Ireland didn't develop by receiving alms nor by implementing libertarian policies. It developed by creating an external debt 12 times the size of its GDP. If they don't default, they will be back to the bottom of the EU where they came from.
Intelligence is different then knowledge, they are always confused. Almost every Human has the ability or is Intelligent. The question should be posed whether they have the right knowledge.
@chadbrochill61 That is, trade always provides net benefits. Some people do lose though. In an importing nation, domestic producers are hurt, but consumers are better off. In an exporting nation, producers are better off, and consumers are hurt.
@worldofdraculas Everytime I clock in at work, I am buying a corrupt African politician a BMW. At least, I get something in return when I buy something made in China.
CONSTITUTION DAY MONEYBOMB ON SATURDAY, SEPT 17, 2011. Please consider donating and help Dr. Paul's message get across to the American people without mainstream media distortion. America needs Ron Paul - we can all help! Ron Paul 2012! Bring troops home!
@juarezrt You really think so or are you being ironic? Because Sub-Saharan African countries have some of the lower tax rates and government spending in the world (check out on Heritage Foundation). And I don't think aid is bad (it has even lifted some health standards in Africa), it just has been done the wrong way.
I'm being sarcastic, because that is what Stossel is suggesting we do. Its just his way of saying we shouldn't pay taxes so that others can be on welfare. I think both taxes and welfare are necessary.
@juarezrt Some libertarians are so hardcore over this mentality that they might say what you said for real! That's why the irony detector almost missed this one haha. Cheers!
I agree. There is no political or economic theory that is perfect. Capitalism is good, but there must be limits. Socialim has many issues, but we must not ignore the plight of the poor who can not do much for themselves.
Ease of doing business has done more to rid the world of poverty than anything else. Low taxes and no welfare might be what we libertarians desire, but i'll admit it's not necessary. Whether there are low taxes, high taxes, no welfare, a lot of welfare, you will see that poor countries lack ease of doing business, while rich ones often have very free markets (even if backed by welfare and burdened by taxes).
Africa is poor due corrupt governments, not taxes or lack of welfare.
@juarezrt welfare is only necessary for the short run. after a while a community degrades from having a population that exits the job market.certain taxes are unnecassary and should be removed.
This is very interesting topic you bought on. " Why African countries are still poor " dictatorship and greed are the answer. I'm from Togo governed by Gnassigbe for more than 3 decencies. He has more than 100 children and more 50 wives without counting unofficial wives. If you give money to this man What do you think it 's going to happening. 1st president very educated man was killed by actual president father who has 1st grade level educ. French politician always get those money back .Sad!
@Dalmeda1 Money we get from Western does not help at all. If western countries can remove all dictators who are on the power from generation to generation. Giving money directly to the poor will resolve short term problem. In my country Togo, They created a very successful bank (fusec) that lends money to the poor women so they can start their own business. That kind aid helps poor people.
This is very interesting topic you bought on. " Why African countries are still poor " dictatorship and greed is the answer. I'm from Togo governed by Gnassigbe for more than 3 decencies. He has more than 100 children and more 50 wives without counting unofficial wives. If you give money to this man What do you think it 's going to happening. 1st president very educated man was killed by actual president father who has 1st grade level educ. French politician always get those money back .Sad!
If only Americans were more intelligent... cutting off foreign aid is one of the best things we can do. If people don't develop things themselves then where is their pride? Getting handouts from the US every day seems like a shitty way to build up your economy and a nation of your own.
@Renagade4 You are looking at the surface. Why are africans uneducated? Because they are not free from central planning. The US is following the same trend, we are slowly becoming africans.
This guy Andrew is brilliant. But I think these american right-wing journalists miss the point when they try to compare African countries to Ireland or Asian Tigers.
Most Sub-Saharan African countries have low taxes and low government spending, and impose no legal barriers to foreign investment and trade.
Andrew knows that the real problem in Africa is poor infrastucture and lack of governmental coordination with private sectors, not lack of laissez-faire capitalist policies (cont.)
The Asian Tigers, the Baltic Tigers (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia) and Ireland developed because they mixed free market policies with strong infrastructure and a highly skilled labour force and governmental coordination. Not the case in Africa.
Andrew does not totally despise international help, he just thinks it's done the wrong way. Rich nations do not treat Africa as a commercial partner, but as a 'beggar'. (cont.)
I think that the point that is missing is Mwenda's speech is the importance of EDUCATION to prepare a skilled labour force, able to compete in the free market world.
it hasnt worked because its nothing more than an foreign outpatient care!!! its nothing more than a fucking handout!!! you wanna feed a starving african, who has no skills, and too many kids??? dont give him a fish, rather, teach him to be a fisherman!!!
If you're seriously asking "how did the government inventing satellites, GPS computers, the internet etc. make us richer" It's pretty self evident.
Companies don't have the resources nor desire to invest in projects which would take decades to become profitable and those products (like you know, computers and internet) may just make the economy better off.
And.... you say that if certain companies do not want to invest in these longterm projects then government should finance it by coercion and steel my money and give it to those companies who did not want to spent their own money? How gracious of you. euh them the people in government
Listen we cannot predict the future but I honestly believe that progress comes in other flavors then government alone. Perhaps government gave momentum to the development but ... then again it could be argued that it may have slowed things down. In general governments tend to steal, lie and make you poorer unless you are politically well connected. Like these companies that profited from the government handouts when building sattelites.. but who knows,
@AndroidPolitician If satellites couldn't have been built without taking money from people to do it then that should tell you that they were launched prematurely. The government doesn't have the right to steal and then redistribute on technological crap-shoots, even if it provides some boost to a new technology to get it going.
@AndroidPolitician A few hundred years? Is that a joke? We went from steam engines to powered flight within 150 and technology gets progressively better faster. Are you going to try to tell me that the fact that my cell phone now has more computing power then the rocket that went to the moon is because of government's benevolence too?
Government is theft, if what it is supposed to do, or its existence is subjective then so are rules against murder, kidnapping and theft.
The era of intervention came in the 20th century, ie the jump from the Wright Brothers to us using planes was the result of significant intervention and would of taken maybe centuries without it. Technology got progressively faster due to intervention, the government buying 100% of semiconductors up until the 1970s sped up a process that might of taken a hundred years instead of 30.
Government is designed to protect rights and enforce the rule of law, not "steal".
@AndroidPolitician All the things you described were paid for with money taken from people against their will. What is taking money without consent if not stealing?
Is there a poll or something where a majority of Americans are against this intervention? Last time I checked polls have indicated that people want increases in spending for things like R&D.
@AndroidPolitician So if they took a "poll" in Nazi Germany whether the Jews died or not, the fundamental laws of behaviour would have been legitimaely thrown out the window?
If three robbers are stealing your tv and you catch them, but then they put your property up to a vote, does that make their actions not a crime?
Your conflating public opinion of a fact with a policy decision and don't seem to think that the majority of people should make monetary decisions based on their interests.
Aside from the obvious godwin's law you clearly don't know what your talking about.
"don't seem to think that the majority of people should make monetary decisions based on their interests."
Define "monetary decisions". If you mean they should decide how much money is STOLEN from each citizen then NO. How can you possibly say with a straight face that a group of individuals suddenly get the right to commit a crime as soon as they become the majority?
If three robbers are stealing your tv and you catch them, but then they put your property up to a vote IS IT A CRIME? Answer.
@AndroidPolitician So the if a gang of thieves called themselves a government and duped your ancestors into thinking that they the money being stolen was coming back to them, how would that group look any different then the government of today, fundamentally?
The monarch had a "legitimate function" approved by the pope to be your lord on earth, owning you outright as well as the country around you. It was perfectly legitimate in its day, what is your arguement against that?
Pretty sure the monarch wasn't popularly elected and are you literally saying the government (aka a function of democratic society) doesn't have the right to tax people at all?
@Android Uh yea, glad your finally listening. If I can't take your money against your will why can a group of people called a "government"?
"Pretty sure the monarch wasn't popularly elected"
But if he was popularly elected, and polupularly considered the representative of God on earth woning the citizenry outright as well as the entire country, and everyone considered it legitimate, you wouldn't have any arguement against them!
Democracy isn't necessarily self ownership, we need rights.
Well gee, I wonder how things like the judicial system and basic law and order would function if there were 0 taxes. If you're a anarcho-capitalist or whatever just say it outright and stop dancing around the issue.
Democracy is needed for rights to function otherwise we'd either have a totalitarian state with no rights or a non-democratic anarchistic place where rights are meaningless.
@Android Pointing out the moral flaws in your political system isn't "dancing around the issue".
"a non-democratic anarchistic place where rights are meaningless"
This is flatly wrong. If you contract with people to respect your rights and you hire a policing agency to protect your property, how are rights any less meaningful then when they are hoisted on you and your neighbours by a thieving state?
In fact, by getting people to voluntarily consent to your rights they are MORE meaningful
Private police and private judges, if your interested there are about 5 different hour long videos explaining the details. I recommend Walter Block.
"You also haven't answered to how a judicial system in a magic anarcho-capitalist world"
A whole lot better then your criminal society based on forcing people to abide by rules they don't accept and stealing their money to pay for the thugs needed to coerce them.
@Hashishin13 lmao I love how anarchists blindly ignore the history of the world. Monarchy is an evolution of anarchy with one faction taking control. Get real, no rights are protected in an anarchy. As if replacing govt. with private is going to make a difference.
I also love how all anarchists pussies have never gone hungry a day in their life but sit on their computer and talk shit all day. For once leave the country whose govt you so hate and go live in an anarchy
@tjohn The world didn't start with an agreement to be anarcho-capitalists, it started in a complete lack of political structure.
"I also love how all anarchists pussies... ...For once leave the country whose govt you so hate and go live in an anarchy"
I love how almost everyone who objects to anarchism is too moronic to understand the difference between a lack of a government and complete chaos, it reassures me that anyone with an intellect looks into the theory and then has no objections.
@Hashishin13 lol what a joke, keep assuring yourself that you and fellow anarchists are the only ones with intellect. There is a difference between theory and practice. Ive seen anarchy first hand. And it doesn't even work in theory. Humans take the path with least resistance. You anarchist nut jobs assume that we all will hold hands and sing songs. Get real! Put your money where your mouth is and go live in Somalia and then let me know how you enjoyed it. Otherwise stfu
@tjohn1986 Yea because you would just love going to live in the countries run by governments right beside Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya, don't they sound like paradise on earth? Maybe Somalia is shitty because it is in AFRICA and then also in CHAOS? No rules, isn't the same as no government.
@Hashishin13 No I would rather live in a country with minimal govt. but a govt. none the less. And even if I lived in Kenya or Ethiopia, I would have a higher life expectancy than Somalia. Try again
So what if people turn to mob rule instead of private police, you know, just what happens every time something similar to anarcho-capitalism is tried.
"A whole lot better then your criminal society "
Yeah how exactly would that happen since there's no law to abide by and judges could just be bought and have different outcomes depending on where you live? It kind of sounds like the worst system ever.
Do you know what the ratio of police to people is? They are a tiny group because only a tiny percentage of society is criminal and disorderly. When this isn't the case you get riots, that is the "mob rule" your talking about and it happens intermittently under statism too.
We know why they do this now, government oppression, however, you provide no reason why people would rise up against police under a free market.
When I say "mob rule", I mean literally a criminal elite, a mob, controlling everyone by buying hitman etc. not mob rule as in disorderly conduct (although I'm sorry for my choice of words). The difference is that the government has to abide by laws but a private elite don't.
Corrupt judges are pretty rare and are a scandal because there are laws against it, you are actively seeking a system based on this corruption.
Do you know how countries and provinces/states CURRENTLY work? Its called a border where: "(rules)have different outcomes depending on where you live"
Are you advocating world government?
Please think of what you are saying in both the context of anarchy and the context we currently live under. None of your concerns are resolved by the state, and under a system of competing institutions you will have a much higher chance of getting what you want.
"Do you know how countries and provinces/states CURRENTLY work? Its called a border where: "(rules)have different outcomes depending on where you live"
I donate through Kiva.org that is a microfinance lending group on the web. It's wonderful and is not a hand-out, but a hand up to millions of people. You get to choose from thousands of small entrepreneurs in many countries around the world to loan as little as $25 per individual or group. You can keep recycling the money when it is paid back to other entrepreneurs. I highly recommend this website!!
We need to stop giving anything but weapons to Africa and let them all kill each off or die out until their population reduces to a supportable level and the worst of the gene pool is gone
The map highlighting Singapore is wrong at 01:17. It should be a little yellow dot rather than the Malaysia as a whole, because the Malays ousted the city out as an exile region hoping they would rot in their own shithole.
Bahahaha the George-Mason Institute chick literally referenced a "free market" index to show that rich countries are better because they're markets are freer.
That "free market" index doesn't take into account the billions of research dollars each country's government gives out to develop new technologies and products.
@AndroidPolitician "the government that invented Computers, Satellites, The internet etc. and made a better life for its people" ROFL!!!!! Government is magic!
@AndroidPolitician We have the internet that we know now because entrepreneurs made useful to human life something that government created for the purpose of killing people(internet was originally made for military coordination). I don't really care about NASA. NASA is a giant boondoggle that achieves little for the funding it gets. Sorry kid, I don't believe in statist superstition. Government is really just a gang of thieves writ large. It can do nothing but take from you and me.
@AndroidPolitician Computers were not invented by government. The only thing on your list accomplished by governments are sattelites. And even there the government only provided the initial investment and only because it was COMPETING with the soviet union in getting into space first in getting on the moon first. And even though russians had the first sattelite it was the americans in the end that were driven by competition to get to the moon first.Remember that word, competition.
I never said we didn't have competition, just that the economy is state-directed. And no, the ENIAC was contracted for the Army, while the Internet was a blatant Pentagon invention.
And no it wasn't just an "initial investment" for Satellites, they were invented by NASA.
my point still stands, no "free" market or "free" enterprise played a role in western countries becoming what they are today.
@AndroidPolitician There's always at least one person who brings up this flawed point on every video LibertyPen uploads. "Ohh, but the government funded some scientists involved in the development of X and Y, so I guess the free market fails!!!!11" Just get out of here already you leftist dullard.
"Hurrrrr look at this retard bringing up how the gov "invented'' the basic building blocks of the economy that we rely on. I say "invented" sarcastically because we all know High Tech Corp. could of EASILLY spent millions of dollars on a room-sized calculator and satellites with no practical application or profit."
- You're argument
Seriously being a contrarian isn't going to disprove my point, as it stands you look dumb as hell.
@AndroidPolitician The government sent money to some scientists, who used that money to invent something. That doesn't discredit the free market at all. If anything it illustrates how little you know what you're talking about. But I really don't want to bother. As I've said you're basically replaying the dime-a-dozen objections that we have to deal with all the time, which is basically: "The free market doesn't work, because the government has funded some inventions."
Um no, Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the US military isn't just capital, they gave resources, which companies didn't have, to build something no company would ever think to invest in.
I'm saying a non-state directed, free market, (where the government doesn't give out any goodies like buying 100% of semiconductors in the 50s or create the internet and the first ever computer) could never function.
Companies need the government to guide them because they only look short term. Cont.
Ironically, your giving out the idealistic, dime a dozen argument that the free market thinks to invest in long-term inventions which will benefit everybody.
They don't. It's been the job of governments to do that and to save private industry over and over again like DARPA did for the car industry in the 80s.
@AndroidPolitician So your premise now is that people in a free market don't make investments? This is the kind of logic usually reserved for satire. The free market is not an entity; rather, it refers the the condition of having no economic restrictions. It is in such an autonomous environment that, contrary to your baseless claims, people are investing in new technologies all the time.
No companies and private entities do make investments, just on things that return a short term profit. If you look at who invests into new technologies (and I don't mean like the Ipod being new compared to the Walkman, I mean like an all new technologies) it's the government and not the market.
That's why a Laissez-faire system would fail, it's only concerned with the short term profits whereas this system has things like the Ministry of International Trade and Industry for Japan.
@AndroidPolitician Ugh. If you have strong ties to false premises, then nothing will ever get through to you. The private sector is not only concerned with short-term investments, and is infinitely more capable of technological development than government fiat. The problem with your position is the presumption that a researcher's source of funds has something to do with to whom we'd credit his inventions. Nor is this mistake unique to you.
They're probably capable they just don't. Whenever the market gets more and more deregulated the private sector focuses more and more on short-term so it's a natrual tendency.
I mean yeah, theoretically the private sector could of invested in a room-sized calculator when it's cheaper to use an abacus and it could of invested in satellites which have no practical purpose or a giant network of computers but it's super unlikely.
@AndroidPolitician So more regulation makes people to think of the long-term more often? What you're saying makes no sense. Nor is it what's actually been shown to happen. ENIAC wasn't the first computer, it was just branded as the first general-purpose, electronic computer. It was invented by a physicist and an electrical engineer who just happened to receive grant money from the government. That doesn't make it a government success!
A lot of inventors who receive government money work under the intention of selling their inventions to the government. Not because its more capable or more willing, but because there weren't exactly any private armies around when Konrad Zuse invented the Z3 in 1941. The most efficient use of computers at the time involved calculating external ballistics, or wing flutter. As technology improved, it became practical for other things.
Yes, when a company has more regulation they have to be more careful where to invest (likewise the less, the more short-term and risky the investments).
Except no company would need the Z3 or ENIAC and would never of invested into either. Plus, it goes further, what company would of created the first satellites, GPS and the internet. Those weren't just capital and contracting and served no practical purpose or profit.
What you're forgetting is companies invest to get profit.
You can't equate "didn't invest in" with "would never have invested in."
If private armies existed at the time as they do now, then they would have invested in computers back then just as government armies did. The point is that government officials didn't invest in the computer or the internet because they thought that we'd be sitting here communicating over them one day. They were developed by individuals looking to make a profit by selling their inventions to the military.
Lol so you think, private companies would of invested and had the resources to create ENIAC, GPS, Satellites and the internet? Was there a private equivalent to Jet Propulsion Laboratory in the 50s? You know, investing in things that are highly costly and that serve no practical purpose?
Yeah, if you look at where companies invested in the 40s to 60s it's much more longterm and different to where companies invest now.
@AndroidPolitician If they were costly and had no practical purpose, why do you think the governments invested in them? No, of course they had a practical purpose, but they all happened to be war-related. If Blackwater was operating back then, they'd have gotten in on these things too.
They weren't practical in a non-war consumer sense (ie the majority of what private enterprises invests in) and some weren't even practical for war. Look at the original satellites, they didn't even relay communications well and were literally just made to explore what can be done. Same with the internet and numerous pet projects in MIT during the 50s (when it was 90% military funded).
Companies don't have the millions to invest in neat new projects just to see what happens.
@AndroidPolitician Yes actually, they do have millions of dollars to invest. The only use these inventions found at the time was by military. The internet seems to be the only one whose development was actually commissioned by government for the purpose of creating a reliable method of relaying information. Your operating logic here is that if private citizens choose not to make long-term investments, then we should steal from them and make those investments for them.
I consider government investments to be choices by private citizens (at least in theory) because governments are potentially democratic, there's no election for executives in corporations and certainly no oversight into where they invest.
Furthermore, "private citizens" (by which you mean corporations and executives) have a shitty track record for discovering new technologies with their invests (corporations invest for profit).
Without the nanny state companies would fail miserably
Okay, and when did we hold elections to decide which programs the government should invest in? Just because we live in a democracy doesn't mean the government doesn't use force.
Stop repeating that corporations invest for profit. Their motives are irrelevant here. These developments took place because of war-time competition, not the distribution of groceries. If Xe was around back then, their investments would have been even more responsible than those made by government.
Well on issues like technology we vote very indirectly and that's because we're largely lacking democracy. Corporations don't have even the most basic democratic functions.
Xe's only concern is guns and man power and you're point of "if there were private armies companies would invest well" is totally false too. (Cont.)
@AndroidPolitician If I voted against these investments being made, and the person I voted for didn't win, then the government would still take my money and make these investments anyway. Just being democratic doesn't mean you're not forceful.
So, after the success of the computer and satellites, do you not think that anybody besides yourself has realized the potential of such seemingly pointless investments? Moreover, what groundbreaking technology has come out of the government since then?
The Pentagon doesn't typically create things like satellites or the internet because it benefits the military and war, they invest as cover to explore new technologies and because no one else is doing it, (NASA is stuck with space, NIH is stuck with drugs etc).
A "private army" in the 40s or so would only be concerned with upgrading guns and bombs, not semiconductors and satellites that serve no function in war.
Plus, since they are a company they do have to make a profit.
The internet was specifically made for the military, to prevent the routes on which information travel from being disrupted through the destruction of a single information center. Sputnik, the first satellite in orbit, was designed to carry nuclear warheads! All of these supposed marvels of government innovation were funded because someone thought they could give us the upper hand in combat. The closest thing that the free market had in the 40s were under-the-table mercenaries. Great comparison.
Ok here you have no idea what your talking about. ARPANET was never used to store or relay military files and never acted as a database for the pentagon (it openly connected to UCLA for god's sake).
If you're seriously dumb enough to think Sputnik was ever made to carry out nukes, then Jesus Christ. All it could do was sample the atmosphere and was explicitly designed to humiliate the US.
Not that I even want to use Sputnik as an example.
@AndroidPolitician It was designed to carry nukes. It never actually did, but that's why it was built. That's what created the interest for it. It was all about international competition between two militant states trying to avoid destruction at the hands of the other. And I never said that ARPANET was used to store or relay military files. That's why the development was going on, though. They don't test new technologies on the battlefield.
No it wasn't. There is literally no one in the Soviet Union that ever claimed or even mentioned nukes in relation to Sputnik (and I'm talking about declassified files here). It was done to be the first ever space venture.
You literally said that ARPANET was designed as a backup database, in the event that a made up "single information center" (there were many all around the country) was destroyed. ARPANET was made so computers could connect better together.
@AndroidPolitician I never said that ARPANET was designed as a backup database. I never even used the term backup database, and I originally didn't even mention ARPANET specifically. It was a concept at best. The reason for the Internet's development was surrounding the vulnerability of telegraphy systems. Not just so "computers could connect better."
Yes, government contracting makes up most of their business ventures, along with providing person security guards. Why couldn't they provide these technologies to the government for profits? And on what do you base the idea that government investments would still do "much better and with more resources"?
A company has to worry about paying off its capital and doesn't have near infinite access to resources. The government does.
But seriously, the internet was a side project which only connected universities and Sputnik was only done to go into space (it's like saying the moon landing was done to put a nuclear weapons base, and has the same amount of evidence as what you said about Sputnik).
Both were non-military projects funded by military or militaristic institutions.
@AndroidPolitician The government officials that decide where to invest aren't affected by the outcomes because they're spending other people's money. That's why companies are infinitely more capable of making good investments. They were non-government projects, funded by government. And the idea that the private sector would have been unable to utilize these ideas doesn't make any sense. Just repeating that "corporations invest for profits" has no relevance to the issue.
You may not of used the word but you implied ARPENT was both a militaristic project and was used as a saftey to protect a "single information center", like a backup database.
The big ones (Satellites and internet) where complelely invented by the government and served no military purpose. You're point is that private armies would invest into these costly and impractical projects even though they served no military purpose and I'm saying that's ridiculouse.
@AndroidPolitician ARPANET was just the first packet switching network. From what I understand it was something of a concept model, and the reason it received gov't funding is because it sounded useful to the military.
If you went back in time and told AT&T Corp. that you were developing something that could be put into the Earth's orbit and be used to transmit communications all over the globe, what kind of response do you think you'd have gotten? (After convincing them that you were serious.)
The concept of ARPANET was useful for everyone, there's no inherent military purpose that a private company would invest in though (much like how AT&T weren't the ones who invested into satellites etc.).
At any rate the private army argument is just another reiteration of "the free market could of done it" which is like me saying that the government could of invented the light bulb.
There weren't even consumer-grade computers at the time. Its entire development is credited to DARPA and a private research team from MIT. It was a military project that eventually found use by the rest of society.
The government could have "invented the light bulb," if the government at the time decided to send Thomas Edison a check in the mail. That's all you really mean when crediting these inventions to the government anyway.
It was a project that was done solely to connect computers which happened to be sponsored by the military. There was no combat or military intentions with it so stop trying to paint it as such.
No I don't, I credit them because there's no way private companies would of spend millions on a giant calculator and then more millions for universities to make them into smaller computers and then more to connected these computers.
We have a state-directed market and it would never be what it is today without big government directing it. We would essentially be a third world country because there's no government to create new markets and direct them.
@AndroidPolitician True, and they can print money as they need it, and get away with it for awhile at least. But that's fiat money. Other than printing money, why would we need the state to direct markets?
I'm actually not, regulation is only a small part of it. Things like computers, satellites and the Internet were invented and sustained by the government. Even the airlines biggest customer was the government until the 70s.
It's not a state-directed economy at all. There were some publicly funded research projects that happened behind the scenes, and the rest of the world has capitalized on that technology. Even if your bit about our supposed dependency on government research was true, that wouldn't contradict a laissez-faire system. If anything, you should be arguing against anarchists.
Having an economy dependent on the state sector (computers, satellites the internet etc.) is state-directed. I'm not saying we're a command economy it's just driven.
"laissez-faire" isn't just a lack of regulation, it's a complete abandonment of government interference in the economy which were not even close to having or have ever had.
Just to give you an idea, in the 40s the president of Boeing, William Allen feared that the public would demand nationalizing the airplane industry.
The economy isn't dependent on computers, satellites, or the internet. It's not even dependent on electricity. It is not a state-directed economy simply because government-funded researchers are responsible for a select few inventions. Laissez-faire is when the government has no control over commerce. Thomas Sowell is billed as a laissez-faire economist, but still sees the value in, for example, regulating mud flaps on automobiles. Even Milton Friedman believed in light environmental regulation.
Yeah no, an economy is dependent on certain things, if all electricity disappeared tomorrow we would be in an economic black hole.
About 77% of the US economy is based on services which is almost completely dependent on computers and phones (ie communications satellites). Industry is only 22%. Plus things like airlines where sustained almost completely by the government until the 70s.
"The economy" is a bit abstract; I like Sowell's definition of it as being the allocation of scarce resources with alternative uses (which he repeats a good thousand times in some of his works). Economics has existed before electricity, and has definitely existed before the internet, computers, or satellites. There are now certain industries that are dependent on those technologies, however.
An economy is the local economic system, economics is the study of exchange based on finite resources.
But sure, lets go by your logic that if electricity disappeared we could do without it.
At any rate, most regulation is good for the reason you brought up and privatizing all lands would destroy the wild life, not to mention the ecosystems. Even the world bank admitted that private land doesn't stop pollution.
I didn't say that "we could do without" electricity. That's not even the point. You were talking about the internet, satellites, and computers, and suggesting that if it weren't for these things we wouldn't even have an economy because the economic system now is dependent on those three technologies.
Most regulation is bad, and only good regulation I can conceive is making sure that companies don't lie about ingredients.
Well in that case I think you misunderstood. I didn't mean like "no economy" as in nothing would get done, I meant we would barely have an economy in the same way Laos barely has an economy.
Most regulations are basically done for safety standards just like the ingredients example. The problem is the people in charge are Bush administration appointees who believe in "self-regulation" which is how things like farms, banks, and oil drilling became so terrible.
So did we "barely" have an economy before the internet, satellites, and computers? Applying that term to economics doesn't even make sense. There aren't varying degrees of economies. It'd be a smaller economy without computers, but it wouldn't be less of one.
To ensure that producers list ingredients is to provide consumers with the knowledge it takes to assess a risk, and with almost no economic repercussions. Putting lead in toys is only a problem if consumers don't know about it.
@4gl2u exactly. As long as the consumer is completely informed on their product by being told or having a label of risks on a product, it is the consumer's right to take a risk. (the parent would of course be responsible if a child gets sick from lead or something else poisonous)
As far as I can tell, Friedman advocated for private ownership of lands for the environment and was even against anti-monopoly laws. His view was that the only regulation needed was a contract.
I have never heard Sowell advocate for those things but yeah it's good for things like seat belts to be required and mudflaps to be regulated.
"We're not asking for your money"? If you want our government to give foreign aid then yes, you are asking for our money.
redsox1006 3 weeks ago
Ireland didn't develop by receiving alms nor by implementing libertarian policies. It developed by creating an external debt 12 times the size of its GDP. If they don't default, they will be back to the bottom of the EU where they came from.
luizcadu 1 month ago
Most of africa doesn't have a good enough education system.
jrwel14 2 months ago
Stossel is against everything! All libertarians are.
jrwel14 2 months ago
Has Bono ever monitored the aid that's sent to Africa?
CrowdPleeza 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we should not care about poor people it is their fault we need to concentrate on this country not stupid third people who have always been poor
mccarc44 3 months ago
Comment removed
Shonenut213 4 months ago 7
@Shonenut213 That last part of your statement is pure CRAP!
jrwel14 2 months ago
@jrwel14 whatever troll
Shonenut213 2 months ago
@Shonenut213 You're the troll! It shows!
jrwel14 2 months ago
Intelligence is different then knowledge, they are always confused. Almost every Human has the ability or is Intelligent. The question should be posed whether they have the right knowledge.
Mezey5 4 months ago
Every time you buy something Made In China, you're buying a China worker a meal.
worldofdraculas 4 months ago 9
@worldofdraculas Chinese, too.
worldofdraculas 4 months ago
@worldofdraculas Yep, and you're also saving money, which helps your own standard of living. Trade is always a win-win.
chadbrochill61 1 month ago
@chadbrochill61 That is, trade always provides net benefits. Some people do lose though. In an importing nation, domestic producers are hurt, but consumers are better off. In an exporting nation, producers are better off, and consumers are hurt.
chadbrochill61 1 month ago
@worldofdraculas Everytime I clock in at work, I am buying a corrupt African politician a BMW. At least, I get something in return when I buy something made in China.
nobleheight 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CONSTITUTION DAY MONEYBOMB ON SATURDAY, SEPT 17, 2011. Please consider donating and help Dr. Paul's message get across to the American people without mainstream media distortion. America needs Ron Paul - we can all help! Ron Paul 2012! Bring troops home!
theleemeister 5 months ago
So... stop giving other countries aid and its a win/win for both of us?
drbackjack 7 months ago
@drbackjack Yes
ElJefer 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In terms of overall utility.
A used condom > John Stossel.
modernity2001 7 months ago
russia are going back from 2thn world since stalin to 3th world when soviet fell, capitalism make people poor and going backwards?
hansson2000 8 months ago
@hansson2000 They degressing long before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
ConRevolutionary 7 months ago
So all African nations need to do is lower their taxes and for us to stop helping them. Problem solved!
juarezrt 8 months ago
@juarezrt You really think so or are you being ironic? Because Sub-Saharan African countries have some of the lower tax rates and government spending in the world (check out on Heritage Foundation). And I don't think aid is bad (it has even lifted some health standards in Africa), it just has been done the wrong way.
luizcadu 8 months ago
@luizcadu
I'm being sarcastic, because that is what Stossel is suggesting we do. Its just his way of saying we shouldn't pay taxes so that others can be on welfare. I think both taxes and welfare are necessary.
juarezrt 8 months ago
@juarezrt Some libertarians are so hardcore over this mentality that they might say what you said for real! That's why the irony detector almost missed this one haha. Cheers!
luizcadu 8 months ago
@luizcadu
I agree. There is no political or economic theory that is perfect. Capitalism is good, but there must be limits. Socialim has many issues, but we must not ignore the plight of the poor who can not do much for themselves.
juarezrt 8 months ago
Ease of doing business has done more to rid the world of poverty than anything else. Low taxes and no welfare might be what we libertarians desire, but i'll admit it's not necessary. Whether there are low taxes, high taxes, no welfare, a lot of welfare, you will see that poor countries lack ease of doing business, while rich ones often have very free markets (even if backed by welfare and burdened by taxes).
Africa is poor due corrupt governments, not taxes or lack of welfare.
TombaFanatic 7 months ago 4
@TombaFanatic
I agree.
juarezrt 7 months ago
@TombaFanatic Thank you.
Spjungen 1 month ago
@juarezrt welfare is only necessary for the short run. after a while a community degrades from having a population that exits the job market.certain taxes are unnecassary and should be removed.
Ravengaurd6 8 months ago
@juarezrt You would have to argue that welfare improves the lives of poor folk more than economic freedom
ElJefer 2 months ago
@juarezrt Not completely. Lowering taxes will do nothing if they continue to have central planning. What they need is personal and economic freedom.
ElJefer 2 months ago
This is very interesting topic you bought on. " Why African countries are still poor " dictatorship and greed are the answer. I'm from Togo governed by Gnassigbe for more than 3 decencies. He has more than 100 children and more 50 wives without counting unofficial wives. If you give money to this man What do you think it 's going to happening. 1st president very educated man was killed by actual president father who has 1st grade level educ. French politician always get those money back .Sad!
Dalmeda1 9 months ago
@Dalmeda1 Money we get from Western does not help at all. If western countries can remove all dictators who are on the power from generation to generation. Giving money directly to the poor will resolve short term problem. In my country Togo, They created a very successful bank (fusec) that lends money to the poor women so they can start their own business. That kind aid helps poor people.
Dalmeda1 9 months ago
This is very interesting topic you bought on. " Why African countries are still poor " dictatorship and greed is the answer. I'm from Togo governed by Gnassigbe for more than 3 decencies. He has more than 100 children and more 50 wives without counting unofficial wives. If you give money to this man What do you think it 's going to happening. 1st president very educated man was killed by actual president father who has 1st grade level educ. French politician always get those money back .Sad!
Dalmeda1 9 months ago
Positive words are very powerful kwi.bbnow.org
thinc4444 9 months ago
If only Americans were more intelligent... cutting off foreign aid is one of the best things we can do. If people don't develop things themselves then where is their pride? Getting handouts from the US every day seems like a shitty way to build up your economy and a nation of your own.
Renagade4 9 months ago
@Renagade4 You are looking at the surface. Why are africans uneducated? Because they are not free from central planning. The US is following the same trend, we are slowly becoming africans.
ElJefer 2 months ago
Why isn't Mwenda spelled Miwenda or Mawenda?
Muwenda.
dickinson1027 10 months ago
This guy Andrew is brilliant. But I think these american right-wing journalists miss the point when they try to compare African countries to Ireland or Asian Tigers.
Most Sub-Saharan African countries have low taxes and low government spending, and impose no legal barriers to foreign investment and trade.
Andrew knows that the real problem in Africa is poor infrastucture and lack of governmental coordination with private sectors, not lack of laissez-faire capitalist policies (cont.)
luizcadu 11 months ago
The Asian Tigers, the Baltic Tigers (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia) and Ireland developed because they mixed free market policies with strong infrastructure and a highly skilled labour force and governmental coordination. Not the case in Africa.
Andrew does not totally despise international help, he just thinks it's done the wrong way. Rich nations do not treat Africa as a commercial partner, but as a 'beggar'. (cont.)
luizcadu 11 months ago
I think that the point that is missing is Mwenda's speech is the importance of EDUCATION to prepare a skilled labour force, able to compete in the free market world.
luizcadu 11 months ago
Let's have a discussion about poverty in Africa, but lets not mention the IMF or World Bank.
Vaishino 11 months ago
it hasnt worked because its nothing more than an foreign outpatient care!!! its nothing more than a fucking handout!!! you wanna feed a starving african, who has no skills, and too many kids??? dont give him a fish, rather, teach him to be a fisherman!!!
prosteelheader 11 months ago
Ireland prosperous because of aid.. man bono is a tool. The aid is what caused the financial problems, the free market is what caused the real gains.
Visfen 11 months ago
@QuantumQuacks
If you're seriously asking "how did the government inventing satellites, GPS computers, the internet etc. make us richer" It's pretty self evident.
Companies don't have the resources nor desire to invest in projects which would take decades to become profitable and those products (like you know, computers and internet) may just make the economy better off.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician
And.... you say that if certain companies do not want to invest in these longterm projects then government should finance it by coercion and steel my money and give it to those companies who did not want to spent their own money? How gracious of you. euh them the people in government
Campagnevoorvrijheid 11 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
Listen we cannot predict the future but I honestly believe that progress comes in other flavors then government alone. Perhaps government gave momentum to the development but ... then again it could be argued that it may have slowed things down. In general governments tend to steal, lie and make you poorer unless you are politically well connected. Like these companies that profited from the government handouts when building sattelites.. but who knows,
Campagnevoorvrijheid 11 months ago
@Campagnevoorvrijheid
I'd say there's much more evidence that government guidance helped but I generally agree with Governments and corruption.
Actually there were no "handouts" to companies building satellites, it was so new no company had the resources to even build it.
AndroidPolitician 11 months ago
@AndroidPolitician If satellites couldn't have been built without taking money from people to do it then that should tell you that they were launched prematurely. The government doesn't have the right to steal and then redistribute on technological crap-shoots, even if it provides some boost to a new technology to get it going.
Hashishin13 11 months ago
@Hashishin13
Yeah prematurely by a few hundred years, the issue of what the government ought to do is essentially subjective though.
AndroidPolitician 11 months ago
@AndroidPolitician A few hundred years? Is that a joke? We went from steam engines to powered flight within 150 and technology gets progressively better faster. Are you going to try to tell me that the fact that my cell phone now has more computing power then the rocket that went to the moon is because of government's benevolence too?
Government is theft, if what it is supposed to do, or its existence is subjective then so are rules against murder, kidnapping and theft.
Hashishin13 11 months ago
@Hashishin13
The era of intervention came in the 20th century, ie the jump from the Wright Brothers to us using planes was the result of significant intervention and would of taken maybe centuries without it. Technology got progressively faster due to intervention, the government buying 100% of semiconductors up until the 1970s sped up a process that might of taken a hundred years instead of 30.
Government is designed to protect rights and enforce the rule of law, not "steal".
AndroidPolitician 11 months ago
@AndroidPolitician All the things you described were paid for with money taken from people against their will. What is taking money without consent if not stealing?
Hashishin13 11 months ago
@Hashishin13
Is there a poll or something where a majority of Americans are against this intervention? Last time I checked polls have indicated that people want increases in spending for things like R&D.
AndroidPolitician 11 months ago
@AndroidPolitician So if they took a "poll" in Nazi Germany whether the Jews died or not, the fundamental laws of behaviour would have been legitimaely thrown out the window?
If three robbers are stealing your tv and you catch them, but then they put your property up to a vote, does that make their actions not a crime?
Democratic isn't the same as moral.
Hashishin13 11 months ago
@Hashishin13
Your conflating public opinion of a fact with a policy decision and don't seem to think that the majority of people should make monetary decisions based on their interests.
Aside from the obvious godwin's law you clearly don't know what your talking about.
AndroidPolitician 11 months ago
"don't seem to think that the majority of people should make monetary decisions based on their interests."
Define "monetary decisions". If you mean they should decide how much money is STOLEN from each citizen then NO. How can you possibly say with a straight face that a group of individuals suddenly get the right to commit a crime as soon as they become the majority?
If three robbers are stealing your tv and you catch them, but then they put your property up to a vote IS IT A CRIME? Answer.
Hashishin13 11 months ago
@Hashishin13
Taxes are a legitimate function of government which should be decided by the majority of people.
AndroidPolitician 11 months ago
@AndroidPolitician So the if a gang of thieves called themselves a government and duped your ancestors into thinking that they the money being stolen was coming back to them, how would that group look any different then the government of today, fundamentally?
The monarch had a "legitimate function" approved by the pope to be your lord on earth, owning you outright as well as the country around you. It was perfectly legitimate in its day, what is your arguement against that?
Hashishin13 11 months ago
@Hashishin13
Pretty sure the monarch wasn't popularly elected and are you literally saying the government (aka a function of democratic society) doesn't have the right to tax people at all?
AndroidPolitician 11 months ago
@Android Uh yea, glad your finally listening. If I can't take your money against your will why can a group of people called a "government"?
"Pretty sure the monarch wasn't popularly elected"
But if he was popularly elected, and polupularly considered the representative of God on earth woning the citizenry outright as well as the entire country, and everyone considered it legitimate, you wouldn't have any arguement against them!
Democracy isn't necessarily self ownership, we need rights.
Hashishin13 11 months ago
@Hashishin13
Well gee, I wonder how things like the judicial system and basic law and order would function if there were 0 taxes. If you're a anarcho-capitalist or whatever just say it outright and stop dancing around the issue.
Democracy is needed for rights to function otherwise we'd either have a totalitarian state with no rights or a non-democratic anarchistic place where rights are meaningless.
AndroidPolitician 11 months ago
@Android Pointing out the moral flaws in your political system isn't "dancing around the issue".
"a non-democratic anarchistic place where rights are meaningless"
This is flatly wrong. If you contract with people to respect your rights and you hire a policing agency to protect your property, how are rights any less meaningful then when they are hoisted on you and your neighbours by a thieving state?
In fact, by getting people to voluntarily consent to your rights they are MORE meaningful
Hashishin13 11 months ago
@Hashishin13
They're meaningless because no one would abide by them. In a non-democratic stateless society there's nothing to enforce contracts or rights.
You also haven't answered to how a judicial system in a magic anarcho-capitalist world would function.
AndroidPolitician 11 months ago
@AndroidPolitician "there's nothing to enforce contracts or rights."
Private police and private judges, if your interested there are about 5 different hour long videos explaining the details. I recommend Walter Block.
"You also haven't answered to how a judicial system in a magic anarcho-capitalist world"
A whole lot better then your criminal society based on forcing people to abide by rules they don't accept and stealing their money to pay for the thugs needed to coerce them.
Hashishin13 11 months ago
@Hashishin13 lmao I love how anarchists blindly ignore the history of the world. Monarchy is an evolution of anarchy with one faction taking control. Get real, no rights are protected in an anarchy. As if replacing govt. with private is going to make a difference.
I also love how all anarchists pussies have never gone hungry a day in their life but sit on their computer and talk shit all day. For once leave the country whose govt you so hate and go live in an anarchy
tjohn1986 11 months ago
@tjohn The world didn't start with an agreement to be anarcho-capitalists, it started in a complete lack of political structure.
"I also love how all anarchists pussies... ...For once leave the country whose govt you so hate and go live in an anarchy"
I love how almost everyone who objects to anarchism is too moronic to understand the difference between a lack of a government and complete chaos, it reassures me that anyone with an intellect looks into the theory and then has no objections.
Hashishin13 11 months ago
@Hashishin13 lol what a joke, keep assuring yourself that you and fellow anarchists are the only ones with intellect. There is a difference between theory and practice. Ive seen anarchy first hand. And it doesn't even work in theory. Humans take the path with least resistance. You anarchist nut jobs assume that we all will hold hands and sing songs. Get real! Put your money where your mouth is and go live in Somalia and then let me know how you enjoyed it. Otherwise stfu
tjohn1986 10 months ago
@tjohn1986 Yea because you would just love going to live in the countries run by governments right beside Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya, don't they sound like paradise on earth? Maybe Somalia is shitty because it is in AFRICA and then also in CHAOS? No rules, isn't the same as no government.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 No I would rather live in a country with minimal govt. but a govt. none the less. And even if I lived in Kenya or Ethiopia, I would have a higher life expectancy than Somalia. Try again
tjohn1986 10 months ago
@Hashishin13
So what if people turn to mob rule instead of private police, you know, just what happens every time something similar to anarcho-capitalism is tried.
"A whole lot better then your criminal society "
Yeah how exactly would that happen since there's no law to abide by and judges could just be bought and have different outcomes depending on where you live? It kind of sounds like the worst system ever.
AndroidPolitician 11 months ago
Do you know what the ratio of police to people is? They are a tiny group because only a tiny percentage of society is criminal and disorderly. When this isn't the case you get riots, that is the "mob rule" your talking about and it happens intermittently under statism too.
We know why they do this now, government oppression, however, you provide no reason why people would rise up against police under a free market.
"judges could just be bought"
HAHA, yea not like those state judges.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13
When I say "mob rule", I mean literally a criminal elite, a mob, controlling everyone by buying hitman etc. not mob rule as in disorderly conduct (although I'm sorry for my choice of words). The difference is that the government has to abide by laws but a private elite don't.
Corrupt judges are pretty rare and are a scandal because there are laws against it, you are actively seeking a system based on this corruption.
AndroidPolitician 10 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
Do you know how countries and provinces/states CURRENTLY work? Its called a border where: "(rules)have different outcomes depending on where you live"
Are you advocating world government?
Please think of what you are saying in both the context of anarchy and the context we currently live under. None of your concerns are resolved by the state, and under a system of competing institutions you will have a much higher chance of getting what you want.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13
"Do you know how countries and provinces/states CURRENTLY work? Its called a border where: "(rules)have different outcomes depending on where you live"
Are you advocating world government?"
Jesus christ you're an idiot.
AndroidPolitician 10 months ago
And Ireland failed when it started handouts... Hmmm
Rensune 1 year ago
@QuantumQuacks lol these studies are not testing malnourished kids who are barely alive. Nice try though.
return135 1 year ago
make loans not handouts
MaddDogg81 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ahhhh too much common sense I can't handle it
soccer92489 1 year ago
Ireland is prosperous? Has Bono been there recently?
AndrewMann552 1 year ago
Bono may not get the idea, but at least Natalie Portman knows a little about microfinance! =o)
simonizer888 1 year ago
I donate through Kiva.org that is a microfinance lending group on the web. It's wonderful and is not a hand-out, but a hand up to millions of people. You get to choose from thousands of small entrepreneurs in many countries around the world to loan as little as $25 per individual or group. You can keep recycling the money when it is paid back to other entrepreneurs. I highly recommend this website!!
TheFreethinker71 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this guy is brilliant...
Manysho 1 year ago
It is immorall to steal the proverty one person and sendit to people thousands of miles away.
tonylee1973 1 year ago
Its interesting whats just happened in Ireland`s economy...
MrJamesdegouveia 1 year ago
how do you spell the name of the female guest? Carol Buedrue?
optionsupdate 1 year ago
@optionsupdate 2:39
fzqlcs 1 year ago
@fzqlcs thanks very much
optionsupdate 1 year ago
We need to stop giving anything but weapons to Africa and let them all kill each off or die out until their population reduces to a supportable level and the worst of the gene pool is gone
MountMarcyNY 1 year ago
The map highlighting Singapore is wrong at 01:17. It should be a little yellow dot rather than the Malaysia as a whole, because the Malays ousted the city out as an exile region hoping they would rot in their own shithole.
Look at Singapore now.
Cleric775 1 year ago
great point bono, ireland may need a bailout by the EU, charity working great, moron
atomicdogg34 1 year ago
Natalie Portman can have my babies
fissure226 1 year ago
bono is a self-righteous,preachy,irritating twat!
ashken79 1 year ago
superb vid!
ashken79 1 year ago
And John Stossel strikes again with sheer awesomeness, which gives me hope for the future of the human race! :-D
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
Stossel makes you proud to be an American more than anybody else.
longlivecrow 1 year ago
Bahahaha the George-Mason Institute chick literally referenced a "free market" index to show that rich countries are better because they're markets are freer.
That "free market" index doesn't take into account the billions of research dollars each country's government gives out to develop new technologies and products.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
The rich countries became rich because the government guided their economies.
If was the government that invented Computers, Satellites, The internet etc. and made a better life for its people not the "free market".
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician "the government that invented Computers, Satellites, The internet etc. and made a better life for its people" ROFL!!!!! Government is magic!
truevoice08 1 year ago
@truevoice08
Yeah It was Space Tech Inc. that invented Explorer 1 and Project SCORE while Electron Corp. which made the ENIAC and the internet
They weren't invented by the Pentagon and NASA or anything.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician We have the internet that we know now because entrepreneurs made useful to human life something that government created for the purpose of killing people(internet was originally made for military coordination). I don't really care about NASA. NASA is a giant boondoggle that achieves little for the funding it gets. Sorry kid, I don't believe in statist superstition. Government is really just a gang of thieves writ large. It can do nothing but take from you and me.
truevoice08 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician Computers were not invented by government. The only thing on your list accomplished by governments are sattelites. And even there the government only provided the initial investment and only because it was COMPETING with the soviet union in getting into space first in getting on the moon first. And even though russians had the first sattelite it was the americans in the end that were driven by competition to get to the moon first.Remember that word, competition.
Butmunch666 1 year ago
@Butmunch666
I never said we didn't have competition, just that the economy is state-directed. And no, the ENIAC was contracted for the Army, while the Internet was a blatant Pentagon invention.
And no it wasn't just an "initial investment" for Satellites, they were invented by NASA.
my point still stands, no "free" market or "free" enterprise played a role in western countries becoming what they are today.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician There's always at least one person who brings up this flawed point on every video LibertyPen uploads. "Ohh, but the government funded some scientists involved in the development of X and Y, so I guess the free market fails!!!!11" Just get out of here already you leftist dullard.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
"Hurrrrr look at this retard bringing up how the gov "invented'' the basic building blocks of the economy that we rely on. I say "invented" sarcastically because we all know High Tech Corp. could of EASILLY spent millions of dollars on a room-sized calculator and satellites with no practical application or profit."
- You're argument
Seriously being a contrarian isn't going to disprove my point, as it stands you look dumb as hell.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician The government sent money to some scientists, who used that money to invent something. That doesn't discredit the free market at all. If anything it illustrates how little you know what you're talking about. But I really don't want to bother. As I've said you're basically replaying the dime-a-dozen objections that we have to deal with all the time, which is basically: "The free market doesn't work, because the government has funded some inventions."
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
Um no, Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the US military isn't just capital, they gave resources, which companies didn't have, to build something no company would ever think to invest in.
I'm saying a non-state directed, free market, (where the government doesn't give out any goodies like buying 100% of semiconductors in the 50s or create the internet and the first ever computer) could never function.
Companies need the government to guide them because they only look short term. Cont.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@4gl2u
Ironically, your giving out the idealistic, dime a dozen argument that the free market thinks to invest in long-term inventions which will benefit everybody.
They don't. It's been the job of governments to do that and to save private industry over and over again like DARPA did for the car industry in the 80s.
That's why a completely free market would fail.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician So your premise now is that people in a free market don't make investments? This is the kind of logic usually reserved for satire. The free market is not an entity; rather, it refers the the condition of having no economic restrictions. It is in such an autonomous environment that, contrary to your baseless claims, people are investing in new technologies all the time.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
No companies and private entities do make investments, just on things that return a short term profit. If you look at who invests into new technologies (and I don't mean like the Ipod being new compared to the Walkman, I mean like an all new technologies) it's the government and not the market.
That's why a Laissez-faire system would fail, it's only concerned with the short term profits whereas this system has things like the Ministry of International Trade and Industry for Japan.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician Ugh. If you have strong ties to false premises, then nothing will ever get through to you. The private sector is not only concerned with short-term investments, and is infinitely more capable of technological development than government fiat. The problem with your position is the presumption that a researcher's source of funds has something to do with to whom we'd credit his inventions. Nor is this mistake unique to you.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
They're probably capable they just don't. Whenever the market gets more and more deregulated the private sector focuses more and more on short-term so it's a natrual tendency.
I mean yeah, theoretically the private sector could of invested in a room-sized calculator when it's cheaper to use an abacus and it could of invested in satellites which have no practical purpose or a giant network of computers but it's super unlikely.
At best we would be decades and decades behind.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician So more regulation makes people to think of the long-term more often? What you're saying makes no sense. Nor is it what's actually been shown to happen. ENIAC wasn't the first computer, it was just branded as the first general-purpose, electronic computer. It was invented by a physicist and an electrical engineer who just happened to receive grant money from the government. That doesn't make it a government success!
4gl2u 1 year ago
A lot of inventors who receive government money work under the intention of selling their inventions to the government. Not because its more capable or more willing, but because there weren't exactly any private armies around when Konrad Zuse invented the Z3 in 1941. The most efficient use of computers at the time involved calculating external ballistics, or wing flutter. As technology improved, it became practical for other things.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
Yes, when a company has more regulation they have to be more careful where to invest (likewise the less, the more short-term and risky the investments).
Except no company would need the Z3 or ENIAC and would never of invested into either. Plus, it goes further, what company would of created the first satellites, GPS and the internet. Those weren't just capital and contracting and served no practical purpose or profit.
What you're forgetting is companies invest to get profit.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
Comment removed
4gl2u 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndroidPolitician
You can't equate "didn't invest in" with "would never have invested in."
If private armies existed at the time as they do now, then they would have invested in computers back then just as government armies did. The point is that government officials didn't invest in the computer or the internet because they thought that we'd be sitting here communicating over them one day. They were developed by individuals looking to make a profit by selling their inventions to the military.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
Lol so you think, private companies would of invested and had the resources to create ENIAC, GPS, Satellites and the internet? Was there a private equivalent to Jet Propulsion Laboratory in the 50s? You know, investing in things that are highly costly and that serve no practical purpose?
Yeah, if you look at where companies invested in the 40s to 60s it's much more longterm and different to where companies invest now.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician If they were costly and had no practical purpose, why do you think the governments invested in them? No, of course they had a practical purpose, but they all happened to be war-related. If Blackwater was operating back then, they'd have gotten in on these things too.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
They weren't practical in a non-war consumer sense (ie the majority of what private enterprises invests in) and some weren't even practical for war. Look at the original satellites, they didn't even relay communications well and were literally just made to explore what can be done. Same with the internet and numerous pet projects in MIT during the 50s (when it was 90% military funded).
Companies don't have the millions to invest in neat new projects just to see what happens.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician Yes actually, they do have millions of dollars to invest. The only use these inventions found at the time was by military. The internet seems to be the only one whose development was actually commissioned by government for the purpose of creating a reliable method of relaying information. Your operating logic here is that if private citizens choose not to make long-term investments, then we should steal from them and make those investments for them.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
I consider government investments to be choices by private citizens (at least in theory) because governments are potentially democratic, there's no election for executives in corporations and certainly no oversight into where they invest.
Furthermore, "private citizens" (by which you mean corporations and executives) have a shitty track record for discovering new technologies with their invests (corporations invest for profit).
Without the nanny state companies would fail miserably
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician
Okay, and when did we hold elections to decide which programs the government should invest in? Just because we live in a democracy doesn't mean the government doesn't use force.
Stop repeating that corporations invest for profit. Their motives are irrelevant here. These developments took place because of war-time competition, not the distribution of groceries. If Xe was around back then, their investments would have been even more responsible than those made by government.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
Well on issues like technology we vote very indirectly and that's because we're largely lacking democracy. Corporations don't have even the most basic democratic functions.
Xe's only concern is guns and man power and you're point of "if there were private armies companies would invest well" is totally false too. (Cont.)
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician If I voted against these investments being made, and the person I voted for didn't win, then the government would still take my money and make these investments anyway. Just being democratic doesn't mean you're not forceful.
So, after the success of the computer and satellites, do you not think that anybody besides yourself has realized the potential of such seemingly pointless investments? Moreover, what groundbreaking technology has come out of the government since then?
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
The Pentagon doesn't typically create things like satellites or the internet because it benefits the military and war, they invest as cover to explore new technologies and because no one else is doing it, (NASA is stuck with space, NIH is stuck with drugs etc).
A "private army" in the 40s or so would only be concerned with upgrading guns and bombs, not semiconductors and satellites that serve no function in war.
Plus, since they are a company they do have to make a profit.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
The internet was specifically made for the military, to prevent the routes on which information travel from being disrupted through the destruction of a single information center. Sputnik, the first satellite in orbit, was designed to carry nuclear warheads! All of these supposed marvels of government innovation were funded because someone thought they could give us the upper hand in combat. The closest thing that the free market had in the 40s were under-the-table mercenaries. Great comparison.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
Ok here you have no idea what your talking about. ARPANET was never used to store or relay military files and never acted as a database for the pentagon (it openly connected to UCLA for god's sake).
If you're seriously dumb enough to think Sputnik was ever made to carry out nukes, then Jesus Christ. All it could do was sample the atmosphere and was explicitly designed to humiliate the US.
Not that I even want to use Sputnik as an example.
(Cont.)
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician It was designed to carry nukes. It never actually did, but that's why it was built. That's what created the interest for it. It was all about international competition between two militant states trying to avoid destruction at the hands of the other. And I never said that ARPANET was used to store or relay military files. That's why the development was going on, though. They don't test new technologies on the battlefield.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
No it wasn't. There is literally no one in the Soviet Union that ever claimed or even mentioned nukes in relation to Sputnik (and I'm talking about declassified files here). It was done to be the first ever space venture.
You literally said that ARPANET was designed as a backup database, in the event that a made up "single information center" (there were many all around the country) was destroyed. ARPANET was made so computers could connect better together.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician I never said that ARPANET was designed as a backup database. I never even used the term backup database, and I originally didn't even mention ARPANET specifically. It was a concept at best. The reason for the Internet's development was surrounding the vulnerability of telegraphy systems. Not just so "computers could connect better."
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
But ok, lets assume a "private army" uses millions of dollars to develop the first ever space nuke launcher/satellite.
Literally no one would buy it, and the people that would buy it (the US/Soviet governments) could do it much better and with more resources.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician Quotes around private army, why?
Yes, government contracting makes up most of their business ventures, along with providing person security guards. Why couldn't they provide these technologies to the government for profits? And on what do you base the idea that government investments would still do "much better and with more resources"?
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
A company has to worry about paying off its capital and doesn't have near infinite access to resources. The government does.
But seriously, the internet was a side project which only connected universities and Sputnik was only done to go into space (it's like saying the moon landing was done to put a nuclear weapons base, and has the same amount of evidence as what you said about Sputnik).
Both were non-military projects funded by military or militaristic institutions.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician The government officials that decide where to invest aren't affected by the outcomes because they're spending other people's money. That's why companies are infinitely more capable of making good investments. They were non-government projects, funded by government. And the idea that the private sector would have been unable to utilize these ideas doesn't make any sense. Just repeating that "corporations invest for profits" has no relevance to the issue.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
You may not of used the word but you implied ARPENT was both a militaristic project and was used as a saftey to protect a "single information center", like a backup database.
The big ones (Satellites and internet) where complelely invented by the government and served no military purpose. You're point is that private armies would invest into these costly and impractical projects even though they served no military purpose and I'm saying that's ridiculouse.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician ARPANET was just the first packet switching network. From what I understand it was something of a concept model, and the reason it received gov't funding is because it sounded useful to the military.
If you went back in time and told AT&T Corp. that you were developing something that could be put into the Earth's orbit and be used to transmit communications all over the globe, what kind of response do you think you'd have gotten? (After convincing them that you were serious.)
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
The concept of ARPANET was useful for everyone, there's no inherent military purpose that a private company would invest in though (much like how AT&T weren't the ones who invested into satellites etc.).
At any rate the private army argument is just another reiteration of "the free market could of done it" which is like me saying that the government could of invented the light bulb.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician
There weren't even consumer-grade computers at the time. Its entire development is credited to DARPA and a private research team from MIT. It was a military project that eventually found use by the rest of society.
The government could have "invented the light bulb," if the government at the time decided to send Thomas Edison a check in the mail. That's all you really mean when crediting these inventions to the government anyway.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
It was a project that was done solely to connect computers which happened to be sponsored by the military. There was no combat or military intentions with it so stop trying to paint it as such.
No I don't, I credit them because there's no way private companies would of spend millions on a giant calculator and then more millions for universities to make them into smaller computers and then more to connected these computers.
(Cont.)
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@4gl2u
My point will continue to stand:
We have a state-directed market and it would never be what it is today without big government directing it. We would essentially be a third world country because there's no government to create new markets and direct them.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician So where does the state get its money?
electricneedleroom 1 year ago
@electricneedleroom
The state is the reason money exists at all. Think about that one.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndroidPolitician
"The state is the reason money exists at all."
You just topped yourself in stupid statements.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician True, and they can print money as they need it, and get away with it for awhile at least. But that's fiat money. Other than printing money, why would we need the state to direct markets?
electricneedleroom 1 year ago
@electricneedleroom
Gee I don't know, so companies don't sell toys with lead or dump toxic waste into rivers?
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician
Ohhh, you're talking about regulating markets. I wouldn't use "direct" to sum up your perceived role of government in markets. It's too sweeping.
electricneedleroom 1 year ago
@electricneedleroom
I'm actually not, regulation is only a small part of it. Things like computers, satellites and the Internet were invented and sustained by the government. Even the airlines biggest customer was the government until the 70s.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician
It's not a state-directed economy at all. There were some publicly funded research projects that happened behind the scenes, and the rest of the world has capitalized on that technology. Even if your bit about our supposed dependency on government research was true, that wouldn't contradict a laissez-faire system. If anything, you should be arguing against anarchists.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
Having an economy dependent on the state sector (computers, satellites the internet etc.) is state-directed. I'm not saying we're a command economy it's just driven.
"laissez-faire" isn't just a lack of regulation, it's a complete abandonment of government interference in the economy which were not even close to having or have ever had.
Just to give you an idea, in the 40s the president of Boeing, William Allen feared that the public would demand nationalizing the airplane industry.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
The economy isn't dependent on computers, satellites, or the internet. It's not even dependent on electricity. It is not a state-directed economy simply because government-funded researchers are responsible for a select few inventions. Laissez-faire is when the government has no control over commerce. Thomas Sowell is billed as a laissez-faire economist, but still sees the value in, for example, regulating mud flaps on automobiles. Even Milton Friedman believed in light environmental regulation.
4gl2u 1 year ago 2
@4gl2u
Yeah no, an economy is dependent on certain things, if all electricity disappeared tomorrow we would be in an economic black hole.
About 77% of the US economy is based on services which is almost completely dependent on computers and phones (ie communications satellites). Industry is only 22%. Plus things like airlines where sustained almost completely by the government until the 70s.
(CONT.)
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician
"The economy" is a bit abstract; I like Sowell's definition of it as being the allocation of scarce resources with alternative uses (which he repeats a good thousand times in some of his works). Economics has existed before electricity, and has definitely existed before the internet, computers, or satellites. There are now certain industries that are dependent on those technologies, however.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
An economy is the local economic system, economics is the study of exchange based on finite resources.
But sure, lets go by your logic that if electricity disappeared we could do without it.
At any rate, most regulation is good for the reason you brought up and privatizing all lands would destroy the wild life, not to mention the ecosystems. Even the world bank admitted that private land doesn't stop pollution.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
@AndroidPolitician
Economies don't have to be local.
I didn't say that "we could do without" electricity. That's not even the point. You were talking about the internet, satellites, and computers, and suggesting that if it weren't for these things we wouldn't even have an economy because the economic system now is dependent on those three technologies.
Most regulation is bad, and only good regulation I can conceive is making sure that companies don't lie about ingredients.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u
Well in that case I think you misunderstood. I didn't mean like "no economy" as in nothing would get done, I meant we would barely have an economy in the same way Laos barely has an economy.
Most regulations are basically done for safety standards just like the ingredients example. The problem is the people in charge are Bush administration appointees who believe in "self-regulation" which is how things like farms, banks, and oil drilling became so terrible.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
So did we "barely" have an economy before the internet, satellites, and computers? Applying that term to economics doesn't even make sense. There aren't varying degrees of economies. It'd be a smaller economy without computers, but it wouldn't be less of one.
To ensure that producers list ingredients is to provide consumers with the knowledge it takes to assess a risk, and with almost no economic repercussions. Putting lead in toys is only a problem if consumers don't know about it.
4gl2u 1 year ago
@4gl2u exactly. As long as the consumer is completely informed on their product by being told or having a label of risks on a product, it is the consumer's right to take a risk. (the parent would of course be responsible if a child gets sick from lead or something else poisonous)
mmamolina 1 year ago
@4gl2u , the uptick rule was a good thing.
l8rthen 1 year ago
@4gl2u
As far as I can tell, Friedman advocated for private ownership of lands for the environment and was even against anti-monopoly laws. His view was that the only regulation needed was a contract.
I have never heard Sowell advocate for those things but yeah it's good for things like seat belts to be required and mudflaps to be regulated.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago