 70s, but reagan was the most protective president since hoover
isolateslowfaults 11 months ago
@isolateslowfaults The only Protectionism Reagan did was Tip O' Neals bill which was a tarrif on Japaniese motorcycles. Other than that he was drinking the Milton Friedman Kool Aid as was every president since then.
You think Protectionism had nothing to do with it. Can you name a single country that developed as a industrial power withour protectionism?
MsZeitgeist85 11 months ago
Keith and Klein make thier bread and butter selling to morrons thanks for pointing out the obvious.
WickedCrazzzeee 1 year ago
Man, I grew up with this shocking ignorance myself. But then again being indoctrinated by the public school system, it was no real surprise frankly. But this women has studied Milton Friedman (or appears to have) and yet she can so swiftly call him irrelevant. I have issues with Friedmans involvement with govt. But I cant imagine upon finding his arguments that I could still be entrenched in socialism. I guess it's in her best economic interest currently to espouse this nonsense.
xelenty 1 year ago
Libertarians fronting for croney capitalism
Trekkerjon 1 year ago
I like the big massacre on china on the 80s when it was mao the one who killed 30 million and deng xiaoping who save 60 million from poverty with capitalism...
Sexisttroll 1 year ago
@Sexisttroll
Mao did not kill 30 million. Look at the population increases.
-achievements of Mao:
life expectency: 32 to 65
litracy: 9% to 80%
a broken nation ridled with corruption : A world power thanks to Mao
the famines had ended by the mid 60s: Before 1949 under the capitalist Chang Kai shek their were many famines.
MrReco12 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrReco12 "Mao did not kill 30 million." you're right it was more...
scaruffi. com/politics/dictat.html
users. erols. com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Mao
and china owes his position as a super power to deng xiaoping, who establish the new constitution in 1982 which allowed private enterprise and capitalism to flow into china which caused the boom. heres the chart
knol. google. com/k/-/-/3tew8l2l87oin/szmp3s/prc1952-2005gdp. gif
Sexisttroll 1 year ago
@Sexisttroll
No he didnt!
Read Mobo Goa's "The battle for China's past" which proves that the lie about Mao killing millions is completely false. Mobo Goa was a peasant during the Mao era.
Under Mao the economy grew 10% per annumn. Remember, he started off with a highly educated and poorly skilled workforce but manged to educate the population, The current chinese president benfitied from Maos rule, and put China on the path to prosperity!
Deng Xioping troduced forced abortions.
MrReco12 1 year ago
@MrReco12 FALSE... haha china didn't grow at a 10% rate... who told you that? can you source it? the economy was stagnated... the china's growth began in 1980's when mao was dead already... before 1980, 85% of the population lived under the poverty rate... it was after the reforms of deng that the poverty fell extremely fast due to the rapid growth... and read "mao the unknown story" by jung chang were she explicitly says that there were 70 million...
Sexisttroll 1 year ago
jung chang was the daughter of a chinese official and to make this book she even interviewed other chinese officials and people very close to mao... she also lived under the cultural revolution but later left china...
Sexisttroll 1 year ago
@Sexisttroll
A corrupt Chinese official might i add. Jung Chang was the daughter of a communist party elite who was hated by the people in his commune. During the cultural revolution, the people denoucned him as a "capitalist roader" and paraded him through the streets with a dunce cap on.
Jung Chang was out for revenge when she wrote her dishonest and vile book.
Mobo Gao, a chinese peasnt who lived in gao village, completely debunked her lies and myths.
MrReco12 1 year ago
@MrReco12 actually he didn't since mobo gao did accept the fact that the cultural revolution was extremely violent and it killed millions but he argued that this violence helped the people, and he argued that people liked mao and therefore he was good... and the fact that jung chang's parents were humiliated doesn't change the fact that she's right...
Sexisttroll 1 year ago
now could you tell me were mobo gao debunked jung chang's "myths"?
Sexisttroll 1 year ago
@Sexisttroll
Jung Chang lied about the death toll during the GLF: She said that it was 38 million when all demographic evidence says that i is between 8.5 million and 15 million.As Goa points out, in her wild Swans book she does not recount anything about starvation in her commune.
She was sued by a realitive of one of Chnag Kai sheks Generals for claiming that he was a maoist mole in chang kai sheks government.
MrReco12 1 year ago
@MrReco12 yet "black book of communism" and "china's changing population" also cite the same numbers... there is evidence that mao did killed millions... li cheng-chung cites 78 million over all... and also there is huge evidence that shows china's growth is due to deng xiaoping reforms... the household responsibility project boosted economic output and raised standards of living in 1980s... and as I showed the chart before you can clearly see chinas gdp stagnated before 1980...
Sexisttroll 1 year ago
@Sexisttroll
"black book of communism" was exposed as a fraud by two of the books own authors. They said that they were justing making things up to get to the figure of 100 000 000.
The "scholars" who wrote that book are not even Chinese. Again, their is no evidence that Mao killed millions! Only myths and smear campaigns. To say that the huge growth could be achieved without an educated population is ignorant in the extreme
Jung Chang is a proven liar who deserves contempt.
MrReco12 1 year ago
@MrReco12 WHAT? who says there isn't evidence... I don't think you understand the matter of this discussion... its not if mao killed millions or not... its how many millions did mao killed... there is a vast amount of evidence including the chinese government themselves which prove that mao killed millions... official chinese sources actually released files that suggest 16.5 million during the GLP... the shanghai university journal says more than 40 million...
Sexisttroll 1 year ago
and you're right the famine ended in the 60s... but it started in 1958... under mao... after the great leap forward...
Sexisttroll 1 year ago
@Sexisttroll
And their were m,any famines in china before 1949, look at the mortality rate of the Chang Kai shek years,. Mao was responsible for ending the US embargo on China. After that, the chinese economy took off.
MrReco12 1 year ago
@MrReco12 mao wasn't responsible for ending the embargo... nixon was responsible for lifting the embargo and he only did it cause he saw china as a useful tool against the ussr...
Sexisttroll 1 year ago
@Sexisttroll
Nixon did lift the embargo, thanks to Maos exclennt diplomatic skills might i add. The huge growth in China's economy would not have been possible without the masses being educated and health improvments that took place under Mao.
The Current Chinese leader, Hu Jin tao, was able to become an engineer thanks to Maos educational polices.
Look up the growth in the economy in Maos time.
MrReco12 1 year ago
@MrReco12 I did and it was nearly stagnated it almost didn't grow at all... it never passed the 2000 billions... not even the 100 billion... chinas growth began on 1978 after the household responsibility project and the privatization reforms... which then accelerated the growth...
Sexisttroll 1 year ago
@Sexisttroll
AS Mobo Goa points out: The Cultural revolution was a grass roots movement eagerly participated by millions of Chinese. Goa cites improvements of health care,education and industry in the period. He never said the cultural revolution was respoble for "millions of deaths". That was a fabrication invented by Jung Chang.
MrReco12 1 year ago
@MrReco12 jung chang didn't made that up... there are numerous pieces of work which describe, detail and denounce the millions of deaths before even the 80s... "the republic of china" was written in 1978 and it also states the same number of killings... while chang's book was written in 2005...
Sexisttroll 1 year ago
The author of this edited interview inserts absolutely false information in an attempt to discredit Obermann and Klein. If he had actually read Klein's book (which he claims Obermann is reading off a teleprompter), he would note that she has fully annotated her facts and figures when it comes to Chile and the exact opposite of what this is said in blue is the real truth.
DocShar 1 year ago
Kleins "annotations" suffer only from the fact that those that are not nonsense do not support her claims. The notion that Friedman proposed the "shock doctrine" and that he advised Pinochet or that Pinochet's policies were those recommended by Friedman has been so thoroughly debunked as the pure fabrication that it is, her book only has value to the extent that your Charmin has run out.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
The shock of 9/11 was used to privatize the U.S. army? Asserting that the former is a specious argument, and is not borne out by fact! I would agree that plenty of cronyism did take place under Bush's watch, however, this was a decision that was carried out by an administration, the cost of which was the tax-payer's burden. However, every war of the U.S. relies on the private sector, including major universities. The left as scrutinized the latter.
whiff1962 1 year ago
@whiff1962 I mean to say that the latter IS a specious argument. To assert that the whole of Iraq was there for the taking by Bush's corporate cronies, is, at best a cynical half-truth. The real issue was the administration seeking greater privatization, not the invasion (of Iraq) as a pretext, as Klein seems to assume.
whiff1962 1 year ago
These have to be the most delusional people in the world
Mezey5 1 year ago
Keith Olbermann is spreading ignorance in the name of news. Since when do people oppose freedom? Has Naomi Klein ever wondered why politicians spread free market capitalism? Perhaps to help the poor and needy and bring countries out of the third world?
DarthMaul8065 1 year ago
@DarthMaul8065 Ha Ha, you're cute. I'm sure that's why politicians do that. Freeing and opening markets by dropping bombs on brown people.
septip123 1 year ago
@septip123 Believe what you wish, septip123.
DarthMaul8065 1 year ago
America was not founded with a free market system. If you remember, Hamilton won the Hamilton vs. Jefferson debate, and America pursued a system of protectionism targeted at building up urban industry. The Tariff Act of 1789 was the second statute the US government ever passed. So your interpretation of US economic history is false.
The 1972 increase in inflation and deficit growth were planned. Inflation boosted export costs and the deficit was the result of an increase in State-spending.
00maharum00ma 1 year ago
Your history ... isn't. Not only didn't Hamilton win the debate but his report on manufactures was completely ignored. The tariff was adopted as the sole means of financing government (not as a protectionist measure) and remained at a low 5% - 10% level. That such protectionist bunkum has been circulating around Youtube for so long doesn't make it at all credible. That the increase in inflation was Fed-driven is true, that it was planned is imbecilic.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom
That's detached from reality! Have you ever read any of Hamilton or Jefferson's letters? Funding the government was a minor consideration in the debate over the tariff, and was settled by the whiskey tax. The main argument was over whether or not the United States should be based in manufacturing or engage in free trade and base its economy around agriculture.
What do you mean the ROM was ignored? The tariff and the subsidy were both enacted!!!
00maharum00ma 1 year ago
No need to self describe (though a colon should appear after "reality!"). Yes I have read the letters. No, there is no reading of them that supports your position. Hamilton's policy recommendations (of which a greater tariff was part was spelled out in his report on manufacturers which was tabled without consideration (read your actual history - not the silly Youtube video supposedly on the subject). It still doesn't alter the fact that protectionism has been a failure in each and every case.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom
I didn't see a youtube video on it. I read biographies on Hamilton and Jefferson and the letters associated with the debate. The ROM itself wasn't directly turned into legislation (unlike his first three tariff proposals) but it was the basis for Henry Clay's economic plan, which was completely enacted during the war of 1812.
If the United States hadn't engaged in protectionism, there would have never been any manufacturing here. It had to be brought about by the state.
00maharum00ma 1 year ago
Then you didn't read very closely, albeit you get your corrected version of the passage of the tariff largely correct.
The notion that the US would not have had manufacturing without tariffs is pure discredited economic drivel. There simply does not exist an economically valid argument in favor of tariffs. They serve only to undermine economic efficiencies, harm consumers and ensure malinvestments that must later be cleared by the economy.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Specifically, a reading of Jefferson's letters (I have the seven-volume set) shows that while he believed in the nobility of the farmer and distrusted large enterprise, he was still and advocate of liberty and disdained intervention into the economy beyond levying those taxes needed to sustain government (he ultimately had little problem with tariffs as a sole funding source. Hamilton adopted the discredited mercantilist theories that Adam Smith had so recently shredded.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom
Hamilton adopted protectionism, not mercantilism. As a matter of fact, he and Smith agreed on most things. The only difference came in that Hamilton believed in protecting infant industry. I read the wealth of nations, and Smith never seemed to make a legitimate argument against protecting infant industry. "Restraints on Particular Imports" (Book IV Chapter 2) just doesn't hold up economic logic. Businesses don't have a domestic bias. That's why you need protectionism.
00maharum00ma 1 year ago
Exactly what biography of Hamilton did you read? Protection was always part and parcel of mercantilism - interfering with otherwise free trade in order to "protect" domestic industry and ensure a greater flow of gold to a given country (much like the wrong-headed gnashing of teeth over the "trade deficit" that takes place even today). There simply is no logical counter-argument to the section of The Wealth of Nations you reference and not one modern school of economics endorses protectionism.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom
I read Ron Chernow's.
Protection is part of mercantilism, but Hamilton wasn't a mercantilist, and neither am I. It's possible to like an aspect of a system in a different context and not endorse the whole thing. It's not about ensuring a flow of gold to a given country, it's about making sure that your economy can compete with other economies on a level playing field, which is exactly what the US did. I like a lot of Smith's stuff, but I think that argument is weak.
00maharum00ma 1 year ago
I read one several years ago by McDougal (?) but more resebtly read Abrose & Martin's bio (and the treatment in Ellis's Founding Brothers).
It's rather odd that you say Smith's argument is weak considering that in the two centuries since he wrote The Wealth of Nations the verdict is in. The economic evidence of any benefits from protectionism is nonexistent and the evidence of it damage is overwhelming. Smith actually allowed for retaliatory tariffs if they worked but since they do not...
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom
Every major economic power, and all of the European nations except for Holland and Switzerland, depend heavily on protectionist policies. As I just said, the US became powerful because it used tariffs to protect its infant industry, and still uses protectionism to extremely effective results (not very effective for workers, but corporations are still making record profits). Japan's car industry wouldn't have survived past 1958 if it wasn't for the protections put on it.
00maharum00ma 1 year ago
A major reason for America's success in comparison to Europe is that our protectionist measures were materially less than those in Europe (in the 5% - 10% range) and were often unenforced. The Japanese auto industry took advantage of the (largely-union driven) decline in the US industry and would have succeeded in any event. And protectionism has done nothing but harm, driving candy makers out of the US, killing more jobs in steel-using industries than were EVER "saved" by steel tariffs.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Most of Chile's economic woes came from the falling price of copper, which the Chilean government had no control over. Chile began to trade with the Soviet Union on a larger scale in 1973, which might have improved its economy, but we'll never know because the US-led coup.
00maharum00ma 1 year ago
Oh, I would like it if your comments were spoken and inserted or just spoken on a frozen video background. I don't want to read all this, I am mostly listening to the video and glancing at the pics while doing other things....
RealFoodRemedies 1 year ago
foreigners are selling off Iraq's oilfields to other foreigners and you don't see a problem with that? Often people they have connections to. I think it's ridiculous that the other side of the coin is to say that the only alternative was to have Sadam owning them.
PrincessGarnet85 1 year ago
Wow this video is ridiculous... how can you have so many segments to begin with to oppose such a simple idea... "Governments use times of crisis to pass laws we would never agree with normally... but when shit hits the fan we're somehow ready to roll-over and let them do "what is needed" (the stuff we don't want) to get us out"...
This video is a waste of everyone's time.
HarfangX 1 year ago
GDP is not a good indication of how well a country is doing. It's only an indication of how wealthy the richest people in the country are doing. There are many better ways to measure economies which consider the wealth of the average person, but those ways make the laissez-faire capitalist countries look worse, so they are not used. Let's remember that capitalism's greatest success is where it is most heavily socialized: America. Privatization of profits, socialization of debt. That's TARP.
DoctorMandible 1 year ago
@DoctorMandible "where it is most heavily socialized" Forgetting Europe and Latin America, there, bud? And no laissez-faire capitalist would EVER support TARP. I hope you're not referring to the Gini Index. The GDP is the AVERAGE wealth of a citizen, while the Gini is a bullshit analysis of "inequality". Well, would you rather live in "equal" Venezuela, or the US, which has a "horrible" Gini rating.
BurnBeforeEating 1 year ago
@BurnBeforeEating *?
BurnBeforeEating 1 year ago
Keith Olbermann is a hack.
jbailey618 1 year ago
Typical leftist cant about free-enterprise. Olberman might be articulate and, I might aver, right about some things, but not about economic matters. I think it best he keep to his formulaic, tabloid news.
whiff1962 1 year ago
poverty rate in venezuala when this video came out was 25%, why are you lying?
Disstancebeats 1 year ago
Thanks so much for setting the record straight. Olberman and Klein were born in a bubble and never cut the umbilical cord. It's flabbergasting that such ignorant people could hold such positions of influence.
rickbruner 1 year ago
Milton Friedman was by FAR the greatest economist and humanitarian to ever live. He has been debated by many on the left including their poster children Cloward and Piven, only to be brutally severed at the knees by Miltons intellect and charm. You cannot debate that which is correct and just. Henceforth, why they call Palin stupid and Gingrich a neo-con. When un-winable call them names and hope it sticks. Olbermann, Klein, Frank, Clintons, Obama etc... are horrid for this country. Milton? KING!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 YOU are horrid for this country.
gogetitish 1 year ago
@gogetitish No. The fact that you said means you are. I do not want to take away YOUR rights, take away YOUR hard earned money, or force you to eat, drink, say, do everything I want you to. NO! YOU are the problem! Go to Cuba our Canada our something. I want to live under the constitution Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and Adams provided. You Obama and the rest of the radical leftists want to destroy it. YOU are horrid for this country and a HUGE problem. Hence why Obama us now hated!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@gogetitish How di you feel knowing this fact. The people who have the views I have are one in the same as Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, Adams, Washington. Those men who fought to rid themselves of Tyranny and serfdom to forge this country into the greatest on Earth. Those who agree y with you? Their heros are Che, Mao, Stalin, and Tyrannical dictators? Who here is the better human here and better for our country? Yeah that is what I thought. Rethink your position! Dumb ass
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I actually read her book and she makes more sense than Sarah Palin, who really is shockingly ignorant. 9/11 was a perfect example of disaster capitalism. The 9/11 attack gave the capitalists an opportunity to invade Iraq and make a shit-load of MONEY.That was not a theory made up by Klein, it was an actual event. WMD my ass. The economic crisis caused by greedy capitalists gave them the opportunity to blame unions, lower wages and cut benefits for the middle class, capitalizing on disaster.
wickliffead 1 year ago
Comment removed
wickliffead 1 year ago
Naomi Klein made up her entire theory from a small quip Friedman made.
BurnBeforeEating 1 year ago
As a european, it's quite shocking for me to see the level of fanatism among lefty journalists in the USA. This Olbermann is a man of very little knowledge and decency, but of huge hate and intolerance. Truly sad what people become TV show hosts these days.
D503z 1 year ago
The free market creates wealth, it makes people as a whole, better off. That's great, no one disputes that... HOWEVER... invading Iraq spent a ton of our tax dollars to make a bunch of people I've never heard of rich. In fact, it seems like this was the main focus of the bush administration's attention... meanwhile, we had a bubble in housing and people having to choose which fingers they didn't want amputated(health care)... and even if she is out of her mind (Klein), I'd do her...
HoRostam 1 year ago
the 'free' market so cherished by followers of high preist milton is not 'free'. The private banks control the supply of money issued as debt. That's why likes of Milton want you to believe in the 'free' market. Though i suspect he, as high priest, succumbed to classic double-think: ardently believing in his own hype.
simonmandala 1 year ago
in general, well done. just don't forget that although pinochet did good to the economy of chile, he killed many people and suspended liberties. again, besides that, well done.
goPistons06 1 year ago
This is conspiracy as much as Alex Jones' show. Keith Olbermann is despicable...
koblinsk 1 year ago
@koblinsk [This is conspiracy as much as Alex Jones' show. Keith Olbermann is despicable] You know it's not wise to totally abhor conspiracy, the Holocaust was a conspiracy until it was know fact.
You still have much to learn, sorry to disappoint you because you will find a lot of processes in this world are based off conspiracies.
You better wake your ass up before you find yourself a slave; total rejection of the existence of conspiracies also going to find you liking & wanting your slavery
WinduChi6 1 year ago
Olbermann and his MSNBC gang never got past 9th grade, intellectually and emotionally.
martel732 1 year ago
If you want to force us to subsidize the lower classes and social programs through violence, than you should receive nothing less than violence. Socialism is a truly wicked idea
EVOB88 1 year ago
This woman is so pathetic. The fact that people are stupid enough to take her seriously is sad, but not surprising given the decline in American intelligence.
publicanimal 1 year ago
#libralssuck
Fact remains;
Poverty doubled under the bloody dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.
MrReco12 1 year ago
keep making these videos and thank you. you do a good job
addyr100 1 year ago
Keith is such a douchebag! Someone should give him a brain, or tell him not to regurgitate dogma on national TV! *SIGH*
Iamfatbrain 1 year ago
Poverty rate in 1973: 22% (when Pinochet mounted his bloody coup)
Poverty rate in 1989: 40%
AS for Chavez: Poverty has been cut by more than half since he was elected. I'm not a fan but this is a basic fact.
MrReco12 1 year ago
@MrReco12 The share of Chileans with incomes below the poverty line — roughly $90/month for a family of four — fell from 46% of the population in 1987 to 14% in 2006.....and more posted on your page....so you got one number ...i have a bunch
libralssuck 1 year ago
Watching Advocate1234's videos is like watching TV with an angry drunk man. The booze has made him blind to the most critical aspects of what's being discussed.
toronto68 1 year ago
What LIes!
Under Allende unemployment was only 4.3% and Real wages increased by17%!!!
"Chilie unlike a typical socalist country combats this problem with less government"
What!
PInochet sacked his Chicago boy economists(after unemployment hit 30%) and bailed out the economy massively.(taking over 80% of financial sector).
Pinochet never privatized the copper mines(chilies major export).Allende had nationalized the copper mines, Pinochet refused to privatize it!
MrReco12 1 year ago
@MrReco12 yeah but you forget to mention the fact that the wage increases create a wage inflation effect which then snowballed into hyperinflation which in turn leave the wages with a way lower purchasing power... and the chicago boys were the ones able to rescue chile just look at hernan buchi for example... thanks to him and to aylwin poverty was cut in half...
Sexisttroll 1 year ago
You say Pinochet had had enough? You mean a U.S. led coup overthrew a democratically elected govt. Way to go capitalism!!!
wilberteric 1 year ago
@wilberteric You are confusing capitalism with mercantilism.
BurnBeforeEating 1 year ago
clearly the comments in the video are written by someone too angry and offended by her thesis to be able to take any of it in, come on, her clothes and hair dye? seriously? wtf. it's not about capitalism=democracy and everything else equals tyranny, it's about much more but unfortunately the indoctrination you so clearly underwent means alternatives are automatically offensive without even trying to understand them
runningflag 1 year ago
jefferson described EVERYTHING that keith olberman just said, as everyone knows jefferson was a free marketeer who opposed central planning and central banks. how many times does socialism and planning need to fail before people realise that capitalism is right about everything.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
LOL. I used to actually watch Olberman. I'm glad I question things.
bttalbot 1 year ago
Your claims are ignorant from the start. America was not founded in anything like the way you describe; it was an absolute model of protectionism, as was every other state that now enjoys a position of relative wealth. From that point on, the rest is total distortion, completely irrelevant or utter fabrication and you know it (I hope). As a result, I was unable to make it past 3 and a half minutes of this nonsense.
brainjamz 1 year ago
You can't even grasp the fact that unbridled capitalism can only be reined in by a government powerful enough to drive them out. The problem is that power breeds corruption, and often, the treatment is as bad as the disease.
pjamesbda 1 year ago
What a load of shit. This is an exercise in twisting the failure of greed driven privitization, proven by historical events into something that defies logic. Your comments only serve to prove out that a few misguided people in positions of power will reduce people to aboslute poverty and expect to be thanked for it.
pjamesbda 1 year ago
rotschild have 500 trillion dollars and own federal reserve and all central banks in the world, world bank, oil companies, and a long etcetera... war is a business...
migu9999 1 year ago
Is this a joke? Now Rumsfeld... stay off YouTube! We all know you were looking for an excuse to steal Iraq from the Iraqis. Something... anything... um... like 911! Here's a suggestion for your next video... how about one on how we can get to Mars, but can't make a car that gets 600 miles to a gallon. Why not do a factual list of all the battery patents snorted up like cocaine by the oil companies. Free enterprise my ass! Whatever Rumsfeld.
Eyes1919 1 year ago
@AskAnAsshole Certainly not. Bureaucrats are just people with jobs. And we are their ultimate employers. The US is not a corporation. Its a government - they can't be both. And it certainly does not have a monopoly on violence. It has the guise of authority - that again, in a democracy rests in the hands of the people. Believe I'm not naive here, but I'm just shocked by so many who no longer believe in a democratic system. And they don't even realize they're standing against the ideals.
heathwulf 1 year ago
She's so stupid that she doesn't realize that Libertarians and free market supporters don't want any take-over by government by 'shock.' 'Shock' is how government expands because people then put their trust in government to find a solution, even though the problem was caused by the government itself. This allows the government to grow and seize more power. A libertarian wants to dismantle government and give people freedom. The only one calling for more government is Naomi.
razerfish 1 year ago
A government by the people is better than a corporation who has no vested interest in the people who work there, or the communities in which they operate. The invisible hand of the market is not more intelligent than an informed citizenry. Actions based on social justice, a sense of humanity, morality, and acknowledgement of public good work better than unproven economic belief systems derived from selfishness and greed. Liberty and rights will be useless in a corporate run society.
heathwulf 2 years ago
@heathwulf what the hell is a corporate run society? that doesnt mean anything. one thing you fail to understand is that free market capitalism is about CHOICE. as a consumer you have the power to make an institution fail by withholding your capital. an incompetent corporation will fail in a true free market and when it fails we will NOT bail it out. there is no point on spending to keep an incompetent business afloat. government wage wars NOT the free market.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
"What the hell is a corporate run society?" hahahahaha. i loled when i saw that.
heyzeusful 1 year ago
@heyzeusful you are an idiot. try looking at what i was replying to. the idiot i was replying to said in a free market corporations would the run the show. corporations depend on capital from us to survive while politicians have the ability to usurp absolute power. which then is more dangerous? there is a massive difference between a corporate run society and a corporate influenced society.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
Dude, I loled because I was agreeing with you. "Corporate run society" or whatever he said? That's retarded. So yeah, agreeing with you. It may have sounded sarcastic but I did actually laugh out loud.
heyzeusful 1 year ago
@heyzeusful oh woops. apologies for the misunderstanding.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
allendes had sucess until america kissinger drove the economy into poverty thus staging the coupe of picochet in 73 which led to 25% enemplyment and a brutal recession distrubuting the countries growth upwards and far out of the hands of the working poor and middleclass . eventually after pinochet relented on his brutal dictatorship and crushing economic chicago boys philosophy, ammended the economy which now is termed as the "chilean miracle " .
mgalore 2 years ago
In the commentary, there are a lot of nonsense arguments, factual statements presented as if truths (ideologies make truths, not facts!) and that sort of "take it easy" reply that characterize the aggressive attitude when lacking an apt response, but some of them seem to apply, though. The problem being of cause that they take for granted the arguments being criticized, which is not a rebuttal!!!
adamfransen1 2 years ago
Yeah, the typical support of a brutal Military dictatorship who imprisoned political dissidents and came to power by assassinating a democratically elected president.
Pretty much the same exact line they give against Cuba, going the other way
direwolf661 2 years ago
rothschild have 500 trillions yes with T , they are the master of the world, they own federal reserve like all the central banks in the world.
migu9999 2 years ago
I do not understand how anybody could ever support a regime like the Pinochet's dictature. Have you met anyone from Chile who lived during that period ?
denichapon 2 years ago
Olberman is a tool and Klein is a statist. 2 blowhards without a clue
MrHigginsPM 2 years ago
how easy is it for talking heads to twist the facts to suit their own needs.
caughtupinthematrix 2 years ago
You are quite right, Naomi Klein and Keith Olberman should be ashamed of themselves.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Thanks for uploading these videos, it is clear that Capitalism needs to be defended against these clowns.
killerbee2k 2 years ago
without capitalism, you wouldn't be making comments on this page, or even watching Youtube or whatever other socialist-marxist books so loved by libs
flyboyu777 2 years ago 2
It would probalby take a completely isolated socialistic system a great many centuries to come up with something even remotly close to youtube much less the internet it self. Of course it must be all planned out in advance. lol
MasterTxJ 2 years ago
Do you always see the world as a choice between pleg and cholera ? There is a whole gradient of possibilities between neo-conservatism and goulags !
denichapon 2 years ago
Iraq's economy was growing at 7% from the capitalism.
whitesox889 2 years ago
Sure, after the corps evacuated billions of dollars from the Iraqis with subcontract upon subcontract siphoning out money, bringing in foreign labour with no plans to open the Iraqi factories. caused years of terrible poverty leading to the radicalisation of the populace (notice how quiet and hopeful people were the first year) they ended up talking about geting the old "stalinist"nationalised factories open again, and actually had the sense to start employing local workers. Dogma's pains.
rajasmasala 2 years ago
Terrible poverty wasn't caused by capitalism. Their economy grew because of Capitalism, despite being in the middle of a war zone. And since when was foreign investment a bad thing?
whitesox889 2 years ago
growth from zero is not a big achievement.
rajasmasala 2 years ago
They weren't at zero.
whitesox889 2 years ago
again, brilliant.
rajasmasala 2 years ago
What I should have said before you made your sarcastic remark, was that Iraq has A TON of oil, their economy wasn't at nothing, and a 7% growth rate during a war in their country is a big achievement. And the last time you said "Brilliant" it didn't make any sense because you were the one dodging the question.
whitesox889 2 years ago
With regard to the Naomi Klein book, I remind viewers that every point in this vid wrt the book itself is a straw man, cherry pick or ad hominem, including the Chile thing. If you want to know the truth (with a dose of sensationalism) you should actually check the source, which in this case is Klein's book itself. Just send me your email address and I'll drop you a .pdf
rajasmasala 2 years ago
How are they strawmen? And do you know what a strawman is?
whitesox889 2 years ago
Which one do you think is not an ad hominem, cherry pick or straw man?
rajasmasala 2 years ago
All of them. But to be honest, I don't know what a cherry pick is, so you may be right on that argument.
whitesox889 2 years ago
Look, give me the one that most convinces you. I'm really tired of revisiting this stupid crap.
rajasmasala 2 years ago
NO, you have to give the examples of Ad hominem, cherry picks and strawmen. You are making an accusation, so you have to prove your side first.
whitesox889 2 years ago
screw off
rajasmasala 2 years ago
Exactly. You have no examples.
whitesox889 2 years ago
Brilliant.
rajasmasala 2 years ago
Socialism is a mental disorder.
KutWrite 2 years ago 2
Sure. So is capitalism: idealism. Game theory shows that big business will always move to create a corrupt government, with or without any existing corruption. They've gone a long way towards this end in America, what with all the institutionalised lobbying.
rajasmasala 2 years ago
That's a bit of a crappy explanation of game theory, which states that people will pursue their dominant strategy. The government should not even be able to allocate resources in such away. Its function is to protect peoples' rights, but it's in government's interest to do what it's been doing.With the classical liberal rule of law, one good thing about it is that it forces legislators to keep their hands out of peoples' pockets, which stops the flow of money to private business.
AshillaBeige 2 years ago
That's the logic of the democratic system. And democracy seems to function a lot better in Europe, where there are actually more than two viable parties, which reduces the incentives for corruption. Total business is total tyranny. The service of democracy can be made competitive, but mono/oligopolies are bad in any industry. And big business will always play for either monopoly or oligopoly. They don't need an explicit, openly exposed corrupt government for that.
rajasmasala 2 years ago
Your stances are factually wrong. Monopoly power is all but solely created by goovernment; capitalism actually PREVENTS monopolies from sustaining themselves. Game theory does not show that business will work for a corrupt governemnt (in fact, the problem is that government can play favorites) and Klein's examples are nonsense - Pinochet DID NOT implement laissez-faire capitalism, the Asian crisis was govt created and Ford did not engage in the DIrty War (they were terrorized).
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Game theory? LOL. What theory? Game theory just refers to a kind of mathematics. I don't know what theory you're talking about. Truth be told I don't know much about these particular things. If it has something to do with prisoner's dilemma then you can see that get dealt with here: watch?v=2lVO0VT1URE
regresseur 2 years ago
It most definitely does not say that. Game theory does not definitively say anything without be subject to a series of strict rules, constraints, and pay offs...
What an asshole thing to claim. It's like you are trying to make the economic sciences look bad.
Owner46 2 years ago
All the arguments I've seen in 7 of these 10 vids (haven't seen the others); either straw men, ad hominem or cherry picking (or the vid maker hasn't read the book). They are entirely moronic, except for one about the US getting it wrong about Russia's economic state. Anyone half trained in reasoning could do a better job than this guy, but the whole right wing web comminuty seems to be equally dumb. I'm reading it and Klein's book is truly brilliant, any one wants a .pdf can msg me.
rajasmasala 2 years ago
Unbelievable.
I wonder if Naomi is willing to talk about her version of "shock doctrine"? I think it goes like this: A gang of socialist/fascist/communist nuts take over your country, your industry, your land, everything. They extract forced payments from you under THREAT OF VIOLENCE. If you refuse to be looted, they take everything and stick you in a CAGE!
That's Naomi's utopia. She's the classic deceiver and hypocrite who propagandizes for tyranny.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
millionthusername: stop blathering and talk sense.
rajasmasala 2 years ago
Again, this affective nonsense. Capitalism's embezzlements range in the trillions. There were moments in this video, as opposed to all the other 3 parts where this seemed to make sense, as far as Chile is concerned. But remember, this is the age of the internet. Socialism is not bureaucracy as it was. The most important thing is we need to keep the people a viable voice which will not happen under the capitalism that is in the world today. Just look at the media now. This is an exception.
rajasmasala 2 years ago
I do think Klein is either overestimating her viewers or underestimating them, she's not the best spokesperson but her ideas are always right. In this sense it's annoying that people do but I guess it's easy to use her as a lightning rod for criticism. I love the criticism the poster makes about her points though. For instance in an earlier segment Cuba, which suffers from US sanctions and US pressure on other countries not to trade with it. Empire and capitalism and this euphemism "statism".
rajasmasala 2 years ago
I would like to make a request to to all the frustrated neo con cry babies who post silly clips: you had your turn the last 8 years or so. And you plunged the world into war, hatred, terrorism, and economic disaster. So it might not be a bad idea to hush for a hile and let the emotionally grown up people fix it, with a more positive and giving approach.
dikkelul5bier 2 years ago 2
"War, hatred, terrorism, economic disaster..."- Sometimes the best way to a true, lasting peace is through war and it will take more than 7 yrs. "Hatred" is a human emotion thats been with us since the beginning of our species. Neocons are the only ones who know how to combat and defeat terrorism. And govt regulation caused the recession, not the free market. We're frustrated because we've been under siege even whil