What's really wrong with the economy, and why?
Unemployment is still high and job creation hasn't made a big dent this many years into the so-called recovery. Who has the best plan? Is it the Keynesians? On the other end, the Austerics?
The answer is neither, really. They both neglect the economic elephant in the room - spreading wealth to the wealthy keeps buying power away from the middle class; it simply does not lead to economic recovery, historically. Perhaps looking to history can help us learn what works and what doesn't.
Robert Reich (Professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, and former Labor Secretary) delivers a compelling argument for a 6-point plan for economic recovery.
Support The Point for FREE by doing your Amazon shopping through this link (bookmark it!) http://www.amazon.com/?tag=townsquaretyt-20
We have never implemented austerity and in fact have spent more than any presidency in history. You sir are a liar and a fool who knows that's not true. You sound like a pitiful little man in your vocal inflections.
Your market point isnt always true and often you would be surprised how "competition" is either owned by the same company or in collusion with each other.
Even when you can go to a different company, it does not mean they have your best interests or that of the community in mind.
Most business prefers to run the environment and people into the ground for more profit.
You also need an educated populace to know what business policies are, but when news is owned by business, there goes that.
Then you're misinformed. The robber baron super wealthy, people like Rockefeller and Carnegie, actually attempted to buy our government. Thank God for Teddy Roosevelt and then FDR. Now the super wealthy are at it again.
And most people didn't have two nickels to scrape together, particularly during the Long Depression of the late 1800s, so how could they buy a lot of "stuff"?
No, I know what the "social contract" means. I was being snarky. :) My point is this contract is null and void. I never signed it. Just because some majority believe something, doesn't make wrong right. There are moral absolutes. Might does not make right, and the 99% does not have some moral power over the 1%. Please, excuse my frankness, but this social contract thing is a bunch of bull crap.
I agree to this poem, to the extent that people need each other, in friendship and companionship. I wouldn't agree if this poem is saying one man must be forced to be part of the majority collective, or else he will be punished by violence or death, for his own good.
When two people freely exchange something for what the other one wants, both go away feeling better then they were before the trade. For example, I like your tie, and you like my pen, and I would rather have your tie than my pen, and you would rather have my pen then your tie. So, we trade, and we both are happy. Or we do the same thing with money. I have a tie and you have $20, and each of us wold rather have what each have, so we trade. Please, explain to me how this is killing people.
I'm sorry. I never signed any social contract. Yes, my individual rights come before some majoritarian mob rule. Ii doesn't matter is 51% of the people want to kill someone because they are some race/color/gender, or decide to steal from them, that minority's individual rights trumps the democracy.
I'll agree with you on this definition. I'm sorry, I might be missing something, but what's your point on this? I get that it may be different in philosophy of socialism, but both still require full government control from some centralized body, right?
Also, I know what you mean about the Robber Barons. I felt it was wrong of these guys having huge business control and taking advantage of the little people. But, as I learned more about them, the only ones that were doing that, had an unfair advantage because of government protected monopolies. The ones that didn't have a gov't deal, were successful because they were over and beyond able to give the public quality stuff at low prices, making things more affordable and abundant for everyone.
I'm sorry. I still don't understand. If I don't want to work as an employee for a certain amount of wage, I can choose not too. And if I'm an employer, I shouldn't have to be forced to pay a certain amount as well. That just leads to more unemployment. My parents and myself have owned business, and every time the min wage goes up, we had to lay off the lowest paid jobs because we couldn't afford them at the new price.
Because most employers don't have the character to do the right thing unless the government forces them to, sorry. Minimum wage should be in line with cost of living increases, that would be $15.00 an hour.
I would suggest reading about the robber baron era of the 1800s, for instance Carnegie (prior to minimum wage), who decided he wanted to be the richest man in the world and to do that he cut his steel worker's wages in half. Like I said, most people are not trustworthy to do the right thing.
Totalitarian, Authoritarianism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, are all different ways of the same thing; total government control. It really comes down to the belief of where are individual rights as humans come from and what those rights are. The main individual rights would be Life, Liberty, and Property; using force to protect those. The other belief would be that there are no individual rights, but whatever the majority or elected few decide what's best for the whole, using force to enforce.
The difference if force versus freedom. I can voluntarily choose to pay for something from a company. If I take and don't pay, that would be theft. Taxes are involuntary. I don't have a choice to pay them or not without the threat of violence, whether or not the taxes are used for things that I can use. If my neighbor held me at gun point and took my property, and said he's going to use it for some things that could benefit me, that doesn't make it right.
Slavery? Really? I guess if you are putting all transactions together and calling it "capitalism", you'd have a point. I guess it's just semantics. My definition of free enterprise is the is the free interaction of trade between parties. Slavery would not be involved, because that is a forced transaction.
The numbers of deaths due to socialism regimes is very real. If you just take the big 3: Communist China around 70 million deaths, Soviet Union around 70 million, Nazis around 11 million.
First of all, there are no real free enterprise countries right now. That's part of my point. Taxes are a good point. My belief is that all taxes by definition are theft. I'm not naive to think we can get to no taxes (at least soon :) ). But the principle is that government is a necessary EVIL, and doing all you can to limit it. Thanks for the discussion.
If a corporation is wanting payment that is due, it's because another party freely agreed to some trade. If payment isn't paid, that would be theft.
I don't know what your definition of "best" means. Giving a few people a legal monopoly on violence in order to accomplish their "fair" schemes doesn't sound right to me. It's like saying a whole bottle of arsenic in a fish tank will kill the fish, but a little bit of it is okay, since it will only make them sick. I say, let's not put any in. :)
Since this scenario will never happen, people are forced to do what the leadership says, and the leadership is full of corruption with he immense power they have. In practice, socialism is responsible for the death of around 200 million people that didn't or wouldn't fit into the central planners' grand scheme.
I know how you feel. I felt the same way. But I finally realized that socialism may sound nice in theory, but in order for it to work, you must force others to conform. Plus, humans are far from perfect. The only way for that system to work, is if all people involved had full agreement, and was managed by perfect people.
It is the current conservative troll agenda to try and make people think there is no difference between the GOP and the Dems, when there is a BIG difference. The GOP wants to give you no retirement security, no medical treatment in old age. A job with no minimum wage and no on the job safety. The Dems are fighting for the middle class.
You are so right! Whether it's a Democrat or Republican, we keep getting the same old stuff. Big business and banks partnering with both parties in government, and getting an unfair advantage over the rest of us. Let Liberty reign!
I agree with you about all the subsidizing and bail outs. That's evil stuff. Stealing yours and my money by a barrel of a gun, and then giving to whoever they see fit for it. They should have gone bankrupt. You are totally right!
I know how you feel. I felt the same way. I don't like the idea monopolies, because It sounds like a company can take advantage of no competition and charge extremely high prices with crap products. But, I've researched and haven't found any company that has been able to do that. The companies that appear not to have competition are doing so well, because they are doing the exact opposite; giving people great stuff at great prices.
3:35 - An outright lie, The economy started recovering 6 YEARS before WWII, because unlike the 2009 stimulus package, The New Deal programs directly paid individuals who were previously unemployed. The 2009 stimulus did no such thing. The contracts went out to private firms who funneled the money overseas as usual.
You want to stop the wealth gap, you have to use Alexander Hamilton's plan from the post-revolutionary period: Erect trade barriers to foster independent manufacturing.
Mr Reich: Calling the massive pallette of supply-side giveaways to the wealthy from 2009 "keynesian" is like claiming Michelle Bachmann is a member of the canadian NDP.
It's beyond intellectually dishonest, but do go on...
Professor, education administrators, and teachers should take the 1st step to stop inequality in pay. 1st. their pensions should be confiscated. 2nd. their salaries should be limited to 40K a year, 3rd all income over 40K for the past 10 years should be back paid to the stockholders that liberal government has raped for so long. Mr. Reich what do you think? Keynesian economis is theft, the depression ending with spending cuts, there is no austerity in Europe. lie lie lies!
No I didn't learn anything, I'm sorry, you give the same knee jerk reactions like most statists do. Democracy means, he or she who has the most charm and charisma wins, and the bureaucrats that work for the party are not all voted for. How "democratic" is the EU for example. But yeah, you need to read some books to understand what this is all about, a good place to start "what has the government done to our money" by Rothbard, it's free on the net.
True&state propaganda is even worse.They teach you "history"& brainwash u to think that government is good and helps the people&that democracy is the best system out there,so that when u grow up u pay taxes to these parasites,that are corrupt and make everything 10 times worse,they go to war with ur money without ur consent.U trust government over companies I see.But I'd rather have companies "manipulating" me than government,cuz I can always choose not to buy but I'm always forced to pay taxes.
This search for weaknesses, biological weaknesses, intellectual, etc they sell their products to kids so they buy them when they're older. They put bikini models on car to attract men. They tell buy people to buy a car now and pay 10 years later. What they don't tell about is the 1% Interest per month until you pay off. They advertise high quality health-care on TV and when the people contract some disease it's never insured, so they can't pay for the treatment and get sick or die.
Yes there are different types of capitalism, and if you all put them under one category, you're basically being a propagandist more than anything else. True capitalism is total laissez faire captialism with no government intervention. Scandinavian countries have huge amount of resources to keep their system going, let's see how they will do if they run out of oil.
it will collapse, but it's not capitalism. It's a dirty mix between fascism, corporatism, socialism, dictatorship, big brother,... But don't blame capitalism, because you don't know what you're talking about then.
It's just doesn't make sense to concentrate all the power in the world in one institution, and then somehow "trust" them not to abuse it, now that's the dumbest idea ever, which you ascribe to by the way.
Stupid assumption. Regulation would be tighter, but it wouldn't be done by a corrupt govermnent. You would have the consumers as direct regulators, and you would have private rating agencies that label products based on certain standards. Exploiting human weakness; Tell me how governments don't do that? LOOOOL, you believe the "news" don't you? They won't stop doing that, I didn't say it would be an utopia, that's what statists want, an utopia with perfect government.
they don't have to "care". You can't seem to understand that in an anarcho kapitalist society you only get rich IF you serve your fellow human being, by providing services that helps the other person. It's the most emphatic system. You work for your fellow human being, and by doing that you enrich yourself, it's a win-win
an invention...goodness gracious. a free market is simply this: you have some chicken, and they lay eggs, you exchange them for the apples in my garden. That's it, upscale that on today's society, and you have a free market. That's not an invention. An invention is socialism, lying cheats who wants to steal value and give it to the poor, but in actuality give it to themselves, just like Stalin and Mao, and Kim Jong Ung, ruthless dictators who murdered millions. That's what you see as an ideal.
I'm not going to respond to all your crap,just some of it, cuz it has been enough wasting my time.Multiple currencies simply means that it is allowed to hve competition of currency,so if a small community wants to make their own money, and use it outside of the large banking system,they would be able to & thus save themselves from a banking crisis.Please do some reading,you're like a first grader on this topic.How are you going to enforce only gold?Create an army that will enforce only gold use?
you're against big banks, yet you want one world currency? You make no sense whatsoever. And having no currency would be losing a great percentage of the population due to massive inefficiencies because of calculation problem of prices. Prices are necessary to know supply and demand, read wikipedia "economic calculation problem"
1-tariffs on foreign goods (which makes them more expensive for the consumer, so they're forced to buy goods from corporations who operate inside)
2-Tax breaks for certain corporations who can lobby politicians
3-Restrict service to one corporation (e.g the Postal office who has the exclusive right to do this service,no competition is allowed)
4-Tax exemption loopholes (which need a corps of lawyers that only big corporations can afford)
Hell no I don't think that, I think that the crime would diminish, because so much of it is created by government, but there will always be crime, and a decentralized solution for crime would work better. No you have the mafia paying governments to keep the drug laws, because they make so much money out of it, and you have the CIA smuggling cocaine into the country.
yes, that's true, it's because big banks who have a monopoly created by the government fucked the economy in the ass, that because you stupid socialist want one monetary unit, sa that there is a centralization of money creation, and all the related huge crashes fuck up everything, because bankers gamble with the entire system. Go read some Ron Paul for that matter "end the fed"
In Switzerland guns are legal, and large percentage owns them, they have lowest rate of violence in the world. If you don't take into account confounders you make the wrong conclusions. But so, you want to ban civilian guns, but military guns is OK, you don't watch the news and see how many people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria,... You're truly blind.
Those that pay, so no to second part of your question. Overprices highways, compared to what? Free government highways? Again you're showing lack of knowledge in economy. The cost of government highways is hidden because taxes pay for them, so you have no way of comparison.
"invented slavery", slavery was institutionalized by governments, in fact you're a debt slave, but you don't even know it. Look at the Roman empire for example, that was no "corporation", that was a government that used law to label people as slaves, and enforced those laws.
your first part could be true: selling overprices products because of advertisement, but the second is not, they can't "come into power", because they're not a government, when are you going to start making sense?
who stops gangs robbers and terorrists? Gangs develop because of the drug industry, because illegality makes it expensive, thus gangs start to compete to get bigger market share, so legalize it, and you most gang related crime. Robbers: anti burglar technology, and hiring private guards with your neighbor that do neighborhood watch. If they don't do their job right (like lazy cops), you fire them , and you hire new ones (a great difference with what we have now, because you can't fire them,
Ofcourse we should, you moron, it would not only work out for weed, but for all drugs. "The day they would introduce heroin or cocaine" You stupid fuck, what are you talking about, you can already access those products in the black market, the government can't stop it, but by making it difficult to sell, prices go up, and it creates criminality, and people will not shoot heroine because it's legal, but because it's dangerous, I can't even believe I'm having this discussion...
other than being highly unlikely, because you will always have new ones that come out( which makes it impossible), It's not about advertising alone, it's about prices. If solar energy, or wind-energy can provide cheaper energy, then they're fucked. There you go again with the only solution known to your small brains 'without a safeguarding institution like the government" you believe in fairy tales.
I didn't say it "shouldn't", that's a stupid straw man. No the consumer wouldn't be the slave, because now, the huge oil companies are in bed with government, and they do everything to maintain this position. If there were no government, other energy sources would have long gotten bigger and competed with big oil, and give the consumer the choice. Look at EU tariffs on Chinese Solar panels for example, it's disgraceful. An oil company buying ALL the newspapers in the world..
the opposite of what you said would be the case. A monopoly is extremely hard to maintain in a free market. Govermnet is what creates monopolies, by giving privileges to some to manufacture some goods, over others, they make regulation, or use tariffs, to give unfair advantage over other starting businesses, or look at the patent laws for example, same thing. This comment of yours proves that your a novice on economics, for your own good, I would suggest you read some Rothbard.
That is why the private contractors lobby to go to war making deals to produce the weapons.In a free market,that would be close to impossible,because, how do you convince the majority to pay for a war,for over 10 years, for no good reason? And that's the thing, if your money is with the politicians, you just shut up like a serf, because you have no choice over what happens with your money. Statism encourages perpetual state of war (read stefan moyneux "practical anarchy if you want more details)
you could hire private guards to protect your business (already happens), and as for "national" security, you would have no borders in the first place, but it would be perfectly manageable to hire a private company to take care of that.Ofcourse here is where you will have a knee-jerk reaction and say: those would start plundering, and whatever,but you have to know that the difference between a free market and one that is not, is that there is no taxes that go to corporation regardless of qualtiy
would run, and how the infrastructure would be, basically the same as what happens now, but instead of the government deciding, it would be the people who bought the piece of land. If there is no government, people would be able to buy roads and bridges, and ask a fee&improve the quality, so that people would keep on using their roads, instead of bypassing them. There are already private roads. defense, well, you could buy burglary security for you house, and buy a gun and put it in a safe place
I don't see any irony there, maybe in your little world. How would I handle roads and bridges and defense? Well the good thing about anarcho kapitalism is that not one person get's to decide and make plans on how things should run, look up "spontaneous order", but to give you an answer (because you're not smart enough to come up with one on your own). There are already places, like Pakistan, where people buy collectively a piece of land, and choose a good businesses, then plan out how the roads
That's in theory you naive child. In democracy it's the most charming who gets to enchant the people with nice chatter, selling unaccomplish-able ideas to the stupid like you, and once they're in power they become corrupted by the lobbyists. And sure, people can vote someone else, but it's always the same that happens, people start to lose faith in politics, and many bureaucrats are not even voted for by the people (like many members of the EU for example), and all the lower level bureaucrats.
That's why ending government is taking power away from corporations, and not the opposite, it's the dispersion of Power, instead of centralizing it, and allowing the wealthy to use it to their benefit, like they always have. When you remove government you simply take their biggest advantage away which is: a political arm to rely on in harsh times.
owh you're Dutch? As if that has anything to do with it...Do a simple wikipedia search on wikipedia to understand how those huge companies existed through the state and did all the horrible things they did (slave trade and such). Corporation are not better than government, the thing is that if you want to regulate corporations BY government, you get the worse possible outcome, because state=POWER and corporations=MONEY. Put them together (like they always are)= unstoppable tyranny.
they bet everything knowing that they will be bailed out by the taxpayers! that's what happens when you don't allow competition of currency, and no free banking instead of central banking, but I don't know if you have the brains to get that.
they don't earn anywhere close as much as him, but if you look at doctors in general they earn much more then an average artist. And the fucktards on Walstreet.. They're indeed fucktards because they bet taxpayers money (stupid people like you who believe in the system) on the stock market, you see money itself should be free market and decentralized, instead of what we have now. You have to use the dollar, and because bank account is insured through FDIC (through taxpayers money),
In a free market everyone's strive towards his/her self interest must be striving towards someone else's self interest. You can only enrich yourself if you have something to offer that enriches other people. So even though free market capitalism looks cold and egotistical, it is actually the opposite. Now as for Justin Bieber earning more, he is an exception, because if you look at all the artists,
High taxes fuck up many, because they disincentive people to become rich by creating new value in the world, which makes everyone poorer in the long run. If I pay 40% tax rate when I earn 10K per month, and 45 when over 10K, I will not strive to earn more money (and work harder, and create something valuable), and thus stall in my advancement, which could potentially benefit a lot of people, and even create new jobs by creating new businesses.
regulations and taxation are so called to protect you and create equality, but they do the opposite. The war on drugs is a massive failure, created a huge black market, and huge crime problem. Drugs becomes expensive, and an incentive for criminals to make huge profit. Guns are bad, but if someone with a blue uniform has one, it's OK, because you trust that man, because he's a "policeofficer". Naieve people get fucked at the end of the day.
interaction&that will make them forced to be a slave to you¬ otherwise&Now as for companies making profit no matter what, that's a good point, like for example oil spills.Well a bad solution would be to have a whole state apparatus, because you know what?People are corruptible,so you end up having the worse outcome, which is:politicians being bought to keep an eye closed to oil spills&no chance for the consumer to do anything about it cuz the state will do nothing but protect the perpetrators
flying shit about how they go around doing business, because the stupid consumer,like you,is forced to pay taxes for services that he/she cannot choose from between other companies, so what ends up happening,is that lobbyists go and pimp politicians to funnel funds to them, and then they provide shitty services. In a free market, companies are much more dependent upon what YOU as a consumer think, because at any time you can choose to pay the competitor for better quality, because It's VOLUNTARY
In a free market they make profit when they serve the consumer (=the people), by providing good services. The problem is that you're used to see corporations messing up. Well it's because, they use the state's apparatus to get powers they otherwise would not have, like for example a fixed income through the enforced taxation I was talking about. Taxes eventually go to corporations (to provide for roads and bridges and defense..) but the fact that their money is assured, they don't have to give a
corporations are not free market, they are like the charetered companies back in the 1600's and 1700's(west india company e.g), companies that teamed up with government in order to get monopoly position, and get away with anything, because they had the state supporting them. In a free market you wouldn't have such corporations, because there would be no government. No as for a mission of a company.. Ofcourse it's to make profit, you stupid socialist :) should they lose money and be inefficient?
The government enabled slavery by making laws that made it possible, and enforcing these laws by catching ran away slaves for example. Slavery without government enforcement is not economically feasible in the long run.Jim Crow laws in the US was government backed racism..
The state provides infrastructure and services around which we all live our lives, it doesn't encumber or dilute the opportunities available to anyone. The profit margins are what create jobs and growth. If a company has to cut everyone to 30 hours in order to avoid paying health insurance(to keep profit at the status quo), is that economically a wise choice on the larger scale? Or are we all just disposable?
people to save money, by ending inflation, and stimulating saving. Let poor buy their own piece of land, with no threat of taxation, and the ability to rely on themselves, instead of being a serf. The rich and poor are not two separate races, as socialist love to portray, they consist of mobile units, and upwards mobility is what you should encourage. The state is the biggest blockade to that, not free markets. read and learn more, it will do you good.
In reality government exacerbates problems of free markets, and instead of helping the poor, it becomes a tool for industry to exclude competition,by increasing regulation, taxation, and bureaucracy.You see I don't doubt your sincerity to help humanity, but the regulators end up on the side of the perpetrators; The best thing you can give the poor is the ability to start their own businesses, with no taxation and no 1000 and 1 forms to fill in in order to have a "legal" business. encourage poor
use the wrong tools to solve infinite "what if" scenario's, fed by fear mongering media. basically you think that every problem of industry could be dealt with, by government regulation, thinking that government officials are benevolent creatures that look out for the people. It's idealistic ideology, resulting in parasitology of you brain. The search for that god send man/prohpet that will "listen to the people", and "do the right thing", is a nightmare turned fantasy in reality.
Everything, but again, your reaction shows ignorance on the subject, but you're not the only one. Anarcho-capitalism, is total free market without any government. You see the mistake you make, is to think that the free market part of the equation is what's wrong with the world. It's not, it's the government part. You're so brainwashed that you favor government over FREE market, and I don't know if you'll ever get out of that hole. The mistake that you make is to
you're too moronic to understand that there are different ways of capitalism, and all put them in the same category, like the dumb person you are. State capitalism is not the same as free market capitalism. But you like to make up a straw man, and attack based on that, to deceive the dumbed down, emotionally invested audience.
The class of drugs that Levitra, Viagra, Stendra, and Cialis belong to are called PDE5 inhibitors. They work by relaxing tight blood vessels, allowing more blood to surge into the penis and cause an erection, says Gregory Bales, M.D., an associate professor of urology at the University of Chicago.
The little pills do the trick for more than two-thirds of men with Viagra protects the heart (ED). They also work for guys who simply need them for a short time to get their “confidence back,” says Michael Eisenberg, M.D., director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford University.