Libertarians don't have a problem with big business, they should embrace all business. They take issue with government involvement in business. What Yaron is saying is, don't hate the businesses, because they are simply playing by the rules that a manipulative government has laid out for them. It would be nice if they'd all stop playing the game, and say "Get out government!", but that seems a little unrealistic.
@Kyle Whitehead > Amazon for the fact that they pay little to no taxes here in Britain Because they lost money for years to build their business. Thats applied to current taxes.
@@TeaParty1776 Your optimism that truly genuine capitalism will work is equal to the optimism of a fairness in a socialist system. Neither will be able to occur. Let it take place in History, and no one will have the ability to change it once implemented once one corporation is the most powerful!
There is an incident far earlier than Microsoft. In 1964 GM wanted to put one of it's hottest engins in a Chevrolet product but the Gauleiters stepped in and threatened them with anti-trust action because Chevrolet was one of the leading sellers in the leading company. So to evade that, GM put the engine in the Pontiac Tempest and this is where we got the Pontiac GTO, Since, as usual, the government acted on the sneak pepole never understood why this 3-deuces engine was in the Pontiac and not the natural choice of Chevrolet products. This also explains why, during the middle '60's GM had no official presence in racing
I don't get what you are saying. How does anti trust prevent GM putting in a new hottest engine into their car? I see Toyota change their design and engine all the time.
@Kyle Whitehead Agreed. Markets are seething cauldrons of constant potential and actual competition, w/firms and industries rising and falling. This frightens some people. The first anti-capitalists were religious conservatives ,inc.early Marx! who wanted tradition and stability and dependence upon external authority. They hated and feared the intellectual independence of businessmen. Capitalism-Ayn Rand Abolition Of Antitrust-Gary Hull Markets Dont Fail-Brian Simpson Capitalist Manifest-Andrew Bernstein Free Market Revolution-Yaron Brook Yaron Brook Show-online
@Kyle Whitehead Economist, Israel Kirzner, specializes in the theory of the entrepreneur. He doesnt credit mans independent mind but this can be ignored. Entrepreneurs create new resources, causing new allocations of supply and demand. Most economists study given supply and demand. Competition And Entrepreneurship-Kirzner How West Grew Rich-N. Rosenberg How Innovation Works-Matt Ridley (May 2020; interview-Yaron Brook Show, Mar26)
@Kyle Whitehead Economist, Israel Kirzner, specializes in the theory of the entrepreneur. He doesnt credit mans independent mind but this can be ignored. Entrepreneurs create new resources, causing new allocations of supply and demand. Most economists study given supply and demand. Competition And Entrepreneurship-Kirzner How West Grew Rich-N. Rosenberg How Innovation Works-Matt Ridley (May 2020; interview-Yaron Brook Show, Mar26)
If businesses or people want to affect government, they'll have to organize. That's fair. What's not good, is how these things occur behind closed doors, in forms of private deals with the ones with political power. That's just corruption. I think the easiest way to fight this, is to offer legit, open arenas where these things can be discussed freely. People with power should also be required to declare any personal interest they might have, and be subject to investigations when doubts arise.
You know they would still be able to conceal their interest, right? This solution might give a temporary illusion of transparency, but the government would still be sold to the highest bidder behind closed doors.
Go after crony capitalism; defend real capitalism There is a lot of crony capitalism going on in this country. And that has to be distinguished from real capitalism, because this "Occupation" stuff on Wall Street, if you're going after crony capitalism, I'm all for it. Those are the people who benefit from contracts from government, benefits from all of the bailouts. They don't deserve compassion, they deserve taxation, or they deserve to have all their benefits removed. But crony capitalism isn't when somebody makes money and they produce a product. That is very important. We have to distinguish the two. And unfortunately, I think some people mix that. But this, to me, is so vital, that we recognize what capitalism is versus crony capitalism. When you have crony capitalism, and that's why we're facing this crisis today.
I like the way you say that governments intervene economy like businesses are in no way able to affect or influence the economy. Like businesses do not exist and have no effects on the balances of supplies and demands, environment, and what not.
very good analysis. If government starts intervening in the economy, no business can over the long run resist having to deal with it. thats really great and condensed analysis of the problem!
"Banking is the most regulated industry in the united states" ... yet Petroleum/ energy / motor vehicles / Healthcare / Manufacturing / Software / non profit / Education / Public sector are all more regulated ?
Negatives cant be proven. Prove that you did not murder someone. You need evidence. You must prove that true leads to crony. If you cannot, you have no evidence for anything.
@@TeaParty1776 Okay, more specifically, how does the wealth accumulation (which is a part of true capitalism) not always lead to the corrosion of the political sphere?
@@felixlipski3956 You restate your request for an impossible proof of a negative. You raised the topic. You are responsible for justifying the topic. You must provide some evidence that capitalism corrodes politics. Then a discussion is possible. Lacking justification and evidence, there is literally nothing to discuss. Doesnt chocolate ice cream lead to communism? Ive provided no evidence for that, thus there is no focus for the mind.
Felix Lipski, under laissez faire unregulated capitalism there is no cronyism as there is no point in trying to lobby the gov't for favours. Once the gov't starts regulating now businesses lobby the gov't for special favours to exempt them from laws while not exempting their competition, or by taxing them differently, or imposing tariffs on imported goods that compete with theirs.
Sure. Libertarians generally have a poor view of any interactions between any size business and govt. Though "hate" might not be the right word. Size of business is not a moral determination.
He lost it at 1:54 when he said "most Americans VOTE for this stuff," implying that Americans vote for issues rather than CANDIDATES. He's missing a slight step on the process, since voters have NO VOTE other than for a particular candidate. So holding the voters responsible, is short-sighted, since candidates have FINAL AUTHORITY once elected. Meanwhile elections are usually won on the amount of financial support they get; and so they become INVESTMENTS for special interests. So he doesn't understand that the problem is TOTALITARIAN DEMOCRACY.
Where cronyism is unacceptable is at a political level where the information that was promoted to secure a vote was not the underlying intent or purpose of the candidate. Without consumer rights bought in at a political level it is a case of the most personable liar having the advantage. This will not be initiated by the offshore wealth land owned in trust establishment. Voters must make it happen.
Crony capitalism do exist for on reson and that is to elimination competition, cromy capitalism love regulations that makes smal businesses have a hard time while big businesses bribe high raited officials.
Kyle Whitehead If ur talking about corporate control of government then that’s where the ideological lines blur between socialism and capitalism. Just like fascism blurs with communism. Call them what u want, they’re all one and the same.
So much contradiction in this video. He got all the Microsoft stuff wrong. We all saw how well unfettered capitalism worked in 2008! Who pays you for this nonsense?
What are you talking about.... WHAT unfettered Capitalism? The US has NOT been a Capitalist society for well over 100 years. You can't blame what happened in 2008 on something that was not in existence.
@@johnnynick3621 Have you seen all the corporate mergers in the last 10 years it's all about the capital. When you have lots of money you can buy your competitors. So it's all about capital. You can see what can happened and 2008 is a great example what can happen. What do you think caused 2008? Clue you can't have or approach a monopoly without Capitalism. What is really twisted is the tax payers providing welfare to these guys like the big 3 just to allow foreign countries to buy them.
Good pts. Classical capitalism isn't any longer desirable under the monetary "free" market system. Because the mixed corporatist/statist conjunction was rooted prior to the advent of classical economics, it's the system itself that needs incrementally replaced by an emerging resource based economy that will also replace the international banking & corporate cartels that run the tyrannical & totalitarian show. Randians advocate identical capitalistic means to obtain their own utopian sum goals.
Neither. I'm referring to the new capitalism that is emerging with the new resource based economy. Ck. out the Zeitgeist movement & see how capitalists are reaching their goals of free, unrestrained, unregulated markets in spite of the usual historical constraints. Objectivists tend to miss this viable alternative to the current monetary/market system that has destroyed our freedom & liberty. All patriots should fight for an Amendment convention. Everywhere, this police state is intolerable.
Yaron's euphoria seems rooted in the tremendous good of capitalism. The tremendous bad that capitalism has caused, while acknowledged, is largely ignored as he justifies his position of using the ends to justify the means. This is also the moral position of Rand's closed objectivism with Brook as it's chief exponent. The opportunity & ability to compete in his world of global domination & monopoly isn't even possible with the 1% eliminating any perceived threat to their rule both here & abroad.
If crony cap is inevitable then why do Canada, Germany, and the Scandinavian states have notably less than countries like Bulgaria, Russia, and Honduras?
You mean cronyism ie corruption which is NOT Capitalism and is actually more like Socialism. Your premise is incorrect - Canada and Germany are just as bad a Bulgaria and Russia for cronyism if not worse! Because corruption by its nature is not transparent no one would really know the extent!
@@56jklove Certainly these words mean different things but what I am trying to educate people about is that: (1) there is no such thing as "Crony capitalism" capitalism works to ELIMINATE cronyism (2) what the mislead call "crony capitalism" is actually Socialism of the FASCISM subset where the "Big" Government (which has CONTROL of industries by legalisation, regulation, taxation and fines/penalties) enters into partnership with "Big" industry often represented by lobbyists if not the companies directly themselves! (3) Socialism PROMOTES cronyism, corruption and crime because it centralises power and places it into the hands of the few. As the saying goes power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This means lobbyists and industry are able to bribe one or just a few individuals who are very powerful to get policies changed as we saw with Hillary changing policy for Uranium One, Biden's corrupt criminal family helping Burisma, etc. Conversely politicians can offer services in exchange for bribes or donations to support their re-election campaign. In contrast Capitalism has small government which leave markets to respond to the stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, employees in the many players within the industries, none of whom are so big that they can attain control of the market nor influence government policy. If any company did grow big enough to gain any significant influence it would still need to bribe or gain the cooperation of many people not just in government by all the other organisations that are not controlled as they would be by Big Government, making it far more difficult for any one company to get the government to favour them and change laws/policies in their favour. I hope this helps you understand my points better. Kind regards.
@@56jklove Certainly these words mean different things but what I am trying to educate people about is that:
(1) there is no such thing as "Crony capitalism" capitalism works to ELIMINATE cronyism (2) what the mislead call "crony capitalism" is actually Socialism of the FASCISM subset where the "Big" Government (which has CONTROL of industries by legalisation, regulation, taxation and fines/penalties) enters into partnership with "Big" industry often represented by lobbyists if not the companies directly themselves! (3) Socialism PROMOTES cronyism, corruption and crime because it centralises power and places it into the hands of the few. As the saying goes power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This means lobbyists and industry are able to bribe one or just a few individuals who are very powerful to get policies changed as we saw with Hillary changing policy for Uranium One, Biden's corrupt criminal family helping Burisma, etc. Conversely politicians can offer services in exchange for bribes or donations to support their re-election campaign. In contrast Capitalism has small government which leave markets to respond to the stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, employees in the many players within the industries, none of whom are so big that they can attain control of the market nor influence government policy. If any company did grow big enough to gain any significant influence it would still need to bribe or gain the cooperation of many people not just in government by all the other organisations that are not controlled as they would be by Big Government, making it far more difficult for any one company to get the government to favour them and change laws/policies in their favour. I hope this helps you understand my points better. Kind regards.
@@eddesa5134 government intervention be it tax breaks subsidies etc has always been the case, u need a government to protect the rights of people and private property. Regulations work to protect rights. Ultimately crony capitalism is still capitalism, bug businesses are still privately owned to sell a product for money, just because they collude with the government, doesn't mean they get there money mainly from customers
I must disagree with your assessment of any one company, under the present conditions, using government to attack other companies, when the same is being done all over. A novelist-philosopher once said "The aggressor is solely responsible for the consequences of his action" so ALL the evil is to be laid at the feet of the aggressors; First the government, then Netscape, Sun and Oracle for STARTING this crap that CREATED the conditions that are
Yaron, you don't get to dictate what others mean by the phrase "crony capitalism". What a person means is what he means, and that's that (I presume you believe in liberty of thought). Reflect on that before claiming "there is no such thing as crony capitalism", because what your answer does is equivocate. It trades out the questioner's actual meaning for your own. It's presumptuous. So you're being very illogical from the start. Study what people actually mean by the phrase -- and the best people not the worst -- then answer. What the most intelligent people mean by "crony capitalism" is, I think, something along these lines: An economic system where there is the superficial appearance of a free market economy, but that is really governed by illegitimate privileges dispensed by the political class to the elite members of the business class (usually the business class will reciprocate the favors somehow, whether now or later, or whether publicly or in secret). And of course, such a thing can exist in degrees -- you could have a free market with a little bit of cronyism, or a lot.
Your introduction of foreign competition is taken out of context. What if, and this HAS been the case, where the foreign producers are being subsidized by their governments to drive others out of the market? or what if one country is using slave labor; i. e. is a dictatorship with which a US company has buddied up with? I have never heard any "free traders" address that, while most admit that it is happeneing What if there are linguistic and cultural differences where one People use the same literal words differently (which is why, in addition to "tranlsation" you have "interpretation")? or if one country believes that trade is to make the other country economically dependent with all that entails. As I understand it Canada wants its eco-pathology written into trade agreements. In international trade, until one set of economic principles, which needs, at least, a similar set of values and morals, is writ across the globe, "free traide", which is the only "fair trade", like capitalism, will be an unknown ideal. Now, one may argue the merits of tariffs as a measure, but certainly something has to be done to show that one will not be a milch cow for anothier nation. Hell, Rand said that a freer nation has the right to INVADE a slave pen, so certainly they have the right to take lesser steps It seems to me that once you bring in international trade and try to measure it along the same lines, you're mixing pounds with kilograms. So to keep it clear, maybe you'd better keep it within the same system, meaning the same nation In the mid 1980's Irving Wolfe penned THE JAPANESE CONSPIRACY (THE PLOT TO DOMINATE INDUSTRY WORLDWIDE) Gene Burns a Libertarian radical free trader out of WRKO Boston AM 680 wkdays 10AM-2PM, vetted it, interviewed Wolfe himself either a more rational libertarian or Objectivist by the sound of things and his writing. Burnes said "it is shameful that the US government did not act" (for Burns to say that, the situation had to be REALLY egregious) and acted as a distributor for the book, which I read and recommend for its international trade historical value. In the 1990's David Brudnoy echoed the same sentiments then just wrung his hands saying "what can we do"? So it DOES happen, i.e. it IS a fact of reality So it would be best to not bring in foreign matters and keep the discussion in the same value system
Corporate personhood has given free market capitalism (FMC) a bad name. If a corporation becomes so huge and powerful that is crushes out anyone else from being able to express their creativity in a free society, then that is oppressive. What we need is 'Just' and "Lawful" Free Market capitalism that is accessible to everyone in a free society.
Everyone is a winner in capitalism because its vastly more productive than statism and protects the right to pursue winning. In capitalism, failure is temporary. Theres no limit to trying again. Man is free to pursue success. Youre complaining about people who reject mental effort and self-responsibility. Before capitalism, virtually all were dirtpoor. Capitalism has reduced global poverty to 8%. People are leaving primitive, near-starvation farming to work in cities for wages that keep them alive. And for the freedom to guide their own lives free of tradition.
@@TeaParty1776 What you said about eradicating poverty though, that is due to free markets, not capitalism. You cannot have complete unhindered capitalism or you allow corporations to become very powerful and dictate the "free" markey themselves. Even if the U.S. doesn't have pure Capitalism, much of what corporations do is either not regulated, or they simply circumvent existing regulations (paying sweatshops low wages to get around minimum wage laws, evading taxes via stock market investments or directing wealth outside of the country, etc.). We could very well have free markets coexist with social welfare programs that give people opportunity, but Yaron repeatedly denounces this even though it functions quite well in Scandinavian countries.
@@ehwhat4305 You are confused about whether you are condemning freedom or controls. Freedom is an objective need for mans independent mind to guide production. Govt has no mystical knowledge. Scandinavian economies are prosperous because of capitalism, not because of their welfare state, which decreases production. Mans mind is the key to production. Zombies are not productive.
@@TeaParty1776 I am not confused. Free markets allow for innovation and drastically increase standard of living, and social welfare is what can help ensure people aren't left behind. Does social welfare stifle economic growth? I'm sure it does to some extent. But most people don't give two shits about economic growth if they don't get to enjoy any of the spoils. Look at America for instance. People want an affordable place to live with clean water and shelter, and many now want good internet as that is increasing in demand as more and more occupations and education require it. I don't think that's much to ask for. People aren't asking for that to be handed to them, but they want those things if they are working. People don't want their surplus labor value stolen while cost of livjng out paces their wages.
@@ehwhat4305 Production is the product of mans independent mind in an economy that protects the mind w/individual rights. That is the only cause of economic progress and the only possibility that people wont be left behind. Welfare is theft from production, harming the poorest people with less progres, less production, less jobs and less wages. The more profit, the more wages must necessarily rise to hire and retain employees to produce the goods for that increased profit. Businesses which dont raise wages lose employees , production and profit. Try hiring someone at lower than market wages. Markets are price signals from production and trade. Americas vast govt economic controls decrease production, jobs, wages, profits and the ability of businessmen to use their own minds. Bureaucrats and politicians and voters and university professors have no mystical knowledge of production and trade. Capitalism is constant experimentation and change and progress. Govt can only decrease or stop that. There is no Garden Of Eden, no fishes and loaves from Jesus, no communist paradise from Marx, no mystical goodies from God, no surplus value. There is only the value created by _each_ individuals independent mind. Govt economic controls are a chain around that mind.
Blaming Netscape for Microsoft's lack of innovation is the stupidest thing I ever heard from Yaron. I appreciate many of his ideas but Microsoft was the one that couldn't compete fairly with Netscape so what's why they tried to abuse consumers imposing it's useless browser.
Microsoft did NOT build an operating system that stopped you from loading Netscape. You were free to install it if you wished. They simply included their own browser in Windows. You people are just so ignorant it is painful to watch.
Mister Loz A lot of speech impediments are due to physical deformities and neurological issues which impede mechanical functioning of the mouth/tongue.
capitalism is based on loaning money (or something else of value) & charging interest. period end of discussion. if you think this is free enterprise you are mistaken. money lending inevitably attempts to curtail free enterprise as a means to gain greater returns by forcing money to be borrowed at advantageous rates. govt is used to accomplish these ends. if got didn't exist bankers would invent it
My god, you're an idiot! Interest is the only way finance can work! And in a free market, the rates are set by a million different factors, not the greedy whims of lenders. If a lender wanted to gouge you, another could easily offer you a better deal. It's only when the govt prints money and prevents competition through regulatory capture that prices become artificially inflated.
@@s0lid_sno0ks It's not the only way finance can work, but it might be the most efficient. For example, in cultures where interest is culturally taboo a loan can be structured as a partnership with dividends paid to the lenders based on the profit of the resultant venture. The risk is a little bit higher, as the lenders aren't entitled to anything if the venture fails, but it can work that way.
great insightful video!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Libertarians don't have a problem with big business, they should embrace all business. They take issue with government involvement in business. What Yaron is saying is, don't hate the businesses, because they are simply playing by the rules that a manipulative government has laid out for them. It would be nice if they'd all stop playing the game, and say "Get out government!", but that seems a little unrealistic.
without government you'll get one big business, and that's a government in itself!
@@thomaste9247 This is a mystic Marxist fantasy, no evidence from history or theory
@Kyle Whitehead > Amazon for the fact that they pay little to no taxes here in Britain
Because they lost money for years to build their business. Thats applied to current taxes.
@@TeaParty1776 Your optimism that truly genuine capitalism will work is equal to the optimism of a fairness in a socialist system. Neither will be able to occur. Let it take place in History, and no one will have the ability to change it once implemented once one corporation is the most powerful!
@@thomaste9247 Your mystical revelation is so powerful that you can evade mans independent mind.
There is an incident far earlier than Microsoft. In 1964 GM wanted to put one of it's hottest engins in a Chevrolet product but the Gauleiters stepped in and threatened them with anti-trust action because Chevrolet was one of the leading sellers in the leading company. So to evade that, GM put the engine in the Pontiac Tempest and this is where we got the Pontiac GTO, Since, as usual, the government acted on the sneak pepole never understood why this 3-deuces engine was in the Pontiac and not the natural choice of Chevrolet products. This also explains why, during the middle '60's GM had no official presence in racing
I don't get what you are saying. How does anti trust prevent GM putting in a new hottest engine into their car? I see Toyota change their design and engine all the time.
Go look up the details of the story of the pontic Tempest GTO. There is no sense trying to apply reason to the basicall irrational
Big business is fine with regulations... It's what keeps competition at bay and often eliminates small business competitors....
Irrelevant to the immorality of regs.
@Kyle Whitehead Agreed. Markets are seething cauldrons of constant potential and actual competition, w/firms and industries rising and falling. This frightens some people. The first anti-capitalists were religious conservatives ,inc.early Marx! who wanted tradition and stability and dependence upon external authority. They hated and feared the intellectual independence of businessmen.
Capitalism-Ayn Rand
Abolition Of Antitrust-Gary Hull
Markets Dont Fail-Brian Simpson
Capitalist Manifest-Andrew Bernstein
Free Market Revolution-Yaron Brook
Yaron Brook Show-online
@Kyle Whitehead Economist, Israel Kirzner, specializes in the theory of the entrepreneur. He doesnt credit mans independent mind but this can be ignored.
Entrepreneurs create new resources, causing new allocations of supply and demand. Most economists study given supply and demand.
Competition And Entrepreneurship-Kirzner
How West Grew Rich-N. Rosenberg
How Innovation Works-Matt Ridley (May 2020; interview-Yaron Brook Show, Mar26)
@Kyle Whitehead Economist, Israel Kirzner, specializes in the theory of the entrepreneur. He doesnt credit mans independent mind but this can be ignored.
Entrepreneurs create new resources, causing new allocations of supply and demand. Most economists study given supply and demand.
Competition And Entrepreneurship-Kirzner
How West Grew Rich-N. Rosenberg
How Innovation Works-Matt Ridley (May 2020; interview-Yaron Brook Show, Mar26)
@Kyle Whitehead Do you see my prior reply?
He simply doesn't understand the meaning of this expression
@Henry Emrich or maybe she read some books ...
because this guy does not understand the topic he's speaking about .....
If businesses or people want to affect government, they'll have to organize. That's fair. What's not good, is how these things occur behind closed doors, in forms of private deals with the ones with political power. That's just corruption. I think the easiest way to fight this, is to offer legit, open arenas where these things can be discussed freely. People with power should also be required to declare any personal interest they might have, and be subject to investigations when doubts arise.
Well said, well said.
You know they would still be able to conceal their interest, right? This solution might give a temporary illusion of transparency, but the government would still be sold to the highest bidder behind closed doors.
@@felixlipski3956 Hillary Clinton - Uranium One. Biden Family - Burisma and CCP, Obama - Bank bailouts
Go after crony capitalism; defend real capitalism
There is a lot of crony capitalism going on in this country. And that has to be distinguished from real capitalism, because this "Occupation" stuff on Wall Street, if you're going after crony capitalism, I'm all for it. Those are the people who benefit from contracts from government, benefits from all of the bailouts. They don't deserve compassion, they deserve taxation, or they deserve to have all their benefits removed. But crony capitalism isn't when somebody makes money and they produce a product. That is very important. We have to distinguish the two. And unfortunately, I think some people mix that. But this, to me, is so vital, that we recognize what capitalism is versus crony capitalism. When you have crony capitalism, and that's why we're facing this crisis today.
How does pure capitalism not always lead to crony capitalism?
I like the way you say that governments intervene economy like businesses are in no way able to affect or influence the economy. Like businesses do not exist and have no effects on the balances of supplies and demands, environment, and what not.
very good analysis. If government starts intervening in the economy, no business can over the long run resist having to deal with it. thats really great and condensed analysis of the problem!
"Banking is the most regulated industry in the united states" ... yet Petroleum/ energy / motor vehicles / Healthcare / Manufacturing / Software / non profit / Education / Public sector are all more regulated ?
Can someone explain to me how "true capitalism" doesn't always lead to crony capitalism?
Argument from ignorance. You must provide evidence to judge. Prove that you did not kill someone.
Negatives cant be proven. Prove that you did not murder someone. You need evidence. You must prove that true leads to crony. If you cannot, you have no evidence for anything.
@@TeaParty1776 Okay, more specifically, how does the wealth accumulation (which is a part of true capitalism) not always lead to the corrosion of the political sphere?
@@felixlipski3956 You restate your request for an impossible proof of a negative. You raised the topic. You are responsible for justifying the topic. You must provide some evidence that capitalism corrodes politics.
Then a discussion is possible. Lacking justification and evidence, there is literally nothing to discuss. Doesnt chocolate ice cream lead to communism? Ive provided no evidence for that, thus there is no focus for the mind.
Felix Lipski, under laissez faire unregulated capitalism there is no cronyism as there is no point in trying to lobby the gov't for favours. Once the gov't starts regulating now businesses lobby the gov't for special favours to exempt them from laws while not exempting their competition, or by taxing them differently, or imposing tariffs on imported goods that compete with theirs.
Sure. Libertarians generally have a poor view of any interactions between any size business and govt. Though "hate" might not be the right word.
Size of business is not a moral determination.
He lost it at 1:54 when he said "most Americans VOTE for this stuff," implying that Americans vote for issues rather than CANDIDATES.
He's missing a slight step on the process, since voters have NO VOTE other than for a particular candidate.
So holding the voters responsible, is short-sighted, since candidates have FINAL AUTHORITY once elected.
Meanwhile elections are usually won on the amount of financial support they get; and so they become INVESTMENTS for special interests.
So he doesn't understand that the problem is TOTALITARIAN DEMOCRACY.
> elections are usually won on the amount of financial support they get
on philosophy, not finance. Marx is wrong./
Where cronyism is unacceptable is at a political level where the information that was promoted to secure a vote was not the underlying intent or purpose of the candidate.
Without consumer rights bought in at a political level it is a case of the most personable liar having the advantage.
This will not be initiated by the offshore wealth land owned in trust establishment. Voters must make it happen.
Crony capitalism do exist for on reson and that is to elimination competition, cromy capitalism love regulations that makes smal businesses have a hard time while big businesses bribe high raited officials.
Nallebjorn1 that’s capitalism mate. Pure and simple. Economic Darwinism.
Kyle Whitehead what?? Please explain how socialism has anything to do with this.
Kyle Whitehead If ur talking about corporate control of government then that’s where the ideological lines blur between socialism and capitalism. Just like fascism blurs with communism. Call them what u want, they’re all one and the same.
Kyle Whitehead oh really? The government sets the game. Lol. Good luck with your exams. Good night.
Great example of Microsoft.
I thought it said Yahoo Anwers...
So much contradiction in this video. He got all the Microsoft stuff wrong. We all saw how well unfettered capitalism worked in 2008! Who pays you for this nonsense?
What are you talking about.... WHAT unfettered Capitalism?
The US has NOT been a Capitalist society for well over 100 years. You can't blame what happened in 2008 on something that was not in existence.
@@johnnynick3621 Have you seen all the corporate mergers in the last 10 years it's all about the capital. When you have lots of money you can buy your competitors. So it's all about capital. You can see what can happened and 2008 is a great example what can happen. What do you think caused 2008? Clue you can't have or approach a monopoly without Capitalism. What is really twisted is the tax payers providing welfare to these guys like the big 3 just to allow foreign countries to buy them.
Good pts. Classical capitalism isn't any longer desirable under the monetary "free" market system. Because the mixed corporatist/statist conjunction was rooted prior to the advent of classical economics, it's the system itself that needs incrementally replaced by an emerging resource based economy that will also replace the international banking & corporate cartels that run the tyrannical & totalitarian show. Randians advocate identical capitalistic means to obtain their own utopian sum goals.
progressivism and fascism are exactly the same thing.
"If your passion is banking" :D :D
Neither. I'm referring to the new capitalism that is emerging with the new resource based economy. Ck. out the Zeitgeist movement & see how capitalists are reaching their goals of free, unrestrained, unregulated markets in spite of the usual historical constraints. Objectivists tend to miss this viable alternative to the current monetary/market system that has destroyed our freedom & liberty. All patriots should fight for an Amendment convention. Everywhere, this police state is intolerable.
Yaron's euphoria seems rooted in the tremendous good of capitalism. The tremendous bad that capitalism has caused, while acknowledged, is largely ignored as he justifies his position of using the ends to justify the means. This is also the moral position of Rand's closed objectivism with Brook as it's chief exponent. The opportunity & ability to compete in his world of global domination & monopoly isn't even possible with the 1% eliminating any perceived threat to their rule both here & abroad.
If crony cap is inevitable then why do Canada, Germany, and the Scandinavian states have notably less than countries like Bulgaria, Russia, and Honduras?
You mean cronyism ie corruption which is NOT Capitalism and is actually more like Socialism. Your premise is incorrect - Canada and Germany are just as bad a Bulgaria and Russia for cronyism if not worse! Because corruption by its nature is not transparent no one would really know the extent!
@@eddesa5134cronyism is still distinct from socialism
@@56jklove Certainly these words mean different things but what I am trying to educate people about is that:
(1) there is no such thing as "Crony capitalism" capitalism works to ELIMINATE cronyism
(2) what the mislead call "crony capitalism" is actually Socialism of the FASCISM subset where the "Big" Government (which has CONTROL of industries by legalisation, regulation, taxation and fines/penalties) enters into partnership with "Big" industry often represented by lobbyists if not the companies directly themselves!
(3) Socialism PROMOTES cronyism, corruption and crime because it centralises power and places it into the hands of the few. As the saying goes power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This means lobbyists and industry are able to bribe one or just a few individuals who are very powerful to get policies changed as we saw with Hillary changing policy for Uranium One, Biden's corrupt criminal family helping Burisma, etc. Conversely politicians can offer services in exchange for bribes or donations to support their re-election campaign.
In contrast Capitalism has small government which leave markets to respond to the stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, employees in the many players within the industries, none of whom are so big that they can attain control of the market nor influence government policy. If any company did grow big enough to gain any significant influence it would still need to bribe or gain the cooperation of many people not just in government by all the other organisations that are not controlled as they would be by Big Government, making it far more difficult for any one company to get the government to favour them and change laws/policies in their favour.
I hope this helps you understand my points better. Kind regards.
@@56jklove Certainly these words mean different things but what I am trying to educate people about is that:
(1) there is no such thing as "Crony capitalism" capitalism works to ELIMINATE cronyism
(2) what the mislead call "crony capitalism" is actually Socialism of the FASCISM subset where the "Big" Government (which has CONTROL of industries by legalisation, regulation, taxation and fines/penalties) enters into partnership with "Big" industry often represented by lobbyists if not the companies directly themselves!
(3) Socialism PROMOTES cronyism, corruption and crime because it centralises power and places it into the hands of the few. As the saying goes power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This means lobbyists and industry are able to bribe one or just a few individuals who are very powerful to get policies changed as we saw with Hillary changing policy for Uranium One, Biden's corrupt criminal family helping Burisma, etc. Conversely politicians can offer services in exchange for bribes or donations to support their re-election campaign.
In contrast Capitalism has small government which leave markets to respond to the stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, employees in the many players within the industries, none of whom are so big that they can attain control of the market nor influence government policy. If any company did grow big enough to gain any significant influence it would still need to bribe or gain the cooperation of many people not just in government by all the other organisations that are not controlled as they would be by Big Government, making it far more difficult for any one company to get the government to favour them and change laws/policies in their favour.
I hope this helps you understand my points better. Kind regards.
@@eddesa5134 government intervention be it tax breaks subsidies etc has always been the case, u need a government to protect the rights of people and private property. Regulations work to protect rights. Ultimately crony capitalism is still capitalism, bug businesses are still privately owned to sell a product for money, just because they collude with the government, doesn't mean they get there money mainly from customers
Brilliant
Pitty the puppets
I must disagree with your assessment of any one company, under the present conditions, using government to attack other companies, when the same is being done all over. A novelist-philosopher once said "The aggressor is solely responsible for the consequences of his action" so ALL the evil is to be laid at the feet of the aggressors; First the government, then Netscape, Sun and Oracle for STARTING this crap that CREATED the conditions that are
Yaron, you don't get to dictate what others mean by the phrase "crony capitalism". What a person means is what he means, and that's that (I presume you believe in liberty of thought). Reflect on that before claiming "there is no such thing as crony capitalism", because what your answer does is equivocate. It trades out the questioner's actual meaning for your own. It's presumptuous. So you're being very illogical from the start. Study what people actually mean by the phrase -- and the best people not the worst -- then answer.
What the most intelligent people mean by "crony capitalism" is, I think, something along these lines: An economic system where there is the superficial appearance of a free market economy, but that is really governed by illegitimate privileges dispensed by the political class to the elite members of the business class (usually the business class will reciprocate the favors somehow, whether now or later, or whether publicly or in secret). And of course, such a thing can exist in degrees -- you could have a free market with a little bit of cronyism, or a lot.
Your introduction of foreign competition is taken out of context. What if, and this HAS been the case, where the foreign producers are being subsidized by their governments to drive others out of the market? or what if one country is using slave labor; i. e. is a dictatorship with which a US company has buddied up with? I have never heard any "free traders" address that, while most admit that it is happeneing What if there are linguistic and cultural differences where one People use the same literal words differently (which is why, in addition to "tranlsation" you have "interpretation")? or if one country believes that trade is to make the other country economically dependent with all that entails. As I understand it Canada wants its eco-pathology written into trade agreements. In international trade, until one set of economic principles, which needs, at least, a similar set of values and morals, is writ across the globe, "free traide", which is the only "fair trade", like capitalism, will be an unknown ideal. Now, one may argue the merits of tariffs as a measure, but certainly something has to be done to show that one will not be a milch cow for anothier nation. Hell, Rand said that a freer nation has the right to INVADE a slave pen, so certainly they have the right to take lesser steps
It seems to me that once you bring in international trade and try to measure it along the same lines, you're mixing pounds with kilograms. So to keep it clear, maybe you'd better keep it within the same system, meaning the same nation
In the mid 1980's Irving Wolfe penned THE JAPANESE CONSPIRACY (THE PLOT TO DOMINATE INDUSTRY WORLDWIDE) Gene Burns a Libertarian radical free trader out of WRKO Boston AM 680 wkdays 10AM-2PM, vetted it, interviewed Wolfe himself either a more rational libertarian or Objectivist by the sound of things and his writing. Burnes said "it is shameful that the US government did not act" (for Burns to say that, the situation had to be REALLY egregious) and acted as a distributor for the book, which I read and recommend for its international trade historical value. In the 1990's David Brudnoy echoed the same sentiments then just wrung his hands saying "what can we do"? So it DOES happen, i.e. it IS a fact of reality
So it would be best to not bring in foreign matters and keep the discussion in the same value system
Free international trade is good contra your statist oppposition.
yea but on the upside none of them are smart enough or genuine enough to click the dislike button.
Corporate personhood has given free market capitalism (FMC) a bad name. If a corporation becomes so huge and powerful that is crushes out anyone else from being able to express their creativity in a free society, then that is oppressive.
What we need is 'Just' and "Lawful" Free Market capitalism that is accessible to everyone in a free society.
> crushes out
Marx is wrong. Politics is not economics.
Tell that to the stock market... free market? Lol
It seems like he thinks cronyism is the exception, not the rule.
the idea that a free market can function where the loser will just accept thier fate is absolutely ludicrous
Everyone is a winner in capitalism because its vastly more productive than statism and protects the right to pursue winning. In capitalism, failure is temporary. Theres no limit to trying again. Man is free to pursue success. Youre complaining about people who reject mental effort and self-responsibility. Before capitalism, virtually all were dirtpoor. Capitalism has reduced global poverty to 8%. People are leaving primitive, near-starvation farming to work in cities for wages that keep them alive. And for the freedom to guide their own lives free of tradition.
@@TeaParty1776 What you said about eradicating poverty though, that is due to free markets, not capitalism. You cannot have complete unhindered capitalism or you allow corporations to become very powerful and dictate the "free" markey themselves. Even if the U.S. doesn't have pure Capitalism, much of what corporations do is either not regulated, or they simply circumvent existing regulations (paying sweatshops low wages to get around minimum wage laws, evading taxes via stock market investments or directing wealth outside of the country, etc.). We could very well have free markets coexist with social welfare programs that give people opportunity, but Yaron repeatedly denounces this even though it functions quite well in Scandinavian countries.
@@ehwhat4305 You are confused about whether you are condemning freedom or controls. Freedom is an objective need for mans independent mind to guide production. Govt has no mystical knowledge. Scandinavian economies are prosperous because of capitalism, not because of their welfare state, which decreases production. Mans mind is the key to production. Zombies are not productive.
@@TeaParty1776 I am not confused. Free markets allow for innovation and drastically increase standard of living, and social welfare is what can help ensure people aren't left behind. Does social welfare stifle economic growth? I'm sure it does to some extent. But most people don't give two shits about economic growth if they don't get to enjoy any of the spoils. Look at America for instance. People want an affordable place to live with clean water and shelter, and many now want good internet as that is increasing in demand as more and more occupations and education require it. I don't think that's much to ask for. People aren't asking for that to be handed to them, but they want those things if they are working. People don't want their surplus labor value stolen while cost of livjng out paces their wages.
@@ehwhat4305 Production is the product of mans independent mind in an economy that protects the mind w/individual rights. That is the only cause of economic progress and the only possibility that people wont be left behind. Welfare is theft from production, harming the poorest people with less progres, less production, less jobs and less wages. The more profit, the more wages must necessarily rise to hire and retain employees to produce the goods for that increased profit. Businesses which dont raise wages lose employees , production and profit. Try hiring someone at lower than market wages. Markets are price signals from production and trade.
Americas vast govt economic controls decrease production, jobs, wages, profits and the ability of businessmen to use their own minds. Bureaucrats and politicians and voters and university professors have no mystical knowledge of production and trade. Capitalism is constant experimentation and change and progress.
Govt can only decrease or stop that. There is no Garden Of Eden, no fishes and loaves from Jesus, no communist paradise from Marx, no mystical goodies from God, no surplus value. There is only the value created by _each_ individuals independent mind. Govt economic controls are a chain around that mind.
Blaming Netscape for Microsoft's lack of innovation is the stupidest thing I ever heard from Yaron. I appreciate many of his ideas but Microsoft was the one that couldn't compete fairly with Netscape so what's why they tried to abuse consumers imposing it's useless browser.
Netscape could have built their own OS.
Microsoft did NOT build an operating system that stopped you from loading Netscape. You were free to install it if you wished. They simply included their own browser in Windows.
You people are just so ignorant it is painful to watch.
the virtuous?? hahaha what a joke!!
This is one of many such reasons Objectivism fails - it’s laughable to pretend that businesses don’t hire their friends.
There is NOTHING WRONG with hiring friends.
Objectivism has not failed. That's a silly statement.
At around 9 minutes you contradict your first statement. Stop telling me what to celebrate. I'd rather mourn this system of inequality.
This guy REALLY needs elocution lessons.
Mister Loz
He has a speech impediment, you fucking mongoloid.
Adam Smasher All the more reason to get elocution lessons then
Mister Loz
A lot of speech impediments are due to physical deformities and neurological issues which impede mechanical functioning of the mouth/tongue.
capitalism is based on loaning money (or something else of value) & charging interest. period end of discussion. if you think this is free enterprise you are mistaken. money lending inevitably attempts to curtail free enterprise as a means to gain greater returns by forcing money to be borrowed at advantageous rates. govt is used to accomplish these ends. if got didn't exist bankers would invent it
No, that's not capitalism. The term you're thinking of is "usury".
So youre saying if two consentual parties borrow and loan from and to one another thats not free enterprise? Hello?
My god, you're an idiot! Interest is the only way finance can work! And in a free market, the rates are set by a million different factors, not the greedy whims of lenders. If a lender wanted to gouge you, another could easily offer you a better deal. It's only when the govt prints money and prevents competition through regulatory capture that prices become artificially inflated.
Learn grammer and spelling.
@@s0lid_sno0ks It's not the only way finance can work, but it might be the most efficient. For example, in cultures where interest is culturally taboo a loan can be structured as a partnership with dividends paid to the lenders based on the profit of the resultant venture. The risk is a little bit higher, as the lenders aren't entitled to anything if the venture fails, but it can work that way.