Loretta Napoleoni: The intricate economics of terrorism

[crudhousefull]

Organized crime constitutes only 1.5 trillion dollars? I get the feeling that's WAY on the low side. The world GDP's around 60 trillion. My guess is that it has to be more than just 2.5% of that.

[JOEtheHOTTIE]

that eurotrash accent. i hate it.

[LpxMusic]

@JOEtheHOTTIE u speakin italian without an american accent there, bra?

[3877michael]

One video to explane why our economy is in the tank. Must see if you love money!

[unisailor]

Very interesting speech! Congrats!

[BarbarianRebellion]

money is no matter when they are proven to have been working for the government. aldo morow

[LusoCMD]

when a market of 310 million people tries to push a rule on a 6,9 Billion people world wide, this is what you get = less control and massive withdrawal

Learn USA because we need is values and real issues explained so that we can follow and there is no law made in the US congress that can make the rest of the world follow, unless it is made cristal clear to the people of other countries and by that i mean not to the biased politicians but to the real people

[MrDuffy81]

I sense that she smokes. She is short of breath...

[MrDuffy81]

This video was sponsored by IBM, and they were used by the german nazis (as opposed to the more recent American nazis) to do inventory, etc. on the prisoners of the concentration camps.

[silentbroadcast]

I think if Dan Gilbert, Dan Dennett and Loretta Napoleoni sit together on stage and discuss mass psychology, behavior of masses from an evolutionary perspective, and rogue economics from the vast experience of Loretta, between the three of them they will be able to explain every single large-scale crime and global terrorism.

Evolutionary psychology and Mass psychology explain how the public is fooled into believeing that terrorism is by fanatics. It is by businessmen willing to shed blood.

[hymnofashes]

@silentbroadcast Businessmen don't blow themselves up for 72 virgins.

Crazy people are really crazy, even if they're financed by those who are not.

[silentbroadcast]

Agreed.

But businessmen get crazy people to blow themselves up by running the systems that deftly guide crazy virgin-seekers.

See the excellent talk by Philip Zimbardo about "The Lucifer Effect"

The bad apples are planted and nurtured  by minds at the top, that design the system direct it and turn the apples bad.

Organized crime of very high order

Do see the video

Being crazy is one thing, being twisted evil quite another. Which one is worse, anybody will tell you.

[crudhousefull]

@silentbroadcast This isn't just done by organized crime. This is done in the corporate sector too. Trains you to be completely apathetic to another's plight and make any decision that'll be profitable to you.

[EveryHumanBeing]

The talk was Mostly irrelevant to the kind of terrorism that is occurring today. 1) Suicide bombings are extremely cost effective and cheap.

The rogue economy has a very simple name, its called the black market, and the black market is a natural form of pure capitalism and Drug trafficking is probably the dominant economic factor in the black market.

Her example of the iran contra thing is not state sponsored terrorism, her definitions are so vague. misleading and broad... its pathetic.

[oneki]

@EveryHumanBeing I am not sure i understand your argument on how suicide bombings is "extremely cost effective" and cheap. If by cost effective, you mean the likely hood of kiling one person is higher then i might agree,however there is no way i'd accept the cheap argument. these idiots are not just lining up t blow theselves up irrespective of what the media may portray.they are intricately selected, profiled, trained and then in some case left in a dormant cell for years b4 some bcome active.

[oneki]

@EveryHumanBeing - the iran contra might not have been a goood example, but the bay of pigs one surely does qualify. Yes europeans sometimes like to scape goat american as the cause of all evils now that russia is no more, however, we should both agree that american does sponsor terror as long as it is in its interest. As for what i think her point is; i very much agree the difficulty distinguishing money from legit mart from the black mart & simple thngs like our shopping does help blackmarts.

[worriedaboutlife]

Blah blah blah - got there first, got the copyright, got the technology, got the guns, got the oil, got the attitude, got the world by the balls.. Why Terrorism? Why? Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Wh­y?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?­Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Wh­y?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?­Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Wh­y?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?­Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Wh­y?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?­Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Wh­y?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?­Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Why?Wh­y?

[beeqool]

milf

[chairde]

I used the black taxis in Belfast. They are clean, cheap, and the drivers are wonderful people. She simply does not know what she is talking about when she mentioned Northern Ireland.

[cstewart1987]

@chairde Are you sure?. I am from Belfast, I have a grasp of economics and I think she is fundamentally right.

[chairde]

I like the Black taxis and when I stayed in the Ardoyne I used them all the time. So some former volunteers drove the taxis so what. The black taxis are good for the community and makes good economic sense.

[chairde]

I also hate it when people are so quick to use the word 'terrorist'. As far as I'm concerned it was the Brit Army who were the terrorist.

[cstewart1987]

I live in Ardoyne, yea i agree with you mate, im not thinking about the man driving the taxi, yea he is paying his 50 quid a week to drive there tho.., the banker that owns the taxi firm are directly funding republican programs,, they make millions per annum and constantly capitolizing, in turn funding the drug shipments and terrorism, i believe the real Ira were Great Rebels or simply humans fighting for their rights, There is none left, i think they where sold out by gangsters,,

[chairde]

I was in the Ardoyne in 1997 on an INA tour. The people were really nice to me. When the GFA came it split the Clan na Gael here in the states. Since that time I have lessened my involvement. I was afraid that there would be a civil war and I would just hate to see that. Have a good Christmas and enjoy your family and friends. Slainte mo cara

[josephc4]

What is the word she used, to describe the U.S.'s ability to borrow against the total number of US dollars in circulation? It sounded like "senioraid" or something.

[mrkvamaster]

Give us a break with all this terrorism bullshit already! retarded bitch

[jackdent1982]

Interesting, as an example for state suporrt terorism she gave the Contras from Nicaragua, but she forgott about Ghadaffi state terorism or about the terorism supported by socialist states.

Naturaly americans are to blame for everything.

[Desarollo]

it's a good example to use. how else would she transition into the privatization and globalization of terror? the socialist system collapsed. the american system didn't. of course you'd use the Contra example, or one similar, in this case. it flowed in her lecture.

i mean she STARTED her lecture talking about the Marxist Terrorists the Red Brigade. so stop getting your panties in a bunch. do you really think she is implying no socialist states supported terror? c'mon man.

[oneki]

@jackdent1982 you statement has got to be the most bizarre comment on here.

[canadianmaple09]

"terroris-muh" "capitalis-muh" hahah her accent is funny. I kinda like it.

[chi9ja]

very interesting and entertaining talk.

[audiowiz]

I think I could listen to her voice indefinitely...eet ees a my favoreet

[waysworth]

Thank you for a presentation worthy of tedtalks. For me, to hear something new and informative is of greater importance than whether I agree or not.

Just saw TheKingOfFresno's comment "Winner", guess he said it better than me.

[cannoir]

I like her name Loretta napoleoni. sounds like a name of a pasta brand or a Tiramisu. I ma musing. I'd would like to know where it would fit better .

just my 2 cents

[John1Rawls]

Mistrust of government is generally healthy, but if it leads you to the delusional belief that all bad things in the world are the product of government then you're taking it too far. Groups of private citizens with either extreme financial or ideological goals can be equally destructive and oppressive.

[MRSketch09]

@John1Rawls

It is true. Most bad things in the US, do come from the government, through legislation that's passed.

Not each new law is created equally, some cause less damage than others. Indirectly or directly. And if you add it up all through out the history of the US. If you could quantify it all, add it all up, in dollars, it would be pretty interesting to see.

My opinion of course is based on research, and studying history.. (Of course I am still learning!)

@Video

Interesting.

[MRSketch09]

@MRSketch09

Continued...

Basically there is this notion in Government that you can micro manage everything with laws, finances, peoples well being, there childrens education and safety. I believe its 100x more harmful than it is good.

[John1Rawls]

I wouldn't equate hindering economic prosperity with all that is bad with the world. Many negative consequences cannot be quantified in monetary terms, despite the wishes of some economists.

Regardless, government intervention comes with its own set of disadvantages undoubtedly. But that doesn't entail that it is always for the worst. After all, what's the real difference between an authoritarian government and an all-powerful corporation which isn't hindered by government regulation?

[John1Rawls]

The logical consequence of anarchy is the enslavement of the vast majority of the population. Unfortunately there's always going to be people who will attempt to dominate others by any means possible. Government can indeed be an outlet by which people do this - but so can privately run organisations. If you only see the former as a threat, the latter will be equally destructive.

[TheKingOfFresno]

Winner.

[newexperiment]

@john1rawls.

1) What does enslavement necessarily follow?

2) government isn't seen as a threat, it's existence is not justified.

3) Private organizations are justified.

One can live without government and with laws. You'll have to explore the topic more, especially the contemporary literature and ideas.

[MRSketch09]

The difference between a corporation is that, a corporation grew by being good in business. People by products and the business grows.. etc

A government grows by taxing people more. And these people, these individuals have no say. Well they do, but in the end, its what the masses want.

To me, that's an immediate difference I see.

[MRSketch09]

@MrSketch09

@John1Rawls

[Monchanger]

@MRSketch09- those are extremist myths.

Governments acquire power from their citizens (from both their action or inaction). Taxation does not necessarily lead to increased size, or powers, only spending power. The Bush administration increased both the federal payroll and spending significantly, yet it reduced taxation (which killed the surplus).

Corporations need not produce good products or otherwise benefit customers to prosper. Many simply pay politicians to act against us.

[MRSketch09]

@Monchanger

"pay politicians to act against us."

That is true.

I'd like to say, normally when companies do bad.. they fail.. and thus there is an opportunity for another start up company.. but do to the bailouts..

Anyways, a corporation to get large, normally well, they should get large by doing good business.

This is why I hate the "system" because it is corruptible. And its on a large scale. Rather than some small spot its like some horrid huge cancer. Figuratively speaking.

[John1Rawls]

The only measure of success for a corporation is how much profit it makes; its workers and the consumers are mere means to an end. If government allows them to do exactly as they want, they will quite happily exploit both worker and consumer, as well as doing whatever necessary to eliminate the competition. Hence, without regulation, corporations would inevitably become monopolies which treat humanity with even less regard than government. At least government requires some support...

[MRSketch09]

@John1Rawls

I will agree with you on the , treat the employee like crap.

I work at a place like that right now, I am a college student, so.. my options are limited.

Anyways, of course the exact opposite of that is right as well. Look at google. They treat there employees really awesome. What is it called.. fortune 500 companies? The ones that treat there employees great?

Check out Amory Lovins, he touches on the whole issues of employees, environments and businesses... Interesting character

[John1Rawls]

Sure, certain corporations do treat workers well. Either because the business owners are pretty decent people themselves or the skills they require are in such short supply that they have to work to win the loyalty of the employees.

However the real problem of capitalism is that the competition forces even nice business owners to pay as little as humanly possible to the worker and squeeze as much profit as possible. If they don't, the competition will do so and put them out of business.

[John1Rawls]

I'm not denying capitalism is generally for the good - I do believe in a free market for the most part. But if you let it run totally wild without any regulation then corporations can and will do whatever necessary to make as much money as possible. This involves aggressively steam rollering their competition so they don't need to be efficient and becoming a monopoly. Once this is achieved, they don't need to treat their workers or consumers as anything but chattel - they have nowhere else to go

[delyshBB]

@John1Rawls actually regulation increases market entry costs and creates monopolies. why do you think big business likes regulation? lol

[John1Rawls]

Government regulation might act as a barrier of entry into a market, but I think you'll find that allowing companies to do whatever the hell they want will lead to one monopoly aggressively dominating the market using non-violent and/or violent methods a lot quicker. Do you really think Microsoft would be struggling now if it was free to buy up as many related companies as it wanted and create as high a barriers to entry as it could afford? It'd control a lot more than it does at the moment.

[MRSketch09]

@John1Rawls

"forces even nice business owners to pay as little as humanly possible to the worker"

I think payroll taxes are a big issue. For instance, an employee gets paid minimum wage (7$hr), but its really costing the company 10 dollars or 11 dollars to keep that employee there.(US) Those taxes that the federal/local government take, is literally taking money out of the employees pocket.

Of course, its just one piece of the puzzle. I'm still researching & Learning.

[John1Rawls]

My point is that regardless of the level of government regulation, the logic of capitalism itself entails that corporations must do whatever they can to maximise profit or fail. Profit maximisation without government regulation entails an awful lot of human suffering. It might indeed be more economically efficient, but material wealth is only one small factor in realising human well being.

Hence why I believe whilst capitalism should be maintained, the worst excesses of it should be constrained

[newexperiment]

They wouldn't even get 7$/hr if not for the minimum wage.

[MRSketch09]

@newexperiment

You do realize the minimum wage is more of a punishment than a help right?

If you want me to explain I will.. but if you don't care.. well that's fine to.

[newexperiment]

Explain what you believe, I'm interested.

[MRSketch09]

@newexperiment

@newexperiment

I'll speak from experience...

Minimum wage went up twice. I was making above minimum wage by a decent amount. Well once it went up. It ate up my buying power.

You say how is that so? well, I was doing better off, as far as buying my groceries before it went up. I noticed after it went up, I was barely getting by. Prices of groceries had went up.

Because, the people in the groceries store, pay had went up. continued..

[MRSketch09]

@MRSketch09 SO the business had to cover that cost. The cost was passed along in the price of goods. Which cannot be helped because the business is being forced to pay their employees more, even if its a job thats worth 7$ an hr, and they can't pull that money out of there ass like the federal government can do.

And this is like a web, you can start following it back. Plus to top it all off, since I get paid more by the hour, I get taxed more by the hour as well.

[MRSketch09]

@MRSketch09 So I had taxes raised on me in a very secretive manner. 

So this is why I say its a punishment. Not only this, but unemployment has went up, for a particular demographic, young college students looking to get part time jobs.

contiued

[MRSketch09]

@MRSketch09

It is pretty horrible, sense there is already a lot of unemployment in the US, because of this recession. So now you have older more experienced people competing with college kids. OF course the older person will get the job.

So basically this is why I say its a punishment.

I hate this text limit.... sorry for posting four times.

[MRSketch09]

@MRSketch09 I meant "even if its a job that's not worth 7 an hour"

[newexperiment]

That's some terrible math and logic skills you got there. even 3$ more per hour for 10 employees (30$/hr) means the price of the average purchase, assuming 30 transactions a minute. would have to go up 1$ to compensate.

Assume the average customer pays 20$ worth, the price would go up to 21$.

That's if we make all the assumptions in YOUR favor.. more realistically: decrease the employees to 6, increase the min wage by only 1$ per hour assume 40 transactions per hour..

[newexperiment]

Sure, it will still it's self increase the price of goods a percentage point or two.. but nothing like what we've seen in the last two years things have nearly doubled.

What actually happened was the government in charge of the standard currency printed a lot of it, decreasing it's purchasing power. Then the patriot act made it virtually impossible to use US currency in the black market, and THAT ruined your purchasing power. In Europe min wage and P.P both went up..

[MRSketch09]

@newexperiment Yeah, I shouldn't of tried to explain it all.

I should of just went with my first line of, 'My buying power got ate up when minimum wage went up'

But at least you know what I mean. Yeah there's a multitude of reasons that affect the price of goods. Like you said, printing more dollars.. basically you have more dollars competing for the same amount of goods.

[HigherPlanes]

Anyone who pays taxes is funding a war against humanity, ie the occupation of Iraq. What does that say about those who govern us? They take a 25% cut of your pay, and they spend your money killing innocent people.

US government = EPIC FAIL

[radium01]

@HigherPlanes Move then.

[xGundamz]

Why she talks like she ran a fucking marathon?

[JohnColt]

great comment, man... really valuable contribution.

[generationalist]

At 14:00 Loretta Napoleoni begins the statement that money laundering for terrorists moved to Europe. What is the source for that statement? Also, was that the intended result? If so, what is the FBI - Faith Based Initiative? Is it an attempt to start a US based and controlled money laundering system - as opposed to the stated global money laundering system? I'm pretty sure no agency tracks religious funds inside our borders, only whistle blowers stop criminal FBInitiative funding.

[sharpsteve2003]

No wonder the economy is such a mess.

[SophosVII]

I liked a lot her closing speech, and as always, TEDTalks give me hope :)

... so, Jew gags are teh fashion now? Tired of emo gags so soon?

[princeofexcess]

ramen

[pubcat5]

Terrorism is a point of view.

[Thedreamshaperabc]

1+1=2

is also a point of view, you may agree and i may not :)

[IWannabeJew]

Terrorists intentionally target unarmed civilians.

Conventional military forces intentionally target armed combatants.

There IS a difference. One the one hand you've got Suzie the kindergartener and her teddy-bear. On the other you've got a soldier who forfeited his sanctuary in the "Pax Romana" by electing to live by the sword.

[whyisgrass52]

Its not a simple differance. The Germans during the Blitz and the American firebombings of Japan were both military forces diliberately targeting civilian populations. There is no black and white or right and wrong sides. Its fucking war.

[IWannabeJew]

How quickly we forget that those same Germans were intentionally targeting civilians in a far-reaching and systematic operation! Yes, there are wrong sides. Yes, there are bad guys.

[whyisgrass52]

I would just like to point out that Allied forces targeted and killed far more German and Japanese civilians in air operations. Just look up the bombing of residential neighborhoods in Dresden or the firebombing of Tokyo where one hundred thousand civilians were scorched to death in one night, more then either of the atomic bombs!

[TeslaGenius]

@whyisgrass52 that number of civilians is still not even close the numbers of civilians killed by Germany & Japan

Not even to mention some very sadistic methods used by Germans

Just compare number of dead Germans and all others in Europe and you'll see that they deserved much worse!

So have decency not to bring up absurd arguments

(unless you are NAZI of course in that case decency is luxury )

[seemoretube]

you might want to check your statistics,

Russia lost 13% of its population

Germany lost 10-11% of its population

All other countries came after these two in regards to % of population lost due to WW2.

[TeslaGenius]

@seemoretube so are you retard and CAN NOT CALCULATE or you are plain stupid?!

Only Russia has lost MORE population than Germany ! Let alone if one makes ADDITION of all other dead in Europe to the number of Russians that you so stupidly put forward as argument!

So Germany is GUILTY for all those dead people whichever nation they come from if they were killed by Germans!Everybody must be counted TOGETHER with others!

You retarded NAZI moron try to say something intelligent or shut up!

[grraadd]

little addition here:

very big number of those russians killed were actually murdered by NKWD or they have been send on heavy machine guns. Remember Finland? Finns couldn't kill russians fast enough and they lost big part of their country because red army soldiers were thrown on them in mass.

I support you also in "Germany should have lost not 10% but 50%" - 1000 years ago they would be wiped out and survivors sold into slavery.

[TeslaGenius]

Why would NKVD kill Russian soldiers in middle of the war that was pure fight for survival?

After Finland war Stalin killed only some officers!

Why "heavy"?

Those "machine guns" were fired by German aggressors were they suppose to throw flowers?

You use W instead of V like any German would

You insist on off topic to spit your anti Russian poison!

Poles are not shadow of Russian might yet you always picking on them!

NOT INTERESTED!

The LAST thing I want is to talk about Russians with Pole!

[grraadd]

Stalin said "No step back", so anybody who would want to retreat was shot on site. NKWD Army doing that was HUGE.

NKWD is how it should be spelled, obviously. Not only by Germans :-P

Those German "aggressors" were former friends and brothers in arms (Ribbentrop-Molotov). And nobody sane would stupidly send his soldiers directly on machine guns, but Russians (Lenin,Stalin) and Chinese (Mao). So not only you can't understand that.

[TeslaGenius]

@grraadd I'm sure that is what they told you in Polish schools that Rusians were "shooting on site"

No it is NKVD be cause W doesn't exist in Cyrillic!

Not only by Germans but WHO else pronounces it like that Austrians?

You are pathetic troll!

Your mix of hate and propaganda makes me PUKE!

GO AWAY you pathetic human moral midget !

Take your CRAP theories to the toilet and wipe your ass well with them!

[TeslaGenius]

Stay away from me please!

I was NOT talking to you but to that USA NAZI !

I'm not interested in your opinion be cause I don't like your way of thinking so leave me alone.

[TeslaGenius]

@seemoretube if all lives are equal than Germany should have lost not 10% but 50% of their population at least!

[pubcat5]

I am not arguing if the actions are good or bad. You must not let your emotions blind you.

I agree with you that their actions were in the wrong and they were an act of terrorism, but the methods that we employed on them were just as much terrorism. Wars are fought dirty on all sides. This notion that Americans ended the war as a shining example of how you treat un-armed combatants is ridiculous.

If you think we were there for such a noble cause read a book. Germany declared war on us.

[pubcat5]

If not for that we would have only fought the Japanese. We never would have fought a war with Hitler, well we might have after it dragged on for a few more years.

[sidexwalk]

Indeed, both sides were forced to end lives, but we can't overlook the intentions of those campaigns. I think upon consideration you may find that one's was quite the more reasoned than the other.

[michetox]

Only when the story is told just by one of the sides.

History can't be told like a story book, each side always have their motives which they believe are the sole truth.

Of course... it's always the winner who gets to write history in the end, so we can never know.

[generationalist]

michetox. There is a movement growing in the world today to establish the scientific validity of history. With the advent of the Internet we now have the ability to record for historical examination, true cause and effect relationships and not mere emotional speculation. The meaning of the word history is changing in terms of degree of clarity of past events. Looking back on WWII people still try to ban Vonnegut books in the US because he addressed the issue of illegal US bombings in Dresden.

[safewaysecurity]

@IWannabeJew United States 1945 Japan... doesn't sound like armed combatants to me.

[pubcat5]

I am sorry that you do not see that terrorism is a point of view. It does matter on which side of the argument you stand on. The American Revolution, no matter how you wish to look at it involved terrorism.

The bombing of German and Japanese citizens was terrorism. It is not called this because the victor writes history.

I am not saying however that these acts of terrorism are not justified. There is a big difference in those two statements.

[generationalist]

pubcat5 you make a good point with the history of terrorism. The US in the founding our nation engaged in Guerrilla warfare which violated codes of law relating to engagement (of that time period). We were called cowardly and accused of breaking all kinds of laws for not engaging in honest warfare. In WWII Kurt Vonnegut documented in his fictional book Slaughter House 5 the bombing of Dresden which he lived through. There were numerous illegal attempts to suppress the publics access to the book.

[newexperiment]

America is the number 1 terrorist organization in the world by it's own definition. ... Deal with it.

[IWannabeJew]

Oh, sure, let's just forget about the Soviet Union.

Anti-American simply because it is trendy and gets you lots of liberal lays, maybe?

[John1Rawls]

@Newexperiment

Thanks, but I do know a bit of contemperory political theory. I'm basing my argument upon Phillip Petit's concept of freedom as non-domination, not mere lack of government intervention. For example, if there's no government regulations on corporations, there might be formal freedom, in the sense government can't prevent economic and social transactions. But it's not valuable freedom if corporations will only go on to dominate the citizens as much or more so than government.

[John1Rawls]

People who support anarchy generally assume that life would just be the same as normal except that you wouldn't have any of the bad things associated with government intervention. They rarely realise that much government intervention actually helps increase our freedom, by preventing private organisations from wielding enough power to dominate others.

Excessive power over others is always dangerous, whether it's wielded by private citizens or government representatives.

[newexperiment]

When I said you don't know what you're talking about, I meant that you do not know the philosophies and reasons behind the position anarchists take. And I was correct.

[John1Rawls]

I understand the position of anarchism; like every political theory, it works on paper if you make certain assumptions concerning human nature. Unfortunately for anarchists, their conception of human nature is all out of whack. Humans are psychologically variable to the extent that whilst some naturally cooperate without coercion, others do not. Some seek to dominate others, some do not. If those that seek cooperation and non-domination just sit back, those that don't will take control.

[newexperiment]

Anarchism has, among a few others, as it's premise. 1) human's sometimes seek 'domination' over others.

So.. I'm done pretending to be having a reasonable conversation.

Creating a group of people with a right others don't have, the right to initiate force, will only give the 'dominating' people a place to go and justifiably 'dominate' people. That place is government.

[John1Rawls]

Which kind of anarchism are you referring to? Certainly anarchism of the leftist variety such as Kropotkin's does presume that the desire to dominate is a mere by product of the capitalist system, and once that is gone people will all eagerly cooperate without the need for coercion.

If you accept some will dominate others naturally, what happens under anarchism when they start doing that through either violent or non-violent means? There's no central enforcing mechanism to stop them.

[John1Rawls]

Ahh, libertarianism. Buisness suit anarchism. There's a government, but they only see to preserving the interests of a privilaged few whilst the masses have no effective autonomy whatsoever. It's basically an aristocracy in everything but name.

Well, i'm sorry mate but even most of those born rich have a sense of empathy, and thus suffer from widespread injustice, inequality and lack of freedom for those born in a certain position. Like communism, it only appeals to a rare kind of person.

[brandon71085]

Not only government. Private corporations, organized religion, large banks, large institutions of any kind, really, have the power to initiate effectual force. Though as a person with anarcho-syndicalist leanings I understand what you mean.

[delyshBB]

@brandon71085 only governments can do it legally though.

[brandon71085]

Which goes without saying. If the democracy within that government truly functioned as administration for the will of the people then wouldn't there be little reason to critique such governmental roles? What I was referring to was institutional power working as an aberration of democracy. The aforementioned are not democratic institutions but are still responsible for decision making within a society.

[newexperiment]

This might help..

watch?v=OQHCR__-FRA

= )

[forestloves]

Terrorism is such a lulz term. Oooh, I'm so scared by the propaganda machine :D

When someone says their afraid of terrorists, I mean... I don't even laugh anymore, it's just so sad how people can be so deluded.

Taboos I think need to be broken. We need to talk about this

[ProletarianArt]

It's all about money. They don't want to get a real job!

[WoWanate]

Isn't a job just a way to obtain money? nothing more, nothing less? Why is a strategy to obtain money illegally versus legally any different?

[stevenweir76]

Illegally will undermine human rights and social progress.

[WoWanate]

social progress is made through innovation and technological breakthrough, both of which are hindered by enforced practice. human rights will be violated in and and all environments where there is business, in one way or another. its a very fine line that we need to ride in order to achieve equilibrium, and a lot of minds are at work to figure this out. economics is the name of the game

[stevenweir76]

Yes, social progress is as you say driven by technology and innovation but to say that social progress is driven by violation of human rights, what do you mean? Stability is what drives growth, and human rights violations are a destabilizing factor. Look at Iran. Neither terroism nor human rights violations makes gains as significant as democracy and countries that respect human rights.

[WoWanate]

human rights is a constant battle. the world is a dog eat dog competition. where ever you see progress, there will be violations against the individual. progress is most easily attained in a stable environment, but in to a point. business is rogue, and cannot control it fully and yet yield the full capabilities and benefits of business. this is a main basis of government, to find how to create a good environment for, ultimately, economic growth. Money makes, money destroys.

[tyrannicoystercult]

and you can't ignore the x factor of the sexiness of being a criminal on the run. the arbitrariness of legal and illegal activity is actually a staple of american economics and business thought - the cost and risk is factored into an action's decision, and weighed against the benefit. there is no benefit that is unattractive, so any time the scale tips in favor of it, regardless of law or 'morality' the activity is likely to start. brutal human trafficking for prostitution for instance...

[esaman]

Yes it is the terrorist in the closet that causes financial crises not the elephant on the sofa that has "Fractional reserve banking" written on it.

[wreckerpecker]

It's all part of the terrible plan

[DonVoghano]

Grandissima!

[proteanview]

Terrorism is fabricated by those who send armies around the globe to maintain/expand power. More accurately, they are the terrorists.

[AppA]

As scary as it could get, my views are bent towards agreeing.

From an economical point of view, it's against the interest of an economical system to compete with another one. Hence, I think the underground 'parallel' economy is transparently interwoven with the market we are more commonly aware of.

[ragdude1]

What a video...eye opener...

[Signofthedollar]

Welcome to the dark side!

[0candle0]

first

[Organjic]

Terrorism is a fear tactic by elitists. More people die from governments than terrorists.

[paganiniGOGO]

You know somethings wrong when less people die from "terrorism" than from "counter-terrorism".

[Ramsez]

terrorism is a hoax

[Drey4ltur]

lol, I wouldn't quite phrase it like that, but yep, pretty much a complete made-up threat, created and sustained by governmental entities..

pretty much any speech [especially at TED] on the subject of terrorism is going to be intermittent with misinformed nonsense.

no getting around that :P

[paganiniGOGO]

There's no getting around it, and no excuse for it either. As we can see from the comments, TED's demographic would appreciate more serious videos on these subjects.

[Drey4ltur]

yeah O.o

I'm impressed actually, I would've expected the comments from TED watchers to be a bit less intelligent!

most, nearly *all* the comments with more than a few words are clearly people who are educated on the realities behind the illusion of terrorism :D

[paganiniGOGO]

In many ways people are more informed than mainstream media outlets, for example, would have you believe.

[Ramsez]

this is the internet, not television. we may enjoy our horse porn from time to time, but we also know ron paul 2012.

[Drey4ltur]

LOL xD

yeah, definitely a good point Ramsez... well said ^_^ hehe

[SellotapeCanisLupus]

it's not

[Sconz32]

Well done! Someday I'll be first.... someday...