Matt Damon HISTORY and Aniboom present The People Speak

Matt Damon presents The History Channel spot promoting Anibooms The People Speak Competition.
Calling for The People to have your voice heard and vote on the six finalists.

Let us know who you think deserves the grand prize.
Check out the six finalists and for more info go to: http://www.aniboom.com/history

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• matt damon
• history
• contest
• aniboom
• animation
• history channel

[geraldx777]

the killers all these things that i've done

[thefatman69dude]

matttttttt dammmmmmmmoooonnnnnn

[Hunterkirk]

@socrates757 Yes and China employs a Slave work force that are required to work at industrial complexes and live and eat at those factory. If your argument is that Communism and Socialism can be more productive then Capitalism the answer is yes they can. But they must do so by making the work force in to slaves. In Germany WW2 the Socialist took over control of the private sector and employed slave labor and produced a lot of stuff. Like wise in the USSR and now in China. Are you for this?

[Hunterkirk]

@socrates757 There is another myth "scarce resources" many times when the government starts to regulate it MAKES the resources scarce. In 90% of the cases if the free market is left to their own efforts resources become more plentiful not scarcer. This is because in a free market it promotes finding new resources and lower costs. All the monopolies found in the private sector are a result of Government regulations, often installed by companies thru politicians to protect their wealth.

[Hunterkirk]

@socrates757 "corporations have only as much say as other owners " Yes and in a free market system the owners are the stock holders. They people who paid in to the company and share the risk of financial loss should the company fail. But should the State control the company by regulation the State does not loose a dine should their regulations drive the company out of business. Nor does the State loose their jobs when they drive the company out of business.

[Hunterkirk]

@socrates757 Wrong air, drinking water, and etc ARE NOT OWNED BY THE PEOPLE. In the case of drinking water it has to be produced by someone. You can in a free society choose to get your own source of drinking water by drilling a well, OR you can by in to the water provided by the water companies. It is owned first by the water company and second by the person who pays for the water. Air can not be owned by anyone and it can not be regulated by the State.

[Hunterkirk]

@socrates757 You argued that because there is a risk that what a company does may effect others it should be regulated by the socialist state. That logic is founded in the idea that because their is a risk of a side effect the State does not want it requires the State to control the individuals doing those things. That can be applied to either a business or to people in general as the line separating the two is often tiny if not non-existent.

[socrates757]

@Hunterkirk I will help you out with understanding the difference between capitalism and socialism. In simple form, the difference is based on how best to utilize scarce resources. Capitalism holds the best means is to encourage competition for resources. Socialism argues competition is ruinous, resources should not be competitively distributed (state-owned, communally-owned, no ownership, etc). There are many versions of both and each fits nicely within a variety of political systems.

[socrates757]

@Hunterkirk The problem with our economy, like any market driven economy is how to avoid the boom and bust cycles that are inherent in such economies. A capitalist economy generally speaking will develope and increase production over-time. It is more difficult to sustain growth through state-directed development that is market oriented-but can still happen as with China. Your list of reasons affect economic growth, but I ask at what cost shall we remove such restrictions as taxes and regulations

[socrates757]

@Hunterkirk I also do not know what you mean by 'socialist economy' China's economic development is 'state-directed' whereby they invest heavily in specific industries and open up investment in key areas (though the outcome depends on market forces). Relative to population, they are still too poor to concern itself with the 'moral' outcome. In any case the U.S. is not a socialist economy albeit some socialist tendencies (free education) and the long-term future is still good.

[socrates757]

@Hunterkirk I am not sure what you mean by 'free market' If you mean laissez-faire-it has never existed. If you mean without governmental intrusion or regulation (allowing for protectionism such as tariffs)-it still has not existed. Read up on the economic history and development of 19th century U.S. If you mean the transition from freedom of contract to rights of interested parties that process began with the Lochner dissent (1905) but still serves as a legal basis (just not the only one).

[socrates757]

@Hunterkirk What you are proposing, the implications of which are evident to any thinking person, in the last statement, is that a community and society ought to be beholden to those that own the means of production in the sense that whatever one desires to produce they ought to produce it. Let the market decide. However, as I see it, production is only one aspect of a community and to give production such control-socialist or capitalist-is tyranny in its complete definition!