Upload

Capitalism Needs Regulation - Why Max Keiser is Correct and Libertarians are Mistaken!

by Stefan Molyneux • 45,685 views

Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, does a couch review of a recent article by Jason Hamlin....

All things need to be regulated be they life, family, work or economic systems. The question is what should be the source of regulation. Should regulation come the participants of the system or by outside parties who seek to intervene for reasons separate from the workings of the system.
Report spam or abuse
So melodramatic. Everyone wants to come over here for a reason. We have it great. Stop complaining; Get a life!!!
Report spam or abuse
+Flim Flam I think the thing that has offered the most success to people in this country before the tech generation was war. War. War. Oh and exploiting natives and blacks.
Report spam or abuse
+Nick Pagano I would say those things benefitted the upper class and the elites of the country, exploitation of blacks benefitted economic succesors in the south very much, same with the Natives raping and killing all of them did wonders for European aristocrats, and war has always been profitable to the top 1% and it will be that way so long as we condone the current condition
Report spam or abuse
Libertarianism is anarchy with its hair combed.
Report spam or abuse
+arthur131313 Yes, that's what makes it good.
Report spam or abuse
the federal reserve is not part of the government in the US.  I am pretty sure that applies to most other countries.
Report spam or abuse
You may have a point now, in the QE era, but there was a real problem in the period leading up to it - the banking crisis - and we should not ignore the contributions to that mess. At that time the money supply was controlled by the private banks, who inflated it in pursuit of 'easy' returns in financial products like mortgages and CDOs. The governments/CBs had little or no control over them. Banks don't need money in order to lend it - because lending creates deposits, just as much as deposits fund lending. And interest rates and reserve requirements don't work, as CBs the world over have acknowledged.
Report spam or abuse
yeah..like Wall st would accept this communistic,socialistic monetary control...who does the state hire to oversee these matters?...are they not free marketeers?
Report spam or abuse
Stefan you're blindfolded by your hatred of state... The truth is private companies do influence and prevent free market by indeed interfering with government and monopolizing the market.. Liberalism will collapse under its own contradictions just like communism did..
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
High demand and a low supply will cause prices to skyrocket. Apple vs Microsoft. Personally I believe people should replace their Window systems with open source and run a proxy. The only reason to buy windows over open source is Gaming. Open source range from free to 40$. Window price 150-250$ could be higher currently. Word perfect 100 dollars . Open source has a free program that is similar free. Video quality and sound is often better then windows on open source you could blow your speakers out so be careful. Window is full of vulnerability hackers can exploits. Their is something like 50.000 Trojan and virus that can infect and damage a windows system. Very few internet viruses that can infect open source operation systems. You have dozens of open source operation systems to choose from.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
insurance,insurance..haven't the ins. companies proved beyond any doubt that they will do triple back somersaults NOT to pay up...you have a rose tinted view of the 'benign'  attributes of the market Stephane..it just doesn't add up.. their overt desire to own a Lear jet may well advance the species  but there has to a better way
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
3:12 and 3:40 Have me confused - I thought interest rates and money supply were handled by the Federal Reserve which I hear isn't part of the government...?
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
I agree with much of the ends (the consensus) but not with the means (the arguments). It is infuriating to no end... It is like an echo chamber where absolute nonsense is babbled off without any objection. Stefan is talking about U.S. currency, interests rates and the like being under the all-powerful auspices of government. No, I don't think so... That is the realm of the Federal Reserve and it's members. Government currently has little to no involvement in that. Another argument that has been repeated is to blame the game and not the players. Yes, lobbying may technically be legal but much of what it entails in reality is almost certainly not. The last argument of the series was simply to deride folks who don't have entrepreneurial experience like Mr. Molyneux and to discredit the veracity of their arguments on that lack of experience alone. That my friend is absolute rubbish. I can agree on a number of things you've brought up, like the difficultly of hiring solid talent, the significant investment that it entails, etc. That's all fine and dandy, but please don't use the aforementioned argument. You may have experience in business but you certainly don't have experience running a multinational, bribing politicians (yes, bribing), or anything of the sort. You also don't have any experience running a country or being a sovereign citizen in a free world... So perhaps you should try that out before you are certified to make any arguments concerning said topic? Yes, I'm sure if you thought more about what you said, you'd realize how nonsensical it was.
Report spam or abuse
Stephan, your blind trust and faith in corporations is very quaint. Showing true colors.
Report spam or abuse
I believe he's wrong. The so-called Federal Reserve , controls interest rates and prints our money for a fee!!! The Federal Reserve is not federal(research who owns and runs it) and it has no reserves. The government gave up it's right to coin money when the federal reserve act was passed in 1913..It is called a constitutional  infringement which the government had no right doing. If the government printed the US dollar the tax payers wouldn't have to make the interest payments on the money. I would keep an eye on the "quantitative easing". I believe it's at $85billion a month,   I don't trust what he has to say, ........PROPAGANDA ,
Report spam or abuse
Its videos like this that make me wonder if when Stefan sounds right its broken clock syndrome or if his surging popularity has led to the inevitable narcissism sophistry that goes with celebrity once you realize you have an audience. He totally nailed it in this video, perfectly.  Immensely.  This is why he became famous. And yet all the pop psychology Freudian silliness and vague generalities defending charlatans like Ayn Rand and telling scientists to be content e-begging thrown in with appeals to emotion about war, ignoring its universal occurrence and virtual defining existence of WHY states come into existence in all pre-industrial societies that have cultural exchanges, he sounds more and more like a right wing talk show host vs. the CIA on shortwave all the time.  Sometimes I think he needs to go back and watch stuff like this and realize three fingers point back at you for a reason.
Report spam or abuse
The alternative to regulation is tort.  If you harm someone, you pay, strict liability.  Businesses and people who wish to remain solvent and free will guard against and include in the costs foreseen consequences plus insurance against unforeseen consequences with strict liability against all parties.  The only requirement to stay in business is to have an insurer willing to look at your business and take the risk.  And the only involvement of the state is to shut your doors if that doesn't happen. Driver's licenses should be issued by insurers rather than the state.  The cost of the license depends on your risk.  And the car won't start without your license card.
Report spam or abuse
Violence, or the threat of it, is the ONLY solution to ALL problems, by the state, against the state and without the state.  It is the reason for the state.  Everything else is just the fine print that follows from violence or the threat of it.  Anything that can be done without violence was never a problem at all.
Report spam or abuse
+weltarchiv4 You don't understand the principle then. The NAP does not preclude violence in self defense, or as a deterrence.  So you're right, but wrong in the context of libertarianism as opposed to statism. And the person that began this post, does not understand that violence is never a solution, even if it is justified. At best you clean up all the shit, but if you haven't changed people's minds through reason or logic or culture, you are simply buying time until another nightmare situation happens. Violence in totality does not solve problems. He's probably just trying to sound edgy.
Report spam or abuse
+Didivs Ivlianvs "Violence, or the threat of it, is the ONLY solution to ALL problems, by the state, against the state and without the state." Then why have a state if it doesn't solve this problem (as it reduces economic growth and personal freedom)?
Report spam or abuse
Short answer aside from govt. Controlling money supply and interext rates there is the primary issue address ing the question or comment and that is that govrrnment policy makes monopolies posible through laws that benefit corporations over smaller competitors, without govt. Giving the power to corporations. There would be no monopoly, period, walmart get tax breaks while ittle joe store does not in turn the walmarts can pass the savings down to customers with cheaper prices while little joe has to maintain his higher prices, just one example....plus the guy who presented stefan with the question made the assumption that capitalism is the problem when in actuality croni corporate monopolies is at fault for sustaining enslavement, making it impossible for little joe to compete because of govt. Policies that give most power to croni corporate monopoly based enterprises
Report spam or abuse
if there is no government to govern giant corporations what other force could?  how about when nestle is calling to label water as a "food good" and people (especially the impoverished)  have no representation or choice?  this person has too much faith in corporations.  "just get insurance"  really?
Report spam or abuse
+gideondavid30 Us because we can vote them out.
Report spam or abuse
What does "nestle is calling to label water as a "food good"" mean? Is there some government imposed category system that they want to put water in to promote sales? Without government, people categorize water as water. They demand that it be clean enough to drink, but categorizing it as a "food good"? What would that mean in a free market? In a free market, the poor don't need any representation. They do have choice. In capitalist countries, even the poorest have some money, and they have the choice of where to spend it. They also have the choice of where to work. Government more often than not takes away such choices with minimum wage and other regulation.
Report spam or abuse
THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS NOT THE GOVERMENT! It is controlled by private banks moron. Congress has no control over the Fed. Just because the government can apoint people to the board means nothing. We need to nationalize the Fed so we can create credit for infrastructure and job creation. It pays itself off in the long run.
Report spam or abuse
"Look, it certainly is true that there are people in the corporate world who try to lobby politicians to get preferential advantages. Of course they will. But that's the game that has been set up. That is how you profit in a free market environment." Well, that's the whole point of the article he is attacking. That's how you skew the playing field: and the more this happens the less distinction there is between government and the corporate world. It's a giant fascist circle jerk, and none of this has anything to do with consumers, supply and demand, or any of that other rot that supposedly controls the marketplace. If you increase the size of the net, you have to do it for both sides. Corporate lobbyists are  convincing  bribing politicians to just increase the size of their opponent's nets, not their own.
Report spam or abuse
Anarcho-capitalism, should be good. A minimum wage should not exist, but, you gonna may work in another factory that also pays you under the minimum wage, but its should be voluntary, and that is a big difference! You also gonna have the chance work 80 hours a week, totally voluntary! And also, the best, you not must pay rent, you may live in a house of the boss, it's gonna be real freedom, you not must pay bills, the boss gonna deduct it from your wage, voluntary! The real freedom, you not must think about something, it's gonna be all arranged by your boss, VOLUNTARY!!!!!
Report spam or abuse
To Stefan Molyneux: You said, in your video, Capitalism Needs Regulation - Why Max Keiser is Correct and Libe: I’m not sure whether you or Keiser said this, “The government controls the money supply and government controls interest rates.”  However, in the U.S. the private bank, created in 1913, does control both; which the Rothschild’s have an influencing effect.  This is part of the failure of any free market, and the growth of government power.
Report spam or abuse
That's not a free market, that's the government protecting a monopoly. This is a huge blind spot on your part.
Report spam or abuse
LOL "you buy insurance". just buy insurance for EVERYTHING!!!!! could you please explain how an insurance company will enforce another company to change their bad business practices? Its not like they have guns right...
Report spam or abuse
Crashes in the banking system predate the Federal Reserve. In fact, they occurred at a frequency of about every 15 years since our country's founding. Unless, Libertarianism seeks to remove systems of banking entirely, which I see no alternative for in a capitalistic society, then it's tough to reason how a market can ever be completely free. 
Report spam or abuse
There was central banking before the Federal Reserve too.
Report spam or abuse
You jerk the big corporations buy off the politicians.  Defending the lobbyers are u nuts
Report spam or abuse
Stefan you are way off on this. "How is Microsoft rigging the system". Give me 66 billion dollars in cash reserves and shit will happen. Government indeed has issues and small government is good government, but you are completely blind to think, "people will just get together and it'll be all good". If a company rips me off, I don't want them to just rip off the next person down the line and if transactions occur at a high frequency one could make a lot of money before people realised they were ripped off, without ever having any responsibility for this, then take that money to create my next scam, probably a bigger one. Also, you refute the claim that corporations have been rigging the system, yet IN THE VERY SAME SENTENCE state the corporations bought off politicians.... dumb mate.
Report spam or abuse
So when you do review couches?
Report spam or abuse
I'm a bit confused, is Stefan an anarcho-capitalist? Does anarcho-capitalism usually propose new regulations?
Report spam or abuse
The US Government has no control of its money creation, IT IS CREATED BY THE FED - A PRIVATE BANK. It has never had its books audited.
Report spam or abuse
You say the other side to be intellectually dishonest. And go on ranting how the lobbying is good for the people. 
Report spam or abuse
I was a bit worried challenging this chap cos I have seen vids of his which impressed me and seem to me to be full of accurate stats. indicating  future serious economic problems HOWEVER Starting at around 10:00 his comment on lobbying/Sherman anti trust act/monopoly is patently absurd. I double checked. It is ABSURD ! He said in your 'own life you don't lobby/change the law when you have had a bad business experience You go elsewhere. Monopoly ensures that this is not possible !!! How about those firms that paid employees in vouchers only redeemable at the firm. Lets not regulate that. It can be seen as interfering with one side of the free the FREE market. Global free markets in manufacture while consistent to a degree with free market capitalism  are not in the interest of the masses of those states where living standards are reasonably high. Go to Detroit if you think I am wrong. Like wise with fee movement of labour in the EU. When authoritarian communism diminished in the Soviet Union unemployment/poverty increased exponentially and some republics resorted to force to try for independence. My point ? 'Freedom' may be seen to be a buzz word not without serious negative consequences.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Lobbying might not be murder and it might not be inherently evil, but it IS often stretched far beyond scrupulous uses.
Report spam or abuse
As for insurance companies, they do not insure where they are not going to make enough on premiums to pay the sales force, executives, share-holders and a small number of claims; or they will cease to be viable, maybe into bankruptcy:  Resulting in most risks being out of insurance coverage tolerance; all depending on such things as geo.-location, age, sex, working, or maybe being retired, et cetera. When buying insurance is not an available solution for extremely integrated and complex operations, which have potentially negative conclusions, there must be an alert citizenry and or government to manage as well as regulate to prevent destructive consequences.  For example; the financial collapse of 2008:  Regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission not only failed to do any monitoring of what money managers were doing, the regulators failed to understand the integrated activities of what could be manipulated with the ultimate consequences occurring in 2008. If the government regulators knew what they were doing then they belong in PRISON! As of today, 2 April 2014, there has been no correction and no change at the SEC to prevent a repeat of the money manipulation of schemers and criminal attitudes of 2008.
Report spam or abuse
It seems to me that in the first few minutes the arguments presented are either dubious ,false or arse backwards. The US Fed. reserve is privately owned. It sets interest as I understand things. The government could issue money for nothing. PRIVATE banks issue money at interest. I think it is true that most money is in the form of bank deposits issued by PRIVATE banks. If I am correct then the supply of money is in PRIVATE hands Quantitative easing was NOT the cause of the financial collapse . PRIVATE financial corporations trading, quite likely fraudulently... was. The initial indication which meant the the whole charade could no longer be papered over came when PRIVATELY owned insurance houses ran in to major difficulties. and eventually collapsed. The value of what was insured, ie PRIVATELY generated financial 'assets' was guaranteed by PRIVATELY owned finance. If government had any responsibilities in the problems they occurred for not doing what this chap says they shouldn't do anyway ie REGULATE both the financial system and large size corporate activity. Governments have failed financially by allowing unsustainable debt and future commitments to accumulate. Representative 'democracy' cannot work to solve all this due to the blatantly dishonest demagoguery underpinning ie  hide the truth to get votes. To set the cat amongst the pigeons and give any who cant face facts and prefer to shoot the messenger 1930's Germany was NOT revitalised by phony democratic methods. Two party politics allows the smart to bamboozle .the electorate. and the train wreck to cyclically return. Am I wrong ?
Report spam or abuse
stefan - as a voluntaryist i don't see your analogy between widening the soccer net and the introduction of lobbying as legitimate. widening the net in soccer is not immoral, but lobbying can most certainly be immoral. think of obamacare - written behind closed doors by insurance companies for their own benefit, then stamped with obama's seal of approval. this bill is going to kill people - ie it is immoral. an apt analogy would be if the rules of soccer were changed to allow players to carry daggers and kill each other. would the players who then "followed the new rules" just be playing by the rules of the game? i think not - sure the rules would permit murder, but each person is still responsible for their own actions. obviously the problem is still the government - without government there would be nobody to lobby. so eliminating government is still the solution. and of course if lobbying is profitable then those who are seeking to make a profit will use whatever means they can to do so (including lobbying). but i'm saying that lobbyists are not blameless here - at least not where their actions violate the nap - which i think is often if not always.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
I'm a bit confused, is Stefan an anarcho-capitalist? Does anarcho-capitalism usually propose new regulations?
Report spam or abuse
+Guy Potts  no hes saying that regulation can exist in a free market system but through a non coercive means. His example of the insurance company against environmental pollution is an excellent example of how regulation can exist in a free market system.
Report spam or abuse
Thanks for the clarification, I was honestly just confused.
Report spam or abuse
Let's go back to that thing that Nathan Mayer Rothschild my said : "The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply". Well isn't that a bitch !! And I can't believe I'm re saying this for the 100th time but ... dammit is so true.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
i used to be an anarchist when i was younger, and you know not what you are inviting into the fold.  just sound like your hatin the government because it have failed in America. You should be quite glad, because those corrupting the government is the big freemarket players you love to talk about.  I find your anarchist notions distasteful because you never seems to explain the consequences of this total free world. Is the military going to be privatized? what about weapons of mass destruction? Does money hold the same value? will there be wars for resources? and who is gonna punish crime, some private company? You seem not to fathom what will happen when people resolve into chaos, and what will happen when riot starts?  what about slave work? Your idea seems to impress a lot of people, but you are talking about an utopia in which no one is mean to each other, and all get along, and no one is cheating in a deal. This is impossible. But i forgot you where a extreme libertarian, who cant or wont see the consequences. Forever blinded of the glamorous fantasy of never ending resources and everybody acting completely rational.  Still you spite those you deem lesser. Let it be known that few will attain power and wealth, and for every winner there is alot of losers. In anarchy the weak will perish or rise up to crumble those who have plenty.
Report spam or abuse
I'd really love to see you in a long interview with Cenk Uygur from The Young Turks (or vice-versa.) I think it would be really instructive for the people. You both are very respecting and prudent guys and seeing your lines of thought side-by-side would be great.
Report spam or abuse
the black experience: lol just go play some basketball, as I did and do you will understand soon enuf that free market is only answer
Report spam or abuse
The reference of toxic waste is related to an incident which happened in India, I think, but memory may be wrong; about the Dow Chemical Corp.
Report spam or abuse
Federal Reserve is a private entity Stefan, They control the money and interest rates, and their positions are not subject to public elections.
Report spam or abuse
I'd recommend Chomsky's 'On Anarchy'
Report spam or abuse
Padrick Mack Zulueta Shared on Google+ · 1 year ago
Check out this video on YouTube:
Report spam or abuse
The CDR scam is just one example of the free market damage without regulation, credit card debt is the private sector.
Report spam or abuse
What people call "corporatism", "state capitalism" or "monopoly capitalism" is actually what Adam Smith, the father of classical economics, would have simply called "capitalism". Capitalism is control of the market and government by those who control capital. It is a system brought about by capitalist classes, who seek monopoly, subsidies, protectionist regulations, and oppose free markets and cooperative economics. They influence the politics and culture of a society with their power, rather than letting society and markets exist as a spontaneous order driven by demand and produced by labor and supply. The Commercial Society or Free Market System is what Adam Smith spoke about, and he always used those phrases when referring to the system for a reason. He would no more call the Free Market/Commercial Society by the name of "Laborism" than "Capitalism". People who talk about "capitalism" and "free markets", especially of the libertarian and conservative variety, should probably educate themselves on Adam Smith's book, Wealth of Nations, and his progressive views of the commonwealth(government), markets, and individual freedom. The world is under a sustained attack right now by the ruling class of various industries, which are determined to push us back to a time before those ideas of the era of enlightenment, in which people questioned the deeply entrenched power of the few over the many. While people debate about this and that specific issue, they are perhaps forgetting that the causes of many modern problems are a direct result of the regression to pre-Englightened moral and economic philosophy. The identity of the benefactors of this regression is plainly obvious when you look at the increasingly upward distribution of wealth growth to the higher classes, and the decreasing share held by the laboring majority despite increases in productivity and profitability.
Report spam or abuse
How about Apple, Microsoft, and IBM (I think) agreeing not to hire people who quit from each other? Some of their former employees had to sue them for that, I hear. So there you have it; company-to-company shenanigans. And I mean, I think it's fair if the companies do that, but don't you think it's better to the employees if governments disallow such things?
Report spam or abuse
cure is get money out of government, so lobbysts cant get anything
Report spam or abuse
*Rigging the system is not a reflection of evil corporations doing evil. Multinational corporations utilize the state to impose their will; to do everything they can ensure financial growth. This is an issue of human faction, and tyranny of the minority. The state is not the only group willing and able to use military force to continue and expand their way of life. Governments compete with one another to make sure the multinational corporations are contributing revenue and other resources that benefit its' citizens. Social groups and factions compete over resources, governments, armies, violence etc... are simply tools of tyranny, caused by limited resources. How do you enforce regulation without government? Probably with a group of people who benefit from such regulation, who pool resources to create an institution to oversee and enforce such regulation. Just like taxes. You're creating an entity with more authority than corporations and individuals to oversee, regulate, and enforce the demands of the majority. Like a government. The solution in free markets is always "buy". Your car is stolen? Should have bought insurance. Insurance doesn't cover it? Should have bought better insurance. Or a train ticket. The only action you can take is to shop somewhere else. Got a crap job? Should have bought an education. Or a better one. Or a different one. It removes all collective responsibility of the society to the individual. What if market forces have limited your childhood development with poverty and less than mediocre education. Without the tools to accumulate capital, you're screwed. Without capital to accumulate tools, you're screwed. An insurance payment away from poverty or worse.  Don't like your govt? Buy I MEAN ELECT a new one. We can see how well that works out. U.S. Congress approval rating is... 5%? 
Report spam or abuse
"How does Microsoft 'rig the system' when they have no military?" I'll explain If I'm Microsoft and I realize that a certain set of legal conditions or rules will benifit me in relation to my competitors and prevent new competition then I pay into a fund with other businesses with similar interests that lobbies legislators to ensure that a  poorly informed populace votes only for those legislators who will alter the rules in my favor. If I'm an investor/shareholder in Microsoft and I realize that market competition reduces the profit portion of Microsofts revenue, I can increase my own wealth by paying into a fund that lobbies/bribes legislators to create an economic system that allows established businesses to play with the rules of the game more easily and to enter into agreements with other established businesses to provide less services for higher costs. In an ideal free market Microsoft must compete with other businesses by keeping quality high and prices low while still making some profit, and this is the primary determining factor in Microsofts success or collapse. However in an ideal system for Microsofts shareholders nobody currently having significant market share needs to compete. Instead they must join secret agreements to gradually raise their prices or lower their quality while still maintaining an outward appearance of competition just well enough to avoid getting busted by bribed officials in the FTC.
Report spam or abuse
Unless you or someone else has an idea of how to prevent human nature from running it's natural course without some kind of state, stateless societies will continue to run the course of human nature as it appears in stateless societies.  In the absence of a stateless solution to the problems of human nature we just have to do our best to wrest enough power from ruling elites to set up and enforce rules that limit their power. Or are you proposing that everyone carry equal firepower? If so, then how would we ensure that it stays that way?
Report spam or abuse
Your comment betrays a Hobbesian mindset, a war of all against all. Philosopher Michael Huemer has a reply to this thinking. He says, in short, that most people would not go around indiscriminately attacking and killing others in a state of nature simply because their chances of being killed in the process are significant. Tom Woods, in his latest e-book, has a conversation with Michael Huemer where they discuss this very topic. Read his answer for yourself. Better yet, read his book (The Problem of Political Authority). I am not only proposing that people carry equal firepower to the State's, I am certain that our failure to do so has brought us to this very point in our history. You have to realize that the State came about, not through market processes but, in the vast majority of cases, through conquest. Civil society, i.e., society that was functioning just fine without a State, predated most States. The State can't exist without first having something to exploit and plunder. How would we ensure that everyone is equally armed? I think people will take care of that themselves, especially if they realize that self-defense is their responsibility unless they come together to contract with some other entity to procure defense services on the market. The State is not like a market-driven provider. it is a parasite and a plunderer. I don't know why you have to bring up such weak arguments. These objections have been answered countless times before. It's not like they comprise some secret knowledge. Look around you and see how well the State has done in preserving our liberties. Surely we can do better.
Report spam or abuse
Stephan,,, I refer you to the book, The Monster from Jekyle Island, by G.Edward Griffin. the government has not been in charge of the money since 1913.
Report spam or abuse
the FED is not a government agency, they are above government. They enjoy the enforcement power of the government but are not subject to its rule - They are above the checks and balances that each branch of government is subjected to. They are elite profiteers, mostly devil worshipping parasitic racist Jews with an ideology of genocide of non-jews and free to operate IN OUR COUNTRY behind closed doors with total impunity. Could one even invent a more sinister arrangement? and this guy thinks that the government is the problem. wtf?
Report spam or abuse
i used to be an anarchist when i was younger, and you know not what you are inviting into the fold.  just sound like your hatin the government because it have failed in America. You should be quite glad, because those corrupting the government is the big freemarket players you love to talk about.  I find your anarchist notions distasteful because you never seems to explain the consequences of this total free world. Is the military going to be privatized? what about weapons of mass destruction? Does money hold the same value? will there be wars for resources? and who is gonna punish crime, some private company? You seem not to fathom what will happen when people resolve into chaos, and what will happen when riot starts?  what about slave work? Your idea seems to impress a lot of people, but you are talking about an utopia in which no one is mean to each other, and all get along, and no one is cheating in a deal. This is impossible. But i forgot you where a extreme libertarian, who cant or wont see the consequences. Forever blinded of the glamorous fantasy of never ending resources and everybody acting completely rational.  Still you spite those you deem lesser. Let it be known that few will attain power and wealth, and for every winner there is alot of losers. In anarchy the weak will perish or rise up to crumble those who have plenty.
Report spam or abuse
You can't buy insurance for something you don't know about.
Report spam or abuse
So you have studied every disease and medical condition your medical insurance covers? You buy it to cover everything in an area, say health or pollution, then they compete to cover more health conditions or more types of pollution so they can use it for PR and marketing.
Report spam or abuse
Lobbyists have no power. Only politicians have the power to create laws, and it should be obvious should want the ability to influence these people.
Report spam or abuse
i think stefan here is the one confused. sure, you can just say "well, corporations lobby, that's normal" etc. but the fact is these large companies DO use bribery to affect the legislation - which i'm not sure is illegal but it must be in some cases - and to aggressively push their own agenda to gain monopoly over others. if you can't see there's a revolving door between investment banks and high government jobs you're utterly blind. that's immoral. you're using guns against other people to gain a significant advantage towards others and a monopoly stance. this is deliberate behavior.
Report spam or abuse
i think that's what is meant by "rigging the system". these large corporations are no longer entirely "private" but there exists a kind of symbiosis between them and the government. so the idea of corporation may not be the fault here but these specific kinds of corporations ARE and so is the government. i think people have some understanding of this and they critique large corporations from this standpoint, tho perhaps not always so clearly.
Report spam or abuse
THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS A PRIVATE ENTITY!! NOT CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT!!!
Report spam or abuse
haha, a private entity that somehow has the sole responsibility of printing the gov'ts currency
Report spam or abuse
Look it up, then come back here.
Report spam or abuse
More rubbish in that corporations do risk assessments so that if they do end up paying out claims or fines they still make money, look at Jamie Diamond! 
Report spam or abuse
ok I am going to sell some orange juice and dilute it with piss and sell it for 500 bucks. No regulations
Report spam or abuse
Are you a troll? Do you think your post makes sense? Or is there some other reason for commenting? Seriously, I want to know. What is it that motivates you?
Report spam or abuse
i dont have to tell you nothing
Report spam or abuse
Interest rates hurt entrepeneurs but established business not as much. The money supply and borrowing capability is not entirely dependent upon one government, you can always go outside the state. Also, most globalism and free-trade has actually made transactions easier for the private sector. You sound like a nut. The largest and most powerful lobbies and non-governmental organizations are made of private sector donors. One can argue either position and probably be correct in saying that government preempts business and business has appropriated power over non-governmental organizations(which are the real power in public policy). The current situation is a chaotic one of too many chiefs and not enough Indians where private sector informs public sector and public sector(government) either regulates or aids the private sector depending upon what is the most popular flavor of the month with voters, politicians and business leaders at the time. A fascist/socialist state where business and government are finely integrated with one another like in France would be me organized and closer to the Third Way of social libertarians as opposed to the Ayn Rand anarcho-capitalist views you are espousing.  
Report spam or abuse
I mean to ask this question out of strict curiosity. I don't claim a stance one way or the other; I only seek to understand. In the video you mentioned that the Federal Reserve controls interest rates and the money supply. Because of this you claim no free market exists. Small government proponents laud free markets partly due to their ability to raise living standards. However, if it is true that no free market has existed since 1913, then what can the increased living standards be attributed to? By the rules of logic it seems irrational to simultaneously conclude that, while no free markets exist, free markets have dramatically increased living standards...
Report spam or abuse
There are degrees. By "no free market" he means there is virtually no aspect of the market that does not involve coercion. When people say free markets have increased living standards they mean that these markets have done this to the degree that they are free from coercion.
Report spam or abuse
"The essence of capitalism is to turn nature into commodities and commodities into capital. The live green earth is transformed into dead gold bricks, with luxury items for the few and toxic slag heaps for the many. The glittering mansion overlooks a vast sprawl of shanty towns, wherein a desperate, demoralized humanity is kept in line with drugs, television, and armed force.”
Report spam or abuse
A questions to highlight vast STUPIDITY. The US government, with a million troops, 100s of nukes, the 4 largest airforces in the world and the largest navy by far. Has no say over its own money supply... FFS GROW UP, if you are too stupid to know how the world works, firstly keep your opinions to yourself, learn, grow, wisen up then share. The fed reserve is a CARTEL, it is an agreement between powerful people hidden behind the veil known as corporations and the state. The wealth the fed reserve plunders is shared between the state (to buy votes and retain power)  and these powerful people who use it to OWN everybody through the power of mortgages. No state, no fed reserve cartel, and you YOU,  as in FUKING YOU DIMWIT would be a whole lot wealthier and freer
Report spam or abuse
If the people who own the country are not running the country then who is? If less than 10% of the population controls about 40 ish% or more of the economic decision making power, I mean real power, to set prices, rents, pay scales and direct production, allocate resources and direct the use of military force to extract resources elsewhere why not call that by its right name? Capitalism and it has not changed much in 300 years, the final stage before the collapse of a capitalist empire is the conversion to a finance economy, a social structure characterized by predatory lending, low wages deindustrialization, violent class inequality, currency collapse and then some other power steps in to acquire its assets at pennies on the dollar and a new empire establishes itself elsewhere. Capitalism has a known history. If you do not like how this narrative is playing out, you may find that blaming the government and destroying democracy will prove cold comfort in the long run.
Report spam or abuse
+gary morrison Really, what is this known history you speak of? The known history where gov't corrupts the Capitalist system? That one? I'm sorry, but Capitalism does not mean using the force of gov't, as you have clearly confused it to be.
Report spam or abuse
Hey Stefan, Should an ultrarich Person that owns 1000's of fertile land have the right to hold that property in any way they like such as if they choose to just sit on it for speculation or develop it with the blood sweat and tears of landless laborers/farmers? What rights does a person who owns nothing but their own labor have in this kind of society? I suppose property rights do not apply to them but only to the monied class? I read that Anarchism is big on protecting the property rights of landowners, but is there such a thing as excess in wealth, and what about the landless peasants? I envision a world that your dream about that is non regulated where the richest people have the financial means to buy up all the best land, and the majority who would not have the means to buy their own land or means of production would end up like serfs laboring away day in night just to put food on their table by working the land of some land barron, keeping 20% of the fruits of their own labor to sustain their lives, and paying 80% back to the landowner in tribute for being a rich landowner. The big question I have to all your anarchists is, "Does a man's property rights and wealth supersede the moral right to provide thy fellow common man with the means to progress beyond surfdom." Should the land and resources not be shared equitably between the real producers (farmers) and not the speculators? Should we really be given the right to own more land then we could ever use for our own use, especially if we are not going to use it for productive purposes but to speculate on? Any thoughts on this? Thanks!
Report spam or abuse
Microsoft have the NSA don`t talk rubbish Stefan.
Report spam or abuse
1;50 goes off the rail , is not relevant to regulation which has existed regardless of interest rates , and corporate lawyers/lobbyist create president on a daily bases , they don't need an army. This guy is full of shit.       
Report spam or abuse
+samuils With the advent during the Carter administration of allowing Loan Officers to be paid through securities , thus removing incentive to vet loanees , and maintain capital , to the removal of Glass - Steagall act witch allowed Financial Banks to gamble away their subsidiary Private  Banks deposits , and  allow  for greater mergers so that today we see that only 10 corporations sell everything we eat , ant only 6 control all media . Quantitative Easing , or the lowering of interest rates is in response to all this , not the other way around. Now as for creating bubbles , yes you'er right , but investment with proper oversight would have turned long range profit , instead it became nothing more than one big privet sector orgy , all with the blessings of the government officials they paid off , all of which had nothing to do with the jackass comments I was disagreeing with , but there you are , he's wrong about that too.       
Report spam or abuse
+richard Hines Except you missed the fact that FDIC is what allowed banks to make very risky investments.  You missed the fact that gvt, policies have been driving private sector from the get go.  As of now Banking is the most regulated sector upwards of 80%.  For you to claim this to be a so called private sector running wild, well is just absolutely wrong.  QE has to do with gvt. running up too much debt, what the heck in the world does this has to do with private sector.  Corporations so called merging to create pseudo monopolies, can only be achieved with gvt. help, absent of that, they would be under full control of their customers.   You disagreeing, doent automatically means you are right, so how about you dont phrase it that way, just for the sake of rationality. And the last point is, if the gvt. doesnt have goodies to give out in the first place, then there would be no one in line to bribe officials to get a hold of those goodies in the first place.
Report spam or abuse
Gawd are you an ever idealistic small thinker. The reason why GovCorp works "hand in hand" is PRECISELY because eliminating competition makes for creamier profits. The overwhelming aspect that Free Marketeers (true believing idgits that they are)  fail to acknowledge is that monopoly is the end result of efficiency.
Report spam or abuse
+Noah Namey  Let them try have a monopoly, let them conspire with other "industrialists". In a free market, without government intervention, those things won't last long. Stop being so scared. It's not about "controlling" our "worst tendencies". It's about freedom, and the freedom for people to solve their own problems and priorities however they see fit as long as they stay peaceful. Utilitarianism, ah yes... The belief that the ends justify the means. Whether those means are moral/fair/peaceful is irrelevant in the minds of people like you. How about no thank you. I'll take my peaceful and just "isms" over any of your violent and corrupt ones any day.
Report spam or abuse
Zoran,,, you need to read a little deeper. I never aspired to Utilitarianism, I merely hope our "isms" err in that general direction. Doing the most good for the most possible (and not just for human monkeys, BTW) might be the only philosophy that gets us through the next great genetic bottleneck. And unless you haven't noticed...  it's coming, baby! ;)
Report spam or abuse
No free market at all. WWII was a war between Fascists, Communists, and National Socialists. The American/Anglo and Stalinist Fascists won to fight each other for 50 years.
Report spam or abuse
+Mike Maxwell I'd go even further to say that "capitalism" is the free movement of private capital. If that is true than we are even less free. These totalitarian trolls keep acting as though there is no involvement from the government which is the opposite of true. Just in the US, not counting state commissions, there is the SEC, CFTC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, FINRA, OCC, NCUA, CFPB. One cannot even memorize the prison guards names, let alone the rules and regulations they impose, many of them competing and contradictory. That alphabet soup nightmare is just the list of financial regulators. Add to that the list of other regulatory bodies over all levels of production. There is the name of that governmental system, government control of private production. It was given a name by Mussolini, a idolized by the statists of the world before he became Hitler's bitch. Let's not pretend even for a moment that we freedom in any industry older than 20 years and let's admit once and for all that we are simply arguing degrees of Fascism in our elections. We have no free markets, no Capitalism. We have some freedom in the system, but only in younger, more technical industries or industries that fall below the radar. It is sad that people call that freedom or capitalism.
Report spam or abuse
Lets set aside your liberal tendency to refer to everyone who does not want to buy a gun from you as a "fascist". As Americans have only stockpiled 300+ million guns, would it seem more reasonable to blame the market which is subject to the law of supply and demand for this piddling rate of consumption or blame the government? Does it follow that every political process represents "fascism" that is not dictated by "the free market"? If not the free market to what do you attribute our standard of living here in the US. Your ideology simultaneously credits both capitalism and fascism with our standard of living.   
Report spam or abuse
thank god for the fed, without loose monetary policy- we'd be in a depression rather than a recession. The banks DID buy off the government for loose regulations. Campaign contributions is legalized bribery. Microsoft rigged the system by creating agreements with producers of software to only make the software to work with windows.
Report spam or abuse
Stefan first of all u r confusing things by putting economy in front of the state forgetting that economy was always established after state was formed and secured. Idea of the state represented in its first form protection of the peace and security for all of its citizens. Economy and business u praise so much grew only after these core platforms were established. Yes state can get corrupted same like any business or individual can, but if the power is well balanced between representatives and its citizens many control mechanism can work properly. Direct democracy and transparent governance r just few point which was state can go. Yes state can be limiting to business and money making individuals who basically dont like to be controlled and wants to have freedom to do whatever they can to achieve their goals and profit. But state is not only about winners who were lucky or managed to live good life and stay covered. State should be about losers as well even if they r no longer profitable for anybody and kicked out on the streets. Yes state can get quite bureaucratic because its not representing only one individual or business but many of them who has to be heard and protected. State is not perfect and it can cause many problems if its not managed properly or if its full of corrupted jokers paid by those who came from the "free" market corporations. Those which dont care about rules or laws but more about stock prices, cash flow and profit. So its very important to separate state which works fine and its well balanced and state which is full of corrupted crooks who r there to protect interests of their real employers which usually control money creation and economy of the country. This is nothing but decaying system which is setup to one day fall on its knees. So when u next time star bitching about state and point finger on the state which I agree is these days really pathetic and full of well paid crooks pls try to look on the core of the problem in the first place. Look on the Fed which is owned by private hands which once came from the "free" market u favor so much. Free market which is now controlled by them! All these huge banks which evolved from small money changers businesses now rule not just countries but the global economy as well. They were once small companies and thx to their interpretation of the "free" market possibilities they became more powerful than state itself. How u want to ensure that in your "free" market illusion where everybody can start from zero things wont be the same? How r u going to call these so called "corporation states" then? Those who understand and control invisible hand of the market by ensuring more loans and debt, what will be your tools against that? Your future where focusing and highlighting root issues by exercising critical thinking is replaced by financial product like insurance is another dumber road towards consuming ideology which in theory will keep everybody who have power to purchase clean and safe. Nobody speaks about those who cant. If u have a chance to watch Repo Men movie do it, maybe u will get a glimpse of a future "free" society we can most likely end up in!
Report spam or abuse
In a world without a government, I wonder how to prevent large companies that choose to merge and then arm themselves and oppress the rest with guns. What is the solution? Should we go back to performing tribal war? People will always resort to the strongest that they believe provides the most security for them rather than freedom. If you want a change of this nature, we must all become "religiously" saved and changed into our hearts.
Report spam or abuse
+shlockofgod Your question is stupid, Millions of workers lives like slaves under corperations opression.They are worse than governments, they give no rights to the people in a country where the government and the unions are weak or corrupt. Once again I have already answeard your stupid question. I say the same thing to you as I said to Zoran. Your argument is essentially that if the majority just change their philosophy and become peaceful, we will have a peaceful society. Sure, but how do you do that? Making a youtube video or write a comment on youtube? Okay, good luck. Do you think you will succeed in your lifetime? Fool!
Report spam or abuse
+zimbaroy You're essentially parroting arguments from fear and utilitarianism. Neither of which are valid, so I see no point in wasting time trying to explain to you why you're wrong or trying to have a meaningful discussion with you about possible solutions to the problems that we all as humans face.
Report spam or abuse
Again you are new here and dont know what youre talking about,we are not in favor of the current system,we are in favor of anarcho capitalism not state backed capitalism,you are preaching to the wrong choir.we know everything thats wrong with the current system thats why are are trying to fix it! again watch more videos you will understand what this is about.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
The Fed is just like the central banks in almost every single country today, its an institution run independently of government. Its the international bankers who control it, and its a hub in every country which the Int. bankers lend money to the people through, it has the power to set the nations interest rate to protect its profits; fex government create inflation, Fed increase interest rate. The International Bankers and the International Socialists(SI + IDU) work together, goal; Globalism.
Report spam or abuse
Even stupid people have morals that we can appeal to. The only reason they perpetuate the evil of the state is because they've been convinced that's it's a benevolent or necessary force in society. They may not understand it fully, but you can teach quite a stupid person that the initiation of the use of force is evil and therefore gov't is evil. They can't have any good arguments against this since they're stupid and gov't propaganda doesn't stick all that well either in a dull mind.
Report spam or abuse
At the same time its a powerful tool to control a nation on the right track. All we see today; global warming taxes, outsourcing, recession, crisis, mass immigration, massive debt, massive housing prices, lowered birthrate, EU, AMeriunion, etc is part of the project Globalism; one world, one government. SI=Socialist International IDU= International Democratic Union Both are International "Socialists" and lead to the same goal, though IDU is a little more fascistic and pro elite enrichment.
Report spam or abuse
well there's a lot of nuance here and much argument over nuance. I don't think the things you and max are saying are mutually exclusive. Yes at the end of the day military force and the threat of military force have the power...but soldiers will only do what they are willing to do and culturally we don't use or expect to use violence against business The formation of large monopolies like what occurred in the gilded age created severe barriers to entry for would-be competitors.
Report spam or abuse
We can go back and forth forever. I can point out socialized elements of the united states. You can show me places where it isn't. Fact is that there is no such thing as pure socialism in the "wild". Those facts I give openly. With that said, are you telling me the US has no socialist aspects? Thanks
Report spam or abuse
Sounds like you have big black men on your mind, might want to look into that.
Report spam or abuse
As bad as big government is, corporations have shown in the past that they will - if unfettered by regulation - victimize their customers and competitors. EVERY business wants to be a monopoly. Monopolies are disastrous for society.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Stefan I cannot take you seriously till you acknowledge things like LIBOR. It is neither Government or private power alone that is the sole problem. It is the unregulated marriage of the two that is corrupting our world.
Report spam or abuse
you are a complete moron. "sweetness-light(dotcom)/archive/goolsbee-5th-wh-economic-advisor-to-quit" just GOOGLE "Obama economic advisors." Information is readily available upon your will, yet you refuse to utilize such precious resources and remain ignorant and look like a fool. forbes(dot com)/sites/charleskadlec/2013/01/21/academics-have-spoken-and-obamanomics-is-the-path-to-slow-growth/ It wouldn't surprise me if you have no formal education past high school whatsoever.
Report spam or abuse
What egotistical claim of superiority do you continue to refer to? I don't think I'm more intelligent nor superior to you at all. I think you just never had a chance to take these classes yet. I don't understand why you punish me for my education, but it is now clear that you are simply an uneducated illiterate with little to no intellection of any of the vast topics we've digressed toward. The world isn't that simple with merely "definitions," as you claim it to be. Are you in high school?
Report spam or abuse
Now its up to debate weather the fedral reserve should step in or not, in my opinion the money should have gone direct to the people who would have lost there savings and let the bank itself go under, but thats besides the point, the only reason they stepped in was because the banks were taking stupid risks and working people were loosing out, to me that says the problem is lack of effective regulation in the first place. With effective regulation, there would have been no need for any bailouts
Report spam or abuse
When a critical mass is reached in a corporation it has enough power to squash competition...even more 'efficient' competition. This is unhealthy for the economy in general and only government can cure it. That is what inspired much of the progressive reform in that area. You probably wouldn't get much personal 'real world' experience in such a thing because monopolies of that nature don't really exist anymore...they are illegal after the Sherman antitrust act. But the potential danger is there
Report spam or abuse
That the USA isn't socialist. Anyone who thinks so is ignorant.
Report spam or abuse
Who pre-selects those who run for Govt. before we even have any elections and Who has the most influence on Govt. decision making and policies?
Report spam or abuse
How you run from the word ethics. Would there be a difficultly in accepting the definition as, The moral correctness of specified conduct,and defining moral as increasing human well-being? Again without basis you assert that you have the best solutions to issues I have not raised.You remind me of christian apologists who imagine they have unquestionable answers to everything,its a bit fanatical. Hopefully as you get older you'll come to realize the world not so black and white.
Report spam or abuse
Actually interest-rates reflect the supply of loanable funds vs. the demand, everything else is just wasted transfer-payments. The productivity of employed capital affects the demand, but still the supply is an independent variable.
Report spam or abuse
I got a comment that my comment didn't clarify my position, so I explained by I said what I said. I told you why I said that to him. I don't see what misdirection you found there, but whatever.
Report spam or abuse
Discussion over. Resorting to personal insults shows you have no valid points to make.
Report spam or abuse
This cunt always snakes out of providing rational and relevant answers by claiming that the "free market doesn't exist". So intellectually dishonest and insincere. Just a well spoken right wing troll.
Report spam or abuse
There is no syllogism, no argument, AGAIN!!! Once again some obviously egotistical claim of superiority, and in this case a really bullshit one,because you know nothing about philosophy. There is only a DEFINITION, you can expand the sentence using a brain cell or two. Ethical = "The increase of human well being from a specified conduct". You know go fuck yourself , your a twat.
Report spam or abuse
Show more Loading...
Sign in to add this to Watch Later

Add to