And it's this insane entitlement, participation trophy, me me me, mentality that is the root cause of our inability to compete in the global market, and the decline of our society as whole. Common sense, people! Ron Paul!
Stossel says Greed is Good-defined as self interest-for the wealthy if so Greed-self interest- is good for other people the 99%. LITTLE FLAW IN STOSSEL STATEMENT GREED IS GOOD DEFINED AS SELF INTEREST THEN IT'S GOOD FOR EVERYONE NOT JUST WEALTHY!!!!!
@StateExempt She went on his show spouting all these myths about health care in Canada when she didn't even know that there was not a single country in the world today that has for profit insurance for primary care. Or that every single country except the USA has the payer system collectivly bargin with the providers and the drug companys.
@MsZeitgeist85 - And yet the output of the latter is even greater. Just like private pensions have higher administrative costs yet deliver far more than the ponzi scheme of social security that owes trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.
@MsZeitgeist85 - Sorry, it still owes trillions in unfunded liabilities even if you force people that cannot use it to pay for it.
And yes, if you get in too many car crashes, get sick more than everyone else, or demand more treatment than other patients, insurance companies have no reason to force that cost on everyone else.
As for private insurance, you do not get trillions of dollars in debt like we do with medicare and medicaid.
A person and the person they work for both use each other as tools and agree to use each other as tools in order to make money off each other. If one of these two parties compromises its ability to make money for the other party then the suffering party should be allowed to end the marriage (unless a contract says otherwise). Imagine if companies compromised their ability to pay their employees, and the government made quitting based on this illegal.
@bddc201 What are corportations? We talk so much about corportations vs the people, but corporations are owned by the people. If you have a 401K or an RRSP, or a mutual fund of any kind, you likely own corporations. Should you be forced into a contract against your will, where you are suppose to put up the money to start a business, and then hand over the reigns to be told how to run it by the government? Freedom of choice, that is the human right I stand by.
@daobagua My employer can fire me for any reason or no reason at all. This is totally legal and they love reminding me of it. However, if they are negligent and I wind up getting injured or killed, I can't sue them, even if they were grossly negligent because I am an employee, I have fewer rights than some Joe off the street because of our legal/business relationship. Owning a business shouldn't give anyone the right to just do as they please. 401K is a wall street casino.
@bddc201 If the business owner does something that causes you to get hurt, then you should be able to sue them. This is no different then if you drove into me with your car. So what if you do something stupid and hurt yourself at work, should employers be responsible? Should shareholders be responsible? Being an employee should not give people the right to be cradled to the grave.
@daobagua If you don't believe me, check, it out yourself. A individual employee (in the state of Indiana) may not sue his employer for negligence. It is very different than if I drove into you with your car, because as a individual, you have rights, unless you're employed (owned) by a corporation. Corporations have way more rights than individuals, look into it and see yourself.
@bddc201 How was the employer negligent? I work with high voltage equipment, if I do not follow safety standards, then I am responsible for my death or injury. If I follow safety standards and someone else doesn't follow the standards and I get hurt as a result (ex. he cuts my lock off the breaker and turns it on), then he is responsible for my injury. I do not see where the stock holder is responsible in this scenario.
@daobagua I was speaking hypothetically. A employer can definitely be potentially negligent, say; they failed to repair machinery they knew was defective and a injury resulted. However, in the state of Indiana, it's the law they can't be sued.
@bddc201 Well if they failed to repair the machinery, then would it not be the inspector who is negligent? Or the manager who told the person to use the machinery that he knew was broken? Or the person who used the machinery without proper safety gaurds? Or the engineer who designed to the machinery without a fail safe? But no, you think it is the stock owner.
@daobagua Like I said, it's hypothetical. And the owner is ultimately responsible, unless he owns a corporation in Indiana and it's an employee that gets hurt. Non employees have rights, employees, not so much. Are you pretending to not understand?
@bddc201 Like I said. I do not think the owner should be responsible for tasks that are above his control. You seem only to speak in vague hypotheticals. Could this be because if you actually went detail to detail, you would see that your point is flawed? If the employer did something that caused direct harm to the employee, he/she should be responsible. Aside from that, he/she should be.
@bddc201 I am not trolling. I am asking you for an example of why you think a stock owner should be liable for something he/she had NO control over. Sure someone should be liable, but you think of the corporation as an evil entity, instead of people themself.
I say, force corporations to give extreme benefits to women if they become pregnant, with plenty of time off, continued full pay, etc. That way younger women will be discriminated against before they even get a job interview. Businesses will be reluctant to hire them due to the exuberant costs if they get pregnant. The women will be much more likely to be domesticated at home and stick with cooking, as it should be.
See, male chauvinists and woman's rights fighters have something in common.
@christinepeace Because it's voluntary. By intentionally becoming pregnant they are costing their employers money and their co-workers have to work for their leave. If populating the country is so important they should just adopt some of the millions of starving, homeless, parentless children in the world instead of going into 8 1/2 months of work-leave, painful experiences, and making another mouth to feed in this overpopulated world.
@megabrowser17 Yes, and it would be nice if more men would take responsibility when it comes to children. Part of this problem is father absenteeism. Women are so much more responsible for children when it takes two to tango. There are certain fact that will interfere such as pregnancy where a woman can choose to take lower pay, but men need to take a bigger role in raising their children after they are born. Having an absent parent is extremely bad for a child.
@AshillaBeige Lol, you're taking this into another topic. What they do with their children in how they raise them is their business. I was talking about the months of pregnancy specifically where they can not work. And yes I definitely know fathers should take a bigger role in child raising, instead of overtime at work. However, that also means women need to put more time in their work so that fathers can have that extra time with their children... It's also two-way in that perspective too.
@christinepeace But until what? You give no subject to "but" about either. Your sentence structure doesn't make any sense near the end too. "and can here" is not even proper grammar and you literally leave off the rest of your sentence. I can't review what you say if I can't understand what you're saying.
Part one- I was trying to agreeing with your comment in which you state "If populating a country is so important they should just adopt some of the millions of starving, homeless, parentless children in the world...” As in any response to a comment on a YouTube, you should reread your own comment to refresh the memory of the topic being responded too. As for the meaning of the word “here” I am referring to the country I am living in, the name of which is not important to my statement.
part two- Until all the children are adopted women will still need to take off work to repopulate their particular country, thought that was clear and didn't need spelling out. I did make one mistake in typing which does happen to me sometimes I drop words because the speed at which I am typing differs from the speed at which I am thinking. In the last comment I dropped the word "live" and the sentence should have read "...were adopted and can live here but until then..."
@christinepeace Shouldn't that statement be the other way around? "Until all the children are adopted women don't need to take off work to repopulate their country because they could solve their want of having a child, not needing 8 1/2 months of work leave and not leaving a hole at work." Three problems solved for the price of saving a child, literally a win-win-win for the mother, child, and the workplace. Millions of parentless children in other countries can be adopted to repopulate too.
@christinepeace You're using circular logic. That's like saying until we stop having wars in the world all people will still need to kill. But the killing itself is what makes war.
The only way to stop the "need" to give birth so much is by starting to adopt yourself when wanting a child. You say that people don't adopt and that until people do, then we still need to give birth. If everyone followed your advice then no one would EVER adopt the ever increasing amount of the unwanted after birth.
The pregnant woman who defended these corporations (Lucas) says that "if employers discriminate against enough people (women) it's going to be bad for them in the long run, it's a bad business practice." but then about a minute and a half before she argues that most pregnant women impose costs on their employers. Haha, contradiction. So how's it going to be bad business practice for a company not hiring women if she argued beforehand that pregnant women cost these companies money?
She's saying the laws make her more costly to the company. But at the same time, pregnant women can still work, and if the government didn't artifically raise her cost to the company, they would be more easily find more work.
Hello, fellows! I'm really impressed of John Stossel's shows, they are incredibly valuable. For this reason I would like to translate this video to Polish, but I've encountered two minor problems. I can't get what they are talking about in 1:15-1:17 and 2:02-2:05 These are only a few words I can't hear properly, but I want my translation to be excellent. :) Could anyone write what is said there? Thanks in advence, I would be very grateful.
1:15 An outgrowth of the womens' movement is the law that says it's illegal to fire or not hire a woman because she's pregnant.
1:59 Holly's lawyer, David Sanford, says that's nonsense, and he's filed a class-action lawsuit. The message is, if you get pregnant, you're in trouble at Novartis.
@contrrev @ 1:15 -17 stossel says: "the law is an outgrowth of the woman's movement" .. this is basically saying that the philosophical movement in the US stressing woman's rights gave rise to the increase in legislation protecting those rights (anti-discrimination, anti-work place harassment laws) ... @ 202 stossel says the lawyer has filed "a class action lawsuit." This is basically a suit against a defendant that includes multiple parties, thus, many people may be plaintiffs on a single suit
and of course they say that discrimination laws are bad, so I suppose they should aboilish discrimination laws that stop companies from hiring blacks?
okay fine, let it reach the poin that having kids would mean a woman gets fired, please let's do!! the birth rate would go down to a point where the population is on a downward spiral constantly dropping.
Both ladies make compelling points, but here's mine. Lukas must not be strapped for cash or in a desperate situation with such an open-minded boss to allow her to customize her work details. Not everyone is lucky enough to find such a squishy situation, so it's discriminatory to point fingers. Just my opinion.
I'm a little confused, what's all this talk about pregnant women/new mothers getting paid for not working? The US does not have paid maternity leave, only the FMLA which allows anyone (man or woman) to take up to 12 weeks of UNPAID leave a year for any family medical issue (this includes paternity leave), anything paid would have to be either vacation or sick leave, which has a limit. The only other thing is short-term disability, but there's a limit to that and it varies by state.
@xxpehbcemm I don't know if it is a state law (California), but my very close friend's wife intentionally got a job when then decided to have their second child to that they could get paid maternity leave. And they did get paid.
@MortuusTyrannus yeah, either it was a California law or something that the particular company offered, but it's definately not a normal thing in the US, I think this is one of the few industrialized countries that doesn't have paid maternity leave nation-wide
Jon Stossel is such a tool..... If this chick wants kids, that's a CHOICE. She gives up some things because of that choice. If she chooses a career, same deal....
Last thing I'm going to do is take labor law advice from either Stossel or the bimbo he has in this story.....
the beautiful thing about choices, are the consequences that you have to face for them. Good or bad. Plus, if she has a choice, so does the guy who's life has been spent building that country not to risk what he has for her choice.
Overpopulation is a personal perspective. Personally, the less people on this planet the better. Women should feed their brains and hearts with ideas and experiences rather than going for babies. So many women have babies only to realize that they really didn't want them or couldn't afford them later on. Why rush to have children when you haven't had coffee in Paris or sat on the beach in Brazil? Why not see the Pyramids of Egypt or Machu Picchu in Peru? There's more to life than life!
@aslynelf Nothing beats having unprotected sex but if we all went around doing it 24/7 the world would be a mess. Everyone would have one or two dozen kids. Just because we enjoy something doesn't mean we should do it. Although we all have a right to live naturally we still must accept responsibilty and limits. You do and I do now. That's a fact. All I am saying is in our new world with our modern lifestyles we have to re-evealuate our choices.
@AudioIndi You completely misinterpreted what I said. I never said people should do what they want and not accept responsibility for it. But there is nothing wrong with wanting to marry and have a family.
It is against the law to disriminate based on pregnancy. Under the law you have rights and if you fall into this category then you should contact the EEOC. Companies do not have the right to violate the law and firing a woman because she got pregnant is both immoral and wrong. I would file a lawsuit if it was me because Novartis should know better. Knowing your rights is probably the most important thing you need to know before entering the workforce.
@dmeiske1 The argument isn't whether companies should or shouldn't violate the law, it's whether or not the law in question should be a law in the first place.
@Tummler And that the law hurts employers and as with any regulation that hurt is passed onto employees and consumers because of the tremendous losses the law can cause.
Companies outsource the least value added jobs overseas and use the saving to hire people to do higher value added jobs and since these overseas jobs pay on average two to three times the going wages in the countries the people are grateful for the work. To call these people oppressed is both condescending and dehumanizing.
A one million dollar CEO salary divided by 100,000 employees would equal ten dollars a year, a ten million salary would equal 100. If you took the all the top administrators and redistributed all their salaries you would end up with a marginal increase in overall salary and no one to run the company. Profits are reinvested in the company allow it to grow, hire more people, and become more productive, increasing societal wealth.
We could not pay stockholder or those who invested in the company, of course then no one would continue to invest the company. But I'm worth all this after all what's fair is fair right?
This would decrease overall productivity or increase costs but you can afford it just make the CEO work for free. Of course this wouldn't put a dent in the loss of productivity do to my decisions but this would sure make me feel good. You could spend your profits but of course they were going to be reinvested in the company to hire more people and buy physical capital to increase productivity so we could continue to be competitive, but who needs that?
I want to do something that will reduce and then completely eliminate my productivity from the company for a few months a year for several years but be paid full salary and benefits. All you have to do is increase the workload of my peers or hire more employees.
Also, although the pregnancy act may cost companies, unemployed single mothers cost the government, in the form of welfare. So either way, we pay for people to have children. What's the difference? And don't most white conservatives want their women to have more children anyway? Why wouldn't you encourage that any way that you can, whether it's welfare or maternity leave for mothers?
@38118121520205 Your assumption seems to be that without this "protection" more females would be unemployed. This is demonstrably untrue. Employment of females in Canada and Europe is LESS than in the united states. The more stringent the nature of these "protective" laws the FEWER women are employed. This is because these laws increase the cost to employ women both by forcing them to deal with more regulation and the possibility of future litigation.
@38118121520205 and also the problem you mention with unemployed single mothers having to be a burden either way is simply a drastic oversimplification. every person's situation is different and your method simply creates a structural problem that affects not only the companies which then pass their additional cost onto the consumers or the government which opens the door for administrative cost and abuse. you make too many assumptions, and it takes too long to correct one by one. peace.
So, supposedly this pregnancy act is hurting women... then why are more women employed than men? Aside from the fact that women are paid less than men, so are considered a better hire, there doesn't seem to be anything that is stopping businesses from employing women.
@38118121520205 lol wrong.. don't complicate the issue by asking a bunch of questions.. let's finish the thought and you would have your answer. first of all during the recession those jobs that get the most cut are high pay jobs. and if you haven't noticed, a lot of later added jobs are government or administrative jobs which are all skewed towards women. the country has been going heavier into a service sector economy, and i need not also go into details (continue)
@38118121520205 and i need not also go into details with the increasing unbalances of our consumption outstripping how much our economy type is able to put out year after year. your question is like "well if i take out salt and add a bunch of hot pepper is the taste still as heavy" and if the answer is yes, maybe salt was never added in the first place.. "doesn't seem to be"? doesn't seem like a phrase belonging in a logical discussion. just slow down. finish your thoughts.
@38118121520205 That's mythological crap! Women are not payed less - it's against the law and companies are scared shitless to do it. More women may be employed because more women finish highschool, more women graduate college. This country has been molded so that women now have the advantage in every aspect of life. Regardless of that your argument is stupid - if there is nothing stopping businesses from hiring women then why bother with the law????
I'd have to do more research to give a more solid opinion but I do see the validity of both sides of the argument. I wish the segment was longer so that a more thorough explaination would be given. I think it's more complex than women getting pregnant.
Illuminati=ET kin aka gods, Ea, Sirians, Satan, Pepsi, angels/demons, dragons, hulu, vampires, bluebloods, Al Gore, Windsors, Rothschilds, Rockefellars etc who rule cults like Freemasonry. Their agenda: continually cull/victimize people via gum/other poisons, Codex Alimentarius, carbon taxes, internet 2, WW3 then stage an alien invasion to get a fascist world government/religion with us chipped. Support DrDeagle, Stewart Swerdlow, Oracle Broadcasting, gardeners and free-energy techs!
Men don't have to quit a job just because they decide to have a child, nor do they have to kill their child before birth to get a promotion. It staggers the mind that society demands women be responsible for the rearing of offspring then penalize them for it.
@SupernautG no, shit for brains, libertarians view humans as people. Each an individual with rights not GIVEN to them by the government but protected by the government. People with rights to choose the path that is best for them. We don't view "humans" like you do, a series of protected classes, each one ready to have their feelings hurt but another class we deem lesser or better than the next. It's people like you that view them as commodities.
@spec24 Anytime anyone says anything libertarian, spit on them. Libertarians are by definition enemies of the state: they are against promoting American citizens’ general welfare and against policies that create a perfect union. Like Communists before them, they are actively subverting the Constitution and the American Dream, and replacing it with a Kleptocratic Nightmare.
@zaxx19 No one is stopping them from having families by not GIVING them something for getting pregnant.You completely take it out of context.A housewife with NO job gets NO money, so why should a working woman get money while she isn't working?The housewife with NO job is still paying taxes.No one here is against woman working OR having children, but expecting to get paid for something that is under our control, is simply wrong.Forcing people not to FIRE you is one thing, paid leave is another.
@zaxx19 you need to think first. The least productive/lowest earners ARE the ones having the children. As economic status increases birth rate falls - you may want to educate yourself before posting these things. We have this, genius, because of our gevernment's intervention into every aspect of our lives where those who earn NOTHING are paid to have children. THINK A LITTLE.
@profesoralola Yeah. I am wondering how many women get raped in the US and get pregnant from it? Do you have the stats on that? You probably don't, but I would be willing to bet $20 that there are probably only a handful of cases per year. Besides wouldn't you just kill the baby? Isn't that what liberals do when they are faced with pregnancy? Don't you guys have drive-thru abortions these days?
Standard issue in any rape kit is a near overdose of emergency contraceptives. Even after a rape, the pregnancy is still the woman's responsibility. Besides you would be punishin gthe baby for what the rapist did. That's not right.
@HandyMan101 sometimes it isn't that easy. Not everyone can support adequate birth control methods, and not everyone can afford to be pregnant and out of work. Married couples are entitled to being intimate, and if a child is a result, that's natural and should not be penalized. If someone is in a car accident, they must recover before returning to work. Just the same it's unfair to fire an employee for an unforeseeable change.
The absolutely finest system in the world (according to the AP) occurred after the AP (National Geographic helped) convinced the entire world, that Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, would be Utopian Fair and Equal Paradise in comparison to Capitalistic Rhodesia... In a way Zimbabwe was ECO friendly, and did use Natural fertilizer (human bodies) in place of industrial nitrogen. (they have a great police force)
No there should be no "protections" aka extortions if a company does't want to hire a pregnant woman to work a forklift then by all means discriminate. It is my liberty to discriminate. Problem is men should be "working" aka engaged in business and women shouldn't for the msot part be.
Correct jjason1985, I was commenting on the issue brought up on the video. I once worked with a woman who had two maternaty leaves in three years, making the rest of our department cover her work load. You're right eternallyfoxwinter, most of America is undeveloped.
@eternallyfoxwinter Exactly! That is the problem with all these discrimination laws- Bleeding heart types think that you can enforce morality at the end of a gun barrel. And profit is a dirty word, it seems.
This is exactly Ron Paul's stance on discrimination in America, though I'm sure you know that :)
Ron Paul's economic policies are a little too laissez faire for me. I appreciate his ability to keep himself from leaning into the neo-conservative non-sense, but he almost waxes Anarcho-capitalist. His discrimination policies are realistic however.
First, he is consistent. Nobody can argue that. He is principled and he stands by his ideology, as evidence in his writings and voting record.
Second, he strongly believes in regulation, so the anarchistic comment does not apply. His views on regulation come from the free market. If your butcher sells you bad meat, he will be out of business very soon. Therefore, he regulates himself to keep sanitary.
I appreciate that a wide range of people can see the logic in some, if not all, of his policies
I agree, he is consistent and very, very principled. His business principles of regulation seem to revolve around an honor system that yielded total abuse prior to government inspection policies. I am a big "free market" fan until "free market" becomes a blanket to hide "held unaccountable". That is the only thing that keeps me from supporting him other than his isolationism policies.
No, no, no. The "free market" was not truly free. If you pull easy money from the equation (Fed sets artificially low interest rates), then there is no collapse because where would the money come from? This is a common myth that I would like to dispel. Then you have fannie and freddy and a bunch of political figures saying that everyone should own a home. But they wouldn't buy a house in a free market because they cant afford it. Look deeper, the market was not free
You misunderstand free markets if you think it's an "honor system". The free market self-regulates. This does not mean the butcher (from previous example) regulates himself. It means his customers regulate him. Consumers have certain demands and if they are not met they will not buy. Consumers are much more strict regulators than gov. They'll often form organizations and go to great lengths to make an example of a bad business. (const)
Gov policies don't make things any safer. In many ways they make it worse. Consumers prefer independent inspections and will happily pay a little more for it. Gov however is not independent since the seller may have buddies there or lobbyists to influence it. Without gov, there would be more demand for private independent reviewers -- kosher and organic certifications are examples. Also, gov has incentive to fail and scare everyone into giving up more power for more regs to "fix" it
Yeah. The problem with all that is that it is how things would work in a perfect world. In this magical, sparkly happy land a communist society exists without currency and deals freely on the world market, and Anarchic systems work without degenerating into tribal governments run by self-styled dictators, and independent organizational inspectors can't be purchased for the same or less than a government inspector can. We tried the system you describe in the 20s, and
We wound up with dead workers and animal feces thrown in with the animals in processing plants and served to the consumer with them being none the wiser. Independent consumer market control works on a very local level but when you have multi-lateral corporations running near-monopolies through sister-company chains then you run out of places to consume. Without a huge organization to follow this then we wind up with the state of the market from about 1880 to the 1940s.
The system that spawned the government watchdogs that have greatly cleaned up what we have the option of consuming. The better business bureau does it's part, but even if we organized a non-government run watchdog organization to inspect and remind business that the customer is the party that needs pleased then all we've done is organized a new government branch. We're paying for it and it's just as susceptible to corruption so what real difference can it make?
You make some good points. However, we still have deaths and food quality problems. But there are improvements, which I'd argue are largely due to technology and experience, not so much gov policies.
I'm not suggesting what you're thinking, which is basically a one-size-fits-all-solution. Again, you misunderstand the free market. Monopolies are very unlikely in a free market since corps will not be able to buy gov protection and the bigger the corp the easier they fall.
The free market approach would be to, as Ron Paul says, legalize competition: allow consumers to choose between gov regulated and pay the tax or completely private regulated with no tax and no gov shenanigans and only require products are labeled appropriately. Politicians won't allow this though because they want to keep their monopoly -- they know exactly what will happen. If the gov regulations were superior, they would not need to be mandated.
Fair enough. I admit I am oversimplifying the notion but I can't agree with business making things safer and "better" on their own. True, there are still deaths from food poisoning band such but nine out of ten times that is A: employee mishandling in a restaurant or B: Consumer misuse/storage issues. Irradiation is proving a good technique that is both cleaner and cheaper for the company. That would lead me to state that while a company will try to make a better product they
"but I can't agree with business making things safer and "better" on their own"
See, this is what I'm trying to point out. Free markets are not about businesses making things safer and better on their own accord. They will naturally be forced to do such through competition with others. If they don't keep improving, their competitor will take over. Imagine if Microsoft stopped making Windows safer and better. The tech industry is a good example of a (relatively) free market.
I wasn't aware that Microsoft ever STARTED making windows safer. Admittedly they started trying to make it better when other companies started really showing some actual market advance and they couldn't just buy them out.
"I wasn't aware that Microsoft ever STARTED making windows safer"
Microsoft releases security patches when they find vulnerabilities and have been adding things like firewall and malicious software scanner and built Vista & 7 with much more security. I think this qualifies as improving safety
The point is, markets regulate better than gov. We still need gov to protect our rights, but that's about it. I highly recommend searching for "stossel crony capitalism". Great video
I lost my train of thought. Anyway: I'm not saying Ron Paul is a bad guy, or that his policies are particularly terrible, just that sometimes they are systems that we have tried in the past and changed because they didn't work very well. If there was some way to actually divorce businesses from lining our governors wallets then we might see an improvement, but regardless of what is done there will be a way to buy around it. It's appropriate that Lady Liberty was made out of copper.
That is the way of the world. When you buy a shirt part of the price is because the CEO, and shareholders want to make a certain amount of money. even if it is an unrealistic amount of profit. So the problem is abroad.
Sorry, but the problem is here. How can you blame others for offering something cheaper? Jobs only go abroad because costs are artificially high here thanks to taxes and gov regulation.
You are right though that corps want to make profits. Normally, they'd have to offer better stuff for cheaper to profit, but many get it by lobbying for more gov subsidies, regulations, and taxes in our crony capitalist system. Our system (gov) is the problem and it will not be fixed by more gov
Boy, the irony sure is thick. VP of the "Independent" Women's Forum, and she's taking her third maternity leave. I guess there's a different definition of independence when it comes to females, eh?
To be fair, though, she's better than 99% of women when it comes to this, merely because she speaks out and has some semblance of an understanding of economics.
Seriously, the entire world could fit into Texas and it would be less dense than New York City.
Stossel debunks this myth in "Is America Number 1?" when he visits struggling India which is said to be overpopulated. Then he visits Hong Kong, a tiny rock with over 6,000 people per square mile, which is amazingly wealthy.
You think there aren't too many people on the planet? Then why is it that I can't even walk more than a mile without running into a road, a strip mall, a power line, a building?
Have you ever used google maps? When you zoom into most countries all you can see are squares. You know what those are? Agriculture. There's more developed land than undeveloped land on the planet. You know why? Cause there's too many fucking people!
The fact that there is a lot of developed land does not at all necessarily mean there's too many people. It does not follow.
Your statement about not being able to go a mile without running into a road or whatever doesn't tell me much. For most people, that is true because most people live in places where they're near a lot of other people.
I think the problem here is what exactly is "too many". I think "too many people" is when you can't go hardly anywhere habitable on this earth, build a house and have nobody tell you how it has to be built (building codes) or tax you on it (property taxes). It's not as if I could choose not to be in a country at all. Everybody had to grab a chunk of this rock and now there is nothing left.
@timanonymous Actually,the reason why the world seems to be overcrowded is because most people choose to congregate together. If you travel through this country--esp through the middle part,you can literally go hours before encountering anything more than a bird or a weasel. There are still lots of places where if you get lost nobody will find your body for years---if ever.
Yea but even if I moved to the country it's not like I can just do whatever I want out there. It's because of laws. Laws created by people. If I don't like the laws I could move somewhere else but in all likelihood it's probably owned by another country. Actually the only land not owned by anyone in this age is land that isn't even habitable. That's not an exaggeration either.
That is true. However you're assertion that there is more developed land than undeveloped is patently false. There isn't even more developed land in America than undeveloped. If you can't walk a mile without running into a strip mall then you haven't visited pretty much anywhere outside of suburban or urban developments. Even New York has more undeveloped land than developed.
if i was an employer, i'd give pregnant women maternity leave in the form of a pink slip.
UltraProle21 3 days ago
And it's this insane entitlement, participation trophy, me me me, mentality that is the root cause of our inability to compete in the global market, and the decline of our society as whole. Common sense, people! Ron Paul!
GodotheInfantry 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
suing for convenience....ppl need to wake the fuck up against these fucking feminists
Sam10947 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stossel says Greed is Good-defined as self interest-for the wealthy if so Greed-self interest- is good for other people the 99%. LITTLE FLAW IN STOSSEL STATEMENT GREED IS GOOD DEFINED AS SELF INTEREST THEN IT'S GOOD FOR EVERYONE NOT JUST WEALTHY!!!!!
FireflyMalcolm 1 month ago
third maternity leave in 4 years? I wouldn't want to keep her on the payroll either
theAbeElement 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsZeitgeist85 - Could you rephrase that first paragraph, are you saying that our current system is inefficient?
Because I think we basically agree on that. Medicare on the other hand has a stock of problems of it's own.
StateExempt 4 months ago
Comment removed
StateExempt 4 months ago
Comment removed
StateExempt 4 months ago
What if a female boss said "*I'm* having a baby, and need more $, so I'll now pay you less, sorry"?
Andybaby 4 months ago
Carrie Lucas is a stupid right wing shill that works for a think tank. Not a credible source of info.
I do enjoy when she makes a fool of herself on Thom Hartmann's show.
MsZeitgeist85 4 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 - She seems pretty informed about what she is talking about in this segment.
I would not consider Thom Hartmann to be much of an intellectual myself.
StateExempt 4 months ago
@StateExempt She went on his show spouting all these myths about health care in Canada when she didn't even know that there was not a single country in the world today that has for profit insurance for primary care. Or that every single country except the USA has the payer system collectivly bargin with the providers and the drug companys.
She's is biased and a fool.
MsZeitgeist85 4 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 - What "myths" about the inefficient system they have?
StateExempt 4 months ago
@StateExempt Canada's Medicare for all operates at 3% overhead. A for profit health insurance company here is 25% if you are lucky.
We have the most inefficent innefective system in the developed world.
MsZeitgeist85 4 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 - And yet the output of the latter is even greater. Just like private pensions have higher administrative costs yet deliver far more than the ponzi scheme of social security that owes trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.
StateExempt 4 months ago
@StateExempt Social Security is easy to fix just lift the cap on people over 100K and it will be solvent forever.
If you cost a private insurance company too much money here they drop you. In Canada you are covered no matter what.
With Private insurance in the US you pay twice the money and get half the coverage as you do in Canada.There is no comparison.
MsZeitgeist85 4 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 - Sorry, it still owes trillions in unfunded liabilities even if you force people that cannot use it to pay for it.
And yes, if you get in too many car crashes, get sick more than everyone else, or demand more treatment than other patients, insurance companies have no reason to force that cost on everyone else.
As for private insurance, you do not get trillions of dollars in debt like we do with medicare and medicaid.
StateExempt 4 months ago
A person and the person they work for both use each other as tools and agree to use each other as tools in order to make money off each other. If one of these two parties compromises its ability to make money for the other party then the suffering party should be allowed to end the marriage (unless a contract says otherwise). Imagine if companies compromised their ability to pay their employees, and the government made quitting based on this illegal.
BloodskullMannoroth 6 months ago 11
Corporations have more rights than people. The right to pursue profits doesn't trump human/civil rights.
bddc201 8 months ago
@bddc201 What are corportations? We talk so much about corportations vs the people, but corporations are owned by the people. If you have a 401K or an RRSP, or a mutual fund of any kind, you likely own corporations. Should you be forced into a contract against your will, where you are suppose to put up the money to start a business, and then hand over the reigns to be told how to run it by the government? Freedom of choice, that is the human right I stand by.
daobagua 7 months ago
@daobagua My employer can fire me for any reason or no reason at all. This is totally legal and they love reminding me of it. However, if they are negligent and I wind up getting injured or killed, I can't sue them, even if they were grossly negligent because I am an employee, I have fewer rights than some Joe off the street because of our legal/business relationship. Owning a business shouldn't give anyone the right to just do as they please. 401K is a wall street casino.
bddc201 7 months ago
@bddc201 If the business owner does something that causes you to get hurt, then you should be able to sue them. This is no different then if you drove into me with your car. So what if you do something stupid and hurt yourself at work, should employers be responsible? Should shareholders be responsible? Being an employee should not give people the right to be cradled to the grave.
daobagua 7 months ago
@daobagua If you don't believe me, check, it out yourself. A individual employee (in the state of Indiana) may not sue his employer for negligence. It is very different than if I drove into you with your car, because as a individual, you have rights, unless you're employed (owned) by a corporation. Corporations have way more rights than individuals, look into it and see yourself.
bddc201 7 months ago
@bddc201 How was the employer negligent? I work with high voltage equipment, if I do not follow safety standards, then I am responsible for my death or injury. If I follow safety standards and someone else doesn't follow the standards and I get hurt as a result (ex. he cuts my lock off the breaker and turns it on), then he is responsible for my injury. I do not see where the stock holder is responsible in this scenario.
daobagua 7 months ago
@daobagua I was speaking hypothetically. A employer can definitely be potentially negligent, say; they failed to repair machinery they knew was defective and a injury resulted. However, in the state of Indiana, it's the law they can't be sued.
bddc201 7 months ago
@bddc201 Well if they failed to repair the machinery, then would it not be the inspector who is negligent? Or the manager who told the person to use the machinery that he knew was broken? Or the person who used the machinery without proper safety gaurds? Or the engineer who designed to the machinery without a fail safe? But no, you think it is the stock owner.
daobagua 7 months ago
@daobagua Like I said, it's hypothetical. And the owner is ultimately responsible, unless he owns a corporation in Indiana and it's an employee that gets hurt. Non employees have rights, employees, not so much. Are you pretending to not understand?
bddc201 7 months ago
@bddc201 Like I said. I do not think the owner should be responsible for tasks that are above his control. You seem only to speak in vague hypotheticals. Could this be because if you actually went detail to detail, you would see that your point is flawed? If the employer did something that caused direct harm to the employee, he/she should be responsible. Aside from that, he/she should be.
daobagua 7 months ago
@daobagua I suspect you're getting it wrong on purpose. Go somewhere else and play. Bye.
bddc201 7 months ago
@bddc201 I am not trolling. I am asking you for an example of why you think a stock owner should be liable for something he/she had NO control over. Sure someone should be liable, but you think of the corporation as an evil entity, instead of people themself.
daobagua 7 months ago
a man's options: work or get fired and be a bum
a woman's options: stay at home or work, work and start a family still get paid leave and a job when you get tired of staying at home
equal rights in the work place?
whsejack 9 months ago
At the end of the day, these people are running a business. Hiring a woman of reproductive age is a liability. People are being hired to WORK.
SoggyPizzaPockets1 9 months ago
I say, force corporations to give extreme benefits to women if they become pregnant, with plenty of time off, continued full pay, etc. That way younger women will be discriminated against before they even get a job interview. Businesses will be reluctant to hire them due to the exuberant costs if they get pregnant. The women will be much more likely to be domesticated at home and stick with cooking, as it should be.
See, male chauvinists and woman's rights fighters have something in common.
groam6666 9 months ago
Why should women be punished for populating the country?
Cheers Christine
christinepeace 10 months ago
@christinepeace This is your coment! My gosh, even for a female you write stupidly!
TheDonnaEl 9 months ago
@christinepeace Because it's voluntary. By intentionally becoming pregnant they are costing their employers money and their co-workers have to work for their leave. If populating the country is so important they should just adopt some of the millions of starving, homeless, parentless children in the world instead of going into 8 1/2 months of work-leave, painful experiences, and making another mouth to feed in this overpopulated world.
megabrowser17 7 months ago
@megabrowser17 Yes, and it would be nice if more men would take responsibility when it comes to children. Part of this problem is father absenteeism. Women are so much more responsible for children when it takes two to tango. There are certain fact that will interfere such as pregnancy where a woman can choose to take lower pay, but men need to take a bigger role in raising their children after they are born. Having an absent parent is extremely bad for a child.
AshillaBeige 6 months ago
@AshillaBeige Lol, you're taking this into another topic. What they do with their children in how they raise them is their business. I was talking about the months of pregnancy specifically where they can not work. And yes I definitely know fathers should take a bigger role in child raising, instead of overtime at work. However, that also means women need to put more time in their work so that fathers can have that extra time with their children... It's also two-way in that perspective too.
megabrowser17 6 months ago
@megabrowser17 I think it would be great if the poor parentless children in this world were adopted and can here but until then....
christinepeace 6 months ago
@christinepeace But until what? You give no subject to "but" about either. Your sentence structure doesn't make any sense near the end too. "and can here" is not even proper grammar and you literally leave off the rest of your sentence. I can't review what you say if I can't understand what you're saying.
megabrowser17 6 months ago
Part one- I was trying to agreeing with your comment in which you state "If populating a country is so important they should just adopt some of the millions of starving, homeless, parentless children in the world...” As in any response to a comment on a YouTube, you should reread your own comment to refresh the memory of the topic being responded too. As for the meaning of the word “here” I am referring to the country I am living in, the name of which is not important to my statement.
christinepeace 6 months ago
part two- Until all the children are adopted women will still need to take off work to repopulate their particular country, thought that was clear and didn't need spelling out. I did make one mistake in typing which does happen to me sometimes I drop words because the speed at which I am typing differs from the speed at which I am thinking. In the last comment I dropped the word "live" and the sentence should have read "...were adopted and can live here but until then..."
christinepeace 6 months ago
@christinepeace Shouldn't that statement be the other way around? "Until all the children are adopted women don't need to take off work to repopulate their country because they could solve their want of having a child, not needing 8 1/2 months of work leave and not leaving a hole at work." Three problems solved for the price of saving a child, literally a win-win-win for the mother, child, and the workplace. Millions of parentless children in other countries can be adopted to repopulate too.
megabrowser17 6 months ago
@megabrowser17 no it shouldn't. till people start to adopt women will still need to give birth.
christinepeace 6 months ago
@christinepeace You're using circular logic. That's like saying until we stop having wars in the world all people will still need to kill. But the killing itself is what makes war.
The only way to stop the "need" to give birth so much is by starting to adopt yourself when wanting a child. You say that people don't adopt and that until people do, then we still need to give birth. If everyone followed your advice then no one would EVER adopt the ever increasing amount of the unwanted after birth.
megabrowser17 6 months ago
@wigglethemiddle1; @CBMcDI
Thanks a lot! I'll try to have finished my translation by the end of the pending weekend.
contrrev 10 months ago
The pregnant woman who defended these corporations (Lucas) says that "if employers discriminate against enough people (women) it's going to be bad for them in the long run, it's a bad business practice." but then about a minute and a half before she argues that most pregnant women impose costs on their employers. Haha, contradiction. So how's it going to be bad business practice for a company not hiring women if she argued beforehand that pregnant women cost these companies money?
DarkReapersGrim 11 months ago
@DarkReapersGrim
She's saying the laws make her more costly to the company. But at the same time, pregnant women can still work, and if the government didn't artifically raise her cost to the company, they would be more easily find more work.
TheShaniqua1992 8 months ago
why would you hire a woman if they're gonna cost you more.
ALucas73 11 months ago
Hello, fellows! I'm really impressed of John Stossel's shows, they are incredibly valuable. For this reason I would like to translate this video to Polish, but I've encountered two minor problems. I can't get what they are talking about in 1:15-1:17 and 2:02-2:05 These are only a few words I can't hear properly, but I want my translation to be excellent. :) Could anyone write what is said there? Thanks in advence, I would be very grateful.
contrrev 11 months ago
@contrrev
1:15 An outgrowth of the womens' movement is the law that says it's illegal to fire or not hire a woman because she's pregnant.
1:59 Holly's lawyer, David Sanford, says that's nonsense, and he's filed a class-action lawsuit. The message is, if you get pregnant, you're in trouble at Novartis.
CBMcDI 10 months ago
@contrrev @ 1:15 -17 stossel says: "the law is an outgrowth of the woman's movement" .. this is basically saying that the philosophical movement in the US stressing woman's rights gave rise to the increase in legislation protecting those rights (anti-discrimination, anti-work place harassment laws) ... @ 202 stossel says the lawyer has filed "a class action lawsuit." This is basically a suit against a defendant that includes multiple parties, thus, many people may be plaintiffs on a single suit
wigglethemiddle1 10 months ago
If you aren't going to work/can't work, you should be fired and every business owner 'should' have the right to do so.
I want to go visit Europe for 3 months, please give me tourism leave!
Ataensic 1 year ago
and of course they say that discrimination laws are bad, so I suppose they should aboilish discrimination laws that stop companies from hiring blacks?
phantomsuccour 1 year ago
okay fine, let it reach the poin that having kids would mean a woman gets fired, please let's do!! the birth rate would go down to a point where the population is on a downward spiral constantly dropping.
phantomsuccour 1 year ago
Lawyers will be 1st against the wall when the revolution comes.
horgensnot 1 year ago 26
@horgensnot Dude just for that comment I want to friend request you on facebook and you join my facebook blog. That comment is a happy thing to see.
Charlesperalo 11 months ago
@horgensnot The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers - Shakespeare
KayamaTakeru 10 months ago
@horgensnot Nah Bankers will be 1st to go.
1XMarksSpot 8 months ago
@horgensnot - I think politicians should come next, if not first.
StateExempt 4 months ago
Both ladies make compelling points, but here's mine. Lukas must not be strapped for cash or in a desperate situation with such an open-minded boss to allow her to customize her work details. Not everyone is lucky enough to find such a squishy situation, so it's discriminatory to point fingers. Just my opinion.
xxmissglamourousxx 1 year ago
@xxmissglamourousxx Still doesn't mean that others should subsidize a family's choice to have another kid despite the fact they can't afford it.
madmravyn 11 months ago
You know, if this was the year 1950, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
MishuTaste 1 year ago
That lawyer is a blood sucking tick
ecuadmail 1 year ago
I'm a little confused, what's all this talk about pregnant women/new mothers getting paid for not working? The US does not have paid maternity leave, only the FMLA which allows anyone (man or woman) to take up to 12 weeks of UNPAID leave a year for any family medical issue (this includes paternity leave), anything paid would have to be either vacation or sick leave, which has a limit. The only other thing is short-term disability, but there's a limit to that and it varies by state.
xxpehbcemm 1 year ago
@xxpehbcemm I don't know if it is a state law (California), but my very close friend's wife intentionally got a job when then decided to have their second child to that they could get paid maternity leave. And they did get paid.
MortuusTyrannus 1 year ago
@MortuusTyrannus yeah, either it was a California law or something that the particular company offered, but it's definately not a normal thing in the US, I think this is one of the few industrialized countries that doesn't have paid maternity leave nation-wide
xxpehbcemm 1 year ago
Jon Stossel is such a tool..... If this chick wants kids, that's a CHOICE. She gives up some things because of that choice. If she chooses a career, same deal....
Last thing I'm going to do is take labor law advice from either Stossel or the bimbo he has in this story.....
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak it's not legal advice
kubaniski 1 year ago
@kubaniski Then make that any advice......
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak
the beautiful thing about choices, are the consequences that you have to face for them. Good or bad.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@eaodak
the beautiful thing about choices, are the consequences that you have to face for them. Good or bad. Plus, if she has a choice, so does the guy who's life has been spent building that country not to risk what he has for her choice.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
All not taking off from work to pay for a stupid mortgage rather than renting. This is a result of the federal reserve and government.
dukee155 1 year ago
god forbid people think before getting pregnant
ForTehNguyen 1 year ago
Congress never solves anything. Companies have the right to fire whom they will, even if you don't think it's fair.
aslynelf 1 year ago
Overpopulation is a personal perspective. Personally, the less people on this planet the better. Women should feed their brains and hearts with ideas and experiences rather than going for babies. So many women have babies only to realize that they really didn't want them or couldn't afford them later on. Why rush to have children when you haven't had coffee in Paris or sat on the beach in Brazil? Why not see the Pyramids of Egypt or Machu Picchu in Peru? There's more to life than life!
AudioIndi 1 year ago
@AudioIndi Though seeing the world would be nice. I am told by those who are mom, that nothing beats creating a life.
aslynelf 1 year ago
@aslynelf Nothing beats having unprotected sex but if we all went around doing it 24/7 the world would be a mess. Everyone would have one or two dozen kids. Just because we enjoy something doesn't mean we should do it. Although we all have a right to live naturally we still must accept responsibilty and limits. You do and I do now. That's a fact. All I am saying is in our new world with our modern lifestyles we have to re-evealuate our choices.
AudioIndi 1 year ago
@AudioIndi You completely misinterpreted what I said. I never said people should do what they want and not accept responsibility for it. But there is nothing wrong with wanting to marry and have a family.
aslynelf 1 year ago
Stossel kicks butt!
casienwhey 1 year ago 2
Humans are the most renewable resource on the planet.Americans are pompous & arrogant .
russcd1 1 year ago
@russcd1 What an absolutely stupid comment. The only thing Algeria exports are terrorists.
mtb416 1 year ago
It is against the law to disriminate based on pregnancy. Under the law you have rights and if you fall into this category then you should contact the EEOC. Companies do not have the right to violate the law and firing a woman because she got pregnant is both immoral and wrong. I would file a lawsuit if it was me because Novartis should know better. Knowing your rights is probably the most important thing you need to know before entering the workforce.
dmeiske1 1 year ago
@dmeiske1 The argument isn't whether companies should or shouldn't violate the law, it's whether or not the law in question should be a law in the first place.
Tummler 1 year ago 24
@Tummler And that the law hurts employers and as with any regulation that hurt is passed onto employees and consumers because of the tremendous losses the law can cause.
ak47523 1 year ago
@Tummler
Yep it's an unfunded mandate-- people are trying to run a business, and socialists are trying to put them OUT of business.
This will simply lead to companies NOT HIRING women OR minorities OR people with disabilities, making up excuses for why they do it.
Of course this will lead to quota-systems, which will be even worse.
postalmeter 8 months ago
Companies outsource the least value added jobs overseas and use the saving to hire people to do higher value added jobs and since these overseas jobs pay on average two to three times the going wages in the countries the people are grateful for the work. To call these people oppressed is both condescending and dehumanizing.
bullpcp 1 year ago
A one million dollar CEO salary divided by 100,000 employees would equal ten dollars a year, a ten million salary would equal 100. If you took the all the top administrators and redistributed all their salaries you would end up with a marginal increase in overall salary and no one to run the company. Profits are reinvested in the company allow it to grow, hire more people, and become more productive, increasing societal wealth.
bullpcp 1 year ago
We could not pay stockholder or those who invested in the company, of course then no one would continue to invest the company. But I'm worth all this after all what's fair is fair right?
bullpcp 1 year ago
This would decrease overall productivity or increase costs but you can afford it just make the CEO work for free. Of course this wouldn't put a dent in the loss of productivity do to my decisions but this would sure make me feel good. You could spend your profits but of course they were going to be reinvested in the company to hire more people and buy physical capital to increase productivity so we could continue to be competitive, but who needs that?
bullpcp 1 year ago
I want to do something that will reduce and then completely eliminate my productivity from the company for a few months a year for several years but be paid full salary and benefits. All you have to do is increase the workload of my peers or hire more employees.
bullpcp 1 year ago
To most employers, spreading your legs to take a deposit is not a job skill.
IceBergTYS 1 year ago
Also, although the pregnancy act may cost companies, unemployed single mothers cost the government, in the form of welfare. So either way, we pay for people to have children. What's the difference? And don't most white conservatives want their women to have more children anyway? Why wouldn't you encourage that any way that you can, whether it's welfare or maternity leave for mothers?
38118121520205 1 year ago
@38118121520205 Your assumption seems to be that without this "protection" more females would be unemployed. This is demonstrably untrue. Employment of females in Canada and Europe is LESS than in the united states. The more stringent the nature of these "protective" laws the FEWER women are employed. This is because these laws increase the cost to employ women both by forcing them to deal with more regulation and the possibility of future litigation.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@38118121520205 and also the problem you mention with unemployed single mothers having to be a burden either way is simply a drastic oversimplification. every person's situation is different and your method simply creates a structural problem that affects not only the companies which then pass their additional cost onto the consumers or the government which opens the door for administrative cost and abuse. you make too many assumptions, and it takes too long to correct one by one. peace.
spyletu 1 year ago
So, supposedly this pregnancy act is hurting women... then why are more women employed than men? Aside from the fact that women are paid less than men, so are considered a better hire, there doesn't seem to be anything that is stopping businesses from employing women.
38118121520205 1 year ago
@38118121520205 lol wrong.. don't complicate the issue by asking a bunch of questions.. let's finish the thought and you would have your answer. first of all during the recession those jobs that get the most cut are high pay jobs. and if you haven't noticed, a lot of later added jobs are government or administrative jobs which are all skewed towards women. the country has been going heavier into a service sector economy, and i need not also go into details (continue)
spyletu 1 year ago
@38118121520205 and i need not also go into details with the increasing unbalances of our consumption outstripping how much our economy type is able to put out year after year. your question is like "well if i take out salt and add a bunch of hot pepper is the taste still as heavy" and if the answer is yes, maybe salt was never added in the first place.. "doesn't seem to be"? doesn't seem like a phrase belonging in a logical discussion. just slow down. finish your thoughts.
spyletu 1 year ago
@38118121520205 That's mythological crap! Women are not payed less - it's against the law and companies are scared shitless to do it. More women may be employed because more women finish highschool, more women graduate college. This country has been molded so that women now have the advantage in every aspect of life. Regardless of that your argument is stupid - if there is nothing stopping businesses from hiring women then why bother with the law????
spec24 1 year ago
I'd have to do more research to give a more solid opinion but I do see the validity of both sides of the argument. I wish the segment was longer so that a more thorough explaination would be given. I think it's more complex than women getting pregnant.
Zeeroyuy 1 year ago
The moral of the story?
DON'T HAVE KIDS.
Oyaji291 1 year ago
My first time seeing this special (from 2009). As always, John Stossel is awesome.
coout 1 year ago 3
4:10 Lawyer: "[Being afraid] would be violating the law."
hitssquad 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Illuminati=ET kin aka gods, Ea, Sirians, Satan, Pepsi, angels/demons, dragons, hulu, vampires, bluebloods, Al Gore, Windsors, Rothschilds, Rockefellars etc who rule cults like Freemasonry. Their agenda: continually cull/victimize people via gum/other poisons, Codex Alimentarius, carbon taxes, internet 2, WW3 then stage an alien invasion to get a fascist world government/religion with us chipped. Support DrDeagle, Stewart Swerdlow, Oracle Broadcasting, gardeners and free-energy techs!
deagla2 1 year ago
John Stossel rocks! It's so great to see open discussion about so many things that have become politically correct.
Market Rules always trump politics.
seanspade 1 year ago 11
Rotten lawyer alert at: "AND HIS LAW FIRM"
loszhor 1 year ago
This is BS, why can't a private business run their co. the way that they need too? You can't run a business when you don't have your employees there.
InFromTheVoid 1 year ago
@InFromTheVoid Because liberal politicians have taken control of our lives and no one has the balls to stop them.
spec24 1 year ago
Men don't have to quit a job just because they decide to have a child, nor do they have to kill their child before birth to get a promotion. It staggers the mind that society demands women be responsible for the rearing of offspring then penalize them for it.
twincrier 1 year ago
Likewise, men are not given paternity leave when they have a child. Women are asking for special treatment.
smartalex1972 1 year ago 5
@twincrier thoughts from a simple mind. Good God I weep for the future.
spec24 1 year ago
getting pregnant is a choice
you choose to have sex
If your career is more important, then don't get pregnant.
easy
simple
HandyMan101 2 years ago 40
That's way too complicated, please simplify more.
karozans 2 years ago
@HandyMan101 Libertarians view humans as commodities.
SupernautG 1 year ago
@SupernautG no, shit for brains, libertarians view humans as people. Each an individual with rights not GIVEN to them by the government but protected by the government. People with rights to choose the path that is best for them. We don't view "humans" like you do, a series of protected classes, each one ready to have their feelings hurt but another class we deem lesser or better than the next. It's people like you that view them as commodities.
spec24 1 year ago
@spec24 Anytime anyone says anything libertarian, spit on them. Libertarians are by definition enemies of the state: they are against promoting American citizens’ general welfare and against policies that create a perfect union. Like Communists before them, they are actively subverting the Constitution and the American Dream, and replacing it with a Kleptocratic Nightmare.
SupernautG 1 year ago
@HandyMan101
woah woah, stop making so much sense.
girzwald3 1 year ago
@HandyMan101
Youre dumb as dirt.
So you dont want focused, constructive women to have families?
You want the least productive/lowst earners only to have children?
What would happen to our overall birthrate>?
How would that manifest itself in the long run....THINK A LITTLE.
zaxx19 1 year ago
@zaxx19 No one is stopping them from having families by not GIVING them something for getting pregnant.You completely take it out of context.A housewife with NO job gets NO money, so why should a working woman get money while she isn't working?The housewife with NO job is still paying taxes.No one here is against woman working OR having children, but expecting to get paid for something that is under our control, is simply wrong.Forcing people not to FIRE you is one thing, paid leave is another.
Clyaton 1 year ago
@zaxx19 you need to think first. The least productive/lowest earners ARE the ones having the children. As economic status increases birth rate falls - you may want to educate yourself before posting these things. We have this, genius, because of our gevernment's intervention into every aspect of our lives where those who earn NOTHING are paid to have children. THINK A LITTLE.
spec24 1 year ago
@HandyMan101 What if someone rapes you and you become pregnant? Was having sex a choice in that scenario?
profesoralola 1 year ago
@profesoralola Yeah. I am wondering how many women get raped in the US and get pregnant from it? Do you have the stats on that? You probably don't, but I would be willing to bet $20 that there are probably only a handful of cases per year. Besides wouldn't you just kill the baby? Isn't that what liberals do when they are faced with pregnancy? Don't you guys have drive-thru abortions these days?
karozans 1 year ago
@karozans they love killing babies!
spec24 1 year ago
@profesoralola
I'm guessing if you got raped you're not going back to work the next day. Just my opinion.
TheWhiteRabbit1990 1 year ago
@profesoralola
Standard issue in any rape kit is a near overdose of emergency contraceptives. Even after a rape, the pregnancy is still the woman's responsibility. Besides you would be punishin gthe baby for what the rapist did. That's not right.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@HandyMan101 sometimes it isn't that easy. Not everyone can support adequate birth control methods, and not everyone can afford to be pregnant and out of work. Married couples are entitled to being intimate, and if a child is a result, that's natural and should not be penalized. If someone is in a car accident, they must recover before returning to work. Just the same it's unfair to fire an employee for an unforeseeable change.
theKrystalcharm 1 year ago
@theKrystalcharm "Married couples are entitled to being intimate"
Does that mean if the dude can't get it up the taxpayer needs to spring for Viagra?
You have the right to free speech, but no one is obligated to provide you with a forum.
You have the right to bear arms, but no one is obligated to provide you with a gun.
And you have the right to be intimate with your spouse, but no one is obligated to protect you from the consequences.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
holy hsit, $200 million is too much
MaddDogg81 2 years ago
Yes, lawyers' outlandish lawsuits is a major reason why healthcare costs are so high as well. Lawyers are a cancer to the economy.
residentzombie 1 year ago
Without lawyers, life would be unbearable....
chukchee 1 year ago
As life with too many lawyers is also unbearable.
residentzombie 1 year ago
coase theorem?
wotdaf0ck 2 years ago
The absolutely finest system in the world (according to the AP) occurred after the AP (National Geographic helped) convinced the entire world, that Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, would be Utopian Fair and Equal Paradise in comparison to Capitalistic Rhodesia... In a way Zimbabwe was ECO friendly, and did use Natural fertilizer (human bodies) in place of industrial nitrogen. (they have a great police force)
Blogengezer 2 years ago
No there should be no "protections" aka extortions if a company does't want to hire a pregnant woman to work a forklift then by all means discriminate. It is my liberty to discriminate. Problem is men should be "working" aka engaged in business and women shouldn't for the msot part be.
deltapunk21 2 years ago
Correct jjason1985, I was commenting on the issue brought up on the video. I once worked with a woman who had two maternaty leaves in three years, making the rest of our department cover her work load. You're right eternallyfoxwinter, most of America is undeveloped.
1973Annette 2 years ago
Damn, I accidently commented with a friend's account
heero081 2 years ago
Lets be honest: if you dont' want to get sued frivolously as often, don't hire women at all.
eternallyfoxwinter 2 years ago
@eternallyfoxwinter Exactly! That is the problem with all these discrimination laws- Bleeding heart types think that you can enforce morality at the end of a gun barrel. And profit is a dirty word, it seems.
This is exactly Ron Paul's stance on discrimination in America, though I'm sure you know that :)
jjason1985 2 years ago
Ron Paul's economic policies are a little too laissez faire for me. I appreciate his ability to keep himself from leaning into the neo-conservative non-sense, but he almost waxes Anarcho-capitalist. His discrimination policies are realistic however.
eternallyfoxwinter 2 years ago
First, he is consistent. Nobody can argue that. He is principled and he stands by his ideology, as evidence in his writings and voting record.
Second, he strongly believes in regulation, so the anarchistic comment does not apply. His views on regulation come from the free market. If your butcher sells you bad meat, he will be out of business very soon. Therefore, he regulates himself to keep sanitary.
I appreciate that a wide range of people can see the logic in some, if not all, of his policies
jjason1985 2 years ago
I agree, he is consistent and very, very principled. His business principles of regulation seem to revolve around an honor system that yielded total abuse prior to government inspection policies. I am a big "free market" fan until "free market" becomes a blanket to hide "held unaccountable". That is the only thing that keeps me from supporting him other than his isolationism policies.
eternallyfoxwinter 2 years ago
No, no, no. The "free market" was not truly free. If you pull easy money from the equation (Fed sets artificially low interest rates), then there is no collapse because where would the money come from? This is a common myth that I would like to dispel. Then you have fannie and freddy and a bunch of political figures saying that everyone should own a home. But they wouldn't buy a house in a free market because they cant afford it. Look deeper, the market was not free
jjason1985 2 years ago
We're talking about different things.
eternallyfoxwinter 2 years ago
eternallyfoxwinter
You misunderstand free markets if you think it's an "honor system". The free market self-regulates. This does not mean the butcher (from previous example) regulates himself. It means his customers regulate him. Consumers have certain demands and if they are not met they will not buy. Consumers are much more strict regulators than gov. They'll often form organizations and go to great lengths to make an example of a bad business. (const)
someguy3sg3 2 years ago
(cont)
Gov policies don't make things any safer. In many ways they make it worse. Consumers prefer independent inspections and will happily pay a little more for it. Gov however is not independent since the seller may have buddies there or lobbyists to influence it. Without gov, there would be more demand for private independent reviewers -- kosher and organic certifications are examples. Also, gov has incentive to fail and scare everyone into giving up more power for more regs to "fix" it
someguy3sg3 2 years ago
@someguy3sg3
Yeah. The problem with all that is that it is how things would work in a perfect world. In this magical, sparkly happy land a communist society exists without currency and deals freely on the world market, and Anarchic systems work without degenerating into tribal governments run by self-styled dictators, and independent organizational inspectors can't be purchased for the same or less than a government inspector can. We tried the system you describe in the 20s, and
eternallyfoxwinter 2 years ago
@someguy3sg3
We wound up with dead workers and animal feces thrown in with the animals in processing plants and served to the consumer with them being none the wiser. Independent consumer market control works on a very local level but when you have multi-lateral corporations running near-monopolies through sister-company chains then you run out of places to consume. Without a huge organization to follow this then we wind up with the state of the market from about 1880 to the 1940s.
eternallyfoxwinter 2 years ago
@someguy3sg3
The system that spawned the government watchdogs that have greatly cleaned up what we have the option of consuming. The better business bureau does it's part, but even if we organized a non-government run watchdog organization to inspect and remind business that the customer is the party that needs pleased then all we've done is organized a new government branch. We're paying for it and it's just as susceptible to corruption so what real difference can it make?
eternallyfoxwinter 2 years ago
eternallyfoxwinter
You make some good points. However, we still have deaths and food quality problems. But there are improvements, which I'd argue are largely due to technology and experience, not so much gov policies.
I'm not suggesting what you're thinking, which is basically a one-size-fits-all-solution. Again, you misunderstand the free market. Monopolies are very unlikely in a free market since corps will not be able to buy gov protection and the bigger the corp the easier they fall.
someguy3sg3 2 years ago
eternallyfoxwinter
The free market approach would be to, as Ron Paul says, legalize competition: allow consumers to choose between gov regulated and pay the tax or completely private regulated with no tax and no gov shenanigans and only require products are labeled appropriately. Politicians won't allow this though because they want to keep their monopoly -- they know exactly what will happen. If the gov regulations were superior, they would not need to be mandated.
someguy3sg3 2 years ago
Fair enough. I admit I am oversimplifying the notion but I can't agree with business making things safer and "better" on their own. True, there are still deaths from food poisoning band such but nine out of ten times that is A: employee mishandling in a restaurant or B: Consumer misuse/storage issues. Irradiation is proving a good technique that is both cleaner and cheaper for the company. That would lead me to state that while a company will try to make a better product they
eternallyfoxwinter 2 years ago
eternallyfoxwinter
"but I can't agree with business making things safer and "better" on their own"
See, this is what I'm trying to point out. Free markets are not about businesses making things safer and better on their own accord. They will naturally be forced to do such through competition with others. If they don't keep improving, their competitor will take over. Imagine if Microsoft stopped making Windows safer and better. The tech industry is a good example of a (relatively) free market.
someguy3sg3 2 years ago
I wasn't aware that Microsoft ever STARTED making windows safer. Admittedly they started trying to make it better when other companies started really showing some actual market advance and they couldn't just buy them out.
eternallyfoxwinter 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
eternallyfoxwinter
"I wasn't aware that Microsoft ever STARTED making windows safer"
Microsoft releases security patches when they find vulnerabilities and have been adding things like firewall and malicious software scanner and built Vista & 7 with much more security. I think this qualifies as improving safety
The point is, markets regulate better than gov. We still need gov to protect our rights, but that's about it. I highly recommend searching for "stossel crony capitalism". Great video
someguy3sg3 2 years ago
I lost my train of thought. Anyway: I'm not saying Ron Paul is a bad guy, or that his policies are particularly terrible, just that sometimes they are systems that we have tried in the past and changed because they didn't work very well. If there was some way to actually divorce businesses from lining our governors wallets then we might see an improvement, but regardless of what is done there will be a way to buy around it. It's appropriate that Lady Liberty was made out of copper.
eternallyfoxwinter 2 years ago
Amazing people today believe someone else should pay for thier individual decisions and personal lives.
heero081 2 years ago 4
That is the way of the world. When you buy a shirt part of the price is because the CEO, and shareholders want to make a certain amount of money. even if it is an unrealistic amount of profit. So the problem is abroad.
kosstmoran 2 years ago
That is just like any business everywhere.
heero081 2 years ago
Bad analogy. The CEO does a job, despite their bad image. Therefore, if the job is adding value, he should be compensated.
Heero081 seems to be saying that you cannot do stupid shit and then ask someone else to foot the bill with their hard-earned money.
jjason1985 2 years ago
kosstmoran
Sorry, but the problem is here. How can you blame others for offering something cheaper? Jobs only go abroad because costs are artificially high here thanks to taxes and gov regulation.
You are right though that corps want to make profits. Normally, they'd have to offer better stuff for cheaper to profit, but many get it by lobbying for more gov subsidies, regulations, and taxes in our crony capitalist system. Our system (gov) is the problem and it will not be fixed by more gov
someguy3sg3 2 years ago
Boy, the irony sure is thick. VP of the "Independent" Women's Forum, and she's taking her third maternity leave. I guess there's a different definition of independence when it comes to females, eh?
WelfareRobot 2 years ago
To be fair, though, she's better than 99% of women when it comes to this, merely because she speaks out and has some semblance of an understanding of economics.
WelfareRobot 2 years ago 2
theres too many fucking people anyways....
timanonymous 2 years ago
Overpopulation is a big fat MYTH!
Seriously, the entire world could fit into Texas and it would be less dense than New York City.
Stossel debunks this myth in "Is America Number 1?" when he visits struggling India which is said to be overpopulated. Then he visits Hong Kong, a tiny rock with over 6,000 people per square mile, which is amazingly wealthy.
Knightmessenger 2 years ago 10
You think there aren't too many people on the planet? Then why is it that I can't even walk more than a mile without running into a road, a strip mall, a power line, a building?
Have you ever used google maps? When you zoom into most countries all you can see are squares. You know what those are? Agriculture. There's more developed land than undeveloped land on the planet. You know why? Cause there's too many fucking people!
timanonymous 2 years ago
The fact that there is a lot of developed land does not at all necessarily mean there's too many people. It does not follow.
Your statement about not being able to go a mile without running into a road or whatever doesn't tell me much. For most people, that is true because most people live in places where they're near a lot of other people.
Knightmessenger 2 years ago
I think the problem here is what exactly is "too many". I think "too many people" is when you can't go hardly anywhere habitable on this earth, build a house and have nobody tell you how it has to be built (building codes) or tax you on it (property taxes). It's not as if I could choose not to be in a country at all. Everybody had to grab a chunk of this rock and now there is nothing left.
timanonymous 2 years ago
@timanonymous Actually,the reason why the world seems to be overcrowded is because most people choose to congregate together. If you travel through this country--esp through the middle part,you can literally go hours before encountering anything more than a bird or a weasel. There are still lots of places where if you get lost nobody will find your body for years---if ever.
sleedolfine15 2 years ago
Yea but even if I moved to the country it's not like I can just do whatever I want out there. It's because of laws. Laws created by people. If I don't like the laws I could move somewhere else but in all likelihood it's probably owned by another country. Actually the only land not owned by anyone in this age is land that isn't even habitable. That's not an exaggeration either.
timanonymous 2 years ago
That is true. However you're assertion that there is more developed land than undeveloped is patently false. There isn't even more developed land in America than undeveloped. If you can't walk a mile without running into a strip mall then you haven't visited pretty much anywhere outside of suburban or urban developments. Even New York has more undeveloped land than developed.
eternallyfoxwinter 2 years ago