Socialism vs. Capitalism: A Debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- Troy University’s Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy explores the rebirth of socialism in the United States with “Socialism vs. Capitalism: A Debate”
Featuring George Mason University professor Bryan Caplan, author of “The Myth of the Rational Voter,” and Penn State University professor John Marsh, author of “Class Dismissed: Why We Cannot Teach or Learn Our Way Out of Inequality,” the debate provides a unique look into both socialist and capitalist agendas in America.
This isn't really a capitalism vs socialism debate but instead a libertarian vs social democrat debate
yes
It’s a combination of libertarianism and free market capitalism. In many ways, libertarians have the same views as conservative/Republican politicians and economist. Libertarians do not like taxes, public schools, fire departments, social programs, etc. not much different than a Republican.
Oof, thanks for the comment. I guess I'm not going to watch this
Yeah, whenever someone uses the nordic countries to support socialism, you know they are using the wrong terms.
Close enough.
Debate starts at 4:01.
One quickly realizes there is only one economist on the stage.
@Fur Fag Because of the career choices they made, I guess. The other guy in an English professor.
Imagine having the privilege and wealth to think that prosperity isn't important.
He said it’s important, but that it shouldn’t be the only value in society.
imagine having the privilege and wealth to think that prosperity is important just as so the risk to achieve that prosperity is distributed to all people regardless of consent in opposition to distributing that risk to the consenting individual. you magnify the possibility and potential an upside but minimize the potential and possibility of a downside. socialism is beautiful for a world full of protons. unfortunately, electrons and neutrons must always be accounted for. a neighbor knows not what is best for me, I know what is best for me.
Modern socialist are primarily high or upper middle class who don't like to be tested by the rules of social free cooperation because they know their materialistic status will be drastically decreased if they don't learn how to live from other's work.
Frederick Douglass stated that he didn't feel most free the day he escaped the democratic South. He felt that his most free day was when he got to New Bedford and was able to keep the pay that he worked for,without giving any to his "master"
I just have to make the point, that Bryan is correct on the point that Scandinavians don't work that much due to high taxes. Especially here in Finland the tax progression is very steep, which causes over 50% marginal tax rates even for the middle class.
Juho Pitkäranta they don’t even have a good military. 75 percent of their military is from the US. The US should draw their military out of their country.
Juho Pitkäranta
So 1st example : i say to you if you work 8 hours you will get not even the necessery things for your life,but if you work more you will get them.lets say 16 hours
2st example:i say to you that if you work 8 hours you will get the completely necessary things and even more but if you work more you will get not so much money but a little more, lets say 25% more for 50% increase in working hours.
From the examples above ,assuming that you are a simple worker not very specialized and highly educated,you can understant that the main force that drives you to work more is the propotion of your basic needs that you are able to satisfy.People need free time to be creative,(and productive)no need to work more just to get more money (in a linear basis).And here we coming at the main problem,people cant work less because not paid enough money,as the professors says average american couldnot pay something that will come up ,and we are talking about one of the biggest capital force in the world.can you imagine in some other countries what is happening?
@@tsilikitrikis
Most people aren't creative. As a personality type creativity (trait openness to experience) is very uncommon in high numbers and smash far as the psychologist are concerned, most people aren't creative at all in terms of metrics of performance. (i.e. have they done something like write a book, get formal training as a chef, etc.
The average American has 20% more debt than assets, and of you live in places like new York City you won't have any money to spend. A Manson in Texas can be made for $300,000 and the same one in California will cost $1,000,000.
Me and many people also work much more for money because we want more money. It can be combined with investment.
But most importantly: scandinavia is NOT socialist.
Depending on the state you live in America you could be paying over 50% income tax. It’s absolutely ridiculous! The government stealing half of your labor is slavery. That’s half of your effort, your talent, your mind, your limited time on this earth. It’s criminal!
How many of you out there who see this comment have siblings who grew up basically in the same conditions you did but whose economic outcome in life was far, far different from your own? And were there any choices they made that you can look at as accounting for that difference?
Generally overspending on things like food (restaurants) and clothes. I made less money than my brother by a lot and still had a higher net worth than him working only 7 months to his couple years. (started a venture and it bombed).
Most people in America today have a debt problem especially the recent generation who have negative networth compared to the older generation. (excess of debt). Credit card companies take advantage of this.
My little sister and I grew up quite poor with a single mother, but I did substantially better than her financially. One major difference is that she was a bit more outgoing than me originally and partied a lot already by high school with drinking and smoking weed. I saved the partying until after graduation. Then in terms of career choices, I graduated with a CS degree and became a software engineer while she graduated with an English degree and became an English teacher for elementary kids. I'm also more of a long-term thinker and tend to save my money just out of a lack of ideas to spend it, while she tends to spend a lot more. I helped her out financially with her student loans.
@@thelaw3536 that’s not quite accurate. The boomers were born at the bottom of America’s boom and they were also the nation’s largest population block. Thus they hold all the assets everyone are bidding for. Supply and demand applies here. Plus, massive immigration since 1965 (65-80 million people) drove up asset prices for younger generations thus incurring more debt.
"LUCK" Is for people who can't comprehend causality.
Who you are is the results of the decisions made by your ancestors. Where to live, who to marry what to do for a living. You are completely deserving of the fruits of your labors and to those left to you by your ancestors.
But who your ancestors are also counts as the decisions made by their ancestors. Where's the line? When does meritocracy come into the equation? If my ancestors were medieval nobles I'm entitled to the wealth they hoarded, right? What if my ancestors were emporevished people living in the slums of India, does that mean I deserve the subpar life conditions I was born into, or does that mean my ancestors deserved it?
@@lololo
You clearly don't understand meritocracy.
@@psychicspy please enlighten me
@lololo
Now meritocracy, that I can discuss. Suppose you have two children, and one of them does their very best to stay in trouble, while the other does all the right things. How would you determine who inherits your fortune? Why through the meritocratic process, of course. The child that demonstrated the most merit gets the inheritance. By living up to your vision for them, they'll have earned their inheritance.
@@lololo
We all receive two inheritances. One when we are born and one when our parents die.
Poor people pass on a legacy of poverty and bad decisions to their children. It is up to those children to break that cycle.
One is an academic of economics, the other of... English language? Why is this debate even a thing?
we doesnt talk about economic theory folk.we are talking about organising the society all must have a word.although the truth is classical economics are completely wrooong!!
Because the English professor is more knowledgeable than the voodoo economic professor.
To be fair, we shouldn't make an argument from authority
@@Darkfollower666 True. My mistake
Because when it comes to economics, an English professor is just as knowledgeable as most economists, more so if that economist is a libertarian.
Why is an English Professor arguing economic theory against ... wait for it .... an actual economist?
Makes it even more pitiful that he lost the debate. And you're kinda reaching for an appeal-to-authority-fallacy.
@@lucassvdv you must have watched a completely different debate than I did.
@@almightybeeij Guess we're both guilty of confirmation bias then ;) have a nice day
@@lucassvdv it isn’t always a fallacy, expertise is real. You wouldn’t get heart surgery from a mechanic would you?
Because there are no economists in favor of socialism. Believing in socialism requires a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics.
I really need this moderator to learn to enunciate. I'm sorry, but it's just hard to listen to.
I had no problem understanding him . Perhaps you need your hearing checked. Seriously, this is not a dig. I honestly didn’t notice a thing.
Agreed. It was difficult listening to him.
14:00 part of the problem with looking at statistical groupings like the "bottom 50%" of wage earners is that these groups of people are not stagnant. People can leave that group and become high income earners. Of course the x % lowest income people in a sampling have a low income, that is how you have defined that statistical grouping. It doesn't mean the same people are poor year after year, people can move in and out of statistical groupings all the time, and they do. Someone might have a low income because they are going to school that year, or they are injured and can't work, because of temporary conditions.
I don't want government taking my money to make you equal to me. I want you to work as hard and smart to be equal to me.
@Lu G. I feel for you and the taxpayers.
@Lu G. God that must suck, what are your taxes, like 60%??
@@jeffkeil1595 I don't think they're suggesting taking money from you, but rather those that make billions of times more than you. And I think they're only trying to get to a baseline to allow those that aren't as privileged to actually have the opportunity to compete with you.
@Lu G. Ever heard of private retirement funds? it's like public pensions..only better becaue they actually save your money and they dont spend it on silly governament projects.
The government taking your money to make everyone equal is not how social democracy would work. It's mainly about worker owned businesses and socializing certain sectors of the economy back into a public utility model.
You're falling for one of many BS arguments put forth by capitalist defenders who can't defend what late stage capitalism has become, so they make up these concocted horrors to scare a gullible public away from making any changes to the status quo.
What a scam, I came here for a good old capitalism vs socialism debate and ended up having to watch a capitalism vs weak socialdemocracy debate.
Why are they wearing clothes that are 3 times their size?
probably comfortable and they're teachers not fashion models.
Giving money to someone for them to give it back is efficient? Did I hear that right?
May I just say that this is a refreshingly sober and respectful debate. It's not the case with so many of these that the participants respect each other and don't go into crazy theatrics. Nice job
Debate about socialism and nothing about workers owning the means of production🙄
When you are meant to promote socialism but in the first 2 minutes of your speech you say that you are not a socialist and that socialism is bad…
This dude Marsh is really talking about luck and how it's not your own? like he's really trying argue that if someone somehow got lucky and was born into a wealthy family, he somehow OWES people that?? that shit is scary. by that definition, EVERYONE in america owes those starving in africa. imagine me going up to some guy who got lucky and won the lottery and saying "you owe it to me because you got lucky so it's not yours"
@Henry No i believe you got it totally wrong. I believe he is trying to say that even if you really believe in freedom you don't get to start at same level as every new born. So to compete you should be on same ground like in military. No one gives you because you are rich but will be rewarded for your work irrespective of your wealth but in real capitalism, you start at ground of your parents. He doesn't say that anybody owes to anyone.
@@user-mk2tu so what? If my parents worked hard and yours were lazy it is goddamn sacrosanct that I am in an advantage compared to you. Socialists are nothing but losers, trying to shame rich kids. Rich kids should be only proud of their successful parents.
@@user-mk2tu
The problem is that 1 in 5 people become a millionaire In America after the age of 45 and the 1% of income tend to become lower than that bracket by 20%.
We know that luck being the deciding factor is bullshit because people who win the lottery have a 70% chance of being bankrupt in a couple of years, and many sports athletes 60% have the same issue even dispite the years of multiple millions of dollars. People who tend to be successful tend to stay successful in their field. For example we know wealthy people tend to use coupons while lower classes tend to spend more on things like alcohol.
@@thelaw3536 @Lucio Innocenzo I was just explaining what the speaker in the video meant. To talk about the points you both made, socialists(who are really studying the economy) have nothing against rich nor they are saying the rich don't deserve it. Even in socialist countries, there are differences in the salaries they are paid. There are rich and poor. Its about a parameter called opportunity. Its where socialist ideas have their importance. Let's say you are managing a soccer team and you need 11 players and you have 10,000 kids to choose from. The efficient way to form the best team is not by helding a match and selecting 10 players and assigning them 10 trainers but by training 10000 kids for 1year and then placing a match and then selecting top 10 players. That 1 year training to all can be achieved by social reforms and selecting the best should be done by capitalist competitive methods which show the importance of competition.
I believe that any economy that really wants to be efficient, should have both capitalist and socialist models in them. But clinging onto one model just for idealism will prove to be devastating. Example is US healthcare. It is clearly proven that universal health care can be very efficient but US is trying to cling onto it, just because it's socialist way. But China and Vietnam since 1970s have been allowing private entities and are cherishing the better economies. So don't be towards or against an ideology. Don't treat it as rich vs poor or socialism vs capitalism. Study their purposes. The problem isn't rich kids are rich but the problem is poor kids are poor.
So if every one is going to have their own definition why don't they just come up with a different name. If you can not agree on what socialism is how do you really expect to implement it.
Because then when it fails they can say "well that really wasn't socialism" and they can try it again.
All political isms have vague definitions that vary with time and geographical location. You can say the same thing about libertarianism and capitalism.
@@RippoZer0 Difference is that Marxism/socialism is an ACTUAl political movement with plans and ideas.
Capitalism doesnt actually exists..it's a word invented by Marx to demonize the free market
"libertarians" are just 4 edgy dudes on some random forum and thus irrilevant.
That's why we focus on Socialism. Because its the one making claims and impacting our lives.
@@RippoZer0 Capitalism: means of production are owned by the people and not the goverment. The less the goverment does the more capitalism a society has...
@@robinthestate6548 Sure
The english professors cites statistics that he either does not understand or that he willingly takes out of context to prove his points. They also contradict each others.
Before the great depression start by praising the Laffer curve which was developed by a democrat. It just don't work. In fact it failed very badly so in turn I agree with Bryan and Thomas Sewell on capitolism. Sorry John you don't have a leg to stand on. I don't have to help the poor, coming from a former homeless person at the age of 12 to 18, my choice is whom I should help not a someone dictates it to me
Art Laffer is a Democrat? Pretty sure he was a Reagan Republican. Though the establishment Democrats are basically Reagan Republicans at this point, so maybe you're not entirely wrong. Just mostly wrong.
@@averageblonde5496 Well, I am right that Art Laffer came up with the Laffer curve. It's where trickle down economics comes from, so really, nothing he said makes any sense.
Laffer was completely correct on this score. There is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to taxation - if we set tax rates to 100%, then we’d scarcely raise a cent, as who would work harder or more productively if it’s all going to be taken away? Of course, the Reaganites got it wrong by thinking that any lowering in taxes would lead to tax revenue increases, when it only would if tax rates are above the optimal point for tax revenues.
The socialist in his opening statement was literally citing issues with a mixed economy and making the case for Libertarianism.
Isn't the centralization of planning and decision making what makes the collective approach to responsibility so inefficient?
He was also comparing the United States to a country with a much lower immigration rate
@JAB Initials Socialism is not necessarily central planning, there are many types of socialism. Democratic socialism is about worker controlled businesses.
What capital does a socialist nation rely on?
Both sides made strong points. One of the most strong debates I seen so far.
No offense but compelling doesn't = logically sound or empirically verifiable.
If Marsh understood economics or statistics the probability that he'd be defending these positions would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0. Few economists take the socialism vs capitalism argument seriously. The evidence is so disproportionately in favor of capitalism it requires a layman's understanding of economics to not see it.
Sorry but no. He literally said, I'm not going to use the actual definition of socialism I'm going to use the definition that people think is right even thought it's wrong.
I think Mr. March has to consider two important things about the "Nordic economic model" that rarely comes up in these debates. 1.) There are more billionaires/capita in countries like Sweden than there are in the USA and I doubt he would classify Nordic countries as Plutocracies that are controlled by the rich. 2.) The reason there are so many billionaires/capita is because their tax systems are designed to attract "Business Elites" who will innovate, invest, and lead businesses to make those countries more prosperous.
Yes, these countries are famous for their low-income inequality but they purposely have low taxes on capital and corporations to encourage businesses to grow and thrive for the benefit of all. So then who pays their famously high taxes? Answer: Everyone! They have high income tax rates that soak everyone from upper-middle class to the rich and everyone pays a whopping 25% sales tax! Now how many of you Bernie Sanders fans are still interested in the USA becoming more like Sweden?
if there is a higher chance youll be a billionaire in Sweden, yes it would be better for USA to be more like Sweden, so i don't think your actually proving the point you think you are. also, the whopping sales tax also plays a huge role because it's wealthy people who tend to buy more/expensive things. imagine having to pay little to no money at the point of purchase/sale for healthcare, education, and even free housing if necessary. sure taxes would be higher and many goods would cost more, but quality of level as measured by happiness, life expectancy, and other measures score significantly higher in Sweden. Yes, people in USA in general would be better off if the country was more like Sweden
Socialism might be a failure. That doesn't necessarily mean that capitalism is a success. See barring 3-4 countries almost all other countries are capitalist. Then why 99% people in 99% of countries are poor.poverty illiteracy disparity discrimination conflicts etc etc are prevailing there. So the question is can we say capitalism is successful
What? Most countries are Socialist/Communist/Dictatorship. All one has to do is look at all the failures of Socialist/Communist countries. Heck, take a look at North Korea vs. South Korea.
Dummy Loath isn`t (A 2) by side ( A 1) but it`s around
THis guy forgot to mention that every year America produces on average 700, 000 millionaires a year. Looks like the 1% keeps allowing more members. There is no limit to wealth. One man's gain is not another mans loss or cause for stagnation.
@TheEsotericZebra people are completely free to form democratic workplaces if they want, that's completely legal under a capitalist system! And secondly for 1000s of years 90% of people worked doing incredibly tedious and dangerous agricultural work, it has only been in the last 200 as capitalism came to fruition that the service economy has sprung up. The people who still work in manual labor are paid much more now than they were before, since capitalists have to compensate workers for the opportunity cost they pay for not getting a skilled job.
@TheEsotericZebra 1 I wouldn't blame the fact that everyone in the United States cannot be millionaires/billionaires because some people have to do manual labor. It's more so that everyone is different and has different goals/responsibilities and education level. Its impossible to expect everyone to have a "similar" wealth level in a society where everyone financial goals, personal responsibilities, educational level, life choices are so different.
@@WillStrong7 I think you and i both know that is not what they really want when they talk about workers co-op. They don't actually want to work hard, save money and risk it by starting a business inwhich they can run as a workers co-op. What these socialist are really after when they talk about workers co-op is to force current successful businesses to convert into a Workers Co-op so that they can take control of the company... Because why take the risk and do the hard work of starting your own business when you can just steal it from somebody else who already did that via government??
I agree, but I think a lot of socialists don't realize this because they haven't been exposed to capitalist ideas. Obviously some ideologue isn't going to listen, but never give up on the people who are still making up their minds!
One man gain is another man's loss, All this profit gain supposed to feed the poor and create quality education and quality heath care. This rich man are taking all the profits to their families and the government cannot afford to feed the nation.
The "socialist" isn't even a socialist. They're a social democrat.
One is based on greed, the other is based on jealousy.
why are we still debating... Capitalism won the debate a long time ago... easy-peasy
Wrong
@@princejay9661 actually, I stated a fact... learn some history
There is nothing wrong with the fact that a child's success is correlated with their parents' success. First, the correlation could because because smart parents pass on skills to their children, either through genes, or through upbringing. This is all a good thing. Second, when parents invest not just time but also money into their children, that is also a good thing. The socialist wants to prevent all the ways parents can help their children succeed, either through genes, or upbringing, or financially. That would be counterproductive.
I actually think the second one is kind of a bad thing.
When people believe that the reason for the intergenerational status persistence is the extravagancies that the wealthies provide for their children, this creates a sort of cargo cult mentality, which drives parents and society to waste a lot of time and effort on things that don't really help.
Though of course, in case it wasn't clear enough, none of this is an argument for socialism.
the one main wrong presupposition is that public ownership in socialism means state ownership
"welfare programs" it's only for giving work to government employees but not for helping the poor
I didn't understand this whole mass migration argument. Like doesnt he understand keeping people out benefits capitalism more ... As do we want someone in poor Asian country in western country getting a decent wage or want our goods cheap for better profits .. like won't lift poverty if they move . It just makes American poverty worse as no more cheap goods. Maybe then the government will consider making a good minimum wage least
This isnt a very good debate, because they don't get a chance to go back and forth and respond to each other. The moderator just moves them on to the next question.
This doesnt sound like a debate between Socialism and Capitalism. It sounds more like how to fix capitalism. How about get a Socialist on the floor.
What a waste of an hour. The guy defending capitalism...I'm not sure which planet he's talking about because it isn't this one. He's describing how he wishes capitalism worked but not how it is working right now. The other guy is talking about social democracy which is not socialism but rather just capitalism with more social programs. So it's not really a socialism vs. capitalism debate. There was not even any mention of how capitalism is a class-based system similar to slavery and feudalism where a small minority have control over a large majority. Or how corporations have captured the government. Or the contradictions of capitalism.
...Or how the Politburo is a democratic institution that promotes freedom, human rights and democracy, or how the socialist enterprises produce high quality cheap products that exactly match the real needs of the population thanks to central planning, satisfaction of the workforce with their working conditions, etc... simply they do not mention it.
Can't stand Ray Dalio.
A billionaire who profited from capitalism now argues for socialism?
Give me a BREAK.
This was great!
The study is that people would RATHER go into debt for the $400 purchase, not that they would need to. Me personally, I would put it on credit and pay it off over a couple months. Doesn’t mean I don’t have $400 in savings, it just means that I’d rather not tap into saving for the purchase.
In almost all these debates, the pro capitalist side attack state capitalism, not worker owned socialism. I’ve never even heard a capitalist address the idea. Why does this keep happening?
NIce another tool repeating silly old excuses made by commies to distance themselves from the soviet union...dude...this whole "you are nota real socialist" meme needs to stop.. Ever heard of No True Scotsman Fallacy?
@@freedomordeath89 show me the evidence that it was worker cooperatives and regulated markets instead of state capitalism and central planning and I will concede. But you can’t. And anyone reading this can google it for themselves, you don’t need to take my word for it. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to educate all those following this exchange and for illustrating the type of person on the other side.
@@jojomojojones Sorry...did you really just asked me to PROVE A NEGATIVE?
Done, you demonstrated how intellectually dishonest you are.
The burden of proof is on you, the one claiming a thesis. I'm not gonna "prove a negative" because it's impossible.
Second: "state capitalism" is a BUZZWORD invented by marxists to distance themselves from "embarassing" socialist movements.
State capitalist is an oxymoron.
Capitalism is free market and no state regulation
How can you have "state capitalism"?? The state controlling the means of production is NOT capitalism, it's the DEFINITION of SOCIALISM.
You are seriously using WIKIPEDIA links as sources? HAHAHAAHAHAH
@@jojomojojones "Opportunity to educate people" so edgy, so smug...typical 15 yo edgy murican that read a post on reddit and starts roleplaying as a marxists theorist ahahaha
@@freedomordeath89 I encourage you, and everyone else, read the links. Do your own research. Socialism is about expanding democracy to the workplace. State capitalism is when a government representative is your boss. Private capitalism is when some private individuals are your boss. In socialism, you are and coworkers are the boss.
All of these terms and more are easily searched on google.
@Freedom , you don’t have a leg to stand on and anyone that bothers to look will see what a fool you are. Your time is waning, no wonder you lash out.
Marsh seems to have a distrust of empirical findings (I do too), but he himself relies upon nothing else. He has no firm grasp of the causal underpinnings that explain all the trends and statistics he points to. He seems to think that we can't go anywhere beyond: "that's your story, here's mine."
So..you distrust empirical findings..and what do you rely on? Your dreams and shiet?
@@freedomordeath89 C'mon, man. Those aren't the only two options......
More to the point:
1) Empirical investigations are REALLY difficult, and it is just too easy to empirically "show" whatever you want.
2) Empirical investigations necessarily depend upon the theory that built into the model - and some theories are MUCH better than others.
Basically, forced stone age economy and dystopian traits vs work and merit, ideas. Socialism is just when green gains a heart and tells you thst you can get a share if the loot for free and legally.Sure capitalism ain't perfect but it's good and if crooks will do good in it it's not the fault of capitalism but of people. But yeah, if you combine capitalism with democracy you get the best thing. Combine democracy with socialism and you get the worst thing and eventually communism or similar happens.
is not reducing regulations is ending it all of them, that capitalism
i listened to get diff perspectives, but this is really a low-tier debate. check out Richard Wolff versus David Friedman for a much better debate
A robber threatens me with a gun, wants to take my wallet and tells me "well, you've been lucky". x,D
Both these speakers are horrible representatives of their respective causes. There needs to be nothing more than the highlighting of coercion. One system relies on it and the other does not. The ends cannot justify the means. Stealing from some to help others is not noble, just or righteous. Just because we have "legalized" forms of it now is akin to pointing to bad behavior to justify more bad behavior. Force is wrong. If it's wrong to use force against your neighbor to achieve any goal, virtuous or corrupt, it's still violating their rights. Pointing to outcomes in other countries is flawed too. You can violate someone's rights, imprison them and force them to read and be educated and brag about the literacy improvement but you violated their rights in the process. Beware of people who believe so strongly that they know whats better for you that they are willing to force you to comply by will of a gullible majority. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner.
Wow that capitalist guy is extremely unpleasant. He is very delusional, doesn't know what socialism is and his view of the current system is completely wrong. The guy is a professor and doesn't know what he is talking about. "Even the poor in usa have a comfortable life".. say what? are you kidding me? Im not arguing for or against capitalism here but guys you have to see that the guy is full of shit, he clearly can't be serious..."Ive been in sweden and their fancy grocery stores don't hold a candle compared to walmart" What??? when you are as american as him, you are just hopeless. He is part of these americans that sleep in an american flag blanket, at this point there is no point in debating, the only word he hears is USA. I know many americans that are decent and are ready to share ideas etc, that guy already knows everything, he is the god of the economy, USA is the best .....yeah sure.
Some people choose to fail. The capitalist would say such people should not only be permitted to make that choice, but also permitted to enjoy the fruits of that choice, such as they are, unencumbered by a government that wishes they would have chosen otherwise.
Really?...so somehow these "capitalists" get to decide how society is going to operate in their favor and everyone else has the "freedom" to suffer the consequences if they don't fit into the ideal corporate model?
This is the "people choosing to be losers" rational that justifies saying "we own the whole damn world and if you don't like it then just leave, because there's no place for you here".
This is fascism.
@@ivandafoe5451 to let people work, live and trade by themselves is fascism? When did you started to use it as a buzzword?
When the "Democratic Socialist" ascribes so much of success to just plain luck (and argues that ownership over luck is invalid), I have two points: 1) genuinely arbitrary good fortune or misfortune (of a degree that controls destiny) only really occurs at the extreme margins; and 2) that quote about how "luck" is when preparation meets opportunity. Or as Arnold Palmer once observed: "I hit a lot of lucky shots, but the more I practiced, the luckier I got."
Is the person born a paraplegic able to practice their golf swing to increase their luck?
@@andylouie6217 Refer back to my first point: genuinely arbitrary good fortune or misfortune (of a degree that controls destiny) only really occurs at the extreme margins. Thank you for illustrating my point.
@@normpeterson7767 Your first point is so vague, selfishly simplistic, non-analytical, and unsubstantiated that giving it any weight is absurd. Whether good fortune or misfortune happens at the margins is irrelevant. It's about designing a system and society (without exploiting other peoples or nations) that enables everyone to live with dignity and their fundamental human rights satisfied regardless of whether they are born average and middle class, poor and low IQ, or wealthy and high IQ. The genetics and environment one is born into are purely a matter of luck / happenstance, and they are what determine a person's capacities, resources, and influences. Free will and hard work are myths endorsed by those ignorant of neuroscience, genetics, economics, and psychology. I honestly find based on experience with close friend and family that most people who have such a simplistic world view like yours are detrimentally ignorant of science and history. Is that ignorance your fault? It's not. You were likely brought up in an environment that did not expose you to these nuances and facts, or you are of a nature that refuses to acknowledge them as compelling.
Your first point is so vague, selfishly simplistic, non-analytical, and unsubstantiated that giving it any weight is absurd. Whether good fortune or misfortune happens at the margins is irrelevant. It's about designing a system and society (without exploiting other peoples or nations) that enables everyone to live with dignity and their fundamental human rights satisfied regardless of whether they are born average and middle class, poor and low IQ, or wealthy and high IQ. The genetics and environment one is born into are purely a matter of luck / happenstance, and they are what determine a person's capacities, resources, and influences. Free will and hard work are myths endorsed by those ignorant of neuroscience, genetics, economics, and psychology. I honestly find based on experience with close friend and family that most people who have such a simplistic world view like yours are detrimentally ignorant of science and history. Is that ignorance your fault? It's not. You were likely brought up in an environment that did not expose you to these nuances and facts, or you are of a nature that refuses to acknowledge them as compelling.
@@andylouie6217 . . . beta!
Why are there more black players in the NBA/NFL than other races? Is that just luck / happenstance? Does evolution only work from the neck down?
His 1st point wasn't vague or simplistic at all. It was concise. I would probably add that a person's outcome in life is also partially determined on the natural hierarchy they fall into. . . meaning what cloth are they cut from. Not everyone can be the CEO and not everyone can create a successful business regardless of how intelligent or hardworking they are. A person might be smart enough to be an engineer but they might be better suited at being an electrician. Also, as much as many people want to deny it, the way the world sees you does impact your path in life. You can have two different people make the same argument but depending on the natural respect one receives from others will determine the weight of the argument made. It sucks, but that's life. Instead of bitching about how unfair it is, teach them to identify that natural characteristic and how they fit into that hierarchy and to pursue what path best suits them. And also remember that you will always have losers in life and people will fall thru the cracks. Some will deserve it and some will just have bad luck.
Why is this debate so long?
Oh. It's because John is a long winded english professor ;)
That end is what is wrong with the socialist's entire idea of how to alter the economic system. It's just flowery rethoric, but there isn't anything there. Just ideals, but no actual substitive data backing it, and so you enter a fruad dilemma with none of his genius. I think debates like this are important so Bryan can explain what is the current state of affairs and our best knowledge on how to resolve them.
As opposed to your lofty visions of what capitalism should be...but clearly isn't.
50:15 oh boy
The Soviet Union a hell on earth..? Haha...
Singapore is very far from a free market and so is Norway both have a huge proportion of wealth owned or controlled by the state. Guatemala or Haiti are much better examples
I love how socialists ALWAYS just SKIP over the little point that socialism has NEVER worked in practice and jump right into how GREAT thing will be under socialism.
Define socialism. You can look it up if needed.
@@FATHOLLYWOODB123 never been tried right?
@@MicahErfan And your proof supporting your claim isssss...........
@@MicahErfan Otherwise, if you are so sure, I will be happy to be guest on your show and you can prove yourself wrong. I will take on this challenge.
@@FATHOLLYWOODB123 If you are still looking for a definition of socialism I think you are on the wrong page.
For the hardcore capitalists: 1. What are you suggesting once automation is the default? when most tasks are done by far more efficient robots and human labor is seldom a necessity. Do the bottom 50% just off their selves or live below poverty?
2. You're arguing for less regulation and more freedom, but wouldn't this only create more freedom for the top 1% while taking away freedom from everyone else? For example, if you look back at history, corporations treated people like animals, like slaves, because they could. This only started changing once people started unionizing. So if all regulation would be taken away, wouldn't the 1% treat those below even worse? as they do to animals in factory farms, with conditions that are insane by any standard. How would those conditions improve rather than worsen?
Obviously I'm not talking about California and their regulations to prevent building new housing. To me it seems like a capitalist move, a monopolistic move, not a democratic or socialist move. Because those that own these properties can charge insane prices and either live somewhere else or just own more than 1 property.
I'm also not talking about the prevention of immigration, this once again, seems like a capitalist or monopolistic move, not a democratic or socialist move.
3. Is the FED capitalist or socialist? they create value out of thin air (debt) for example, and profit from it under the guise of saving the public. Are FED bailouts capitalist or socialist? why are they allowed to create money and profit from it, but we are not and would go to jail for eternity for doing so?
By the way, one of the best debates on the topic I've seen so far. I'm only begging to research these systems so I can form sound opinions.
1. Automation is the new "boogieman" of the commies...once it was "imperialism is gonna destroy the world", then it was "the factories work is gonna alienate people", now its "the robots are gonna take over". these are cyclical silly scapegoats you use to scare people and make them belive your ideas. Basically propaganda. You are like Goebbels saying that the "bolsheviks are going to rape your daughter if we dont invade russia first"
2. "top 1%" another talk point you use all the time...so boring... in the last 200 year the rich got richer....BUT THE POOR TOO! You can't possily be so blind not to see the improvements we had...the world is better EVERY YEAR. So stop the BS. Are you gonna use the "environment armageddon coming" talk point too now, let me guess? Hes not talking about basic safety/consumer protection regulations etc...he's talking about burocracy makign businesses less profitable and so on
3. The FED is an instituition..it's neither..it's an instrument...it's your FORK socialist or capitalist? it's your local sewage pump socialist or capitalist? Are you for real????
BTW I see that you dont understand what MONEY is and you belive in CONSPIRACY THEORIES about debt...great.
I suggest you follow a 101 course in economics because you are EMBARASSING ahahahah AHAHAHAHAHAH
"create money and profit from it," AHHAHAHAHA LOOK AT THIS DUDE AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH THIS DUDE THINKS THAT SEIGNORAGE IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY TO STEAL FROM THA POOR AHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
@@freedomordeath89 1. Deflection. You didn't address my question.
2. Deflection again. Even still, to answer your red herring, no the poor aren't getting richer. In fact, people are working longer hours now, including women that mostly used to be stay at home moms (a single person can seldom support a family now), while having more debt and less savings. Most people can't financially handle a single emergency without going into debt, that's how little people have in savings.
3. Deflection once again. My fork doesn't pump trillions into the economy to bail out corporations while earning interest. Even if much inflation doesn't show up in say a super market, it does on the stock exchange. It pumps stocks up by hundreds of %'s. Clearly the poor aren't the ones profiting from this and in fact. One of the reasons why the gap is getting much wider.
The fact that the FED and other banks are allowed to create money isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a fact.
And FYI, learn to communicate with people. You just come off as a complete tool. I'll wait for someone with a head to reply so I can engage in a rational conversation.
You know there are thousands of pages of new regulations everyday right? And those regulations rig the economy in favor of the plutocrats and big corporations against the small businesses. Why do you think it's gotten so hard for people to start businesses? Regulation isn't inherently good or bad as both socdems and free marketers think of it. It's all about what kind of regulation is passed. And since we have a plutocratic government as shown in many studies, why on earth would we expect these regulations to be good for middle and lower classes?
"corporations treated people like animals, like slaves, because they could." And they don't now? more regulation hasn't fixed that problem. I reject the idea that corporations USED to treat people like animals, I think it's the exact opposite. Due to decline in morals and increase in materialism over the years.
And on the FED. I don't think we should view the FED as capitalist or socialist, this misses the point. I guess if I had to pick one, it would be more socialist, but it's essentially socialism for the rich. This is a problem. But the fiat system allows them to do this. And the fiat system is something that socialists typically support and "hardcore capitalists" are typically against. Even though I don't consider myself a hardcore capitalist. I don't know if we should go back to the gold standard or anything like that, but we sure as hell do need a new monetary system.
@@Tehz1359 You are painting all regulations in a broad brush. Some regulations are passed by corporations of course, meant to prevent competition. But a lot of regulation is passed to reign in those corporations, which if removed, would cause massive issues. We can look to the improperly regulated industries as an example e.g. banking and the massive 2008 crash - they did no proper risk management and assumed riskless worldwide risk, which is insanity. How many lives were ruined because of it?
No, corporations have been beaten back into the pen by many factors such as unionization, so they cannot treat you like complete garbage anymore. To say that people were treated better back then, is not accurate. There used to be less safety precautions, and more work related mortality, much longer working hours and etc. What needs to happen is for them to be forced to contribute more to society. The inequality gap is an existential issue.
Gold standard causes too many issues. It will not happen.
AI will mostly take low end white collar jobs where they don't need a body, like legal clerks and admin, it will still not be economical to have an AI cleaning robot for a lot longer. Mass job loss fear was also said about internet, trains, buffalo and plow, etc etc etc.
The biggest threat to corporations when it comes to staff is the staff leaving, training a whole new team is not cheap and the entire company will probably collapse. This is only possible in a free market with many employers.
In terms of finance creation, this isn't a capitalist vs socialist thing as working a socialist system you will still need a method of trade unless you go back to bartering apples for pigs, which would be illegal as it is capitalism.
The danish have the highest of taxes... they pay 120% tax on new cars... way too many taxes that ‘help’ people who profit off the system unfairly
Why don’t socialists just open companies and hand them over to the workers for them to run the pay you the owner a specific amount of interest from profits like a franchise fee. You take that money and give it to the government or just hand it back to them. Leave us capitalists alone. Practice your thing and lead by example. Companies earn enough profits to fund damn near everything socialism offers as “equality”
because the socialist nor the communist ever account for risk. they presumptively decide that outcomes are only positive and that the result should be a shared revenue. all that socialism and communism displays is that they are too lazy to do their own charity work and they are too delusional to account for negative-sum circumstances. and you are correct about their illustration of "equality". unfortunately, this equality only accounts for successful output and never accounts for the risk of input. will I be compensated if my business goes bottom-up? no, because I accepted that risk and did not divert it as someone else's responsibility but my own.
Because it's not really about equity or fairness. Deep down inside Socialists/Communists are evil jealous small d!k'd beta males that really want to punish those higher up on the social hierarchy.
how is capitalism freedom when the employer/employee binary is undemocratic?
democracy doesn't mean freedom.
I personally have just as much if not more say or power in my employee employer relationship with my boss. He NEEDS me at the business and we both know I know it. Anecdotal, yes, but I feel incredibly free with my job as a welder.
@@Fabric_Hater That's the thing of it. Your wage is your labor cost. When you do a highly skilled job (like welding) you get a larger slice of the pie than the new guy who sweeps. Maybe one day the new guy will learn to weld. That's the beauty of capitalism. You learn new skills and you get paid the value of your labor.
@@Fabric_Hater Surely you must know that is not the case for almost all other workers...your unique situation could change in a heartbeat with a new boss.
@@robinthestate6548 And somehow tyranny does mean freedom...really?
The best economic system is the system that gives individuals the most freedom.
I had to post this:
Listening to Brian Kaplan was actually very funny. He stated that capitalist countries like the US outperform other countries that are less capitalistic. What he doesn’t tell you is that socially democratic countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, etc. outperform countries like the US in every metric.
Since the 1980s when the US moved more to the right in terms of economics, wages for the poor and middle-class have been stagnant except for the rich who increased their wealth from $8 trillion to over $50 trillion. Not only that but the US is now the most highly unequal advanced country in the world in terms of concentration of wealth, poverty, homelessness, financial stress, etc. etc.
The US since the 1980s has increased incarceration massively to the tune of 2 million people, which is the highest in the world. Norway on the other hand shut down seven prisons due to a lack of crime.
Finland eliminated homeless while the US has millions of homeless people. In terms of a free market, here’s a couple of examples. When the US invaded Iraq, the idea was to let the wonders of free market do its job. Donald Rumsfield was an advocate of free market capitalism that thẻ conservative, economist Milton Friedman and hack right wing author Ayn Rand promoted. When Iraq turned into a nightmare, economically, socially and politically Rumsfield stated, “Well freedom can be messy.”
Since the US and Britain promoted right wing deal, liberal capitalism to the USSR, Russia has been turned into a hell hole, economically and politically. Crime, poverty, inequality, homelessness, addiction, alcoholism, depression, economic stress of all increased since unregulated capitalism and its policies were implemented in Russia. Neoliberal free market capitalism did not create democracy and freedom in Russia, it did the exact opposite. Instead of the dictator Joseph Stalin, Russia has Putin. Instead of improving Russia with the transition to neoliberal free market capitalism economically things have gotten far worse instead of better. Look up the Kansas experiment in the US. Sam Brownback implemented economic policies by the conservative economist Milton Friedman‘s in Kansas,that being cutting taxes for the very rich and corporations, privatization, deregulation, trickle down supply, side economics etc. This state was also a disaster economically until an unusual left-wing billionaire saved the state by moving it towards a progressive, Colorado socially democratic state. Everything improved. The state deficit was reduced, jobs jobs in businesses, flourished, corporate profits went up, even though taxes were increased on the rich corporations.
I know he was going to bring up North Korea as an example. North Korea is not socialist it’s a communist dictatorship. Just as Nazi Germany and Chile were capitalist dictatorships it’s the same thing with North Korea.
Communism is not the same thing as Socialism, Democratic Socialism is not the same as social democracy. He holds Walmart as an example of the wonders of capitalism where it’s workers have to go on food stamps and it cost Americans billions of dollars each year because Walmart is too greedy to pay its workers a decent wage to live on. These billions of dollars could be used to improve infrastructure, healthcare, etc. instead companies like Walmart, McDonald’s, Nestlé, etc. all use American infrastructure like roads, water, etc. but they end up paying zero in taxes while the middle class and the poor have to pay a higher tax rate than the very rich and corporations because tax revenue is low.
Michael Pantazis
watch the youtube video The World we lived in. Episode 1. (Film dubbed into English. Сlass struggle for everyone)
So, 2 capitalists talking stuff, nice. Goodbye
Communism works very well at the family level; every family is a commune. Socialism works well at the clan level, where everyone knows everyone else. At both of those levels we don't need compulsion by government; we do it ourselves voluntarily. When it gets very large, though, it becomes office holders confiscating the product of some people's labor and enterprise to get themselves re-elected. It's interesting that Mr. Marsh cites Denmark, where the culture is uniform everywhere and the total population is less than that of the areas of Dallas-Ft. Worth or Chicago, and neither of the American areas has a uniform culture like Denmark. A bad example unless you can get BLM or California or NYC to become mainstream America.
brilliant interpretation and analysis.
Was that true the USSR would've collapsed day one
08:17 අප්පට සිරි ඇනගත්තා 😆 This disconnected form of life is a product of capitalistic economy as I believe
Capitalism is the pursuit of capital.
Socialism is the centralized appropriation and redistribution of said capital.
Socialism is the pursuit of others' capital.
@@shoobidyboop8634 "centralized appropriation " lol
@@donrastar1579 Your definition was the individual's perspective for capitalism, and the state's perspective for socialism. Mine was the individual's perspective for socialism, ie gimme-gimme-gimme. Me-me-me. Free-free-free. MAKES ME WANNA PUKE!!!!
@@shoobidyboop8634 I'll consider that as I continue my understanding of these topics. Thanks for the input
@@donrastar1579 Seriously, tho, capitalism isn't the pursuit of capital. It's an environment with property rights and individual freedom such that consenting adults can freely exchange goods and services. Within that environment, anything goes, enjoy yourself.
01:13:46 🤣
Pure socialism would result in a society possessing a lack of imagination and innovation. Capitalism permits creativity. Income inequality does not matter. Standard of living and purchasing power do.
Why would these "scholars" leave thier houses in outfits that look like they deflated underneath them once they put them on, and disheveled with no tie unbuttoned shirts mismatching tie? How does anyone take them seriously they can't even dress Ina manner that tells everyone they interact with they care about how they present themselves?
Lmao
Caplan wears flip flops and sweatpants to 90% of his lectures. The impression he left on me is that he is more interested in ideas than aesthetics, and he wants to enjoy the benefits of being a tenured professor. Get over yourself you dense fashionista.
@@TheBswan oh weird I didn't realize I asked about caplans classrooms... My bad, what I meant my statement for was this debate. I couldn't care less what caplan wears while teaching his own classes. That's completely different. And honestly any of these people could have shown up in jeans and t shirts and I would have been fine with that but showing up in suits that are too big, mis matching pieces of suits it just gives me the impression that they don't think very highly of the platform they were invited to stand on. Professionalism and how one presents themselves is important. Non verbal cues are important especially as a guest in someone else's arena. Idk maybe I'm outdated, but where I come from we make extra effort to look nice for events like this even if just an audience member. It's out of respect in a way.
P.s. tenure means very little to me. There a whole swath of tenured professors whom shouldn't even be professors let alone ones that cannot be fired... It's like the knock off version of being a partner in a law firm...
@@TheBswan oh weird I didn't realize I asked about caplans classrooms... My bad, what I meant my statement for was this debate. I couldn't care less what caplan wears while teaching his own classes. That's completely different. And honestly any of these people could have shown up in jeans and t shirts and I would have been fine with that but showing up in suits that are too big, mis matching pieces of suits it just gives me the impression that they don't think very highly of the platform they were invited to stand on. Professionalism and how one presents themselves is important. Non verbal cues are important especially as a guest in someone else's arena. Idk maybe I'm outdated, but where I come from we make extra effort to look nice for events like this even if just an audience member. It's out of respect in a way.
P.s. tenure means very little to me. There a whole swath of tenured professors whom shouldn't even be professors let alone ones that cannot be fired... It's like the knock off version of being a partner in a law firm...
@@daniferris980 learn to fly you extinct dodo bird
what a horrible debate, horrible moderator... really poor arguments
I realized he doesn't know what he's talking about once he brought up venezuela as a 'socialist' country
5:30 capitalists love bringing up Singapore as a great example of capitalism. Singapore literally has universal healthcare, strong labor laws, strong unions, strong social safety nets - everything capitalists hate
@Leo Mate why are you and so many conservatives so bent up on the semantics. They may call themselves right-wing, but they still have universal healthcare, universal college, strong labor laws, strong regulations, and a strong welfare program. The People's Action Party may be right-wing in Singapore but in America they would be called socialists /leftists
@Leo Mate I understand now. So you're a theocratic fascist politically; but you're economically left-leaning.
To my point earlier, capitalists DO hate, and will always hate, the social programs that singapore has. The capitalist class are against universal healthcare, universal college, strong labor laws, strong regulations, and a strong welfare program, because it strengthens the working class. They want less regulations and less labor laws and a weak social safety net so that they can continue to exploit the working class.
capitalism and country contradicts itself, because statism is not capitalism is corporatism therefore capitalism is not associated with the country, only is voluntary associations of human beings
sorry bud but thats not even english
So its more "democracy against antisocial" debate. Its that pesky government that makes rules that is the problem. If there were no laws against murder, people would be freer. Same with theft, or annoying other people in general.
Now let's have a similar debate in China or North Korea.
@@danielmoore7105 . . . I guess you missed the point of my comment. But to your question, China was able to achieve success economically because they've stolen so much of our technology over the decades. And I don't think they're beating us by every meaningful metric. Although I do think the US is in decline. . .which I think is a good thing. We've been in decline since the 1960s. It would also be nice to see Japan become a little more Nationalistic again.
@@republitarian484 China not stole anything, stop idiotic propaganda!
Chinese are free to says all they want, buy a plane ticket go to China and you will see it with your eyes. Sorry for my bad english.
@@VNn2023 . . . what are you talking about? You guys steal all of our innovations and copy everything. You lured manufacturers in with low costs and cheap labor and then reverse engineered products, copied patents, etc.
Ho boy. I was expecting the socialist guy to piss me off with the usual socialist dogma. But the capitalist dude is SO obnoxious. If he wanted to make capitalism look bad, he did a very good job.
The socialist dude was far more nuances and aware of the flaws in his ideology.
Why is an English professor debating an actual economist lmaooooo go back to Shakespeare
They asked him to be there (for their own reasons)...do you think he just decided to walk on stage and start talking?
The pool guy speaking vs. a substantiated critical thinker.
Mr. Caplan, you're always the truck driver in any debate you're in. Sorry buddy, but you gotta read a whole lot more.
You are only seeing the surface simplistically without even understanding the fundamental positions exposed. Typically socialist. Dogma over dogma
Marsh is completely out of his depth. No facts or figures to support his points at all. His only one is growth from poor and rich, but failed to point out that poor people get richer and rich people get poorer. People move between brackets. This guys whole life is a waste.
You need to look at the "facts" before making nonsense claims about movement between brackets. Yes, those things do occasionally happen, but in the overwhelming majority, as the cliche says..."the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer".
Capitalism 👎 👎 👎
I know most people here rooted for the capitalist but the socialist clearly won this debate
cLeArLy!!!
whenever ancaps bring up "voluntarism" and how capitalism supposedly isn't based on coercion and a state to protect private property, I cringe because it signals a fundamental misunderstanding of how capital is accumulated, kept, and moved. aka a fundamental misunderstanding of how capitalism works. also why the fuck is the so-called socialist rep arguing for free markets??? what a stupid debate
Because free markets have been proven to be the most efficient way to allocate resources.
It seems that the social democrats wants to forever hold the back of the bicycle rather than let you ride on your own and go as fast or as slow or even ride at all.
Alright 6 minutes in and I am not confident in this debater at all. Stricter immigration is needed not less strict
We are all socialist
I’m not
@40:00 so it’s a good thing that people are getting divorced..... yeah ok. He will never get married because he knows that if his wife left him, then he would have to pay her a ridiculous amount of money for the rest of her life, but then again he’s ok with it happening to other people. He’s a hypocrite.
I had to post this:
Listening to Brian Kaplan was actually very funny. He stated that capitalist countries like the US outperform other countries that are less capitalistic. What he doesn’t tell you is that socially democratic countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, etc. outperform countries like the US in every metric.
Since the 1980s when the US moved more to the right in terms of economics, wages for the poor and middle-class have been stagnant except for the rich who increased their wealth from $8 trillion to over $50 trillion. Not only that but the US is now the most highly unequal advanced country in the world in terms of concentration of wealth, poverty, homelessness, financial stress, etc. etc.
The US since the 1980s has increased incarceration massively to the tune of 2 million people, which is the highest in the world. Norway on the other hand shut down seven prisons due to a lack of crime.
Finland eliminated homeless while the US has millions of homeless people. In terms of a free market, here’s a couple of examples. When the US invaded Iraq, the idea was to let the wonders of free market do its job. Donald Rumsfield was an advocate of free market capitalism that thẻ conservative, economist Milton Friedman and hack right wing author Ayn Rand promoted. When Iraq turned into a nightmare, economically, socially and politically Rumsfield stated, “Well freedom can be messy.”
Since the US and Britain promoted right wing deal, liberal capitalism to the USSR, Russia has been turned into a hell hole, economically and politically. Crime, poverty, inequality, homelessness, addiction, alcoholism, depression, economic stress of all increased since unregulated capitalism and its policies were implemented in Russia. Neoliberal free market capitalism did not create democracy and freedom in Russia, it did the exact opposite. Instead of the dictator Joseph Stalin, Russia has Putin. Instead of improving Russia with the transition to neoliberal free market capitalism economically things have gotten far worse instead of better. Look up the Kansas experiment in the US. Sam Brownback implemented economic policies by the conservative economist Milton Friedman‘s in Kansas,that being cutting taxes for the very rich and corporations, privatization, deregulation, trickle down supply, side economics etc. This state was also a disaster economically until an unusual left-wing billionaire saved the state by moving it towards a progressive, Colorado socially democratic state. Everything improved. The state deficit was reduced, jobs jobs in businesses, flourished, corporate profits went up, even though taxes were increased on the rich corporations.
I know he was going to bring up North Korea as an example. North Korea is not socialist it’s a communist dictatorship. Just as Nazi Germany and Chile were capitalist dictatorships it’s the same thing with North Korea.
Communism is not the same thing as Socialism, Democratic Socialism is not the same as social democracy. He holds Walmart as an example of the wonders of capitalism where it’s workers have to go on food stamps and it cost Americans billions of dollars each year because Walmart is too greedy to pay its workers a decent wage to live on. These billions of dollars could be used to improve infrastructure, healthcare, etc. instead companies like Walmart, McDonald’s, Nestlé, etc. all use American infrastructure like roads, water, etc. but they end up paying zero in taxes while the middle class and the poor have to pay a higher tax rate than the very rich and corporations because tax revenue is low.
Michael Pantazis
I kinda lost it at "free market capitalism in Russia", "free market in Iraq" and "capitalist nazi Germany".
By the way. Today ALL nordic countries OUTPERFORM USA in terms of economic freedom.
I am really interested by what do you mean by "outperforming in every metric", when it comes to Germany and USA Comparison.
Wages did increase from 1980.
"These billions" could be used to run a federal government... for a few months.
@@zigoter2185 Business insider magazine. Not exactly commie outlet is it? Google this article: “Here's why Nordic governments are so far ahead of the US.” looking forward to your reply.
@@zigoter2185: By all metrics = The US has the highest crime rate in the industrialized world, and it also has the highest inequality. In nordic countries 20% prisoners return back to prison, by contrast 75% prisoners released from prison return back to prison in the US. Norway closed 27 prisons due to a lack of crime, while the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world at 2 million people.
Poverty rates in Nordic countries is about 4 to 5 % on average while in the US it’s about 19 % which is dead last of all the 26 OECD countries. 60% of all Americans make $30,000 per year or less plus they have to pay for healthcare, education, dental, medication‘s, etc. In progressive countries, these things are covered for the public which makes it doubly worse in the US when you factor low wages like this and a lack of social programs. $30,000 per year is less than what people were making a 1980.
Finland has zero homelessness which also decreases crime and frees up the police department while the US has millions of homeless. 6 to 8 weeks paid vacation, public university, education, paid maternity, leave, public health care, full or partial dental,coverage depending on your income, public daycare as opposed to private which costs around $600 per month in the US, shorter working hours and four days instead of five days of work in certain countries. Oh, and it’s much cheaper to live in these countries even though tax rates are slightly higher. Do you understand what I mean by all metrics now? This is just a small example.
@@zigoter2185 Do your own research besides reading right wing media. The only thing Donald Trump is right about was when he said “the stock market and the economy always does better under democratic/left-wing governments.”The Democratic Party is not even that left-wing by any means party and they still kick ass compared to republican states.
The Kansas Brownback trope is misleading. 25 states have lower income tax rates now than they did when Kansas adopted its tax cuts in 2012; only 4 states and D.C. have higher rates since. If the Kansas experience were typical, we should be hearing cautionary tales from those other 24 states as well. We aren’t. Compared to states like California & New York driving away individuals & businesses through their policies. Republican-led states are on average better. The left just fucking sucks.