What if China's subsidy is temporary? If we dismantled our steel factories and buy subsidised steel from China, we're letting them gain economies of learning while we lose ours. One day, they gonna remove the subsidy and sell at the original price we were selling, and we can't compete with them again.
With their new found wealth, they can start subsidizing airplane production...
And I take issue with your proclamation that the essential thesis of this video is agree upon by a vast majority of the economics profession. That is not entirely true; most economists agree that a little bit of infant industrial policy can be a good thing if there are positive externalities.
The tariffs gave the English cotton industry the liberty to expand, update technology, and develop all its factors of production so that it would be able to compete with India free of tariffs. Bottom line: this infant industrial policy played a massive part in precipitating the Industrial Revolution. Worse yet: it is just one example of many....
It seems to me to be a very simplistic analysis. For one, a country can use tariffs to create comparative advantages where there was none. It is exactly how Britain developed its textile industry and left India's in ruins--even after India had been making higher quality garments at cheaper prices for centuries. England's industrial policies included tariffs of up to 1000% on some fabrics. It was ugly, but it worked.[contd]...
@MattSyTy Then we trade with other areas that were able to produce oranges as efficiently that weren't hit by the frost. I never argued that we should centralize production of one thing into one single area. I only argued that the division of labor allows us to produce far more stuff. It drives me nuts how people who are ignorant of economics are so certain of their economic claims.
@JacobSpinney The first minute of your video talks explicitly on growing all apples in Washington and all Oranges in California to allow for a higher product yield and lower prices, bypassing the tariff hindrance. Your argument borrows from the concept of centralizing production due to the hardiness zones. Don't try and tell me otherwise.
"Temporary Restructuring" is a clever way of saying unemployment due to outsourcing.
@MattSyTy . . . I was using that as an analogy to make my point on the division of labor. I'm sorry that that wasn't blatantly obvious to you. Would you have preferred me to use the examples of "people in X climate and people in Y climate," rather than simplifying it to the states of California and Washington?
@JacobSpinney You can rename the parameters all you want. It still doesn't make "The Division of Labor" proclamation any more transparent to me. The spoon argument on technological unemployment is not funny either; it's actually quite distorted and inhumane. I could probably spend the duration of my comments on your channel, but the only reason I commented here is because of the videos title.
I think you need to focus on other areas than economics if you want world peace and prosperity.
@JacobSpinney Why do Austro-libertarians always equate the proposition: "that person doesn't agree with some of the policy prescriptions advocated by Austrian economics" with "that person is ignorant of basic economics"?
@JacobSpinney You are a typical Conservative Spoiled idiot, who knows nothing about how the real world works. Free trade promotes free trade, nothing more. World peace and Prosparity are not associated in any way with free trade. You should travel more kid. You know nothing of the real world.
@MattSyTy How about we take away the farmers tractor so he has to hire a bunch of guys with shovels? How about we make them use spoons instead of shovels? That'll surely increase the number of people needed to be hired . . . . Technological unemployment is based on the idea that humans will run out of stuff to do. We never have before, and we never will in the future. Technology does not destroy jobs. It frees up more productive jobs that otherwise wouldn't have been possible to do.
The NET prosperity will increase with free trade. However, that prosperity will also be distributed more equitably throughout the world. The U.S. controls most of the world's wealth. With proper free trade, the world's wealth will increase but U.S. will relinquish its control of a lot of that wealth as it will be distributed more equitably throughout the world. Hence, the U.S. (and most other rich countries nowadays) will become less prosperous.
@mecher3k "Free trade is a system of trade policy that allows traders to trade across national boundaries without interference from the respective governments"
If there is no government interference, then how could there be military interference? You are either retarded, or you don't even know what free trade is, I'm going to go with both.
@mecher3k "The more countries trade with eachother, the more dependant one eachother they become, the more dependant on eachother they become, the far less likely they are to pull out their guns"
Yes, free trade = peace. It's not a hard concept to grasp moron.
@mecher3k If you are the government, and you see that the majority of your people are trading with a country, there is no way you would invade that country, your people would not only be against the war, but hate you in the process.
Last time I checked the people of America don't have free trade with the people of Iraq for their oil. If they did, there would be no reason to send troops over there to stabilize the oil in Iraq, DUH!
free trade most certainly creates the highest efficiency for work, but stating that all of the money gained by that efficient use goes directly to the country seems false. also, this distribution of goods is not as equal as the oranges and apples in Washington and California. Some countries may have a lot more to give then that trading countries have to offer. this unbalance would give those with the monopoly, such as the western world, an opportunity to put pressure for lowering prices.
A great example of why "markets"cannot provide peace? Hmm...lets see- the US policy of "containment" for one.How about what the US is doing now in the middle East? Fighting terrorism you say? More like westernizing the middle east in order for the capitalist market to expand. Think of all the trade and new investment opportunities! In 10 years time you'll see a bunch of fat materialist Muslims running amok on MTV. This is how trade and market expansion is facilitated- at the end of a gun barrel
Your argument for world economy is not sustainable in face of shortage in energy. It costs more energy to ship produce or grain than to produce them. You forget the shipping cost involved in moving commoditities.
I know that you are convinced of your belief. You see, your ideas do not come from you. They come from the counterfeitor, the perpetual lier, your father.
@jaybb789 Putting a price on my videos means fewer people watching them, no matter how much demand there would be. I prefer having as many people watch my videos as possible.
I'll check out the video, thx. I think the morimaster's in major denial on the issue of human nature. Whenever someone is given a position of authority over another whether in business or other domain, that power is used. You can take a perfectly nice ordinary person and turn them into a monster. Add to that the motivation of unfettered greed and you have the recipe for CAPITALISM.
@1huayna Exactly these dimwits are ignorant of history and too dense to realize they would just send us backwards, not forwards. They are so dense they would unknowingly follow their own excutioner to their own hanging and by the time they realized what was going on it would be too late.
@xexixk This is pure propaganda, because it pretends that before the industrial revolution, children were skipping around in meadows all day, which is pure falsity. Children had EVEN WORSE lives before the industrial revolution. The more you guys ignore this fact, the more your dishonesty becomes apparent.
@JacobSpinney I don't recall anyone saying all was glory prior to the industrial revolution. The fact that you deny that exploitation can and has taken place by industry shows your own dishonesty and ignorance. Child labor did not end because your kind hearted industrialists that you love so much decided to end it. It ended because it was abolished by law. Get rid of those laws and that's where we will end up at - back in time.
@xexixk No. They ended, because the ideal of society is for children to not work. Unfortunately, during the agricultural and industrial revolution, society was not wealthy enough to enact that option. It is only after society became more wealthy (precisely due to the division of labor brought about by the industrial revolution) that society could then afford the luxury of allowing children to not work.
@JacobSpinney By the way, wages and working conditons only improved after the labor movement and all of it's hard, long struggles, not because of any "humanitarianism" from industry.
@xexixk If you simply mandate that it is illegal for children to work during a time that society is not wealthy enough to support such an action, then you will be responsible for those children either starving to death or resorting to black market work, which for them is primarily prostitution.
@JacobSpinney Actually those industrialists you defend with such vigor could have paid their employees decent rages, then no need for that child labor. Of course that would have meant they would have had to take a hit in their own bank accounts, which would have been tough. What would they have done if they couldn't afford those mansions in Newport, etc.
@xexixk No doubt there were rich people at the time. But the majority of the industrialists of that time were poor by todays standards. And if you took 100% of all wealth of that time, that would still be FAR below the total wealth that exists now. The problem with wealth redistribution schemes is that they stop or drastically reduce the rate at which society as a whole becomes more wealthy.
@JacobSpinney LOL Their millions back then would be billions in today's world. Apparently you've never been to Newport and visited any of those manions from that period or been to Biltmore. And who's talking about weath redristributions? I'm talking about paying a person more for their labor, they could have done that. Eventually they did - after the labor movement. It was unionization that got works better pay and better conditions, not any benevolence from industrialists.
@xexixk Have you ever even heard of marginal revenue productivity? You really should not hold such absolutist positions over subjects you don't know the first thing about. The simple fact is that if you took all property from all people in the industrial revolution, it couldn't hold a candle to the sheer amount and quality of all property today. Are you actually arguing that the rich during the industrial revolution were hiding all of the air conditioners, refrigerators, laptops, and iphones?
I see you like tellling people what they "should" do. I'll telll you what you should do Jacob, stick with the card tricks and "mentalist" schtick because frankly you don't know you history and you lack both a heart and a soul plus I suspect you're just all that bright.
@1huayna LOL I saw that website someone sent the link to me as well. Not very entertaining in that monotone voice and the "tricks" were pretty simple stuff, not requiring much real talent. That's the thing with these people. Most of them I've encountered are in one way or another loosers who blame everyone else out there (ie. society at large) for holding them back from reaching their full potential, but the truth is they just don't have the skills/talent & it's not society holding them back.
If he really wants to do well he'd do himself a favor to get a college degree and develop a real career. Best to drop show biz since he is devoid of talent. If he learns how to use his brain, he will be able to study issues in depth and see the fallacies in these arguments instead of accepting the superficial Fox spin.
@1huayna Actually I am convinced that what these people want is to create a permanent impoverished underclass to serve them. Of course they can't say directly like that so they parade this propaganda that paints their goal as "freedom." Also, because of their larger than life egos and belief that they are superior to all others they never consider that they too may one day end up as a part of that underclass. Modern day serfdom is what they are after.
@xexixk ~Also, because of their larger than life egos and belief that they are superior to all others they never consider that they too may one day end up as a part of that underclass.~
They're trying to become that underclass fast & they would if they succeeded in killing Medicare.(They can't)despite their nutty charade voting after Wall St closed but telling them they're not serious about not raising the ceiling debt. The GOP motto, politics first, country last. What else is new?
@1huayna That website also reminded me of the snake oil salesmen of the past - I imagine in another era he would have made an excellent snake oil salesman travelling from town to town.
@JacobSpinney Who said all property should have been taken away from? I said they should have paid their workers a bit more and settled with a little less themselves - like builidng a 30 room mansion in Newport as opposed to a 60 room mansion.
I see this asshole doesn't allow for "voting". Obviously he is a petty dicatator type who chooses to perpetrate his own version of a perverted reality and doesn't really want any opinions. He is an Axis II personality disorder to the nth degree of a histriotic and narcissistice personality probably borderlien to boot, maybe actually at the extreme end of the continuum where "psychosis" dwells.
@1huayna I think he is probably afflicted with Ayn Randiosis syndrom, typically characterized by an inflated ego, an irrational belief that they have all of the answers to life's problems and utopian fantasies. It's funny how these fools who've never had to really suffer for anything in their lives and would likely crumble and cry if they had to really in truth want and wish for others to suffer.
Yep,Ann Randiosis syndrome is one of the most deleterious of maladies! Randians don't realize the utopia they seek (if they all fled and went to a secret location) would mean they wouldn't have anyone in their enclave who can actually make things! This group r leeches, consisting of Wall St stock brokers, financial advisors, CEO's, Banksters who would fall apart if they didn't have us to prey upon. Real people have knowledge & skills & would thrive if wingnuts would all disappear.
@1huayna Actually they are worse than leeches. Leeches at lease have a role in eco-system. Fools like this guy should ask themselves why Canada with it's heavier regulation of the financial markets and banking industry has not had any of the problems the US has had during this time of economic turmoil. Not a single Canadian bank has collapsed or had to be balied out, the housing marked has remained stable, etc.
@xexixk 'Actually they are worse than leeches. Leeches at lease have a role in eco-system.'
Well said! Other countries who are functioning well could be looked to as role models and we could emulate those areas and learn from them. Somehow it seems the U.S. has always had this massive ego and sense of entitlement that only we were chosen by God himself to be blessed and our shit doesn't stink. It's pretty sad. It means we'll have to keep "re-inventing the wheel'. Think Sysiphus!
@1huayna Yes so many people - particularly considering the dumbing down of the educational system over the past 3 decades or so - have this mythical belief that only the US knows the right thing to do, is superior to all others, and that the reast of the world can learn from us but that we can learn nothing from other countries in the world. Canada and Australia are both doing much better than the US - might be a few things we could learn from them.
@xexixk So you might make the poor wealthier in the present, but it's at the expense of making everyone in the future poorer. The inevitable outcome of redistributing wealth is that the equalized standard of living eventually falls further and further behind the standard of living of even the poorest person had the redistribution not taken place.
@JacobSpinney "If you simply mandate that it is illegal for children to work during a time that society is not wealthy enough to support such an action, then you will be responsible for those children either starving to death or resorting to black market work, which for them is primarily prostitution."
Are you blind, deaf, and mute? Are you an inhabitant of Earth or some alternate universe where black is white and up is down, or are you just a brainwashed rt wing imbecile?
@1huayna Indeed. Child labor does nothing to aleiviate poverty, it just perpetuates it. Wages and living standards rose after the labor movement - when people finally had had enough and rose up and demanded better pay and conditions. It didn't come about because these industrialists that this guy loves so much were big hearted humanitarians.
@1huayna It's also pretty funny what he has to say about "free trade." NAFTA has devestated the American working class and also people in Mexico - it destroyed their agricultural industry for one. What a joke. Many US companies are even outsourcing accounting and design work. This guy thinks he's advocating for some utopian dreamworld, instead we will all end up living in a modern day feudal state if people like him have their way.
@JacobSpinney You excuse the exploitaton and the horrors that came with industrialization by simple saying "oh it wasn't any better before that." That's irrelevant. It's true that ultimately some good came out of it, but that doesn't mean one ignores the wrongs and abuses that occured. And that's exactly where you people would have us at - right back where we started from.
Anyways, I'm really sick of arguing with you. There's no point if you're just going to deny that increased productivity results in more prosperity. Regardless, it's late where I am, and I've got work to do tomorrow. G'night.
@TheMoriMaster Yes, certainly did increase prosperity - for the industrialists at that time. Their workers didn't get any of that prosperity until they fought for it.
@xexixk "...for the industrialists at that time. Their workers didn't get any of that prosperity until they fought for it."
When the capitalist makes higher profit, most of those profits get invested and are used to expand the business. Capitalists do this to make even more money. This lowers the cost of goods by increasing supply and it allows them to pay workers higher wages, which they do because it attracts more workers. Capitalists compete with each other for labor too.
@TheMoriMaster They didn't pay any of these higher wages you speak of prior to the successes of labor movement. This "invisible hand" in the market that is supposedly supposed to straighten everything out on its own, free of any regulations, laws, etc. seemed to not function then.
Your political-economic thought is quite immature. Capital, constantly expanding material wealth, contradicts itself by growing from exploitation of the soil and the worker. The profit accumulated by a capitalist is value added by the workers labour but not paid for by the capitalist. Any profit means that someone is made richer and someone poorer. Capital puts some in, takes more out - it's the profit game. It never gives wealth, it extracts it from people and the earth.
@GivePeaceAChance87 Please see my capitalists do not exploit workers video. Your view on trading being a game where someone loses and someone wins is nonsense. Since both parties would only agree to go into a trade, BOTH benefit. BOTH value what they are trading for more than what they traded for it. Otherwise they wouldn't trade for it. Thus, BOTH win. You don't get rich by somehow tricking people into buying your toothpick for $100. You get rich by being better at producing things of value.
@JacobSpinney That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. The worker sells her labour to the capitalist because SHE HAS NO ACCESS TO THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION - her labour is forced. Additionally, the capitalist pays her in money, measured in time, as a cost of production. Her pay is set in time while she can produce far more value than she takes home (this is where profit comes from). The idea that the profit is the contribution of the boss is a joke.
Right, and she shouldn't! She has no claim on those particular means of production, because she didn't create them. Means of production do not magical appear out of nowhere. The capitalist saved up some of his money instead of consuming it, and used it to obtain/create those means of production.
If the worker wants to own them too, he should buy himself into the company or just copy what the capitalist did (i.e. become one).
@janc71 You're only kind of right. She did not create those means of production, but just because the capitalist had money doesn't mean he should have the total claim to its products because he didn't make them either.
The way the world is today was conditioned by the actions of those in the past. No person can claim the products of generations of human labor as their personal property. Capitalist wealth is generated through exploitation of those who have been divorced from their social heritage
Personally creating them is not the issue. Assuming no force was used, he voluntarily traded his money (time and labor) for these MoP. So indirectly, he did produce them.
"No person can claim ... as their personal property."
Assuming it was obtained through trade or gifts/inheritance, SURE they can call it their personal property. If not, do I then have a right to a portion of your father's inheritance? (sorry for the crude example)
@janc71 Yeah man, you do have a right to a portion of my father's inheritance. Think about this - although I didn't commit genocide on the Indians or spend years finding out how to make denim, mine/forge metals, invent the zipper, invent the English language (the list is endless) I am still affected by that past labour deeply.
You must see how capitalist growth is exploitation to really see where I'm coming from. Are you familiar with the labour theory of value?
I see a big increase in knowledge and technology over the centuries, and we all benefit from that (I'm against patents, copyrights...). But if my forefather produced something, than he can do with it as he pleases (i.e. give it to his son). It does not suddenly become public property.
"You must see how capitalist growth is exploitation..."
In the sense that the growth came from peacefull trade it is simply NOT exploitation.
"Are you familiar with the labour theory of value?"
Yes, and I don't agree with it. Value is subjective. I can value the same book more than you do.
The total demand for a book determines the price. Some books hardly have any value, dispite the hard work that went into writing it, because simply nobody's wants to read them.
It is simple: The capitalist wants the product of your labor, and you come to a mutual agreement up front about the compensation for it.
@janc71 You are right, value is subjective. This means that it is immeasurable and cannot and should not be expressed quantitatively as mainstream economics does. There is only human beings, the natural world, and the interaction between the two via labour-power.
It is this power, the ability to create and add value to things, that the capitalist buys from the worker (not a set-amount). The agreed price is measured in time, but in that same amount of time the worker produces the (quantified)...
@GivePeaceAChance87 "...value is subjective. This means that it is immeasurable..."
Than why are you talking about surplus?
The employer provides an environment to work in (which he saved for). The woker produces stuff in that environment and they both are being compensated for this. How much each of them get's out of it is established through peacefull negotiation. A contract is made up, and that's it! The rest is all just irrelevant.
@janc71 ....(quantified) 'value' of his hourly wage and a SURPLUS - produced by him/her but not the property of him/her. The capitalist, by virtue of owning the means of production claims the product which he had no role in producing (the profit). This is, by definition, exploitation. This is not peaceful and fair trade. The worker HAS to sell their ability to create value or starve.
That was part of the deal. You agree to give up everything you produce up front for X. And X can be established in numerous ways, whatever they voluntarily come to agree upon.
"The worker HAS to sell their ability to create value or starve."
You can just as easily turn this around:
The workers exploit the capitalist, because if the workers refuse to work for the capitalist, the capitalist wil starve.
@janc71 The workers are always turned against each other with these wages. The capitalist should starve, as a capitalist, because the company he owns was built entirely by the workers - all the profit he ever achieved was exploited value from the workers. The workers who have to live with the consequences of production should control the means of production and recognize that they can't be one persons property.
@GivePeaceAChance87 "The workers ... should ... recognize that they can't be one persons property."
Workers can save up money together and start a factory themselves (in manage it in whatever way they like).
"the company he owns was built entirely by the workers"
No! The capitalist must have produced the first capital-good himself (or it might have been a gift). Point is, he owns it! The rest is all based on voluntary agreements.
Why doesn't the worker simply copy what the capitalist did?
@janc71 Furthermore, look at the failed capitalist system today. Real wages have not risen in the USA since the 1970s. A worker today has the same real wage as a worker in 1978. At this same time the computer came into wider use, skyrocketing productivity and profits. With workers no longer able to pay for the consumption required with wages, they borrowed from the owning class (credit cards). And here we are today, jobs still being lost, the US has a record number of unoccupied homes and at...
@GivePeaceAChance87 at the same time there are record homeless!!! The centre of capitalism in the world literally LINES UP THE HOMELESS TO STARE ACROSS THE STREET AT EMPTY HOMES! can you not see that this is totally fucked up? I guess it's the fault of all those people who are dumber and lazier than those smart bankers who are back to record-breaking profits.
Yes I can, it is fucked up, we agree on this. And that why so many free market advocates criticize the current system, which contrary to what you apparently believe, is NOT free market capitalism. That the US is the center of capitalism is a myth, it doesn't even come close. Government caused most of the problems you list.
@janc71 I'm obviously talking over your head. This would be easier some other way. Free market capitalism doesn't work either. I'm talking about the nature of capitalism as an organic system that produces and reproduces itself economically, politically and culturally through the exploitation of living labour and the land. It's a very theoretically rich argument that NO capitalist economist stands up to... or seems to understand.
@GivePeaceAChance87 Capitalism is owning the fruits of your labor and voluntary trade. That's how the capitalist aquired his capital (at least should have). Since he owns it, he can do with it as he pleases. He can either burn it to the ground, use it himself to produce stuff, or ask other people to produce things for him, for mutually agreed upon fee (wage, commission, ...). He's not obligated to share it the way you would like. As he is also not allowed to tell you what to do with your stuff.
@janc71 Yes a single possession can be held by an individual as 'hers' or 'his' and can be passed on to a son/daughter/friend.
However, you must remember that ALL labour that went into the production of that thing is not the contribution of the possessor ALONE. Part of what the object directly produces for all of society at the same time as it produces for individuals, more directly.
Allow me to prove my case for the labour theory of value.
@JacobSpinney I've already adequately dismantled you. Pay attention to the dialogue between janc71 and I if you're interested and jump in if you have anything new to add.
@GivePeaceAChance87 Capitalists never exploit workers? This guy must be ignorant of history. The labor movement did not happen in the US b/c people were treated well, paid well and worked in great conditions. I guess he thinks all of those child laborers were not exploited either. What a joke.
@xexixk Haha I know, man. You should see his 'capitalists don't exploit workers video'. He makes so many mistakes I could write a book about how ridiculous it is. I'm going to comment on it soon but I just don't know what to pick out yet. Anyone who reads more than Archie comics should be able to understand exploitation but it seems hard to come by. Frustrating. How would those poor children be able to make 100 shoes a day without Nike? What a fool.
@GivePeaceAChance87 I think he needs to put down all of those Ayn Rand books he's been reading and get out in the real wordl and experience some of it, instead of dreaming about Randian utopias. That exactly what is "vision" is every bit as unrealistic and utopian as Marx's vision (hence the reason there has never been a truely Marxist state - it's not possible). These people who blather on and on thinking they have all of the answers - but have no idea how the world actually operates - annoy me
@GivePeaceAChance87 "How would those poor children be able to make 100 shoes a day without Nike?"
What? Do you think Nike enlists slaves or something? Those children -chose- to work there and for good reason too. What exactly do you think the people in those countries have for options? Prostitution is a big one for kids that can't find jobs if they need to support themselves. Workers -choose- to work. If it wasn't to their benefit, they wouldn't be working there.
@TheMoriMaster Child labor does nothing to alieviate poverty, it just perpetuates it in an unending circle. Child labor in the US did nothing to lift people out of poverty. Access to education and training lift people out of poverty - not working as a child laborer in some sweatshop. You should go visit some of those places - go out in the real world and see it with our own eyes. Nice way you have there to allow business to exploit one of the most vulnerable segments of society - children.
@xexixk "Access to education and training lift people out of poverty"
You can't access education if you don't have enough money to sustain yourself. Families sent their children to school when they could afford it, not because the government told them to.
@TheMoriMaster LOL Compulsory education in public schools is not something they had to pay for out of their pocket - in those days it was a major acheivment if one graduated from high school. It was the legal prohibition of child labor and compulsory education that acheived that. This idea that those people laboring away in the factories and mills of the early 1900s ever earned enough to raise themselves out of poverty or pay out of their own pocket for a child's education is a fantasy.
@xexixk This is not going anywhere, mostly because it's not an argument, just going back and forth with different assertions of history. There are numerous papers on how technology and economic status result in the declination of child labor.
@GivePeaceAChance87 Good god I can't believe this TheMoriMaster guy is actually trying to justify child labor. I wonder how he would have liked to have labored in some sweatshop when he was 10 years old or what path his life would have taken under those conditions.
@xexixk Because if there was a movement for it, it must be right! Just like those Luddites! We should all destroy technology because it causes unemployment.
@TheMoriMaster Go read up on working conditions in the late 19th and early 20th century. I don't think those people who profitted off of child labor or who were responsible for things like the Triangle Factory fire were great humanitarians who care about their employees. Go look at the photos of children who sent to work down in the coal mines and then come back and tell me there was nothing exploitative about that.
@xexixk "I don't think those people who profitted off of child labor or who were responsible for things like the Triangle Factory fire were great humanitarians who care about their employees."
"People who profited of child labor" means everyone on the planet with children before it went into massive decline on its own. Children had been working since the beginning of humanity and you expect people to just end that right off the bat? And even then, child labor was necessary for many families...
@xexixk Why do you think families would allow their children to work in factories in the first place? Because they needed the money to sustain themselves. Once families started making enough money, child labor declined. Children were instead sent off to school. The abolition of child labor did nothing. Families that needed it still used it and it eventually fizzled out as production increased.
@TheMoriMaster LOL Please go read some history. Child labor did not go away b/c it "fizzled" out it went away b/c it was prohibited by law. In the early 1900s those families - in contridiction to your fantasy view - never started making enough money to send their children to school. It was a cycle of hard labor and poverty from childhood through adulthood and in turn their own children did the same. Wages never rose and working conditions never improved until after the labor movement.
@xexixk Yeah, that's history for you. We've had child labor since the beginning of time and it's been this unending cycle. It's obviously not because we had a massive leap in technology, oh no. Everyone just listened to the infallible government even if it ended up starving them.
@TheMoriMaster Yeah you're right. Industry in the US stopped using child labor, the mining industry stopped using child labor in the mines, working conditions improved, etc. because all of those industrialists and factory owners turned out be big hearted humanitarians and just decided to do the right thing all on their own. It had nothing to do with legal prohibitions against child labor or prohibiting minors from working in hazardous industry.
@xexixk No, you're using a blatant strawman argument. The owners make more profit from higher production, and can therefore spend more on labor, investing in technology, or buying more efficient equipment. Do you think a fire destroying a whole factory is beneficial to the capitalist? It's not. His competitors will get more workers and more skilled workers if they offer better conditions/wages and have more efficient equipment. You do understand competition, right?
@TheMoriMaster It's no strawman. It's a historical fact that improvements did not occur until they were compelled, child labor did not go away until it was prohibited. The owners of the Triangle Factory - a few years after that devistating fire were again found to be in violation of fire safety laws - they didn't seem to learn from that previous experience. Your utopian vision is one that has never existed and it never will.
@xexixk Standard of living and wage increases also seem to be important here as well. Both increased during the "Gilded age" due to increases in productivity.
@TheMoriMaster Nice biased sources there. Yeah those people laboring away for virtually unlimited hours, often living lives totally dominated by their employers - company housing and in debt to the company sore - had a great lifestyle. When laborers finally rose up and demanding better conditions and better wages - that's when things started to improve.
@xexixk " When laborers finally rose up and demanding better conditions and better wages - that's when things started to improve."
...Yeah? And? Workers should demand the best deal from their employer. The government shouldn't be intervening in this process of collective bargaining.
"Yeah those people laboring away for virtually unlimited hours,"
Which is an improvement from what they had before. You need to "face reality" and realize just what it was like to live on a pre-industrialized farm.
@TheMoriMaster Did I say farm labor was a dream job? However, unlike you I don't live in a fantasy world and haven't deluded myself into believing factory life at that time was some great experience or that those industrialists were a group of benevolent humanitarians. Early labor movements were often crushed by industry - violence was not uncommon. It was the government finally passing laws allowing employees to unionize and to collectively bargain that gave them success.
@xexixk "...believing factory life at that time was some great experience or that those industrialists were a group of benevolent humanitarians."
You have to be purposefully misrepresenting me for you to do it a third time after I explained it to you clearly. Standards of living -increased-. Does that mean that those jobs were the greatest jobs ever compared to today? No. It means they were better than farming, which is why people migrated to the cities in the first place.
@TheMoriMaster If you will read the histories and oral stories from the time a lot of those people who migrated to the cities didn't realy find themselves that much better off, but stuck there with low wages and higher living costs and no way to get back home. Also a lot of those people in the cities did not migrate to the city from other parts of the US, they were recently arrived immigrants.
@xexixk "Early labor movements were often crushed by industry - violence was not uncommon."
This is because these labor movements were violent. They would often destroy machinery and block people who do not participate in the strikes from working, usually the workers replacing the strikers at the given factory. The capitalist has every right to stop these strikes if they get to this point.
@TheMoriMaster LOL Yeah they were the only ones who were violent, ever. Those poor little industrialists never ever threw the first punch, never. If you treat someone like dirt long enough, eventually when they are fed up they will rebel - as they should.
@xexixk "It was the government finally passing laws allowing employees to unionize and to collectively bargain that gave them success."
No, the government pass laws that give unions artificial power in their bargaining. Freedom of association and freedom of speech both cover the formation of voluntary unions and collective bargaining. If the employer refuses to recognize the union, the workers can just quit and go to an employer who does, giving the 2nd employer an edge in the market.
@TheMoriMaster Wow what a fantasy vision of the world you have. Never worked that way. They never did manage to find any of those friendly union loving employers.
I think it would be fair to say Capitalists, unless regulated, nearly always exploit workers. As with most of his ilk, Jacob would take us back in time to events like the Triangle tragedy. Even today after the tragic loss of life in the coal mining deaths, there have been zero improvement in the working conditions for miners. They continue to be subject to mine collapse and to suffer an extremely high incidence of black lung disease. Viva unions!
@1huayna Then promote the switch to nuclear. It is the government's fault for making it impossible to start new nuclear power plants. Coal would barely even be used anymore.
@TheMoriMaster We could, as you say, switch completely over to nuclear - but the coal mines would still be running. They would just sell it in the international market.
@1huayna Yes they do indeed. This guy and some of the commentators here are deluded utopians who have have spent too much time curled up reading Atlas Shrugged and other such low brow drivel and not enough time in the real world. They're also uterly ignorant of history.
@GivePeaceAChance87 'The worker sells her labour to the capitalist because SHE HAS NO ACCESS TO THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION - her labour is forced."
In this scheme as usual the worker get the shaft while the Business owner laughs all the way to the bank while the laborer makes his money and provides as little in return as humanly possible. Using the word "human" for most capitalists however is an oxymoron.
@1huayna Here is a good video: /watch?v=_tY1gk6J6zc This are exactly the days these people would take us back to. And so many of them have the nerve to defend child labor - it didn't lift these children or any others out of poverty, nor is it lifting children today in third world countries out of poverty. It perpetuates poverty. Anyone who defends child labor is a soulless person of the lowest type.
I wish everyone could realize how vulnerable they are to "authority figures" such as those puppetmasters on Fox who can lead people to go against everything they believe in. An authority figure can convince nice people to become monsters who hurt their fellow humans (sound familiar teabaggers & neocons?). Watch the Stanford experiment which demonstrates this beautifully, had to add ‘dot’ to post so remove 'dot' youtudotbe/C2iMdI-mc1Y
Hey, ever heard of the Gravenstein Apple from Sonoma Co., north of S.F.? Wonderfully delicious apples! What sort of draconian socialist 5 year plan would force the chopping down of these apple orchards just for more vineyards? (not so much in oranges in N. CA) No, I didn't miss your larger point, just wondering how you enforce your modified free market plan.
just because half its efforts are going into making something and it makes a certain amount doesn't mean if all its efforts went into it would produce twice as much. Take in other variables such as land needed to make 500 million oranges compared to 50million apples.... Its not just simple steps
The very basis for govt is the gun and club. But the basis for the market is FREEDOM & voluntarism. No body is forced to exchange in the market- hence every exchange which occurs in the market must create prosperity & wealth! That is the birth of wealth. Starbucks for example, can not force u to buy even a cup of coffee. If it tried to force u to, if it tried to point a gun at u, well in the market, u would then point ur guns at those who try to initiate force
oh really? apparently you do not even know how wealth is created in the first place or even what the purpose of an economy is. I would suggest you read David Riccardos work. Read economic facts and fallacies. read economics in one lesson. read "basic economics". read the works of Bastiat and Mises and rothbard
@swu880 Thanks for the suggestions, I'll check them out. I actually do know how both money and wealth is created. The problem isn't the concept. it's the reality of the culture of wealth. They're not down for this yet-to-exist-on-earth "Free Market"
What is the free market? it is merely the existence of no force or coercion- it is merely voluntary interaction between 2 parties. Are you saying that you can NOT interact voluntarily & productively unless there is force and coercion? hahahah
there is an old saying, If people are essentially good, then there is no need for government. If people are essentially evil, then no one dares to have government
Govt really holds no necessary function. It has committed every sin of omission and commission by neglecting to do what its supposed to do and doing everything its not supposed to do. It is no more legitimate than the local mafia. In fact, histoically there have been a few examples of the successes of market societies- aka voluntary societies- those with no coercive entities. They existed without gangsterism and statism. Read "the not so wild, wild west".
Well but when i buy something from a country like china it is cheap bud the quality is bullsh***, I would rather spend more money on something that has more quality!I buy a mouse for my pc from china and it breaks after a month, thus it's better to spend money on something that is quality for a more higher price!
Trade is great at increasing efficiency. That increases the amount of the goods traded. It does not necessarily increase jobs in industries of products being traded. In fact, over time, it decreases jobs. Increased efficiency produces more using less. When demand is satisfied jobs are eliminated. It would be great if those workers still get an income. THAT is the problem people are complaining about. Automation makes it even worse. The world is struggling with the transition to abundance.
You have presented a very well reasoned explanation of trade advantage. But let us, "focus on the unseen instead of the visible". When you bring up the issue of illegal labor being profitable you did not factor in the theft and abuse of free services like welfare and medical treatment and fraudulent law suits brought by these illegal aliens. These factors alone are crippling states like Calif.,albeit, by the liberal policies of the state itself, to provide said resources for free.
Peak oil will end the absurd global trade. Shipping around goods all over the globe is unsustainable and only possible in the absurd scale it is done today in a very short period of time called "decades of cheap masses of oil".
World peace because of economic warfare? Ridiculous.
This video would be correct if we lived in a free market, but there are government entanglements and distortions in markets everywhere. Governments manipulate markets in so many complex ways that we can't always take free market theory for granted in the real world, even though we know it would work in the absence of gov. It is possible Indonesia is burning forests or destroying farmlands, leaving poor farmers with no choice but to work in factories. Basically, all the more reason to abolish it.
@Skyler827 This guy isn't talking about reality. Watch all of his videos. When he says "a Free Market," he's talking about something that *should* exist. He thinks that the government is the problem (I would call it a symptom) and that if we just removed it then "a Free Market" would exist and everything would be wonderful. Or, as he puts it, "world peace and prosperity."
He's wrong because he's split one system in two and bashing one half. He's right in that 'concentrated power is bad'.
We send 1 million jobs producing sneakers over seas.
We lose 1 million of unskilled labor jobs.
What do those millions of unskilled laborers do? They sure as hell are not going to be making planes, or designing buildings. They end up at low paying retail establishments making 1/3rd what they used to make.
It seems like low skilled laborers get the shaft in the free trade system.
Sneakers will be cheaper, which will free up resources in the economy for other things, not to forget that everything will be cheaper and more abundant. But yes, unskilled american laborers could very well get a harder life since they have a billion competitors, such is the basic law of supply and demand. In any case, should the low skilled labors use violence in order to force others to buy their overly expensive products?
@Illyrien Unless the price of goods reaches zero it can not compensate for a complete loss of income, you imagine that all the money saved on shoes will create jobs elsewhere, it may or may not and those jobs may not be local if they are created, and prices do not necessarily drop when the cost of production drops, and even if they did the prices of goods do not drop evenly and the amount saved on sneakers may not be sufficient to stimulate growth elsewhere.
If the cost of producing shoes goes down, either the price can go down, and the consumers profit or the sellers keep the profit, which they themselves will use to consume. People who lose when others enter the market just have to do something else, there is no way around it. This applies at all levels.
@Illyrien If the price of Shoes go down, then that's good, but if the price of shoes go down at the cost of jobs, new jobs have to be created. Saying "people will save money on shoes" doesn't amount to much if that money isn't being used to sustain or grow domestic jobs, also like I said unless the price reaches zero it's not going to do those who lost their income much good, and it's not going to lower the rent of those who lost their jobs nor reduce their necessities of life.
I don't advocate violence, but fighting for equality I do believe in. On the flip side. I would rather spend the extra $10.00 on a pair of shoes if the quality is better. Do you think it's cheaper to buy 3 pairs of inferior shoes a year for $20.00 a pop from countries like China, then spending $30.00 for 1 pair that lasts 2 years made with quality from U.S workers. Less people making a decent living, less people spending.
And what equality would that be? Economic equality requires the use of violence to steal from those who produce and favor of those who dont. Equality in the face of the law is what is worth it. You want to pay more for quality shoes, why should that be a problem? In a free market, that is clearly your right as a consumer. Anybody producing things not wanted by the consumers need to change job to something which does.
No, there is no violence involved. There are companies out there where every worker has an equal say, and gets paid the same as the CEO, a true democratic business. Yes, the CEO can't buy 7 cars, a yacht, or a Mansion, but he and all his employees make over $100,000+ a year. That is economic equality without violence. They spend more, better quality of life, less burden on taxpayers, and more money floating through the economy.
What's conspicuously absent from this video is that third world countries full of desperate starving people will work for 12 cents an hour just so they can save up for a loaf of bread. It is impossible for any dignified first world work force to compete with such low wages, and thus manufacturers who have the infrastructure to ship labor over seas often will, thus causing unemployment domestically and wage slavery abroad. That isn't to say that free trade is wrong, but this video is propaganda.
What if China's subsidy is temporary? If we dismantled our steel factories and buy subsidised steel from China, we're letting them gain economies of learning while we lose ours. One day, they gonna remove the subsidy and sell at the original price we were selling, and we can't compete with them again.
With their new found wealth, they can start subsidizing airplane production...
kwokleong1985 23 hours ago
@JacobSpinney 5:40 Argument taken straight from Milton Friedman's Scottish ship building example from Free to Choose chapter 2. Well done sir.
stebecool 2 weeks ago in playlist My Top Videos
Awesome vid
blapgatify 1 month ago
Yes because if we all just did free trade the world would be always at peace! W
We will hold hands and skip across the roads when at crossroads!
mecher3k 1 month ago
There is know free trade only the thing they want.
BeautyRadio 2 months ago
And I take issue with your proclamation that the essential thesis of this video is agree upon by a vast majority of the economics profession. That is not entirely true; most economists agree that a little bit of infant industrial policy can be a good thing if there are positive externalities.
mojorhythm 4 months ago
The tariffs gave the English cotton industry the liberty to expand, update technology, and develop all its factors of production so that it would be able to compete with India free of tariffs. Bottom line: this infant industrial policy played a massive part in precipitating the Industrial Revolution. Worse yet: it is just one example of many....
mojorhythm 4 months ago
It seems to me to be a very simplistic analysis. For one, a country can use tariffs to create comparative advantages where there was none. It is exactly how Britain developed its textile industry and left India's in ruins--even after India had been making higher quality garments at cheaper prices for centuries. England's industrial policies included tariffs of up to 1000% on some fabrics. It was ugly, but it worked.[contd]...
mojorhythm 4 months ago
What happens when a frost comes in and takes out the entire orange supply now that we've allocated all of our resources to grow oranges in one area?
It drives me nuts how you economists blatantly dismiss critical scientific thought and the technical reality of things.
MattSyTy 5 months ago
@MattSyTy Then we trade with other areas that were able to produce oranges as efficiently that weren't hit by the frost. I never argued that we should centralize production of one thing into one single area. I only argued that the division of labor allows us to produce far more stuff. It drives me nuts how people who are ignorant of economics are so certain of their economic claims.
JacobSpinney 5 months ago
@JacobSpinney The first minute of your video talks explicitly on growing all apples in Washington and all Oranges in California to allow for a higher product yield and lower prices, bypassing the tariff hindrance. Your argument borrows from the concept of centralizing production due to the hardiness zones. Don't try and tell me otherwise.
"Temporary Restructuring" is a clever way of saying unemployment due to outsourcing.
MattSyTy 5 months ago
@MattSyTy . . . I was using that as an analogy to make my point on the division of labor. I'm sorry that that wasn't blatantly obvious to you. Would you have preferred me to use the examples of "people in X climate and people in Y climate," rather than simplifying it to the states of California and Washington?
JacobSpinney 5 months ago
@JacobSpinney You can rename the parameters all you want. It still doesn't make "The Division of Labor" proclamation any more transparent to me. The spoon argument on technological unemployment is not funny either; it's actually quite distorted and inhumane. I could probably spend the duration of my comments on your channel, but the only reason I commented here is because of the videos title.
I think you need to focus on other areas than economics if you want world peace and prosperity.
MattSyTy 5 months ago
@JacobSpinney Why do Austro-libertarians always equate the proposition: "that person doesn't agree with some of the policy prescriptions advocated by Austrian economics" with "that person is ignorant of basic economics"?
Some intellectual hubris right there.
mojorhythm 4 months ago
@JacobSpinney You are a typical Conservative Spoiled idiot, who knows nothing about how the real world works. Free trade promotes free trade, nothing more. World peace and Prosparity are not associated in any way with free trade. You should travel more kid. You know nothing of the real world.
JUDALATION 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from JacobSpinney
What about the technological unemployment that results from automated harvesters?
MattSyTy 5 months ago
@MattSyTy How about we take away the farmers tractor so he has to hire a bunch of guys with shovels? How about we make them use spoons instead of shovels? That'll surely increase the number of people needed to be hired . . . . Technological unemployment is based on the idea that humans will run out of stuff to do. We never have before, and we never will in the future. Technology does not destroy jobs. It frees up more productive jobs that otherwise wouldn't have been possible to do.
JacobSpinney 5 months ago
The NET prosperity will increase with free trade. However, that prosperity will also be distributed more equitably throughout the world. The U.S. controls most of the world's wealth. With proper free trade, the world's wealth will increase but U.S. will relinquish its control of a lot of that wealth as it will be distributed more equitably throughout the world. Hence, the U.S. (and most other rich countries nowadays) will become less prosperous.
Luchik44 6 months ago
Free trade = peace?
LOL.
The more I watch your videos the more of a navie retard you show yourself to be.
All it takes is one country who has a resource they want from another and they will try to take it if they can using their military.
mecher3k 7 months ago
@mecher3k "Free trade = peace?
LOL."
Government control of economy = peace? LOL
LTBL88 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LTBL88
"Government control of economy = peace? LOL"
Yet no one says that will lead to peace.
However this entire video's premise is that free trade will cause peace.
Good to know the free market idiots are still that, idiots.
Also might want to not use creationists tactics, like quote mining and taking things out of context. Funny you ignore the rest of my post.
mecher3k 6 months ago
@mecher3k "Free trade is a system of trade policy that allows traders to trade across national boundaries without interference from the respective governments"
If there is no government interference, then how could there be military interference? You are either retarded, or you don't even know what free trade is, I'm going to go with both.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@mecher3k "The more countries trade with eachother, the more dependant one eachother they become, the more dependant on eachother they become, the far less likely they are to pull out their guns"
Yes, free trade = peace. It's not a hard concept to grasp moron.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theBartone9119
"Yes, free trade = peace. It's not a hard concept to grasp moron."
Except not for the reason I already said.
mecher3k 6 months ago
@mecher3k If you are the government, and you see that the majority of your people are trading with a country, there is no way you would invade that country, your people would not only be against the war, but hate you in the process.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
@theBartone9119
"there is no way you would invade that country, your people would not only be against the war, but hate you in the process."
Uh..... you are one dense retard. That is exactly what is going on with the current wars and yet they are still attacking.
mecher3k 6 months ago
@mecher3k Wrong you are retarded.
Last time I checked the people of America don't have free trade with the people of Iraq for their oil. If they did, there would be no reason to send troops over there to stabilize the oil in Iraq, DUH!
theBartone9119 6 months ago
free trade most certainly creates the highest efficiency for work, but stating that all of the money gained by that efficient use goes directly to the country seems false. also, this distribution of goods is not as equal as the oranges and apples in Washington and California. Some countries may have a lot more to give then that trading countries have to offer. this unbalance would give those with the monopoly, such as the western world, an opportunity to put pressure for lowering prices.
hihaatje 7 months ago
@hihaatje "Some countries may have a lot more to give then that trading countries have to offer"
He explained how this premise is false, very clearly.
theBartone9119 6 months ago
A great example of why "markets"cannot provide peace? Hmm...lets see- the US policy of "containment" for one.How about what the US is doing now in the middle East? Fighting terrorism you say? More like westernizing the middle east in order for the capitalist market to expand. Think of all the trade and new investment opportunities! In 10 years time you'll see a bunch of fat materialist Muslims running amok on MTV. This is how trade and market expansion is facilitated- at the end of a gun barrel
crud4 8 months ago
Your argument for world economy is not sustainable in face of shortage in energy. It costs more energy to ship produce or grain than to produce them. You forget the shipping cost involved in moving commoditities.
I know that you are convinced of your belief. You see, your ideas do not come from you. They come from the counterfeitor, the perpetual lier, your father.
mspsys 8 months ago
@jnick1980 '....Ayn Rand blow up doll...
ROFLMAO! BINGO!
samsuncleblue 9 months ago
@jaybb789 Putting a price on my videos means fewer people watching them, no matter how much demand there would be. I prefer having as many people watch my videos as possible.
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
I'll check out the video, thx. I think the morimaster's in major denial on the issue of human nature. Whenever someone is given a position of authority over another whether in business or other domain, that power is used. You can take a perfectly nice ordinary person and turn them into a monster. Add to that the motivation of unfettered greed and you have the recipe for CAPITALISM.
1huayna 9 months ago
@1huayna Exactly these dimwits are ignorant of history and too dense to realize they would just send us backwards, not forwards. They are so dense they would unknowingly follow their own excutioner to their own hanging and by the time they realized what was going on it would be too late.
xexixk 9 months ago
Take a look at this video. These are the days that Mr. Spinney and his ilk would take us back to /watch?v=_tY1gk6J6zc
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk This is pure propaganda, because it pretends that before the industrial revolution, children were skipping around in meadows all day, which is pure falsity. Children had EVEN WORSE lives before the industrial revolution. The more you guys ignore this fact, the more your dishonesty becomes apparent.
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney I don't recall anyone saying all was glory prior to the industrial revolution. The fact that you deny that exploitation can and has taken place by industry shows your own dishonesty and ignorance. Child labor did not end because your kind hearted industrialists that you love so much decided to end it. It ended because it was abolished by law. Get rid of those laws and that's where we will end up at - back in time.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk No. They ended, because the ideal of society is for children to not work. Unfortunately, during the agricultural and industrial revolution, society was not wealthy enough to enact that option. It is only after society became more wealthy (precisely due to the division of labor brought about by the industrial revolution) that society could then afford the luxury of allowing children to not work.
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney By the way, wages and working conditons only improved after the labor movement and all of it's hard, long struggles, not because of any "humanitarianism" from industry.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk If you simply mandate that it is illegal for children to work during a time that society is not wealthy enough to support such an action, then you will be responsible for those children either starving to death or resorting to black market work, which for them is primarily prostitution.
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney Actually those industrialists you defend with such vigor could have paid their employees decent rages, then no need for that child labor. Of course that would have meant they would have had to take a hit in their own bank accounts, which would have been tough. What would they have done if they couldn't afford those mansions in Newport, etc.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk No doubt there were rich people at the time. But the majority of the industrialists of that time were poor by todays standards. And if you took 100% of all wealth of that time, that would still be FAR below the total wealth that exists now. The problem with wealth redistribution schemes is that they stop or drastically reduce the rate at which society as a whole becomes more wealthy.
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney LOL Their millions back then would be billions in today's world. Apparently you've never been to Newport and visited any of those manions from that period or been to Biltmore. And who's talking about weath redristributions? I'm talking about paying a person more for their labor, they could have done that. Eventually they did - after the labor movement. It was unionization that got works better pay and better conditions, not any benevolence from industrialists.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk Have you ever even heard of marginal revenue productivity? You really should not hold such absolutist positions over subjects you don't know the first thing about. The simple fact is that if you took all property from all people in the industrial revolution, it couldn't hold a candle to the sheer amount and quality of all property today. Are you actually arguing that the rich during the industrial revolution were hiding all of the air conditioners, refrigerators, laptops, and iphones?
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney
I see you like tellling people what they "should" do. I'll telll you what you should do Jacob, stick with the card tricks and "mentalist" schtick because frankly you don't know you history and you lack both a heart and a soul plus I suspect you're just all that bright.
1huayna 9 months ago
@1huayna LOL I saw that website someone sent the link to me as well. Not very entertaining in that monotone voice and the "tricks" were pretty simple stuff, not requiring much real talent. That's the thing with these people. Most of them I've encountered are in one way or another loosers who blame everyone else out there (ie. society at large) for holding them back from reaching their full potential, but the truth is they just don't have the skills/talent & it's not society holding them back.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk
If he really wants to do well he'd do himself a favor to get a college degree and develop a real career. Best to drop show biz since he is devoid of talent. If he learns how to use his brain, he will be able to study issues in depth and see the fallacies in these arguments instead of accepting the superficial Fox spin.
1huayna 9 months ago
@1huayna We can only hope, but some how I doubt that will happen.
xexixk 9 months ago
@1huayna Actually I am convinced that what these people want is to create a permanent impoverished underclass to serve them. Of course they can't say directly like that so they parade this propaganda that paints their goal as "freedom." Also, because of their larger than life egos and belief that they are superior to all others they never consider that they too may one day end up as a part of that underclass. Modern day serfdom is what they are after.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk ~Also, because of their larger than life egos and belief that they are superior to all others they never consider that they too may one day end up as a part of that underclass.~
They're trying to become that underclass fast & they would if they succeeded in killing Medicare.(They can't)despite their nutty charade voting after Wall St closed but telling them they're not serious about not raising the ceiling debt. The GOP motto, politics first, country last. What else is new?
1huayna 8 months ago
@1huayna The motto of these people is "I got mine. F* the rest of you. Now get out of my sight!"
xexixk 8 months ago
@xexixk 'I got mine. F*the rest of you...."
I think you're being way too hard on Jacob, I don't think that's his intent in expressing his views.
1RoseGarden 8 months ago
@1huayna "...devoid of talent...."
Wow! That's really cold. He is young, give him a chance!
1RoseGarden 8 months ago
@1huayna That website also reminded me of the snake oil salesmen of the past - I imagine in another era he would have made an excellent snake oil salesman travelling from town to town.
xexixk 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney Who said all property should have been taken away from? I said they should have paid their workers a bit more and settled with a little less themselves - like builidng a 30 room mansion in Newport as opposed to a 60 room mansion.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk
I see this asshole doesn't allow for "voting". Obviously he is a petty dicatator type who chooses to perpetrate his own version of a perverted reality and doesn't really want any opinions. He is an Axis II personality disorder to the nth degree of a histriotic and narcissistice personality probably borderlien to boot, maybe actually at the extreme end of the continuum where "psychosis" dwells.
1huayna 9 months ago
@1huayna I think he is probably afflicted with Ayn Randiosis syndrom, typically characterized by an inflated ego, an irrational belief that they have all of the answers to life's problems and utopian fantasies. It's funny how these fools who've never had to really suffer for anything in their lives and would likely crumble and cry if they had to really in truth want and wish for others to suffer.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk
Yep,Ann Randiosis syndrome is one of the most deleterious of maladies! Randians don't realize the utopia they seek (if they all fled and went to a secret location) would mean they wouldn't have anyone in their enclave who can actually make things! This group r leeches, consisting of Wall St stock brokers, financial advisors, CEO's, Banksters who would fall apart if they didn't have us to prey upon. Real people have knowledge & skills & would thrive if wingnuts would all disappear.
1huayna 9 months ago
@1huayna Actually they are worse than leeches. Leeches at lease have a role in eco-system. Fools like this guy should ask themselves why Canada with it's heavier regulation of the financial markets and banking industry has not had any of the problems the US has had during this time of economic turmoil. Not a single Canadian bank has collapsed or had to be balied out, the housing marked has remained stable, etc.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk 'Actually they are worse than leeches. Leeches at lease have a role in eco-system.'
Well said! Other countries who are functioning well could be looked to as role models and we could emulate those areas and learn from them. Somehow it seems the U.S. has always had this massive ego and sense of entitlement that only we were chosen by God himself to be blessed and our shit doesn't stink. It's pretty sad. It means we'll have to keep "re-inventing the wheel'. Think Sysiphus!
1huayna 9 months ago
@1huayna Yes so many people - particularly considering the dumbing down of the educational system over the past 3 decades or so - have this mythical belief that only the US knows the right thing to do, is superior to all others, and that the reast of the world can learn from us but that we can learn nothing from other countries in the world. Canada and Australia are both doing much better than the US - might be a few things we could learn from them.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk So you might make the poor wealthier in the present, but it's at the expense of making everyone in the future poorer. The inevitable outcome of redistributing wealth is that the equalized standard of living eventually falls further and further behind the standard of living of even the poorest person had the redistribution not taken place.
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney "If you simply mandate that it is illegal for children to work during a time that society is not wealthy enough to support such an action, then you will be responsible for those children either starving to death or resorting to black market work, which for them is primarily prostitution."
Are you blind, deaf, and mute? Are you an inhabitant of Earth or some alternate universe where black is white and up is down, or are you just a brainwashed rt wing imbecile?
1huayna 9 months ago
@1huayna Indeed. Child labor does nothing to aleiviate poverty, it just perpetuates it. Wages and living standards rose after the labor movement - when people finally had had enough and rose up and demanded better pay and conditions. It didn't come about because these industrialists that this guy loves so much were big hearted humanitarians.
xexixk 9 months ago
@1huayna It's also pretty funny what he has to say about "free trade." NAFTA has devestated the American working class and also people in Mexico - it destroyed their agricultural industry for one. What a joke. Many US companies are even outsourcing accounting and design work. This guy thinks he's advocating for some utopian dreamworld, instead we will all end up living in a modern day feudal state if people like him have their way.
xexixk 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney You excuse the exploitaton and the horrors that came with industrialization by simple saying "oh it wasn't any better before that." That's irrelevant. It's true that ultimately some good came out of it, but that doesn't mean one ignores the wrongs and abuses that occured. And that's exactly where you people would have us at - right back where we started from.
xexixk 9 months ago
Anyways, I'm really sick of arguing with you. There's no point if you're just going to deny that increased productivity results in more prosperity. Regardless, it's late where I am, and I've got work to do tomorrow. G'night.
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@TheMoriMaster Yes, certainly did increase prosperity - for the industrialists at that time. Their workers didn't get any of that prosperity until they fought for it.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk "...for the industrialists at that time. Their workers didn't get any of that prosperity until they fought for it."
When the capitalist makes higher profit, most of those profits get invested and are used to expand the business. Capitalists do this to make even more money. This lowers the cost of goods by increasing supply and it allows them to pay workers higher wages, which they do because it attracts more workers. Capitalists compete with each other for labor too.
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@TheMoriMaster They didn't pay any of these higher wages you speak of prior to the successes of labor movement. This "invisible hand" in the market that is supposedly supposed to straighten everything out on its own, free of any regulations, laws, etc. seemed to not function then.
xexixk 9 months ago
Your political-economic thought is quite immature. Capital, constantly expanding material wealth, contradicts itself by growing from exploitation of the soil and the worker. The profit accumulated by a capitalist is value added by the workers labour but not paid for by the capitalist. Any profit means that someone is made richer and someone poorer. Capital puts some in, takes more out - it's the profit game. It never gives wealth, it extracts it from people and the earth.
GivePeaceAChance87 9 months ago
@GivePeaceAChance87 Please see my capitalists do not exploit workers video. Your view on trading being a game where someone loses and someone wins is nonsense. Since both parties would only agree to go into a trade, BOTH benefit. BOTH value what they are trading for more than what they traded for it. Otherwise they wouldn't trade for it. Thus, BOTH win. You don't get rich by somehow tricking people into buying your toothpick for $100. You get rich by being better at producing things of value.
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. The worker sells her labour to the capitalist because SHE HAS NO ACCESS TO THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION - her labour is forced. Additionally, the capitalist pays her in money, measured in time, as a cost of production. Her pay is set in time while she can produce far more value than she takes home (this is where profit comes from). The idea that the profit is the contribution of the boss is a joke.
GivePeaceAChance87 9 months ago
@GivePeaceAChance87 "SHE HAS NO ACCESS TO THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION"
Right, and she shouldn't! She has no claim on those particular means of production, because she didn't create them. Means of production do not magical appear out of nowhere. The capitalist saved up some of his money instead of consuming it, and used it to obtain/create those means of production.
If the worker wants to own them too, he should buy himself into the company or just copy what the capitalist did (i.e. become one).
janc71 9 months ago
@janc71 You're only kind of right. She did not create those means of production, but just because the capitalist had money doesn't mean he should have the total claim to its products because he didn't make them either.
The way the world is today was conditioned by the actions of those in the past. No person can claim the products of generations of human labor as their personal property. Capitalist wealth is generated through exploitation of those who have been divorced from their social heritage
GivePeaceAChance87 9 months ago
@GivePeaceAChance87 "he didn't make them either"
Personally creating them is not the issue. Assuming no force was used, he voluntarily traded his money (time and labor) for these MoP. So indirectly, he did produce them.
"No person can claim ... as their personal property."
Assuming it was obtained through trade or gifts/inheritance, SURE they can call it their personal property. If not, do I then have a right to a portion of your father's inheritance? (sorry for the crude example)
janc71 9 months ago
@janc71 Yeah man, you do have a right to a portion of my father's inheritance. Think about this - although I didn't commit genocide on the Indians or spend years finding out how to make denim, mine/forge metals, invent the zipper, invent the English language (the list is endless) I am still affected by that past labour deeply.
You must see how capitalist growth is exploitation to really see where I'm coming from. Are you familiar with the labour theory of value?
GivePeaceAChance87 9 months ago
@GivePeaceAChance87 "I am still affected by that past labour deeply."
I see a big increase in knowledge and technology over the centuries, and we all benefit from that (I'm against patents, copyrights...). But if my forefather produced something, than he can do with it as he pleases (i.e. give it to his son). It does not suddenly become public property.
"You must see how capitalist growth is exploitation..."
In the sense that the growth came from peacefull trade it is simply NOT exploitation.
janc71 9 months ago
@janc71 (cont)
"Are you familiar with the labour theory of value?"
Yes, and I don't agree with it. Value is subjective. I can value the same book more than you do.
The total demand for a book determines the price. Some books hardly have any value, dispite the hard work that went into writing it, because simply nobody's wants to read them.
It is simple: The capitalist wants the product of your labor, and you come to a mutual agreement up front about the compensation for it.
janc71 9 months ago
@janc71 You are right, value is subjective. This means that it is immeasurable and cannot and should not be expressed quantitatively as mainstream economics does. There is only human beings, the natural world, and the interaction between the two via labour-power.
It is this power, the ability to create and add value to things, that the capitalist buys from the worker (not a set-amount). The agreed price is measured in time, but in that same amount of time the worker produces the (quantified)...
GivePeaceAChance87 9 months ago
@GivePeaceAChance87 "...value is subjective. This means that it is immeasurable..."
Than why are you talking about surplus?
The employer provides an environment to work in (which he saved for). The woker produces stuff in that environment and they both are being compensated for this. How much each of them get's out of it is established through peacefull negotiation. A contract is made up, and that's it! The rest is all just irrelevant.
janc71 9 months ago
@janc71 ....(quantified) 'value' of his hourly wage and a SURPLUS - produced by him/her but not the property of him/her. The capitalist, by virtue of owning the means of production claims the product which he had no role in producing (the profit). This is, by definition, exploitation. This is not peaceful and fair trade. The worker HAS to sell their ability to create value or starve.
GivePeaceAChance87 9 months ago
@GivePeaceAChance87 "produced by him/her but not the property of him/her"
That was part of the deal. You agree to give up everything you produce up front for X. And X can be established in numerous ways, whatever they voluntarily come to agree upon.
"The worker HAS to sell their ability to create value or starve."
You can just as easily turn this around:
The workers exploit the capitalist, because if the workers refuse to work for the capitalist, the capitalist wil starve.
janc71 9 months ago
@janc71 The workers are always turned against each other with these wages. The capitalist should starve, as a capitalist, because the company he owns was built entirely by the workers - all the profit he ever achieved was exploited value from the workers. The workers who have to live with the consequences of production should control the means of production and recognize that they can't be one persons property.
GivePeaceAChance87 9 months ago
@GivePeaceAChance87 "The workers ... should ... recognize that they can't be one persons property."
Workers can save up money together and start a factory themselves (in manage it in whatever way they like).
"the company he owns was built entirely by the workers"
No! The capitalist must have produced the first capital-good himself (or it might have been a gift). Point is, he owns it! The rest is all based on voluntary agreements.
Why doesn't the worker simply copy what the capitalist did?
janc71 9 months ago
@janc71 Furthermore, look at the failed capitalist system today. Real wages have not risen in the USA since the 1970s. A worker today has the same real wage as a worker in 1978. At this same time the computer came into wider use, skyrocketing productivity and profits. With workers no longer able to pay for the consumption required with wages, they borrowed from the owning class (credit cards). And here we are today, jobs still being lost, the US has a record number of unoccupied homes and at...
GivePeaceAChance87 9 months ago
@GivePeaceAChance87 at the same time there are record homeless!!! The centre of capitalism in the world literally LINES UP THE HOMELESS TO STARE ACROSS THE STREET AT EMPTY HOMES! can you not see that this is totally fucked up? I guess it's the fault of all those people who are dumber and lazier than those smart bankers who are back to record-breaking profits.
GivePeaceAChance87 9 months ago
@GivePeaceAChance87 "can you not see that this is totally fucked up"
Yes I can, it is fucked up, we agree on this. And that why so many free market advocates criticize the current system, which contrary to what you apparently believe, is NOT free market capitalism. That the US is the center of capitalism is a myth, it doesn't even come close. Government caused most of the problems you list.
janc71 9 months ago
@janc71 I'm obviously talking over your head. This would be easier some other way. Free market capitalism doesn't work either. I'm talking about the nature of capitalism as an organic system that produces and reproduces itself economically, politically and culturally through the exploitation of living labour and the land. It's a very theoretically rich argument that NO capitalist economist stands up to... or seems to understand.
GivePeaceAChance87 9 months ago
@GivePeaceAChance87 Capitalism is owning the fruits of your labor and voluntary trade. That's how the capitalist aquired his capital (at least should have). Since he owns it, he can do with it as he pleases. He can either burn it to the ground, use it himself to produce stuff, or ask other people to produce things for him, for mutually agreed upon fee (wage, commission, ...). He's not obligated to share it the way you would like. As he is also not allowed to tell you what to do with your stuff.
janc71 9 months ago
@janc71 Yes a single possession can be held by an individual as 'hers' or 'his' and can be passed on to a son/daughter/friend.
However, you must remember that ALL labour that went into the production of that thing is not the contribution of the possessor ALONE. Part of what the object directly produces for all of society at the same time as it produces for individuals, more directly.
Allow me to prove my case for the labour theory of value.
GivePeaceAChance87 9 months ago
@GivePeaceAChance87 Please see my capitalists do not exploit workers video.
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@JacobSpinney I've already adequately dismantled you. Pay attention to the dialogue between janc71 and I if you're interested and jump in if you have anything new to add.
GivePeaceAChance87 9 months ago
@GivePeaceAChance87 Feel free to go to the video and comment all you want responding to the points made within it.
JacobSpinney 9 months ago
@GivePeaceAChance87 Capitalists never exploit workers? This guy must be ignorant of history. The labor movement did not happen in the US b/c people were treated well, paid well and worked in great conditions. I guess he thinks all of those child laborers were not exploited either. What a joke.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk Haha I know, man. You should see his 'capitalists don't exploit workers video'. He makes so many mistakes I could write a book about how ridiculous it is. I'm going to comment on it soon but I just don't know what to pick out yet. Anyone who reads more than Archie comics should be able to understand exploitation but it seems hard to come by. Frustrating. How would those poor children be able to make 100 shoes a day without Nike? What a fool.
GivePeaceAChance87 9 months ago
@GivePeaceAChance87 I think he needs to put down all of those Ayn Rand books he's been reading and get out in the real wordl and experience some of it, instead of dreaming about Randian utopias. That exactly what is "vision" is every bit as unrealistic and utopian as Marx's vision (hence the reason there has never been a truely Marxist state - it's not possible). These people who blather on and on thinking they have all of the answers - but have no idea how the world actually operates - annoy me
xexixk 9 months ago
@GivePeaceAChance87 "How would those poor children be able to make 100 shoes a day without Nike?"
What? Do you think Nike enlists slaves or something? Those children -chose- to work there and for good reason too. What exactly do you think the people in those countries have for options? Prostitution is a big one for kids that can't find jobs if they need to support themselves. Workers -choose- to work. If it wasn't to their benefit, they wouldn't be working there.
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@TheMoriMaster Child labor does nothing to alieviate poverty, it just perpetuates it in an unending circle. Child labor in the US did nothing to lift people out of poverty. Access to education and training lift people out of poverty - not working as a child laborer in some sweatshop. You should go visit some of those places - go out in the real world and see it with our own eyes. Nice way you have there to allow business to exploit one of the most vulnerable segments of society - children.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk "Access to education and training lift people out of poverty"
You can't access education if you don't have enough money to sustain yourself. Families sent their children to school when they could afford it, not because the government told them to.
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@TheMoriMaster LOL Compulsory education in public schools is not something they had to pay for out of their pocket - in those days it was a major acheivment if one graduated from high school. It was the legal prohibition of child labor and compulsory education that acheived that. This idea that those people laboring away in the factories and mills of the early 1900s ever earned enough to raise themselves out of poverty or pay out of their own pocket for a child's education is a fantasy.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk This is not going anywhere, mostly because it's not an argument, just going back and forth with different assertions of history. There are numerous papers on how technology and economic status result in the declination of child labor.
Time for citations.
wfnetwork(.)bc(.)edu/encyclopedia_entry(.)php?id=6335&area=All
nber(.)org/papers/w10134
sciencedirect(.)com/science/article/pii/S0014498398907124
labor(.)dukejournals(.)org/cgi/content/abstract/5/1/23
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@GivePeaceAChance87 Good god I can't believe this TheMoriMaster guy is actually trying to justify child labor. I wonder how he would have liked to have labored in some sweatshop when he was 10 years old or what path his life would have taken under those conditions.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk Because if there was a movement for it, it must be right! Just like those Luddites! We should all destroy technology because it causes unemployment.
Flawless logic right there.
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@TheMoriMaster Go read up on working conditions in the late 19th and early 20th century. I don't think those people who profitted off of child labor or who were responsible for things like the Triangle Factory fire were great humanitarians who care about their employees. Go look at the photos of children who sent to work down in the coal mines and then come back and tell me there was nothing exploitative about that.
xexixk 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xexixk "I don't think those people who profitted off of child labor or who were responsible for things like the Triangle Factory fire were great humanitarians who care about their employees."
"People who profited of child labor" means everyone on the planet with children before it went into massive decline on its own. Children had been working since the beginning of humanity and you expect people to just end that right off the bat? And even then, child labor was necessary for many families...
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@xexixk Why do you think families would allow their children to work in factories in the first place? Because they needed the money to sustain themselves. Once families started making enough money, child labor declined. Children were instead sent off to school. The abolition of child labor did nothing. Families that needed it still used it and it eventually fizzled out as production increased.
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@TheMoriMaster LOL Please go read some history. Child labor did not go away b/c it "fizzled" out it went away b/c it was prohibited by law. In the early 1900s those families - in contridiction to your fantasy view - never started making enough money to send their children to school. It was a cycle of hard labor and poverty from childhood through adulthood and in turn their own children did the same. Wages never rose and working conditions never improved until after the labor movement.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk Yeah, that's history for you. We've had child labor since the beginning of time and it's been this unending cycle. It's obviously not because we had a massive leap in technology, oh no. Everyone just listened to the infallible government even if it ended up starving them.
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@TheMoriMaster Yeah you're right. Industry in the US stopped using child labor, the mining industry stopped using child labor in the mines, working conditions improved, etc. because all of those industrialists and factory owners turned out be big hearted humanitarians and just decided to do the right thing all on their own. It had nothing to do with legal prohibitions against child labor or prohibiting minors from working in hazardous industry.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk No, you're using a blatant strawman argument. The owners make more profit from higher production, and can therefore spend more on labor, investing in technology, or buying more efficient equipment. Do you think a fire destroying a whole factory is beneficial to the capitalist? It's not. His competitors will get more workers and more skilled workers if they offer better conditions/wages and have more efficient equipment. You do understand competition, right?
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@TheMoriMaster It's no strawman. It's a historical fact that improvements did not occur until they were compelled, child labor did not go away until it was prohibited. The owners of the Triangle Factory - a few years after that devistating fire were again found to be in violation of fire safety laws - they didn't seem to learn from that previous experience. Your utopian vision is one that has never existed and it never will.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk Standard of living and wage increases also seem to be important here as well. Both increased during the "Gilded age" due to increases in productivity.
econlib(.)org/library/Enc/IndustrialRevolutionandtheStandardofLiving.html
sciencedirect(.)com/science/article/pii/S0014498384710072
mauricio(.)econ(.)ubc(.)ca/334notes/Lecture15-LivingStandards.ppt
crei(.)cat/people/voth/voth_livingstandards.pdf
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@TheMoriMaster Nice biased sources there. Yeah those people laboring away for virtually unlimited hours, often living lives totally dominated by their employers - company housing and in debt to the company sore - had a great lifestyle. When laborers finally rose up and demanding better conditions and better wages - that's when things started to improve.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk " When laborers finally rose up and demanding better conditions and better wages - that's when things started to improve."
...Yeah? And? Workers should demand the best deal from their employer. The government shouldn't be intervening in this process of collective bargaining.
"Yeah those people laboring away for virtually unlimited hours,"
Which is an improvement from what they had before. You need to "face reality" and realize just what it was like to live on a pre-industrialized farm.
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@TheMoriMaster Did I say farm labor was a dream job? However, unlike you I don't live in a fantasy world and haven't deluded myself into believing factory life at that time was some great experience or that those industrialists were a group of benevolent humanitarians. Early labor movements were often crushed by industry - violence was not uncommon. It was the government finally passing laws allowing employees to unionize and to collectively bargain that gave them success.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk "...believing factory life at that time was some great experience or that those industrialists were a group of benevolent humanitarians."
You have to be purposefully misrepresenting me for you to do it a third time after I explained it to you clearly. Standards of living -increased-. Does that mean that those jobs were the greatest jobs ever compared to today? No. It means they were better than farming, which is why people migrated to the cities in the first place.
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@TheMoriMaster If you will read the histories and oral stories from the time a lot of those people who migrated to the cities didn't realy find themselves that much better off, but stuck there with low wages and higher living costs and no way to get back home. Also a lot of those people in the cities did not migrate to the city from other parts of the US, they were recently arrived immigrants.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk "Early labor movements were often crushed by industry - violence was not uncommon."
This is because these labor movements were violent. They would often destroy machinery and block people who do not participate in the strikes from working, usually the workers replacing the strikers at the given factory. The capitalist has every right to stop these strikes if they get to this point.
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@TheMoriMaster LOL Yeah they were the only ones who were violent, ever. Those poor little industrialists never ever threw the first punch, never. If you treat someone like dirt long enough, eventually when they are fed up they will rebel - as they should.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk "It was the government finally passing laws allowing employees to unionize and to collectively bargain that gave them success."
No, the government pass laws that give unions artificial power in their bargaining. Freedom of association and freedom of speech both cover the formation of voluntary unions and collective bargaining. If the employer refuses to recognize the union, the workers can just quit and go to an employer who does, giving the 2nd employer an edge in the market.
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@TheMoriMaster Wow what a fantasy vision of the world you have. Never worked that way. They never did manage to find any of those friendly union loving employers.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk 'Capitalists never exploit workers?
I think it would be fair to say Capitalists, unless regulated, nearly always exploit workers. As with most of his ilk, Jacob would take us back in time to events like the Triangle tragedy. Even today after the tragic loss of life in the coal mining deaths, there have been zero improvement in the working conditions for miners. They continue to be subject to mine collapse and to suffer an extremely high incidence of black lung disease. Viva unions!
1huayna 9 months ago
@1huayna Then promote the switch to nuclear. It is the government's fault for making it impossible to start new nuclear power plants. Coal would barely even be used anymore.
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@TheMoriMaster We could, as you say, switch completely over to nuclear - but the coal mines would still be running. They would just sell it in the international market.
xexixk 9 months ago
@1huayna Yes they do indeed. This guy and some of the commentators here are deluded utopians who have have spent too much time curled up reading Atlas Shrugged and other such low brow drivel and not enough time in the real world. They're also uterly ignorant of history.
xexixk 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GivePeaceAChance87 'The worker sells her labour to the capitalist because SHE HAS NO ACCESS TO THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION - her labour is forced."
In this scheme as usual the worker get the shaft while the Business owner laughs all the way to the bank while the laborer makes his money and provides as little in return as humanly possible. Using the word "human" for most capitalists however is an oxymoron.
1huayna 9 months ago
@1huayna Here is a good video: /watch?v=_tY1gk6J6zc This are exactly the days these people would take us back to. And so many of them have the nerve to defend child labor - it didn't lift these children or any others out of poverty, nor is it lifting children today in third world countries out of poverty. It perpetuates poverty. Anyone who defends child labor is a soulless person of the lowest type.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk
I wish everyone could realize how vulnerable they are to "authority figures" such as those puppetmasters on Fox who can lead people to go against everything they believe in. An authority figure can convince nice people to become monsters who hurt their fellow humans (sound familiar teabaggers & neocons?). Watch the Stanford experiment which demonstrates this beautifully, had to add ‘dot’ to post so remove 'dot' youtudotbe/C2iMdI-mc1Y
1huayna 9 months ago
Hey, ever heard of the Gravenstein Apple from Sonoma Co., north of S.F.? Wonderfully delicious apples! What sort of draconian socialist 5 year plan would force the chopping down of these apple orchards just for more vineyards? (not so much in oranges in N. CA) No, I didn't miss your larger point, just wondering how you enforce your modified free market plan.
jepkratz 9 months ago
just because half its efforts are going into making something and it makes a certain amount doesn't mean if all its efforts went into it would produce twice as much. Take in other variables such as land needed to make 500 million oranges compared to 50million apples.... Its not just simple steps
DazzleFreak 10 months ago
Hence why the wild west/not so wild west was such a big success in terms of peace.
swu880 10 months ago
The very basis for govt is the gun and club. But the basis for the market is FREEDOM & voluntarism. No body is forced to exchange in the market- hence every exchange which occurs in the market must create prosperity & wealth! That is the birth of wealth. Starbucks for example, can not force u to buy even a cup of coffee. If it tried to force u to, if it tried to point a gun at u, well in the market, u would then point ur guns at those who try to initiate force
swu880 10 months ago
How to achieve world peace? Well, it is human nature to kill and fight. World peace has never happened, and it never will.
daboodeef179 10 months ago
So many fallacies my brain hurts. I could make an hour long video going over each one and why it's bad but.. ugh...
Icemario87 11 months ago
@Icemario87 His viewpoint is very classical in nature. It could roll off the tongue of Adam Smith.
It's certainly closer than the pseudo-intellectual Keynesian bullshit the bankers cooked up a century ago... mercantilism wearing a fancy suit...
Neo-Classical? Beware of any label with 'neo' in it =P.
ParrhesiaJoe 10 months ago
@Icemario87
oh really? apparently you do not even know how wealth is created in the first place or even what the purpose of an economy is. I would suggest you read David Riccardos work. Read economic facts and fallacies. read economics in one lesson. read "basic economics". read the works of Bastiat and Mises and rothbard
swu880 10 months ago
@swu880 Thanks for the suggestions, I'll check them out. I actually do know how both money and wealth is created. The problem isn't the concept. it's the reality of the culture of wealth. They're not down for this yet-to-exist-on-earth "Free Market"
Icemario87 10 months ago
@Icemario87
What is the free market? it is merely the existence of no force or coercion- it is merely voluntary interaction between 2 parties. Are you saying that you can NOT interact voluntarily & productively unless there is force and coercion? hahahah
there is an old saying, If people are essentially good, then there is no need for government. If people are essentially evil, then no one dares to have government
swu880 10 months ago
@swu880
Govt really holds no necessary function. It has committed every sin of omission and commission by neglecting to do what its supposed to do and doing everything its not supposed to do. It is no more legitimate than the local mafia. In fact, histoically there have been a few examples of the successes of market societies- aka voluntary societies- those with no coercive entities. They existed without gangsterism and statism. Read "the not so wild, wild west".
swu880 10 months ago
Well but when i buy something from a country like china it is cheap bud the quality is bullsh***, I would rather spend more money on something that has more quality!I buy a mouse for my pc from china and it breaks after a month, thus it's better to spend money on something that is quality for a more higher price!
Merc963 11 months ago
This guy IS A FRUIT. This faggot is a mama's boy toy!
octaviaaugustus1950 1 year ago
@octaviaaugustus1950 Sir, trolling? Honestly?! Tell us all here why you think this guy is a faggot, a mama's boy toy, huh?
Denon333dash888 11 months ago
Trade is great at increasing efficiency. That increases the amount of the goods traded. It does not necessarily increase jobs in industries of products being traded. In fact, over time, it decreases jobs. Increased efficiency produces more using less. When demand is satisfied jobs are eliminated. It would be great if those workers still get an income. THAT is the problem people are complaining about. Automation makes it even worse. The world is struggling with the transition to abundance.
MarkProffitt 1 year ago
You have presented a very well reasoned explanation of trade advantage. But let us, "focus on the unseen instead of the visible". When you bring up the issue of illegal labor being profitable you did not factor in the theft and abuse of free services like welfare and medical treatment and fraudulent law suits brought by these illegal aliens. These factors alone are crippling states like Calif.,albeit, by the liberal policies of the state itself, to provide said resources for free.
ytmachx 1 year ago
When I buy a car I'll only buy American, I'm going to buy a Toyoda.
startreking2007 1 year ago
Peak oil will end the absurd global trade. Shipping around goods all over the globe is unsustainable and only possible in the absurd scale it is done today in a very short period of time called "decades of cheap masses of oil".
World peace because of economic warfare? Ridiculous.
trakkaton 1 year ago
This video would be correct if we lived in a free market, but there are government entanglements and distortions in markets everywhere. Governments manipulate markets in so many complex ways that we can't always take free market theory for granted in the real world, even though we know it would work in the absence of gov. It is possible Indonesia is burning forests or destroying farmlands, leaving poor farmers with no choice but to work in factories. Basically, all the more reason to abolish it.
Skyler827 1 year ago
@Skyler827 This guy isn't talking about reality. Watch all of his videos. When he says "a Free Market," he's talking about something that *should* exist. He thinks that the government is the problem (I would call it a symptom) and that if we just removed it then "a Free Market" would exist and everything would be wonderful. Or, as he puts it, "world peace and prosperity."
He's wrong because he's split one system in two and bashing one half. He's right in that 'concentrated power is bad'.
Icemario87 11 months ago
Ok, lets try this.
We send 1 million jobs producing sneakers over seas.
We lose 1 million of unskilled labor jobs.
What do those millions of unskilled laborers do? They sure as hell are not going to be making planes, or designing buildings. They end up at low paying retail establishments making 1/3rd what they used to make.
It seems like low skilled laborers get the shaft in the free trade system.
grendel1013 1 year ago
@grendel1013
Sneakers will be cheaper, which will free up resources in the economy for other things, not to forget that everything will be cheaper and more abundant. But yes, unskilled american laborers could very well get a harder life since they have a billion competitors, such is the basic law of supply and demand. In any case, should the low skilled labors use violence in order to force others to buy their overly expensive products?
Illyrien 1 year ago
@Illyrien Unless the price of goods reaches zero it can not compensate for a complete loss of income, you imagine that all the money saved on shoes will create jobs elsewhere, it may or may not and those jobs may not be local if they are created, and prices do not necessarily drop when the cost of production drops, and even if they did the prices of goods do not drop evenly and the amount saved on sneakers may not be sufficient to stimulate growth elsewhere.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity
If the cost of producing shoes goes down, either the price can go down, and the consumers profit or the sellers keep the profit, which they themselves will use to consume. People who lose when others enter the market just have to do something else, there is no way around it. This applies at all levels.
Illyrien 1 year ago
@Illyrien If the price of Shoes go down, then that's good, but if the price of shoes go down at the cost of jobs, new jobs have to be created. Saying "people will save money on shoes" doesn't amount to much if that money isn't being used to sustain or grow domestic jobs, also like I said unless the price reaches zero it's not going to do those who lost their income much good, and it's not going to lower the rent of those who lost their jobs nor reduce their necessities of life.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@Illyrien
I don't advocate violence, but fighting for equality I do believe in. On the flip side. I would rather spend the extra $10.00 on a pair of shoes if the quality is better. Do you think it's cheaper to buy 3 pairs of inferior shoes a year for $20.00 a pop from countries like China, then spending $30.00 for 1 pair that lasts 2 years made with quality from U.S workers. Less people making a decent living, less people spending.
grendel1013 1 year ago
@grendel1013
And what equality would that be? Economic equality requires the use of violence to steal from those who produce and favor of those who dont. Equality in the face of the law is what is worth it. You want to pay more for quality shoes, why should that be a problem? In a free market, that is clearly your right as a consumer. Anybody producing things not wanted by the consumers need to change job to something which does.
Illyrien 1 year ago
@Illyrien
No, there is no violence involved. There are companies out there where every worker has an equal say, and gets paid the same as the CEO, a true democratic business. Yes, the CEO can't buy 7 cars, a yacht, or a Mansion, but he and all his employees make over $100,000+ a year. That is economic equality without violence. They spend more, better quality of life, less burden on taxpayers, and more money floating through the economy.
grendel1013 1 year ago
What's conspicuously absent from this video is that third world countries full of desperate starving people will work for 12 cents an hour just so they can save up for a loaf of bread. It is impossible for any dignified first world work force to compete with such low wages, and thus manufacturers who have the infrastructure to ship labor over seas often will, thus causing unemployment domestically and wage slavery abroad. That isn't to say that free trade is wrong, but this video is propaganda.
GodlessInfinity