John McKay came to the realization that his "socialist" viewpoint was naive because it didn't provide him with a means for success in business. This isn't a critique against socialism, it only serves as a self justification for his choice to embrace capitalism as a businessman.
Not just that when u start at Whole Foods everyone starts at part time for first 60 days. You have 30 days to enroll in health care from date of hire. However since your a part timer you gotta pay 5 times more out of your paycheck. Also you make less. So by the time your full time you gotta wait a whole year to enroll again.
One of the most frustrating things about hard-core Libertarians is the conflation of Political systems with Economic systems. 'Capitalism' is not a political framework, its an Economic one. Governments cannot be 'Capitalist', nations/countries can have Capitalist economic structures, but that is not a system of political or social power. Democracy MUST temper the single-minded pursuit of profit at all costs, to the exclusion of all else, that defines Capitalism... The Governmental structure must balance the economic concerns with moral, cultural and Societal concerns. His point that the huge wealth disparity in the world is poor people's fault, is insulting, harmful and demonstrably untrue.
For those who justify libertarianism on deontological grounds, capitalism happens to be the economic system that results the application of their ethical precepts, but for utilitarians who argue that capitalism is the most appropriate economic system to satisfy the wants of the public, libertarianism is the best political system because it will cater to the needs of capitalism. That is to say, for the utilitarians, the point of law in the first place is to maintain capitalism and the average standard of living. For one who's familiar with the social function of profit and loss, profit is synonymous with the satisfaction of consumer wants. Profit results when the sum of the prices of factors of production is less than the product's total revenue. The prices of factors of production are determined by the bidding of entrepreneurs with alternative uses for the factors, and a product's revenue results from a consumer's belief in the product's capacity to improve his or her life. In this way, entrepreneurs with the most valuable use for factors of production are the ones who purchase the factors and employ them in the production of products that consumers demand most urgently. Seen in this light, without being too sensational, profit is actually the foundation of modern civilization. Any government obstruction of profit necessarily results in a restricted level of output and lower standard of living. Profit is indeed the cause of wealth disparity, but only by increasing the wealth of some, not taking the wealth from others. Profit is actually the sign that one has served his fellow man by creating value and providing a useful product. Those who charge capitalism with creating absolute poverty can no longer be taken seriously by practical people. Today, the reason for the existence of poor countries has little, if anything, to do with resources, intelligence, technology, etc., and more to do with these countries' and their leaders' failures to embrace capitalistic policies.
"...Libertarianism is the best political system because it will cater to the needs of capitalism. " Interesting. well said. yes, i suppose that's my main issue; its the idea that Governmental (especially Democratic, people-self-governing for the common good ) priorities should somehow be beholden to PURELY economic ones. that line of reasoning, i claim, is incorrect and actually harmful. Its the same reason i roll my eyes when people think that a successful business person would make a good President. Why?? A nation is not a profit-seeking entity. given incentive, stability and opportunity, the 'profits' will come in the form of a happy, healthy, educated, and productive populace, who dont have to live as 'customers/commodities', but as 'citizens'.
Moloth The characteristic feature of capitalism is that it deproletarianizes the public. The peasantry becomes the middle class. The masses are no longer required to toil in the fields the day long to merely subsist. They now have the time, energy, and resources to pursue more humane activities. One wonders if the distinction between the economic and the other aspects of human life is even tenable. After all, an educated majority only exists because of the mass production of the items necessary to fulfill their basic needs. Only then can people enjoy education and the rest of these "higher" pleasures.
"Moloth The characteristic feature of capitalism is that it deproletarianizes the public. " this is specious. You're describing an *outcome* of Capitalism as it exists WITHIN the structure of a Democracy in which taxes are levied from capitalist ventures in order to improve the common good of the citizenry. The ONLY "characteristic feature" of Capitalism is that of the pursuit of profit. If there are any OTHER outcomes, it is because another force has influenced it. Rampant, unchecked and 'pure' Capitalism cares not the 'proletariat' or the 'peasantry', in fact, it seeks to create such classes... look at the current trend of wealth disparity: the rich get richer and ALL OTHERS get poorer. thats a fine outcome for an Economic theory, but NOT for a nation or a culture.
Capitalism does not seek to create anything. It is not a thinking, acting entity. The social function of the profit and loss system is to provide consumers with the best products by employing factors of production with the lowest opportunity costs, that is, to get the most bang for society's buck (scarce resources), so to speak. Entrepreneurs, by aiming at making the most money, inadvertently "care" for the public by trying to satisfy consumer demand with the fewest and least valuable resources possible. There is not anything inherent in democracy that creates a prosperous society. The function of democracy is to allow the public to uproot a government that it finds sub-optimal by peaceful means in order to avoid such bloody revolutions like that of the French. To use some rather imprecise language, democracy and the government are not in themselves responsible for our now fantastic standard of living; for this we owe wholly to the profit seeking entrepreneurs; they put technology and society's savings to work by creating valuable products. To put this rather differently, public goods such as public healthcare, interstates, education, etc. are not the cause of our healthy and educated citizenry, but their availability was only made possible after society became richer. These public goods did not make a wealthy society but were funded by funds expropriated and redistributed from an increasingly wealthy citizenry. The government can only change the rules and redistribute things already made; it cannot itself create. Free markets do not make anyone poorer; they only make some richer. Entrepreneurs provide products and jobs that were not previously available. The only conceivable way people could be harmed by capitalism is by being put out of a job such as in the case of the tailor being outcompeted by the textile factories, but if one has the majority's interest at heart, then one must not interfere because the textile plant, in supplanting the tailor, has now created new jobs and provided the consumer with apparently better or cheaper clothing. Under capitalism there does not exist any tendency for classes to form. Capitalism uprooted the feudalism left behind by the Roman Empire. The early entrepreneurs were not aristocrats. The early entrepreneurs did not produce products for the aristocrats but for the peasants. The majority of today's capitalists, that is, those who risk their money by lending it to entrepreneurs, are not rich investors; they are the middle class.
I strongly disagree with him but it's nice to see different opinions on this channel as it can be a bit of an echo chamber. Tbh I think hard line libertarian-ism and socialism are equally idealistic and flawed. I think both ideologies try to claim moral purity but I think both are wrong. I can't really respond to a 28 minute video with a youtube comment but I thought I may as well make my opinion heard.
I apreciate the conscious capitalism and want to study it more. I also understand that there is less poor people in the world today and free market capitalism isn’t evil. I’ve been studying Robert Reich and how he describes free capitalism..... how do you feel by this and thank you for posting on big think so I can hear and see what you think.
Brett Johnson the number I gave is honestly low if it accounted for certain other factors it would be a bit higher. This is a global number by the way that accounts for capitalism’s global effects.
Thank you for a longer format video. I definitely prefer real interviews. As for the content of the interview...I agree with most of the comments section. Whole Foods is specifically built for upper middle class so they don't have the misfortune of being seen in such places as Target and Walmart. 7 dollar Asparagus water won't save you...Amazon will.
You still need regulations. Between company A, which abides by ethics and company B, which doesn't, company B will always have an advantage and is more likely to survive. On the long term it is a race to the bottom if the government is not looking out for the people by imposing rules. Having an healthy & educated workforce, that can get to work on time (infrastucture), spend money (more demand, more profits) and take care of itself in its old days (retirement) ain't bad either for businesses.
Great video. 9:30. 200 years ago, 85% of the people lived in poverty. Today, it’s down to less than 20%. That’s a fact. With capitalism the quality of life has risen tremendously. Common sense.
Pixel Fyxe that's the biggest non sequitur if I ever read one lol. We're talking about workers being put through grueling work conditions where it is almost barbaric. Pretty soon they'll be falling asleep standing up like an Amazon worker. But yeah, let's compare that to music I don't like.
Im a libertarian socialist. (No, they're not mutually exclusive - this is an exclusively American response). True and principled libertarianism is philosophically reasonable. The moral philosophy in socialism is reasonable. The combination of the best parts of the two makes for a good political system. There are surprisingly many overlaps between librtarianism and socialism. Authoritarian capitalism is the polar opposite.
Not at all my system and there's A LOT of nuance at this point. In short: -The liberty and freedom (economic, social, of expression, rights theory) that libertarianism offers is undermined by the economic power imbalance that happens in a true free market. 1) You cant exercise freedom of thought or expression if the free market produces only 3 corporations that control all media, for example. (Right now, its 6 corporations in America and 200 board of directors that control 90%+ of ALL media in the country). 2) You cant exercise freedom of choice to choose your employer when you are highly impoverished due to exploitative wages 3) You cant exercise economic freedom if you are living paycheck to paycheck 4) You cant have your rights protected if free-market forces also apply to things like the military, the police, the judicial system, because any initial stacking of the deck will mean that you forever get the decks stacked against you. 5) etc. -A big-government socialist state leads to more authoritarianism and reduced freedom (even if "caring" for the people initially with universal healthcare, for example). This is because centralised power attracts people who want to centralise it even more. Soviet Union!! Venezuela! A libertarian socialist DOES NOT want big government that has power over its citizens in a centralized way. A libertarian socialist wants a highly decentralized government to the point where citizens themselves MAKE UP a lot of the government. Fewer representatives and more direct power to individuals. Im not sure if Ive done a good job of explaining this. Some more articulate people: -LibertarianSocialistRants (youtube channel) -Noam Chompsky -www.politicalcompass.org/libleftbooks
Scandinavian countries are MORE in that direction than any other countries, but arent there. No countries are really there. MOST countries, in my opinion, are Authoritarian + Right Wing. I would HIGHLY recommend The Political Compass. Its a very useful way of understanding politics beyond the limited left-right wing ideas (regardless of what you believe). Libertarianism vs Authoritarianism is a hugely important scale in itself because its about the distribution of power. You can do the quiz to see where you fall! www.politicalcompass.org/
The doctrines of moral philosophers have long been definitively refuted by David Hume and others. Concepts of objective ethics and justice no longer have any place in social philosophy. Consideration of the personal ends of the public and the policies that will attain them is now our only normative concern.
I just read a report about how whole food employees are getting more stressed with the meticulous procedures they have to do. Almost like amazon was running the show.... anyways the hypocrisy here has left a foul stench.
Thank you sir! Everyone else seems to get so embedded in politics and economic systems, that they tend to forget that we are in a closed system ourselves, and that we specially have to obey natural laws.
Yes, but some economic systems make more/better products out of the limited resources. Take pure socialism for instance. Ownership of producer goods is forbidden; therefore, producer goods cannot be exchanged...exchange ratios (prices) can't be established...and profit and loss calculation--accounting--is impossible. Since accounting is impossible under pure socialism, there is no way to know which resources should be used to make which products. So pure socialism is at a very serious disadvantage as a socio-economic system.
Whoever told you that there is no accounting in a socialist system has obviously never been to a "pure" socialist country (although I'm not sure about your definition). It's a bizarre statement. There is no plausible way that any economy can make more out of a limited amount of resources just because of its economic model. It can focus profits in a certain sector, or refine the means of production but the earth is a closed system.
By "pure socialism" I meant where producer's goods are collectively owned. I don't believe it has ever existed on a large scale, but state socialism (kinda like the USSR) had the same problem of accounting. To give a simple example, economic model A encourages technology, and economic model B doesn't. Even if they both have the same raw resources, obviously A will make more/better stuff per unit of raw resources, especially of time and labor. However, this is true for more than just technology. I can explain if you'd like.
Even in the USSR there were haves and have nots as well as a sizeable dissident population, often socialist as well. Other than the Scandinavian social democratic socialist model, Cuba might be the best example. You should visit. I hear that a lot of Americans go there for affordable health care. Still, if you have a great technology that will promise to make you rich to grow turnips for example, the growth of those turnips takes labor, sunlight, nutrients etc. A technologically advanced turnip system can only reduce the consumption of one of those elements at the expense of the others.
You literally don't even have to watch the video to know what happened here. The title says it all. Guy gets rich, no longer believes in paying higher taxes to help those less fortunate.
If you have to resort to ad-hominem attacks like calling someone ignorant, you don't have a good argument. Come back when you've got something better and maybe people might take what you have to say seriously.
Sorry you are getting a new trial. In your original comment you advocate not watching the video and claimed to summarize the entire video content in one sentence. Leaving aside the inaccuracy of your summation, advocating not watching the video is advocating ignorance itself. Brett calling your ignorance dangerous is not an ad hominem it is factually true. Everyone should freely investigate and absorb ideas and see if they stand on their own fruition. That is the opposite of ignorance. In this video the guy was much more complicated than your one sentence summation, some parts I agreed with and many parts I disagreed with but I'm wealthier for having watched it and encourage everyone to watch it.
I'm all for capitalism, but I don't have much faith the 'free market' will remain the 'free market' if it isn't regulated properly. Which is why I don't think I'll be advocating for libertarianism anytime soon.
He's still okay running the anti-science marketing firm called Whole Foods that's causing so much starvation and misery in the developing world. (And I, too, am a Libertarian.)
Actually there is plenty of the movement in the other direction, including many billionaires. After enterprise worked for them they don't need it to stay free(ish) anymore. Any move towards socialism is only better for entrenched businesses as it will close the doors on competition. And the high taxes? Well they have bargaining power to meet the government, they will get some "special" dispensation. Same with working poor - some of them want more free stuff, some see the value in freedom from free stuff (that always has to be paid for in the end). Only the parasites that are only burden for the society as for years and years they stay on welfare - they are socialists and stay socialists until they die.
I think it is great if it works out this way.. I believe that the market should/could reward best practices now in the information world we are living... just hope it turns out true.
I think it will be interesting to see how the younger generations(millenial and younger) develop in their perspective in regards to being socialist and libertarian. Especially as it has become anecdotally evident that today's youth have much fewer favorable economic conditions than John Mackey's generation knew(Boomer generation) . As he describes it himself "if at the age of 21 and you're not a socialist then you dont have heart, and if by the age of 30 you still are then you dont have any brains." Thats a drastic shift in values to make in just under a decade. But as younger generations(like millenials) are strapped to pay for an evidently unsustainable social security system, are continously faced with much fewer lucrative job offering, higher student loan debts, rising home prices, all bunched together with an overarching theme of a global workforce now that forever favors cheap labor above all, it follows that younger people today will likely stay poorer for longer and perhaps retain their "fairness for all is the way to go" mindframe because they are still fighting for some things they may never have. It very well may take younger generations much longer than a decade to make this shift from socialism to libertarianism because they will be victims of their circumstances for much longer, and some of whom will never escape. But the future will tell how long this circumstance remains. Its important to take Mackey's advice in context of the opportunities available to him in his generation. The conditions of the current state of American economy are not what they were back in his day. p.s. As a millenial born in 1990, I came of age in 2008, right around the time one major economic event came to its fruition.
Ryan. what do you mean by Major economic event? That you were not there in the many other economic downturns, depression, Cold War etc? The world was easier back in the day?? And... was that an excuse? For what?
I'd argue the opposite. Goes to show the world will never fall towards one ideology, which obviously will never sustain itself. It also gives a good indication that there are still a lot more conversations to be had because upbringing defines perspective.
"Nothing succeeds more in capitalism than success itself; good ideas that work spread". The contradiction in his statement right here is Pharmaceutical companies are making a killing in antidepressant's by buying the doctors off to prescribe them as kickbacks. For some reason this is a common practice for capitalism at the expense of the consumer known as the cost of doing business.
@@mauricioweber8879 The ethics should be held accountable in a court of law for the doctors and the pervasion. Same as lack of ability to have the right to repair and consumer goods having less quality. These "good" ideas are only good to the industries that profit from them at the expense of the consumer.
@@mauricioweber8879 I'll concede that whole foods are a pigeonholed industry where quality is a major priority and this statement may be true to say "good" ideas. But to have the same economic philosophy across all industries is a huge stretch. We don't even have free market capitalism as a check and balance in US economics. I still consider a company like Ben and Jerry's to be a platform every company should follow. An industry that reinvests in its immediate environment it is established in while delivering a quality product.
Just who I want schooling me on how to end poverty, the guy who sold Whole Foods to Amazon. Next I want you to interview Amazon warehouse workers who try to live on $13/hour, with their every move electronically monitored, continuously pushed to be more and more productive, right up until they're replaced by robots. And then I want to you interview a Chinese factory worker who assembled the crap that people buy on Amazon. How they were forced from their village at gunpoint by the government, into the city, into the iphone factory to work 14 hour days. How so many workers were throwing themselves from the windows of these factories than they now have external suicide nets to catch jumpers, and put them back to work. But who cares about that, I'm a rich CEO and I got mine. Rest of humanity can fuck off.
Hey Mike, or whatever your name is, I think it is beautiful that you believe in all these beautiful idealistic things,, but when your beliefs go against reality it is time to revise them.
I find the question captions troublesome. Rather than watch the whole video, I'll often listen to the video while I'm doing other things, and then every so often, there's a silent pause, and I realize a new question has been asked, and now I have to back up the video to see what I missed. Is there any way we can get a voice-over for those parts?
I am 31 and still a socialist. I get it, we have to play the market game in the meantime… It’s a system wide change that needs to happen that will make Socialism successful. Keep dreaming because dreaming is what gets us to the next step in our evolution… In other words, we need to collectively think outside the box if we want something better.
"If you aren't a socialist at 21, you have no heart. If you're still a socialist at 30, you haven't sold out to enrich yourself at the cost of your fellow human." I fixed that quote for you.
"you haven't sold out to enrich yourself at the cost of your fellow human" Does selling out mean making a business? If thats the case, are you saying making a business is bad? If so, why?
piperpipe201 No, selling out is not starting a business; business has a robust purpose in socialist states. To define selling out for you, in the context I used it, it is the act of putting your own wants and enrichment above the basic, life-supporting needs of your fellow humans.
Wow you are truly wise and one of a kind... Your armchair wisdom is enthroned in empirical evidence, like the the success stories of socialist paradises like the great Soviet Union, or Venezuela, or Cuba! Truly miracles of human society. /s
No the real quote is this: "If you aren't a socialist at 21, you have no heart. If you're still a socialist at 30, you have no income security despite giving your best and are mad as hell." ;)
I see why so many thumbs down. Google's initial slogan was don't be evil. It since then had to switch bcuz it could not compete with that template of initiation. This man is wrong.
Jordon Hodges another talk I've heard on this topic states thethe exact opposite. That corporate must cheat, cut corners, be ruthless in order to survive and thrive in the highly competitive environment of business. I just heard it a day or two ago too so maybe I find it n let u have a listen. But he basically states the opposite of this man.
OmAr LiVeS Practical example of a means to an end. Capitalism allows for a dog eat dog world, separating emotion from action. A quick way to success, yes. However, one does not have to follow that method to make success in capitalism. He's arguing a perspective that business does not have to flourish through pure selfish drive, conscious capitalism.
@InfoGamer a few better known ones are market socialism, (proudhonian) mutualism, anarcho-syndicalism and anarchist communism. For a more comprehensive list there's: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Notable_libertarian_socialist_tendencies and for a overview of how it's all related, there's i.imgur.com/v9jOzQ8.png.
@Supergecko, personally I think left and right ideologies can coexist in the libertarian plane (not in the authoritarian one though), but alright, make your case.
I'm still waiting for John Mackey to end poverty with libertarianism. Nearly 20 years of Reagan-style Randian economic policy, and folks are poorer than ever.
How can the pie keep getting bigger, if the Earth has limited space and resources? We cannot all live like kings, the planet is already fucked by our industrial revolutions and some people are trying to salvage it, while the rest keep talking about exponential growth.
You definitely can't expect to end poverty if you embrace a system that requires some form of hierarchy. Not everyone can be the CEO John. Someone has to be the bottom of the rung employee or the job that is only going to pay them enough to live paycheck to paycheck.
Ayn Rand doesn't say love makes you weak. She would say love is selfish. Helping people is selfish, it makes you feel good. There isn't anything "altruistic" in the sense that no one does anything without the perception they will get something out of it. I kinda pisses me off how few people speak about Ayn Rand in complete ignorance. She's very clear about her ideology. Wtf is with all the misrepresentation? If she's wrong you should be able to explain without misrepresentation.
"How I went from libertarian to socialist: I inherited a business, but the public stopped using it for some reason and I failed to turn a profit until it went bankrupt. So I decided to work for the state where mediocrity is the rule, men with guns make sure the money comes in, failing to spend all the money results in less money next year and wasting all the money in six months ensures you get more money."
Great video, thanks for sharing I've been a libertarian for about 10 years and recognize a lot of things that you're saying in my own development. Libertarianism =freedom=prosperity
Yeah right, capitalism solves poverty! This is one of those big lies, they point to the fact that people who've moved out of poverty officially now get a whopping $2 a day due to the wonders of globalization... wow, they've doubled the avg income!... whereas the relevant NGOs say that the poverty level is more like $10 a day or less. Just look it up. So double a pittance is still a pittance and still 20% of what they need, on average.
There's a HUGE difference between profit and plunder...and considering the abusive way Amazon treats it's employees I consider Amazon to be a company that plunders.
Say what you will, but we must remember that nobody is forced to work for Amazon. If their working conditions become so bad that nobody will agree to work for them, then they must face the consequences. If their employees continue to work, then it's obvious that the employees consider the satisfaction derived from their wage to overcome the pain caused by the working conditions.
I see you are just a kid so I'll forgive you for this thoughtless ignorance. Someday you may have a family to support and then I'll consider your opinion on this subject.
The doctrines of moral philosophers have long been definitively refuted by David Hume and others. Concepts of objective ethics and justice no longer have any place in social philosophy. Consideration of the personal ends of the public and the policies that will attain them is now our only normative concern. There is no right to support a family, nor a right to life, healthcare, or an education painted in the stars. These "rights" have been granted by purely human institutions and can likewise be taken away. A common characteristic of socialist rhetoric is to dismiss an argument not on account of its logical force but on grounds of the argument's exponent. If one aims at refuting a claim, then one ought to address the claim itself, not appeal to an arbitrary emotional response. If one cannot evaluate a claim cooly and judicially, then perhaps one should not comment on economic matters. If one is to instead take a scientific view, and simply inquire into the causal effects of a certain policy, the following come into consideration: It's an obvious fact that for a company to improve its working conditions it must spend money. If it could improve them for free, then it would have already have done so, as there would be no reason not to. Since the improvement costs money, it would employ scarce factors of production into a line which it wouldn't have otherwise been. Thus, if a company is forced to improve its working conditions, then at least one factor of production will be employed into a sub-optimal line of production. From another angle, since the improvement necessarily costs money, either wages, benefits, product quality, or profits must fall or prices rise. The effects on the standard of living are obvious except perhaps those of the smaller profits. If profits fall, then fewer companies will enter the industry than otherwise would have, and some companies already in the industry will have fewer reinvestment funds and may even be forced out of business; both effects are sub-optimal. Forcing a company to improve working conditions is akin to benefitting workers at the expense of the company, its customers, and, in many cases, the rest of society.
I'm glad to see you can read and write. It's impressive. It, however, fails to address that fact that we have outlawed both slavery and abuse. While Amazon can choose to push the limits of those laws there's no reason I have to use their services while they continue to do that. Nor is there any reason why I cannot inform others of their harsh practices and encourage others to also not use Amazon's services. You can drum up all sorts of philosophical rhetoric but, like the philosophers themselves, it and they are irrelevant bullshit. What's real are the people who are members of our society and the kinds of lives we live and the kinds of lives we make possible for each other.
You may dismiss the teachings of economics as "irrelevant," but, in doing so, you reduce yourself to the level of the so-called flat earthers. Economics is not "philosophical rhetoric." In fact, with the advent of economics came the definitive refutation of the "philosophical rhetoric" that had previously informed mankind's social paradigm. Economics employs precise language and talks about real things. Economic policy concerns itself with only one question: which policies will result in the satisfaction of the public's wants? Nobody said you have to or even should use Amazon's services. A fundamental characteristic of capitalism is the freedom of the consumer to buy or abstain from buying any product on the market. One could say with great accuracy that, in capitalist countries, the consumers are the directors of all economic activity; all production undertaken by business is done for the consumers' sake. The only successful business are the ones that succeed in supplying desired products. The better entrepreneurs are at satisfying consumer wants, the higher their profits. If entrepreneurs supply bad products, and this can include making products in a manner that is not approved of by the consumers, they will fail. I encourage you to exercise your power as a consumer to buy according to your personal values. Any attempt to characterise Amazon's employees as slaves is absurd. There is a fundamental difference between slavery and voluntary contracts: the slave can't quit without facing punishment from his or her "employer." In the public's interest, slavery has been rightly abolished and replaced by equality under the law. The word "abusive" is highly ambiguous, but, if we assume a colloquial understanding, insofar as all individuals are granted a legally enforced right of disassociation, there can be no legal action against abusive relationships. In a liberal society, Amazon may treat its employees however it wishes, but, if it treats them relatively badly, it has no way to prevent them from quitting or from discriminating buyers, such as yourself, from shunning their products.
Maximilian Roszko I believe 19th century American literacy was quite high compared to its current rate. For me, public education seems intuitively dangerous since the state will likely push its own agenda with distorted information. Once the state teaches anything more than reading, writing, arithmetic, etc., the students will receive state-informed history, economics, literature, etc. I would be glad to hear your charge against private education if you care to oblige.
An Verndari Capitalism is the core of innovation and progress in humanity. It’s given people like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Henry Ford etc.. the ability to change the world. Crony Capitalism is the problem. Government giving certain companies a competitive edge over others is what makes capitalism suffer.
@Gabriel Varney "Capitalism is the core of innovation and progress in humanity." Really? Capitalism, which only exists since roughly 500 years? Surely, before capitalism, we lived in caves and had no kind of civilization. "It’s given people like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Henry Ford etc.. the ability to change the world." Entrepreneurship does not require Capitalism. Look to the great achievements of the USSR for example. They industrialized their whole country within 40 years, while suffering from two world wars and a civil war. And in the end, they were the first country in space and even were ahead in terms of computer technology or healthcare. "Crony Capitalism is the problem." Please, this is just a buzzword. Oh, what we have is not real capitalism, except if it comes to the things where it is good - the bad sides are to blame on governmental involvement, because our cute little neoclassic economics explains why pure markets are the best, even though this theory is constructed in a way that it will always give the same outcome.
Looking through the comments, I can tell nobody listened to the whole thing. Or even half. Just virtually vomited 🤮 on their screen. Geezus, people have the most idealistic and utopian views about socialism and spew toxic ad hominem at anyone who opens a business it seems. If they don’t get their free stuff, they wine. Ughhhh. I get it, I’m not advocating crony capitalism because ppls’ first instinct is to mischaracterize your argument as being an advocate for crony capitalism. But I don’t like crony capitalism any more than I like socialism. I see socialism as bad as crony capitalism. Neither extreme is good.
I haven't heard expression of such a lazy mind since I left Texas. Mackey has helped me understand how libertarians can be always fundamentally wrong about everything. Good interview!
Alarmingly optimistic, one may even term it sanguine. Now, I want to take on board what are ideas most foreign, this is however made more difficult by Mackey's thesis perhaps not one as concessive as the quintessential contrarian might like it to be. Interesting stuff.
This is not a hard concept. The system for baking larg pies is in conflict with system for redistributing pieces. So in the world where you can take his and give it to whom you want, the necessary arrangement of production does not form and there is no pie. If you are one of the guys who would want to eat a cake and have it and just gets pissed off that it is gone after it's eaten and demands a new one... then this is the exact same process. Demanding will not change reality.
That's the main point progressives just don't get, conservative arguments are based on long term consequences rather than immediate consequences. You get older your worldview grows more long term, you get more conservative. Conservatives may grow old but their ideas don't die off because progressives grow old and become the new conservatives.
Chile many decades ago and what John Mackeys guru taught. In Chile the trickle down lovers and starve govt loving theories first approach to the situation was gradual; only after a year of relative confusion did they decide to implement without major modification the theoretical model they had been taught at Chicago. The occasion merited a visit to Chile by Mr. Friedman himself who, along with his associate, Professor Harberger, made a series of well-publicized appearances to promote a “shock treatment” for the Chilean economy-something that Friedman emphatically described as “the only medicine. Absolutely. There is no other. There is no other long-term solution.” These are the basic principles of the economic model offered by Friedman and his followers and adopted by the Chilean junta: that the only possible framework for economic development is one within which the private sector can freely operate; that private enterprise is the most efficient form of economic organization and that, therefore, the private sector should be the predominant factor in the economy. Prices should fluctuate freely in accordance with the laws of competition. Inflation, the worst enemy of economic progress, is the direct result of monetary expansion and can be eliminated only by a drastic reduction of government spending.
Libertarianism tends to attract a higher proportion than the average of people with egotistic, narcissistic and/or psychopathic traits. It fails to deal with the reality that many people are being left behind in a world where it is increasingly hard to keep pace with rapid social, economic and technological change. It also fails to acknowledge the considerable extent to which the wealthy owe their good fortune to luck, whether it's being born in the right location or into the right family.
Libertarianism hasn't aged well during the pandemic. An ideology that has a negative attribute (non aggression) at its core, isn't going to be useful or relevant. The most libertarian countries (e.g. USA) have performed poorly during the pandemic.
I think ideology of selfishness he talks about is very misunderstood. It is not ideology of social Darwinism. It is the ideology that by focusing on the self interests you can benefit everyone more then by focusing on their interests. If you try to be the best you can be and try to fix yourself you will cause greater changes then if you try to implement changes that benefit people. If you give away all your money you will not benefit society as much as if you invest all your money into your interest and build an empire that will give people products like iphones etc. That is the idea behind it and the idea holds true. If you truly focus on self development and doing what is best for you you are helping others more then if you just tried to help others. In fact the whole idea behind free markets means that if you try to get wealthy there is no way of you doing that without making others wealthy as well. And you cannot do that without helping everyone including the poorest. It might seem counter-intuitive if you do not understand the markets. As soon as you understand the markets it is extremely clear to see that this holds extremely true.
If I decide to buy something, am I a slave?. If you live alone in an island, which goverment will provide your rights for the free food, free education, free health? If you are alone, you need to provide your own food, your own education and your own health, those are your own responsibilities. And the libertarism is the way to get liberty and responsibility. Two words that you don't understand as I see.
Who said anything about buying? You are conflating the issue as we are not on an island and the only way to get those freedoms is to have them ensured by some governing force. Without that force you're just at the mercy of whoever has the bigger/better gun. That is something most ancapper/libertarians will never understand.
Libertarianism is about the unrestricted respect of freedom, life and property. So if you have the biggest weapon in the world, you can't violate my individual rights. In fact, one of the principles of libertarianism is the principle of non-aggression (Do not start aggression). And to secure those individual rights, a force is necessary, but a force (private or not) to defend them, not a force that start the attack. If you come with your big gun to become a slave, there will be law and justice (private or not) that will be responsible for securing my individual rights. If you initiate force against me, I have the right to defend my life, my freedom and my property. This is not the world of unicorns and sirens where we are all happy and good.
If you are among a bunch of like-minded libertarians, GREAT! then that should work out for you all in theory. But if in your ideal society comes along people who are not libertarian-minded who have bigger guns and you have insufficient back-up, then you're ideal society gets wiped out like so many others since the time of prehistory. Not to mention those who will use the libertarian label, and then show their true colors and turn on you. Go ahead, go to some island somewhere and try that out, can't wait to see how THAT goes- :\
Socialism doesn't mean no competition in the marketplace. You can still be competitive and meet the needs of your customers and pay a fair wage to your employees. If your workers have to work two jobs to survive, your not getting the best out of them. You're just a selfish tool.
Q I understand how it works in other oecd countries. We don't need the state to control the levers of capital. We just need robust antitrust and labor laws. When the state controls capital, like in China, the people have no freedom, but when government puts its boot on corporations like in Germany, the people can thrive, and have freedoms.
I use to be a libertarian, and I agree with many libertarian points, however there is 1 point that I cannot agree with, it is the neglect of those at the bottom in need of help. Socialism is the past, and it will be the future again, as it is the default of our Evolution.
For utilitarian libertarians, such as Mises and Hayek, the entire point of libertarianism is to help those at the bottom. They merely don't think that stealing from the rich is a good way to help the poor because, among other reasons, wealth redistribution disincentivizes mass production, which means even less food, clothing, houses, etc. that is available to the poor. Obviously, in a prosperous society most people want some sort of way to help unfortunate people get back on their feet; Mises thought private charity could handle this while Hayek, at least in his later days, called for a social safety net. I tend to agree with Mises.
You don't like stealing from the rich, which never happens, and you said nothing in your post about stealing from the poor, which is ALL the rich elite ever do in life... When I was a Libertarian, I have often sat in many coffee shop talks in Libertarian circles... I know the conflict that exists inside your mind, as it was the same as myself, and other Libertarians around me in those groups. We personally want a system that allows the hardest workers to become the most successful; a high level of hard workmanship should correlate to a high successful life. Can we agree, ANYONE whom works a 40hr/week, should at least be able to retire? If you are intellectually honest with yourself, you will know that that is not what we have in this rigged system of present day capitalism. In capitalism, especially from in the stock markets, where do the profits gained in the markets come from? To avoid your tap-dance that would most likely follow in your next post, it comes from the sweat-on-the-brow worker, at the bottom of this economical food chain. The rich investors get paid for nothing, but sitting on their asses. Let me further lay this out for you, the lazy elite rich not only get the lions share of the wealth, they get it for doing absolutely nothing, and what really infuriates me, is when capitalist 'minions', who cant understand what theft really is, want to protect the elite rich~! ... as you admitted to in your post. Its ultimately ludicrous. The problem is capitalism itself. The ultimate systematic flaw within capitalism, is that there is nothing that cant be purchased. But really the entire system is systematically flawed, and completely rigged in favor of the elite rich. Here's the ultimate conundrum for a Libertarian -> How do you get cronyism out of capitalism, if ridding cronyism requires government, the cronies, in order to implement the laws, to remove its cronyism? Before you say thats circular, I know its circular, thats my point. Furthermore, when in the history of capitalism, has capitalism been without cronyism? Not to mention ... 6 homeless people for 10 empty houses, global warming, species extinction, obscene inequality, senior retirement, medical, automation, water, pollution, landfills, unsustainable depleting of our nature resources at a catastrophic rate (futurism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Resources1.jpg). Do I need to go on here? ... because its super easy to, and moreover I CAN... And remember, you don't have to accept capitalism in order to be a Libertarian, research Socialist Libertarianism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism To cut to the chase, capitalism was once a good system to move forward with, similar to religion before science came along, but its outdated and archaic, and can no longer deliver what we need because of its dire inefficiencies. Let it go, lets move on with another system altogether. Unless we part ways with capitalism, we will face our demise. Evolution and Science prove so, adapt or parish.
I don't know what you're talking about. Obviously, nobody who is interested in social welfare wants to steal from the poor. The only option is to steal from the rich/middle class or nobody. Within pure capitalism, super rich entrepreneurs don't get rich by stealing but by providing a useful product to a lot of people. I could care less about how hard anyone works. I'm only interested in social welfare. Why should someone who works "harder" make more money? Not all labor is created equal. I an smack a rock against a tree for 14h a day and I won't get a damn thing for it. Money is an incentive for the most talented/productive people to use their abilities and time to make stuff people want. It also makes sure that entrepreneurs who aren't very good at making useful products don't keep using society's scarce resources to make useless products. If everyone could sit on his or her ass all day and life could roll on, why not let them? "Can we agree, ANYONE whom works a 40hr/week, should at least be able to retire?" It would be nice, but it doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks "should" happen. The only thing that matters is what's best for society as a whole, and if that means slowing up production by redistributing wealth to people to make sure they will "be able to retire," then obviously you're not thinking for everyone, but just for some poor saps. Profits come from under-priced factors of production. If I can buy an A, a B, and a C for $100, produce a P, and sell the P for $150, then I make a $50 profit. Obviously, A, B, and C were under-priced because someone else could have offered up to $50 more for them and still made money. Getting a return on lended money is not usually referred to as profit but interest. To put it simply, the phenomenon of interest happens for three reasons: (A) the lender had to not spend all of his money so he can have some to lend, (B) the lender thinks it's worth lending at some interest rate, and (C) the borrower thinks it's worth borrowing at the same interest rate. For our purposes, that's all there is to it. Money-now and money-later are goods just like any other. Investors sell money-now in exchange for money-later. So what if they sit on their asses? They sell their money, and workers sell their labor. Workers can save their money and sell it too, but if they need to spend all their money to survive or they would just rather spend it, then they won't. Why is it "ludicrous"? As long as everybody voluntarily agreed to their job, there is no stealing. I think this is pretty common sense. "How do you get cronyism out of capitalism, if ridding cronyism requires government, the cronies, in order to implement the laws, to remove its cronyism?" Okay, so we're talking practical politics now. I don't think most folks want to use the government to get rid of the government. When and if the time comes, I think the best strategy will be to simply stop paying taxes. Eventually, the government will dissipate, and local, voluntarily-funded court systems will take over. "Furthermore, when in the history of capitalism, has capitalism been without cronyism?" Ehh, when you wake up and don't get mugged? American society is already very capitalist. Most people don't try to kill and steal. All we've got to do is get rid of the people who do. It's not that hard, but the movement is not big enough yet. "6 homeless people for 10 empty houses" it's not capitalism's fault that people do drugs. "global warming" well, if nobody is causing it and/or we can't stop it/ it won't stop, then we all die (so what?). If somebody is causing it, then we stop them. Presto! "species extinction, obscene inequality" so what? "senior retirement" see above. "medical" I don't know what this refers to, but, obviously, capitalism does healthcare way better. "automation" not a problem; old jobs < new jobs + more/better products. "pollution, landfills" if it harms other people then it will be punished. If not, so what? "unsustainable depleting of our nature resources at a catastrophic rate" so what? If we run out of stuff then we have to use different stuff or die. What is the point of having unused resources (for me, your link is dead btw)? You and your friends can have socialist libertarianism if you want, but don't try and force it on everybody else or we'll stop you. "To cut to the chase, capitalism was once a good system to move forward with, similar to religion before science came along, but its outdated and archaic, and can no longer deliver what we need because of its dire inefficiencies. Let it go, lets move on with another system altogether. Unless we part ways with capitalism, we will face our demise. Evolution and Science prove so, adapt or parish." I don't even feel like it. I don't want to be rude, but this is just dumb. Libertarian socialism want change the resources of the face of the earth Nobody thinks that capitalism is "outdated" except a few internet trolls and millennials who skipped economics class.
I love it~! This is proof, I can't make this shit up! Here it is people, the brilliant mind of a Libertarian for everyone to witness... A Libertarian stands up for capitalism and can answer all the worlds problems by his wonderful system of capitalism, lets recap these problems and the Libertarians solutions to these worldly issues~! global warming -> "then we all die (so what?)" lazy thieving rich people -> "So what if they sit on their asses?" retirement -> "doesn't matter" species extinction ->"so what?" obscene inequality ->"so what?" senior retirement -> "see above (so what?)" medical -> "I don't know what this refers to" automation -> "not a problem" pollution -> "if it harms other people then it will be punished. If not, so what?" Because thats what we are seeing everyday nowadays right? BP cleaning up all of its oil spills? Plastics in the oceans? landfills -> "if it harms other people then it will be punished. If not, so what?" Landfills polluting watersheds, who gets punished? Have you ever seen anyone actually get punished for any pollution at all? ... again, all the plastic garbage that capitalism is producing? Polluter pays? I call bullshit! Show me. Only rich people do believe in this shit-where-we-eat system, and they are untouchable, as capitalism protects them. unsustainable depleting of our natural resources at a catastrophic rate -> "so what?" 6 homeless people for 10 empty houses -> "it's not capitalism's fault that people do drugs" WTF, I guess in a Libertarian mind all homeless people are druggies. FYI capitalism creates druggies, because that is unfortunately people's only escape from this shit-show. getting rid of cronyism -> "stop paying taxes" Hey Richard, stop paying taxes and see what happens. The rich elites demand you pay your taxes for their Socialism, in case they need to be bailed out again. Socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the rest of the dumb fks. When in the history of capitalism, has capitalism been without cronyism? -> "Ehh, when you wake up and don't get mugged?" So I guess unlike other Libertarians, you think that there is no cronyism in government? Dumbass! rich stealing money going to the top -> "As long as everybody voluntarily agreed to their job, there is no stealing." There is nothing voluntary about the choice to die from starvation, or work. That is not a choice. That is a gun to the head. That's capitalism! Richard, lastly, in your Economics 101 that you are getting all this wise brainy advise from for the future prospects of humanity, what do you think a system, capitalism or other, is good for? What is its purpose if not to serve humanity; for stated points above? You first replied, "the entire point of libertarianism is to help those at the bottom." yet you have clearly demonstrated that Libertarianism is nothing more than a "so what?" ideology.
Jeez, bud. There's no need to get so cranky. I guess I thought you were more knowledgeable about/friendlier to libertarianism. To answer your last question, a scientific social philosophy doesn't have any aims. It just studies the way the world is without calling anything good or bad. If the majority of people who compose society want X, then science can, given its current state of knowledge, tell them the easiest way to get X. If people want abject poverty and starvation, then outlaw productive activity and trade. If they hate redheads, kill the redheads. If the public just can't stand blue houses, burn blue houses (or paint them a different color). It's all about giving the citizens what they want, not silly, abstract ideas about "rights" or "justice" or "equality" or whatever. We live in a world where most people just want clean water, food, clothes, shelter, entertainment, and so on. So how do we get that stuff? I answer, apparently controversially, capitalism, that is, private property, division of labor, free trade, investment, entrepreneurship, equality under the law, and the rest. Now, with that out of the way, let's look at some of these. Global warming: People rank pretty highly the desire to not be washed away. Obviously then, if it's an imminent threat, man must devote effort toward stopping global warming. Whatever can be done should be done with the goal of attaining the public's goals. If someone is causing global warming, then we stop them. What else is there to do. What's controversial about this? Yeah, we can fail and die; we wouldn't be the first civilization. Lazy thieving rich people: Arbitrary value judgements regarding how much somebody should work aside, entrepreneurs fill indispensable roles. Although the consumers steer the ship, the entrepreneur is the person who removes maladjustments in the economy and puts production plans into action. Nobody imposed the choice between work or starvation on you; that's not capitalism; it's a fact of nature. If you don't work, you don't eat, regardless of the economic system. Pollution: If an entity is polluting, there are two options. (A) The polluting entity can pay off the polluted victim. In this way, pollution enters into economic calculation. Or (B), the pollution can be legally prohibited. Of course, I'm not saying that all pollution is always legally punished or ever will be; I'm merely describing how things should be ideally in the public's interest. "FYI capitalism creates druggies, because that is unfortunately people's only escape from this shit-show." Naw, it's prolly cause ah public schools and da decline of family life. We stop paying taxes to get rid of the government when the time comes. I'm not about to because I'll go to jail. "So I guess unlike other Libertarians, you think that there is no cronyism in government? Dumbass!" No, you completely misinterpreted what I said. In short, capitalism is where all theft and murder are illegal. So when people aren't being stolen from and murdered, you've got capitalism. The most general (without getting into nitty gritty) criticism of democratic ownership of the means of production is this: Why aren't people already doing it? Pure free market capitalism and even this current system is not stopping people from doing this. People aren't doing it because it's not as productive as entrepreneurial ownership. So, if you prohibit entrepreneurial ownership in favor of democratic ownership, you make everyone poorer. Feel free to do what you want. Just don't tell me what to do.
I doubt anyone is pushing a vanguard approach to socialism. But as time passes it will be necessary. Automation comes to mind. On another note take a look at the coal Industry. Outdated and outmoded. We should be moving towards solar. But it would cause many people to go homeless. Capitalism in this sense can be seen as holding progress hostage. When a company needs to trim to become more efficient it should be able to do so without having the consequences be a bunch of people end up homeless. We can either become slaves to wealth and it can be a burden on our fate as a species or we can use it to advance our civilization to new heights. It’s how I view religion and politics. If we rely on the ideas from 2000 years ago to hold morality hostage we won’t progress morally. If we allow capitalism to hold economics hostage then we can’t learn newer different ways to work together and economically our progress will slow down. Take a look at trade pacts I think they rock but they have unintended consequences like homelessness and job loss. those who benefit from the status quo fear change. Change is inevitable. It’s why Bernie Sanders was so widely accepted. Communism failed fast. Capitalism got us farther. But it’s not perfect. Eventually socialism has to be viewed as being the means for progress to occur. I mean take a look at cops or roads. We already use some socialist policies. The extremes of capitalism or the extremes of communism just won’t work. You hire a bunch of people they do a good job their job is obsolete and then they need to be retrained. Their humans not robots they get pissed and don’t want to be retrained when it’s going to cost them a shit bunch of money after just losing their job. A universal basic income is a great way to deal with the issue in my opinion. Oh and another problem with capitalism is things like the opioid epidemic or things like citizens united where we sold our liberties to the highest bidder. I mean we have a businessman in office right now and it’s not looking good for that type of mentality. He might be winning but he is screwing over American rights in order to do so.
It's not up to you or me to decide what "we" should be moving toward; the consuming/demanding public does that. Insofar as the coal industry (minus government protections) is suffering losses, coal wages (or prices for other inputs) must fall or coal labor, among other resources, needs to instead be allocated to other industries with products in higher demand. Pesky government backed labor unions, by not letting wages fall freely in a declining industry, can conceal the inevitable and make frictional unemployment worse, but there is always a wage on the market where all the people who want jobs can find them; although, sadly, the wage won't necessarily be above subsistence level. I certainly don't support UBI or any other redistribution scheme under normal conditions; however, if people are starving due to too low wages, does this justify redistribution even if it necessarily implies sabotaging long-run productivity? It's a tough question.
Richard Strum I’m wondering if long term productivity is not being effected by other things. Like depression and homelessness. Otherwise the coal industry should not have been propped up. Welfare should not be paying wages for employees at McDonald or Walmart like you said subsistence wages matter. Plus it’s my opinion that automation is going to force a paradigm shift in how we are dealing with the issue of what is and is not most effective. Then the bank failures. When companies are allowed to influence government policy expect the worse. It’s why the living wage is not tied to inflation. I’m not saying I know how to solve the problem I’m just trying to point out there are other things we could try but dismiss because it’s not status quo. Personally think we need to break the two party system since this allows for a very stale and old dialogue. It’s like begging to live in an echo chamber.
Richard Strum plus I’m here to discuss learn. People will debate and I’ll do what I can to learn to debate. Catch myself when I’m uninformed but also hold my ground when the data is not clear and my opinion is just as valid.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe, It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, and establish connections everywhere." While this may seem like an obvious point now, Marx wrote those words in 1848, when globalization was over a century away. And he wasn't just right about what ended up happening in the late 20th century - he was right about why it happened: The relentless search for new markets and cheap labor, as well as the incessant demand for more natural resources, are beasts that demand constant feeding. What will be the solution to unsustainable life for us and others caught up in this economic race to the bottom?” Inside Job: A Critique of Capitalism... www.linkedin.com/pulse/inside-job-critique-capitalism-martin-screeton
Yeah right, capitalism solves poverty! This is one of those big lies, they point to the fact that people who've moved out of poverty officially now get a whopping $2 a day due to the wonders of globalization... wow, they've doubled the avg income!... whereas the relevant NGOs say that the poverty level is more like $10 a day or less. Just look it up. So double a pittance is still a pittance and still 20% of what they need, on average.
Good talk, but what it all boils down to is not alturism, or any other -ism at all. It´s about what we are, and what we actually do. in the long run, political beliefs, morals, ideas, will all be replaced again and again. So being a believer, rather than a sceptical thinker, will by your own standards break down on its own. As you just admitted yourself. It turns out that greed is the ultimate incentive for us humans to speak and behave as we do. That said, we also seek alliances, which will make us stronger, and is a key factor of what we are. Strong!
The *_conscious business_* will eventually replace their *_conscious_* human work force with *_conscious_* automation and technology that will *_consciously_* drive down the cost of labor which will in turn *_consciously_* contribute to a growing profit margin much to the *_conscious delight_* of the *_profit conscious_* shareholders/investors.
I accept the idea that you, in particular, are selfish. Your company is gentrification in supermarket form. Plus you cashed out with Amazon. Dude just wants to be rich.
" selfish men create jobs AND product" Oh shit, this changes everything! We need more work, not only 40h working week, no, full employment!!!1 And we need more products!!!1 The supermarkets are sooo empty!!1! more products which are thrown away at the end of the month means more freedeom! we need moooreee! But seriously, is this all you care about? Having a job and the theoretical possibility to chose between thousands of products to buy? Over 150 years passed since people have fought for the 8h working day. And granted, our standards of living have increased, but still: Why hasn't that number decreased? We have more machines, more automation than ever before and still no improvement in this topic! The truth is: Markets don't reduce the work time. They didn't want to have the 8h work day back then. It had to be enforced, to be fought for. We can reduce the work time to 4h already today. In socialism, with a planned economy we can go even for 2h, or 1h!
John Mackey... Chinese and Indian poverty stricken people are getting out of poverty because YOU and They have stolen Our Money... so this is not progress... it's a shifting of Incomes from rich countries to 3rd world countries...(for exploitation purpose which you call; 'Providing Value') Our country, the USA, currently houses a 3rd world... of 170 million people...and that figure is growing... “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe, It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, and establish connections everywhere." - Karl Marx, 1848---> The relentless search for new markets and cheap labor, as well as the incessant demand for more natural resources, are beasts that demand constant feeding. What will be the solution to unsustainable life for us and others caught up in this economic race to the bottom?
Do humans have limitless creativity? Only if you can continue to generalize things and have those generalized schema accuratly predict their recombination. If we have to understand all the fundamentals to make reasonable conjecture then human creativity will eventually fizzle out and just be re-runs, computers will be the only things capable of thinking of anything new. I don't know which it is.
I'm guessing it was when you thought putting three sticks of asparagus into a jar of water and charging $8 a liter for it was "value product options for your customers". Get out of here Whole Paychecks noone can afford to shop at your price gouging stores.
The thing that I don’t understand about the whole free market philosophy is how in the hell a fair minimum wage is opposing it. How the fuck am I socialist crazy lefty everytime I ask for fucking fair money to everyone? If you believe in the virtue of working hard to achieve something the way free market philosophists claim to do isn’t exploitation something you should be opposing? if you can’t afford to pay your employees a wage that makes a living in 40 hrs a week you are a lousy businessman, you can’t afford to have employees, please try again. Obviously not every work is worth the same money but that doesn’t justify the huuuuge wage gaps we still have in many companys between the lowest and highest in hoerachy, which are all equally necessary to keep the wagon going. I somewhat agree with this guy, don’t agree with too much of socialism, i just really don’t see how good worker protection laws, a fair minimum wage and decent healthcare oppose the idea of a free market that fuels economic growth and the advancement of human kind.
And love how he's for basically privatizing healthcare... neglects to mention that there's no boycott power for the people who need healthcare.. it's an extortion racket then, no free market or competition.
That's easy to say when you don't live In a third world country. Like I do. Brazil. Imagine that your country mostly sells grains. No transformation. And the politicians are all land owners. The oposite from the population Interest is low socialist politics. And the first world Interest, and politititians interests is exploration. Low salaries, no infrastructure, fucking miserable human development. How is libertarianism going to help a third world country?
Jose Fowler and? Chaos is its own form of order, you talk as if a group of people will not create social rules, and stop those outliers that assault those rules
Tax are thief. Some people are just full of greed and are out to take other people money. Socialism is the embodiment of that idea. Take stuffs from those who work hard/clever/successful to those who dont have thoss stuffs.
You can't become successful without the proper infrastructure. The state has been subsidizing the lives of each employee and customer of his since birth. It inevitably pays for the failures as well as the successes because no one knows how the future. So if you do become successful, you can't say "I did it all myself and deserve all the profit" because you didn't pay to educate your workforce, or build the infrastructure they use or provide the security or resources which makes your business possible. Taxes are a recognition of the state as a silent partner in every business. If you don't believe that then go to Somalia or Yemen and try to open a whole foods.
John McKay came to the realization that his "socialist" viewpoint was naive because it didn't provide him with a means for success in business. This isn't a critique against socialism, it only serves as a self justification for his choice to embrace capitalism as a businessman.
is John McKay in this video?
ITT: Idiot legion collectively hating the guy because they cannot comprehend that trade is not a zero sum game.
buying $7 asparagus water will end poverty
because the majority of the money goes to the business owner anyway^^
just watch out for that avocado and toast if you're a prospective homeowner
Not just that when u start at Whole Foods everyone starts at part time for first 60 days. You have 30 days to enroll in health care from date of hire. However since your a part timer you gotta pay 5 times more out of your paycheck. Also you make less. So by the time your full time you gotta wait a whole year to enroll again.
that is correct.
One of the most frustrating things about hard-core Libertarians is the conflation of Political systems with Economic systems. 'Capitalism' is not a political framework, its an Economic one. Governments cannot be 'Capitalist', nations/countries can have Capitalist economic structures, but that is not a system of political or social power.
Democracy MUST temper the single-minded pursuit of profit at all costs, to the exclusion of all else, that defines Capitalism... The Governmental structure must balance the economic concerns with moral, cultural and Societal concerns.
His point that the huge wealth disparity in the world is poor people's fault, is insulting, harmful and demonstrably untrue.
For those who justify libertarianism on deontological grounds, capitalism happens to be the economic system that results the application of their ethical precepts, but for utilitarians who argue that capitalism is the most appropriate economic system to satisfy the wants of the public, libertarianism is the best political system because it will cater to the needs of capitalism. That is to say, for the utilitarians, the point of law in the first place is to maintain capitalism and the average standard of living.
For one who's familiar with the social function of profit and loss, profit is synonymous with the satisfaction of consumer wants. Profit results when the sum of the prices of factors of production is less than the product's total revenue. The prices of factors of production are determined by the bidding of entrepreneurs with alternative uses for the factors, and a product's revenue results from a consumer's belief in the product's capacity to improve his or her life. In this way, entrepreneurs with the most valuable use for factors of production are the ones who purchase the factors and employ them in the production of products that consumers demand most urgently. Seen in this light, without being too sensational, profit is actually the foundation of modern civilization.
Any government obstruction of profit necessarily results in a restricted level of output and lower standard of living. Profit is indeed the cause of wealth disparity, but only by increasing the wealth of some, not taking the wealth from others. Profit is actually the sign that one has served his fellow man by creating value and providing a useful product. Those who charge capitalism with creating absolute poverty can no longer be taken seriously by practical people. Today, the reason for the existence of poor countries has little, if anything, to do with resources, intelligence, technology, etc., and more to do with these countries' and their leaders' failures to embrace capitalistic policies.
"...Libertarianism is the best political system because it will cater to the needs of capitalism. " Interesting.
well said.
yes, i suppose that's my main issue; its the idea that Governmental (especially Democratic, people-self-governing for the common good ) priorities should somehow be beholden to PURELY economic ones. that line of reasoning, i claim, is incorrect and actually harmful. Its the same reason i roll my eyes when people think that a successful business person would make a good President. Why?? A nation is not a profit-seeking entity. given incentive, stability and opportunity, the 'profits' will come in the form of a happy, healthy, educated, and productive populace, who dont have to live as 'customers/commodities', but as 'citizens'.
Moloth The characteristic feature of capitalism is that it deproletarianizes the public. The peasantry becomes the middle class. The masses are no longer required to toil in the fields the day long to merely subsist. They now have the time, energy, and resources to pursue more humane activities. One wonders if the distinction between the economic and the other aspects of human life is even tenable. After all, an educated majority only exists because of the mass production of the items necessary to fulfill their basic needs. Only then can people enjoy education and the rest of these "higher" pleasures.
"Moloth The characteristic feature of capitalism is that it deproletarianizes the public. "
this is specious. You're describing an *outcome* of Capitalism as it exists WITHIN the structure of a Democracy in which taxes are levied from capitalist ventures in order to improve the common good of the citizenry. The ONLY "characteristic feature" of Capitalism is that of the pursuit of profit. If there are any OTHER outcomes, it is because another force has influenced it. Rampant, unchecked and 'pure' Capitalism cares not the 'proletariat' or the 'peasantry', in fact, it seeks to create such classes... look at the current trend of wealth disparity: the rich get richer and ALL OTHERS get poorer. thats a fine outcome for an Economic theory, but NOT for a nation or a culture.
Capitalism does not seek to create anything. It is not a thinking, acting entity. The social function of the profit and loss system is to provide consumers with the best products by employing factors of production with the lowest opportunity costs, that is, to get the most bang for society's buck (scarce resources), so to speak. Entrepreneurs, by aiming at making the most money, inadvertently "care" for the public by trying to satisfy consumer demand with the fewest and least valuable resources possible.
There is not anything inherent in democracy that creates a prosperous society. The function of democracy is to allow the public to uproot a government that it finds sub-optimal by peaceful means in order to avoid such bloody revolutions like that of the French. To use some rather imprecise language, democracy and the government are not in themselves responsible for our now fantastic standard of living; for this we owe wholly to the profit seeking entrepreneurs; they put technology and society's savings to work by creating valuable products. To put this rather differently, public goods such as public healthcare, interstates, education, etc. are not the cause of our healthy and educated citizenry, but their availability was only made possible after society became richer. These public goods did not make a wealthy society but were funded by funds expropriated and redistributed from an increasingly wealthy citizenry. The government can only change the rules and redistribute things already made; it cannot itself create.
Free markets do not make anyone poorer; they only make some richer. Entrepreneurs provide products and jobs that were not previously available. The only conceivable way people could be harmed by capitalism is by being put out of a job such as in the case of the tailor being outcompeted by the textile factories, but if one has the majority's interest at heart, then one must not interfere because the textile plant, in supplanting the tailor, has now created new jobs and provided the consumer with apparently better or cheaper clothing.
Under capitalism there does not exist any tendency for classes to form. Capitalism uprooted the feudalism left behind by the Roman Empire. The early entrepreneurs were not aristocrats. The early entrepreneurs did not produce products for the aristocrats but for the peasants. The majority of today's capitalists, that is, those who risk their money by lending it to entrepreneurs, are not rich investors; they are the middle class.
I strongly disagree with him but it's nice to see different opinions on this channel as it can be a bit of an echo chamber. Tbh I think hard line libertarian-ism and socialism are equally idealistic and flawed. I think both ideologies try to claim moral purity but I think both are wrong. I can't really respond to a 28 minute video with a youtube comment but I thought I may as well make my opinion heard.
I apreciate the conscious capitalism and want to study it more. I also understand that there is less poor people in the world today and free market capitalism isn’t evil. I’ve been studying Robert Reich and how he describes free capitalism..... how do you feel by this and thank you for posting on big think so I can hear and see what you think.
"ethical business" "conscious capitalism" 'I got rich and now have a vested interest in the system'
Brett Johnson your nativity is dangerous, capitalism kills 100 million people every 5 years.
Every ideal becomes justified as long as success is achieved. Does this not explain perspectives?
Brett Johnson all I heard was “I don’t like it so it’s misleading”
Brett Johnson the number I gave is honestly low if it accounted for certain other factors it would be a bit higher. This is a global number by the way that accounts for capitalism’s global effects.
@@カスカディア国人 Where do you get this 5 million statistics?
Thank you for a longer format video. I definitely prefer real interviews.
As for the content of the interview...I agree with most of the comments section. Whole Foods is specifically built for upper middle class so they don't have the misfortune of being seen in such places as Target and Walmart. 7 dollar Asparagus water won't save you...Amazon will.
You still need regulations. Between company A, which abides by ethics and company B, which doesn't, company B will always have an advantage and is more likely to survive. On the long term it is a race to the bottom if the government is not looking out for the people by imposing rules. Having an healthy & educated workforce, that can get to work on time (infrastucture), spend money (more demand, more profits) and take care of itself in its old days (retirement) ain't bad either for businesses.
Great video. 9:30. 200 years ago, 85% of the people lived in poverty. Today, it’s down to less than 20%. That’s a fact. With capitalism the quality of life has risen tremendously. Common sense.
Same old "I did it so anyone can" bullshit. "There's room at the top, they are telling you still."
Yeah, because workers in Whole Foods now are loving their new work conditions since acquired by Amazon.
Will Carr whole foods sucks now. Some stuff isn't changing, but the quality of their hot food is subpar, they are brining in unnatural food in, etc.
Will Carr they can get a different job
Jordon Hodges yes because the jobs market for middle Americans is just booming right now.
Pixel Fyxe that's the biggest non sequitur if I ever read one lol. We're talking about workers being put through grueling work conditions where it is almost barbaric. Pretty soon they'll be falling asleep standing up like an Amazon worker. But yeah, let's compare that to music I don't like.
I honestly clicked on this video clip with an open mind...hoping may be this one libertarian would make a little bit of sense. I was wrong.
They usually make alot of sense.You are not a fan of limited government? Must be an advocate of unrestrained government power.
Statist slave licking masters boot hoping for a little more of that stolen welfare cheese. Hating on the succesful and free. Pathetic.
Im a libertarian socialist. (No, they're not mutually exclusive - this is an exclusively American response).
True and principled libertarianism is philosophically reasonable.
The moral philosophy in socialism is reasonable.
The combination of the best parts of the two makes for a good political system. There are surprisingly many overlaps between librtarianism and socialism.
Authoritarian capitalism is the polar opposite.
YouKnowMeFromSchool freedom vs guidance.....can you explain how your system works?
Sounds Good... what countries run on these two combined?
Not at all my system and there's A LOT of nuance at this point.
In short:
-The liberty and freedom (economic, social, of expression, rights theory) that libertarianism offers is undermined by the economic power imbalance that happens in a true free market.
1) You cant exercise freedom of thought or expression if the free market produces only 3 corporations that control all media, for example. (Right now, its 6 corporations in America and 200 board of directors that control 90%+ of ALL media in the country).
2) You cant exercise freedom of choice to choose your employer when you are highly impoverished due to exploitative wages
3) You cant exercise economic freedom if you are living paycheck to paycheck
4) You cant have your rights protected if free-market forces also apply to things like the military, the police, the judicial system, because any initial stacking of the deck will mean that you forever get the decks stacked against you.
5) etc.
-A big-government socialist state leads to more authoritarianism and reduced freedom (even if "caring" for the people initially with universal healthcare, for example). This is because centralised power attracts people who want to centralise it even more. Soviet Union!! Venezuela!
A libertarian socialist DOES NOT want big government that has power over its citizens in a centralized way. A libertarian socialist wants a highly decentralized government to the point where citizens themselves MAKE UP a lot of the government. Fewer representatives and more direct power to individuals.
Im not sure if Ive done a good job of explaining this.
Some more articulate people:
-LibertarianSocialistRants (youtube channel)
-Noam Chompsky
-www.politicalcompass.org/libleftbooks
Scandinavian countries are MORE in that direction than any other countries, but arent there. No countries are really there. MOST countries, in my opinion, are Authoritarian + Right Wing.
I would HIGHLY recommend The Political Compass. Its a very useful way of understanding politics beyond the limited left-right wing ideas (regardless of what you believe). Libertarianism vs Authoritarianism is a hugely important scale in itself because its about the distribution of power.
You can do the quiz to see where you fall!
www.politicalcompass.org/
The doctrines of moral philosophers have long been definitively refuted by David Hume and others. Concepts of objective ethics and justice no longer have any place in social philosophy. Consideration of the personal ends of the public and the policies that will attain them is now our only normative concern.
Just here for the comments 🍷
I just read a report about how whole food employees are getting more stressed with the meticulous procedures they have to do. Almost like amazon was running the show.... anyways the hypocrisy here has left a foul stench.
Man socialists are just dumb people, they never achieve anything important. Just cry little bitc*
The pie is limited by the environment and resources.
Thank you sir! Everyone else seems to get so embedded in politics and economic systems, that they tend to forget that we are in a closed system ourselves, and that we specially have to obey natural laws.
Yes, but some economic systems make more/better products out of the limited resources. Take pure socialism for instance. Ownership of producer goods is forbidden; therefore, producer goods cannot be exchanged...exchange ratios (prices) can't be established...and profit and loss calculation--accounting--is impossible. Since accounting is impossible under pure socialism, there is no way to know which resources should be used to make which products. So pure socialism is at a very serious disadvantage as a socio-economic system.
Whoever told you that there is no accounting in a socialist system has obviously never been to a "pure" socialist country (although I'm not sure about your definition). It's a bizarre statement. There is no plausible way that any economy can make more out of a limited amount of resources just because of its economic model. It can focus profits in a certain sector, or refine the means of production but the earth is a closed system.
By "pure socialism" I meant where producer's goods are collectively owned. I don't believe it has ever existed on a large scale, but state socialism (kinda like the USSR) had the same problem of accounting.
To give a simple example, economic model A encourages technology, and economic model B doesn't. Even if they both have the same raw resources, obviously A will make more/better stuff per unit of raw resources, especially of time and labor. However, this is true for more than just technology. I can explain if you'd like.
Even in the USSR there were haves and have nots as well as a sizeable dissident population, often socialist as well. Other than the Scandinavian social democratic socialist model, Cuba might be the best example. You should visit. I hear that a lot of Americans go there for affordable health care. Still, if you have a great technology that will promise to make you rich to grow turnips for example, the growth of those turnips takes labor, sunlight, nutrients etc. A technologically advanced turnip system can only reduce the consumption of one of those elements at the expense of the others.
"if socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists"
Correct.
This guy sold out to Amazon. His stuff was over priced, no poor person could afford it.
You literally don't even have to watch the video to know what happened here. The title says it all. Guy gets rich, no longer believes in paying higher taxes to help those less fortunate.
Nice ad-hominem man, I'm sure you persuaded a lot of people with your comment right now.
If you have to resort to ad-hominem attacks like calling someone ignorant, you don't have a good argument. Come back when you've got something better and maybe people might take what you have to say seriously.
"This person disagrees with me, therefore they must be a low IQ ignoramus. Also my ad-hominen isn't an ad-hominen" - You
Nope, I rest my case.
Sorry you are getting a new trial. In your original comment you advocate not watching the video and claimed to summarize the entire video content in one sentence. Leaving aside the inaccuracy of your summation, advocating not watching the video is advocating ignorance itself. Brett calling your ignorance dangerous is not an ad hominem it is factually true. Everyone should freely investigate and absorb ideas and see if they stand on their own fruition. That is the opposite of ignorance. In this video the guy was much more complicated than your one sentence summation, some parts I agreed with and many parts I disagreed with but I'm wealthier for having watched it and encourage everyone to watch it.
I'm all for capitalism, but I don't have much faith the 'free market' will remain the 'free market' if it isn't regulated properly. Which is why I don't think I'll be advocating for libertarianism anytime soon.
UA-cam needs to add a feature that bars viewers from commenting before they've watched the whole video.
He's still okay running the anti-science marketing firm called Whole Foods that's causing so much starvation and misery in the developing world. (And I, too, am a Libertarian.)
"how I went from socialist to libertarian: turns out I had no morals and once I got money, I said 'fuck everyone else!'"
"How I went from socialist to libertarian". The word 'CEO' explains everything by itself.
The American Dream **applause**
Actually there is plenty of the movement in the other direction, including many billionaires. After enterprise worked for them they don't need it to stay free(ish) anymore. Any move towards socialism is only better for entrenched businesses as it will close the doors on competition. And the high taxes? Well they have bargaining power to meet the government, they will get some "special" dispensation.
Same with working poor - some of them want more free stuff, some see the value in freedom from free stuff (that always has to be paid for in the end).
Only the parasites that are only burden for the society as for years and years they stay on welfare - they are socialists and stay socialists until they die.
I think it is great if it works out this way.. I believe that the market should/could reward best practices now in the information world we are living... just hope it turns out true.
I think it will be interesting to see how the younger generations(millenial and younger) develop in their perspective in regards to being socialist and libertarian. Especially as it has become anecdotally evident that today's youth have much fewer favorable economic conditions than John Mackey's generation knew(Boomer generation)
.
As he describes it himself "if at the age of 21 and you're not a socialist then you dont have heart, and if by the age of 30 you still are then you dont have any brains."
Thats a drastic shift in values to make in just under a decade.
But as younger generations(like millenials) are strapped to pay for an evidently unsustainable social security system, are continously faced with much fewer lucrative job offering, higher student loan debts, rising home prices, all bunched together with an overarching theme of a global workforce now that forever favors cheap labor above all, it follows that younger people today will likely stay poorer for longer and perhaps retain their "fairness for all is the way to go" mindframe because they are still fighting for some things they may never have.
It very well may take younger generations much longer than a decade to make this shift from socialism to libertarianism because they will be victims of their circumstances for much longer, and some of whom will never escape. But the future will tell how long this circumstance remains.
Its important to take Mackey's advice in context of the opportunities available to him in his generation. The conditions of the current state of American economy are not what they were back in his day.
p.s. As a millenial born in 1990, I came of age in 2008, right around the time one major economic event came to its fruition.
Ryan. what do you mean by Major economic event? That you were not there in the many other economic downturns, depression, Cold War etc? The world was easier back in the day??
And... was that an excuse? For what?
You got rich and lost perspective
The number of "likes" versus "dislikes" for this video will tell you how close this country is to the end.
I'd argue the opposite. Goes to show the world will never fall towards one ideology, which obviously will never sustain itself. It also gives a good indication that there are still a lot more conversations to be had because upbringing defines perspective.
piperpipe201 there will always be people that think that socialism might work this time.
Nathan Pen Hence, does it not make sense to combine the two socialism and libertarianism?
Libertarianism is astrology for men.
socialism is a fairy tale for men
capitalism is patriarchy for women
"Nothing succeeds more in capitalism than success itself; good ideas that work spread". The contradiction in his statement right here is Pharmaceutical companies are making a killing in antidepressant's by buying the doctors off to prescribe them as kickbacks. For some reason this is a common practice for capitalism at the expense of the consumer known as the cost of doing business.
Individual lack of ethics are not part of the equation
@@mauricioweber8879 The ethics should be held accountable in a court of law for the doctors and the pervasion. Same as lack of ability to have the right to repair and consumer goods having less quality. These "good" ideas are only good to the industries that profit from them at the expense of the consumer.
@@mauricioweber8879 I'll concede that whole foods are a pigeonholed industry where quality is a major priority and this statement may be true to say "good" ideas. But to have the same economic philosophy across all industries is a huge stretch. We don't even have free market capitalism as a check and balance in US economics. I still consider a company like Ben and Jerry's to be a platform every company should follow. An industry that reinvests in its immediate environment it is established in while delivering a quality product.
love makes us weak...i hate that stigma...we need to normalize being nice to people like damn...why does everything always got to be a competition
How the System Made Me Wealthy, the autobiography of a former decent human being.
Be whole foods, sell 10$ bottles of water with a stick in in.. calll it stick water... poverty solved.
Just who I want schooling me on how to end poverty, the guy who sold Whole Foods to Amazon.
Next I want you to interview Amazon warehouse workers who try to live on $13/hour, with their every move electronically monitored, continuously pushed to be more and more productive, right up until they're replaced by robots.
And then I want to you interview a Chinese factory worker who assembled the crap that people buy on Amazon. How they were forced from their village at gunpoint by the government, into the city, into the iphone factory to work 14 hour days.
How so many workers were throwing themselves from the windows of these factories than they now have external suicide nets to catch jumpers, and put them back to work.
But who cares about that, I'm a rich CEO and I got mine. Rest of humanity can fuck off.
Hey Mike, or whatever your name is, I think it is beautiful that you believe in all these beautiful idealistic things,, but when your beliefs go against reality it is time to revise them.
very confused bot how do they go against reality twat?
second the motion! (excluding the twat part)
Usually libertarian principles are backed up by science and history. The term "idealistic" goes more with "socialist".
I find the question captions troublesome. Rather than watch the whole video, I'll often listen to the video while I'm doing other things, and then every so often, there's a silent pause, and I realize a new question has been asked, and now I have to back up the video to see what I missed. Is there any way we can get a voice-over for those parts?
I am 31 and still a socialist. I get it, we have to play the market game in the meantime… It’s a system wide change that needs to happen that will make Socialism successful. Keep dreaming because dreaming is what gets us to the next step in our evolution… In other words, we need to collectively think outside the box if we want something better.
"If you aren't a socialist at 21, you have no heart. If you're still a socialist at 30, you haven't sold out to enrich yourself at the cost of your fellow human." I fixed that quote for you.
yeah it was always a stupid fucking quote.
"you haven't sold out to enrich yourself at the cost of your fellow human" Does selling out mean making a business? If thats the case, are you saying making a business is bad? If so, why?
piperpipe201 No, selling out is not starting a business; business has a robust purpose in socialist states. To define selling out for you, in the context I used it, it is the act of putting your own wants and enrichment above the basic, life-supporting needs of your fellow humans.
Wow you are truly wise and one of a kind... Your armchair wisdom is enthroned in empirical evidence, like the the success stories of socialist paradises like the great Soviet Union, or Venezuela, or Cuba! Truly miracles of human society. /s
No the real quote is this: "If you aren't a socialist at 21, you have no heart. If you're still a socialist at 30, you have no income security despite giving your best and are mad as hell." ;)
I see why so many thumbs down. Google's initial slogan was don't be evil. It since then had to switch bcuz it could not compete with that template of initiation. This man is wrong.
OmAr LiVeS how?
Jordon Hodges another talk I've heard on this topic states thethe exact opposite. That corporate must cheat, cut corners, be ruthless in order to survive and thrive in the highly competitive environment of business. I just heard it a day or two ago too so maybe I find it n let u have a listen. But he basically states the opposite of this man.
OmAr LiVeS Practical example of a means to an end. Capitalism allows for a dog eat dog world, separating emotion from action. A quick way to success, yes. However, one does not have to follow that method to make success in capitalism. He's arguing a perspective that business does not have to flourish through pure selfish drive, conscious capitalism.
American Libertarianism = Corporatocracy
Libertarian Socialism = freedom.
An example of "Libertarian Socialism"?
@InfoGamer a few better known ones are market socialism, (proudhonian) mutualism, anarcho-syndicalism and anarchist communism.
For a more comprehensive list there's: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Notable_libertarian_socialist_tendencies and for a overview of how it's all related, there's i.imgur.com/v9jOzQ8.png.
You think that whitewashing socialism with a little bit of free market will make it good, well it doesn't
@Supergecko, personally I think left and right ideologies can coexist in the libertarian plane (not in the authoritarian one though), but alright, make your case.
So why has it not been put in place? The best economic periods in human history have only happened with absolute freedom
I'm still waiting for John Mackey to end poverty with libertarianism. Nearly 20 years of Reagan-style Randian economic policy, and folks are poorer than ever.
Gee, I wonder why. It's almost like reaganomics is proven bullshit.
How can the pie keep getting bigger, if the Earth has limited space and resources? We cannot all live like kings, the planet is already fucked by our industrial revolutions and some people are trying to salvage it, while the rest keep talking about exponential growth.
A CEO tells people that the best way to build a business in a capitalist system, is libertarianism
You definitely can't expect to end poverty if you embrace a system that requires some form of hierarchy. Not everyone can be the CEO John. Someone has to be the bottom of the rung employee or the job that is only going to pay them enough to live paycheck to paycheck.
quagmire444 some people can only function on bottom rung.
Ayn Rand doesn't say love makes you weak. She would say love is selfish. Helping people is selfish, it makes you feel good.
There isn't anything "altruistic" in the sense that no one does anything without the perception they will get something out of it.
I kinda pisses me off how few people speak about Ayn Rand in complete ignorance. She's very clear about her ideology. Wtf is with all the misrepresentation? If she's wrong you should be able to explain without misrepresentation.
"How I went from libertarian to socialist: I inherited a business, but the public stopped using it for some reason and I failed to turn a profit until it went bankrupt. So I decided to work for the state where mediocrity is the rule, men with guns make sure the money comes in, failing to spend all the money results in less money next year and wasting all the money in six months ensures you get more money."
Socialism works!! Just ask anyone from Venezuela. (sarcasm) The free market has set more people 'free' than socialism.
There is no perfect system! ➕➖✖➗✅®™
Great video, thanks for sharing I've been a libertarian for about 10 years and recognize a lot of things that you're saying in my own development. Libertarianism =freedom=prosperity
social libertarianism = good
economic libertarianism = crock of shit that ends up only serving the rich/wealthy
"Lets end poverty by providing high cost healthy food to upper class white people."
Yeah right, capitalism solves poverty! This is one of those big lies, they point to the fact that people who've moved out of poverty officially now get a whopping $2 a day due to the wonders of globalization... wow, they've doubled the avg income!... whereas the relevant NGOs say that the poverty level is more like $10 a day or less. Just look it up. So double a pittance is still a pittance and still 20% of what they need, on average.
How is it white only?
How John Mackey went from socialist to libertarian: "I got rich and stopped giving a shit about everybody else"
There's a HUGE difference between profit and plunder...and considering the abusive way Amazon treats it's employees I consider Amazon to be a company that plunders.
Say what you will, but we must remember that nobody is forced to work for Amazon. If their working conditions become so bad that nobody will agree to work for them, then they must face the consequences. If their employees continue to work, then it's obvious that the employees consider the satisfaction derived from their wage to overcome the pain caused by the working conditions.
I see you are just a kid so I'll forgive you for this thoughtless ignorance. Someday you may have a family to support and then I'll consider your opinion on this subject.
The doctrines of moral philosophers have long been definitively refuted by David Hume and others. Concepts of objective ethics and justice no longer have any place in social philosophy. Consideration of the personal ends of the public and the policies that will attain them is now our only normative concern. There is no right to support a family, nor a right to life, healthcare, or an education painted in the stars. These "rights" have been granted by purely human institutions and can likewise be taken away.
A common characteristic of socialist rhetoric is to dismiss an argument not on account of its logical force but on grounds of the argument's exponent. If one aims at refuting a claim, then one ought to address the claim itself, not appeal to an arbitrary emotional response. If one cannot evaluate a claim cooly and judicially, then perhaps one should not comment on economic matters.
If one is to instead take a scientific view, and simply inquire into the causal effects of a certain policy, the following come into consideration:
It's an obvious fact that for a company to improve its working conditions it must spend money. If it could improve them for free, then it would have already have done so, as there would be no reason not to. Since the improvement costs money, it would employ scarce factors of production into a line which it wouldn't have otherwise been. Thus, if a company is forced to improve its working conditions, then at least one factor of production will be employed into a sub-optimal line of production.
From another angle, since the improvement necessarily costs money, either wages, benefits, product quality, or profits must fall or prices rise. The effects on the standard of living are obvious except perhaps those of the smaller profits. If profits fall, then fewer companies will enter the industry than otherwise would have, and some companies already in the industry will have fewer reinvestment funds and may even be forced out of business; both effects are sub-optimal. Forcing a company to improve working conditions is akin to benefitting workers at the expense of the company, its customers, and, in many cases, the rest of society.
I'm glad to see you can read and write. It's impressive. It, however, fails to address that fact that we have outlawed both slavery and abuse. While Amazon can choose to push the limits of those laws there's no reason I have to use their services while they continue to do that. Nor is there any reason why I cannot inform others of their harsh practices and encourage others to also not use Amazon's services.
You can drum up all sorts of philosophical rhetoric but, like the philosophers themselves, it and they are irrelevant bullshit. What's real are the people who are members of our society and the kinds of lives we live and the kinds of lives we make possible for each other.
You may dismiss the teachings of economics as "irrelevant," but, in doing so, you reduce yourself to the level of the so-called flat earthers. Economics is not "philosophical rhetoric." In fact, with the advent of economics came the definitive refutation of the "philosophical rhetoric" that had previously informed mankind's social paradigm. Economics employs precise language and talks about real things. Economic policy concerns itself with only one question: which policies will result in the satisfaction of the public's wants?
Nobody said you have to or even should use Amazon's services. A fundamental characteristic of capitalism is the freedom of the consumer to buy or abstain from buying any product on the market. One could say with great accuracy that, in capitalist countries, the consumers are the directors of all economic activity; all production undertaken by business is done for the consumers' sake. The only successful business are the ones that succeed in supplying desired products. The better entrepreneurs are at satisfying consumer wants, the higher their profits. If entrepreneurs supply bad products, and this can include making products in a manner that is not approved of by the consumers, they will fail. I encourage you to exercise your power as a consumer to buy according to your personal values.
Any attempt to characterise Amazon's employees as slaves is absurd. There is a fundamental difference between slavery and voluntary contracts: the slave can't quit without facing punishment from his or her "employer." In the public's interest, slavery has been rightly abolished and replaced by equality under the law. The word "abusive" is highly ambiguous, but, if we assume a colloquial understanding, insofar as all individuals are granted a legally enforced right of disassociation, there can be no legal action against abusive relationships. In a liberal society, Amazon may treat its employees however it wishes, but, if it treats them relatively badly, it has no way to prevent them from quitting or from discriminating buyers, such as yourself, from shunning their products.
Privatizing education would mean the downfall of society.
Maximilian Roszko I believe 19th century American literacy was quite high compared to its current rate. For me, public education seems intuitively dangerous since the state will likely push its own agenda with distorted information. Once the state teaches anything more than reading, writing, arithmetic, etc., the students will receive state-informed history, economics, literature, etc. I would be glad to hear your charge against private education if you care to oblige.
This video isn't going to go over well in the Big Echo Chamber
I think in the Internet are just more young people who have lost faith in capitalist economy
if you lose faith in capitalism you simply don't understand it
An Verndari Capitalism is the core of innovation and progress in humanity. It’s given people like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Henry Ford etc.. the ability to change the world. Crony Capitalism is the problem. Government giving certain companies a competitive edge over others is what makes capitalism suffer.
the problem is not whether or not people understand it. the problem is that for many people the system is not working.
@Gabriel Varney
"Capitalism is the core of innovation and progress in humanity." Really? Capitalism, which only exists since roughly 500 years? Surely, before capitalism, we lived in caves and had no kind of civilization.
"It’s given people like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Henry Ford etc.. the ability to change the world." Entrepreneurship does not require Capitalism. Look to the great achievements of the USSR for example. They industrialized their whole country within 40 years, while suffering from two world wars and a civil war. And in the end, they were the first country in space and even were ahead in terms of computer technology or healthcare.
"Crony Capitalism is the problem." Please, this is just a buzzword. Oh, what we have is not real capitalism, except if it comes to the things where it is good - the bad sides are to blame on governmental involvement, because our cute little neoclassic economics explains why pure markets are the best, even though this theory is constructed in a way that it will always give the same outcome.
I would argue that Mr. Mackey has simply been adapted to capitalism, by capitalism.
That's a misunderstanding of Rand.
>dislike
>sips soylent
So, you searched for information to confirm your experience. Confirmation bias at its finest...
DrSeanKennedy he started out one way and ended the other way, how is that confirmation bias twat
Suddenly I have respect for John
Looking through the comments, I can tell nobody listened to the whole thing. Or even half. Just virtually vomited 🤮 on their screen. Geezus, people have the most idealistic and utopian views about socialism and spew toxic ad hominem at anyone who opens a business it seems. If they don’t get their free stuff, they wine. Ughhhh. I get it, I’m not advocating crony capitalism because ppls’ first instinct is to mischaracterize your argument as being an advocate for crony capitalism. But I don’t like crony capitalism any more than I like socialism. I see socialism as bad as crony capitalism. Neither extreme is good.
Oh good the sane Island in the sea of the comment section.
I haven't heard expression of such a lazy mind since I left Texas. Mackey has helped me understand how libertarians can be always fundamentally wrong about everything. Good interview!
Civil Savant literally everything
i love that...it's a growing pie...it's not a finite sized pie
Alarmingly optimistic, one may even term it sanguine. Now, I want to take on board what are ideas most foreign, this is however made more difficult by Mackey's thesis perhaps not one as concessive as the quintessential contrarian might like it to be. Interesting stuff.
Thumbs down ratio says a lot.
If there’s so much pie, then why are you so keen on holding onto your pieces?
PaiNExoTiC let me get this straight, I’m dumb and you’re here speaking for the “libertarians aren’t selfish” team?
This is not a hard concept. The system for baking larg pies is in conflict with system for redistributing pieces. So in the world where you can take his and give it to whom you want, the necessary arrangement of production does not form and there is no pie.
If you are one of the guys who would want to eat a cake and have it and just gets pissed off that it is gone after it's eaten and demands a new one... then this is the exact same process. Demanding will not change reality.
That's the main point progressives just don't get, conservative arguments are based on long term consequences rather than immediate consequences. You get older your worldview grows more long term, you get more conservative. Conservatives may grow old but their ideas don't die off because progressives grow old and become the new conservatives.
didn't even watch due to obnoxious advertisement
Chile many decades ago and what John Mackeys guru taught. In Chile the trickle down lovers and starve govt loving theories first approach to the situation was gradual; only after a year of relative confusion did they decide to implement without major modification the theoretical model they had been taught at Chicago. The occasion merited a visit to Chile by Mr. Friedman himself who, along with his associate, Professor Harberger, made a series of well-publicized appearances to promote a “shock treatment” for the Chilean economy-something that Friedman emphatically described as “the only medicine. Absolutely. There is no other. There is no other long-term solution.”
These are the basic principles of the economic model offered by Friedman and his followers and adopted by the Chilean junta: that the only possible framework for economic development is one within which the private sector can freely operate; that private enterprise is the most efficient form of economic organization and that, therefore, the private sector should be the predominant factor in the economy. Prices should fluctuate freely in accordance with the laws of competition. Inflation, the worst enemy of economic progress, is the direct result of monetary expansion and can be eliminated only by a drastic reduction of government spending.
Libertarianism tends to attract a higher proportion than the average of people with egotistic, narcissistic and/or psychopathic traits. It fails to deal with the reality that many people are being left behind in a world where it is increasingly hard to keep pace with rapid social, economic and technological change. It also fails to acknowledge the considerable extent to which the wealthy owe their good fortune to luck, whether it's being born in the right location or into the right family.
The core of libertarianism is the nonaggression principle. You seem to be describibg some caricature of libertarianism that doesn't exist.
Libertarianism hasn't aged well during the pandemic. An ideology that has a negative attribute (non aggression) at its core, isn't going to be useful or relevant. The most libertarian countries (e.g. USA) have performed poorly during the pandemic.
I know this has been said a million times but, why not be a libertarian socialist :) ?
I think ideology of selfishness he talks about is very misunderstood. It is not ideology of social Darwinism. It is the ideology that by focusing on the self interests you can benefit everyone more then by focusing on their interests.
If you try to be the best you can be and try to fix yourself you will cause greater changes then if you try to implement changes that benefit people.
If you give away all your money you will not benefit society as much as if you invest all your money into your interest and build an empire that will give people products like iphones etc.
That is the idea behind it and the idea holds true.
If you truly focus on self development and doing what is best for you you are helping others more then if you just tried to help others.
In fact the whole idea behind free markets means that if you try to get wealthy there is no way of you doing that without making others wealthy as well. And you cannot do that without helping everyone including the poorest.
It might seem counter-intuitive if you do not understand the markets. As soon as you understand the markets it is extremely clear to see that this holds extremely true.
Its not because some people can get rich that people are poor, there are more viarables in play ...
So.... he abandoned his principles, because he started a business in a Capitalist-centric market and had to abide by the rules of that market?
Translation:
"When I had to work for a living I believed that we should help everyone. Now that I am rich, I just want more and screw everyone else"
Thanks Big Think for allows the ideas of liberty.
Yes!!! The FreeDUMB to be corporate slaves!!! DERRRRRRR!!!!!! :\
If I decide to buy something, am I a slave?. If you live alone in an island, which goverment will provide your rights for the free food, free education, free health? If you are alone, you need to provide your own food, your own education and your own health, those are your own responsibilities. And the libertarism is the way to get liberty and responsibility. Two words that you don't understand as I see.
Who said anything about buying? You are conflating the issue as we are not on an island and the only way to get those freedoms is to have them ensured by some governing force. Without that force you're just at the mercy of whoever has the bigger/better gun. That is something most ancapper/libertarians will never understand.
Libertarianism is about the unrestricted respect of freedom, life and property. So if you have the biggest weapon in the world, you can't violate my individual rights. In fact, one of the principles of libertarianism is the principle of non-aggression (Do not start aggression). And to secure those individual rights, a force is necessary, but a force (private or not) to defend them, not a force that start the attack. If you come with your big gun to become a slave, there will be law and justice (private or not) that will be responsible for securing my individual rights. If you initiate force against me, I have the right to defend my life, my freedom and my property. This is not the world of unicorns and sirens where we are all happy and good.
If you are among a bunch of like-minded libertarians, GREAT! then that should work out for you all in theory. But if in your ideal society comes along people who are not libertarian-minded who have bigger guns and you have insufficient back-up, then you're ideal society gets wiped out like so many others since the time of prehistory. Not to mention those who will use the libertarian label, and then show their true colors and turn on you. Go ahead, go to some island somewhere and try that out, can't wait to see how THAT goes- :\
Socialism doesn't mean no competition in the marketplace. You can still be competitive and meet the needs of your customers and pay a fair wage to your employees. If your workers have to work two jobs to survive, your not getting the best out of them. You're just a selfish tool.
Q I understand how it works in other oecd countries. We don't need the state to control the levers of capital. We just need robust antitrust and labor laws. When the state controls capital, like in China, the people have no freedom, but when government puts its boot on corporations like in Germany, the people can thrive, and have freedoms.
Q specifically?
Q Be more specific.
What exactly do see fault with in my assertions.
Q already have: Q is a douche.
I use to be a libertarian, and I agree with many libertarian points, however there is 1 point that I cannot agree with, it is the neglect of those at the bottom in need of help. Socialism is the past, and it will be the future again, as it is the default of our Evolution.
For utilitarian libertarians, such as Mises and Hayek, the entire point of libertarianism is to help those at the bottom. They merely don't think that stealing from the rich is a good way to help the poor because, among other reasons, wealth redistribution disincentivizes mass production, which means even less food, clothing, houses, etc. that is available to the poor. Obviously, in a prosperous society most people want some sort of way to help unfortunate people get back on their feet; Mises thought private charity could handle this while Hayek, at least in his later days, called for a social safety net. I tend to agree with Mises.
You don't like stealing from the rich, which never happens, and you said nothing in your post about stealing from the poor, which is ALL the rich elite ever do in life...
When I was a Libertarian, I have often sat in many coffee shop talks in Libertarian circles... I know the conflict that exists inside your mind, as it was the same as myself, and other Libertarians around me in those groups. We personally want a system that allows the hardest workers to become the most successful; a high level of hard workmanship should correlate to a high successful life. Can we agree, ANYONE whom works a 40hr/week, should at least be able to retire? If you are intellectually honest with yourself, you will know that that is not what we have in this rigged system of present day capitalism. In capitalism, especially from in the stock markets, where do the profits gained in the markets come from? To avoid your tap-dance that would most likely follow in your next post, it comes from the sweat-on-the-brow worker, at the bottom of this economical food chain. The rich investors get paid for nothing, but sitting on their asses. Let me further lay this out for you, the lazy elite rich not only get the lions share of the wealth, they get it for doing absolutely nothing, and what really infuriates me, is when capitalist 'minions', who cant understand what theft really is, want to protect the elite rich~! ... as you admitted to in your post. Its ultimately ludicrous.
The problem is capitalism itself. The ultimate systematic flaw within capitalism, is that there is nothing that cant be purchased. But really the entire system is systematically flawed, and completely rigged in favor of the elite rich. Here's the ultimate conundrum for a Libertarian ->
How do you get cronyism out of capitalism, if ridding cronyism requires government, the cronies, in order to implement the laws, to remove its cronyism?
Before you say thats circular, I know its circular, thats my point.
Furthermore, when in the history of capitalism, has capitalism been without cronyism?
Not to mention ... 6 homeless people for 10 empty houses, global warming, species extinction, obscene inequality, senior retirement, medical, automation, water, pollution, landfills, unsustainable depleting of our nature resources at a catastrophic rate (futurism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Resources1.jpg). Do I need to go on here? ... because its super easy to, and moreover I CAN...
And remember, you don't have to accept capitalism in order to be a Libertarian, research Socialist Libertarianism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
To cut to the chase, capitalism was once a good system to move forward with, similar to religion before science came along, but its outdated and archaic, and can no longer deliver what we need because of its dire inefficiencies. Let it go, lets move on with another system altogether. Unless we part ways with capitalism, we will face our demise. Evolution and Science prove so, adapt or parish.
I don't know what you're talking about. Obviously, nobody who is interested in social welfare wants to steal from the poor. The only option is to steal from the rich/middle class or nobody. Within pure capitalism, super rich entrepreneurs don't get rich by stealing but by providing a useful product to a lot of people.
I could care less about how hard anyone works. I'm only interested in social welfare. Why should someone who works "harder" make more money? Not all labor is created equal. I an smack a rock against a tree for 14h a day and I won't get a damn thing for it. Money is an incentive for the most talented/productive people to use their abilities and time to make stuff people want. It also makes sure that entrepreneurs who aren't very good at making useful products don't keep using society's scarce resources to make useless products. If everyone could sit on his or her ass all day and life could roll on, why not let them?
"Can we agree, ANYONE whom works a 40hr/week, should at least be able to retire?" It would be nice, but it doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks "should" happen. The only thing that matters is what's best for society as a whole, and if that means slowing up production by redistributing wealth to people to make sure they will "be able to retire," then obviously you're not thinking for everyone, but just for some poor saps.
Profits come from under-priced factors of production. If I can buy an A, a B, and a C for $100, produce a P, and sell the P for $150, then I make a $50 profit. Obviously, A, B, and C were under-priced because someone else could have offered up to $50 more for them and still made money.
Getting a return on lended money is not usually referred to as profit but interest. To put it simply, the phenomenon of interest happens for three reasons: (A) the lender had to not spend all of his money so he can have some to lend, (B) the lender thinks it's worth lending at some interest rate, and (C) the borrower thinks it's worth borrowing at the same interest rate. For our purposes, that's all there is to it. Money-now and money-later are goods just like any other. Investors sell money-now in exchange for money-later. So what if they sit on their asses? They sell their money, and workers sell their labor. Workers can save their money and sell it too, but if they need to spend all their money to survive or they would just rather spend it, then they won't. Why is it "ludicrous"? As long as everybody voluntarily agreed to their job, there is no stealing. I think this is pretty common sense.
"How do you get cronyism out of capitalism, if ridding cronyism requires government, the cronies, in order to implement the laws, to remove its cronyism?" Okay, so we're talking practical politics now. I don't think most folks want to use the government to get rid of the government. When and if the time comes, I think the best strategy will be to simply stop paying taxes. Eventually, the government will dissipate, and local, voluntarily-funded court systems will take over.
"Furthermore, when in the history of capitalism, has capitalism been without cronyism?" Ehh, when you wake up and don't get mugged? American society is already very capitalist. Most people don't try to kill and steal. All we've got to do is get rid of the people who do. It's not that hard, but the movement is not big enough yet.
"6 homeless people for 10 empty houses" it's not capitalism's fault that people do drugs. "global warming" well, if nobody is causing it and/or we can't stop it/ it won't stop, then we all die (so what?). If somebody is causing it, then we stop them. Presto!
"species extinction, obscene inequality" so what? "senior retirement" see above. "medical" I don't know what this refers to, but, obviously, capitalism does healthcare way better. "automation" not a problem; old jobs < new jobs + more/better products. "pollution, landfills" if it harms other people then it will be punished. If not, so what? "unsustainable depleting of our nature resources at a catastrophic rate" so what? If we run out of stuff then we have to use different stuff or die. What is the point of having unused resources (for me, your link is dead btw)?
You and your friends can have socialist libertarianism if you want, but don't try and force it on everybody else or we'll stop you.
"To cut to the chase, capitalism was once a good system to move forward with, similar to religion before science came along, but its outdated and archaic, and can no longer deliver what we need because of its dire inefficiencies. Let it go, lets move on with another system altogether. Unless we part ways with capitalism, we will face our demise. Evolution and Science prove so, adapt or parish." I don't even feel like it. I don't want to be rude, but this is just dumb. Libertarian socialism want change the resources of the face of the earth Nobody thinks that capitalism is "outdated" except a few internet trolls and millennials who skipped economics class.
I love it~! This is proof, I can't make this shit up! Here it is people, the brilliant mind of a Libertarian for everyone to witness... A Libertarian stands up for capitalism and can answer all the worlds problems by his wonderful system of capitalism, lets recap these problems and the Libertarians solutions to these worldly issues~!
global warming -> "then we all die (so what?)"
lazy thieving rich people -> "So what if they sit on their asses?"
retirement -> "doesn't matter"
species extinction ->"so what?"
obscene inequality ->"so what?"
senior retirement -> "see above (so what?)"
medical -> "I don't know what this refers to"
automation -> "not a problem"
pollution -> "if it harms other people then it will be punished. If not, so what?" Because thats what we are seeing everyday nowadays right? BP cleaning up all of its oil spills? Plastics in the oceans?
landfills -> "if it harms other people then it will be punished. If not, so what?" Landfills polluting watersheds, who gets punished? Have you ever seen anyone actually get punished for any pollution at all? ... again, all the plastic garbage that capitalism is producing? Polluter pays? I call bullshit! Show me. Only rich people do believe in this shit-where-we-eat system, and they are untouchable, as capitalism protects them.
unsustainable depleting of our natural resources at a catastrophic rate -> "so what?"
6 homeless people for 10 empty houses -> "it's not capitalism's fault that people do drugs" WTF, I guess in a Libertarian mind all homeless people are druggies. FYI capitalism creates druggies, because that is unfortunately people's only escape from this shit-show.
getting rid of cronyism -> "stop paying taxes" Hey Richard, stop paying taxes and see what happens. The rich elites demand you pay your taxes for their Socialism, in case they need to be bailed out again. Socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the rest of the dumb fks.
When in the history of capitalism, has capitalism been without cronyism? -> "Ehh, when you wake up and don't get mugged?" So I guess unlike other Libertarians, you think that there is no cronyism in government? Dumbass!
rich stealing money going to the top -> "As long as everybody voluntarily agreed to their job, there is no stealing." There is nothing voluntary about the choice to die from starvation, or work. That is not a choice. That is a gun to the head. That's capitalism!
Richard, lastly, in your Economics 101 that you are getting all this wise brainy advise from for the future prospects of humanity, what do you think a system, capitalism or other, is good for? What is its purpose if not to serve humanity; for stated points above? You first replied, "the entire point of libertarianism is to help those at the bottom." yet you have clearly demonstrated that Libertarianism is nothing more than a "so what?" ideology.
Jeez, bud. There's no need to get so cranky. I guess I thought you were more knowledgeable about/friendlier to libertarianism.
To answer your last question, a scientific social philosophy doesn't have any aims. It just studies the way the world is without calling anything good or bad. If the majority of people who compose society want X, then science can, given its current state of knowledge, tell them the easiest way to get X. If people want abject poverty and starvation, then outlaw productive activity and trade. If they hate redheads, kill the redheads. If the public just can't stand blue houses, burn blue houses (or paint them a different color). It's all about giving the citizens what they want, not silly, abstract ideas about "rights" or "justice" or "equality" or whatever.
We live in a world where most people just want clean water, food, clothes, shelter, entertainment, and so on. So how do we get that stuff? I answer, apparently controversially, capitalism, that is, private property, division of labor, free trade, investment, entrepreneurship, equality under the law, and the rest.
Now, with that out of the way, let's look at some of these.
Global warming: People rank pretty highly the desire to not be washed away. Obviously then, if it's an imminent threat, man must devote effort toward stopping global warming. Whatever can be done should be done with the goal of attaining the public's goals. If someone is causing global warming, then we stop them. What else is there to do. What's controversial about this? Yeah, we can fail and die; we wouldn't be the first civilization.
Lazy thieving rich people: Arbitrary value judgements regarding how much somebody should work aside, entrepreneurs fill indispensable roles. Although the consumers steer the ship, the entrepreneur is the person who removes maladjustments in the economy and puts production plans into action. Nobody imposed the choice between work or starvation on you; that's not capitalism; it's a fact of nature. If you don't work, you don't eat, regardless of the economic system.
Pollution: If an entity is polluting, there are two options. (A) The polluting entity can pay off the polluted victim. In this way, pollution enters into economic calculation. Or (B), the pollution can be legally prohibited. Of course, I'm not saying that all pollution is always legally punished or ever will be; I'm merely describing how things should be ideally in the public's interest.
"FYI capitalism creates druggies, because that is unfortunately people's only escape from this shit-show." Naw, it's prolly cause ah public schools and da decline of family life.
We stop paying taxes to get rid of the government when the time comes. I'm not about to because I'll go to jail.
"So I guess unlike other Libertarians, you think that there is no cronyism in government? Dumbass!" No, you completely misinterpreted what I said. In short, capitalism is where all theft and murder are illegal. So when people aren't being stolen from and murdered, you've got capitalism.
The most general (without getting into nitty gritty) criticism of democratic ownership of the means of production is this: Why aren't people already doing it? Pure free market capitalism and even this current system is not stopping people from doing this. People aren't doing it because it's not as productive as entrepreneurial ownership. So, if you prohibit entrepreneurial ownership in favor of democratic ownership, you make everyone poorer. Feel free to do what you want. Just don't tell me what to do.
You mean you want SOME people to flourish
I doubt anyone is pushing a vanguard approach to socialism. But as time passes it will be necessary. Automation comes to mind. On another note take a look at the coal Industry. Outdated and outmoded. We should be moving towards solar. But it would cause many people to go homeless. Capitalism in this sense can be seen as holding progress hostage. When a company needs to trim to become more efficient it should be able to do so without having the consequences be a bunch of people end up homeless. We can either become slaves to wealth and it can be a burden on our fate as a species or we can use it to advance our civilization to new heights. It’s how I view religion and politics. If we rely on the ideas from 2000 years ago to hold morality hostage we won’t progress morally. If we allow capitalism to hold economics hostage then we can’t learn newer different ways to work together and economically our progress will slow down. Take a look at trade pacts I think they rock but they have unintended consequences like homelessness and job loss. those who benefit from the status quo fear change. Change is inevitable. It’s why Bernie Sanders was so widely accepted. Communism failed fast. Capitalism got us farther. But it’s not perfect. Eventually socialism has to be viewed as being the means for progress to occur. I mean take a look at cops or roads. We already use some socialist policies. The extremes of capitalism or the extremes of communism just won’t work. You hire a bunch of people they do a good job their job is obsolete and then they need to be retrained. Their humans not robots they get pissed and don’t want to be retrained when it’s going to cost them a shit bunch of money after just losing their job. A universal basic income is a great way to deal with the issue in my opinion. Oh and another problem with capitalism is things like the opioid epidemic or things like citizens united where we sold our liberties to the highest bidder. I mean we have a businessman in office right now and it’s not looking good for that type of mentality. He might be winning but he is screwing over American rights in order to do so.
It's not up to you or me to decide what "we" should be moving toward; the consuming/demanding public does that. Insofar as the coal industry (minus government protections) is suffering losses, coal wages (or prices for other inputs) must fall or coal labor, among other resources, needs to instead be allocated to other industries with products in higher demand. Pesky government backed labor unions, by not letting wages fall freely in a declining industry, can conceal the inevitable and make frictional unemployment worse, but there is always a wage on the market where all the people who want jobs can find them; although, sadly, the wage won't necessarily be above subsistence level. I certainly don't support UBI or any other redistribution scheme under normal conditions; however, if people are starving due to too low wages, does this justify redistribution even if it necessarily implies sabotaging long-run productivity? It's a tough question.
Richard Strum I’m wondering if long term productivity is not being effected by other things. Like depression and homelessness. Otherwise the coal industry should not have been propped up. Welfare should not be paying wages for employees at McDonald or Walmart like you said subsistence wages matter. Plus it’s my opinion that automation is going to force a paradigm shift in how we are dealing with the issue of what is and is not most effective. Then the bank failures. When companies are allowed to influence government policy expect the worse. It’s why the living wage is not tied to inflation. I’m not saying I know how to solve the problem I’m just trying to point out there are other things we could try but dismiss because it’s not status quo. Personally think we need to break the two party system since this allows for a very stale and old dialogue. It’s like begging to live in an echo chamber.
Richard Strum plus I’m here to discuss learn. People will debate and I’ll do what I can to learn to debate. Catch myself when I’m uninformed but also hold my ground when the data is not clear and my opinion is just as valid.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe, It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, and establish connections everywhere." While this may seem like an obvious point now, Marx wrote those words in 1848, when globalization was over a century away. And he wasn't just right about what ended up happening in the late 20th century - he was right about why it happened: The relentless search for new markets and cheap labor, as well as the incessant demand for more natural resources, are beasts that demand constant feeding. What will be the solution to unsustainable life for us and others caught up in this economic race to the bottom?” Inside Job: A Critique of Capitalism... www.linkedin.com/pulse/inside-job-critique-capitalism-martin-screeton
Yeah right, capitalism solves poverty! This is one of those big lies, they point to the fact that people who've moved out of poverty officially now get a whopping $2 a day due to the wonders of globalization... wow, they've doubled the avg income!... whereas the relevant NGOs say that the poverty level is more like $10 a day or less. Just look it up. So double a pittance is still a pittance and still 20% of what they need, on average.
Hire a sound mixer
Whole Foods is more expensive than any other major chain. Ending poverty? This is comical.
Ended his personal poverty
Good talk, but what it all boils down to is not alturism, or any other -ism at all. It´s about what we are, and what we actually do. in the long run, political beliefs, morals, ideas, will all be replaced again and again. So being a believer, rather than a sceptical thinker, will by your own standards break down on its own. As you just admitted yourself. It turns out that greed is the ultimate incentive for us humans to speak and behave as we do. That said, we also seek alliances, which will make us stronger, and is a key factor of what we are. Strong!
The *_conscious business_* will eventually replace their *_conscious_* human work force with *_conscious_* automation and technology that will *_consciously_* drive down the cost of labor which will in turn *_consciously_* contribute to a growing profit margin much to the *_conscious delight_* of the *_profit conscious_* shareholders/investors.
I accept the idea that you, in particular, are selfish.
Your company is gentrification in supermarket form. Plus you cashed out with Amazon.
Dude just wants to be rich.
Billy Overton good, selfish men create jobs AND product, government creates tyranny.
" selfish men create jobs AND product" Oh shit, this changes everything!
We need more work, not only 40h working week, no, full employment!!!1
And we need more products!!!1 The supermarkets are sooo empty!!1! more products which are thrown away at the end of the month means more freedeom! we need moooreee!
But seriously, is this all you care about? Having a job and the theoretical possibility to chose between thousands of products to buy?
Over 150 years passed since people have fought for the 8h working day. And granted, our standards of living have increased, but still: Why hasn't that number decreased? We have more machines, more automation than ever before and still no improvement in this topic!
The truth is: Markets don't reduce the work time. They didn't want to have the 8h work day back then. It had to be enforced, to be fought for. We can reduce the work time to 4h already today. In socialism, with a planned economy we can go even for 2h, or 1h!
Jordon Hodges governments do. But capitalism MUST create hierarchy. We can do better than that. You don't have to stop at the status quo.
Jordon Hodges Google Murray Bookchin
Q hmm I'm jealous if his fortune, yea. What's your point?
John Mackey... Chinese and Indian poverty stricken people are getting out of poverty because YOU and They have stolen Our Money... so this is not progress... it's a shifting of Incomes from rich countries to 3rd world countries...(for exploitation purpose which you call; 'Providing Value') Our country, the USA, currently houses a 3rd world... of 170 million people...and that figure is growing... “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe, It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, and establish connections everywhere." - Karl Marx, 1848---> The relentless search for new markets and cheap labor, as well as the incessant demand for more natural resources, are beasts that demand constant feeding. What will be the solution to unsustainable life for us and others caught up in this economic race to the bottom?
Inside Job: A Critique of Capitalism... www.linkedin.com/pulse/inside-job-critique-capitalism-martin-screeton/
There should be a restaurant where they serve you shit, and it could be called 'Hole Foods'.
Do humans have limitless creativity? Only if you can continue to generalize things and have those generalized schema accuratly predict their recombination. If we have to understand all the fundamentals to make reasonable conjecture then human creativity will eventually fizzle out and just be re-runs, computers will be the only things capable of thinking of anything new. I don't know which it is.
Is this the same Whole Foods that made money off of underpaid prison inmates?
I'm guessing it was when you thought putting three sticks of asparagus into a jar of water and charging $8 a liter for it was "value product options for your customers". Get out of here Whole Paychecks noone can afford to shop at your price gouging stores.
The thing that I don’t understand about the whole free market philosophy is how in the hell a fair minimum wage is opposing it. How the fuck am I socialist crazy lefty everytime I ask for fucking fair money to everyone? If you believe in the virtue of working hard to achieve something the way free market philosophists claim to do isn’t exploitation something you should be opposing? if you can’t afford to pay your employees a wage that makes a living in 40 hrs a week you are a lousy businessman, you can’t afford to have employees, please try again. Obviously not every work is worth the same money but that doesn’t justify the huuuuge wage gaps we still have in many companys between the lowest and highest in hoerachy, which are all equally necessary to keep the wagon going.
I somewhat agree with this guy, don’t agree with too much of socialism, i just really don’t see how good worker protection laws, a fair minimum wage and decent healthcare oppose the idea of a free market that fuels economic growth and the advancement of human kind.
tl;dw version: man claims to care, gets greedy, stops caring and thinks selfishly.
also, funny how he claims that the model he has would work better long term, but the reality says otherwise
And love how he's for basically privatizing healthcare... neglects to mention that there's no boycott power for the people who need healthcare.. it's an extortion racket then, no free market or competition.
Wew, lots of commies in the comments here, I should find the keys to my Huey...
That's easy to say when you don't live In a third world country. Like I do. Brazil. Imagine that your country mostly sells grains. No transformation. And the politicians are all land owners. The oposite from the population Interest is low socialist politics. And the first world Interest, and politititians interests is exploration. Low salaries, no infrastructure, fucking miserable human development. How is libertarianism going to help a third world country?
Oh look a megarich ancap, rare sight. Hey you know you can be a libertarian socialist?
still bullshit
Tychoxi not really, freedom cant be guided or its not freedom, so pick an idea
Jordon Hodges
unguided freedom = chaos
Jose Fowler and? Chaos is its own form of order, you talk as if a group of people will not create social rules, and stop those outliers that assault those rules
Jordon Hodges
then it is not unguided!
why did i change ideologically? simple, i amassed capital
Is that why whole foods is so affordable? Who do these fucking CEO's think they're fooling?
Tax are thief.
Some people are just full of greed and are out to take other people money.
Socialism is the embodiment of that idea. Take stuffs from those who work hard/clever/successful to those who dont have thoss stuffs.
You can't become successful without the proper infrastructure. The state has been subsidizing the lives of each employee and customer of his since birth. It inevitably pays for the failures as well as the successes because no one knows how the future. So if you do become successful, you can't say "I did it all myself and deserve all the profit" because you didn't pay to educate your workforce, or build the infrastructure they use or provide the security or resources which makes your business possible. Taxes are a recognition of the state as a silent partner in every business. If you don't believe that then go to Somalia or Yemen and try to open a whole foods.