Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Newscorp (foxnews), G.E. (msnbc) paid $0 in federal taxes in 2010, look it up, this is Corporatism not Capitalism. John Stossel who is Athiest btw wants more tax breaks for the rich, less regulations, including legalizing drugs and gay marriage. That's right. It's the worst of both worlds. The Corporatists and Communists are trying to destroy Capitalism, Capitalism can't exist w/o some form of regulation. Both sides are trying to confuse the public.
@coolguy98 I prefer laissez-faire capitalism, which free trade between two consenting parties -- leave the government the hell out of it unless there is a dispute for the courts. You seem to prefer communists (central planning) regulating capitalists (voluntary traders). It is the ability of government to favor one company and punish another (pick winners and losers) that is crony capitalism or corporatism. Take that power away and you end the corporatism you are complaining about.
From a Russian officer to all American Officer in the Pentagon and West Point I just want to ask one question to all of you. Are there still Rommels and Stauffenbergs among your ranks? When will you fine officers stand up and start saving your country again whose enemies are now from within it? I wonder if there are anyone among you who will still honor General Mac Arthur's words 'DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY"!
It's funny how people hate companies and people who take money away from them, because that's why most people hate the state aswell. I think people don't like capitalism, because capitalism is about making money. Religion and Moral Codes tells them that money is evil, wrong or corrupt. That your goal in life is not about making money but to do other things. As the leader of the Youth Labor said "We don't mind rich people, as long as they give back to society and have social responsibilities."
its time for a change! Capitalism is good if we have endless resources!the capitalism in US doesnt offer free market ,who the hell can compete with these huge corporations that have dominated the market,they make cheap shit with destroying 3rd world country resorces while offering cheap jobs to them!Capitalism socialism are destined to fail,its time to find a way instead fuckin each other we find a way to educate and help each other!
@elegyrulz Capitalism is the voluntary exchange between two parties. It's scary that you want a system that controls people so much they aren't allowed to voluntarily trade with each other.
@vanraizen arent we already controlled to the max in our capitalist society?and where did i say i want a gov't that controls people?did i name any kind of system in my comment?im just saying capitalism is replacing morality with materialism,we are going backwards (apes with hi-tech cellphones).watch Zeitgeist "moving forward" and then tell me what r ur thoughts about it!
@elegyrulz We are not living in a capitalist society. How can you we when the entire money supply itself is regulated and mandated by the government?? You do want a government that controls people because capitalism is the only system that DOESN'T control people. Capitalism has brought millions of people out of poverty, look at India and China as it has moved more towards a capitalist system. Go tell those people that can now afford food that they are apes. BTW Zeitgeist = high tech communism
@vanraizen How voluntary is it if a coal plant dumps millions of tons of gas and soot into my air? They didn't ask me if they could do that. They didn't give me any money. It's called an externality, where an unwilling third party bears the cost of a transaction between others, and capitalism is full of it. It'd be real hard to make money if corporations couldn't steal or transfer cost to others in the process.
@aluisious Sorry you are wrong, it's the big government EPA that protects these big corporations and allows them to pollute your air and land. This simply wouldn't be accepted in a capitalist system with real private property law.
@coturnix19 Actually, gov't welfare goes to the Capitalists who are really corporatists! If we truly had honest capitalism in the US, the gov't would not be so deeply embedded with corporations & banks. It's an illusion that we have a welfare state for the poor & unemployed. Instead, we have a welfare state for the rich. The parasites are at the top, not the bottom! Do not drink the Kool-Aid. Look into alternative news sources to find out how the system really works.
The two biggest welfare programs are Social Security and Medicare, which go to the elderly. The poor have shorter lifespans and work more, so they pay more into these programs. The elderly are the wealthiest demographic. The rich live longer and don't need to work, so they benefit from these programs more while paying into them less.
Those with the luxury of spare time and money are more politically active... so the govt serves them.
1, you cant prove that the poor work more than the rich, because management jobs are not done hourly no scale to compare them to.
2. social security and medicare are done by a percent of your income, so richer people put way more money into social security and medicare then poor people.
1. I was referring to those who inherit and don't have to work, not those with higher salaries. A preppy kid who inherited his parents' money doesn't have to work. Naturally, high-paying jobs are done by an elite group whose specialized skills demand longer hours.
2. Again, I'm not talking about people who earn their income. :P
@XiaoGui17 - The basis of your argument is you hate "preppy kids who inherit their wealth." This is no different from you hating someone who inherits their genes from their parents. No different from you hating someone who receives the upbringing of driven, successful parents who instill that ethic upon their children. In short, you hate anyone that isn't a total loser which is why Socialism turns the entire nation into a nation of miserable, impoverished losers with a decreasing population.
1. I was referring to those who inherit and don't have to work, not those with higher salaries. A preppy kid who inherited his parents' money doesn't have to work. Naturally, high-paying jobs are done by an elite group whose specialized skills demand longer hours.
2. Again, I'm not talking about people who earn their income. :P
@shadowgeyser When you included the AMA, I missed your point. Sorry. UL is a better example of what you describe. Agreed. Also, fair competition works well when a referee keeps the playing field level without too much intervention. Please watch that video! I'd like to get your take on it. It's a great peek behind the curtains!
@shadowgeyser Yes. Self regulation is a dicey game. The Federal Reserve Chairman supposedly controls its banks. Therein lies the problem. Heroin addicts are familiar with self-regulation! Notice that the Fed refuses to submit to a congressional audit? A revealing documentary about Wall Street, Behind the Meltdown and Bailouts on YT, shows how the repeal of Glass-Stiegel got us into this mess. Brooksley Born could have been a hero, but was muffled. Watch that video!
@shadowgeyser That's an idealistic viewpoint. In reality, the ironic truth is that freedom requires some rules & enforcement. So-called Free Market economics liberated the wrong people, and enslaved the rest of us. Observation of American politics & business for more than 50 years gives me an informed perspective on this. The middle-class was much healthier/wealthier before Reaganomics.
I always get a kick out of liberals who cite statistics like 1% of the population controls 40% of the wealth (I'm making these numbers up, but you get the idea).
I tell them, so you think that an even smaller minority, that is not responsible for its actions, to control all the wealth?
@xp19375 The word 'liberal' is meaningless in America today. Eisenhower would have considered foday's average Democrat as a radical right-winger! Public opinion has been deliberately nudged so far toward empathy with Wall Street that it has fallen off the edge!
When he says "capitalism lifted more people from the misery of poverty", thats a classic argument that does not hold water. What he means(the truth) is that capitalism takes SELF SUBSISTENCE farmers, who are "poor" because they have no money, but they were thriving, encumber them with debt, then tell them they have to work, not to feed themselves, but instead to pay off the debt our capitalist society so generously gave them with astronomical interest.
John is mostly right with one notable exception: vast wealth perverts capitalism, reducing the power of most individuals via the disproportionate influence on politics by a tiny minority. He doesn't get that, as don't many ivory tower thinkers. Vast wealth empowers to a degree that creates a myopic, selfish view. Hence the adage, 'Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Now, American politics is manipulated to support policies at the expense of many productive people. Merit?
The only teensy complaint I have is that he flubs the "double thank you", making it sound (until you listen further) like the buyer thanks twice.
You have to take a moment and parse what he actually meant...and the kind of people who need this explained to them don't necessarily have enough mental energy to do that and still learn.
@icecreamtrepan If you believe that things belong to the people who are using it, does that mean that food belongs to nobody until people decide to eat it?
What happens if a group of fat people decide to stuff themselves with food and the people who grow it can't stop it because they don't own it because they aren't using it while it is in the silo.
Ooops, no seeds left for next year, everybody starves.
@MichaelJenkinson The silo is a perfect metaphor for capitalism & economy. We do not need to consume immediately, and resources are available from the silo for many uses at appropriate times. The problem emerges when the curator of the silo isn't curbed from corrupt behavior. This is not the silo's fault! It's our fault to allow the curator to operate at his sole discretion with every silo. Without competition between silo curators, we lose choice and a whole lot more. Too big to fail?
Yes, you are free to starve if you so choose. But under true Capitalism there are plenty of opportunities and jobs for people to find, so long as the government doesn't set up ridiculous rules and regulations that permit people from doing so (thus making null the title of 'Capitalism'). Being free to die of your own accord is an essential human freedom, because it also implies that you are free to live of your own accord as well.
@Dabba23 No one chooses to starve. When your philosophy requires you to make ridiculous statements to support it, there's something wrong with it.
As for ridiculous rules and regulations, you're free to go live somewhere where industries dump heavy metals into rivers and burn down thousands of square kilometers of forest. I'd rather not live in such a place.
Human beings are complex animals with intellectual skills (most of them anyway). This does not necessarily apply to those who fall for the nonsense that capitalists are "parasites" rather than individuals (often workers themselves) who invest their property to benefit themselves and, by doing so, create jobs and prosperity that benfit workers and society as a whole.
Perhaps you should go BACK to (economics) class. Marxism has been long debunked.
@icecreamtrepan, humans aren't animals. We have a mind and free will. Having children is a lifestyle choice. Like anything else, if you can't afford it, then don't fucking buy it.
I'm a 41 year old human, I'm not a monk, I've been in love, but guess what? I have no children, BY CHOICE! So, don't hand me your bullshit that life just rolls over us helpless humans like a giant tidal wave. It's all about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
And, if you want to live in a socialist country, move to Cuba.
@icecreamtrepan, you're just another broker-ass LOSER who hates successful people, because they constantly remind you of what a failure you are.
Whether the government loots and plunders wealth through taxation, or you and a bunch of other broke-ass losers loot and plunder wealth by "taking over their workplaces and kicking the bosses out", it's all the same thing, THEFT.
Do yourself a big fat favor and stop being a pathetic, bitter, envious little douche bag. It gets you NOWHERE.
"my solution is for workers to take over their workplaces and kick the bosses out"
That's an unethical stance that promotes aggression against others. It would be better for them to peacefully quit, start their own communally owned business, and try to compete with their old bosses for the same share of the free market. If their way really is better (as you believe) they would prevail and others would follow suit. If communal ownership is best, prove it.
Exactly. Icecream's "solution" is violent and precluded by property rights, and the owner's will not likely sell to antagonistic workers. They can prove their socialist theory best by pooling their resources and starting their own business from the ground up. If we could ever achieve a true free market, it would allow for all sorts of creative forms of competing organizations. Let the best businesses prevail. In the end . . .Happy owners. Happy workers. Happy customers.
"...you have to pay someone less than the amount of labor they contributed.
Wage labor is slavery."
I disagree. Wage labor is voluntary. Slavery is not. If people thought the wage offered was not worth the labor, they wouldn't take the job. It is worth exactly what people agree to. They may WISH they made more, but they would have to persuade the employer that they were WORTH more $ for the same labor someone else would be happy to provide.
I have said the same stuff as this clip... thats just weird to me. Stossel is a cool guy that people hate to hear... sometimes the truth hurts but to acknowledge it is the healthy way to deal with it.
What friendship? You seem to have been employed in some stupid company - not every company is like that. I have cordial relationships with the 6 employees I have. I however don't hang out with them nor try to be their friend or vice versa. There is nothing more damaging to productivity then an employee thinking that because you are friends they can slack off. It happens a lot. Good people are hard to find and when you do find them, pay them well, treat them well.
You think my relative success as you call it dropped down from the sky for me? I worked 10x as hard as any employee ever has (especially government employees). I should know, because I can compare how much I worked and how much my mind was engaged as an employee and how much I work mentally and physically as a business owner. Try starting a business and I can guarantee you you'll change your tune very quickly.
Employees always have the option of working for the percentage of profits - I don't see too many opting for that. Why? because they like the security of a regular pay every week, even though they would earn 10x more working for percentages. They are uncomfortable with risk, that is why they are employees. You see if the owner paid them as much as they actually produce there would be NO BUSINESSES for the employees to be employed in.
LOL, as I said you assume waaaaay too much. First of all I am not in the US. Second I lived the majority of my life growing up in a Communist country in Eastern Europe where they tried to indoctrinate every child into communism. I was an employee and business owner. I know it from both sides. You have no idea how easy employees have it, my friend. If you say working for a pay check is slavery, you denigrate REAL slavery - forcibly working for nothing.
You seem to be permanently indoctrinated into something you repeat. Has any of this grown in your own mind? I am just trying to have you look at things from a different perspective. I do agree with some of your premises that big business when grown too large goes into cahoots with government to stomp out competition.
You always concentrate on big business and declare that is all there is and capitalism equates it. You couldn't be more wrong over 70% of people are employed in small and midium sized businesses owned by their founder who sacrificed everything he had (time, money, future, house...) not large organisations, OK. Why have contracts then if you think they can be broken on a whim?
If they want to be owners they should open their own business and start from scratch, like the owner did. Most can't because they don't have the discipline to go without a pay check for years for the business to take off nor do they have an entrepreneurial spirit - otherwise they would not try so hard to be employees only.
It's not "their" workplaces. The owner of the company has under consumed and taken a gigantic risk, worked his ass of for the company to get on its legs. Workers have only been looking for a pay check. If they work, they get paid, no risk, no under-consumption, no hassle.
It's all about productivity. Tell me who by your definition is more productive and who gets paid more - A man with a shovel or a man with a bulldozer? Who has less easily replaceable skills? Answer that for yourself and you'll know why factory workers are paid low wages.
Trust me I am no excuser of fascism (big business in kahoots with the government), but small business people (the majority of business out there) are your friend not your enemy. They employ 75% of all people in The US. I have been raised by a single mother and my dad left when I was little. I worked hard all my life and throughout school. I graduated and opened my own business. I have seen it all from both sides.
I have also seen it from the worker's side. Why haven't they gone to community college to better their employability in better paid positions? So your solution is for the government to steal from someone in taxes to give it to the crying grown man? People cry for many things, so is crying then the act that qualifies someone to other people's money, now?
Getting payed with benefits costing the employer 70 bucks an hour to operate a screw gun. Are you serious? I'm sorry but work like that doesn't deserve that kind of wage and benefit that cost 70 bucks an hour. This kind of workforce leads to outsourcing or bankrupting the company altogether.
Move from Cleveland if it's that bad. No one is forcing you to live there. Pick up and move on if you can't get a job there. Don't give me that excuse that you can't afford it, because we get imigrants who come to this country who only see what worker makes here in a week over a period of their life time. They live farther away too. Unions now are a socialized workforce. They are out dated and obsolete in this global economy of today. Than you wonder why GM, Chrysler needed a bailout.
Than explain why we had so many imigrants coming to America during the Industrial Revolution. Also there was no NAFTA back in those days to say what you are saying today. So that is a theroy that is shot out of the water. They came because of our capitalism and the freedoms we have here. Capitalism has been proven fact that it has gotten more people out of poverty than any other source of economics period. China has gotten richer off of it.
In capitalism, you only need to acquire a skill for which someone else would pay, but it does take effort and motivation. Admittedly, it does not work well for those striving to live as dependent children.
No "community" has a a lease or right to force me to work for them, because there are always people who slack at working and live off other people's work - Communism does no work precisely because of that. The elites want other people to work for them, just like Feudalism.
What you are talking about is give-and-take in self interest. I help you, so I can expect help back when I need it, which is voluntary. That works, you or anyone forcing people to give does not.
The "boss" or owner of the company has self-sacrificed, gone into debt, underconsumed to build his business. He took a huge risk and only 1 out of 10 businesses make within ten years time. What has the employee sacrificed? His time and for that time he got PAID. Some sacrifice.
The owner did not get paid FOR YEARS when building his business up. You do not know anything about business nor real life buddy.
They work and get PAYMENT for the work, you nutjob. Nobody is forcing them to work there. Why did they take the job if they knew that they would not get any "stock options" you describe? Because they made a FREE Decision. You want to FORCE your own lalaland values on other people. An absolute moralist is the worlds' most dangerous individual - self righteous, completely brainwashed, hateful and aggressive.
It looks like you want everything for nothing - that other people should work and then pay for your life, right? Pathetic and not becoming of a grown man.
Don't lie man. If you are sick you can always go to the doctor. If you are not insured and if the illness is serious you can always go to the emergency room. That's why it was designed for:
No one asks you about insurance there. Hell, even illegal immigrants go there for a runny nose and get treatment without questions. Plant a garden if you hate working in a job. There are free "soup kitchens" in every neighbourhood where hot meals are given to unemployed and poor.
Spreading the wealth does not make anyone rich. Letting the government take your wages and they get to spend it how they see fit. Look if the top dogs of Wall Street can steal and sell. What makes you think that Washington top dogs will not do the same thing? I think the real issue is who's in charge of either Wall Street or Capital Hill and Pennslivania Ave. It's the character of the person or persons that matters. Do not throw out the baby along with the bath water.
Capitalism makes everyone rich. The thing of it is not everyone will take the effort to make it happen. We have immigrants who come to this country who become wealthy. A wealth that they may never see within their own country. Why do you think that we have so many illegals in this country. It is all because of Capitalism. Are they going south of Mexico or cross the pond? No because they now that our Capitalism works.
I used to like John Stossel, and surely he might be right about some things, but his reports are opinion editorials not balanced journalism. His "facts" are ususlly anecdotes, probably ture but more or less meaningless (because contrary anecodotes are also abundant).
The man should be on the FAUX channel, where opinion masquerades as objective truth.
But he challenges his interviewees! He doesn't simply report what others say! That's what true journalism is all about! A journalist needs to "investigate" the facts, not simply report them from the mouth of a politician or spokes hole. That what Stossel does and we need more of that in the media instead of transmission-belt journalism.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm not against capitalism, i'm just against capitalism that's wreckless and irresponsible. Look, capitalism like anything in life always needs to be checked, balanced, and improved on, so that there is some degree of fairness.
What we see today is not capitalism, it's reverse socialism. Instead of wealth going to the poor it goes to the rich. Either way someone's money is getting distributed. Capitalism is not the opposite of socialism. It is rather the absence. I find it funny when people accuse the republicans of being capitalists, as if giving tons of money to businesses is a way to let the market decide.
Capitalism is by far the best system. Not only is it best, it is the most moral system by far. Taking at the point of a gun is not moral. That's government. If Tiger Woods has a lot of birdies, I don't have fewer birdies.
Milk producers have a history of being subsidized at he cost of taxpayers due to capitalist corporate lobbying. So how is overpriced milk a win for consumers?
Business is not really voluntary when it is monoploized and subsidized as in benefits received from Clear Channel, Fox non news, from deregulated FCC rules. Blackwater Haliburton, KBR all enjoy no bid contracts and subsidized taxpayer millions. Legislators recieve Bribes in the name of campaign funds from corporate capitalistic America in order to further corrupt a peoples government. ( ie: Tom Delay, Enron, Kenneth Lay, Abramonov, many others)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The phrase 'Free Market' is an attempt to allow Super Corporations to do anything they want without punishment. Capitalism does NOT equal democracy. Capitalism came FROM democracy. Capitalism is good. It IS the best system possible. But it needs to have it's laws just as much as we the citizens have laws telling us how to behave. Having a few laws on the books is a GOOD thing for everyone. It does not mean socialism. Imagine having no laws at all for you or me... Wild West anyone?
Hmmm... Lets see Scott... Last I heard DEREGULATION means NO LAW. Which in some economist wet dreams is called 'Lazier fare'.
Are you one bit familiar with the days before Anti-Trust? Believe me Scott, you'll find plenty of lawlessness and free for all in the markets.
But hey, why do that? There's plenty going on right now.
Perhaps you should go back to economics 101 in that community college you went to and then go back and get that GED you faked your way though. Say hi to Hannity
Capitalism is democratic by stock ownership & by consumers choosing to buy from (vote for) a company. Minor point anyway. Corps are not out to "get" people. Learn about competition & customer satisfaction. You are showing ignorance. What are theses laws that big corps are continually breaking? Try living without them. You would have no electricity & very few products. Free market is not carte blanche on any action. Please look up Austrian Economics. Try Foundation for Economic Education
This is completely untrue, capitalism benefits everybody, yourself included. It is a positive sum game where the pie is not fixed. Gates through pursuing his self interest has made all our lives better, and that very well may not of been his intent. PC computers when first introduced were a luxury only enjoyed by few. Through capitalism the luxuries enjoyed by only the rich eventually become amenities that are taken for granted by even the poor.
the real problem isn't capitalism....it's creditism!
part of our current society...often thought to be synonymous with capitalism but it simply isn't.
living beyond our means is a direct result of too much credit, this simply isn't sustainable. This is, in part, why we had the great depression, and also whats happening now! maybe its time we looked at our Islamic brothers and took a leaf from their banking books.
Well, now that your commie hero has been elected, we can expect to see every poor person with their own luxury yacht within the next four years. All hail the Messiah, Barack!
I appreciate the fact that you want freedom for individuals, but really just look at what we have: URBAN SPRAWL!!!
Where is the freedom? You may think that people and business get what they want, but they dont decide how their cities are layed out. Susprisingly the result is: TOO MUCH DRIVING!!!
Freedom is good, but its not happening in the places we live (sprawled areas)
Sprawl is great. It's low density with more nature & open space. Traffic is less because there are fewer cars jammed in the same area. You want coercion for high density.
I recently did an analysis of VMT in regards to other factors. No significant correlation with anything. I'll email you in a few days w/ an edit of my .ppt., which I'll put in .pdf.
However, I don't know if you like reading about reality, when you have your unsound theories.
Look your overreacting. Lets give a little recap of my plan (Lets leave behind CNU)
I want to provide the opportinity of mixed-use planning which benefits retailers, offices, and condo owners who have easy convenience and choice. Detached homeowners can get the same product. Now thats not freedom restricting.
I understand high density can be tough, but a slight increase to 2-4 stories with less parking spaces actually has more benefits than destroyirng freedom.
You see thats your problem, you THINK that developers are simply getting what they want in sprawl, BUT THAT NOT TRUE!!!!
Its these building codes that mess things up. My plan is too remove most of these reestrictions and let them build WHATEVER THEY WANT. Yeah thats giving capitalistic freedom.
Hey it they dont like mixed use planning, then fine lets DROP THE IDEA, but its seems developers are profit from this method.
You see. Now you know that I dont "force" people to do things and its the codes that makes more of the decisons not the developers.
BTW, you said that going 2-4 stories is "sextupling" how? 70% of the buildings are 2-story and what are they? Hmm....
Detached homes with yards just like sprawl has only the layout is different. So go ahead enjoy your 1/2 acre lot. Its your freedom. Oh and the density you lived in was 4,000 and what is it under my plan? 4,000 No change!
I told you before, most buildings (70%) are 2-story including single family homes. Only a few are above which wont have a major effect on crowding because some those few buildings are mixed-use.
Now you understand that my plan does less harm than you thought. Sure 4,000ppl/sq.mi is considered sprawl, but its sprawl the right way.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
you are a millionare and i can hardy feed myself and i have to pay you for my neccesitys. that is wrong the system is based on greed and not caring for each other. no you cant care about others and be greedy their almost polor oppistes. greed is always bad and to form a system based one that idea is a BAD IDEA
Oh, I get it. The people who want to take other people's property are noble and the ones who want to keep the fruits of their labor are greedy. Interesting way to define the term.
have you ever heard of fanra orange its a documented fact it was created by coca cola made this drink so it could stil make profits off nazi germany. do you have any idea how many corporations made millions off nazi germany? now because of the capitialist system instead of punishing these people for making money off the genocide of a race they are rewared with millions of dollers.
If you are a healthy, functioning human being, yeah you are expected to work to earn money to pay for neccesities, as the person that sold you the stuff had to do. For socialism and communism to work is to threaten non joiners with imprisonment and death. How is that system based on caring?
your right thats a good point no system seems to reward caring. in communist and socialist society they care enought to give you an equal shot, where a capitalist society the corporations benifit from taking advantage of people
If by capitalism, you mean laissez-faire, people are free to serve others without requesting nothing in return. Charity is a part of capitalism.
Firms don't take advantage of people, or people wouldn't associate with such organizations. Government, on the other hand, is not optional and is based on coercion. Anyway, something that seems to relief you pinkos is that the profits of a firm tend to zero as they compete for customers and workers.
i belive you have a kinda naive look on big buisnesses good intentions. KFC tortures chickens. record companys are ripping people off to the point artist ask for thier music to be stolen (ex nine inch nails). oil companys are trying to drill in protected ares in alsaka. as preveously stated ford, coca cola and many others benifited from the nazis. the point being that theyer not trying to help us thier trying to get rich at anycost and yes some give to charity so they not all evil but still
I live in Portugal where there are only a couple of KFC restaurants. Even McDonalds is a bit shy here and serves soups because that's the kind of thing people like here. But AFAIK KFC is a franchise company. They don't own the restaurants, or farms. Anyhow the way you kill a chicken is to cut its head off. Some can even do it with their bare hands. Then they move around for a bit. It would be very costly to kill animals like we euthanize people. Animal cruelty laws is a different topic anyhow.
Everybody wants to be an artists, but few want and can manage bands, and the risk of investing in a band that it turns out people don't like. Managers will make more money than the artists at the start, and sometimes artists can be led to sign lousy contracts in exchange for the ambition of getting famous. I assume there is no fraud, and we are talking of grown ups here though. Entrepreneurs are very important in the early development of a project, which is why many artists look for them.
In what comes to natural resources, look for geolibertarians. I don't want to give a lecture on land as a factor of production here, but their position comes down to there not being free entrance on natural resources, so price doesn't necessarly reflect marginal cost. Anyway, the existing oil companies do not want drilling allowed: the increased supply would force them to reduce their prices. Energy trusts are interested on this of course, and those are made of many individuals (use a bank?).
In what comes to nazis, Hitler nationalized Volkswagen and even before that several European nations putted high tariffs on cars as a response to American's New Deal protectionist attitude. With regard to Coca-cola, their factories couldn't even contact the HQ, which was why German managers had to come up with a new drink to keep the factories working. Read about Fanta.
So, to conclude I don't say every business person. I won't put people in love and hate groups. Certainly, I support shrinking government so we don't have lobbies that take money by force and restrict competition, instead of serving people. Nobody has any responsibility to give back honest money, but interestingly enough, studies on charity show the poorer and richer you get in a population, the more of their budget they give to charity. People just like to justify their lack of generosity.
how is greed good when you want to make money. did you not hear about the california blackouts in 2000 or the subprime morgage scandle that led to this economic crisis
people don't like capitalism because it is selfish, and they think that is wrong. That is why we need Ayn Rand to defend capitalism, and that is why other economists can't do it.
no, you don't understand. The point is that caring for other people is not the standard of morality. The good is what furthers your own life. Man must live by his own mind and effort and for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself for others nor others to himself.
shovel: the key point people like you cannot grasp is that individuals will NEVER work hard 24/7 to support strangers. People will only give 100% effort if they personally benefit in direct proportion to their labor.
Your position is that of a typical utopianist. We should all help each other, and not be greedy, and never feel hate/envy, and never blah, blah, blah.
I would leave you to your pipe dreams, but it's people like you that implement totalitarianist govts that kill millions.
Stossel tells it like it is; it's amazing that so much of our youth view capitalism with such disdain but have very favorable views of big government statism.
Republicans only talk about limited government, but never act. That's the problem. Liberty-minded people are left with a lesser of two evils.
bbenjers 2 weeks ago
What event is this?
TheManiacalSatanist6 1 month ago
Why is it that its always a Jew telling me how to think?
MrWatchdawg77 1 month ago
Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Newscorp (foxnews), G.E. (msnbc) paid $0 in federal taxes in 2010, look it up, this is Corporatism not Capitalism. John Stossel who is Athiest btw wants more tax breaks for the rich, less regulations, including legalizing drugs and gay marriage. That's right. It's the worst of both worlds. The Corporatists and Communists are trying to destroy Capitalism, Capitalism can't exist w/o some form of regulation. Both sides are trying to confuse the public.
coolguy98 2 months ago
@coolguy98 I prefer laissez-faire capitalism, which free trade between two consenting parties -- leave the government the hell out of it unless there is a dispute for the courts. You seem to prefer communists (central planning) regulating capitalists (voluntary traders). It is the ability of government to favor one company and punish another (pick winners and losers) that is crony capitalism or corporatism. Take that power away and you end the corporatism you are complaining about.
fzqlcs 2 months ago
@coolguy98 Capitalism vs. Socialism is a false paradigm! The real argument is Nationalism vs. Internationalism!
MrWatchdawg77 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From a Russian officer to all American Officer in the Pentagon and West Point I just want to ask one question to all of you. Are there still Rommels and Stauffenbergs among your ranks? When will you fine officers stand up and start saving your country again whose enemies are now from within it? I wonder if there are anyone among you who will still honor General Mac Arthur's words 'DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY"!
darthvader5300 4 months ago
It's funny how people hate companies and people who take money away from them, because that's why most people hate the state aswell. I think people don't like capitalism, because capitalism is about making money. Religion and Moral Codes tells them that money is evil, wrong or corrupt. That your goal in life is not about making money but to do other things. As the leader of the Youth Labor said "We don't mind rich people, as long as they give back to society and have social responsibilities."
emikke 5 months ago
Hey! How bout Capitalism! :D
iluvpoliticzz 5 months ago
SOCIALISM EPIC FAILS!!!!!!!!!
CAPITALISM, SMALL GOVERNMENT, AND LOW TAXES WINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
technolovers2012 8 months ago
SOCIALISM EPIC FAILS!!!!!!!!!
technolovers2012 8 months ago
its time for a change! Capitalism is good if we have endless resources!the capitalism in US doesnt offer free market ,who the hell can compete with these huge corporations that have dominated the market,they make cheap shit with destroying 3rd world country resorces while offering cheap jobs to them!Capitalism socialism are destined to fail,its time to find a way instead fuckin each other we find a way to educate and help each other!
elegyrulz 9 months ago
@elegyrulz Capitalism is the voluntary exchange between two parties. It's scary that you want a system that controls people so much they aren't allowed to voluntarily trade with each other.
vanraizen 8 months ago
@vanraizen arent we already controlled to the max in our capitalist society?and where did i say i want a gov't that controls people?did i name any kind of system in my comment?im just saying capitalism is replacing morality with materialism,we are going backwards (apes with hi-tech cellphones).watch Zeitgeist "moving forward" and then tell me what r ur thoughts about it!
elegyrulz 8 months ago
@elegyrulz We are not living in a capitalist society. How can you we when the entire money supply itself is regulated and mandated by the government?? You do want a government that controls people because capitalism is the only system that DOESN'T control people. Capitalism has brought millions of people out of poverty, look at India and China as it has moved more towards a capitalist system. Go tell those people that can now afford food that they are apes. BTW Zeitgeist = high tech communism
vanraizen 7 months ago
@vanraizen How voluntary is it if a coal plant dumps millions of tons of gas and soot into my air? They didn't ask me if they could do that. They didn't give me any money. It's called an externality, where an unwilling third party bears the cost of a transaction between others, and capitalism is full of it. It'd be real hard to make money if corporations couldn't steal or transfer cost to others in the process.
aluisious 7 months ago
@aluisious Sorry you are wrong, it's the big government EPA that protects these big corporations and allows them to pollute your air and land. This simply wouldn't be accepted in a capitalist system with real private property law.
vanraizen 7 months ago
How does a consumer "win", when they have to pay over $4 per gallon for gasoline?
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 Because they can buy as much gasoline as they can afford. You are not forced to receive a ration of it from a bureaucrat.
KayamaTakeru 9 months ago
@KayamaTakeru You are totally missing the point.
bddc201 9 months ago
It would have been better if he said that Bill Gates has $30 billion and the country has $30 billion worth in technology; instead, he paused.
Goodatconnect4 11 months ago
I'd be a LOT more sympathetic if the government didn't waste so much of the tax dollars with crappy results.
MinGophers 1 year ago
@coturnix19 Actually, gov't welfare goes to the Capitalists who are really corporatists! If we truly had honest capitalism in the US, the gov't would not be so deeply embedded with corporations & banks. It's an illusion that we have a welfare state for the poor & unemployed. Instead, we have a welfare state for the rich. The parasites are at the top, not the bottom! Do not drink the Kool-Aid. Look into alternative news sources to find out how the system really works.
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago 2
@SIMKINETICS
how does government welfare go to the rich?
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 11 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp
The two biggest welfare programs are Social Security and Medicare, which go to the elderly. The poor have shorter lifespans and work more, so they pay more into these programs. The elderly are the wealthiest demographic. The rich live longer and don't need to work, so they benefit from these programs more while paying into them less.
Those with the luxury of spare time and money are more politically active... so the govt serves them.
XiaoGui17 11 months ago
@XiaoGui17
1, you cant prove that the poor work more than the rich, because management jobs are not done hourly no scale to compare them to.
2. social security and medicare are done by a percent of your income, so richer people put way more money into social security and medicare then poor people.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 11 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp
1. I was referring to those who inherit and don't have to work, not those with higher salaries. A preppy kid who inherited his parents' money doesn't have to work. Naturally, high-paying jobs are done by an elite group whose specialized skills demand longer hours.
2. Again, I'm not talking about people who earn their income. :P
XiaoGui17 11 months ago
@XiaoGui17 - The basis of your argument is you hate "preppy kids who inherit their wealth." This is no different from you hating someone who inherits their genes from their parents. No different from you hating someone who receives the upbringing of driven, successful parents who instill that ethic upon their children. In short, you hate anyone that isn't a total loser which is why Socialism turns the entire nation into a nation of miserable, impoverished losers with a decreasing population.
thomaserossi 9 months ago
@thomaserossi They're not miserable in Denmark. They're happier than anyone anywhere else.
The best way to increase happiness is to eliminate misery. Capitalism does bupkis to eliminate misery.
aluisious 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp
1. I was referring to those who inherit and don't have to work, not those with higher salaries. A preppy kid who inherited his parents' money doesn't have to work. Naturally, high-paying jobs are done by an elite group whose specialized skills demand longer hours.
2. Again, I'm not talking about people who earn their income. :P
XiaoGui17 11 months ago
Capitalism is not perfect, but it works. As Bill Gates said "life is unfair so get used to it".
GaunletofDestruction 1 year ago
I find is funny he wrote a book about myths and lies yet scorned Kevin Trudeau because of the same sales tactic.
anurre5 1 year ago
@anurre5 Thats because Trudeau's book was not just about myths and lies, it was full of them too.
Zender1 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser When you included the AMA, I missed your point. Sorry. UL is a better example of what you describe. Agreed. Also, fair competition works well when a referee keeps the playing field level without too much intervention. Please watch that video! I'd like to get your take on it. It's a great peek behind the curtains!
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser Yes. Self regulation is a dicey game. The Federal Reserve Chairman supposedly controls its banks. Therein lies the problem. Heroin addicts are familiar with self-regulation! Notice that the Fed refuses to submit to a congressional audit? A revealing documentary about Wall Street, Behind the Meltdown and Bailouts on YT, shows how the repeal of Glass-Stiegel got us into this mess. Brooksley Born could have been a hero, but was muffled. Watch that video!
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser That's an idealistic viewpoint. In reality, the ironic truth is that freedom requires some rules & enforcement. So-called Free Market economics liberated the wrong people, and enslaved the rest of us. Observation of American politics & business for more than 50 years gives me an informed perspective on this. The middle-class was much healthier/wealthier before Reaganomics.
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
I always get a kick out of liberals who cite statistics like 1% of the population controls 40% of the wealth (I'm making these numbers up, but you get the idea).
I tell them, so you think that an even smaller minority, that is not responsible for its actions, to control all the wealth?
xp19375 1 year ago
@xp19375 The word 'liberal' is meaningless in America today. Eisenhower would have considered foday's average Democrat as a radical right-winger! Public opinion has been deliberately nudged so far toward empathy with Wall Street that it has fallen off the edge!
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
When he says "capitalism lifted more people from the misery of poverty", thats a classic argument that does not hold water. What he means(the truth) is that capitalism takes SELF SUBSISTENCE farmers, who are "poor" because they have no money, but they were thriving, encumber them with debt, then tell them they have to work, not to feed themselves, but instead to pay off the debt our capitalist society so generously gave them with astronomical interest.
Can capitalism work?
Not how we do it.
The4LA2Baker0 1 year ago
Superb, sir.
LinnBoy 1 year ago
John is mostly right with one notable exception: vast wealth perverts capitalism, reducing the power of most individuals via the disproportionate influence on politics by a tiny minority. He doesn't get that, as don't many ivory tower thinkers. Vast wealth empowers to a degree that creates a myopic, selfish view. Hence the adage, 'Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Now, American politics is manipulated to support policies at the expense of many productive people. Merit?
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
I love you
presentpage1013 1 year ago
The only teensy complaint I have is that he flubs the "double thank you", making it sound (until you listen further) like the buyer thanks twice.
You have to take a moment and parse what he actually meant...and the kind of people who need this explained to them don't necessarily have enough mental energy to do that and still learn.
KAZVorpal 1 year ago
@icecreamtrepan If you believe that things belong to the people who are using it, does that mean that food belongs to nobody until people decide to eat it?
What happens if a group of fat people decide to stuff themselves with food and the people who grow it can't stop it because they don't own it because they aren't using it while it is in the silo.
Ooops, no seeds left for next year, everybody starves.
MichaelJenkinson 1 year ago
@MichaelJenkinson The silo is a perfect metaphor for capitalism & economy. We do not need to consume immediately, and resources are available from the silo for many uses at appropriate times. The problem emerges when the curator of the silo isn't curbed from corrupt behavior. This is not the silo's fault! It's our fault to allow the curator to operate at his sole discretion with every silo. Without competition between silo curators, we lose choice and a whole lot more. Too big to fail?
SIMKINETICS 1 year ago
People resent taking TOO much Money and squandering it.
The Microsoft monopoly that forced competition out of the market, then they stymied further innovation and maintained huge margins.
The government takes 40% and gives it to Wall Street bonuses.
The Oil monopoly that blocks us from buying "+Hydrogen+Cars+now"
MyRepresentativeOrg 1 year ago
Yes, you are free to starve if you so choose. But under true Capitalism there are plenty of opportunities and jobs for people to find, so long as the government doesn't set up ridiculous rules and regulations that permit people from doing so (thus making null the title of 'Capitalism'). Being free to die of your own accord is an essential human freedom, because it also implies that you are free to live of your own accord as well.
Dabba23 1 year ago 21
@Dabba23 No one chooses to starve. When your philosophy requires you to make ridiculous statements to support it, there's something wrong with it.
As for ridiculous rules and regulations, you're free to go live somewhere where industries dump heavy metals into rivers and burn down thousands of square kilometers of forest. I'd rather not live in such a place.
aluisious 7 months ago
you're an idiot.
olipop84 2 years ago
Another brainwashed Marxist non-economist.
One day this kid is gonna learn economics and blush that he ever typed this.
selfrealizedexile 2 years ago
Human beings are complex animals with intellectual skills (most of them anyway). This does not necessarily apply to those who fall for the nonsense that capitalists are "parasites" rather than individuals (often workers themselves) who invest their property to benefit themselves and, by doing so, create jobs and prosperity that benfit workers and society as a whole.
Perhaps you should go BACK to (economics) class. Marxism has been long debunked.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
@icecreamtrepan, humans aren't animals. We have a mind and free will. Having children is a lifestyle choice. Like anything else, if you can't afford it, then don't fucking buy it.
I'm a 41 year old human, I'm not a monk, I've been in love, but guess what? I have no children, BY CHOICE! So, don't hand me your bullshit that life just rolls over us helpless humans like a giant tidal wave. It's all about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
And, if you want to live in a socialist country, move to Cuba.
BRYAN351 2 years ago 6
@icecreamtrepan, you're just another broker-ass LOSER who hates successful people, because they constantly remind you of what a failure you are.
Whether the government loots and plunders wealth through taxation, or you and a bunch of other broke-ass losers loot and plunder wealth by "taking over their workplaces and kicking the bosses out", it's all the same thing, THEFT.
Do yourself a big fat favor and stop being a pathetic, bitter, envious little douche bag. It gets you NOWHERE.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
I love his simple analogy, its a real keeper,
a win, win or it wouldnt of happened.
This can never be said of big governments, the transaction is forced by threat of prison.
Hardly win, win
phantomcharger 2 years ago
Labor does not have "value."
JackBlair2 2 years ago
icecreamtrepan wrote:
"my solution is for workers to take over their workplaces and kick the bosses out"
That's an unethical stance that promotes aggression against others. It would be better for them to peacefully quit, start their own communally owned business, and try to compete with their old bosses for the same share of the free market. If their way really is better (as you believe) they would prevail and others would follow suit. If communal ownership is best, prove it.
rmcdaniel423 2 years ago 3
Property rights preclude this. The workers can BUY the facilities if they desire, but only if the owner wants to sell.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
@JackBlair2
Exactly. Icecream's "solution" is violent and precluded by property rights, and the owner's will not likely sell to antagonistic workers. They can prove their socialist theory best by pooling their resources and starting their own business from the ground up. If we could ever achieve a true free market, it would allow for all sorts of creative forms of competing organizations. Let the best businesses prevail. In the end . . .Happy owners. Happy workers. Happy customers.
rmcdaniel423 2 years ago
icecreamtrepan wrote:
"...you have to pay someone less than the amount of labor they contributed.
Wage labor is slavery."
I disagree. Wage labor is voluntary. Slavery is not. If people thought the wage offered was not worth the labor, they wouldn't take the job. It is worth exactly what people agree to. They may WISH they made more, but they would have to persuade the employer that they were WORTH more $ for the same labor someone else would be happy to provide.
rmcdaniel423 2 years ago
I have said the same stuff as this clip... thats just weird to me. Stossel is a cool guy that people hate to hear... sometimes the truth hurts but to acknowledge it is the healthy way to deal with it.
thebiggoofer 2 years ago
What friendship? You seem to have been employed in some stupid company - not every company is like that. I have cordial relationships with the 6 employees I have. I however don't hang out with them nor try to be their friend or vice versa. There is nothing more damaging to productivity then an employee thinking that because you are friends they can slack off. It happens a lot. Good people are hard to find and when you do find them, pay them well, treat them well.
grumpone 2 years ago
I am a privileged individual????
You think my relative success as you call it dropped down from the sky for me? I worked 10x as hard as any employee ever has (especially government employees). I should know, because I can compare how much I worked and how much my mind was engaged as an employee and how much I work mentally and physically as a business owner. Try starting a business and I can guarantee you you'll change your tune very quickly.
grumpone 2 years ago
Employees always have the option of working for the percentage of profits - I don't see too many opting for that. Why? because they like the security of a regular pay every week, even though they would earn 10x more working for percentages. They are uncomfortable with risk, that is why they are employees. You see if the owner paid them as much as they actually produce there would be NO BUSINESSES for the employees to be employed in.
grumpone 2 years ago
LOL, as I said you assume waaaaay too much. First of all I am not in the US. Second I lived the majority of my life growing up in a Communist country in Eastern Europe where they tried to indoctrinate every child into communism. I was an employee and business owner. I know it from both sides. You have no idea how easy employees have it, my friend. If you say working for a pay check is slavery, you denigrate REAL slavery - forcibly working for nothing.
grumpone 2 years ago
You seem to be permanently indoctrinated into something you repeat. Has any of this grown in your own mind? I am just trying to have you look at things from a different perspective. I do agree with some of your premises that big business when grown too large goes into cahoots with government to stomp out competition.
grumpone 2 years ago
You always concentrate on big business and declare that is all there is and capitalism equates it. You couldn't be more wrong over 70% of people are employed in small and midium sized businesses owned by their founder who sacrificed everything he had (time, money, future, house...) not large organisations, OK. Why have contracts then if you think they can be broken on a whim?
grumpone 2 years ago
If they want to be owners they should open their own business and start from scratch, like the owner did. Most can't because they don't have the discipline to go without a pay check for years for the business to take off nor do they have an entrepreneurial spirit - otherwise they would not try so hard to be employees only.
grumpone 2 years ago
It's not "their" workplaces. The owner of the company has under consumed and taken a gigantic risk, worked his ass of for the company to get on its legs. Workers have only been looking for a pay check. If they work, they get paid, no risk, no under-consumption, no hassle.
grumpone 2 years ago
workers takeover "their" workplaces? Its not theirs to take over.
fdny9682 2 years ago
exactly right!!!!!
fdny9682 2 years ago
@icecreamtrepan maybe that man should of thought about that before he got a mortgage and made the "choice" to have a kid
fdny9682 2 years ago
I hate people who have more than me! They should be punished! LOL
Stupid statists.
uhclem 2 years ago 2
It's all about productivity. Tell me who by your definition is more productive and who gets paid more - A man with a shovel or a man with a bulldozer? Who has less easily replaceable skills? Answer that for yourself and you'll know why factory workers are paid low wages.
grumpone 2 years ago
Trust me I am no excuser of fascism (big business in kahoots with the government), but small business people (the majority of business out there) are your friend not your enemy. They employ 75% of all people in The US. I have been raised by a single mother and my dad left when I was little. I worked hard all my life and throughout school. I graduated and opened my own business. I have seen it all from both sides.
grumpone 2 years ago
I have also seen it from the worker's side. Why haven't they gone to community college to better their employability in better paid positions? So your solution is for the government to steal from someone in taxes to give it to the crying grown man? People cry for many things, so is crying then the act that qualifies someone to other people's money, now?
grumpone 2 years ago
Getting payed with benefits costing the employer 70 bucks an hour to operate a screw gun. Are you serious? I'm sorry but work like that doesn't deserve that kind of wage and benefit that cost 70 bucks an hour. This kind of workforce leads to outsourcing or bankrupting the company altogether.
saved03 2 years ago
Move from Cleveland if it's that bad. No one is forcing you to live there. Pick up and move on if you can't get a job there. Don't give me that excuse that you can't afford it, because we get imigrants who come to this country who only see what worker makes here in a week over a period of their life time. They live farther away too. Unions now are a socialized workforce. They are out dated and obsolete in this global economy of today. Than you wonder why GM, Chrysler needed a bailout.
saved03 2 years ago
Than explain why we had so many imigrants coming to America during the Industrial Revolution. Also there was no NAFTA back in those days to say what you are saying today. So that is a theroy that is shot out of the water. They came because of our capitalism and the freedoms we have here. Capitalism has been proven fact that it has gotten more people out of poverty than any other source of economics period. China has gotten richer off of it.
saved03 2 years ago
In capitalism, you only need to acquire a skill for which someone else would pay, but it does take effort and motivation. Admittedly, it does not work well for those striving to live as dependent children.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
No "community" has a a lease or right to force me to work for them, because there are always people who slack at working and live off other people's work - Communism does no work precisely because of that. The elites want other people to work for them, just like Feudalism.
What you are talking about is give-and-take in self interest. I help you, so I can expect help back when I need it, which is voluntary. That works, you or anyone forcing people to give does not.
grumpone 2 years ago
The "boss" or owner of the company has self-sacrificed, gone into debt, underconsumed to build his business. He took a huge risk and only 1 out of 10 businesses make within ten years time. What has the employee sacrificed? His time and for that time he got PAID. Some sacrifice.
The owner did not get paid FOR YEARS when building his business up. You do not know anything about business nor real life buddy.
grumpone 2 years ago
They work and get PAYMENT for the work, you nutjob. Nobody is forcing them to work there. Why did they take the job if they knew that they would not get any "stock options" you describe? Because they made a FREE Decision. You want to FORCE your own lalaland values on other people. An absolute moralist is the worlds' most dangerous individual - self righteous, completely brainwashed, hateful and aggressive.
grumpone 2 years ago
It looks like you want everything for nothing - that other people should work and then pay for your life, right? Pathetic and not becoming of a grown man.
grumpone 2 years ago
Don't lie man. If you are sick you can always go to the doctor. If you are not insured and if the illness is serious you can always go to the emergency room. That's why it was designed for:
No one asks you about insurance there. Hell, even illegal immigrants go there for a runny nose and get treatment without questions. Plant a garden if you hate working in a job. There are free "soup kitchens" in every neighbourhood where hot meals are given to unemployed and poor.
grumpone 2 years ago
Spreading the wealth does not make anyone rich. Letting the government take your wages and they get to spend it how they see fit. Look if the top dogs of Wall Street can steal and sell. What makes you think that Washington top dogs will not do the same thing? I think the real issue is who's in charge of either Wall Street or Capital Hill and Pennslivania Ave. It's the character of the person or persons that matters. Do not throw out the baby along with the bath water.
saved03 2 years ago
Capitalism makes everyone rich. The thing of it is not everyone will take the effort to make it happen. We have immigrants who come to this country who become wealthy. A wealth that they may never see within their own country. Why do you think that we have so many illegals in this country. It is all because of Capitalism. Are they going south of Mexico or cross the pond? No because they now that our Capitalism works.
saved03 2 years ago
If you want to see the effects of socialism, please go to Vietnam.
ntn1987 2 years ago
My first job was picking tomatoes for $5/hr. Then it was stacking boxes at walmart.
Right now i'm sitting on my couch in my brand new house casually working from home as a programmer for one of the worlds best companies.
Why? because I worked hard to move up and get here.
I did not sit on youtube complaining after i got off work: i studied my ass off. Your boss is not your dad. Grow up and take care of your own self.
Capitalism works and keeps people like you where they should be.
bigtacobill 2 years ago
Thank you for sharing that.
Although I know the theory, sometimes I need the encouragement of stories like yours.
freeerteee 2 years ago
ROFL!!!! haha cute
braino2000 2 years ago
Socialism won't make you any richer, buddy. It will just make your boss alot poorer. Your little idea arises out of wealth envy, simple as that.
braino2000 2 years ago 6
the best way to fight a bad corporation is to use another corporation. Government isn't the best tool against out of control corporations.
BloodiCheeseCake 2 years ago
I used to like John Stossel, and surely he might be right about some things, but his reports are opinion editorials not balanced journalism. His "facts" are ususlly anecdotes, probably ture but more or less meaningless (because contrary anecodotes are also abundant).
The man should be on the FAUX channel, where opinion masquerades as objective truth.
volvol1 2 years ago
But he challenges his interviewees! He doesn't simply report what others say! That's what true journalism is all about! A journalist needs to "investigate" the facts, not simply report them from the mouth of a politician or spokes hole. That what Stossel does and we need more of that in the media instead of transmission-belt journalism.
tybrands 2 years ago
Love John Stossel
He gets it !!!!
lindaclements 2 years ago 12
John Stossel has got to be one of my favorite people in the media
Elasaltaculos 2 years ago
Best line: We hate businesses who give us things and we love the government who takes our money and squanders it.
lordthawkeye 2 years ago 10
agreed
collapseofthedollar 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm not against capitalism, i'm just against capitalism that's wreckless and irresponsible. Look, capitalism like anything in life always needs to be checked, balanced, and improved on, so that there is some degree of fairness.
ShaneWoodbury 2 years ago
What we see today is not capitalism, it's reverse socialism. Instead of wealth going to the poor it goes to the rich. Either way someone's money is getting distributed. Capitalism is not the opposite of socialism. It is rather the absence. I find it funny when people accuse the republicans of being capitalists, as if giving tons of money to businesses is a way to let the market decide.
croat88 2 years ago 4
lol, funny how you ignore the fact the rich are still taxed the most and the rich pay for the majority of the taxes in america.
Business's create jobs, and thus competition.
OmnipotentDivinity 2 years ago
Capitalism is by far the best system. Not only is it best, it is the most moral system by far. Taking at the point of a gun is not moral. That's government. If Tiger Woods has a lot of birdies, I don't have fewer birdies.
pitbull103 3 years ago 3
Milk producers have a history of being subsidized at he cost of taxpayers due to capitalist corporate lobbying. So how is overpriced milk a win for consumers?
joeo78501 2 years ago
Business is not really voluntary when it is monoploized and subsidized as in benefits received from Clear Channel, Fox non news, from deregulated FCC rules. Blackwater Haliburton, KBR all enjoy no bid contracts and subsidized taxpayer millions. Legislators recieve Bribes in the name of campaign funds from corporate capitalistic America in order to further corrupt a peoples government. ( ie: Tom Delay, Enron, Kenneth Lay, Abramonov, many others)
joeo78501 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol more brilliant ignorance from John Tosser :P
lGnossos 3 years ago
no time for arguements, huh? idiot
Krampfarsch 2 years ago 2
Equality is most important. Equal shares of the pie.
Yes it's true that we have a much smaller pie without profit & the right to keep the fruits of one's productivity, but don't sweat the details.
Spread the misery! Mediocrity for all!
Scottit 3 years ago
Why thumbs down?
Either you don't understand or
are lazy & want to take from others.
Scottit 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The phrase 'Free Market' is an attempt to allow Super Corporations to do anything they want without punishment. Capitalism does NOT equal democracy. Capitalism came FROM democracy. Capitalism is good. It IS the best system possible. But it needs to have it's laws just as much as we the citizens have laws telling us how to behave. Having a few laws on the books is a GOOD thing for everyone. It does not mean socialism. Imagine having no laws at all for you or me... Wild West anyone?
houdinididiit 3 years ago
Who's advocating no laws?
Free market is not what you think. maybe you should finish your GED, then go on to other learning before talking nonsense.
Scottit 3 years ago
Hmmm... Lets see Scott... Last I heard DEREGULATION means NO LAW. Which in some economist wet dreams is called 'Lazier fare'.
Are you one bit familiar with the days before Anti-Trust? Believe me Scott, you'll find plenty of lawlessness and free for all in the markets.
But hey, why do that? There's plenty going on right now.
Perhaps you should go back to economics 101 in that community college you went to and then go back and get that GED you faked your way though. Say hi to Hannity
houdinididiit 3 years ago
You heard wrong about what deregulation means; it does not mean no law.
Bush did not deregulate anyway.
Regs continually increase.
Check out Sarbanes-Oxley
Nobody is advocating going back 100+ years before ant-trust laws.
You are implying that monopolies are the problem now. That's true for labor unions particularly the UAW.
You are so funny to lack econ & business knowledge & be devoid of commons sense, and then accuse others of that.
Dems plan: punish success, reward bad decisions.
Scottit 3 years ago
Comment removed
Scottit 3 years ago
Comment removed
Scottit 3 years ago
Scottit 3 years ago
This is completely untrue, capitalism benefits everybody, yourself included. It is a positive sum game where the pie is not fixed. Gates through pursuing his self interest has made all our lives better, and that very well may not of been his intent. PC computers when first introduced were a luxury only enjoyed by few. Through capitalism the luxuries enjoyed by only the rich eventually become amenities that are taken for granted by even the poor.
rdevine20 3 years ago 4
the real problem isn't capitalism....it's creditism!
part of our current society...often thought to be synonymous with capitalism but it simply isn't.
living beyond our means is a direct result of too much credit, this simply isn't sustainable. This is, in part, why we had the great depression, and also whats happening now! maybe its time we looked at our Islamic brothers and took a leaf from their banking books.
benmcpeatfield 3 years ago
You didn't understand the sarcasm of being for redistribution.
Scottit 2 years ago
Well, now that your commie hero has been elected, we can expect to see every poor person with their own luxury yacht within the next four years. All hail the Messiah, Barack!
dudemanbearpig 3 years ago
yeh that'll happen. i love how many people don't have even the slightest grasp of real economics.
benmcpeatfield 3 years ago
Yeah, like that moron who thinks Il Douchebag is going to pay for her gas.
dudemanbearpig 3 years ago
I want my piece of the pie that I don't deserve.
We need to take money from the producers to give to the lessor people.
Oh yeah Obuma!
Scottit 3 years ago
Capitalism god bless it
cbowman61 3 years ago 8
I am an Atheist and I approve of this message.
MrBr3w 3 years ago 3
I'm a capitalist & approve of atheism.
Also, each person has the freedom to do what they want as long as it doesn't interfere with others pursuing their own freedom.
Scottit 3 years ago 3
Reply to Scottit:
Amen, you mentioned it!!! Good point!! finally for god sakes there is something we both agree on.
Cyrus992 2 years ago
You have just contradicted yourself in your desire to tell people what form of transport should be used & how small there yard should be.
Your type of thinking, in "messing" with housing has caused this depression.
See Heritage, Hoover, FNC, Heartland & such.
Freedom restrictions are harmful.
Scottit 2 years ago
reply to scottit:
I appreciate the fact that you want freedom for individuals, but really just look at what we have: URBAN SPRAWL!!!
Where is the freedom? You may think that people and business get what they want, but they dont decide how their cities are layed out. Susprisingly the result is: TOO MUCH DRIVING!!!
Freedom is good, but its not happening in the places we live (sprawled areas)
Cyrus992 2 years ago
Sprawl is great. It's low density with more nature & open space. Traffic is less because there are fewer cars jammed in the same area. You want coercion for high density.
I recently did an analysis of VMT in regards to other factors. No significant correlation with anything. I'll email you in a few days w/ an edit of my .ppt., which I'll put in .pdf.
However, I don't know if you like reading about reality, when you have your unsound theories.
ie: Q: What's the densest UA in the US? A: LA.
Scottit 2 years ago
Additionally, there is even less freedom & more expense under forced high density.
There is even less choice on layout under high density.
Your contention of freedom (which includes fewer restrictions & requirements) is twisted.
Scottit 2 years ago
reply to scottit:
Look your overreacting. Lets give a little recap of my plan (Lets leave behind CNU)
I want to provide the opportinity of mixed-use planning which benefits retailers, offices, and condo owners who have easy convenience and choice. Detached homeowners can get the same product. Now thats not freedom restricting.
I understand high density can be tough, but a slight increase to 2-4 stories with less parking spaces actually has more benefits than destroyirng freedom.
Cyrus992 2 years ago
Developers can & do offer those options now. You seem to want to force people to want to only live that way.
Going to 2-4 stories is more than a slight increase. That could easily be a sextupling of density.
People like yards. I grew up on only 1/2 acre. I thought that was small. That was in a suburb of a density of about 4,000.
Fewer parking spaces limits freedom too & wastes gas, by people driving around.
Scottit 2 years ago
reply to scottit:
You see thats your problem, you THINK that developers are simply getting what they want in sprawl, BUT THAT NOT TRUE!!!!
Its these building codes that mess things up. My plan is too remove most of these reestrictions and let them build WHATEVER THEY WANT. Yeah thats giving capitalistic freedom.
Hey it they dont like mixed use planning, then fine lets DROP THE IDEA, but its seems developers are profit from this method.
Cyrus992 2 years ago
reply to scottit:
You see. Now you know that I dont "force" people to do things and its the codes that makes more of the decisons not the developers.
BTW, you said that going 2-4 stories is "sextupling" how? 70% of the buildings are 2-story and what are they? Hmm....
Detached homes with yards just like sprawl has only the layout is different. So go ahead enjoy your 1/2 acre lot. Its your freedom. Oh and the density you lived in was 4,000 and what is it under my plan? 4,000 No change!
Cyrus992 2 years ago
Going up in stories (2-4) is not just in area, but volume, therefore, the apprx sextuptling.
4,000ppl/sq.mi is considered sprawl.
Non-sprawl is usually [considered] above 8,000.
It takes above 10,000 for large high transit ridership.
In other words, you can't get your transit at only 4,000 density. Try more education on density.
Want more discussion on this? Got to ti . org (O'Toole's site) I'm Scott, re: the comments.
Scottit 2 years ago
reply to scottit:
I told you before, most buildings (70%) are 2-story including single family homes. Only a few are above which wont have a major effect on crowding because some those few buildings are mixed-use.
Now you understand that my plan does less harm than you thought. Sure 4,000ppl/sq.mi is considered sprawl, but its sprawl the right way.
Cyrus992 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you are a millionare and i can hardy feed myself and i have to pay you for my neccesitys. that is wrong the system is based on greed and not caring for each other. no you cant care about others and be greedy their almost polor oppistes. greed is always bad and to form a system based one that idea is a BAD IDEA
punkhippe 3 years ago
Oh, I get it. The people who want to take other people's property are noble and the ones who want to keep the fruits of their labor are greedy. Interesting way to define the term.
LibertyPen 3 years ago
Liberty: you've hit the nail on the head. Lets take three hypothetical people:
1. Bob works hard, saves and invests, pays taxes and eventually becomes wealthy. Donates to charity too.
2. Ed is a no load. Ed demands govt support him because it's unfair he has so little while others have so much.
3. Sue is a pol whose platform is income redistribution, class warfare, and "helping" the poor. She's in a safe district and is easily reelected.
Ironic how Bob is the "greedy" one.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
let me tell you a story liberty penn.
have you ever heard of fanra orange its a documented fact it was created by coca cola made this drink so it could stil make profits off nazi germany. do you have any idea how many corporations made millions off nazi germany? now because of the capitialist system instead of punishing these people for making money off the genocide of a race they are rewared with millions of dollers.
its a system ran by greed and thats wrong
punkhippe 3 years ago
If you are a healthy, functioning human being, yeah you are expected to work to earn money to pay for neccesities, as the person that sold you the stuff had to do. For socialism and communism to work is to threaten non joiners with imprisonment and death. How is that system based on caring?
Ambrosefolly 3 years ago 5
your right thats a good point no system seems to reward caring. in communist and socialist society they care enought to give you an equal shot, where a capitalist society the corporations benifit from taking advantage of people
punkhippe 3 years ago
If by capitalism, you mean laissez-faire, people are free to serve others without requesting nothing in return. Charity is a part of capitalism.
Firms don't take advantage of people, or people wouldn't associate with such organizations. Government, on the other hand, is not optional and is based on coercion. Anyway, something that seems to relief you pinkos is that the profits of a firm tend to zero as they compete for customers and workers.
picapauengracado 3 years ago 2
i belive you have a kinda naive look on big buisnesses good intentions. KFC tortures chickens. record companys are ripping people off to the point artist ask for thier music to be stolen (ex nine inch nails). oil companys are trying to drill in protected ares in alsaka. as preveously stated ford, coca cola and many others benifited from the nazis. the point being that theyer not trying to help us thier trying to get rich at anycost and yes some give to charity so they not all evil but still
punkhippe 3 years ago
I live in Portugal where there are only a couple of KFC restaurants. Even McDonalds is a bit shy here and serves soups because that's the kind of thing people like here. But AFAIK KFC is a franchise company. They don't own the restaurants, or farms. Anyhow the way you kill a chicken is to cut its head off. Some can even do it with their bare hands. Then they move around for a bit. It would be very costly to kill animals like we euthanize people. Animal cruelty laws is a different topic anyhow.
picapauengracado 3 years ago
Everybody wants to be an artists, but few want and can manage bands, and the risk of investing in a band that it turns out people don't like. Managers will make more money than the artists at the start, and sometimes artists can be led to sign lousy contracts in exchange for the ambition of getting famous. I assume there is no fraud, and we are talking of grown ups here though. Entrepreneurs are very important in the early development of a project, which is why many artists look for them.
picapauengracado 3 years ago
In what comes to natural resources, look for geolibertarians. I don't want to give a lecture on land as a factor of production here, but their position comes down to there not being free entrance on natural resources, so price doesn't necessarly reflect marginal cost. Anyway, the existing oil companies do not want drilling allowed: the increased supply would force them to reduce their prices. Energy trusts are interested on this of course, and those are made of many individuals (use a bank?).
picapauengracado 3 years ago
In what comes to nazis, Hitler nationalized Volkswagen and even before that several European nations putted high tariffs on cars as a response to American's New Deal protectionist attitude. With regard to Coca-cola, their factories couldn't even contact the HQ, which was why German managers had to come up with a new drink to keep the factories working. Read about Fanta.
picapauengracado 3 years ago
So, to conclude I don't say every business person. I won't put people in love and hate groups. Certainly, I support shrinking government so we don't have lobbies that take money by force and restrict competition, instead of serving people. Nobody has any responsibility to give back honest money, but interestingly enough, studies on charity show the poorer and richer you get in a population, the more of their budget they give to charity. People just like to justify their lack of generosity.
picapauengracado 3 years ago
very well said sir.
Minionuup 3 years ago
KFC tortures chickens? COOL!
dudemanbearpig 3 years ago
Greed is bad when you want to take others' money, you phukin basturd.
Greed is good when you want to be productive & make your own money.
If you have a job, you want to get paid right? Boy, pretty greedy.
Scottit 2 years ago
how is greed good when you want to make money. did you not hear about the california blackouts in 2000 or the subprime morgage scandle that led to this economic crisis
punkhippe 2 years ago
people don't like capitalism because it is selfish, and they think that is wrong. That is why we need Ayn Rand to defend capitalism, and that is why other economists can't do it.
shovelcharge 3 years ago
And what people don't get is being selfish isn't necessarily a bad thing! You can still want to be rich and care about other people.
girzwald3 3 years ago 4
no, you don't understand. The point is that caring for other people is not the standard of morality. The good is what furthers your own life. Man must live by his own mind and effort and for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself for others nor others to himself.
shovelcharge 3 years ago
shovel: the key point people like you cannot grasp is that individuals will NEVER work hard 24/7 to support strangers. People will only give 100% effort if they personally benefit in direct proportion to their labor.
Your position is that of a typical utopianist. We should all help each other, and not be greedy, and never feel hate/envy, and never blah, blah, blah.
I would leave you to your pipe dreams, but it's people like you that implement totalitarianist govts that kill millions.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
Stossel tells it like it is; it's amazing that so much of our youth view capitalism with such disdain but have very favorable views of big government statism.
northduc 3 years ago 4