It's not capitalism that is the key problem. It is Corporatism and the corruption they have forced into the system as a means to control the system. The banks have been and are the serious problem.
What you must take in account is MORALITY. Would you like to be exploited like this? You eventually reach a situation like the one in dubai: You're either really rich when you don't deserve it or you're really poor when you don't deserve it. The people do not have consent from the first world countries. Therefore you'll still have a revolution that stabs the first world and possibly ends in communism.
They want our technology, our money, our creature-comforts, they're willing to work for a LOT less than we are here because life is "simpler" and "cheaper" in lesser countries, then when they find out how much Americans get, they whine about "exploitation", forgetting somehow that we have a lot of extra costs they don't have--and for that matter, THEY are part of our costs!
While profound and laced with sarcasm, this clip lacks any specifics and is very open to interpretation.
I assume this is aimed at the United States aar the alleged "great exploiter" of other nations. In the early 20th century, that may have been true. But I believe the United States has given more back to its Third-World trading partners than it is given credit for, and has vastly developed nations like China, India, South Korea, and re-constructed Eurpoe and Japan.
I thought it was interesting, but a near-Magritte juxtaposition. Also, they could have had a much better person do the voiceover. This sounds like Lily Tomlin doing Edith Ann on quaaludes.
I thought it was interesting, but a near-Magritte juxtaposition. Also, they could have had a much better person do the voiceover. This sounds like Lily Tomlin doing Edith Ann on quaaludes.
I've loved all these episodes. Just wanted to add: "superpower" is the whitewashed version of "empire." Super! Like superman. Power! Like, "I got da power." Two positive words fused together, it must be something good! "Empire" sounds soooooo before the common era.
No political system works as good as the idea or at best for very long (in the realm of time) because of some humans desire for power and luxury, however that is defined by the particular society or person. And as the population grows in each, the idea gets more corrupted and falls apart, takes a turn for the worse or is overthrown. It's all redundant.
Not to say there aren't things to work for, care about.
The mistake is to believe that the solution to the world's problems lie at some form of system, or some form of change.
Both the problem, and the solution lies at the humans mind. It is our desire and ideas, whatever they are, that shapes society and creates systems.
We can never live in a perfect democracy/communism/socialism before our own individual mindset has evolved. As we all know, mistakes help us to learn and grow, there is logic.
It is equally as scary if the people making these decisions of equality decide we shouldn't have the right to use a grill. Or have the right to freedom of religion. Or the right to teach are own children. etc. etc. In America we have these rights because we are from this mindset but globally who decides. I will tell you. The ones who know how to control and influence. At least in the USA, we have the freedom to kick the people out who are in power and we have a constitution based on rights.
Also, can I give you an example of what I fear, even though I doubt it will ever happen?
Imagine if the police and the fire department was completely privatized...
So in this modern world, you would need money in other to be protected from the "bad guys". It wasn't a right you were born with, it was a right you'd have to pay for....
Same thing would apply to the your house if it caught fire.
Now you would maybe say that we are already paying for such a service, but it is a universal one.....
That's anarcho-capitalism; not libertarianism. Libertarians want to keep law enforcement intact (althought with less laws to enforce) in order to prevent the use of force or fraud by private entities.
So they are undecided. They want less restrictions while they at the same time admit that there needs to be some government control. I question what happens where there is no such control, for example when the power of the private interests has convinced (through dinners and what not) the politicians that such control is a bad thing, thus let the "free market" decide...
My biggest problem is that I cannot see this free market, and the more "free" they make it, in reality less free it gets...
They are decided; their main problem with the government is that it uses too much force and is essentially stealing money through taxes. They believe its only legitimate job is protect people from the use of force or fraud by private entities.
The market is not getting any freer as we saw with the government bailouts, the stimulus package and the Bush tax "cuts".
Hmmm, of course, even though I have my ideas, there is no simple answer to economical problems we have today....
What would your suggestion be to make the world into a more fair and free society, and by free I mean that every individual has not only the right, but also the possibility to make their own choices. This is not normally the case if they are born poor....
In many parts of the world they then tend to stay poor (the majority of them), since their alternatives has been limited.
The majority of them aren't staying poor though; India and China are both rising superpowers and they make up 1/3 of the world's population.
The best way is to remove trade barriers and reduce taxation; therby putting more money into the economy and reducing the prices to give poor people more purchasing power.
@WhyCantIVote Demand CANNOT grow and thus expand consumption power and job #s without some control of the relationship between profits, wages and prices. Min wages must be high enough to optimally promote consumption and grow markets (highly concentrated wealth doesn't funnel consumption); the cost of public goods (ed., health, soc., trans., police, soc. sec.) must be shared so that the labor force & productivity can develop & so that those who provide them are not competed out of the market...
@musicalidea Wages rise because employers compete over employees. People aren't going to permenantly leave farming jobs unless they get higher wages elsewhere. Industrialisation does increase purchasing power because it raises production and hence raises supply.
@WhyCantIVote 1. Ostensibly, what u say is true - but it's not so simple in reality. Many times there is NO CHOICE between subsistence farming and factory work. People are either 1) displaced from the land when large monied interests purchase it and forced into search for wage jobs or 2) converted in to WAGED farm employees vs subsistence farm work. Compared with WAGED farm work, factory work pays more - but, w/o controls both can be sub-survival rates...
@WhyCantIVote 2. Ind. prod. raises supply in theory & in general of most kinds of goods across the region measured when compared with that region in a pre-ind. state. HOWEVER, because much of what is industrially produced in developing regions outprices the buying power of the workers who make it, it ends up being sold to 1) a small minority of wealthy individuals at home & 2) to consumers abroad. GDP reflects large gains, actual wealth declines. In some places, ind. has made ppl poorer.
@WhyCantIVote Again, waged farm labor is very different than subsistence farming. The calorie per work hour ratio very often declines when landed peasants r initially moved from subsistence farming into semi-ind or ind waged farming. The calorie per work hour ratio also often declines when subsistence farmers or domestic handycraft producers are moved into waged factory work. Not only can they not consume what they make, they can't retain the value of sold surplus (whether in barter or $ form).
@WhyCantIVote ...(continued)...Industrialization does promote economic opportunity if regulated, but has actually LOWERED the wealth, life expectancy and calorie per work hour of many people in developing nations. This is bc subsistence farming that precedes industrial dev. often results in substantial consumption that IS NOT RECORDED in GDP b/c it involves no $. Suddenly u shift subs. farmers to factory jobs & they technically have more $ but fewer resources. Purch. pwr. only grows w reg!
Second, if I had to guess, I think you are more in the libertarian area, where you mean state intervention and control over the market is a NO NO, and that 'ideally' everything should have been governed by the market, since the market always serves the consumer right?
Anyway that would be a very strong right wing way of thinking, at least from my country. If this is wrong then I apologize.
But if this is the way you (or anybody else here) think, you don't seem to see the fundamental problem?
We all want to make a useful contribution here right?
So lets just admit what we stand for and not stand for, and if I'm wrong in my description of you than correct me.
First of all I believe the real reason for todays economical problems, and the reason to why there are so many poor is because of the way the global economy works today.
So you could call me a socialist, but the American understanding of that word is very bizarre, so I'd prefer not.
Of course, because in spite of the absence of force, people can not act in terms of their own rational self-interest, and only 'cats' like yourself know what everyone should do. You should set the terms of everyones trades, prices and contracts, because you are the moral 'elite', and your righteousness superceededs peoples rights to trade with each other as they choose. Lol, 'debase all alternatives'. Yes, we debase the communism you believe in, but on its merits, its morals, and its track rec.
absence of force? any libertarian in the world would argue that no market exists currently without massive deliberate distortions by every major state, how for example can you have free flow of capital but not free flow of labor?how can you call the flooding of local foreign third world markets with highly subsidized agro-buisness products a free market exchange?this isnt incidental its universal.even corporations could be argued to be uncapitalist since they require state intervention to exist
I agree with you ST on this critism of government subsidization, and on the 'bailouts' of corporations to which I assume you are referring. It is not capitalist, it is socialist.
I wasnt even thinking about bailouts, thats an easy arguement, i was talking about NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO agreements, these arent keynesian based interventions, these are structural results of corporations. natural monopolies are capitalist, and dont need (though centers of power always do anyway) like lets say Wal Mart, where where in economies of scale, maximum efficiency is produced by a single supplier, this is unnavoidable, markets in advanced societies are a fantasy.
It is in support of capitalistic institutions who have failed, there is nothing socialistic about it what-so-ever.
If we had dealt with that scenario in a more socialistic manner, than we would have let them failed, and used money from taxes to create better and safer jobs, or to demand more strict behavior from the corporations in exchange for the bailout. But now the USA and the rest of world let them continue just like before.
That is correct. Also, the new jobs payed for by taxes do not have to be profitable, i.e. do not have to be needed or usefull in any way (not that they can't be). All other jobs remain only if they are profitable (usefull and needed, and make money to be taxed), otherwise they disappear.
Which means to remove the uncertainty in gambling banks and firms, and relocate them to jobs which actually produces something useful. They do also seem to stay more balanced and stable, since they may produce something that is always needed.
Also about those other big companies, businesses who gamble on whether other businesses will fail or not, is NOT doing anything useful. It adds a serious risk factor, as seen in the USA and the rest of the world.
1. All firms and banks gamble to some extent in what they put their time and money into. If they make bad decisions (or 'gambles'), they are pushed out of buisiness by those who don't. In a communist government, the same thing applies, but bad allocations of resources don't self-destruct till people die (see: cultural revolution). B4 you respond predictably to this, 1 =/= 100 ; despite 1>0, 100>0.
2. These companies follow point 1. Investment is usefull, google's emergence is a blatant example.
But, "If they make bad decisions (or 'gambles'), they are pushed out of buisiness by those who don't."
The problem here is that they are running so huge risks, with everyones money, that when they finally fail, it might end with half the country failing too (this isn't an overstatement in some countries), and this forces the country's government to bail them out, in one way or another.....
Im not accusing you of being a communist, communism is just a good example.
Yes, however all those people choose to put their money with particular buisinesses. If they choose risky ventures, like buying a house with a 120% loan, they and the company both agree to the risk. When the government is able to bail these out when the risk bites them, non-risky companies (who have been profiting less) suffer and fail. Bailing them out is what causes the _whole_ country to fail.
OKey, at least I think we agree on that, though I think bailing out these companies will only delay a problem instead of getting rid of it. You do realize that the reason to why these companies could get so great benefits from the government is because they have worked very hard to get it? Using many billions after billions in lobbying to persuade the politicians that the market should be more "open" and "free", and thus lessen the politicians restrictions to the flow of money.
The banks could only gamble because the government kept giving them money to lower interest rates. The fact that the government was willing to bail them out also reduced the consequences of failure.
Businesses only fail when people start spending money on other things. For every job lost to a failing business a new one is created by a successful business.
Fine. But you wanted the government to create new jobs. The capitalist approach is for the government to take a "hands-off" approach with most economic matters.
Yes, exactly. What you described is not capitalism, it is Crony Capitalism, or State-Run Capitalism.
And that's the problem. Lefits like to say "capitalism failed", but in truth, it is state interference and a false sense of regulatory protection that has interfered with true capitalism. And thus, capitalism free market forces were not permitted to work.
The video presented no alternative model so why do you assume its soviet esque? if anything the video was stridently against the idea of a commissar class of "moral elite" setting terms for the people.
debase by definition denotes unsophisticated arguement, lacking in intellectual integrity, so i fail to see how such an arguement could be truelly based on "merits".
The ppl behind this video are strongly leftist. This political alignment in each of their videos is apparently, and indeed, the cat is actually called 'pinky'. However, as modern leftists, using a modern medium with which to spread their ideas, they know that using the word 'communism' outright is not as effective as expressing similar ideas (with a cute cat), or like in this video, similar anti-ideas. Also, please type in 'debase' at dictionary (dot) com. I believe I used it aptly.
Also, you didnt adress my critique of capitalism fundementally, corporations (the kind who's rights to trade freelly with absence of force you defend) are a market corruption since they can and do only exist with the intervention of the state (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, limited liability)
free flow of capital, barring of free flow of people is fundemental to Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", no state much less investor rights agreements (free trade) would allow this.
I do not understand what you mean by corporations only exist with the intervention of the state. Could you please explain this more. I also fail to see how, as you are saying, free trade and free flow of capital can be at odds with each other.
Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad, as well as limited liability laws.
According to Adam Smith's capitalism which no one seems to believe in when they feel they dont want to, you cannot have free flow of capital without free flow of labor. This is something thats an impossibility in the levels required.
Yes I read about the case, but did not see how it supports your point. Also, there is no Karl Marx of capitalism, capitalism is the absence of socialism, not the invention of some man like Adam Smith. Also, can you please explain how in pure capitalism there would not be free flow of labor, i.e. where any man can choose to employ, or choose to be employed, by any other man? Perhaps you hold the false premise that America is purely capitalist.
Further, limited liability is agreed upon by all who enter into contract with a limited liability company. Thus is not at odds with capitalism. Persons may instead choose to enter into contract with a Sole Proprietor, if they feel a Ltd company is too risky to trade with. Thats free trade, is it not?
Yes they are leftists, clearly, as am i, but your saying they support the same kind of relations of power they're decrying in this video-the existance of a commissar class (in capitalism thats corporate executives, in soviet-esque planned economies these were state beaurocrats).
you ever thought what they meant was democratic ownership if the means of production and distribution, what actual socialists have been advocating since they IWW, since the Russ Constituent Assembly elections of 1917
an ox may have the consent of his master when he is being told to push on ahead over a mountain, a government may have the consent of people concerning governments policies if he see's them natural and inevitable, we can convince ourselves of many terrible things if we're predisposed since childhood to believe it, workers in 1860 might have felt a 14 hour day if they felt it to be just another fact of life
you got the term of globalization all twisted, did you know that with out trade and treaties, aid, some countries would not survive, please inform yourself well before making an uninformed assumption.
Country is a form of control. Country makes no sense unless people don't need to be controlled. The only reason why people need to be controlled is that people are retarded and unable to control themselves. Are we all retarded or are our lives so empty that we need to have a country so we can call ourselves certain names. If You live in a country that wields the power at this moment You sure are proud You live there. But what if You lived in a country where You get buttfucked for 1$ a day?
The power tends to shifts around and change customers like a good whore. So one day the so called third world will be on top of the game. Think of India. It has already started to happen. Think of USA going down and moving their assets to China and Iraq/Iran. That's how the power shifts. The GB and USA will soon be third world. It will happen when the American Union is completed. It's just the way it works with power. Or did You seriously believed Hollywood on all those moves&shows.
I like the video. I agree it is easier to control others while getting their consent. Giving others a small choice creates the illusion they have more choice than they really do; that works for freedom, power, control, etc. I also agree that the system seems so complex that no one knows who is controlling what, since people do not see the people at the top calling the important shots, just what is in front of their faces.
That's certainly an interesting thesis, that coercion can co-exist with its LOGICAL antithesis, capitalism.
*watches video*
"this kind of system os so complicated that no one knows who's controlling what"
um, dumbass, that's because NO ONE is controlling it. That's the free-market works. People get together and cooperate VOLUNTARILY. Would you bastards rather have idiotic protectionist measures which only serve to benefit tiny sectors in affluent economies while harming the rest...
No-one controlling it, of course not, it's oh so user-friendly for the USERS/Multinationals/Corporations.
Voluntary? yeah, like the kid's in a sweat-shop in Delhi choose their conditions/pay so in a U.K high-street a Store can sell "bargain goods"?
No control? EXACTLY! it's the lack of control/regulation that's gotten "us" into this mess, the difference now is that it's some of the Rich who are "hurting"-just-a-tiny-bit?
even in the first world country like america , i feel only the rich and powerful benefit from it. the middle class and the poor people just cannot live here happily with an obscenely expensive healthcare system , skyrocketing debt and overpriced everyday stuff!
Well capitalism isn't perfect, nothing is of course, but it's the best system we've come up with so far I suppose...until we come up with something better, this is the best we've got.
It's not the best we've came up with, its the one that were supported by the "people with power" in our history. There has been a Lot of better ideas... And if the best system is to fuck up the planet, i think we should have a earth nro. 2 in line somewhere, if not i would think this is the worst possible system for the next generation-or two. :(
Im sorry to say, but the "greed-filled super machine" u guys called globalization..lifted the United States out of the 1970s, a decade filled with double digit unemployment and high inflation. I agree that globalization has taken a turn for the worse...but ridding globalization totally would be economic suicide.
No. Globalization has helped billions of people in the past 10-20 years to live under better living conditions. The PR China, USA, Southeast Asia, India, Ireland, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil. Not all could be helped but many of them. The next step is real and free democracies.
Globalisation has been around for 100s of years, just in deifferent forms, British Empire anyone? However it has evolved and is now part and parcel of our world. The question is how can it be managed to be sustainable and beneficial for all in the future.
We blame globalization for our problems of humanity,however it is the collective chains of greed,fear,lust and egoism that continually allow the few to control the masses with our own power,whether it be the blind execution of deplorable acts of a soldier or the free market capitalism of a profiteer,in the words of Bob Marley only we can free ourselves from mental slavery and perhaps see through to our greater humanity, why do the percieved civilized commit the most atrocities in the world?
And all you mentioned above could be characterized as - the globalism. It is not the name what is important it is important that we are dealing with centralized doctrine.
I agree with you philosophically but the cats are talking about the current acts in the name of "globalization". Not the globalization where there is one world global peace, unified mankind, etc.
All that seems like a bunch of excuses to me "greed, fear, lust, and egoism" all excuses. God gave us free will and the mentality to know right from wrong. These are just excuses because everyone has free will.
I do not think they are excuses but rather conditions. I absolutely agree we must use our free will to lift us out of these conditions. The change must start on a individual basis, morality forced is no morality at all. All of our acts of globalization are driven by idealogies and philosophies of a society or a religion. A globe of peace and prosperity for all or subjugation, manipulation and domination of most.Like now where 10% or less control 90% of our global resources.
This is the sad reality. Humans are controlled because they unknowingly consent to this fraud. It's like Americans having a private corporation as a central bank. The Congress adopted the Federal Reserve Act (a piece of paper crafted by private bankers) and Woodrow Wilson signed it into law in 1913... So, they only need to control those that the people delegated the power to.
Ignorance and Apathy are the main shackles of slavery.
Free markets and capitalism work beautifully when governments and international groups don't interfere with it. Take subsidies for instance. 3rd world farmers can't compete with American food prices on goods such as corn. Why are American food products so low? The US gov is giving our farmers tax money to keep them in business. Because of this, they can sell their crops cheap. So our subsidy is benefiting Americans at the expense of feeding these 3rd world people. (as well as our taxpayers.)
Politics are confusing shit. Its amazing how brilliantly we can manipulate the world and do as we please yet maintain so rich. Which leads me to beleive that bush isn't stupid, he's brilliant. I think he plays the part of an idiot to cover up something on a much bigger scale. If anyone can prove me wrong that'd help me out. And don't give me reasons why he's dumb. Give me reasons why he can't be doing that.
1 sentence: Define rich. Are you rich when you have alot of stuff in your home? Derived from someone else breaking their back in a 3rd world country?
2nd stce:It matters not. Obviously people don't care because they don't seek out information for them selves. I am not only blaming you, I am also blaming myself for not knowing if the clothes, computers and foods that I buy are destroing someones life.
Tell me, is being rich the only thing that matters? I like your comment, I will be back.
Globalization is a force that is quite blunt - bringing huge change and positive destruction is a good thing - but the cost in human lives is in some instances totally amoral. Bring against globalization is simply not an option - making it more precise and less costly in human lives is where people can look to bring in changes.
"Wage Slavery" is SO much more effective than traditional slavery or other forms of forced labor. The wage slave shows up every day, on time, and tries to please his master. The wage slave will actually kiss the *ss of his master so that he doesn't lose his job. Whether you're an American wage slave for $15 per hour, or an Indian wage slave for 15 cents per hour the end result is the same. The whole situation sucks big time...
It gets kinda irritating when right-wing morons come up with these pathetic comments. It looks like freedom and justice in the modern world rarely, if ever, help the poor. What you people call a "free-market" is a mere fantasy, sorry to bust your bubble.
i dont usualy understand some of the educational things, because im just a little girl, but i definetly get the message sent to the heart and soul, the message telling you that fighting is not the solution, everyone has just as much a right as the next person to have a good life, and not everything the government tells us is true. but thats true.
actually, I think you've missed the point. You said: "fighting is not the solution, everyone has just as much a right as the next person to have a good life".
Rather, it seems that the seemingly-softer mode of imperial domination -- 'Globalization' -- is actually on par with 'Colonialism', in terms of the creation and perpetuation of human suffering [in all of its manifestations]. Also, that such a regime goes relatively unchallenged given it's disguised-image in the public consciousness.
More communist propaganda. They are turning profit into a dirty word. Capitalism rules. That's why this country is so great. Get over it liberals. Europe is waiting for you.
You seem to have a very simplistic world view. Labeling the criticism of corporate abuses (which lead to mass suffering) as "communist propaganda" doesn't advance the issue.
If you don't like our way 545 of life go back to Argentina and enjoy your socialism. Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best so far. It's when the govt. sticks their head in it that it turns to shit. By the way profit is a good thing that you liberal just don't get.
are you out of your mind? Argentina is 300% capitalist, socialist states have never existed. Also, when the companies go unchecked evrything goes awry. Do you even know what neo-liberal means? Also, I'm far-left now, how's that?
I don't care how far left you are 545. Just don't try to pond your leftist trash on me or this country. Back in the 60s a real liberal would say "I disagree with you but support your right to say it." The present day lib tries to censor conservatives. You can say what you want as long as you agree with them. Such tolarance. I hope you're better than that.
Get a clue iwasbornin1963, I've been reading your liberal fascism crap, I haven't censored anything you've said, I've been reading your comments and having fun, please don't throw all this right-wing crap at me.
I will become a conservative the day pigs develop wings, I've already done plenty of homework, this has strengthened my far left values rather than disolve them. By the way, social security is booming, not collpasing.
Where the hell did you get that shit from? Capitalism is the best system in the world because it works. Why do you think the Chinese after centuries of communism are moving more and more to capitalism.
Works for whom? Colonialism, nation-building, spreading democracy and globalization give us free reign over other countries' affairs and no one sees a problem. We've all been brainwashed and we've all been had.
Better than Canada kelly. You guys don't even have a real military. That's okay American soldiers will protect you. The taxes in Canada hold back the economy. That's socialism at work.
Read WHY THE LEFT HATES AMERICA by Daniel Flynn for a more detailed explanation. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best system that exists. And the alternative socialist models only look good through a selective omission of the true facts.
Look, guys, economic theory is all very well, but really there's a practical question: who gets the rice, Haiti or Walmart?
Probably China, actually.
By the way, the foodbanks are running out. So if you guys want to do some good as we watch the whole system collapse, some baked beans and peanut butter would come in handy.
I'm sorry mick0057 -but since Enron and Bush, Rush Lambaugh's warmed over non-sense simply doesn't "cut it" any more. By the way, I hope you realize that the author of "Harry Potter" had govenment help? Also, did you know that the tax payers bailed Bush's sports team out of the hole? The rich make good use of government handouts-and if you know what is going on with private contractors in Iraq - the rip offs are in the billions of dollars.
Mr.Martin, I am not as naive to think corporate America is the be all to end all. I recognize the abuses the super wealthy impose on the system. I do support the recent legislation in regards to C.E.O. pay, as most
people today have money in these corporations
whether they know it or not. I carry no brief
for Dimbaugh or his ilk. But a socialist society is not the answer as some would have us believe. It is up to us to weed out the abusers on both ends of the spectrum.
My quarrel with socialism is that it removes incentive,and replaces it with complacency. In effect you become slaves to a system,where
extra effort doesn't translate into similar compensation. Any one who disputes the need for social safety nets are either heartless foolish, or both. On the other hand any one who belives in a proletariat utopia are deluding themselves or envision themselves at the helm. A mix of both idealouges are necessary to a functioning society.
AGAIN -- THE TERMS "SOCIALISM" AND "CAPITALISM" ARE JUST TERMS LEFT OVER FROM THE COLD WAR ERA BY THOSE WHO WANTED POWER BY PUTTING PEOPLE IN A PARTICULAR CATEGORY. (HMMM-CAT-a-gory?) There really is no such thing as either and we can waste years defining these useless terms. They are terms of oppression to gain power from classifying your enemy as "Red" or socialist. IT IS SIMPLY FOLKS EXPLOITING OR BEING DESCENT. BIG COMPANIES HAVE BEEN REAL SHITS --AND AGAINST OPPORTUNITIES.
Ah! You are very thoughtful and you are actually paying attention to what I write. That is good and I am flattered. OK-it is not an either/or "Capitalism" or "Socialism." Can I propose there is really no such thing as either capitalism or socialism? ALL IT IS JUST FOLKS- AND THEY EXPLOIT OR HELP ONE ANOTHER. I leave the "isms" stuff to the John Birch Society and other "f-ks" from the COLD WAR ERA.
When you look at your paycheck and see 30% of it gone because the government took it to feed
clothe, and house the drug addict down the street(because addiction is a disease)and have no problem with it, then,you can argue for a "new system". History and common sense tells us that people will only do what is necessary when there is no corresponding reward. Sloth,indolence and a "owed" mentality
should never be rewarded in the name of egalitarianism.
it is the need to eat. It is the pride of haveing your own table and sharing and not always being at someone elses. It is being rewarded for your efforts and not seeing the
lazy ass next to you reap benifits from your labor. It is NOT dumpster diving so you don't have to get up in the morning and dig a ditch.
It is not sticking your hand out to Uncle Sam
because you don't like being told what to do by some one you think is not as smart as you.
Sorry - read about the era of the Robber Barons- Enron stole years of labor from its workers. You DO know about Enron? Too bad Rush Limbaugh theories fall apart in the face of Enron and other companies that have robbed their workers. Oh, and don't forget the military/defense industry, wanted the Viet Nam war to go forever. Don't forget about all the children that died in NYC from dangerous medications in the 1910's. Quit listening to Rush Limbaugh and read StClaire Louis's, "The Jungle."
Well while your kids are flipping burgers at Mickey D's those kids(from disadvantaged backgrouds)will be living a decent life. What
would you have? "Each to his own ability and need" we have seen how that works. Your definition of a real life is what? Rice and beans and all the time you want to contemplate your navel? Fine for you but most of us want a little more in life. I like my creature comforts and the pleasures a modern society brings. Art, literature, blended whiskey, and indoor plumbin
Liberalism takes as a given that people are incapable of taking care of themselves and government is the answer. When in reality the government has fouled up everything it has gotten its hands on including the social sevices it is charged with maintaining. Capatalism run amok is not conservatism in spite of what liberals would have you belive.
If you want an accurate picture of India read
Origins of the Modern Indian Business Class.
State Capatlism is not the same as what we have in America.
Yeah, India is a real nice place in terms of lack of poverty, disease, etc.
You neocons would love to believe that as long as we can spring up a few dozen corporate offices, sell some SUV's and Pepsi's, and develop a rich elite class and a strong military, that a country is doin' just great. Well I'm sorry, but this is an INCORRECT world view. Pine Martin is right about inner cities, and India is only a more poignant version of this same problem. We need a new system.
agree 100%. But micro loans(some as little as fity bucks)are transforming whole communities.
Small entrepreneurships are springing up in rural areas at a faster pace than ever. This is real change, WOMEN, are the largest segment of these businesses. As for how teaching in an inner city in anyway relates to capitalism I am prepared to be educated. Explain how this translates PLEASE. In rebuttal I would point to the Avery Groups' work in urban area
They are teaching grade schoolers basics on finance. The stock market, 401k, diversivation
and a myriad of other money related matters that are crucial to success in todays econonmy
I certainly don't see the correlation(other than poverty)between inner city Chicago and some Indian village. If you are interested in making money I would strongly suggest the INR.
This is one of the most upwordly mobile countries on the globe today. While far from utopia, compare its economic status to Pakistan.
Jesus christ, and you think this is a good thing?! I don't want kids learning how to manage their stocks, or how to run a business effectively. Fuck. I want children to explore life and themselves as humans. you know, ideas, art, community, sustainability, nature, all that "crap" that poses a threat to our capitalism. Capitalism is dehumanizing, and I will NEVER stand for teaching business to kids over english, culture, art, science, philosophy, social studies, etc.
today's business world is a fucking scam, a ripoff, a dehumanizing, robotic force. if i were a narcisistic dictator, i would love to have my people be robotic, wealthy consumers who are too worried about their brokerage firm, their profits, and their 401k's to be creative, thoughtful, progressive, compassionate, etc. just as it is with technology, any economic force that enslaves people to it, rather than it exclusively being used BY people in pursuit of real life, should be scrapped.
how does inner city life relate to capitalism?!?! damn. and just to humor your purposeful misrepresentation of what he was saying, even the specific act of teaching there has a lot to do with the economic system as well. if you don't realize the extent that capitalism invades your psyche, your desires, your focuses, your goals, let alone society as a whole, specific demographics, education, prevailing ideologies, etc then you are in trouble. these influences are my main reasons for opposing it.
Buckley admitted some of his early positions were wrong. But that doesn't ivalidate the whole philosophy. Neither does "the war on poverty"(complete and utter failure that we are still climbing out of decades later) negate the whole of liberalism. If you are alluding to socialism as the answer we only have to look at the U.S.S.R. to see what great
benifits it has. ANY politcal idea can and do fall short of its ideal state but liberalism starts with a false premise at its core.
"If you are under 20 and not a liberal you have no heart. If you are over 40 and not a conservative you are a fool." So lets not build infrastructure in third world countries
Lets not employ them. Lets not "exploit" them
Lets just leave them to wallow in grinding poverty with no hope of a better future. Ask a women in India who has recieve a micro loan
what capitalism means to her and her five children. You would restrict these people from a better life in the name of anti-globalazation.
Churchill was not accurate when he said that. Barry Goldwater, the father of American conservatism, became a liberal in his old age. He also regretted his votes against African Americans and against Civil Rights. Capitialism is exactly what is going on in India.
Believe me, Brazil and India are great examples of capitalism. I know you probably believe the street kids of Rio haven't used their "free will" enough. Interesting how the capitalistic merchants get together and have them murdered. Oh, and they are great Christians too-or so they think. Slave owners of the South also believed they were highly virtuous as well. Read Charles Dickens and George Barnard Shaw and not that pro-Nazi, Ann Rand.
It's not capitalism that is the key problem. It is Corporatism and the corruption they have forced into the system as a means to control the system. The banks have been and are the serious problem.
Pax00Imperium 1 month ago
What you must take in account is MORALITY. Would you like to be exploited like this? You eventually reach a situation like the one in dubai: You're either really rich when you don't deserve it or you're really poor when you don't deserve it. The people do not have consent from the first world countries. Therefore you'll still have a revolution that stabs the first world and possibly ends in communism.
YZB25 3 months ago
bottom line
no one truly care of helping each other cause they don't have the abilitiy or even if they do its not the norm.
TimeManInJail 6 months ago
I'm PINKY!
DoMoreGoodDeeds 6 months ago
They want our technology, our money, our creature-comforts, they're willing to work for a LOT less than we are here because life is "simpler" and "cheaper" in lesser countries, then when they find out how much Americans get, they whine about "exploitation", forgetting somehow that we have a lot of extra costs they don't have--and for that matter, THEY are part of our costs!
EPGAH 6 months ago
"anti-American" = kneejerk scorn for the United States, unfairly holding the U.S. up to a standard that other nations are not held to.
DaveRyanFL 7 months ago
Big fan of Pinky.
I love the Satie in the background!
onijujitsu 11 months ago
Some books I'd recommend that give a very well researched and footnoted counterpoint to the globalization critique of first-world nations:
WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT AMERICA, by Dinesh D'Souza
(While acknowledging more brutal aspects of European imperialism, argues that colonialism has been a net gain for all the nations colonized. )
STATE OF EMERGENCY, by Pat Buchanan
( Demographics show that the former European colonizer nations are now the colonized, over-run by third-world immigrants)
DaveRyanFL 11 months ago
While profound and laced with sarcasm, this clip lacks any specifics and is very open to interpretation.
I assume this is aimed at the United States aar the alleged "great exploiter" of other nations. In the early 20th century, that may have been true. But I believe the United States has given more back to its Third-World trading partners than it is given credit for, and has vastly developed nations like China, India, South Korea, and re-constructed Eurpoe and Japan.
DaveRyanFL 11 months ago
I love how adorable these videos are, including their voices even if everyone else hates the voice-overs X 3
Portubella12458 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I thought it was interesting, but a near-Magritte juxtaposition. Also, they could have had a much better person do the voiceover. This sounds like Lily Tomlin doing Edith Ann on quaaludes.
MikoVideos 1 year ago
I thought it was interesting, but a near-Magritte juxtaposition. Also, they could have had a much better person do the voiceover. This sounds like Lily Tomlin doing Edith Ann on quaaludes.
MikoVideos 1 year ago
They could have had a better person do the voiceover. This sounds like Lily Tomlin doing Edith Ann on quaaludes.
MikoVideos 1 year ago
The most dangerous phrase in the English language: "I'm just doing my job."
slipperypete619 1 year ago
if only pinky had bearable voice, i would watch a bit more than 15 seconds of this video...
missing77ohowcliched 1 year ago
Comment removed
1994jhow 1 year ago
I've loved all these episodes. Just wanted to add: "superpower" is the whitewashed version of "empire." Super! Like superman. Power! Like, "I got da power." Two positive words fused together, it must be something good! "Empire" sounds soooooo before the common era.
pentopia 1 year ago
I love this vids you always can learn something at the pinky show!!!!
stjimy 1 year ago
@stjimy learn something? , you really believe any old bullshit, get a brain.
scones55555 1 year ago
more pinky crap
naganab 1 year ago
@naganab = more idiot crap!!
stjimy 1 year ago
@stjimy get a brain , leftish attitudes are piss easy
scones55555 1 year ago
@scones55555 get a life looser!! idiots like you really piss off!!
stjimy 1 year ago
@stjimy cartoons for childish minds , grow up
naganab 1 year ago
@naganab yeah and they are more smart than you accept!!
stjimy 1 year ago
@naganab
I partly disagree, but I wouldn't call it "crap". It's well done and presented intelligently, for whatever shortcomings.
DaveRyanFL 11 months ago
Interesting comments, but Great Pinky.
My humble opinion.
No political system works as good as the idea or at best for very long (in the realm of time) because of some humans desire for power and luxury, however that is defined by the particular society or person. And as the population grows in each, the idea gets more corrupted and falls apart, takes a turn for the worse or is overthrown. It's all redundant.
Not to say there aren't things to work for, care about.
But, too many rats in a cage.
Danihilist 1 year ago
@Danihilist
I believe you hint on something important.
The mistake is to believe that the solution to the world's problems lie at some form of system, or some form of change.
Both the problem, and the solution lies at the humans mind. It is our desire and ideas, whatever they are, that shapes society and creates systems.
We can never live in a perfect democracy/communism/socialism before our own individual mindset has evolved. As we all know, mistakes help us to learn and grow, there is logic.
Nabo00o 1 year ago
Comment removed
musicalidea 1 year ago
Comment removed
musicalidea 1 year ago
great job again cats!!!!!!!!!!
stjimy 1 year ago 3
It is equally as scary if the people making these decisions of equality decide we shouldn't have the right to use a grill. Or have the right to freedom of religion. Or the right to teach are own children. etc. etc. In America we have these rights because we are from this mindset but globally who decides. I will tell you. The ones who know how to control and influence. At least in the USA, we have the freedom to kick the people out who are in power and we have a constitution based on rights.
chrisfromneenah 1 year ago
kick people out , wait a second.
Pouhaha Hahaha HAHAHAHAHA wait , POUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, that was a good one.
SandWave79 1 year ago 4
Also, can I give you an example of what I fear, even though I doubt it will ever happen?
Imagine if the police and the fire department was completely privatized...
So in this modern world, you would need money in other to be protected from the "bad guys". It wasn't a right you were born with, it was a right you'd have to pay for....
Same thing would apply to the your house if it caught fire.
Now you would maybe say that we are already paying for such a service, but it is a universal one.....
Nabo00o 2 years ago
That's anarcho-capitalism; not libertarianism. Libertarians want to keep law enforcement intact (althought with less laws to enforce) in order to prevent the use of force or fraud by private entities.
WhyCantIVote 2 years ago
So they are undecided. They want less restrictions while they at the same time admit that there needs to be some government control. I question what happens where there is no such control, for example when the power of the private interests has convinced (through dinners and what not) the politicians that such control is a bad thing, thus let the "free market" decide...
My biggest problem is that I cannot see this free market, and the more "free" they make it, in reality less free it gets...
Nabo00o 2 years ago
They are decided; their main problem with the government is that it uses too much force and is essentially stealing money through taxes. They believe its only legitimate job is protect people from the use of force or fraud by private entities.
The market is not getting any freer as we saw with the government bailouts, the stimulus package and the Bush tax "cuts".
WhyCantIVote 2 years ago
Hmmm, of course, even though I have my ideas, there is no simple answer to economical problems we have today....
What would your suggestion be to make the world into a more fair and free society, and by free I mean that every individual has not only the right, but also the possibility to make their own choices. This is not normally the case if they are born poor....
In many parts of the world they then tend to stay poor (the majority of them), since their alternatives has been limited.
Nabo00o 2 years ago
The majority of them aren't staying poor though; India and China are both rising superpowers and they make up 1/3 of the world's population.
The best way is to remove trade barriers and reduce taxation; therby putting more money into the economy and reducing the prices to give poor people more purchasing power.
WhyCantIVote 2 years ago
@WhyCantIVote Demand CANNOT grow and thus expand consumption power and job #s without some control of the relationship between profits, wages and prices. Min wages must be high enough to optimally promote consumption and grow markets (highly concentrated wealth doesn't funnel consumption); the cost of public goods (ed., health, soc., trans., police, soc. sec.) must be shared so that the labor force & productivity can develop & so that those who provide them are not competed out of the market...
musicalidea 1 year ago
@musicalidea Wages rise because employers compete over employees. People aren't going to permenantly leave farming jobs unless they get higher wages elsewhere. Industrialisation does increase purchasing power because it raises production and hence raises supply.
WhyCantIVote 1 year ago
@WhyCantIVote 1. Ostensibly, what u say is true - but it's not so simple in reality. Many times there is NO CHOICE between subsistence farming and factory work. People are either 1) displaced from the land when large monied interests purchase it and forced into search for wage jobs or 2) converted in to WAGED farm employees vs subsistence farm work. Compared with WAGED farm work, factory work pays more - but, w/o controls both can be sub-survival rates...
musicalidea 1 year ago
Comment removed
musicalidea 1 year ago
@WhyCantIVote 2. Ind. prod. raises supply in theory & in general of most kinds of goods across the region measured when compared with that region in a pre-ind. state. HOWEVER, because much of what is industrially produced in developing regions outprices the buying power of the workers who make it, it ends up being sold to 1) a small minority of wealthy individuals at home & 2) to consumers abroad. GDP reflects large gains, actual wealth declines. In some places, ind. has made ppl poorer.
musicalidea 1 year ago
@WhyCantIVote Again, waged farm labor is very different than subsistence farming. The calorie per work hour ratio very often declines when landed peasants r initially moved from subsistence farming into semi-ind or ind waged farming. The calorie per work hour ratio also often declines when subsistence farmers or domestic handycraft producers are moved into waged factory work. Not only can they not consume what they make, they can't retain the value of sold surplus (whether in barter or $ form).
musicalidea 1 year ago
@WhyCantIVote ...(continued)...Industrialization does promote economic opportunity if regulated, but has actually LOWERED the wealth, life expectancy and calorie per work hour of many people in developing nations. This is bc subsistence farming that precedes industrial dev. often results in substantial consumption that IS NOT RECORDED in GDP b/c it involves no $. Suddenly u shift subs. farmers to factory jobs & they technically have more $ but fewer resources. Purch. pwr. only grows w reg!
musicalidea 1 year ago
Second, if I had to guess, I think you are more in the libertarian area, where you mean state intervention and control over the market is a NO NO, and that 'ideally' everything should have been governed by the market, since the market always serves the consumer right?
Anyway that would be a very strong right wing way of thinking, at least from my country. If this is wrong then I apologize.
But if this is the way you (or anybody else here) think, you don't seem to see the fundamental problem?
Nabo00o 2 years ago
Okey, I want to simplify this.
We all want to make a useful contribution here right?
So lets just admit what we stand for and not stand for, and if I'm wrong in my description of you than correct me.
First of all I believe the real reason for todays economical problems, and the reason to why there are so many poor is because of the way the global economy works today.
So you could call me a socialist, but the American understanding of that word is very bizarre, so I'd prefer not.
Nabo00o 2 years ago
Of course, because in spite of the absence of force, people can not act in terms of their own rational self-interest, and only 'cats' like yourself know what everyone should do. You should set the terms of everyones trades, prices and contracts, because you are the moral 'elite', and your righteousness superceededs peoples rights to trade with each other as they choose. Lol, 'debase all alternatives'. Yes, we debase the communism you believe in, but on its merits, its morals, and its track rec.
tothemax01 2 years ago
absence of force? any libertarian in the world would argue that no market exists currently without massive deliberate distortions by every major state, how for example can you have free flow of capital but not free flow of labor?how can you call the flooding of local foreign third world markets with highly subsidized agro-buisness products a free market exchange?this isnt incidental its universal.even corporations could be argued to be uncapitalist since they require state intervention to exist
SocialistaTribalista 2 years ago
I agree with you ST on this critism of government subsidization, and on the 'bailouts' of corporations to which I assume you are referring. It is not capitalist, it is socialist.
tothemax01 2 years ago
I wasnt even thinking about bailouts, thats an easy arguement, i was talking about NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO agreements, these arent keynesian based interventions, these are structural results of corporations. natural monopolies are capitalist, and dont need (though centers of power always do anyway) like lets say Wal Mart, where where in economies of scale, maximum efficiency is produced by a single supplier, this is unnavoidable, markets in advanced societies are a fantasy.
SocialistaTribalista 2 years ago
It is in support of capitalistic institutions who have failed, there is nothing socialistic about it what-so-ever.
If we had dealt with that scenario in a more socialistic manner, than we would have let them failed, and used money from taxes to create better and safer jobs, or to demand more strict behavior from the corporations in exchange for the bailout. But now the USA and the rest of world let them continue just like before.
There will be another crisis because of this....
Nabo00o 2 years ago
It's pointless to use money from taxes to create new jobs because for every new job created an old one is lost.
WhyCantIVote 2 years ago
That is correct. Also, the new jobs payed for by taxes do not have to be profitable, i.e. do not have to be needed or usefull in any way (not that they can't be). All other jobs remain only if they are profitable (usefull and needed, and make money to be taxed), otherwise they disappear.
tothemax01 2 years ago
"to create better and safer jobs"
Which means to remove the uncertainty in gambling banks and firms, and relocate them to jobs which actually produces something useful. They do also seem to stay more balanced and stable, since they may produce something that is always needed.
Also about those other big companies, businesses who gamble on whether other businesses will fail or not, is NOT doing anything useful. It adds a serious risk factor, as seen in the USA and the rest of the world.
Nabo00o 2 years ago
1. All firms and banks gamble to some extent in what they put their time and money into. If they make bad decisions (or 'gambles'), they are pushed out of buisiness by those who don't. In a communist government, the same thing applies, but bad allocations of resources don't self-destruct till people die (see: cultural revolution). B4 you respond predictably to this, 1 =/= 100 ; despite 1>0, 100>0.
2. These companies follow point 1. Investment is usefull, google's emergence is a blatant example.
tothemax01 2 years ago
I don't what you predicted me to say.
But, "If they make bad decisions (or 'gambles'), they are pushed out of buisiness by those who don't."
The problem here is that they are running so huge risks, with everyones money, that when they finally fail, it might end with half the country failing too (this isn't an overstatement in some countries), and this forces the country's government to bail them out, in one way or another.....
Can't you see a problem with this.
And btw, I'm not a communist.
Nabo00o 2 years ago
Ehm, I don't "know" what you pre.......
Nabo00o 2 years ago
Im not accusing you of being a communist, communism is just a good example.
Yes, however all those people choose to put their money with particular buisinesses. If they choose risky ventures, like buying a house with a 120% loan, they and the company both agree to the risk. When the government is able to bail these out when the risk bites them, non-risky companies (who have been profiting less) suffer and fail. Bailing them out is what causes the _whole_ country to fail.
tothemax01 2 years ago
OKey, at least I think we agree on that, though I think bailing out these companies will only delay a problem instead of getting rid of it. You do realize that the reason to why these companies could get so great benefits from the government is because they have worked very hard to get it? Using many billions after billions in lobbying to persuade the politicians that the market should be more "open" and "free", and thus lessen the politicians restrictions to the flow of money.
Nabo00o 2 years ago
The banks could only gamble because the government kept giving them money to lower interest rates. The fact that the government was willing to bail them out also reduced the consequences of failure.
Businesses only fail when people start spending money on other things. For every job lost to a failing business a new one is created by a successful business.
WhyCantIVote 2 years ago
So why couldn't the world just let the "bad" ones fail, totally, and let new ones take their place?
Nabo00o 2 years ago
Fine. But you wanted the government to create new jobs. The capitalist approach is for the government to take a "hands-off" approach with most economic matters.
WhyCantIVote 2 years ago
@WhyCantIVote
Yes, exactly. What you described is not capitalism, it is Crony Capitalism, or State-Run Capitalism.
And that's the problem. Lefits like to say "capitalism failed", but in truth, it is state interference and a false sense of regulatory protection that has interfered with true capitalism. And thus, capitalism free market forces were not permitted to work.
Read :
CRASH 2.0, by Peter Schiff
and
OBAMANOMICS, by Timothy Carney
DaveRyanFL 11 months ago
The video presented no alternative model so why do you assume its soviet esque? if anything the video was stridently against the idea of a commissar class of "moral elite" setting terms for the people.
debase by definition denotes unsophisticated arguement, lacking in intellectual integrity, so i fail to see how such an arguement could be truelly based on "merits".
SocialistaTribalista 2 years ago
The ppl behind this video are strongly leftist. This political alignment in each of their videos is apparently, and indeed, the cat is actually called 'pinky'. However, as modern leftists, using a modern medium with which to spread their ideas, they know that using the word 'communism' outright is not as effective as expressing similar ideas (with a cute cat), or like in this video, similar anti-ideas. Also, please type in 'debase' at dictionary (dot) com. I believe I used it aptly.
tothemax01 2 years ago
Also, you didnt adress my critique of capitalism fundementally, corporations (the kind who's rights to trade freelly with absence of force you defend) are a market corruption since they can and do only exist with the intervention of the state (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, limited liability)
free flow of capital, barring of free flow of people is fundemental to Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", no state much less investor rights agreements (free trade) would allow this.
SocialistaTribalista 2 years ago
I do not understand what you mean by corporations only exist with the intervention of the state. Could you please explain this more. I also fail to see how, as you are saying, free trade and free flow of capital can be at odds with each other.
tothemax01 2 years ago
Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad, as well as limited liability laws.
According to Adam Smith's capitalism which no one seems to believe in when they feel they dont want to, you cannot have free flow of capital without free flow of labor. This is something thats an impossibility in the levels required.
but theres much more than that
SocialistaTribalista 2 years ago
Yes I read about the case, but did not see how it supports your point. Also, there is no Karl Marx of capitalism, capitalism is the absence of socialism, not the invention of some man like Adam Smith. Also, can you please explain how in pure capitalism there would not be free flow of labor, i.e. where any man can choose to employ, or choose to be employed, by any other man? Perhaps you hold the false premise that America is purely capitalist.
tothemax01 2 years ago
Further, limited liability is agreed upon by all who enter into contract with a limited liability company. Thus is not at odds with capitalism. Persons may instead choose to enter into contract with a Sole Proprietor, if they feel a Ltd company is too risky to trade with. Thats free trade, is it not?
tothemax01 2 years ago
Yes they are leftists, clearly, as am i, but your saying they support the same kind of relations of power they're decrying in this video-the existance of a commissar class (in capitalism thats corporate executives, in soviet-esque planned economies these were state beaurocrats).
you ever thought what they meant was democratic ownership if the means of production and distribution, what actual socialists have been advocating since they IWW, since the Russ Constituent Assembly elections of 1917
SocialistaTribalista 2 years ago
"it's easier to control people if you have their consent"? then by definition you are no longer controlling them.
ndes0532 2 years ago
an ox may have the consent of his master when he is being told to push on ahead over a mountain, a government may have the consent of people concerning governments policies if he see's them natural and inevitable, we can convince ourselves of many terrible things if we're predisposed since childhood to believe it, workers in 1860 might have felt a 14 hour day if they felt it to be just another fact of life
SocialistaTribalista 2 years ago
where can I get this cartoon?
ancientinfant 2 years ago
Let's blow up the entire world, eh? Eh? :D
fratboyfrat 2 years ago
you got the term of globalization all twisted, did you know that with out trade and treaties, aid, some countries would not survive, please inform yourself well before making an uninformed assumption.
alaindunkel 2 years ago
go read
thekid8928 2 years ago
"Debase all alternatives."
Isn't that the truth. =(
PerianArdocyl 2 years ago
Thank you for being your part of the CounterWeight Pinky artists! You are not alone, there are more to come =)
whatoneknows 2 years ago 11
Those are some smart animals
Wingedmagician 2 years ago 19
Country is a form of control. Country makes no sense unless people don't need to be controlled. The only reason why people need to be controlled is that people are retarded and unable to control themselves. Are we all retarded or are our lives so empty that we need to have a country so we can call ourselves certain names. If You live in a country that wields the power at this moment You sure are proud You live there. But what if You lived in a country where You get buttfucked for 1$ a day?
dsmihael 2 years ago
The power tends to shifts around and change customers like a good whore. So one day the so called third world will be on top of the game. Think of India. It has already started to happen. Think of USA going down and moving their assets to China and Iraq/Iran. That's how the power shifts. The GB and USA will soon be third world. It will happen when the American Union is completed. It's just the way it works with power. Or did You seriously believed Hollywood on all those moves&shows.
dsmihael 2 years ago
love your show. :)
OrvelZ 2 years ago 2
I like the video. I agree it is easier to control others while getting their consent. Giving others a small choice creates the illusion they have more choice than they really do; that works for freedom, power, control, etc. I also agree that the system seems so complex that no one knows who is controlling what, since people do not see the people at the top calling the important shots, just what is in front of their faces.
emptiermbs 2 years ago
That's certainly an interesting thesis, that coercion can co-exist with its LOGICAL antithesis, capitalism.
*watches video*
"this kind of system os so complicated that no one knows who's controlling what"
um, dumbass, that's because NO ONE is controlling it. That's the free-market works. People get together and cooperate VOLUNTARILY. Would you bastards rather have idiotic protectionist measures which only serve to benefit tiny sectors in affluent economies while harming the rest...
migkillertwo 2 years ago
...of the economy by causing artificial inflation of prices on consumer and capital goods?
"its just so much easier to control people when you have their consent"
um wow...just...wow. Your statement=Its easier to control people when you're not controlling them.
Fuck you, Fuck your logical contradictions, and FUCK your statism.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
there are no cotrdictions buddy.
TheRedneckJunkie 2 years ago
No-one controlling it, of course not, it's oh so user-friendly for the USERS/Multinationals/Corporations.
Voluntary? yeah, like the kid's in a sweat-shop in Delhi choose their conditions/pay so in a U.K high-street a Store can sell "bargain goods"?
No control? EXACTLY! it's the lack of control/regulation that's gotten "us" into this mess, the difference now is that it's some of the Rich who are "hurting"-just-a-tiny-bit?
moob744 2 years ago 2
what do you mean no one contols the market? thats idiotic
TheRedneckJunkie 2 years ago
no redneck, there's no one controlling the market. No one is coercing anyone.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
...have you turned on you tv lately? e
TheRedneckJunkie 2 years ago 2
even in the first world country like america , i feel only the rich and powerful benefit from it. the middle class and the poor people just cannot live here happily with an obscenely expensive healthcare system , skyrocketing debt and overpriced everyday stuff!
ckeds 2 years ago
and the drugs they let in
TheRedneckJunkie 2 years ago
cat HIPPIE
kjekay 2 years ago
Well capitalism isn't perfect, nothing is of course, but it's the best system we've come up with so far I suppose...until we come up with something better, this is the best we've got.
Ieatbabies8 2 years ago
It's not the best we've came up with, its the one that were supported by the "people with power" in our history. There has been a Lot of better ideas... And if the best system is to fuck up the planet, i think we should have a earth nro. 2 in line somewhere, if not i would think this is the worst possible system for the next generation-or two. :(
OrvelZ 2 years ago
Ahh yes the liberal way of thinking. Blaming capitalism, greed and America for the misfortunes in third world countries.
Budguy68 2 years ago
Im sorry to say, but the "greed-filled super machine" u guys called globalization..lifted the United States out of the 1970s, a decade filled with double digit unemployment and high inflation. I agree that globalization has taken a turn for the worse...but ridding globalization totally would be economic suicide.
AznSensation90 3 years ago
No. Globalization has helped billions of people in the past 10-20 years to live under better living conditions. The PR China, USA, Southeast Asia, India, Ireland, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil. Not all could be helped but many of them. The next step is real and free democracies.
TrickyEmu 2 years ago
Globalisation has been around for 100s of years, just in deifferent forms, British Empire anyone? However it has evolved and is now part and parcel of our world. The question is how can it be managed to be sustainable and beneficial for all in the future.
Coltster80 2 years ago
god = social control!
RhythmGraffiti 3 years ago
We blame globalization for our problems of humanity,however it is the collective chains of greed,fear,lust and egoism that continually allow the few to control the masses with our own power,whether it be the blind execution of deplorable acts of a soldier or the free market capitalism of a profiteer,in the words of Bob Marley only we can free ourselves from mental slavery and perhaps see through to our greater humanity, why do the percieved civilized commit the most atrocities in the world?
143Diamante 3 years ago
And all you mentioned above could be characterized as - the globalism. It is not the name what is important it is important that we are dealing with centralized doctrine.
JosipMiller 3 years ago
Globalization is a misnomer.
I agree with you philosophically but the cats are talking about the current acts in the name of "globalization". Not the globalization where there is one world global peace, unified mankind, etc.
riethc 3 years ago
All that seems like a bunch of excuses to me "greed, fear, lust, and egoism" all excuses. God gave us free will and the mentality to know right from wrong. These are just excuses because everyone has free will.
RubyAzul03 3 years ago
I do not think they are excuses but rather conditions. I absolutely agree we must use our free will to lift us out of these conditions. The change must start on a individual basis, morality forced is no morality at all. All of our acts of globalization are driven by idealogies and philosophies of a society or a religion. A globe of peace and prosperity for all or subjugation, manipulation and domination of most.Like now where 10% or less control 90% of our global resources.
143Diamante 3 years ago
Love the series. This video is great; love the tongue in cheekiness.
TheAwarenessCampaign 3 years ago
I think that what pinky means by "globalisation" is spreading capitalism around the globe. You're straw manning.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
fuck the new world order
gladiadorextremo 3 years ago 4
Out of curiosity...
Pinky, I have been a long-time watcher (and enjoyer) of your show. I have a curiosity question to ask.
You use this strip design a few times... thrice, I think.
Did you base it off a Peanuts comic where Lucy (Bunny) uses Charlie Brown's head (Pinky) as a globe to show Linus (Mimi) something?
ANGELOFCREPUSCULENCE 3 years ago
This is the sad reality. Humans are controlled because they unknowingly consent to this fraud. It's like Americans having a private corporation as a central bank. The Congress adopted the Federal Reserve Act (a piece of paper crafted by private bankers) and Woodrow Wilson signed it into law in 1913... So, they only need to control those that the people delegated the power to.
Ignorance and Apathy are the main shackles of slavery.
tuzmor 3 years ago
Capitalism only works when there are resources to exploit, once the resources are spent the capitalists move on, usually to the treasury
vengencefrom1979 3 years ago
Thanks to genetic eng. and bio-crops I just saw a "flying pig" so welcome home to the far-left field, ex-right-winger.
1amendoza1 3 years ago
The owners and managers in Bangladesh sweatshops are also screwed up. People from bangladesh will tell you.
jdk209 3 years ago
Free markets and capitalism work beautifully when governments and international groups don't interfere with it. Take subsidies for instance. 3rd world farmers can't compete with American food prices on goods such as corn. Why are American food products so low? The US gov is giving our farmers tax money to keep them in business. Because of this, they can sell their crops cheap. So our subsidy is benefiting Americans at the expense of feeding these 3rd world people. (as well as our taxpayers.)
whygreen44 3 years ago
your trying to make a good point, but i can't get passed your super annoying voice.
dkman222 3 years ago
Politics are confusing shit. Its amazing how brilliantly we can manipulate the world and do as we please yet maintain so rich. Which leads me to beleive that bush isn't stupid, he's brilliant. I think he plays the part of an idiot to cover up something on a much bigger scale. If anyone can prove me wrong that'd help me out. And don't give me reasons why he's dumb. Give me reasons why he can't be doing that.
alexanarchy13 3 years ago 3
1 sentence: Define rich. Are you rich when you have alot of stuff in your home? Derived from someone else breaking their back in a 3rd world country?
2nd stce:It matters not. Obviously people don't care because they don't seek out information for them selves. I am not only blaming you, I am also blaming myself for not knowing if the clothes, computers and foods that I buy are destroing someones life.
Tell me, is being rich the only thing that matters? I like your comment, I will be back.
Narzulnatel 3 years ago
I think there's an evil organization mamipulating everything, talk to the world bank.
545lljkr 3 years ago
Globalization is a force that is quite blunt - bringing huge change and positive destruction is a good thing - but the cost in human lives is in some instances totally amoral. Bring against globalization is simply not an option - making it more precise and less costly in human lives is where people can look to bring in changes.
Ghurshah 3 years ago
"Wage Slavery" is SO much more effective than traditional slavery or other forms of forced labor. The wage slave shows up every day, on time, and tries to please his master. The wage slave will actually kiss the *ss of his master so that he doesn't lose his job. Whether you're an American wage slave for $15 per hour, or an Indian wage slave for 15 cents per hour the end result is the same. The whole situation sucks big time...
randy95023 3 years ago
It gets kinda irritating when right-wing morons come up with these pathetic comments. It looks like freedom and justice in the modern world rarely, if ever, help the poor. What you people call a "free-market" is a mere fantasy, sorry to bust your bubble.
545lljkr 3 years ago 2
i dont usualy understand some of the educational things, because im just a little girl, but i definetly get the message sent to the heart and soul, the message telling you that fighting is not the solution, everyone has just as much a right as the next person to have a good life, and not everything the government tells us is true. but thats true.
sasukelovesme100 3 years ago
actually, I think you've missed the point. You said: "fighting is not the solution, everyone has just as much a right as the next person to have a good life".
Rather, it seems that the seemingly-softer mode of imperial domination -- 'Globalization' -- is actually on par with 'Colonialism', in terms of the creation and perpetuation of human suffering [in all of its manifestations]. Also, that such a regime goes relatively unchallenged given it's disguised-image in the public consciousness.
AR1g0McD 3 years ago 2
uh.... whoa slow down like ive said before im like a LITTLE GIRL so um i dont understand
sasukelovesme100 3 years ago
Does anyone know what piano piece is playing behind this video? I've heard it many times but don't know what it is called ...
unlv1981 3 years ago
Does anyone know what piano piece is playing behind this video? I've heard it many times ...
unlv1981 3 years ago
More communist propaganda. They are turning profit into a dirty word. Capitalism rules. That's why this country is so great. Get over it liberals. Europe is waiting for you.
iwasbornin1963 3 years ago
You seem to have a very simplistic world view. Labeling the criticism of corporate abuses (which lead to mass suffering) as "communist propaganda" doesn't advance the issue.
zetetic23 3 years ago
zetetic there is no MASS SUFFERING. This video is anti-capitalist. It's not a prefect system but it's the best in the world.
iwasbornin1963 3 years ago
I'm wondering do you even understand capitalism?
545lljkr 3 years ago 2
If you don't like our way 545 of life go back to Argentina and enjoy your socialism. Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best so far. It's when the govt. sticks their head in it that it turns to shit. By the way profit is a good thing that you liberal just don't get.
iwasbornin1963 3 years ago
are you out of your mind? Argentina is 300% capitalist, socialist states have never existed. Also, when the companies go unchecked evrything goes awry. Do you even know what neo-liberal means? Also, I'm far-left now, how's that?
545lljkr 3 years ago 2
I don't care how far left you are 545. Just don't try to pond your leftist trash on me or this country. Back in the 60s a real liberal would say "I disagree with you but support your right to say it." The present day lib tries to censor conservatives. You can say what you want as long as you agree with them. Such tolarance. I hope you're better than that.
iwasbornin1963 3 years ago
Get a clue iwasbornin1963, I've been reading your liberal fascism crap, I haven't censored anything you've said, I've been reading your comments and having fun, please don't throw all this right-wing crap at me.
545lljkr 3 years ago 2
What are you scared of 545? With enough truth even you could become conservative. I welcome you my friend.
iwasbornin1963 3 years ago
I will become a conservative the day pigs develop wings, I've already done plenty of homework, this has strengthened my far left values rather than disolve them. By the way, social security is booming, not collpasing.
545lljkr 3 years ago
Capitalism only works when there are resources to exploit, once the resources are spent the capitalists move on, usually to the treasury
vengencefrom1979 3 years ago
Where the hell did you get that shit from? Capitalism is the best system in the world because it works. Why do you think the Chinese after centuries of communism are moving more and more to capitalism.
iwasbornin1963 3 years ago
Centuries of communism in China? Recheck your history..
chiconspiricy 3 years ago 2
"...because it works."
Works for whom? Colonialism, nation-building, spreading democracy and globalization give us free reign over other countries' affairs and no one sees a problem. We've all been brainwashed and we've all been had.
ambelle 3 years ago 2
capitalism was created and controlled by self centered people who only really care about themselves and profits
nalgaface123456789 3 years ago 3
so great - lol
kellysontheroad 3 years ago
Better than Canada kelly. You guys don't even have a real military. That's okay American soldiers will protect you. The taxes in Canada hold back the economy. That's socialism at work.
iwasbornin1963 3 years ago
"Capitalism rules" nice comment iwasbornin1963.
What's next? Liberal media?
545lljkr 3 years ago
@iwasbornin1963
Verily and Amen.
Read WHY THE LEFT HATES AMERICA by Daniel Flynn for a more detailed explanation. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best system that exists. And the alternative socialist models only look good through a selective omission of the true facts.
DaveRyanFL 11 months ago
Look, guys, economic theory is all very well, but really there's a practical question: who gets the rice, Haiti or Walmart?
Probably China, actually.
By the way, the foodbanks are running out. So if you guys want to do some good as we watch the whole system collapse, some baked beans and peanut butter would come in handy.
Protein rich stuff. You know.
internationallawman 3 years ago
I'm sorry mick0057 -but since Enron and Bush, Rush Lambaugh's warmed over non-sense simply doesn't "cut it" any more. By the way, I hope you realize that the author of "Harry Potter" had govenment help? Also, did you know that the tax payers bailed Bush's sports team out of the hole? The rich make good use of government handouts-and if you know what is going on with private contractors in Iraq - the rip offs are in the billions of dollars.
PineMartinAmerican 3 years ago 2
Mr.Martin, I am not as naive to think corporate America is the be all to end all. I recognize the abuses the super wealthy impose on the system. I do support the recent legislation in regards to C.E.O. pay, as most
people today have money in these corporations
whether they know it or not. I carry no brief
for Dimbaugh or his ilk. But a socialist society is not the answer as some would have us believe. It is up to us to weed out the abusers on both ends of the spectrum.
mick0057 3 years ago
My quarrel with socialism is that it removes incentive,and replaces it with complacency. In effect you become slaves to a system,where
extra effort doesn't translate into similar compensation. Any one who disputes the need for social safety nets are either heartless foolish, or both. On the other hand any one who belives in a proletariat utopia are deluding themselves or envision themselves at the helm. A mix of both idealouges are necessary to a functioning society.
mick0057 3 years ago 2
AGAIN -- THE TERMS "SOCIALISM" AND "CAPITALISM" ARE JUST TERMS LEFT OVER FROM THE COLD WAR ERA BY THOSE WHO WANTED POWER BY PUTTING PEOPLE IN A PARTICULAR CATEGORY. (HMMM-CAT-a-gory?) There really is no such thing as either and we can waste years defining these useless terms. They are terms of oppression to gain power from classifying your enemy as "Red" or socialist. IT IS SIMPLY FOLKS EXPLOITING OR BEING DESCENT. BIG COMPANIES HAVE BEEN REAL SHITS --AND AGAINST OPPORTUNITIES.
PineMartinAmerican 3 years ago
Ah! You are very thoughtful and you are actually paying attention to what I write. That is good and I am flattered. OK-it is not an either/or "Capitalism" or "Socialism." Can I propose there is really no such thing as either capitalism or socialism? ALL IT IS JUST FOLKS- AND THEY EXPLOIT OR HELP ONE ANOTHER. I leave the "isms" stuff to the John Birch Society and other "f-ks" from the COLD WAR ERA.
PineMartinAmerican 3 years ago
I'm ssssooooo much confused,as to
Either decision makers at NATO & UNSC are idiots,or they are sold out for personal greed.
There is no 3rd possibility.
How forces of 40 countries could be deployed to push NWO/ WTO agenda?
Fixhist 3 years ago
When you look at your paycheck and see 30% of it gone because the government took it to feed
clothe, and house the drug addict down the street(because addiction is a disease)and have no problem with it, then,you can argue for a "new system". History and common sense tells us that people will only do what is necessary when there is no corresponding reward. Sloth,indolence and a "owed" mentality
should never be rewarded in the name of egalitarianism.
mick0057 3 years ago
Your damn right capitalism invades the physce,
it is the need to eat. It is the pride of haveing your own table and sharing and not always being at someone elses. It is being rewarded for your efforts and not seeing the
lazy ass next to you reap benifits from your labor. It is NOT dumpster diving so you don't have to get up in the morning and dig a ditch.
It is not sticking your hand out to Uncle Sam
because you don't like being told what to do by some one you think is not as smart as you.
mick0057 3 years ago
Sorry - read about the era of the Robber Barons- Enron stole years of labor from its workers. You DO know about Enron? Too bad Rush Limbaugh theories fall apart in the face of Enron and other companies that have robbed their workers. Oh, and don't forget the military/defense industry, wanted the Viet Nam war to go forever. Don't forget about all the children that died in NYC from dangerous medications in the 1910's. Quit listening to Rush Limbaugh and read StClaire Louis's, "The Jungle."
PineMartinAmerican 3 years ago
Well while your kids are flipping burgers at Mickey D's those kids(from disadvantaged backgrouds)will be living a decent life. What
would you have? "Each to his own ability and need" we have seen how that works. Your definition of a real life is what? Rice and beans and all the time you want to contemplate your navel? Fine for you but most of us want a little more in life. I like my creature comforts and the pleasures a modern society brings. Art, literature, blended whiskey, and indoor plumbin
mick0057 3 years ago
Liberalism takes as a given that people are incapable of taking care of themselves and government is the answer. When in reality the government has fouled up everything it has gotten its hands on including the social sevices it is charged with maintaining. Capatalism run amok is not conservatism in spite of what liberals would have you belive.
If you want an accurate picture of India read
Origins of the Modern Indian Business Class.
State Capatlism is not the same as what we have in America.
mick0057 3 years ago
Yeah, India is a real nice place in terms of lack of poverty, disease, etc.
You neocons would love to believe that as long as we can spring up a few dozen corporate offices, sell some SUV's and Pepsi's, and develop a rich elite class and a strong military, that a country is doin' just great. Well I'm sorry, but this is an INCORRECT world view. Pine Martin is right about inner cities, and India is only a more poignant version of this same problem. We need a new system.
aewester 3 years ago
If that were all that is taking place I would
agree 100%. But micro loans(some as little as fity bucks)are transforming whole communities.
Small entrepreneurships are springing up in rural areas at a faster pace than ever. This is real change, WOMEN, are the largest segment of these businesses. As for how teaching in an inner city in anyway relates to capitalism I am prepared to be educated. Explain how this translates PLEASE. In rebuttal I would point to the Avery Groups' work in urban area
mick0057 3 years ago
They are teaching grade schoolers basics on finance. The stock market, 401k, diversivation
and a myriad of other money related matters that are crucial to success in todays econonmy
I certainly don't see the correlation(other than poverty)between inner city Chicago and some Indian village. If you are interested in making money I would strongly suggest the INR.
This is one of the most upwordly mobile countries on the globe today. While far from utopia, compare its economic status to Pakistan.
mick0057 3 years ago
Jesus christ, and you think this is a good thing?! I don't want kids learning how to manage their stocks, or how to run a business effectively. Fuck. I want children to explore life and themselves as humans. you know, ideas, art, community, sustainability, nature, all that "crap" that poses a threat to our capitalism. Capitalism is dehumanizing, and I will NEVER stand for teaching business to kids over english, culture, art, science, philosophy, social studies, etc.
aewester 3 years ago
today's business world is a fucking scam, a ripoff, a dehumanizing, robotic force. if i were a narcisistic dictator, i would love to have my people be robotic, wealthy consumers who are too worried about their brokerage firm, their profits, and their 401k's to be creative, thoughtful, progressive, compassionate, etc. just as it is with technology, any economic force that enslaves people to it, rather than it exclusively being used BY people in pursuit of real life, should be scrapped.
aewester 3 years ago
how does inner city life relate to capitalism?!?! damn. and just to humor your purposeful misrepresentation of what he was saying, even the specific act of teaching there has a lot to do with the economic system as well. if you don't realize the extent that capitalism invades your psyche, your desires, your focuses, your goals, let alone society as a whole, specific demographics, education, prevailing ideologies, etc then you are in trouble. these influences are my main reasons for opposing it.
aewester 3 years ago
Buckley admitted some of his early positions were wrong. But that doesn't ivalidate the whole philosophy. Neither does "the war on poverty"(complete and utter failure that we are still climbing out of decades later) negate the whole of liberalism. If you are alluding to socialism as the answer we only have to look at the U.S.S.R. to see what great
benifits it has. ANY politcal idea can and do fall short of its ideal state but liberalism starts with a false premise at its core.
mick0057 3 years ago
"If you are under 20 and not a liberal you have no heart. If you are over 40 and not a conservative you are a fool." So lets not build infrastructure in third world countries
Lets not employ them. Lets not "exploit" them
Lets just leave them to wallow in grinding poverty with no hope of a better future. Ask a women in India who has recieve a micro loan
what capitalism means to her and her five children. You would restrict these people from a better life in the name of anti-globalazation.
mick0057 3 years ago
Your pusillanimous video instructs us on world
economy at its worst and omit the positives
and the realities in a modern world. Your more
dishonest than any corporate pirate in that you have nothing to offer these people except
words and sympathy and at least he offers them a chance at a better life. You on the other hand would take even that away from them
to punish what you precieve as explotation. You OFFER NOTHING You GIVE NOTHING You would TAKE what little chance these people have away
mick0057 3 years ago
Churchill was not accurate when he said that. Barry Goldwater, the father of American conservatism, became a liberal in his old age. He also regretted his votes against African Americans and against Civil Rights. Capitialism is exactly what is going on in India.
PineMartinAmerican 3 years ago
Believe me, Brazil and India are great examples of capitalism. I know you probably believe the street kids of Rio haven't used their "free will" enough. Interesting how the capitalistic merchants get together and have them murdered. Oh, and they are great Christians too-or so they think. Slave owners of the South also believed they were highly virtuous as well. Read Charles Dickens and George Barnard Shaw and not that pro-Nazi, Ann Rand.
PineMartinAmerican 3 years ago