Bill O'Reilly is the most radical person I've ever seen on T.V. or off for that matter. Except my friend Chris. He's nuts! He's like Bill tho. A Radical Republican.
yup us poor people keep ourselves poor, espc black people with all our free welfare and handout our boys dont go to work they join gangs. Dont go to school join gangs and stupid stuff and the cycle wont break until the hand outs stops..
Fuck SEIU and ACORN. They dont do shit except extend the cycle of poverty with free handouts. I was born and raised in the hood. Lakeview 200 Block. Section 8 housing. So I know exactly what I am talking about. All these handouts is whats makin poor people stay poor. U guys are a fuckin joke.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Moron, I have studied history, and economics, and I've been to half the countries we've spoken about. I have an advanced degree in economics, I've lived and worked here and abroad, I've served my nation through service, and I am an entrepreneur. What are your credentials other than being a complete moron and not understanding economics or history? And is it really that hard to make an argument without resorting to cursing? Moron?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Is it hard to make an argument without resorting to personal insults? You started your commenting by referring to union members as 'idiots'--not exactly conducive to a real discussion. I obviously don't have a degree in economics--I don't have a degree in anything, yet--I'm 21 fucking years old. Forgive me for asserting libertarians don't have a monopoly on economics as a discipline. I would never have guessed you had any credentials whatsoever, given the way you've been replying to my posts.
I can only imagine how frustrating this is for you considering you don't understand history, economics, politics, and your reading comprehension is so ridiculous. I didn't refer to union members as idiots, I referred to the idiots in this video as idiots. I understand the motivation for people to try to fleece companies for personal gain. What I dislike is people who misrepresent history or economics or those who argue without logic, like you. Yes, you OBVIOUSLY don't have a degree in economics.
Instead of reading off talking points, why don't you actually earn a degree in economics, or at least a hard science? It is one thing to keep your mouth shut and let people assume you're stupid. It is another to open your mouth and remove all doubt. I didn't say libertarians have a monopoly on economics, only that most economists leaned libertarian, just like most have thrown their support behind Republicans when forced to choose because Republicans had been more free market in the past.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are a dickhead. 31 years old, with an MBA, and you're spending so much time insulting me over a fucking YOUTUBE COMMENT. All you've done is prove to anyone reading these comments that you're an insecure twit who can't brook any criticism of his inane politics. I don't give a shit about your "credentials". You're the real moron....moron. Try actually meeting workers before you attack them for deciding to join a union.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm proud to belong to a flexible discipline, rather than one that dogmatically purports to represent objective 'truth' (which it doesn't, since it's fucking impossible to do so). Being a moron yourself, though, it's highly likely that you're not even aware of the debate concerning 'objectivity' in the academy anyway. My bad.
Looks like you finally were able to do some quality research. Too bad that doesn't extend to the topic at hand. My suggestions still apply, go learn something about life. Take some economics classes, some history classes, and study the effects of "democratic" control over industries. Travel the world. Try talking to people who actually produce something. Try talking to people who actually employ people. I never said I was an expert, I just called out your blatant misrepresentation of history.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Do you even know any insults other than moron? Doesn't your top-notch education afford you anything better? Because apparently a degree in Engineering and an MBA already qualify you as an expert on economic and political theory and history, and the history of economic thought. I'm so impressed, I'm totally unable to reply any further. Good job, twit.
Income inequality, the idiotic rallying cry of the progressive idiots who don't like to use standard of living as a measure. Wages have stagnated because unions and your progressive idiot friends are causing a drag on the economy. You pull down prosperity for all. Moron, if you hurt business, don't you think you might hurt the employees at those businesses? Sort of like how the employees at GM and Chrysler are getting hurt now? Way to go unions! Moron.
The people in these videos are Union idiots. Unions are worthless and outdated. All they do is suck money from people for the high dues. I guarentee you these idiots in this video are 40 dollar an hour wage earners and do nothing but pick their butts all day, like most Union workers. Unions suck!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is a BEAUTIFUL VIDEO!!!
More irrefutable proof that O'Reilly is a clueless pinhead who has NO IDEA how Americans are forced to live. He only talks about how rich conservative businessmen are effected by Left politics. Not actual working-class Americans.
Can any of you new world market economy guys list some jobs that pay over $15 dollars that add to the GDP of the United States? Because we have tens of millions of people that need one.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Oh, you think that any credible group of economists thinks that substantially increasing the cost of labor will do anything but hurt the economy and thus hurt workers. The greatest benefit to the most of the people and sustainability versus substantial benefit to a small subset of the people and an unsustainable economic model. Which would you prefer - ignore your political loyalties.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is no economic consensus on labor unions, actually. It's convenient that the entities which increase workers' bargaining power and allow them to negotiate their conditions result in "artificially increased" labor costs (or 'deadweight loss'). In fact, if the 'market value' thesis were to hold, labor unions should be almost constantly on strike, demanding whatever their employers could afford to pay.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Economics can't be abstracted from politics and/or sociopolitical context--it isn't ever 'objective'. I'm sure you'll reply with something about the infallibility of the market, but I'm done here.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Actually there is a very strong anti-union consensus amongst economists. Entities which negotiate benefits are one thing. Entities which have government backing to force down anti-business policies are another. Have you ever heard of competitive advantage?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Like the minimum wage, there's a large body of scholarship challenging that contention. It could also be argued that employers, not unions, are in a better position to negotiate public policy around their demands. Use of intimidation against pro-union employees is widely documented, and companies regularly work to defeat workers' petitions to organize unions at the NLRB (and often, but not always, win).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
With the prevalence of right-to-work legislation and the low rate of unionization (8% in the private sector), I think your sense of how powerful unions are is also pretty inflated. You also haven't really addressed my other statement about the logical consequences of the 'market value' thesis. There's an anti-union consensus? Just with neoliberal economists like Friedman and his cohorts--you might want to look into the discipline a bit more.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If you think that the unions aren't powerful then explain away the destroyed airline and automobile industries. Explain away the virtual disappearance of 90% of the manufacturing sectors. Explain away the considerable clout of the teachers' union. For every Friedman (who has a very obvious political agenda) there are 100 economists who actually believe in economics.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The disappearance of those sectors involved a tradeoff between personnel costs and transaction costs. Offshore outsourcing is responsible for the job losses, which is also happening in non-unionized labor forces, like Japan's, for instance. It's virtually a "race to the bottom" situation, where the jobs are outsourced to authoritarian, low-wage states (China, Vietnam, etc). I might also add that states like North Carolina, whose manufacturing workforces are also suffering, are largely non-union.
I hate to break this news to you, but the airline and auto industries did not fail because China and Vietnam are producing lower cost vehicles. Isn't it funny that there are auto companies that thrive in the USA? Yes, those are the ones that aren't held hostage by the unions. Sure, they may be "suffering" because of the downturn, but they aren't insolvent and begging for bailout dollars. Unionized companies = Bankruptcy and failure. Non-unionized = Sustainable and viable. Pretty easy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Also, public sector unions (like the teachers') operate within severe restrictions, thanks to legislation you probably jerk off to. Let's make the U.S. more like Indonesia and less like Denmark, that way we can compete with China for the title of "world's largest sweatshop" and finally restore profitability!
Actually, I don't like legislation. Unlike you, I am not going to bow down before any political party. Indonesia and Denmark - two countries which would be horrible models for the USA. There is a reason we are 25% of the world's economy, and that reason isn't because of Unions or squashing the free market. Seriously, before you open your mouth, you should at least read up on the subject matter. Your claims about min wage and unemployment are enough to highlight your ignorance.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
We also lead the 'developed' world in income inequality, infant mortality, the percentage lacking health insurance, homelessness, and incarceration. Before you lecture me on the wonders of the 'free market', maybe you should check the track record of Strucural Adjustment, since it aligns pretty closely with what you've been saying here.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Income inequality is such an absurd notion. It measures the "rich" against the "poor" and does not take into account the welfare of the "poor". A country where the top 1% make $10 a year and the bottom 10% make $5 a year would be seen as having less income inequality than a country where the top 1% make $100 million a year and the bottom 10% make $50,000 a year. Infant mortality is incorrect. Sustainable health insurance is a better measure. Incarceration has little to do with economics.
We also lead the world in productivity and innovation. We bring in the best talent in the world into our university systems and we have the most robust financial system in the world. No country can match our entrepreneurial drive. We have loose labor laws which allow for our companies to compete on a global stage (except when weighed down by selfish unions). I take it from your posts you believe a centrally planned government is better and that all of this is just a nuisance?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
1. incarceration has everything to do with socioeconomics, but being a libertarian, I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
2. Ah, the American exceptionalism. Classic.
3. The red-baiting I've come to expect from libertarians. Excellent. I never implied support for a command economy. But thanks, idiot. The only opposition to your propertarian dogma must come from Communists. Understood.
1. Incarceration is a function of how governments choose to deal with those who break the law. The USA incarcerates 25% of the world population. This is because we penalize much more harshly than the great majority of the world, not because of socioeconomic effects. Perhaps you wanted to draw a parallel between crime and "socioeconomics"? If so, that would have at least partially made sense. But seeing as you are a lemming progressive I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
2. I didn't expect you to ever say the USA has ever done anything right. According to progressives everything the US has ever done is evil and we should all repent. Moronic.
3. Seeing as how you have failed to address or push a sound economic argument since we started I am surprised that you are not a fan of a command economy. You should have paid attention in college -- but when mommy and daddy are paying for it I can understand how you may have lost your motivation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Comments like these cement my fundamental belief that the right is filled with anti-intellectual morons. You have no real aguments, but instead repeat the same tired (and unsupported) dogma in the hopes that someone might listen and agree. Just like O'Reilly in this video, your comments are full of useless red-baiting and half-formed, facile arguments. I don't accept your framing (namely that the 'free market' = 'freedom'), therefore, I will probably never agree. Fuck libertarianism.
I'm not of the right you idiot. Libertarians don't align themselves with the right, but since you don't understand Libertarianism I can understand how you fail to distinguish between the two. Who is the anti-intellectual moron? Wait, again, tell me the relationships between minimum wage and unemployment, haha. I encourage you to try to poke a hole in anything I said. What tired dogma have I spewed? You are an uneducated imp. You don't understand economics or the free market. What a joke.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Here comes the part where you repeatedly assert I don't 'understand' economics. Oh wait, all economists are libertarian twits like you--of course I don't. If you hate unions so much, you should move to China where independent unions are practically non-existent. You can live out your own, personal capitalist fantasy there--see how it pans out.
Or move to Dubai, where you'll be completely at the mercy of your employer. It would most likely be like a dream come true for you. Give it a shot!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Maybe you should read something other than the Cato Institute, then you'd realize not everyone sympathizes with losertarian bullshit like yours. Join the real world. Libertarianism is discredited dogma. Mises and Hayek are dead. Get over it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Maybe you should read something about economics? Only a complete moron would assert that unions don't create inefficiency or that minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment and the cost of labor. Keynes is dead too, moron.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If you can name more than ONE university with a significant Austrian presence, you can imply parity between Hayek, Mises, and Keynes. But you can't. Case closed.
How about the University of Chicago, moron? Only the most renowned school of economics in the world. Wow, what a moron. I guess your wikipedia-based arguments aren't quite holding up here, are they? What a moron.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Also, is it the University of Chicago whose faculty and students protested after the administration decided to name a building after Friedman? Looks like things have changed since its days of training Pinochet's economists.
Moron, you are a tool. Chicago students and faculty may have protested, but not the Chicago ECONOMICS department. Once again, you prove yourself and idiot and a moron.
Dude, you are a freaking moron. You question if Chicago is the most renowned school of economics? Do you know ANYTHING about economics? Seriously? What a joke. You never heard of the Chicago School and you act like you know anything? Moron.
Of course I've heard of the Chicago School, idiot. I was questioning the assertion that it's the 'most renowned' school of economics. Given that I just left a comment about the school's past, it would seem that I *might* have heard of it.
Apparently you haven't, moron, because you referred to it as the University of Chicago, moron/idiot. The Chicago School is an economic belief system that was so named because it came out of the University of Chicago, moron/idiot. It is the most renowned school too you idiot. If you knew anything about economics you would realize this, moron.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The London and Cambridge schools are far ahead of Chicago. Also, on U.S. rankings, it's exceeded by Harvard, MIT, and Princeton--which wasn't the question anyway, but given your dubious record with reading comp, I'll let that pass. The question was--which faculty are Austrians--i.e., which subscribe to the Austrian business cycle? Or do they exist solely in your imagination, like most of the claims you've made here?
Again, you show your supreme ignorance. By saying London and Cambridge schools you reiterate my point that you don't know what the Chicago School is. It is not an actual school, moron. Also, on the US Rankings it is tied with Harvard, MIT and Princeton, which ranks it solely based on the opinion of deans at other schools and they all got a score of 5.0. Moron can't read a simple ranking either - surprise surprise. Reading comprehension? Haha. MORON! Why don't you do a simple wikipedia search?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Is it the same Chicago School whose policies were implemented under the dictatorship in Chile--resulting in a near-doubling of the poverty rate and a steep rise in unemployment? That one?
Chile, the shining bright spot in South America? The one that actually built up a 25% GDP surplus over the past 5 years? Chile, the one with the lowest unemployment and greatest improvement in living standards in the past 25 years? Perhaps you are too dense to realize that economic policy and political influence are not one and the same, genius. The Chicago School influence the economic actions in Chile, not the Coup or the political activities. Reading comprehension? Moron.
The policies would never have been in place if the coup hadn't happened. But I'm glad you think it's a good idea to overthrow a democratically elected government, install a military junta, and put in place whatever economic policies you like, without the consent of the public. Chicago economists (and Friedman himself) advised the Pinochet regime. They could've refused to aid the dictatorship, but chose not to.
Once again, you are too dense to distinguish between politics and economics. The point is not the coup, the point is the economics. Friedman and others advised the government on how to institute a free market system which would ultimately maximize the freedom of the people of Chile. Friedman NEVER supporter a military coup, and if you knew anything about history you would realize this. I love your revisionist history - what a joke. And the economics worked, whether you like Chile or not.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Keep telling yourself the Pinochet period was one of "prosperity". That's why hundreds of thousands of Chileans opposed plans to erect a monument to the junta. Who's the real "revisionist"? Do you even know what that word means? Friedman advised the military regime, thus granting it political legitimacy, so your comment is ridiculous.
You need to be able to be able to distinguish between the political leader and the economic philosophy. You keep hounding on Pinochet, but the economics did not lead Pinochet to commit crimes. It was simply that after the fact he implemented a sane economic program which has richly rewarded Chile, just as it did for the US, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Ireland, etc. Bad leaders don't make for bad economics. Your logic is off. It is your comment that is ridiculous. Try a little logic testing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's funny that, for the most part, your "miracle" stories exclude the vast majority of Structural Adjustment countries in Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere whose experiments in deregulation, privatization, and liberalization ended in decisive failure. Can you explain that discrepancy?
Perhaps that is because the countries in Africa, Latin America, and "elsewhere" didn't embrace free market principles. Libertarians don't advocate billions of dollars in aid to these countries. Perhaps you missed that in your talking points of how evil Libertarians act? Moron.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Classic libertarian bullshit. "The market wasn't free enough!" Of course, that's it. You should actually learn something about those cases first, before disputing them (and, as usual, it's clear you haven't). Clearly free market fundamentalism precedes actually studying the economic policies implemented in those countries, and the conditions involved.
No it is not you moron. If you look at any sort of economic freedom index (look it up genius - although it didn't get you very far up to this point) you will see that historically the Latin American and African nations have lagged severely behind the rest of the world. But what are facts to someone like you? Moron.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I didn't ask about the EFI, I asked you specifically about Structural Adjustment. Maybe the reason your free market policies haven't been more fully implemented is because they caused widespread suffering when they were beginning to be. Food subsidies in Indonesia are a great example. Financial liberalization in Ethiopia is another (both during the 1990's, btw). Do you even know what Structural Adjustment was?
Dude, you are a freaking moron. Do you think that libertarians support Structural Adjustment? They might support the requirements that the IMF or World Bank puts on countries to receive funds, but they most certainly don't approve of the IMF or World Bank doling out money. Once again you show your supreme ignorance and lack of ability in parsing out relevant versus flawed parts of an argument. Food subsidies are ANTI-LIBERTARIAN, moron. You are a moron, you really are.
Well if the subsidies were ABOLISHED then it was a good move, moron. Clearly you have no understanding of subsidies. Are you arguing that they are a good thing? Apparently you really haven't EVER taken an economics course. Even the most liberal economists will readily admit that subsidies distort the market, increase the cost of goods, and drag on an economy. The ONLY argument for subsidies are to protect an industry until it can catch up. Moron.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So what? They "distort" the market. They also allowed people to eat, which I suppose is a horrible crime if it doesn't fit into your picture of free-market equilibrium somehow. It's not surprising that abolishing the food subsidies/price controls resulted in rioting across Indonesia, since food prices rose significantly afterward, while real income didn't.
They don't allow people to eat, moron. The subsidies are not meant to keep prices low, they are meant to funnel money to the corporate farmers. If we got rid of the subsidies the prices of agriculture would drop like a rock, allowing more to eat. Agriculture subsidies are what keep hundreds of millions hungry, moron. You really are a moron, you don't even understand the main argument FOR agricultural subsidies (to keep farmers employed). Too bad you are too stupid to realize any of this. Moron.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You enjoy using the word "moron". Got it. Your argument wasn't the case in Indonesia, or Mozambique, when subsidies were slashed or abolished and food prices decontrolled. But I wouldn't expect you to agree, since according to libertarians, removing trade barriers can ONLY result in greater "freedom" (downplaying the enormous suffering and social instability involved). It must be nice to have arguments already prepared before reviewing things on a case-by-case basis.
Moron, why do governments implement trade barriers or subsidies? It is to lock out better quality cheaper products from coming into the market. So to support them means that you support making all the people in society pay more for goods and services (and further fund that by taking money away from the productive). Who do you think gets hurt the most when they pay $5 for a pound of sugar when it should really cost only 95 cents? It is the poor, moron. The suffering is increased, moron.
@abuehler97: I have to admit I've enjoyed reading your incredibly facile replies from a year ago. How are you enjoying the new financial reform legislation? Does it merit comparisons to slavery yet?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan all rested heavily on state intervention, including subsidies and import substitution, to industrialize (not to mention, in SK's case, huge influxes of aid from the US). Hong Kong is the only case that readily comes to mind where the austere free market policies you advocate were implemented with any degree of success. The others you mentioned involved a mix of liberalization and protection, not just the former.
Go look up the historical rankings of the economic freedom index, moron. Go see where Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan fall out compared to the nations of Africa and Latin America. You are either really stupid or just really politically motivated (and stupid). Seriously, I feel like I am talking to a 12 year old boy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The EFI measures primarily trade barriers, not areas like social spending (Sweden is also highly ranked, but would probably be considered "socialist" by someone like you). I prefer the Human Development Index, personally.
The Human Development Index doesn't measure economic policy, moron. I'm surprised you don't prefer the infant mortality rate or the carbon footprint measure. But the EFI does not measure primarily trade barriers either, moron. It measures Business Freedom*, Trade Freedom, Monetary Freedom*, Government Size*, Fiscal Freedom*, Property Rights*, Investment Freedom*,
Financial Freedom*, Freedom from Corruption*, and Labor Freedom*.
The stars are the ones that DON'T measure trade barriers, MORON.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm a 12 year old boy? Well, no one's forcing you to keep replying, but you must feel like you have to, since you keep crowding up the comments section with your idiotic responses.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why don't you check the economic statistics for the early 1980's, when the Chicago Boys' policies were in full swing? Economic policy and political influence are closely related, but I wouldn't expect a libertarian moron to be able to see that connection. How do you think the policies were able to be implemented in the first place?
You should really stop while you're behind. The economic statistics for the early 80s? Do you mean when people moved away from Keynesian economic policies and created the greatest 25 year period of economic growth in American history? Do you really plan to blame the early 80s on the office holder as opposed to those who created the problem? I guess Margaret Thatcher also created the troubles in England? And by that logic, you blame fully Barrack Obama for the current economic crisis? Moron? Ha!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I would really like to know something: why is it that anti-labor goons like you love to come to union YouTube videos and leave shitty comments insulting those who've joined them? Do you know anything whatsoever about the history of the labor movement? I'd really like to know why libertarians start frothing at the mouth when workers don't support their free market dogma. I mean, does it really come as a surprise?
I'm not an anti-labor goon, moron. I am a pro-prosperity goon. I want everyone in society to benefit to the maximum and therefor I am against Unions which degrade the prosperity of all. Labor movements had their place in the past when they weren't corrupt organizations meant to benefit politicians at the expense of the employees. Today labor unions have destroyed our manufacturing industries and our education system. Preventing indentured servitude is a thing of the past, moron.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Of course, business isn't corrupt at all. There's no relationship between big business and the political establishment whatsoever, just labor unions, which serve no legitimate function now that the contradictions between labor and capital have been fully resolved. Oh wait, that never happened. I recommend a history course.
Of course there is a relationship between big business and the political establishment. The problem with partisan idiots like you is that you support such relationships. For example, who supports the penitentiary industry, the pharma industry, the defense industry? Guess what genius, it isn't libertarians. Two wrongs don't make a right. You are the one who needs to take a history course moron. I suggest you start with an economic history course, moron.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You apparently need to learn the different between theoretical abstractions and actually-existing capitalism...and join the real world. Check the record of Structural Adjustment Programs and "shock therapy", and then lecture me on the wonders of your free market dogma.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
We are never going to agree, so I'm finally stopping this fruitless "discussion". I am sorry I insulted you, but I was seriously offended by your first comment. You have your reasons for opposing unions, I have mine for supporting them.
Offended by what comment? That unions have much more of a negative effect than a positive effect on society? The only reason to support unions these days is to support a transfer of wealth from the productive to the non-productive. People choose not to join unions because they are intelligent enough to realize that the union leaders don't have the workers' interests in mind. If they did, they wouldn't have destroyed the auto industry. I'm not against unions per se, just against idiots.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Libertarians were too busy jerking off to the fact that private markets emerged in those sectors, whereas I argue they should be under democratic control, as public goods. You, in contrast, think they should all be commodities available to the highest bidder.
Wow, that is intelligent, let's use the "jerking off" line again. I'm glad you can have an intelligent debate. Let's think about the sectors under "democratic control". Public education, failure. Utilities, failure. Airlines, failure until they deregulated. Agriculture, failure. And you want to give the idiot bureaucrats even more control? There's a reason why people work for the government - it is because they are too inept to work in a competitive field.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There's a difference between bureaucracy and "democratic control", but it's one I'm not going to bother explaining, since it's clearly a waste of time.
"Democratic control"? Are you kidding me? So who is going to control the industry? Are you going to have a bunch of referendums? This is one of the most idiotic statements you've made, and you've made many. Sorry to bother you with facts, history, economics, and logic. Go back to your SEIU talking points.
Your point about the Cato Institute is stupid. Most Americans have no idea what the Cato Institute is because they are overly focused on what Brad Pitt or Michelle Obama are wearing. Idiots tend not to know anything about Libertarian principles.
You think there is a large body of scholarship that supports the minimum wage? May I ask if you have ever studied economics or know any economists? Minimum wage benefits the very few that actually have jobs that must be filled whose value and productivity don't demand "minimum wage". But what you seem to ignore, which economists do not, is the cost of doing so - more unemployment, a distortion of incentives, increased cost of labor, and increased costs of goods. Not much debate there.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Economists are evenly divided on the minimum wage. Some agree with what you've stated, a large number do not, and argue there is no correlation between unemployment and the minimum wage. Most U.S. economists are Neo-Keynesian. If your argument were the case, economists wouldn't by and large vote for the Democratic Party every election cycle.
Such an absurd statement. They are NOT evenly divided on min wage. In fact, they are almost universally in agreement that min wage is a bad thing, and they all agree it increases inflation, unemployment, costs of goods, & makes companies less competitive with foreign competition. The fact that you think there is no correlation between unemployment and min wage shows that you really do not know anything about the topic. There is a direct correlation. Economists most often support Republicans.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Okay, whatever you say. Economics as a discipline fully backs your right-wing dogma. All economists agree that unions are terrible. Stiglitz, Krugman, and all the others who've publicly commented on the crisis disputing your conclusions don't exist. BTW, I was responding to your 'manufacturing' comment, not airlines.
Calm down, economists largely back Republicans in national elections because they have long been the party that preached free markets and fiscal restraint.
BTW, I'm not a Republican, I am a libertarian. In fact, most economists are actually more in line with Libertarians than either the corrupt Democrat or corrupt Republican parties. So feel free to attack Republicans all you want, I just wanted to be sure to address the absurd comment that economists tend to back democrats.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Again, this isn't the case. Most economists don't back the Republicans, because most economists are Neo-Keynesian, not monetarist or (even worse, and discredited) Austrian. You can check recent polling in economics journals like the Public Choice Journal. 63% of economists side with the Democrats.
You are dead wrong. Time and time again when given the choice of a Republican and a Democratic candidate Economists typically side with the Republican candidate. Even in economic downturns when many agree that government spending is a necessary stimulant, they still tend to lean toward the Republicans. Why don't you pull multiple surveys, not just the ones backed by liberal organizations? You are quite clearly grossly ignorant on economics and matters related to such.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
PCJ is not a liberal organization, but in any case, I'm done arguing. It's also pretty childish that you keep voting down my comments, but it's what I've come to expect from internet libertarians.
Reading comprehension is a problem for you, isn't it? I never claimed that "'all' sound economics supports the Republican Party". Did you just make that up for giggles? You are a moron.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You did claim that all economists oppose the minimum wage and unionization, both of which are standard Democratic policies. You're the one making batshit insane claims; I asserted that a clear 'consensus' does not exist. Maybe you should be the one reviewing reading comprehension.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well, congratulations on being a member of an irrelevant, dogmatically purist sect which beats out even the Republicans in their commitment to fanatical, practically theological devotion to the 'free market'.
Clearly you don't even know what libertarianism stands for. But what should I expect from someone with questionable reading comprehension skills, someone who apparently hasn't even taken a introductory macro course, and who needs to resort to personal attacks when your logic is inside out.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Actually, I probably know more about it that you do, and still maintain that it's complete and utter horseshit. A macro course? Are those the credentials on which your bulletproof 'you don't understand econ' bullshit is premised?
Actually, you don't. You've proven that you haven't even taken an introductory economics course. If you did you would understand little things like supply and demand, competitive advantage, money supply, incentives, and the relationship between artificial price controls, subsidies, costs of goods and labor and unemployment.
And why do you always have to curse or attack me in your arguments? Are you that insecure in your positions?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I actually know what all of those are, but I'm glad you can define them, too. I don't care about "efficiency" as much as you do--I actually care about reversing the trend toward income inequality and wage stagnation. I'd also like to ask: if unions are really causing "deadweight loss", why have wages stagnated over the past 30 years, while productivity has more than tripled?
What is more, anybody who, right off the bat, calls his/her interlocutor (like me, for example) an "idiot" without even bothering to engage in discussion or debate has lost all moral authority to say that they are "not interested in just throwing insults back and forth" - or wouldn't you agree?
I will always prefer a commentator who takes the trouble to back up his arguments with factual data, rather than visceral, trite, baseless and hate-filled outbursts.
Kzargentina - Interesting, we apparently do have some common ground after all. I will certainly agree with you . . I dont like commentators that dont back up their arguments with factual data and spew visceral, trite, baseless and hate-filled outbursts. Thats why I dont listen to Olbermann, Mathews, Maddow, Colmes and a bunch of other left-wing, liberal commentators and journalistic talking heads. Seems we both agree on the problem, our disagreement is about whom is responsible for it.
she dont look hungry!unions were started by the MAFIA.i've been abrother in 2 different unions,and waste and cronyism is what they are about.can you say extortion,can you say pay to work,what about entrenched brother in laws that couldnt work anywhere else.can you say 99% democrat political front groups
B.O.'R is the walking, talking voice of ignorance , like Rush Limbaugh. These people he makes fun of are the kind of people on whose backs America was built - not selfish, racist, greedy, closed-minded people like him and and Limbaugh - and the Bush Administration, that sent this country into the worst economic nightmare in its history.
kzargentina - you along with the idiots in this video are just plain stupid - do you think the man (O'reilly) got the position he has because it just magically appeared one day? No, I think not. He worked for it. This cut and paste garbage video just shows a bunch of whiners and criers bitching because no one will hand them all the "goodies" they think they "deserve" because they breathe air and take up space. Get off your butts - you want more - do more - no one owes you a living! Earn it!
Who said anybody "owed" me or the people in this video a living? Not me or them. This man can't back up what he says with facts. Keith Olbermann is a hundred times better than him, and that's putting it lightly. GJackson: Bush lost. Obama won. The majority of the USA is liberal. Liberal.
Kzargentina - It's obvious that you and I have opinions that are total opposites and therefore we have NO common ground for discussion and I am not interested in just throwing insults back and forth. My opinion of Olbermann is just as negative as yours is towards O'reilly. Yes, Obama won . . . it's too bad that America lost.
LOL! These insane Christofascist Republinazis hate everything the United States stands for. Why don't these traitors and heofascosts pack up and move some place more in keeping with their hate, bigotry, and Christian extremism? Some place like Iran.
I'm in a union. But I don't side with SEIU. they want it to where unkilled and untrained workers, legal or illegal get payed as much as skilled and trained workers do.
Also the SEIU covers; nurses, LPNs, doctors,lab technicians,nursing home workers,and home care workers, building cleaning and security industries, including janitors,security officers, superintendents,maintenance workers, window cleaners,and doormen and women, public school employees,bus drivers,and child care providers.
i dont think socialized healthcare will really work in america where most people are just fat and lazy but here in sweden thats one good thing i enjoy.
You are discussing unions in the abstract, but it doesn't hold up to reality. Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark are heavily unionized nations (and socialist democracies). They have a higher standard of living and quality of life than "capaitalist" nations like the US (check out their GNPs per capita).
Having lived in both systems, I can tell you neither is perfect, but socialist democracies "work" better--no doubt. Quality of life is higher, and they have a much larger middle class.
Bill is an entertainer. He is not a professional journalist. His rich boss Rupert Murdock protects him. He should have been fired when his young female producer sued him and won her sex discrimination case against him. Bill wrote, " I want to rub your naked body with a falafel. The idiot meant to write loofa, which is an oriental sponge. He is a low life with no moral authority.
"Come to Chicago" PLEASE!!!!!! You have to be kidding me, why would anyone want to do that? You have a bunch of thugs who didn't have their parents read to them and who now shoot each other because their pants hang lower than the next idiot! Maybe he could join the rest of the tribe in Chicago and rape girls in the alley because they have a few minutes off from selling drugs to kids on the street corner. Maybe he could go to the clinic and kill a few babies with ya, how's that sound? IDIOTS
We are moving to Socialism, they always fail....you want to know what is next? Communism, that is the only way to deal with a bunch of "entitled" people who have learned to depend on the Government for everything! If you would have done what you were told when you were younger, got an education, got a good job, saved for retirenment, you wouldn't be bitching about wanting handouts! Taxing businesses 50% will not get everyone on an equal page...we will all suffer and become pathetic! Grow up!
Socialism is the next step in the evolution of economics. In our current system, the natural order is for companies to snowball into monopolies. Then the government will step in and slap them with a bunch of fines and regulations until the next successive company takes over that sector. Big business rules America and most of us are blind to the effects of this.
WOW, you people really think that you stand for something? Unions had there time and place, now they are not needed any longer! They are putting a stranglehold on American business! You have people that can't clean up their own messes because they have to wait an hour for a "laborer" to come and do it.....not productive! They are paying people $37 hour to push a button on an elevator...I've seen it!! They system needs to chance to save America! Get a job, get paid what your worth, easy!!!!
You people have to realize that not everyone is equal. Socialism about had our country almost killed off in the 1760s when we first settled here. Are you going to trust joe blow to stock up your walnuts in the winter. NEEDY people will always want more, first part of inslavery, so keep paying your morgages, and other loans. Slavery never ended, rich just made it more deceptive. America is turning fag
In 1900 there were no unions; the average worker put in 84 hours a week and lived on $500 a year. Mine safety, factory safety--almost non-existent. Factory owners even said laws against child labor were going to hurt capitalism.
Bill O'Reilly is a tool of the Establishment; a shill for millionaires and fat cats.
Also have you thought about the 40 million illegal immigrants whose healthcare would be payed for by taxpayers? Don't act like it wouldn't and don't dodge this issue. We know the democrat party panders to them and all minorities for votes. Do you want to add even more incentive for all of central america to sneak into the US?
Well heres where we agree. I dont think that somebody here illegally should benefit from any service of government that legal tax paying citizens have payed for. To say that this will happen as a "given" is just conjecture however.
This has been flagged as spam show
OCCUPY WALL STREET
occupytheworld22 2 months ago
Bill O'Reilly is the most radical person I've ever seen on T.V. or off for that matter. Except my friend Chris. He's nuts! He's like Bill tho. A Radical Republican.
shawnabgoode 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Coercive unions are criminal, and people that solicit/aid and abet/initiate them should be charged as such.
Morgan Reynolds, Power and Privilege: Labor Unions in America
misesDOTorgFSresourcesFS4962
qwertypoiu4321 11 months ago
Radical Anti- Capitalist= Which means your are against companys
and making money
wtf0804 1 year ago
Comment removed
niriafanorev 1 year ago
I have never agreed with Bill O'Reilly, but i agree with him on this one.
Midnightpitbull2 1 year ago
Stupid hillbillies and token Negro. Overpaid, lazy slobs, lucky to work at McDonalds.
FrankeeFraud 1 year ago
yup us poor people keep ourselves poor, espc black people with all our free welfare and handout our boys dont go to work they join gangs. Dont go to school join gangs and stupid stuff and the cycle wont break until the hand outs stops..
xskydenx 1 year ago
Comment removed
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Fuck SEIU and ACORN. They dont do shit except extend the cycle of poverty with free handouts. I was born and raised in the hood. Lakeview 200 Block. Section 8 housing. So I know exactly what I am talking about. All these handouts is whats makin poor people stay poor. U guys are a fuckin joke.
ITZDAMOBB 2 years ago
Niriafanorev, you should actually try to know what you are talking about before talking about it.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You should try studying history first, fucking Friedmanite trash.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Moron, I have studied history, and economics, and I've been to half the countries we've spoken about. I have an advanced degree in economics, I've lived and worked here and abroad, I've served my nation through service, and I am an entrepreneur. What are your credentials other than being a complete moron and not understanding economics or history? And is it really that hard to make an argument without resorting to cursing? Moron?
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Is it hard to make an argument without resorting to personal insults? You started your commenting by referring to union members as 'idiots'--not exactly conducive to a real discussion. I obviously don't have a degree in economics--I don't have a degree in anything, yet--I'm 21 fucking years old. Forgive me for asserting libertarians don't have a monopoly on economics as a discipline. I would never have guessed you had any credentials whatsoever, given the way you've been replying to my posts.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
I can only imagine how frustrating this is for you considering you don't understand history, economics, politics, and your reading comprehension is so ridiculous. I didn't refer to union members as idiots, I referred to the idiots in this video as idiots. I understand the motivation for people to try to fleece companies for personal gain. What I dislike is people who misrepresent history or economics or those who argue without logic, like you. Yes, you OBVIOUSLY don't have a degree in economics.
abuehler97 2 years ago
Instead of reading off talking points, why don't you actually earn a degree in economics, or at least a hard science? It is one thing to keep your mouth shut and let people assume you're stupid. It is another to open your mouth and remove all doubt. I didn't say libertarians have a monopoly on economics, only that most economists leaned libertarian, just like most have thrown their support behind Republicans when forced to choose because Republicans had been more free market in the past.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are a dickhead. 31 years old, with an MBA, and you're spending so much time insulting me over a fucking YOUTUBE COMMENT. All you've done is prove to anyone reading these comments that you're an insecure twit who can't brook any criticism of his inane politics. I don't give a shit about your "credentials". You're the real moron....moron. Try actually meeting workers before you attack them for deciding to join a union.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm proud to belong to a flexible discipline, rather than one that dogmatically purports to represent objective 'truth' (which it doesn't, since it's fucking impossible to do so). Being a moron yourself, though, it's highly likely that you're not even aware of the debate concerning 'objectivity' in the academy anyway. My bad.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Looks like you finally were able to do some quality research. Too bad that doesn't extend to the topic at hand. My suggestions still apply, go learn something about life. Take some economics classes, some history classes, and study the effects of "democratic" control over industries. Travel the world. Try talking to people who actually produce something. Try talking to people who actually employ people. I never said I was an expert, I just called out your blatant misrepresentation of history.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do you even know any insults other than moron? Doesn't your top-notch education afford you anything better? Because apparently a degree in Engineering and an MBA already qualify you as an expert on economic and political theory and history, and the history of economic thought. I'm so impressed, I'm totally unable to reply any further. Good job, twit.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Income inequality, the idiotic rallying cry of the progressive idiots who don't like to use standard of living as a measure. Wages have stagnated because unions and your progressive idiot friends are causing a drag on the economy. You pull down prosperity for all. Moron, if you hurt business, don't you think you might hurt the employees at those businesses? Sort of like how the employees at GM and Chrysler are getting hurt now? Way to go unions! Moron.
abuehler97 2 years ago
The people in these videos are Union idiots. Unions are worthless and outdated. All they do is suck money from people for the high dues. I guarentee you these idiots in this video are 40 dollar an hour wage earners and do nothing but pick their butts all day, like most Union workers. Unions suck!
cam1126 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is a BEAUTIFUL VIDEO!!!
More irrefutable proof that O'Reilly is a clueless pinhead who has NO IDEA how Americans are forced to live. He only talks about how rich conservative businessmen are effected by Left politics. Not actual working-class Americans.
justaguyfriend 2 years ago
Can any of you new world market economy guys list some jobs that pay over $15 dollars that add to the GDP of the United States? Because we have tens of millions of people that need one.
FluxCapacitor2008 2 years ago
I love the "Inside Edition" clip at the end. Very fitting.
"I can't do it." LOL
tommyers 2 years ago 3
SEIU is a joke.
unskilled, untrained and uneducated pond scum.
wastedbandwidth 2 years ago
everything is always "far left" or "radical left"
i love the satire under their names though
mcalien24 2 years ago
Fuck the rich. You broke ass lames who support republicans are racist pawns. They don't give a shit about you. Drones. Sheeple.
BigBriggsFan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Too bad none of these idiots understand ECONOMICS.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You're right, only "free market" tools like you understand economics.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh, you think that any credible group of economists thinks that substantially increasing the cost of labor will do anything but hurt the economy and thus hurt workers. The greatest benefit to the most of the people and sustainability versus substantial benefit to a small subset of the people and an unsustainable economic model. Which would you prefer - ignore your political loyalties.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is no economic consensus on labor unions, actually. It's convenient that the entities which increase workers' bargaining power and allow them to negotiate their conditions result in "artificially increased" labor costs (or 'deadweight loss'). In fact, if the 'market value' thesis were to hold, labor unions should be almost constantly on strike, demanding whatever their employers could afford to pay.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Economics can't be abstracted from politics and/or sociopolitical context--it isn't ever 'objective'. I'm sure you'll reply with something about the infallibility of the market, but I'm done here.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Comment removed
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Actually there is a very strong anti-union consensus amongst economists. Entities which negotiate benefits are one thing. Entities which have government backing to force down anti-business policies are another. Have you ever heard of competitive advantage?
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Like the minimum wage, there's a large body of scholarship challenging that contention. It could also be argued that employers, not unions, are in a better position to negotiate public policy around their demands. Use of intimidation against pro-union employees is widely documented, and companies regularly work to defeat workers' petitions to organize unions at the NLRB (and often, but not always, win).
niriafanorev 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
With the prevalence of right-to-work legislation and the low rate of unionization (8% in the private sector), I think your sense of how powerful unions are is also pretty inflated. You also haven't really addressed my other statement about the logical consequences of the 'market value' thesis. There's an anti-union consensus? Just with neoliberal economists like Friedman and his cohorts--you might want to look into the discipline a bit more.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If you think that the unions aren't powerful then explain away the destroyed airline and automobile industries. Explain away the virtual disappearance of 90% of the manufacturing sectors. Explain away the considerable clout of the teachers' union. For every Friedman (who has a very obvious political agenda) there are 100 economists who actually believe in economics.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The disappearance of those sectors involved a tradeoff between personnel costs and transaction costs. Offshore outsourcing is responsible for the job losses, which is also happening in non-unionized labor forces, like Japan's, for instance. It's virtually a "race to the bottom" situation, where the jobs are outsourced to authoritarian, low-wage states (China, Vietnam, etc). I might also add that states like North Carolina, whose manufacturing workforces are also suffering, are largely non-union.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
I hate to break this news to you, but the airline and auto industries did not fail because China and Vietnam are producing lower cost vehicles. Isn't it funny that there are auto companies that thrive in the USA? Yes, those are the ones that aren't held hostage by the unions. Sure, they may be "suffering" because of the downturn, but they aren't insolvent and begging for bailout dollars. Unionized companies = Bankruptcy and failure. Non-unionized = Sustainable and viable. Pretty easy.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Also, public sector unions (like the teachers') operate within severe restrictions, thanks to legislation you probably jerk off to. Let's make the U.S. more like Indonesia and less like Denmark, that way we can compete with China for the title of "world's largest sweatshop" and finally restore profitability!
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Actually, I don't like legislation. Unlike you, I am not going to bow down before any political party. Indonesia and Denmark - two countries which would be horrible models for the USA. There is a reason we are 25% of the world's economy, and that reason isn't because of Unions or squashing the free market. Seriously, before you open your mouth, you should at least read up on the subject matter. Your claims about min wage and unemployment are enough to highlight your ignorance.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
We also lead the 'developed' world in income inequality, infant mortality, the percentage lacking health insurance, homelessness, and incarceration. Before you lecture me on the wonders of the 'free market', maybe you should check the track record of Strucural Adjustment, since it aligns pretty closely with what you've been saying here.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Income inequality is such an absurd notion. It measures the "rich" against the "poor" and does not take into account the welfare of the "poor". A country where the top 1% make $10 a year and the bottom 10% make $5 a year would be seen as having less income inequality than a country where the top 1% make $100 million a year and the bottom 10% make $50,000 a year. Infant mortality is incorrect. Sustainable health insurance is a better measure. Incarceration has little to do with economics.
abuehler97 2 years ago
We also lead the world in productivity and innovation. We bring in the best talent in the world into our university systems and we have the most robust financial system in the world. No country can match our entrepreneurial drive. We have loose labor laws which allow for our companies to compete on a global stage (except when weighed down by selfish unions). I take it from your posts you believe a centrally planned government is better and that all of this is just a nuisance?
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1. incarceration has everything to do with socioeconomics, but being a libertarian, I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
2. Ah, the American exceptionalism. Classic.
3. The red-baiting I've come to expect from libertarians. Excellent. I never implied support for a command economy. But thanks, idiot. The only opposition to your propertarian dogma must come from Communists. Understood.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Wrong.
1. Incarceration is a function of how governments choose to deal with those who break the law. The USA incarcerates 25% of the world population. This is because we penalize much more harshly than the great majority of the world, not because of socioeconomic effects. Perhaps you wanted to draw a parallel between crime and "socioeconomics"? If so, that would have at least partially made sense. But seeing as you are a lemming progressive I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
abuehler97 2 years ago
2. I didn't expect you to ever say the USA has ever done anything right. According to progressives everything the US has ever done is evil and we should all repent. Moronic.
3. Seeing as how you have failed to address or push a sound economic argument since we started I am surprised that you are not a fan of a command economy. You should have paid attention in college -- but when mommy and daddy are paying for it I can understand how you may have lost your motivation.
Moron.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Comments like these cement my fundamental belief that the right is filled with anti-intellectual morons. You have no real aguments, but instead repeat the same tired (and unsupported) dogma in the hopes that someone might listen and agree. Just like O'Reilly in this video, your comments are full of useless red-baiting and half-formed, facile arguments. I don't accept your framing (namely that the 'free market' = 'freedom'), therefore, I will probably never agree. Fuck libertarianism.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
I'm not of the right you idiot. Libertarians don't align themselves with the right, but since you don't understand Libertarianism I can understand how you fail to distinguish between the two. Who is the anti-intellectual moron? Wait, again, tell me the relationships between minimum wage and unemployment, haha. I encourage you to try to poke a hole in anything I said. What tired dogma have I spewed? You are an uneducated imp. You don't understand economics or the free market. What a joke.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Here comes the part where you repeatedly assert I don't 'understand' economics. Oh wait, all economists are libertarian twits like you--of course I don't. If you hate unions so much, you should move to China where independent unions are practically non-existent. You can live out your own, personal capitalist fantasy there--see how it pans out.
Or move to Dubai, where you'll be completely at the mercy of your employer. It would most likely be like a dream come true for you. Give it a shot!
niriafanorev 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Maybe you should read something other than the Cato Institute, then you'd realize not everyone sympathizes with losertarian bullshit like yours. Join the real world. Libertarianism is discredited dogma. Mises and Hayek are dead. Get over it.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Maybe you should read something about economics? Only a complete moron would assert that unions don't create inefficiency or that minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment and the cost of labor. Keynes is dead too, moron.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If you can name more than ONE university with a significant Austrian presence, you can imply parity between Hayek, Mises, and Keynes. But you can't. Case closed.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
How about the University of Chicago, moron? Only the most renowned school of economics in the world. Wow, what a moron. I guess your wikipedia-based arguments aren't quite holding up here, are they? What a moron.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol, the University of Chicago is the 'most renowned' school of economics? Okay, sure. Please: which of the faculty are Austrians? I'd love to know.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Also, is it the University of Chicago whose faculty and students protested after the administration decided to name a building after Friedman? Looks like things have changed since its days of training Pinochet's economists.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Moron, you are a tool. Chicago students and faculty may have protested, but not the Chicago ECONOMICS department. Once again, you prove yourself and idiot and a moron.
abuehler97 2 years ago
Dude, you are a freaking moron. You question if Chicago is the most renowned school of economics? Do you know ANYTHING about economics? Seriously? What a joke. You never heard of the Chicago School and you act like you know anything? Moron.
abuehler97 2 years ago
Of course I've heard of the Chicago School, idiot. I was questioning the assertion that it's the 'most renowned' school of economics. Given that I just left a comment about the school's past, it would seem that I *might* have heard of it.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Apparently you haven't, moron, because you referred to it as the University of Chicago, moron/idiot. The Chicago School is an economic belief system that was so named because it came out of the University of Chicago, moron/idiot. It is the most renowned school too you idiot. If you knew anything about economics you would realize this, moron.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The London and Cambridge schools are far ahead of Chicago. Also, on U.S. rankings, it's exceeded by Harvard, MIT, and Princeton--which wasn't the question anyway, but given your dubious record with reading comp, I'll let that pass. The question was--which faculty are Austrians--i.e., which subscribe to the Austrian business cycle? Or do they exist solely in your imagination, like most of the claims you've made here?
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Again, you show your supreme ignorance. By saying London and Cambridge schools you reiterate my point that you don't know what the Chicago School is. It is not an actual school, moron. Also, on the US Rankings it is tied with Harvard, MIT and Princeton, which ranks it solely based on the opinion of deans at other schools and they all got a score of 5.0. Moron can't read a simple ranking either - surprise surprise. Reading comprehension? Haha. MORON! Why don't you do a simple wikipedia search?
abuehler97 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Is it the same Chicago School whose policies were implemented under the dictatorship in Chile--resulting in a near-doubling of the poverty rate and a steep rise in unemployment? That one?
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Chile, the shining bright spot in South America? The one that actually built up a 25% GDP surplus over the past 5 years? Chile, the one with the lowest unemployment and greatest improvement in living standards in the past 25 years? Perhaps you are too dense to realize that economic policy and political influence are not one and the same, genius. The Chicago School influence the economic actions in Chile, not the Coup or the political activities. Reading comprehension? Moron.
abuehler97 2 years ago 2
The policies would never have been in place if the coup hadn't happened. But I'm glad you think it's a good idea to overthrow a democratically elected government, install a military junta, and put in place whatever economic policies you like, without the consent of the public. Chicago economists (and Friedman himself) advised the Pinochet regime. They could've refused to aid the dictatorship, but chose not to.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Once again, you are too dense to distinguish between politics and economics. The point is not the coup, the point is the economics. Friedman and others advised the government on how to institute a free market system which would ultimately maximize the freedom of the people of Chile. Friedman NEVER supporter a military coup, and if you knew anything about history you would realize this. I love your revisionist history - what a joke. And the economics worked, whether you like Chile or not.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Keep telling yourself the Pinochet period was one of "prosperity". That's why hundreds of thousands of Chileans opposed plans to erect a monument to the junta. Who's the real "revisionist"? Do you even know what that word means? Friedman advised the military regime, thus granting it political legitimacy, so your comment is ridiculous.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
You need to be able to be able to distinguish between the political leader and the economic philosophy. You keep hounding on Pinochet, but the economics did not lead Pinochet to commit crimes. It was simply that after the fact he implemented a sane economic program which has richly rewarded Chile, just as it did for the US, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Ireland, etc. Bad leaders don't make for bad economics. Your logic is off. It is your comment that is ridiculous. Try a little logic testing.
abuehler97 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's funny that, for the most part, your "miracle" stories exclude the vast majority of Structural Adjustment countries in Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere whose experiments in deregulation, privatization, and liberalization ended in decisive failure. Can you explain that discrepancy?
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Perhaps that is because the countries in Africa, Latin America, and "elsewhere" didn't embrace free market principles. Libertarians don't advocate billions of dollars in aid to these countries. Perhaps you missed that in your talking points of how evil Libertarians act? Moron.
abuehler97 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Classic libertarian bullshit. "The market wasn't free enough!" Of course, that's it. You should actually learn something about those cases first, before disputing them (and, as usual, it's clear you haven't). Clearly free market fundamentalism precedes actually studying the economic policies implemented in those countries, and the conditions involved.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
No it is not you moron. If you look at any sort of economic freedom index (look it up genius - although it didn't get you very far up to this point) you will see that historically the Latin American and African nations have lagged severely behind the rest of the world. But what are facts to someone like you? Moron.
abuehler97 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I didn't ask about the EFI, I asked you specifically about Structural Adjustment. Maybe the reason your free market policies haven't been more fully implemented is because they caused widespread suffering when they were beginning to be. Food subsidies in Indonesia are a great example. Financial liberalization in Ethiopia is another (both during the 1990's, btw). Do you even know what Structural Adjustment was?
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Dude, you are a freaking moron. Do you think that libertarians support Structural Adjustment? They might support the requirements that the IMF or World Bank puts on countries to receive funds, but they most certainly don't approve of the IMF or World Bank doling out money. Once again you show your supreme ignorance and lack of ability in parsing out relevant versus flawed parts of an argument. Food subsidies are ANTI-LIBERTARIAN, moron. You are a moron, you really are.
abuehler97 2 years ago 9
The feeling's mutual, shithead. (BTW--the subsidies were ABOLISHED, not implemented)
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Well if the subsidies were ABOLISHED then it was a good move, moron. Clearly you have no understanding of subsidies. Are you arguing that they are a good thing? Apparently you really haven't EVER taken an economics course. Even the most liberal economists will readily admit that subsidies distort the market, increase the cost of goods, and drag on an economy. The ONLY argument for subsidies are to protect an industry until it can catch up. Moron.
Way to curse again, idiot moron.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So what? They "distort" the market. They also allowed people to eat, which I suppose is a horrible crime if it doesn't fit into your picture of free-market equilibrium somehow. It's not surprising that abolishing the food subsidies/price controls resulted in rioting across Indonesia, since food prices rose significantly afterward, while real income didn't.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
They don't allow people to eat, moron. The subsidies are not meant to keep prices low, they are meant to funnel money to the corporate farmers. If we got rid of the subsidies the prices of agriculture would drop like a rock, allowing more to eat. Agriculture subsidies are what keep hundreds of millions hungry, moron. You really are a moron, you don't even understand the main argument FOR agricultural subsidies (to keep farmers employed). Too bad you are too stupid to realize any of this. Moron.
abuehler97 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You enjoy using the word "moron". Got it. Your argument wasn't the case in Indonesia, or Mozambique, when subsidies were slashed or abolished and food prices decontrolled. But I wouldn't expect you to agree, since according to libertarians, removing trade barriers can ONLY result in greater "freedom" (downplaying the enormous suffering and social instability involved). It must be nice to have arguments already prepared before reviewing things on a case-by-case basis.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Moron, why do governments implement trade barriers or subsidies? It is to lock out better quality cheaper products from coming into the market. So to support them means that you support making all the people in society pay more for goods and services (and further fund that by taking money away from the productive). Who do you think gets hurt the most when they pay $5 for a pound of sugar when it should really cost only 95 cents? It is the poor, moron. The suffering is increased, moron.
abuehler97 2 years ago
@abuehler97: I have to admit I've enjoyed reading your incredibly facile replies from a year ago. How are you enjoying the new financial reform legislation? Does it merit comparisons to slavery yet?
niriafanorev 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan all rested heavily on state intervention, including subsidies and import substitution, to industrialize (not to mention, in SK's case, huge influxes of aid from the US). Hong Kong is the only case that readily comes to mind where the austere free market policies you advocate were implemented with any degree of success. The others you mentioned involved a mix of liberalization and protection, not just the former.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Go look up the historical rankings of the economic freedom index, moron. Go see where Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan fall out compared to the nations of Africa and Latin America. You are either really stupid or just really politically motivated (and stupid). Seriously, I feel like I am talking to a 12 year old boy.
abuehler97 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The EFI measures primarily trade barriers, not areas like social spending (Sweden is also highly ranked, but would probably be considered "socialist" by someone like you). I prefer the Human Development Index, personally.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
The Human Development Index doesn't measure economic policy, moron. I'm surprised you don't prefer the infant mortality rate or the carbon footprint measure. But the EFI does not measure primarily trade barriers either, moron. It measures Business Freedom*, Trade Freedom, Monetary Freedom*, Government Size*, Fiscal Freedom*, Property Rights*, Investment Freedom*,
Financial Freedom*, Freedom from Corruption*, and Labor Freedom*.
The stars are the ones that DON'T measure trade barriers, MORON.
abuehler97 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm a 12 year old boy? Well, no one's forcing you to keep replying, but you must feel like you have to, since you keep crowding up the comments section with your idiotic responses.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
The only idiotic responses are the ones completely devoid of fact, logic, or an understanding of history and economics, i.e. your posts.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why don't you check the economic statistics for the early 1980's, when the Chicago Boys' policies were in full swing? Economic policy and political influence are closely related, but I wouldn't expect a libertarian moron to be able to see that connection. How do you think the policies were able to be implemented in the first place?
niriafanorev 2 years ago
You should really stop while you're behind. The economic statistics for the early 80s? Do you mean when people moved away from Keynesian economic policies and created the greatest 25 year period of economic growth in American history? Do you really plan to blame the early 80s on the office holder as opposed to those who created the problem? I guess Margaret Thatcher also created the troubles in England? And by that logic, you blame fully Barrack Obama for the current economic crisis? Moron? Ha!
abuehler97 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I would really like to know something: why is it that anti-labor goons like you love to come to union YouTube videos and leave shitty comments insulting those who've joined them? Do you know anything whatsoever about the history of the labor movement? I'd really like to know why libertarians start frothing at the mouth when workers don't support their free market dogma. I mean, does it really come as a surprise?
niriafanorev 2 years ago
I'm not an anti-labor goon, moron. I am a pro-prosperity goon. I want everyone in society to benefit to the maximum and therefor I am against Unions which degrade the prosperity of all. Labor movements had their place in the past when they weren't corrupt organizations meant to benefit politicians at the expense of the employees. Today labor unions have destroyed our manufacturing industries and our education system. Preventing indentured servitude is a thing of the past, moron.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Of course, business isn't corrupt at all. There's no relationship between big business and the political establishment whatsoever, just labor unions, which serve no legitimate function now that the contradictions between labor and capital have been fully resolved. Oh wait, that never happened. I recommend a history course.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Of course there is a relationship between big business and the political establishment. The problem with partisan idiots like you is that you support such relationships. For example, who supports the penitentiary industry, the pharma industry, the defense industry? Guess what genius, it isn't libertarians. Two wrongs don't make a right. You are the one who needs to take a history course moron. I suggest you start with an economic history course, moron.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You apparently need to learn the different between theoretical abstractions and actually-existing capitalism...and join the real world. Check the record of Structural Adjustment Programs and "shock therapy", and then lecture me on the wonders of your free market dogma.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Moron, you need to separate politics from economics. Capitalism is a NECESSARY ingredient for freedom, not a SUFFICIENT one. Moron.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's neither, actually. It's an amoral system based on commodification and maximizing the rate of profit. It has no ethical basis whatsoever.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
You think that union leaders have an ethical basis? Ha!
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
We are never going to agree, so I'm finally stopping this fruitless "discussion". I am sorry I insulted you, but I was seriously offended by your first comment. You have your reasons for opposing unions, I have mine for supporting them.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Offended by what comment? That unions have much more of a negative effect than a positive effect on society? The only reason to support unions these days is to support a transfer of wealth from the productive to the non-productive. People choose not to join unions because they are intelligent enough to realize that the union leaders don't have the workers' interests in mind. If they did, they wouldn't have destroyed the auto industry. I'm not against unions per se, just against idiots.
abuehler97 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Libertarians were too busy jerking off to the fact that private markets emerged in those sectors, whereas I argue they should be under democratic control, as public goods. You, in contrast, think they should all be commodities available to the highest bidder.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Wow, that is intelligent, let's use the "jerking off" line again. I'm glad you can have an intelligent debate. Let's think about the sectors under "democratic control". Public education, failure. Utilities, failure. Airlines, failure until they deregulated. Agriculture, failure. And you want to give the idiot bureaucrats even more control? There's a reason why people work for the government - it is because they are too inept to work in a competitive field.
abuehler97 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There's a difference between bureaucracy and "democratic control", but it's one I'm not going to bother explaining, since it's clearly a waste of time.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
"Democratic control"? Are you kidding me? So who is going to control the industry? Are you going to have a bunch of referendums? This is one of the most idiotic statements you've made, and you've made many. Sorry to bother you with facts, history, economics, and logic. Go back to your SEIU talking points.
abuehler97 2 years ago 4
And you can go back to the Cato Institute, whose agenda workers fully support. Oh, wait.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Your point about the Cato Institute is stupid. Most Americans have no idea what the Cato Institute is because they are overly focused on what Brad Pitt or Michelle Obama are wearing. Idiots tend not to know anything about Libertarian principles.
abuehler97 2 years ago
You think there is a large body of scholarship that supports the minimum wage? May I ask if you have ever studied economics or know any economists? Minimum wage benefits the very few that actually have jobs that must be filled whose value and productivity don't demand "minimum wage". But what you seem to ignore, which economists do not, is the cost of doing so - more unemployment, a distortion of incentives, increased cost of labor, and increased costs of goods. Not much debate there.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Economists are evenly divided on the minimum wage. Some agree with what you've stated, a large number do not, and argue there is no correlation between unemployment and the minimum wage. Most U.S. economists are Neo-Keynesian. If your argument were the case, economists wouldn't by and large vote for the Democratic Party every election cycle.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Such an absurd statement. They are NOT evenly divided on min wage. In fact, they are almost universally in agreement that min wage is a bad thing, and they all agree it increases inflation, unemployment, costs of goods, & makes companies less competitive with foreign competition. The fact that you think there is no correlation between unemployment and min wage shows that you really do not know anything about the topic. There is a direct correlation. Economists most often support Republicans.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Okay, whatever you say. Economics as a discipline fully backs your right-wing dogma. All economists agree that unions are terrible. Stiglitz, Krugman, and all the others who've publicly commented on the crisis disputing your conclusions don't exist. BTW, I was responding to your 'manufacturing' comment, not airlines.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Calm down, economists largely back Republicans in national elections because they have long been the party that preached free markets and fiscal restraint.
BTW, I'm not a Republican, I am a libertarian. In fact, most economists are actually more in line with Libertarians than either the corrupt Democrat or corrupt Republican parties. So feel free to attack Republicans all you want, I just wanted to be sure to address the absurd comment that economists tend to back democrats.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Again, this isn't the case. Most economists don't back the Republicans, because most economists are Neo-Keynesian, not monetarist or (even worse, and discredited) Austrian. You can check recent polling in economics journals like the Public Choice Journal. 63% of economists side with the Democrats.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
You are dead wrong. Time and time again when given the choice of a Republican and a Democratic candidate Economists typically side with the Republican candidate. Even in economic downturns when many agree that government spending is a necessary stimulant, they still tend to lean toward the Republicans. Why don't you pull multiple surveys, not just the ones backed by liberal organizations? You are quite clearly grossly ignorant on economics and matters related to such.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
PCJ is not a liberal organization, but in any case, I'm done arguing. It's also pretty childish that you keep voting down my comments, but it's what I've come to expect from internet libertarians.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Funny, my comments are getting voted down as well. I guess you are pretty childish? Do you even know what a libertarian is?
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You're the one who claimed that 'all' sound economics supports the Republican Party, therefore the burden of proof is on YOU.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Reading comprehension is a problem for you, isn't it? I never claimed that "'all' sound economics supports the Republican Party". Did you just make that up for giggles? You are a moron.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You did claim that all economists oppose the minimum wage and unionization, both of which are standard Democratic policies. You're the one making batshit insane claims; I asserted that a clear 'consensus' does not exist. Maybe you should be the one reviewing reading comprehension.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
No I didn't. Once again your reading comprehension is off the mark. Once again, you can't make a point without cursing, a real sign of intelligence.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well, congratulations on being a member of an irrelevant, dogmatically purist sect which beats out even the Republicans in their commitment to fanatical, practically theological devotion to the 'free market'.
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Clearly you don't even know what libertarianism stands for. But what should I expect from someone with questionable reading comprehension skills, someone who apparently hasn't even taken a introductory macro course, and who needs to resort to personal attacks when your logic is inside out.
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Actually, I probably know more about it that you do, and still maintain that it's complete and utter horseshit. A macro course? Are those the credentials on which your bulletproof 'you don't understand econ' bullshit is premised?
niriafanorev 2 years ago
Actually, you don't. You've proven that you haven't even taken an introductory economics course. If you did you would understand little things like supply and demand, competitive advantage, money supply, incentives, and the relationship between artificial price controls, subsidies, costs of goods and labor and unemployment.
And why do you always have to curse or attack me in your arguments? Are you that insecure in your positions?
abuehler97 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I actually know what all of those are, but I'm glad you can define them, too. I don't care about "efficiency" as much as you do--I actually care about reversing the trend toward income inequality and wage stagnation. I'd also like to ask: if unions are really causing "deadweight loss", why have wages stagnated over the past 30 years, while productivity has more than tripled?
niriafanorev 2 years ago
What is more, anybody who, right off the bat, calls his/her interlocutor (like me, for example) an "idiot" without even bothering to engage in discussion or debate has lost all moral authority to say that they are "not interested in just throwing insults back and forth" - or wouldn't you agree?
kzargentina 2 years ago
kzargentina - NO!
GJacksonT 2 years ago
I will always prefer a commentator who takes the trouble to back up his arguments with factual data, rather than visceral, trite, baseless and hate-filled outbursts.
kzargentina 2 years ago
Kzargentina - Interesting, we apparently do have some common ground after all. I will certainly agree with you . . I dont like commentators that dont back up their arguments with factual data and spew visceral, trite, baseless and hate-filled outbursts. Thats why I dont listen to Olbermann, Mathews, Maddow, Colmes and a bunch of other left-wing, liberal commentators and journalistic talking heads. Seems we both agree on the problem, our disagreement is about whom is responsible for it.
GJacksonT 2 years ago
WHERE'S MY BAILOUT?!!!!
Take a look at these hilarious t-shirts that are available right now!
One shirt says, "Where's MY Bailout?!"
Another reads, "Rick Santelli 2012" for President!
Another t-shirt says, "TOO BIG TO FAIL"
My favorite shirt reads, "Obamanomics - Trickle Up Poverty for All!" and it has a US Dollars that has Obama wearing a communist Chinese beret!
I just ordered one of each to wear on casual Fridays!
Take a look at WallStreetMarketNews(dot)com --=0
NewChristianSoldiers 2 years ago
unfortunately O'Reilly doesn't need to walk in your shoes because he earns more
america competes with the rest of the world on everything
to get more money you need to get more skills,
oh, forget it you people just wanna cry and get handouts
SPFrobber 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
^
|
|
Click here to see these funny t-shirts!
One says "Where's MY Bailout?!" another says "Obamanomics - Trickle Up Poverty for All"! LOL
Another says "TOO BIG TO FAIL!" and my favorite is "Rick Santelli 2012" for President!
Come take a look at "WallStreetMarketNews(DOT)com
and "Friend Me"! -lol
webxsuccess 2 years ago
she dont look hungry!unions were started by the MAFIA.i've been abrother in 2 different unions,and waste and cronyism is what they are about.can you say extortion,can you say pay to work,what about entrenched brother in laws that couldnt work anywhere else.can you say 99% democrat political front groups
feeldhand 2 years ago
I couldn't have said it better or truer
I am a forced union member
the union shows up once a month to take food out of my mouth, that's the extent of our relationship
SPFrobber 2 years ago
Awesome! I've always wanted to see someone put Billo in his place. Who better than real workers...
vandev10 2 years ago
B.O.'R is the walking, talking voice of ignorance , like Rush Limbaugh. These people he makes fun of are the kind of people on whose backs America was built - not selfish, racist, greedy, closed-minded people like him and and Limbaugh - and the Bush Administration, that sent this country into the worst economic nightmare in its history.
kzargentina 2 years ago 2
kzargentina - you along with the idiots in this video are just plain stupid - do you think the man (O'reilly) got the position he has because it just magically appeared one day? No, I think not. He worked for it. This cut and paste garbage video just shows a bunch of whiners and criers bitching because no one will hand them all the "goodies" they think they "deserve" because they breathe air and take up space. Get off your butts - you want more - do more - no one owes you a living! Earn it!
GJacksonT 2 years ago
Who said anybody "owed" me or the people in this video a living? Not me or them. This man can't back up what he says with facts. Keith Olbermann is a hundred times better than him, and that's putting it lightly. GJackson: Bush lost. Obama won. The majority of the USA is liberal. Liberal.
kzargentina 2 years ago
Kzargentina - It's obvious that you and I have opinions that are total opposites and therefore we have NO common ground for discussion and I am not interested in just throwing insults back and forth. My opinion of Olbermann is just as negative as yours is towards O'reilly. Yes, Obama won . . . it's too bad that America lost.
GJacksonT 2 years ago
Shared sacrifice? My ass. Get off your ass and get to work.
yobuttstanky 2 years ago
If you knew what work was, you wouldn't demean what SEIU does.
Toddo31 2 years ago
LOL! These insane Christofascist Republinazis hate everything the United States stands for. Why don't these traitors and heofascosts pack up and move some place more in keeping with their hate, bigotry, and Christian extremism? Some place like Iran.
NotSoOldHippy 2 years ago
btw my last comment wasnt directed to angelboot
Purplemonkeycowchew2 2 years ago
Out of all of those only 4 are raelly health care workers.
Not window washers and doormen,ect...
They can start their oown union. Start their own training programs.
ANGLEBOOT 2 years ago
I'm in a union. But I don't side with SEIU. they want it to where unkilled and untrained workers, legal or illegal get payed as much as skilled and trained workers do.
Also the SEIU covers; nurses, LPNs, doctors,lab technicians,nursing home workers,and home care workers, building cleaning and security industries, including janitors,security officers, superintendents,maintenance workers, window cleaners,and doormen and women, public school employees,bus drivers,and child care providers.
ANGLEBOOT 2 years ago
If they want the government to take healthcare over then do it like the military and make these fat asses run 3 miles everyday.
wbowens82 2 years ago
i dont think socialized healthcare will really work in america where most people are just fat and lazy but here in sweden thats one good thing i enjoy.
missy92126 2 years ago
Unions by their very definition are socialists entities. All workers regardless of effort and ability are paid the same. Unions encourage mediocrity.
They had their time in the past, now they are part of the problem. Dare I say "Jobs Bank"??? Paying people not to work?
That's the union way these days, sad to say!
gdshaver 2 years ago
You are discussing unions in the abstract, but it doesn't hold up to reality. Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark are heavily unionized nations (and socialist democracies). They have a higher standard of living and quality of life than "capaitalist" nations like the US (check out their GNPs per capita).
Having lived in both systems, I can tell you neither is perfect, but socialist democracies "work" better--no doubt. Quality of life is higher, and they have a much larger middle class.
EasycalmVideo 2 years ago
Billo is a Two-faced Plastic Fake. ~ nader paul kucinich gravel
ryanshaunkelly 2 years ago 2
Bill is an entertainer. He is not a professional journalist. His rich boss Rupert Murdock protects him. He should have been fired when his young female producer sued him and won her sex discrimination case against him. Bill wrote, " I want to rub your naked body with a falafel. The idiot meant to write loofa, which is an oriental sponge. He is a low life with no moral authority.
Flextones 2 years ago
why we just don't ignore O'Reilly , who gives a shyt about him and his show ..
Yankeesx06 2 years ago
4 fat asses complaining that they dont get paid enough.
wbowens82 2 years ago
haha, that pretty much sums up this video
sl0wm0 2 years ago
This is so cool! hey thanks for uploading this video. I'm going to subscribe!
chick7489 2 years ago
"Come to Chicago" PLEASE!!!!!! You have to be kidding me, why would anyone want to do that? You have a bunch of thugs who didn't have their parents read to them and who now shoot each other because their pants hang lower than the next idiot! Maybe he could join the rest of the tribe in Chicago and rape girls in the alley because they have a few minutes off from selling drugs to kids on the street corner. Maybe he could go to the clinic and kill a few babies with ya, how's that sound? IDIOTS
BigSlick37 2 years ago
We are moving to Socialism, they always fail....you want to know what is next? Communism, that is the only way to deal with a bunch of "entitled" people who have learned to depend on the Government for everything! If you would have done what you were told when you were younger, got an education, got a good job, saved for retirenment, you wouldn't be bitching about wanting handouts! Taxing businesses 50% will not get everyone on an equal page...we will all suffer and become pathetic! Grow up!
BigSlick37 2 years ago
Socialism is the next step in the evolution of economics. In our current system, the natural order is for companies to snowball into monopolies. Then the government will step in and slap them with a bunch of fines and regulations until the next successive company takes over that sector. Big business rules America and most of us are blind to the effects of this.
MengoMango 2 years ago
WOW, you people really think that you stand for something? Unions had there time and place, now they are not needed any longer! They are putting a stranglehold on American business! You have people that can't clean up their own messes because they have to wait an hour for a "laborer" to come and do it.....not productive! They are paying people $37 hour to push a button on an elevator...I've seen it!! They system needs to chance to save America! Get a job, get paid what your worth, easy!!!!
BigSlick37 2 years ago
O'Reilly = O'why won't you shut the hell up?
Daritto7117 2 years ago
You people have to realize that not everyone is equal. Socialism about had our country almost killed off in the 1760s when we first settled here. Are you going to trust joe blow to stock up your walnuts in the winter. NEEDY people will always want more, first part of inslavery, so keep paying your morgages, and other loans. Slavery never ended, rich just made it more deceptive. America is turning fag
dtogthug 2 years ago
Challenge to Bill O'Reilly: put a gun in your mouth
Golemzzz 2 years ago
In 1900 there were no unions; the average worker put in 84 hours a week and lived on $500 a year. Mine safety, factory safety--almost non-existent. Factory owners even said laws against child labor were going to hurt capitalism.
Bill O'Reilly is a tool of the Establishment; a shill for millionaires and fat cats.
viall4diabetes 2 years ago
Challenge to Bill O'Reilly: Take a long walk on a short plank.
ThePsychoReturns 2 years ago
Also have you thought about the 40 million illegal immigrants whose healthcare would be payed for by taxpayers? Don't act like it wouldn't and don't dodge this issue. We know the democrat party panders to them and all minorities for votes. Do you want to add even more incentive for all of central america to sneak into the US?
scata99 2 years ago 3
Well heres where we agree. I dont think that somebody here illegally should benefit from any service of government that legal tax paying citizens have payed for. To say that this will happen as a "given" is just conjecture however.
worldishis 2 years ago