The period between the Civil War and 1929 had some of the worst boom-bust cycles in US history. This guys proposed solution is guaranteed to make things worse.
And why people who want to buy cannabis MUST intercourse with a mafia, thereby putting themselves at risk and are wary of police persecution? Is it not better if they ACQUIRE Cannabis special place by the State. Where are DIRTY MONEY? Why ordinary people can not engaged in this business, plant seeds, watered, grow, harvest, delivered to the state and thereby earn a living CLEAN MONEY.
Greed is an emotion. Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which the Earth attracts objects to itself. Neither of them are reasons for busts in the business cycle.
Someone doesn't know what a straw man is. A straw man, for example, would be invoking emotions, such as greed, in order to conclude that your opponent is wrong, instead of addressing any of the actual points he made.
That is NOT the definition of a straw man. A straw man is creating a false argument and ascribing it to your opponent and then "knocking it down" because you made it intentionally flawed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Good thoughts. True capitalism or true communism will never work. This issue can be seen from both sides. However, if the federal reserve is eliminated, whats next? In a capitalist society, noone will help the less fortunate. No healthcare, no affirmative action, no safety net.
No healthcare? Try cheaper healthcare. No affirmative action? Well unless you think poor black children are more important than poor white children, that's a good thing. No safety net? Social security is already going bankrupt. There's not going to be a safety net either way.
The first, because then I'm in charge of how I spend my money rather than politicians. But it really isn't that kind of false choice anyways. Of course government officials want you to rely on the government to pay for things, but that money has to come from somewhere (see taxpayers.) It's better jsut to cut out the middle man and allow people to decide for themselves how to spend their own money.
letting people deside how to spend their own money doesn't work because you are jyst a tiny part of society and can't have an overview and so production/distribution can't be coordinated in the interest of all.
and that is a huge disadvantage for anyone living in the society.
if production/distribution is coordinated in the interest of all (done 100% democratically offcourse), then you can have anything you want to have. production is high enough in today's world to give everyone what he wants
Hmmm, so everyone should get to vote directly on how production is distributed... But of course, those who produce things that other people want should be rewarded for their production. I know, we could give htem more votes. We could call this vote "money." Hmmm, I wonder what system that sounds like.
Oh yes, "From each according to ability, to each according to need." Go for it. I'll have 20 kids and you'll have to pay for it. I won't work because there's no incentive to. You keep plugging your pipe dream. Starvation happens. Poverty happens. We will always have the poor with us. You can not end poverty with wishful thinking and government regulation. But you keep plugging that dream because hey, since when have silly things like reality ever stopped people?
Yeah, this discussion would probably make a lot more sense over direct discussion, as it's clear that we both think our position is the rational logical conclusion and the other is being blinded by propaganda. That way we could really logically argue this out until one of us learns something because one of us is obviously mistaken and has been fed some BS.
Production/distribution isn't supposed to be coordinated in the interest of all- it is coordinated by what the people who have money (which is plenty) want to buy, and the market will respond to that.
And, no one is ever going to have a complete overview of 'society', therefore trying to control it will likely only produce mistaken results, as is shown throughout history.
The period between the civil war and 1913 grew because it was in the midst of the industrial revolution. Getting rid of the FED is probably a good idea but you need to cite more convincing arguments. The FED was pushed through by business and banking elites to consolidate economic power, so if you want to abolish it, prepare for a fight.
Because someone believes in free trade and individual wealth instead of giving their hard earned money to people who sit on their fucking ass all day and smoke cigarettes and drink booze makes them a pussy? I've seen it all now.
There IS equality of opportunity. People come to this country (USA) every day with nothing more than the clothes on their backs and end up millionaires after a few years. They do it by working hard and achieving goals. What the liberals (and you, I suspect) want are equal outcomes... Sorry, pal, you get out of life what you put into it in this country. Socialism/Communism will never work.
If the child born in Africa comes to the USA and works hard, yes, they do have an equal chance of becoming millionaires as someone born here.
Where are the millions starving? Not in the USA. Are you talking about millions starving in other countries? The countries we send Billions of dollars to in foreign aid every year? I would blame the governments of other countries for the lack of their people's progress. Other world governments repress their people, never giving them opportunity...
HOW the fuck is a child born in the middle of the desert with no food going to travel to USA? seriously, how!?
Government controll is an extension of economy controll, so your argument is actually in favor of my position.
People in Africa are starving BECAUSE OF capitalism. Capitalism creates an 20/80 distribution of wealth: top20%receives 80% of the wealth. This pattern we see on a global scale but also in one state or one city. That's why they are poor.
Look. An economic system is not a wealth distribution system. It is a wealth creation system. If you think that 2000 years ago there was enough wealth in the world to send a person across the ocean in 6 hrs, or to feed billions of people, your crazy. You seem to think that the prosperity in capitalist countries comes from exploiting poor countries.
Do you think the prosperity in America today would be possible with the level of Government control there is in Cuba? Cuba is poor and socialist.
I would say both are equally important. The goal of socialism/communism is to create an abundance of every product (wealthcreation), so everyone can just apropriate all the shit they may need (free distribution).
It's EASILY possible if you look at the massive production abilities we all together have (that now 80% of turns into profits for the capitalist elite) IF we all realize that the only thing that's gonne make us all happy is global socialism; a global democraticly run economy.
Also: Global socialism will work like you can't imagine.
Global capitalist economy and then a little socialist country in it YEAH that's really a good representation of what global socialism/communism will look like (not).
Your argument involving Cuba = fail
Btw, I don't believe in governments, I believe in democracy (decentralization of power - power over the economy for instance)
Haha yeah take a global capitalist economy, put a little socialist/communism country in it and then you'll have a good representation of what global socialism/communism will look like (not).
I am against not the prosperities of capitalism, but the lack of it in capitalism. Jezus Christ dude, wake up from your illusion... But that's not an argument so you can ignore it.
Are you saying that the wealth of the most prosperous countries is primarily dependent on the poorest? That's nuts. It is obvious that the most prosperous countries are the most productive.
I'm talking about exploitation: the money they get paid has lower value then their labor: 5cents per hour WFT. Then they sell the 5cents-made products to YOU and ME for 40$. Profit is a great incentive; to exploit people. Especially in the despered countries, like in South Africa.
And also:
Exploiting people is productive for you, not for the exploited, indeed. ;) That's the point with exploitation: it's isn't quite fair. I know you don't want to believe it, and I understand that.
Can we be done with the labor theory of value? Please, it's the 21st century. Man values goods according to the relative importance of the satisfaction they provide, not some magical innate property that exists outside of human consciousness.
It seems to me that the only question relevant here, is 'Where does value - ultimately - come from?' You can claim it's from capital, but capital had to accumulate from smaller capital, and that smaller capital is profits. Profits can only exist due to the laborer.
One could also say that machines/factories create value. But they also had to be made by labor first.
Why do you think that there exist things with value that could have been created without human labor ever coming into the picture?
It's not in capital, or labor, or producer's goods, or rocks, or oil, or dirt, or diamonds. Material objects as such have neither value nor disvalue; they acquire value-significance only in regard to a living being, particularly, in regard to serving or hindering mans goals. Value presupposes a valuer, in answer to the question "to whom" and "for what.' Economic value is set by the marginal utility an item provides to the valuer.
Then let me redefine the labor theory of value as following: The fairest way of setting up a system/method for people to valuate goods is to base it on the idea that value is ultimately always the effect of human labor.
And as an extension of proposing that statement, I propose to base the economy on this very statement and the principle of solidarity.
I propose, therefore, to free the people of the world from the chains of wage slavery, that you want to maintain in the name of 'freedom'.
you talk shit with that comment "The Most Productive Countries Are The Most Prosperous". ITS THE RICHER COUNTRIES EXPLOITING THE POORER TO MAKE THEMSELVES RICHER. Such as things dealing arms and stealing other countries natraul resources. Not their own
Only because Western countries have developed a long standing of aggressive, militant acts, which has developed the current state of starving states. All from the exploitation of hominids does this current state of dog eat dog over mutual power benefit. One should be mindful of developing mutual equality, through self-benefit or selfish regard. Fuel ideas.
Would you share your house with a smelly dirty hippy who didn't pay his rent? Now imagine you are an industrious writer. Your genius could not thrive under such a burden. There is too many unnecessary responsibilities, too many claims from the hippy. He is kicked out and now you fully enjoy all of your money. Life becomes a lot better. With this free time you write a succesful book that makes you worth hundreds of millions.
You have lived your life and you donate to rehab centres and charity funds in pitiful memory of the drugged up hippy. Where is the 'dog eat dog' in this situation?
@yoyohihiyohi with communism it is NOT individual wealth. It is the most un-individualized system possible. It is the complete collective of all persons where no one can strive to be greater. To quote the anonymous, "Capitalism is the worst market system of all.......if you dont count any other in the equation." It is only when you delude yourself into seeing every capitalist as a "pig" or a "fat-ass" that you can also delude yourself into thinking that this horrible system could work.
Actually, they're both taking a chapter from Ludwig von Mises. But does it really matter? If you are being rational and you advocate freedom, you will ultimately advocate the same solutions.
roonalwazlib, you are so strong, insightful, and such a hard worker. You deserve everything you've achieved through the sweat of your brow and your highly evolved innovative thinking. I don't want you to take care of me, I just want you to know how much I admire and respect you. I'm literally bowing with humble respect and gratitude to all you've done for this great nation of ours.
If only the rest of us dim, lazy people (retards, as you will) could only learn to adopt your personal policies and emulate your exemplary behavior, we would would all be oh so much better off. When will we ever learn? A righteous future could so (not) easily be ours as a unified nation. I could go on, but I must sign off and go to work. I hope that homeless panhandler on the corner doesn't make me late.
Oh, and soooo compassionate, too! You must be some sort of GOD or something. And you never forget to apologize after spanking us all with with your truth and tough love. What a stud, really.
Hmm, no, that was good for 17 seconds. first was interest, ie "government actions", what shredding the 1908 safeguards? Oh, then you see the rand institute. trash. assholes.
Please document who and what you are interviewing! jesus christ, tell us you got these rand clowns in an interview rather than waste people's time. oh and eff u alan greenspan. rand is like that god awful cult of icelanders!
Those who cannot provide for themselves will always look upon those who can with envy. They will always seek to make the rich man poor and the poor man rich all in the name of social justice and fairness. You cannot achieve what they have and so you wish to take it from them by force. You want the government to hand you what someone else has earned by the sweat of their brow.
As for the notion that I am brain washed and as such all of my thoughts are invalid, that is a glaring logical fallacy on your part. Putting aside the fact that you are wrong the two are totally unrelated. Whether I am materialistic or not has no affect on the validity of my statements. You are brainwashed by your envy of what other men have earned for themselves.
Should the entrepreneur be forced to prop up the uneducated welfare mother of 4 (who no doubt had those children with 4 different dead beat men). People are a combination of their genetics and their environment. Socialism simply keeps the lower classes content with their environment and as such that which might have improved never does.
Some people are smart, some people are good looking, some people are funny, some people are all of those things, and some people are none of those things. Some skills and attributes are simply more valuable than others. It is a simple fact that some people choose to cultivate the skills they have while others allow them to go to waste. Should the smart man be forced to prop up the stupid man?
It is a simple fact that not all people are created equal despite what the Declaration of Independence says on the subject. That people should be treated equally and given the same opportunities to succeed is obvious. That the garbage man should be rewarded equally with the doctor or the unskilled factory worker rewarded the same as the entrepreneur that created the company that built the factory that employs the unskilled laborer is highly illogical.
A heavy handed government coming in and dictating to the people how they can and cannot behave in their personal and professional lives all in the name of fairness leads to a decrease in the overall quality of life within a society. Capitalism provides people with the means to fully realize their potential no matter how low or high that may be. It is neither fair nor unfair. It simply rewards merit.
It's not that you might be a retard. You clearly are a retard. A desire to create newer and more advanced material goods and sell them for profit on the open market (what you call greed and I call innovation and an entrepreneurial spirit) leads to overall improvements in the quality of life that people within a society enjoy.
This man is right except for saying the Feds came in 1913. The "Feds" are only one arm of the Illuminati which started infiltrating our country and enslaving us through Alexander Hamilton, an earlier reincarnation of our current president, Obama.
Obama is a good little nigger and he's workin' hard for dah Masta. He has given away our entire country and our grandchildren's money to sociopathic banksters. This is the biggest robbery in human history, and it could lead to collapse and war.
"You know the United States until 1913 didn't have a Federal Reserve, and during the period between the Civil War and 1913, our economy grew at the fastest rate that any econo
my has ever grown in the history of mankind."
This is how we're supposed to end the boom and bust cycle? This guy is conveniently ignoring the Panic of 1873, and the subsequent Long Depression, not to mention the Panic of 1907 that directly led to the creation of the Fed. Some basic historical research would reveal this.
It seems more like the Obama administration is busily trying to fix every other problem, real or imagined, except the credit crisis. Geithner and the rest of Obama's treasury team are a joke, and a bad one at that. No one ever said capitalism was painless. When inefficient bad companies fail good hardworking people lose their jobs along with bad lazy people.
Do those who worked hard and lost their jobs through no fault of their own (i.e. bad decisions by upper management) deserve some government help in their time of need? Of course. Should the government continuously prop up failing companies at the taxpayers expense b/c some good people will be hurt? No! Should the government hold peoples hands and provide for their every need for life as Obama and the Dems seem to think? Hell no!
Great idea... let those who made the mistakes fail. Let's not consider all the other people in the population who didn't make the mistakes- at least not on that scale- and are just trying to conduct their business. Let's flush them all out!
Floods are great for flushing things out, but they also tend to drown people. But then, when has an Ayn Rand devotee cared about people?
But a great many Americans did make serious mistakes with their personal finances and over leveraged themselves EXACTLY the way the federal government is now behaving in an attempt to stem the credit crisis caused by the collective actions of American citizens and government officials on both sides of the aisle. Actually, I have my doubts that they're really trying to stem the credit crisis.
This business of bail out after bail out being handed out by the very government officials that have been thoroughly greased with campaign contributions from the companies in question, the very government officials that helped create these problems, never letting the diseased institutions (i.e. Fannie, Freddie, AIG) that created this problem die as they should (as they fully deserve to) and newer healthier institutions replace them, all because some good people will be out of work, cont.
is a sick joke that goes against the will of the American people. So yes let's flush them all out. The good ones may need a little help but will eventually stand up on their own two feet again once we all come out on the other side of this. After all that's happened, after all the incompetence displayed on both sides of the aisle, it amazes me that people still call for propping up these institutions with bailouts. It's throwing good money after bad and it doesn't even work.
I'm supposed to take financial advice from a guy that posts a video called "My Dad's Truck" and thinks that Mexican choking video's are "cool". Do you even know what the hell YOU are talking about? When you talk in gross, blanket statements, you might as well not say anything at all. This dude points to a time in US history that was still during the Industrial Revolution. Well that's "just like now" right? Wrong! read your Keynes. We need to have government involvement in a BIG way!
Whoa, you really called me out! I just seriously ruined my credibility because I have some funny videos favored. But hey, thanks at least for correcting my "blanket statement" where I said the US economy is presently what it was during the industrial revolution. Funny thing though, I cant seem to find where the fuck I typed that. H mm,ah well, I guess you're just another retarded republican in his midlife crisis.
You must not be used to computers. If you look below you'll see the only thing I posted was "If some of you knew half of what you're talking about, you'd know that capitalism is a key component to any real "free society". "Yeah that's right right stupid! Theres NO financial advice in my comment.
Interesting theory but he provides no real evidence. Federal reserve thing was only on difference durring the time of economic expansion. There being so many factors, its impossible to say that was the one thing... oh well, anyway...
And what doe that prove? That both the communists and nazis were revolutionaries? The communists, just like most everyone else, were fooled by hitler's rhetoric and emotional message. Hitler gave the communists the choice to join because he had to convince Stalin that he was an ally, not because he was a closet communist, which is what you are insinuating and which any credible historian would refute.
The federal reserve does not restrict technological or entrepreneurial innovation. The federal reserve deals with fiscal policy and lending. Its circumstantial to say that our economy grew BECAUSE of the lack of a Federal reserve. That time period also saw a ton of exploitation of workers, and wealth inequality was at record highs during this period. In other words, wealth was being generated, but more than ever it was being concetrated in the top couple percent of the population.
What seems more obvious is that this financial crises/recession is evidence that unregulated markets do irrational things. Credit default swaps and subprime mortgages seemed like goods idea to the market at the time; they turned out to be terrible. At its most basic level, this recession also proves that market transactions dont always account for risk to parties involved (banks, homeowners), but more importantly the totally disregard risk for parties that are uninvolved (the global economy).
the industrial revolution was created by capitalists who innovated. Hypothetically speaking, if America was a socialist country during this time period and there were no incentive to create new products, there would have been no industrial revolution. Profit is what makes the world go around. Bill Gates popularization of the computer allowed for everyone have a higher standard of living. Sure, there are cons to having complete free markets ie monopoly. regulation acts as a check to free market
in a capitalist economy, profit drives research and development. emphasis is placed on efficiency and productivity, not on standard of living. who ever said that the goal of life should be to make your country the home of rich executives? money "trickles down," when in reality, it should be flowing down. we work hard for others and receive extremely disproportionately small percentages of profits. it's pointless. emphasis should be on happiness.
That sounds like a good idea. Few people in the top can become more like kings, cause only fittest or richest would survive, and we become slaves. Take down those minimum wage law! stop providing health care to the poor (they don't money have money to pay for that shit, and let them die like pigs), round up those useless senior citizens to a camp and kill them all.
Your statement clearly shows how evil you are. You're claiming the govt has the upper hand on morality and dispenses that morality down to the rest of us through the force of a gun. YOU'RE the one who would do those evil things described, unless someone bigger than you with a gun tells you that you HAVE TO be moral. Evil bastard. (But wait, isn't it a dichotomy to have immoral actions sanctioned so that one can be moral?)
Down the middle? I doubt it. But certainly not any system tried before. I think we need a different way to look at economics. Perhaps the resource-based economy proposed in Zeitgeist: Addendum. But surely we can find an answer. We are an amazing species.
The problem with the "free market" is greed. With hoarding and stagnant wealth, there's no reinvestment (or development). But when the wealthy exploit every loophole to avoid paying taxes (which support our schools, roads, police, military, welfare, etc.) the system breaks down.
The banking collapse was caused by greed. Plain and simple. GREED. And the lack of people watching over the shoulders of the crooked bankers.
The "free market" doesn't work unless "all men are angels".
correction. This is a wonderful example of seriously flawed logic. He is claiming wealth gets created (in a free market) by cheating lying and stealing. I'll leave you to figure out if that is correct or not. The proper way to fix his statement would be to say, Socialism only works if all men are angels.
well hold on now. Both accounts? So wealth isn't created in a free market by lies cheats and stealers? I am curious why you think that there would stagnant wealth, or no "Redevelopment" in a free society. Lets use 2 examples. #1 example a product that is HEAVILY regulated by government. Energy. We still use the same types of energy we did 100 years ago. Oil. Now how about a product not regulated (too heavily at least) by the govt. Computers. I had to buy a new 1 last week to keep up.
I agree that greed was the cause, but it was the greed of the biggest corporation on earth, the US government, specifically Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who told the banks they'd back the bad loans made in accordance with the CRA, a democrat construct. -BUT, there's no such thing as stagnant wealth. even money sitting in banks is constantly being borrowed against and used as collateral, as well as being a functional element in the price of a banks stock value.
America has never been a purely capitalistic system. We came to grips some time ago that capitalism without safety nets ends up benefiting the few at the expense of the many, and will eventually destroy itself through social instability. Thats why we have Social Security, and welfare, and Medicare, and public schooling and student loan programs, etc. etc.
Socialism is already here And it all happened under a Republican administration.
Oh yeah, then why did he persecute communists and socialists like he persecuted Jews? Hitler was first and foremost a fascist, and although certain policies were socialists by nature, others were capitalist by nature, and none of the things he is imfamous for are related to either. Its utterly misleading to bring hitler into a discussion of capitalism or socialism, because he was neither. Remember, nazism was also called the third way (communism and capitalism being the first two).
The communists were coalition partners with the Nazi's during Hitler's first term. The two parties worked hand in hand to destroy the Weimar Republic. When Hitler achieved absolute power individual Communists were encouraged to join the Nazi Party and Stalin granted his approval for them to do so. Those who did were welcomed. Those who didn't ended up in the camps with the other political party members. No one from any other party got a choice.
The resolution seemed fine to me. Or were you referring to the composition of the shot? I did notice that the top of his head was cut off at times, maybe they should have zoomed out slightly.
I refuse to put any work educating one as limited as you, a Capitalist worshipping dog. Pigerikkka accumulates wealth through the exploitation of the third world. If you wish to argue that FACT, take it up with someone who has time to babysit the intellectually devoid.
Socialism does not work either, it is unstable compared to Democracy/Capitalism. It is not the way of the jungle, there really is no way of the jungle unless you look at nomad tribes or something... Vietnam is a poor nation, Albania is a poor state, Russia is a poor state. And I beleive you are the one who is taking doses of ignorant propagranda. Have you read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx? (Note:)(I suppport homermeister101)
Of course I have fool. I own multiple copies. Is a good book but not everything. You don't know what you're talking about. Again, I have no intention of educating anyone who even slightly thinks Capitalism is a good idea. You see through the eyes of a parasite minority.
Ok after you said parasite I am almost positive you are Communist or heavily influenced by communism. And minority? Ever heard of INDIA? Largest democracy in the world 1+ billion people. At LEAST (very least) 1/3 of the world uses and believes in Capitalism. And just to ask, do you have multiple copies because of different companies (printing the books) or because of different languages or no reason at all?
To your first statement: India is a festering hell-hole of filthy exploitation. There is no gain made in stating India's system. To your question: I have multiple copies because each one has a different philosopher/economist's notes and opinions about the book that I find very enlightening and insightful.
Well what is china then? A nation of 1.3+ billion people led by few? Communism doesnt work. It does not work because it doesnt realize that humans, by nature, are competetive and wont be ok with just one class. They will compete trying to get higher and higher in the "one class" until eventually there are, again, two classes. It just doenst work in a modern society, pure and simple. So if you think it does, good for you, but China is on its way to NOT being a communist state and so are others
China hasn't had a Socialist economy for decades. Anyone with even the most basic background of worldly affairs knows this. China is full-blown Capitalism under the name Communism, but this is common knowledge I don't know why you can't just go to wikipedia for this basic knowledge. I grow weary of such menial discourse. And I'd like to hear the logic and premises that led you to these conclusions of yours. They all sound like propagandous rhetoric and someone else's opinions implanted in you.
You do realize that Mao Zedong, dictator in China, died in 1974. A horrible man, and hee was alive 34 years ago, that is a mere 3.4 decades ago. Now China is still communist, but not as much as it used to be. And you do realize that Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source? And the logic that I use is this amazing thing, which seems to have lost most of its value in this day and age, called Common Sense. It works wonders and solves many problems. I beleive it is you who has taken a dose of propaganda.
I just dont think you understand, I am not propaganda dosed, I am good at keeping my mind and soul untarnished by the opinions of others, and I think my decisions through (most of the time) You, Chaos, are out of touch with reality. Instead of using complex words and having your mind blocked off to facts, how about you actually listen to the other side of the story.And, since you are obviously Anti-Capitalist, how about you read the post-american world? It will show you some realities
You anti-humanist anarcho-capitalist dogs make me sick. Capitalism is LAW OF THE JUNGLE. It's not even a valid economic theory- it's more like the LACK of any real economic theory.
This video is hilarious. This guy says we need to get rid of boom and bust cycles, and then cites the period of time between the civil war and 1913 as an economic ideal, apparently ignorant of the fact that it was characterized by multiple bank runs, a decades-long depression that makes the Great Depression look like patty-cakes, and crushing poverty among the masses.
Umm current day Vietnam? Socialist Albania? There were plenty of successful Socialist states. Ignorant propaganda minds like yourself believe that STALINSIM is the same as Socialism. The problem is that you're just radically ignorant.
Stalinism doesn't exist, and even if it were a real word you spelled it wrong... congrats, you misspelled a word that YOU INVENTED.
I never said Socialism didn't work foo, i said COMMUNISM didn't work, and it doesn't, communist governments are inherently unstable, like a government with say... 4 chiefs of state. This is as they would put it "Set for phail".
And you seen to be the "Ignorant propaganda minds" seeing as you don't know the difference between communism and socialism.
Um, Stalinism does exist, look it up. I'm 100% sure that he didn't make the word up. You yourself are looking like a moron while trying to make someone else look like one.
i agree. the companies that need a bailout, don't deserve one. that is counter productive to capitalism and overall progression. let the fuckers sink!
our money really has no value. the only hting that gives it value is how much of it is in the market.. there is no such thing as "inflation" its DEVALUATION!!
thank you the federal reserve is the problem! a private org that lends money to the gov @ interst?! how can you ever pay off the debt?... you cant!... the only way is to borrow more money from the fed, wich leadts too?.....more debt!
Let the crapshoots hit the fan. There is no need to have the gov't support failing businesses. Its in the same vain that 'everyone is a winner' when clearly that is not true. Its the idea of western medicine vs evolution. Western medicine injects foreign elements a complex system with only one thing in mind... fix the symptom. Evolution gets rid of the ailing members so that as a whole the species survives. It may help a few to bail out but hurts us collectively.
Why not let the greedy Wall Streeters who caused the crisis PAY for it, with BIG levies on those who can still afford it? And bust up AIG & other big firms that are "too big to fail." Just letting them fail would hurt ALL of us. And put some tough rules in place on banks, Wall St., etc. The housing bust was caused by lying & fraud that is going unpunished and should have been prevented by tough laws with teeth.
The problem is centralized banking, the Federal Reserve,
Jefferson and Franklin knew this, it's historically the same story. That's why it is written into the Constitution that Congress is to hold the purse. Not international bankers.
The reason for the economic collapse was predatory lending and credit default swaps, not the Federal Reserve. This isn't even a matter of debate. The reason they couldn't let the investment firms fail was because they are too intertwined with the banking industry and much of the panic began the day they let Lehman Brothers fail. Let him take his bullshit ideas all the way back to 1912.
What a crock of shit. The products of finance are NOT tangible and thus need to be heavily regulated. You don't make money out of thin air. The FED could do this quite easily if they treated banks the way banks treat the rest of us. Instead of lending money willy-nilly to these banks, why don't they get collateral? Do they want to use money for ARM's? You lose, try again, no money for you. It is quite simple.
If wealth is "created" then who creates it? The CEOs of the auto-makers are "wealthy" by anyone's standards. Who created their wealth? Did the factory workers have anything to do with the creation of this wealth? Yes. Do they share in the wealth they've created? They share a small percentage, a very small percentage compared to the CEOs. So, what did CEOs do to create this wealth that justifies their grossly disproportianate share? After all, they weren't putting up their own capital as risk.
The workers, collectively, make WAY more than the ONE CEO. Some workers made money for doing very little, others by doing NOTHING!! The workers have requested that their shares of the wealth support those who do not work. The fewer workers the greater the share of the wealth. Benefits are the number ONE cost to any business. The CEO's are wrong for letting it get out of control, the workers wrong for voting it so. This is why they should be allowed to fail and start over from the ground up.
what the heck are you thinking? you have some bass-ackwards logic, man.
workers are working collectively to profit. the CEO also works/makes decisions to profit. in all cases, the CEO has done far less work for the company, yet receives phenomenally disproportionate amounts of PERSONAL profit.
yes, his role is more important than an individual worker's. yes, he deserves higher pay. i'll just throw numbers out there and say he deserves 10-15x the pay of the physical laborer.
I 1940 the CEO to worker was 9:1 ratio, in 2005 that ratio had changed to 821:1. The CEO makes more on their first day of work than the average worker makes all year. That was 2005, one could only imagine what it is now, with their creative levering of capital 90:1 in many cases.
If a board of directors should have the right to higher a ceo for whatever amount they agree upon. Workers are easily substituted while ceos are not. The demand for a ceo is great with low supply. This is simple supply and demand. Obamas regulation of ceo's salaries is a moral regulation, it will eventually cause ineffeciency in those businesses as they will no longer be able to compete with other firms at hiring the best ceo to lead their business
The period between the Civil War and 1929 had some of the worst boom-bust cycles in US history. This guys proposed solution is guaranteed to make things worse.
BurntEngineOil 10 months ago
And why people who want to buy cannabis MUST intercourse with a mafia, thereby putting themselves at risk and are wary of police persecution? Is it not better if they ACQUIRE Cannabis special place by the State. Where are DIRTY MONEY? Why ordinary people can not engaged in this business, plant seeds, watered, grow, harvest, delivered to the state and thereby earn a living CLEAN MONEY.
TheGanjaClub 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Total straw man argument--he blames the government for everything... overlooking the innate greed and exploitation of the capitalist system.
Bail outs are not the answer, nationalization is. Give back to the people what was stolen from them.
theoriginalmrsm 2 years ago
saying that greed is the problem, is like saying that gravity is the cause of airplane crashes.
oscar7557 2 years ago 3
Greed is an emotion. Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which the Earth attracts objects to itself. Neither of them are reasons for busts in the business cycle.
Koutetsu 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
no. gravity is there always. greed we can reduce by implementing another system. it's not the same.
MrMincer 2 years ago
Yes of course. It's only greed when you want to keep your own property, not when you want to plunder unearned cash from others at gunpoint.
Koutetsu 2 years ago 3
Someone doesn't know what a straw man is. A straw man, for example, would be invoking emotions, such as greed, in order to conclude that your opponent is wrong, instead of addressing any of the actual points he made.
Koutetsu 2 years ago 3
That is NOT the definition of a straw man. A straw man is creating a false argument and ascribing it to your opponent and then "knocking it down" because you made it intentionally flawed.
theoriginalmrsm 1 year ago
Comment removed
alonsogarciacr 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Good thoughts. True capitalism or true communism will never work. This issue can be seen from both sides. However, if the federal reserve is eliminated, whats next? In a capitalist society, noone will help the less fortunate. No healthcare, no affirmative action, no safety net.
skatermikesc 2 years ago
No healthcare? Try cheaper healthcare. No affirmative action? Well unless you think poor black children are more important than poor white children, that's a good thing. No safety net? Social security is already going bankrupt. There's not going to be a safety net either way.
andrewclunn 2 years ago
what's better, paying no tax and get huge medical bills or pay little tax and get medical care for free?
MrMincer 2 years ago
The first, because then I'm in charge of how I spend my money rather than politicians. But it really isn't that kind of false choice anyways. Of course government officials want you to rely on the government to pay for things, but that money has to come from somewhere (see taxpayers.) It's better jsut to cut out the middle man and allow people to decide for themselves how to spend their own money.
andrewclunn 2 years ago
letting people deside how to spend their own money doesn't work because you are jyst a tiny part of society and can't have an overview and so production/distribution can't be coordinated in the interest of all.
and that is a huge disadvantage for anyone living in the society.
if production/distribution is coordinated in the interest of all (done 100% democratically offcourse), then you can have anything you want to have. production is high enough in today's world to give everyone what he wants
MrMincer 2 years ago
Hmmm, so everyone should get to vote directly on how production is distributed... But of course, those who produce things that other people want should be rewarded for their production. I know, we could give htem more votes. We could call this vote "money." Hmmm, I wonder what system that sounds like.
andrewclunn 2 years ago
Haha, that is the most laughable simplification I've ever heard.
Everyone produces.
From each according to ability, to each according to need.
This stage will offcourse be reached AFTER supply exceeds demand. If supply doesn't exceeds demand, then we're right back to where we came from.
MrMincer 2 years ago
Oh yes, "From each according to ability, to each according to need." Go for it. I'll have 20 kids and you'll have to pay for it. I won't work because there's no incentive to. You keep plugging your pipe dream. Starvation happens. Poverty happens. We will always have the poor with us. You can not end poverty with wishful thinking and government regulation. But you keep plugging that dream because hey, since when have silly things like reality ever stopped people?
andrewclunn 2 years ago
"I'll have 20 kids and you'll have to pay for it."
Pay for what? There is plenty of everything!
"Starvation happens. Poverty happens."
The only reason they happen is BECAUSE OF CAPITALISM. If supply exceeds demand then there is no starvation and no poverty.
"We will always have the poor with us."
That's just the capitalist indoctrination that everyone receives from birth ;)
"I won't work because there's no incentive to."
Bullshit. I'll send you a PM.
MrMincer 2 years ago
Yeah, this discussion would probably make a lot more sense over direct discussion, as it's clear that we both think our position is the rational logical conclusion and the other is being blinded by propaganda. That way we could really logically argue this out until one of us learns something because one of us is obviously mistaken and has been fed some BS.
andrewclunn 2 years ago
Production/distribution isn't supposed to be coordinated in the interest of all- it is coordinated by what the people who have money (which is plenty) want to buy, and the market will respond to that.
And, no one is ever going to have a complete overview of 'society', therefore trying to control it will likely only produce mistaken results, as is shown throughout history.
Rose0883 2 years ago
The period between the civil war and 1913 grew because it was in the midst of the industrial revolution. Getting rid of the FED is probably a good idea but you need to cite more convincing arguments. The FED was pushed through by business and banking elites to consolidate economic power, so if you want to abolish it, prepare for a fight.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
good ideas, but speech therapy would solidify his credibility
mikeemeryy 2 years ago
What a badass featured video.
DropThought 2 years ago 2
My president is black!!!!!
haha
boujiki3 2 years ago
Its sad that I can only click 5 stars once
dgm4ever 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fuck capitalism and all them pussies.
Nagarajah 2 years ago
fuck you too :)
LegalizeCapitalism 2 years ago
lmfao..."all them pussies"
Because someone believes in free trade and individual wealth instead of giving their hard earned money to people who sit on their fucking ass all day and smoke cigarettes and drink booze makes them a pussy? I've seen it all now.
yoyohihiyohi 2 years ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A ridiculous configuration of the situation.
The market can never attain full employment white at the same time is reproduces existing inequalities.
The safety net is there to help those who need it. Abuse is rare.
Free trade is a farce without equality of opportunity.
Aquarianbrass 2 years ago
Abuse is rare... LMAOOOOO
labartic 2 years ago
There IS equality of opportunity. People come to this country (USA) every day with nothing more than the clothes on their backs and end up millionaires after a few years. They do it by working hard and achieving goals. What the liberals (and you, I suspect) want are equal outcomes... Sorry, pal, you get out of life what you put into it in this country. Socialism/Communism will never work.
999dgf 2 years ago
are you saying a child born in africa has an equal chance of becoming a millionaire as someone born in your country?
millions are starving because of the horrible system your country has. doesn't that bother you at all?
MrMincer 2 years ago
If the child born in Africa comes to the USA and works hard, yes, they do have an equal chance of becoming millionaires as someone born here.
Where are the millions starving? Not in the USA. Are you talking about millions starving in other countries? The countries we send Billions of dollars to in foreign aid every year? I would blame the governments of other countries for the lack of their people's progress. Other world governments repress their people, never giving them opportunity...
999dgf 2 years ago
HOW the fuck is a child born in the middle of the desert with no food going to travel to USA? seriously, how!?
Government controll is an extension of economy controll, so your argument is actually in favor of my position.
People in Africa are starving BECAUSE OF capitalism. Capitalism creates an 20/80 distribution of wealth: top20%receives 80% of the wealth. This pattern we see on a global scale but also in one state or one city. That's why they are poor.
MrMincer 2 years ago
Look. An economic system is not a wealth distribution system. It is a wealth creation system. If you think that 2000 years ago there was enough wealth in the world to send a person across the ocean in 6 hrs, or to feed billions of people, your crazy. You seem to think that the prosperity in capitalist countries comes from exploiting poor countries.
Do you think the prosperity in America today would be possible with the level of Government control there is in Cuba? Cuba is poor and socialist.
1337melee 2 years ago
I would say both are equally important. The goal of socialism/communism is to create an abundance of every product (wealthcreation), so everyone can just apropriate all the shit they may need (free distribution).
It's EASILY possible if you look at the massive production abilities we all together have (that now 80% of turns into profits for the capitalist elite) IF we all realize that the only thing that's gonne make us all happy is global socialism; a global democraticly run economy.
MrMincer 2 years ago
Also: Global socialism will work like you can't imagine.
Global capitalist economy and then a little socialist country in it YEAH that's really a good representation of what global socialism/communism will look like (not).
Your argument involving Cuba = fail
Btw, I don't believe in governments, I believe in democracy (decentralization of power - power over the economy for instance)
MrMincer 2 years ago
Haha yeah take a global capitalist economy, put a little socialist/communism country in it and then you'll have a good representation of what global socialism/communism will look like (not).
I am against not the prosperities of capitalism, but the lack of it in capitalism. Jezus Christ dude, wake up from your illusion... But that's not an argument so you can ignore it.
MrMincer 2 years ago
Are you saying that the wealth of the most prosperous countries is primarily dependent on the poorest? That's nuts. It is obvious that the most prosperous countries are the most productive.
1337melee 2 years ago
I'm talking about exploitation: the money they get paid has lower value then their labor: 5cents per hour WFT. Then they sell the 5cents-made products to YOU and ME for 40$. Profit is a great incentive; to exploit people. Especially in the despered countries, like in South Africa.
And also:
Exploiting people is productive for you, not for the exploited, indeed. ;) That's the point with exploitation: it's isn't quite fair. I know you don't want to believe it, and I understand that.
MrMincer 2 years ago
Can we be done with the labor theory of value? Please, it's the 21st century. Man values goods according to the relative importance of the satisfaction they provide, not some magical innate property that exists outside of human consciousness.
Koutetsu 2 years ago 5
What exactly is your argument against the labor theory of value?
MrMincer 2 years ago
Read the third sentence again, if you posses the literacy required to comprehend.
Koutetsu 2 years ago
It seems to me that the only question relevant here, is 'Where does value - ultimately - come from?' You can claim it's from capital, but capital had to accumulate from smaller capital, and that smaller capital is profits. Profits can only exist due to the laborer.
One could also say that machines/factories create value. But they also had to be made by labor first.
Why do you think that there exist things with value that could have been created without human labor ever coming into the picture?
MrMincer 2 years ago
It's not in capital, or labor, or producer's goods, or rocks, or oil, or dirt, or diamonds. Material objects as such have neither value nor disvalue; they acquire value-significance only in regard to a living being, particularly, in regard to serving or hindering mans goals. Value presupposes a valuer, in answer to the question "to whom" and "for what.' Economic value is set by the marginal utility an item provides to the valuer.
Koutetsu 2 years ago
Then let me redefine the labor theory of value as following: The fairest way of setting up a system/method for people to valuate goods is to base it on the idea that value is ultimately always the effect of human labor.
And as an extension of proposing that statement, I propose to base the economy on this very statement and the principle of solidarity.
I propose, therefore, to free the people of the world from the chains of wage slavery, that you want to maintain in the name of 'freedom'.
MrMincer 2 years ago
you talk shit with that comment "The Most Productive Countries Are The Most Prosperous". ITS THE RICHER COUNTRIES EXPLOITING THE POORER TO MAKE THEMSELVES RICHER. Such as things dealing arms and stealing other countries natraul resources. Not their own
lowkey185 2 years ago
@MrMincer
If there was a more equal distribution of wealth less people would be charitable so there would be less aid to Africa.
clubsandwedge 1 year ago
@clubsandwedge
Are you serious?
The point is that if there was an equal distribution of wealth Africa wouldn't be poor in the first place.
MrMincer 1 year ago
Only because Western countries have developed a long standing of aggressive, militant acts, which has developed the current state of starving states. All from the exploitation of hominids does this current state of dog eat dog over mutual power benefit. One should be mindful of developing mutual equality, through self-benefit or selfish regard. Fuel ideas.
Operation2 2 years ago
Would you share your house with a smelly dirty hippy who didn't pay his rent? Now imagine you are an industrious writer. Your genius could not thrive under such a burden. There is too many unnecessary responsibilities, too many claims from the hippy. He is kicked out and now you fully enjoy all of your money. Life becomes a lot better. With this free time you write a succesful book that makes you worth hundreds of millions.
clubsandwedge 1 year ago
You have lived your life and you donate to rehab centres and charity funds in pitiful memory of the drugged up hippy. Where is the 'dog eat dog' in this situation?
clubsandwedge 1 year ago
@yoyohihiyohi with communism it is NOT individual wealth. It is the most un-individualized system possible. It is the complete collective of all persons where no one can strive to be greater. To quote the anonymous, "Capitalism is the worst market system of all.......if you dont count any other in the equation." It is only when you delude yourself into seeing every capitalist as a "pig" or a "fat-ass" that you can also delude yourself into thinking that this horrible system could work.
reasonableaustin 2 months ago
everyone open your eyes god dammit!!!!!
tmprogram 2 years ago
A strange combination of wind and wisdom.
Feckinpaddy29 2 years ago
This guy is taking a chapter from the Ron Paul book, good for him. +1
TehTpyoKing 2 years ago
Actually, Ron Paul is taking a chapter from Objectivism.
Raykak 2 years ago 10
I love objectivism. Has anyone here ever read Atlas Shrugged? It is, in my opinion, the greatest book ever written.
nobody5432 2 years ago 4
Actually, they're both taking a chapter from Ludwig von Mises. But does it really matter? If you are being rational and you advocate freedom, you will ultimately advocate the same solutions.
Xenophage2112 2 years ago 2
Good point. Anyone who liked Atlas Shrugs or supports Ron Paul should give Mises a read.
johnrainrules 2 years ago 12
this guy better watch his back.
lowendentheogen 2 years ago
not really, they teach this stuff in any macro economics class
IheartBullets87 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
roonalwazlib, you are so strong, insightful, and such a hard worker. You deserve everything you've achieved through the sweat of your brow and your highly evolved innovative thinking. I don't want you to take care of me, I just want you to know how much I admire and respect you. I'm literally bowing with humble respect and gratitude to all you've done for this great nation of ours.
Findlater 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If only the rest of us dim, lazy people (retards, as you will) could only learn to adopt your personal policies and emulate your exemplary behavior, we would would all be oh so much better off. When will we ever learn? A righteous future could so (not) easily be ours as a unified nation. I could go on, but I must sign off and go to work. I hope that homeless panhandler on the corner doesn't make me late.
Findlater 2 years ago
Oh, and soooo compassionate, too! You must be some sort of GOD or something. And you never forget to apologize after spanking us all with with your truth and tough love. What a stud, really.
Findlater 2 years ago
Comment removed
Findlater 2 years ago
Comment removed
Findlater 2 years ago
Hmm, no, that was good for 17 seconds. first was interest, ie "government actions", what shredding the 1908 safeguards? Oh, then you see the rand institute. trash. assholes.
rijderunner 2 years ago
Please document who and what you are interviewing! jesus christ, tell us you got these rand clowns in an interview rather than waste people's time. oh and eff u alan greenspan. rand is like that god awful cult of icelanders!
rijderunner 2 years ago
You are too weak to function in a capitalist society.
As such you should remove yourself from it and move to a country with more egalitarian principles at it's foundation.
roonalwazlib 2 years ago
Those who cannot provide for themselves will always look upon those who can with envy. They will always seek to make the rich man poor and the poor man rich all in the name of social justice and fairness. You cannot achieve what they have and so you wish to take it from them by force. You want the government to hand you what someone else has earned by the sweat of their brow.
roonalwazlib 2 years ago
As for the notion that I am brain washed and as such all of my thoughts are invalid, that is a glaring logical fallacy on your part. Putting aside the fact that you are wrong the two are totally unrelated. Whether I am materialistic or not has no affect on the validity of my statements. You are brainwashed by your envy of what other men have earned for themselves.
roonalwazlib 2 years ago
Should the entrepreneur be forced to prop up the uneducated welfare mother of 4 (who no doubt had those children with 4 different dead beat men). People are a combination of their genetics and their environment. Socialism simply keeps the lower classes content with their environment and as such that which might have improved never does.
roonalwazlib 2 years ago
Some people are smart, some people are good looking, some people are funny, some people are all of those things, and some people are none of those things. Some skills and attributes are simply more valuable than others. It is a simple fact that some people choose to cultivate the skills they have while others allow them to go to waste. Should the smart man be forced to prop up the stupid man?
roonalwazlib 2 years ago
It is a simple fact that not all people are created equal despite what the Declaration of Independence says on the subject. That people should be treated equally and given the same opportunities to succeed is obvious. That the garbage man should be rewarded equally with the doctor or the unskilled factory worker rewarded the same as the entrepreneur that created the company that built the factory that employs the unskilled laborer is highly illogical.
roonalwazlib 2 years ago
A heavy handed government coming in and dictating to the people how they can and cannot behave in their personal and professional lives all in the name of fairness leads to a decrease in the overall quality of life within a society. Capitalism provides people with the means to fully realize their potential no matter how low or high that may be. It is neither fair nor unfair. It simply rewards merit.
roonalwazlib 2 years ago
It's not that you might be a retard. You clearly are a retard. A desire to create newer and more advanced material goods and sell them for profit on the open market (what you call greed and I call innovation and an entrepreneurial spirit) leads to overall improvements in the quality of life that people within a society enjoy.
roonalwazlib 2 years ago
This man is right except for saying the Feds came in 1913. The "Feds" are only one arm of the Illuminati which started infiltrating our country and enslaving us through Alexander Hamilton, an earlier reincarnation of our current president, Obama.
Obama is a good little nigger and he's workin' hard for dah Masta. He has given away our entire country and our grandchildren's money to sociopathic banksters. This is the biggest robbery in human history, and it could lead to collapse and war.
ethericplane 2 years ago
"You know the United States until 1913 didn't have a Federal Reserve, and during the period between the Civil War and 1913, our economy grew at the fastest rate that any econo
my has ever grown in the history of mankind."
This is how we're supposed to end the boom and bust cycle? This guy is conveniently ignoring the Panic of 1873, and the subsequent Long Depression, not to mention the Panic of 1907 that directly led to the creation of the Fed. Some basic historical research would reveal this.
prothonotar 2 years ago
It seems more like the Obama administration is busily trying to fix every other problem, real or imagined, except the credit crisis. Geithner and the rest of Obama's treasury team are a joke, and a bad one at that. No one ever said capitalism was painless. When inefficient bad companies fail good hardworking people lose their jobs along with bad lazy people.
roonalwazlib 2 years ago
Do those who worked hard and lost their jobs through no fault of their own (i.e. bad decisions by upper management) deserve some government help in their time of need? Of course. Should the government continuously prop up failing companies at the taxpayers expense b/c some good people will be hurt? No! Should the government hold peoples hands and provide for their every need for life as Obama and the Dems seem to think? Hell no!
roonalwazlib 2 years ago
Great idea... let those who made the mistakes fail. Let's not consider all the other people in the population who didn't make the mistakes- at least not on that scale- and are just trying to conduct their business. Let's flush them all out!
Floods are great for flushing things out, but they also tend to drown people. But then, when has an Ayn Rand devotee cared about people?
prothonotar 2 years ago
But a great many Americans did make serious mistakes with their personal finances and over leveraged themselves EXACTLY the way the federal government is now behaving in an attempt to stem the credit crisis caused by the collective actions of American citizens and government officials on both sides of the aisle. Actually, I have my doubts that they're really trying to stem the credit crisis.
roonalwazlib 2 years ago
Capitalism requires that people work hard and do for themselves and their families. It requires personal responsibility.
roonalwazlib 2 years ago
Of course, In capitalism you are in charge of your economic destiny
CesarManiaX 2 years ago
This business of bail out after bail out being handed out by the very government officials that have been thoroughly greased with campaign contributions from the companies in question, the very government officials that helped create these problems, never letting the diseased institutions (i.e. Fannie, Freddie, AIG) that created this problem die as they should (as they fully deserve to) and newer healthier institutions replace them, all because some good people will be out of work, cont.
roonalwazlib 2 years ago
is a sick joke that goes against the will of the American people. So yes let's flush them all out. The good ones may need a little help but will eventually stand up on their own two feet again once we all come out on the other side of this. After all that's happened, after all the incompetence displayed on both sides of the aisle, it amazes me that people still call for propping up these institutions with bailouts. It's throwing good money after bad and it doesn't even work.
roonalwazlib 2 years ago
America is a republic, not a democracy. At least it was supposed to be!!
daliOtter 2 years ago
check that site: sourceradix com
kaylamayla14 2 years ago
If some of you knew half of what you're talking about, you'd know that capitalism is a key component to any real "free society".
mdc0rqj 2 years ago 2
agreed
austinf12345 2 years ago
I'm supposed to take financial advice from a guy that posts a video called "My Dad's Truck" and thinks that Mexican choking video's are "cool". Do you even know what the hell YOU are talking about? When you talk in gross, blanket statements, you might as well not say anything at all. This dude points to a time in US history that was still during the Industrial Revolution. Well that's "just like now" right? Wrong! read your Keynes. We need to have government involvement in a BIG way!
Homunculi1313 2 years ago
Whoa, you really called me out! I just seriously ruined my credibility because I have some funny videos favored. But hey, thanks at least for correcting my "blanket statement" where I said the US economy is presently what it was during the industrial revolution. Funny thing though, I cant seem to find where the fuck I typed that. H mm,ah well, I guess you're just another retarded republican in his midlife crisis.
mdc0rqj 2 years ago
You must not be used to computers. If you look below you'll see the only thing I posted was "If some of you knew half of what you're talking about, you'd know that capitalism is a key component to any real "free society". "Yeah that's right right stupid! Theres NO financial advice in my comment.
mdc0rqj 2 years ago
Interesting theory but he provides no real evidence. Federal reserve thing was only on difference durring the time of economic expansion. There being so many factors, its impossible to say that was the one thing... oh well, anyway...
sharidevil 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
America is a republic, not a democracy.
austinf12345 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And what doe that prove? That both the communists and nazis were revolutionaries? The communists, just like most everyone else, were fooled by hitler's rhetoric and emotional message. Hitler gave the communists the choice to join because he had to convince Stalin that he was an ally, not because he was a closet communist, which is what you are insinuating and which any credible historian would refute.
Emerson290 3 years ago
Hey, I agree with some of this but, its kind of misleading because between the civil war and 1913 was the Industrial Revolution..
adeptsaxophonist2 3 years ago
and the capitalists would say it was because of less restrictions
Spalg 3 years ago
The federal reserve does not restrict technological or entrepreneurial innovation. The federal reserve deals with fiscal policy and lending. Its circumstantial to say that our economy grew BECAUSE of the lack of a Federal reserve. That time period also saw a ton of exploitation of workers, and wealth inequality was at record highs during this period. In other words, wealth was being generated, but more than ever it was being concetrated in the top couple percent of the population.
Emerson290 3 years ago
What seems more obvious is that this financial crises/recession is evidence that unregulated markets do irrational things. Credit default swaps and subprime mortgages seemed like goods idea to the market at the time; they turned out to be terrible. At its most basic level, this recession also proves that market transactions dont always account for risk to parties involved (banks, homeowners), but more importantly the totally disregard risk for parties that are uninvolved (the global economy).
Emerson290 3 years ago
the industrial revolution was created by capitalists who innovated. Hypothetically speaking, if America was a socialist country during this time period and there were no incentive to create new products, there would have been no industrial revolution. Profit is what makes the world go around. Bill Gates popularization of the computer allowed for everyone have a higher standard of living. Sure, there are cons to having complete free markets ie monopoly. regulation acts as a check to free market
austinf12345 3 years ago
in a capitalist economy, profit drives research and development. emphasis is placed on efficiency and productivity, not on standard of living. who ever said that the goal of life should be to make your country the home of rich executives? money "trickles down," when in reality, it should be flowing down. we work hard for others and receive extremely disproportionately small percentages of profits. it's pointless. emphasis should be on happiness.
xgotarox 3 years ago
Free market works out by itself. So economists find out that there is actually no need for economists.
OhMymy 3 years ago
That sounds like a good idea. Few people in the top can become more like kings, cause only fittest or richest would survive, and we become slaves. Take down those minimum wage law! stop providing health care to the poor (they don't money have money to pay for that shit, and let them die like pigs), round up those useless senior citizens to a camp and kill them all.
redmangos 3 years ago
Your statement clearly shows how evil you are. You're claiming the govt has the upper hand on morality and dispenses that morality down to the rest of us through the force of a gun. YOU'RE the one who would do those evil things described, unless someone bigger than you with a gun tells you that you HAVE TO be moral. Evil bastard. (But wait, isn't it a dichotomy to have immoral actions sanctioned so that one can be moral?)
Twiggy269 3 years ago
Down the middle? I doubt it. But certainly not any system tried before. I think we need a different way to look at economics. Perhaps the resource-based economy proposed in Zeitgeist: Addendum. But surely we can find an answer. We are an amazing species.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
The problem with the "free market" is greed. With hoarding and stagnant wealth, there's no reinvestment (or development). But when the wealthy exploit every loophole to avoid paying taxes (which support our schools, roads, police, military, welfare, etc.) the system breaks down.
The banking collapse was caused by greed. Plain and simple. GREED. And the lack of people watching over the shoulders of the crooked bankers.
The "free market" doesn't work unless "all men are angels".
abortivus 3 years ago 2
You see people, this is a great example of FLAWLESS logic and UN-DENIABLE facts. I commend you, sir.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
correction. This is a wonderful example of seriously flawed logic. He is claiming wealth gets created (in a free market) by cheating lying and stealing. I'll leave you to figure out if that is correct or not. The proper way to fix his statement would be to say, Socialism only works if all men are angels.
Twiggy269 3 years ago
Not true on both accounts.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
well hold on now. Both accounts? So wealth isn't created in a free market by lies cheats and stealers? I am curious why you think that there would stagnant wealth, or no "Redevelopment" in a free society. Lets use 2 examples. #1 example a product that is HEAVILY regulated by government. Energy. We still use the same types of energy we did 100 years ago. Oil. Now how about a product not regulated (too heavily at least) by the govt. Computers. I had to buy a new 1 last week to keep up.
Twiggy269 3 years ago
I agree that greed was the cause, but it was the greed of the biggest corporation on earth, the US government, specifically Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who told the banks they'd back the bad loans made in accordance with the CRA, a democrat construct. -BUT, there's no such thing as stagnant wealth. even money sitting in banks is constantly being borrowed against and used as collateral, as well as being a functional element in the price of a banks stock value.
buzbyX 3 years ago
America has never been a purely capitalistic system. We came to grips some time ago that capitalism without safety nets ends up benefiting the few at the expense of the many, and will eventually destroy itself through social instability. Thats why we have Social Security, and welfare, and Medicare, and public schooling and student loan programs, etc. etc.
Socialism is already here And it all happened under a Republican administration.
jayordie 3 years ago
Lets not forget hitler who was a capitliast he hated communism.
Look at what he did. There are evil communist, socialist and capitalist.
jayordie 3 years ago
Hitler was not a capitalist. He was a socialist. Nazi = National Socialist.
nospam3001 3 years ago
I'm a socialist and I have to say that nospam just pwned jayordie big time.
BaerSSBB 3 years ago
Oh yeah, then why did he persecute communists and socialists like he persecuted Jews? Hitler was first and foremost a fascist, and although certain policies were socialists by nature, others were capitalist by nature, and none of the things he is imfamous for are related to either. Its utterly misleading to bring hitler into a discussion of capitalism or socialism, because he was neither. Remember, nazism was also called the third way (communism and capitalism being the first two).
Emerson290 3 years ago
The communists were coalition partners with the Nazi's during Hitler's first term. The two parties worked hand in hand to destroy the Weimar Republic. When Hitler achieved absolute power individual Communists were encouraged to join the Nazi Party and Stalin granted his approval for them to do so. Those who did were welcomed. Those who didn't ended up in the camps with the other political party members. No one from any other party got a choice.
nospam3001 3 years ago
Comment removed
Emerson290 3 years ago
This vid is garbage.
PhantomTigershark 3 years ago
"This vid is garbage."
The resolution seemed fine to me. Or were you referring to the composition of the shot? I did notice that the top of his head was cut off at times, maybe they should have zoomed out slightly.
hapspir 3 years ago
I refuse to put any work educating one as limited as you, a Capitalist worshipping dog. Pigerikkka accumulates wealth through the exploitation of the third world. If you wish to argue that FACT, take it up with someone who has time to babysit the intellectually devoid.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
Socialism does not work either, it is unstable compared to Democracy/Capitalism. It is not the way of the jungle, there really is no way of the jungle unless you look at nomad tribes or something... Vietnam is a poor nation, Albania is a poor state, Russia is a poor state. And I beleive you are the one who is taking doses of ignorant propagranda. Have you read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx? (Note:)(I suppport homermeister101)
475thMrBad 3 years ago
Of course I have fool. I own multiple copies. Is a good book but not everything. You don't know what you're talking about. Again, I have no intention of educating anyone who even slightly thinks Capitalism is a good idea. You see through the eyes of a parasite minority.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
Ok after you said parasite I am almost positive you are Communist or heavily influenced by communism. And minority? Ever heard of INDIA? Largest democracy in the world 1+ billion people. At LEAST (very least) 1/3 of the world uses and believes in Capitalism. And just to ask, do you have multiple copies because of different companies (printing the books) or because of different languages or no reason at all?
475thMrBad 3 years ago
To your first statement: India is a festering hell-hole of filthy exploitation. There is no gain made in stating India's system. To your question: I have multiple copies because each one has a different philosopher/economist's notes and opinions about the book that I find very enlightening and insightful.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
Well what is china then? A nation of 1.3+ billion people led by few? Communism doesnt work. It does not work because it doesnt realize that humans, by nature, are competetive and wont be ok with just one class. They will compete trying to get higher and higher in the "one class" until eventually there are, again, two classes. It just doenst work in a modern society, pure and simple. So if you think it does, good for you, but China is on its way to NOT being a communist state and so are others
475thMrBad 3 years ago
China hasn't had a Socialist economy for decades. Anyone with even the most basic background of worldly affairs knows this. China is full-blown Capitalism under the name Communism, but this is common knowledge I don't know why you can't just go to wikipedia for this basic knowledge. I grow weary of such menial discourse. And I'd like to hear the logic and premises that led you to these conclusions of yours. They all sound like propagandous rhetoric and someone else's opinions implanted in you.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
You do realize that Mao Zedong, dictator in China, died in 1974. A horrible man, and hee was alive 34 years ago, that is a mere 3.4 decades ago. Now China is still communist, but not as much as it used to be. And you do realize that Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source? And the logic that I use is this amazing thing, which seems to have lost most of its value in this day and age, called Common Sense. It works wonders and solves many problems. I beleive it is you who has taken a dose of propaganda.
475thMrBad 3 years ago
(cont.)
I just dont think you understand, I am not propaganda dosed, I am good at keeping my mind and soul untarnished by the opinions of others, and I think my decisions through (most of the time) You, Chaos, are out of touch with reality. Instead of using complex words and having your mind blocked off to facts, how about you actually listen to the other side of the story.And, since you are obviously Anti-Capitalist, how about you read the post-american world? It will show you some realities
475thMrBad 3 years ago
You just answered your own question. India is a PERFECT example of an exploited majority.
PhantomTigershark 3 years ago
You anti-humanist anarcho-capitalist dogs make me sick. Capitalism is LAW OF THE JUNGLE. It's not even a valid economic theory- it's more like the LACK of any real economic theory.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
This video is hilarious. This guy says we need to get rid of boom and bust cycles, and then cites the period of time between the civil war and 1913 as an economic ideal, apparently ignorant of the fact that it was characterized by multiple bank runs, a decades-long depression that makes the Great Depression look like patty-cakes, and crushing poverty among the masses.
funkalunatic 3 years ago
dis nigga is da truf
riorio23 3 years ago
I like his idea about the Fed,He speaks the truth.
koolbossjock 3 years ago 2
if america turned communist then everything wud be better. jesus was a communist. budha was too. RIP LENIN HAIL MARXISM
karelgi 3 years ago
communism doesn't work foo X___X
name a single successful communist country (russia and china don't count anymore)
bicjubjub 3 years ago
Umm current day Vietnam? Socialist Albania? There were plenty of successful Socialist states. Ignorant propaganda minds like yourself believe that STALINSIM is the same as Socialism. The problem is that you're just radically ignorant.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
Stalinism doesn't exist, and even if it were a real word you spelled it wrong... congrats, you misspelled a word that YOU INVENTED.
I never said Socialism didn't work foo, i said COMMUNISM didn't work, and it doesn't, communist governments are inherently unstable, like a government with say... 4 chiefs of state. This is as they would put it "Set for phail".
And you seen to be the "Ignorant propaganda minds" seeing as you don't know the difference between communism and socialism.
bicjubjub 3 years ago
Um, Stalinism does exist, look it up. I'm 100% sure that he didn't make the word up. You yourself are looking like a moron while trying to make someone else look like one.
PhantomTigershark 3 years ago
Yep, stalinism exists for sure, you just have to know some history.
475thMrBad 3 years ago
Yeah, we could turn out like China.
What a healthy aspiration for our country.
datalorez 3 years ago
jesus was not a thief.jesus asked for people to help one another but he never advocated for force.grow some cock and start working for yourself u bum
sshapewa 3 years ago
i agree. the companies that need a bailout, don't deserve one. that is counter productive to capitalism and overall progression. let the fuckers sink!
IntellectualConcepts 3 years ago 3
He forgets to mention that our education system needs to do a better job of teaching people what their self interests are for this to work properly.
spikesmth 3 years ago 2
This guy must be a teacher all theory and no experience
utubeelliott 3 years ago
What is it that your experience has taught you that would lead you to disagree with the idea of a free market economy?
jawday12345 3 years ago
Does he sound a little like Elmer Fudd? "Things will get "willy" bad."
talledu 3 years ago
MOST American's were sitting on there ass's watching TV and eating Doritos...so too late...for middle....low income US, the upper 5% won!
kellymkg 3 years ago
the bums will always lose!
fuzzbuzz215 3 years ago 2
in the parlance of our times
hapspir 3 years ago
theres a beverage here!
fuzzbuzz215 3 years ago
The real poverty of the poor is in their aspirations.
Raykak 3 years ago
our money really has no value. the only hting that gives it value is how much of it is in the market.. there is no such thing as "inflation" its DEVALUATION!!
jboogie713 3 years ago
thank you the federal reserve is the problem! a private org that lends money to the gov @ interst?! how can you ever pay off the debt?... you cant!... the only way is to borrow more money from the fed, wich leadts too?.....more debt!
jboogie713 3 years ago
Amen!
Let the crapshoots hit the fan. There is no need to have the gov't support failing businesses. Its in the same vain that 'everyone is a winner' when clearly that is not true. Its the idea of western medicine vs evolution. Western medicine injects foreign elements a complex system with only one thing in mind... fix the symptom. Evolution gets rid of the ailing members so that as a whole the species survives. It may help a few to bail out but hurts us collectively.
JLPenland 3 years ago
Why not let the greedy Wall Streeters who caused the crisis PAY for it, with BIG levies on those who can still afford it? And bust up AIG & other big firms that are "too big to fail." Just letting them fail would hurt ALL of us. And put some tough rules in place on banks, Wall St., etc. The housing bust was caused by lying & fraud that is going unpunished and should have been prevented by tough laws with teeth.
davehshs 3 years ago
The problem is centralized banking, the Federal Reserve,
Jefferson and Franklin knew this, it's historically the same story. That's why it is written into the Constitution that Congress is to hold the purse. Not international bankers.
Can I get a 2nd?
chewbaca1989 3 years ago 3
2nd!!!! chewbaca1989
jboogie713 3 years ago
The reason for the economic collapse was predatory lending and credit default swaps, not the Federal Reserve. This isn't even a matter of debate. The reason they couldn't let the investment firms fail was because they are too intertwined with the banking industry and much of the panic began the day they let Lehman Brothers fail. Let him take his bullshit ideas all the way back to 1912.
eamonn7442 3 years ago
I think he has some good ideas. Less government intrusion is better government.
mrmcnuggetthomas 3 years ago 2
Big Government Failures
Social Security
Welfare
Department of Education
Military Industrial Complex
IRS
The Federal Reserve is the problem.
chewbaca1989 3 years ago
What a crock of shit. The products of finance are NOT tangible and thus need to be heavily regulated. You don't make money out of thin air. The FED could do this quite easily if they treated banks the way banks treat the rest of us. Instead of lending money willy-nilly to these banks, why don't they get collateral? Do they want to use money for ARM's? You lose, try again, no money for you. It is quite simple.
agentssith 3 years ago
If wealth is "created" then who creates it? The CEOs of the auto-makers are "wealthy" by anyone's standards. Who created their wealth? Did the factory workers have anything to do with the creation of this wealth? Yes. Do they share in the wealth they've created? They share a small percentage, a very small percentage compared to the CEOs. So, what did CEOs do to create this wealth that justifies their grossly disproportianate share? After all, they weren't putting up their own capital as risk.
rsaswest 3 years ago
The workers, collectively, make WAY more than the ONE CEO. Some workers made money for doing very little, others by doing NOTHING!! The workers have requested that their shares of the wealth support those who do not work. The fewer workers the greater the share of the wealth. Benefits are the number ONE cost to any business. The CEO's are wrong for letting it get out of control, the workers wrong for voting it so. This is why they should be allowed to fail and start over from the ground up.
Bassnote 3 years ago
Bassnote, thank you for sharing some common sense.
ElFuego121 3 years ago
what the heck are you thinking? you have some bass-ackwards logic, man.
workers are working collectively to profit. the CEO also works/makes decisions to profit. in all cases, the CEO has done far less work for the company, yet receives phenomenally disproportionate amounts of PERSONAL profit.
yes, his role is more important than an individual worker's. yes, he deserves higher pay. i'll just throw numbers out there and say he deserves 10-15x the pay of the physical laborer.
xgotarox 3 years ago
I 1940 the CEO to worker was 9:1 ratio, in 2005 that ratio had changed to 821:1. The CEO makes more on their first day of work than the average worker makes all year. That was 2005, one could only imagine what it is now, with their creative levering of capital 90:1 in many cases.
louiethegreater 3 years ago
so whats your point
BerPC96 3 years ago
If a board of directors should have the right to higher a ceo for whatever amount they agree upon. Workers are easily substituted while ceos are not. The demand for a ceo is great with low supply. This is simple supply and demand. Obamas regulation of ceo's salaries is a moral regulation, it will eventually cause ineffeciency in those businesses as they will no longer be able to compete with other firms at hiring the best ceo to lead their business
austinf12345 3 years ago