Joe Stiglitz - the moral failing of capitalism

[vince33x]

Another lying, Left-Wing jew in the mold of Paul Krugman.

[dick391]

This guy falls for so many fallacies it makes me want to head-desk. Humans are morally-failed beings independent of any economic system. Greed exists not because of capitalism, but because of human nature itself. The real question is what vehicle should the greed take. 1. A system where many greedy people make decisions for themselves (free markets) or 2. A system where a small number of greedy people make decisions for us all (socialism/tyranny). Let me give you a hint, #2 has been tried...

[madashelldude]

@dick391 dick: you realize that in your infinite arrogance and ignorance you just dissed a Nobel Prize winning economist?! What's wrong with you people?! You really think Stiglitz doesn't understand capitalism vs communism?! That story is over for 20 years now, wake the F UP, dumbass! He is talking about something entirely different, you can't even comprehend the words let alone the concepts in this video!

[devourerofbabies]

@dick391 If he made fallacies, it should be easy for you to name them, shouldn't it shithead?

[dick391]

@devourerofbabies Only if you can learn how to read, fuckface. Hey look, I can do what you do too. Named one in the above comment and two others on the other Stiglitz video.

[devourerofbabies]

@dick391 You're the one who needs to learn to read, DICK. You didn't name any fallacy at all. You stated a couple unsupported assertions after you hit your head on a desk.

You don't even know what a fallacy is, let alone be able to identify one. Let me give you an example of a fallacy: False dichotomy. Let me show you an example:

There are only two possibilities for economic policy: 1) free markets 2) socialism/tyranny.

(Hint: I got this example from you.)

learn 2 argumentation

[dick391]

@devourerofbabies Fallacy 1-Strawman. Stiglitz says that right-wing economists don't want gov't intervention because they believe markets are perfect. I bet he feels like a such big man knocking that strawman down.Showing that strawman a lesson.

Fallacy 2-Inconsistent logic/false conclusion. He argues that because markets are imperfect, gov't intervention is necessary. But he doesn't take into account gov't failures in jumping to his conclusion.Could just as easily use his logic the other way

[dick391]

@devourerofbabies Fallacy 3- explained in my comment above regarding capitalism being a "morally failed" system.

Speaking at a general level, that's not a false dichotomy. You can have societies where the greed is more decentralized or societies where the greed is less decentralized. Socialism and tyranny are (admittedly) extreme examples, but I never said they were the only ones.

[Mystefystisk]

Check this very fresh link: blogs.forbes.com/danielmitchel­l/

[zed6952]

Is this guy retarded?

[Mystefystisk]

Norway is an exceptional country. I'm nt saying Labour P is totally crazy, but they r corrupt,destructive,wasteful.M­ore so than th opposition.The system of Norway is NOT very different from many other European countries. But in Norw as we are drowning in wealth, these goverment failings don't show up as much as elsewhere in Eur. Stiglietz, Krugman, Bernanke, Keynesianism, it doesn't impress me. Peter Schiff does.Milton Friedman,Dan Mitchell freedomandprosperity. org, Sowell, Williams++

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

lol... Peter Schiff... You realize you're pitting a financial adviser who barely got a bachelor's degree against actual macroeconomists who have mathematical models Schiff wouldn't even come close to understand?

Stiglitz and Krugman may seem colloquial when they speak, but they're incredible statisticians in fact... They're people who have actual scientific reasons to disagree with other people. Schiff has ideological reasons and that's it.

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing U attack th man not th ball here. Both me + Schiff. don't trust u as an expert on Friedman. He was against th Fed. Th way it was used. Bc they're "incredible statisticians" they're above others? Plenty of expert statisticians on all sides! And only your opponents have ideological reasons and ur side don't? Are all "right-sided" ppl deluded? Try raising ur outlook above selective maths and stats to see the bigger picture and human psychology of real life. learnliberty. org

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

In Friedman's head, the Fed is a good thing to the point that they could have avoided the great depression... Friedman is the father of monetarism, in some way.

The thing is that I understand psychology and that I see how freeing markets will inexorably lead to absurd situation, unjustified risk bearing and wrong incentives that would anyway be against the development we would try to promote. I don't if you realize Stiglitz was senior advisor at the world bank...

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing I think u talk too vague. Ofc not much room here but still. What unjustified risk bearing? What wrong incentives? What development? World Bank don't impress me. Talking about opinions and policies here. Not th obviously impressive educations and careers of Stiglitz and Krugman. May be great guys privately. Did u see Krugman recently say econ problems of US could be over in 18 mths if they faked news of invasion from outer space,and geared up th country to meet that? Agree w him?

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

They did the maths, compared the statistics and saw that in the end freeing markets wouldn't yield the promised performances... just pick one of his book and see what he says. Free markets cannot yield optimal results and the question is not if we should free them, because that's simply being deaf to the data and models, but what's the margin in which intervention becomes beneficial and when does it become harmful.

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing I'm no anarchist. I'm for government on law-order, child prot services, borders, firebrigade, some infrastructure, some overseeing, and not much more intervention than that. Meaning MORE efforts on environmental police, consumer police, everyday crimes etc. U put too much stock in math.models. History shows libertarianism best system.US had fab wealth then incr gov became incr infiltrated, corrupted w spcial interests.Free market=population steering business sector where needed 

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

And yes... if those right-sided people did saw what Stiglitz showed in his work and do not agree at least on the basic points that regulations can be beneficial and that a stimulus program well designed can work, they're either deluded and stupid or they have what we may call good incentives to not say what they really think.

Of course, no one here wants collective farms, as Krugman says; it's about finding where we can allow intervention and it's more complex than saying never.

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing Again I'm not against all intervention. Krugman said the almost 800 billion stimulus should have been much bigger to work. That a second round of 1,5 trill stimulus would solve things. And others say debt doesn't matter much. Just print more money indefinitely. Don't worry about inflation. I disagree. So does history. Stimulus and consumption does not create lasting growth. Opposite. Production of needed goods/services creates growth. US out of Great Dep only AFTER WW2 -47-48.

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

By the way, I'm not avoiding the ball to attack the man... I told you that if you just look at the sources, it's much likelier than Schiff makes mistakes because he's not knowledgeable enough in economics to see where the ideas he sustains fail than for Krugman or Stiglitz to make an error because of that same reason... There have always been questions about when the ad verecundiam is rightly used, but the issue is just about sources and the likeliness of a bold mistake.

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing Again u make dismissals of Schiff without much meat on the bone at all.

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

I'm dismissing them on the basis of their name; I dismiss them as reliable sources. If those people want recognition, they'd have to show where new keynesians fail theoretically and why it's a failure... but I don't see that, all I see is them doing what Summers called Ketchup economics: after seeing that two quarters equals one full bottle of ketchup, they conclude markets are efficient. The problem is that if I try to apply that to reality, it doesn't work exactly as they say.

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing "They" have shown this over and over for many decades. So has history. U lost me on the ketchup bottle. Don't know what u mean there. The market is the least unjust world system. Collectivism, socialism, big government, the well meaning government, doesn't work.

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

Friedman was also mistaken on many things... I don't know if you realized, but the guy was convinced like Lucas that the Fed was enough to control all big crises, leaving only minor ones to face. Apparently, it's not true: you may happen to get into a situation wherein negative nominal rates would be required, but you can't get that.

Krugman thought like Friedman until he did the maths of it. In 1997, he published a paper that corrected his own mistake.

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing Friedman explained how the founder of the Fed wanted it to intervene to prevent deflation. But he died. And deflation is what happened in the Great Depression. The Fed was quoted at the time saying they had to save their gold reserves for a real crisis. And decreased money supply when they should have done the opposite. I think libertarians have the best explanations and solutions on these issues as well. I'm sure K-man and the Stig have plenty of interesting knowledge though.

[Mystefystisk]

@Mystefystisk Roosevelts stimuli didn't do much good either. Market forces, wisdom of crowds, incentives to make an effort for oneself loved ones, w rewards for it. Consequences for not being useful or working hard. Th few needing help is better aided by priv disability insurance, priv charities. I guess one can't avoid some being poorer. Point is to lift the whole pop so even poor ppl have adequate health and prosperity, opportunities. poor in capit countr better than middle class in socialism

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing On interest rates. The Fed w A Greenspan, Bill Clinton housing policies, big spenders Bush, Obama.Greenspan way too LOW rates when they should've been RAISED earlier. Greenspan said that if the excess houses were destroyed, it be the cheapest most effective solution. Ofc not polit desirable. Well, as Schiff said. Cheap housing was the ONE benefit of this boom and bust. Resources should've been spent better. But destroy the one ben? Gov=bad,corrupt allocator, populus/business=good

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

You're really funny... You know, some people say the rule is market doing well and corrections being the exception; the actual truth is the market working is the exception and corrections and regulations, the rule.

The only manner you can reach any sensible conclusion approaching market efficiency, it's by considering economics only in real terms and by making considerable assumptions. If you want your market to yield optimal result, you need it to be perfect...

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing Socialist countr have taken interventionist centralplanning to tragic results. The notion that the market is immoral and politicians know best. While countries with the most economic freedom and market forces have prospered. U have no idea what free market forces are do u? The population in sum shaping and rewarding what's needed, punishing th not needed. Continuously ALL THE TIME. Meaning less brutal corrections. As when big gov w infiltrating special interests create boom-bust

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

I have an idea of what's a free market... this is why I'm telling you it needs regulation. You're computing your models in real terms which is why you don't see how it can fail.

There are costs associated with many things... verifying the level of effort of your workers, adjusting prices and wages, adjusting the schedules and menus, etc. Upfront, these will inexorably produce surpluses in different markets.

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing I am for law and order. But against big gov, big regulations. It hinders competition. Spec interests dominate them. Yes, reality is usually a good judge don't think? Models much less certain. Costs? Big gov! To little use, even hinders investment and workers where actually needed. Inefficient outcomes? BIG GOV! Most anything the private sector does better. Psychology, motivation important. US had huge growth in wealth BEFORE income tax, the Fed, big gov. Why?

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

Why are these things important? Because, by definition, they force inefficient outcomes -- and better for your point on reward: it involves an undeserved, yet given, punishment for things which are actually needed.

I may see willing, competent and capable individuals who do not work and have not for months and the simple reason is that the market won't and can't produce the circumstances favorable to their hiring -- and that, even in a perfectly competitive market.

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing What punishment? On what? Are u saying gov provides better than businesses what ppl need? Socialist dictatorship? Soviet Union? Countr w more economic freedom are happier, higher living standards, more income, rich get richer, poor get richer even faster! Income mobility. NO, in a truly free market jobs are plenty, opportunities likewise. BUT ppl can't demand high wage or even job at all in cat w no customers, no need. Now, gov pays them w taxdollars. Not based on need!

[Mystefystisk]

@Mystefystisk And in free market society wage against wage, costs, etc, are more balanced continuously and more fairly, than when special interests dominate big gov. As they do w fierce and moneyspending effort since big gov is huge temptation as it has huge powers and budgets to target to ones advantage. Also gov good intentions often ends up in bad, unjust results. They lack competence and neutrality. Population have neutrality, business have competence. The market finds solutions better

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

You are really deluded. I'm not tossing up a dice and trying to sustain an idiotic rhetoric about social justice as if it was in any manner going to provide a better output; I am telling that your beloved democracy and freedom rely on an associative dynamics, that market not only will not provide them, but will come to threaten both, all the while providing individuals with the wrong incentives, producing less than optimal results.

Stiglitz's work is pretty damn clear about it.

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing I think u attack the man and not the ball. And I think almost opposite of ur claims is true. About clarity: I think people reading ur lines find them as I do, very UNCLEAR, vague. Same w Stiglitz, although I haven't seen much from him, I admit. U've had many lines here to start talking factual and concretely. Still waiting. Same w Stiglitz, still haven't seen much meat on the bone there either. Let's agree to disagree. Im' not for majority tyranny but a wise constitution btw. 

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

The one who have interests in this isn't government officials and it's not about corruption, it's about providing the society with the limits it requires to prevent major issues, sustain effort, grant people with a minimum of humanely acceptable conditions -- not only because it's what's humane, but even more so because the market will otherwise waste human resources. Why? Because people won't behave with perfect rationality and information isn't perfectly shared between parties.

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing Gov officials are humans too. For good and bad. They're not angels. As private sector aren't angels either. The least unjust playing field is my point. Based on needed skills, effort. Ofc ppl have different amounts of information. Choking the private sector is no remedy for that. To lift everyone is the point. Not have away w personal property and have everyone have the same income after taxes. Do u want that? Pure dictatorship? Communism? Talk about waste of resources!

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

The market won't find better solutions: it will create wasteful surpluses of workers, divide our society, threaten our political stability, increase crime rates and it will in this process be harmful to the development of all too precious humans which are the basis of economy.

What Stiglitz showed without the slightest of doubt is that markets alone can never be Pareto efficient: this means you can improve upon with regulations and interventions.

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing Wrong! I don't know what Stiglitz is to have shown and where. Ur free to link. Prof Steve Horwitz shows in this 3 min vid and in 1 hour summary at same site, u'll find it easily, the site is learnliberty. org, that in recent decades the rich get richer, AND the poor get richer even faster! Income mobility, DECREASING inequality. 1971-91, 1975-95?, 1996-2005 (including an econ crisis). For US. Basically same other Western develop countr. The link: youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W­8

[Mystefystisk]

@Mystefystisk Ppl get richer over their lifetime. And ppl in the poorest 20% one year, are not all in that bracket 5 years on. Most have moved up! When there is an econ crisis/recession fewer move less up, but still over half! Also the ppl in the top 20% richest are not all still in that bracket a few years on. Moved down. Also the whole list (the cake) moves up making it harder to move one bracket up, but they have still become richer. Thanks to market forces! And not too much big gov.

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

A totally free market will never meet the requirements the assumptions asserts in the neoclassical models of economy -- those which tells the market is efficient. Because they're inherently imperfect, they will never yield a Pareto efficient outcome. In very simple terms, you can, without harming the situation of any single other individuals, improve the efficiency of it.

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing Who says a totally free market? And it's NOT "free", it's shaped and steered by the population in total! And not too much special interest w more power than they deserve. The market is the most efficient there is! Nirvana may come in far future w enough evolution. But by then no gov/rulers will exist. What u and maybe Stiglitz are talking about are degrees of destructive socialist dictate. Or can u finally be concrete about what fantastic regulations u talk?

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

And in your freer markets, wages aren't more balanced and they're not more fairly distributed. It's not what reality tells me. The more you get away from laissez-faire, the more equal the distribution becomes; the more you get toward regulations, the less volatile the market becomes.

The US is the least interventionist society in the big industrialized countries and ever since they begun reducing governmental interventions, money got stuck at the top: no tickle down effect.

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing They'll be more balanced in such society AND in countr w at least some amount of these marketforces history shows they ARE! Steve Horwitz link. The more equal? U mean socialist dictatorship w no real personal prop, equal wages for all? Meaning we're all equally oppressed and poor, hooraay?! Acc to Dan Mitchell Norway have more econ freedom than US! US=HUGE bureaucracy,spec interests, corruption,waste,inefficiency.­US wealth was created w small regulations, small gov, thriving bus

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing Free market forces, incl OFC law/order/basic gov, DOES mean better off for the poorest! Socialism=opposite. Governmental interventions HAVE INCREASED in the US! youtube.com/watch?v=iVAybRTmIy­w and returntocommonsensesiteDOTcom/­dp/legal.php and youtube.com/watch?v=WsocIoelwb­s&feature=related

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing And check this hot fresh link: blogs.forbes.com/danielmitchel­l/

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing Few ppl have their dreamjob. Still one has to work. Hopefully have good colleges,hobbies,friends,famil­y. High standard of liv. Not have their EARNED wealth cut down by gov tragic incompetent powerabuse.Least unjust is system where NEEDED skills are rewarded, and effort. NOT who is infiltrating and colluding w gov th most. Poor in rich capitalist countr are better off than middle class in big gov countries. Liberty isn't Nirvana, but th least unjust system.Far future=even less gov

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

An unfettered market is more volatile and more prone to economic issues than one which is regulated -- of course, I totally agree with you that it may not be regulated properly; it has to be if you want to make up for market imperfections.

[Mystefystisk]

@KrugmanTheKing Negative and positive externalities ofc. Market failures.But most often gov solution instead, means WORSE outcome. Check Coase theorem.U have much too positive view of what gov can do and does thru history. Regulations, laws are fine if they don't hinder liberty of ppl not harming others and their liberty. But regul are influenced by special interests, incl bureaucrats and politicians themselves. Friedman wanted to abolish the Fed btw. Give school vouchers to choose school.

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

You need perfectly rational individuals, with perfect information and perfect competition. This will not and cannot happen in reality... and it's the only argument you can hold against a neokeynesian analysis: the only damn reason why they think market are more efficient is the conviction that intervention necessarily leads to distortion and this is considered on the basis that a perfect equilibrium is the clear tendency. People must be rational in this model.

[KrugmanTheKing]

@Mystefystisk

So, what you're showing us here is that you either are a genius who can refute those thinkers or that you are yet another right-sided deluded man who basically side with people without giving a single go at questioning.

[Mystefystisk]

Some try to paint Norway as systemic rolemodel. Give credit to socialism or Labour Party for it being among th wealthiest in th wrld. I DISAGREE! I live in Norway too.Plenty of things government is holding th nation back at. Healthcare mediocre, education, roads, railways, increasing number of poor children (rich country standards). Small businesses.N. has centuries been rich, engineering prowess, peaceful, HUGE resources for small pop, powerful allies, markets. Despit Labour P to large degree

[Mystefystisk]

@Mystefystisk If u look at Greece, US, EU, Eurozone fiasco, u see "the Scandinavian/EU Model" failing! Bc. Norw is so OVERFLOWING w wealth/resources, th gov can do many destructive things wo th majority being TOO much affected. Media keep them in th dark also. Small weak groups however...N. should perfom much better! Other govs in between Labour, parliament, thriving business trad, have their share of why so wealthy. Norw some econ freedom yes, but BIG government=destructive corrupt influence

[vincentca2004]

You want to know about moral failings, go to any ex soviet union country and see what it does morally to the people. Corruption rampant and people with no hope of a better life no matter where you study or what you do. Then i would like those same people to say capitalism is immoral. Inflation and intervention from central banks and governments is what has destroyed free market capitalism, not the people. Get corporations out of governments and bring back sound money. Then you can prosper again.

[rainzoro]

moral failing of CAPITALISM?

you think such moral failing can't be observed in any other social structure?

[jojean789]

@rainzoro he said he thinks that ? no

[stater68]

Its funny how Joes considers the coercive force of government as moral.

[AoEnigMoonxPhase]

(off topic) Jacque Fresco- Search for Venus Project & Zeitgeist Movement! Beyond Poverty, Politics, Crime & War. A world w/out Money, is it even possible? Stop the Greed w/in the Government ! (Links are in my page!!) Act Now before it's to late !!!

[gunthaarz]

watch?v=Iv-ZCj1_HHI

[madashelldude]

of course they run the world, question is how. I don't have anything against someone being in charge if they are responsive to popular oversight and conduct themselves transparently. What needs to be changed is regulations because I yet have to see an alternative to the system that has worked anywhere else. I grew up in a communist country, so you have to forgive me if I am little bit skeptical about utopian solutions that have no track record of success.

[gunthaarz]

I grew up in a socialist country called Norway, which, contrary to popular belief can be both free and democratic and have a money economy allowing people to increase their personal wealth. We also have a relative free market economy, but thoroughly regulated. in Norway The workers party, Labour , became the largest party in 1927, took over our country in 1935 and were in power until 1965 and has been the largest party ever since. Norway was among the richest nations in 1965 before its "oil-age

[madashelldude]

I have a great respect for the Norwegian system but they have a central bank and the NOK is valued in a floating exchange rate system just like the euro or the dollar. The Central bank determines interest rates and pumps liquidity in the system just like anywhere else, except the value of Norwegian revenues is dictated by oil imports which unlike Qatar or the US is distributed throughout society. If anything, Norway is a proof that Central Banking can work 4 the people if managed right.

[madashelldude]

I meant to say oil exports from the north sea, of course.

[madashelldude]

another great thing the Norge Bank is doing is this stabilizaton fund - a fund of all major company stocks around the world - which largely determines the value of their currency on rainy days: if the world economy is doing good Norway is doing good even if they didn't have oil exports. I think that's the future of Central Banking, but make no mistake, it's still central banking and it's still debt financing, except the people take advantage of the spoils not an unaccountable corrupt elite.

[madashelldude]

en . wikipedia . org/wiki/Petroleum_Fund_of_Nor­way

[unfad1ng]

@gunthaarz

You cant cal Norway socialist.

Its a mix economy,

thaths why its democratic and free.

mixed economies can work pretty well.

[Mystefystisk]

@gunthaarz Nor has more ec freedom thanUS acc Dan Mitchell (Cato Inst). Don't rememb which year. That says sth ab US being more socialistic, big government than they were when they blossomed earlier. Nor has been among richest countr worldwide well over 100 years! Desp PMs claim oppositeNYspeech!Check Bairoch ao. NOT thanks to Labour Party! Resources, engineering trads, other Parties, small pop, big markets, peace.Labour P hold us BACK. Ppl dying in long lines cancer treatment, horr roads, edu,+

[gunthaarz]

Pretending that banks produce wealth is the biggest scam in history.

Banks just count production. Wealth is created elsewhere.

The audacity to even pretend we should believe the scam and fraud that the FED and banks should and could "LOAN" out to people money and value they NEVER produced, AND on top charge interest for it AS WELL as demanding the money back...

Old school economists like Stiglitz have no solutions and delude themselves this generation still believe the old pr (propaganda)

[madashelldude]

No one has ever said banks produce wealth. Banks pool resources in a capitalist system. Central banking and fractional reserve banking originates from the need to invest in projects that are beyond the cash reserves of any single individual. Before fractional reserve banking was invented in 1694, the only way large projects could be undertaken was investments from the crown ie. taxes. In 1694 William of Orange was broke and half his merchant fleet sunk by the french so he created the BOE.

[gunthaarz]

You are mistaken. Money can enter the economy through the issuing of currency without having to resort to fractional reserve lending in many ways, the tally stick system was an excellent example of that. Furthermore, the rest of the world does not seem to have benefited as much from the BoE system you applaud so vehemently and play the apologetic for.

[madashelldude]

He raised money for the rebuilding of the navy by granting a charter for a privately owned central bank that people could buy into via common stock. This allowed Britain to pool the private resources of its citizens and jumpstart the whole industrial revolution by building hundreds of new ships:everything from the textile industry to the coal industry started between 1694-1700 in Britain thanks to private investments from the Bank of England. This is founding idea of modern capitalism.

[gunthaarz]

that "people" _could_ "buy into" via "common" stock???????????? There's to much here to even begin... What kind of "people" do you think could buy this "common" stock???? And how "common" was it to own such stock at the time you think??? Do you know how the british textile industry came about??? Say that again please: exactly What jumstarted european economy again? for whom was it a success and when did it start being that for whom????

[gunthaarz]

The british textile industry came about through the destruction of the indian textile industry. The word Mattress actually comes from the name Madras according to many etymologists. Furthermore indian textile manufacturers were destroyed and they were forced into cotton production and raw materials. effectively pushing the indian masses into poverty. Great system for some yes. especially those who can afford to buy "common stock" yes.

[madashelldude]

watch?v=4jLmKbwKcMc

[retsep81]

Yeah socialism is much better than capitalism and has never gone bad... well... except for...

Nazi Germany & Fascist Italy (Nazi = National *Socialist* German Workers' Party...12+ million dead)

Soviet Union (50+ million dead)

Mao Tse Tung (70+ million dead)

Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge (2+ million dead)

Castro, Kim Jong Il, etc

Huzzah for socialism! You know, when Hitler is only the 3rd worst socialist you really have a problem.

[madashelldude]

I don't think that's the choice he is talking about. It's clear from this and the rest of the videos that he's talking about EU style capitalism as an alternative.

[gunthaarz]

US population is so completely brainwashed that it's impossible to conduct a discussion. they do not comprehend what socialism is, their schools and TV has so completely emptied all knowledge from any of the terms that its almost pointless to conduct a discussion with any americans. You do know that we consider your universities and academics laughable, dont you?