People complaining in the comments are misaing the point. Capitalism isn't an evil force that sucks on the blood of the poor, it is the literal will of humankind all over the world interacting with itself through free will. It is not the problem, actually, it has been the one and only solution to almost all problems in the world and the reason why wars are fewer, life expectancy is greater and technology, science and medicine have grown beyond what anyone could have imagined. No, the one problem is greed, which is inherent to human will and has been the failure of every economic system, from monetarim to comunism, and that is why what this man is saying and what his company is doing is so important. What society needs is to reeducate itself in human capitalism, basically brcause if we don't, everything is pretty much gonna go downhill. We need capitalism, because the rich may get richer, but the poor have never been as rich at the same time. A couple hundred years ago people died of starvation and disease in the middle of the streets of every city, and there trully was no hope for anyone who wasnt already privileged to move up in life. That is not true anymore, yes there is still inequality, but truth is we never had been better, and I say that as an underpaid worker in México who earns 1/16 of the american minimum wage and is struggling but ultimately succeeding to pay for my own college. Also, unless you study economics, please refrain from critics before first educating yourself.
Jim Faindel My only argument against you would be that there may be yet unthought of economic structure that surpasses capitalism, so I would advise against the idea of 'needing' capitalism. Otherwise, very well said. :)
I really hope this guy does rethink Capitalism and realises he is actually talking about Corporatism and that is solution is actually the cause of Corporatism.
Dark Day Ministries And by that you mean that government should cut taxes to a minimum and intervene zero with the market and everything will magically become flowers and butterflies.
TheLivirus I believe he (Dark Day Ministries) means to cut government supports of corporations....examples being things like "Film Production Tax Credits", "Green Energy Incentives", "Subsidies to battery companies that go bankrupt" and bailouts to companies like GM and AIG and General Electric and many many banking institutions. You CAN read about such things......www.againstcronycapitalism.org/
What he's saying is, 20,000 citizens will identify what is most important to them in areas that are impacted by business (ie. environment, bridging the financial inequality gap, etc.) and then that consensus can be used to influence corporate behavior to achieve those desires. Good big picture thinking which has the potential to make the world a better place.
Saf Sum what we have today is NOT capitalism. the US government makes sure that corporations that do not lobby and belong to all kinds of committees in washington get left out in the cold and reward the best regulatory cronyism tools to those who pay the government the most. this is CRONYISM not capitalism.
El Torco actually there are degrees of freemarket - and the greater the level of free market the better mankind did, and the lesser the level of free market the worse the mankind did. currently we are 50% communist 50% fascist and VERY LOW on the level of free market.
I'm sorry, but where are you getting your numbers from? what does 50% communist 50% fascist mean? what is the instrument by which you extract these data. where does the rest of your data come from which indicates this correlation you seem to be so sure about, and more importantly, can i access your dataset and reproduce your results? cause you're right now looking an awful lot like you're just stating things with zero grounds.
NoName NoFame That sound like the no true scotsman fallacy. In any case, that's how capitalism works, a business grows and becomes cancerous and tries to survive by whatever means possible. In any system that cancer will grow and try to survive. In a state system that power gets channeled to adjust policies. In other system that power is still used to take advantage of people in whatever way possible. Even in anarcho capitalism the large sector is still devoted to creating demand, fancy needs, to move people towards superficial things in life and away from real human values. It does not need a state system to do immerse damage to a society. E.g. there were no governmental programs or policies aimed at making women smoke more. But there were very successful advertising campaigns to accomplish that goal. In the end, millions of people still died because of it. E.g. in US the first thing you see are fat people everywhere and it's hard to imagine how that is correlated with too much regulation. Climate change is another big issue and it's also hard to imagine how that can be solved with fewer regulations.
Since China and India have started to accept more free market policies, abject poverty in those countries has plummeted. Capitalism is doing a swell job.
Poverty rate in 1950 more then 60℅ in 2000's 43℅ and now in 2010's 32℅. And their are other development indeed that are showing progress like child mortality going down etc
TGGeko meanwhile america and all the first world countries are turning to more and more government control and regulations.. the onlyproblem with china is that they are following the terrible western model of increasing government control because when all is said and done all governments want more power and control.
TGGeko He never said capitalism is a bad system, only that there's room for improvement. What can possibly be more capitalist than exposing capitalism itself to a competitive market of ideas?
So the idea here is basically this: 1. Poll population on what "good" things corporations can do 2. Publish a list of ratings judging corporations on how closely their behavior corresponds to how the public thinks they should behave 3. Hope people keep these ratings in mind when buying products and services in order punish/reward companies thus encouraging then to behave how we want to. Here's what u think of this: There is already plenty of info out about how different corporations act. It's not hard for people to find info, and the people who care and of the presence of mind to take the relevant info into consideration probably already take action. It's probably a small portion of well-off the middle class who have the luxury of paying more for a product or service without having to worry about such a sacrifice. Companies don't seem to be all that affected now, I don't see how this list will change that.
The fundamental problem with Capitalism is that profits inevitably lead to increasing wealth inequality. A business maximizes profits by reducing costs and increasing revenue. This means paying its employees as little as possible and charging as much as possible for its goods/services. A profit, in actuality, is amount of value that a business has cheated out of society by taking advantage of others.
Profit is not the reward for doing your job, that is what a Wage/Salary is. Profit is the extra money gained by selling product for more than it is truly worth and/or by lowering the cost by paying employees less than they deserve or by extracting value from resources that you do not entirely own (environmental damage for example). My personal choices (or the choices of any one business) cannot fix a fundamentally broken system. My statement was merely a logical conclusion.
Capitalism is just as much about losses as it is about profits. A lot of people seem to not realize this. If there are only winners and no losers, then what you have is not even remotely close to capitalism.
***** when you make sure that there are no "losers" in life you have government controlled bliss for everyone just like in north korea :) the only thing close to no losers is actually capitalism because when two parties interact voluntarily with one another they both get what they want - when governments barge in like it has done in america and controls 50% of the econoomy directly (including regulatory fees which is bigger than the entire GDP of canada or india) then we actually end up with far more losers than winners - with the rich getting richer since they are the only ones who are able to comply with regulations while getting tax breaks
HamsterPants522 A loser isn't the hard worker, though, the loser when speaking about the opposite of profits: "loss" is a reference to the failed business person. When a business person fails, they go back to into the market as an employee. Employees aren't losers, they've just chosen stability over a chance at higher wealth.
That's under the assumption that resources cannot be created, which is incorrect. Capitalism has created gains on all sides, in all tiers. It's just that it something only observed over generations, rather than a couple of years.
Who would dislike this video!? He hits all the key points regarding the roll of corporations in society today. He's digging into the concentration of wealth and how every market is controlled by a select few corporations. Public and corporate policy should be decided by scientific evidence. This in turn will educate people about the wrongs in our world like Scientology and global warming.
HamsterPants522 OMG, all these negative comments are sounding like a broken record. I've heard them all a million times. All this bickering about the definition of capitalism. The guy even put up his definition of capitalism to make his point.All the people suggesting we should revert to Laissez Faire capitalism are just unrealistic. Doing that would be like starting a game of monopoly where one player owns all the stations and Mayfair with hotels on them. I'm not referring to you personally Hamster (your comment just happened to be at the bottom of the page). I actually agree with you. I'm just saying LF capitalism or pure capitalism is not the solution to the Major issues this guy is referring to.
HamsterPants522 I didn't say anything about monopolies in a true free market. I was referring to the Game monopoly as an analogy. Read better..The point I was making, is that if we would implement LFC at this moment in time, the vast majority of people would be at a huge disadvantage against the small number of people that actually have capital to invest. So first you misunderstood my argument, then you accuse me of coming up with a generic status quo argument, followed by making one of the biggest cliché arguments yourself. I have read every comment on this page and every negative comment was a repeat of something I have heard a million times before with nothing new whatsoever. Completely ignoring the issues raised by the speaker. The funny thing is I actually agree with your argument about monopolies. Where I differ is in the solution. Our society today and in the future is so radically different than say 50 years ago. Technological progress, the internet and automation has changed the game completely. LFC worked during the industrial revolution, when human labour still had high value. Today, automation has made human labour far less valuable. So our new times need new solutions. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but at least the speaker is addressing some of the problems we have in today's economic system and he is offering something new. Something needs to change, I just don't see how pure LFC can solve these problems. It might be better than the crony-capitalist corporate plutocracy we are living under today, but I believe we can come up with something better. I am a huge proponent of economic freedom, but heading into the future, the poorest 40% of people wouldn't stand a chance.
Dan Mac *"I didn't say anything about monopolies in a true free market. I was referring to the Game monopoly as an analogy. Read better..The point I was making, is that if we would implement LFC at this moment in time, the vast majority of people would be at a huge disadvantage against the small number of people that actually have capital to invest."* I understand what you're saying now, and that's not a bad point, but I don't think it's really correct. The fact is, most of the people in this small number who have capital to invest, well, they have it because the government is protecting them from competition (aka. from laissez faire capitalism). If these increadibly rich people are afraid of laissez faire capitalism because they don't want competition, then I don't think there's reason to believe that they would last very long with laissez faire capitalim.
I hear people complain about "income inequality" and wonder what the goal is. I can't imagine they expect the receptionist in a doctor's office to earn as much as the nurse. One has a degree and medical training, the other may have a high school diploma or an unrelated degree. Even people in the same job and at the same company may have very different incomes. It depends on the level of seniority, experience, location, specialty, salary negotiating skills, education etc... "Income inequality" is such a vague term. Plus. the idea that income inequality is inherently evil assumes the lowest paid employees inherently are jealous of high income earners and that's not true. It also fails to take into consideration that practically everyone has a higher quality of life, regardless of income. That's far more important than income.
Yeah! Capitalism is definitely the future when 50% of all jobs will be automatable and climate change will financially destroy insurance companies! And all those people dying from mass starvation when those jobs are automatable and when global warming makes many places uninhabitable, why we'll just implement more QE when nobody is buying more of our crap. Make logical sense doesn't it?
True, and I do not deny the evolutionary path of nature either, for which we are a part of--however, this doesnt necessarily mean non-cooperation either.
@@webguyz1 what's wrong with survival of the fittest? No business should be owed an existence - provide value to society or die. For every kmart or blockbuster that's dies, there will be an Amazon or Netflix waiting to take its place.
Marko Kraguljac the regulation fees in america is so huge that it's bigger than the entire GDP of canada or india.. so who is watching the hen house? how many people owe their living directly to government (ie. their livelihood sustained by taxing other people) this number is FAR greater than you think due to farm subsidies, lucrative government contracts, government regulations written in favor of the biggst corporations, welfare recipients both corporate and regular kind as well as ALL government workers politicians .. the list goes on and on. we have ANYTHING but a capitalist society in america today.
Companies shouldnt push their profits to charity... They need to put it back into their workers. Workers know it doesnt matter how hard they work for giant corporations they will never make any more money than they do. The problem is corporations have become the government, so we dont live in a capitalism anymore. Small businesses need to be allowed to compete in the 'free' market without always losing.
Capitalism is an incentive based system, so everyone is given the opportunity to earn money based on their output. It's financial Darwinism, those that are 'fit' escalate to the top. Obviously, not everyone is going to succeed in this kind of system. That's the beauty of it, people want to succeed and make their lives better. Some will succeed, others won't. Anyone who pretends to have a solution to save the 'losers' of a market system clearly doesn't understand economics. Why should merely existing give someone the right to burden the rest of society with their failure? That's why capitalism works, society doesn't have to pay someone who cannot contribute.
Fujibear although I agree with u, it is still immoral that half of America earns less than $30,000 dollars a year rendering them in poverty. The system in america has too many losers, and too few winners. The majority of people aren't winners, they are either losers or neutral. After all, the middle class are the most abused by the system
5 years ago... here we are. Not much changes in the sands of time, or does it change so slow that we don’t notice it. It’s wild how much of a continuous cycle society moves in
Study income inequality in the early 1900's in the US. Guys like Vanderbilt and Carnegie became "Philanthropists". Why? They became so obscenely rich they started to fear for their lives. They were shamed into "charity". They didn't feel it. This is CYA. Nothing more.
Capitalism is not corporatism,capitalism is about receiving the majority of the fruits of your labor,corporatism is about someone else receiving the majority of the fruits of your labor.
Capitalism is simply the ownership of capital by an individual and not by a government. Capitalism lays no claim to morality or Justice. That's the problem. Capitalism is not a political system it is an economic system. It needs tempering by political means. And the political means should be democratic.
I'm at 2:10 mark. so far, he basically speaks about treating humans like numbers (like cattle) rather than like humans. I love it. he makes a good point. this first couple minutes is great.
john smith Let's say that there are no sole proprietors in business, it's all corporations. People will put their savings into stocks to maximize their wealth, which will cause the companies to expand their business and create more jobs, reducing the need for charity. Then, when the rich die, their wealth either goes to the government or to other people. So eventually everyone gives away their wealth anyway.
What this country needs is to spend 1 year without Capitalism to give us all a refresher course on how socialism, communism, and every other ism enslaves humanity. We already know every other economic system ends in failure. Why would we want to try anything else? What we need to do is return to TRUE capitalism.
Did you know the poorest Americans are in the top 20% of the WORLD income bracket. Not to mention our economy is the best our military is the best and our prosperity and wealth is the best so capitalism is 100% good in every way compared to any other economic system EVER.
Getting government out of the way, forbidding it from picking winners and losers, disabling poverty generating policies like minimum wage would be all the corporate "justice" you'd ever need.
TCBeads although I can see what u mean, minimum wage is needed. It can be argued that competition for labour would rise wages, but the reality is that a lot of companies would work together to keep wages low
Their isn't anything to rethink about Capitalism, we just need to try sometime. We haven't had anything close to it since the early 19-teens. The closest country I can think of that is closest to Capitalism today is Singapore.
The biggest problem with this talk is that it starts with a faulty assumption - "Incoming equality isn't a good thing" Income inequality is a great thing, it means that people can be paid relative to the value that you represent to someone else, if someone puts more effort into making themselves more valuable as an asset then they're compensated for that effort. The opposite of income inequality is income equality which uses violence and aggression to steal what other people have peacefully earned and give it to other people. Capitalism is the most moral system we have for rewarding work, it doesn't take any violence at all.
Although income inequality is a good thing, it gets to a point of sheer stupidity. If a large portion of a country can't afford basic things then that's when crime gets out of hand, and revolution are possible. The poorest in society should have at least enough to live
Jeremiah John , true it's an overly complicated situation that constantly needs adjusting to global and domestic macro trends. Non stop song and dance, but it does create volitility.
We don't need to have focus groups or polls conducted on corporate responsibility issues. Raising the minimum wage, protecting the environment, taxing the rich more and getting corporate money out of politics frequently poll in the 60% - 80% approval range and have done so for years. And while ranking corporations on another index works to shame a few of them here and there, we've had numerous indices out there for years ranking corporations with little to show for it. Organized boycotts for very specific, and very alarming problems have achieved limited success while companies like WalMart have done some changes to improve their public image to be sure. However, the vast majority of corporations are only changed by the carrots of higher revenues and the sticks of government policy.
It's the TYPE of capitalism we have that matters: we like to *THINK* that we have a free-market capitalism where everyone has an equal shot at competing for their slice of an ever-growing pie. But what we have is monopsonistic capitalism, where large corporations NO LONGER have to compete with each other for your business, but where small businesses are EXTREMELY competitive with one another over the bread crumbs left behind by the majors. In other words, can you imagine another company competing with google? Seriously? Neither can anyone else. Do you have more than one choice of Internet provider where you live? That's quite rare.
Rich stay rich by being part of corporate profits. Poor don't - widening the wage gap. Good idea PTJ. I love that you didn't read off a script and that came from all you and your vision.
True story. One of the greatest traders and a humble human being. Oh, and for those questioning what his solution is, go back to the part about mania. Its gone on a year longer but the time is now approaching.
This man is speaking the truth, there is so much wrong with corporations nowadays. Heck Time Warner cable makes a 97% profit margin! What do they need all that money for!
Nice seeing all the people in the comments with a proper education on the definition of the US economy... loljk. USA is not a capitalist economy. No economy is purely "capitalist". Every economy is a mixed economy, especially us in particular. We are a free-market economy. Now, I'm not saying that capitalism is the best choice, because I believe it's run its course and we need to think of something new, but if you people are going to identify that US economy as capitalist, please educate yourselves. I learned this on this first day of CP Economics my junior year in high school (I'm now in AP Microeconomics and I'm going to a university for Business Management, so yes, I do have a background on this topic).
That speech was made almost a decade ago. I think it's worth comparing those issues described in the speech with the current situation where evolved. 😊 For instance All major indexes are around 200%-300% higher than back in 2015 😊 closed the speech with a great quote
I like the idea of conducting bushiness in accordance to public essential demands for health, sustainability and social mobility. Even though the self promotion, i really hope that Pauls just project result in some constructive data.
You know what makes societies better? When EVERYONE pays their due taxes. Corporations giving to charities does not equate to the good they would do if they paid their fair share. How can you have giant telecommunications companies and networks not paying any tax, and hope that your country gets better?
TheAnnoyingGunner Obviously not, but it is one thing to replace SOME of your taxes with charitable work. Corporations these days pay almost no taxes, no matter the country, and the little in taxes they should pay gets exempted when they give to charities, most of which gets used to pay big salaries and throw "awareness" parties. That money is needed dearly in infrastructure and social programs, not ad campaigns.
Iesvilla I'm a Washington DC contractor, I've seen a lot. How about this. A big corporation gives a lot of money to a charity, a sitting or former president makes a speech at said charity and gets paid a large amount of money for speaking. At this point giving the money to government is also a mistake. We the people should demand the flat tax negative tax system. Putting some of the money in our hands makes us the customer. A social program is providing goods and services. The federal government that prints money should never provide goods and services. Imagine if Walmart could print money and put it on the national debt, also imagine, if the CEO was voted in by the employees. The CEO would promise big salaries fat tensions just to get elected, this is essentially how the federal government operates today. By printing this money and throwing it on the national debt, the CEO of of Capitol Hill Incorporated keeps all of his federal employees happy. Keeping the tax code complex keeps the CEOs donors happy. Washington DC was never supposed to be a corporation.
rswjr66 I think you misunderstood me. I'm not advocating for a government to provide the services by itself (which I think is what fascism was all about right?), but rather that a strong, just, tax base from all sectors of society coupled with needed social programs in the form of subsidies (both to companies, increasing supply, and individuals, increasing demand) are key to betterment of a country. That means, no subsidies to large multi-nationals or oil companies, but rather housing, infrastructure, education and health.
I hear this word "justice" alot in this video. justice is based in morality. morality is founded in religion and God. people say NO to religion, yet they still want justice. I love this message here, however it can be interpreted differently. in my view, justice should always be done, we must always strive for, fight for, fairness, and human decency. others will view this message in an extreme manner, we must have a revolution/revolt. that's my opinion. so what's MORE important is what's UNDERLYING this message, the religion component. I will pray that people understand this better, and that will yield less extremists, less militants, less dictators in the world. basically what I'm saying is, revenge is not the same as justice. "the evil that men do". we want to minimize that.
Profit margin goes up due to intentional government barriers to entry, which reduces competition. More competition = lower profit margins. Get government out of business, including fiat currency, and it'll fix itself. What is he actually suggesting? Raise wages for your employees? That's fine, but he didn't actually say that. It was just a bunch of making feel-good words come out of his mouth without actually saying anything.
blurglide Yeah, once we have kids back in the coal mines, radium tea reappears on grocery store shelves and Lake Erie starts to catch fire again periodically from pollution floating around in it, we'll achieve a Libertarian Utopia!
John Salinas What does fraud and taking someones water from them, or forcing someone to work against their will at the threat of violence, have to do with Capitalism? The more capitalist a country is, the better the environment tends to be. The more communist, the more polluted. It's because people have no recourse in an unfree system, and they're really just property of the state anyway.
Essentially, Capitalism is just people interacting and exchanging things voluntarily. Everything else is interactions and exchanges made by threat of violence. How can you be against voluntarism and for force?
blurglide No, the more democratic a country is, the cleaner the environment is. Unrestrained capitalism brought us "London Fog", the Love Canal, leaded gasoline and a whole rogues gallery of environmental nightmares. It was only when people demanded the government stop these problems that anything started to improve. And there are plenty of countries that have a more active government in terms of protecting their citizens that are both more democratic and have better environmental outcomes that the USA, so your hypothesis does not stand up when confronted with the facts.
Now I believe there are far more logical alternatives to capitalism but it is nice to hear those who undeniably support it realize that there is something severely wrong with the current run of things.
A lot of comments here either think this guy is a joke or a brilliant master mind that must know what he's doing. Truthfully, I reside somewhere in the middle. While I'm inclined to think that companies are too used to gaining immense profit gains at the expense of everything else, I also point out that it's not like they generally have a choice in the matter: As profits increase in these businesses, the more share holders are going to tend to push even more for money. It's a forward-feed-back loop that doesn't end very well. This does not include the costs it takes to mass-produce the products, the salaries of the employees, the taxes, and many other minor variables that add up very quickly. In short, much like anything else in life, it's best not to take the video at face value. Dig a little more on the subject from experts in the field, and think while comparing five or ten sources, and ,perhaps most importantly, come to your own conclusion.
The problem with this is the tragedy of the commons. Society would benefit from "just behavior", but each individual company would lose a competitive edge. That is why we need to legislate. Increase taxes on things that harm the environment. Provide everyone with a bare minimum amount of money to live on. That way everyone can act in their own best interest AND society.
The problem with such an approach would be how do we keep the "Just Index" really just ? Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and if we give power to decide the fate of the companies to any organization, what would prevent the organization from misusing this power.
People should really take into consideration the opinion of teenagers and people under 21, since the decisions you people make will affect us later on and most likely not the old people in the government we actually have opinions that are just as if not smarter opinions.
Think of capitalism as a wild beast, a wild beast that will run rampant if given the chance. If left untamed and unchecked corporatism, wild capitalism, will smash its way into our lives; however, we prevent this buy tempering the free market with constantly evolving boundaries, well written laws that will force business to be fair with its workers, and now the environment if you're so inclined. It's not capitalism, it's weak politicians.
I love how he throws the word Justness around like its an actual word. Do you mean Justice Mr. Jones! And to those of you who can find the word on some free dictionary online, no its still not a word.
I hope this would be enough. But it wont. The current system is well beyond consumer influence. It's more like the game "Musical chairs" also known as "Trip to Jerusalem" but everybody has to run faster and nobody is allowed to sit. The money is printed and revenue out of money is made much faster than any producing or consuming company can operate. Therefore no money is invested into regular businesses anymore. That's our current investment crysis. Every country and big corporations is now a junkie for oil and money. We need a drug rehab for countries and corporations. I fear this will have serious impact on everybodies wealth. We may be afraid but that's normal for every junkie and every drug dealer. The truth will be hard. But it's the only future we can face without getting killing us and everybody around. Wake up!
Presented concept of "Justice" is misleading. There are property rights and we can respect them or violate them. Respecting them means that everyone does whatever he wants with his money and nobody can take his money by force. Violation means that someone takes money from someone else by force (this includes taxation). Taking property by force is theft, no matter who does it (this includes government). So the most "just" system is the one when nobody's money (or property) is taken by force!
mastablasta9x property rights means individuals own the means of production which is capitalism, and there are no property rights in socialism which means the society owns the means of production. It doesn't mean literal property like iPads and phones
This guy doesn't understand capitalism. It isn't a zero sum game, so higher profit margins doesn't mean less wealth for everyone else. Consider a business where a product is sold for $15. If the business owner can find a way to provide this product more efficiently (like developing a faster method of production), and chooses not to lower the price, the business person gets higher profit margins without anyone losing anything. Competition usually brings down the price, though. In the case of lowering wages or using cheap materials, whoever, would result in less sales and applications for work. that's bad for business. The real reason for income inequality is tax loopholes and high barriers to entry for small businesses looking to compete.
There is no doubt that the markets drive corporations to focus on short term gains. For their own long term health which is essentially driven by society, they need to focus on the broader picture. Even in our own lives, we need to think about our decisions.. Let's say you can save 20% on an imported product, but the value stops there. If your monies are spent on domestically produced products, they end up in the hands of American employees. These employees pay taxes that help pay for our infrastructure and they spend monies locally that will increase employment and prosperity, thus producing even more taxes. The final result is that not only can we say "what goes around comes around", but that over 30% of your purchase will end up back in the economy and cover costs for our military, street lamps, roads and the poor. Everything we do affects us all. I do take issue with one point Tudor and others have made. There isn't a finite amount of wealth that is distributed.
Just one problem with Mr. Tudors "Just" proposal. It would require the people to be well informed, something (the press) that is more and more in the hands of corporations ......
Let's be honest. This man has accomplished more than any of you ever will and has used a significant portion of his funds to support people. That said, you should all listen closely to what he has to say. Duh
In the "free market" it is obviously in your survival interest to restrict the freedom of others in order to preserve your position of differential advantage. Government or no government; if the acquisition of money determines your right to life and mere existence does that not inherently guarantee that the propensity for coercion, corruption, manipulation and aggression is built in? Argue that basic point, please.
Strangepete It's much easier to achieve the desired coercive ends if you have a government to do it for you, rather than if you don't have one but have to pay out of pocket for it directly. The only thing stopping honest companies from coercing customers into paying them money is that it is more expensive to do this. It's not sustainable, and the costs reach deeper than just on a monetary level.
HamsterPants522 I see what you're saying. But at the end of the day; when backed into a corner in a matter of economic survival - it get's increasingly difficult to be a "honest company". You know what I'm saying? We can only be moral and virtuous etc. to the degree that we can survive by being that way. For example the vast majority of the people emptying the oceans of fish, or cutting down the forests at an insane pace putting the future of all life at stake are not doing so because they are merely "immoral". They are doing it because they have kids to feed and they require money to do so. And so they will have to do whatever job they are forced to do in order to earn money, to survive in the short term.
Strangepete The economy is the environment through which all of the greatest technological innovations have been born. When circumstances change, the market changes to adapt, that's what makes it so efficient. There is a solution to every problem you just mentioned, and these solutions are all easily attainable by capitalist actors in the market. Trees can be replanted, fish can be produced in fish farms, etc. I think that your comparison of this to survival makes it look like you're describing the economy as a zero-sum game. The fact is, people consume services because their wealth is increased as a result, it's not just the businesses who are profiting from providing goods and services, else they wouldn't even be able to stay in business.
Strangepete _Government or no government_ --- that's the whole difference, right there. Firstly, there is no such thing as "state capitalism" because capitalism is an economic system/structure that doesn't have anything in common with government, state or federal authority, regulation etcetera. Capitalism =/= government intervention. When it does, it's no more capitalism: it's fascism, socialism, statism, or any other form of COLLECTIVISM. "State capitalism" is downright playword bullshit. The so-called "state capitalism" is fascism (aka. corporatocracy) when big business is in bed with government. When they favor those who promise them to protect & subsidize them (very, very important fact), ultimately, you have your corporations & megacorporations controlling your government. Every powerful corporation & megacorporation knows that, with a single swindle from a pen, they can have serious trouble, lawsuits galore. The power of a state, in any form, still regains the same of its power since ancient times. They cannot aford that. So, they made possible that every political candidate needs enormous support for his or her campaign. That, also, doesn't help when politicians themselves are businessmen. That, alone, is filled with steroids. Second, this fascism(corporatocracy) isn't any better nor different than socialism. In fascism, big businesses are in bed with the governmnet, while retaining some indepence while crushing competition through government subsidisation, protectionism, favoritism & heavy regulation. In socialism (or any other form of left-wing structures), the government owns the big business, while employing their own to the means of production. Very little difference but virtually the same: government and those with the means of production are in league. So, what's the solution? Given that the notion of state, since its creation, has been the subject for wars, incompetence & swindle-swandle between people just as long as those who are the state maintain power, and capitalism helped the lives of those people, since the industrial revolution, there are only two choices: capitalism without state intervention/protection/favoritism/regulation OR state intervention/protection/favoritism/regulation in favor of _certain_ big businesses that fund PAC and SuperPACs. Do you have to guess which one we have now? _if the acquisition of money determines your right to life and mere existence does that not inherently guarantee that the propensity for coercion, corruption, manipulation and aggression is built in?_ --- remove the state in the affairs of economy, and I'll guarantee you that very small taxes (for everyone, individual and business entities) & lack of regulation will fix it. Big entities like GoldmanSachs or JPMorgan would've bitten the dust WAY, WAAAAY, long time ago if it weren't for government help. You know what is government subsidisation in the langauge of capitalism? I'm sure you've heard it: *privatizing the profit and socialising the losses*. In case you don't know what that means, let me give you a rough translation: *capitalism for ourselves & the politicians we pay to help & finance our losses from the taxpayer's wallet, and socialism for the dumb idiots who are too ignorant & too dumb to understand how this relationship (big business+government=love) really work (aka. the taxpayers)*. Seems familiar? It isn't capitalism when the state meddle in the economy. Those that had & still have capital/resources understand that. In order to maintain power, you have to pay to stand in power using the government. Let's not forget pricing: in capitalism, you have the opportunity to get something cheaper affordable with your wage, while in monopolies (big business), you have to abide by the prices of the big since they also have protection from the government. Do I also have to remind that, in monopolies, your wage grows weaker n' weaker every time, both as value and numbers?
***** *"That's exactly what self-ownership is all about. No matter the system, it is to your advantage to restrict the "freedoms" of others to control your life for your own differential advantage; free will to chose what you believe is best for you. It's inherently not to your advantage to be a slave to the will of some others, which of course restricts their "freedoms" upon what you own; yourself and your choices."* Sir that is not how negative rights work. Defending your right to self-ownership can never be an act of aggression against another person's right to self-ownership. That's literally impossible.
Interesting concept. It keeps the free market and connects a corporation's ethical behavior to value in the mind of stockholders. I hope the index works.
Here's the bottom line. Any economic model is based on the needs of the culture which produced it. That means no economic model is meant to last indefinitely. Furthermore, it means that even for the lifespan of a given model, it must change in order to just maximize is lifespan, that is, be generally useful to the culture it is supporting. Next, when a culture changes, whether progressively or not, the economic model must either change to support it, or be left behind in favor of some other economic form of activity, depending on what is most important at the time. Capitalism is a product of explorers having found North and South American, vast untapped lands of resources. In order to fully exploit these resources, a wide open, aggressive style of economy was needed and by many paths, it became the capitalism we have known in America. Capitalism has been good for this country a long time. But no economic model can support all possible living combinations and demands equally well and this is certainly true of capitalism. Our country has progressed to a point where a new economic model is needed that not only addresses our present and near future needs as a country, but will support us long enough into the future to help make other changes easier and more productive and be more efficient so that efforts and productivity are encourage and not hampered. Capitalism has essentially reached the end of it's useful life in our present world and especially for America. We are very much in need of a new form of economic basis that will support the kind of technology and lifestyles that are now present and will soon be the norm for modern human activity. What that economic model is I am not sure, but I do have some strong opinions of what some of it's features must be. But the overall encompassing model has not fully formed in my own mind. I am absolutely certain however that capitalism has reached it's useful end and is not more of a burden that a help to those of us living now. The sooner we move forward to the next economic model to support us for the remainder of this century, the sooner well be better off as a nation and a people and the easier our forward progress as a species will be.
Corporate giving as a percentage of pre tax profits, WOW that title is very misleading. Show us what their profits were after taxes. Admittedly it could be worse but I have a hunch that taxes did eat into their profits more over time, especially if tax rates stayed the same.
Awesome i just started trading with Mrs Tracy walker, she is the best at what she does.with an initial investment of $10, 485 I made up to $200,340 in just a week of trading with her, her strategies are mind 😱
wow I can't believe you guys are discussing about expert Tracy walker she is currently managing my account I just made my second withdraw trading with her, I can't wait another 7days to cashout 💰 again!
Mrs Tracy walker mac is an expert trader on a certified broker, I've worked with her for years, everyone she processes, he or her trade, is so lucky, all you have to do is believe her and follow her guidance.Then sip your drink 🍹and relax
I am still waiting for him to tell us how he increased his 1% charity donation (that made him nauseous) to a solid amount. He still does not get it. People don't want to exist in a society where they depend of 'charity' of the greedy rich who hoard wealth. Make the mega rich pay tax on income they did not work 40hrs a week for. Inheritance tax should return. Death should not be an obscene windfall for lazy relatives. He advocates greater philanthropy but that is just 'thank ya master . . I'm so grateful you let me live' . . pay people a living wage that is tied to real cost of living increases.
Could someone clarify on what this proposal is supposed to accomplish? It sounds like a marketing campaign to promote belief in the Free Market Fairy, not a proposal for reform. Going before the board of directors and saying "please be less sociopathic" isn't a plan.
The problem I see with this is, that a lot of companies, when they choose justice over profit, they'll bankrupt, which again impacts the hard working poor people at most. I agree with the tallk 100%, but it's relatable to just big healthy bussineses. Little debt-financed companies are screwed anyway. And big companies supporting smaller ones? That breaks rules of "healthy" economic competition, right? So yes, we need to re-think capitalism, but in much much bigger scale than this.
It does. I did read those economic books too, don't worry. Unfortunatelly it's not so easy in a real life. If you're crappy programmer after you've studied it, you probably will be crappy in everything else you didn't study too. Dreams about "everybody is good at something" are sweet, but idealistic. It just doesn't work that way all the time. It's just a fairytale for successful people to justify their luck.
People complaining in the comments are misaing the point. Capitalism isn't an evil force that sucks on the blood of the poor, it is the literal will of humankind all over the world interacting with itself through free will. It is not the problem, actually, it has been the one and only solution to almost all problems in the world and the reason why wars are fewer, life expectancy is greater and technology, science and medicine have grown beyond what anyone could have imagined. No, the one problem is greed, which is inherent to human will and has been the failure of every economic system, from monetarim to comunism, and that is why what this man is saying and what his company is doing is so important. What society needs is to reeducate itself in human capitalism, basically brcause if we don't, everything is pretty much gonna go downhill. We need capitalism, because the rich may get richer, but the poor have never been as rich at the same time. A couple hundred years ago people died of starvation and disease in the middle of the streets of every city, and there trully was no hope for anyone who wasnt already privileged to move up in life. That is not true anymore, yes there is still inequality, but truth is we never had been better, and I say that as an underpaid worker in México who earns 1/16 of the american minimum wage and is struggling but ultimately succeeding to pay for my own college. Also, unless you study economics, please refrain from critics before first educating yourself.
Jim Faindel My only argument against you would be that there may be yet unthought of economic structure that surpasses capitalism, so I would advise against the idea of 'needing' capitalism. Otherwise, very well said. :)
Yeah, there is always room for improvement, but till that day comes, this is all we have. Have a nice day. :)
Jim Faindel Great post.
Jim Faindel The problem is, greed is inherent in capitalism.
eatcarpet Yes, it is, but a least the greed in Capitalism allows for some level of movement through competition.
Clearly talking his book. Never trust a trader who is giving you advice ;)
A fortune can be made doing the exact opposite of what they say they are doing.
I really hope this guy does rethink Capitalism and realises he is actually talking about Corporatism and that is solution is actually the cause of Corporatism.
Dark Day Ministries Bingo.
Dark Day Ministries And by that you mean that government should cut taxes to a minimum and intervene zero with the market and everything will magically become flowers and butterflies.
TheLivirus I believe he (Dark Day Ministries) means to cut government supports of corporations....examples being things like "Film Production Tax Credits", "Green Energy Incentives", "Subsidies to battery companies that go bankrupt" and bailouts to companies like GM and AIG and General Electric and many many banking institutions.
You CAN read about such things......www.againstcronycapitalism.org/
TheLivirus Better, yes.
What Observerwwtdd said.
What he's saying is, 20,000 citizens will identify what is most important to them in areas that are impacted by business (ie. environment, bridging the financial inequality gap, etc.) and then that consensus can be used to influence corporate behavior to achieve those desires. Good big picture thinking which has the potential to make the world a better place.
240p, really?
lol
yep that is crazy even in 2015
@@FrizzelFry 😂😂
capitalism needs a reformation . just saved you 10 mins. you're welcome.
Saf Sum what we have today is NOT capitalism. the US government makes sure that corporations that do not lobby and belong to all kinds of committees in washington get left out in the cold and reward the best regulatory cronyism tools to those who pay the government the most. this is CRONYISM not capitalism.
NoName NoFame what you call capitalism has never existed in the history of man, it is a fantasy
El Torco actually there are degrees of freemarket - and the greater the level of free market the better mankind did, and the lesser the level of free market the worse the mankind did. currently we are 50% communist 50% fascist and VERY LOW on the level of free market.
I'm sorry, but where are you getting your numbers from? what does 50% communist 50% fascist mean? what is the instrument by which you extract these data. where does the rest of your data come from which indicates this correlation you seem to be so sure about, and more importantly, can i access your dataset and reproduce your results? cause you're right now looking an awful lot like you're just stating things with zero grounds.
NoName NoFame That sound like the no true scotsman fallacy. In any case, that's how capitalism works, a business grows and becomes cancerous and tries to survive by whatever means possible. In any system that cancer will grow and try to survive. In a state system that power gets channeled to adjust policies. In other system that power is still used to take advantage of people in whatever way possible. Even in anarcho capitalism the large sector is still devoted to creating demand, fancy needs, to move people towards superficial things in life and away from real human values. It does not need a state system to do immerse damage to a society. E.g. there were no governmental programs or policies aimed at making women smoke more. But there were very successful advertising campaigns to accomplish that goal. In the end, millions of people still died because of it. E.g. in US the first thing you see are fat people everywhere and it's hard to imagine how that is correlated with too much regulation. Climate change is another big issue and it's also hard to imagine how that can be solved with fewer regulations.
Since China and India have started to accept more free market policies, abject poverty in those countries has plummeted. Capitalism is doing a swell job.
TGGeko sources / points of reference for your statement please?
oc00011 Google. Look for facts, not opinions.
Poverty rate in 1950 more then 60℅ in 2000's 43℅ and now in 2010's 32℅. And their are other development indeed that are showing progress like child mortality going down etc
TGGeko meanwhile america and all the first world countries are turning to more and more government control and regulations.. the onlyproblem with china is that they are following the terrible western model of increasing government control because when all is said and done all governments want more power and control.
TGGeko He never said capitalism is a bad system, only that there's room for improvement. What can possibly be more capitalist than exposing capitalism itself to a competitive market of ideas?
So the idea here is basically this:
1. Poll population on what "good" things corporations can do
2. Publish a list of ratings judging corporations on how closely their behavior corresponds to how the public thinks they should behave
3. Hope people keep these ratings in mind when buying products and services in order punish/reward companies thus encouraging then to behave how we want to.
Here's what u think of this:
There is already plenty of info out about how different corporations act. It's not hard for people to find info, and the people who care and of the presence of mind to take the relevant info into consideration probably already take action. It's probably a small portion of well-off the middle class who have the luxury of paying more for a product or service without having to worry about such a sacrifice. Companies don't seem to be all that affected now, I don't see how this list will change that.
Ted and capitalism!! Who brought popcorn?
Standing ovation for a ten minute speech that actually said NOTHING!
The fundamental problem with Capitalism is that profits inevitably lead to increasing wealth inequality. A business maximizes profits by reducing costs and increasing revenue. This means paying its employees as little as possible and charging as much as possible for its goods/services. A profit, in actuality, is amount of value that a business has cheated out of society by taking advantage of others.
Profit is not the reward for doing your job, that is what a Wage/Salary is. Profit is the extra money gained by selling product for more than it is truly worth and/or by lowering the cost by paying employees less than they deserve or by extracting value from resources that you do not entirely own (environmental damage for example).
My personal choices (or the choices of any one business) cannot fix a fundamentally broken system.
My statement was merely a logical conclusion.
I love how everybody clapped like sheep when he said they quadrupled donations.
what have you done in life? F*** all
Right so they were giving 4%
Fico comovido com o senso de justiça desse homem, precisamos desses "exemplares" no Brasil. Parabéns!
Capitalism is just as much about losses as it is about profits. A lot of people seem to not realize this. If there are only winners and no losers, then what you have is not even remotely close to capitalism.
***** when you make sure that there are no "losers" in life you have government controlled bliss for everyone just like in north korea :) the only thing close to no losers is actually capitalism because when two parties interact voluntarily with one another they both get what they want - when governments barge in like it has done in america and controls 50% of the econoomy directly (including regulatory fees which is bigger than the entire GDP of canada or india) then we actually end up with far more losers than winners - with the rich getting richer since they are the only ones who are able to comply with regulations while getting tax breaks
HamsterPants522 A loser isn't the hard worker, though, the loser when speaking about the opposite of profits: "loss" is a reference to the failed business person. When a business person fails, they go back to into the market as an employee. Employees aren't losers, they've just chosen stability over a chance at higher wealth.
That's under the assumption that resources cannot be created, which is incorrect. Capitalism has created gains on all sides, in all tiers. It's just that it something only observed over generations, rather than a couple of years.
Capitalism didn't bring a lot of major innovations, it did turn them into products and services. Capitalism needs to be embedded in a moral context.
Who would dislike this video!? He hits all the key points regarding the roll of corporations in society today. He's digging into the concentration of wealth and how every market is controlled by a select few corporations. Public and corporate policy should be decided by scientific evidence. This in turn will educate people about the wrongs in our world like Scientology and global warming.
Brent James Corporatism/mercantilism is the system we have now, it's not capitalism.
HamsterPants522 OMG, all these negative comments are sounding like a broken record. I've heard them all a million times. All this bickering about the definition of capitalism. The guy even put up his definition of capitalism to make his point.All the people suggesting we should revert to Laissez Faire capitalism are just unrealistic. Doing that would be like starting a game of monopoly where one player owns all the stations and Mayfair with hotels on them.
I'm not referring to you personally Hamster (your comment just happened to be at the bottom of the page). I actually agree with you. I'm just saying LF capitalism or pure capitalism is not the solution to the Major issues this guy is referring to.
HamsterPants522 I didn't say anything about monopolies in a true free market. I was referring to the Game monopoly as an analogy. Read better..The point I was making, is that if we would implement LFC at this moment in time, the vast majority of people would be at a huge disadvantage against the small number of people that actually have capital to invest.
So first you misunderstood my argument, then you accuse me of coming up with a generic status quo argument, followed by making one of the biggest cliché arguments yourself. I have read every comment on this page and every negative comment was a repeat of something I have heard a million times before with nothing new whatsoever. Completely ignoring the issues raised by the speaker.
The funny thing is I actually agree with your argument about monopolies.
Where I differ is in the solution. Our society today and in the future is so radically different than say 50 years ago. Technological progress, the internet and automation has changed the game completely.
LFC worked during the industrial revolution, when human labour still had high value. Today, automation has made human labour far less valuable. So our new times need new solutions.
I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but at least the speaker is addressing some of the problems we have in today's economic system and he is offering something new.
Something needs to change, I just don't see how pure LFC can solve these problems. It might be better than the crony-capitalist corporate plutocracy we are living under today, but I believe we can come up with something better.
I am a huge proponent of economic freedom, but heading into the future, the poorest 40% of people wouldn't stand a chance.
Dan Mac *"I didn't say anything about monopolies in a true free market. I was referring to the Game monopoly as an analogy. Read better..The point I was making, is that if we would implement LFC at this moment in time, the vast majority of people would be at a huge disadvantage against the small number of people that actually have capital to invest."*
I understand what you're saying now, and that's not a bad point, but I don't think it's really correct. The fact is, most of the people in this small number who have capital to invest, well, they have it because the government is protecting them from competition (aka. from laissez faire capitalism). If these increadibly rich people are afraid of laissez faire capitalism because they don't want competition, then I don't think there's reason to believe that they would last very long with laissez faire capitalim.
I hear people complain about "income inequality" and wonder what the goal is. I can't imagine they expect the receptionist in a doctor's office to earn as much as the nurse. One has a degree and medical training, the other may have a high school diploma or an unrelated degree. Even people in the same job and at the same company may have very different incomes. It depends on the level of seniority, experience, location, specialty, salary negotiating skills, education etc... "Income inequality" is such a vague term. Plus. the idea that income inequality is inherently evil assumes the lowest paid employees inherently are jealous of high income earners and that's not true. It also fails to take into consideration that practically everyone has a higher quality of life, regardless of income. That's far more important than income.
Why we need to rethink TED.
Nice try, overpaid CEO
Yeah! Capitalism is definitely the future when 50% of all jobs will be automatable and climate change will financially destroy insurance companies! And all those people dying from mass starvation when those jobs are automatable and when global warming makes many places uninhabitable, why we'll just implement more QE when nobody is buying more of our crap. Make logical sense doesn't it?
Capitalism is going the same way as feudalism. Deal with it. There's no way out of it.
Unfettered capitalism: Survival of the fittest, in a 3-piece suit.
True, and I do not deny the evolutionary path of nature either, for which we are a part of--however, this doesnt necessarily mean non-cooperation either.
@@webguyz1 what's wrong with survival of the fittest? No business should be owed an existence - provide value to society or die. For every kmart or blockbuster that's dies, there will be an Amazon or Netflix waiting to take its place.
*Paul The Fat Fox XVI: Why we need to rethink hen houses*
Marko Kraguljac the regulation fees in america is so huge that it's bigger than the entire GDP of canada or india.. so who is watching the hen house? how many people owe their living directly to government (ie. their livelihood sustained by taxing other people) this number is FAR greater than you think due to farm subsidies, lucrative government contracts, government regulations written in favor of the biggst corporations, welfare recipients both corporate and regular kind as well as ALL government workers politicians .. the list goes on and on. we have ANYTHING but a capitalist society in america today.
Companies shouldnt push their profits to charity... They need to put it back into their workers. Workers know it doesnt matter how hard they work for giant corporations they will never make any more money than they do. The problem is corporations have become the government, so we dont live in a capitalism anymore. Small businesses need to be allowed to compete in the 'free' market without always losing.
Capitalism is an incentive based system, so everyone is given the opportunity to earn money based on their output. It's financial Darwinism, those that are 'fit' escalate to the top. Obviously, not everyone is going to succeed in this kind of system. That's the beauty of it, people want to succeed and make their lives better. Some will succeed, others won't. Anyone who pretends to have a solution to save the 'losers' of a market system clearly doesn't understand economics. Why should merely existing give someone the right to burden the rest of society with their failure? That's why capitalism works, society doesn't have to pay someone who cannot contribute.
Fujibear although I agree with u, it is still immoral that half of America earns less than $30,000 dollars a year rendering them in poverty. The system in america has too many losers, and too few winners. The majority of people aren't winners, they are either losers or neutral. After all, the middle class are the most abused by the system
I choose revolution
Poor Man Mods Yup let's do it
Agreed. I love killing a whole bunch of people. Who shall we murder first?
5 years ago... here we are. Not much changes in the sands of time, or does it change so slow that we don’t notice it. It’s wild how much of a continuous cycle society moves in
Study income inequality in the early 1900's in the US. Guys like Vanderbilt and Carnegie became "Philanthropists". Why? They became so obscenely rich they started to fear for their lives. They were shamed into "charity". They didn't feel it.
This is CYA. Nothing more.
TheFinnmacool what's CYA?
Capitalism is not corporatism,capitalism is about receiving the majority of the fruits of your labor,corporatism is about someone else receiving the majority of the fruits of your labor.
Capitalism is simply the ownership of capital by an individual and not by a government. Capitalism lays no claim to morality or Justice. That's the problem. Capitalism is not a political system it is an economic system. It needs tempering by political means. And the political means should be democratic.
Basic Income will be needed. To US citizens that think radical capitalism is the best way to live, it's ok, I don't care.
Paublo Picklepaper You will be happy with your cuke then, alone.
Bruno Nuñez what's cuke bro?
I'm at 2:10 mark. so far, he basically speaks about treating humans like numbers (like cattle) rather than like humans. I love it. he makes a good point. this first couple minutes is great.
PT Jones tombstone quote
"We have a 100% confidence and faith in the American public to get that right."
Real Capitalism =equality, fairness.
Corporations should not be taxed, nor expected to donate to charity; that should all be done at the individual level.
john smith Let's say that there are no sole proprietors in business, it's all corporations. People will put their savings into stocks to maximize their wealth, which will cause the companies to expand their business and create more jobs, reducing the need for charity. Then, when the rich die, their wealth either goes to the government or to other people. So eventually everyone gives away their wealth anyway.
What this country needs is to spend 1 year without Capitalism to give us all a refresher course on how socialism, communism, and every other ism enslaves humanity.
We already know every other economic system ends in failure. Why would we want to try anything else?
What we need to do is return to TRUE capitalism.
... 240p.... really? No thanks. Which pixel is he?
Lmao. I think the left one
Kate Clementine the tan one
Kate Clementine Really? Isn't his voice what matters? Or you just have to be visually entertained while listening?
Xeno Hey you, yeah you. Shut up, its a joke.
I don't know what's going with TED staff. This is so irresponsible
Did you know the poorest Americans are in the top 20% of the WORLD income bracket. Not to mention our economy is the best our military is the best and our prosperity and wealth is the best so capitalism is 100% good in every way compared to any other economic system EVER.
@3:50 "where's the US? It's literally off the chart" When the chart has no actual numbers or scale. If the US is off the chart, fix the chart.
I noticed that too. Well said.
Lol, whats that going to change?
you must be fun at parties.
How To: Shameless Self-Promotion
"Capitalism is responsible for every major innovation..."
I think you meant "science", sir.
More than a hundred years ago, someone made a reflection and the conclusion was communism, so this question is very dangerous.
Getting government out of the way, forbidding it from picking winners and losers, disabling poverty generating policies like minimum wage would be all the corporate "justice" you'd ever need.
TCBeads although I can see what u mean, minimum wage is needed. It can be argued that competition for labour would rise wages, but the reality is that a lot of companies would work together to keep wages low
BraceFace exactly "race to the bottom" is already happening
JUST index is JUST that. The poorest countries don't even have corporates. So go rank them.
Their isn't anything to rethink about Capitalism, we just need to try sometime. We haven't had anything close to it since the early 19-teens. The closest country I can think of that is closest to Capitalism today is Singapore.
The biggest problem with this talk is that it starts with a faulty assumption - "Incoming equality isn't a good thing"
Income inequality is a great thing, it means that people can be paid relative to the value that you represent to someone else, if someone puts more effort into making themselves more valuable as an asset then they're compensated for that effort. The opposite of income inequality is income equality which uses violence and aggression to steal what other people have peacefully earned and give it to other people. Capitalism is the most moral system we have for rewarding work, it doesn't take any violence at all.
Although income inequality is a good thing, it gets to a point of sheer stupidity. If a large portion of a country can't afford basic things then that's when crime gets out of hand, and revolution are possible. The poorest in society should have at least enough to live
income and wealth inequality is a good thing, but the results of inflation, FED controlled interest rates and QE aren't.
Jeremiah John , true it's an overly complicated situation that constantly needs adjusting to global and domestic macro trends. Non stop song and dance, but it does create volitility.
We don't need to have focus groups or polls conducted on corporate responsibility issues. Raising the minimum wage, protecting the environment, taxing the rich more and getting corporate money out of politics frequently poll in the 60% - 80% approval range and have done so for years. And while ranking corporations on another index works to shame a few of them here and there, we've had numerous indices out there for years ranking corporations with little to show for it.
Organized boycotts for very specific, and very alarming problems have achieved limited success while companies like WalMart have done some changes to improve their public image to be sure. However, the vast majority of corporations are only changed by the carrots of higher revenues and the sticks of government policy.
Wait, so what we need is capitalism without profit motive? how does that even work, man
What could possibly be more capitalistic than challenging the traditional view of capitalism on a free market of competing ideas?
It's the TYPE of capitalism we have that matters: we like to *THINK* that we have a free-market capitalism where everyone has an equal shot at competing for their slice of an ever-growing pie. But what we have is monopsonistic capitalism, where large corporations NO LONGER have to compete with each other for your business, but where small businesses are EXTREMELY competitive with one another over the bread crumbs left behind by the majors.
In other words, can you imagine another company competing with google? Seriously? Neither can anyone else. Do you have more than one choice of Internet provider where you live? That's quite rare.
Rich stay rich by being part of corporate profits. Poor don't - widening the wage gap.
Good idea PTJ. I love that you didn't read off a script and that came from all you and your vision.
True story. One of the greatest traders and a humble human being. Oh, and for those questioning what his solution is, go back to the part about mania. Its gone on a year longer but the time is now approaching.
This man is speaking the truth, there is so much wrong with corporations nowadays. Heck Time Warner cable makes a 97% profit margin! What do they need all that money for!
Revolution. I like that option.
Pikes, pitchforks, and guillotines. Oh my!
Nice seeing all the people in the comments with a proper education on the definition of the US economy... loljk. USA is not a capitalist economy. No economy is purely "capitalist". Every economy is a mixed economy, especially us in particular. We are a free-market economy.
Now, I'm not saying that capitalism is the best choice, because I believe it's run its course and we need to think of something new, but if you people are going to identify that US economy as capitalist, please educate yourselves. I learned this on this first day of CP Economics my junior year in high school (I'm now in AP Microeconomics and I'm going to a university for Business Management, so yes, I do have a background on this topic).
Corporatism is the natural evolution of capitalism wether it be of the laissez faire, neoliberal, or welfare capitalism variety.
adub4ever indeed, people do not realize that and prefer to make no true scotsman fallacies and cry out "But that's not Capitalism!"
They are the dumbest of all.
That speech was made almost a decade ago. I think it's worth comparing those issues described in the speech with the current situation where evolved. 😊 For instance All major indexes are around 200%-300% higher than back in 2015 😊 closed the speech with a great quote
Search for Paul Tudor Jones PBS documentary.. very eye opening
I like the idea of conducting bushiness in accordance to public essential demands for health, sustainability and social mobility. Even though the self promotion, i really hope that Pauls just project result in some constructive data.
Only in 240p??? Really now this is 2015.
I love your work!!!! just capital is a great idea !!!! 🙏
You know what makes societies better? When EVERYONE pays their due taxes. Corporations giving to charities does not equate to the good they would do if they paid their fair share. How can you have giant telecommunications companies and networks not paying any tax, and hope that your country gets better?
Iesvilla So only the decision makers of the government know what is best for the country?
TheAnnoyingGunner Obviously not, but it is one thing to replace SOME of your taxes with charitable work. Corporations these days pay almost no taxes, no matter the country, and the little in taxes they should pay gets exempted when they give to charities, most of which gets used to pay big salaries and throw "awareness" parties. That money is needed dearly in infrastructure and social programs, not ad campaigns.
Iesvilla I'm a Washington DC contractor, I've seen a lot. How about this. A big corporation gives a lot of money to a charity, a sitting or former president makes a speech at said charity and gets paid a large amount of money for speaking. At this point giving the money to government is also a mistake. We the people should demand the flat tax negative tax system. Putting some of the money in our hands makes us the customer. A social program is providing goods and services. The federal government that prints money should never provide goods and services. Imagine if Walmart could print money and put it on the national debt, also imagine, if the CEO was voted in by the employees. The CEO would promise big salaries fat tensions just to get elected, this is essentially how the federal government operates today. By printing this money and throwing it on the national debt, the CEO of of Capitol Hill Incorporated keeps all of his federal employees happy. Keeping the tax code complex keeps the CEOs donors happy. Washington DC was never supposed to be a corporation.
rswjr66 In fact, Walmart can print money. As you could too. But most probably no one would use that money and the government doesn't accept it.
rswjr66 I think you misunderstood me. I'm not advocating for a government to provide the services by itself (which I think is what fascism was all about right?), but rather that a strong, just, tax base from all sectors of society coupled with needed social programs in the form of subsidies (both to companies, increasing supply, and individuals, increasing demand) are key to betterment of a country. That means, no subsidies to large multi-nationals or oil companies, but rather housing, infrastructure, education and health.
I hear this word "justice" alot in this video. justice is based in morality. morality is founded in religion and God. people say NO to religion, yet they still want justice. I love this message here, however it can be interpreted differently. in my view, justice should always be done, we must always strive for, fight for, fairness, and human decency. others will view this message in an extreme manner, we must have a revolution/revolt. that's my opinion. so what's MORE important is what's UNDERLYING this message, the religion component. I will pray that people understand this better, and that will yield less extremists, less militants, less dictators in the world. basically what I'm saying is, revenge is not the same as justice. "the evil that men do". we want to minimize that.
Capatialism doesnt help the workers it seems but the CEO can get a 20mill bonus annually
Profit margin goes up due to intentional government barriers to entry, which reduces competition. More competition = lower profit margins. Get government out of business, including fiat currency, and it'll fix itself.
What is he actually suggesting? Raise wages for your employees? That's fine, but he didn't actually say that. It was just a bunch of making feel-good words come out of his mouth without actually saying anything.
"Get government out of business, including fiat currency, and it'll fix itself." LOL!
blurglide Yeah, once we have kids back in the coal mines, radium tea reappears on grocery store shelves and Lake Erie starts to catch fire again periodically from pollution floating around in it, we'll achieve a Libertarian Utopia!
John Salinas What does fraud and taking someones water from them, or forcing someone to work against their will at the threat of violence, have to do with Capitalism? The more capitalist a country is, the better the environment tends to be. The more communist, the more polluted. It's because people have no recourse in an unfree system, and they're really just property of the state anyway.
Essentially, Capitalism is just people interacting and exchanging things voluntarily. Everything else is interactions and exchanges made by threat of violence. How can you be against voluntarism and for force?
blurglide No, the more democratic a country is, the cleaner the environment is. Unrestrained capitalism brought us "London Fog", the Love Canal, leaded gasoline and a whole rogues gallery of environmental nightmares. It was only when people demanded the government stop these problems that anything started to improve. And there are plenty of countries that have a more active government in terms of protecting their citizens that are both more democratic and have better environmental outcomes that the USA, so your hypothesis does not stand up when confronted with the facts.
Now I believe there are far more logical alternatives to capitalism but it is nice to hear those who undeniably support it realize that there is something severely wrong with the current run of things.
A lot of comments here either think this guy is a joke or a brilliant master mind that must know what he's doing. Truthfully, I reside somewhere in the middle. While I'm inclined to think that companies are too used to gaining immense profit gains at the expense of everything else, I also point out that it's not like they generally have a choice in the matter: As profits increase in these businesses, the more share holders are going to tend to push even more for money. It's a forward-feed-back loop that doesn't end very well. This does not include the costs it takes to mass-produce the products, the salaries of the employees, the taxes, and many other minor variables that add up very quickly.
In short, much like anything else in life, it's best not to take the video at face value. Dig a little more on the subject from experts in the field, and think while comparing five or ten sources, and ,perhaps most importantly, come to your own conclusion.
The problem with this is the tragedy of the commons. Society would benefit from "just behavior", but each individual company would lose a competitive edge. That is why we need to legislate. Increase taxes on things that harm the environment. Provide everyone with a bare minimum amount of money to live on. That way everyone can act in their own best interest AND society.
The problem with such an approach would be how do we keep the "Just Index" really just ? Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and if we give power to decide the fate of the companies to any organization, what would prevent the organization from misusing this power.
People should really take into consideration the opinion of teenagers and people under 21, since the decisions you people make will affect us later on and most likely not the old people in the government we actually have opinions that are just as if not smarter opinions.
This vid is only showing in 240p?
***** It's a teaser for a post-capitalist TH-cam.
Adrian lol
Adrian this is such a dumb comment.
Think of capitalism as a wild beast, a wild beast that will run rampant if given the chance. If left untamed and unchecked corporatism, wild capitalism, will smash its way into our lives; however, we prevent this buy tempering the free market with constantly evolving boundaries, well written laws that will force business to be fair with its workers, and now the environment if you're so inclined. It's not capitalism, it's weak politicians.
His intent I do not question, the effect will be devastating.
maybe would should rethink this whole clean drinking water and heating and internet thing too.
If conserned with injustice, one should think about abolishing central banking and inflationary monetary policy.
Is anyone in the world under the auspices that capitalism isn't at least slightly broken?
The Zeitgeist Movement
I love how he throws the word Justness around like its an actual word. Do you mean Justice Mr. Jones! And to those of you who can find the word on some free dictionary online, no its still not a word.
Anyone else has this video in 240pp? I can't believe this still exists.
I hope this would be enough. But it wont. The current system is well beyond consumer influence.
It's more like the game "Musical chairs" also known as "Trip to Jerusalem" but everybody has to run faster and nobody is allowed to sit.
The money is printed and revenue out of money is made much faster than any producing or consuming company can operate. Therefore no money is invested into regular businesses anymore. That's our current investment crysis.
Every country and big corporations is now a junkie for oil and money. We need a drug rehab for countries and corporations. I fear this will have serious impact on everybodies wealth. We may be afraid but that's normal for every junkie and every drug dealer.
The truth will be hard. But it's the only future we can face without getting killing us and everybody around.
Wake up!
Presented concept of "Justice" is misleading. There are property rights and we can respect them or violate them. Respecting them means that everyone does whatever he wants with his money and nobody can take his money by force. Violation means that someone takes money from someone else by force (this includes taxation). Taking property by force is theft, no matter who does it (this includes government). So the most "just" system is the one when nobody's money (or property) is taken by force!
mastablasta9x property rights means individuals own the means of production which is capitalism, and there are no property rights in socialism which means the society owns the means of production. It doesn't mean literal property like iPads and phones
This guy doesn't understand capitalism. It isn't a zero sum game, so higher profit margins doesn't mean less wealth for everyone else. Consider a business where a product is sold for $15. If the business owner can find a way to provide this product more efficiently (like developing a faster method of production), and chooses not to lower the price, the business person gets higher profit margins without anyone losing anything. Competition usually brings down the price, though. In the case of lowering wages or using cheap materials, whoever, would result in less sales and applications for work. that's bad for business.
The real reason for income inequality is tax loopholes and high barriers to entry for small businesses looking to compete.
Essentially; "Please forgive corporations for valuing money over people. Give us a second chance. We promise, it will never happen again. Trust us."
aurora7207 Smells of that, yeah.
There is no doubt that the markets drive corporations to focus on short term gains. For their own long term health which is essentially driven by society, they need to focus on the broader picture. Even in our own lives, we need to think about our decisions.. Let's say you can save 20% on an imported product, but the value stops there. If your monies are spent on domestically produced products, they end up in the hands of American employees. These employees pay taxes that help pay for our infrastructure and they spend monies locally that will increase employment and prosperity, thus producing even more taxes. The final result is that not only can we say "what goes around comes around", but that over 30% of your purchase will end up back in the economy and cover costs for our military, street lamps, roads and the poor. Everything we do affects us all.
I do take issue with one point Tudor and others have made. There isn't a finite amount of wealth that is distributed.
shift in Consciousness
Just one problem with Mr. Tudors "Just" proposal. It would require the people to be well informed, something (the press) that is more and more in the hands of corporations ......
That's why it's good it's on the Internet and we can share it with our friends. If is a good idea it will resonate with people.
Let's be honest. This man has accomplished more than any of you ever will and has used a significant portion of his funds to support people. That said, you should all listen closely to what he has to say. Duh
In the "free market" it is obviously in your survival interest to restrict the freedom of others in order to preserve your position of differential advantage. Government or no government; if the acquisition of money determines your right to life and mere existence does that not inherently guarantee that the propensity for coercion, corruption, manipulation and aggression is built in? Argue that basic point, please.
Strangepete It's much easier to achieve the desired coercive ends if you have a government to do it for you, rather than if you don't have one but have to pay out of pocket for it directly.
The only thing stopping honest companies from coercing customers into paying them money is that it is more expensive to do this. It's not sustainable, and the costs reach deeper than just on a monetary level.
HamsterPants522
I see what you're saying. But at the end of the day; when backed into a corner in a matter of economic survival - it get's increasingly difficult to be a "honest company". You know what I'm saying? We can only be moral and virtuous etc. to the degree that we can survive by being that way. For example the vast majority of the people emptying the oceans of fish, or cutting down the forests at an insane pace putting the future of all life at stake are not doing so because they are merely "immoral". They are doing it because they have kids to feed and they require money to do so. And so they will have to do whatever job they are forced to do in order to earn money, to survive in the short term.
Strangepete
The economy is the environment through which all of the greatest technological innovations have been born. When circumstances change, the market changes to adapt, that's what makes it so efficient. There is a solution to every problem you just mentioned, and these solutions are all easily attainable by capitalist actors in the market. Trees can be replanted, fish can be produced in fish farms, etc.
I think that your comparison of this to survival makes it look like you're describing the economy as a zero-sum game. The fact is, people consume services because their wealth is increased as a result, it's not just the businesses who are profiting from providing goods and services, else they wouldn't even be able to stay in business.
Strangepete _Government or no government_ --- that's the whole difference, right there.
Firstly, there is no such thing as "state capitalism" because capitalism is an economic system/structure that doesn't have anything in common with government, state or federal authority, regulation etcetera. Capitalism =/= government intervention. When it does, it's no more capitalism: it's fascism, socialism, statism, or any other form of COLLECTIVISM.
"State capitalism" is downright playword bullshit. The so-called "state capitalism" is fascism (aka. corporatocracy) when big business is in bed with government. When they favor those who promise them to protect & subsidize them (very, very important fact), ultimately, you have your corporations & megacorporations controlling your government.
Every powerful corporation & megacorporation knows that, with a single swindle from a pen, they can have serious trouble, lawsuits galore. The power of a state, in any form, still regains the same of its power since ancient times. They cannot aford that. So, they made possible that every political candidate needs enormous support for his or her campaign. That, also, doesn't help when politicians themselves are businessmen. That, alone, is filled with steroids.
Second, this fascism(corporatocracy) isn't any better nor different than socialism. In fascism, big businesses are in bed with the governmnet, while retaining some indepence while crushing competition through government subsidisation, protectionism, favoritism & heavy regulation. In socialism (or any other form of left-wing structures), the government owns the big business, while employing their own to the means of production. Very little difference but virtually the same: government and those with the means of production are in league.
So, what's the solution? Given that the notion of state, since its creation, has been the subject for wars, incompetence & swindle-swandle between people just as long as those who are the state maintain power, and capitalism helped the lives of those people, since the industrial revolution, there are only two choices: capitalism without state intervention/protection/favoritism/regulation OR state intervention/protection/favoritism/regulation in favor of _certain_ big businesses that fund PAC and SuperPACs. Do you have to guess which one we have now?
_if the acquisition of money determines your right to life and mere existence does that not inherently guarantee that the propensity for coercion, corruption, manipulation and aggression is built in?_ --- remove the state in the affairs of economy, and I'll guarantee you that very small taxes (for everyone, individual and business entities) & lack of regulation will fix it. Big entities like GoldmanSachs or JPMorgan would've bitten the dust WAY, WAAAAY, long time ago if it weren't for government help. You know what is government subsidisation in the langauge of capitalism? I'm sure you've heard it: *privatizing the profit and socialising the losses*. In case you don't know what that means, let me give you a rough translation: *capitalism for ourselves & the politicians we pay to help & finance our losses from the taxpayer's wallet, and socialism for the dumb idiots who are too ignorant & too dumb to understand how this relationship (big business+government=love) really work (aka. the taxpayers)*.
Seems familiar? It isn't capitalism when the state meddle in the economy. Those that had & still have capital/resources understand that. In order to maintain power, you have to pay to stand in power using the government.
Let's not forget pricing: in capitalism, you have the opportunity to get something cheaper affordable with your wage, while in monopolies (big business), you have to abide by the prices of the big since they also have protection from the government. Do I also have to remind that, in monopolies, your wage grows weaker n' weaker every time, both as value and numbers?
***** *"That's exactly what self-ownership is all about. No matter the system, it is to your advantage to restrict the "freedoms" of others to control your life for your own differential advantage; free will to chose what you believe is best for you. It's inherently not to your advantage to be a slave to the will of some others, which of course restricts their "freedoms" upon what you own; yourself and your choices."*
Sir that is not how negative rights work. Defending your right to self-ownership can never be an act of aggression against another person's right to self-ownership. That's literally impossible.
Awesome man 👌👌
The first half was fine, but the second half just sort of sounded like him pitching his new startup company.
Capitalism isn't evil, but people are.
Interesting concept. It keeps the free market and connects a corporation's ethical behavior to value in the mind of stockholders. I hope the index works.
Here's the bottom line. Any economic model is based on the needs of the culture which produced it. That means no economic model is meant to last indefinitely. Furthermore, it means that even for the lifespan of a given model, it must change in order to just maximize is lifespan, that is, be generally useful to the culture it is supporting. Next, when a culture changes, whether progressively or not, the economic model must either change to support it, or be left behind in favor of some other economic form of activity, depending on what is most important at the time.
Capitalism is a product of explorers having found North and South American, vast untapped lands of resources. In order to fully exploit these resources, a wide open, aggressive style of economy was needed and by many paths, it became the capitalism we have known in America. Capitalism has been good for this country a long time. But no economic model can support all possible living combinations and demands equally well and this is certainly true of capitalism. Our country has progressed to a point where a new economic model is needed that not only addresses our present and near future needs as a country, but will support us long enough into the future to help make other changes easier and more productive and be more efficient so that efforts and productivity are encourage and not hampered. Capitalism has essentially reached the end of it's useful life in our present world and especially for America. We are very much in need of a new form of economic basis that will support the kind of technology and lifestyles that are now present and will soon be the norm for modern human activity.
What that economic model is I am not sure, but I do have some strong opinions of what some of it's features must be. But the overall encompassing model has not fully formed in my own mind. I am absolutely certain however that capitalism has reached it's useful end and is not more of a burden that a help to those of us living now. The sooner we move forward to the next economic model to support us for the remainder of this century, the sooner well be better off as a nation and a people and the easier our forward progress as a species will be.
Corporate giving as a percentage of pre tax profits, WOW that title is very misleading. Show us what their profits were after taxes. Admittedly it could be worse but I have a hunch that taxes did eat into their profits more over time, especially if tax rates stayed the same.
I'm no longer waiting for the stimulus check because I earn $205,000 every 14_16 days recently🚀.
Yes I can assured you because I have also been trading with her, profit are secured and over %100 return on your investment.
Awesome i just started trading with Mrs Tracy walker, she is the best at what she does.with an initial investment of $10, 485 I made up to $200,340 in just a week of trading with her, her strategies are mind 😱
wow I can't believe you guys are discussing about expert Tracy walker she is currently managing my account I just made my second withdraw trading with her, I can't wait another 7days to cashout 💰 again!
I've made over ten thousand bulks profits with her. Highly recommended.
Mrs Tracy walker mac is an expert trader on a certified broker, I've worked with her for years, everyone she processes, he or her trade, is so lucky, all you have to do is believe her and follow her guidance.Then sip your drink 🍹and relax
I am still waiting for him to tell us how he increased his 1% charity donation (that made him nauseous) to a solid amount. He still does not get it. People don't want to exist in a society where they depend of 'charity' of the greedy rich who hoard wealth. Make the mega rich pay tax on income they did not work 40hrs a week for. Inheritance tax should return. Death should not be an obscene windfall for lazy relatives. He advocates greater philanthropy but that is just 'thank ya master . . I'm so grateful you let me live' . . pay people a living wage that is tied to real cost of living increases.
Could someone clarify on what this proposal is supposed to accomplish? It sounds like a marketing campaign to promote belief in the Free Market Fairy, not a proposal for reform. Going before the board of directors and saying "please be less sociopathic" isn't a plan.
Please! Please! Please tell me that this man is for real.
You know, Paul, we ought to try capitalism somewhere before we rethink it...
Spoken like a true neoliberal jerk lol
240p? dafuq? is this 2006?
The problem I see with this is, that a lot of companies, when they choose justice over profit, they'll bankrupt, which again impacts the hard working poor people at most. I agree with the tallk 100%, but it's relatable to just big healthy bussineses. Little debt-financed companies are screwed anyway. And big companies supporting smaller ones? That breaks rules of "healthy" economic competition, right? So yes, we need to re-think capitalism, but in much much bigger scale than this.
If you're poor and working super hard and you're unhappy about it, doesn't it make sense to do somethin else.
It does. I did read those economic books too, don't worry. Unfortunatelly it's not so easy in a real life. If you're crappy programmer after you've studied it, you probably will be crappy in everything else you didn't study too. Dreams about "everybody is good at something" are sweet, but idealistic. It just doesn't work that way all the time. It's just a fairytale for successful people to justify their luck.
Good for you. :)
Limited Liability Corporations should be abolished.
Why is this 240p in 2015.
an elite with a soul