What is the magical plan of yours that allow us to live without working? Is that a delusion of yours that it's possible for us to consume without anyone producing? I don't own land- I find it cheaper to rent it and safe or invest the excess. I am richer than someone who owns 100 acres of land in Uganda. Get a clue.
Land is wealth. Money is not. People who have land have power. Free market economics ignores this basic fact. We all need a place to sleep, we all need shelter. We claim that we have a choice in where we live. Do we have a choice to live *nowhere?* Of course not. So we are stuck paying others for a place to leave. The consequences of not paying is death, by exposure or drowning. Because if you can't live on land, you must try to live in the ocean. Work or die. Great choice there.
Free voices, free markets produce free choice - it is by allowing the widest possible range of choices that we have creativity and innovation. Force someone to "share" and they grow to resent the person with whom they are forced. Allow someone to choose to share with those they care about and they share generously and willingly.
I was told America use to be pretty lax. Kids could go into the woods throw grenades (a story I heard lol) in the river as long as they harmed no one. Nowadays you walk on the street with a hooded sweater and are on alert.
Mrs. Post is cute.
Damn... you could use food as money type thing. If everyone got the same amount of food, some would starve cause they require more. Isn't socialism for that, just not really explicitly so?
@greenhost2008 First, the "problem" is the Fed lending it out, if anything. Even if fractional reserve banking actually did multiply the money, the problem would only be the Fed.
Second, the whole claim that money a fractional reserve bank invests is "new money" is beyond idiotic: When you deposit money with a mutual fund, and they invest it, is THAT creating new money, too?
Rothbard was ridiculously clueless on monetary theory. REAL Austrians never believed that nitwittery.
Monopolies are illegal in America - they always have been. There is no such thing as "legal monopolies' - that is just a trick of 'color of law', which is fake law !
Beware of this as it is happening now all the time !
Capitalism forces you to improve yourself without worrying too much about your neighbor. Get over it already people thats life. If your neighbor is unemployed its not the big bad corporations fault for firing him. It's his fault for having a low-skilled easily replaceable job. HIgh skilled, innovative, free thinkers will always succeed in capitalism. Get a good education and you're set. Don't worry about what will happen to the freeloaders.
why , in this intro, why is the original author -Richard C. Grant - NOT given any actual credit for the original book which these three young plagarists ... rip off artists stole from Him?
39:00 "Society has made that judgment." So what? "Society" said it was okay to put jews in concentration camps. He's saying that if "society" wants to rob people, it's ok. Sick.
Society did not want to put the Jews in concentrations camps -- society was oblivious to what Hitler was doing because they blindly followed him and he took their way fo fighting the government away from them, so when they did finally realize what was going on, they could not fight it. And that is why you should be so loyal to the government because they will slowly take away you rights-like cooking a frog-you place it in cold water and heat it up-the frog is clueless to the fact he is cooking.
Isn't the government suppose to be voted by the people for the people with the aim of providing equal opportunity. Somehow this is missed. Judging from this film it is business intervention with the government. As for the arguement for an individual making a judgement. Some people make better decisions than others because of what they know that other people don't know.
If(a big if) we need gov't,then its only purpose is to protect us from the imposition of force or fraud. If it does that we can take care of the rest. As for some people being unable to make their own decisions because they lack knowledge--well,we make decisions all the time without being experts. I recently bought a car and I don't know a thing about autos,but between consumer magazines and the advice of friends,I made out.Freedom does not require that everyone be an expert about everything.
I agree and a good point; force and fraud. I was thinking along the lines of education and health. At school we were never taught about the stockmarket and how people make money from it and if you are from a poor area you will never consider it because no one in your environment trades. It becomes this mystery that only applies to the highly educated and to the wealthy.
Good work sleedolfine. That government should manage society is fallacious; bureaucrats cannot emulate the production and innovation of millions of profit seekers and even if they could; expertise and knowledge defining trade would be restrictive; wealth is not bound to specific material advance because profit from voluntary exchange is how individuals create their wealth. Those individuals who are motivated to produce in order to gain barter with which to consume that which others produce.
The point of the film is that big government allows for mercantile extraction of the people's wealth by corporations who exploit government monopolies and botched government intervention in markets, as well as government curtailment of consumer sovereignty that can occur through regulation of provision of consumer goods. The importance of mercantilism is that it is a way of profiting by reducing the trade of others, its not profitable like free trade but is caused by myopic profit motive.
(continued) Myopic profit motive breeds more of itself because mercantilism forces the other interests not in charge of that mercantile subjugation of free and fair flow of capital, feel they have to mobilise counteractive mercantile measures. Class conflict, war, famine, protectionism; not caused by capitalism but mercantilism which created states and authority and subjugation over society tosteal from it. That's NOT capitalism, capitalism is utopia and self regulating for human liberty.
The anser to this therefore is a constitution to limit government to working for the people, so that governments can stop mobilising people with the welfare-military state into a whole not permissive of individual seeking of wealth that is absolutely needed for human dignity. Government must eventually die, when mercantilism has died and mutually beneficial free trade and marketisation of the human race keeps us in liberty and wealth, the enemies of fascism, socialism, mercantilism, communism...
Now that is a diatribe. Correct me if I am wrong the point of the film is business should not intervene with the government and vice versa. The point I am trying to make is, some people are born into this world with nothing and may need a hand to make something.
You think govt can help them? People can help themselves with liberty. Capitalist anarchy is the natural estate of mankind. Govt created NONE of the mechanisms of wealth. Govt is the manifestation of mercantile corruption of capitalism. Anarchy would not last a minute if mercantile subjugation of capital and opportunity to seek it lasted becuase it renders freedom obsolete under oppression, free trade obsolete under economic warfare. It retards world wealth by inducing counter-mercantilism.
That is why anarchy could only exist if mercantilism was dead. The state must help kill it, not by positive intervention but by protection of property and shrinkage of state coercion that allows monopolies. A constitution limiting government power and weakening ability to make legislatures into rubber stamps is therefore needed in every state in the world, so that it can slowly dissappear as capitalism develops, in which people are profitablem unlike under mercantile extraction of wealth.
And that is where the people come in. There are 12 virtues that our Founding Fathers believed were essential to the citizens of this country and they are: Honesty Reverence Hope Thrift Humility Charity Sincerity Moderation Hard Work Courage Personal Responsibility Friendship They also had a strong belief in God. Some of them may not have beleived in Jesus but they had a public religion where they did acknowledge a god.
James Madison once said that our government could not stand unless there was a moral people. Our founding fathers were big supporters of self rule. We should help our fellow man -- not the government. Our founding fathers understood this.
Govt doesn't know how to create equality of opportunity. Such is too abstract to be enforced without grave unintended consequences. Govt can identify mercantile disincentivisation to seek profit and can stop the methods by which some mercantilism is pursued, be it theft of your property, destruction of your means to produce, or simply coercion of monopoly. People are supposed to prevent govt from governing except where it advances liberty. If all govts did that, capitalist anarchy could arise.
I agree govt should be responsible to make dead mercantile corruption and advance liberty. If we have private schools or private healthcare only, then would you not think that some people would miss out on liberty because they can't afford it.
The Incredible Bread Machine was written by Richard Grant, he lived down the street from me when I was a boy- The man is brilliant & has written several other books on economics- including Rent Control& the War Against the Poor-
39:09 - "unemployment generated in the process of fighting inflation." Of course, we should expect this kind of nonsense from a government bureacrat, but it was so nonchalant I'm tempted to call it a "Keynesian slip."
I love how he goes on to assert that govt. force to take money as taxes is done by "society" thereby absolving bureaucrats like himself of blame.
He can't defend any of the programs, but instead they're "mishandled", yet he turns around and defends taxes he recognizes as compulsory... but only because "society" wills it.
What wonderful moral & mental gymnastics to absolve himself of guilt for stealing from citizens for his invariably failed programs.
As is the case with most hopeless statists, he entirely avoids arguing about reality or economic theory, and instead relies on the standard presumptions already etched into people minds. As a propagandist for the state, all he knows is "unchecked business means disaster." Rinse and repeat, ignoring the laws of economics and elementary deduction.
"For the blessings of Heaven did not rain equally upon all men."
This statement implies that one's material wealth is determined as a random function, or else the result of divine intervention. This is a common deception employed by socialists, and I wish the film had placed more emphasis on it.
I recall Jonah Goldberg mentioning that with regards to communism & fascism (state control of capital, whether overt or subtle but popular), the fundamental nature of those statist ideologies is a religious movement. Marx himself mentions it - which is why there are so many "prophecies". It allows for the individual to be divorced from responsibility.
The statement also implies that material wealth is STATIC and not subject to change based on will - making the person a powerless victim.
@KraljevicPavle Eff Rothbard...move on from that to Hayek and Friedman. Rothbard is a good starting point for liberty newbies...he had a flawed grasp, but was a convincing writer.
Imagine, this guy thought that consensual fractional reserve banks should be banned (socialism), a gold standard should be imposed (socialism), and parents should be free to kill their post-born children (psychopahy).
@KAZVorpal "fractional reserve banks should be banned" It's theft. ever hear of inflation. "a gold standard should be imposed (socialism)" Calling that socialism is like saying privaticing industry is socialism and that privatising anything is socialism. you contradict yourself.
@greenghost2008 No, greenhost, FORCING Americans to use gold barter as money is socialism, by its very definition. What we need is a free market in money, not fiat gold. This is what the real Austrian economists, like Hayek and von Mises, advocated, and they were correct.
@greenghost2008 Imposing a gold standard on the dollar does not denationalize anything...it is an initiation of coercion. It forces people to use gold barter as their currency in the US. Forcing people to make specific economic choices is also known as "socialism".
@KAZVorpal What we have now is so much closer to socialism than a gold standard. Our purchasing power is protecting with a gold standard, because the fed can't just punch some digits and LITERALLY give TRILLIONS of dollars to people, FROM NOTHING, THEY DON'T HAVE A F**CKING BANK ACCOUNT TO DRAW FUNDS FROM, they create it out of NOTHING. A gold standard would be put a stop to this, but as damon vrabel said, the gold standard led to the system we have today. We need to end the fed. Root of evil.
@greenghost2008 Explain EXACTLY how investing someone's money, while telling them you will do so, and allowing them to withdraw it instantly and paying them for the deposit, is theft.
That's more crackpot Rothbard faux-Austrian nonsense.
@greenghost2008 Greenhost, again I warn you against listening to that crackpot Murray Rothbard too closely. It's nice that he brought you to the cause of liberty, but like Ayn Rand, that's about all his pretty fallacies are good for.
This is a perfect example: Fractional reserve banks have NOTHING to do with inflation. All they do is invest your money FOR you, while allowing you to keep total liquidity.
They free capital up for investment, ergo are perfect free market tools.
@KAZVorpal take any macroeconomics class or pick up an economics book. They all say that fractional reserve banking causes money creation. I toke a class by a keynsian economist who did a whole week on the banks money creation. It's a difficult economics concept so some people(you might not understand right off the bat) It's common knowledge.
@greenghost2008 I fully understand the concept that is errantly referred to as money creation. Nonetheless, it's simply a misnomer; no new money is created
When you deposit money in a bank, the bank invests the money for you
This increases money velocity, which has the effect of increasing supply versus demand...but no new money is actually being magically created
It is a perfectly healthy system, allowing your money to be invested and work for you, instead of being abandoned in a vault
@greenghost2008 No, banks "create money" by borrowing from the Federal Reserve and then lending out 90% of what they borrow...not simply by lending out the money that people deposit. That is the same money they had in the first place. It's not in two places at once, because the bank is acting as an investor proxy for the money's real owner.
@greenghost2008 If the government forces people to use gold as money, that is the very definition of socialism...the central authority controlling economic decisions.
And fractional reserve banks don't cause inflation. That's Rothbardian socialist nitwittery...no real Austrian economist thinks that.
By the way, who decides how to spend the money you invest in shares? A board of directors elected by share holders. Who decides how to spend taxes? A legislative assembly and council elected by voters. Both the directors and legislators are far removed from the daily lives of the general public. So then does the logic you apply to government spending remain true of corporate boards?
You are missing the critical factor. No corporation ever holds a gun on you and forces you into a car... nor do they force you to pay them. You choose to go to Wal-Mart, Target and pay for Microsoft crap.
Just try to not pay your taxes... and see what happens to you.
@DarthKazi The government officials are legal thieves taxes are a legal way to take money from hard workers. Would you rather make all of the money you make or get rid of part of it so someone else can spend it on crap.
@DarthKazi - No one forces you to live on land. No one forces you to buy fuel for your ship, or sails, or to have your ship on land for any reason. No one forces you sleep under a roof. No one forces you get off their land if you don't pay your rent. Oh, wait. If you don't pay your rent, they do throw you off the land. If you don't pay rent, you are thrown out of shelter. See what happens to you without shelter. I'm sure it's much better than what the government does for not paying taxes.
@LeksServices Your "logic" is that of a blathering fool. You neither represent the points of any of the multiple schools of free market economics, nor do you represent the intelligent critiques of them. You represent nonsense.
the difference is huge, you can withdraw your shares if you think that directors make bad decisions. you can't do it same thing from goverment. you are forced to pay taxes even if you are not satified how goverment is doing.
no big government. you are free to make money and free to lose money. when you lose let government stay out of it and let you go down. so that others may live.
However, government can and does also seek to increase its power and will abuse it if the people are complacent and don't actively participate in the political process.
Like everything in life, there is no easy answer except to be responsible and to demand responsibility from our leaders - both within government and within corporations, both large and small.
I fear that we are beyond the point of no return and our civilization is in catastrophic decline. Rotten inside and out. Sad but true.
Optimism goes a long way. If the problems are tht obvious to you then chances are others see them also. The world would do well at this time to remember that people constitute society not the other way around.
Sadly, there will never be a true capitalist, free market system since the power elite who call themselves capitalist are the first ones to go begging to the government (taxpayers) for bailouts. Corporatism (more accurately corporate fascism) is destroying the world. A corporation has no heart and the need for government to represent the people is a reality that the American forefathers recognized to balance the power of the individual against the power of the elite/corporations. (continued)
I think governments do far more to destroy the world than corporations. Its not a corporation murdering people in Iran right now. Corporations produce, governments loot.
Thank you for your feedback, Underbird. I'm surprised with all the corruption being revealed today in corporations like Enron, AIG etc, that you actually believe this. The truth is that corporations OWN governments. Ask any politician who has to deal with lobbyists from every industry who are looking to implement laws favoring their interests. There are actually thousands more lobbyists than congressmen. All corporations operate from the profit motive and answer only to shareholders not people.
I am surprised people are so willing to give up freedom. If governments did not have the power they do, there would be no reason to lobby. You see its big government which has caused it. Most of the laws and regulations tend to hurt small upstart companies. Small companies have no clout or pull with politicians.
The farther we get from voluntary cooperation in a free market, the closer we get to large scale poverty, corruption, and tyranny.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Personally, I'd prefer a minimum of BOTH government and corporate control. I've heard of a term libertarian socialism. I agree that governments historically have been responsible for more travesties of justice against their OWN citizens than other countries, but I still maintain that behind the scenes the corporate power elites are pulling the strings. Wherever there's money to be made, people can be made to do anything. Ultimately, we are all victims until we take responsibility for ourselves.
Free markets don't exist today, they are subject to monopolies and oligopoly. The Business Roundtable, who indirectly funded this film and the book it adapts, is comprised of the 194 wealthiest US corporations (which collectively earn more than any single nation, bar the US). Do you think the ideas they present really reflect the interests of greater society? Corporations are profit driven entities operating within a market which needs regulation. The current crisis is testament to this.
Just about everyone in society owns a portion of corportation. 194 corporations wow what a concentration of power. So if you add up all the owners, its maybe a few hundred million people owning those corporations. How do we survive with power in so few hands?
Meanwhile, the federal government which is made up of a few hundred people spends 1/3 of my income. Income they take by force from my paycheck which they rarely spend in my best interest.
The current crisis is testament to a government whos "regulation" forced or encouraged sub prime loans to meet their social objectives. Well intentioned it might have been, it lead to over-inflation of property values.
You're exactly right. I'm interested in who the relaxation of lending laws to provide unrealistic credit benifited? Government regulation in this case favoured profit hungry banks who used toxic investments to engage in high stakes gambling in a free market currency exchange. Global currencies have been deregulated since the 1970s. When sub prime led inflation dropped dollar value, the fictitious money we rely on disappeared. I don't apologise for the state, they are in it together.
The largest shareowners in corporations are other corporations. I agree that a vast majority of people now own shares in public companies. I also agree that governments recklessly spend money which we labour for. It seems that governments & corporations are inextricably linked and must inevitably act in each others interests, and not in ours. You only have to look at the distribution of wealth in census data to see where the profit of those 194 corporations ends up. In the hands of a select few.
Politicians benefited tremendously from their mismanagement. Once the debt could be sold easily, and the prices of homes kept going up, banks did what is natural. Banks should be profit hungry. If the playing field is skewed by the actions of a small group of politicians, we shouldn't be surprised when the system collapses. If you scatter nails on the freeway, should you blame the drivers for getting flat tires?
194 corporations. So not only are they owned by millions of people, but they also employ millions of people. Beyond that, they create wealth, innovation, and productivity which benefits millions more. Hardly a few. They get their weath from the voluntary cooporation of consumers.
On the other hand you have government. Owned by no one. It also employs millions. They involuntarily take a portion of the wealth from each individual and corporation.
Is consumerism really voluntary? Corporations implore innovation, but what kind? Do oil companies develop hydrogen motors? They employ millions, under what conditions? Through their alliance with govt billions, not millions, of people suffer work conditions similar to fuedal peasants. When the govt involuntarily takes your money and uses it to bail out a company on the verge of bankruptcy, it should be fine because it will trickle down again, wont it? I'm with u on the state, but it has friends.
millions suffer as feudal peasants? Not in a free political and economic state. The feudal system was destroyed by free markets and a free political system. When the government intervenes and rewards a failing company, it undermines the free market and ultimately we will all suffer. The only thing that will trickle down is failure, protectionism, and poverty.
If the free way is the market then it has hills, business cycles. You throw nails as you climb the hill to slow cars down before they gain too much speed on the descent. In our case the nails were pocketed by politicians to get rich. The giant trucks, TNCs, lost control due to speed at the top and are now swirving all over the road on the way down, taking out anyone in their path. What caused this mess was an attempt to create a free market. Over regulation is not the answer either. So what is?
The large hills were caused by the government. Look at the housing bubble caused by government policy. In a free market the individual drivers would apply their own brakes, and the government would keep the nails away.
Those that risk it and drive too fast would suffer, those who are prudent would not. We are not all going to finish at the same time, and some wont finish at all, but all of us wont end up in a twisted heap.
Great to see this film. Very interesting considering the period it was made in, would be good to see these themes repackaged with a decent script. Well ... a professional script & actors as it's a pretty crap film really. Strangely there's a flash of colour near the end!?
Walter Heller is an infuriating statist! He has no understanding of the concept of Natural Law and his rationales for the use of force under Positivism is contemptible. It is such a shame what damage his economic policies and beilefs did.
There is simply not enough Truth. we find all kinds of cures in plants, so why not grow plants that cure. But Drug companies would not make money out of people. Inventions that could help mankind hidden so big banking types can control. how we live. Now we are talking freedom with knowledge.
If you want free trade, you don't need reciprocal agreements, the president doesn't need FTA, and we certainly don't need regional trade agreements. All we need to do is remove all barriers to trade, both tariffs and NTB's. The price of commodities would fall, business's would become more efficient, more profitable, and our economy would boom. It's that simple, all of these international agencies simply get in the way and cause more harm than good.
You can't trade w/ a country that pay's it's workers less than decent living expenses, and expect to compete. The only way to compete is too sink to their levels. Yes, If we only traded between countries like US/Canada/Britain we could maybe set up a FreeTrade Agreement..But when you throw in countries like China/Mexico, you have no way of competing. And a country without a manufacturing base CANNOT be soverign, end of story..This is the problem, so get ready to learn Chinese, and eat rice!
Nonsense, all you're saying is that the government should back ineficient industries, at the expense of others, in order to "protect" these industries from international competition. But our current economic condition does not justify "protecting" these failing industries; we no longer have a comparative advantage in steel, in automation, and in textiles. Pretending that we do, simply draws resources and capital away from our efficeint industries. If we listened to you, we'd stil be on horseback
LOL,yeah it was FREETRADE that brought about the Industrial revolution,what do the teach you in school now a day's?I know you've been brain washed but try using some common sense.Go to Walmart and try to find '1' item that was made in the US, and then say to yourself, how long can we as a people keep consuming? You produce nothing, because you cannot compete..That is the point of tarrifs, young one..Without them, you cannot have a decent standard of living.Sink to lowest common denominator=China
Free trade made America an economic superpower after WWII.
The fact that we got away from manufacturing as a lot more to do with people lending too much to us, as well as the Federal reserve keeping interest rates low (printing money).
Now the problem is fixing itself: lenders are realizing we wont pay them back, so they've stopped lending. Also, the strong dollar will evaporate, allowing us to sell goods cheaper.
Soon we'll be manufacturing again, even without tariffs being imposed.
Your tarrif ensures your country will have a job, so you don't have massive unemployment as you do now..So, you might want to re-think that one...They sold the US on shiny little cheaply made objects and you ate it up..Now your finding you've got a bit of a stomach ache, and don't know why..It's because you gave it all away, PAL!
"Go to Walmart and try to find '1' item that was made in the US, and then say to yourself, how long can we as a people keep consuming?"
Why don't you use some common sense? This example perfectly demonstrates my point. Walmart is able to maximize efficiency through international trade, leading to optimal cost reduction. This translates into lower prices for us all, and a company which profitably employs millions of people. Walmart is the most important company in America today.
You're 100% right Walmart is the future of the US buisness plan, it is in fact, the blueprint. So, get your Walmart job and prosper, because that is all you'll have left, all the good paying jobs will be gone..You're argument of it only being good buisness sense when you can get cheap labour overseas is also 100% right..Problem is it's only a handful of fat cat's at the top that will profit, and profit BIG from this model..The rest of the population will be squeezed like a lemon, of any life!
"So, get your Walmart job and prosper, because that is all you'll have left, all the good paying jobs will be gone.." Walmart employs those who are generally uneducated and wouldn't be able to find work elsewhere. America has lowest natural rate of unemployment in the entire western world. Europe's average unemployment rate is 2.5x higher than America's. The historical evidence is clear, nations with freer trade have higher employment and are richer. Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, for example.
Velocity, you need to go to school, read a book or two; because everything you say is one giant logical fallacy, not to mention the evidence is overwhelmingly against you.
Give it another 2 year's when this LAST bubble, the inflation bubble goes POP, and stick all your reading, scientific data up your ass! I was calling for this housing collapse 3 years ago, when people like yourself, and the ones' writing the books said there was nothing to worry about..When the NASDAQ climbed in and you were still in School I said it was going to crash, and the, 'Tech Bubble' went burst...I live in reality, you live in the world of Bullshit fed to you..I feel sad for you...
The dollar will collapse, unemployment will hit around 35%, and America will lose vehicle currency status; but it has nothing to do with free trade at all. You're some lunatic moron wasting time on youtube, making shit up, and spreading logical fallacies. Man, the Canadian know-nothings are worse than the American ones.
Walmart is hiring 28,000 people this year. They provide essential consumables at the cheapest prices which help poor and middle class people who are losing jobs and have less $ to spend. One reason Walmart succeeds is that its empoyees are able to keep out the unions (which force companies to pay above the market rate for union labor & force companies to cut back on quality & hiring additional workers. Many other compaines are going under and the nation is losing 400,000 jobs each month.
Tools mean nothing when you send all your industry overseas. And just what tools are you talking about, go to a hardware store, and find out just how many tools the good old USA makes and sells...The answer my friend is, '0'...Think of this you own a buisness in the states, then someone moves in next door same buisness. You have to pay mininum wage by law to your workers, but the other buisness get's an exemption, and can pay 1cent/hr..How long you gonna survive?
"Tools mean nothing when you send all your industry overseas."
Why would we have all of our industries over seas? We just won't have ineficient industries bidding away the factors of production from our effiicient industries. Protectionism leads to international trade wars, higher prices, and stagnates development. Industries are dynamic by nature, as a nation evolves, it begins producing more sophisticated products. If we listened to you we would all be working in a textile factory.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
49:18, Milton is describing NAFTA and GATT, the very FREE TRADE programs that got us into the mess we are in today! It's like he's throwing it in the faces of the filmaker's, and they are unaware of how bad of idea it really is. Once you eliminate all tarrifs, you let the Multi-Nationals run rampant, and it is in their best interest then to have a worker in China making 3cent/hr an hour make their good's than someone in the US making $7-8/hr. You get MASSIVE job loss, and end of middle class..
What?? That makes no sense. You're the one who thinks like a communist. I wouldn't vote for either the Republicans or the Democrats -- two sides of the same statist coin.
Watch some more Mises videos, do a little independent reading, and get an education.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I wouldn't vote for either as well, and not just because I'm Canadian, and therefore can't! However, you dislike both parties but support their policies on Free Trade, therefore, you are an Oxy-Moron, or more to the point, a MORON!
velocity, your understanding of economics is extremely childish. If you bothered to read your Canadian newspapers, you would know that Canada is considering an international trade war with the U.S; this would cripple America, as 38 states depend on Canadian production. All because of Obama's "buy American clause."
Canada shouldn't be angry at Obama for that. Laugh at him, sure, but they do need to keep in mind that Obama is only saying that because he owns the companies now. GM now stands for Government Motors and he's needing to pimp out those new hybrids that nobody wants.
Are we using titles as an argument? Because the North American Free Trade Agreement has as much to do with free trade as the Patriot Act does with patriotism.
I do expect if we had real free trade and not international government/business managed trade, we would still see loss of jobs in various sectors of the economy, but in the long run, we would all be more fully employed.
We would make less per hour, but our money would buy more as products and services would be cheaper.
It was the NEW economy...People lost their factory jobs' in industry, and the NEW economy was born..These people became Real Estate Agents, Consultant's, basically FLUFF job's..Which worked great while we bought our stuff from China, China supported our debt to consume..We became massive consumers who produced NOTHING. But now China and other countries are no longer buying our debt, and we are losing jobs fast, and have given all our OLD jobs away..We are SCREWED, there will be NO recovery!
Actually, no. He was shown in a Charlie Rose interview that he was asked to approve of CAFTA (basically like NAFTA but for Central America instead of North America) and couldn't because every page he read had exceptions to free trade. It's managed and does not operate solely on voluntary transactions.
Please learn some economics. It's really very interesting and important for civilization.
I don't know if you're talking to me stealthswimmer, but if you want to really learn who's running the show, and the main plan, you better learn the history of the Jesuit's..If you go around reading their economic theory, and following their agents you will be as ignorant as the heard of sheep they control...The world is much more complicated than you can imagine, and this Illusion your living is really not at all healthy! They are the puppet masters, and you are a nothing but a good puppet...
It isn't Jesuit economic theory, lol. And ya know, Thomas Woods has a vid somewhere here on Youtube (the description of which has the link to the whole vid) where he's talking to some Catholic seminar about how the church should be friendlier towards the free market since, by and large, they haven't ever really been all that friendly towards it.
By the way, I think the world is much more complicated than you imagine since you're willing to just toss out economics, which explains reality
Sorry; I should clarify that this documentary was never on the Web before. I mean that I was pleased to finally see it again, and that I was worried it was lost forever. :-)
I saw it at Hawaii Pacific University. Professor Schoolland, the author of "The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible," showed it to me. HPU had the old film version; Prof. Schoolland put it on the projector. A short while later, the school threw the film away without telling us. :-(
Oh wow... I guess I'm a bit biased against University education, being that I live in close proximity to Berkeley, Santa-Cruz and San Francisco. Ha ha! I should know better than to judge constituent parts by the collective. ;D
Can you believe that U.C. Santa-Cruz spawned a sizable MAOIST contingent in the 1960's? MAO! They haven't changed much. Berkeley is still Marxist, and U.C.S.F. is still it's own unique monster.
Oh well. Good to know there are still decent Professors in Hawaii. ;)
@40:00, "society" didn't choose high taxation rates, the politicians promise bread and circuses and then naturally taxes have to go up to pay for it! Most people don't realize that when they vote for massive programs like universal health care that taxes for everyone will go up. They just think "ooo I will be getting free health care? I'll vote for that!" or, "Yeah, everyone does deserve free health care!"
We can't allow propaganda like this to brainwash the sheeple.
onelostmind 1 week ago
Your video went viral on Abidjan
chesterlott821 2 weeks ago
This vid is popular on Korea, South
oshuabailey38j 2 weeks ago
1st saw this over 35 years ago. Still relevant, wait, even more relevant today! A re-release, remake or remix is badly needed today!
zalkessler 3 months ago
@LeksServices
What is the magical plan of yours that allow us to live without working? Is that a delusion of yours that it's possible for us to consume without anyone producing? I don't own land- I find it cheaper to rent it and safe or invest the excess. I am richer than someone who owns 100 acres of land in Uganda. Get a clue.
tysonbc0927 7 months ago 2
Land is wealth. Money is not. People who have land have power. Free market economics ignores this basic fact. We all need a place to sleep, we all need shelter. We claim that we have a choice in where we live. Do we have a choice to live *nowhere?* Of course not. So we are stuck paying others for a place to leave. The consequences of not paying is death, by exposure or drowning. Because if you can't live on land, you must try to live in the ocean. Work or die. Great choice there.
LeksServices 7 months ago
Free voices, free markets produce free choice - it is by allowing the widest possible range of choices that we have creativity and innovation. Force someone to "share" and they grow to resent the person with whom they are forced. Allow someone to choose to share with those they care about and they share generously and willingly.
ArLyneDiamond 8 months ago
The Mises institute should do a remake of this to bring it more up to date.
8031T 9 months ago 2
This movie is awesome... it's WORST today.
I was told America use to be pretty lax. Kids could go into the woods throw grenades (a story I heard lol) in the river as long as they harmed no one. Nowadays you walk on the street with a hooded sweater and are on alert.
Mrs. Post is cute.
Damn... you could use food as money type thing. If everyone got the same amount of food, some would starve cause they require more. Isn't socialism for that, just not really explicitly so?
Shrunkenhead61 10 months ago
Central banks create inflation.
diurdi 10 months ago 2
@greenhost2008 First, the "problem" is the Fed lending it out, if anything. Even if fractional reserve banking actually did multiply the money, the problem would only be the Fed.
Second, the whole claim that money a fractional reserve bank invests is "new money" is beyond idiotic: When you deposit money with a mutual fund, and they invest it, is THAT creating new money, too?
Rothbard was ridiculously clueless on monetary theory. REAL Austrians never believed that nitwittery.
KAZVorpal 1 year ago
Monopolies are illegal in America - they always have been. There is no such thing as "legal monopolies' - that is just a trick of 'color of law', which is fake law !
Beware of this as it is happening now all the time !
Don't be so quick to believe anything from DC !
THEY LIE !
CSAcitizen 1 year ago
The Feds have NO power or Constitutional permission to do ANYTHING in ANY state! They have no authority outside of the DC borders!
How the one fella stated that the gov had "good intentions" shows how well indoctrinated into the Marxist agenda this younger generation is!
The DC Federal govt NEVER has 'good intentions' ! DC is after only one thing = power and control over everything and everyone!
All permits, registrations, licenses are all illegal direct taxes! All Un-Constitutional !
CSAcitizen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Local moms are alone do you need to meet them naneedj.info
kumaramohan 1 year ago
Capitalism forces you to improve yourself without worrying too much about your neighbor. Get over it already people thats life. If your neighbor is unemployed its not the big bad corporations fault for firing him. It's his fault for having a low-skilled easily replaceable job. HIgh skilled, innovative, free thinkers will always succeed in capitalism. Get a good education and you're set. Don't worry about what will happen to the freeloaders.
MattsMisc 1 year ago
why , in this intro, why is the original author -Richard C. Grant - NOT given any actual credit for the original book which these three young plagarists ... rip off artists stole from Him?
rentatrip1 1 year ago
All the government can do is contrbute indirectly, they can't define happiness. Anyone who advocates collectivism is a retard.
Pdrum2 1 year ago 3
39:00 "Society has made that judgment." So what? "Society" said it was okay to put jews in concentration camps. He's saying that if "society" wants to rob people, it's ok. Sick.
DoctorMurky 2 years ago
Society did not want to put the Jews in concentrations camps -- society was oblivious to what Hitler was doing because they blindly followed him and he took their way fo fighting the government away from them, so when they did finally realize what was going on, they could not fight it. And that is why you should be so loyal to the government because they will slowly take away you rights-like cooking a frog-you place it in cold water and heat it up-the frog is clueless to the fact he is cooking.
ironsikes 1 year ago
That moron at 39:00 actually thought that increasing unemployment helped to fight inflation. Even then that was inexcusable.
DoctorMurky 2 years ago
is the shorter colour version of this film available?
mexaguil 2 years ago 3
Isn't the government suppose to be voted by the people for the people with the aim of providing equal opportunity. Somehow this is missed. Judging from this film it is business intervention with the government. As for the arguement for an individual making a judgement. Some people make better decisions than others because of what they know that other people don't know.
Kiwichico 2 years ago
If(a big if) we need gov't,then its only purpose is to protect us from the imposition of force or fraud. If it does that we can take care of the rest. As for some people being unable to make their own decisions because they lack knowledge--well,we make decisions all the time without being experts. I recently bought a car and I don't know a thing about autos,but between consumer magazines and the advice of friends,I made out.Freedom does not require that everyone be an expert about everything.
sleedolfine15 2 years ago 2
I agree and a good point; force and fraud. I was thinking along the lines of education and health. At school we were never taught about the stockmarket and how people make money from it and if you are from a poor area you will never consider it because no one in your environment trades. It becomes this mystery that only applies to the highly educated and to the wealthy.
Kiwichico 2 years ago
Good work sleedolfine. That government should manage society is fallacious; bureaucrats cannot emulate the production and innovation of millions of profit seekers and even if they could; expertise and knowledge defining trade would be restrictive; wealth is not bound to specific material advance because profit from voluntary exchange is how individuals create their wealth. Those individuals who are motivated to produce in order to gain barter with which to consume that which others produce.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
The point of the film is that big government allows for mercantile extraction of the people's wealth by corporations who exploit government monopolies and botched government intervention in markets, as well as government curtailment of consumer sovereignty that can occur through regulation of provision of consumer goods. The importance of mercantilism is that it is a way of profiting by reducing the trade of others, its not profitable like free trade but is caused by myopic profit motive.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
(continued) Myopic profit motive breeds more of itself because mercantilism forces the other interests not in charge of that mercantile subjugation of free and fair flow of capital, feel they have to mobilise counteractive mercantile measures. Class conflict, war, famine, protectionism; not caused by capitalism but mercantilism which created states and authority and subjugation over society tosteal from it. That's NOT capitalism, capitalism is utopia and self regulating for human liberty.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
The anser to this therefore is a constitution to limit government to working for the people, so that governments can stop mobilising people with the welfare-military state into a whole not permissive of individual seeking of wealth that is absolutely needed for human dignity. Government must eventually die, when mercantilism has died and mutually beneficial free trade and marketisation of the human race keeps us in liberty and wealth, the enemies of fascism, socialism, mercantilism, communism...
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
Now that is a diatribe. Correct me if I am wrong the point of the film is business should not intervene with the government and vice versa. The point I am trying to make is, some people are born into this world with nothing and may need a hand to make something.
Kiwichico 2 years ago
You think govt can help them? People can help themselves with liberty. Capitalist anarchy is the natural estate of mankind. Govt created NONE of the mechanisms of wealth. Govt is the manifestation of mercantile corruption of capitalism. Anarchy would not last a minute if mercantile subjugation of capital and opportunity to seek it lasted becuase it renders freedom obsolete under oppression, free trade obsolete under economic warfare. It retards world wealth by inducing counter-mercantilism.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago 2
That is why anarchy could only exist if mercantilism was dead. The state must help kill it, not by positive intervention but by protection of property and shrinkage of state coercion that allows monopolies. A constitution limiting government power and weakening ability to make legislatures into rubber stamps is therefore needed in every state in the world, so that it can slowly dissappear as capitalism develops, in which people are profitablem unlike under mercantile extraction of wealth.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
ironsikes 1 year ago
James Madison once said that our government could not stand unless there was a moral people. Our founding fathers were big supporters of self rule. We should help our fellow man -- not the government. Our founding fathers understood this.
ironsikes 1 year ago 2
Govt doesn't know how to create equality of opportunity. Such is too abstract to be enforced without grave unintended consequences. Govt can identify mercantile disincentivisation to seek profit and can stop the methods by which some mercantilism is pursued, be it theft of your property, destruction of your means to produce, or simply coercion of monopoly. People are supposed to prevent govt from governing except where it advances liberty. If all govts did that, capitalist anarchy could arise.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
I agree govt should be responsible to make dead mercantile corruption and advance liberty. If we have private schools or private healthcare only, then would you not think that some people would miss out on liberty because they can't afford it.
Kiwichico 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is gay
mrplaybuddy 2 years ago
Eloquent...
AshillaBeige 2 years ago
40:22 Priceless...
SvrchovaneCechy 2 years ago
The ballot box has become useful because government has created a generation of dependents.
teamtacoslick 2 years ago
useless i mean.
teamtacoslick 2 years ago
The Incredible Bread Machine was written by Richard Grant, he lived down the street from me when I was a boy- The man is brilliant & has written several other books on economics- including Rent Control& the War Against the Poor-
rentatrip1 2 years ago
39:09 - "unemployment generated in the process of fighting inflation." Of course, we should expect this kind of nonsense from a government bureacrat, but it was so nonchalant I'm tempted to call it a "Keynesian slip."
BenLS1975 2 years ago 3
I love how he goes on to assert that govt. force to take money as taxes is done by "society" thereby absolving bureaucrats like himself of blame.
He can't defend any of the programs, but instead they're "mishandled", yet he turns around and defends taxes he recognizes as compulsory... but only because "society" wills it.
What wonderful moral & mental gymnastics to absolve himself of guilt for stealing from citizens for his invariably failed programs.
3055DOG 2 years ago 4
As is the case with most hopeless statists, he entirely avoids arguing about reality or economic theory, and instead relies on the standard presumptions already etched into people minds. As a propagandist for the state, all he knows is "unchecked business means disaster." Rinse and repeat, ignoring the laws of economics and elementary deduction.
BenLS1975 2 years ago
Did anyone catch the critical point at 16:10?
"For the blessings of Heaven did not rain equally upon all men."
This statement implies that one's material wealth is determined as a random function, or else the result of divine intervention. This is a common deception employed by socialists, and I wish the film had placed more emphasis on it.
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
I recall Jonah Goldberg mentioning that with regards to communism & fascism (state control of capital, whether overt or subtle but popular), the fundamental nature of those statist ideologies is a religious movement. Marx himself mentions it - which is why there are so many "prophecies". It allows for the individual to be divorced from responsibility.
The statement also implies that material wealth is STATIC and not subject to change based on will - making the person a powerless victim.
3055DOG 2 years ago
Why have you not made a recomendation to this channel? This is good stuff.
FlowCell 2 years ago
20:00 F*** Yeah, Murray Rothbard!
KraljevicPavle 2 years ago 27
@KraljevicPavle Eff Rothbard...move on from that to Hayek and Friedman. Rothbard is a good starting point for liberty newbies...he had a flawed grasp, but was a convincing writer.
Imagine, this guy thought that consensual fractional reserve banks should be banned (socialism), a gold standard should be imposed (socialism), and parents should be free to kill their post-born children (psychopahy).
KAZVorpal 1 year ago
@KAZVorpal
lol
KraljevicPavle 1 year ago
@KAZVorpal "fractional reserve banks should be banned" It's theft. ever hear of inflation. "a gold standard should be imposed (socialism)" Calling that socialism is like saying privaticing industry is socialism and that privatising anything is socialism. you contradict yourself.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
@greenghost2008 No, greenhost, FORCING Americans to use gold barter as money is socialism, by its very definition. What we need is a free market in money, not fiat gold. This is what the real Austrian economists, like Hayek and von Mises, advocated, and they were correct.
KAZVorpal 1 year ago
@KAZVorpal oh yes because denationalizing anything constitutes force.(sarcasm)
greenghost2008 1 year ago
@greenghost2008 Imposing a gold standard on the dollar does not denationalize anything...it is an initiation of coercion. It forces people to use gold barter as their currency in the US. Forcing people to make specific economic choices is also known as "socialism".
KAZVorpal 1 year ago
@KAZVorpal What we have now is so much closer to socialism than a gold standard. Our purchasing power is protecting with a gold standard, because the fed can't just punch some digits and LITERALLY give TRILLIONS of dollars to people, FROM NOTHING, THEY DON'T HAVE A F**CKING BANK ACCOUNT TO DRAW FUNDS FROM, they create it out of NOTHING. A gold standard would be put a stop to this, but as damon vrabel said, the gold standard led to the system we have today. We need to end the fed. Root of evil.
Digali 1 year ago
@greenghost2008 Explain EXACTLY how investing someone's money, while telling them you will do so, and allowing them to withdraw it instantly and paying them for the deposit, is theft.
That's more crackpot Rothbard faux-Austrian nonsense.
KAZVorpal 1 year ago
@KAZVorpal inflation
greenghost2008 1 year ago
@greenghost2008 Greenhost, again I warn you against listening to that crackpot Murray Rothbard too closely. It's nice that he brought you to the cause of liberty, but like Ayn Rand, that's about all his pretty fallacies are good for.
This is a perfect example: Fractional reserve banks have NOTHING to do with inflation. All they do is invest your money FOR you, while allowing you to keep total liquidity.
They free capital up for investment, ergo are perfect free market tools.
KAZVorpal 1 year ago
@KAZVorpal take any macroeconomics class or pick up an economics book. They all say that fractional reserve banking causes money creation. I toke a class by a keynsian economist who did a whole week on the banks money creation. It's a difficult economics concept so some people(you might not understand right off the bat) It's common knowledge.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
@greenghost2008 I fully understand the concept that is errantly referred to as money creation. Nonetheless, it's simply a misnomer; no new money is created
When you deposit money in a bank, the bank invests the money for you
This increases money velocity, which has the effect of increasing supply versus demand...but no new money is actually being magically created
It is a perfectly healthy system, allowing your money to be invested and work for you, instead of being abandoned in a vault
KAZVorpal 1 year ago
@greenghost2008 No, banks "create money" by borrowing from the Federal Reserve and then lending out 90% of what they borrow...not simply by lending out the money that people deposit. That is the same money they had in the first place. It's not in two places at once, because the bank is acting as an investor proxy for the money's real owner.
KAZVorpal 1 year ago
@greenghost2008 If the government forces people to use gold as money, that is the very definition of socialism...the central authority controlling economic decisions.
And fractional reserve banks don't cause inflation. That's Rothbardian socialist nitwittery...no real Austrian economist thinks that.
KAZVorpal 1 year ago
@KAZVorpal lol rothbardian socialism! It's the best type of socialism!!!!
PetrusAvis 1 year ago
@KraljevicPavle I felt the same way
greenghost2008 1 year ago
Fuck I gave 1 star i mean 5 stars
Apptendo 2 years ago 3
Hmm, a libertarian leaning movie with an articulated hot chick (Patrea Post) in it, thumbs up.
StrafingMoose 2 years ago 5
By the way, who decides how to spend the money you invest in shares? A board of directors elected by share holders. Who decides how to spend taxes? A legislative assembly and council elected by voters. Both the directors and legislators are far removed from the daily lives of the general public. So then does the logic you apply to government spending remain true of corporate boards?
SMNmember 2 years ago
You are missing the critical factor. No corporation ever holds a gun on you and forces you into a car... nor do they force you to pay them. You choose to go to Wal-Mart, Target and pay for Microsoft crap.
Just try to not pay your taxes... and see what happens to you.
DarthKazi 2 years ago 46
@DarthKazi Yeah the government officials are legal thieves they take hard earned money that you make and use it for crap.
Eaghlin 1 year ago
@DarthKazi The government officials are legal thieves taxes are a legal way to take money from hard workers. Would you rather make all of the money you make or get rid of part of it so someone else can spend it on crap.
Eaghlin 1 year ago
@DarthKazi - No one forces you to live on land. No one forces you to buy fuel for your ship, or sails, or to have your ship on land for any reason. No one forces you sleep under a roof. No one forces you get off their land if you don't pay your rent. Oh, wait. If you don't pay your rent, they do throw you off the land. If you don't pay rent, you are thrown out of shelter. See what happens to you without shelter. I'm sure it's much better than what the government does for not paying taxes.
LeksServices 7 months ago
Comment removed
DarthKazi 7 months ago
@LeksServices Your "logic" is that of a blathering fool. You neither represent the points of any of the multiple schools of free market economics, nor do you represent the intelligent critiques of them. You represent nonsense.
DarthKazi 7 months ago 3
@SMNmember
the difference is huge, you can withdraw your shares if you think that directors make bad decisions. you can't do it same thing from goverment. you are forced to pay taxes even if you are not satified how goverment is doing.
rsobies 2 years ago 3
But what if majority of the shares are owned by two other large bodies such as other businesses?
Kiwichico 2 years ago
lol @ rothbard and the buildings.
rmcc0002 2 years ago 2
CAPITALISM really does ROCK !!!!!!!!!!
spanishaustralian 2 years ago 5
true\
americaneagle1967 2 years ago
Has anybody been able to find this on IMDB, I couldn't seem to find it when I looked for it.
edAVP1138 2 years ago 3
no big government. you are free to make money and free to lose money. when you lose let government stay out of it and let you go down. so that others may live.
Rico8458 2 years ago 2
The 70's sure were whiskery and musky weren't they?
hrosemd 2 years ago
However, government can and does also seek to increase its power and will abuse it if the people are complacent and don't actively participate in the political process.
Like everything in life, there is no easy answer except to be responsible and to demand responsibility from our leaders - both within government and within corporations, both large and small.
I fear that we are beyond the point of no return and our civilization is in catastrophic decline. Rotten inside and out. Sad but true.
PeaceLoveGoddess 2 years ago
Optimism goes a long way. If the problems are tht obvious to you then chances are others see them also. The world would do well at this time to remember that people constitute society not the other way around.
SMNmember 2 years ago
Sadly, there will never be a true capitalist, free market system since the power elite who call themselves capitalist are the first ones to go begging to the government (taxpayers) for bailouts. Corporatism (more accurately corporate fascism) is destroying the world. A corporation has no heart and the need for government to represent the people is a reality that the American forefathers recognized to balance the power of the individual against the power of the elite/corporations. (continued)
PeaceLoveGoddess 2 years ago
I think governments do far more to destroy the world than corporations. Its not a corporation murdering people in Iran right now. Corporations produce, governments loot.
underbird 2 years ago 2
Thank you for your feedback, Underbird. I'm surprised with all the corruption being revealed today in corporations like Enron, AIG etc, that you actually believe this. The truth is that corporations OWN governments. Ask any politician who has to deal with lobbyists from every industry who are looking to implement laws favoring their interests. There are actually thousands more lobbyists than congressmen. All corporations operate from the profit motive and answer only to shareholders not people.
PeaceLoveGoddess 2 years ago
I am surprised people are so willing to give up freedom. If governments did not have the power they do, there would be no reason to lobby. You see its big government which has caused it. Most of the laws and regulations tend to hurt small upstart companies. Small companies have no clout or pull with politicians.
The farther we get from voluntary cooperation in a free market, the closer we get to large scale poverty, corruption, and tyranny.
underbird 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Personally, I'd prefer a minimum of BOTH government and corporate control. I've heard of a term libertarian socialism. I agree that governments historically have been responsible for more travesties of justice against their OWN citizens than other countries, but I still maintain that behind the scenes the corporate power elites are pulling the strings. Wherever there's money to be made, people can be made to do anything. Ultimately, we are all victims until we take responsibility for ourselves.
PeaceLoveGoddess 2 years ago
Free markets don't exist today, they are subject to monopolies and oligopoly. The Business Roundtable, who indirectly funded this film and the book it adapts, is comprised of the 194 wealthiest US corporations (which collectively earn more than any single nation, bar the US). Do you think the ideas they present really reflect the interests of greater society? Corporations are profit driven entities operating within a market which needs regulation. The current crisis is testament to this.
SMNmember 2 years ago
eh no :)
delatroy 2 years ago
Just about everyone in society owns a portion of corportation. 194 corporations wow what a concentration of power. So if you add up all the owners, its maybe a few hundred million people owning those corporations. How do we survive with power in so few hands?
Meanwhile, the federal government which is made up of a few hundred people spends 1/3 of my income. Income they take by force from my paycheck which they rarely spend in my best interest.
underbird 2 years ago 4
The current crisis is testament to a government whos "regulation" forced or encouraged sub prime loans to meet their social objectives. Well intentioned it might have been, it lead to over-inflation of property values.
underbird 2 years ago
You're exactly right. I'm interested in who the relaxation of lending laws to provide unrealistic credit benifited? Government regulation in this case favoured profit hungry banks who used toxic investments to engage in high stakes gambling in a free market currency exchange. Global currencies have been deregulated since the 1970s. When sub prime led inflation dropped dollar value, the fictitious money we rely on disappeared. I don't apologise for the state, they are in it together.
SMNmember 2 years ago
The largest shareowners in corporations are other corporations. I agree that a vast majority of people now own shares in public companies. I also agree that governments recklessly spend money which we labour for. It seems that governments & corporations are inextricably linked and must inevitably act in each others interests, and not in ours. You only have to look at the distribution of wealth in census data to see where the profit of those 194 corporations ends up. In the hands of a select few.
SMNmember 2 years ago
Politicians benefited tremendously from their mismanagement. Once the debt could be sold easily, and the prices of homes kept going up, banks did what is natural. Banks should be profit hungry. If the playing field is skewed by the actions of a small group of politicians, we shouldn't be surprised when the system collapses. If you scatter nails on the freeway, should you blame the drivers for getting flat tires?
underbird 2 years ago
194 corporations. So not only are they owned by millions of people, but they also employ millions of people. Beyond that, they create wealth, innovation, and productivity which benefits millions more. Hardly a few. They get their weath from the voluntary cooporation of consumers.
On the other hand you have government. Owned by no one. It also employs millions. They involuntarily take a portion of the wealth from each individual and corporation.
underbird 2 years ago
Is consumerism really voluntary? Corporations implore innovation, but what kind? Do oil companies develop hydrogen motors? They employ millions, under what conditions? Through their alliance with govt billions, not millions, of people suffer work conditions similar to fuedal peasants. When the govt involuntarily takes your money and uses it to bail out a company on the verge of bankruptcy, it should be fine because it will trickle down again, wont it? I'm with u on the state, but it has friends.
SMNmember 2 years ago
millions suffer as feudal peasants? Not in a free political and economic state. The feudal system was destroyed by free markets and a free political system. When the government intervenes and rewards a failing company, it undermines the free market and ultimately we will all suffer. The only thing that will trickle down is failure, protectionism, and poverty.
underbird 2 years ago
If the free way is the market then it has hills, business cycles. You throw nails as you climb the hill to slow cars down before they gain too much speed on the descent. In our case the nails were pocketed by politicians to get rich. The giant trucks, TNCs, lost control due to speed at the top and are now swirving all over the road on the way down, taking out anyone in their path. What caused this mess was an attempt to create a free market. Over regulation is not the answer either. So what is?
SMNmember 2 years ago
The large hills were caused by the government. Look at the housing bubble caused by government policy. In a free market the individual drivers would apply their own brakes, and the government would keep the nails away.
Those that risk it and drive too fast would suffer, those who are prudent would not. We are not all going to finish at the same time, and some wont finish at all, but all of us wont end up in a twisted heap.
underbird 2 years ago
Hilarious part with Rothbard and the demolition footage! :-)
rambo26 2 years ago
Great to see this film. Very interesting considering the period it was made in, would be good to see these themes repackaged with a decent script. Well ... a professional script & actors as it's a pretty crap film really. Strangely there's a flash of colour near the end!?
thudds 2 years ago
Walter Heller is an infuriating statist! He has no understanding of the concept of Natural Law and his rationales for the use of force under Positivism is contemptible. It is such a shame what damage his economic policies and beilefs did.
ALittleBitPregnant 2 years ago
Silly film
marniespeaks 2 years ago
Oh man, I love the sound of that voice starting @ 19:54.
wreagfe 2 years ago 2
45:06 - 'When General Motors makes a mistake no one is required to buy a General Motors car'.
Who likes to cry?
Praguedive 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice try. Keep it up check out esteembpo + com for social media marketing. #ZIP#
adenawittrocketf 2 years ago
There is simply not enough Truth. we find all kinds of cures in plants, so why not grow plants that cure. But Drug companies would not make money out of people. Inventions that could help mankind hidden so big banking types can control. how we live. Now we are talking freedom with knowledge.
allcingeye 2 years ago
43:00 - "there is simply not enough wisdom in the individual consumer"
latewire 2 years ago
This video is timeless, a classic.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
If you want free trade, you don't need reciprocal agreements, the president doesn't need FTA, and we certainly don't need regional trade agreements. All we need to do is remove all barriers to trade, both tariffs and NTB's. The price of commodities would fall, business's would become more efficient, more profitable, and our economy would boom. It's that simple, all of these international agencies simply get in the way and cause more harm than good.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
You can't trade w/ a country that pay's it's workers less than decent living expenses, and expect to compete. The only way to compete is too sink to their levels. Yes, If we only traded between countries like US/Canada/Britain we could maybe set up a FreeTrade Agreement..But when you throw in countries like China/Mexico, you have no way of competing. And a country without a manufacturing base CANNOT be soverign, end of story..This is the problem, so get ready to learn Chinese, and eat rice!
velocity73R 2 years ago
Nonsense, all you're saying is that the government should back ineficient industries, at the expense of others, in order to "protect" these industries from international competition. But our current economic condition does not justify "protecting" these failing industries; we no longer have a comparative advantage in steel, in automation, and in textiles. Pretending that we do, simply draws resources and capital away from our efficeint industries. If we listened to you, we'd stil be on horseback
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
LOL,yeah it was FREETRADE that brought about the Industrial revolution,what do the teach you in school now a day's?I know you've been brain washed but try using some common sense.Go to Walmart and try to find '1' item that was made in the US, and then say to yourself, how long can we as a people keep consuming? You produce nothing, because you cannot compete..That is the point of tarrifs, young one..Without them, you cannot have a decent standard of living.Sink to lowest common denominator=China
velocity73R 2 years ago
Free trade made America an economic superpower after WWII.
The fact that we got away from manufacturing as a lot more to do with people lending too much to us, as well as the Federal reserve keeping interest rates low (printing money).
Now the problem is fixing itself: lenders are realizing we wont pay them back, so they've stopped lending. Also, the strong dollar will evaporate, allowing us to sell goods cheaper.
Soon we'll be manufacturing again, even without tariffs being imposed.
latewire 2 years ago
So, your tariff that makes me pay $100 for a t-shirt makes me richer. Might want to rethink that one pal.
blue42421 2 years ago 2
Your tarrif ensures your country will have a job, so you don't have massive unemployment as you do now..So, you might want to re-think that one...They sold the US on shiny little cheaply made objects and you ate it up..Now your finding you've got a bit of a stomach ache, and don't know why..It's because you gave it all away, PAL!
velocity73R 2 years ago
"Go to Walmart and try to find '1' item that was made in the US, and then say to yourself, how long can we as a people keep consuming?"
Why don't you use some common sense? This example perfectly demonstrates my point. Walmart is able to maximize efficiency through international trade, leading to optimal cost reduction. This translates into lower prices for us all, and a company which profitably employs millions of people. Walmart is the most important company in America today.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
You're 100% right Walmart is the future of the US buisness plan, it is in fact, the blueprint. So, get your Walmart job and prosper, because that is all you'll have left, all the good paying jobs will be gone..You're argument of it only being good buisness sense when you can get cheap labour overseas is also 100% right..Problem is it's only a handful of fat cat's at the top that will profit, and profit BIG from this model..The rest of the population will be squeezed like a lemon, of any life!
velocity73R 2 years ago
"So, get your Walmart job and prosper, because that is all you'll have left, all the good paying jobs will be gone.." Walmart employs those who are generally uneducated and wouldn't be able to find work elsewhere. America has lowest natural rate of unemployment in the entire western world. Europe's average unemployment rate is 2.5x higher than America's. The historical evidence is clear, nations with freer trade have higher employment and are richer. Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, for example.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago 2
Velocity, you need to go to school, read a book or two; because everything you say is one giant logical fallacy, not to mention the evidence is overwhelmingly against you.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Give it another 2 year's when this LAST bubble, the inflation bubble goes POP, and stick all your reading, scientific data up your ass! I was calling for this housing collapse 3 years ago, when people like yourself, and the ones' writing the books said there was nothing to worry about..When the NASDAQ climbed in and you were still in School I said it was going to crash, and the, 'Tech Bubble' went burst...I live in reality, you live in the world of Bullshit fed to you..I feel sad for you...
velocity73R 2 years ago
The dollar will collapse, unemployment will hit around 35%, and America will lose vehicle currency status; but it has nothing to do with free trade at all. You're some lunatic moron wasting time on youtube, making shit up, and spreading logical fallacies. Man, the Canadian know-nothings are worse than the American ones.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago 3
"Give it another 2 year's when this LAST bubble,"
And it's not going to take 2 years.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
"...when people like yourself, and the ones' writing the books said there was nothing to worry about..."
Obviously you have no knowledge of the Austrian School of economics. Go look into it.
rwwright 2 years ago
Walmart is hiring 28,000 people this year. They provide essential consumables at the cheapest prices which help poor and middle class people who are losing jobs and have less $ to spend. One reason Walmart succeeds is that its empoyees are able to keep out the unions (which force companies to pay above the market rate for union labor & force companies to cut back on quality & hiring additional workers. Many other compaines are going under and the nation is losing 400,000 jobs each month.
happinessisnowhere 2 years ago 6
LOL
So according to you a tools have no effect on how effective someone can do his job?
BTW it would be great if we could buy from countries with low vages as we could get more products for the same resources (money) as before.
ShaddowSwordX 2 years ago
LOL
You are a tool, I guess!
Tools mean nothing when you send all your industry overseas. And just what tools are you talking about, go to a hardware store, and find out just how many tools the good old USA makes and sells...The answer my friend is, '0'...Think of this you own a buisness in the states, then someone moves in next door same buisness. You have to pay mininum wage by law to your workers, but the other buisness get's an exemption, and can pay 1cent/hr..How long you gonna survive?
velocity73R 2 years ago
"Tools mean nothing when you send all your industry overseas."
Why would we have all of our industries over seas? We just won't have ineficient industries bidding away the factors of production from our effiicient industries. Protectionism leads to international trade wars, higher prices, and stagnates development. Industries are dynamic by nature, as a nation evolves, it begins producing more sophisticated products. If we listened to you we would all be working in a textile factory.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
No, instead your working at Wal-Mart, congratulations for the step up from the textile mills!
velocity73R 2 years ago
Supply and demand applies to the labor market too.
ZuzoFriend 2 years ago 6
this film is from almost 35 years ago and econ still isn't taught very well in schools, if even at all.
Buckeyes1647 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
49:18, Milton is describing NAFTA and GATT, the very FREE TRADE programs that got us into the mess we are in today! It's like he's throwing it in the faces of the filmaker's, and they are unaware of how bad of idea it really is. Once you eliminate all tarrifs, you let the Multi-Nationals run rampant, and it is in their best interest then to have a worker in China making 3cent/hr an hour make their good's than someone in the US making $7-8/hr. You get MASSIVE job loss, and end of middle class..
velocity73R 2 years ago
You're a fool.
rwwright 2 years ago 5
You're an idiot, who probably voted for Obama...
velocity73R 2 years ago
What?? That makes no sense. You're the one who thinks like a communist. I wouldn't vote for either the Republicans or the Democrats -- two sides of the same statist coin.
Watch some more Mises videos, do a little independent reading, and get an education.
rwwright 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I wouldn't vote for either as well, and not just because I'm Canadian, and therefore can't! However, you dislike both parties but support their policies on Free Trade, therefore, you are an Oxy-Moron, or more to the point, a MORON!
velocity73R 2 years ago
I support free trade, not legislated trade which is, by definition, not free. You have a lot to learn.
rwwright 2 years ago 8
velocity, your understanding of economics is extremely childish. If you bothered to read your Canadian newspapers, you would know that Canada is considering an international trade war with the U.S; this would cripple America, as 38 states depend on Canadian production. All because of Obama's "buy American clause."
Questfortruth86 2 years ago 3
Canada shouldn't be angry at Obama for that. Laugh at him, sure, but they do need to keep in mind that Obama is only saying that because he owns the companies now. GM now stands for Government Motors and he's needing to pimp out those new hybrids that nobody wants.
Ovalshine 2 years ago 2
Don't you know that NAFTA etc. are MANAGED trade, NOT real free trade?
CBound 2 years ago 3
NAFTA = North American Free Trade Agreement..What about that don't you understand simpleton?
velocity73R 2 years ago
Are we using titles as an argument? Because the North American Free Trade Agreement has as much to do with free trade as the Patriot Act does with patriotism.
Ovalshine 2 years ago 4
I temporarily deleted my last comment because I wasn't completely sure where the positioning was. I'm cleared of that web now.
Ovalshine 2 years ago
I do expect if we had real free trade and not international government/business managed trade, we would still see loss of jobs in various sectors of the economy, but in the long run, we would all be more fully employed.
We would make less per hour, but our money would buy more as products and services would be cheaper.
CBound 2 years ago
>NAFTA and GATT, the very FREE TRADE programs that got us into the mess we are in today!
But our unemployment rate was so low for so many years during the height of free trade... how are we getting jobs and losing them at the same time?
latewire 2 years ago
It was the NEW economy...People lost their factory jobs' in industry, and the NEW economy was born..These people became Real Estate Agents, Consultant's, basically FLUFF job's..Which worked great while we bought our stuff from China, China supported our debt to consume..We became massive consumers who produced NOTHING. But now China and other countries are no longer buying our debt, and we are losing jobs fast, and have given all our OLD jobs away..We are SCREWED, there will be NO recovery!
velocity73R 2 years ago
Actually, no. He was shown in a Charlie Rose interview that he was asked to approve of CAFTA (basically like NAFTA but for Central America instead of North America) and couldn't because every page he read had exceptions to free trade. It's managed and does not operate solely on voluntary transactions.
Please learn some economics. It's really very interesting and important for civilization.
:-)
stealthswimmer 2 years ago 2
I don't know if you're talking to me stealthswimmer, but if you want to really learn who's running the show, and the main plan, you better learn the history of the Jesuit's..If you go around reading their economic theory, and following their agents you will be as ignorant as the heard of sheep they control...The world is much more complicated than you can imagine, and this Illusion your living is really not at all healthy! They are the puppet masters, and you are a nothing but a good puppet...
velocity73R 2 years ago
Oh God.....
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
It isn't Jesuit economic theory, lol. And ya know, Thomas Woods has a vid somewhere here on Youtube (the description of which has the link to the whole vid) where he's talking to some Catholic seminar about how the church should be friendlier towards the free market since, by and large, they haven't ever really been all that friendly towards it.
By the way, I think the world is much more complicated than you imagine since you're willing to just toss out economics, which explains reality
stealthswimmer 2 years ago 4
could never see current sec treasury give an introduction like that!
skmurray99 2 years ago
Mommy? Why does William E Simon look like Adam West? Was he Batman's stunt double?
Ovalshine 2 years ago
LOL
That's what I thought too. He even sounds like him a bit.
MrPloppy1 2 years ago
"at least it shows the government had good intentions"
"at least it starts out that way, but when you try and force good intentions on people it's very easy to set up a humanitarian Guillotine"
treii28 2 years ago 2
I am very pleased this is on the Web again. I was worried that this documentary was lost forever.
I am also pleased that the interviews with Friedman and Walter Heller are included. Those interviews do not accompany every version.
The only thing that puzzles me is: Why is this in black and white? Both versions I saw were in color.
Again, I'm very happy this is on the Web. :-)
legendre007 2 years ago 2
"I am very pleased this is on the Web again."
Sorry; I should clarify that this documentary was never on the Web before. I mean that I was pleased to finally see it again, and that I was worried it was lost forever. :-)
legendre007 2 years ago
Where on earth did you see this film first? I can't imagine this being played on television or in school.
gunsandbullhorns 2 years ago
"Where on earth did you see this film first?"
I saw it at Hawaii Pacific University. Professor Schoolland, the author of "The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible," showed it to me. HPU had the old film version; Prof. Schoolland put it on the projector. A short while later, the school threw the film away without telling us. :-(
That's why I was worried it was lost forever.
The film was actually in color, by the way.
legendre007 2 years ago
Oh wow... I guess I'm a bit biased against University education, being that I live in close proximity to Berkeley, Santa-Cruz and San Francisco. Ha ha! I should know better than to judge constituent parts by the collective. ;D
Can you believe that U.C. Santa-Cruz spawned a sizable MAOIST contingent in the 1960's? MAO! They haven't changed much. Berkeley is still Marxist, and U.C.S.F. is still it's own unique monster.
Oh well. Good to know there are still decent Professors in Hawaii. ;)
gunsandbullhorns 2 years ago 4
"Now is not the time for dissent. We must pull together."
Hah!
Shadyhunter04 2 years ago
45:00 isn't he talking just like chairman MaObama? his teacher maybe?
:-P
grraadd 2 years ago 2
Rothbard!!!! at 21 mins.
wanttoread3 2 years ago 9
@40:00, "society" didn't choose high taxation rates, the politicians promise bread and circuses and then naturally taxes have to go up to pay for it! Most people don't realize that when they vote for massive programs like universal health care that taxes for everyone will go up. They just think "ooo I will be getting free health care? I'll vote for that!" or, "Yeah, everyone does deserve free health care!"
rescuemay 2 years ago 14
@Rescuemay
It's sad people can't connect such simple dots... it really is.
Go public school/government education! /sarcasm.
MRSketch09 2 years ago
@Video
Very informative video. Super awesome!
I wish someone would hack into all of the TV networks and show this for twenty four hours.
MRSketch09 2 years ago
Will Simon honestly freaks me out.
NeonKnight88 2 years ago
Bush family honestly freaks me out. The the US debt too.
aslomski 2 years ago 2
"Although there was no food, it was for free!" I love that quote from Sri Lanka.
CaliforniaArchitect 2 years ago 6