A great video. 2015 feels like a lifetime away, after all that has happened since. Here in the UK, I feel there needs to be a conscious attempt to reactivate people's belief in alternatives, because I feel that a lot of people, especially under the current government, are currently existing through an experience of hopelessness. But we can never just give up. Thank you for this video.
That was a very thought-through approachable criticism of our current economic system which still far too many people are made to believe is god-given or "natural". It`s not. It`s a system that was invented by humans and we can invent much, much better things. We desperately need a sustainable system that helps 100% of the people flourish and not only make the super rich 1% even more absurdly "wealthy". If the planet, our ecosystems, collaps, all this "wealth" will be worth nothing. We need a circular, just economy. Thanks for your contribution!
"It`s not. It`s a system that was invented by humans and we can invent much, much better things. " Capitalism is the worse economic system, save for everything else we have ever tried. IF you can come up with a better one than every economic system ever tried before, then go for it. Until someone comes up with a brand new way, we are just going to have to continue dealing with capitalism.
@@roberthicks1612 The problem is not simply that no one can come up with a better system, it's that people are resistant to change, especially those who have the most to lose because of the change. In this case, the ones who have the most to lose also have the most power, so they will do everything they can, which is a lot, to fight for capitalism and resist change in the economic system.
@@jonijokunen3542 Name one system that we have come up with that has ever improved life for so many people. You can't because no system we have ever tried has led to the improvement of peoples lives the way capitalisms has done. Capitalism encourages people to innovate and to take chances with things that improve society. You do not get that with socialism or communism or dictatorships. People are more likely to do something if it directly improves their own lives and their children. Under other systems, they get no rewards, so they do not put in the effort. Everyone will think, "yea, this will help but I will let someone else do the work, since I will benefit the same either way". They will think it is not worth the effort since all their lazy neighbors will reap the same reward without doing any work. Under capitalism, IF I do the work, the rest have to reward me for it. Under socialism or communism or any other "ism", IF I do the work, everyone else gets the same reward, meaning I get nothing for the work I do.
@@jonijokunen3542 I thought of something else about this. When you have systems like communism and socialism, you usually have someone that dictates what kind of work people can do. That means that you do not usually have the best people for the job in place. Look at our government. It is not based on what is the best people for the job, but who has the best pull (politics). There are no incentives for people to be the best, so you often have mediocre people doing the job. In most case, they do not even have any reason to push to do the job better. In socialism and communism or even monarchy, that is the way the entire system works. No one has any incentives to improve things. So the system just chugs along until entropy pulls it all down.
Capitalism is the only moral system because it is the only one that treats people as individuals. Important note: e don’t have capitalism now. We have a mixture of capitalism and socialism. The more capitalist a country becomes, the better off everybody will be. People don’t need handouts or favors from their society. They need freedom. Socialism and freedom are mutually exclusive.
@@FujinKeima The red scare is not propaganda. Every communist nation finds itself being led by people that think they have the right to own every other person in the world.
@@roberthicks1612 Factually wrong, because a stateless,classless society has never been tried and that's what communism is, by definition. We only got as far as trying ''third world'' socialism and even then, that was (and still is) sabotaged. You don't seem to know what communism is, and that's further proof of how effective the propaganda still is. The people in power have vested interest in you not knowing about socialism/ communism.
@@FujinKeima Of course it has never been tried because everything we tried was tried by humans. Humans will ALWAY find a way to separate themselves as having more equality than others. You can claim that that is the way society would work but someone has to lead and they always feel they deserve more than others. IF it is sabotaged, it was done so from inside. Look at the Russian revolution. It was as much be the common people as it can get, yet the first thing that happen was a class was set up to rule. No place in the world has ever gotten past that because it can not be run without someone making the decisions and that means a ruling class. MAYBE one day the computer AI will come along that will rule the planet and then all humans will be equal, but until that happens, a person has to rule. That means a ruler.
@Dumisani Nkosi thanks to the austerities forced on them by the world bank, they're the most capitalist counties on the planet. They're not even allowed to usually have "public" anything. Everything is privatized and sold to the highest bidder which is always a foreign corporation.
Communal societies with cooperation as the basis for interactions. I love my home, my town, my culture, my society. I don't want to hurt anyone else in my home, town, culture and society. I believe there is a Win/Win relationship. People do not exist in isolation. Even monks in reclusive belief systems still have a Sanga, a greater group of fellow believers, followers, and practitioners.
Just in case this hasn't occurred to you folks, it is entirely possible to criticize an ideological system without falling into another ideology. You can recognize that the current iteration of capitalism is globally unsustainable and unrealistic without being a commie. We need more people in the world who are willing to take stances near the middle of these issues.
Thats all fine and dandy, just make sure that when you criticize capitalism that you are actually criticizing capitalism. Her criticisms weren't criticisms and her "alternatives" to capitalism was actually capitalism. switch the word "capitalism" for "voluntarism" and that will help.
CJ Place, care to elaborate? For me, the main problem of Capitalism is the undemocractic relationship between employers and employees. And worker cooperatives is the solution for that. Call it whatever you want. Her main point was worker cooperatives, and she nailed it.
@@evandrolima1724 how can we ever make any change peacefully when those who have bitterly fought to benefit in the current system are forced to consider loosing it. CJ Place is one such man who you would have to eliminate first to change the system for the better or worse.
Take the most advanced case: Mondragon. It’s worker owned, it’s not worker managed, although the management does come from the workforce often, but it’s in a market system and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole and they have no choice. If you’re in a system where you must make profit in order to survive, you're compelled to ignore negative externalities, effects on others.
Bimal Mishra worker owned co ops are still private business and will become unethical if it reaches a certain size. It’s not private business thats bad its the size of the private business.
That’s why you always have to be evolving. You can’t stay stagnant, you always have to look into what your practices are and continue to make necessary changes.
Bimal, this is the only reasonable comment, thank you. You are perfectly correct, without changing the system, you can't avoid all the "evils" of this system.
But at least co-ops won't vote to destroy their own jobs by bringing the capitals to "cheaper countries". I see conversion to co-ops as a first step towards democratization so you can then make better decisions. Also, if those South American countries could organize themselves likewise, the imbalance would be different and alliances and dialogs would be possible. But yeah, we should move to a fullfledged change of system. Not just this, which isn't even what the title claims to be.
Preach. I don't want a dictator in the state that I almost never interact with. But I'm expected to have one where I spend most of my time most days. Makes sense? Nah. Not even close. We're better than having to be rented by masters. We can live another way. Freer. Happier. More fulfilled.
Under capitalism you are perfectly capable of beginning your own cooperative or business so long as there are people out there willing to purchase your good/service at the price which you are willing to sell it. Go ahead! Have fun :)
@@erikcordova1713 I hate communism, but I don't think we should humilate them. They are mostly misguided, and persecuting them could only make them more radicalized.
Nothing could make me happier. Organize yourselves into communes (or something similar) rather than trying to turn the whole country into one. Then leave the rest of us alone.
Higher workers wages and incomes always results in declining corporate profits. Which is why businesses always want to find ways to cut costs in their human labor workforce/ payroll through cost efficient measures. Like automation, reduce the work hours, and outsourcing. Companies cut costs in order to remain competitive in the market when businesses compete with each other for market shares. AKA money. Many companies also go bankrupt because of the exorbitant costs of providing employee based private health insurance coverage to their employees. Many small mom and pop businesses cannot cover the costs of rising private health care coverage for their work slaves. Capitalism forces people to be slaves to debt. Money. All money is printed out of debt. Topped with interest
Jack McCabe But workers have no choice but to work and the only choices they have is to work for companies that want and get to pay them as little as possible. There is just the illusion of choice.
If that's true, why do foreign multinational firms pay the workers they hire more than they otherwise would have been paid? Why have Chinese workers and Indian workers seen such a drastic rise in their wages alongside their productivity after their countries opened their economies to markets and allowed an influx of foreign direct investment which supposedly "exploited" the workers? Check the facts before you utter such a false statement.
Do higher wages result in declining corporate profits or does it result in higher consumer costs to preserve corporate profits? Capitalism is good since it offers everyone an equal opportunity to start their own business, it's crony capitalism that is bad when big corporations use their influence to crush the small companies that can't compete on the high levels.
Higher wages most definitely do not curtail profits-as long as the higher wages are allowing the company to retain the services of a productive employee. A company can make a profit if it is paying Rick $10/hour and John $20/hour, as long as Rick and John are each producing enough to justify their pay.
@@Clarinda787 capitalism will always trend towards monopoly and cronyism if left unregulated! Not everyone has equal opportunity. And I think it’s strange that industries that we all depend on to survive, like agriculture, healthcare, energy, education, and housing can be owned by individuals. These crucial industries should be publicly owned. Anyone who wants to start a fashion brand, or open a coffee shop, or whatever other small business venture…go ahead! No issues with that, but industries that are integral to human survival and upkeep of civilized society should not be left to the market! It’s crazy to me that we allow this!!
The coffee shop worker story is a great example of why "acting your wage" has become a very hot trend in the working class lately, and justifiably so. We DO NOT offer premium work for minimum pay anymore. People are finally waking up.
A business receives revenue, and every party claims they should receive the money: the laborer wants higher wage, the investor more profit, the supplier to the business more payment, and the consumer a rebate or lower prices. In a free society, this can only be resolved by negotiation or the option to not participate.
I'm a left libertarian and I still feel that the market freed from government and corporate monopolies and monopsonies via a mutualist economic system of free trade among a given community may be a viable solution within the current capitalist framework until it is replaced by more cooperative and communal ownership. We've already seen the ways in which top down statist socialism can destroy not only countries but her people, as well, since power and the means of production are still nestled in the hands of the few, but if a bottom up, non hierarchical system with emphasis on direct action and democracy could arise it may help to alleviate many symptoms of wealth inequality due to the problems incurred by capitalism. We should go back to smaller systems of governance concerning the economy, especially at the local levels with mutual respect and reciprocity for each other in our financial dealings between us and hopefully peace will prosper. Hail Eris!!!
It's not really capitalism itself, but it's profiteering that is the problem. If profits are maximised unethically by offering lowest salary for highest productivity, or offering minimum quality for maximum price for a product. Somebody is short-changed: getting less in return than they gave.
@Thomas Rick so the failure of capitalisms is the lack of people to want to try hard? I ask because if the driving force is desire to get rich and you are saying there is no competition. Why is that? What if the reason there is no competition to get rich? is it because people are given the option to survive with no real effort. If you walked into any area with people in it and asked who would like to be rich. There wouldnt be too many hands not raised. So its not a lack of competition based on lack of want, its based on lack of want to try. This would not be capitalisms fault unless we were to say capitalism allowed it to happen.
@Thomas Rick competition is not overrated its undermind. Competition is key. When you fo things like create min wages that price out competition on big corps from small mainstreet type business. Or if we see regulations that make it difficult for small business to get started. Or if we see corporations and banks being bailed out.
Extremely Helpful?? A Girl who knows Nothing about it, Hates it with a passion, shoed you No data. You know Nothing of Milton Friedman and and Thomas Sowell, and yet you think this was HELPFUL in Understanding Capitalism?
In her example the workers should be on the hook to pay for their share of the overhead including rent, insurance and supplies that the cafe needs to continue to operate.
@Egor Lobaskin because the owner assumed all of the risk when they invested their own money in a business that could potentially fail. The worker could only lose the time they chose to work. The extra money made during a busy shift will cover loss of revenue during slow times ensuring job security.
Slow days are the risk the business owner takes. Unless the person’s job is in sales, advertising or marketing it isn’t the responsibility of the employee to generate leads for the business.
She touched on a lot of our economic and political problems, which gives a lot to think about, but a 12 minute talk coudn't possibly do justice to the subject and its importance. I'd like to add that there are alternatives, within a market economy, to the usual policy of wage labor. In some countries they have representatives of workers on the boards of the major enterprises. There are also profit sharing agreements, as well as employee ownership. Personally, i don't think that relying on markets for a large part of transactions is really part of the problem. The issue is how much we let it absorb things we care about, and how accountable we make it to workers.
@@tomasmccauley569 Ummm... No, China Is horrible, there is a but ton of corruption, “unwanted” group are put in concentration camps and if China is soooo good why do the people of Hong Kong want to be separate?
@SICELO BHEKI BAFANA KHUMALO the ruling party was called “The Bulgarian Communist Party” today it’s called “The Bulgarian Socialist party” but it still was called communist
@@tomasmccauley569 it’s easy to throw around words, but in the end regardless of the socialist System it requires an Autocratic Rule, which will Inevitably result in an corrupt self serving government
Compound growth... Diminishing rate of return... What is capitalism? Private ownership of the means of production. - How will co-ops deal with that? - Will it change the environment in which co-ops will have to make "democratic decisions"? Hello to Richard D Wolf, same naïvety.
Clear?? It has NO Common Sense or Data. Or shows how Capitalism has brought the Greatest Innovations, Inventions, and People who have enriched our lives more than any system in human history.
A man creates a bow. Another some arrows. They call to the others to do the hunting. Our creators here who provided the bow & arrows take what’s brought from the hunters’ expedition, And leave them some scraps. And it goes around around around again.
In the end, the main idea of this talk is only possible using capitalism as the structure... sure you can say is not capitalism.. but is... version 2.0
It is still capitalism but a shift in who owns the capital. Instead of 100 people fantasizing about being rich, you have 100 people who are sharing the wealth. In theory
Great speech, BUT; I don't understand how a society (community) would actually work if all the people would work in these co-op, non profit organisations? Non profit, as in no income, leaves the workers without the essential cashflow for paying for things like food and shelter. How would this model provide these things? Also this altruistic model would not appreciate hard work; it wouldn't matter if you are in fact a lazy, non contributing worker as oppose to a hard working and dedicated one. What would be your incentive to thrive for better outcomes if theres no prize for it? PS. I do believe we are not living in the very best economic model right now and it's essential to present alternatives in case you are oppose to the current system. I do indeed believe the greatest model is some form of mixed economy, we only need to balance the scale between capitalism and socialism to benefit as much of people as possible. Thank you
@@MrNerdguy45 Well said. The issue we're currently faced with is a system that prioritisies profit over all else. It's killing our humanity and destroying the planet.
I disagree. We should not be trying to benefit as much people as possible. We should be allowing rational people to flourish as much as possible. To do that we merely need to make sure that individuals are as free (from force) as they can be. That requires capitalism. There can be no balance between the rational and the irrational. In any compromise between the two, only the irrational can win. If you personally want to subsidize irrational people, go right ahead. Please don’t force everyone to do it.
thats dumb if the goverment forces a wage on all businesses including small ones then you are forcing someone to do something and thatis not freedom the employer should agree with the employee and set a wage between the both
Peter Ambrus Yes, I would work for 0 money. Were you asking me? A medium of exchange was likely invented due to a distrust of humanity to form civil society without bickering. Personally, I would rather have people well-fed and bickering about who gets the latest iphone first than have people starving while society barely bats an eye.
Peter Ambrus Yes, and I am suggesting a society in which 0 money is enough to live on. Sounds like we're on the same page as far as core values are concerned.
If you want the money you worked for and the ability to choose the wall color start your own coffee shop. As an owner, who put up the initial capitol and did all the work to set it up. The owner can participate in profit sharing but guess what, you as a worker that day agreed to do the job for the wage paid, not to mention they are responsible for the marketing and product sold which is what brought people there in the 1st place. The entire structure of the company would need to change. So, as I stated earlier, go start your own co-op.
About her cafe example - 4:37 - "...now who is that gets that extra money?" Isn't you, right? It is very easy to look at it from only one perspective. Now lets look at it from the other perspective - lets say you have done a shitty job and so did your colleagues. Now the business is closing down with a lot of debt (most of it is wages payed to the workforce). By your logic, shouldn't workers pay their fare share of their own wealth to cover the debt or is it the problem of the business owner now? It is very easy to "share" profits without incurring any risk because that is what stupid (for a lack of a better word) people who have never ran a business want. If you want a share of the profit - buy SHARES and take on risk that should this business fail you will have to cover your part of the loss with your wealth. Oh, you don't want that? As usual... And should you be appalled by this comment, just remember - more businesses fail than succeed thus you having a guaranteed "0" (not having to cover loses) is a luxury. You are not going to get paid a lot because it is impossible to guarantee a big salary while trying to risk manage your business. To end - go study business, finance and maybe even start your own business before crying how you are "exploited" you economically illiterate scum.
And at the end she states that co-ops would somehow be much better than what we have today. Who is stopping people from joining in groups and forming a co-op today? Nothing, thus they exist. Why is she trying to make people that live their lives as they want - with as little risk as possible - to take on risk in a co-op? Has she not considered that some people just like the security of their job and they don't care much about it as long as their family is well? Her moral argument (which only touches people not blessed with reasoning skills) that capitalism somehow oppresses people is a complete nonsense. You are free to do what you wish in a capitalist nation. If co-ops were enforced a lot of people wouldn't be able to.
Most co-operatives, like most capitalist companies, have limited liability (which you register with the government when setting up the company, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability). This means that if the company goes bust then the company’s creditors can only claim back the money that is owned by the company - not any other money owned by the individuals who own the company. So the vast majority of co-ops, like the vast majority of capitalist companies, cannot make anyone broke or risk anyone’s personal assets.
Martynas Pranckevicius Great comment. These young "innovative" people have never given their sweat for anything, their moms and dads have had to work hard so they woudn't. This generation is like a butterfly that has wings but refuses to fly out of laziness.
Well, at least your not biased in thinking beïng a capitalist is the condition for beïng economically literate. No amount of work, blood sweat of tears should grant you the right to get the surplus of someone else's labour. You just can't "buy" that right, or possess your way into that position ethically. You can't have a political democracy without an economic democracy, siince the political power of owners disturbs the democratic process.
Not to mention that in her example the workers should be on the hook to pay for their share of the overhead including rent, insurance and supplies that the cafe needs to continue to operate. Socialism is just a pretty fairy tale.
brilliant talk, there are limitless alternatives to capitalism, many of them are far superior to capitalism, we just need to think hard about picking one and do it.
Workers exploit capitalists. Most new businesses fail, the workers are paid and the capitalists lose all of the investment. Capitalists are modern day saints who provide the investment, take risk and create the businesses that provide secure wages for laborers. The person presenting this topic lacks the compassion for the many capitalists exploited by workers.
Sad some people loose years of their life having no cluea what they are talking about and still think they are specialists in these subjects. Damn , just read a good book. Pretty simple.
@@tomasmccauley569 well see the thing is if everything is democratic I think it would be better for the country overall I think most people don’t like war. But how would this society start you know it just hard to think about it but not until it has been test but Spain was pretty good but that didn’t last long
@@tomasmccauley569 see the thing you do need hierarchy. But it has to be their for a reason and always question it reason for existence is to help the people
@@tomasmccauley569 there is a lot of people in poverty but it’s decreasing. Capitalism isn’t perfect but as the rich get richer the poor get richer it gives everyone a positive
Tedx channel can get really nutty and definitely has the worst left leaning bias. Pretty much anyone can get on tedx as long as they are left leaning. You'll see Tedx ones that just read bad poetry and lots of highschool kids doing homework. Normal Ted channel still often leans left filters out the crazy for the most part and lets a wider range of speaker on. There's a ted-ed channel with shorter videos that is much more fair and even handed but still a center left vibe.
@@wickjezek1101 America is a free country. So the govt doesn’t set max amounts a board can pay their CEO. I presume if they make a company a lot of money they are only being paid a portion of that. You do know money isn’t finite right? Without the key people there are no jobs. Cuba figured it out the hard way, then Venezuela, etc. I’d rather live in the US than Venezuela
3 BIG myths that this woman have told: 1) I agree that entrepreneurs seek money for themselfs but she undermines imporatabt aspects about the profit motivation. First what are profits? Profits are what is left after a consumer gives money. Suppose that the consumer gave 100$. This 100$ is broken up to be given to the employees, to the products,to the rent,... and many other things. So to get profits you need to pay to your employee and many other things. Otherwise why someone would work to business owner when he doesn't give him money? Further what is left is also paying for his family and electricity bills. That brings me to my other point, even though what motivate people to own a business are profits and the pursuit of it and she call this a supposed "belief that humans are lazy" which in fact is untrue and is simply because capitalism requires energetic, risking-everything from THEIR money people which of course is not lazy; the producers in order to get this profit (tiny money) they have to give good services, a low price for the best quality possible, and a good experience for exmple in a restaurant. This woman didn't see the full picture. These people who pursue profits have in turn to satisfy his costumers. If the costumers are disatisfied, the company will be bankrupt. If not, it will flourish. It is a deal between the consumers and the producers. Conclusion: Profits are progressive 2)Competition is good. When two comapnies let us say Coca Cola and pepsi, they in turn fight for the consumers' satisfaction of thir VOLUTARY acyions of the 2 companies to flourish. How do they do that? By loweing prices and making a good team work for the good experience of costumers. Competition in an economic way is the battle of satisfaction of the comsumers. Think about this for a moment. Each day people go to the stor to buy meat. You chose to give money to the seller. It is your choice. So in the macro way, the people CHOSES whether a company should survive by their products they are offering. If a bad car is being sold, the people would be disatisfied and the comapany will go bankrupt. If there wasn't this system, people wouldn't get good quality services. 3) The employee simply doesn't get as much money as the owner because of something called 'value and quality'. A doctor's wage is higher than a teacher's wage because of the profession. It isn't fair to devalue someone's high paying profession to a low paying profession. Similarly, an employee like here in a café, is of lower quality job than the owner's quality job. Also the owner owns the place because he built it in the first place. He risked his money in order to get money. If you buy something with your money then it is your property right? Well according to her view, no it isn't. She is saying although the business has paid with his/her own money like the café, it isn't this person's property. That isn't a supposed "belief in human nature" that is common sense and logic. Of course if a business VOLUNTARILY not FORCIBLY make his business where employees own the company with the enterpreneur, then it is perfectly fine to do that and may be good. But if you force that, that is not progression, that is regression. Capitalist or enterpreneurs should have the freedom and liberty to chose whether the employee would own the comapny with him/her Her alternative is still capitalist despite her definition. What she describes is mostly capitalist like for example companies working together... is still capitalist. There are foods that are created by 2 companies working together to satisfy their costumers. Although she doesn't like profits, her alternative contains the concept of profits. Employees owning or not, companies working together or not, they ALL seek profits. The companie owner still wants money and still doesn't want to give free things. In short term good, long term and in economic ways bad.
Why abandon capitalism? It is a great system. The only problem is, when lobbies take over the government like in the USA. In this case, capitalism is a disaster. But when a strong government guides capitalism in the right direction, it brings wealth for everybody.
This girl doesn't know what capitalism is... and she says that she studied economy. Probably marxist economy. Capitalism is based on three key factors; the right for freedom, the right for private property, and the right for life. That's why, this girl is debating the wrong ideas, although it's TRUE that companies are made for profits, in capitalism you are free to do with your time and property whatever the thing you want to do. She doesn't talk about the risks and the work that owners has to go through... as if it was all about dominance. And many other things. She is going for the wrong arguments. She probably studied too much Marx and not enough classic liberals.
Btw. All her assumptions were wrong and incoherent. In all of the human history, if you worked hard for something (I.e. growing cattle), there was a sense of ownership for the thing you have worked for. Is not an assumption, is a fact. This girl doesn't know anything about capitalism.
@@nicole-qe7br What? You are working in exchange of money, which in exchange you can get food, build a house, or give it to charity. Use your money for whatever the reason you want. Thats capitalism.
The unfortunate part of this, is that even Co-ops now a days are organized around a hierarchical organization, and are pressured from the outside capitalistic sources (aka banks) to make sure their finances are either profitable, or breaking even. Any loss is a negative to them being able to seek support from financial institutions. Also, if you are trying to "live" an alternative way (co-operative) in a primarily capitalistic minded society where competition is all pervasive, the co-op will, over time be crushed every time.
@@unboxviews I work for a co owned business - it's very capitalistic. The difference is that a portion of the profit made is given as a bonus and pays for employee perks and community projects/charity. Those things are not possible unless the company is making as much profit as possible and because the employees like their perks and bonuses they like seeing big profits too. It's no more sustainable than any other business. Most non co-owned businesses are reacting to changing consumer demand by going green, being sustainable etc. Most offer good benefits to attract the best staff. It's really not that different, except in mindset. .
@@ABCodeX So? Is that a surprise in a globalised market place with billions instead of millions of consumers? If you win, you win big. Globalisation is the issue there. It can create companies so big that they become more powerful than nations.
Cooperatives ain't socialist why? Socialism in regards to private property looks to supress it and colectivize it then the government would become its administrator. Although you can combine a socialist government with a capitalist economy like China. In this regard cooperatives are closer to distributis theories tha socialism
Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production. Which means that all people in a society collectively owns the means of production. What she is describing is where workers in different industries and different companys collectively owns that specific industry/company. Which is closer to corporatism or syndicalism
The person who makes the extra money when you are busy serving your coffee is the same person who takes the loss when you still expect to be payed on a day when there are no customers. This is not a case of goodies and baddies, this is a case of risk taking vs risk avoidance. If you want some of the extra profit on good days, take some of the loss on bad ones. If you don't want that risk, take your wage and stop complaining. You have the choice.
sooo if that is true and all profits go to lowering prices who pays for maintenance and repiars? do the workers not ever get raises for a job well done?? how did you origianlly get the money (hundreds of thousands) to buy machines rent the space build the space out..order coffee..order grinders etc... ?? unless all the workers also invested which is unlikely since few workers have that much extra money piled up??? this smells FISHY to me
If people-owned companies can really outperform other companies, then there is nothing to be done since they will outperform the other companies. Just don't introduce radical changes into the economic system, these experiments have without exception been devastating in the 20c...
Yeah so take Australia for instance. Australia had been in a boom for the last 30 years. When i was a child they offered financial assistance for families willing to move there... this is a vastly different situation than here. Its that simple... yes using the government to force employers to give employees something means the employers will give it.. but it doesnt make it right or good... force always comes with threats. It still surprises me that people validatethe use of force for what sounds nice to them.
Yeah... this PHD student apparently doesn't understand that the owner is the one taking all the risk. The worker takes ZERO risk, hence they reap fewer rewards. She talks about how the worker reaps no extra rewards for working harder on a busy day, that's because that's the agreement they made with the owner of the business (besides, you know, tips exist, so they DO GET PAID MORE). If they just stopped working because it got too stressful, they'd get fired and the owner would hire someone else who WOULD work that job for the wages offered, or they'd up the wages a bit to attract more qualified people. The PHD student doesn't understand that the business owner has worked extra hours and put up their own money (or gotten investors who they are now beholden to) to build or purchase this store (yes, that they get to decide the wall-color on, you child), to buy the inventory, to advertise the business, TO PROVIDE YOU THE JOB. Should they not receive just compensation for their work?
Ofcourse, and beïng fired facing a eviction with your family is not a risk, right? Profits are private, and the risks are socialized. Look at the "too big to fail" banks, and all the unemployment that followed after the recession they caused. No risk for employees? Think again. What gives a minority the right to have such a big impact on the lives of so many? Their blood sweat and tears? I'm not interested in that. That was your decision, and I don't owe you anything because of that, let alone for the rest of your life after starting your business. You do NOT have a right on surplus that I generate, the fruits of MY labour, since property can only be the result of labour, not of ownership, which would be circular reasoning. We dont need a minority to create jobs. We can create those together, in level playing field enforced by a democratic government. The only rule added to the free market ideology beïng "No one has the right to receive surplus generated by others". Yes, that's democratic, and not tyrannical, since you can't have a political democracy without an economic democracy. Contrary to popular thought, a democracy should be enforced and protected.
We are hardly talking about "too big to fail" banks here. Nice try. I like how you seem to assume that "the minority" (here meaning business owners) are out to keep people down. The person who owns and started the deli succeeds, but the people who work there succeed also. It's not like they're slaves and get nothing out of the deal. Why would they do it? The people who work there are paid for their work. If they want more money they're free to ask for more money. If they want it enough they can DEMAND more money. They are free to leave a job they think doesn't pay enough, just as the business owner is free to (nigh obligated to) get the cheapest labor they can that will satisfy the needs of the business. We don't need a minority to create jobs? If the majority of people created jobs... who would work the jobs? Are they working at the very job they created? Are they working more than one job they created? Did they create jobs only to work for others who have themselves created jobs, being both their employee and employer? I'd love to see how that works. You don't owe business owners anything at all. You don't owe them for starting the business, you work for them and they pay you. Nobody owe's anybody anything here. That's the point. You don't deserve any more than what was agreed upon. If you're a valuable enough employee, you'll probably get a raise or a promotion or something. It's in their own best interest to keep you around for the good of their business, just like it's in their own best interest to fire you if you're a drain on resources. The only reason you have a job is because you earn the business more than it costs to employ you. If you don't get that there's nothing I can do for you. If you can't stand that thought go be a self-sustaining farmer somewhere. God-speed. And, in closing, a democracy is the tyranny of the majority. It's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. I'll stick with my Constitutional Republic, thanks.
Psilocybina Capitalism has less problems as a whole and aren’t the sheep the one fleeced? So if you feel sheep’s are fleeced then would a pro capitalist be the sheppard and you are the sheep?
A profit is anything that goes above operation costs. In these companies, as long as you can pay wages and your bills, you don't need to make more money than that. And when you think of how things are priced, we pay upwards of 10x the cost of production of what we're consuming. It's easy to lower prices when you're not in the business of making profits with this in mind. However, I think a better model for determining what to do with excess income in this nonprofit system (as described here) is to keep a safety net for a period of time. Then, you can distribute what you have to improving services or the community where your business is located. An example of this would be a nonprofit coop restaurant that makes an extra $200k. In my example, the company would keep that $200k in some sort of security or company account to use if the following year's operation costs aren't met or until next year's profit comes in at $50k. Then, once there is emergency money accounted for the next year, the restaurant can use that $200k to do a myriad of things without changing the operation costs of that location e.g. -donate it to a local food bank -open a new restaurant location -train employees -use it as a college fund for employees/customers The possibilities with this model mean everyone gets a living wage, can enjoy their jobs, and have the opportunity to make a huge impact as a company outside of work. I'm making these assumptions based on what I remember in the video. I am by no means an expert. But it sounds like a nice system for small businesses.
I pike Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property and the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange and wage labor. Thies are the 4 signs of a capitalist economy Twisting the signs ro fit your agenda is manipulative and propaganda lik
In a capitalist economy, companies are constantly trying to stay alive and profitable, they are not trying to 'kill each other off'. This is a fundamental problem with you argument and leads to an incorrect framework for debate. I suggest you try to take a perspective where systems are not judged as predator vs victim. With this primitive world view there is little motivation for progress or development of any kind. I really hope viewers don't take this speech to heart as it is not likely to lead to successful behavior.
Why do you constantly need to be growing for survival? Endless growth is unsustainable and is wreaking havoc on our economy and our ecosystem. Their example of nonprofit co-op based business is a great example of a business that's alive without the need for endless growth.
You can always have a system where we produce what we need without that kind of social Darwinism, we can just produce and distribute without the need of competition, it's call Cooperation.
Exactly you have shown me that you understand this system is the best system for power. But as long as someone on top someone is on the bottom. Remember that. Always streamlines war.
she mentions 3 things - profit, differnce between owner and worker and competition. as if they are bad things, lets redefine them - profit - benefit. you need to see that things are moving forward, growing, not just money in the bank, but health, knowledge or anything else is growing. difernces in wages - meritocracy. people should recieve in some reference to what they do, to the worth of their work and not just the quantity, if they are much smarter, or stronger or even beautiful, they should get more. competition - natural and free choice. things should have a certain level of freedom in order to make the better choices, this is natural. all that said, there is so much that is wrong with capitalism, and yet there is so so much that is wrong in Comunism... we still need to work hard to fuse and balance these opposite tendencies.
Egor Lobaskin One or two individuals had an idea and gathered a team to make it real. George Lucas had a story he wished to share and pushed to make it. He gathered ideas thrown at him along the way, but ultimately it’s his idea. Disney is trying with multiple people for one story in Star Wars, but every movie so far has suffered from creative differences.
How are most private businesses structured? Is there a CEO/owner who operates as unilateral decision maker? In reality, most (nearly all in terms of market share, regardless of industry) operate with something at least akin to a Board of Directors, which operates as the primary decision making body for the enterprise. This means that the vast majority of private businesses are run by committees, by definition. To be clear, this comment isn't meant to be combative, merely an extension of the discussion. (Also, I just came across this video, and I know your comment is 2 years old, but I'd already started writing before noticing hah.)
These arguments are not very well scrutinized. They work well for convincing people who dont really have a stance or are allready fooled into being against capitalism. However they are not going to sway those who can she the holes in the argument...
The problem with capitalism is most of the money is taken by a tiny minority of people. Apparently the richest thousand people in the world have more money than the poorest two billion. That can't be right. Abolish money and create a fair society.
The people at the top are the people who gave you your modern life. You can whine and complain but without money people wouldn’t invent new things because there is no incentive, the top 3 people are all people who changed the world for the better and deserve that money.
@@Barklord I do not need to give evidence. The opposite of capitalism is slavery. There is no way for most people to get things like cars and homes under socialism unless their masters approve of it. That means if you want food, shelter and other "luxuries" is to follow orders without question.
@@Barklord How about you check out all the communist countries in the world and realize they have all failed. How about you check out how many people have been murdered by communist regimes. THAT is the doctorial future you demand our children be subject too.
@@roberthicks1612 you do know that most of the communist countries that "failed" was caused by Imperialists trying to snuff them out right? One example being the united food companies shenanigans in Latin America
@@slowmowords2870 No, most failed because they failed their people, such as the USSR and Argentina. When a country can not feed its own people while the politicians lead lives of luxury, the people revote. In every communist country, there is always a divide between the majority and the politicians. ONLY the military keeps the population from rising up. IF it gets bad enough, the people will fight the military because their lives are not worth living. They have nothing to lose. That is what has happened in almost every communist country.
Any plane by human's are must based on thoughts of strength gaining. May personal, larger mindset having multy personal for strainghten each on . Wee need to more frome forms of each:other's " coused.. everyone having multy talents whenever it never getting chances for explore any extra hidden ideas that may usefull is must fore any one or more.... iff in mass wee will getting open nessh than fearless is a energy's for reproduce with newly efforts and energy's.. youths with nearest fearless..aasking for flaying highest togethers my macke impossible To Possible....
Its possible in a capitalist environment to run a company for no profit at all... profit is really just incentive. Capitalism doesnt dictate what incentive a company has. As for cleaning up your home. You dont do it for free. The incentive is having a clean home. Some people dont clean thier homes much at all.. js
The truth of the matter is that he chooses to misrepresent communisum and capitalism as if there was some that insurers moral behavior and prevent immoral behavior when of course people are inherently immoral and no system religisons political or economic can control free will.
O man, she is so bitter because some man took rist to make a cafe. You agreed to work here on given terms. Don't be so bitter, just take responsibility for action.
What was your motivation to complete your coursework or do sports? It wasn't profit. It was fun. It was encouragement. It was your future. You can have those same motivations without also having the risk of being starving, homeless and sick (without medicine) on top and work just as hard.
Any MNC /organisation if crosses limits n starts monopoly .it must be govt. Rule To cut down extra surplus capital. N donate it to general public consumers👍 It will control monopoly n built a healthy competitiveness at corporate level
To sum up, in a capitalist economy, people are still driven to help others, work in co-ops, work for capitalist companies, and volunteer and donate to others. Hers is a call to do whatever you want, which we’ve been doing. I guess I can respect her lack of political agenda.
right. because all the slaves in thrid world countries don`t work hard. because if they did, they`d be so well off. they`re just lazy! (and don`t love capitalism enough)
Redmi Note Australia? China becoming way more capitalists than they were in the past? South America rising? Africa rising faster than any other region? India is pushing more towards capitalism? Could it be that the countries you listed are the first ones to have full capitalism and that’s why they are rich?
Really? Things have never been so good & get better every year. Can’t believe she has a phd in economics. It’s not a belief Humans have evolved over millions of years to be competitive and effort must bring rewards.
Our planetary systems are collapsing because of our economic model that`s built on never-ending growth and you say "things have never been better"? Are you living under a rock??
@@stilianifakidaraki3724 I’m not sure where you are from but in most developed countries, the Standard of living is at its highest. What’s wrong with “never ending growth” ?? Since humans left caves and built huts there has been never ending growth. Generally people don’t understand basic economics.
capitalism works for shareholders who accumulate wealth created by actual workers while the shareholders do nothing except gamble on the stock market and buy politicians/lobbyists
Egor Lobaskin only if its in the best interest to not have the river toxic. like the company branch by the river would become toxic and that would cause problems.
Capitalism has good parts yes but I always seems to screw over the poor and help the rich get richer. Communism also has good and bad things, but the way the Soviet Union did it was completely different from the pure, true way, and that leaves a bad reputation for communism.
@@hiddenutopia7980 if people are given "free stuff" or paid the same no matter what their job is, why would they work at all? if no one's working, the government can't give you "free stuff," and let's use microwaves, the internet, smart phones, etc., do you think someone made these because they wanted to improve lives? No, they want to make a profit, improving lives was just a side effect. Capitalism works because people desire to be lazy, communism fails because people are lazy
If you don't have to force people to obey you... I'm not sure how it isn't capitalism. Non-hierarchical business organization isn't exactly radical. It's also just not preferable.
Yeah right, working a standard job where you never make more money from working harder. "When you make a profit, you lower prices." This could neve work - everyone would just end up slacking off. Why work harder during rush hour if you never make a profit? Why not just chill out?
-fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism and the role of profit - profit is a result of serving the customer -as if there were no difference between the bloke who mortgages his house to buy the equipment and rent a storefront, and the one who saunters in, puts on an apron, and starts making coffee . . . -when you are slaving away at minimum wage, your pay is not just the money: there is also psychic pay (feeling worthwhile about yourself), and more important, the EXPERIENCE that you gain, which increases your value in the market(or puts you in a position to open your own shop?). Perhaps your employer should pay you a grand salary and then deduct a payment for the experience??? Also, what about the days when there are few customers? You still get paid for the hours you put in, right? -are we working because of competition or profit? -co-ops are perfectly free to compete . . . FA Hayek noted that we participate in (at least) two economies: 1) family and friends, and 2) the wider, commercial, economy. In the first love and friendship are the currency, in the second money is exchanged as a medium for value that we create and desire.
So, if the boss don't get a fraction of worker's profit, the boss dies and he won't be able to buy more material to produce other things and to buy more workers. That's fine... And if the worker don't get good wages, why don't go to other work?
Here’s the thing. No one stops you from organizing your business in this manner. However, businesses need capital to start and that typically comes from a person who, I would imagine, should get the final word on how the organization is ran. Unless you’re running a nonprofit and getting donations, I personally don’t see how this is feasible
tom io: but if I commit enough time and perform well I will be promoted and my say then will be MUCH higher than in any coop. The only extra voice a coop gives is to the people at the literal very bottom. Everyone above that loses.
A great video. 2015 feels like a lifetime away, after all that has happened since. Here in the UK, I feel there needs to be a conscious attempt to reactivate people's belief in alternatives, because I feel that a lot of people, especially under the current government, are currently existing through an experience of hopelessness. But we can never just give up. Thank you for this video.
That was a very thought-through approachable criticism of our current economic system which still far too many people are made to believe is god-given or "natural". It`s not. It`s a system that was invented by humans and we can invent much, much better things. We desperately need a sustainable system that helps 100% of the people flourish and not only make the super rich 1% even more absurdly "wealthy". If the planet, our ecosystems, collaps, all this "wealth" will be worth nothing. We need a circular, just economy. Thanks for your contribution!
"It`s not. It`s a system that was invented by humans and we can invent much, much better things. " Capitalism is the worse economic system, save for everything else we have ever tried. IF you can come up with a better one than every economic system ever tried before, then go for it. Until someone comes up with a brand new way, we are just going to have to continue dealing with capitalism.
@@roberthicks1612 The problem is not simply that no one can come up with a better system, it's that people are resistant to change, especially those who have the most to lose because of the change. In this case, the ones who have the most to lose also have the most power, so they will do everything they can, which is a lot, to fight for capitalism and resist change in the economic system.
@@jonijokunen3542 Name one system that we have come up with that has ever improved life for so many people. You can't because no system we have ever tried has led to the improvement of peoples lives the way capitalisms has done. Capitalism encourages people to innovate and to take chances with things that improve society. You do not get that with socialism or communism or dictatorships. People are more likely to do something if it directly improves their own lives and their children. Under other systems, they get no rewards, so they do not put in the effort. Everyone will think, "yea, this will help but I will let someone else do the work, since I will benefit the same either way". They will think it is not worth the effort since all their lazy neighbors will reap the same reward without doing any work.
Under capitalism, IF I do the work, the rest have to reward me for it.
Under socialism or communism or any other "ism", IF I do the work, everyone else gets the same reward, meaning I get nothing for the work I do.
@@jonijokunen3542 I thought of something else about this. When you have systems like communism and socialism, you usually have someone that dictates what kind of work people can do. That means that you do not usually have the best people for the job in place.
Look at our government. It is not based on what is the best people for the job, but who has the best pull (politics). There are no incentives for people to be the best, so you often have mediocre people doing the job. In most case, they do not even have any reason to push to do the job better.
In socialism and communism or even monarchy, that is the way the entire system works. No one has any incentives to improve things. So the system just chugs along until entropy pulls it all down.
Capitalism is the only moral system because it is the only one that treats people as individuals. Important note: e don’t have capitalism now. We have a mixture of capitalism and socialism. The more capitalist a country becomes, the better off everybody will be. People don’t need handouts or favors from their society. They need freedom. Socialism and freedom are mutually exclusive.
Separating ourselves from the capitalist-socialist binary is necessary for a better future
Yeah, you socialists can F off somewhere else, please
More like, separating ourselves from Red Scare propaganda, at long last.
@@FujinKeima The red scare is not propaganda. Every communist nation finds itself being led by people that think they have the right to own every other person in the world.
@@roberthicks1612 Factually wrong, because a stateless,classless society has never been tried and that's what communism is, by definition. We only got as far as trying ''third world'' socialism and even then, that was (and still is) sabotaged.
You don't seem to know what communism is, and that's further proof of how effective the propaganda still is. The people in power have vested interest in you not knowing about socialism/ communism.
@@FujinKeima Of course it has never been tried because everything we tried was tried by humans. Humans will ALWAY find a way to separate themselves as having more equality than others. You can claim that that is the way society would work but someone has to lead and they always feel they deserve more than others. IF it is sabotaged, it was done so from inside. Look at the Russian revolution. It was as much be the common people as it can get, yet the first thing that happen was a class was set up to rule. No place in the world has ever gotten past that because it can not be run without someone making the decisions and that means a ruling class.
MAYBE one day the computer AI will come along that will rule the planet and then all humans will be equal, but until that happens, a person has to rule. That means a ruler.
You cant have endless profits and a habitable planet.
Pretty much. There are only so many markets, so many resources.
@Dumisani Nkosi literally not possible
@Dumisani Nkosi 🤦🏼♀️ chinas also capitalist
@Dumisani Nkosi thanks to the austerities forced on them by the world bank, they're the most capitalist counties on the planet. They're not even allowed to usually have "public" anything. Everything is privatized and sold to the highest bidder which is always a foreign corporation.
No, you can't have endless GROWTH
Communal societies with cooperation as the basis for interactions. I love my home, my town, my culture, my society. I don't want to hurt anyone else in my home, town, culture and society. I believe there is a Win/Win relationship. People do not exist in isolation. Even monks in reclusive belief systems still have a Sanga, a greater group of fellow believers, followers, and practitioners.
Just in case this hasn't occurred to you folks, it is entirely possible to criticize an ideological system without falling into another ideology. You can recognize that the current iteration of capitalism is globally unsustainable and unrealistic without being a commie. We need more people in the world who are willing to take stances near the middle of these issues.
PURE IDEOLOGY
Thats all fine and dandy, just make sure that when you criticize capitalism that you are actually criticizing capitalism. Her criticisms weren't criticisms and her "alternatives" to capitalism was actually capitalism. switch the word "capitalism" for "voluntarism" and that will help.
CJ Place, care to elaborate? For me, the main problem of Capitalism is the undemocractic relationship between employers and employees. And worker cooperatives is the solution for that. Call it whatever you want. Her main point was worker cooperatives, and she nailed it.
@@evandrolima1724 how can we ever make any change peacefully when those who have bitterly fought to benefit in the current system are forced to consider loosing it. CJ Place is one such man who you would have to eliminate first to change the system for the better or worse.
@@evandrolima1724 Sorry for being late but worker cooperatives ARE socialism.
Take the most advanced case: Mondragon. It’s worker owned, it’s not worker managed, although the management does come from the workforce often, but it’s in a market system and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole and they have no choice. If you’re in a system where you must make profit in order to survive, you're compelled to ignore negative externalities, effects on others.
Bimal Mishra worker owned co ops are still private business and will become unethical if it reaches a certain size. It’s not private business thats bad its the size of the private business.
That’s why you always have to be evolving. You can’t stay stagnant, you always have to look into what your practices are and continue to make necessary changes.
Bimal, this is the only reasonable comment, thank you. You are perfectly correct, without changing the system, you can't avoid all the "evils" of this system.
Exactly, you're right. People still can't understand such simple things.
But at least co-ops won't vote to destroy their own jobs by bringing the capitals to "cheaper countries". I see conversion to co-ops as a first step towards democratization so you can then make better decisions. Also, if those South American countries could organize themselves likewise, the imbalance would be different and alliances and dialogs would be possible. But yeah, we should move to a fullfledged change of system. Not just this, which isn't even what the title claims to be.
Preach. I don't want a dictator in the state that I almost never interact with. But I'm expected to have one where I spend most of my time most days. Makes sense? Nah. Not even close. We're better than having to be rented by masters. We can live another way. Freer. Happier. More fulfilled.
Talk about living free.. on the internet.. which capitalism invented..
Then make a great example, which you probably won't..
@@nehkwayce5910 the internet (ARPANET) was invented by US defense agencies, paid for by.... Taxpaying citizens :)
Then go ahead
No one is stopping you
Under capitalism you are perfectly capable of beginning your own cooperative or business so long as there are people out there willing to purchase your good/service at the price which you are willing to sell it. Go ahead! Have fun :)
So many comrades in this comment section, it warms my heart and gives me hope. We all need to organize!
All communists are bastards. Don't worry, you will be defeated and humiliated.
Erik Cordova Don’t worry, we’re all a big joke to our corporate daddies
@@erikcordova1713 I hate communism, but I don't think we should humilate them. They are mostly misguided, and persecuting them could only make them more radicalized.
Nothing could make me happier. Organize yourselves into communes (or something similar) rather than trying to turn the whole country into one. Then leave the rest of us alone.
Higher workers wages and incomes always results in declining corporate profits. Which is why businesses always want to find ways to cut costs in their human labor workforce/ payroll through cost efficient measures. Like automation, reduce the work hours, and outsourcing. Companies cut costs in order to remain competitive in the market when businesses compete with each other for market shares. AKA money. Many companies also go bankrupt because of the exorbitant costs of providing employee based private health insurance coverage to their employees. Many small mom and pop businesses cannot cover the costs of rising private health care coverage for their work slaves. Capitalism forces people to be slaves to debt. Money. All money is printed out of debt. Topped with interest
Jack McCabe But workers have no choice but to work and the only choices they have is to work for companies that want and get to pay them as little as possible. There is just the illusion of choice.
If that's true, why do foreign multinational firms pay the workers they hire more than they otherwise would have been paid? Why have Chinese workers and Indian workers seen such a drastic rise in their wages alongside their productivity after their countries opened their economies to markets and allowed an influx of foreign direct investment which supposedly "exploited" the workers? Check the facts before you utter such a false statement.
Do higher wages result in declining corporate profits or does it result in higher consumer costs to preserve corporate profits? Capitalism is good since it offers everyone an equal opportunity to start their own business, it's crony capitalism that is bad when big corporations use their influence to crush the small companies that can't compete on the high levels.
Higher wages most definitely do not curtail profits-as long as the higher wages are allowing the company to retain the services of a productive employee. A company can make a profit if it is paying Rick $10/hour and John $20/hour, as long as Rick and John are each producing enough to justify their pay.
@@Clarinda787 capitalism will always trend towards monopoly and cronyism if left unregulated! Not everyone has equal opportunity. And I think it’s strange that industries that we all depend on to survive, like agriculture, healthcare, energy, education, and housing can be owned by individuals. These crucial industries should be publicly owned.
Anyone who wants to start a fashion brand, or open a coffee shop, or whatever other small business venture…go ahead! No issues with that, but industries that are integral to human survival and upkeep of civilized society should not be left to the market! It’s crazy to me that we allow this!!
The coffee shop worker story is a great example of why "acting your wage" has become a very hot trend in the working class lately, and justifiably so. We DO NOT offer premium work for minimum pay anymore. People are finally waking up.
A business receives revenue, and every party claims they should receive the money: the laborer wants higher wage, the investor more profit, the supplier to the business more payment, and the consumer a rebate or lower prices. In a free society, this can only be resolved by negotiation or the option to not participate.
I'm a left libertarian and I still feel that the market freed from government and corporate monopolies and monopsonies via a mutualist economic system of free trade among a given community may be a viable solution within the current capitalist framework until it is replaced by more cooperative and communal ownership. We've already seen the ways in which top down statist socialism can destroy not only countries but her people, as well, since power and the means of production are still nestled in the hands of the few, but if a bottom up, non hierarchical system with emphasis on direct action and democracy could arise it may help to alleviate many symptoms of wealth inequality due to the problems incurred by capitalism. We should go back to smaller systems of governance concerning the economy, especially at the local levels with mutual respect and reciprocity for each other in our financial dealings between us and hopefully peace will prosper. Hail Eris!!!
Justified.
You see Capitalism is making us Sad, Robotic and Depressed.
Start the movement NO CAP!!!!
It's not really capitalism itself, but it's profiteering that is the problem. If profits are maximised unethically by offering lowest salary for highest productivity, or offering minimum quality for maximum price for a product. Somebody is short-changed: getting less in return than they gave.
Every trade involves getting something more than you gave. That’s why it’s called a trade. That includes trading your time and effort for money.
Profiteering is the solution not the problem. Opposing profits is not ethical because it leads to human suffering.
misleading title. should have been "what defines capitalism"
Excellent intro to this topic, thanks!!
Comparing yourself to other is not what drives competition. Customers comparing you to others is.. and thats what bring business.
@Thomas Rick so the failure of capitalisms is the lack of people to want to try hard? I ask because if the driving force is desire to get rich and you are saying there is no competition. Why is that? What if the reason there is no competition to get rich? is it because people are given the option to survive with no real effort. If you walked into any area with people in it and asked who would like to be rich. There wouldnt be too many hands not raised. So its not a lack of competition based on lack of want, its based on lack of want to try. This would not be capitalisms fault unless we were to say capitalism allowed it to happen.
@Thomas Rick competition is not overrated its undermind. Competition is key. When you fo things like create min wages that price out competition on big corps from small mainstreet type business. Or if we see regulations that make it difficult for small business to get started. Or if we see corporations and banks being bailed out.
Oh, man, those dislikes
@Sebastien BOHAN So starvation and hard labor and oppressive governments are your style. Slavery overpopulation, dictatorship is your style.
Video sucks thats why
Sebastien BOHAN well we could do socialism it only costs 100mil deaths standerd of living goes down and while the rich get poorer the poor get poorer
@@arturgasparyan3629 Testify!
all from far right and far left.
This was extremely helpful in understanding capitalism.
Extremely Helpful?? A Girl who knows Nothing about it, Hates it with a passion, shoed you No data. You know Nothing of Milton Friedman and and Thomas Sowell, and yet you think this was HELPFUL in Understanding Capitalism?
She says that the worker in good days works extra hard to make extra money for the owner.
but
What about the slow days?
DOES THAT APPLY TO YOUR BRAIN TOO? LOL
In her example the workers should be on the hook to pay for their share of the overhead including rent, insurance and supplies that the cafe needs to continue to operate.
@Egor Lobaskin You mean like.. with taxes?
@Egor Lobaskin because the owner assumed all of the risk when they invested their own money in a business that could potentially fail. The worker could only lose the time they chose to work. The extra money made during a busy shift will cover loss of revenue during slow times ensuring job security.
Slow days are the risk the business owner takes. Unless the person’s job is in sales, advertising or marketing it isn’t the responsibility of the employee to generate leads for the business.
She touched on a lot of our economic and political problems, which gives a lot to think about, but a 12 minute talk coudn't possibly do justice to the subject and its importance. I'd like to add that there are alternatives, within a market economy, to the usual policy of wage labor. In some countries they have representatives of workers on the boards of the major enterprises. There are also profit sharing agreements, as well as employee ownership. Personally, i don't think that relying on markets for a large part of transactions is really part of the problem. The issue is how much we let it absorb things we care about, and how accountable we make it to workers.
I don’t care if I live or die
My mom lived in communism and only had terrible stories to tell but I’m sure it will be better this time around:)
@@tomasmccauley569 Ummm... No, China Is horrible, there is a but ton of corruption, “unwanted” group are put in concentration camps and if China is soooo good why do the people of Hong Kong want to be separate?
@SICELO BHEKI BAFANA KHUMALO the ruling party was called “The Bulgarian Communist Party” today it’s called “The Bulgarian Socialist party” but it still was called communist
@SICELO BHEKI BAFANA KHUMALO when did I say communism was an event, I said just that my mom lived in communist Bulgaria
@@tomasmccauley569 it’s easy to throw around words, but in the end regardless of the socialist System it requires an Autocratic Rule, which will Inevitably result in an corrupt self serving government
@SICELO BHEKI BAFANA KHUMALO do you what engrish is?
Compound growth... Diminishing rate of return...
What is capitalism? Private ownership of the means of production.
- How will co-ops deal with that?
- Will it change the environment in which co-ops will have to make "democratic decisions"?
Hello to Richard D Wolf, same naïvety.
excellent, clear presentation - well done.
Clear?? It has NO Common Sense or Data. Or shows how Capitalism has brought the Greatest Innovations, Inventions, and People who have enriched our lives more than any system in human history.
Brilliant. Loved this. Thank you.
Moron
A man creates a bow. Another some arrows. They call to the others to do the hunting. Our creators here who provided the bow & arrows take what’s brought from the hunters’ expedition, And leave them some scraps. And it goes around around around again.
The workers take the wages, leaving the investor only with scraps, the profits.
In the end, the main idea of this talk is only possible using capitalism as the structure... sure you can say is not capitalism.. but is... version 2.0
It is still capitalism but a shift in who owns the capital. Instead of 100 people fantasizing about being rich, you have 100 people who are sharing the wealth. In theory
Great speech, BUT; I don't understand how a society (community) would actually work if all the people would work in these co-op, non profit organisations? Non profit, as in no income, leaves the workers without the essential cashflow for paying for things like food and shelter. How would this model provide these things? Also this altruistic model would not appreciate hard work; it wouldn't matter if you are in fact a lazy, non contributing worker as oppose to a hard working and dedicated one. What would be your incentive to thrive for better outcomes if theres no prize for it? PS. I do believe we are not living in the very best economic model right now and it's essential to present alternatives in case you are oppose to the current system. I do indeed believe the greatest model is some form of mixed economy, we only need to balance the scale between capitalism and socialism to benefit as much of people as possible. Thank you
VRMusic its about values. Think of how many advertisers convince people to buy or do things to waste their money? Create desire a system of values.
Non profit does not mean ‘no profit’ it means that the sole goal is not profit
@@MrNerdguy45 Well said. The issue we're currently faced with is a system that prioritisies profit over all else. It's killing our humanity and destroying the planet.
Non profit doesn't mean no income. It means no excess income. If you can pay all your bills and all your employees, you don't need extra.
I disagree. We should not be trying to benefit as much people as possible. We should be allowing rational people to flourish as much as possible. To do that we merely need to make sure that individuals are as free (from force) as they can be. That requires capitalism. There can be no balance between the rational and the irrational. In any compromise between the two, only the irrational can win. If you personally want to subsidize irrational people, go right ahead. Please don’t force everyone to do it.
Minimum wage should be $0.00
Youre right! And to further that, there should be no wages at all, as wages lead to control via wage slavery.
thats dumb if the goverment forces a wage on all businesses including small ones then you are forcing someone to do something and thatis not freedom the employer should agree with the employee and set a wage between the both
Song Lyrics
Maximum cost should be 0.
Peter Ambrus
Yes, I would work for 0 money. Were you asking me?
A medium of exchange was likely invented due to a distrust of humanity to form civil society without bickering. Personally, I would rather have people well-fed and bickering about who gets the latest iphone first than have people starving while society barely bats an eye.
Peter Ambrus
Yes, and I am suggesting a society in which 0 money is enough to live on.
Sounds like we're on the same page as far as core values are concerned.
If you want the money you worked for and the ability to choose the wall color start your own coffee shop. As an owner, who put up the initial capitol and did all the work to set it up. The owner can participate in profit sharing but guess what, you as a worker that day agreed to do the job for the wage paid, not to mention they are responsible for the marketing and product sold which is what brought people there in the 1st place. The entire structure of the company would need to change. So, as I stated earlier, go start your own co-op.
They won't
Too lazy
About her cafe example - 4:37 - "...now who is that gets that extra money?" Isn't you, right? It is very easy to look at it from only one perspective. Now lets look at it from the other perspective - lets say you have done a shitty job and so did your colleagues. Now the business is closing down with a lot of debt (most of it is wages payed to the workforce). By your logic, shouldn't workers pay their fare share of their own wealth to cover the debt or is it the problem of the business owner now? It is very easy to "share" profits without incurring any risk because that is what stupid (for a lack of a better word) people who have never ran a business want. If you want a share of the profit - buy SHARES and take on risk that should this business fail you will have to cover your part of the loss with your wealth. Oh, you don't want that? As usual... And should you be appalled by this comment, just remember - more businesses fail than succeed thus you having a guaranteed "0" (not having to cover loses) is a luxury. You are not going to get paid a lot because it is impossible to guarantee a big salary while trying to risk manage your business. To end - go study business, finance and maybe even start your own business before crying how you are "exploited" you economically illiterate scum.
And at the end she states that co-ops would somehow be much better than what we have today. Who is stopping people from joining in groups and forming a co-op today? Nothing, thus they exist. Why is she trying to make people that live their lives as they want - with as little risk as possible - to take on risk in a co-op? Has she not considered that some people just like the security of their job and they don't care much about it as long as their family is well? Her moral argument (which only touches people not blessed with reasoning skills) that capitalism somehow oppresses people is a complete nonsense. You are free to do what you wish in a capitalist nation. If co-ops were enforced a lot of people wouldn't be able to.
Most co-operatives, like most capitalist companies, have limited liability (which you register with the government when setting up the company, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability). This means that if the company goes bust then the company’s creditors can only claim back the money that is owned by the company - not any other money owned by the individuals who own the company. So the vast majority of co-ops, like the vast majority of capitalist companies, cannot make anyone broke or risk anyone’s personal assets.
Martynas Pranckevicius Great comment. These young "innovative" people have never given their sweat for anything, their moms and dads have had to work hard so they woudn't. This generation is like a butterfly that has wings but refuses to fly out of laziness.
Well, at least your not biased in thinking beïng a capitalist is the condition for beïng economically literate.
No amount of work, blood sweat of tears should grant you the right to get the surplus of someone else's labour. You just can't "buy" that right, or possess your way into that position ethically.
You can't have a political democracy without an economic democracy, siince the political power of owners disturbs the democratic process.
Not to mention that in her example the workers should be on the hook to pay for their share of the overhead including rent, insurance and supplies that the cafe needs to continue to operate. Socialism is just a pretty fairy tale.
brilliant talk, there are limitless alternatives to capitalism, many of them are far superior to capitalism, we just need to think hard about picking one and do it.
yeah will go live in cuba or north korea
I propose free enterprise as an alternative to capitalism.
What it means to be a capitalist/socialist in other parts of the world are different than other, at least different in the many continents.
Workers exploit capitalists. Most new businesses fail, the workers are paid and the capitalists lose all of the investment. Capitalists are modern day saints who provide the investment, take risk and create the businesses that provide secure wages for laborers. The person presenting this topic lacks the compassion for the many capitalists exploited by workers.
Companies dont have to be privately owned in a capitalist economy ... 12 people could get together and start a coffee shop..
Thats a cooperative. And thats socialism.
@@hiddenutopia7980 good
@@hiddenutopia7980 That's capitalism you moron.
@@vdmur7952 just search the meaning of socialism...
@@hiddenutopia7980 Not necessarily. Mondragon is a cooperatively owned company but does that make Spain socialist?
This girl needs some more research of overall Economy. Her words are going to change in future.
Human Being of the Earth or maybe yours can chance 👍🏻
Sad some people loose years of their life having no cluea what they are talking about and still think they are specialists in these subjects. Damn , just read a good book. Pretty simple.
Read Marx
anarcho syndicalism
@@tomasmccauley569 well see the thing is if everything is democratic I think it would be better for the country overall I think most people don’t like war. But how would this society start you know it just hard to think about it but not until it has been test but Spain was pretty good but that didn’t last long
@@tomasmccauley569 see the thing you do need hierarchy. But it has to be their for a reason and always question it reason for existence is to help the people
@@tomasmccauley569 yeah it more likely it wound be steam rolled before it could even get off the grow
**communism has entered the chat**
why do we get hate all we did was kill 100mil and put people in poverty is that so wrong
@@tomasmccauley569 there is a lot of people in poverty but it’s decreasing. Capitalism isn’t perfect but as the rich get richer the poor get richer it gives everyone a positive
Suggested videos for this includes several Ted talks on basic income plans. Are there right of center Ted talks?
Egor Lobaskin But even the US has disability, so do you mean that the disadvantaged need to get equal pay to CEOs? That’s your point isn’t it?
Tedx channel can get really nutty and definitely has the worst left leaning bias. Pretty much anyone can get on tedx as long as they are left leaning. You'll see Tedx ones that just read bad poetry and lots of highschool kids doing homework. Normal Ted channel still often leans left filters out the crazy for the most part and lets a wider range of speaker on.
There's a ted-ed channel with shorter videos that is much more fair and even handed but still a center left vibe.
@Egor Lobaskin you can just say “no” Egor.
@@youtuber6185 the average American on disability makes around $900 a month. Why do CEOs deserve to make 100X that of their lowest paid workers?
@@wickjezek1101 America is a free country. So the govt doesn’t set max amounts a board can pay their CEO. I presume if they make a company a lot of money they are only being paid a portion of that. You do know money isn’t finite right? Without the key people there are no jobs. Cuba figured it out the hard way, then Venezuela, etc. I’d rather live in the US than Venezuela
3 BIG myths that this woman have told:
1) I agree that entrepreneurs seek money for themselfs but she undermines imporatabt aspects about the profit motivation. First what are profits? Profits are what is left after a consumer gives money. Suppose that the consumer gave 100$. This 100$ is broken up to be given to the employees, to the products,to the rent,... and many other things. So to get profits you need to pay to your employee and many other things. Otherwise why someone would work to business owner when he doesn't give him money? Further what is left is also paying for his family and electricity bills.
That brings me to my other point, even though what motivate people to own a business are profits and the pursuit of it and she call this a supposed "belief that humans are lazy" which in fact is untrue and is simply because capitalism requires energetic, risking-everything from THEIR money people which of course is not lazy; the producers in order to get this profit (tiny money) they have to give good services, a low price for the best quality possible, and a good experience for exmple in a restaurant. This woman didn't see the full picture. These people who pursue profits have in turn to satisfy his costumers. If the costumers are disatisfied, the company will be bankrupt. If not, it will flourish. It is a deal between the consumers and the producers.
Conclusion: Profits are progressive
2)Competition is good. When two comapnies let us say Coca Cola and pepsi, they in turn fight for the consumers' satisfaction of thir VOLUTARY acyions of the 2 companies to flourish. How do they do that? By loweing prices and making a good team work for the good experience of costumers. Competition in an economic way is the battle of satisfaction of the comsumers. Think about this for a moment. Each day people go to the stor to buy meat. You chose to give money to the seller. It is your choice. So in the macro way, the people CHOSES whether a company should survive by their products they are offering. If a bad car is being sold, the people would be disatisfied and the comapany will go bankrupt. If there wasn't this system, people wouldn't get good quality services.
3) The employee simply doesn't get as much money as the owner because of something called 'value and quality'. A doctor's wage is higher than a teacher's wage because of the profession. It isn't fair to devalue someone's high paying profession to a low paying profession. Similarly, an employee like here in a café, is of lower quality job than the owner's quality job. Also the owner owns the place because he built it in the first place. He risked his money in order to get money. If you buy something with your money then it is your property right? Well according to her view, no it isn't. She is saying although the business has paid with his/her own money like the café, it isn't this person's property. That isn't a supposed "belief in human nature" that is common sense and logic. Of course if a business VOLUNTARILY not FORCIBLY make his business where employees own the company with the enterpreneur, then it is perfectly fine to do that and may be good. But if you force that, that is not progression, that is regression. Capitalist or enterpreneurs should have the freedom and liberty to chose whether the employee would own the comapny with him/her
Her alternative is still capitalist despite her definition. What she describes is mostly capitalist like for example companies working together... is still capitalist. There are foods that are created by 2 companies working together to satisfy their costumers. Although she doesn't like profits, her alternative contains the concept of profits. Employees owning or not, companies working together or not, they ALL seek profits. The companie owner still wants money and still doesn't want to give free things. In short term good, long term and in economic ways bad.
end capitalism and its corrupt institutions.
@@mr.anderson1454 let's just end corrupt institutions, we have a civilization.
More people like K E Ekman we have the means....
BANKS
See MONEY MASTERS ON YT
Why abandon capitalism? It is a great system. The only problem is, when lobbies take over the government like in the USA. In this case, capitalism is a disaster.
But when a strong government guides capitalism in the right direction, it brings wealth for everybody.
Foundation of capitalism is flawed/immoral: I'll work only if I get reward.
@@Vision_Voyagers Nice, so You will work for me without reward
@@tomasmccauley569 No, I describe the Chinese system
@@pegefounder if everything costs $0 I'd work 60 hours a week for $0
@@pegefounder like we did that for 18 years straight and then we're expected to pay for stuff
I disagree but I will defend your right to say it.
This girl doesn't know what capitalism is... and she says that she studied economy. Probably marxist economy.
Capitalism is based on three key factors; the right for freedom, the right for private property, and the right for life. That's why, this girl is debating the wrong ideas, although it's TRUE that companies are made for profits, in capitalism you are free to do with your time and property whatever the thing you want to do.
She doesn't talk about the risks and the work that owners has to go through... as if it was all about dominance.
And many other things. She is going for the wrong arguments. She probably studied too much Marx and not enough classic liberals.
Btw. All her assumptions were wrong and incoherent. In all of the human history, if you worked hard for something (I.e. growing cattle), there was a sense of ownership for the thing you have worked for. Is not an assumption, is a fact.
This girl doesn't know anything about capitalism.
let's eat money instead of food then
@@nicole-qe7br What? You are working in exchange of money, which in exchange you can get food, build a house, or give it to charity. Use your money for whatever the reason you want. Thats capitalism.
really interesting points.. but I feel like this is more a lecture than an ted talk, it doesnt really take the audience anywhere
Brilliant! Thanks for that!
The unfortunate part of this, is that even Co-ops now a days are organized around a hierarchical organization, and are pressured from the outside capitalistic sources (aka banks) to make sure their finances are either profitable, or breaking even. Any loss is a negative to them being able to seek support from financial institutions. Also, if you are trying to "live" an alternative way (co-operative) in a primarily capitalistic minded society where competition is all pervasive, the co-op will, over time be crushed every time.
Beautiful.
Instead of growing the profits grow with the community
In capitalism you can do both at the same time
UnboxViews It’s possible, yet multi millionaire and billionaires exists
@@unboxviews I work for a co owned business - it's very capitalistic. The difference is that a portion of the profit made is given as a bonus and pays for employee perks and community projects/charity. Those things are not possible unless the company is making as much profit as possible and because the employees like their perks and bonuses they like seeing big profits too. It's no more sustainable than any other business. Most non co-owned businesses are reacting to changing consumer demand by going green, being sustainable etc. Most offer good benefits to attract the best staff. It's really not that different, except in mindset. .
@@ABCodeX So? Is that a surprise in a globalised market place with billions instead of millions of consumers? If you win, you win big. Globalisation is the issue there. It can create companies so big that they become more powerful than nations.
@@mogznwaz Great, the beauty of that is that unlike socialism, capitalism allows many forms of businesses to exist. Keep it up!
100 million ppl out of 7billion and yet it's just a belief.
Joker
Cooperatives ain't socialist why?
Socialism in regards to private property looks to supress it and colectivize it then the government would become its administrator. Although you can combine a socialist government with a capitalist economy like China.
In this regard cooperatives are closer to distributis theories tha socialism
Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production. Which means that all people in a society collectively owns the means of production.
What she is describing is where workers in different industries and different companys collectively owns that specific industry/company. Which is closer to corporatism or syndicalism
The person who makes the extra money when you are busy serving your coffee is the same person who takes the loss when you still expect to be payed on a day when there are no customers. This is not a case of goodies and baddies, this is a case of risk taking vs risk avoidance. If you want some of the extra profit on good days, take some of the loss on bad ones. If you don't want that risk, take your wage and stop complaining. You have the choice.
sooo if that is true and all profits go to lowering prices who pays for maintenance and repiars? do the workers not ever get raises for a job well done?? how did you origianlly get the money (hundreds of thousands) to buy machines rent the space build the space out..order coffee..order grinders etc... ?? unless all the workers also invested which is unlikely since few workers have that much extra money piled up??? this smells FISHY to me
If people-owned companies can really outperform other companies, then there is nothing to be done since they will outperform the other companies. Just don't introduce radical changes into the economic system, these experiments have without exception been devastating in the 20c...
Yeah so take Australia for instance. Australia had been in a boom for the last 30 years. When i was a child they offered financial assistance for families willing to move there... this is a vastly different situation than here. Its that simple... yes using the government to force employers to give employees something means the employers will give it.. but it doesnt make it right or good... force always comes with threats. It still surprises me that people validatethe use of force for what sounds nice to them.
Yeah... this PHD student apparently doesn't understand that the owner is the one taking all the risk. The worker takes ZERO risk, hence they reap fewer rewards. She talks about how the worker reaps no extra rewards for working harder on a busy day, that's because that's the agreement they made with the owner of the business (besides, you know, tips exist, so they DO GET PAID MORE). If they just stopped working because it got too stressful, they'd get fired and the owner would hire someone else who WOULD work that job for the wages offered, or they'd up the wages a bit to attract more qualified people.
The PHD student doesn't understand that the business owner has worked extra hours and put up their own money (or gotten investors who they are now beholden to) to build or purchase this store (yes, that they get to decide the wall-color on, you child), to buy the inventory, to advertise the business, TO PROVIDE YOU THE JOB. Should they not receive just compensation for their work?
How does that have anything to do with anything?
Ofcourse, and beïng fired facing a eviction with your family is not a risk, right?
Profits are private, and the risks are socialized. Look at the "too big to fail" banks, and all the unemployment that followed after the recession they caused. No risk for employees? Think again.
What gives a minority the right to have such a big impact on the lives of so many?
Their blood sweat and tears? I'm not interested in that. That was your decision, and I don't owe you anything because of that, let alone for the rest of your life after starting your business. You do NOT have a right on surplus that I generate, the fruits of MY labour, since property can only be the result of labour, not of ownership, which would be circular reasoning.
We dont need a minority to create jobs. We can create those together, in level playing field enforced by a democratic government. The only rule added to the free market ideology beïng "No one has the right to receive surplus generated by others".
Yes, that's democratic, and not tyrannical, since you can't have a political democracy without an economic democracy. Contrary to popular thought, a democracy should be enforced and protected.
We are hardly talking about "too big to fail" banks here. Nice try. I like how you seem to assume that "the minority" (here meaning business owners) are out to keep people down. The person who owns and started the deli succeeds, but the people who work there succeed also. It's not like they're slaves and get nothing out of the deal. Why would they do it? The people who work there are paid for their work. If they want more money they're free to ask for more money. If they want it enough they can DEMAND more money. They are free to leave a job they think doesn't pay enough, just as the business owner is free to (nigh obligated to) get the cheapest labor they can that will satisfy the needs of the business.
We don't need a minority to create jobs? If the majority of people created jobs... who would work the jobs? Are they working at the very job they created? Are they working more than one job they created? Did they create jobs only to work for others who have themselves created jobs, being both their employee and employer? I'd love to see how that works.
You don't owe business owners anything at all. You don't owe them for starting the business, you work for them and they pay you. Nobody owe's anybody anything here. That's the point. You don't deserve any more than what was agreed upon. If you're a valuable enough employee, you'll probably get a raise or a promotion or something. It's in their own best interest to keep you around for the good of their business, just like it's in their own best interest to fire you if you're a drain on resources. The only reason you have a job is because you earn the business more than it costs to employ you. If you don't get that there's nothing I can do for you. If you can't stand that thought go be a self-sustaining farmer somewhere. God-speed.
And, in closing, a democracy is the tyranny of the majority. It's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. I'll stick with my Constitutional Republic, thanks.
who pays for the expenses of running the business whether its busy or slow. some how i don't think she wants an equal share in that.
Psilocybina Capitalism has less problems as a whole and aren’t the sheep the one fleeced? So if you feel sheep’s are fleeced then would a pro capitalist be the sheppard and you are the sheep?
Probably i'll never understand why can a company that doesn't make profits be called a company and keep going
A profit is anything that goes above operation costs. In these companies, as long as you can pay wages and your bills, you don't need to make more money than that. And when you think of how things are priced, we pay upwards of 10x the cost of production of what we're consuming. It's easy to lower prices when you're not in the business of making profits with this in mind.
However, I think a better model for determining what to do with excess income in this nonprofit system (as described here) is to keep a safety net for a period of time. Then, you can distribute what you have to improving services or the community where your business is located.
An example of this would be a nonprofit coop restaurant that makes an extra $200k. In my example, the company would keep that $200k in some sort of security or company account to use if the following year's operation costs aren't met or until next year's profit comes in at $50k. Then, once there is emergency money accounted for the next year, the restaurant can use that $200k to do a myriad of things without changing the operation costs of that location e.g.
-donate it to a local food bank
-open a new restaurant location
-train employees
-use it as a college fund for employees/customers
The possibilities with this model mean everyone gets a living wage, can enjoy their jobs, and have the opportunity to make a huge impact as a company outside of work.
I'm making these assumptions based on what I remember in the video. I am by no means an expert. But it sounds like a nice system for small businesses.
Central banks! This isn't capitalism.
Critics of capitalism believe in a fairy tale economic model where every business makes massive profits.
I pike Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property and the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange and wage labor.
Thies are the 4 signs of a capitalist economy
Twisting the signs ro fit your agenda is manipulative and propaganda lik
well, if certain things keep cropping up in a certain system over and over and over again, saying those things are part of the definition is helpful
In a capitalist economy, companies are constantly trying to stay alive and profitable, they are not trying to 'kill each other off'. This is a fundamental problem with you argument and leads to an incorrect framework for debate. I suggest you try to take a perspective where systems are not judged as predator vs victim. With this primitive world view there is little motivation for progress or development of any kind. I really hope viewers don't take this speech to heart as it is not likely to lead to successful behavior.
Gotta use those catchphrases to scam ppl
Why do you constantly need to be growing for survival? Endless growth is unsustainable and is wreaking havoc on our economy and our ecosystem. Their example of nonprofit co-op based business is a great example of a business that's alive without the need for endless growth.
You can always have a system where we produce what we need without that kind of social Darwinism, we can just produce and distribute without the need of competition, it's call Cooperation.
Exactly you have shown me that you understand this system is the best system for power. But as long as someone on top someone is on the bottom. Remember that. Always streamlines war.
she mentions 3 things - profit, differnce between owner and worker and competition. as if they are bad things, lets redefine them - profit - benefit. you need to see that things are moving forward, growing, not just money in the bank, but health, knowledge or anything else is growing. difernces in wages - meritocracy. people should recieve in some reference to what they do, to the worth of their work and not just the quantity, if they are much smarter, or stronger or even beautiful, they should get more. competition - natural and free choice. things should have a certain level of freedom in order to make the better choices, this is natural.
all that said, there is so much that is wrong with capitalism, and yet there is so so much that is wrong in Comunism... we still need to work hard to fuse and balance these opposite tendencies.
Capitalism is sociopathic.
Cooperatives cannot compete with private business any more than a committee can paint a good picture
Also, I have heard they are very good, I could provide you with some resources for them?
Egor Lobaskin
One or two individuals had an idea and gathered a team to make it real.
George Lucas had a story he wished to share and pushed to make it. He gathered ideas thrown at him along the way, but ultimately it’s his idea.
Disney is trying with multiple people for one story in Star Wars, but every movie so far has suffered from creative differences.
How are most private businesses structured? Is there a CEO/owner who operates as unilateral decision maker? In reality, most (nearly all in terms of market share, regardless of industry) operate with something at least akin to a Board of Directors, which operates as the primary decision making body for the enterprise. This means that the vast majority of private businesses are run by committees, by definition. To be clear, this comment isn't meant to be combative, merely an extension of the discussion. (Also, I just came across this video, and I know your comment is 2 years old, but I'd already started writing before noticing hah.)
True.
These arguments are not very well scrutinized. They work well for convincing people who dont really have a stance or are allready fooled into being against capitalism. However they are not going to sway those who can she the holes in the argument...
I dont think a single sentence stated couldn't be successfully challenged. Absolute bs
The problem with capitalism is most of the money is taken by a tiny minority of people. Apparently the richest thousand people in the world have more money than the poorest two billion. That can't be right. Abolish money and create a fair society.
Sorry but that statistic is woefully outdated. The top 3 people have more money than THE ENTIRE BOTTOM HALF.
You’ll always find some people doing more than others.
uhhh I’m pretty sure 3 people aren’t doing more than 3.7 billion people
TheFlyingDragon no but you’ll still get inequality of produced labour in any system unless of course you use force.
The people at the top are the people who gave you your modern life. You can whine and complain but without money people wouldn’t invent new things because there is no incentive, the top 3 people are all people who changed the world for the better and deserve that money.
"abandon capitalism" To quote gandoff "Tell me, old friend, when did you abandon reason".
@@Barklord I do not need to give evidence. The opposite of capitalism is slavery. There is no way for most people to get things like cars and homes under socialism unless their masters approve of it. That means if you want food, shelter and other "luxuries" is to follow orders without question.
@@Barklord From a communist point of view, that might be believable, but no evidence supports it.
@@Barklord How about you check out all the communist countries in the world and realize they have all failed. How about you check out how many people have been murdered by communist regimes. THAT is the doctorial future you demand our children be subject too.
@@roberthicks1612 you do know that most of the communist countries that "failed" was caused by Imperialists trying to snuff them out right?
One example being the united food companies shenanigans in Latin America
@@slowmowords2870 No, most failed because they failed their people, such as the USSR and Argentina. When a country can not feed its own people while the politicians lead lives of luxury, the people revote. In every communist country, there is always a divide between the majority and the politicians. ONLY the military keeps the population from rising up. IF it gets bad enough, the people will fight the military because their lives are not worth living. They have nothing to lose. That is what has happened in almost every communist country.
Any plane by human's are must based on thoughts of strength gaining. May personal, larger mindset having multy personal for strainghten each on . Wee need to more frome forms of each:other's " coused.. everyone having multy talents whenever it never getting chances for explore any extra hidden ideas that may usefull is must fore any one or more.... iff in mass wee will getting open nessh than fearless is a energy's for reproduce with newly efforts and energy's.. youths with nearest fearless..aasking for flaying highest togethers my macke impossible To Possible....
Its possible in a capitalist environment to run a company for no profit at all... profit is really just incentive. Capitalism doesnt dictate what incentive a company has. As for cleaning up your home. You dont do it for free. The incentive is having a clean home. Some people dont clean thier homes much at all.. js
kemohere the goal is always profit
Abandon Capitalism thats not hard just give all your money away
The truth of the matter is that he chooses to misrepresent communisum and capitalism as if there was some that insurers moral behavior and prevent immoral behavior when of course people are inherently immoral and no system religisons political or economic can control free will.
O man, she is so bitter because some man took rist to make a cafe. You agreed to work here on given terms. Don't be so bitter, just take responsibility for action.
If businesses is not profitable, where is motivation come from ? If there is not competition where is innovation come from ?
Competition often takes away from excellence.
What was your motivation to complete your coursework or do sports? It wasn't profit. It was fun. It was encouragement. It was your future. You can have those same motivations without also having the risk of being starving, homeless and sick (without medicine) on top and work just as hard.
Any MNC /organisation if crosses limits n starts monopoly .it must be govt. Rule To cut down extra surplus capital. N donate it to general public consumers👍
It will control monopoly n built a healthy competitiveness at corporate level
Russia tried this it failed and today is divided into USSR
but i like having food in my house ;-;
Me too
Same
Im sure the people who can't afford food would love it too.
@@davidcormier3991So the entire world should starve so they don't feel so bad?
Markus Seele glad you’re using your thinker. That is obviously what I am saying.
To sum up, in a capitalist economy, people are still driven to help others, work in co-ops, work for capitalist companies, and volunteer and donate to others. Hers is a call to do whatever you want, which we’ve been doing. I guess I can respect her lack of political agenda.
I love capitalism... I work harder than the guy next to me, and I get paid more because of it. AND, I am living that REALITY.
right. because all the slaves in thrid world countries don`t work hard. because if they did, they`d be so well off. they`re just lazy! (and don`t love capitalism enough)
the BEST WAY to Abandon Capitalism for YOU is that YOU will MOVE to CUBA - socialist country.
Redmi Note Australia? China becoming way more capitalists than they were in the past? South America rising? Africa rising faster than any other region? India is pushing more towards capitalism? Could it be that the countries you listed are the first ones to have full capitalism and that’s why they are rich?
Really? Things have never been so good & get better every year.
Can’t believe she has a phd in economics.
It’s not a belief
Humans have evolved over millions of years to be competitive and effort must bring rewards.
Tell that to sweet shop workers. Or child slaves in Africa who pick coco beans for chocolate company's.
Do you feel it now Mr. Krabs?
Our planetary systems are collapsing because of our economic model that`s built on never-ending growth and you say "things have never been better"? Are you living under a rock??
@@stilianifakidaraki3724 I’m not sure where you are from but in most developed countries, the Standard of living is at its highest. What’s wrong with “never ending growth” ??
Since humans left caves and built huts there has been never ending growth.
Generally people don’t understand basic economics.
Great lecture!!!
capitalism works for hard-working people. what she's talking about is basically communism
Tell that to the immigrants who work hard for scrap.
Gianluca Roccolano lies, capitalism hinders cooperatives. and communities. profit over people.
capitalism works for shareholders who accumulate wealth created by actual workers while the shareholders do nothing except gamble on the stock market and buy politicians/lobbyists
Gianluca Roccolano capitalism works for lucky people.
No, capitalism works for the owning class. Not for the (hard) working class. You're full of shite..
What she is missing in my opinion is that everything she is proposing is possible in a capitalist system
Egor Lobaskin only if its in the best interest to not have the river toxic. like the company branch by the river would become toxic and that would cause problems.
Capitalism means private ownership of means of production.
So, what she's proposing isn't capitalism.
Correct, it is called a worker coop.
now the owner lost all the profits are the workers gonna pay him
I guess he'll just have to... work.
Capitalism has good parts yes but I always seems to screw over the poor and help the rich get richer. Communism also has good and bad things, but the way the Soviet Union did it was completely different from the pure, true way, and that leaves a bad reputation for communism.
The rich don't get richer by stealing from the poor
Exploitation.
Communism will never work because humans are not perfect beings
@@nethan1176 so what? Communism isnt about being good or bad. Communism is just a rational model.
@@hiddenutopia7980 if people are given "free stuff" or paid the same no matter what their job is, why would they work at all? if no one's working, the government can't give you "free stuff," and let's use microwaves, the internet, smart phones, etc., do you think someone made these because they wanted to improve lives? No, they want to make a profit, improving lives was just a side effect. Capitalism works because people desire to be lazy, communism fails because people are lazy
Good talk 🙂
Brilliant!
If you don't have to force people to obey you... I'm not sure how it isn't capitalism. Non-hierarchical business organization isn't exactly radical. It's also just not preferable.
"Capitalism is when you don't make people do things"
Distributism is the way
Yeah right, working a standard job where you never make more money from working harder. "When you make a profit, you lower prices." This could neve work - everyone would just end up slacking off. Why work harder during rush hour if you never make a profit? Why not just chill out?
Your making an assumption of human nature.....
People do that now, without a profit incentive.
She even gave an example of it.....
-fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism and the role of profit - profit is a result of serving the customer
-as if there were no difference between the bloke who mortgages his house to buy the equipment and rent a storefront, and the one who saunters in, puts on an apron, and starts making coffee . . .
-when you are slaving away at minimum wage, your pay is not just the money: there is also psychic pay (feeling worthwhile about yourself), and more important, the EXPERIENCE that you gain, which increases your value in the market(or puts you in a position to open your own shop?). Perhaps your employer should pay you a grand salary and then deduct a payment for the experience??? Also, what about the days when there are few customers? You still get paid for the hours you put in, right?
-are we working because of competition or profit?
-co-ops are perfectly free to compete . . .
FA Hayek noted that we participate in (at least) two economies: 1) family and friends, and 2) the wider, commercial, economy. In the first love and friendship are the currency, in the second money is exchanged as a medium for value that we create and desire.
So, if the boss don't get a fraction of worker's profit, the boss dies and he won't be able to buy more material to produce other things and to buy more workers. That's fine... And if the worker don't get good wages, why don't go to other work?
Amazing
This is so asinine, I don't even know where to begin refuting her claims.
KLJF ur probably wrong
You could give the barest minimum effort
right on sis
Why? Cause they deserve it
Here’s the thing. No one stops you from organizing your business in this manner. However, businesses need capital to start and that typically comes from a person who, I would imagine, should get the final word on how the organization is ran. Unless you’re running a nonprofit and getting donations, I personally don’t see how this is feasible
It actually is
IF you are member of 2000 workers in CO _OP , your voice in this CO _OP company is 0.002.
martinko40 if you are a worker at the bottom of a capitalist structured workplace, yours is non existent
tom io: but if I commit enough time and perform well I will be promoted and my say then will be MUCH higher than in any coop. The only extra voice a coop gives is to the people at the literal very bottom. Everyone above that loses.