all too many trust in the allmighty freemarket to solve all problems,when it's one of the most problem causing system in the world today.the free market has one job:to profit by whatever means,regardless of the impact on society or the earth.it's run on the assumption that we live in an infinate resource world and it requires a state of perpetual growth to even exist.That means infinate consumption.it thrives on problems because without needs to fill, there are no solutions to sell
@moochabod I don't know what your idea of a free market is, but one of the reasons to have a free market is to allocate resources efficiently, not to profit... Individuals in a free market may want to profit, and if they do so without force, more power to them, but the finite amount of resources is the very reason to have a free market in the first place. You know what causes the false "infinite consumption"? Financial bubbles caused by the fed, not the free market.
@VanessaTexasGal the end results of any free market are monopolies and cartels, and that's what we're getting. so in our free market society, consolidating farmlands to places that have cheap labor and lands and shipping the goods thousands of miles away is economic? the only efficiancies in a free market are monetary and have no real-world connection.
I hate to break it to all the Peace Mongers, but the United States is a VOLUNTEER Military. The troops all volunteered when they joined up. They can quit.
The troops BELIEVE in the cause that they are fighting for.
@Pythagoras6 They were also most likely bated, like so many others, as naive teenagers, with everything the recruters could possibly muster; trusting the ideas that America has planted in their heads since they were small children.
thats not true, he didnt fixed Germany. From economic point of view, what Nazis did was like fixing television by punching it, I mean, right before they invaded us and Poland, they went practically bankrupt. The only thing, that saved Germany from total economic collapse (since Hitler took the power) was war. So hes not really a good example of a good socialist ruler, who fixed the country. It just isnt true
well, thats true, Germany was really deep. But what Hitler did to improve this situation was to start prepare for war and by doing that he gave people jobs. Its that simple and it really doesnt work unless you want to go to war. So, again, Hitler is not very good choice, if youre looking for socialistic economic guru, because he knew absolutely nothing about economics.
like those exotic austrians, right? come on.. but dont get me wrong, Im not stabbing at socialism by saying that its really not good idea to say Hitlers socialist economic was something good, it wasnt. Thats nothing against socialism (which I really hate, for the record) and Im not writing it, cause it could be somehow morally wrong to agree with Hitler, it isnt. Its just .. "not quite well-informed" to agree with him on economic issues.
I admit that I dont really see what are you saying. Surely hiring guy from america is nice from Mr. Hitler, but its different than giving job to good old Helmut, father of large family in desperate situation, which is the reason why many thinks Hitler knew something about economy..
Yeah, I got that :) but when the country is preparing to war, soldiers are the last thing that bothers you. Hitler didnt made those jobs by recruiting Germans into army, he just boosted production, etc. War isnt just about the guy ho pulls the trigger. So, once again, my point is, dont think Hitler did something amazing (we are talking about economics, of course).
I'm sorry P&T, I disagree. Saying that free trade is the royal road to peace is an incomplete solution at best and as much a part of the problem as part of the solution at worst. Ever heard of a "Banana Republic"? That was the term given to Latin American nations that had become controlled largely by the US corporation United Fruit. It wiped out or absorbed all of its competitors to become a monopoly and manipulated governments for its own ends, often trampling human rights in the process.
That was all right, until you got to 'trampling human rights'.
FUCK the US; look at the EU. Where is the manipulation there? Nowhere. The EU member states have never warred against each other because they are economically dependent on each other. Free trade makes war impossible, and the situation you listed isn't even trade; you listed an example which involved absolutely no trading between countries at all.
Why? Because you don't want the answer to be that economic.
I'm not sure I understand; how is killing employees for striking not trampling on human rights? I'm referring of course to the infamous Banana Massacre.
And how is this not an example of trade? South American laborers were selling the products of their labor to Americans. (Note, today United Fruit goes by the name Chiquita Brands International).
Maybe you don't like the US, but you can't ignore it as an example, especially given that P&T are American.
And yet your example doesn't involve any sort of economic interdependency, in fact it specifically cites an example which proves precisely what happens when a very powerful group is not in any-way dependent on a smaller group trying to oppose them; the smaller group gets killed.
And yeah; it's an example of trade. But the trade was between the fruit company and the US. Who got killed? Colombian workers.
In order to coherently argue your point you'd have to cite an example of one group who was economically dependent on another group exterminating that group.
Your example involves one group who is economically dependent on another group executing a third group who it was not economically dependent on.
I have to discount this as a valid example because it really doesn't address the point being made at all.
@salamirterra I'm not sure I understand; United Fruit was doing business in Latin America because that was where the crops were grown. So there was an economic interdependence; in fact, it was rather one way because the US depended on the labor of people in these countries but they did not depend on the US. That's what domination is. You don't exterminate the group you depend on economically because that doesn't make sense; you just kill enough of them that the rest are too scared to revolt.
You have got to be kidding me. You think that the WORKERS had the power, yet United Fruit was still able to kill them?
Do you have no comprehension of what the term 'economic interdependence' means? Economic interdependence would mean that the workers could put down their tools and the legal, military and economic structures of the country would step in to support their decision and deny United Fruit their profits. This was not the situation it was the opposite of the situation.
@salamirterra Sorry, that was a little cryptic. I'm not totally sure what you're driving at with economic interdependence, but what I meant was that power is not purely a function of might (military or otherwise) but can also mean having something that is of value to others (e.g. labor, land, etc.)
I don't really think anyone is not recognizing that the soldiers put their lives on the line, we just doubt the legitimacy of a non-U.N.-sanctioned war of aggression against a nation that by no means ever posed a threat to your country, and although there is (generally accepted) evidence that your government made up the stuff about WMD and a Qaeda link, there are still u.s. Troops in iraq.
*getting prepared for thumbs-down-blizzard by bush-voters*
I liked 1 thing about your comment. You said that it was our government instead of saying WE did it. A lot of people around the world do not realize that many Americans did not support the Iraq War & they start saying that Americans are imperialistic tyrants marching around the world looking for countries to invade. I have to agree that the Iraq War was not good but I think that Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people & the world did nothing about it, America did something
It is good to see that there are still people on youtube to have a decent discussion with, without the use of insults.
Of couse, on the on the one hand, you are right, you kicked Saddam's ass ;.-)
but on the other hand, there are so many cruel dictatorships out there, many of them much easier to "free" than iraq (e.g. some countries in africa), but Bush didn't lift a finger for them, supposedly, because they had none or too little oil to wage war for it cost.-effectively.
And please consider that the U.S. had no carte blanche from the United Nations. After all, it is not without reason that so many european countries were outraged about this behaviour, and that support from industrial countries was the exception.
And after all, you must agree that many americans think the U.S. is the best country in the world. But even so, the U.S.A. has no moral superiority about the rest of the world.
If someone argues their point respectfully then I have no problem listening to them. As an American I think that America is the best country in the world but I think that most people are proud of the country that they call home. I think with Globalization the world will not have countries in the future. One day people will stop seeing themselves as Christian or Muslim, American or Iraqi...they will just see each other as people. Some people say I am just dreaming but I think that is possible.
Ok, I 100% agree on that, I think this is what we all hope. I guess there is still a far way to go, but it is a goal definitely worth pursuing! And Ihope that you will also agree that this can only be achieved by means of education, not by means of war.
Whew I'm not quite used to frequently checking my account inbox since most replies to my in my mind honest and non-provocating posts contain words that I don't even want to pass to a mannered discussant ;)
Yes I agree. I don't like that there are pirates in Somalia that are attacking innocent merchant ships and sometimes even killing innocent people from all countries around the world that are just passing through that area. But what are they going to do? They have no government and the world is not helping or even trying to help. If they don't become pirates they have no food & they die but if they become pirates they become criminals and they risk time in prison or risk being shot to death.
@bezenartw if the soldiers were really fighting for american freedom and liberty they wouldn't be in iraq or afghanistan. They would be at war with the people responsible for the patriot act.
@bezenartw The fact is, if we really felt the government was sending the troops into places that were strategically relevant to the survival of our nation - as was the case in World War II - there would be no argument about this. But how do unarmed civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan threaten our freedoms? We can say the terrorists and insurgents are killing our troops, but that's because our troops are in their country. We should only be sending in the armed forces when it's really necessary.
Those of us who disapprove of US foreign policy and speak out against the actions of the government on these issues have been derided endlessly by cowardly politicians who use the troops as human shields, declaring that any criticism of their policies and political actions is really "an insult to the troops." It was NEVER about the troops; it has always been about the policy-makers. Please, for everyone's sake, don't just blindly believe everything Sean Hannity tells you...
all too many trust in the allmighty freemarket to solve all problems,when it's one of the most problem causing system in the world today.the free market has one job:to profit by whatever means,regardless of the impact on society or the earth.it's run on the assumption that we live in an infinate resource world and it requires a state of perpetual growth to even exist.That means infinate consumption.it thrives on problems because without needs to fill, there are no solutions to sell
moochabod 4 months ago in playlist More videos from illskeptic
@moochabod I don't know what your idea of a free market is, but one of the reasons to have a free market is to allocate resources efficiently, not to profit... Individuals in a free market may want to profit, and if they do so without force, more power to them, but the finite amount of resources is the very reason to have a free market in the first place. You know what causes the false "infinite consumption"? Financial bubbles caused by the fed, not the free market.
VanessaTexasGal 3 months ago
@VanessaTexasGal the end results of any free market are monopolies and cartels, and that's what we're getting. so in our free market society, consolidating farmlands to places that have cheap labor and lands and shipping the goods thousands of miles away is economic? the only efficiancies in a free market are monetary and have no real-world connection.
moochabod 3 months ago
I hate to break it to all the Peace Mongers, but the United States is a VOLUNTEER Military. The troops all volunteered when they joined up. They can quit.
The troops BELIEVE in the cause that they are fighting for.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Pythagoras6 5 months ago in playlist Penn and Teller's Bullshit
@Pythagoras6 They were also most likely bated, like so many others, as naive teenagers, with everything the recruters could possibly muster; trusting the ideas that America has planted in their heads since they were small children.
moochabod 4 months ago in playlist More videos from illskeptic
The only way on youtub you can see tits not fuzzed out, not in surger, not breastfeeding, and not checking for lumps...
do NOT vote this up.
upplsuckimcool16 6 months ago
@cyanmanta Amen!
aFinnsTheory 6 months ago
"The wars, they will be fought again; the holy dove, she will be shot again..."
IoEstasCedonta 10 months ago
1:55 :D
Kelol100 1 year ago
holy shit, i saw tits on youtube
y2kEveryDay 1 year ago
@y2kEveryDay its the golden age
KoopasRevengeHome 1 year ago
woot boobs.
helilienthal 2 years ago
Yet, I believe they censor the breast hysteria episode, even go as far to censor works of art.
ArcturusFan 2 years ago
I must say, even though I love this show, Penn went on an intellectual low here.
"Hitler was a socialist"
NATIONAL-Socialist.
Exclude the "national" part and SHASHAM: Hitler was the guy who saved Germany from grave economic troubles and made the country strong again.
See, the "national" part doesn't usually go so much into the economy itself.
The "socialist" part does, and it fixed Germany.
The "national" part is what dragged Germany down into the shit again.
Hjernespreng 2 years ago
thats not true, he didnt fixed Germany. From economic point of view, what Nazis did was like fixing television by punching it, I mean, right before they invaded us and Poland, they went practically bankrupt. The only thing, that saved Germany from total economic collapse (since Hitler took the power) was war. So hes not really a good example of a good socialist ruler, who fixed the country. It just isnt true
Vocicko 2 years ago
@Vocicko
That had perhaps something to do with the fact that he was preparing for war.
That costs money.
In case you don't remember, Germany was so deep in the shitter when it came to economy that people used bags of money to help start fire in the stove.
Then, enter Hitler.
Declaring war isn't exactly how to save yourself from economic bankruptcy.
That is silly.
Now, yes, Hitler did horrible things, however, most of those things came under the "national" part and not the "socialist".
Hjernespreng 2 years ago
well, thats true, Germany was really deep. But what Hitler did to improve this situation was to start prepare for war and by doing that he gave people jobs. Its that simple and it really doesnt work unless you want to go to war. So, again, Hitler is not very good choice, if youre looking for socialistic economic guru, because he knew absolutely nothing about economics.
Vocicko 2 years ago
@Vocicko
Actually, Hitler recruited hell of a lot of people from foreign countries.
I'm not saying that Hitler was a good choice.
Not at all.
I simply say that to stab at socialism because of Hitler(whom belonged to a different political view) is pretty low.
Hjernespreng 2 years ago
like those exotic austrians, right? come on.. but dont get me wrong, Im not stabbing at socialism by saying that its really not good idea to say Hitlers socialist economic was something good, it wasnt. Thats nothing against socialism (which I really hate, for the record) and Im not writing it, cause it could be somehow morally wrong to agree with Hitler, it isnt. Its just .. "not quite well-informed" to agree with him on economic issues.
Vocicko 2 years ago
@Vocicko
Actually, people from all over the world.
Even America.
Hjernespreng 2 years ago
I admit that I dont really see what are you saying. Surely hiring guy from america is nice from Mr. Hitler, but its different than giving job to good old Helmut, father of large family in desperate situation, which is the reason why many thinks Hitler knew something about economy..
Vocicko 2 years ago
@Vocicko
I'm talking about people who signed up for the German army or even the SS.
Hjernespreng 2 years ago
Yeah, I got that :) but when the country is preparing to war, soldiers are the last thing that bothers you. Hitler didnt made those jobs by recruiting Germans into army, he just boosted production, etc. War isnt just about the guy ho pulls the trigger. So, once again, my point is, dont think Hitler did something amazing (we are talking about economics, of course).
Vocicko 2 years ago
I'm sorry P&T, I disagree. Saying that free trade is the royal road to peace is an incomplete solution at best and as much a part of the problem as part of the solution at worst. Ever heard of a "Banana Republic"? That was the term given to Latin American nations that had become controlled largely by the US corporation United Fruit. It wiped out or absorbed all of its competitors to become a monopoly and manipulated governments for its own ends, often trampling human rights in the process.
geistjagerin 2 years ago
That was all right, until you got to 'trampling human rights'.
FUCK the US; look at the EU. Where is the manipulation there? Nowhere. The EU member states have never warred against each other because they are economically dependent on each other. Free trade makes war impossible, and the situation you listed isn't even trade; you listed an example which involved absolutely no trading between countries at all.
Why? Because you don't want the answer to be that economic.
salamirterra 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand; how is killing employees for striking not trampling on human rights? I'm referring of course to the infamous Banana Massacre.
And how is this not an example of trade? South American laborers were selling the products of their labor to Americans. (Note, today United Fruit goes by the name Chiquita Brands International).
Maybe you don't like the US, but you can't ignore it as an example, especially given that P&T are American.
geistjagerin 2 years ago
Penn and Teller said
"Economic inter-dependence creates world peace"
And yet your example doesn't involve any sort of economic interdependency, in fact it specifically cites an example which proves precisely what happens when a very powerful group is not in any-way dependent on a smaller group trying to oppose them; the smaller group gets killed.
And yeah; it's an example of trade. But the trade was between the fruit company and the US. Who got killed? Colombian workers.
salamirterra 2 years ago
So I'm afraid I have to ignore it as an example.
In order to coherently argue your point you'd have to cite an example of one group who was economically dependent on another group exterminating that group.
Your example involves one group who is economically dependent on another group executing a third group who it was not economically dependent on.
I have to discount this as a valid example because it really doesn't address the point being made at all.
salamirterra 2 years ago
@salamirterra I'm not sure I understand; United Fruit was doing business in Latin America because that was where the crops were grown. So there was an economic interdependence; in fact, it was rather one way because the US depended on the labor of people in these countries but they did not depend on the US. That's what domination is. You don't exterminate the group you depend on economically because that doesn't make sense; you just kill enough of them that the rest are too scared to revolt.
geistjagerin 1 year ago
You have got to be kidding me. You think that the WORKERS had the power, yet United Fruit was still able to kill them?
Do you have no comprehension of what the term 'economic interdependence' means? Economic interdependence would mean that the workers could put down their tools and the legal, military and economic structures of the country would step in to support their decision and deny United Fruit their profits. This was not the situation it was the opposite of the situation.
salamirterra 1 year ago
@salamirterra I see you are not familiar with the Master/Slave dialectic.
geistjagerin 1 year ago
@salamirterra Sorry, that was a little cryptic. I'm not totally sure what you're driving at with economic interdependence, but what I meant was that power is not purely a function of might (military or otherwise) but can also mean having something that is of value to others (e.g. labor, land, etc.)
geistjagerin 1 year ago
yay titties
Raptors09999 2 years ago
Only penn and teller can make a documenty funny 5 *****
danmanlott 2 years ago
@danmanlott And Michael Moore
askesl 2 years ago
Btw no I am not american (as you may have already noticed due to my english) so please don't bully your friendly neighborhood democrat in my stead ;)
gabbergandalf667 2 years ago
I don't really think anyone is not recognizing that the soldiers put their lives on the line, we just doubt the legitimacy of a non-U.N.-sanctioned war of aggression against a nation that by no means ever posed a threat to your country, and although there is (generally accepted) evidence that your government made up the stuff about WMD and a Qaeda link, there are still u.s. Troops in iraq.
*getting prepared for thumbs-down-blizzard by bush-voters*
gabbergandalf667 2 years ago 2
I liked 1 thing about your comment. You said that it was our government instead of saying WE did it. A lot of people around the world do not realize that many Americans did not support the Iraq War & they start saying that Americans are imperialistic tyrants marching around the world looking for countries to invade. I have to agree that the Iraq War was not good but I think that Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people & the world did nothing about it, America did something
andyrooney11 2 years ago
:)
It is good to see that there are still people on youtube to have a decent discussion with, without the use of insults.
Of couse, on the on the one hand, you are right, you kicked Saddam's ass ;.-)
but on the other hand, there are so many cruel dictatorships out there, many of them much easier to "free" than iraq (e.g. some countries in africa), but Bush didn't lift a finger for them, supposedly, because they had none or too little oil to wage war for it cost.-effectively.
gabbergandalf667 2 years ago
And please consider that the U.S. had no carte blanche from the United Nations. After all, it is not without reason that so many european countries were outraged about this behaviour, and that support from industrial countries was the exception.
And after all, you must agree that many americans think the U.S. is the best country in the world. But even so, the U.S.A. has no moral superiority about the rest of the world.
If you read this far congrats :D
gabbergandalf667 2 years ago
If someone argues their point respectfully then I have no problem listening to them. As an American I think that America is the best country in the world but I think that most people are proud of the country that they call home. I think with Globalization the world will not have countries in the future. One day people will stop seeing themselves as Christian or Muslim, American or Iraqi...they will just see each other as people. Some people say I am just dreaming but I think that is possible.
andyrooney11 2 years ago
Ok, I 100% agree on that, I think this is what we all hope. I guess there is still a far way to go, but it is a goal definitely worth pursuing! And Ihope that you will also agree that this can only be achieved by means of education, not by means of war.
Whew I'm not quite used to frequently checking my account inbox since most replies to my in my mind honest and non-provocating posts contain words that I don't even want to pass to a mannered discussant ;)
gabbergandalf667 2 years ago
Yes I agree. I don't like that there are pirates in Somalia that are attacking innocent merchant ships and sometimes even killing innocent people from all countries around the world that are just passing through that area. But what are they going to do? They have no government and the world is not helping or even trying to help. If they don't become pirates they have no food & they die but if they become pirates they become criminals and they risk time in prison or risk being shot to death.
andyrooney11 2 years ago
Thank you for your courage and sacrifice. I must have sucked to fight in either of those places let alone both. You have my respect sir.
bezenartw 2 years ago
I feel bad for that Cindy chick you know her son dying and all but who the fuck does she expect to fight for her freedom, puppy dogs and rainbows?
bezenartw 2 years ago 15
@bezenartw if the soldiers were really fighting for american freedom and liberty they wouldn't be in iraq or afghanistan. They would be at war with the people responsible for the patriot act.
vicious12394 1 year ago
@bezenartw her son (being ine the army) obviously got that.
TheNima55 1 year ago
@bezenartw The fact is, if we really felt the government was sending the troops into places that were strategically relevant to the survival of our nation - as was the case in World War II - there would be no argument about this. But how do unarmed civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan threaten our freedoms? We can say the terrorists and insurgents are killing our troops, but that's because our troops are in their country. We should only be sending in the armed forces when it's really necessary.
cyanmanta 8 months ago
Those of us who disapprove of US foreign policy and speak out against the actions of the government on these issues have been derided endlessly by cowardly politicians who use the troops as human shields, declaring that any criticism of their policies and political actions is really "an insult to the troops." It was NEVER about the troops; it has always been about the policy-makers. Please, for everyone's sake, don't just blindly believe everything Sean Hannity tells you...
cyanmanta 8 months ago 2
@bezenartw lol
BlameRepublicans 3 months ago in playlist Penn and Teller's Bullshit
New ep. in 2 days. Will anybody post it here?
bach421 2 years ago
"... get dressed, put on some clothes, stop acting like prostitutes and get a job thank you."
ROFL.
suppozed 2 years ago 4
Melanie Morgan kinda reminds me of Ilsa She Wolf of the SS
ashesgilbert 2 years ago 3
I'm surprised they didn't point out that the idiot talking about peace and his family WAS TALKING ABOUT A LOVE-IN IN HIS BED WITH HIS KIDS.
Peace is incestuous pedophilia?
Elhaym6 3 years ago 4
you bet it is! lol
Danne23456 2 years ago
Jesus fucking Christ! Pause it at 8:31 and prepare to be scared! Damn, that woman is straight out of an Alfred Hitchcock horror film!
andyrooney11 3 years ago 3
Is Teller like silent bob? I havent watched this show much, but I enjoy it.
Justafoth 3 years ago 3
No, he's better.
TheStig000 3 years ago 11
Watch the bible episode. Best in series!
Hamhark98 3 years ago
Yea, that one was amazing. I think it's become pretty infamous.
slytown 2 years ago
hahaha teller revving the chainsaw
smappyrulz 3 years ago
i love this show so fucking much. thank you.
reader555 3 years ago 4
thank you so much
jcpowpow 3 years ago 2