World Peace through Free Markets (Penn & Teller Bullshit!)

[23lFrench]

So dumb....

[JagjeetMann]

terrible, lost all respect for penn after this

[OfftheRadar9790]

What I see is a serious problem with this is that at some point, some group or some individual will realize that they do not have to acknowledge the right of possession in another person, and they may simply use force to take their possessions, leading to domination and violence.

[sysFail81]

until some OPEC country thinks that the price for their most valuable good ain't fair, tries to change the status quo, and biggest and more powerful army in history of mankind, smashes it.

[DarkPrincessCKY]

Haha, 'Careful, careful you dont wanna break the IPod, you dont wanna break the IPod'

Poor Teller!!!!

[TheSaltyAdmiral]

The basic premise of capitalism has always been scarcity. You can try to defend that if you like, but you cannot deny it. Then you know nothing about economics.

Scarcity, poverty, unequality and ultimately slavery to the all powerfull monopoly is the inevitable result of a free market.

However, we CAN achieve a sustainable capitalism through taxes, regulations, competition authorities ect.

Look at capitalism as a horse, wild it useless to you, but tame it and you have a helping force.

[666or999]

@TheSaltyAdmiral This is silly. Capatilism causes abundance it always has and you don't even need to know much about economics to know this you need to of gone to a supermarket.

I have yet to hear of a single monopoly that has formed without a government helping it. equality in a economic system leads to a lack of motivation and therefore a lack of production but a free market would have a high amount of oppertunity per person.

[666or999]

@TheSaltyAdmiral Scarcity in a free market is baseless and poverty exists in all economic systems but less so in more free systems. Who told you all these things because they are clearly not based in fact.

[Madfoot713]

@AlexShrugged lol nice name

[Madfoot713]

I like how liberals debunk free markets by bring up examples of things that aren't free markets

[Noonstance]

I think it's a flawed system being used to replaced a much more flawed system. In terms of instead putting up with a system that's less crap, I can see merit in that.

I mean what are the idiots on the street protesting for? Peace...and what is peace? If there are big walls between you and the other guy, it aint peace, is it? And if there is no big wall, your going to intermarry, trade, kids go to the same schools, etc.

[Tompskij]

World Peace through Free Markets = bullshit. The whole history of mankind the market has looted and killed all over the globe.

[sirrvs]

I love the symbolism at the end. Penn & Teller are hitting each other looking like they're going to start a fight (war) when Penn tells him "Careful, you don't wanna break the iPod" (Our economies depend on each other). Very clever!

[EvilDandy]

@Jack23ooo Anything too stupid to be said is sung.- Voltaire

[DrTallTimber]

Capitalism as a means to world peace? Hahahaha! This claim is too ridiculous to take seriously... How many Coca-Cola workers died in Colombia? How much money did Halliburton and other contractors make in Iraq? This video is either farce or propaganda and these clowns are lobbyists disguised as entertainers! Capitalism fuels war! Anyone who takes these tools seriously should graduate from the first grade and start reading Chomsky. Geez!

[SniperViper1000]

@DrTallTimber You have got to be the dumbest shithead I've EVER heard of.

[DrTallTimber]

@SniperViper1000 An entire wing of the U.S. military (SOA) is devoted to defending the interests of multinational corporations like Dole and Bechtel (against workers who want fair compensation and, in one case, folks who didn't want their rainwater privatized. Rainwater, man...) As a system, capitalism is definitely not predisposed to generating a large middle class (or any kind of global equity, for that matter).

[fourtywpm]

World peace can never be. It all comes down to one thing, human emotions. Emotions are what cause us to do a lot of the things we do, including causing pain, suffering etc... We get jealous, we get angry, we fear etc... All these things cause us to act in unpredictable ways. If we can remove emotion from humans(which will never happen), then maybe we might be onto something. Even then, at best we would only have the same balance(not peace) that the animal kingdom has. We're human not robots.

[Wintermute01001]

As stupid as some of the world peace idealism in this episode is, it's no stupider than Penn and Teller's own "solution" at the end. Capitalism doesn't lead to peace, it leads to invasions for natural resources, pollution of the homes of the poor, and the violent exploitation of sweatshop workers. Capitalism says you must treat others fairly but only if they have something to offer you.

[MrJohanasBilderberg]

@Wintermute01001

Capitalism is an economic system not a hippie drum circle.

Also life is inherently unfair. Get over it.

[Wintermute01001]

@MrJohanasBilderberg Life is inherently unfair? Remember that the next time you're poisoned, overworked, or stiffed by your employer or insurance provider.

[MrJohanasBilderberg]

@Wintermute01001

Left wing goofballs should realize the time has come when average people are tired of their endless whining and weeping over life. We have remained a silent majority for far too long and our silence has been construed as acceptance or resignation. It is neither. While you weep over capitalism we are actually working. While you complain about life we actually live it.

We will remain silent no longer.

GTFO hippies...You do not speak for me.

[Wintermute01001]

@MrJohanasBilderberg And while you're working, parasitic tycoons leech profits while laying off workers. They pollute the Earth, abuse their workers, and manipulate the right-wingers in our government to push more taxes onto the middle and working classes. Apologists for laissez-faire capitalism are made up of two groups: con artists and their victims.

[MrJohanasBilderberg]

@Wintermute01001

Capitalism is the natural state of humanity.

The right to earn money and invest that money as you see fit is the definition of freedom. Any one who hates capitalism is either too lazy to work or to stupid to succeed. Which are you?

I have my evil capitalist money on lazy.

[Wintermute01001]

@MrJohanasBilderberg Cronyism and inheriting your daddy's estate do not count as hard work. If you want to see real hard work, go down to one of the foreign sweatshops where your corporate idols abuse their workers and pay them less than what you'd get at McDonald's. The free market's "failures" are working a million times harder than its "successes." Enjoy either working for or becoming the next Enron, you tool.

[TheGamerJoseph]

@Wintermute01001 Capitalism and free trade leads to an abundance of resources, and reduces the need to invade others for theirs. Capitalism leads to great prosperity.

[FredMalm]

@forthewolf325 You're using the word anarchy wrong. Anarchy does not mean "without rules", it means "without leaders". What free marketeers, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists want is not a world without rules, but rules upheld by the people, not by the government.

If you want to play basketball, you'll probably play according to the rules, even if there isn't a person there to tell you. We can act moral, without the government telling us to.

[myusernameisluc]

@FredMalm

Talk for yourself.

The government consists of people. I don't care who enforces the rules, as long as they are moral (i.e. in line with the non-agression axiom). This happens to be unable to be done by a group of people with a monopoly on violence, like the government.

[FredMalm]

@myusernameisluc Sorry, I am an ardent individualist, I don't buy collectivist arguments like that. I am me, and I am not part of the government. Even if there's other human beings within the government, these individuals are different from me and have different beliefs and characteristics.

And second of all, if the government's job is to enforce morality, which morality are they going to follow? We all have different views of morality, and in the end, some people's morality will be neglected.

[myusernameisluc]

@FredMalm

Strawman. Read my comment closer if you want.

[FredMalm]

@myusernameisluc Clarify your statement a bit better then. I didn't intend on doing a strawman (as a libertarian, I hate strawmen), but I don't understand your actual point. You seem to be anti-government and pro-government in the same time.

[myusernameisluc]

@FredMalm

Rules upheld by "the people" are not necessarily moral. Your criterium seems to be that rules are upheld by the people, my criterium is that rules are moral. After which I specify a group of people with a monopoly on violence ((current) government) is unable to do so.

[FredMalm]

@myusernameisluc Well, okay then. I don't disagree at all.

[br00k39]

This is esentually what ROn Paul's been advocating as well. By trading with more ppl outside our country, we are thus more likely to make more friends with people in other countries and less enemies.

[Mntgoatsfan]

Free trade and respect, yeah.. well. The workers over at Apple get alot of respect..... no, wait. That's bullshit.

[WhimsicalQuandary]

Free trade will only lead to oligarchy and perpetual warfare.

Real freedom comes only from a stateless classless Anarchist society.

[myusernameisluc]

@WhimsicalQuandary

Much noise, no argumentation.

[joebbi]

America to third world countries: Careful! You don't wanna break the iPod! *slap*

[AntiVenomFangX]

that is a horrible representation of free trade.

what if you dont want to give up the music? then i can forcefully take it from you killing whoever stands near or in my path.

i still support free trade though, becauseit is natural selection in motion

[Alecal89]

Gid, i hate libertarians

[myusernameisluc]

@Alecal89

You hate people who renounce the initiation of violence? pathetic

[Alecal89]

lol free trade fucks everyone

[FatherTime89]

@Alecal89 If that were true why would anyone participate?

[myusernameisluc]

@Alecal89

voluntary agreements fuck everyone? you're a moron

[TheHomelessCripple]

This is bad.

The free market won't grant world peace. How a state governs its economy (be it through, communist control via government planning; fascist control where the government is the economy; or capitalist where where you can buy, sell and do anything you want as long as you make a profit) economics has nothing to do with how you hate people that are different from you.

World peace will never happen until every1 loves every1 else, but the world is to big for that ever to happen

[NinjaJedi]

When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will.

[TheDynamicPsyche]

Hahahaha, when i first was watching this I thought it was going to be sarcastic. Free Trade as a means to equality is an absurdity, it basically consists of the US and other western powers forcing third world countries to break their solidarity and privatize their assets which are then bought out by western corporations who operate by an overwhelming double standard of protectionist policies.

[upandopen]

@TheDynamicPsyche

1. They didn't say that free trade results in equality; they said it is more likely than anything else to lead to world peace.

2. Western countries don't "force" 3rd world countries to do anything. If 3rd world countries believe the best jobs come from the West, then they choose those jobs.

3. Given your opposition to "double standard protectionist policies" in the West, does this mean you support 100% free trade everywhere?

[Darusdei]

@upandopen Ofcourse we force third world governments, why do you think u.s. stages coups, assassinations or support to dictators?

and it's not just the u.s.

just look what happened with iraq BP got one of the biggest contracts...

[myusernameisluc]

@TheDynamicPsyche

They never said anything about equality.

Also, you confuse free trade with government regulation. How the fuck?

[sugarraygras]

@TheDynamicPsyche Yeah, free trade which means ponsy scam casino where rich indusrialists gamble away the nations assets without public oversight. I dont think I will be taking any explanations on how the world should run from a couple of professional husslers. THE SHAME IS THAT MOST PEOPLE WHO SUCK THIS SHIT UP HAVE NO SENSE OF IRONY

[metzger90]

@TheDynamicPsyche You are partially right. The West generally does decide to be cocks and create protectionist laws, and also allow for special treatment to some corporations. As history shows the ONLY way for a monopoly to arise is through government help. 100% free trade is more likely to bring world peace than anything else. Communism won't, socialism won't, crony capitalism won't. 100% unregulated, free trade will benefit humanity. GOVERNMENT is the problem, not business.

[DaveC86]

@TheDynamicPsyche

if free trade can work across the US states borders, why not across all global borders? borders are irrelevant when it comes to economic law. Imagine if New York did not have free trade with Texas, all people would be poorer! This fact does not magically change when countries trade.

[TheCynicalLiberal]

I think a lot of these activists don't really care about resolve. They ultimately care about image or being apart of some subculture. If it wasn't about that, a lot of these activists would care more about their image as to be taken seriously. There's many valid criticisms to be made about how business interference with government causes war, but most people who identify as new left don't make those points. These bourgeois liberals would rather shout inane slogans than get people to unionize.

[TheCynicalLiberal]

I stopped by some shop in my town that was painted up all psychedelic and run by the rich,neo-hippie spawn of yuppies. I say yuppy kids, because they all go to a small scale, environmentalist college that charges higher tuition than most state universities. Anyway, when I talked to them, they were surprisingly ignorant about what they implied they stood for. They really don't care about winning other people over to their side, whatever that is exactly, which probably isn't ending the culture war

[Yewon2001]

Wow what a perfect example of corporate peons doing the bidding of their slave masters

[upandopen]

Yup. People who disagree with you cannot possibly hold sincere principled opinions. They must be paid off by evil corporations.

[fabienporay]

@upandopen See, that's the beautiful thing, they don't even need to be paid.

[magog1138]

Corporations aren't evil, man. Neither is free trade. You do it everyday. Don't let SOME bad eggs that tried to take people for what they have ruin the idea that it works.

Even the open-air markets in Morocco do free trade.

[TheDynamicPsyche]

@magog1138

if you do a detailed institutional analysis of the structure and functionaklity of Corporations you'll find that your statement is false.

It isn't the individual intentions behind certain corporations which make them malign, it's the internal structure and function of them in themselves.

[gww1]

Most of Africa has pretty explicit free trade, and all you end up with is violent gangs and corrupt governments controlling labour and natural resources e.t.c. which ends up with more conflicts than if trade was controlled.

I think their idea about how war starts by being caused by a "lack of respect" overlooks the much much bigger reason which is "I want more stuff". And free trade makes that worse. But if theres war, countries dont care about trade rules, so ultimately its irrelevant.

[upandopen]

How does Africa have free trade? They have corrupt governments that take their property and kill people they don't like. That has nothing to do with free trade.

Going to war to "take" stuff from other countries is not free trade either... and how has free trade ever contributed to that?

He's saying that free trade means that there are incentives against war.

[TheCynicalLiberal]

When government power is vacated, you get something of an anarcho-capitalist model in these African countries. In countries like Sierra Leone and other east African countries that have a lot of tribal disputes, the vacated or weakened power gets occupied through competition from guerilla armies. Since there's no human rights laws being enforced, they'll force people, through slave labour, to get money. Then they use the money to buy more arms, and then they take over the country.

[TheCynicalLiberal]

Many believe that less government is better. I'd agree with that up to a point. What ultimately matters is the type of government. A democratically elected, centralized government that's only limited to enforcing rights that ensure that minorities have the same rights of the majority and moneyed interests is probably the best model you can hope for. Beyond that, people just need to educate their selves and know the sources of excessive power, whether it be corporate or bureaucratic.

[simontimon2]

america was like that 100 years ago but things change after time

[TheProgressistViewer]

Read what you just wrote free-trade, and government cotrolling labour.. TOTAL contradiction. There no economic freedom in africa. period.

[magog1138]

There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting more. I want more schooling, I want more education, I want more food, I want more love... I think the problem is that if you are raised in abundance, you can't get perspective for what really matters. All the money in the world can't make you happy, some of the happiest people on earth live in abject poverty- You have to fill your life with meaning be it god, love, reason, or doing something that is fulfilling to you.

[gww1]

I agree, but then again, things that lead to war need not be inherently wrong. What about two tribes fighting over a water hole. They both need it. There is not enough for both of them. The want of safe water is not evil, but it leads to war regardless. Greed, or excessive want leads to unnecessary wars - wars over oil, wars over land that you can do without. Basic want leads to wars that are inevitable.

[Arodinme6]

Hahaha this was stupid! Maybe if this was filmed before the Green Revolution, then it would be excusable, but it has already happened.

Anyone who has taken a recent course in economics knows that "free markets" fail repeatedly. For example, what is a negative externality? A form of market failure when a market transaction bares a cost on to an uninvolved third party. It explains how the "free markets" led to LA's and NYC's poor air quality. Only recently has regulation stepped in to fix it.

[JoeyBatz]

We had a free market in this country? When? All I've ever seen in USA was government-protected corporate socialism funded by monetary inflation. Private exclusivity contracts with the government? If that's free market, then Bush and Obama are lovers of peace.

Free markets don't fail repeatedly. By nature, they wouldn't fail at all, if they were ever given a chance of course. That's not saying they are perfect, but no system is. They are the only system that centers around individual liberty.

[JoeyBatz]

People call for more regulations, more laws, more central planning from the government into the economy all the time, but where has that gotten us? The debt and deficit are through the roof, taxes are higher than they've ever been, the dollar is weaker than ever, and we are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. All while these highly regulated companies reap record profits. Is more of the same magically going to work all of a sudden?

[blackcrossunited666]

i agree with this..

[cypherpunk11]

Too bad most of the large peace groups have changed their original agendas into simply being against corporations and large businesses.

If it's true that free trade and open markets are a factor in ending national conflict then as long as the concept of "ignorant peace" is held by these marching nuts, and similar people, then there can never be actual peace.

[Tbaldwin1971]

Surely you understood what I was saying previously and therefore surely you wouldnt bother asking me why I er...(lets spell this correctly)rebutted rather than scoffed. I shall pay more attention to detail with my spelling on here in future though as I dont want to get "owned" (or whatever you Americans call it these days ;o) again. Why are you on here advocating Free market regimes? Are you just interested in this subject or do you have professional ties to it?

[JoeyBatz]

I don't think anyone understood what you're saying.

So you're........against........p­eople having the ability and right to buy the goods and services they feel they need?.......... No that can't be it. It makes no sense.

[Tbaldwin1971]

Why do you think Im against us having the ability to buy goods and services? I dont understand what you mean? How did you come to that conclusion? Are Penn and Teller advocating that world peace is achievable by us having the ability to buy goods and services that we need? I thought we have always had that ability? Well I have. I still dont see world peace. do you? Come on JoeyBatz think about it. I just dont understand your point? Is there a point? Is this all too tedious to be wasting time on?

[JoeyBatz]

You seemed pretty anti-free market, which would usually entail support centralized control/influence over what people can/cannot buy in the marketplace. Btw, I thought you were against people having the right to buy the products they wish to buy, not the ability to buy in the first place.

Free market is exactly what it sounds like and entails such. People exchanging not just tangible items, but ideas and culture free of coercive control and censorship.

[JoeyBatz]

With that exchange comes globalization, positive interdependence, and intertwining voluntary relationships. People have a stake in each other's success, not destruction. They have positive relationships with each other, and understand of each other's cultures, and mutually beneficial trade. Engaging with one another peacefully and freely allows people to see others as individuals and not as collectivist groups. We wouldn't want to bomb a country that we trade with, share culture with, etc.....

[Lisarata]

If people were going to treat each other well and cooperate, they'd have done it already! Your wanting to manage things according to your value system is going to require you to kill those who won't cooperate. We are hierarchical animals like the apes. You can't change that, because there's nothing wrong with it until you forget that you believe in mother nature. Nature is a bitch.

[JoeyBatz]

Um, killing those who won't cooperate is the exact opposite of peace and free market economics. Using force to make people act in a way that they wouldn't, however, is exactly what all laws are rooted in (violence). So your logic 180's its way right back to you.

Besides, the governments doing the taxing and the regulating and the legislating also seem to be the most efficient at the killing as well.

People are not savages. They simply act in their best interests, and rape and pillage isn't it.

[Lisarata]

Well, my friend, I think I was arguing with someone else.

[JoeyBatz]

I highly encourage you to read articles on Cato Institute's website to understand more about how free markets and economic liberty contribute to peace. Peace, liberty, and prosperity are all intertwined.

What confused me about what you said it that you seemed to think that we already have a free market ("free market regimes" as you called them, as if such a thing could exist). Where do you see one? We have a government that regulates and stamps out private competition while subsidizing........

[JoeyBatz]

...........politically connected corporate giants. Governments control and regulate markets to suit its own interest, devalue the currency you use to purchase things, claim the right to use force to get you to do whatever it wants, steals your money via taxation, and bombs foreigners. How you can see all this and say "Free market!" is beyond me.

Remember that in a free market, we use peaceful means to get what we need via mutual exchange. Anything else is not a free market.

[JoeyBatz]

And the only reason I'm even replying to you is, well--and remember that I'm not trying to insult you here as I have better things to do with my time--you seem to be going out of your way to come off as a douche.

If you don't believe me, here are your words exactly: "Im walking away now... chuckling and shaking my head... pitying some people. Free Markets! .. wow... "

[Tbaldwin1971]

Wow.. Im enlightened! I shall forever follow the teachings of Penn and Teller.

World peace can be a reality if we follow this philosophy. What a load of bollocks. haha. Shame on you for even trying to justify this crap. Im walking away now... chuckling and shaking my head... pitying some people. Free Markets! .. wow...

[upandopen]

So rather than rebutting them you just scoff?

[Tbaldwin1971]

er... yeah. ;o)

Sometimes actions by others only muster the energy to scoff. When I pity I generally avoid wasting my energy for rebuttle purposes. Lets face it, this isnt worthy of any deeper consideration.

Yes I think a plain old scoff is apt in this case.

Then again, each to their own. Everyone is has the right to theor opinion. "Peace" Im out of here. (Although they do this great trick which appears that the fat one with glasses cuts his arm off... Respect to them in that case.)

[upandopen]

1. It's rebuttal, not rebuttle.

2. You've written an awful lot without saying anything. Seems like it would have been easier to just point out their errors...

[Tbaldwin1971]

Thanks for pointing that out. I must admit it is a word I never use. (Thanks) You are one of those people who points out spelling mistakes aren`t you. ;o)

I have seen your type on here. Sort of point scoring. Whereas I sometimes (when Im bored and stumble upon as vid) just comment. Nothing too deep (unless it merits a deep and meaningful one) I mean, it is only youtube isnt it.

[mblasko]

I dont get this team...what is the point of the guy who never talks??!! is that supposed to be funny?

[coffeebeaner]

Penn and Teller are fascist idiots.

[upandopen]

I agree. Everyone who disagrees with you is evil.

[coffeebeaner]

Or stupid. But whatever. The so-called "free-market" means more wars, more massacres, more death.

[upandopen]

I love how open-minded you are. It is impossible to disagree with you without being evil or stupid. Wow.

What exactly are you basing your hypothesis above on? Stalin and Mao alone (arguably the least free-market leaders in recent history) were responsible for close to 100 million deaths. I don't think free-market-based regimes have killed one tenth of that.

[coffeebeaner]

Stalin was responsible for maybe 20 million, Mao was maybe 25 million. Stalin's regime was more like state capitalism.

The so-called free market reigns globally now, and, it kills 15 million kids under the age of five every year because of the lack of access to clean water. Also, 2 million people are dead in Iraq because of the "free-market." Hitler et al were more free market than anyone could have come close. Pinochet, Suharto, et al. That's the real free-market.

[upandopen]

1. Where'd you get your Stalin/Mao numbers?

2. If you think Stalin's USSR had anything in common with capitalism, then either you don't know Stalin or you don't know capitalism.

3. Lack of clean water has nothing to do with capitalism.

4. Even if you believe the Iraq War was purely for oil, then that's corporatism, not capitalism.

5. Hitler was a "National Socialist" (Nazi), which has nothing to do with free market capitalism.

6. Pinochet/Suharto killed far fewer people than Stalin/Mao did.

[Myndir]

Even if you want to say that Stalin was a state capitalist, he certainly didn't believe in market economics. Market economics killed the gulag system in the CCCP and Apartheid in SA.

[liber8me]

actually the 20 million would be just some of the ones stalin starved to death thanks to him socialising the production of all goods. he basically said i want to industrialise the USSR and he focussed on that and did not care about the production of food. result? millions starved. he even used famine to starve nations that wanted to leave the union

[liber8me]

its funny how in china like the USSR they tried to centralise the economy and got rid of the free market, and yet now china has a CAPITALIST economy. know why? BECAUSE CONTROLLED THE ECONOMY DOESNT WORK. the only aspect of communism the government kept was the bit they liked - you know the one party state

[liber8me]

fascist idiots? that is such an idiotic comment. its the political equivalent of a child saying I HATE YOU and thinking that someone that means they win the argument.

first of all penn and teller believe in the government interfering as little as possible with people's lives, the opposite of what a fascist would believe. secondly fascist germany actually had a very SOCIALISED economy, again the opposite of what penn and co are advocating

[Tbaldwin1971]

Im not sure about fascists but they are idiots (In my opinion of course) But each to their own. They are just magicians/ semi intersting entertainer who people on here seem to be following like Jesus figures baa baa ;o) Only kidding folks lighten up. You need to get out there in the sunshine and smell the costa coffee

[PersonalJesus348]

here's an idea you empower the people. The people have never been for a war. Its the Kings who mistakenly think they have something to gain.

[plddevries]

Yes. I'm sure the war in Iraq could have been prevented through a bunch of spending sprees. The point made at the end is completely idiotic.

[Myndir]

No way the war in Iraq could have occured if Iraq was full of oil companies from all over the world (not just the US) just like no-one will ever invade Saudi Arabia to free the Arabs. The dollar is stronger than neo-conservativism.