Not once did this Zionist drone who made this video bring up the Ponzi scheme Money supply hijacked by Rothschilds & the central banking system, without that piece of information everything else is pointless
proud to say ive only voted for nader ,repigs and dems have both failed and those who support the 2 corprate party system .need to check them selfs and try to think for themselfs
A deregulated economy increases the gap between the rich and the poor. A flat tax intensifies it enormously.
But social balance is vitally important, because without it any community collapses in the long run. Therefore a fair amount of wealth redistribution is simply necessary.
It seems that even guys like Warren Buffett have understood this.
@thofou76 The point is that the government should not be the one determining how that income is redistributed. I'd disagree with your assesment of Warren Buffet understanding that. Warren Buffet's company, owes around $1 billion in back taxes. So he apparently doesn't believe his money should be redistributed, just everyone elses. It's very easy to be generous with other people's money.
1. The modern TEA Party movement started in 2007, not 2009, and was an outgrowth of the Ron Paul R[evol]ution.
2. Not all TEA Party members want to see a Flat Tax. Some like the idea of a consumption tax and even others want no income tax at all either replaced by a 1% nonexempt transaction tax or replaced by useage fees.
3. I know this was a brief overview, but monitary policy is the elephant in the room. Even if we ake the right path if the FED exists we are doomed.
Ironic that the Occupy Wall Street is considered progressive when all they do is do drugs and sit on their unemployed asses yapping about obscure crap like social justice
@islamicpancakemix The recession? You mean the tech bubble bursting under Clinton? 9/11 that was completely planned and coordinated under Clinton? The Housing market crash that was largely caused by the government forcing sub-prime lending to people that couldn't afford homes, that all happened pre-Bush?
The same recession that has gotten WORSE under Obama, causing the unemployment rate to be higher now than when Obama took office?
@SquireSCA wtf (w=why) are you asking me all these questions? Bush inherited a balance budget and a surplus from Clinton. Bush didn't know what to do about intelligence reports about a possible AlQeda attack coming our way. Obama inherited a mess that had not yet peaked to it's greatest climax. Let's just keep talking about islam and the middle east. I'll plan on buying one of those books.
@islamicpancakemix Clinton didn't balance the budget. The Republican Congress led by Newt did. Clinton veto'd the Balanced Budget Amendment, twice, and only signed it the third time they brought it to him because polls showed that most Americans wanted it.
@islamicpancakemix Clinton didn't balance the budget. The Republican Congress led by Newt did. Clinton veto'd the Balanced Budget Amendment, twice, and only signed it the third time they brought it to him because polls showed that most Americans wanted it.
@ 5:12 'It (Modern Progressivism) imposes extensive & counterproductive programs of redistribution that cannot be supported by a stagnant economy'
Just a second, what are the banks & the stock exchanges doing around the clock 365.25 days per year. Isn't this casino trading system exactly 'extensive & counterproductive redistribution' that actually caused the stagnation.
When holding some money (if you have any) one does not actually know what he has. It is not value ... but other peoples' debts.
the points are ideal, but have been systematically disregarded because the incentives that the "Classic Liberal" paradigm presents. deforestation, air pollution, water pollution, degradation of soil by mega farming; these are all products of the classic liberal system, because--
--those those who participate, succeed, and achieve wealth/resources are able to shirk any ideal constraints of the system which do not aid their private interests.
a capable, unbiased, efficient entity is necessary to keep in check those participants in our system.
'Notwithstanding the provisions relating to repayment by Installments as above, the Bank reserves the right at its absolute discretion to vary the number and/or amount of Installments at any time or from time to time and in such manner as it deems fit.'
This cannot be a Contract at all. It is as if when you buy s.th. from the Shopping Mall the Shopping Mall to 'reserve the right at its absolute discretion' to call you the next day & to want some more money.
Let's have a High Frequency Trading supercomputer at the stock exchange, attached to it through optical 1000 GB Network. The transactions it performs are within nanoseconds, following some algorithm of an expert trading system.
Question No.1: How many supercomputers have such competitive advantageous connection to the stock exchange.
Where is the free market in the present day financial system. One gets loan (chooses a bank after the supply & demand). After paying the 2nd installment his salary is raised & as a result the bank raises the interest rate on the loan. The increase of the salary improves the solvency, hence reduced risk to the debt & the interest rate should be DECREASED.
The arbitrary increase of the interest rate by the bank is much more like embedding the whips rather than a free market.
Global Progressive, New World Order, Crony Capitalism = Family Farms-GONE, Manufacturing-GONE, American Jobs-GONE, Dollar-WORTHLESS, Functional Government-NONEXISTANT, Freedoms-GONE (Nafta, Cafta, UN, Treaty of the Sea, Eminet Domain for Private Development, TSA, Patriot Act, ATF Gun Running, Federal Government Suing State Governments, 1000 foreign military bases helping open new markets for Global Corporations.)
and Government intrusion into every facet of our lives).
So even when the man of ability creates a fortune, that same fortune is enjoyed by those who do not do anything to gain the fortune. Since we don't live in a vacuum, we need to find a way to balance the standards. Taxing the rich higher than taxing the poor is a balancing act, it is not class warfare. Taxing the rich at a fair rate isn't class warfare, it acts as a buffer towards fair balance. The man of ability doesn't create the wealth in a vacuum but in a public arena that is shared by all.
This video is utter failure in my view. Even though I used to be a strong supporter of someone like Rand, I've learned when given power and advantage to the man of ability, there comes a point where that same power and advantage corrupts the whole system overall. For example, take a man of ability who created vast wealth by doing something productive. He deserves his fortune, but surely his children don't. Yet we see children inheriting vast fortunes, while the middle class and poor perish.
I do agree with libertarianism to a certain extent, but I've realized we don't live in a vacuum. Since there is one earth, resources need to be shared rather than follow social Darwinism that destroys anyone who is weak. This kinda of negligence on the part of libertarians is a total disregard for their neighbors who share the world with them. People who have ability shouldn't be held back, but we also have to look out for people who create no wealth, yet are multimillionaires: Romney!
@MrSmart0ne Like I said, we don't live in a vacuum. We have a responsibility towards the poor and the unable. It is natural that some people are just more talented than others. Taking that fact into consideration and the fact that the man of ability dies literally, his wealth should be divided equally. If we let social Darwinism run it's course, there will always be a very small minority with all power and wealth. That's nature. To balance the natural imbalance, a democratic government exists.
The video is very objective till the point the author expresses opinion that one of the points is right and the other wrong. Both libertarianism and progressivism have their shortcomings and strong points. The blame that the current condition of the American economy is due to the wealth redistribution elements of governemnt economy policy is very strange, having in mind that the the crisis was caused by the shortcomings of a not enough regulated free market.
The Tea Party views government as the problem, while Occupy Wall St. Views corporations as the problem. Well...what is the problem?
Its that people have less, or have to work harder to get the same amount. Young people can't find jobs. They fear for their respective futures and are lashing out at institutions that are easy to blame. Political leaders are trying to capitalize on this fear and have formed movements from them. Remember that no one knows the solution.
Paul is no genius about economics. He strongly believes in a widely discredited theory of economics called "Austrian school of economics." It once again relies on the idea businesses should be allowed to do what they will, and that they will naturally play fair. It neglects the idea that government is not the only thing that places restrictions on free trade -- businesses are capable of doing that without using government restrictions. (look at OPEC, DeBeers, and other cartels).
The people who arre attracted to ron paul speak more than any statement of ron paul, if nazis, racists, Jew haters, and pedophiles all find you their candidate, yoou must not be about freedom at all
@Scottit "Widely discredited" might be a bit strong. However, it is a relative fringe economics system.
I said "Ron Paul is an advocate" and then mentioned things that he specifically wants to do, things that this video also advocates. This video assumes that businesses will "do the right thing" and not participate in collusion/monopoly. Ron Paul honestly believes that the only reason that businesses have unfair competition is government interference and not due to those other reasons.
@hoshisabi You did not answer, which shows your lack of substance & misunderstanding of Austrian School, which is not fringe & more than a century old.
See Adam Smith, Fredrick Bastiat, misesorg & feeorg.
@Scottit Perhaps the fact that you resort to ad hominem attacks in every reply you make to me demonstrates more than me playing your game and reading YOUR web pages with YOUR opinions.
I'll just point to the prevailing mainstream theories of economics. You can go do a search on "Austrian School of Economics" and count the number of results that say "fringe." (including wikipedia, I may add.) The fact you think Adam Smith agrees with you proves you don't know much about him, either.
@hoshisabi Why do you falsely think that I use ad hominem (personal) attacks. I asked for you to support/explain, or for links/sources on your claim that the Austrian School (based on history & reality)is wrong. Just claiming fringe & discredited is not credible. Demonizing accusation
Those web links or opinions aren't "mine," but of respected economists.
How do you think that Adam Smith is not a classical liberal economist (aka Austrian)? The so-called mainstream do not like him.
@Scottit Fine, I interpretted you saying I "lacked substance" as a personal attack. If it was not, then it was not.
In the meantime, I suspect you should read more of the websites you linked, and see how they claim that Adam Smith's philosophy is too simplistic.
Those "respected economists" will of course defend their own opinions on their own websites, however, the very nature of them not being mainstream (as you called them) defines them as fringe. Not an opinion, check a dictionary.
@hoshisabi The "lacking substance" is about tangents & irrelevancies, without directly addressing the points at hand.
Adam Smith might have been too simple. So what? He was one of the 1st economists. Some of his main ideas (invisible hand, self interest, pricing, etc.) are used by many economists.
"Mainstream" or orthodox economics is not a School of Thought & is a loose term, mostly coinciding w/Keynesian & neoclassical. The latter split-off from classical, as did the Vienna School
@Scottit As a side note: Originally, the term "Austrian School" was a derogatory term for a group of economists who happened to be from Austria. The CREATION of that label was the result of them being fringe. Ignoring the validity of their opinions, it's not a stretch to call them fringe. I really doubt you actually disagree with me on that. Either we're arguing semantics or you're just arguing to argue. In either case, character limits + youtube environment rarely lends itself to discour
@hoshisabi Your 2 items on are not wrong, but did add to the discussion.
1.The origin of "Austrian School" as derogatory is irrelevant & no longer seen as that. It achieved more use in the 60s, usually as the Vienna School when there was an offshoot to what became the Chicago School w/much input by Milton Friedman. Both have about a 95% agreement.
2. You seem fixated in using "fringe", which does not mean radical or wrong, and without you elaborating on what the fringe thoughts are.
@Scottit I'm just fixated in that it's not the prevailing theory. It's a theory, it's not proven since it's darned near impossible to prove economic theories, and well, it makes it that much more difficult to speak with authority "It's right." Well, no. It's not dead-on-right. Of course, it isn't necessarily wrong either.
I do, however, categorize someone who is fixated on it as "the only solution to all our problems" as either wrong or misguided. That's one of the arguments against (cont)
@hoshisabi Ron Paul that I'm making. He seems to think that this one thing would solve all of our problems. I don't care if he were an advocate of Keynesian economics. There's no simple solution to anything, ever.
Someone else said "Ron Paul is an economic genius" and I replied that he's not a genius, he's fixated on this one solution. That's why we're even having this discussion, which the video neither mentioned Ron Paul or economic theories. (It just tries to convince us that OWS=bad)
@Scottit You are starting to sound like a missionary on a doorstep. So convinced that he has all of the answers, he doesn't really care when the person he's talking to isn't convinced as well.
The reason why it's not the prevailing theory is that not everyone is convinced. Just telling me that you are won't fix it. Just saying that protection and honesty will happen won't work.
The fact is there's no easy answer no matter how much you're in love with the idea that there is.
@Scottit No, obviously you cannot be convinced that you haven't found the solution to everything. If you haven't understood anything I've said until now, it's not worth my time to add anything further.
Yes, Paul is a GENIUS with economics, but he is deadly wrong in thinking a large number of people on the planet want to eliminate us and western civilization. I'd even vote for that jackass Newt before Paul because of this alone, BUT whomever gets in office NEEDS TO APPOINT RON PAUL RIGHT GODDAMNED THEN to run the economy (in Paul's own way, however he wants to). If not, impeach the president.
Oh, and most teabaggers are neocon reactionaries, not "classical liberals." FFS the teabaggers were willing to vote sarah fucking palin as president. LOL.
@fountainherz As if you should talk with you irrational vote knowing about his lack of experience, his relationships with Bill Ayers and racist Reverend Wright. We know now he blatantly lied to the world about his relationship with Bill Ayers as they worked together for yrs and his books. If you read his books and voted for him your an idiot. If you plan to vote for him again your stupidity is treacherous. About those birthers the truth about his citizenship is getting him tossed on GA ballot
@fountainherz the tea party was started by libertarians. the neo-cons are the bullshitters here. i hate to use the true scotsman, but im a an-anti war libertarian tea partier.
@fountainherz "most teabaggers are neocon reactionaries"
Now why bring sexual activities into this? The subject of the video is fiscal... Though the contract portion does allow for a gay civil union, but that's just a consequence of liberty.
Anyway, I'm certain there are plenty of OWS people who like to teabag as well, so your comment is misplaced.
I take issue with the point regarding the motive of governement invention in private contracts. The government is acting based on experience that without active regulation of contracts there are multiple negative externatities on third parties which will not be voluntarily compensated for by the 2 involved parties. in order to prevent these negative externalities government regulates the deals and actions of persons.
@Sydwayman "Tea Party- Want to see Obama's birth certificate again" Which one of the over 4000 TEA Parties asked? Most don't care, as there are bigger (government) issues.
"Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Socialist" If you believe that, that is YOUR right. Odd how you want to project this onto others, though.
"Stop spending... unless it affects me" All spending effects everybody... so don't just limit yourself to when it effects (or affects) you.
@CaptainBill22 Are the rich rich only because they worked hard and were successful? Is it the only reason? Can't one get successful by gaining a huge inheritance, making a scheme on the financial markets, speculating, using the monopolic position of his enterprise, stealing, cheating, blackmailing and so on? Yes one can get rich via hard work, having good ideas, running a successful business - but it is only one part of the equation...
1) This is not the economic argument the Tea Party were making two years ago.
2) It's not a "perceived differential" between economic power, it's an Empirical one. It's ludicrous deny that there is an gulf between the economic power of the rich and the poor
3) The flat tax only serves the rich. The rich don't need government funded education, for example, but that's because they can afford to pay for it anyway. For economic mobility, the poor do.
@dafedge2007 "1) This is not the economic argument the Tea Party were making two years ago." But it was the argument that the people who later became the TEA Parties (plural, please) used to get W.J.Clinton to lie and say "The era of big government is over".
Now, if 15 to 20 years if this argument isn't enough, we can go back to 1920, but that'd require some history lessons.
There's one more blatant difference: you wont find any video like this one from a "progressive" POV. "Progressives" - although rational this might sound - are just the opposite: emotional like childs. It is all about envy and hatred. And the reason is simply that they ARE children. At least in their minds. They WANT to remain life-long children, and they demand the government to perform the role of their parents.
Is it cowardess before life? Degeneration of the masses during wealthy times?
all young people should be liberals, all older people know better ---In other words when you dont have anything you want to 'share' other people's stuff
Funny how those who criticize this vid only does that. Call it propaganda, misrepresentation, etc. Please tell us why this is so.... It is easy to say you don't agree, but more difficult to say why.... no?
@aceflashheart Misrepresent? Illustrate the inaccuracies, if you can. Which you can't. Because there were no inaccuracies.
And yes, there's plenty of fear, especially amongst those who know where this will leave America. That's why we're fighting; because we know how this story ends. Hint: it's not a happy ending for 99% of America.
@ToxinMortalis Where is the mention of the massive failres of lazze-faire neo-liberalism that sparked the occupy wall street movement in the first place? OWS was never about asking for or demanding more goverment support, it was about the rank unfairness of some of America's wealthiest people getting a bailout when they screw up, because they claim they are essential to the economy? If free market principles have been abandoned to that extent (cont.)
@aceflashheart "OWS was never about asking for or demanding more goverment support" Somebody should tell the protestors that. Many of them got off message when they aren't parroting they people leading the chants.
"unfairness of some of America's wealthiest people getting a bailout when they screw up" We agree.
So, should we choose to empower government to reign in the "1%"? Or should we use the power of the individuals to do it? That's the difference between TEA and OWS
@ToxinMortalis (Remember Bush: "we must abondon the free market to save it", lawl) why is it only the wealthy who qualify for bailouts? Why not a middle class bailout too? Is it unreasonable to expect, with all the crazy things that the goverment spends money on (Iraq, Lybia, space lasers) that some of it could be spent on the wellfare of the people.
That was the core complaint of the OWS movement. Instead this video make it out like we just hate freedom for some reason (cont.)
@ToxinMortalis Though personally i'm not quite sure the tea party vision of 'freedom' is particulary sophisticated (unlimited freedom for those with capital, and for those without the freedom to accept whatever terms are dictated to them).
@aceflashheart It appears that "Keep the government out of my life" is too complicated for you. Pity. Enjoy your desire for economic slavery. May your chains rest lightly upon you.
@ToxinMortalis What a non-response. Fox news has got you well trained. When confronted with a liberal position that isn't a strawman you immediatly collapse into non-sequiter.
Also, it's you not me who loves "wealth more than liberty" as you'll vote for the worst kind of crypto-fascists and crackpots as long as they offer you a tax break.
@aceflashheart Your inability to understanding the concepts of freedom, liberty, or personal responsibility has nothing to do with me being "trained." Your own projection betrays you.
I hope your masters treat you well. It appears that you have already grown thankful for their footprints upon your back. Do you also enjoy the scraps they dole out that keeps you on their plantation and voting for them? It appears you do.
@ToxinMortalis No fair minded conservative would say this video impartially represented the differences between OWS and the Tea Party. The fact that you see this video and think "yup, this is exactly what's what" doesn't 'betray' the fact that you've been trained to reject uncomfortable information, it's just the stark evidence of it.
@aceflashheart "Trained to reject uncomfortable information." Again, your projections are quite amusing. I was quite liberal in my youth, then I grew up, saw the world, and pulled my head from my rectum. Alas, you cannot say the same.
If you insist, however, please keep telling me how ignorant, terrible, and brainwashed you "think" I am. I doubt much thinking is actually involved on your part. You would be, honestly, quite accurate if you said those things to your mirror.
@aceflashheart Someday, if you practice really, really, hard, you might become half as clever as you think you are. I doubt you have the will to do so, as that kind of work ethic would mark you a conservative.
I doubt you would survive being ejected from the thought bubble.
@ToxinMortalis I don't have a master. I have a goverment, chosen by a democratic vote of the people, which provides certain services to me in return for taxes. Just the same as you (if you even have a job that is...)
The difference between us is not that you are free and I am a slave, it's that we are both free, but i'm not a delusional narcissist who views himself as a freedom fighter against a tyranical (yet paradoxically, also ineffectual?) goverment.
@aceflashheart "i'm not quite sure the tea party vision of 'freedom' is particulary sophisticated (unlimited freedom for those with capital, and for those without the freedom to accept whatever terms are dictated to them)"
You forgot the part where the people without capital are allowed to create their own wealth and keep it, and the poor are able to work their way out of their position.
And, of course, a constitutional protection of liberties, to fight agains oppression.
It's kind of misleading to say unemployment has risen since Obama took office, as if he is to blame. It was rising before he took office, it continued to rise for the first year of his term and it's been slowly lowering since Oct 2009, otherwise known as two straight years of lowering. Yes, it's a slow lowering, but why are conservatives so scared to be honest?
1. Having a robin hood tax like Zakat takes care of the poor.
2. Government regulation prevents businesses from acting unethically. If Bush kept regulations on businesses just like Clinton, we wouldn't have had the massive financial collapse of banks, the $700 billion bailout or the debt crisis that Obama is trying to get us out of. However, since congress is bought out by Wall Street and AIPAC, Obama has no real ability to change anything. He's been a sitting duck most of his presidency.
@Azamspazam91 "Having a robin hood tax like Zakat takes care of the poor" You do know that in Robin Hood it was the government who did the taking of money from the poor? The Robin Hood character would be much closer to the ideas of the TEA Parties: stop the government from taxing everybody".
I won't touch the regulation part because the TEA Parties arent against them, they just would like the regulations to be more logical and effective, rather than punishing the agerage person.
@PopBogomil "to rob the poor and give the rich - Ayn Rand"
Interesting quote. Could you please site. The only Ayn Rand quote referring to Robin Hood I could find says that the legend's focus on need is a modern interpretation, whereas the legend's focus is really on property rights and Robin Hood is actually protecting the people's property rather than taking from the haves to give to the have-nots.
Now, your quote might me real, but you'll need to source it.
@bsabruzzo The qoute is from Atlas Shrugged. I don't remember the page of course and I don't own a copy. Of course, you can say that it is only a fiction, but it is not just a fiction - it is the representation of her philosphical ideals.
@PopBogomil "The qoute is from Atlas Shrugged" Thanks, I'll look it up.
Of course, it does depend on the character saying the line or whatever... Otherwise I'd have to believe Stephen King is a psychopathic killer and that Senator Webb from VA is a rapist.
It also depends on when the book was written, before or after the TV interviews.
@PopBogomil "The qoute is from Atlas Shrugged" Are you certain you got the quote correct?
"Robin Hood. ...He was the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. Well, I'm the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich – or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich" Ragnar Danneskjöld from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
Rand says the myth is wrong (as I mentioned), but this character mentioned the "unproductive" poor.
@PopBogomil Is that your quote? If so, it was a specific character who says it, thus attributable to that character, not the author...
But even if the author agrees, the entire quote isn't about ALL poor and ALL rich, but the "thieving poor", also known as unproductive, and the "productive rich", also known as job creators.
@bsabruzzo I think that this qoute is specific to libertarianism as a whole. In a lot of Rand's books and views there is a tendency to view all poor as deserving their faith and all rich as productivce, honest members of society. This generalization is of course false given the complexzity of our society and the huge role of chance in our lives.
@PopBogomil "In a lot of Rand's books and views there is a tendency to view all poor as deserving their faith and all rich as productivce" Possibly true but...
"I think that this qoute is specific to libertarianism as a whole" This isn't true. Using the lowercase, so it isn't the Libertarian Party, libertarians are a range of beliefs from left to right and from moderation to anarchy.
Most libertarians, like Milton Friedman, allow for this.
@PopBogomil "lot of Rand's books and views there is a tendency to view all poor as deserving their faith and all rich as productivce"
A number of Rand's interviews show her as not as bad as that. While most rich are productive (most have to work to achieve or maintain increased wealth), it can also be said that those who do nothing but take are not productive. Remember that Rand grew up in a communist/atheist country and had little experience but the colder aspects of life.
@PopBogomil I can suggest that in a Q&A session in 1976 Rand explains how capitalism is an idea of morality and how virtue is the proper way to obtain money.
(Video: Ayn Rand - Money and Morality from LibertyPen)
It seems that she addresses the "productive rich" idea there.
You can see in other interviews (Ayn Rand - The Pursuit of Happiness, Ayn Rand - Reason vs Force, and so on) that she puts reasoned morality over emotion, and rarely judges people based on thier wealth.
These guys are just a pro Zionist group wanting to get Obama out of office with the help of the racist intolerant christian right because Obama doesn't give overwhelming unanimous support to Israel. The facts are right but the presentation is skewed in favor of their specific narrow view point that very few people actually support.
Untrue. Proper governmental regulation should have been enough to catch one of Enron's DOZENS of scams. They simply were not being monitored properly. Also as for your "A few bad apples" argument....well if those "few bad apples" (and I disagree STRONGLY that there's only a few when profit is the only motivation) are powerful enough to sink the largest economy on the planet then that's simply not simply not acceptable. Regulation must remain and be strengthened.
@lschultz2001 One, they didn't sink the largest economy on the planet (govt. did). Two, there are always, always, always some way of getting around regulation. It's very easy. It doesn't take a lot of effort, but sometimes it does take creativity. What "proper" govt. regulation would've possibly stopped Enron from defrauding investors? Who's to say that Sarbanes-Oxley is any better? Indeed, it's even easier now.
@MaxxTheMerciless Enron, WorldCom, Goldman Sachs, all of these organizations failed AS CORPORATIONS, not as governments. They may have had government assistance, but they will continue aiming for government assistance ... you "Fix" the government once, they'll continually aim to fix it back.
Notice how we're talking about the activities of a corporation and its relationship with the government, yet the point of the video and the idea of progressive government is its relationship with PEOPLE?
@hoshisabi At this point you're talking about Crony Capitalism, where the govt. through subsidy, bailouts and other favors, picks winners and losers in spite of their performance in the marketplace (also known as mercantilism). No amount of regulation would help you here. In fact, quite the opposite.
@lschultz2001 In fact, one of the biggest problem is that the people monitoring them have been made weak over time by neglect of the regulations that did exist.
Every time the discussion comes up, people with ulterior motives pretend to care about classic liberalism and sucker a bunch of people that fall in love with the simplicity of it.
It ... might work in the ideal. But then, anarchy would be a perfect form of government, too, if it weren't for all the ways in that it's not.
The flaw in your arguments is that you embrace the utopian view of "classic liberalism" and the dystopian view of progressivism. With a utopia, the powerful will not band together to limit customer choice and information -- but in the real world they do. Government is not the only power that can shackle us, corporations can overpower the weak government and can enslave us just as easily.
I can use your argument style to claim monarchy is better than democracy: Less ideal people are needed.
@hoshisabi What you are talking about is anarchy not classic liberalism,Government uses force to make you bend to its rules,corporations cannot do that.
@olhsaoagpaigfbp Corporations can indeed use force. If the consumer can exert force on the company, as the video indicates, via lawsuits for incorrect behavior -- then a company can exert force on a consumer via that same vector... and given that they often have more money than us, they can often exert a greater force than a consumer.
Company tries something shady, recorse is court -- they have better lawyers, they win.
Company now just uses court as a weapon -- they still have better lawyers.
@hoshisabi Now again that would be government using the force,company should be able to legally pursue individual if he hurts them(i.e. steals/damages property,fraud...) and vice versa,company couldn't make a rule such us you need to have our license to do haircuts or transport this and that goods and than sue you and win in court,that wouldn't be classical liberalism.As for wining for simply having a better lawyer they can do that in any system.
@olhsaoagpaigfbp That's exactly my point: the video claims that only by removing restrictions will the company behave in good conscience versus the average citizen (consumer, employee, competitor).
I say that a weak government can't protect us from a gas company that uses substandard pipes that later explode, and then pay off the media to keep things quiet. Then continue unsafe practices.
@hoshisabi Well I say that government should be strong but limited,government should for instance make company which pipes exploded pay for damages and also punish them in a way that hurts them to discourage such behavior,but not mandate what pipes to use,that only opens door to corruption,like one company paying for their pipes to be made standard.
@MaxxTheMerciless Utopia is perfect no matter the system. "Classic liberalism" can lead to a banana republic.
You may try and create this idealistic government, but do you think that it works without constant monitoring and correction? Because all it takes is someone to not share your idealism to ruin EITHER government in EXACTLY the same way.
@hoshisabi Utopia is impossible. Perfection is impossible That's what I'm telling you.
There is no amount of regulation that would prevent corruption. What mitigates the effects of corruption is free market competition. Through regulations, govt. actually curtails competition by driving out newer, less-affluent competitors, because invariably it's larger companies that lobby govt. to establish regulations in the first place.
@MaxxTheMerciless What I'm saying is that regulation can help prevent SOME problems. You're telling me classic liberalism is superior because regulations are not enough to catch all corruption.
That's like saying "let's abolish all laws, since we're not able to prevent all crime." It's certainly better to live in a world with a law against murder, even if it doesn't prevent every murder, it prevents enough to make the law worthwhile.
@hoshisabi Regulations does not prevent problems. You have to understand how it works. For one, a regulation is not a law. Invariably, nobody goes to jail for violating regulations. Often there may be a fine, but fines are almost always challenged in the courts because they're almost always unfair. It's not as though you can look up EPA guidelines for a certain industrial factory at a local law library. And when you do find them, a great many are impossible, BY DESIGN, to obey.
@hoshisabi Invariably, more regulation actually breeds more corruption not only because it weeds out competitors, but it also protects the corrupt business practices of the companies in question. You could make the case that corruption actually thrives on regulation.
@MaxxTheMerciless You can't make the case that corruption thrives on regulation. Corruption thrives despite regulation, but corrupt regulation doesn't do its job.
FDIC insurance prevents a failed bank from losing my bank account, I'm in favor. Banks should not be able to gamble with the money from those insured accounts.
That's like using a pile of cash for fuel for a fire, and then claiming it on your fire prevention insurance.
@hoshisabi Corruption always thrives on regulation. This is because Regulation protects the very corruption the proponents of such things say they are trying to prevent. This is because you do not understand human nature. It's like trying to dam a river with rocks; the water is eventually going to go around it. Or, if you apply too much regulation, no water gets past, and you have undermined the whole purpose of what you intended to do.
@hoshisabi Corruption thrives on regulation PRECISELY because it obstructs newer competitors from entering the market. More would enter the market but abiding by regulations is cost prohibitive, and very few, if any, are logical or fair. This protects companies who are older and wealthier, who have armies of lawyers they're willing to pay to negotiate around these regulations and fines, from elements who would ensure their changing or destruction: Competition.
@hoshisabi Let me give you an example of how regulations keep new businesses out of the market. Suppose you want to set up an oil refinery in the USA to make gasoline with. GOOD LUCK. Thanks to Obama and the EPA, this is nearly impossible to do. You'll spend most of your working capital just to hire lawyers who will be searching for anything with which to move forward. You're spending money to go to hearings, pay lobbiests, all of which could've gone to building the plant and hiring workers
@MaxxTheMerciless Meanwhile, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP, they've already got their refineries going. They do not want to see you in action at all. That cuts into their share of the market, even if it's just a tiny bit in the beginning. When you could've put your money into innovations, making the fuel better and cheaper at the pump, hiring people, and so forth, your logistics is bogged down by regulations invented precisely to destroy it.
The regulation is to prevent our financial system from acting like a casino. Please watch "Meltdown" or "Inside job." You'll realize how much influence big companies have in persuading congress to pass deregulation; it benefits banks and big business at the expense of taxpayers and borrowers. The spiral continues downward because noone is STOPPING the Exploitation. Congress is controlled by big moneyy
@Azamspazam91 But you realize that it is precisely the opposite that's been happening. The reason why Exxon Mobil and others made record profits is precisely because of regulation. It's the big companies that want regulation, not the little guys, because regulations only stifle competition. But sadly, you will never understand this because you don't want to. You think it's evil greedy corporations that want to deregulate.
@MaxxTheMerciless Congress passed deregulation bills which allowed Shell BP and Exxon to act free of any interference. It is because of this deregulation that they were able to make their record profits.They already had the capital required to obtain expensive Iraqi and Libyan Oil contracts. Smaller companies were never a threat.
@Azamspazam91 Which regulations did they deregulate? Seriously, if you're going to continue this narrative, better have some facts available.
By the way, there's nothing wrong with record profits. Who are you to judge if a company gets too much of profit?
Also, you don't understand what regulations actually are for. They are not to protect people from anything or to make sure people are doing what they're supposed to do. Far from it.
@Azamspazam91 That is called crony capitalism. The government needs to keep the market open and competitive. This will create competition for the workers, the products, and fuel innovation as everyone wants the next big thing. The government picking winners and losers allows pollution, over pricing, unfair taxation, and actually lower wages. this is because there is less work more workers and no competition. get people to work and see the changes.
@Azamspazam91 Seriously, if what Meltdown, in particular, said was even remotely true (which is actually a distortion that feeds into a leftist mythology of evil corporations want to wreck the environment and subdue the little guy) then there would be no EPA right now. But big business LOVES the EPA. They love environmental regulations because 1) they're idiotic and 2) expensive. This crowds out anyone who can't hack it, creating more of a market share without any spending on R&D.
Its common sense that any company wants to pay everyone less and charge more to reduce expenses and increase profit margins. The result is exploitation and cheap goods which DEFINES the American (and now Chinese) economy. Germany companies on the other hand make high quality goods with fair profit margins. Their workers are paid well and exploitation is relatively lower.
Tell me, Which big business loves EPA interference? EPA LIMITS the amount of cheap production.
@Azamspazam91 It might be common sense, but it's far from the actuality. What companies want is maximum value for whatever they spend on labor and other costs. This is normal, and a vital part of the profit and loss system.
Which big business loves EPA interference? All of them. It drives away potential new competition, allowing greater access to market share without doing much of anything to improve product or services. I know...it's tough to wrap your head around that, isn't it?
@Azamspazam91 See, sonny, the real goal of regulations have almost nothing to do whatsoever with their ostensible intent. The first goal is political; it helps incumbents get re-elected by allowing them to point to something they did for voters. The second is economic; it drives away competition. The third is Cronyism; in order to have regulations, you need someone to be an auditor, and that means a job. That's also a great place to get bribes just to do nothing or look the other way.
Not once did this Zionist drone who made this video bring up the Ponzi scheme Money supply hijacked by Rothschilds & the central banking system, without that piece of information everything else is pointless
6evorev6 1 day ago
LOL,,,,,the Tea Bagger movement is "classical liberalism"? Not even fuxing close!
greenarcher180 3 days ago
proud to say ive only voted for nader ,repigs and dems have both failed and those who support the 2 corprate party system .need to check them selfs and try to think for themselfs
crazysillybaby1 3 days ago
It’s simple: Conservatives want to help the poor help themselves while progressives want to help the poor indefinite and with other people’s money.
iedhunter44 1 week ago 3
A deregulated economy increases the gap between the rich and the poor. A flat tax intensifies it enormously.
But social balance is vitally important, because without it any community collapses in the long run. Therefore a fair amount of wealth redistribution is simply necessary.
It seems that even guys like Warren Buffett have understood this.
thofou76 1 week ago
@thofou76 The point is that the government should not be the one determining how that income is redistributed. I'd disagree with your assesment of Warren Buffet understanding that. Warren Buffet's company, owes around $1 billion in back taxes. So he apparently doesn't believe his money should be redistributed, just everyone elses. It's very easy to be generous with other people's money.
blrohm 1 week ago 3
You forgot a third path:
RON PAUL 2012! XD
MindOfGenius 1 week ago
BILL WHITTLE! YEAH!
GermanConquistador08 1 week ago 6
@GermanConquistador08 Bill White? That fag! No way.
MrMedic1313 5 days ago
@MrMedic1313 Good to see the homophobia of the left so clearly stated.
GermanConquistador08 5 days ago
1. The modern TEA Party movement started in 2007, not 2009, and was an outgrowth of the Ron Paul R[evol]ution.
2. Not all TEA Party members want to see a Flat Tax. Some like the idea of a consumption tax and even others want no income tax at all either replaced by a 1% nonexempt transaction tax or replaced by useage fees.
3. I know this was a brief overview, but monitary policy is the elephant in the room. Even if we ake the right path if the FED exists we are doomed.
TaldrenDR 1 week ago
Comment removed
sh00008 1 week ago
wow one of the best explainations on the 2 choices we have. very well done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MrSmart0ne 1 week ago
Ironic that the Occupy Wall Street is considered progressive when all they do is do drugs and sit on their unemployed asses yapping about obscure crap like social justice
hyphens 1 week ago
@hyphens social justice is a progressive idea where groups are important but the individual means nothing.
MrSmart0ne 1 week ago
what is this Glenn beck dry erase board nonsense
thehumblecat1 2 weeks ago
you guys should just stick to talking about islam, why don't you write a book about what lead to the recession (before Obama's time)
islamicpancakemix 2 weeks ago
@islamicpancakemix The recession? You mean the tech bubble bursting under Clinton? 9/11 that was completely planned and coordinated under Clinton? The Housing market crash that was largely caused by the government forcing sub-prime lending to people that couldn't afford homes, that all happened pre-Bush?
The same recession that has gotten WORSE under Obama, causing the unemployment rate to be higher now than when Obama took office?
SquireSCA 2 weeks ago
@SquireSCA wtf (w=why) are you asking me all these questions? Bush inherited a balance budget and a surplus from Clinton. Bush didn't know what to do about intelligence reports about a possible AlQeda attack coming our way. Obama inherited a mess that had not yet peaked to it's greatest climax. Let's just keep talking about islam and the middle east. I'll plan on buying one of those books.
islamicpancakemix 1 week ago
@islamicpancakemix Clinton didn't balance the budget. The Republican Congress led by Newt did. Clinton veto'd the Balanced Budget Amendment, twice, and only signed it the third time they brought it to him because polls showed that most Americans wanted it.
SquireSCA 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@islamicpancakemix Clinton didn't balance the budget. The Republican Congress led by Newt did. Clinton veto'd the Balanced Budget Amendment, twice, and only signed it the third time they brought it to him because polls showed that most Americans wanted it.
SquireSCA 1 week ago
@ 5:12 'It (Modern Progressivism) imposes extensive & counterproductive programs of redistribution that cannot be supported by a stagnant economy'
Just a second, what are the banks & the stock exchanges doing around the clock 365.25 days per year. Isn't this casino trading system exactly 'extensive & counterproductive redistribution' that actually caused the stagnation.
When holding some money (if you have any) one does not actually know what he has. It is not value ... but other peoples' debts.
U1T001 2 weeks ago
"Strong Property Rights"
Do Not Encroach
Do Not Create Nuisances
the points are ideal, but have been systematically disregarded because the incentives that the "Classic Liberal" paradigm presents. deforestation, air pollution, water pollution, degradation of soil by mega farming; these are all products of the classic liberal system, because--
arosier2 2 weeks ago
--those those who participate, succeed, and achieve wealth/resources are able to shirk any ideal constraints of the system which do not aid their private interests.
a capable, unbiased, efficient entity is necessary to keep in check those participants in our system.
arosier2 2 weeks ago
RE: 'Freedom of Contract'
Das Original
'Notwithstanding the provisions relating to repayment by Installments as above, the Bank reserves the right at its absolute discretion to vary the number and/or amount of Installments at any time or from time to time and in such manner as it deems fit.'
This cannot be a Contract at all. It is as if when you buy s.th. from the Shopping Mall the Shopping Mall to 'reserve the right at its absolute discretion' to call you the next day & to want some more money.
U1T001 2 weeks ago
'Classical Liberalism' - Second Example
Let's have a High Frequency Trading supercomputer at the stock exchange, attached to it through optical 1000 GB Network. The transactions it performs are within nanoseconds, following some algorithm of an expert trading system.
Question No.1: How many supercomputers have such competitive advantageous connection to the stock exchange.
Q No.2: Where is the 'Perfect Market'
Q No.3: Where is the 'Perfect Information'
Q No.4: Where is the 'Perfect Competition'?
U1T001 2 weeks ago
'Classical Liberalism'
Where is the free market in the present day financial system. One gets loan (chooses a bank after the supply & demand). After paying the 2nd installment his salary is raised & as a result the bank raises the interest rate on the loan. The increase of the salary improves the solvency, hence reduced risk to the debt & the interest rate should be DECREASED.
The arbitrary increase of the interest rate by the bank is much more like embedding the whips rather than a free market.
U1T001 2 weeks ago
Global Progressive, New World Order, Crony Capitalism = Family Farms-GONE, Manufacturing-GONE, American Jobs-GONE, Dollar-WORTHLESS, Functional Government-NONEXISTANT, Freedoms-GONE (Nafta, Cafta, UN, Treaty of the Sea, Eminet Domain for Private Development, TSA, Patriot Act, ATF Gun Running, Federal Government Suing State Governments, 1000 foreign military bases helping open new markets for Global Corporations.)
and Government intrusion into every facet of our lives).
btrask3 2 weeks ago
Fuck modern progressim !
MrMachiavelli7 2 weeks ago
Why do so many people respond as if economics is some form of religion whose dogma and purity must be protected?
hoshisabi 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So even when the man of ability creates a fortune, that same fortune is enjoyed by those who do not do anything to gain the fortune. Since we don't live in a vacuum, we need to find a way to balance the standards. Taxing the rich higher than taxing the poor is a balancing act, it is not class warfare. Taxing the rich at a fair rate isn't class warfare, it acts as a buffer towards fair balance. The man of ability doesn't create the wealth in a vacuum but in a public arena that is shared by all.
sh00008 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
sh00008 3 weeks ago
This video is utter failure in my view. Even though I used to be a strong supporter of someone like Rand, I've learned when given power and advantage to the man of ability, there comes a point where that same power and advantage corrupts the whole system overall. For example, take a man of ability who created vast wealth by doing something productive. He deserves his fortune, but surely his children don't. Yet we see children inheriting vast fortunes, while the middle class and poor perish.
sh00008 3 weeks ago
I do agree with libertarianism to a certain extent, but I've realized we don't live in a vacuum. Since there is one earth, resources need to be shared rather than follow social Darwinism that destroys anyone who is weak. This kinda of negligence on the part of libertarians is a total disregard for their neighbors who share the world with them. People who have ability shouldn't be held back, but we also have to look out for people who create no wealth, yet are multimillionaires: Romney!
sh00008 3 weeks ago
@sh00008 shared or taken by force from one and given to another? is there a difference here or are they both the same for you?
MrSmart0ne 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrSmart0ne Like I said, we don't live in a vacuum. We have a responsibility towards the poor and the unable. It is natural that some people are just more talented than others. Taking that fact into consideration and the fact that the man of ability dies literally, his wealth should be divided equally. If we let social Darwinism run it's course, there will always be a very small minority with all power and wealth. That's nature. To balance the natural imbalance, a democratic government exists.
sh00008 1 week ago
The video is very objective till the point the author expresses opinion that one of the points is right and the other wrong. Both libertarianism and progressivism have their shortcomings and strong points. The blame that the current condition of the American economy is due to the wealth redistribution elements of governemnt economy policy is very strange, having in mind that the the crisis was caused by the shortcomings of a not enough regulated free market.
PopBogomil 3 weeks ago
And before saying anything about the FED - remember - it is a PRIVATE central bank.
PopBogomil 3 weeks ago
Try objective exposition; you might like it.
schmendrikc 3 weeks ago
This guy is all wrong.
The Tea Party views government as the problem, while Occupy Wall St. Views corporations as the problem. Well...what is the problem?
Its that people have less, or have to work harder to get the same amount. Young people can't find jobs. They fear for their respective futures and are lashing out at institutions that are easy to blame. Political leaders are trying to capitalize on this fear and have formed movements from them. Remember that no one knows the solution.
keavin7 3 weeks ago
Good job Bill Whittle
Scottit 3 weeks ago in playlist 2.04
Paul is no genius about economics. He strongly believes in a widely discredited theory of economics called "Austrian school of economics." It once again relies on the idea businesses should be allowed to do what they will, and that they will naturally play fair. It neglects the idea that government is not the only thing that places restrictions on free trade -- businesses are capable of doing that without using government restrictions. (look at OPEC, DeBeers, and other cartels).
hoshisabi 3 weeks ago
@hoshisabi people need to google
ron paul + stormfront
ron paul + nazi
ron paul + code pink
Ron Paul + age of consent laws
ron paul + nambla
The people who arre attracted to ron paul speak more than any statement of ron paul, if nazis, racists, Jew haters, and pedophiles all find you their candidate, yoou must not be about freedom at all
usmc7242 3 weeks ago
@usmc7242 Why do you mention Ron Paul? This video is not about that.
Why do you associate those "+ items" with Ron Paul. Neither his stances & ideology nor libertarianism are about those.
Scottit 3 weeks ago
@Scottit If you were reading this, Hoshisabe mentioned PAUL
Also, you asked, google those terms
ask YOURSELF why those people are associated with Ron paul if Ron paul is nothing to do with those issues
ask youself why those peole associate themselves with his brand of licentiousness under the false banenr of liberty
Ron Paul is to the Constitution what Fred Phelps is to the Bible
usmc7242 3 weeks ago
@hoshisabi Please explain your false comment about the Austrian School being "widely discredited" or provide links/sources.
If one is to criticize a concept, one should understand it, for which you do not.
The points you mentioned are way off. For example you typed about businesses doing what they want--wrong, & then brought up collusion/monopoly power.
You are falsely mixing in anarchy.
If you wish to learn, see online mises & FEE, each followed by [dot]org.
Scottit 3 weeks ago
@Scottit "Widely discredited" might be a bit strong. However, it is a relative fringe economics system.
I said "Ron Paul is an advocate" and then mentioned things that he specifically wants to do, things that this video also advocates. This video assumes that businesses will "do the right thing" and not participate in collusion/monopoly. Ron Paul honestly believes that the only reason that businesses have unfair competition is government interference and not due to those other reasons.
hoshisabi 3 weeks ago
@hoshisabi You did not answer, which shows your lack of substance & misunderstanding of Austrian School, which is not fringe & more than a century old.
See Adam Smith, Fredrick Bastiat, misesorg & feeorg.
Scottit 3 weeks ago
@Scottit Perhaps the fact that you resort to ad hominem attacks in every reply you make to me demonstrates more than me playing your game and reading YOUR web pages with YOUR opinions.
I'll just point to the prevailing mainstream theories of economics. You can go do a search on "Austrian School of Economics" and count the number of results that say "fringe." (including wikipedia, I may add.) The fact you think Adam Smith agrees with you proves you don't know much about him, either.
hoshisabi 3 weeks ago
@hoshisabi Why do you falsely think that I use ad hominem (personal) attacks. I asked for you to support/explain, or for links/sources on your claim that the Austrian School (based on history & reality)is wrong. Just claiming fringe & discredited is not credible. Demonizing accusation
Those web links or opinions aren't "mine," but of respected economists.
How do you think that Adam Smith is not a classical liberal economist (aka Austrian)? The so-called mainstream do not like him.
Scottit 3 weeks ago
@Scottit Fine, I interpretted you saying I "lacked substance" as a personal attack. If it was not, then it was not.
In the meantime, I suspect you should read more of the websites you linked, and see how they claim that Adam Smith's philosophy is too simplistic.
Those "respected economists" will of course defend their own opinions on their own websites, however, the very nature of them not being mainstream (as you called them) defines them as fringe. Not an opinion, check a dictionary.
hoshisabi 3 weeks ago
@hoshisabi The "lacking substance" is about tangents & irrelevancies, without directly addressing the points at hand.
Adam Smith might have been too simple. So what? He was one of the 1st economists. Some of his main ideas (invisible hand, self interest, pricing, etc.) are used by many economists.
"Mainstream" or orthodox economics is not a School of Thought & is a loose term, mostly coinciding w/Keynesian & neoclassical. The latter split-off from classical, as did the Vienna School
Scottit 3 weeks ago
@Scottit As a side note: Originally, the term "Austrian School" was a derogatory term for a group of economists who happened to be from Austria. The CREATION of that label was the result of them being fringe. Ignoring the validity of their opinions, it's not a stretch to call them fringe. I really doubt you actually disagree with me on that. Either we're arguing semantics or you're just arguing to argue. In either case, character limits + youtube environment rarely lends itself to discour
hoshisabi 3 weeks ago
@hoshisabi Your 2 items on are not wrong, but did add to the discussion.
1.The origin of "Austrian School" as derogatory is irrelevant & no longer seen as that. It achieved more use in the 60s, usually as the Vienna School when there was an offshoot to what became the Chicago School w/much input by Milton Friedman. Both have about a 95% agreement.
2. You seem fixated in using "fringe", which does not mean radical or wrong, and without you elaborating on what the fringe thoughts are.
Scottit 3 weeks ago
@Scottit I'm just fixated in that it's not the prevailing theory. It's a theory, it's not proven since it's darned near impossible to prove economic theories, and well, it makes it that much more difficult to speak with authority "It's right." Well, no. It's not dead-on-right. Of course, it isn't necessarily wrong either.
I do, however, categorize someone who is fixated on it as "the only solution to all our problems" as either wrong or misguided. That's one of the arguments against (cont)
hoshisabi 3 weeks ago
@hoshisabi Ron Paul that I'm making. He seems to think that this one thing would solve all of our problems. I don't care if he were an advocate of Keynesian economics. There's no simple solution to anything, ever.
Someone else said "Ron Paul is an economic genius" and I replied that he's not a genius, he's fixated on this one solution. That's why we're even having this discussion, which the video neither mentioned Ron Paul or economic theories. (It just tries to convince us that OWS=bad)
hoshisabi 3 weeks ago
@hoshisabi It did not say OWS is bad it just stated correctly the progressive/marxist point of view
MrSmart0ne 1 week ago 2
@MrSmart0ne I disagree. It presented a straw man.
hoshisabi 1 week ago
@hoshisabi Why are you "fixated in that the [Austrian School] is not the prevailing theory"?
YOU brought it up, but your your attacks were thrice removed:
1. lacking relevance/connection to recent events
2.without any semblance of concepts
3. insulting labels
THE AS school has consistent analysis of history & why the economy is bad.
Do you think that there's been laissez faire for decades?
NO!!! But the AS can explain, which does not mean anarchy -- protection & honesty are key.
Scottit 3 weeks ago
@Scottit You are starting to sound like a missionary on a doorstep. So convinced that he has all of the answers, he doesn't really care when the person he's talking to isn't convinced as well.
The reason why it's not the prevailing theory is that not everyone is convinced. Just telling me that you are won't fix it. Just saying that protection and honesty will happen won't work.
The fact is there's no easy answer no matter how much you're in love with the idea that there is.
hoshisabi 3 weeks ago
@hoshisabi Care to have any substance to add to the discussion?
Your are looking for a popularity contest?
What does the Austrian School have to with anything?
Scottit 2 weeks ago
@Scottit No, obviously you cannot be convinced that you haven't found the solution to everything. If you haven't understood anything I've said until now, it's not worth my time to add anything further.
hoshisabi 2 weeks ago
Lies, but funny drawings. I could make your ideas look dumb too with angry cartoon characters and big red letters.
ZombiBuddy 4 weeks ago in playlist More videos from encounterbooks
excellent, but i think you should make more clear the difference between the libertarian tea-partiers and the neo-cons.
toSTONEiGO 4 weeks ago
Ahh, a latent Ron Paul ad.
Yes, Paul is a GENIUS with economics, but he is deadly wrong in thinking a large number of people on the planet want to eliminate us and western civilization. I'd even vote for that jackass Newt before Paul because of this alone, BUT whomever gets in office NEEDS TO APPOINT RON PAUL RIGHT GODDAMNED THEN to run the economy (in Paul's own way, however he wants to). If not, impeach the president.
jayynecobb 1 month ago
Oh, and most teabaggers are neocon reactionaries, not "classical liberals." FFS the teabaggers were willing to vote sarah fucking palin as president. LOL.
fountainherz 1 month ago
@fountainherz As if you should talk with you irrational vote knowing about his lack of experience, his relationships with Bill Ayers and racist Reverend Wright. We know now he blatantly lied to the world about his relationship with Bill Ayers as they worked together for yrs and his books. If you read his books and voted for him your an idiot. If you plan to vote for him again your stupidity is treacherous. About those birthers the truth about his citizenship is getting him tossed on GA ballot
grinninh 1 month ago
@fountainherz the tea party was started by libertarians. the neo-cons are the bullshitters here. i hate to use the true scotsman, but im a an-anti war libertarian tea partier.
toSTONEiGO 4 weeks ago
@fountainherz "most teabaggers are neocon reactionaries"
Now why bring sexual activities into this? The subject of the video is fiscal... Though the contract portion does allow for a gay civil union, but that's just a consequence of liberty.
Anyway, I'm certain there are plenty of OWS people who like to teabag as well, so your comment is misplaced.
bsabruzzo 3 weeks ago
This is retarded. Both the teabaggers and occupiers are, on aggregate, retarded.
fountainherz 1 month ago
biased and dont copy RSA Animate :) , the video is por Right Wing
selosilemmo 1 month ago
@Trav1ste, you're just quoting Fox News headlines. You might as well be quoting headlines from The Onion. At least The Onion is MEANT to be satirical.
Nov 23, 2011: Fox News leaves viewers knowing less, new survey shows
h t t p : / / digitaljournal . c o m /article/314919
MzFlux 1 month ago
I take issue with the point regarding the motive of governement invention in private contracts. The government is acting based on experience that without active regulation of contracts there are multiple negative externatities on third parties which will not be voluntarily compensated for by the 2 involved parties. in order to prevent these negative externalities government regulates the deals and actions of persons.
General8675 1 month ago
This is complete bullshit/biased.
PhantasyGod 1 month ago
Biased? Duh. I hoped for an objective comparison, as I think the OWS and Tea Party folks have a lot in common, and do not subscribe to your views.
larrymaland 1 month ago
Has this guy ever spoken to anyone from OWS? These goals he has put in our mouths are redicules.
ClevelandFIST 1 month ago
@ClevelandFIST what exactly ARE the goals of the OWS?
wazpoppin9 1 month ago
Tea Party- Effective and efficient use of tax payer money. Don't waste money.
OWS- Tax the rich because they worked hard and became successful. Get a useless college degree and demand a job.
CaptainBill22 1 month ago
Comment removed
Sydwayman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CaptainBill22 Tea Party- Want to see Obama's birth certificate again, Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Socialist. Stop spending... unless it affects me.
Sydwayman 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sydwayman "Tea Party- Want to see Obama's birth certificate again" Which one of the over 4000 TEA Parties asked? Most don't care, as there are bigger (government) issues.
"Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Socialist" If you believe that, that is YOUR right. Odd how you want to project this onto others, though.
"Stop spending... unless it affects me" All spending effects everybody... so don't just limit yourself to when it effects (or affects) you.
bsabruzzo 3 weeks ago
@CaptainBill22 Are the rich rich only because they worked hard and were successful? Is it the only reason? Can't one get successful by gaining a huge inheritance, making a scheme on the financial markets, speculating, using the monopolic position of his enterprise, stealing, cheating, blackmailing and so on? Yes one can get rich via hard work, having good ideas, running a successful business - but it is only one part of the equation...
PopBogomil 3 weeks ago
1) This is not the economic argument the Tea Party were making two years ago.
2) It's not a "perceived differential" between economic power, it's an Empirical one. It's ludicrous deny that there is an gulf between the economic power of the rich and the poor
3) The flat tax only serves the rich. The rich don't need government funded education, for example, but that's because they can afford to pay for it anyway. For economic mobility, the poor do.
dafedge2007 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dafedge2007 "1) This is not the economic argument the Tea Party were making two years ago." But it was the argument that the people who later became the TEA Parties (plural, please) used to get W.J.Clinton to lie and say "The era of big government is over".
Now, if 15 to 20 years if this argument isn't enough, we can go back to 1920, but that'd require some history lessons.
bsabruzzo 3 weeks ago
There's one more blatant difference: you wont find any video like this one from a "progressive" POV. "Progressives" - although rational this might sound - are just the opposite: emotional like childs. It is all about envy and hatred. And the reason is simply that they ARE children. At least in their minds. They WANT to remain life-long children, and they demand the government to perform the role of their parents.
Is it cowardess before life? Degeneration of the masses during wealthy times?
Skandalos 1 month ago 2
we don't want a redistribution of wealth. we want a redistribution of representation.
wildbaseballplaya 1 month ago
Comment removed
crimsonsamuraiftw 1 month ago 2
@crimsonsamuraiftw Jea, this shit so soo biased.
I have my own criticisms od OWS. yet, this is bs
Red183rd 1 month ago
Anti trust laws shouldn't exist
richardcadbury 1 month ago
That was a damn good explanation of why I am a Libertarian/Tea Partier.
slugmandrew 1 month ago
Very Good. This is the crisis of statism.
vidioshow 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
all young people should be liberals, all older people know better ---In other words when you dont have anything you want to 'share' other people's stuff
HRMOKeefe1 2 months ago
Comment removed
HRMOKeefe1 2 months ago
Bill Whittle makes everything better.
ToxinMortalis 2 months ago
Funny how those who criticize this vid only does that. Call it propaganda, misrepresentation, etc. Please tell us why this is so.... It is easy to say you don't agree, but more difficult to say why.... no?
jjfin10 2 months ago
This was HIGH-larity at its finest ...
darnoriginalnames 2 months ago
Why is there such a constant need on the right to misrepresent the views of the left? Is it fear? Lack of understanding? Or just cyncism?
aceflashheart 2 months ago
@aceflashheart Misrepresent? Illustrate the inaccuracies, if you can. Which you can't. Because there were no inaccuracies.
And yes, there's plenty of fear, especially amongst those who know where this will leave America. That's why we're fighting; because we know how this story ends. Hint: it's not a happy ending for 99% of America.
ToxinMortalis 2 months ago
@ToxinMortalis Where is the mention of the massive failres of lazze-faire neo-liberalism that sparked the occupy wall street movement in the first place? OWS was never about asking for or demanding more goverment support, it was about the rank unfairness of some of America's wealthiest people getting a bailout when they screw up, because they claim they are essential to the economy? If free market principles have been abandoned to that extent (cont.)
aceflashheart 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aceflashheart "OWS was never about asking for or demanding more goverment support" Somebody should tell the protestors that. Many of them got off message when they aren't parroting they people leading the chants.
"unfairness of some of America's wealthiest people getting a bailout when they screw up" We agree.
So, should we choose to empower government to reign in the "1%"? Or should we use the power of the individuals to do it? That's the difference between TEA and OWS
bsabruzzo 3 weeks ago
@ToxinMortalis (Remember Bush: "we must abondon the free market to save it", lawl) why is it only the wealthy who qualify for bailouts? Why not a middle class bailout too? Is it unreasonable to expect, with all the crazy things that the goverment spends money on (Iraq, Lybia, space lasers) that some of it could be spent on the wellfare of the people.
That was the core complaint of the OWS movement. Instead this video make it out like we just hate freedom for some reason (cont.)
aceflashheart 2 months ago
@ToxinMortalis Though personally i'm not quite sure the tea party vision of 'freedom' is particulary sophisticated (unlimited freedom for those with capital, and for those without the freedom to accept whatever terms are dictated to them).
aceflashheart 2 months ago
@aceflashheart It appears that "Keep the government out of my life" is too complicated for you. Pity. Enjoy your desire for economic slavery. May your chains rest lightly upon you.
ToxinMortalis 2 months ago
@ToxinMortalis What a non-response. Fox news has got you well trained. When confronted with a liberal position that isn't a strawman you immediatly collapse into non-sequiter.
Also, it's you not me who loves "wealth more than liberty" as you'll vote for the worst kind of crypto-fascists and crackpots as long as they offer you a tax break.
aceflashheart 2 months ago
@aceflashheart Your inability to understanding the concepts of freedom, liberty, or personal responsibility has nothing to do with me being "trained." Your own projection betrays you.
I hope your masters treat you well. It appears that you have already grown thankful for their footprints upon your back. Do you also enjoy the scraps they dole out that keeps you on their plantation and voting for them? It appears you do.
Nothing sadder than a voluntary slave.
ToxinMortalis 2 months ago
@ToxinMortalis No fair minded conservative would say this video impartially represented the differences between OWS and the Tea Party. The fact that you see this video and think "yup, this is exactly what's what" doesn't 'betray' the fact that you've been trained to reject uncomfortable information, it's just the stark evidence of it.
aceflashheart 2 months ago
@aceflashheart "Trained to reject uncomfortable information." Again, your projections are quite amusing. I was quite liberal in my youth, then I grew up, saw the world, and pulled my head from my rectum. Alas, you cannot say the same.
If you insist, however, please keep telling me how ignorant, terrible, and brainwashed you "think" I am. I doubt much thinking is actually involved on your part. You would be, honestly, quite accurate if you said those things to your mirror.
ToxinMortalis 2 months ago
@ToxinMortalis "Please keep telling me how ignorant and brainwashed you think I am."
I don't require your permission to call you dumb, but thanks anyway -)
aceflashheart 2 months ago
@aceflashheart Someday, if you practice really, really, hard, you might become half as clever as you think you are. I doubt you have the will to do so, as that kind of work ethic would mark you a conservative.
I doubt you would survive being ejected from the thought bubble.
ToxinMortalis 2 months ago
@ToxinMortalis I don't have a master. I have a goverment, chosen by a democratic vote of the people, which provides certain services to me in return for taxes. Just the same as you (if you even have a job that is...)
The difference between us is not that you are free and I am a slave, it's that we are both free, but i'm not a delusional narcissist who views himself as a freedom fighter against a tyranical (yet paradoxically, also ineffectual?) goverment.
aceflashheart 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aceflashheart "i'm not quite sure the tea party vision of 'freedom' is particulary sophisticated (unlimited freedom for those with capital, and for those without the freedom to accept whatever terms are dictated to them)"
You forgot the part where the people without capital are allowed to create their own wealth and keep it, and the poor are able to work their way out of their position.
And, of course, a constitutional protection of liberties, to fight agains oppression.
bsabruzzo 3 weeks ago
Thank you Bill Whittle. Nice to hear you here!
3martijns 2 months ago
misleading, oversimplified, propaganda.
MpowerdAPE 2 months ago
It's kind of misleading to say unemployment has risen since Obama took office, as if he is to blame. It was rising before he took office, it continued to rise for the first year of his term and it's been slowly lowering since Oct 2009, otherwise known as two straight years of lowering. Yes, it's a slow lowering, but why are conservatives so scared to be honest?
eirefrance 2 months ago
is this bill whittle narrating?
cristoballs 2 months ago
Everyone watching this should watch watch?&v=eJQHvoLEeRQ
Laughingblades 2 months ago
1. Having a robin hood tax like Zakat takes care of the poor.
2. Government regulation prevents businesses from acting unethically. If Bush kept regulations on businesses just like Clinton, we wouldn't have had the massive financial collapse of banks, the $700 billion bailout or the debt crisis that Obama is trying to get us out of. However, since congress is bought out by Wall Street and AIPAC, Obama has no real ability to change anything. He's been a sitting duck most of his presidency.
Azamspazam91 2 months ago
@Azamspazam91 "Having a robin hood tax like Zakat takes care of the poor" You do know that in Robin Hood it was the government who did the taking of money from the poor? The Robin Hood character would be much closer to the ideas of the TEA Parties: stop the government from taxing everybody".
I won't touch the regulation part because the TEA Parties arent against them, they just would like the regulations to be more logical and effective, rather than punishing the agerage person.
bsabruzzo 3 weeks ago
@bsabruzzo "Robin Hood took from the rich to give the poor. I want t odo exactly the opposite - to rob the poor and give the rich" - Ayn Rand
PopBogomil 3 weeks ago
@PopBogomil "to rob the poor and give the rich - Ayn Rand"
Interesting quote. Could you please site. The only Ayn Rand quote referring to Robin Hood I could find says that the legend's focus on need is a modern interpretation, whereas the legend's focus is really on property rights and Robin Hood is actually protecting the people's property rather than taking from the haves to give to the have-nots.
Now, your quote might me real, but you'll need to source it.
bsabruzzo 3 weeks ago
@bsabruzzo The qoute is from Atlas Shrugged. I don't remember the page of course and I don't own a copy. Of course, you can say that it is only a fiction, but it is not just a fiction - it is the representation of her philosphical ideals.
PopBogomil 3 weeks ago
@PopBogomil "The qoute is from Atlas Shrugged" Thanks, I'll look it up.
Of course, it does depend on the character saying the line or whatever... Otherwise I'd have to believe Stephen King is a psychopathic killer and that Senator Webb from VA is a rapist.
It also depends on when the book was written, before or after the TV interviews.
But I'll take a look.
bsabruzzo 3 weeks ago
@PopBogomil "The qoute is from Atlas Shrugged" Are you certain you got the quote correct?
"Robin Hood. ...He was the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. Well, I'm the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich – or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich" Ragnar Danneskjöld from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
Rand says the myth is wrong (as I mentioned), but this character mentioned the "unproductive" poor.
Is this your quote?
bsabruzzo 3 weeks ago
@PopBogomil Is that your quote? If so, it was a specific character who says it, thus attributable to that character, not the author...
But even if the author agrees, the entire quote isn't about ALL poor and ALL rich, but the "thieving poor", also known as unproductive, and the "productive rich", also known as job creators.
I hope this helps.
bsabruzzo 3 weeks ago
@bsabruzzo I think that this qoute is specific to libertarianism as a whole. In a lot of Rand's books and views there is a tendency to view all poor as deserving their faith and all rich as productivce, honest members of society. This generalization is of course false given the complexzity of our society and the huge role of chance in our lives.
PopBogomil 3 weeks ago
@PopBogomil "In a lot of Rand's books and views there is a tendency to view all poor as deserving their faith and all rich as productivce" Possibly true but...
"I think that this qoute is specific to libertarianism as a whole" This isn't true. Using the lowercase, so it isn't the Libertarian Party, libertarians are a range of beliefs from left to right and from moderation to anarchy.
Most libertarians, like Milton Friedman, allow for this.
bsabruzzo 3 weeks ago
@PopBogomil "lot of Rand's books and views there is a tendency to view all poor as deserving their faith and all rich as productivce"
A number of Rand's interviews show her as not as bad as that. While most rich are productive (most have to work to achieve or maintain increased wealth), it can also be said that those who do nothing but take are not productive. Remember that Rand grew up in a communist/atheist country and had little experience but the colder aspects of life.
bsabruzzo 3 weeks ago
@PopBogomil I can suggest that in a Q&A session in 1976 Rand explains how capitalism is an idea of morality and how virtue is the proper way to obtain money.
(Video: Ayn Rand - Money and Morality from LibertyPen)
It seems that she addresses the "productive rich" idea there.
You can see in other interviews (Ayn Rand - The Pursuit of Happiness, Ayn Rand - Reason vs Force, and so on) that she puts reasoned morality over emotion, and rarely judges people based on thier wealth.
bsabruzzo 3 weeks ago
These guys are just a pro Zionist group wanting to get Obama out of office with the help of the racist intolerant christian right because Obama doesn't give overwhelming unanimous support to Israel. The facts are right but the presentation is skewed in favor of their specific narrow view point that very few people actually support.
RON PAUL 2012
Azamspazam91 2 months ago
@maxxthemerciless
Untrue. Proper governmental regulation should have been enough to catch one of Enron's DOZENS of scams. They simply were not being monitored properly. Also as for your "A few bad apples" argument....well if those "few bad apples" (and I disagree STRONGLY that there's only a few when profit is the only motivation) are powerful enough to sink the largest economy on the planet then that's simply not simply not acceptable. Regulation must remain and be strengthened.
lschultz2001 2 months ago
@lschultz2001 One, they didn't sink the largest economy on the planet (govt. did). Two, there are always, always, always some way of getting around regulation. It's very easy. It doesn't take a lot of effort, but sometimes it does take creativity. What "proper" govt. regulation would've possibly stopped Enron from defrauding investors? Who's to say that Sarbanes-Oxley is any better? Indeed, it's even easier now.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 months ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Enron, WorldCom, Goldman Sachs, all of these organizations failed AS CORPORATIONS, not as governments. They may have had government assistance, but they will continue aiming for government assistance ... you "Fix" the government once, they'll continually aim to fix it back.
Notice how we're talking about the activities of a corporation and its relationship with the government, yet the point of the video and the idea of progressive government is its relationship with PEOPLE?
hoshisabi 2 months ago
@hoshisabi At this point you're talking about Crony Capitalism, where the govt. through subsidy, bailouts and other favors, picks winners and losers in spite of their performance in the marketplace (also known as mercantilism). No amount of regulation would help you here. In fact, quite the opposite.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 months ago
@lschultz2001 In fact, one of the biggest problem is that the people monitoring them have been made weak over time by neglect of the regulations that did exist.
Every time the discussion comes up, people with ulterior motives pretend to care about classic liberalism and sucker a bunch of people that fall in love with the simplicity of it.
It ... might work in the ideal. But then, anarchy would be a perfect form of government, too, if it weren't for all the ways in that it's not.
hoshisabi 2 months ago
@hoshisabi So how do you get from this to something that is actually sustainable?
friendlyfurtraders 2 months ago
The flaw in your arguments is that you embrace the utopian view of "classic liberalism" and the dystopian view of progressivism. With a utopia, the powerful will not band together to limit customer choice and information -- but in the real world they do. Government is not the only power that can shackle us, corporations can overpower the weak government and can enslave us just as easily.
I can use your argument style to claim monarchy is better than democracy: Less ideal people are needed.
hoshisabi 2 months ago
@hoshisabi What you are talking about is anarchy not classic liberalism,Government uses force to make you bend to its rules,corporations cannot do that.
olhsaoagpaigfbp 2 months ago
@olhsaoagpaigfbp Corporations can indeed use force. If the consumer can exert force on the company, as the video indicates, via lawsuits for incorrect behavior -- then a company can exert force on a consumer via that same vector... and given that they often have more money than us, they can often exert a greater force than a consumer.
Company tries something shady, recorse is court -- they have better lawyers, they win.
Company now just uses court as a weapon -- they still have better lawyers.
hoshisabi 2 months ago
@hoshisabi Now again that would be government using the force,company should be able to legally pursue individual if he hurts them(i.e. steals/damages property,fraud...) and vice versa,company couldn't make a rule such us you need to have our license to do haircuts or transport this and that goods and than sue you and win in court,that wouldn't be classical liberalism.As for wining for simply having a better lawyer they can do that in any system.
olhsaoagpaigfbp 2 months ago
@olhsaoagpaigfbp That's exactly my point: the video claims that only by removing restrictions will the company behave in good conscience versus the average citizen (consumer, employee, competitor).
I say that a weak government can't protect us from a gas company that uses substandard pipes that later explode, and then pay off the media to keep things quiet. Then continue unsafe practices.
A stronger government could protect us from that.
hoshisabi 2 months ago
@hoshisabi Well I say that government should be strong but limited,government should for instance make company which pipes exploded pay for damages and also punish them in a way that hurts them to discourage such behavior,but not mandate what pipes to use,that only opens door to corruption,like one company paying for their pipes to be made standard.
olhsaoagpaigfbp 2 months ago
@hoshisabi Progressivism is a dystopian system.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 months ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Utopia is perfect no matter the system. "Classic liberalism" can lead to a banana republic.
You may try and create this idealistic government, but do you think that it works without constant monitoring and correction? Because all it takes is someone to not share your idealism to ruin EITHER government in EXACTLY the same way.
hoshisabi 2 months ago
@hoshisabi Utopia is impossible. Perfection is impossible That's what I'm telling you.
There is no amount of regulation that would prevent corruption. What mitigates the effects of corruption is free market competition. Through regulations, govt. actually curtails competition by driving out newer, less-affluent competitors, because invariably it's larger companies that lobby govt. to establish regulations in the first place.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 months ago
@MaxxTheMerciless What I'm saying is that regulation can help prevent SOME problems. You're telling me classic liberalism is superior because regulations are not enough to catch all corruption.
That's like saying "let's abolish all laws, since we're not able to prevent all crime." It's certainly better to live in a world with a law against murder, even if it doesn't prevent every murder, it prevents enough to make the law worthwhile.
Regulations work the same way.
hoshisabi 2 months ago
@hoshisabi Regulations does not prevent problems. You have to understand how it works. For one, a regulation is not a law. Invariably, nobody goes to jail for violating regulations. Often there may be a fine, but fines are almost always challenged in the courts because they're almost always unfair. It's not as though you can look up EPA guidelines for a certain industrial factory at a local law library. And when you do find them, a great many are impossible, BY DESIGN, to obey.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 months ago
@hoshisabi Invariably, more regulation actually breeds more corruption not only because it weeds out competitors, but it also protects the corrupt business practices of the companies in question. You could make the case that corruption actually thrives on regulation.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 months ago
@MaxxTheMerciless You can't make the case that corruption thrives on regulation. Corruption thrives despite regulation, but corrupt regulation doesn't do its job.
FDIC insurance prevents a failed bank from losing my bank account, I'm in favor. Banks should not be able to gamble with the money from those insured accounts.
That's like using a pile of cash for fuel for a fire, and then claiming it on your fire prevention insurance.
hoshisabi 2 months ago
@hoshisabi Corruption always thrives on regulation. This is because Regulation protects the very corruption the proponents of such things say they are trying to prevent. This is because you do not understand human nature. It's like trying to dam a river with rocks; the water is eventually going to go around it. Or, if you apply too much regulation, no water gets past, and you have undermined the whole purpose of what you intended to do.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 months ago
@hoshisabi Corruption thrives on regulation PRECISELY because it obstructs newer competitors from entering the market. More would enter the market but abiding by regulations is cost prohibitive, and very few, if any, are logical or fair. This protects companies who are older and wealthier, who have armies of lawyers they're willing to pay to negotiate around these regulations and fines, from elements who would ensure their changing or destruction: Competition.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 months ago
@hoshisabi Let me give you an example of how regulations keep new businesses out of the market. Suppose you want to set up an oil refinery in the USA to make gasoline with. GOOD LUCK. Thanks to Obama and the EPA, this is nearly impossible to do. You'll spend most of your working capital just to hire lawyers who will be searching for anything with which to move forward. You're spending money to go to hearings, pay lobbiests, all of which could've gone to building the plant and hiring workers
MaxxTheMerciless 2 months ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Meanwhile, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP, they've already got their refineries going. They do not want to see you in action at all. That cuts into their share of the market, even if it's just a tiny bit in the beginning. When you could've put your money into innovations, making the fuel better and cheaper at the pump, hiring people, and so forth, your logistics is bogged down by regulations invented precisely to destroy it.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 months ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Exxon-Mobil Shell and BP made RECORD Profits.
The regulation is to prevent our financial system from acting like a casino. Please watch "Meltdown" or "Inside job." You'll realize how much influence big companies have in persuading congress to pass deregulation; it benefits banks and big business at the expense of taxpayers and borrowers. The spiral continues downward because noone is STOPPING the Exploitation. Congress is controlled by big moneyy
Azamspazam91 2 months ago
@Azamspazam91 But you realize that it is precisely the opposite that's been happening. The reason why Exxon Mobil and others made record profits is precisely because of regulation. It's the big companies that want regulation, not the little guys, because regulations only stifle competition. But sadly, you will never understand this because you don't want to. You think it's evil greedy corporations that want to deregulate.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 months ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Congress passed deregulation bills which allowed Shell BP and Exxon to act free of any interference. It is because of this deregulation that they were able to make their record profits.They already had the capital required to obtain expensive Iraqi and Libyan Oil contracts. Smaller companies were never a threat.
Azamspazam91 2 months ago
@Azamspazam91 Which regulations did they deregulate? Seriously, if you're going to continue this narrative, better have some facts available.
By the way, there's nothing wrong with record profits. Who are you to judge if a company gets too much of profit?
Also, you don't understand what regulations actually are for. They are not to protect people from anything or to make sure people are doing what they're supposed to do. Far from it.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 months ago
@Azamspazam91 That is called crony capitalism. The government needs to keep the market open and competitive. This will create competition for the workers, the products, and fuel innovation as everyone wants the next big thing. The government picking winners and losers allows pollution, over pricing, unfair taxation, and actually lower wages. this is because there is less work more workers and no competition. get people to work and see the changes.
Naterz100 2 months ago
@Azamspazam91 Seriously, if what Meltdown, in particular, said was even remotely true (which is actually a distortion that feeds into a leftist mythology of evil corporations want to wreck the environment and subdue the little guy) then there would be no EPA right now. But big business LOVES the EPA. They love environmental regulations because 1) they're idiotic and 2) expensive. This crowds out anyone who can't hack it, creating more of a market share without any spending on R&D.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 months ago
@MaxxTheMerciless
Its common sense that any company wants to pay everyone less and charge more to reduce expenses and increase profit margins. The result is exploitation and cheap goods which DEFINES the American (and now Chinese) economy. Germany companies on the other hand make high quality goods with fair profit margins. Their workers are paid well and exploitation is relatively lower.
Tell me, Which big business loves EPA interference? EPA LIMITS the amount of cheap production.
Azamspazam91 2 months ago
@Azamspazam91 It might be common sense, but it's far from the actuality. What companies want is maximum value for whatever they spend on labor and other costs. This is normal, and a vital part of the profit and loss system.
Which big business loves EPA interference? All of them. It drives away potential new competition, allowing greater access to market share without doing much of anything to improve product or services. I know...it's tough to wrap your head around that, isn't it?
MaxxTheMerciless 2 months ago
@Azamspazam91 See, sonny, the real goal of regulations have almost nothing to do whatsoever with their ostensible intent. The first goal is political; it helps incumbents get re-elected by allowing them to point to something they did for voters. The second is economic; it drives away competition. The third is Cronyism; in order to have regulations, you need someone to be an auditor, and that means a job. That's also a great place to get bribes just to do nothing or look the other way.
MaxxTheMerciless 2 months ago