Stossel: In Defense of Capitalism
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 06. 2019
- People acting in their own self-interest created modern prosperity, says Ayn Rand Institute's Yaron Brook.
---------
Subscribe to our CZcams channel: / reasontv
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magazine
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: goo.gl/az3a7a
Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
---------
Progressives claim capitalism is "immoral" because some people become rich while others stay poor. Yaron Brook, chairman of the Ayn Rand Institute, says the opposite is true.
"We have basically made about $2 a day for 100,000 years," Brook told John Stossel. "In other words…we could eat what we farmed and that was it."
"And then something amazing happened."
About 250 years ago, a few countries tried capitalism. For the first time, people were allowed to profit from private property.
"Two-hundred and fifty years ago we suddenly discovered the value of individual freedom," says Brook. "We suddenly discovered the value of leaving individuals free to think, to innovate, to produce without asking for permission, without getting the state to sign off."
As a result, humans "doubled our life expectancy," says Brook. "We have dramatically increased the quality of our life and we are wealthier than anybody could have imagined."
Brook, who's an objectivist, says that "doing for others is fine-but only if that's what you want."
"The key is that somebody else's need is not a moral claim against your life," he adds. "Your life is yours."
Subscribe to our CZcams channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.
I once heard someone say you know capitalism is amazing when even the poor are fat
“They would rather have the poor be poorer provided that the rich were less rich.”
-Lady Margaret Thatcher
Free markets demolish nations. For a majority of America's existence, it enforce protectionist policies. On top of that, free markets in africa have demolished their economy and left them helpless and dying. This is because capitalism favors profit over everything else, including human life, suffering, and health. Now I, as a socialist, don't hate people cause they have money, in fact I don't hate them at all. I hate the fact that they have that money directly, or indirectly, from exploiting workers. Exploitation meaning that: despite the worker doing the majority of the work, they only get a small cut of what the product they made was worth and the rest goes to the employer, that's how socialists see it. I find it interesting that capitalists make strawmen against socialism, Marxism, and the like, but they hate when others make strawmen against them. You see, most socialists don't make strawmen about capitalism because they weren't told to love socialism and didn't have their values reassured by the society they live in.
@@lilithhastur1952 Exploiting workers? I thought people were allowed to quit if they didn't like their job. I didn't realize there was still slavery in the US today.
@@jaredr2374 Apparently if you're a surgeon, engineer or skilled tradesperson in the US, you're still "exploited" or something. Apparently self interest is pure evil. If you demand everyone care for you, and force them to do so, that's super moral. Also a very convenient morality if you're lazy and/or stupid.
Socialism brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator, that is, everyone except senior party members!
Many Brits piss on Thatcher's grave to this day. And for a good reason.
How you create wealth:
"Learn a skill people are willing to pay for" - Thomas Sowell
The question isn't "why are [the rich] so greedy, but rather, why are so many people willing to pay them?".
@@chriskelley7979 Stupidity. Pet Rocks? Cabbage Patch Dolls? Beanie Babies?
I’m tired of liberals trying to impose their morals on everyone else
@@chriskelley7979 So if the poor decide to just take from stores or pay a lower price the rich will just accept that?
To drive profits their way bosses seek to replace higher paid skilled labor with machines and unskilled labor. The Capitalist drive for profits means they seek to pay the lowest wages, work you the longest hours and at the fastest pace.
"Why do we both say thank you?" is an incredibly concise, yet poignant point.
Love Stossel
"The best way to help the poor is by not being one of them."
-Ayn Rand (attributing the quote to Reverend Ike)
@Jesus Christ
Welcome back. It's been quite a long time.
@Hans out of curiosity, what is the alternative to capitalism?
@Hans Do you have evidence that it actually holds back a significant amount of people? Being poor is mostly down to intelligence and persona, both quite heritible traits. So where does the problem actually lie? How do you objectively quantify the worth of someones actions?
@Hans Neither capitalism nor any other system guarantees success. In a democratic and capitalist society that's determined by hard work, intelligence, a strong back and/or numerous other factors, sometimes including a bit of luck. If you know of one under which more people have achieved personal success please share it with us. Taking my hard earned money after a lifetime of blood, sweat and tears devoted to me and my family's success, doesn't make anyone else successful, it makes them dependent and helpless.
@Hans
I see you've make another journey from beneath your bridge in Norway.
Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system ever devised by humankind. The evidence for this is indisputable.
You should only be as "stupid" as Ayn Rand. If you were, you'd have one of the most astute minds of any thinker during the 20th century. You might even be the most brilliant woman of that time period.
Shout out to Stossel for continuing his passion to inform the public about the benefits of capitalism during a time when it's so easy and popular to bash on it.
This isnt captialism.
Even Marx was impressed by the results of Capitalism.
Doesn't mean he wanted to keep it.
@Bob Bilder observing the efficiency of Capitalism scared him into believing that redistribution is necessary.
What he did not take into account is that once you remove the incentive, the productivity goes with it as well. Therefore you will have less stuff to begin with, even if you manage to redistribute it more evenly.
Moral of the story is that you can't redefine human nature to comply to your utopistic dreams.
equal != fair
Archie Morris
Certainly not. Marx was a thief going by his own logic because he said himself that Capitalism was a necessary phase in human development. Let me elaborate a little further: Exchanges between workers and employers in capitalism are inter-temporal exchanges. That is, the capitalist has a low time preference which means he is willing to wait months or even years before his product can be adequately tested and put on the market. The worker has a high time preference which means that he wants his wages within a short time period such as in one or two week intervals. Marx observed that the only way that society could accrue the wealth to “move on to socialism” was through capitalism because the workers themselves would not shift to a low time preference and start businesses under socialistic principles (Democratic control of the businesses) because they were not willing to take the risk that came with doing such. Thus, because the workers could not have created the wealth we enjoy today in society, the capitalists were necessary. Obviously, this means that the Capitalists are the rightful owners of their capital because, without them, society would never have amassed such wealth as basically admitted by Marx. Thus, Marx was a thief because he believed people (in this case capitalists) were not entitled to the fruits of their labor.
@Sasha Da Masta
I'm sorry for the long response but your comment merited the essay:
"I must also ask, why was the capitalist able to take the risk? Why was it able to wait a long time while the other wasn’t? Because of inequality. Capitalism spawned from an unequal system, which is feudalism. I must also ask, why was the capitalist able to take the risk? Why was it able to wait a long time while the other wasn’t? Because of inequality. Capitalism spawned from an unequal system, which is feudalism. I believe that capitalism is the naturally occurring descendant of feudalism. That doesn’t make it “right” or “just”, considering those are subjective words. "
In many cases, the capitalist was able to take the risk because he had a good product, he had a good distribution method in place, and he knew the market; thus he was able to get a loan from either a bank or from his friends/family/associates. I will admit that some people might not be able to become wealthy in their lifetimes but they can lay the groundwork for which their children can become wealthy. Jeff Bezos was born to a teen mom and was adopted by a Cuban refugee who arrived in the United States at the age of 16. His Cuban refugee father proceeded to exert himself and become an engineer. In so doing, he was able to accrue the capital to put Bezos through a good school and give him good opportunities.
The two greatest inequalities that exist in this world are your parents and your genes. Some people have lousier genes than others do, and some have worse parents than others. Your genes and your parents play a significant part in how successful you can become. Human beings, sadly, are unequal from the onset. Thus, every single system is inherently unequal because all human beings are unequal. Just because capitalism sprang from feudalism does not make capitalism unjust. Saying that is like me saying that any potential Libertarian socialism which might spring up is unjust because it came from capitalism.
"As a matter of fact, many lords used their land as capital once they needed to do so to survive as a member of the ruling class. It was lords and the lucky merchants who were able to invest into the global trade market, not the sailors they hired. It was rich people or lucky borrowers who succeeded as capitalists, but most failed. Actually, most businesses fail today. We rely on a system of failure and luck, where the luck is against the majority."
Where are the lords and the lucky merchants today? Virtually all of them have been replaced by those descendants of the "sailors they hired." In the US, over 80% of the millionaires are self-made and over 60% of the billionaires are self-made. Most rich people go on to lose their money in a few generations. Capitalism works through a process Marx probably would have called, "creative destruction," which means that entire industries can be destroyed as a result of the innovation of the capitalist system. Most businesses fail because they do not meet up to the demands of consumers. In the market, the consumers are the supreme dictator. Luck is not against the majority; rather, luck is against EVERYBODY who does not fulfill the needs and wants of the almighty consumers.
@Sasha Da Masta
"In capitalism, most people are not “given the freedom to achieve their dreams “ and in the establishment even less so because of arbitrary discrimination. One does not know what one does not know. If there are people who must spend more time to make the same amount of money as someone who was pretty much making that money years before (basically saying one got much more financial help when it reached adulthood and the other had to study first, climb up the ladder once a job was achieved, paying off debt, and then finally becoming rich [assuming that there were good universities and jobs available]) then we live in an unjust system, and I would like to see everyone get equal chances; no, seriously."
In capitalism, most people are given the ability to better themselves by becoming, say, doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc. Most will obviously not become wealthy but success and achieving dreams is not contingent on becoming wealthy. As for discrimination, capitalism is the system which has best gotten rid of discrimination because employers will hire the employees that can make them the most money regardless of their race. In the early 1900s, in the Jim Crow South, for example, blacks were overrepresented in the railroad industry despite the racism of their employers because they were willing to work for less than unionized whites were willing to work for. As a result, these blacks were given the opportunity to accrue capital and to advance their children to higher earning positions. The first minimum wage laws were actually introduced to price blacks out of the job market because their employers would find no use for most of them if they had to pay them the same that whites were paid. If we had Libertarian socialism, where the majority had the absolute right to decide everything, blacks and Hispanics would already be enslaved or would have been genocided long ago. In the Jim Crow South, blacks actually came to own 14% of the farms in the US which allowed them to survive and to provide for their people. Under Libertarian Socialism, life would have been much, much crueler for blacks. Capitalism gives minorities the ability to advance themselves, and, indeed, minorities have been able to advance themselves more under capitalism than in any other system. There is no such thing as anyone getting an equal chance to do anything because people are unequal from the moment they are conceived. Capitalism, however, gives individuals a greater chance to succeed than any other system, including libertarian socialism, which I will soon prove.
"Even then, I don’t support the fact that certain people own the means of production simply because a piece of paper says so."
The so-called "means of production" is totally arbitrary, there is no such paper that guarantees somebody the right to own the "means of production." If what you mean are the individual competing businesses, the capitalists are the ones who started them (without them, remember, they would never have existed). Thus, the capitalists rightfully own their businesses.
Thing is, “poor” is so subjective. That’s why socialism will always be so tantalizing. There will always be “poor people” because wealth will never be evenly distributed and whoever ends up the least wealthy will be classified as poor regardless of how well they actually live. I think if we set the definition of “poverty” in objective terms then the power of capitalism would be easier to appreciate.
I would like to send some people back to 1919 to make them appreciate 2019.
Don't worry, you will get your wish, there are many forces at work attempting to send us all back to 1919, or maybe even earlier.
1989 WILL DO
Would be easier to just teach history.
@@yidiandianpang What, you don't like reruns?
I'd like to send you back to any time in the 1920s-early 1930s
"Wealth can be created". All wealth is created.
He's just pointing out that it is not zero-sum game; ie when you make a dollar it does not mean someone else has lost a dollar! That's all....
@@guppy0112 Right on. I was making a point for anyone who didnt understand. A dollar bill holds no wealth that was not created. But that leads to other issues like GDP and government spending, as well as trade policies, ect.
Well, no. Saying Wealth can be created is actually an incredible statement that we really need to drive home. For most of human history and the history of life for that matter. Wealth, was not created, but merely found. Our ancient ancestors were *hunter-gatherers.* They either killed other animals for food or gathered naturally growing fruits, nuts, seeds and vegetables. They didn't create it. Actually creating wealth means taking something and creating more from it. It can be a difficult idea to grasp, which is why many on the left don't. If I have an apple, how can I possibly create more apples from it? It may seem like a simple concept, but it's not always appreciated or understood.
@@Jimraynor45 *ALL* wealth is created, not found.
A tree with fruits in a forest without anyone around isn't wealth, until someone values it and make use of it.
@@Jimraynor45 You always have to do some kind of work to create wealth, at the minimum moving the nuts to your mouth.
Capitalism vs Government Planning Successes:
Capitalism:
Poland
Iceland
Hong Kong
Taiwan
Singapore
New Zealand
Chile
...
Government planning:
????
Government planning:
Cuba
China (before 1979)
USSR
Warsaw Pact
Vietnam
Cambodia
……
If you say they failed , you are a racist, sexist, hater and a heretic that should be killed.
@@justinlo3799 Are you joking?
@@wiimooden it's scarcasm
Preston Stevens Only the USSR was true central planning in every sector. Next comes Allende with primary nationalization of copper. Yugoslavia was “market socialist.” FDR’s New Deal did not replace markets. De Gaullisme was abandoned by the 80s/90s. Every single country with central planning has turned away from it.
Cuba
Venezuela after the socialist party got elected
Spain before the 70s when the evil capitalists got in office
USSR
China before the 80s
North Korea today!
See? All are great countries
I think a source of contention is that our system is not capitalism; it’s cronyism. So we do see people getting rich by nefarious means, usually with their political friends screwing the average citizen through tax funding and such. In that regard, I see why people see ‘capitalism’ as an evil. And it is hard for capitalists like myself to stomach high praise for our current system being lauded as capitalistic and great.
Yep, crony capitalism that you can see the Communist leaders in China actually practice.
I don’t think capitalism and China belong in the same sentence.
@@TexasVagabond Oh trust me, it can be done the Chinese way. I worked there for three years so I have seen what CRONY CAPITALISM the Chinese way is done. The US is guilty of another method of crony capitalism.
Certain people 'see' capitalism as 'evil' because other people acquire more stuff than them. If you're lazy or stupid or both, you're never going to be able to acquire much stuff, so it's better for their social standing if everyone has very little. It's all about 'equality'.
@mmzen It's now just about how "hard you work" there, champ. Otherwise people who dig holes all day would be billionaires, LOL. Life's not always fair. Here is even a bigger shocker for you... you're going to die. Everyone you love is going to die... sure, you can demand the government "do something" about it. You can live in your fantasy world, but that doesn't change the real world. "Solutions" that make everything worse, aren't actually solutions. ;-)
Its 2019 its a shame that we need Videos like these in the first place
It is sad state of affairs that social justice lies abound today.
Hans what specifically was the lie and straw man in this video? What model would you replace voluntary transactions (free markets) with ?
@Max M Maxen Tell us what really happened then.
Hans, please forgive me if I’m not impressed by you just making a broad assertion to my request for a specific example of a lie and a straw man in this video. I can do the same by stating everything in this video is backed up by irrefutable facts and examples throughout history. Now where are we ? Who wins this argument now that we have both made these assertions ? Keep it mind I didn’t and wouldn’t make that kind of pointless claim unless I had a specific example. Maybe try again... edit was to correct responding to the wrong person. That was meant for Hans, my bad.
@Hans in making the assertion that the US is a failure, you failed. Returning to free market capitalistic principles has caused the US economy to soar. But go ahead and belive the lies you've been told.
Now THAT is a proper moral defense of capitalism: not that it allows the poor to lift themselves out of poverty (which it certainly does), not that it has allowed incredible technological innovation and human flourishing (though it clearly has), but that it leaves people free to pursue their own happiness. Capitalism is the removal of the initiation of force from human relationships.
Well done. Much appreciated.
How is someone free to pursue their own happiness when they need three jobs just to survive? How is someone free to pursue their own happiness when they cannot afford the most basic of healthcare for their families and they know that they are just one minor accident away from being wiped out? How is someone free to pursue their own happiness when the corporate vampires have their foot across their necks legislatively and financially? How is someone free to pursue their own happiness when they are too poor to acquire the skills or education that can lift them out of poverty?
@@matbroomfield What about when there wasn't a lot of red tape ?
@@matbroomfield Who needs three jobs in order to survive? Are you talking about 3 part-time jobs working 15 hours a week at each job?
"How is someone free to pursue their own happiness when they cannot afford the most basic of healthcare for their families and they know that they are just one minor accident away from being wiped out?"
This has been a problem for humans since the dawn of humanity. This isn't something that Capitalism invented. But what Capitalism did do is help create better medicines and medical practices and distribute services across the world. People are still free to pursue their own happiness. Some people fall ill. That's life.
"How is someone free to pursue their own happiness when the corporate vampires have their foot across their necks legislatively and financially?"
That's crony capitalism. That's something most everyone wants stopped. One way to do that would be to reduce the power and influence of government. You okay with that?
"How is someone free to pursue their own happiness when they are too poor to acquire the skills or education that can lift them out of poverty?"
Again, this is life. Some people are born luckier than others. Feel free to start your own charity or company to help those people. That would be a better solution than to have the government punish everyone else in order to inefficiently "help" those people.
@@matbroomfield All of this ignores rights.
Someone needing a job does not entitle him to a job. Who should provide him with one? The man who has a job to offer has created it, and can give it to whom he pleases, or to no one at all because that is his right. To compel him to give that job to someone who "needs" it is to be a violent thug.
Someone needing health care does not entitle him to health care. Who should provide that health care to him? The man who has made that health care possible has full ownership of it and can give it to whom he pleases, or to no one at all because that is his right. To compel him to give that health care to someone who "needs" it is to be a violent thug.
This childish whining about need as if it's some kind of value is disgusting. Need is not a moral claim. Your whole argument is predicated on your supposition that the successful man must be a slave to the unsuccessful one. To claim that man is his brother's keeper is to confess one's own ineptitude.
Furthermore, characterizing private companies as "vampires" is a dishonest attempt to make someone interacting without force appear to be a brute. It isn't private companies that have their boot "legislatively and financially" across your neck; only government has a monopoly on force. If you don't like dealing with a company, you can stop at any time. If you don't like dealing with government, that's too bad.
so much of socialism is just a materialization of envy. they dont want others to have it better even if it means making it worse for everyone.
It's 2019. Do people still actually believe that socialism is more ethical than capitalism? Or do they just want more for themselves without having to earn it?
They want the government to be their parents and care for them, basically. Students demand free education. Seldom see the same Socialists demand more money for the elderly. Odd, eh?
@@JoshEJTG Your talking point is soooooo f**king stupid, LOL. "The workers" just means the government. The so called "workers" don't magically organise themselves. They appoint leaders. Those leaders then govern over "the workers".
@@JoshEJTG There is no difference between "the workers" and "the government". They mean EXACTLY the same thing, LOL. Brainless Leftards have this single talking point and when you point out they are making no sense, they just do a melt down. Like you did... ;-)
Let me type more slowly... individual workers can't do jack shit. They appoint leaders that represent them and organise for them. Those leaders form a GOVERNMENT.
@@JoshEJTG I explained facts. You ignored them and posted brainless insults, because all Socialist types are idiots, LOL.
@@JoshEJTG WTF are you babbling about? Black is white is actually your argument. Workers that collectively pool their resources together require organisation, hence leaders. Hence you've got a government of one form or another. Your response to basic facts about the nature of reality is going to be to moan your arse pain at me. Exactly like you're doing now. ;-)
I’m forever amused when anyone uses the phrase “late-stage capitalism” or “end-stage capitalism” when even those who coined that term have no idea what it means or when it will end
The stage after "late stage capitalism" doesn't matter, because we're all dead from starvation.
Capitalism has no end, it only end when we already died.
great example;
im legally living below the poverty line, and yet im watching this video on a nice bed, eating cheetos, relatively new computer, roof over my head, and a car to take me places.
the only part i don't like is cheetos. id rather have a meal but there's no food left, and no money to eat out.
anyway........
my point is, id rather be poor today, than poor in 1933
That and considering the fact that the poorest person in a capitalist country like the U.S. is still way better off then the wealthiest person in a third world country..
Poverty is subjective dependening on the place and the circumstances
@@johnnyjohnny2990 ok thats plain wrong.
you can say that generally conditions are better in capitalist countries.
but "the poorest person in the US is richer than the richest person in a 3rd world nation"?
bullshit. the poorest person in the US is still poor in the 3rd world. the richest person in the 3rd world can be anywhere from middle class to mid-upper class in the US.
3:48 did he just say he spent _thousands_ of dollars on Harry Potter? I love the series, too, but how the heck do you spend _that much_ on 7 books (and 8 movies)?
He probably took his kids to universal studios
Toys, supplemental materials like coloring books etc. Easy to spend 1k on harry potter stuff.
J.K. Rowling is insanely good to business with the movies, theme parks, video games, and other merchandise all tied to Harry Potter she gets a certain percentage out of all of those things
@@johnnyjohnny2990 Sure, I mean I had some superfluous stuff like a Quidditch GBA game lol, but still.
I guess I can see it if you take a family to a theme park or something, too tho
Stossel is the only reason to stay subscribed to Reason
Larry Broome Remy
@@joshabell9349 Right, I forgot about Remy
Anyone else notice that Bernie used to rail on the 1%, but then once it came out that he was in the 1% he switched and started talking about the “top 1/10th of 1%” and the “richest 3 people”
Only problem of capitalism is that some successful companies get so powerful (Standard oil, Monsanto, Facebook, Amazon, banks, etc.) that they can buy politicians then became cronies protecting themselves from fair competition or getting subsidies from tax payers's money.
That is a problem of a too large and too powerful government, not a problem of capitalism.
@@harshitravish3549
Yep but even if get into office it will take at least 100 years to do it...
@@scoobasteve1086
Sure but governments never will be reduced, that's a sad true.
Lmao
Sergio Samayoa Thats why the government was never meant to be this expansive, but clearly some people prefer entitlements over freedoms.
What are the super rich doing to us? They're being insanely productive so we can live relatively very lazy lives. We should be grateful if anything that we have a system that rewards productivity so they can be rich and we can eat well and watch CZcams for half the day if we want to
"People don't like it. Because you know, it takes real responsibility over your own life to achieve something." 🔥
I donate or try to help the poor because I feel bad the poor.
Every time I see a poor person I say to my self "For the grace of God there go I".
But it is my choice. I don't think Others have the morale right to tell me who I should help.
Some people that other think I should help I would not piss on them if they were on fire.
I don't say your quote, but think the same thing. Sometimes people just run out of luck.
Today's world = philosophy of mom
It is currently taking over the world, sadly.
Women don't all think the same way. Don't group me with the socialists, I am definitely not a Democrat or a socialist
@@TruffleSeeker54 Sorry, I just meant that we're biologically different. Women want to protect their children by nature, men want to risk their lives in order to become stronger. Without the balance between those two natures we end up in a socialist world or a totalitarian one.
Well, I will probably get smacked by someone who is against any gender roles anyway.
It's actually the philosophy of the feminine archetype. The collective unconscious has shifted noticeably in this direction since the 60s.
@@Vinylistapore This is exactly my point.
I didn't convey it properly though, lol.
*Women don't all think the same way*
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_all
_Not all (also known as Not all X) is a turn of phrase that attempts to force unnecessary "nuance" into a subject that already has nuance, either by_
_Deflecting fully specific criticism by pretending it's actually quite unspecific or_
_Insisting that you need not be specific yourself when dishing out criticism to others_
_The Not all fallacy is employed in the hopes of shutting down conversation by making the opponent appear to lack all nuance_
If there is one video I’d watch everyone to watch, it would be this one. People need to understand that capitalism will help us.
We can both agree that the Socialist utopia is a recipe for disaster, but can you acknowledge that the Capitalist utopia is also a recipe for disaster? There needs to be balance otherwise you risk chaos.
@@dune469 Hello there. What is it about capitalism that you consider a recipe for disaster?
@@jabibgalt5551 I spoke about extreme capitalism, like laissez-fair, every business makes its own rules type of capitalism. We know that competition is at the heart of capitalism. But we also know that a good capitalist will try anything to eliminate his competitors (you win monopoly by owning the entire board). A capitalist disaster is when a few corporations own every industry in the world. At that size, they would rival nations and so there would almost be no distinction. Let's not forget that with government we mandate a democracy because we can have some control in our lives, but at the work place, we relinquish our control of our situation. Within a mega-corp you are not guaranteed your inalienable rights.
@@dune469 You make a fallacy of generalization: that all business owners (even yourself) will always do anything to eliminate competitors. But this is false, as there are many business owners that are not willing to kill, kidnap, enslave, extort nor steal from others to gain an advantage over their competitors.
Your claim is based on the idea that business owners are evil because they are business owners. And because of this, they won't hesitate to do evil things.
The truth is, some people are good, some people are evil; and this is true regardless of whether they are rich or poor, or whether they own a business or not.
I can make burgers myself and sell them to whoever wants to buy them from me. How come McDonald's hasn't become a monopoly yet? They are the largest wealthiest burger joint on mankind's history; and yet, anyone can make and sell burgers.
@@jabibgalt5551 My friend, we are not in conflict here. I understand that I generalized, that's because I was asked about what my worst case looked like with capitalism. But I did not claim that capitalism is bad, nor did I call business evil.
The capitalist system has problems and I don't like when they those problems get ignored. Nobody would argue that lawmakers taking bribes from big business is not healthy for society, it might be good for business but not the people so much.
It seems to me that people forget why the economic debate is even happening. People care about having more control over their lives and the means to make their ambitions into a reality.
If we asked God to descend from the heavens and regulate our economy, no one would have an issue with a socialized planner, knowing that an omnipotent being can deliver on more freedom and opportunity. But since that's not possible, and any individual we give that authority over to will screw it up, we decided to organize ourselves into a decentralized system. That has been a good decision and when it works we get more freedom and opportunity.
But it doesn't always work. And when it doesn't, it's worth correcting the system.
On the shipping containers, let's look at how many jobs were created and increased because of that development (and this is just off the top of my head).
1. Workers mining the ores needed to create steel
2. Workers to extract the metals from the rock surrounding it
3. Workers to combine the metals to create steel
4. Workers to transport the steel and transport the ores and the metals extracted
5. Workers that create the shipping containers, mobile cranes, spare parts for the cranes
6. Workers that create the ships, and all the parts that make them
7. Workers that maintain ships, the technology and machinery on the ships and on land
8. Workers that create whatever is being shipped in the container
9. Workers that take the items out of the containers with machines like forklifts
10. The workers that create forklifts and their electronics
11. The workers that take the goods from one place to another, whether that being taking them on ship or truck
12. Not to mention that the workers mining, refining and producing shipping containers, forklifts, ships, mobile cranes, etc. are all like producing those goods that they all produce with assistance from robots, so you have workers that build the robots, and workers that have written the programs
So you can just boil down the list to:
1. Miners
2. Refinery workers
3. Truckers and ship crews
4. Workers that create items and machines out of the refined products
That's not to mention the physical aspect described in the video either, with labour being greatly eased and turned into operating machinery that have far more strength than anything natural.
We have Crony Capitalism in the US and it is much better than Socialism but what we want is real Capitalism and a true free market. Crony capitalism is why we went off the gold standard and the US is constantly at war etc.... Preaching to the choir.
Crony capitalism is still socialism. Its socialism for the rich.
@@zhaow4832 True its welfare for the rich. .
Crony Capitalism and corruption are what makes people hate the entire idea of Capitalism, not its core principles... It's rigging the game. People are fine with not winning all the time when rules are the same for everyone.
'Crony Capitalism' is a phrase Socialists use to describe Socialism when they don't want to make it appear like they are talking about Socialism.
@Jim Jim Yeap, that's Socialism. I know the difference, you don't. Government fixes the interest rate, hence Socialist. Private companies might attempt to fix the price of gold, commodities, etc., but the reality is they can't. Even if they succeed, it's only for a short period of time. The classic example was De Beers's attempt to corner the diamond market. In the end, they still failed.
Please try not to confuse your wingnut conspiracy theory shit, with the real world, champ.
@Jim Jim Smart people demonstrate how clever they are using reason and logic. Idiots tell me they are very smart. Hint hint.
@Jim Jim Pass given...
Great job John. This should be shown in schools around the country.
Unless it's stolen wealth, there's nothing wrong with some people having billions of dollars! In fact, we owe almost every good thing we have to capitalism! That system gives us kilotons of choices when it comes to all kinds of consumer products and services, just go into a shop in a relatively free market country and you're bound to see at least dozens of options for each type of item. Go into a shop in a socialist\communist country and you'll only see one option for each type of item, if you're lucky!
Plus, a free market with minimal or no business regulations is the only economic system that allows any degree of socioeconomic mobility, that is, the poor can climb up the the middle and upper classes. Now in corporatism, it's extremely difficult for the poor to climb the socioeconomic ladder, and with socialism, it's almost impossible or completely impossible!
Bernie before being a millionaire: "millionaires and billionaires shouldn't exist"
Bernie after becoming a millionaire: "billionaires shouldn't exist"
Humans memory isn't much better than flies. They need to be constantly reminded.
And even then a lot of flies seem to learn their lessons. More than most people I've encountered in life lol
If only we still had capitalism
I’m watching this video on my iPad that wouldn’t exist without capitalism.
Capitalism works... Period!
But its not without flaws. And thats where people go bonkers. "Youre just a damn socialist who eats babies blahblah".
@Olli Koskiniemi The rainforest is getting bulldozed. Species going extinct. Amazon and CZcams turned monopolies. There are many flaws - You want to go in any specific direction? The theoretic foundations taught in economics are even flawed so if you ever took acon 101 you should know. If your teachers were any good at least.
@@mr82769 Oh no, capitalism wake up flawless :D
Talk about how Government regulation on big tech is going to screw us all.
Because the government is incapable of knowing how tech will evolve and how the market will respond. By placing regulation the government prevents us from getting to a better place with better technology.
Big tech is only big because of patent laws anyway. Intellectual private property does not exist because it is infinitely replicable, you don't lose it if I "steal" it for example
Long live capitalism the moment its gone everything ends everyone suffers
Thank you for a video on common sense. There must not be enough of these.
I don't even know where's my money after pay my taxes. And it's not my obligation to help someone I don't know.
I’m upset because my SENIOR colleagues makes more than me. It’s not moral that they have all that money.
Makes as much sense as that jealousy/covetous feelings these statists have.
Shouldn't we be arguing the fact that QE, and corporate bailouts that lead to inflation and near worthless currency are the real problems?
Yes- those programs are state control over the so called 'free' market and capitalists would call that socialism.
Excellent point!
@BallTistic Screecher
The fed isn't even a government agency, it's a privately owned corporation that has a state given monopoly over our money which they use in the interests of bankers and the rich. The solution is to end the fed and instate a system in which currencies compete on the free market just like anything else. If people don't like their currency, they can simply switch to another one. The fed, however, is quite easily the most powerful monopoly in history as it now owns the federal government so abolishing it is not going to be easy.
BallTistic Screecher
The problem with government controlling the currency is that the wealthy will bribe the government officials to get the policies they want passed and the people will have to eat the negative effects that the wealthy bribed the government for. For example, the wealthy will bribe the officials so they instate policies that trigger inflation. Inflation makes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Currency competition eliminates the shortfalls of a government currency monopoly because people can simply switch currencies if they dislike the workings of the currency they were previously using. Furthermore, governments constantly seek to expand their power. Even if we went back to something like we had before, our politicians would soon instate what we have now all over again. Government never stays small so we must reduce it to the point where it is almost nonexistent.
I’m not saying anything about states having their own currency. Do states have their own steel producers or their own tomato producers? No, those things are privately owned just like what I am proposing. States don’t factor in at all because they won’t own the currencies, private companies will. Individuals themselves would choose what currency they want to receive in wages in a contract with their employer. Employers will have the incentive to offer the best currencies to their employees because their competitors in the labor market would be doing the same. Furthermore, it is also in the best interests of corporations to accept most currencies because they can make more money that way. Bitcoin is a primitive version of this system and many companies now accept bitcoin. However, Bitcoin is too volatile and too unstable to be used as a currency right now. Therefore, the individuals who created bitcoin, and who retain ownership, must regulate their own currency to give it stability. When you travel throughout the country, chances are that you won’t have to transfer to another currency because companies will accept your particular currency or that, even if you do, you will be able to do it automatically on your phone with a company that gives you the best rate. Even if you may have to pay a little to exchange currencies, this will be offset by there being practically no inflation because currency companies will be striving to offer their customers the most stable currencies with the least inflation.
Anyways, you should embrace the free market and capitalism. Governments having a monopoly on currency is socialism.
@BallTistic Screecher
We did not put anti-trust laws in place to free up markets. Rather, the government put anti-trust laws in place to gain the ability to harass companies that it did not like. Our anti-trust laws are vague and basically useless since all monopolies are granted to companies by the government. Companies have never become monopolies on their own. An example of anti-trust laws being abused is during Microsoft's monopoly trial in the 90s. The reason that this actually happened was not that Microsoft was a monopoly, but because Bill Gates and Microsoft were not contributing enough to the political process, ie bribing politicians. www.washingtonexaminer.com/carney-how-hatch-forced-microsoft-to-play-k-streets-game
"A govt cannot overspend when it is limited to finite amounts. And even with what you suggest, you honestly think they couldnt be bought? They will just accept the currency of their choice as you put it.
"
You're right on some things and wrong on others. Your first declaration that governments cannot overspend when limited to finite amounts is fundamentally wrong because you assume that governments can be limited to only accept finite amounts in the first place. You are right, however, that the government would simply be bought, and would "select the currency of their choice." My proposal to address these issues is to create a "government" that barely resembles a government. More so, it resembles a voluntary coalition. My ideal "government" would be a system in which municipal governments are basically autonomous countries with the right of secession from the federal government. In order to gain representation in the federal government, they will need to pay, say, 10-20% of their revenues to the federal government and will need to structure their political process through a Demarchic process. Demarchy is, put quite simply, the random selection of officials. Demarchy fixes virtually all of the problems of Democracy:
1. Ordinary people represent the rest, instead of corrupt and often psychopathic politicians who bow down to the interests of the wealthy.
2. There would be drastically less corruption because ordinary people are less weathered by the political process and because they don't have to run campaigns. That is, nobody will contribute to their campaigns and get power over them.
3. The laws would naturally better reflect the will of the people and would be written in such a way that even laymen can understand because ordinary people will not be interested in seeking to confuse the people they represent with misleading language for the benefit of the wealthy. Further, the people selected will hold the views of the majority most of the time so the will of the majority will be a prevailing theme in Demarchy, much more so than Democracy which is basically oligarchy.
4. There would be drastically less division and less polarization because there would be no parties. Parties come about because politicians wish to secure their own power. Then, people develop an emotional attachment to their party which causes societal strife and can even lead to civil wars and violence.
There would be one randomly selected official per county in the federal government whose only job is to maintain the peace between counties, stop any tyranny that may arise, and protect the people by maintaining a military. Most of the time, their only function would be declaring war on other nations. This would probably never happen though since no nation would be stupid enough to attack another nation with nuclear weapons. Therefore, this federal government is going to do almost nothing. If they want to take some domestic action, more than 51% of the vote will be required, perhaps 70% or 80%. Therefore, since this federal government does almost nothing, it has no reason to borrow or to overspend. Furthermore, the officials will be ordinary people like me and you, not politicians due to demarchy.
"Our system was doing very well before the Fed and lobbying. Give congress the printing power and end the Fed and lobbying. No need to make things complicated.
"
Our system was corrupt since the very beginning. The articles of confederation, for example, were simply abandoned by the wealthy businessmen who founded our government so they could instate a system of mercantilism (economic nationalism) and become wealthier. The people fought for the articles of confederation, not the constitution so what these wealthy businessmen founders did was unanimously install George Washington because they knew that he was the only one who could give the constitution legitimacy. If it had been anyone else, the people would probably have revolted since they did not fight for the constitution, they fought for the articles of confederation. Lobbying was also always a part of our system. The fed was simply the culmination of lobbying which is inevitable under a Democratic system. Democracy and Capitalism are fundamentally incompatible. Therefore, I reject Democracy. mises.org/library/liberty-vs-constitution-early-struggle
It's amazing how so many people don't understand this. Thanks for the video.
In capitalism, the population from poor to Rich increases. In "socialism," the population from everyone to poor increases.
I wish I could double or triple "like" this video. LOL
I'm an objectivist and I can't stand Yaron Brook, he always manages to throw in some bullshit. Like, the Dutch were the first to benefit from free trade, so it didn't start 250 years ago.
@@thotslayer9914 Well, I am all for a voluntary society.
@@thotslayer9914 As long it is voluntary but probably wouldn't work. Voluntary action alone doesn't lead to a free society.
@@thotslayer9914 I think creative cooperation that gives people more and more freedom. We often forget that besides the government, most of us spend almost all of our time as wage slaves in pretty oppressive workplaces.
@@thotslayer9914 Richard Wolff seems to be a full blown Marxist and communist. Don't get me wrong, I am still talking of capitalism, in communism you're even more of a cog working for others with zero possibility of growth. I am talking of work and capital that liberates and enriches the individual, instead of keeping him as a wage slave.
@@thotslayer9914 Much for the contrary.
If the market is free enough, there are no poor, there's only people starting up. So if we are under the impression that there are too many poor people, etc, what we need is to make the market more free, not less, IMHO.
Yaron Brook is the best proponent of capitalism
Send AOC one way ticket to Venezuela!!!l
- wealth inequality is not just local, it affects the global community especially the global south
- yes, it's immoral that we have billionaires when there are cuts being made to healthcare, education, and social spending programs
- billionaires have not "moved civilization forward", they have owned the companies filled with the working classes of the world who did the moving and building.
- socialists argue that "the rich got rich from taking money from others" is referring to basic marxist economic theory called surplus value. (Surplus-value is the difference between the amount raised through a sale of a product and the amount it cost to the owner of that product to manufacture it: i.e. the amount raised through sale of the product minus the cost of the materials, plant and labour power.) so what they (socialists) are suggesting is that the wealth generated by production is disproportionately being taken by the owners, rather than the actual creators (the workers) of the value.
- Yaron Brook part of the "Ayn Rand Institute" which, like in the name is based on Ayn Rand's philosophy, is arguably the most morally and intellectually bankrupt set of positions on economics and politics which is blatantly self serving for the richest classes in society. Brook's argues for a more a more laissez-faire capitalism, less regulation on the wealthiest corporations which has clearly been a great success since the 80's (it hasn't, growth and wages has been stagnating ever since and this form is capitalism exacerbates cyclical economic crisis both in frequency and severity). Brook's thinks global warming is just a scary story made by environmentalists, and that 'we' are at war with Islam and should have a more aggressive foreign policy by going to war with Iran and other. His positions are ignorant and abhorrent, his rhetoric sophomoric, every word that oozes out of this assholes' mouth is suspect.
- To chalk up every dimension of growth, every raised standard of living to capitalism alone is a giant leap in argument and patently wrong in many cases. Industrialization, globalization, division of labour, exponential developments energy and agriculture occurring simultaneously were not because of capitalism but happened prior to and along side it. Much of the wealth generated in during the explosive growth of capitalism occurred because that wealth was flat out fucking pillaged through global colonial efforts where the wealth was extracted almost without price from the global south in massive industrial efforts at the expensive of every country western colonial powers got their hands on (Primitive accumulation of capital). Furthermore, John Stossel and Yaron Brook, both advocates of a free market = massive growth and prosperity, seem to be conveniently ignoring how the Chinese "Communist government" was able to "According to the World Bank, more than 850 million Chinese people have been lifted out of extreme poverty; China's poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 0.7 percent in 2015, as measured by the percentage of people living on the equivalent of US$1.90 or less per day in 2011 purchasing price parity terms." How is that possible in a nation that has extreme controls and regulations over its economy? The exact opposite of what these clowns argue for is critical for pulling people out of poverty?
- Shipping containers and trading, this couldn't possibly be accomplished without capitalism lmaoo. Industry? doesn't happen without capitalism, it's not like the soviet union went from an agrarian feudal society to the second industrial powerhouse of the world within 50 years without capitalism.
- No one is saying there aren't massive problems with the failed "communist" experiments of the soviet union and the people's republic of china, they are subject to massive moral, social, and political criticisms (as with many Western imperialist nations like the US and the UK) but to singlemindedly, and one dimensionaly throw everything good that has developed from this world at the feet of capitalism, is not only wrong, but its a cult. It's a cult of belief to worship the 'invisible hand of the market' as the only way of providing wealth and prosperity for societies. It shouldn't be a surprise that when people go to university and ACTUALLY LEARN HOW THINGS WORK AND THEIR HISTORY, they become disproportionately leftists on social and economic policies.
- I'm sorry, these arguments are so fucking stupid. Socialism isn't about each person being selfless and sacrificing their wealth for others and being "last in line" it's about not allowing people and corporations to be wealthier than entire fucking nations, and making the means of production owned collectively so that the wealth is owned collectively. These fucking richest assholes don't even pay their goddamn taxes within capitalism!
- individual freedom, this must be capitalism's doing, not because of liberalism or anything, its not like the age of enlightenment had anything to do with democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, universal suffrage, freedom of speech. It must literally all be because, unfettered capitalism produced all these things... somehow lol
- Look, at the end of the day, capitalism in conjunction with many other developments over the past two centuries have contributed to a massive explosion in wealth in societies, that is disproportionately held by very few. If that wealth was owned collectively, or even just taxed appropriately, so that austerity wasn't the modus operandi of many of the wealthiest nations on the planet, then we would have healthier, more educated, less impoverished, less desperate societies where whether you get a paycheque that week doesn't threaten your material existence. Maybe growth could return to pre-neoliberal eras when...here's a thought, you invest in your societies. When a third of the wealthiest nation of the world is relying on food stamps, when it's handling this pandemic worse than some of the poorest countries in the world, when a trip to the hospital can cause you to file for bankruptcy, you know there's a big fucking problem with the way these guys gush over and frame the great successes of capitalism. Look at the numbers of the last 50 years, does this look like a thriving global economic system? Does this look like it's creating the growth and wealth it did 150 years ago? Get cucked you koolaid drinking libertarian free market bitches.
It's immoral for those who have worked hard and earned their money (and also given people something they want and employment along the way) but not immoral when a person has not worked hard at all and has gotten rich for pretty much breathing (yeah politicians, I'm talking about you). Got it!
Are we sure that guy in this video isn't just Bernie from an alternate reality? :-D
1. "Something amazin happened about 250 years ago. A few countries tried capitalism" how stupid are you? The first coins were introduced 500BC, meaning organized capitalism was already then in place. Before that it was commodity trade where people obviously tried to make profit.
2. "250 years ago we suddenly discovered the value of individual freedom" There have been dozens of philosophers over the centuries who wrote about this topic, even if you go by modern standards John Locke wrote about it 300 years ago.
3. "Capitalism unlike Socialism is voluntary." No, it isn't. It comes from a humans inherent need to feed himself and psychological compulsion to better one's living standards. Capitalism is the most natural way for economies to go because it follows human nature.
4. "The seller is there for his own self interest." As said above, he doesn't want to fucking starve on the streets!
5. Saying thank you is a societal courtesy, it has got nothing to do with economy.
I could go on but let's be honest: this video was researched shoddily and only tries to bring a forced viewpoint across. I like capitalism and I like libertarianism, what I don't like is laziness paired with deception. Do a better job.
Isn't Bernie Saunders in the top 1%? What is he doing to get out and below of the 1% so that he will not be wrong anymore?
According to a research paper I read recently, the top 1% in the US is defined as anyone with a net worth at or exceeding 11 million. So Bernie is not a 1%er. He is just very rich.
Everything about this message--in my opinion--is so critical to the continued development and advancement of our society. If a majority of individuals can realize these basic principles, and support liberty and personal freedom for all, we might just survive the next century.
Awesome, lets not stop here.
Didn't know capitalism needed defending.
Against Communists with their 10 talking points/logical fallacies.
Thousands if dollars! How many Harry Potter books did Yaron buy?!
I don't think it is just the books, or even just the books and movies combined. It probably includes travel to Universal Orlando, collectors' items, toys, and Halloween costumes. Anything that pays licensing fees to use JK Rowling's work.
American watching news:
-Hears title
-"WHAT ARE THEY DOING?"
-Speaks over news
WARNING: THIS IS A JOKE
There's nothing wrong with capatililism. Fiat economics and fractional reserve banking are the problem. Capatililism just makes that issue worse
You should do a new one of these, only go into detail on how capitalism creates wealth, i.e., the added value of labor to raw materials.
wow thank you for this video means a lot of you uploading Jon's videos very informal journalism
$1,000s of dollars? Dude how many diamond studded tile back books did you buy? Lol.
Not just 250 years ago, it was a lost truth in the world. I think ancient civilizations embraced capitalism.
Of course they did. Athens became a 'super power' of the ancient world, through it's trading fleets.
When a man speaks of self sacrifice he speaks of masters and slaves, and he intends to be the master
How are you telling me we don't have a problem when you have a handful of people holding onto half the wealth of the world not doing anything with it. How do yachts, or 30 cars, or fine jewellery, or millions or billions sitting in a bank help improve the lives of others? These billionaires who barley pay taxes will find anyway to diminish the pay of their own workers so they can solely benefit and they are improving the world?
Well...Define "Private Property" and explain why at "Birth" we are "assigned" ALL CAPS NAMES never to keep what we achieve as debt slaves. (unless you know the secret)
What's the secret?
@@mgonza1350 czcams.com/video/BJP5f-fsHrs/video.html
Cut back on the hookers, cocaine and partying, and you won't have to be a 'debt slave'. It's called growing a set, pulling your finger out of your arse, and taking responsibility for your life.
"Somebody else's need is not a moral claim against your life". That's the quote of the day folks
Part 2
An another KGB senior officer also suggested in using the same policy in the heavy engineering manufacturing industrial sector by giving all government workers and employees a private plot of industrial-business land plot of more than sufficient size to create their own micro to mini industries and businesses during their free time at week ends and even allowing them to pool their resources together. This is allowed as long as they do not neglect their state factories jobs and state business jobs and do their private industries-businesses jobs during their week ends. In fact, it was suggested that to the Politburo to reduce the work day from 5 days to 4 days so as to give sufficient time for their private jobs in their private industries and businesses and so that they can work in shifts so as not to miss a day in either their private enterprises and state enterprises. My KGB senior officers even suggested that this idea must be given a chance to work itself out to iron out the kinks so as to have an adjunct parallel legal privately owned-runned tax-free heavy engineering industrial manufacturing economy working side by side with the state owned heavy engineering industrial manufacturing economy. It is hoped that this idea will create the same effect of Stalin's CAPITALISTIC PRIVATE PLOT INCENTIVES in the non-farm industries-businesses, create new ideas and inventions and products and innovations and improve efficiencies and effectiveness which can be emulated also in the state-owned/runned heavy engineering industrial manufacturing economy.
But the Politburo politicians balked at the idea of their KGB counterparts by saying it might erode our socialist ideology but my KGB senior officers said of what used is socialism when you are hungry, cold, and lacking in medicines and medical facilties and shelter and other life-supporting essentials? But still those suicidal socialism brainwashed Politburo politicians still refuse to face the realities facing them in the early 70s. It was reported that America and Russia are on a par with each other during that time but now it is time we must DE-POLITICIZE the entire Soviet economy but still they refuse to listen to my KGB senior officers. At the end of that particular meeting I can hear behind close doors when all of my senior KGB officers are alone with each other shouting curses against those Politburo politicians for trying to destroy Mother Russia because it is they who are in the field half of the time seeing the realities of the Soviet Union at that time and are desperate to save Mother Russia's economy from collapse. If only they had listen to my officers then Russia will be like China but under a tight lease to prevent abuse of power and authority and to implement certain aspects of FDR's regulatory policies modified to meet Russian needs. But because the Politburo refuses to see and listen to the realities reported to them by my Senior KGB Officers, the fate of Mother Russia was sealed to become economically narrow and dependent on commodities exports instead of becoming the next Japan and South Korea of Eurasia, and the rest is history.
Then Putin came in and started making agricultural reforms, secretly of course, while importing food because he knows what the West will do to Russia once Russia started acting INDEPENDENTLY AND FREELY AS A FREE COUNTRY. Then came the sanctions, and Putin retaliated with his own sanctions against the West for he knew Russia's countless trillions of foreign revenues during the good economic times of Russia were wisefully invested in the non-oil-based Russian industries and businesses. In fact, Russia has already a "FULL-SET INDUSTRIAL ECONOMIC BASE" but we still import to maintain the facade that we are import dependent. The reason is to see how the West will react if they falsely perceived us as weak even though we can maintain our economy independent of the West. Pretensions to weakness is Russia's greatest ally to see the true nature of the West and of the United States. We are in fact going full blast in duplicating and dispersing our "FULL-SET ECONOMIC INDUSTRIAL BASES" throughout Siberia up to the Magadan Pacific region and to the Kamchatka Peninsula.
Well put!!!!
Only 250 years ago? It's truly amazing how much wealth has been created and distributed around the world in such a short period of human history. And continues to increase every year. Too many people seem to complain because they like complaining. And because they're wealthy enough to have the free time *for* complaining!
The problem is not capitalism, but that people confuse corporatism with capitalism. In our world, corporations can buy politicians to give them an unfair advantage. Tax cuts, bailouts, regulations targeted specifically to destroy certain businesses and so on. People despise that, and rightfully so. They don't get that that's not the fault of the free market but rather of politicians being up for sale.
The one thing missed by proponents of free market economics is that every entrepreneurial endeavour is proceeded by the question: “how can I serve others”.
*opponents
*preceded
@@anonygent I meant proponents, and ty. But considering my point is clear even with those mistakes; shut the fuck up.
"The Ayn Rand Institute" Now that gotta be trustworthy
If you're a butt hurt Socialist, I'm sure you won't. Handing all your stuff over to the government and giving them complete power over you. I'm sure you think they're trustworthy. ;-)
Having a middle-man that uses force is the real creator of inequality since aims at pleasing the ones who cry the loudest it at the expense of the productive. That is why we should get government out of the markets and people's voluntary (inter)actions.
Voluntary interaction!
Why am I not subscribed to this channel already?!?!?
People don't understand that WE CAN CHOOSE WHICH SERVICES WE WANT from WHICH COMPANY WE DESIRE in a capitalism society.
Exactly, I have used Amazo' precisely once in my life. The people who are saying that it's a monopoly are insane.
It is virtuous to be selfless towards those who are worthy and deserving of it when you can afford it. Not towards every one and not when your life is in ruins.
In addition, it takes time to get to know another person and evaluate if they are worthy or not.
These attitude are somehow not taught and praised nowadays.
You don't mention cronyism, where rich do actually unfairly get money. Also, I find the idea that government doesn't have all the specific knowledge to satisfy and supply all consumer demands, as well as spontaneous order, a much better defense of capitalism.
Most didn't get their money unfairly. Those that did, did so through bureaucratic methods taking advantage of the corruption of power.
It's sad whats happening with this unenlightened shift to communism. Really brings up some unpleasant thoughts and feelings. . . . See I'm not the only one too, that's the concerning thing.
> Dear God, please bring peace and closure to all of our minds including the folks on both sides of the fence. Amen.
Cars: how would you like to walk and carry your groceries home?
Thank you, ReasonTV! I really needed to hear some truth today. This video was like a healing cream for my bleeding (freedom-loving) soul.
The only virtuous system of trade is trade free from or absent theft force fraud and coersion. Virtuous governance is protecting people allowing them to engage in trade free from theft force fraud and coersion, and contrast where governments embodies or institutionalises theft force fraud and coercion.
People against the rich... can someone point to one person anywhere, that when a rich person loses money, ends up better off? Where is that person?
To be fair, there is a subset of the wealthy who made their money by providing little to even negative benefit to others. The important part is how, not how much.
Why do you give your money to people who provide you with 'negative benefits' ? Are you stupid?
Will Nitschke, because they lied, cheated, or just threatened you.
@@kokofan50 Then report them to your local consumer affairs authority. Assuming they have not already gone out of business, of course. Me personally, I do proper research and aren't intimidated by bullshit. So when I buy stuff I get value for money. But maybe it's different in 'stupid world'.
It's notable that even Objectivists seem to prefer the consequentialist, collectivist argument that capitalism is good because it made society wealthier. It's certainly a better defense than appealing to natural rights.
A "good" objectivist would know that utilitarian arguments are not the fundamental issue, but moral arguments are.
In other words, an objectivist supports capitalism because it is the _right_ social system; and it logically produces the best results, but this is only to prove that it is the _right_ social system.
So, no. An objectivist that knows objectivism would not defend capitalism by using statistics, but by using philosophy.
I used to be one of those "Selfless Socialists" because I had weak, abusive parents and all of my morals and life mantras came from authority in the public education system. It left me bitterly resentful of other people because almost all of them never reciprocated. It wasen't until I was introduced to Minarchy that I discovered that everything I was taught about human nature was purposefully wrong so that I would benefit someone else's aspirations for power and control. To be a Collectivist is to be ok with human slavery and subjugation, even if it is you who are the slave in that arrangement.
There are a number of aspects that aren't accounted for. The benefits described here only focus on the economy benefiting, rather than the diversity of the people and their circumstances. Someone has to clean the streets, is that going to be you? Most probably the answer to that is "no". That's what needs to be studied here.
The ideal of being selfless is an ideal that few have achieved but most want to achieve. However, you cannot force people to live up to such an ideal. The problem with the leftist visions of ideal societies is that people aren't ideal. Ideal societies (utopias) will either collapse or become dystopian as soon as a single non-ideal person is involved.
This... is a good channel
This video is great, but the big problem with it, is that it fails to mention most problems with standards of living are the result of excess government and excess government policy.
Which has nothing at all to do with voluntary trade. Why bring up the problems government causes when you are trying to point out that capitalism is good? They are unrelated.
Industrial companies are great, U can start with the smallest position and just get by while perusing your goals or u can get involved and take better positions and stay in the co if wished so.
I dont know how to explain assertively that socialism is decadence and negativity👊
While true, you don’t point out that in the 70s the playing field changed with the start of class warfare. The statistics show how wages were rising at the same rate for everyone until that point. Then only the wealth of the richest grew exponentially while everyone else remained more or less the same
So, when are you going to interview Dinesh D'Souza
"How does you becoming rich help others" is ass backwards. You got rich _because_ you helped others. Then the lazy people want to punish you for having done so much good that you became richer than them.
That looks like a helluva pretzel for a dollar
Capitalism at its core is based on freedom. Restriction on freedom of contract ultimately leads to serfdom.
Excellent point!
Great video! All it needs is the explanation of the actual mechanism of wealth creation in a society, which is so simple. Read the 1st three pages of chapter 3 of the booklet "Economics in an Hour" by Harold Paul. Basically, wealth is created when companies make things, and convert them to cash by selling them. It's like they are printing money. Capitalism removes limits to do that. Socialism severely limits it.
What about monopoly? The game is fun until one person owns all the properties. What happens then? Isn't that whats happening when there are 2000 plus billionaires?
That private corporations should rule the world for their own personal profit (hidden in some tax haven of course).