And being as I'm an engineer that specializes in system-understanding, things like modeling the climate, I have to tell you that it is a hoax as it is portrayed in the media. Mind you, that doesn't mean there's no truth to the green house effect, it's the hysteria that is ridiculous. As well as the idea that it is worth doing something about. Climate sensitivity is low.
no! to produce food for poor people can bring a loss, and to produce a third watch for a rich man can bring a gain - but we all know, that it is more important to produce the food, than the expensive clock, don't we!?
getting rid of minimum wage reduces unemployment the same way slavery gets rid of unemployment. liberty is about the social and political aspects of society, not economic. if we do everything just because it's economically sound, then what's my profit motive for listening to this piece of shit?
did you seriously just compare working for a living to slavery? oh yes you'd rather have people sit at home, where the government takes care of them with money taken by force from other people that do work. you'd rather have that then allowing those unemployed people to work at a lower wage on their own accord. as their productivity increases so would their income. there is no force involved at all, comparing it to slavery is completely retarded.
@ApocDevTeam Your speculation on the results of getting rid of minimum wage has no historical value. Please look back at late-19th century and early-20th century to see how well the lack of minimum wage turned out in the USA.
so tell me, are you going to hire people at minimum wage when they generate a loss for your business? no, you wouldn't. how is a law going to change that? not profitable means not profitable, at least when there's no minimum wage the worker can still work and earn at least some money rather than having no job at all. but you don't care, you'd rather have them sitting at home with no job at all, dependant on the state for handouts. now THAT'S slavery.
@ApocDevTeam Yes, that's how USA's welfare system works. That's why we have over 50% of americans making less than $33,000, because of minimum wage and they're lazy bums just waiting for government handout. That's why roughly 15million children are living in and are stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty. Yes, libertarians are the answer to all our problems! Hallelujah!
you believe in magic then? if you dont generate a profit you wont have a job. its that simple. you can appeal to your emotions all you want, it wont change anything. you cant take in more than you give. and just so you know, 33.000 dollars is four times the average wage of a person living on this planet. funny how you mentioned children stuck in poverty, that's right they're stuck because they cant work due to minimum wage pricing them out meaning no future. you're evil.
@ApocDevTeam You basically implied that children should get jobs instead of doing homework and getting a better education in order to break the vicious cycle of poverty. You also implied that getting a low wage job will get you out of poverty. LOL at children in chinese sweatshops. OPS I meant American sweatshops.
@ApocDevTeam So you don't disagree with my strawman arguments? So you agree with my sentiment that getting rid of minimum wage doesn't get children out of poverty? You agree that the minimum wage have nothing to do with people "sitting at home with no job at all"?
@uiluj13 People used to have to pay their own money for education, back before government subsidy and the student loan nightmare drove college prices sky high. Also, working IS education. Why is it that the pro-"education" folks push so hard for college are surprised when high school becomes college prep (and useless in the workforce) and then people who go to college (because it's "the only way to get ahead") end up getting useless degrees with student loans they pay off with their retail job?
@worldofdraculas Continued. The problem with your argument is that you don't actually articulate either what kind of education nor the mechanism for how this education is supposed to "bring people out of poverty." What is someone in Africa going to do with a degree in Queer Studies to make their life better? And who is going to subsidize them while they get their education? You can just summon up a complete modern economy ex nihilo by "educating" people.
@worldofdraculas yes, I've heard enough old people rant about the how the college tuition use to be lower, so I get the picture. And obviously education creates informed citizens and informed consumers. So, I do not appreciate how you're implying education should only be available for those who can afford it. Education would be pointless if it's only available for those who can maximize its benefits, and it'll begin to realize the same social conditions of late-19th century USA.
@aqian1018 It depends - if you live in modern civilazed society water is not scarce and bottle of water doesnt really mean that much - on the other one diamond means a lot more to most people. However if you are on a desert then one bottle of water does make a lot of difference as water is scarce.
I love the business = all good and government = all bad... Cause there is no history of businesses using force and creating shortages. To use diamonds as a great example. DeBeers controls over 80% of the worlds diamonds supply and have managed to control even more by working as a cartel with much of the large diamond miners. Without this monopoly, the price of diamonds could be well less then half the current price. Then you can get into the slavery in diamond trade but business can do no wrong
@Loathomar Let's say everything you said about diamonds is correct. Lets compare :
DeBeers sells shiny stones (which have a lot of alternatives) more expensive. Oh the tragedy.
Goverments banned DDT (i guess i could use nazis or whatever else but you would object so i used something made with good intentions) results in 250 milion people a year getting malaria and a lot of them die or end up disabled.
@MrJigssaw1989 Sry, how many people in the US died from malaria after the DDT ban? DDT is a know carcinogenic, not to mention the other environmental effects, and as the US had one know case of someone getting malaria in the US in 2007, why would we not ban it in the US? Millions die in Africa, but the US can not stop Africans from using DDT, so your point fails.
@Loathomar Where in my post did i mention US ? (i said goverments) but when you mention it the reason why hardly anyone dies in US from malaria is that DDT was used extensively there and the mosquitos that spread the disease are practicaly extinct. And by the way there was NO ONE who died from DDT ever and no one who suffered any health problems as result of ddt.
@MrJigssaw1989 Does the US government control DDT use in Africa?No, so why is the US ban of DDT relevant to it's use in Africa? And you should really read up on peer reviewed DDT studies on human health effects; The Lancet - exposure is a risk factor for premature birth and low birth weight, and may harm a mother's ability to breast feed. Epidemiological studies indicates that DDT causes cancers of the liver, pancreas and breast.But please ignore peer review work on human health effects....
Profencally The only thing the US ban did for malaria deaths was the US was no longer giving DDT to Africa and the cost of DDT increase as the production level decreased. The ban of DDT was 100% the right thing in the US, it save US lives and the environment. Worldwide it cause problems in the short term, but in the long term it may not have as now that DDT has been used in Africa we are finding mosquito resistance to DDT, and we need to move to someone new. So, the long term effect are low.
@Loathomar You're missing the point, it's not business = good, it's free markets = good. A diamond monopoly is not a free market, it's a controlled market. DeBeers is stomping out competition that would lower the price of diamonds. Governments often try to control markets as well which creates the same problems.
@Mitchapalooza23 So, then government control to prevent monopoly is a good thing? When most people say "free markets", they simply mean markets without government control, but this has been shown to created monopoly, creating the same problem as government control of markets. Really, the government has a rule in free markets beyond just settle property rights questions.
@Loathomar Laws which protect against unfair business practices are a good thing yes. That however is not control of the market but prevention of force from being used to stomp out competition. When microsoft threatened to not allow IBM to use windows on their computers if they sold them with netscape navigator this was a use of force to prevent competition and they were sued for it and lost. The market itself cannot be controlled and any attempt to try always ends up in failure.
@bajskorvaren Depending on the time scale the trade is being conducted, why the trade is being conducted (is it cheaper products because of cheap labor only or is it because they have more of a resource of something we don't), is the trade only good in the short run because of currency differences, what form of labor system do they have-- surfs, slavery, state run, cast, free labor business controlled by the state or a few large merchants, etc.
Definitely the best overview of basic economic principles two minutes I've ever seen. For something more in depth, check out Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell.
@olhsaoagpaigfbp "Why do you thinks so,he explains basics of supply and demand,did you not understand it?"
Law of supply and demand - the more something there is the less its worth(in monetary value). Thus someone always will be lacking things like starvation because it is not profitable to supply for all potential demand(like food).
This is how to keep mankind enslaved in a perpetual scarcity.
i like how you slip that anti-minimum-wage crap in there. fact is, if we do not have minimum wage we have a more clear of class slavery than we have even now.
no, wait, we do have that already, hu? it's called MEXICANS! and i know how much you republicans LOVE the illegals working under the table to do work around your houses for next to nothing so you don't have to pay an american citizen a fair wage.
@rtardbox a fair wage is a wage agreed upon voluntarily by both sides, without an interference from a third side (government). thus every market-established wage is a fair wage
i dont want to correct you bc it might mean you wont vote for Ron Paul but Minimum Wage is hurting business and poor people. If someone is worth 5 bucks an hour but the employer is FORCED to pay 8 an hour. then the employer wont hire that person..so what is better. 5 dollars and hour or No dollars an hour?
if minimum wage actually worked why not make it 20 bucks an hour?
@rtardbox Anyone whose labour is valued at less than minimum wage is either unemployed (job is outsourced) or is over-costing their employer, who then passes on the excessive costs to the consumer in the form of higher prices. We should abolish minimum wage and welfare in all its incarnations, and instead supliment people's income by means of negative income tax. Unemployment would be vastly reduced improving our productive capacity as a nation, making us all wealthier in the long run
you should do yoga or tai chi...first put your weight on the very center of your feet by leaning forward and then leaning backward, and then choosing the middle ground, then do the same thing from side to side, then lift one foot and, transferring the weight through your tailbone, put your weight down on your other foot as though you're sitting on the foot, and "empty" your other foot of all weight, make sure your spine is straight, it should be a workout, but with no sharp pains.
To every person commenting about the video in the ad: congratulations. You have officially proved that you are too lazy to watch a 2 minute video, yet have enough time to type a 500 character response.
The subject of this video is vastly different from the subject of the ad, and this isn't a comment space for the ad.
This guy is clearly just fighting logic. "The rich only made $4,000 more dollars in their income mobility! The poor made $23,000" That's nice, dear. The rich still ended up making 750,000 and the poor 206,000. Maybe if this guy weren't such an obvious Rayndian stooge for the rich and upper classes he'd actually be able to comprehend that if the trend actually continues there will come a point when the income growth of the poor won't outpace interest and they will effectively get poorer.
@cameronGTW - you're a democrat... The other fellow down there is obviously a republican. You won't understand his views because you don't hold the same political stance.
I get it now. We can't prosecute Chevron, Monsanto, DynCorp, Wal-Mart, and Halliburton for their numerous human rights abuses, because government intervention never ends well. And why do we still need minimum wage, sweatshops work just fine! Additionally, even though the top 1% currently have around $2 trillion in unused capital, we need to make sure they don't lose money due to government regulations.
@CameronGTW I don't get why people think the government has to regulate companies. It does always end badly. The government does not need to step in and tell businesses what to do all the government should do is enforce the constitution the way it was written and not change it. That would take care of human rights violations and sweatshops for you!
@Msteinebach92 My head is legitimately spinning right now. I cannot fathom what line of thinking you cooked up to try and connect the two. Rather, you have provided me with a rambling, incoherent, evidence-free response that adequately addresses absolutely nothing about what I said. The very idea that simply enforcing constitutional law and nothing else onto companies is so horrifyingly naïve I think it gave me cancer. At least provide examples as to where this worked...please?
@CameronGTW Well I would like to see an example of how the goverment getting involved in the business world has helped any situation in the long run. Like on bailing out banks and big businesses with borrowed money. Take for example when the government bailed out Gm when they went bankrupt. Ford was basically in the same situation at the time, but they didn't accept bailout money. If you look at those companies now you would notice that Ford is doing better than Gm.
@Msteinebach92 Of course I'm opposed to corporate welfare, be it the $700billion big banks received or the $7.7trillion in equity given to the by the Fed. I'm also opposed to how the United States is levying its diplomatic power to protect Monsanto, a known human rights violator. In addition I have a serious problem with how over $100 of my tax dollars go towards oil subsidies annually, with a good two bucks going towards solar. And why is all this happening? Because corporations are in control.
@Msteinebach92 A lack of accountability in campaign finance has created a culture where politicians will serve the interests of big business just to and stay elected. It's American fascism, plain and simple. They claim tax breaks will spur job growth, but taxes are at the lowest rates since 1950 and still nothing. They tell themselves that they've earned their place in life by working hard and playing by the rules. But the rules are stacked in their favor.
@Msteinebach92 A homeless man once got 15 years in prison for robbing a bank for $100 and then returning it, but a bank CEO got 22 months after defrauding his investors of billions. You want to know an example of successful government intervention in business? Try the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, it's the reason there are almost no monopolies. Or the FDA, which is the only reason you know what's in the food you eat. Or how workplace safety laws allow you to keep from getting fired if you're injusted.
@Msteinebach92 You speak of constitutional law only against businesses, but get this: there is no mention of preventing monopolies in the constitution. Nor are there any details for how to keep corporations from having massive influence over politics, or any provisions that let the government keep companies accountable for their actions at all. Because the Constitution was written hundreds of years ago and says, right there Necessary and Proper Clause, the Constitution isn't the absolute limit.
@Msteinebach92 And finally, in addressing your original point: The government does not have the power to end human rights abuses and sweatshops here and abroad at the moment. And you want to fix that by giving them LESS power!? How on earth would that improve anything? Here are the facts: corporations are not people, they do not have the same rights as us, and allowing businesses to control our government is, by definition, fascism.
@CameronGTW What?The constitution is totallyfor individual rights.Haveyou even looked at it?The government todayis very unconstitutional and I believe that is a big reason why we are so fucked financially.I knowour government is corrupt and leaning more towards facism every day.Also,I neversaid businesses should control the goverment and niether does the constitution.Anyway I think a business should have right to fire or hire anyone they want.
@Msteinebach92 If people don't like a company because it sells an inferior product or fires or hires people in a way that the people see as unjust, that company will lose support, and will suffer for it. When the government steps in and bails out an inferior company with taxpayer money, like Gm for example, I see that as going against what the people want. That's like working for that company wheather you want to support them or not. I call that socialism.
When work and housing are illegal, there will be increased homelessness and non-economical living. Work with extortion, and housing with extortion - are legal. NEWS FLASH - "No one that steals your money regularly IS YOUR FRIEND!"
When housing, labor, transportation, and necessary electricity are taxed, those taxes will always rise to the point of homelessness, so that citizens will work for next to nothing for food, and they will be willing to fight to protect the system that enslaved them - if they get paid. Banks make out on poverty (with interest), so they intend to increase poverty for profit.
@jalriteythen the banks were basically promised the bailouts by the government, which was trying to make housing affordable for most people, which ended up aiding the increase in housing prices and freed up the bankers from any risk, so most of them - as you said - played with people's money. If the government hadn't gotten involved, the bankers wouldn't have done what they did. Much of the financial industry is questionable, but many banks do add value to/have a good purpose in the economy.
wow. just wow..... ckleege. lets just look at what said. "suck asses paid by our corporate slave masters." 1. Did they "force" you to work for them? 2. Do they "force" you to work for free? 3. Can they "force" you to stay with them? The answer is a resounding NNNNOOOO. So if you dont like a corp., you dont have to work for them or buy there products. And if you really dont like them, you can create a company to compete with them.
@ckleege79 Wow.... Just wow. Lets just look at what you said. "get our suck asses paid by our corporate slave masters". 1. Do they "force" you to work for them? 2. Do they "pay" for your service? 3. Can they force you to "stay" with them? the answer to all of those is a resounding "NNNNNNOOOOOO". If you dont like what a corporation is doing than dont work for them and dont buy there products. and if you really dont like them than create a company to compete with them.
so according to this video, when BANKS make profits, they are turning 'resources' into something MORE valuable than those resources would be in any other line of employment.
banks add NO value to society as a whole, they do not use any resources to 'help' others, only to profit off something that they do not even own (your money). go learn how banks really work and you'll understand everything in this video is bs.
@jalriteythen If banks do nothing to give people value, why would people use them and how would they still be in business? Try thinking a little bit before you post.
@Benjammin822 do you understand how a bank truly works? it really is a giant scam pretty much. of course they give 'value' because people want to spend more money (which they dont have) and so they use banks. or store it because its 'safe' (look at how big banks have played with our money, only to get a tap on the wrist and be bailed out in billions by our government). of course my previous comment was a statement made towards the big banks, not the smaller ones, more careful ones.
In your other video you guys specifically said resources aren't scarce and now you're saying they aren't. Make up your mind before you try and brainwash people. More hypocrisy than the bible
Yes. Because economically optimal ends are the the only or the most desirable ends. Why don't economists ever seem to extend their thinking beyond merely economic choices? Is thinking only economically about social policies desirable? Often times thinking in only economic terms has "unintended and undesirable consequences."
Luis, your poor spelling, bad grammar and incoherent sentences make your lack of education clear. Your naive notions about abolishing property rights make your lack of analytical abilities clear. So yes, he is justified in calling you an idiot based on youtube comments.
So wait, poverty is created by the government putting limitations on trade? Is there no poverty where there are no limitations?
Also, while people my "enjoy" diamonds, they serve so useful function (with the exception of certain uses in manufacturing). Isn't then the "nature" of diamonds that accounts the "value" to your wife and other women?
And minimum wages "cause" unemployment? Isn't employment somewhat meaningless if even if you are employed your wages don't support the cost of living?
@KeroroGunsouTX He never said poverty is created by restrictions on trade, he said an increase in poverty is an unintended consequence of restricting trade.
As for minimum wage, what your not seeing is that minimum wage increases the cost to manufacture and produce, and therefore raises prices, increasing the value of living.
@KeroroGunsouTX Trade limitations are not the cause of poverty. Poverty is one unintended consequence of trade limitations.
Raising the minimum wage will not improve the lives of min wage workers. If government raise wages by 40% (as they did in 2007) then prices must go up by 40% to offset the increase in production costs. Even worse, if the market will not bear the price increase, then jobs are destroyed by wage fixing.
Well intended gov. meddling often produces bad results.
I'm sick of hearing from posters is the word Utopia. Libertarians don't believe in Utopia, the word it self means No such place. What Libertarians believe is that their philosophy will overall produce the most productive society. Certainly not a perfect one, but a prospering one. Because Capitalism is a natural product of free people and people are imperfect, thus Capitalism itself is doomed to be imperfect. Socialist libertarianism the dumpster baby of communism and anarchy believe in Utopia.
@ShamanMcLamie In other words Libertarianism is bullshit. Yeah like Bushs deregulation produced a prospering world. The greatest deficits in history and the worst output in history.
@ShamanMcLamie The abolishment of property will be the only way to make peace with human society it's not possible right now and form century's it will not be but once humans take the second necessary step in space colonization movement away from our solar system property will be abolished
@doofus8812 Really cause a youtube scholar like yourself is able to make judgement of somebody that you dont know at all is is able ti read my intelligence from a 484 word argument yes im the idiot know go away
@Luis568369 The only way that works is when people don't have work opportunities and that only happens when collusion, or monopolies are abound both of which are illegal. Say theirs a company they have this accountant who is good at what he does. Another company see's this and wants this accountant to work for them what do they do? Offer to pay him a higher wage than his current employer. Jobs adhere to the law of supply and demand as well as commodities.
@ShamanMcLamie Yes i know economic thanks for telling me something i already know and arguing with everybody over your libertarian economic doctrines and if you get ride of minimum wage i would asume that you would get ride of all forms of economic protections leading to a monopoly the true stage of the free market
@Luis568369 The most obvious example that shows a flaw in your theory is that most employed people make more than minimum wage. If people are already being payed more than the minimum wage, why would getting rid of it influence employers to lower wages. The only jobs affected would be low skill jobs.
@Luis568369 I have one last thing to say. Minimum wage is really only a tool to protect union jobs and wages, and keep minorities out of the work place. Let's say a teenager from a poor family is looking for a job, he has little skill and potential risk. His value as a worker isn't worth minimum wage and he can't get the job. The teenager is denied a job that could provide not only money, but work experience, and a good reputation increasing his value as a worker and expanding his opportunities.
@ShamanMcLamie A word of advice an i'm not trying to be mean but find another website to argue people over economics your obviously an opinionated person and youtube is no place for argument with the word limit everybody could jump into the argument even if they have no idea what they're saying
Capitolism is the cause of more cruelty than even religions has caused. Capitolism is on it's last breath. It is'nt even capitolism anymore. We have a debt based economy and you need to start talking about that. And the first country that folds up on it's national debt. Will start a chain reaction that will forever change the world. When this happens do not try to reform or fix it, this our chance to get away from it's control.. Research the zeitgeist or the venus project --resource based
@riseingstardust our debt-based, inflationary system is due to our corrupt banking and monetary system(s) - which have nothing whatever to do with capitalism. Under capitalism, people save and invest, which provides the funds (capital) to extend and expand our productive capacity. Over time, this expanded production makes all of society wealthier (which is why the "poorest" Americans have cell phones, xBoxes and fridges full of food) Don't blame capitalism for the problems you see around you.
You could be spinning on the head of your dick, the reason you generalize is because it's lie. Minimum wages doesn't cause unemployment, it stops you lying bastards from exploiting economically desperate people. Scumbags.
@strabes88 Why dont you go to the Philippines ,Taiwan, Hong Kong or China, places without minimum wages, and work there for a few dollars a month , sleep on a concrete floor with ten people in an empty room you DUMB FUCK! Lets see you survive! Your assertion SLAVERY is employment is fitting of the brainless breed you belong to . Minimums are set to keep people from poverty by establishing base in the current economy.
@Superorchestra 1) You completely ignored my argument, which is understandable considering your views are based on emotion, not reason. Your abundant use of ad hominems and straw men has adequately show this. 2) Wages are based on productivity. The idea that the minimum wage was created to prevent exploitation is a myth. Minimum wages were created because of union lobbying to price cheaper labor out of the market. Racist white unions lobbied for min. wages to keep blacks out of the labor force.
@strabes88 Talk about straw men , nonsensical out of proportion wages that have nothing to do the basic economic survival of the average person. My views aren't emotion based but your assertions that we pay minimums of 1000 dollars an hour are. Your avoiding talking about countries without minimums where slavery and worker exploitation is rampant. What an utterly desperate grasp at nonsense. Minimums were made to protect workers from slave masters like yourself, they are anti discrimination!
@strabes88 Minimums are set to avoid poverty and your nonsensical argument that setting them to 0 and setting us back slavery is "employment" is nothing but a sham. You are a complete idiot.
@Superorchestra You are simply wrong - even socialist economists admit that minimum wage laws cause unemployment - it's a fundamental law of economics. If you fix the price of something higher than demand for that good or service can command, then demand for that good or service will fall. In the case of minimum wage laws, if the MW is $7/hour and a person's labor is only worth $5/hour to the company, the person will not get a job - they will be unemployed. Which is better $0/hour or $5/hour?
@gergenheimer Bullshit! You are talking about products, not wages you TWIT! Name a socialist economist that agrees with that you moron ! Just one! God you must suck intelligence out of the room as you enter! What kind of a complete fucking asshole says slave wages are acceptable over no wages? You are the kind of person that was meant to die by choking on their own tongue , an evolutionary mistake that is so stupid society pity's it and assists it to live! Your parents must be dead from shame!
@Superorchestra genius - the law of supply and demand applies to wages like any other price. When higher wages are mandated across the board, that simply means that prices for everything we buy will be higher as a result - hence, there is no net benefit to low-income workers. Add to that the taxes, regulations, fees and inflation of the money supply and minimum wages are powerless to help the poor. What you should be demanding is true free markets, not govt. meddling. Please educate yourself.
@gergenheimer Wages are not like production prices because they can't be set at ANY price, I know you are a dunce and could never could never grasp that. Explain to us how we have 3rd world counties without minimums and about the people live on those wages ? Barely be able to afford to eat. You and your kind are monsters no better than the slave traders . Our inflation was cased by Reagan and the Bushs, deregulation and removing taxes for the rich.
@Superorchestra yes, wages ARE production prices - combined with resource costs, rents, equipment, etc., these are the producer's costs of production. Whether or not a producer can turn a profit depends on the difference between the selling price and the cost of production (part of which is wages) Third world countries have subsistence employment because they don't have functioning market economies (no capital accumulation) - this has little or nothing to do with "low wages"
@gergenheimer YES THEY DO HAVE FUNCTIONING MARKET ECONOMIES! Where do you get this CRAP??! The only difference between America and those countries is regulations that say you can't have slave labor , use children, pay slave wages and exploit the workers you little prick ! It's fine with you to let other races in other countries do it but you would die to keep your own children from living like that! Take look at the suicides at the Apple factories you mindless douchebag!
@Superorchestra If they have functioning market economies, where's the wealth that's being created? You see, that's what markets do - they make societies wealthier. If you believe that the wealth is being "stolen" from these exploited people, then ask yourself "what gives us the power to steal wealth from other countries?" It is, 1) complicit governments in those countries and 2) Our ability to print money / expand credit at will, while remaining the world's reserve currency.
@gergenheimer Oh do they, richer??!! Well except in OUR markets that had to be bailed out by the Fed to the tune of 24 trillion after 8 years of republican deregulation. You retards are advocating cutting every single saftey net yet you are claiming it makes societies richer? !! My god, do you know that you sound like some cave dwelling moron ? IT is so hard to talk someone as stupid as you. Go check out the wages raises in those 3rd world countries.
@Superorchestra Damn, you are clueless - you actually think it makes a difference which party's in office and what rules they pass (or get rid of) when the central bank has the ability to print money out of thin air and loan it to politicians at interest? No matter who prints the money, and for whatever reason - welfare or warfare - the result is the boom-bust cycle. Your precious regulations don't stop it, they just channel the boom-bust in a different direction.
@gergenheimer My point is proved. You can't bring up a single piece of legislation the Dems wrote that caused it. Oh it matters mother fucker. Explain why the banks channel millions into republicans campaigns.You think they are doing it for show? Funding campaigns against Elizabeth Warren? Those bastards will do their own like they did with McCain.
@Superorchestra Community Reinvestment Act under Jimmy Carter - this piece of legislation threatened to punish banks that failed to give a politically-correct proportion of loans to riskier, low-income clients. Enforcement of this legislation was ramped-up under Clinton (and Bush). Also, Fannie Mae was created under FDR and created moral hazard by guaranteeing riskier home loans. You've been owned - now go polish your tinfoil hat and make another batch of Koolaid.
@gergenheimer Every time I meet a republican Tea Party member we go through the same stupid discussion. Freddie and Fannie and the CRA ( Community Reinvestment Act). Anyone who says the banks were "forced" to give poor people loans is dead wrong. Provide proof that ANY bank was force to give a person without credit a loan. Then look up "fiduciary duty. Why has a bank never sued the government? You dont research at all do you ?!!
@gergenheimer Freddie and Fannie are simply "guarantors" and not the originators of those loans. 87% of those toxic loans cam from private banks not even under the CRA but F&F had a mandate to BACK AAA rated loans. It was a sucker play and there was no way the F&F could have known that this was a criminal scam created by the banks. That the AAA ratings were paid for by the investment firms. Look up CDO's and then look up "Inside Job " "Derivatives" You will find how they did it.
@Superorchestra what do think guarantor means? "If anything goes wrong, we'll take care of it" The knowledge of this guarantee causes people to behave more recklessly - it's called moral hazard. The free market wouldn't have guaranteed millions of those risky loans, it's only because they were provided a flood of cheap money to gamble with and because they knew the government would pick up the pieces if anything went wrong that everybody was willing to step up to the roulette wheel.
@gergenheimer Nonsense, they were started in 1938, kind of a long wait for things to go "crazy" don't you think? Wasn't until 1999 under the republican congress that they were allowed into subprimes. . The CRA sat through 6 presidents no problem but when a republican congress deregulates , chaos! It had nothing t do with the borrowers and everything to do with a republican agenda to deregulate so the banks paying them could make a killing on the profits. It was a scam. Plain and simple.
@gergenheimer No business can be forced to give out loans to the poor, they just can't charge them higher rates. Again, explain what part of the CRA covers giving illegal aliens credit cards and home loans ? THis was a scam and the republicans set it up.
@gergenheimer You are completely ignorant. Now explain to everyone how the CRA forced banks t give toxic loans and credit cards to illegal aliens.Go ahead! No financial institution can be forced to lend money, the CRA just made sure banks couldn't redline poorer people. Look that up, you will become smarter. Shove our tinfoil comments up your ass you ignoramus. Careful , it might damage your brain.
@gergenheimer You are doing nothing but creating a 3rd world world. Wages are being lowered by intentional inflation while wages here fall. Our average wage in 1980 was $33,500 and in 2010 was $33,000 , only the money is HALF of what it was worth in 1980 so it's really $16,500. Free market economy my ass the wages in those slave countries are going up you moron ! You are such liars about absolutely everything. You are either the most ignorant or the most evil people on the planet.
@Superorchestra Yes, our real wages have stagnated while real wages are rising in Asia and other parts of the world. And the reason? Not because of regulations in those countries - it's because their economies are becoming more free and ours is increasingly less free. For this mistake we will see a continual decline in our standard of living and theirs will continue to improve as long as they embrace free markets.
@gergenheimer Oh now there economies are becoming free ????! But they dont have free market economies do they !!!! You are a fool. And you are still making excuses , aren't you ya little Nazi fanatic. You ignorance is more dangerous than anyone in Washington. You are just blindly following your tea party dogma, selling out the world, your children ,your family and your country. I pity you.
@Superorchestra btw, inflation is caused by printing money / credit expansion by the central bank, a process that has been occurring for 100 years under Democratic AND Republican governments - the fact that you believe there is actually a difference between the two parties proves you to be a brainwashed sheep. Regulations are totally irrelevant when you have a corrupt monetary and banking system that allows politicians to borrow and spend us into oblivion while promising us a free lunch.
@gergenheimer BULLSHIT! The banks gotrepublicans to revoke Glass Steagall and deregulate derivatives , then changed the system so they could sell the bad loans to investment firms like Goldman Sachs package the bad debt into securities , have their Credit agencies ratings fake AAA ratings and then sell them to suckers . The banks o they went on he stock market and bet against their own toxic loans !watch?v=tdEHB7BYUdY
@Superorchestra Duh, the ratings agencies are in bed with government and the banks! Everyone was in on the game - you keep blaming the "gamblers" for the economic collapse, but you fail to recognize the role of the "casino" in the equation. You see that there was a huge speculative bubble in housing that was destined to collapse, yet you refuse to ask "who gave the gamblers trillions of dollars of cheap money to play with, and then signed-off on the deal and said it was perfectly safe?"
@gergenheimer THE RATINGS AGENCIES ARE IN BED WITH THE INVESTMENT FIRMS LIKE GOLDMAN SACHS! Google Phil Gramm and UBS. THe Fed gave them the money, the republicans gave them the power. Explain why Ayn Rand hated Libertarians!
@gergenheimer There are no true free markets, republicans gave monopolies to all the rich corporations . You consider 24 trilion given in secret to the banks by the federal reserve to be capitalism ? I'm a capitalist, you are all neanderthals that dont realize that you are once again advocating anarchy, not freedom. It's ;like "liberating Iraq". you ignorance of he culture is destructive
@gergenheimer . Every time you libertarian morons advocate deregulation e get the S&L scandals , the Great Depression od Bush's bailout , massive deficits and NO GROWTH. Nothing you say or do produces anything but the opposite results you claim.
@Superorchestra You are falling for the fallacy that regulations can control human behavior and prevent the economic booms and busts from happening. When our house of cards money and banking system decides to expand credit (print money), no amount of regulation will stop the ensuing bubble from being inflated - the flood of cheap money will find an outlet somewhere, often directly BECAUSE of government regulations and policies. This is exactly what happened in the housing bubble.
@gergenheimer It did pretty well until you libertarian whores sold out to the corporations in the 80's! It has absolutely nothing to do with regulations and EVERYTHING TO DO WITH DEREGULATION! The printing of the money was done by the bank corporations running the republican party in secret and the government didn't know about it until we audited the fed DUMBASS! You know shit about what you are talking about, you are some brainiless parrot repeating things you dont understand.
Well in regard to the bottle of water not being as valuable as a diamond i beg to differ. It depend's on economic conditions.
If you have hyper-inflation than I bet you would trade a barrel of diamond's for a bottle of water or two, A diamond isn't gonna help you & your family live another day if hyper-inflation is occurring & water is becoming scarce & isn't as easily accessible as it used to be!
It's about economic conditions & consumer decision making.
@IBloodSweatTears Actually that's one of the points made in another learn liberty video. That's why the "trading on the margin" matters. A glass full of diamonds is worth, to you, probably millions of times more than a glass of water meaning that you would trade a glass of water for a glass of diamonds. If you owned all the water in the world you would NOT trade that for all the diamonds in the world. The value is not absolute, it is only important what ONE MORE UNIT is worth to you.
You must not look at our point in history within a vacuum. Poor people have lifted themselves out of poverty for a long time by following the formula of getting the education available, seizing the opportunities available, and making the most of all of it.
Indeed, some of the people you might call "privileged" are actually poor people who followed this formula to success.
@Appleriver3 Because they are libertarians!
And being as I'm an engineer that specializes in system-understanding, things like modeling the climate, I have to tell you that it is a hoax as it is portrayed in the media. Mind you, that doesn't mean there's no truth to the green house effect, it's the hysteria that is ridiculous. As well as the idea that it is worth doing something about. Climate sensitivity is low.
Visfen 5 days ago
no! to produce food for poor people can bring a loss, and to produce a third watch for a rich man can bring a gain - but we all know, that it is more important to produce the food, than the expensive clock, don't we!?
Kritiker9 1 week ago
That's one way to keep an economist from talking too long...
runryrorun 1 week ago
lol i play an advanced song on guitar on one foot for 7min :D
rgg3107 1 week ago
I think I'm more impressed that he was able to stand on one foot so effortlessly for so long
Amicus405 1 week ago in playlist Favorites
@Amicus405 lol i play an advanced song on guitar for 7min one one foot :D
rgg3107 1 week ago
awww, economics the most important part of politics one could argue. and fucking boring as hell.
CombatMedicBuddy 1 week ago
getting rid of minimum wage reduces unemployment the same way slavery gets rid of unemployment. liberty is about the social and political aspects of society, not economic. if we do everything just because it's economically sound, then what's my profit motive for listening to this piece of shit?
uiluj13 2 weeks ago
@uiluj13
did you seriously just compare working for a living to slavery? oh yes you'd rather have people sit at home, where the government takes care of them with money taken by force from other people that do work. you'd rather have that then allowing those unemployed people to work at a lower wage on their own accord. as their productivity increases so would their income. there is no force involved at all, comparing it to slavery is completely retarded.
ApocDevTeam 2 weeks ago
@ApocDevTeam Your speculation on the results of getting rid of minimum wage has no historical value. Please look back at late-19th century and early-20th century to see how well the lack of minimum wage turned out in the USA.
uiluj13 2 weeks ago
@uiluj13
so tell me, are you going to hire people at minimum wage when they generate a loss for your business? no, you wouldn't. how is a law going to change that? not profitable means not profitable, at least when there's no minimum wage the worker can still work and earn at least some money rather than having no job at all. but you don't care, you'd rather have them sitting at home with no job at all, dependant on the state for handouts. now THAT'S slavery.
ApocDevTeam 2 weeks ago
@ApocDevTeam Yes, that's how USA's welfare system works. That's why we have over 50% of americans making less than $33,000, because of minimum wage and they're lazy bums just waiting for government handout. That's why roughly 15million children are living in and are stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty. Yes, libertarians are the answer to all our problems! Hallelujah!
uiluj13 2 weeks ago
@uiluj13
you believe in magic then? if you dont generate a profit you wont have a job. its that simple. you can appeal to your emotions all you want, it wont change anything. you cant take in more than you give. and just so you know, 33.000 dollars is four times the average wage of a person living on this planet. funny how you mentioned children stuck in poverty, that's right they're stuck because they cant work due to minimum wage pricing them out meaning no future. you're evil.
ApocDevTeam 2 weeks ago
@ApocDevTeam Only a libertarian would argue that children should spend their time working instead of getting an education.
uiluj13 2 weeks ago
@uiluj13
do you have anything else besides strawman arguments?
ApocDevTeam 2 weeks ago
@ApocDevTeam You basically implied that children should get jobs instead of doing homework and getting a better education in order to break the vicious cycle of poverty. You also implied that getting a low wage job will get you out of poverty. LOL at children in chinese sweatshops. OPS I meant American sweatshops.
uiluj13 2 weeks ago
@uiluj13
hey look, more strawmen!
ApocDevTeam 2 weeks ago
@ApocDevTeam So you don't disagree with my strawman arguments? So you agree with my sentiment that getting rid of minimum wage doesn't get children out of poverty? You agree that the minimum wage have nothing to do with people "sitting at home with no job at all"?
uiluj13 2 weeks ago
@uiluj13 People used to have to pay their own money for education, back before government subsidy and the student loan nightmare drove college prices sky high. Also, working IS education. Why is it that the pro-"education" folks push so hard for college are surprised when high school becomes college prep (and useless in the workforce) and then people who go to college (because it's "the only way to get ahead") end up getting useless degrees with student loans they pay off with their retail job?
worldofdraculas 1 week ago
@worldofdraculas Continued. The problem with your argument is that you don't actually articulate either what kind of education nor the mechanism for how this education is supposed to "bring people out of poverty." What is someone in Africa going to do with a degree in Queer Studies to make their life better? And who is going to subsidize them while they get their education? You can just summon up a complete modern economy ex nihilo by "educating" people.
worldofdraculas 1 week ago
@worldofdraculas yes, I've heard enough old people rant about the how the college tuition use to be lower, so I get the picture. And obviously education creates informed citizens and informed consumers. So, I do not appreciate how you're implying education should only be available for those who can afford it. Education would be pointless if it's only available for those who can maximize its benefits, and it'll begin to realize the same social conditions of late-19th century USA.
uiluj13 1 week ago
@uiluj13
*facepalm* It's people like you that don't understand the concept of monetary devaluation.
diskpanic 2 weeks ago
wait, wait, wait... isn't water more useful than diamond...?
aqian1018 3 weeks ago
@aqian1018 It depends - if you live in modern civilazed society water is not scarce and bottle of water doesnt really mean that much - on the other one diamond means a lot more to most people. However if you are on a desert then one bottle of water does make a lot of difference as water is scarce.
MrJigssaw1989 3 weeks ago
I love the business = all good and government = all bad... Cause there is no history of businesses using force and creating shortages. To use diamonds as a great example. DeBeers controls over 80% of the worlds diamonds supply and have managed to control even more by working as a cartel with much of the large diamond miners. Without this monopoly, the price of diamonds could be well less then half the current price. Then you can get into the slavery in diamond trade but business can do no wrong
Loathomar 3 weeks ago
@Loathomar Let's say everything you said about diamonds is correct. Lets compare :
DeBeers sells shiny stones (which have a lot of alternatives) more expensive. Oh the tragedy.
Goverments banned DDT (i guess i could use nazis or whatever else but you would object so i used something made with good intentions) results in 250 milion people a year getting malaria and a lot of them die or end up disabled.
MrJigssaw1989 3 weeks ago
@MrJigssaw1989 Sry, how many people in the US died from malaria after the DDT ban? DDT is a know carcinogenic, not to mention the other environmental effects, and as the US had one know case of someone getting malaria in the US in 2007, why would we not ban it in the US? Millions die in Africa, but the US can not stop Africans from using DDT, so your point fails.
Loathomar 2 weeks ago
@Loathomar Where in my post did i mention US ? (i said goverments) but when you mention it the reason why hardly anyone dies in US from malaria is that DDT was used extensively there and the mosquitos that spread the disease are practicaly extinct. And by the way there was NO ONE who died from DDT ever and no one who suffered any health problems as result of ddt.
MrJigssaw1989 2 weeks ago
@MrJigssaw1989 Does the US government control DDT use in Africa?No, so why is the US ban of DDT relevant to it's use in Africa? And you should really read up on peer reviewed DDT studies on human health effects; The Lancet - exposure is a risk factor for premature birth and low birth weight, and may harm a mother's ability to breast feed. Epidemiological studies indicates that DDT causes cancers of the liver, pancreas and breast.But please ignore peer review work on human health effects....
Loathomar 2 weeks ago
Profencally The only thing the US ban did for malaria deaths was the US was no longer giving DDT to Africa and the cost of DDT increase as the production level decreased. The ban of DDT was 100% the right thing in the US, it save US lives and the environment. Worldwide it cause problems in the short term, but in the long term it may not have as now that DDT has been used in Africa we are finding mosquito resistance to DDT, and we need to move to someone new. So, the long term effect are low.
Loathomar 2 weeks ago
@Loathomar You're missing the point, it's not business = good, it's free markets = good. A diamond monopoly is not a free market, it's a controlled market. DeBeers is stomping out competition that would lower the price of diamonds. Governments often try to control markets as well which creates the same problems.
Mitchapalooza23 2 weeks ago
@Mitchapalooza23 So, then government control to prevent monopoly is a good thing? When most people say "free markets", they simply mean markets without government control, but this has been shown to created monopoly, creating the same problem as government control of markets. Really, the government has a rule in free markets beyond just settle property rights questions.
Loathomar 2 weeks ago
@Loathomar Laws which protect against unfair business practices are a good thing yes. That however is not control of the market but prevention of force from being used to stomp out competition. When microsoft threatened to not allow IBM to use windows on their computers if they sold them with netscape navigator this was a use of force to prevent competition and they were sued for it and lost. The market itself cannot be controlled and any attempt to try always ends up in failure.
Mitchapalooza23 2 weeks ago
Obviously this economic principle is wonderful for the few it benefits.
mcbcon 3 weeks ago
@mcbcon trade benefits both parts
bajskorvaren 3 weeks ago
@bajskorvaren Depending on the time scale the trade is being conducted, why the trade is being conducted (is it cheaper products because of cheap labor only or is it because they have more of a resource of something we don't), is the trade only good in the short run because of currency differences, what form of labor system do they have-- surfs, slavery, state run, cast, free labor business controlled by the state or a few large merchants, etc.
jmitterii2 3 weeks ago
Definitely the best overview of basic economic principles two minutes I've ever seen. For something more in depth, check out Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell.
PkayerZxz2 4 weeks ago
This bullshit on one foot.
mcbcon 1 month ago
@mcbcon Why do you thinks so,he explains basics of supply and demand,did you not understand it?
olhsaoagpaigfbp 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
This has been flagged as spam show
@olhsaoagpaigfbp "Why do you thinks so,he explains basics of supply and demand,did you not understand it?"
Law of supply and demand - the more something there is the less its worth(in monetary value). Thus someone always will be lacking things like starvation because it is not profitable to supply for all potential demand(like food).
This is how to keep mankind enslaved in a perpetual scarcity.
shogu666 3 weeks ago
@mcbcon You're a retard on one brain cell.
TWSceptic 4 weeks ago
@mcbcon That's a bold statement. Are you ready to back it? Name one incorrect point.
audioblogs12 4 weeks ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
awesome
whomybuddy 1 month ago
supply and demand econ 101
vonGleichenT 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
- Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
TyZi187 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Comment removed
TyZi187 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Its too bad most people don't particpate in such rational discourse.
TG1212able 1 month ago 2
@Appleriver3 Dronish drone.
Visfen 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Loved the ad. I wish every ad taught something as this did to me.
goragan6 1 month ago
the diamond example is dumb, the rest is fine...
gmozzini 1 month ago
Thank you for making these videos! There very interesting
rljowers 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
Thank you so much! This is one of the first ads ever that I can say I enjoyed!
kendrefor 1 month ago
@kendrefor No he doesn't; watch him balance himself
kendrefor 1 month ago
He's on two feet from 1:23 to 1:33
Ninjab3ar 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
i like how you slip that anti-minimum-wage crap in there. fact is, if we do not have minimum wage we have a more clear of class slavery than we have even now.
no, wait, we do have that already, hu? it's called MEXICANS! and i know how much you republicans LOVE the illegals working under the table to do work around your houses for next to nothing so you don't have to pay an american citizen a fair wage.
republicans = hypocrites
democrats = idiots
RON PAUL! ALL THE WAY!
rtardbox 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@rtardbox a fair wage is a wage agreed upon voluntarily by both sides, without an interference from a third side (government). thus every market-established wage is a fair wage
Arjozof 1 month ago
@rtardbox Ron Paul...
xFishera247 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@rtardbox
i dont want to correct you bc it might mean you wont vote for Ron Paul but Minimum Wage is hurting business and poor people. If someone is worth 5 bucks an hour but the employer is FORCED to pay 8 an hour. then the employer wont hire that person..so what is better. 5 dollars and hour or No dollars an hour?
if minimum wage actually worked why not make it 20 bucks an hour?
tempestx8 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rtardbox Anyone whose labour is valued at less than minimum wage is either unemployed (job is outsourced) or is over-costing their employer, who then passes on the excessive costs to the consumer in the form of higher prices. We should abolish minimum wage and welfare in all its incarnations, and instead supliment people's income by means of negative income tax. Unemployment would be vastly reduced improving our productive capacity as a nation, making us all wealthier in the long run
Jinmane 1 month ago
you should do yoga or tai chi...first put your weight on the very center of your feet by leaning forward and then leaning backward, and then choosing the middle ground, then do the same thing from side to side, then lift one foot and, transferring the weight through your tailbone, put your weight down on your other foot as though you're sitting on the foot, and "empty" your other foot of all weight, make sure your spine is straight, it should be a workout, but with no sharp pains.
BigFatSponge 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@BigFatSponge Thanks for the suggestion. I've done some martial arts training and really want to get better at Tai Chi.
artcarden 1 month ago
To every person commenting about the video in the ad: congratulations. You have officially proved that you are too lazy to watch a 2 minute video, yet have enough time to type a 500 character response.
The subject of this video is vastly different from the subject of the ad, and this isn't a comment space for the ad.
mjcabooseblu 2 months ago
Extremely misleading video, he only references everything before the late 1990's, when the US didn't have such a massive dept.
In the last 20 years alone the income disparity has grown to the extremes leaving the poorest Americans poorer and the richest richer.
I would talk more about how his argument is flawed, but I can't type too much in this comment space. He is an obvious tool for corporations.
EEEdoman 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@EEEdoman this is economics, not history, in case you haven't realized yet
Arjozof 1 month ago
@EEEdoman This channel has a video on why the poor aren't getting poorer. It's called 'Are the poor getting poorer?'.
DMAN123223 1 month ago
This guy is clearly just fighting logic. "The rich only made $4,000 more dollars in their income mobility! The poor made $23,000" That's nice, dear. The rich still ended up making 750,000 and the poor 206,000. Maybe if this guy weren't such an obvious Rayndian stooge for the rich and upper classes he'd actually be able to comprehend that if the trend actually continues there will come a point when the income growth of the poor won't outpace interest and they will effectively get poorer.
cramberrybog 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@cramberrybog These are inflation adjusted AFAIK
toatoa10 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@cramberrybog You are a Rayndian Stooge.
xFishera247 1 month ago in playlist Favorites
@cameronGTW - you're a democrat... The other fellow down there is obviously a republican. You won't understand his views because you don't hold the same political stance.
chanceallen7 2 months ago
I get it now. We can't prosecute Chevron, Monsanto, DynCorp, Wal-Mart, and Halliburton for their numerous human rights abuses, because government intervention never ends well. And why do we still need minimum wage, sweatshops work just fine! Additionally, even though the top 1% currently have around $2 trillion in unused capital, we need to make sure they don't lose money due to government regulations.
CameronGTW 2 months ago
@CameronGTW I don't get why people think the government has to regulate companies. It does always end badly. The government does not need to step in and tell businesses what to do all the government should do is enforce the constitution the way it was written and not change it. That would take care of human rights violations and sweatshops for you!
Msteinebach92 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@Msteinebach92 My head is legitimately spinning right now. I cannot fathom what line of thinking you cooked up to try and connect the two. Rather, you have provided me with a rambling, incoherent, evidence-free response that adequately addresses absolutely nothing about what I said. The very idea that simply enforcing constitutional law and nothing else onto companies is so horrifyingly naïve I think it gave me cancer. At least provide examples as to where this worked...please?
CameronGTW 2 months ago
@CameronGTW Well I would like to see an example of how the goverment getting involved in the business world has helped any situation in the long run. Like on bailing out banks and big businesses with borrowed money. Take for example when the government bailed out Gm when they went bankrupt. Ford was basically in the same situation at the time, but they didn't accept bailout money. If you look at those companies now you would notice that Ford is doing better than Gm.
Msteinebach92 2 months ago
@Msteinebach92 Of course I'm opposed to corporate welfare, be it the $700billion big banks received or the $7.7trillion in equity given to the by the Fed. I'm also opposed to how the United States is levying its diplomatic power to protect Monsanto, a known human rights violator. In addition I have a serious problem with how over $100 of my tax dollars go towards oil subsidies annually, with a good two bucks going towards solar. And why is all this happening? Because corporations are in control.
CameronGTW 2 months ago
@Msteinebach92 A lack of accountability in campaign finance has created a culture where politicians will serve the interests of big business just to and stay elected. It's American fascism, plain and simple. They claim tax breaks will spur job growth, but taxes are at the lowest rates since 1950 and still nothing. They tell themselves that they've earned their place in life by working hard and playing by the rules. But the rules are stacked in their favor.
CameronGTW 2 months ago
@Msteinebach92 A homeless man once got 15 years in prison for robbing a bank for $100 and then returning it, but a bank CEO got 22 months after defrauding his investors of billions. You want to know an example of successful government intervention in business? Try the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, it's the reason there are almost no monopolies. Or the FDA, which is the only reason you know what's in the food you eat. Or how workplace safety laws allow you to keep from getting fired if you're injusted.
CameronGTW 2 months ago
@Msteinebach92 You speak of constitutional law only against businesses, but get this: there is no mention of preventing monopolies in the constitution. Nor are there any details for how to keep corporations from having massive influence over politics, or any provisions that let the government keep companies accountable for their actions at all. Because the Constitution was written hundreds of years ago and says, right there Necessary and Proper Clause, the Constitution isn't the absolute limit.
CameronGTW 2 months ago
@Msteinebach92 And finally, in addressing your original point: The government does not have the power to end human rights abuses and sweatshops here and abroad at the moment. And you want to fix that by giving them LESS power!? How on earth would that improve anything? Here are the facts: corporations are not people, they do not have the same rights as us, and allowing businesses to control our government is, by definition, fascism.
CameronGTW 2 months ago
@CameronGTW What?The constitution is totallyfor individual rights.Haveyou even looked at it?The government todayis very unconstitutional and I believe that is a big reason why we are so fucked financially.I knowour government is corrupt and leaning more towards facism every day.Also,I neversaid businesses should control the goverment and niether does the constitution.Anyway I think a business should have right to fire or hire anyone they want.
Msteinebach92 2 months ago
@Msteinebach92 If people don't like a company because it sells an inferior product or fires or hires people in a way that the people see as unjust, that company will lose support, and will suffer for it. When the government steps in and bails out an inferior company with taxpayer money, like Gm for example, I see that as going against what the people want. That's like working for that company wheather you want to support them or not. I call that socialism.
Msteinebach92 2 months ago
When work and housing are illegal, there will be increased homelessness and non-economical living. Work with extortion, and housing with extortion - are legal. NEWS FLASH - "No one that steals your money regularly IS YOUR FRIEND!"
geehuckwow 2 months ago
When housing, labor, transportation, and necessary electricity are taxed, those taxes will always rise to the point of homelessness, so that citizens will work for next to nothing for food, and they will be willing to fight to protect the system that enslaved them - if they get paid. Banks make out on poverty (with interest), so they intend to increase poverty for profit.
geehuckwow 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@geehuckwow this is koch propaganda
httm241 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@jalriteythen the banks were basically promised the bailouts by the government, which was trying to make housing affordable for most people, which ended up aiding the increase in housing prices and freed up the bankers from any risk, so most of them - as you said - played with people's money. If the government hadn't gotten involved, the bankers wouldn't have done what they did. Much of the financial industry is questionable, but many banks do add value to/have a good purpose in the economy.
soratsol 2 months ago
wow. just wow..... ckleege. lets just look at what said. "suck asses paid by our corporate slave masters." 1. Did they "force" you to work for them? 2. Do they "force" you to work for free? 3. Can they "force" you to stay with them? The answer is a resounding NNNNOOOO. So if you dont like a corp., you dont have to work for them or buy there products. And if you really dont like them, you can create a company to compete with them.
jaspony1 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
This is arbitrary and philosophically bankrupt. Not to mention presented in a nakedly deceptive fashion.
ckleege79 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@ckleege79 Wow.... Just wow. Lets just look at what you said. "get our suck asses paid by our corporate slave masters". 1. Do they "force" you to work for them? 2. Do they "pay" for your service? 3. Can they force you to "stay" with them? the answer to all of those is a resounding "NNNNNNOOOOOO". If you dont like what a corporation is doing than dont work for them and dont buy there products. and if you really dont like them than create a company to compete with them.
jaspony1 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
were gonna do more of things that get our suck asses paid by our corporate slave masters.
ckleege79 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
so according to this video, when BANKS make profits, they are turning 'resources' into something MORE valuable than those resources would be in any other line of employment.
banks add NO value to society as a whole, they do not use any resources to 'help' others, only to profit off something that they do not even own (your money). go learn how banks really work and you'll understand everything in this video is bs.
jalriteythen 3 months ago in playlist Favorites
@jalriteythen If banks do nothing to give people value, why would people use them and how would they still be in business? Try thinking a little bit before you post.
Benjammin822 2 months ago in playlist Favorites
@Benjammin822 do you understand how a bank truly works? it really is a giant scam pretty much. of course they give 'value' because people want to spend more money (which they dont have) and so they use banks. or store it because its 'safe' (look at how big banks have played with our money, only to get a tap on the wrist and be bailed out in billions by our government). of course my previous comment was a statement made towards the big banks, not the smaller ones, more careful ones.
jalriteythen 2 months ago
"we can do a lot of things with a diamond..." it's this line of thought that perpetually REINFORCES labour theories of value.
Debordsbullet 3 months ago in playlist Favorites
In your other video you guys specifically said resources aren't scarce and now you're saying they aren't. Make up your mind before you try and brainwash people. More hypocrisy than the bible
metsubo 3 months ago in playlist Favorites
Yes. Because economically optimal ends are the the only or the most desirable ends. Why don't economists ever seem to extend their thinking beyond merely economic choices? Is thinking only economically about social policies desirable? Often times thinking in only economic terms has "unintended and undesirable consequences."
billb380 3 months ago in playlist Favorites
'on one foot', is that to illistrate how unablanced the ideas you are comunicating are?
masluxx 3 months ago in playlist Favorites
This video made me realize that i should get the fuck off youtube and do something constructive
Chimichanga12594 3 months ago in playlist More videos from LearnLiberty
Luis, your poor spelling, bad grammar and incoherent sentences make your lack of education clear. Your naive notions about abolishing property rights make your lack of analytical abilities clear. So yes, he is justified in calling you an idiot based on youtube comments.
llamaeatataco 3 months ago
@llamaeatataco lol "know go away"
david52875 3 months ago
So wait, poverty is created by the government putting limitations on trade? Is there no poverty where there are no limitations?
Also, while people my "enjoy" diamonds, they serve so useful function (with the exception of certain uses in manufacturing). Isn't then the "nature" of diamonds that accounts the "value" to your wife and other women?
And minimum wages "cause" unemployment? Isn't employment somewhat meaningless if even if you are employed your wages don't support the cost of living?
KeroroGunsouTX 3 months ago
@KeroroGunsouTX He never said poverty is created by restrictions on trade, he said an increase in poverty is an unintended consequence of restricting trade.
As for minimum wage, what your not seeing is that minimum wage increases the cost to manufacture and produce, and therefore raises prices, increasing the value of living.
david52875 3 months ago
@KeroroGunsouTX Trade limitations are not the cause of poverty. Poverty is one unintended consequence of trade limitations.
Raising the minimum wage will not improve the lives of min wage workers. If government raise wages by 40% (as they did in 2007) then prices must go up by 40% to offset the increase in production costs. Even worse, if the market will not bear the price increase, then jobs are destroyed by wage fixing.
Well intended gov. meddling often produces bad results.
TheBalancedAmerican 3 months ago in playlist Favorites
I'm sick of hearing from posters is the word Utopia. Libertarians don't believe in Utopia, the word it self means No such place. What Libertarians believe is that their philosophy will overall produce the most productive society. Certainly not a perfect one, but a prospering one. Because Capitalism is a natural product of free people and people are imperfect, thus Capitalism itself is doomed to be imperfect. Socialist libertarianism the dumpster baby of communism and anarchy believe in Utopia.
ShamanMcLamie 3 months ago
@ShamanMcLamie In other words Libertarianism is bullshit. Yeah like Bushs deregulation produced a prospering world. The greatest deficits in history and the worst output in history.
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@ShamanMcLamie The abolishment of property will be the only way to make peace with human society it's not possible right now and form century's it will not be but once humans take the second necessary step in space colonization movement away from our solar system property will be abolished
Luis568369 3 months ago
@Luis568369 You're an idiot. That is all.
doofus8812 3 months ago
@doofus8812 Really cause a youtube scholar like yourself is able to make judgement of somebody that you dont know at all is is able ti read my intelligence from a 484 word argument yes im the idiot know go away
Luis568369 3 months ago
More like conservative economics sure minimum wage creates certain amounts of unemployment but the opposite would be 100% employment with 99% poverty
Luis568369 3 months ago
@Luis568369 The only way that works is when people don't have work opportunities and that only happens when collusion, or monopolies are abound both of which are illegal. Say theirs a company they have this accountant who is good at what he does. Another company see's this and wants this accountant to work for them what do they do? Offer to pay him a higher wage than his current employer. Jobs adhere to the law of supply and demand as well as commodities.
ShamanMcLamie 3 months ago
@ShamanMcLamie Yes i know economic thanks for telling me something i already know and arguing with everybody over your libertarian economic doctrines and if you get ride of minimum wage i would asume that you would get ride of all forms of economic protections leading to a monopoly the true stage of the free market
Luis568369 3 months ago
@Luis568369 The most obvious example that shows a flaw in your theory is that most employed people make more than minimum wage. If people are already being payed more than the minimum wage, why would getting rid of it influence employers to lower wages. The only jobs affected would be low skill jobs.
ShamanMcLamie 3 months ago
@ShamanMcLamie YOU WANT SLAVERY AND I"M SORRY YOU JUST CANT HAVE IT!
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@Luis568369 I have one last thing to say. Minimum wage is really only a tool to protect union jobs and wages, and keep minorities out of the work place. Let's say a teenager from a poor family is looking for a job, he has little skill and potential risk. His value as a worker isn't worth minimum wage and he can't get the job. The teenager is denied a job that could provide not only money, but work experience, and a good reputation increasing his value as a worker and expanding his opportunities.
ShamanMcLamie 3 months ago
@ShamanMcLamie Utter BULLSHIT!
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@ShamanMcLamie A word of advice an i'm not trying to be mean but find another website to argue people over economics your obviously an opinionated person and youtube is no place for argument with the word limit everybody could jump into the argument even if they have no idea what they're saying
Luis568369 3 months ago
Please look up ponzi scheme in wiki pedia to understand how the U.S. economics works.
You will also see economic bubble and pyrimid scheme. Take your pick either way it will collapse. And we need to repace it not reform it.
riseingstardust 3 months ago
Super cool
saud11sh3 3 months ago
Capitolism is the cause of more cruelty than even religions has caused. Capitolism is on it's last breath. It is'nt even capitolism anymore. We have a debt based economy and you need to start talking about that. And the first country that folds up on it's national debt. Will start a chain reaction that will forever change the world. When this happens do not try to reform or fix it, this our chance to get away from it's control.. Research the zeitgeist or the venus project --resource based
riseingstardust 3 months ago
@riseingstardust our debt-based, inflationary system is due to our corrupt banking and monetary system(s) - which have nothing whatever to do with capitalism. Under capitalism, people save and invest, which provides the funds (capital) to extend and expand our productive capacity. Over time, this expanded production makes all of society wealthier (which is why the "poorest" Americans have cell phones, xBoxes and fridges full of food) Don't blame capitalism for the problems you see around you.
gergenheimer 3 months ago
/watch?v=V3YFGixp9Jw For you!
Superorchestra 3 months ago
You could be spinning on the head of your dick, the reason you generalize is because it's lie. Minimum wages doesn't cause unemployment, it stops you lying bastards from exploiting economically desperate people. Scumbags.
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@Superorchestra If minimum wages don't cause unemployment, why not raise it to $20 per hour? $50 per hour? $1000 per hour?
strabes88 3 months ago
@strabes88 Why dont you go to the Philippines ,Taiwan, Hong Kong or China, places without minimum wages, and work there for a few dollars a month , sleep on a concrete floor with ten people in an empty room you DUMB FUCK! Lets see you survive! Your assertion SLAVERY is employment is fitting of the brainless breed you belong to . Minimums are set to keep people from poverty by establishing base in the current economy.
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@Superorchestra 1) You completely ignored my argument, which is understandable considering your views are based on emotion, not reason. Your abundant use of ad hominems and straw men has adequately show this. 2) Wages are based on productivity. The idea that the minimum wage was created to prevent exploitation is a myth. Minimum wages were created because of union lobbying to price cheaper labor out of the market. Racist white unions lobbied for min. wages to keep blacks out of the labor force.
strabes88 3 months ago
@strabes88 Talk about straw men , nonsensical out of proportion wages that have nothing to do the basic economic survival of the average person. My views aren't emotion based but your assertions that we pay minimums of 1000 dollars an hour are. Your avoiding talking about countries without minimums where slavery and worker exploitation is rampant. What an utterly desperate grasp at nonsense. Minimums were made to protect workers from slave masters like yourself, they are anti discrimination!
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@Superorchestra I eagerly await your argument as to why, if minimum wages don't create unemployment, they shouldn't be raised to $1000 per hour.
strabes88 3 months ago
@strabes88 Minimums are set to avoid poverty and your nonsensical argument that setting them to 0 and setting us back slavery is "employment" is nothing but a sham. You are a complete idiot.
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@Superorchestra also, see youtube /watch?v=RUBK9_4OQIs
strabes88 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@strabes88 Lol! That is the stupidest explanation I've ever heard! The minimum is the same for black or white DUMBASS!
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@strabes88 And to your last "competition" bullshit, this for you ASSHOLE! /watch?v=EBSPNOTa40g&feature=related
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@Superorchestra You are simply wrong - even socialist economists admit that minimum wage laws cause unemployment - it's a fundamental law of economics. If you fix the price of something higher than demand for that good or service can command, then demand for that good or service will fall. In the case of minimum wage laws, if the MW is $7/hour and a person's labor is only worth $5/hour to the company, the person will not get a job - they will be unemployed. Which is better $0/hour or $5/hour?
gergenheimer 3 months ago
@gergenheimer Bullshit! You are talking about products, not wages you TWIT! Name a socialist economist that agrees with that you moron ! Just one! God you must suck intelligence out of the room as you enter! What kind of a complete fucking asshole says slave wages are acceptable over no wages? You are the kind of person that was meant to die by choking on their own tongue , an evolutionary mistake that is so stupid society pity's it and assists it to live! Your parents must be dead from shame!
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@Superorchestra genius - the law of supply and demand applies to wages like any other price. When higher wages are mandated across the board, that simply means that prices for everything we buy will be higher as a result - hence, there is no net benefit to low-income workers. Add to that the taxes, regulations, fees and inflation of the money supply and minimum wages are powerless to help the poor. What you should be demanding is true free markets, not govt. meddling. Please educate yourself.
gergenheimer 3 months ago
@gergenheimer Wages are not like production prices because they can't be set at ANY price, I know you are a dunce and could never could never grasp that. Explain to us how we have 3rd world counties without minimums and about the people live on those wages ? Barely be able to afford to eat. You and your kind are monsters no better than the slave traders . Our inflation was cased by Reagan and the Bushs, deregulation and removing taxes for the rich.
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@Superorchestra yes, wages ARE production prices - combined with resource costs, rents, equipment, etc., these are the producer's costs of production. Whether or not a producer can turn a profit depends on the difference between the selling price and the cost of production (part of which is wages) Third world countries have subsistence employment because they don't have functioning market economies (no capital accumulation) - this has little or nothing to do with "low wages"
gergenheimer 3 months ago
@gergenheimer YES THEY DO HAVE FUNCTIONING MARKET ECONOMIES! Where do you get this CRAP??! The only difference between America and those countries is regulations that say you can't have slave labor , use children, pay slave wages and exploit the workers you little prick ! It's fine with you to let other races in other countries do it but you would die to keep your own children from living like that! Take look at the suicides at the Apple factories you mindless douchebag!
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@Superorchestra If they have functioning market economies, where's the wealth that's being created? You see, that's what markets do - they make societies wealthier. If you believe that the wealth is being "stolen" from these exploited people, then ask yourself "what gives us the power to steal wealth from other countries?" It is, 1) complicit governments in those countries and 2) Our ability to print money / expand credit at will, while remaining the world's reserve currency.
gergenheimer 3 months ago
@gergenheimer Oh do they, richer??!! Well except in OUR markets that had to be bailed out by the Fed to the tune of 24 trillion after 8 years of republican deregulation. You retards are advocating cutting every single saftey net yet you are claiming it makes societies richer? !! My god, do you know that you sound like some cave dwelling moron ? IT is so hard to talk someone as stupid as you. Go check out the wages raises in those 3rd world countries.
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@Superorchestra Damn, you are clueless - you actually think it makes a difference which party's in office and what rules they pass (or get rid of) when the central bank has the ability to print money out of thin air and loan it to politicians at interest? No matter who prints the money, and for whatever reason - welfare or warfare - the result is the boom-bust cycle. Your precious regulations don't stop it, they just channel the boom-bust in a different direction.
gergenheimer 3 months ago
@gergenheimer My point is proved. You can't bring up a single piece of legislation the Dems wrote that caused it. Oh it matters mother fucker. Explain why the banks channel millions into republicans campaigns.You think they are doing it for show? Funding campaigns against Elizabeth Warren? Those bastards will do their own like they did with McCain.
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@Superorchestra Community Reinvestment Act under Jimmy Carter - this piece of legislation threatened to punish banks that failed to give a politically-correct proportion of loans to riskier, low-income clients. Enforcement of this legislation was ramped-up under Clinton (and Bush). Also, Fannie Mae was created under FDR and created moral hazard by guaranteeing riskier home loans. You've been owned - now go polish your tinfoil hat and make another batch of Koolaid.
gergenheimer 3 months ago
@gergenheimer Every time I meet a republican Tea Party member we go through the same stupid discussion. Freddie and Fannie and the CRA ( Community Reinvestment Act). Anyone who says the banks were "forced" to give poor people loans is dead wrong. Provide proof that ANY bank was force to give a person without credit a loan. Then look up "fiduciary duty. Why has a bank never sued the government? You dont research at all do you ?!!
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@gergenheimer Freddie and Fannie are simply "guarantors" and not the originators of those loans. 87% of those toxic loans cam from private banks not even under the CRA but F&F had a mandate to BACK AAA rated loans. It was a sucker play and there was no way the F&F could have known that this was a criminal scam created by the banks. That the AAA ratings were paid for by the investment firms. Look up CDO's and then look up "Inside Job " "Derivatives" You will find how they did it.
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@Superorchestra what do think guarantor means? "If anything goes wrong, we'll take care of it" The knowledge of this guarantee causes people to behave more recklessly - it's called moral hazard. The free market wouldn't have guaranteed millions of those risky loans, it's only because they were provided a flood of cheap money to gamble with and because they knew the government would pick up the pieces if anything went wrong that everybody was willing to step up to the roulette wheel.
gergenheimer 3 months ago
@gergenheimer Nonsense, they were started in 1938, kind of a long wait for things to go "crazy" don't you think? Wasn't until 1999 under the republican congress that they were allowed into subprimes. . The CRA sat through 6 presidents no problem but when a republican congress deregulates , chaos! It had nothing t do with the borrowers and everything to do with a republican agenda to deregulate so the banks paying them could make a killing on the profits. It was a scam. Plain and simple.
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@gergenheimer No business can be forced to give out loans to the poor, they just can't charge them higher rates. Again, explain what part of the CRA covers giving illegal aliens credit cards and home loans ? THis was a scam and the republicans set it up.
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@gergenheimer You are completely ignorant. Now explain to everyone how the CRA forced banks t give toxic loans and credit cards to illegal aliens.Go ahead! No financial institution can be forced to lend money, the CRA just made sure banks couldn't redline poorer people. Look that up, you will become smarter. Shove our tinfoil comments up your ass you ignoramus. Careful , it might damage your brain.
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@gergenheimer You are doing nothing but creating a 3rd world world. Wages are being lowered by intentional inflation while wages here fall. Our average wage in 1980 was $33,500 and in 2010 was $33,000 , only the money is HALF of what it was worth in 1980 so it's really $16,500. Free market economy my ass the wages in those slave countries are going up you moron ! You are such liars about absolutely everything. You are either the most ignorant or the most evil people on the planet.
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@Superorchestra Yes, our real wages have stagnated while real wages are rising in Asia and other parts of the world. And the reason? Not because of regulations in those countries - it's because their economies are becoming more free and ours is increasingly less free. For this mistake we will see a continual decline in our standard of living and theirs will continue to improve as long as they embrace free markets.
gergenheimer 3 months ago
@gergenheimer Oh now there economies are becoming free ????! But they dont have free market economies do they !!!! You are a fool. And you are still making excuses , aren't you ya little Nazi fanatic. You ignorance is more dangerous than anyone in Washington. You are just blindly following your tea party dogma, selling out the world, your children ,your family and your country. I pity you.
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@Superorchestra btw, inflation is caused by printing money / credit expansion by the central bank, a process that has been occurring for 100 years under Democratic AND Republican governments - the fact that you believe there is actually a difference between the two parties proves you to be a brainwashed sheep. Regulations are totally irrelevant when you have a corrupt monetary and banking system that allows politicians to borrow and spend us into oblivion while promising us a free lunch.
gergenheimer 3 months ago
@gergenheimer BULLSHIT! The banks gotrepublicans to revoke Glass Steagall and deregulate derivatives , then changed the system so they could sell the bad loans to investment firms like Goldman Sachs package the bad debt into securities , have their Credit agencies ratings fake AAA ratings and then sell them to suckers . The banks o they went on he stock market and bet against their own toxic loans !watch?v=tdEHB7BYUdY
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@Superorchestra Duh, the ratings agencies are in bed with government and the banks! Everyone was in on the game - you keep blaming the "gamblers" for the economic collapse, but you fail to recognize the role of the "casino" in the equation. You see that there was a huge speculative bubble in housing that was destined to collapse, yet you refuse to ask "who gave the gamblers trillions of dollars of cheap money to play with, and then signed-off on the deal and said it was perfectly safe?"
gergenheimer 3 months ago
@gergenheimer THE RATINGS AGENCIES ARE IN BED WITH THE INVESTMENT FIRMS LIKE GOLDMAN SACHS! Google Phil Gramm and UBS. THe Fed gave them the money, the republicans gave them the power. Explain why Ayn Rand hated Libertarians!
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@gergenheimer There are no true free markets, republicans gave monopolies to all the rich corporations . You consider 24 trilion given in secret to the banks by the federal reserve to be capitalism ? I'm a capitalist, you are all neanderthals that dont realize that you are once again advocating anarchy, not freedom. It's ;like "liberating Iraq". you ignorance of he culture is destructive
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@gergenheimer . Every time you libertarian morons advocate deregulation e get the S&L scandals , the Great Depression od Bush's bailout , massive deficits and NO GROWTH. Nothing you say or do produces anything but the opposite results you claim.
Superorchestra 3 months ago
@Superorchestra You are falling for the fallacy that regulations can control human behavior and prevent the economic booms and busts from happening. When our house of cards money and banking system decides to expand credit (print money), no amount of regulation will stop the ensuing bubble from being inflated - the flood of cheap money will find an outlet somewhere, often directly BECAUSE of government regulations and policies. This is exactly what happened in the housing bubble.
gergenheimer 3 months ago
@gergenheimer It did pretty well until you libertarian whores sold out to the corporations in the 80's! It has absolutely nothing to do with regulations and EVERYTHING TO DO WITH DEREGULATION! The printing of the money was done by the bank corporations running the republican party in secret and the government didn't know about it until we audited the fed DUMBASS! You know shit about what you are talking about, you are some brainiless parrot repeating things you dont understand.
Superorchestra 3 months ago
Well in regard to the bottle of water not being as valuable as a diamond i beg to differ. It depend's on economic conditions.
If you have hyper-inflation than I bet you would trade a barrel of diamond's for a bottle of water or two, A diamond isn't gonna help you & your family live another day if hyper-inflation is occurring & water is becoming scarce & isn't as easily accessible as it used to be!
It's about economic conditions & consumer decision making.
IBloodSweatTears 4 months ago
@IBloodSweatTears Actually that's one of the points made in another learn liberty video. That's why the "trading on the margin" matters. A glass full of diamonds is worth, to you, probably millions of times more than a glass of water meaning that you would trade a glass of water for a glass of diamonds. If you owned all the water in the world you would NOT trade that for all the diamonds in the world. The value is not absolute, it is only important what ONE MORE UNIT is worth to you.
MisbehavingMal 4 months ago
Thumbs up if you were wishing he would drop his foot while talking!
dannybuntu 4 months ago
[Second Point]
You must not look at our point in history within a vacuum. Poor people have lifted themselves out of poverty for a long time by following the formula of getting the education available, seizing the opportunities available, and making the most of all of it.
Indeed, some of the people you might call "privileged" are actually poor people who followed this formula to success.
mikebgood 5 months ago