@stephenabm People like Obama do not care about economics. They couldn't care less if everyone was poor an miserable. As long as the differences between people were reduced. That is the ultimate driving idea behind socialism. They would rather have nothing that see someone better than themselves be rewarded. And their greatest joy is to take from that man, give it to someone they find deserving, and orgasm at the 'justice' they just meted out.
@topperheartramada You are correct, Obama is a dedicated Marxist Leninist and not interested in improving the economy or anything in America. I truly wish Milton Friedman was around today to educate these politicians.
@stephenabm Marxists always have fantastic plans and theories and what not, but they never deliver. They are too busy trying to emancipate the 'disadvantaged' and to re-distribute wealth while legislating everything and taking away your freedom (for your own good, of course). It's all for the greater good.
If you put government in charge of the economy, what you are doing is replacing hundreds of small evils with one centralized, comparitively omnipotent evil. The lesser of two evils is still evil put the logical solution is to support the former.
milton friedman is an intelligent man who can speak the truths in simple, grass roots and popular terms. He is not perfect(neither is his theory; but no theory is perfect) but pretty near it!
My face when Milton loves using public money to bail out businesses then claim "Free Market" LOL Niggers dont know he was behind FDR in the new deal. I was for it before I was against it.
1) Friedman and his take on socialism and gov't aught to be taught in schools.
2) this is Libertypen's best video yet
3) I resent modern liberalism and liberals, for stealing the word and forcing us libertarians to use this new phrase to embrace an exceptional but unknown ideology.
This guy is so afraid of government that he doesn't realize how dangrous corporations can be- Tomorrow is March 25, it's the anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire in NYC. That tragedy was a sign to the whole world of how dangerous corporate greed can be if not checked by the government- If corporatons could have their way they would rob us all. Government is the only way to implement safty measures and rules aginst this unchecked greed.
@CarlosMarti123 And that's bad, right? OK, if you belive that then vote people out who are doing things you don't like. Now what do you do when corporations are doing things like ruining our planet and abusing consumers to the point of economic destablization?
@CarlosMarti123 I don't think corporations should be allowed to sell harmful products like bad mortgages that ruin the economy-And don't give me that Fannie&Freddie stuff- Fannie May was around since 1938 started by FDR and there was NO PROBLEM till the Bush regieme DEREGULATED the CRAP out of it allowing for preditory corporate abuse which hurt us all!. We shouldn't be able to buy U238 or certain assalt weapons or large quantities of firtlizer and deisel fuel. But what's your point?
@libere My point, you fucking idiot, is that conomic competition allows products with better QUALITY/EFFICIENCY/PRICES to be produced. Capitalism is the system where people can CHOOSE how to spend their own money, not to hand it over through COERCION to the corporate government.
@CarlosMarti123 That's all good- AS LONG AS, the companies that produce this stuff are abiding by certain regulations! Like cleaning up environmental messes they create, keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere, upholding stricked health codes and HOPEFULLY NOT exploiting workers around the world AND not using money to rig OUR GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR BOTTOM LINE- Do you have a problem with that? Capitalism needs to be regulated -It's proven to be dangerous- It's that simple.
@CarlosMarti123 Ok, do you have virus protection on your compter? Why do you need it? That's the same reason why we need regulations on business- The sad thing is, people will try to use and abuse you for a buck. I really hope this isn't too disgusting of a conversation for you- If you feel bothered I'll stop but I feel it's a great way to learn what peole besides yourself are thinking.
@libere Yes, but the Antivirus is there because I CHOOSE to have it there as an individual, since I have the right to manage my own computer. I don't have it there because someone ELSE obliges me to use it. If I want, I could remove it to increase system performance: it's MY individual choice.
@CarlosMarti123That's a bit of a silly pose-You couldn't surf the next for 3 days before to would riun your hard drive. Right now you have the choice to use virus protection HOWEVER,I can imagine a day when it will beREQUIREDto protect us all because we're growing more interdependent.And we've come to another point-These "isms" are Utopian goals that don't really exist in reality,so many values that we all love may be impossible to maintain at certain population levels.We're growing very large
@libere "Right now you have the choice to use virus protection HOWEVER,I can imagine a day when it will beREQUIREDto protect us all because we're growing more interdependent."
You want the STATE to force us to use ANTIVIRUSES in our computers???
Listen up folks, an excellent insight into the mind of a totalitarian.
The government has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to tell me what antivirus to use on MY computer. That's my choice, MY risk. Not YOURS. Get that into your head.
@CarlosMarti123Well, maybe one day it could be like car insurance, we all have to have it that's all I'm saying.
There are much bigger problems looming on the horizon than these imagined threats.Beware of corporate money influence in your government; they can create illusions of truth depending on their needs-that's how we will lose our freedom; it's already happening-That's the biggest point I can make to you- I guess that's all I can tell you, we've covered pretty much everything else.
@CarlosMarti123 You can buy what ever you want from anybody BUT you wouldn't want half the shit these corporations try to sell you without government regulations- Salmonilla, EColi, Cancer, Crap mortgages- Do you want any of this???
@libere If you're talking about the SHIT of the FDA, you better watch this video: /watch?v=dZL25NSLhEA. The FDA has proven to be a lousy job, preventing dozens of useful medical drugs from entering the U.S. because of their 'regulation' policies, driving medical research OUTSIDE the U.S. Go figure.
@CarlosMarti123 The lack of respect for science is a big problem in this country- the religious right always make it impossible for real scientific research to happen here. As far as the FDA, I know all about the inefficiency; it's something that needs to be fixed however, it saved many lives in the country as well. So it's like saying cars are bad because they cause accidents. I'm with you on making all government more efficient if that's your argument. You wouldn't want to live without theFDA
@CarlosMarti123 It's so funny how you villify what I glorify and I glorify what you villify. The religious right make real scientific discussion difficult in this country. That's a big problem. That's partly the reason why young scientists are starting to look to other countries for employment.
@CarlosMarti123 Reading back, here's were I think the problem is - you said " it seems you want MORE government control and LESS individual freedom." How do you figure that??? I want all the individual freedom we can possibly have! I don't want corporations to have the freedom to turn our government into a plutocracy. How much freedom do you have when corporations elect your government? The financial infulence these huge corporations have it getting dangerous. Do you see that?
@libere "I don't want corporations to have the freedom to turn our government into a plutocracy."
Are you FUCKING BLIND? Our government IS a plutocracy you fool! Just look at the trillion-dollar deficit it has. The government raises taxes and uses the DECEITFUL and DISHONEST practice of inflation because it doesn't want to cut back spending. LOOK UP THE FIGURES.
@CarlosMarti123 Isn't it wierd how the health insurance companies fought hard to defeat the "CHOICE" of a public option? I guess choise is OK only as long as the insurance company monopolies are providing it. Am I missing something here?
'Insurance company monopolies'? The only monopoly that came as a result was the GOVERNMENT.
Don't you understand basic economics? When the government subsidizes goods and services, the private sector cannot compete, since the government receives a HUGE amount of income from federal taxes (business, personal income, gift and estate, you name it). Thus the private market has no incentive to compete and produce better quality/lower prices.
@CarlosMarti123 The private sector have distroyed the Healthcare system with greed- We've come to a point where the philisophical question is "Should we leave the important matter of US healthcare to corporations" Many people in this counry feel we shouldn't. This problem isn't only hurting our healthcare services but will eventually ruin us economically. Forget "good economics" that party is over.
@Hoyreliberal LaissezFaire is Slavery!!The corporations will own us all !!! If anyone believes in Laisses Faire they should leave their doors unlocked, leave the keys in the ignition of their open car, give away their ss# to strangers and never call the police if anything bad happens- That's what they want ,life without laws letting the pieces fall were they may as long as "everyone can do what they want"Where have you been in the passed 5 years? Corporate greed is a real threat to our democracy
@libere You are thinking of corporatism my friend, under Laissez-Faire corporations get fucked if they messed up, and under Laissez Faire police can exists, I want police to exist and most Laissez Faire supporters wants police.
How is the freedom to work where ever you want when ever you want slavery?
@HoyreliberalThe freedom to work anywhere ISN'Tthe problem! Don't you see that CORPORATIONS have a reptilian brain?They only know devour! They are a marauding force of unchecked human nature that will club us all to death for profit! It's really sad but that's the situation that through out history has been the case.Corpoartions are like fire,we need them but they must be CONTROLLED!They have proven to be very dangerous!That's my very simple point!You're preceiving the threat in the wrong place!
How will the corporations kill us? I mean they have to follow the laws too, and under Laissez Faire people are allowed to open businesses as the please without licenses, There have never been Laissez Faire and corporations have never ruled a country before, I can`t understand your issue =/
@Hoyreliberal Are you familiar with the US history of Labor?The murder and pillage of the working class at the hands of Corporations before government social reform? Does every generation need to relearn these lessons? And when the supreme court rules it leagal for corporations to spend un limited amout of money to elect politicians you don't see that as a blow to what's left of our democracy? Corporate interst even controlles "REALITY" they have people questioning the science of Global warming
@CarlosMarti123 Global warming is delusional?? There's my point exactly! Do you know how much corporate money it took to fabricate and foster that bullshit opinion that you bought as fact??? FOX NEWS gets paid to spew that garbage all day - and it fools a lot of people !! Stupid is the new smart.
What would he say to the idea that corporations are basically small monarchs that are influencing government policy in our country?? Would he see the importance and need to fight this somehow, or would he feel this would somehow take care of itself? Does government have a role in perserving our democracy's integrity?? That's my question to him.
@libere He would point out that corporations that become "small monarchs" happen BECAUSE of big government. Regulations cause the cost to make a good rise, making it hard to compete with big companies. And corporate lobbyists influence government b/c congress is willing to spend on them in big spending bills. Remove regulations, spending bills that help corporations, and corporate welfare by the right and left and suddenly corporations remain good businesses and don't become "small monarchs".
@ZerogunRivale I don't quite follow- Are you saying for instance, that environmental regulations hurt small companies more than bigger ones b/c the larger ones can afford to play by the new rules with much more ease??? Is that an example of government ruining things??? And we should out scorce jobs to keep prices down??? So the making of money is more important than the planet and the country?? Am I reading that right? Is that capitalism??? What good is that?? Please tell me I'm not getting it.
@libere Part 1: Not just environmental, ANY regulation costs businesses money. Small businesses can't keep up, and big ones end up monopolies because of it. If there are no regulations, small businesses can compete better, & there would be no monopolies. Friedman pointed out that government intervention always creates monopolies. In fact, most lobbyists for regulations are not muckrakers/environmentalists, but certain greedy corporations that want regulations to put small rivals out of business.
@ZerogunRivale I get all the arguments against taxes and how "businsses leave the country to stay competitive" BUT I see that all as an example of how the PRIORITIES of a CAPITALIST system will kill our planet and eat away at the fiber of our country. If we ALLOW businesses to outsorce and pollute and practice fine print rip off artestry, then WHAT GOOD IS ANY OF IT?Capitalism IS NOT FREEDOM!! IT WILL RUIN US ALL! and it only can exist in ever expanding markets which are quickly disappearing.
@libere Part 2: As for outsourcing, that is created by high taxation forcing businesses to move. That is not businesses being greedy, that is businesses not wanting to go out of business. If they stay in high tax areas, they potentially can go out of business or cannot expand, and then there will be fewer jobs. They're not greedy, they just want to survive. But again, government intervention in taxation is the problem, not the business itself.
@ZerogunRivale We know all Lobbyists are destroying the system-That's the strong arm of Capitalism as it invades our democracy-But, what most people don't get is that Capitalism ISN"T a form of government! Capitalism IS NOT FREEDOM-It WILL ENSLAVE US- It's a PRIVATE force that's JUST AS POWERFUL as government which means corporations have influence over us that WE "HAVE NO RIGHT" TO CONTROLE AS THEY TAKE OVER OUR GOVERNMENT.I don't care what logic ideology you use to defend this, it is wrong.
@CarlosMarti123 That line of "less individual freedom" is a frase created by corpoartions- I WANT individual freedoms, that's my whole concern!!! Corporations will distroy that! Corporations want the freedom to exclude people with pre exsisting conditions or use fine print rip off artistry to fool prospective clients and and more, and these parcitices DISTROY OUR ECONOMY & SOCIETY - This guy Milton is fine with that?, I'm not! You rather be a slave to corporate greed??
@libere Government should only be,PEOPLE COMING TOGETHER TO ACHEIVE IN UNISON WHAT WE CAN'T ACHEIVE ON OUR OWN. If we're being abused by corporate power, government is our only tool to stop it! OR don't buy or patronize these companies-HOWEVER, it's almost impossible to know what they're up to and what distruction they take part in.They don't put that info in their advertizing! It's very simple, and the truth is, WE HAVE and should ALWAYS HAVE government regulation in the business world!
@libere You liberal morons need to SHUT UP about your 'corporations' nonsense. THERE IS A CORPORTATION STEALING FROM US TODAY, AND IT'S CALLED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
I'd rather live in a world where I can decide how to spend my money, thank you. And that's the society ANY sensible person would want to live in, NOT in a society where the GOVERNMENT can spend YOUR money as it sees fit.
This is all good- HOWEVER- Right now the threat ISN'T so much from a move toward socialism but the CORPORATIONS infiltrating our government and distroying our democracy!!!! He says "When in history has there been a time and place where people have the freedoms that they have here and now" well, if CORPORATIONS could have their way, they would enslave us all!! And they are becoming stronger every day by paying our politicians off!!!! THAT'S our problem today!!
friedmans changed my whole view of things awhile back---> i used to think it was ludacris that good intellectual people were being subjected to such harsh environmental and economic circumstances when any dumbass can pick up a football and make a million--however thats not a question of economics thats a question of morality, and if a good man is left to rot on the street in poverty that not the SYTEMS fault---thats YOUR fault assholes, clean him up and feed him FUCKERS
@TheGreatDeciever55 A very good point. It's so funny how people who support socialist ideas don't give money of their own pockets to such an endeavor before burdening all of society with it.
@TheGreatDeciever55 people are forgetting that we live in a country we are a civilization and the only way we can function is if we have a government that will help us and take care of us to solve our problem. that's what are government for to take care of its citizens so it makes since to help a poor citizen. not the job of some random people.
Freedoms and law are the keys to humanity. Humans strive to be more than we are... the bill of rights is an example of it. Its a document that says no to the base emotion of "follow the leader"
There are very few people in this world that understand how things should be than this man. He is truly a genius. I miss Friedman. I wish he would have been more influentual in Americas direction. He was just an exceptional human. We could learn a lot (if not almost everything) from his teachings.
The american dream has gone to hell,the people that have brought this blessing to you since 1913 are those from the Synagogue of satan(Revelation 2:9,,3:9),read this book for free on internet to see what else they have in store for you,more blessing like 9/11,more war and total destruction of your country.
Read the book.
Who Is Esau-Edom..Who Is Esau-Edom
We have exterminated the property owners in Russia.We are going to do the same thing in Europe and America
A collective has no moral right to exist if its existence nullifies the individual. Any association of people in which the property of each person is not secured can't claim any moral right to exist any more than theft can be justified as being moral in itself. The only moral collective is one where the right to transfer the property of each person to another is secured.
hahaha so because those in the shackles of poverty are better off now than those who were impoverished in the 1800s we should accept free market as our saviour? The same arguements could've been made for the economic improvement that both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany experienced, increasing the well being of the lives of many. We haven't found a perfect solution be it socialism or capitalism, and I doubt we will anytime soon.
@ExternalServerError there is no barrier between government and big business. The governments are bankrupt because they showered banks and big business in general with thousands of billions of dollars and euros with no strings attached. It's the handfull of capitalists at the top who sould be bankrupted - and governments should be put under an infinitely more democratic control than what we have now (only casting a vote every 5 years or so while they are in daily contact with big business).
Both, the EU and the US were already bankrupt long before the crisis in '08 due to horrendous government spendings. This has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism never existed in the first place. A central bank is the key characteristic of socialism.
@ExternalServerError Capitalism is when economic and political powers has shifted from the hands of the landowners to those who own the productive capital (tools - factories - money).
Absolute free market probably never existed but this only shows that Friedman Hayek & all others are a bunch of utopianists.
Countries where already deeply indebted before 08 because they were already pouring money on the capitalists.
@Longlivethe4th to get back to your main point : there is no governement who has ever worked only for itself : they always work for a social base, usualy it's the land or capital owning classes - and only on short occasions (until now, only the first years of revolutions) it's for the majority of peoples.
170 people world wide were killed by their own governments. Socialism alone killed more than 100 million people. The USSR alone killed more that 40 million of their own peolple. Those are official numbers from the Sovjet Governments. It always follows the same pattern: Expropriatation through taxes, national depth and inflation, enslavement and finally death either through starvation or bullets. That's the road to sefdom. But you are right. Lets do it again. Let's raise taxes!
@ExternalServerError Read me before responding I have nothing good to say on just "raising taxes" or on any governement at present (and also on almost all the governments of the past) I don't contest your "kill numbers" either. I say all this was done by governments who were following not only their own bureaucratic interrests but also a submission to the interrests of the wealthiest capitalists (for USSR it was indirect submission through a deal struck with foreign powers by the bureaucracy).
Yeah, governments expropriate people and buy stuff. Burocrats don't build the tanks and carpet bombs themselves that should be clear. So, and your consequence is "end capitalism"? Do you really think a private slave holder could kill 40 mio of his slaves? He would go bankrupt immediately. Only governments can do that because they don't have to work efficiently. No company can print money to finance wars and kill people either. So, its capitalism which is bad? Are you kidding me?
@ExternalServerError "No slavholder..." "No compagny..." : ok but then the govts do that because that's what the most powerfull people in the country want. Even in a "crazy dictator" scenario - Hitler, Pinochet, you name it, that guy would never stay in charge for years if he didn't have the support of many big players.
And problem is : you'll never get rid of the state under capitalism 1) because most capitalists will find it usefull to cheat on others and 2) you need it to enforce contracts
@Longlivethe4th 3) because the capitalists need the police and sometimes the fascists to break strikes.
4) because I've never found a free-market liberal say something like "first let the people and the information move freely then do that for goods and services and money" which is what they would say of they were really for the people and not the elite.
Again to the contrary, capitalism does not require the state and, historically, it has been the socialist states (including under the fascists) that have required the more powerful police forces. The only problem with item 4) is that classical free market liberals do not suggest that free movement of people, information, goods, services and money are ever problematic in a free market at any time.
To be quick. All you are saying about stateless capitalism is only theoretical works. When asked what to do on a day to day basis, liberals end up saying that what Bush did (for instance) is "not perfect but globaly correct" That's enough for me to make them ennemies.
on item 4) my point is precisely that "classical FMLs" are dead wrong on this and it's been proven by those who tried to solve Walras' problem (Sonnenschein, Nash, Stiglitz...)
@Longlivethe4th oh and beside : what's great with all those freedoms is not only that's it could be better for the economy, it's also (and more importantly) that it's humanly incredibly better to live with it than without.
Forgive my confusion, but of which freedoms are you speaking. I (and classical liberals like me) very much are interested in maximizing freedoms both on moral grounds (maximized individual liberty is a moral good on its own merits) and practical ones (the preservation of market liberty including private property has proven to be the source of human prosperity). Are you, perhaps, confusing freedom with means?
To the contrary, stateless capitalism WORKED historically in the regions surrounding the Black and Mediterranean Seas thousands of years ago and there is no reason that it cannot work today. It is your stance on item 4 that is "dead wrong". It is based on a premise that does not hold - that, in order for the market to operate successfully, general equilibrium must be achieved (hence the work on information asymmetry) nut the market always APPROACHES equilibrium which is not the same thing.
The basic problem with the work of Sonnenschein, Nash (albeit less so) and Stiglitz is the common Keynesian fallacy of over-aggregation - that is seeking to define a market-wide equilibrium that is actually a vast number of individual transactions (all approaching equilibrium in the marketplace) that are not generally subject to aggregation, per se but are instead indicative of that overall tendency to approach equilibrium. Only when credit expansion interferes is failure economy-wide.
@Fletch as I told ESE, stateless capitalism is not what Free market defenders are actually standing for. They build a dreamworld and then the only elements that get implemented IN THE REAL LIFE are those that drive down wages, worsen the situation of of the poor, and ultimately fuels nationalism (through national competition). I realy would like to see a genuine Free-market defender speak in public as mightily against dictators like Pinochet and warmongers like Bush and Obama (same to me) as...
@Longlivethe4th ...as they do in favor of cancelling minimum wage and other regulations.
Besides your point that fascists are socialists is idealistic. Socialism (as I understand it) is more as standing for the interests of the wage workers than one specific kind of organising the economy. Fascists were there to force people back to work no matter what and contrary to the legend, wages actually went down under their rule.
@Longlivethe4th I was refering to legal Freedom of information (on that : name me one proeminent FMDefender that spoke fully in support of WikiLeaks) and of Freedom to move to whereever you want on the globe.
In this country we have freedom of speech generally. The issue with Wikileaks is largely about the breach of contract that someone must have engaged in in order for Wikileaks to obtain the information (which is a separate issue). The issue of free immigration/emigration rests upon issues beyond simple movement. I am fully in favor of open borders in a society absent a welfare state but that, obviously, is not a condition that exists.
Missed this (reply to me not yourself). It is simply a fact that minimum wage laws have never accomplished anything but to harm the very people such laws are ostensibly designed to help. It is your understanding that is flawed. Socialism is the economic system in which the powers of ownership over the means of production are exercised collectively (usually by the state as proxy). This is true regardless of whether the control is direct (USSR) or indirect (fascism). It's simple definition.
I didn't specifically advocate stateless capitalism either (merely pointing out its historic existence). In the real world, however, free markets/capitalism have INCREASED wages, IMPROVED conditions of the poor and has NOTHING to do with nationalism ( those conditions HAVE historical examples in the case of state socialism: USSR, communist China, Nazi Germany, etc.). State action is not capitalism and dictatorial action is not restricted by by the economic system.
@FletchforFreedom Where did I say that I support any of the regimes you mentionned ? State action works hand in hand with most capitalist persons. Now, it is free to you to define "capitalism" idealistically as a different system to which we'll never get closer to. But As I said in all my posts to you and ESE, the real holders of most of the productive capital don't give a shit about the theory, they go for the easy, quick money and that means dirty tricks Murder Inc style all the way.
@Longlivethe4th The improvement you speak of is getting eaten back much faster and with much less difficulties that it was gained. the last 30 years have witnessed FMPolitics enforced everywhere with a general lewering of standards. Why ? Because most of that growth was financed with musical chairs style borrowing games which came to a crash in 2008 (and wait for the nexr one it will be bigger).
No such "eating back" is taking place; it is purely fictional. Living standards in the United States have been steadily improving for generations (including over the last 30 years) the myth of the stagnating middle class having been thoroughly and completely debunked. Whether in terms of household income or total compensation the gains have been substantial. And the crash of 2008 resulted primarily from the Fed vastly increasing the money supply, not any private sector failure.
I never suggested that you did support them. On the other hand I did not suggest the absurdity that state action works hand in hand with most capitalists. My definition of capitalism is the one that exists, consistent with common usage, economics and political science. It is the free market and there is no reason that it cannot be approached. Even marginal returns in that direction inevitably yield material societal benefits.
While its true that the real holders of most productive capital don;t give a shit about capital, instead concentrating on improving their lot by providing goods and services to the public, the occurrences of dirty tricks and Murder Inc. styles are so unbelievably rare in the real world that mentioning it as if it were even remotely endemic is irresponsibly disconnected from reality.
@F : you live in a dreamland. Have you heard of Irak and Afghanistan ? the manipulated "color revolutions" ? of Pol Pot armed by the CIA ? of Blackwater ? There is a thing called "militaro-industrial complex" and even if there's a lot of bickering between its members, ultimatly they agree on the essential, and they are the ones that count. FM theorists are only their underlings. Of all the things they propose only what's convenient to the complex will be implemented unless there is a revolution.
Again, no matter how much you might wish to rewrite the dictionary STATE ACTION IS NEVER CAPITALISM or even CAUSED by capitalism. State action is, BY DEFINITION, socialistic. Capitalism is the free market which exists the world over whenever individuals engage freely in economic activities - working to provide goods and services to people, going to a job, etc. It is what has made the US one of the wealthiest countries on the planet (with the wealthiest "poor").
@F and again, I don't question the definition per se, I question the accuracy of classical economy to describe a world where political leaders and big business dine together on a daily basis while their link to the vast majority of the people resides in a single election every few years.
example : Mitterand came to power in France, he nationalsed various Cies, but he paid them higher than market price, then he made us all pay to modernize them and then he sold them cheaper than they were worth.
But, of course, you are describing a problem of SOCIALISM. The primal power of the state used to nationalize industries and (as is always the case) play favorites. If it were not for the socialistic elements in France demanding such action, the problem could not have occurred. This is a basic logical problem with socialism - finding a circumstance where the state causes problems and then presuming that more state power (stateless socialism being impossible) can solve it.
@F No. I say 2 things : 1) in the real world granting property rights to individuals over big things like those compagnies () even fractionnal shareholders rights) always end up in such favorites games.
2) the solution is not more statism, it's direct workers control, via a public entity in which the hierarchy is submitted to very strong democratic control and a rather fast turn-over.
No. In the real world, there is no legitimate distinction between types of property (they become property in the same manner) and the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. Such "favorites games" are quite rare and the ones that do exist can only come into being as a direct result of the powers of the state. Direct worker control requires theft at the outset followed by the implementation of a system that has been tried countless times and has never worked.
@F : to be fair to you I can grant you that most of those "socialists" you speak of are also underlings of the "holders of porductive capital" (since it seems to bether you when I call them capitalists) - It's the classic stick and carrot / good cop-bad cop strategy.
But ultimately, the only way to get actually rid of this parasitic layer (statesmen & big businessmen) is through the working class taking things directly in their own hands. Not tiny FM reforms one by one.
The "working class taking things into their own hands" is impossible unless you wish to condemn most of them to misery and death. It was the development of several property and the division of labor under capitalism that has lifted the living standards the world over for the past three centuries and is the only thing that sustains anywhere near sufficient production to support them. There's nothing "parasitic" about capitalists; their actions make us all better off.
@F capitalism was better than feudality, ok, but that was in part due to the fact that in allowed a greater number of people to participate in economic decisions, at that time it was more egalitarian than aristocratic rule. Today THe financial sector has gathered so much of the world's wealth in so few hands, they start behaving like the aristocracy of old ages. (and with the same carelessness : look at you comment on WikiLeaks : a breach of contract matters more than exposing lies and warcrimes
You come so close and then divert into absurdity. Capitalism is universal involvement in economic decisions. Socialism cannot function specifically because it lacks the ability to make decisions in such a manner. The financial sector has demonstrably NOT concentrated wealth (except inasmuch as central banks - an aspect of socialism - have intervened, and that has concentrated state power) - quite the contrary. And I didn't say that contract matters "more", rather that the issue is not simple
@F but there is nothing that says division of labor should go along with having to shut up on how the economy is managed and just accepting what the owner of the compagny said.
If you define socialism by "lack of market" then everything within a corporation is socialistic, right ?
Your comment on finance is so aristocratic, even theocratic... How can you imagine that 1 person even working 24/7/365 is a 1000 times more efficient than 1 of his worker ? differences of maybe 5-10 ok but not more.
Actually, that's pretty much exactly what it says. The division of labor, which has vastly increased living standards (especially for the poor) rests on private property rights that permit investment and management activities that cannot be duplicated under "worker control". Under those property rights, the means of production belong to those willing to risk their capital to bring them (i.e. factories) into existence (and they would not otherwise exist).
@F no because in addition to those willing to risk their capital, there is those willing to spend their labor time, their health, and possibly risk their life, on it - which is just as important. And in fact, for humanity as a whole, it is more important because any capital was first and foremost created by a labor (which might not be the labor of it's owner). You can bring any capital and yell orders, if nobody actually does the work, nothing exists either.
Without the actions of the capitalist, there is no OPPORTUNITY for the worker to employ his labor and the worker still has the choice of what he is willing to offer in the marketplace for a given return, including in increasingly rare circumstances risk to health and life. While certainly the capital was largely the result of earlier labor saved so that it might be used for investment, it is no less real and useful and no less the property of the owner. Not one point alters the owner's rights.
Further, the factory exists first. With its creation comes the opportunity for workers to be employed their. The opportunity is specifically that the laborer may work in the factory for an agreed upon wage to accomplish a given set of tasks as delineated by the owners of the factory. If the worker doesn't wish to do that, he need not accept the job. If the owners cannot find someone to do it for the offered wage, they will have to offer more in the marketplace.
but more important : 1) when you give an idea/order you lose nothing, when you give your time and efforts, you actually invest something you won't keep, so I have no problem with a boss doing 70 hours a week and earning 2x what a 35 hours worker does.
2) we are not in the wild wide west anymore, there is no virgin land you can go to build your own place if you don't like what offered by bosses. This creates a biais on the market in favor of wealth/boss
Socialism is not defined as "lack of market" albeit that is the result. And, no, a corporation, while cooperative is not socialistic.
As for finance, you proceed from a false assumption. The capitalist SYSTEM is several orders of magnitude (1000 times is too low) than a socialist system because, absent market prices, socialism cannot determine the optimal allocation of resources. But worse is the presumption that you can determine such relative efficiencies of workers in that manner.
It is the presumption that the worker engaged in some sort of definable physical productive activity is nobler and more valuable than the market deems his product to be and that the banker and manager and capital owner are exploiters and less efficient and less noble that is arrogant and theocratic. It is based on an enormous lack of understanding (and often a stubborn unwillingness to understand) what those people do and the benefits that they provide to the economy as a whole.
@F I can't be aristocratic if I glorifiy the large majority, beeing a small "elite" is the whole point of aristocracy.
I don't say that the organisers (to find a nice term for bosses and finance) are "less" useful, just that they don't have to be paid more (per hour) (but not less either).
Beside, on finance I'd like to know what you think of Nassim Taleb's point that stock market is as random as a casino (some very rare guys always win, but in a casino too).
I didn't say "aristocratic"; I said "arrogant". The only aristocracy in the free market is that earned by meeting the needs of consumers in society. That "bosses" and financiers make more - sometimes substantially more - is because (noble nonsense about physical labor aside) they provide more return to the economy (creating more wealth and jobs). I'm not familiar with Taleb, but his "point" is pure drivel and contrary to reality.
@F (2) I do think that the market gives a proper evaluation of one's product (but often shortsighted). My problem with it comes when the persons who made the thing don't get back that full value but only the fraction of it that doesn't go in the owner's pocket.
I mean risking your home is something (hard life without) but risking a factory which you can't use for your personnal enjoyment anyway (or a sum of money which you could still have a comfortable life without), it's not the same thing.
You are proceeding from a debunked (and actually ridiculous) premise based upon the (equally debunked) labor theory of value. The workers get full value for their labor in each and every case and, despite Marx's claims to the contrary, at increasingly higher wages and more than they could have gotten in the absence of the contributions of the capitalist that provided the opportunity.
Again, property is property. If a justification can made to protect it in the form of a home or food, the same logic must apply to a factory. The factory was but with the saved capital (often created by the savings of workers in the past) who chose to risk it to build the factory in expectation of a return. In the absence of that expectation, no factory is built and no opportunity exists for workers.
@F there are things you need to stay alive, things you need to be well integrated into society and things that are only here for enjoyment and finaly things that fulfill a social need (networks...) or that can't be duplicated (mines...). each of these cathegory justifes in my view a different kind of property and associated rights.
Labor is paid roughly at what it costs to stay alive and efficient, but it creates more value than that (otherwise why bother working ?) that's never been debunked.
@Longlivethe4th "Labor is paid roughly at what it costs to stay alive and efficient, but it creates more value than that (otherwise why bother working ?) that's never been debunked."
Value is relative. The labor theory of value is based on the idea that the value of something is the same for everyone (objective). Experience should tell you that's not true.
Now consider the idea that someone else may value an hour of your time more than you do...
@studentofsmith : Not when we look at aggregates for all products and all players. And what we are speaking of here is politics : stuff that we deem important enough to apply to the whole of society, not individual strategies for getting better off than other players.
@Longlivethe4th "aggregates for all products and all players"
Market price is not the same thing as value. Indeed, whenever you purchase something you do so because it's value (to you) is greater than the price.
"strategies for getting better off than other players."
It sounds like you believe the economy is a zero-sum game, where one persons gain can only come at anothers expense. That's simply not true. Individuals can make exchanges for mutual benefit precisely because value is relative.
@studentofsmith economy is a win-win exchange concerning use values (otherwise no exchanges takes place) BUT, at the same time it's zero sum when we look at exchange values, especially when we have a well developped market where things are exchanged against money (ie : a generic right over a fraction of society's production) instead of other specific things.
So, capitalism makes mankind as a whole grow (everyone gains uses) (but with regular crises) ; and at the same time it concentrates wealth
@Longlivethe4th Okay, I get the difference between use value and exchange value but let's return to your original point that labor is paid "what it costs to stay alive and efficient".
I'm sure you know that the exchange value of widgets is determined, not by the cost of producing them, but by the interaction of supply and demand. The exchange value of labor is determined the same way. While some workers operate at a loss the vast majority turn a profit from the sale of their labor.
@studentofsmith the way I see it : supply and demand are the mecanism through which each transaction is determined but costs of production are a general constrain over that.
the thing with labor is that unlike every other commodity, it's output excess its demands. So, even if workers make a small profit, (and usualy they do, otherwise it's called slavery), the profit of the capitalist is totally out of proportions to his personnal input. (read my posts to fletch before aswering that).
@Student : also please note that the real problem I see with capitalism is not directly this general mecanism but the facts that it introduces a widening gap between peoples (with more connections to political power for the wealthy layers), that it brings dramatic crises regularly, and that ultimatley it generates imperialism with all the associated horrors.
@Longlivethe4th The costs of production have no impact on exchange value. If the capitalist has done his job correctly (and was not unusually unlucky) the exchange value of the final product will exceed the sum of the exchange values of the elements that went into it's production and he will make a profit. If not, he will take a loss.
Can you explain your statement that the output of labor excess its demands?
And I'd like to stay focused on labor rather than engaging in a broader discussion :)
@studentofsmith the exchange value is equal to what customer will agree to pay which must usualy be inferior to what it would cost the customer if he tried to make the product himself.
Labor changes things into something more useful than the energy/time/health it consumed to change them (otherwise why bother ?).
The profit of the capitalists (as a whole) comes from the labor of the employees, and possibly from their labor if they actualy spend time a work, but this shoud be paid per hours too.
You proceed from an entirely fallacious premise. It is demonstrably the case that exchange only occurs when BOTH parties benefit (no exchange is "equal" - wealth is created at that point).
Value is value: no exchange vs. use distinction applies. The labor theory of value is long debunked. The profit of the capitalist comes from what he provides in the marketplace: opportunity, capital equipment, etc. that, ultimately results in the worker getting MORE than he otherwise could have.
@Fletch Use Value is a real thing like "with this sandwitch i will get this kind of taste satisfaction and that much calories etc", it's not money, and it's specific to each person. exchange value is a one-dimensnionnal attempt at summing that which is used to establish a correspondance between things that are totally different (like a sandwitch and any thing that the sandwith maker wll buy with the money). As such money can only express what is common between all things : work time to make them
Value is value. Everyone assigns a value to everything based on its marginal utility (neither work time nor labor inputs has anything whatsoever to do with value). Whether that utility is to use it (eat the sandwich) or trade it (in the cafeteria) is irrelevant: the value is the same (and the Marxian distinction is absurd. Money niether creates nor distorts value - it is merely a means of facilitating the MEASURE of value (and by facilitating change creates prosperity).
More specifically, the Marxian notion that (socially valuable) work time is common among things is absurd on its face (and, with good reason, is not taken seriously by anyone with a grasp of economics). An apple has the same value if it falls from the tree into your hand or if it is offered by someone who grew the tree and harvested the apple because value is not determined on the production side but entirely by that which someone desiring the good is willing to part with to get it.
@Fletch 1) you start from the oversimplified assumption that the real value (use value for me) of something can be represented by a one-dimensional number (price) while the real qualities of an object are almost infinite.
2) as I told Sutdentofsmith, marx analysed the evolution of aggregates over significant times, One price might be whatever but once you look at aggrgates there are definite constrains on demand (what it would cost to DIY the thing) and supply (through investment).
1) I start with no such assumption. I merely point out that value of any kind is derived from the "demander" rather than the producer and, in that context, the value is the same for that "demander" whether it is for use or exchange. The kid in the cafeteria plans to eat his lunch; that he trades it with the next kid because he likes what his mom packed better does not alter the value to him of the lunch. Thus, it is impossible to compare use value and exchange value as if they were different.
2) Marx never actually did any such thing. He compared statistical aggregates at several distinct times and determined that prices fluctuate (a point with which no one disagrees). He posited that this fluctuation was some evidence that prices did not reflect values because the proceeded from the fallacy that value is intrinsic, while, in reality, prices fluctuate because the values of commodities to those seeking them in the marketplace change.
And different people place different values on their time; the fact remains that the sandwich value is the subjective amount willing to be expended by someone seeking to obtain it, not by inputs, particularly of labor time.
Long run investment and CoP/slae price are INTERdependent variables but be that as it may, it is a dicussion completely irrelevant to the wuestion of the source of value, particularly over time and in a market where conditions change (always).
@student everything that enters the production process (raw matters, tools, electricity...) was bough by the capitalist at its market price : the profit can't be made over it because it was already paid at a price that can't be lower than its production cost, and by themselves these things don't create more exchange value alone, it's only when a worker puts them together that more value is created.
As tech progresses it tends to become harder to make profit but total wealth created still grows.
@Longlivethe4th "I meant everything that enters... beside labor."
That is precisely the premise I am challenging. You begin with the assumption the capitalist adds no value, recognize that raw materials and capital equipment are purchased at market price and conclude that labor, somehow, must be purchased below market price, else where comes profit?
I suggest there is no basis for believing labor is purchased below market price and that you underestimate the contribution of the capitalist.
@studentofsmith sorry for delay your comment was notted "spam". Well my point is that labor is actually paid at market price but that market price is equal to, or rather gravitates towards, the cost of production (raising a kid until adulthood, job training, food, housing, social activity required for the level of consciousness needed for said job etc), and that this cost is inferior to the market value of what is produced by the worker.
@Longlivethe4th No problem. I can see that the price of labor cannot get too far beyond production cost (lest you are undercut by the competition) in the same way the price of widgets cannot get too far beyond production cost. In both cases the threat of competition keeps the seller honest and willing to accept a modest profit rather than an exorbitant one.
@Longlivethe4th That being said workers "produce" nothing. Labor is an input cost, no different than raw materials or capital equipment. It is the combination of these elements that produces the final product. The manner in which they are organized is what makes the whole greater (or less) than the sum of its parts. To organize these elements is one role of the capitalist.
@studentofsmith the combination is the worker's who gives up some of his free time, stamina, health, happiness, whatever, to make the thing. If the capitalist is an old style capitalist doing a bit of that too, he deserves some money too. If he just takes a few minutes each day to look up how much money he has, let's pay him these few minutes, but nothing more. When you give an idea you lose nothing (exept the time to formulate it etc), so it could be rewarded by Fame, friends, etc, not money.
@Longlivethe4th If all it took to become wealthy was a good idea the world would be littered with millionaires. It takes a great deal of effort to bring an idea to fruition. It is that effort that must be rewarded if we wish people to engage in it.
Perhaps you make a distinction between "entrepreneurial" capitalists and those who merely allocate resources. Even then the allocation of resources to productive uses is a valuable service and must be rewarded.
@student There are other rewards than money, Pride, fame, happy times with friends, living in a world where the standards of living for everyone including yourself are better because of what you did, are rewards too. Money is someting you lose when you give it, and should only be used as a direct reward for giving other things you lose (including study time to come up with the idea, and all the actual efforts to bring the idea to fruition).
@student I mean : if you are really good at something, I mean nerd-like good, then the job is a reward in itself, and since we are discussing activities like inventing and managing which are really funny to do and bring a lot of social interactions, and are not overly damaging to your health (unless the hierarchy overburdens you with tasks that would need 2 or 3 more people to do properly - but that's a capitalist problem), then equal pay is possible.
@Longlivethe4th You are correct that there are rewards other than monetary (job satisfaction, peer recognition) but for those that take the effort (and risk) of investing money is a prime motivating factor.
Moreover the better you are at investing (in a capitalist context) the more resources you gain control over. It's the ultimate meritocracy.
You seem to be suggesting people should paid based on the time and effort they put in rather than the quality of their output. I assume I'm mistaken?
@student on 1) that's why we must find something different, than classical capitalist private-property based way of investment - more like a public entity but with infinitely more democratic procedures.
2) there are also contless examples of great things that didn't get nowhere because of problems with capital (Tucker...) not because it was a bad idea. Real meritocracy should start by giving proper starting gear to everybody : if you look for faster runner, you make every1 start on same line.
@student 3) First people should have the opportunity to work where they are best, economy should be here to better our lives not to scrape whatever we can. Equality is fundamental for that to happen. Then if you work better, you can deserve a little more, or depending on situation, maybe it means you can leave work earlier if you work faster, or maybe you deserve a promotion... Differences of wages are ok as long a basic needs are fulfiled for all and as we buy products, not means of production
@Longlivethe4th When people invest their own money they are cautious. This means many good projects do not get funded but also prevents many bad projects from being funded. A public entity, besides having no incentive to balance risk with reward, can devastate the economy with one bad investment becasue all your eggs are in one basket. An individual capitalist cannot since even the wealthiest control only a fraction of the economies wealth. This is called diversification.
@student But people would still invest their own money if the public entities I mention were subject to heavy democratic control, both from their employees and more broadly from all citizens. You could have a number of "points" regenerated every year (or whatever) that you invest in projects that seem great to you. This "investment money" should be equaly given and not interfere with the money used to fulfill basic needs, because, frankly, feeding everyone is a merry trifle with today's tech.
@Longlivethe4th "You could have a number of "points" regenerated every year (or whatever) that you invest in projects that seem great to you." Google "rational ignorance" for why this won't work.
If everyone were paid the same there would be less incentive to take unpleasant or difficult jobs. Moreover rare skills would be allocated randomly rather than where they are most valuable. Managers are paid more becasue there are fewer people able and willing to do that job well.
"A society that puts equality before freedom is condemned to suffer equality of misery." Me ...
JohnnyUltra305 1 month ago
@JohnnyUltra305 i'd like to see michael moore in north korea, without his ten supersized burger meals a day:)
topperheartramada 2 weeks ago
Obama prescribes to Keyesian economics, it has failed miseribly.
JohnnyUltra305 1 month ago
Obama and the Democrats need to be educated by the Milton Friedman school of economics.
stephenabm 3 months ago
@stephenabm The Republicans need to go to college to learn how to win Presidential elections.
HelmetVanga 2 months ago
@HelmetVanga The majority of America's Presidents have been Republicans.
stephenabm 2 months ago
@stephenabm People like Obama do not care about economics. They couldn't care less if everyone was poor an miserable. As long as the differences between people were reduced. That is the ultimate driving idea behind socialism. They would rather have nothing that see someone better than themselves be rewarded. And their greatest joy is to take from that man, give it to someone they find deserving, and orgasm at the 'justice' they just meted out.
topperheartramada 2 weeks ago
@topperheartramada You are correct, Obama is a dedicated Marxist Leninist and not interested in improving the economy or anything in America. I truly wish Milton Friedman was around today to educate these politicians.
stephenabm 2 weeks ago
@stephenabm Marxists always have fantastic plans and theories and what not, but they never deliver. They are too busy trying to emancipate the 'disadvantaged' and to re-distribute wealth while legislating everything and taking away your freedom (for your own good, of course). It's all for the greater good.
topperheartramada 2 weeks ago
If you put government in charge of the economy, what you are doing is replacing hundreds of small evils with one centralized, comparitively omnipotent evil. The lesser of two evils is still evil put the logical solution is to support the former.
bombadii 5 months ago
LIBERTARIANMONARCHY . COM
"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."
— Milton Friedman
ecnerwal999 6 months ago
milton friedman is an intelligent man who can speak the truths in simple, grass roots and popular terms. He is not perfect(neither is his theory; but no theory is perfect) but pretty near it!
Lottechoco 6 months ago
My face when Milton loves using public money to bail out businesses then claim "Free Market" LOL Niggers dont know he was behind FDR in the new deal. I was for it before I was against it.
Thanatos4655 6 months ago
@Thanatos4655
He evolved based on historical and statistical evidence, dumb fuck,
seppsters 6 months ago
Amazing info!! Milton is the best!!!
altimeer 7 months ago
3 things:
1) Friedman and his take on socialism and gov't aught to be taught in schools.
2) this is Libertypen's best video yet
3) I resent modern liberalism and liberals, for stealing the word and forcing us libertarians to use this new phrase to embrace an exceptional but unknown ideology.
scalp340 10 months ago
@UBSCARED You fucking MORON, what does that have to do with what I said?
Go shoot yourself, idiot.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
7 statists disliked this video.
strapt313 10 months ago
This guy is so afraid of government that he doesn't realize how dangrous corporations can be- Tomorrow is March 25, it's the anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire in NYC. That tragedy was a sign to the whole world of how dangerous corporate greed can be if not checked by the government- If corporatons could have their way they would rob us all. Government is the only way to implement safty measures and rules aginst this unchecked greed.
libere 10 months ago
@libere The government IS the biggest corportation, idiot.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 And that's bad, right? OK, if you belive that then vote people out who are doing things you don't like. Now what do you do when corporations are doing things like ruining our planet and abusing consumers to the point of economic destablization?
libere 10 months ago
@libere 'Abusing consumers'? The only thing 'abusing consumers' is the government, you dolt, with ever-higher taxes, regulation, and inflation.
People should have the right to choose what they want to buy and what they don't. Are you against that?
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 I don't think corporations should be allowed to sell harmful products like bad mortgages that ruin the economy-And don't give me that Fannie&Freddie stuff- Fannie May was around since 1938 started by FDR and there was NO PROBLEM till the Bush regieme DEREGULATED the CRAP out of it allowing for preditory corporate abuse which hurt us all!. We shouldn't be able to buy U238 or certain assalt weapons or large quantities of firtlizer and deisel fuel. But what's your point?
libere 10 months ago
@libere My point, you fucking idiot, is that conomic competition allows products with better QUALITY/EFFICIENCY/PRICES to be produced. Capitalism is the system where people can CHOOSE how to spend their own money, not to hand it over through COERCION to the corporate government.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 That's all good- AS LONG AS, the companies that produce this stuff are abiding by certain regulations! Like cleaning up environmental messes they create, keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere, upholding stricked health codes and HOPEFULLY NOT exploiting workers around the world AND not using money to rig OUR GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR BOTTOM LINE- Do you have a problem with that? Capitalism needs to be regulated -It's proven to be dangerous- It's that simple.
libere 10 months ago
@libere Regulated? By whom? YOU? Government BUREAUCRATS? I don't think so.
Look around the world. Guess which countries are the most affluent and have the least amount of poverty? That's right, those with LESS GOVERNMENT.
Government is inefficient for managing economic matters. Perhaps that's a lesson you haven't learned yet.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 Ok, do you have virus protection on your compter? Why do you need it? That's the same reason why we need regulations on business- The sad thing is, people will try to use and abuse you for a buck. I really hope this isn't too disgusting of a conversation for you- If you feel bothered I'll stop but I feel it's a great way to learn what peole besides yourself are thinking.
libere 10 months ago
@libere Yes, but the Antivirus is there because I CHOOSE to have it there as an individual, since I have the right to manage my own computer. I don't have it there because someone ELSE obliges me to use it. If I want, I could remove it to increase system performance: it's MY individual choice.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123That's a bit of a silly pose-You couldn't surf the next for 3 days before to would riun your hard drive. Right now you have the choice to use virus protection HOWEVER,I can imagine a day when it will beREQUIREDto protect us all because we're growing more interdependent.And we've come to another point-These "isms" are Utopian goals that don't really exist in reality,so many values that we all love may be impossible to maintain at certain population levels.We're growing very large
libere 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@libere I don't care what YOU think that I should do or not with MY computer.
"You couldn't surf the next for 3 days before to would riun your hard drive."
Who says that? You? Well, perhaps that's just because YOU surf porn sites and such. Not me.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@libere "Right now you have the choice to use virus protection HOWEVER,I can imagine a day when it will beREQUIREDto protect us all because we're growing more interdependent."
You want the STATE to force us to use ANTIVIRUSES in our computers???
Listen up folks, an excellent insight into the mind of a totalitarian.
The government has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to tell me what antivirus to use on MY computer. That's my choice, MY risk. Not YOURS. Get that into your head.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago 11
@CarlosMarti123Well, maybe one day it could be like car insurance, we all have to have it that's all I'm saying.
There are much bigger problems looming on the horizon than these imagined threats.Beware of corporate money influence in your government; they can create illusions of truth depending on their needs-that's how we will lose our freedom; it's already happening-That's the biggest point I can make to you- I guess that's all I can tell you, we've covered pretty much everything else.
libere 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 You can buy what ever you want from anybody BUT you wouldn't want half the shit these corporations try to sell you without government regulations- Salmonilla, EColi, Cancer, Crap mortgages- Do you want any of this???
libere 10 months ago
@libere If you're talking about the SHIT of the FDA, you better watch this video: /watch?v=dZL25NSLhEA. The FDA has proven to be a lousy job, preventing dozens of useful medical drugs from entering the U.S. because of their 'regulation' policies, driving medical research OUTSIDE the U.S. Go figure.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 The lack of respect for science is a big problem in this country- the religious right always make it impossible for real scientific research to happen here. As far as the FDA, I know all about the inefficiency; it's something that needs to be fixed however, it saved many lives in the country as well. So it's like saying cars are bad because they cause accidents. I'm with you on making all government more efficient if that's your argument. You wouldn't want to live without theFDA
libere 10 months ago
@libere What does the religious right have anything to do with this?
If anything, blame your dear president and the failing public education system we have here.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 It's so funny how you villify what I glorify and I glorify what you villify. The religious right make real scientific discussion difficult in this country. That's a big problem. That's partly the reason why young scientists are starting to look to other countries for employment.
libere 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@libere What you glorify? You mean the state? You GLORIFY the state?
"That's partly the reason why young scientists are starting to look to other countries for employment."
No moron, that's why I said that the FDA REGULATIONS were driving them out.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 Reading back, here's were I think the problem is - you said " it seems you want MORE government control and LESS individual freedom." How do you figure that??? I want all the individual freedom we can possibly have! I don't want corporations to have the freedom to turn our government into a plutocracy. How much freedom do you have when corporations elect your government? The financial infulence these huge corporations have it getting dangerous. Do you see that?
libere 10 months ago
@libere "I don't want corporations to have the freedom to turn our government into a plutocracy."
Are you FUCKING BLIND? Our government IS a plutocracy you fool! Just look at the trillion-dollar deficit it has. The government raises taxes and uses the DECEITFUL and DISHONEST practice of inflation because it doesn't want to cut back spending. LOOK UP THE FIGURES.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 Isn't it wierd how the health insurance companies fought hard to defeat the "CHOICE" of a public option? I guess choise is OK only as long as the insurance company monopolies are providing it. Am I missing something here?
libere 10 months ago
@libere Don't you understand basic economics?
'Insurance company monopolies'? The only monopoly that came as a result was the GOVERNMENT.
Don't you understand basic economics? When the government subsidizes goods and services, the private sector cannot compete, since the government receives a HUGE amount of income from federal taxes (business, personal income, gift and estate, you name it). Thus the private market has no incentive to compete and produce better quality/lower prices.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 The private sector have distroyed the Healthcare system with greed- We've come to a point where the philisophical question is "Should we leave the important matter of US healthcare to corporations" Many people in this counry feel we shouldn't. This problem isn't only hurting our healthcare services but will eventually ruin us economically. Forget "good economics" that party is over.
libere 10 months ago
@libere Uh-huh, where's your source for that information?
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 Like EVERY other article in any news paper since 2006
libere 10 months ago
Friedman has changed my political views for ever and is the closest I will ever be to a god.
Laissez Faire is Freedom.
Hoyreliberal 10 months ago
@Hoyreliberal LaissezFaire is Slavery!!The corporations will own us all !!! If anyone believes in Laisses Faire they should leave their doors unlocked, leave the keys in the ignition of their open car, give away their ss# to strangers and never call the police if anything bad happens- That's what they want ,life without laws letting the pieces fall were they may as long as "everyone can do what they want"Where have you been in the passed 5 years? Corporate greed is a real threat to our democracy
libere 10 months ago
@libere You are thinking of corporatism my friend, under Laissez-Faire corporations get fucked if they messed up, and under Laissez Faire police can exists, I want police to exist and most Laissez Faire supporters wants police.
How is the freedom to work where ever you want when ever you want slavery?
Hoyreliberal 10 months ago
@HoyreliberalThe freedom to work anywhere ISN'Tthe problem! Don't you see that CORPORATIONS have a reptilian brain?They only know devour! They are a marauding force of unchecked human nature that will club us all to death for profit! It's really sad but that's the situation that through out history has been the case.Corpoartions are like fire,we need them but they must be CONTROLLED!They have proven to be very dangerous!That's my very simple point!You're preceiving the threat in the wrong place!
libere 10 months ago
@libere
How will the corporations kill us? I mean they have to follow the laws too, and under Laissez Faire people are allowed to open businesses as the please without licenses, There have never been Laissez Faire and corporations have never ruled a country before, I can`t understand your issue =/
Hoyreliberal 10 months ago
@Hoyreliberal Are you familiar with the US history of Labor?The murder and pillage of the working class at the hands of Corporations before government social reform? Does every generation need to relearn these lessons? And when the supreme court rules it leagal for corporations to spend un limited amout of money to elect politicians you don't see that as a blow to what's left of our democracy? Corporate interst even controlles "REALITY" they have people questioning the science of Global warming
libere 10 months ago
@Hoyreliberal He's delusional. Don't pay much attention to him.
Probably just another brainwashed socialist.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 Global warming is delusional?? There's my point exactly! Do you know how much corporate money it took to fabricate and foster that bullshit opinion that you bought as fact??? FOX NEWS gets paid to spew that garbage all day - and it fools a lot of people !! Stupid is the new smart.
libere 10 months ago
@libere You retarded idiot, I never said global warming was delusional, I said YOU were delusional.
Learn to read you moron.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
What would he say to the idea that corporations are basically small monarchs that are influencing government policy in our country?? Would he see the importance and need to fight this somehow, or would he feel this would somehow take care of itself? Does government have a role in perserving our democracy's integrity?? That's my question to him.
libere 10 months ago
@libere He would point out that corporations that become "small monarchs" happen BECAUSE of big government. Regulations cause the cost to make a good rise, making it hard to compete with big companies. And corporate lobbyists influence government b/c congress is willing to spend on them in big spending bills. Remove regulations, spending bills that help corporations, and corporate welfare by the right and left and suddenly corporations remain good businesses and don't become "small monarchs".
ZerogunRivale 10 months ago
@ZerogunRivale I don't quite follow- Are you saying for instance, that environmental regulations hurt small companies more than bigger ones b/c the larger ones can afford to play by the new rules with much more ease??? Is that an example of government ruining things??? And we should out scorce jobs to keep prices down??? So the making of money is more important than the planet and the country?? Am I reading that right? Is that capitalism??? What good is that?? Please tell me I'm not getting it.
libere 10 months ago
@libere Part 1: Not just environmental, ANY regulation costs businesses money. Small businesses can't keep up, and big ones end up monopolies because of it. If there are no regulations, small businesses can compete better, & there would be no monopolies. Friedman pointed out that government intervention always creates monopolies. In fact, most lobbyists for regulations are not muckrakers/environmentalists, but certain greedy corporations that want regulations to put small rivals out of business.
ZerogunRivale 10 months ago
@ZerogunRivale I get all the arguments against taxes and how "businsses leave the country to stay competitive" BUT I see that all as an example of how the PRIORITIES of a CAPITALIST system will kill our planet and eat away at the fiber of our country. If we ALLOW businesses to outsorce and pollute and practice fine print rip off artestry, then WHAT GOOD IS ANY OF IT?Capitalism IS NOT FREEDOM!! IT WILL RUIN US ALL! and it only can exist in ever expanding markets which are quickly disappearing.
libere 10 months ago
@libere Part 2: As for outsourcing, that is created by high taxation forcing businesses to move. That is not businesses being greedy, that is businesses not wanting to go out of business. If they stay in high tax areas, they potentially can go out of business or cannot expand, and then there will be fewer jobs. They're not greedy, they just want to survive. But again, government intervention in taxation is the problem, not the business itself.
ZerogunRivale 10 months ago
@ZerogunRivale We know all Lobbyists are destroying the system-That's the strong arm of Capitalism as it invades our democracy-But, what most people don't get is that Capitalism ISN"T a form of government! Capitalism IS NOT FREEDOM-It WILL ENSLAVE US- It's a PRIVATE force that's JUST AS POWERFUL as government which means corporations have influence over us that WE "HAVE NO RIGHT" TO CONTROLE AS THEY TAKE OVER OUR GOVERNMENT.I don't care what logic ideology you use to defend this, it is wrong.
libere 10 months ago
@libere What, the ideology that people should choose how to spend their money?
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 It's the "I don't empower douchebags" -philosophy -what ever ideology you want to call it.
libere 10 months ago
@libere Yeah, except it seems you want MORE government control and LESS individual freedom.
People should be allowed to choose how to spend their own money. It's that simple.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 That line of "less individual freedom" is a frase created by corpoartions- I WANT individual freedoms, that's my whole concern!!! Corporations will distroy that! Corporations want the freedom to exclude people with pre exsisting conditions or use fine print rip off artistry to fool prospective clients and and more, and these parcitices DISTROY OUR ECONOMY & SOCIETY - This guy Milton is fine with that?, I'm not! You rather be a slave to corporate greed??
libere 10 months ago
@libere Government should only be,PEOPLE COMING TOGETHER TO ACHEIVE IN UNISON WHAT WE CAN'T ACHEIVE ON OUR OWN. If we're being abused by corporate power, government is our only tool to stop it! OR don't buy or patronize these companies-HOWEVER, it's almost impossible to know what they're up to and what distruction they take part in.They don't put that info in their advertizing! It's very simple, and the truth is, WE HAVE and should ALWAYS HAVE government regulation in the business world!
libere 10 months ago
@libere You liberal morons need to SHUT UP about your 'corporations' nonsense. THERE IS A CORPORTATION STEALING FROM US TODAY, AND IT'S CALLED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
I'd rather live in a world where I can decide how to spend my money, thank you. And that's the society ANY sensible person would want to live in, NOT in a society where the GOVERNMENT can spend YOUR money as it sees fit.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
This is all good- HOWEVER- Right now the threat ISN'T so much from a move toward socialism but the CORPORATIONS infiltrating our government and distroying our democracy!!!! He says "When in history has there been a time and place where people have the freedoms that they have here and now" well, if CORPORATIONS could have their way, they would enslave us all!! And they are becoming stronger every day by paying our politicians off!!!! THAT'S our problem today!!
libere 10 months ago
friedmans changed my whole view of things awhile back---> i used to think it was ludacris that good intellectual people were being subjected to such harsh environmental and economic circumstances when any dumbass can pick up a football and make a million--however thats not a question of economics thats a question of morality, and if a good man is left to rot on the street in poverty that not the SYTEMS fault---thats YOUR fault assholes, clean him up and feed him FUCKERS
TheGreatDeciever55 11 months ago 20
@TheGreatDeciever55 A very good point. It's so funny how people who support socialist ideas don't give money of their own pockets to such an endeavor before burdening all of society with it.
supahsekzy 5 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 people are forgetting that we live in a country we are a civilization and the only way we can function is if we have a government that will help us and take care of us to solve our problem. that's what are government for to take care of its citizens so it makes since to help a poor citizen. not the job of some random people.
juanlmesl 1 week ago
Freedoms and law are the keys to humanity. Humans strive to be more than we are... the bill of rights is an example of it. Its a document that says no to the base emotion of "follow the leader"
ORACLE063 1 year ago
There are very few people in this world that understand how things should be than this man. He is truly a genius. I miss Friedman. I wish he would have been more influentual in Americas direction. He was just an exceptional human. We could learn a lot (if not almost everything) from his teachings.
specialks1953 1 year ago
Comment removed
fringeailments 1 year ago
The american dream has gone to hell,the people that have brought this blessing to you since 1913 are those from the Synagogue of satan(Revelation 2:9,,3:9),read this book for free on internet to see what else they have in store for you,more blessing like 9/11,more war and total destruction of your country.
Read the book.
Who Is Esau-Edom..Who Is Esau-Edom
We have exterminated the property owners in Russia.We are going to do the same thing in Europe and America
(The Jew,December 1925,Zinobit
MsMihailescu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A collective has no moral right to exist if its existence nullifies the individual. Any association of people in which the property of each person is not secured can't claim any moral right to exist any more than theft can be justified as being moral in itself. The only moral collective is one where the right to transfer the property of each person to another is secured.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Go to your address bar, type "Gift" before YOUTUBE, then press enter
Reckage121 1 year ago
hahaha so because those in the shackles of poverty are better off now than those who were impoverished in the 1800s we should accept free market as our saviour? The same arguements could've been made for the economic improvement that both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany experienced, increasing the well being of the lives of many. We haven't found a perfect solution be it socialism or capitalism, and I doubt we will anytime soon.
hovadude 1 year ago
The US are banrupt, the EU is bankrupt. How much more proof do people need to realize that it's the government which is selfish and greedy ?
ExternalServerError 1 year ago
@ExternalServerError there is no barrier between government and big business. The governments are bankrupt because they showered banks and big business in general with thousands of billions of dollars and euros with no strings attached. It's the handfull of capitalists at the top who sould be bankrupted - and governments should be put under an infinitely more democratic control than what we have now (only casting a vote every 5 years or so while they are in daily contact with big business).
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th
Both, the EU and the US were already bankrupt long before the crisis in '08 due to horrendous government spendings. This has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism never existed in the first place. A central bank is the key characteristic of socialism.
ExternalServerError 1 year ago
@ExternalServerError Capitalism is when economic and political powers has shifted from the hands of the landowners to those who own the productive capital (tools - factories - money).
Absolute free market probably never existed but this only shows that Friedman Hayek & all others are a bunch of utopianists.
Countries where already deeply indebted before 08 because they were already pouring money on the capitalists.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th to get back to your main point : there is no governement who has ever worked only for itself : they always work for a social base, usualy it's the land or capital owning classes - and only on short occasions (until now, only the first years of revolutions) it's for the majority of peoples.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th
170 people world wide were killed by their own governments. Socialism alone killed more than 100 million people. The USSR alone killed more that 40 million of their own peolple. Those are official numbers from the Sovjet Governments. It always follows the same pattern: Expropriatation through taxes, national depth and inflation, enslavement and finally death either through starvation or bullets. That's the road to sefdom. But you are right. Lets do it again. Let's raise taxes!
ExternalServerError 1 year ago
@ExternalServerError Read me before responding I have nothing good to say on just "raising taxes" or on any governement at present (and also on almost all the governments of the past) I don't contest your "kill numbers" either. I say all this was done by governments who were following not only their own bureaucratic interrests but also a submission to the interrests of the wealthiest capitalists (for USSR it was indirect submission through a deal struck with foreign powers by the bureaucracy).
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th
Yeah, governments expropriate people and buy stuff. Burocrats don't build the tanks and carpet bombs themselves that should be clear. So, and your consequence is "end capitalism"? Do you really think a private slave holder could kill 40 mio of his slaves? He would go bankrupt immediately. Only governments can do that because they don't have to work efficiently. No company can print money to finance wars and kill people either. So, its capitalism which is bad? Are you kidding me?
ExternalServerError 1 year ago
@ExternalServerError "No slavholder..." "No compagny..." : ok but then the govts do that because that's what the most powerfull people in the country want. Even in a "crazy dictator" scenario - Hitler, Pinochet, you name it, that guy would never stay in charge for years if he didn't have the support of many big players.
And problem is : you'll never get rid of the state under capitalism 1) because most capitalists will find it usefull to cheat on others and 2) you need it to enforce contracts
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th 3) because the capitalists need the police and sometimes the fascists to break strikes.
4) because I've never found a free-market liberal say something like "first let the people and the information move freely then do that for goods and services and money" which is what they would say of they were really for the people and not the elite.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
Again to the contrary, capitalism does not require the state and, historically, it has been the socialist states (including under the fascists) that have required the more powerful police forces. The only problem with item 4) is that classical free market liberals do not suggest that free movement of people, information, goods, services and money are ever problematic in a free market at any time.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Hi. Fletch it's been a long time.
To be quick. All you are saying about stateless capitalism is only theoretical works. When asked what to do on a day to day basis, liberals end up saying that what Bush did (for instance) is "not perfect but globaly correct" That's enough for me to make them ennemies.
on item 4) my point is precisely that "classical FMLs" are dead wrong on this and it's been proven by those who tried to solve Walras' problem (Sonnenschein, Nash, Stiglitz...)
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th oh and beside : what's great with all those freedoms is not only that's it could be better for the economy, it's also (and more importantly) that it's humanly incredibly better to live with it than without.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
Forgive my confusion, but of which freedoms are you speaking. I (and classical liberals like me) very much are interested in maximizing freedoms both on moral grounds (maximized individual liberty is a moral good on its own merits) and practical ones (the preservation of market liberty including private property has proven to be the source of human prosperity). Are you, perhaps, confusing freedom with means?
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
To the contrary, stateless capitalism WORKED historically in the regions surrounding the Black and Mediterranean Seas thousands of years ago and there is no reason that it cannot work today. It is your stance on item 4 that is "dead wrong". It is based on a premise that does not hold - that, in order for the market to operate successfully, general equilibrium must be achieved (hence the work on information asymmetry) nut the market always APPROACHES equilibrium which is not the same thing.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
The basic problem with the work of Sonnenschein, Nash (albeit less so) and Stiglitz is the common Keynesian fallacy of over-aggregation - that is seeking to define a market-wide equilibrium that is actually a vast number of individual transactions (all approaching equilibrium in the marketplace) that are not generally subject to aggregation, per se but are instead indicative of that overall tendency to approach equilibrium. Only when credit expansion interferes is failure economy-wide.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@Fletch as I told ESE, stateless capitalism is not what Free market defenders are actually standing for. They build a dreamworld and then the only elements that get implemented IN THE REAL LIFE are those that drive down wages, worsen the situation of of the poor, and ultimately fuels nationalism (through national competition). I realy would like to see a genuine Free-market defender speak in public as mightily against dictators like Pinochet and warmongers like Bush and Obama (same to me) as...
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th ...as they do in favor of cancelling minimum wage and other regulations.
Besides your point that fascists are socialists is idealistic. Socialism (as I understand it) is more as standing for the interests of the wage workers than one specific kind of organising the economy. Fascists were there to force people back to work no matter what and contrary to the legend, wages actually went down under their rule.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th I was refering to legal Freedom of information (on that : name me one proeminent FMDefender that spoke fully in support of WikiLeaks) and of Freedom to move to whereever you want on the globe.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
In this country we have freedom of speech generally. The issue with Wikileaks is largely about the breach of contract that someone must have engaged in in order for Wikileaks to obtain the information (which is a separate issue). The issue of free immigration/emigration rests upon issues beyond simple movement. I am fully in favor of open borders in a society absent a welfare state but that, obviously, is not a condition that exists.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Missed this (reply to me not yourself). It is simply a fact that minimum wage laws have never accomplished anything but to harm the very people such laws are ostensibly designed to help. It is your understanding that is flawed. Socialism is the economic system in which the powers of ownership over the means of production are exercised collectively (usually by the state as proxy). This is true regardless of whether the control is direct (USSR) or indirect (fascism). It's simple definition.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
I didn't specifically advocate stateless capitalism either (merely pointing out its historic existence). In the real world, however, free markets/capitalism have INCREASED wages, IMPROVED conditions of the poor and has NOTHING to do with nationalism ( those conditions HAVE historical examples in the case of state socialism: USSR, communist China, Nazi Germany, etc.). State action is not capitalism and dictatorial action is not restricted by by the economic system.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom Where did I say that I support any of the regimes you mentionned ? State action works hand in hand with most capitalist persons. Now, it is free to you to define "capitalism" idealistically as a different system to which we'll never get closer to. But As I said in all my posts to you and ESE, the real holders of most of the productive capital don't give a shit about the theory, they go for the easy, quick money and that means dirty tricks Murder Inc style all the way.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th The improvement you speak of is getting eaten back much faster and with much less difficulties that it was gained. the last 30 years have witnessed FMPolitics enforced everywhere with a general lewering of standards. Why ? Because most of that growth was financed with musical chairs style borrowing games which came to a crash in 2008 (and wait for the nexr one it will be bigger).
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
No such "eating back" is taking place; it is purely fictional. Living standards in the United States have been steadily improving for generations (including over the last 30 years) the myth of the stagnating middle class having been thoroughly and completely debunked. Whether in terms of household income or total compensation the gains have been substantial. And the crash of 2008 resulted primarily from the Fed vastly increasing the money supply, not any private sector failure.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
I never suggested that you did support them. On the other hand I did not suggest the absurdity that state action works hand in hand with most capitalists. My definition of capitalism is the one that exists, consistent with common usage, economics and political science. It is the free market and there is no reason that it cannot be approached. Even marginal returns in that direction inevitably yield material societal benefits.
cont
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
While its true that the real holders of most productive capital don;t give a shit about capital, instead concentrating on improving their lot by providing goods and services to the public, the occurrences of dirty tricks and Murder Inc. styles are so unbelievably rare in the real world that mentioning it as if it were even remotely endemic is irresponsibly disconnected from reality.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@F : you live in a dreamland. Have you heard of Irak and Afghanistan ? the manipulated "color revolutions" ? of Pol Pot armed by the CIA ? of Blackwater ? There is a thing called "militaro-industrial complex" and even if there's a lot of bickering between its members, ultimatly they agree on the essential, and they are the ones that count. FM theorists are only their underlings. Of all the things they propose only what's convenient to the complex will be implemented unless there is a revolution.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
Again, no matter how much you might wish to rewrite the dictionary STATE ACTION IS NEVER CAPITALISM or even CAUSED by capitalism. State action is, BY DEFINITION, socialistic. Capitalism is the free market which exists the world over whenever individuals engage freely in economic activities - working to provide goods and services to people, going to a job, etc. It is what has made the US one of the wealthiest countries on the planet (with the wealthiest "poor").
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@F and again, I don't question the definition per se, I question the accuracy of classical economy to describe a world where political leaders and big business dine together on a daily basis while their link to the vast majority of the people resides in a single election every few years.
example : Mitterand came to power in France, he nationalsed various Cies, but he paid them higher than market price, then he made us all pay to modernize them and then he sold them cheaper than they were worth.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
But, of course, you are describing a problem of SOCIALISM. The primal power of the state used to nationalize industries and (as is always the case) play favorites. If it were not for the socialistic elements in France demanding such action, the problem could not have occurred. This is a basic logical problem with socialism - finding a circumstance where the state causes problems and then presuming that more state power (stateless socialism being impossible) can solve it.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@F No. I say 2 things : 1) in the real world granting property rights to individuals over big things like those compagnies () even fractionnal shareholders rights) always end up in such favorites games.
2) the solution is not more statism, it's direct workers control, via a public entity in which the hierarchy is submitted to very strong democratic control and a rather fast turn-over.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
No. In the real world, there is no legitimate distinction between types of property (they become property in the same manner) and the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. Such "favorites games" are quite rare and the ones that do exist can only come into being as a direct result of the powers of the state. Direct worker control requires theft at the outset followed by the implementation of a system that has been tried countless times and has never worked.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@F : to be fair to you I can grant you that most of those "socialists" you speak of are also underlings of the "holders of porductive capital" (since it seems to bether you when I call them capitalists) - It's the classic stick and carrot / good cop-bad cop strategy.
But ultimately, the only way to get actually rid of this parasitic layer (statesmen & big businessmen) is through the working class taking things directly in their own hands. Not tiny FM reforms one by one.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
The "working class taking things into their own hands" is impossible unless you wish to condemn most of them to misery and death. It was the development of several property and the division of labor under capitalism that has lifted the living standards the world over for the past three centuries and is the only thing that sustains anywhere near sufficient production to support them. There's nothing "parasitic" about capitalists; their actions make us all better off.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@F capitalism was better than feudality, ok, but that was in part due to the fact that in allowed a greater number of people to participate in economic decisions, at that time it was more egalitarian than aristocratic rule. Today THe financial sector has gathered so much of the world's wealth in so few hands, they start behaving like the aristocracy of old ages. (and with the same carelessness : look at you comment on WikiLeaks : a breach of contract matters more than exposing lies and warcrimes
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
You come so close and then divert into absurdity. Capitalism is universal involvement in economic decisions. Socialism cannot function specifically because it lacks the ability to make decisions in such a manner. The financial sector has demonstrably NOT concentrated wealth (except inasmuch as central banks - an aspect of socialism - have intervened, and that has concentrated state power) - quite the contrary. And I didn't say that contract matters "more", rather that the issue is not simple
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@F but there is nothing that says division of labor should go along with having to shut up on how the economy is managed and just accepting what the owner of the compagny said.
If you define socialism by "lack of market" then everything within a corporation is socialistic, right ?
Your comment on finance is so aristocratic, even theocratic... How can you imagine that 1 person even working 24/7/365 is a 1000 times more efficient than 1 of his worker ? differences of maybe 5-10 ok but not more.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
Actually, that's pretty much exactly what it says. The division of labor, which has vastly increased living standards (especially for the poor) rests on private property rights that permit investment and management activities that cannot be duplicated under "worker control". Under those property rights, the means of production belong to those willing to risk their capital to bring them (i.e. factories) into existence (and they would not otherwise exist).
cont
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@F no because in addition to those willing to risk their capital, there is those willing to spend their labor time, their health, and possibly risk their life, on it - which is just as important. And in fact, for humanity as a whole, it is more important because any capital was first and foremost created by a labor (which might not be the labor of it's owner). You can bring any capital and yell orders, if nobody actually does the work, nothing exists either.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
Without the actions of the capitalist, there is no OPPORTUNITY for the worker to employ his labor and the worker still has the choice of what he is willing to offer in the marketplace for a given return, including in increasingly rare circumstances risk to health and life. While certainly the capital was largely the result of earlier labor saved so that it might be used for investment, it is no less real and useful and no less the property of the owner. Not one point alters the owner's rights.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Further, the factory exists first. With its creation comes the opportunity for workers to be employed their. The opportunity is specifically that the laborer may work in the factory for an agreed upon wage to accomplish a given set of tasks as delineated by the owners of the factory. If the worker doesn't wish to do that, he need not accept the job. If the owners cannot find someone to do it for the offered wage, they will have to offer more in the marketplace.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@F factory comes after it's been built...
but more important : 1) when you give an idea/order you lose nothing, when you give your time and efforts, you actually invest something you won't keep, so I have no problem with a boss doing 70 hours a week and earning 2x what a 35 hours worker does.
2) we are not in the wild wide west anymore, there is no virgin land you can go to build your own place if you don't like what offered by bosses. This creates a biais on the market in favor of wealth/boss
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
Socialism is not defined as "lack of market" albeit that is the result. And, no, a corporation, while cooperative is not socialistic.
As for finance, you proceed from a false assumption. The capitalist SYSTEM is several orders of magnitude (1000 times is too low) than a socialist system because, absent market prices, socialism cannot determine the optimal allocation of resources. But worse is the presumption that you can determine such relative efficiencies of workers in that manner.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
It is the presumption that the worker engaged in some sort of definable physical productive activity is nobler and more valuable than the market deems his product to be and that the banker and manager and capital owner are exploiters and less efficient and less noble that is arrogant and theocratic. It is based on an enormous lack of understanding (and often a stubborn unwillingness to understand) what those people do and the benefits that they provide to the economy as a whole.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@F I can't be aristocratic if I glorifiy the large majority, beeing a small "elite" is the whole point of aristocracy.
I don't say that the organisers (to find a nice term for bosses and finance) are "less" useful, just that they don't have to be paid more (per hour) (but not less either).
Beside, on finance I'd like to know what you think of Nassim Taleb's point that stock market is as random as a casino (some very rare guys always win, but in a casino too).
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
I didn't say "aristocratic"; I said "arrogant". The only aristocracy in the free market is that earned by meeting the needs of consumers in society. That "bosses" and financiers make more - sometimes substantially more - is because (noble nonsense about physical labor aside) they provide more return to the economy (creating more wealth and jobs). I'm not familiar with Taleb, but his "point" is pure drivel and contrary to reality.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@F (2) I do think that the market gives a proper evaluation of one's product (but often shortsighted). My problem with it comes when the persons who made the thing don't get back that full value but only the fraction of it that doesn't go in the owner's pocket.
I mean risking your home is something (hard life without) but risking a factory which you can't use for your personnal enjoyment anyway (or a sum of money which you could still have a comfortable life without), it's not the same thing.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
You are proceeding from a debunked (and actually ridiculous) premise based upon the (equally debunked) labor theory of value. The workers get full value for their labor in each and every case and, despite Marx's claims to the contrary, at increasingly higher wages and more than they could have gotten in the absence of the contributions of the capitalist that provided the opportunity.
cont
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Again, property is property. If a justification can made to protect it in the form of a home or food, the same logic must apply to a factory. The factory was but with the saved capital (often created by the savings of workers in the past) who chose to risk it to build the factory in expectation of a return. In the absence of that expectation, no factory is built and no opportunity exists for workers.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@F there are things you need to stay alive, things you need to be well integrated into society and things that are only here for enjoyment and finaly things that fulfill a social need (networks...) or that can't be duplicated (mines...). each of these cathegory justifes in my view a different kind of property and associated rights.
Labor is paid roughly at what it costs to stay alive and efficient, but it creates more value than that (otherwise why bother working ?) that's never been debunked.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th "Labor is paid roughly at what it costs to stay alive and efficient, but it creates more value than that (otherwise why bother working ?) that's never been debunked."
Value is relative. The labor theory of value is based on the idea that the value of something is the same for everyone (objective). Experience should tell you that's not true.
Now consider the idea that someone else may value an hour of your time more than you do...
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@studentofsmith : Not when we look at aggregates for all products and all players. And what we are speaking of here is politics : stuff that we deem important enough to apply to the whole of society, not individual strategies for getting better off than other players.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th "aggregates for all products and all players"
Market price is not the same thing as value. Indeed, whenever you purchase something you do so because it's value (to you) is greater than the price.
"strategies for getting better off than other players."
It sounds like you believe the economy is a zero-sum game, where one persons gain can only come at anothers expense. That's simply not true. Individuals can make exchanges for mutual benefit precisely because value is relative.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@studentofsmith economy is a win-win exchange concerning use values (otherwise no exchanges takes place) BUT, at the same time it's zero sum when we look at exchange values, especially when we have a well developped market where things are exchanged against money (ie : a generic right over a fraction of society's production) instead of other specific things.
So, capitalism makes mankind as a whole grow (everyone gains uses) (but with regular crises) ; and at the same time it concentrates wealth
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th Okay, I get the difference between use value and exchange value but let's return to your original point that labor is paid "what it costs to stay alive and efficient".
I'm sure you know that the exchange value of widgets is determined, not by the cost of producing them, but by the interaction of supply and demand. The exchange value of labor is determined the same way. While some workers operate at a loss the vast majority turn a profit from the sale of their labor.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@studentofsmith the way I see it : supply and demand are the mecanism through which each transaction is determined but costs of production are a general constrain over that.
the thing with labor is that unlike every other commodity, it's output excess its demands. So, even if workers make a small profit, (and usualy they do, otherwise it's called slavery), the profit of the capitalist is totally out of proportions to his personnal input. (read my posts to fletch before aswering that).
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Student : also please note that the real problem I see with capitalism is not directly this general mecanism but the facts that it introduces a widening gap between peoples (with more connections to political power for the wealthy layers), that it brings dramatic crises regularly, and that ultimatley it generates imperialism with all the associated horrors.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th The costs of production have no impact on exchange value. If the capitalist has done his job correctly (and was not unusually unlucky) the exchange value of the final product will exceed the sum of the exchange values of the elements that went into it's production and he will make a profit. If not, he will take a loss.
Can you explain your statement that the output of labor excess its demands?
And I'd like to stay focused on labor rather than engaging in a broader discussion :)
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@studentofsmith the exchange value is equal to what customer will agree to pay which must usualy be inferior to what it would cost the customer if he tried to make the product himself.
Labor changes things into something more useful than the energy/time/health it consumed to change them (otherwise why bother ?).
The profit of the capitalists (as a whole) comes from the labor of the employees, and possibly from their labor if they actualy spend time a work, but this shoud be paid per hours too.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
You proceed from an entirely fallacious premise. It is demonstrably the case that exchange only occurs when BOTH parties benefit (no exchange is "equal" - wealth is created at that point).
Value is value: no exchange vs. use distinction applies. The labor theory of value is long debunked. The profit of the capitalist comes from what he provides in the marketplace: opportunity, capital equipment, etc. that, ultimately results in the worker getting MORE than he otherwise could have.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@Fletch Use Value is a real thing like "with this sandwitch i will get this kind of taste satisfaction and that much calories etc", it's not money, and it's specific to each person. exchange value is a one-dimensnionnal attempt at summing that which is used to establish a correspondance between things that are totally different (like a sandwitch and any thing that the sandwith maker wll buy with the money). As such money can only express what is common between all things : work time to make them
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
Value is value. Everyone assigns a value to everything based on its marginal utility (neither work time nor labor inputs has anything whatsoever to do with value). Whether that utility is to use it (eat the sandwich) or trade it (in the cafeteria) is irrelevant: the value is the same (and the Marxian distinction is absurd. Money niether creates nor distorts value - it is merely a means of facilitating the MEASURE of value (and by facilitating change creates prosperity).
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
More specifically, the Marxian notion that (socially valuable) work time is common among things is absurd on its face (and, with good reason, is not taken seriously by anyone with a grasp of economics). An apple has the same value if it falls from the tree into your hand or if it is offered by someone who grew the tree and harvested the apple because value is not determined on the production side but entirely by that which someone desiring the good is willing to part with to get it.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@Fletch 1) you start from the oversimplified assumption that the real value (use value for me) of something can be represented by a one-dimensional number (price) while the real qualities of an object are almost infinite.
2) as I told Sutdentofsmith, marx analysed the evolution of aggregates over significant times, One price might be whatever but once you look at aggrgates there are definite constrains on demand (what it would cost to DIY the thing) and supply (through investment).
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
1) I start with no such assumption. I merely point out that value of any kind is derived from the "demander" rather than the producer and, in that context, the value is the same for that "demander" whether it is for use or exchange. The kid in the cafeteria plans to eat his lunch; that he trades it with the next kid because he likes what his mom packed better does not alter the value to him of the lunch. Thus, it is impossible to compare use value and exchange value as if they were different.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
2) Marx never actually did any such thing. He compared statistical aggregates at several distinct times and determined that prices fluctuate (a point with which no one disagrees). He posited that this fluctuation was some evidence that prices did not reflect values because the proceeded from the fallacy that value is intrinsic, while, in reality, prices fluctuate because the values of commodities to those seeking them in the marketplace change.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@Fletch
demander won't buy a sandwitch that costs what he earns in an hour of work if he can make it himself in 10 minutes.
supply is determined in the long run by investment, which is itself determined by the Cost of Production/sale price ratio.
so CoP is the place toward which market prices gravitate in the long run.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
And different people place different values on their time; the fact remains that the sandwich value is the subjective amount willing to be expended by someone seeking to obtain it, not by inputs, particularly of labor time.
Long run investment and CoP/slae price are INTERdependent variables but be that as it may, it is a dicussion completely irrelevant to the wuestion of the source of value, particularly over time and in a market where conditions change (always).
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@student everything that enters the production process (raw matters, tools, electricity...) was bough by the capitalist at its market price : the profit can't be made over it because it was already paid at a price that can't be lower than its production cost, and by themselves these things don't create more exchange value alone, it's only when a worker puts them together that more value is created.
As tech progresses it tends to become harder to make profit but total wealth created still grows.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th I meant everything that enters... beside labor.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Longlivethe4th "I meant everything that enters... beside labor."
That is precisely the premise I am challenging. You begin with the assumption the capitalist adds no value, recognize that raw materials and capital equipment are purchased at market price and conclude that labor, somehow, must be purchased below market price, else where comes profit?
I suggest there is no basis for believing labor is purchased below market price and that you underestimate the contribution of the capitalist.
studentofsmith 1 year ago 2
@studentofsmith sorry for delay your comment was notted "spam". Well my point is that labor is actually paid at market price but that market price is equal to, or rather gravitates towards, the cost of production (raising a kid until adulthood, job training, food, housing, social activity required for the level of consciousness needed for said job etc), and that this cost is inferior to the market value of what is produced by the worker.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th No problem. I can see that the price of labor cannot get too far beyond production cost (lest you are undercut by the competition) in the same way the price of widgets cannot get too far beyond production cost. In both cases the threat of competition keeps the seller honest and willing to accept a modest profit rather than an exorbitant one.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th That being said workers "produce" nothing. Labor is an input cost, no different than raw materials or capital equipment. It is the combination of these elements that produces the final product. The manner in which they are organized is what makes the whole greater (or less) than the sum of its parts. To organize these elements is one role of the capitalist.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@studentofsmith the combination is the worker's who gives up some of his free time, stamina, health, happiness, whatever, to make the thing. If the capitalist is an old style capitalist doing a bit of that too, he deserves some money too. If he just takes a few minutes each day to look up how much money he has, let's pay him these few minutes, but nothing more. When you give an idea you lose nothing (exept the time to formulate it etc), so it could be rewarded by Fame, friends, etc, not money.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th If all it took to become wealthy was a good idea the world would be littered with millionaires. It takes a great deal of effort to bring an idea to fruition. It is that effort that must be rewarded if we wish people to engage in it.
Perhaps you make a distinction between "entrepreneurial" capitalists and those who merely allocate resources. Even then the allocation of resources to productive uses is a valuable service and must be rewarded.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@student There are other rewards than money, Pride, fame, happy times with friends, living in a world where the standards of living for everyone including yourself are better because of what you did, are rewards too. Money is someting you lose when you give it, and should only be used as a direct reward for giving other things you lose (including study time to come up with the idea, and all the actual efforts to bring the idea to fruition).
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@student I mean : if you are really good at something, I mean nerd-like good, then the job is a reward in itself, and since we are discussing activities like inventing and managing which are really funny to do and bring a lot of social interactions, and are not overly damaging to your health (unless the hierarchy overburdens you with tasks that would need 2 or 3 more people to do properly - but that's a capitalist problem), then equal pay is possible.
Darwin, Einstein, didn't ask gold montains
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th You are correct that there are rewards other than monetary (job satisfaction, peer recognition) but for those that take the effort (and risk) of investing money is a prime motivating factor.
Moreover the better you are at investing (in a capitalist context) the more resources you gain control over. It's the ultimate meritocracy.
You seem to be suggesting people should paid based on the time and effort they put in rather than the quality of their output. I assume I'm mistaken?
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@student on 1) that's why we must find something different, than classical capitalist private-property based way of investment - more like a public entity but with infinitely more democratic procedures.
2) there are also contless examples of great things that didn't get nowhere because of problems with capital (Tucker...) not because it was a bad idea. Real meritocracy should start by giving proper starting gear to everybody : if you look for faster runner, you make every1 start on same line.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@student 3) First people should have the opportunity to work where they are best, economy should be here to better our lives not to scrape whatever we can. Equality is fundamental for that to happen. Then if you work better, you can deserve a little more, or depending on situation, maybe it means you can leave work earlier if you work faster, or maybe you deserve a promotion... Differences of wages are ok as long a basic needs are fulfiled for all and as we buy products, not means of production
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th When people invest their own money they are cautious. This means many good projects do not get funded but also prevents many bad projects from being funded. A public entity, besides having no incentive to balance risk with reward, can devastate the economy with one bad investment becasue all your eggs are in one basket. An individual capitalist cannot since even the wealthiest control only a fraction of the economies wealth. This is called diversification.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@student But people would still invest their own money if the public entities I mention were subject to heavy democratic control, both from their employees and more broadly from all citizens. You could have a number of "points" regenerated every year (or whatever) that you invest in projects that seem great to you. This "investment money" should be equaly given and not interfere with the money used to fulfill basic needs, because, frankly, feeding everyone is a merry trifle with today's tech.
Longlivethe4th 1 year ago
@Longlivethe4th "You could have a number of "points" regenerated every year (or whatever) that you invest in projects that seem great to you." Google "rational ignorance" for why this won't work.
If everyone were paid the same there would be less incentive to take unpleasant or difficult jobs. Moreover rare skills would be allocated randomly rather than where they are most valuable. Managers are paid more becasue there are fewer people able and willing to do that job well.
studentofsmith 1 year ago