The reason these ideals are so attractive is because in the free market you have to earn what you need or convince someone to voluntarily give it to you. In marxism, if you can't provide for yourself, someone else must provide for you or else he'll be punished for being "greedy".
Your "average" person is economical illiterate, the Marxist propaganda stream is strong. Not enough people seek understanding or have the patience to self educate.
you should watch John Stewart, remember how he did Schiff dirty when he showed the "retarded" interview as a strawman to be against any argument made by Schiff against min. wage? and I have to admit, EVEN Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, Bill Maher, have guests that usually disagree strongly with their views so atleast we get some diversity in opinions. But with Stewart and his structured show, he doesn't allow anyone who disagrees with him to have a one on one chat with him. He prefers to do what he did with Schiff and have someone interview him, then edit it to make them look bad. I mean 40% of his audience actually take his show as serious news and finds every bit of satire he says to be funny, especially when he's going off on his Keynesian propaganda
The reason democracy can never work is because: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”― George Carlin What ever point of view gets the most TV time, wins the vote.
No, the reason that a representative democracy can never work is because people that cannot run anything are given the privilege to represent productive people. They cannot organize labour, create anything, make something more efficient or sustain an operation. They do not have the merits, natural behavior, or soundness of mind to supervise. If you took the wealth/resources away from a productive person and gave it to them, they would waste and consume it on bread sticks, half gallon tubs of ice cream, big screen televisions, beer, cell phones, yoga pants from victoria's secret (etc.) They do not have the natural skills to deflate money. Although, not conclusive, the fact that you are quoting from late-night hooligan filth like George Carlin probably puts you in the litter that I am describing. You cannot use the ad hominem tu quoque on me because me and my family are in the 1%. We are food distributors. My parents are immigrants as well, with little formal education, who started off in this country speaking meager English.
England and America in their original statutes were representative democracies, which I made a distinction for. Feudal democracies. Often, when conservatives in the United States say democracy, they mean the revised version (even the little person gets a voice). This demonstrates the uselessness of mainstream patriotic conservatism, since it is gradually being revised through hagel's dialectic. I have to disagree with 'a force for civility, peace and prosperity.' The United States and England are now socialist democracies based on a voting population that lacks moral standards. I will give one example that illustrates the flaw of democracy. You either get it, or you don't. This is a real example. In the local newspaper in my area, a group of college students and their professor went to Cuba, were shown around and came to the logical conclusion that Cubans were impoverished because the United States closed its trade borders with Cuba. I can only imagine Castro seizing the opportunity. I wonder what all that wealth and development from the United States will do for Cuba? Better appropriated factory and military complexes and cognac for the Castro family? rofl. My mental age is eight years above my actual age and yes, the average person is that stupid.
The United States was not founded as a democracy. In fact, quite the opposite. The founders wrote the Constitution and the preceding Articles of Confederation to specifically protect the individual from the masses. The true American exceptionalism is that the US has historically been a refuge for those oppressed by the masses. Our government was intended to be limited to protecting the citizenry from others, domestic and foreign. To protect the sanctity of contracts, personal rights, and private property rights. The word democracy cannot be found in the Declaration of Independence from England or the Constitution, because it was never intended that the individual be subjected to the whims of the majority. Ben Franklin described democracy as two wolves and a sheep deciding on what (whom) to eat for dinner. Individual rights and responsibility are sadly disintegrating under the weight of the tyranny of the masses. For clarity, read the Federalist papers or the US Constitution.
Peter, please call out Bill Maher more often. The guy has such contempt for common sense economics and it would be great if you were to get under his skin to the point that he felt he needed to respond.
I heard them talking with this guy on NPR on the way to school. He really didn't have rebuttals when he was called out by a professor of economics from Harvard on why he was wrong, but the NPR host still kissed his ass. That station use to be pretty in the middle. Now you have to listen to either far left, far right, or search for hours online to get a neutral view point on any situation.
Back in the 1960s, the CEO/worker pay ratio was about 20. That's because we had a top tax rate above 70% the whole time that kicked in after you made between 2 and 3 million dollars a year in today's dollars. As a result, CEOs and business owners never paid themselves any more than that. As Schiff says, "nobody paid those tax rates" because nobody was dumb enough to pay themselves more than $2-3M a year. Instead, they left the extra money in the business, invested in land plant and equipment and raised workers wages. The ratio started to rise when Reagan took office, and really spiked hard when he chipped the rate down below 40% in 1987. You can literally see the spike on the graph. The ratio is at 273 today. Income inequality was high before we had income taxes, low while we had the 70%+ rates, and then went back up again as soon as Reagan cut taxes. Income inequality today is as high as it was before we had income taxes. Tax Brackets: taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets CEO/Worker Ratio: www.epi.org/publication/the-ceo-to-worker-compensation-ratio-in-2012-of-273/ Inequality: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Share_top_1_percent.jpg When the data doesn't match your theory, it's time to change your theory.
There is no such thing as a unregulated "free market". Unless you wish to see serious chaos run ramped far more than it already does. Also, the gold standard can not be reflexively managed in respect to naturally fluctuating markets with large debts or surpluses. A fiat system allows for immediate adjustments and then readjustments as markets stabilize. Also just as the decrease of gold increases the value, so too will the increase of gold devalue it, and thus the currency based in gold (a commodity) is just another market with risk of uncontrolled destabilization... i.e. large gold deposit are found, mined and enter the free market runs the risk of devaluing everyone else money.
The income difference between the rich and poor is getting incredibly ridiculous; instead of a minimum wadge limit, would it be more wise to have a maximum percentage limit from the lowest paid employee to the highest paid employee within a company, corporation, or group; say a factor of 30 to 35 difference? Any thoughts?
Peter, There are countries in the world with far more social governments and there economy is stronger than ours... Why?? Because they don't run these huge government debts.. The U.S. spends waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy too much on the military..
$ 1,000,000 + 10% = $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 * 10% = $ 110.000 = $10k loss So you actually need more than 10% interest rate in order to make a profit if the wealth tax is 10%.
I'm sorry, but wheres the labor theory of value, the historical materialism and the use of a dialectic method in the guys book? Or is marxism soley the guys prediction on inequality now?
The point is the rich are not effected and keep getting richer, it's misdirection talking about raising minimum wage to hard workers in order to survive while piles of wealth grows into mountains of wealth...
Unless more capitalism is just more corporatism, and more government is just more corporatism, because it's a uni-party corporate-government state. Then you all got check mated, and are just cheering more corporatism either way.
Well...I would say big business is doing just fine working within confines of government controls and regulations. Who do you think sponsors these controls set in place in order to stealth wealth ?
Bill Maher's appeal is his ability to cater to ideology. That's where the joke comes from referring to the fact that such an unlikable person like Maher can actually remain popular. It has everything to do with his echo-chambering of socialism. Get him and Molyneux in a room together and it's all over. Hell, I say that about every ideologue. Probably why you have Molyneux host your show every now and again. You get that this guy is a fucking powerhouse and *the* go-to guy for libertarian moral arguments.
Another thing that industrialization brought was freedom for women. Before industrialization, women were relegated to housework, only men could do the hard manual labor that earned good money. But with machines, women could work at a job and make good money as well. Money is freedom!
People, just take the time while this Peter Schiff talks, to review the history of American tax rates and the effects on the economy and the wealthy. Your parent, friends, family, and community in general do not get paid by the billions of dollars being saved by those extracting it from the economy. They get paid by others spending. A high tax on the corporate profits is the deciding incentive for the businesses to reinvest that money in the business and its loyal workers. A high tax rate on the very wealthy is the deciding incentive for them to invest in any number of fields of business, exploration, inventions and community. Furthermore the taxes should be high around 70% and only lowered if company profits are in fact better (not definitely even among all workers, but not top heavy) distributed to the workers for the energy they put into the business for which the company profits from. Schiff lives in a world where he doesn’t see how short-sighted capitalism runs amuck if not regulated; people do not have the easy option to just leave an underpaying job. Proper regulation can ensure a more prosperous capitalist economy which benefits a larger percentage of those involved, including the wealthy that are overall actually hurt by supply-side economics. Schiff doesn’t seem to understand these socialist endeavors were implemented because of how individual capitalism is too often short-sight and hurts economies. Ask yourself when Schiff speaks about workers earning what they are worth, why then are companies with high profit margins not then paying the employees better wages? Why are many “successful business” top heavy in wage distribution? Are the top earning employees or owners actually doing more work and are worth more?
Poor, poor Peter. He just doesnt get it. These people DO understand how destructive their policies are. They're sociopaths & psycopaths who would rather rule in hell than serve (work) in heaven. Peter is probably a nice guy who doesn't recognise evil because it's so foreign to him.
If only people were taught economics in grade school the world wouldn't be full of idiots! However, being federally funded, you would think that the government is not promoting that for a reason? Maybe education is not for true understanding but compliance with menial tasks!
JP Morgan, the person, said the difference in wage from the highest earners and lowest should be 20 to 1. Before him it was accepted as 6 to 1. Today it is over 2000 to 1. I'm having troubles reconciling this problem to leave it at 2000 to 1. Peter, what is the solution?
In general, the American public own most of the corporations and the CEO's technically work for us. We own these companies through mutual funds, 401k's, pension plans, etc. The problem is that we have relinquished our voting rights to the managers that run these financial institutions. That places an extraordinary amount of control in a relatively small amount of people. I believe that the corruption starts there. Unfortunately, I do not have a solution to that problem due to the fact that the general public does not want the voting right back. They do not want the responsibility.
When did Peter ever say we should leave it at 2000 to 1? You have it backwards, because Peter is the one saying to should be 6 to 1. Through his videos to date, Peter is saying it is socialism that is creating the polarity between earnings. Peter is saying if we allowed capitalism to work, it would go back to 6 to 1. Under no circumstances has Peter ever said or implied that he is happy with the status quo, i.e.2000 to 1.
It should be whatever the market says it should be...unless you are a liberal then you would think that you could know the answer without allowing people to innovate and freely associate...then if you are a liberal democrat you would prevent free association
John Coffey So in your Peter capitalism tell us how you reduce the wage differential from the highest to lowest to 6 to 1. The solution to me is to get rid of proxies instead of borrowing proxies from everyone to pay such high salaries.
Gold standard twaddle. Why should the supply of money have anything to do with the quantity of gold that just happens to be present and extractable from Earth's crust?
EmilijaIX OK Mr. Adult, why don't you tell me how the central bank sets short term interest rates. Or what the difference between real and nominal interest rates is. Or how you calculate a real interest rate.
I would like to ask Bill Maher, if socialism in America created rich middle class, how come that the same socialism didn't create such rich middle class in Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Romania and such countries. They had socialism too. They didn't taxed rich people by 80 - 90%, but unlike Americans they executed them, so there was no longer a problem of rich people and inequality. Everyone was equal to each other. So, Mr. Maher, how come it didn't work? What Soviet comrades did wrong unlike the American comrades, Mr. Maher?
No... An income tax allows for success to produce infrastructure and well-being to the community which in turn allows for more growth and continued success. Unless you contend that all those successful did all the work and needed no one else in the economy to produce and buy and work to earn to buy and so on in a system where this all depends on an ability to do so by traveling, owning, trading, renting in an efficient manner throughout infrastructure, or that those who are successful will take care of all this on their own? Income tax used for welfare is a viable and optimal solution for market fluctuations, but extended welfare assistance is a result of short-sighted capitalism: a business capitalizing on high unemployment and/or the lack of available job market in an area allowing the employers to hire and pay workers lower wages than the cost of living permits despite continued and/or increasing company profits. This leads to struggling families which are usually the source of natural revenue distribution throughout the local and national economy (consumers of products and services), thus the necessity for income from higher earners to be distributed to lower earners by a government allocation process.... this can all be fixed if business models were built to properly exchange energy of the workers with due compensations for profits of said energy input... if a business has employees which need to be on welfare assistance for extended periods of time, that business has failed.
The failure of the US is not capitalism as we have adopted the Ten planks of the Communist manifesto in whole or majority it is the failure of Socialist /Communist principals. First Plank: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Zoning - Model ordinances proposed by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover widely adopted. Supreme Court ruled "zoning" to be "constitutional" in 1921. Private owners of property required to get permission from government relative to the use of their property. Federally owned lands are leased for grazing, mining, timber usages, the fees being paid into the U.S. Treasury.) Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (Corporate Tax Act of 1909. The 16th Amendment, allegedly ratified in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, Income Tax. These laws have been purposely misapplied against American citizens to this day.) Third Plank: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Partially accomplished by enactment of various state and federal "estate tax" laws taxing the "privilege" of transferring property after death and gift before death.) Fourth Plank: CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS. (The confiscation of property and persecution of those critical - "rebels" - of government policies and actions, frequently accomplished by prosecuting them in a courtroom drama on charges of violations of non-existing administrative or regulatory laws.) Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.) Sixth Plank: Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. (Federal Radio Commission, 1927; Federal Communications Commission, 1934; Air Commerce Act of 1926; Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938; Federal Aviation Agency, 1958; becoming part of the Department of Transportation in 1966; Federal Highway Act of 1916 (federal funds made available to States for highway construction); Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956); Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40; Department of Transportation, 1966.) Seventh Plank: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Depart-ment of Agriculture, 1862; Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 -- farmers will receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming activities; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 with the Hoover Dam completed in 1936.) Eighth Plank: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture. (First labor unions, known as federations, appeared in 1820. National Labor Union established 1866. American Federation of Labor established 1886. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 placed railways under federal regulation. Department of Labor, 1913. Labor-management negotiations sanctioned under Railway Labor Act of 1926. Civil Works Administration, 1933. National Labor Relations Act of 1935, stated purpose to free inter-state commerce from disruptive strikes by eliminating the cause of the strike. Works Progress Administration 1935. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, mandated 40-hour work week and time-and-a-half for overtime, set "minimum wage" scale. Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively the equal liability of all to labor.) Ninth Plank: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. (Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating "conglomerates.") Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (Gradual shift from private education to publicly funded began in the Northern States, early 1800's. 1887: federal money (unconstitutionally) began funding specialized education. Smith-Lever Act of 1914, vocational education; Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and other relief acts of the 1930's. Federal school lunch program of 1935; National School Lunch Act of 1946. National Defense Education Act of 1958, a reaction to Russia's Sputnik satellite demonstration, provided grants to education's specialties. Federal school aid law passed, 1965, greatly enlarged federal role in education, "head-start" programs, textbooks, library books.
Need to review your history of economics. Before the heavy regulation of industry the gap between poor and rich was much larger then it is today. You had people like Andrew Carnegie who sent hired gunman to his factories to keep his labor force working. That is the free market at work.
Carnegie is a fucking Fascist dude... he, with the Rockefellers, Fords, and Carnagies have implemented collectivism into our country to control the population. One of the few things they have successfully done is implement Prussian education into the U.S...aka. COLLECTIVISM.. John Taylor Gatto look him up.
Ah, forgot to read the book by its cover, cheers bro. Have not read the book, no intention to, arguing the idea of taking shit for face value. Pretty lame to dismiss a book he has not read. I was implying that his credibility should be looked into.
Not questioning anyone's beliefs just appears to be either lazy or ignorant reporting. Regurgitating information from secondary sources when a primary source is available... Which leads me to question his integrity and would take his words with a grain of salt until following up with my own research.
As much as I concur with Mr. Schiff's points of view and analysis that most of the times are on target, I could not take serious a criticism to a book based on biased politically charged and emotionally moved criticisms of a book that as he stated has not read, I am waiting for my copy of the same and will read it as attentively and as empty of prejudgement as I can, to arrive to my personal conclusion without having to "quote" other people's points of view. I am surprised that Mr. Schiff took the time to post a video without informing himself, that is why before spending my hard earned money I read an "executive summary" of the same and not a "review" because those, unless you find someone that is neutral to the matter will be biased, and then, and just then was when I decided that the contents enticed me or pertained my interest and bought it. The only thing that I can say is that I am deeply disappointed on Mr. Schiff's politically charged rant over a matter that has little to do in face of the actual global economic situation. How hot he was on getting into the band wagon of the right without questioning what all the noise was all about, because this book has brought accolades not only from the left, but also from the right and from the moderates. I am not prone on giving advice to people that evidently know their business better than I do, but "Dear Mr. Schiff, please, do read, inform and analyse the subject before you post such a rant, because this might devoid your opinion of any credibility" And as previously stated, I agree with you most of times.
I wish more people were like you. This is a running problem with Libertarian commentary. Schiff could have made this same exact rant without even mentioning the book. He didn't respond to it, so it was pointless to bring it up at all.
AdamIsForGiants at most he didn't pretend as if that he had read the book but, was more open and honest about his review acknowledging he didn't read it.
4freedom4liberty unfortunately he jumped on the band wagon, recognising it or not does not wash the full rant, but lands him on the dangerous campsite of reactionaries which, for a person like Mr. Schiff, might turn out to be not so positive. He is as I noticed too eager to criticise the actual government labelling it as socialist. That is kind of disappointing, taking intoaccount Mr. Schiff's record as more of a moderate Austrian economist. By the way I got my book yesterday and by what I could read, there is more data analysis than socialistic rants or criticism, that lands Mr. Schiff's rant down in reactionary, no wonder in Buddhism is stated that ignorance is one of the greatest evils.
LMAO! So there are no regulations that apply to Amazon? Amazon doesn't use government-subsidized roads and airports? Amazon doesn't pay taxes? Amazon doesn't provide public quarterly reports according to corporate and security laws? There is no "free market" and Amazon is not a "free market company".
Russia made it to space first and they achieved the ultimate goal first...Heck we waited seven or eight years to launch our version of the Great Leap Forward...The Great Society wasn't it??? Well it is certainly a great society now....Thanks liberals!!!
I embrace socialism because the ultimate goal of socialism is the dissolution of the state. Russia was socialist and they achieved their ultimate goal. Now we need to become socialist so the government will dissolve and we can live in a capitalist utopia...
Parture I'm have problem reconciling leaving it at 2000 to 1. Why? Why should the most productive among us be tied to a multiple of the least productive among us? What should great ability be limited by inferior ability? One person producing incredible amounts of wealth doesn't injure another person's ability to create wealth. Are some CEO producing 2000 times as much as the lowest paid employee? I have a few examples. Jack Welch. Probably one of the best CEOs of all time. One of the few men to be able to run a conglomerate efficiently. GE grew exponentially under his tenure. Is he worth 2000 times more than the man sweeping the floor in one of the factories he (Jack Welch) developped? Probably. John Allison grew BB&T from a $4 billion in assets to a $150 billion in assets bank and avoided subprime mortgages. Is he worth 2000 times more than the lowest paid bankclark at one of his branch? As a shareholder I say "yes" without a doubt. "The market must be tempered with government." Or the free choice of people on how to spend or invest their own money should be tempered with by politicians and bureaucrats of your liking. Get your hands off my money! It's mine by right. I earned it.
People inherit billions. A lot of very rich people acquire wealth unethically and illegally. Some acquire great wealth by betting the farm and it was just luck. Gambling is a sin. According to God they go to Hell, but you are so morally bankrupt you call this superior skills. You need to get a conscience. GE was suited as a great company to succeed with or without Jack. You are basically wrong in everything you said.
Parture Some people inherit billions of dollars. That's true. But you are evading that before they inherit it someone had to create that wealth. His wealth is his by right. That includes the right to dispose of it as he pleases, including giving it away. Do not envy a worthless heir. His wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. You might think that it should have been distributed among you. Loading the world with a hundred parasites instead of one would not bring the virtue of the man who created it. You said that some acquire great wealth by betting the farm and that it was just luck. Said no one who went to creating a great company ever. Creating a great company takes a lot of thought effort and leaves little place to luck. Some people took a lot of risks. Risks and rewards are the two principles gidding investment. There can be no riskless investment. Maybe they are few people who mortgage their home to win the state lottery. But are they representative of wealth creating? "Gambling is a sin" according to your book of pick and choose. But investment is nothing like buying a lottery ticket. Investing is one of the most difficult and most productive activities on earth. It takes thought to see that the time has come when the buggy whipped industry is through and that capital has to be realocated to the auto-industry. The process of investment is the task of finding which industry is of the future and will and which industry is of the past and will wither and die. They are literaly thousands of factors one must have to take into account and integrate to see where and how much to invest. But investing is what allows you to write this comment on youtube. Someone had to invest in Intel, which powers your PC. That someone had to see that off all the microchips companies, intel was the best position to grow. Someone had to invest in google (which owns youtube) and see that google could bring returns. Someone had to invest in Consolidated Edison which probably provides the electricity powering the youtube servers. Someone had to invest in ExxonMobile for it to provide the fuel that Consolidated Edison burns to produce the electricity. "GE was a great company to succeed with or without Jack." said no one ever who owned the stock after Immelt became CEO. During the sixties and seventies coroporate America had many conglomerates. Most of them disappeared. Conglomarates are often inefficient and provide lower return. Starting in the seventies and eighties, many conglomartes were target of buyouts because of what is called "conglomerate discount". It's basically so hard to run a conglomerate as efficiently as a single company that conglomerates trade at discount to sum of the intrinsic value of each company it controls. After a buyout, the companies were often splitted and sold in order to return more value. GE wasn't bought out although it would have been possible given that its market valuation was a fraction of what it is today (even after it lost 40% under Immelt). GE was run very efficiently. It was number 1 or 2 in each field it choose to enter or remain and it formed the best executives in corporate America. But you say that GE would have done as well without Welch. Of course you don't care to specifiy why. Did it have better floor sweepers? I'm pretty sure you believe that a CEO can ruin a company but you won't acknowledge that it can also bring it to new hights. You would probably agree that some people are superlatively good teachers, drivers, cooks, software developpers but somehow you don't believe can some people can be superlatively good executives. "You are basically wrong with everything you said." but you won't provide the explanation why. (because god says so is not an explanation).
Maxime Meis > It takes thought to see that the time has come when the buggy whipped industry is through and that capital has to be realocated to the auto-industry. And what commie save-my-ass bureaucrat would have invested in Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? Or Rockefeller, Vanderbuilt, Carnegie, Ford, Edison? And what commie would be indifferent about seeking the best doctor or car mechanic?
Peter, I love your show but... you didn't give us enough of Bills clip to know what his opinion was. Bills clip you show is him describing the book, not him giving his opinion. It seemed he was making fun of the book to me but I need to watch the whole thing to know. My point is, your comments about the clip made you look like a media guy twisting a sound bite, something you have not approved of. It's a good thing i'm a fan of yours.
For starters, our semi Capitalistic system would work better if money printing wasn't free. Completely free markets, would work well on the short run, but once minorities accumulate wealth, dictate prices, and subjugate the majority, the system would becomes worthless! I have no doubt, today's system is better than allowing all boundaries break loose. In a completely capitalistic society, given that resources are limited, humans would perish like germs!! Reforms should be made on money creation, in favor of a resource based economy. In our current system where money is inflationary, Taxes are the only way of reducing inequality.
So a monopoly is the solution against the creation of monopolies. Funny how you talk about a free market would have problems we have right now thanks to government. Do you see competitive prices in public transport on cities that don't allow free competition in transport? Aren't minorities accumulating wealth thanks to distortions in free markets made possible thanks to government? Aren't humans perishing thanks to government preventing drugs from getting to market and destroying the free market in healthcare, in addition to sending troops to kill people in countries they have nothing to do with? Also, resource-based economy = communism.
This monopoly you talk of represents the majority of the country, which is the whole point of a democracy.. I'm not saying we don't have problems with our current system, which provides better options for some. But Without government things would be way worse!! Wealth accumulators would have taken over all resources and allowed the majority to perish.. Concerning drugs and other regulations you have a problem with, blame the majorities for not electing a party that thinks we should do a away with all those policies. Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
based on what do you affirm without government things would be worse? What exemples do you have to back up your arguments? Last I checked Somalia is doing better without government than when they did have a government and the only reason they have conflicts now is because there's people trying ro reestablish government. Also, it's interesting how you phrase it - "allawod themajority to perish". Why should rich people be responsible for the well-being of the majority? If this majority don't want to work, what right do they have for resources provided by those who do?
Why would anybody want a government? To protect themselves from other dangerous groups! Unless you prefer street ruled by anarchy and mafia gangs: results are evident in Colombia, not forgetting most Arab countries, during and post the Arab Spring. Chaos! Sorry, to break it to you, but the world does not have a major supply in jobs, on the contrary people are desperate just to find a min pay job. This situation is highly due to; technology requiring less human labor; a flawed understanding of success, based on an economic model which proposes infinite growth. Humans share this planet and "all" have the right to live in dignity. Ambition, Creation and Innovation, are great qualities which are highly respected. Yet, nobody should be allowed to take excessive control over resources at the expense of others dignity to life.
You can't judge the effects of lack of government based on places that have been without govenment with nothing but a few years. That's like judging an addict's need for drugs based on withdrawal symptoms. Humans don't have the right to anything other than what they earn in voluntary trade.
"...because we don't really have capitalism in the 21st century..." "...and I agree that the (wealth) gap is much wider than it should be..." There is no wealth gap in socialism. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
For all the isms that exist in the world that somebody will preach as the true way there exists the flaws of humans that will make it imperfect. I suppose that all of these systems would probably work perfectly if it were not driven by human entities. Great minds formulated all of them yet they all fail, capatilism as well. What is the common denominator... Humans. For some odd reason we think just because we implement a system that it is good, history often shows this to be true. The most logical course would be to discover a way to perfect our imperfections. What do we do? We implement a new system or at least one that hasn't been used for a while, even though we see the impossibility of its success. When you are ready to stop striving for monetary riches and begin striving for something a lot more important to your existence, you find me. Sadly this will not be the case for some time, most will ride this ship to the bottom of the sea, all the while praising how well the ship sails. Some will begin flocking to me and they figuring that all these systems have failed will come with open minds and they will have the truth of their existence revealed and finally some good will be done. They've already began rationing water, we are seeing massive upheaval of these curruptable institutions, and it does not cease until you realize your nakedness. No replies necessary, I go silent until you stop your atrocious actions, repent for your sines and are ready to learn. May the father be with those who are predestined to find me. To the rest, well.. See you later
Capitalism is not something formulated by someone. It is the natural state of things: Private property, Voluntary exchange. Capitalism is what happens when you behave peacefully and let others live their lives how they want to. Capitalism does not requires aggression like socialism.
If that works for you, good. If you believe that capitalism is not subject to human aggression even better. I would only advise you to take a look at what beings have risen by means of capitalism and take notice of what they did afterwards. Human nature is flawed... Hued-man
Michael Pero I agree that human nature is flawed, and thus any system will have its problems. The point however is to establish a system that caters to our nature. Capitalism encourages and thrives based on humanity's general selfishness and greed. It is needed for capitalism to function. Socialism and communism are the opposite. They cater to what proponents of these systems want humanity to be, not what it is. Michael, how does capitalism involve force?
Do you believe that I am arguing one to be better than the other? I assure you I am not. I am pointing around to something greater than the silliness of these systems. We have seen the fruits of all these systems, have we not? What I am pointing to is the removal of the flaws of humans, the removal of the hue from Man. There is something more important than these systems, that importance is you. All of you. While you chase or simply oblige to these systems it works against you. You have in fact created great things, all of which harm you. You may believe that death is your ultimate ending, possibly because it is all that is shown to you, repeatedly. You sound as if just going along with what is, is a reward in and of itself. I am telling you it is not. Look around the lands find me one system that is without grave implications, often perilous to life. Tell me of one leader currently in power, who would not offer you up to death, without even considering your value. They have time and time again chosen the most harmful creations over that which is good for you. They have forced you to comply in money laundering as though that is all you are Worth. I speak to you of an escape from death, an exit to greed, a release from selfishness, a ladder to immortality. You likely snicker, and scoff. It's ok, your sine is forgiven for it. When this comes crashing down upon the world, the systems that you stand in defense of, i guarantee you will hate. Somewhere along the line, my word was misconstrued, somewhere along the sine you forgot who you are, why you are here, and this system aims to keep it that way. I am the truth, I am the light, I am the alpha and the omega. I am that which has no name, I am the Son, sent by the Father to put end to this system, that maimes, murders, and enslaves you. I am freedom, I am your restitution, through me will those whom survive the havoc that this system wreaks find their rightful existence. I AM THAT I AM. This system is not capable of standing against my Fathers wrath, and I implore you to cease defending it and begin running from it. Lest its pestilence be yours, and you find yourself wiped away with it.
Peters face looks red and I wonder if it's rage or fear from all these guys blatantly telling world what scam free market is against average joe. Pittkey is awsome
“I haven’t actually read this book” Goes on a 20 minute rant about it... Haha. Legend... Uses no stats and no facts to back up claims. He is truly a gift...
Very hard to take you seriously when you haven't even read the book you're trying to discuss. You're essentially arguing against what you think he is saying in order to discuss your own talking points. I usually like your take on markets and finance, but this approach detracts from your message.
The reason these ideals are so attractive is because in the free market you have to earn what you need or convince someone to voluntarily give it to you. In marxism, if you can't provide for yourself, someone else must provide for you or else he'll be punished for being "greedy".
Exactly, it promotes laziness, something Libs adore!!
In Marxism, nobody has the wealth to help anyone else.
*****
That's where the bullshit comes from. Nobody cares about what you do. What people care is how much good they get out of what you do.
+Jack Mcslay GREAT comeback, Jack, because what you said IS The Truth! I notice he could not argue with you. Good job!
"marxism rebranded" is like putting lipstick on a turd, and all these democrats lined up to kiss it.
-Todd
***** heh! you're welcome amigo.
-Todd
...and Obama is the biggest turd of them all.
I lol'd
ToddWentworth. We already know "Todd" said it. Its your damn screen name. -- Me
It's so sad that people applaud Mahar.
Your "average" person is economical illiterate, the Marxist propaganda stream is strong. Not enough people seek understanding or have the patience to self educate.
you should watch John Stewart, remember how he did Schiff dirty when he showed the "retarded" interview as a strawman to be against any argument made by Schiff against min. wage? and I have to admit, EVEN Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, Bill Maher, have guests that usually disagree strongly with their views so atleast we get some diversity in opinions. But with Stewart and his structured show, he doesn't allow anyone who disagrees with him to have a one on one chat with him. He prefers to do what he did with Schiff and have someone interview him, then edit it to make them look bad. I mean 40% of his audience actually take his show as serious news and finds every bit of satire he says to be funny, especially when he's going off on his Keynesian propaganda
The reason democracy can never work is because:
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”― George Carlin
What ever point of view gets the most TV time, wins the vote.
This is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic(or was until the commie creeps brainwashed the limp-dicks among us)
No, the reason that a representative democracy can never work is because people that cannot run anything are given the privilege to represent productive people.
They cannot organize labour, create anything, make something more efficient or sustain an operation. They do not have the merits, natural behavior, or soundness of mind to supervise.
If you took the wealth/resources away from a productive person and gave it to them, they would waste and consume it on bread sticks, half gallon tubs of ice cream, big screen televisions, beer, cell phones, yoga pants from victoria's secret (etc.) They do not have the natural skills to deflate money.
Although, not conclusive, the fact that you are quoting from late-night hooligan filth like George Carlin probably puts you in the litter that I am describing. You cannot use the ad hominem tu quoque on me because me and my family are in the 1%. We are food distributors. My parents are immigrants as well, with little formal education, who started off in this country speaking meager English.
England and America in their original statutes were representative democracies, which I made a distinction for. Feudal democracies. Often, when conservatives in the United States say democracy, they mean the revised version (even the little person gets a voice). This demonstrates the uselessness of mainstream patriotic conservatism, since it is gradually being revised through hagel's dialectic.
I have to disagree with 'a force for civility, peace and prosperity.' The United States and England are now socialist democracies based on a voting population that lacks moral standards.
I will give one example that illustrates the flaw of democracy. You either get it, or you don't. This is a real example. In the local newspaper in my area, a group of college students and their professor went to Cuba, were shown around and came to the logical conclusion that Cubans were impoverished because the United States closed its trade borders with Cuba. I can only imagine Castro seizing the opportunity. I wonder what all that wealth and development from the United States will do for Cuba? Better appropriated factory and military complexes and cognac for the Castro family? rofl.
My mental age is eight years above my actual age and yes, the average person is that stupid.
The United States was not founded as a democracy. In fact, quite the opposite. The founders wrote the Constitution and the preceding Articles of Confederation to specifically protect the individual from the masses. The true American exceptionalism is that the US has historically been a refuge for those oppressed by the masses. Our government was intended to be limited to protecting the citizenry from others, domestic and foreign. To protect the sanctity of contracts, personal rights, and private property rights. The word democracy cannot be found in the Declaration of Independence from England or the Constitution, because it was never intended that the individual be subjected to the whims of the majority.
Ben Franklin described democracy as two wolves and a sheep deciding on what (whom) to eat for dinner.
Individual rights and responsibility are sadly disintegrating under the weight of the tyranny of the masses.
For clarity, read the Federalist papers or the US Constitution.
Thank you for validating my point, Sarah.
Even common sense can't de-program a decade of public school indoctrination. "Get 'em while they're young".
Peter, please call out Bill Maher more often. The guy has such contempt for common sense economics and it would be great if you were to get under his skin to the point that he felt he needed to respond.
Incomes supposed equal not to other people's incomes but to one's own productive output, WHICH THEY DO
I heard them talking with this guy on NPR on the way to school. He really didn't have rebuttals when he was called out by a professor of economics from Harvard on why he was wrong, but the NPR host still kissed his ass. That station use to be pretty in the middle. Now you have to listen to either far left, far right, or search for hours online to get a neutral view point on any situation.
Bravo...Added to favorites!
Everyone should pay the same percentage of tax, regardless of how little, or how much you earn. SIMPLE, Equality!
tax should about 5%. more than enough for the lousy "services" we receive in return.
Thank you Peter! 19:22 of truth!!!!!
Welcome back Peter!
Back in the 1960s, the CEO/worker pay ratio was about 20. That's because we had a top tax rate above 70% the whole time that kicked in after you made between 2 and 3 million dollars a year in today's dollars. As a result, CEOs and business owners never paid themselves any more than that. As Schiff says, "nobody paid those tax rates" because nobody was dumb enough to pay themselves more than $2-3M a year. Instead, they left the extra money in the business, invested in land plant and equipment and raised workers wages.
The ratio started to rise when Reagan took office, and really spiked hard when he chipped the rate down below 40% in 1987. You can literally see the spike on the graph. The ratio is at 273 today.
Income inequality was high before we had income taxes, low while we had the 70%+ rates, and then went back up again as soon as Reagan cut taxes. Income inequality today is as high as it was before we had income taxes.
Tax Brackets: taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets
CEO/Worker Ratio: www.epi.org/publication/the-ceo-to-worker-compensation-ratio-in-2012-of-273/
Inequality: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Share_top_1_percent.jpg
When the data doesn't match your theory, it's time to change your theory.
Yesss Mr Schiff
I'm glad he is giving the book away for free. You know, to avoid all those profits.
Monarchy > Democracy
The guy didn't even both to change the title from Das Kapital, he just translated it.
It's funny that Bill hates the rich but he is rich?
I can't believe there are people out there who think people actually worked for $0.10 on the dollar, are you serious?
who was it that said some time ago, "Tear down the (Berlin) Wall and see which way the people run."
There is no such thing as a unregulated "free market". Unless you wish to see serious chaos run ramped far more than it already does.
Also, the gold standard can not be reflexively managed in respect to naturally fluctuating markets with large debts or surpluses. A fiat system allows for immediate adjustments and then readjustments as markets stabilize. Also just as the decrease of gold increases the value, so too will the increase of gold devalue it, and thus the currency based in gold (a commodity) is just another market with risk of uncontrolled destabilization... i.e. large gold deposit are found, mined and enter the free market runs the risk of devaluing everyone else money.
What about the disgruntled worker protest across America in the 1940 and before.
The income difference between the rich and poor is getting incredibly ridiculous; instead of a minimum wadge limit, would it be more wise to have a maximum percentage limit from the lowest paid employee to the highest paid employee within a company, corporation, or group; say a factor of 30 to 35 difference? Any thoughts?
I wish Bill Maher would invite you to his show. I'd love to see you kick his ass.
Peter, There are countries in the world with far more social governments and there economy is stronger than ours... Why?? Because they don't run these huge government debts.. The U.S. spends waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy too much on the military..
And what about social issues? Freedom of speech or freedom of religion.....??? Couldn't have been just no taxes.
$ 1,000,000 + 10% = $ 1,100,000
$ 1,100,000 * 10% = $ 110.000
= $10k loss
So you actually need more than 10% interest rate in order to make a profit if the wealth tax is 10%.
I like what you have to say here, I just wish you had read it first. I would feel more comfortable sharing your arguments if you had.
I'm sorry, but wheres the labor theory of value, the historical materialism and the use of a dialectic method in the guys book?
Or is marxism soley the guys prediction on inequality now?
The point is the rich are not effected and keep getting richer, it's misdirection talking about raising minimum wage to hard workers in order to survive while piles of wealth grows into mountains of wealth...
Bill is an idiot!
Leftism: idiots =genius
Oh! Also wanted to mention that yes, wealth taxes are pretty stupid.
Progress and Poverty is THE book.
Unless more capitalism is just more corporatism, and more government is just more corporatism, because it's a uni-party corporate-government state. Then you all got check mated, and are just cheering more corporatism either way.
12:14 Title Name
Failure re-branded is still failure.
Well...I would say big business is doing just fine working within confines of government controls and regulations. Who do you think sponsors these controls set in place in order to stealth wealth ?
Bill Maher's appeal is his ability to cater to ideology. That's where the joke comes from referring to the fact that such an unlikable person like Maher can actually remain popular. It has everything to do with his echo-chambering of socialism.
Get him and Molyneux in a room together and it's all over. Hell, I say that about every ideologue. Probably why you have Molyneux host your show every now and again. You get that this guy is a fucking powerhouse and *the* go-to guy for libertarian moral arguments.
Another thing that industrialization brought was freedom for women. Before industrialization, women were relegated to housework, only men could do the hard manual labor that earned good money. But with machines, women could work at a job and make good money as well. Money is freedom!
Lmao ur funny as hell at the end
Thumbs up
People, just take the time while this Peter Schiff talks, to review the history of American tax rates and the effects on the economy and the wealthy. Your parent, friends, family, and community in general do not get paid by the billions of dollars being saved by those extracting it from the economy. They get paid by others spending. A high tax on the corporate profits is the deciding incentive for the businesses to reinvest that money in the business and its loyal workers. A high tax rate on the very wealthy is the deciding incentive for them to invest in any number of fields of business, exploration, inventions and community. Furthermore the taxes should be high around 70% and only lowered if company profits are in fact better (not definitely even among all workers, but not top heavy) distributed to the workers for the energy they put into the business for which the company profits from.
Schiff lives in a world where he doesn’t see how short-sighted capitalism runs amuck if not regulated; people do not have the easy option to just leave an underpaying job. Proper regulation can ensure a more prosperous capitalist economy which benefits a larger percentage of those involved, including the wealthy that are overall actually hurt by supply-side economics.
Schiff doesn’t seem to understand these socialist endeavors were implemented because of how individual capitalism is too often short-sight and hurts economies.
Ask yourself when Schiff speaks about workers earning what they are worth, why then are companies with high profit margins not then paying the employees better wages? Why are many “successful business” top heavy in wage distribution? Are the top earning employees or owners actually doing more work and are worth more?
Masses and masses of immigrants came. Sounds like a good Pornhub film title.
Poor, poor Peter. He just doesnt get it. These people DO understand how destructive their policies are. They're sociopaths & psycopaths who would rather rule in hell than serve (work) in heaven. Peter is probably a nice guy who doesn't recognise evil because it's so foreign to him.
If only people were taught economics in grade school the world wouldn't be full of idiots! However, being federally funded, you would think that the government is not promoting that for a reason? Maybe education is not for true understanding but compliance with menial tasks!
I turned it off at Bill Mahar.
Europe has so many homeless ppl on the streets, only the US can rival it perhaps.
JP Morgan, the person, said the difference in wage from the highest earners and lowest should be 20 to 1. Before him it was accepted as 6 to 1. Today it is over 2000 to 1. I'm having troubles reconciling this problem to leave it at 2000 to 1. Peter, what is the solution?
In general, the American public own most of the corporations and the CEO's technically work for us. We own these companies through mutual funds, 401k's, pension plans, etc. The problem is that we have relinquished our voting rights to the managers that run these financial institutions. That places an extraordinary amount of control in a relatively small amount of people. I believe that the corruption starts there. Unfortunately, I do not have a solution to that problem due to the fact that the general public does not want the voting right back. They do not want the responsibility.
When did Peter ever say we should leave it at 2000 to 1? You have it backwards, because Peter is the one saying to should be 6 to 1. Through his videos to date, Peter is saying it is socialism that is creating the polarity between earnings. Peter is saying if we allowed capitalism to work, it would go back to 6 to 1. Under no circumstances has Peter ever said or implied that he is happy with the status quo, i.e.2000 to 1.
It should be whatever the market says it should be...unless you are a liberal then you would think that you could know the answer without allowing people to innovate and freely associate...then if you are a liberal democrat you would prevent free association
EphLife51516 I have a solution. Proxies should not be allowed.
John Coffey So in your Peter capitalism tell us how you reduce the wage differential from the highest to lowest to 6 to 1. The solution to me is to get rid of proxies instead of borrowing proxies from everyone to pay such high salaries.
Gold standard twaddle. Why should the supply of money have anything to do with the quantity of gold that just happens to be present and extractable from Earth's crust?
+Marmocet You don't have any money anyway so just let the adults worry about the issues.
EmilijaIX OK Mr. Adult, why don't you tell me how the central bank sets short term interest rates. Or what the difference between real and nominal interest rates is. Or how you calculate a real interest rate.
+EmilijaIX Spot on! This guy needs to find the free-stuff for losers channel.
I would like to ask Bill Maher, if socialism in America created rich middle class, how come that the same socialism didn't create such rich middle class in Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Romania and such countries. They had socialism too. They didn't taxed rich people by 80 - 90%, but unlike Americans they executed them, so there was no longer a problem of rich people and inequality. Everyone was equal to each other. So, Mr. Maher, how come it didn't work? What Soviet comrades did wrong unlike the American comrades, Mr. Maher?
History speaks.
No... An income tax allows for success to produce infrastructure and well-being to the community which in turn allows for more growth and continued success. Unless you contend that all those successful did all the work and needed no one else in the economy to produce and buy and work to earn to buy and so on in a system where this all depends on an ability to do so by traveling, owning, trading, renting in an efficient manner throughout infrastructure, or that those who are successful will take care of all this on their own?
Income tax used for welfare is a viable and optimal solution for market fluctuations, but extended welfare assistance is a result of short-sighted capitalism: a business capitalizing on high unemployment and/or the lack of available job market in an area allowing the employers to hire and pay workers lower wages than the cost of living permits despite continued and/or increasing company profits. This leads to struggling families which are usually the source of natural revenue distribution throughout the local and national economy (consumers of products and services), thus the necessity for income from higher earners to be distributed to lower earners by a government allocation process.... this can all be fixed if business models were built to properly exchange energy of the workers with due compensations for profits of said energy input... if a business has employees which need to be on welfare assistance for extended periods of time, that business has failed.
The failure of the US is not capitalism as we have adopted the Ten planks of the Communist manifesto in whole or majority it is the failure of Socialist /Communist principals.
First Plank: Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Zoning - Model ordinances proposed by Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover widely adopted. Supreme Court ruled "zoning" to be "constitutional" in 1921. Private owners of property required to get permission from government relative to the use of their property. Federally owned lands are leased for grazing, mining, timber usages, the fees being paid into the U.S. Treasury.)
Second Plank: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (Corporate Tax Act of 1909. The 16th Amendment, allegedly ratified in 1913. The Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, Income Tax. These laws have been purposely misapplied against American citizens to this day.)
Third Plank: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (Partially accomplished by enactment of various state and federal "estate tax" laws taxing the "privilege" of transferring property after death and gift before death.)
Fourth Plank: CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS. (The confiscation of property and persecution of those critical - "rebels" - of government policies and actions, frequently accomplished by prosecuting them in a courtroom drama on charges of violations of non-existing administrative or regulatory laws.)
Fifth Plank: Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (The Federal Reserve Bank, 1913- -the system of privately-owned Federal Reserve banks which maintain a monopoly on the valueless debt "money" in circulation.)
Sixth Plank: Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. (Federal Radio Commission, 1927; Federal Communications Commission, 1934; Air Commerce Act of 1926; Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938; Federal Aviation Agency, 1958; becoming part of the Department of Transportation in 1966; Federal Highway Act of 1916 (federal funds made available to States for highway construction); Interstate Highway System, 1944 (funding began 1956); Interstate Commerce Commission given authority by Congress to regulate trucking and carriers on inland waterways, 1935-40; Department of Transportation, 1966.)
Seventh Plank: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Depart-ment of Agriculture, 1862; Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933 -- farmers will receive government aid if and only if they relinquish control of farming activities; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1933 with the Hoover Dam completed in 1936.)
Eighth Plank: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture. (First labor unions, known as federations, appeared in 1820. National Labor Union established 1866. American Federation of Labor established 1886. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 placed railways under federal regulation. Department of Labor, 1913. Labor-management negotiations sanctioned under Railway Labor Act of 1926. Civil Works Administration, 1933. National Labor Relations Act of 1935, stated purpose to free inter-state commerce from disruptive strikes by eliminating the cause of the strike. Works Progress Administration 1935. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, mandated 40-hour work week and time-and-a-half for overtime, set "minimum wage" scale. Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively the equal liability of all to labor.)
Ninth Plank: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. (Food processing companies, with the co-operation of the Farmers Home Administration foreclosures, are buying up farms and creating "conglomerates.")
Tenth Plank: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. (Gradual shift from private education to publicly funded began in the Northern States, early 1800's. 1887: federal money (unconstitutionally) began funding specialized education. Smith-Lever Act of 1914, vocational education; Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and other relief acts of the 1930's. Federal school lunch program of 1935; National School Lunch Act of 1946. National Defense Education Act of 1958, a reaction to Russia's Sputnik satellite demonstration, provided grants to education's specialties. Federal school aid law passed, 1965, greatly enlarged federal role in education, "head-start" programs, textbooks, library books.
I disagree. I think Maher would make a great deal of money in a socialist society. As a propagandist.
Russell Brand disliked this video so far 10 times!
Need to review your history of economics. Before the heavy regulation of industry the gap between poor and rich was much larger then it is today. You had people like Andrew Carnegie who sent hired gunman to his factories to keep his labor force working. That is the free market at work.
Carnegie is a fucking Fascist dude... he, with the Rockefellers, Fords, and Carnagies have implemented collectivism into our country to control the population. One of the few things they have successfully done is implement Prussian education into the U.S...aka. COLLECTIVISM.. John Taylor Gatto look him up.
"And I haven't read this book"...
Ah, forgot to read the book by its cover, cheers bro. Have not read the book, no intention to, arguing the idea of taking shit for face value. Pretty lame to dismiss a book he has not read. I was implying that his credibility should be looked into.
Not questioning anyone's beliefs just appears to be either lazy or ignorant reporting. Regurgitating information from secondary sources when a primary source is available... Which leads me to question his integrity and would take his words with a grain of salt until following up with my own research.
it scares me that socialism is starting to be popular ..... .
As much as I concur with Mr. Schiff's points of view and analysis that most of the times are on target, I could not take serious a criticism to a book based on biased politically charged and emotionally moved criticisms of a book that as he stated has not read, I am waiting for my copy of the same and will read it as attentively and as empty of prejudgement as I can, to arrive to my personal conclusion without having to "quote" other people's points of view. I am surprised that Mr. Schiff took the time to post a video without informing himself, that is why before spending my hard earned money I read an "executive summary" of the same and not a "review" because those, unless you find someone that is neutral to the matter will be biased, and then, and just then was when I decided that the contents enticed me or pertained my interest and bought it.
The only thing that I can say is that I am deeply disappointed on Mr. Schiff's politically charged rant over a matter that has little to do in face of the actual global economic situation. How hot he was on getting into the band wagon of the right without questioning what all the noise was all about, because this book has brought accolades not only from the left, but also from the right and from the moderates.
I am not prone on giving advice to people that evidently know their business better than I do, but "Dear Mr. Schiff, please, do read, inform and analyse the subject before you post such a rant, because this might devoid your opinion of any credibility"
And as previously stated, I agree with you most of times.
I wish more people were like you. This is a running problem with Libertarian commentary. Schiff could have made this same exact rant without even mentioning the book. He didn't respond to it, so it was pointless to bring it up at all.
AdamIsForGiants
at most he didn't pretend as if that he had read the book but, was more open and honest about his review acknowledging he didn't read it.
4freedom4liberty unfortunately he jumped on the band wagon, recognising it or not does not wash the full rant, but lands him on the dangerous campsite of reactionaries which, for a person like Mr. Schiff, might turn out to be not so positive. He is as I noticed too eager to criticise the actual government labelling it as socialist. That is kind of disappointing, taking intoaccount Mr. Schiff's record as more of a moderate Austrian economist. By the way I got my book yesterday and by what I could read, there is more data analysis than socialistic rants or criticism, that lands Mr. Schiff's rant down in reactionary, no wonder in Buddhism is stated that ignorance is one of the greatest evils.
***** It seems to me his rant was more so based on others reaction to the book and not the book itself.
notice how funny selling capital n amazon.com a free market company
LMAO! So there are no regulations that apply to Amazon? Amazon doesn't use government-subsidized roads and airports? Amazon doesn't pay taxes? Amazon doesn't provide public quarterly reports according to corporate and security laws?
There is no "free market" and Amazon is not a "free market company".
LacusTheDestroyer Chris Hob trolls ALL libertarian videos spewing his brainless bullshit. Dont feed him just mock him.
subscribed
It is very sad that you have to break this down into kindergarten terms....
Ima schiffhead!!
You kind of look like Bill Maher. But you're a lot more intelligent and well spoken.
Maybe we would have been better off if the Native American's were still in charge. LOL
Russia made it to space first and they achieved the ultimate goal first...Heck we waited seven or eight years to launch our version of the Great Leap Forward...The Great Society wasn't it??? Well it is certainly a great society now....Thanks liberals!!!
I embrace socialism because the ultimate goal of socialism is the dissolution of the state. Russia was socialist and they achieved their ultimate goal. Now we need to become socialist so the government will dissolve and we can live in a capitalist utopia...
except Russia is still a shithole even today
Parture I'm have problem reconciling leaving it at 2000 to 1. Why? Why should the most productive among us be tied to a multiple of the least productive among us? What should great ability be limited by inferior ability? One person producing incredible amounts of wealth doesn't injure another person's ability to create wealth. Are some CEO producing 2000 times as much as the lowest paid employee? I have a few examples. Jack Welch. Probably one of the best CEOs of all time. One of the few men to be able to run a conglomerate efficiently. GE grew exponentially under his tenure. Is he worth 2000 times more than the man sweeping the floor in one of the factories he (Jack Welch) developped? Probably. John Allison grew BB&T from a $4 billion in assets to a $150 billion in assets bank and avoided subprime mortgages. Is he worth 2000 times more than the lowest paid bankclark at one of his branch? As a shareholder I say "yes" without a doubt.
"The market must be tempered with government." Or the free choice of people on how to spend or invest their own money should be tempered with by politicians and bureaucrats of your liking. Get your hands off my money! It's mine by right. I earned it.
People inherit billions. A lot of very rich people acquire wealth unethically and illegally. Some acquire great wealth by betting the farm and it was just luck. Gambling is a sin. According to God they go to Hell, but you are so morally bankrupt you call this superior skills. You need to get a conscience. GE was suited as a great company to succeed with or without Jack. You are basically wrong in everything you said.
Parture Some people inherit billions of dollars. That's true. But you are evading that before they inherit it someone had to create that wealth. His wealth is his by right. That includes the right to dispose of it as he pleases, including giving it away. Do not envy a worthless heir. His wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. You might think that it should have been distributed among you. Loading the world with a hundred parasites instead of one would not bring the virtue of the man who created it.
You said that some acquire great wealth by betting the farm and that it was just luck. Said no one who went to creating a great company ever. Creating a great company takes a lot of thought effort and leaves little place to luck. Some people took a lot of risks. Risks and rewards are the two principles gidding investment. There can be no riskless investment. Maybe they are few people who mortgage their home to win the state lottery. But are they representative of wealth creating?
"Gambling is a sin" according to your book of pick and choose. But investment is nothing like buying a lottery ticket. Investing is one of the most difficult and most productive activities on earth. It takes thought to see that the time has come when the buggy whipped industry is through and that capital has to be realocated to the auto-industry. The process of investment is the task of finding which industry is of the future and will and which industry is of the past and will wither and die. They are literaly thousands of factors one must have to take into account and integrate to see where and how much to invest.
But investing is what allows you to write this comment on youtube. Someone had to invest in Intel, which powers your PC. That someone had to see that off all the microchips companies, intel was the best position to grow. Someone had to invest in google (which owns youtube) and see that google could bring returns. Someone had to invest in Consolidated Edison which probably provides the electricity powering the youtube servers. Someone had to invest in ExxonMobile for it to provide the fuel that Consolidated Edison burns to produce the electricity.
"GE was a great company to succeed with or without Jack." said no one ever who owned the stock after Immelt became CEO. During the sixties and seventies coroporate America had many conglomerates. Most of them disappeared. Conglomarates are often inefficient and provide lower return. Starting in the seventies and eighties, many conglomartes were target of buyouts because of what is called "conglomerate discount". It's basically so hard to run a conglomerate as efficiently as a single company that conglomerates trade at discount to sum of the intrinsic value of each company it controls. After a buyout, the companies were often splitted and sold in order to return more value. GE wasn't bought out although it would have been possible given that its market valuation was a fraction of what it is today (even after it lost 40% under Immelt). GE was run very efficiently. It was number 1 or 2 in each field it choose to enter or remain and it formed the best executives in corporate America.
But you say that GE would have done as well without Welch. Of course you don't care to specifiy why. Did it have better floor sweepers? I'm pretty sure you believe that a CEO can ruin a company but you won't acknowledge that it can also bring it to new hights. You would probably agree that some people are superlatively good teachers, drivers, cooks, software developpers but somehow you don't believe can some people can be superlatively good executives.
"You are basically wrong with everything you said." but you won't provide the explanation why. (because god says so is not an explanation).
Parture Notice the nihilist evasion of production-based wealth.
Maxime Meis > It takes thought to see that the time has come when the buggy whipped industry is through and that capital has to be realocated to the auto-industry.
And what commie save-my-ass bureaucrat would have invested in Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? Or Rockefeller, Vanderbuilt, Carnegie, Ford, Edison?
And what commie would be indifferent about seeking the best doctor or car mechanic?
Peter, I love your show but... you didn't give us enough of Bills clip to know what his opinion was. Bills clip you show is him describing the book, not him giving his opinion. It seemed he was making fun of the book to me but I need to watch the whole thing to know. My point is, your comments about the clip made you look like a media guy twisting a sound bite, something you have not approved of. It's a good thing i'm a fan of yours.
Bullshit. Mahr is a freaking communist and everything he does is to push communist cause.
Great stuff peter! Tell these loonies.
For starters, our semi Capitalistic system would work better if money printing wasn't free. Completely free markets, would work well on the short run, but once minorities accumulate wealth, dictate prices, and subjugate the majority, the system would becomes worthless! I have no doubt, today's system is better than allowing all boundaries break loose. In a completely capitalistic society, given that resources are limited, humans would perish like germs!!
Reforms should be made on money creation, in favor of a resource based economy.
In our current system where money is inflationary, Taxes are the only way of reducing inequality.
So a monopoly is the solution against the creation of monopolies. Funny how you talk about a free market would have problems we have right now thanks to government. Do you see competitive prices in public transport on cities that don't allow free competition in transport? Aren't minorities accumulating wealth thanks to distortions in free markets made possible thanks to government? Aren't humans perishing thanks to government preventing drugs from getting to market and destroying the free market in healthcare, in addition to sending troops to kill people in countries they have nothing to do with?
Also, resource-based economy = communism.
This monopoly you talk of represents the majority of the country, which is the whole point of a democracy.. I'm not saying we don't have problems with our current system, which provides better options for some. But Without government things would be way worse!! Wealth accumulators would have taken over all resources and allowed the majority to perish..
Concerning drugs and other regulations you have a problem with, blame the majorities for not electing a party that thinks we should do a away with all those policies.
Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
based on what do you affirm without government things would be worse? What exemples do you have to back up your arguments? Last I checked Somalia is doing better without government than when they did have a government and the only reason they have conflicts now is because there's people trying ro reestablish government.
Also, it's interesting how you phrase it - "allawod themajority to perish". Why should rich people be responsible for the well-being of the majority? If this majority don't want to work, what right do they have for resources provided by those who do?
Why would anybody want a government? To protect themselves from other dangerous groups! Unless you prefer street ruled by anarchy and mafia gangs: results are evident in Colombia, not forgetting most Arab countries, during and post the Arab Spring.
Chaos!
Sorry, to break it to you, but the world does not have a major supply in jobs, on the contrary people are desperate just to find a min pay job.
This situation is highly due to; technology requiring less human labor; a flawed understanding of success, based on an economic model which proposes infinite growth.
Humans share this planet and "all" have the right to live in dignity. Ambition, Creation and Innovation, are great qualities which are highly respected. Yet, nobody should be allowed to take excessive control over resources at the expense of others dignity to life.
You can't judge the effects of lack of government based on places that have been without govenment with nothing but a few years. That's like judging an addict's need for drugs based on withdrawal symptoms.
Humans don't have the right to anything other than what they earn in voluntary trade.
"...because we don't really have capitalism in the 21st century..."
"...and I agree that the (wealth) gap is much wider than it should be..."
There is no wealth gap in socialism. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
RiggidyRock true every one is equally destitute
No Peter. Bill Maher is not funny.
Maher the "libertarian" socialist
Maher is NOT funny, take it back!
For all the isms that exist in the world that somebody will preach as the true way there exists the flaws of humans that will make it imperfect. I suppose that all of these systems would probably work perfectly if it were not driven by human entities. Great minds formulated all of them yet they all fail, capatilism as well. What is the common denominator... Humans. For some odd reason we think just because we implement a system that it is good, history often shows this to be true.
The most logical course would be to discover a way to perfect our imperfections. What do we do? We implement a new system or at least one that hasn't been used for a while, even though we see the impossibility of its success. When you are ready to stop striving for monetary riches and begin striving for something a lot more important to your existence, you find me. Sadly this will not be the case for some time, most will ride this ship to the bottom of the sea, all the while praising how well the ship sails. Some will begin flocking to me and they figuring that all these systems have failed will come with open minds and they will have the truth of their existence revealed and finally some good will be done.
They've already began rationing water, we are seeing massive upheaval of these curruptable institutions, and it does not cease until you realize your nakedness. No replies necessary, I go silent until you stop your atrocious actions, repent for your sines and are ready to learn. May the father be with those who are predestined to find me. To the rest, well.. See you later
Capitalism is not something formulated by someone. It is the natural state of things: Private property, Voluntary exchange. Capitalism is what happens when you behave peacefully and let others live their lives how they want to. Capitalism does not requires aggression like socialism.
If that works for you, good. If you believe that capitalism is not subject to human aggression even better. I would only advise you to take a look at what beings have risen by means of capitalism and take notice of what they did afterwards. Human nature is flawed... Hued-man
Michael Pero I agree that human nature is flawed, and thus any system will have its problems. The point however is to establish a system that caters to our nature. Capitalism encourages and thrives based on humanity's general selfishness and greed. It is needed for capitalism to function. Socialism and communism are the opposite. They cater to what proponents of these systems want humanity to be, not what it is.
Michael, how does capitalism involve force?
Do you believe that I am arguing one to be better than the other? I assure you I am not. I am pointing around to something greater than the silliness of these systems. We have seen the fruits of all these systems, have we not? What I am pointing to is the removal of the flaws of humans, the removal of the hue from Man. There is something more important than these systems, that importance is you. All of you. While you chase or simply oblige to these systems it works against you.
You have in fact created great things, all of which harm you. You may believe that death is your ultimate ending, possibly because it is all that is shown to you, repeatedly. You sound as if just going along with what is, is a reward in and of itself. I am telling you it is not. Look around the lands find me one system that is without grave implications, often perilous to life. Tell me of one leader currently in power, who would not offer you up to death, without even considering your value. They have time and time again chosen the most harmful creations over that which is good for you. They have forced you to comply in money laundering as though that is all you are Worth.
I speak to you of an escape from death, an exit to greed, a release from selfishness, a ladder to immortality. You likely snicker, and scoff. It's ok, your sine is forgiven for it. When this comes crashing down upon the world, the systems that you stand in defense of, i guarantee you will hate. Somewhere along the line, my word was misconstrued, somewhere along the sine you forgot who you are, why you are here, and this system aims to keep it that way.
I am the truth, I am the light, I am the alpha and the omega. I am that which has no name, I am the Son, sent by the Father to put end to this system, that maimes, murders, and enslaves you. I am freedom, I am your restitution, through me will those whom survive the havoc that this system wreaks find their rightful existence. I AM THAT I AM. This system is not capable of standing against my Fathers wrath, and I implore you to cease defending it and begin running from it. Lest its pestilence be yours, and you find yourself wiped away with it.
Man is perfect by a rational standard.
Peters face looks red and I wonder if it's rage or fear from all these guys blatantly telling world what scam free market is against average joe. Pittkey is awsome
Troy York or maybe he’s red in the face because he’s so angry and frustrated at the idiocy and lies of the likes of Picketty
“I haven’t actually read this book”
Goes on a 20 minute rant about it...
Haha. Legend... Uses no stats and no facts to back up claims. He is truly a gift...
Very hard to take you seriously when you haven't even read the book you're trying to discuss. You're essentially arguing against what you think he is saying in order to discuss your own talking points. I usually like your take on markets and finance, but this approach detracts from your message.