Ask Prof Wolff: Who Do Politicians Really Serve?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Stay connected with the latest news from d@w. Join our mailing list today: www.democracya...
A Patron of Democracy at Work asks: "It seems like you believe capitalists aren't just greedy and evil but in a system requiring them to do what they do. Is this also true of politicians who vote for and carry out incredibly destructive policies to human lives and the environment?"
This is Professor Richard Wolff's video response.
Submit your own question to be considered for a video response by Prof. Wolff on Patreon: / community .
Ask Prof Wolff is a @democracyatwrk production. We are committed to providing these videos to you free of ads. Please consider supporting us on Patreon.com/democracyatwork. Become a part of the growing Patreon community and gain access to exclusive patron-only content, along with the ability to ask Prof. Wolff questions like this one! Your support also helps keep this content free to the public. Spreading Prof. Wolff's message is more important than ever. Help us continue to make this possible.
_________________________________________________________________________
Want to learn more? Check out this Ask Prof Wolff about politicians and big business: • Ask Prof Wolff: Will P...
_________________________________________________________________________
We are excited to introduce our new Book Donation Program, which distributes free d@w books to libraries, schools, co-ops, prisons, and more. To request books or donate to the program: www.democracya...
__________________________________________________________________________
Check out the 2021 Hardcover edition of “Understanding Marxism,” with a new, lengthy introduction by Richard Wolff! Visit: www.lulu.com/e...
“Marxism always was the critical shadow of capitalism. Their interactions changed them both. Now Marxism is once again stepping into the light as capitalism shakes from its own excesses and confronts decline.”
Check out all of d@w’s books: "The Sickness is the System," "Understanding Socialism," by Richard D. Wolff, and “Stuck Nation” by Bob Hennelly at www.lulu.com/sp...
_________________________________________________________________________
Follow Wolff ONLINE:
Web: www.rdwolff.com
Patreon: / democracyatwork
Twitter: / profwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Facebook: / economicupdate
/ richarddwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Daily Motion: www.dailymotio...
Subscribe to the EU podcast: economicupdate....
Shop our worker CO-OP made MERCH: democracy-at-w...
As I used to tell my friends, "Politicians are elected before we elect them"
Selected then they got elected
You are right .
This is how Biden became President !
And not Bernie Sanders !
Brilliant!
Thank you Karen, and thank you Prof Wolff.
Compartir este video con AMIGOS, VECINOS, EN LA IGLESIA, EN EL TRABAJO, con todo el mundo haganlo POR FAVOR MUY IMPORTANTE
The reason why politicians create jobs is for our taxes rather than for us.
Yes the System teaches them to Serve themselves and the highest Bidder .
The only issue I have with this argument is that politicians can, and do, rewrite the rules to benefit themselves or exempt themselves from the consequences of crappy laws and rules.
That is the key point. To profit from and evade consequences of ANY law that may effect them or their donors not just crappy laws.
History has a Record Lobbyist Sitting in the Officer's of Senators !!!
And Actually writing the Very Legislation that AFECT THEIR Special Interests $$$ and Every One of US !
The only issue? Good god is Wolff wrong on this one. People choose to be greedy. Politicians aren't required to be greedy, and at any point they can choose to not be greedy (and resultingly leave office as necessary). Nobody is holding a gun to their head for them to remain in office, and to be greedy while there.
Does a capitalistic system contribute? Yes. The capitalistic system self-selects these sh-tty people to apply, be selected and advance. If you aren't high in narcissism and psychopathy, you're less likely to brag about yourself at a job interview, and then are less likely to get the job, for example; humility and decency are punished in capitalism. But again, nobody is forcing these people to make greedy decisions, they're going there on their own.
It's the system ,it doesn't matter who we vote for, we get the same results.
Because they represent they same system
@@imbalancedstatus8824 yes , they have no choice
Now all you have to do is properly identify "the system".
@@jgalt308 the big money is the system
@@bluzcompany2293 You mean the "fiat money" that FDR gave you FIRST?????
Before all the unconstitutional socialist Ponzi schemes.
Just because the system allows for corruption doesn’t excuse those that exploit it for their personal gain AT THE EXPENSE OF THE 99%. These people are immoral or amoral - both horrible traits that they consciously choose. As children we’re taught right from wrong. As adults we control our choices.
Corporate lobbyists actually write or help write legislation, which is then shepherded through all the various committees and eventually become law. These lobbyists work on behalf to various corporate cliques which support and own the two major political parties. Many politicians or members of their staff typically go to work for these corporation or lobbyists concerns, creating a political merry-go-round of clout and influence.
Great video professor Richard Wolff
One reason you can't get an anti-capitalist theme to stick in mainstream discussion shows up in how Pelosi, say, can casually brush it away saying 'We're all capitalists". People are directly employed by the big corporate donors or by smaller concerns dependant on them. No wonder most don't even want to consider that the system works against them. It's got them tied up in a real time economic pragmatism that tells them the system works in their interests too.
Perfect analysis 👍👍👍. House of cards webseries in 10 minutes
Corruption is part of the political system
Political System is part of the corruption
you are correct. That is why the homeless, the poor, the soon to be poor, never had it good.
That is a very interesting and poignant question. Im my life time I have probably watched a thousand "representatives" cycle through the hallowed halls of Capitol Hill. During that time I simultaneously watched our government "representatives" help foment endless wars all over the globe. I have seen the degradation of our education system to an embarrassing degree. I have watched our infrastructure crumble and bridges collapse and rivers catch on fire. I have experienced the monetization of our health care system and seen the depravity of our Pharmaceutical industry. I have watched presidential elections that would be laughable if they weren't so obscene and farcical. During all that time, during all those events, I could only conclude that what I was seeing could only be a form of "theater", a choreographed stage play enacted for the gratification of an audience who willfully suspended their disbelief. They have been captured and enthralled by a once beautiful idea that exists no more.
Democracy threatens war. So we can do only the war.
When you build a society on authoritarianism, as all civilized societies are, why is it surprising when those in authority exploit their authority to further their own personal goals? We have to build entire institutions to try and prevent that very thing. And those preventative institutions are always corrupted. This corruption occurs because the goals of such institutions run counter to the very purpose of having a government and economy in the first place.
To filter the will, talent and resources of billions of people into a few hands.
That's what civilization is... it's what it does. And it never really works very well, because it's plainly contrary to the ethic that allows people to cooperate as communities, instead of competing alone as individuals.
No one is an "I", everyone is a "We".
@@blogintonblakley2708 all civilization wasn't this way at all times. Americans hope to cut away history and the future to make themselves permanent hegemon.
@@patricialongo5870 True. Civilized societies have a life cycle. There tends to be some formative struggle that unifies a large bloc of people in one way or the other. From that struggle foundational myths are created that inform the structure of the new society.
Using hierarchical authority and for the last several thousand years some form of a market economy.
So at the beginning such societies tend to be highly unified. The leaders tend to be motivated and victorious... they survived the struggle. As the society continues to mature, an internal struggle for control of the resources takes place over time.
The action of market creates winners and losers. As this process continues the wealth created by everyone gets pooled at the top. Those who win in the market place use the structure of government to make certain that their advantage continues.
This lobbying divert government officials from serving the best interests of the society into serving the best interests of the rich.
This corrupting process continues until so much energy is diverted into preserving the interests of the rich that essential infrastructure begins breaking down. These breakdowns damage the faith of the society at large in their leaders.
Eventually the fundamental and increasing inequities are too much and the systems fracture... often taking the society along with it.
Very well put
As someone that tries to look at a problem from the outside this is how I see the U.S. political situation. The U.S. is not and has not been a Democracy since 1978 when Citizens United was enacted. Ever since then the U.S. is effectively a Corporatocracy disguised as a Democracy. Sure you get to vote, but your only choices are given to you by Corporations and the 1%. So effectively you have no choice. And as with the U.S. economic system greed has run rampant through the political machine so there is effectively no chance at all you can ever get your Democracy back. It's gone and you simply have to live with it. Politicians do not serve the people, they couldn't care less. Politicians don't even write the laws, corporations do, politicians simply enact the corporate written bills into law. Face it U.S. your democracy died, you didn't pay attention, and now it's gone forever.
You can't get back what never was intended and never existed...
nor can you get back what did exist because you have no clue what that was.
The U.S. needs to do like France, don't allow private money in politics! That is our problem! Bribed, corrupt politicians!
This is distressing a f depressing. How do you sell theconcept of democrtic socialism to the American public? At 80 yo I don't have any hope of seeing any change in my lifetime. Sigh.....
A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims...but accomplices" - George Orwell
Very true ....George Orwell
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".
From a non-economic perspective, but in alignment with Dr. Wolff's conclusion, we should look at the fact that one private, non-governmental club with two wings, exercises complete control over every aspect of our entire political system.
You’re 100% correct. As a political scientist I enjoy your content. My channel is about prepping but from time to time I talk about politics.
For every representative, Republican or Democrat, who retains a trace element of independence, there are three sitting in the breast pocket of corporate capital. Since the supreme court decided that there should be no effective limits on campaign finance, and, to a lesser extent, long before, candidates have been reduced to tongue-tied automata, incapable of responding to those in need of help, incapable of regulating those in need of restraint, for fear of upsetting their funders.
Truth isn't often palatable, especially in DC
Money and wealth has become the prime motivating force of human endeavor. As a result health, happiness, communality, and a sincere reverence for the common good of the whole global human enterprise has been jeopardized by a relatively few individuals with the wealth and power to determine the future of everyTHING and everyBODY. The utter lunacy of our geo-political and socio-economic paradigm breaks my geriatric heart. My only remaining hope is that we will not kill the Earth itself as we consciously destroy ourselves.
We need second order topics to consider. All this kind of stuff is obvious and basically "fan service," preaching to the choir level.
Lol, bro he doesn't want this channel to be taken down. Unfortunately it is still not a suitable time period for such topics.
@@neurodivtries4101 Why would it be taken down? There are no ads of any kind here.
Nor is Wolff any threat to the powers that be...on any level...and his entire "schtick"
is devoted to "increasing reliance" on government dependency.
In short, he is incapable of recognizing the truth or speaking it in any manner which
conflicts with the "official narrative of government" on any issue.
Countries with parliaments (representative democracy) are in fact oligarchies (few lead). In order to be a true democracy, the decisions of the Parliament should be submitted to the approval of the citizens. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of those elected and the voters, so people lose confidence in the way society function. As a result, the poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. the populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a side effect in societies where economies have a strong competitive aspect, where the interests of those who hold economic power in society are divergent. Thus, those with money, and implicitly with political power in society, are supervising each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. Because of this, countries with large mineral resources, like Russia and Venezuela (their share in GDP is large), do not have democratic aspects, because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries, the main resource exploited may even be the state budget, as they have converging interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. This is what is observed in Romania, Bulgaria, when, no matter which party comes to power, the result is the same. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if most of his voters consider that their interests are not right represented.
Those who think that democracy is when you choose someone to make decisions for you without him having to consult you, are either a fool or a scoundrel. It's like when you have to choose from several thieves who will steal from you. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and even more surely you will be left without money and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, you will not find, in any economic or sports activity, someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and who is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, without to wait until the term to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Perfect Explanation as always thanks for laying out the facts Professor Wolff.
Self-Serving Hipocrits!!!
Nope there bad guys in my perspective.
EXCELLENT INSIGHTS PROF WOLFF
Share this video with friends, family members, church this is a very important PEOPLE COME ON
The "vice presidents" and "vice CEO's" still have to kiss the boss's ass just as much as the lowly worker guy in the mail room.
Apply your reasoning to Swedish and Finnish neocolonialism in the Baltics. You will be silenced forever
Please interview Steve Grumbine and Stephanie Kelton re:MMT. I'd like to get past the taxes.
And what portion of those super rich does services based business/commerce including banking and information and communication technology and others?
Prof Wolff please dedicate another segment expanding on corporations and bonds. Since the government borrows from the rich corporations, do the corporations then dictate whether, say, money is spent for infrastructure improvements?
Corporations hire lobbyists for favorable legislation and subsidies, politicians get money from the corps whose profits are boosted by bribed policy.
Mutual back scratching.
This is all exacerbated by the fiat nature of the money. “Power of the purse” means something entirely different than originally intended when the ruling political class can create money rather than just reallocate tax revenue.
I understand congress isn’t the federal reserve, but this is a minor distinction as the two entities openly work together.
If we want real change in this country, in the world, we have to eliminate the ruling class’ ability to conjure money when the rest of us have to work for it. No one should have the ability to create money and declare it valuable. It’s tyranny with one additional, obfuscating step.
So we should start fresh. How much money is real? Divide by 8.1B 😂
10/10
I completely agree but as seen in the past with the Green Party and other's. not rep or dem they cant afford to buy the politicians. As long as there is extreme money buying our politicians the US will only get worse but in order to stop this the politicians profiting from this arrangement would have to vote against their own profits and this wont happen.
That is how Evil 😈 Mafia Gangster attitude is...
Agree with you RW until the climate change BS.
Contrary to the free pass being provided, identifying the ubiquitous generally horrible characteristics of humanity and human beings is extremely doable. First, there are all the regrettable characteristics endemic to self-interested human tribalism, which include the violent defense of ethnocentrism, monotheism, and ultra-nationalism. More specifically, there is the “invisible anatomy” of tribal instincts with authoritarian characteristics, where these regressive, reactionary, violent authoritarian characteristics fiercely defend the sanctity and purity of tribal identity. Enter the moralizing, the regressive, the psychopathic, and the fundamentalists, to affect positions of conservative establishment leadership. Then there is the proliferation of predatory abusive pathologies, ideologies, and moralizing that capitalism has cultivated, so that executives, managers, and owners are now a sociopath or even psychopath; the entire PMC Liberal class routinely punches down on people with no wealth and no power; and the solution among general populations is to punch sideways and down-ways against their own interests within the working class. Finally, there are the common populations that pay reactionary fealty to illicit church-state authority; law and order campaigns, police, and military; and national exceptionalism, national innocence, and national mythology, including capitalist mythology. Worse yet, because of tribalism, are the great many that patriotically conflate capitalism with national identity, including demonize alternative economic systems in association with evil foreign enemies. Summarily, a large percentage of humanity are absolutely horrendous POS.
Yes, self interest is such an irrational concept...why humans act in that manner
is such a mystery?
@@jgalt308 Yes, the point that some of us eco-socialists make is that self-interested human tribalism/the self-interested state are a regressive, reactionary, authoritarian phenomenon, and a problem, and that the inter-state competitive system needs to be reformed through cooperation and shared values to achieve systems-based environmental sustainability. An equivalent criticism of individual competition is made, which is again replaced with the systems-based solutions of socialism. We are also aware that these regressive authoritarian phenomenons will resist system change.
@@BigMikeGuitar Except that socialism is authoritarian, and democratic socialism
even more so.
Like you know what environmental sustainability IS!!!!
While you spew your carbon-based opinion for all to see.
The only thing that is missing is the actual knowledge of your hypocrisy...
or any actual knowledge you possess in any sense.
But thanks for sharing...
@@jgalt308 Ayn Rand supported bombing Cambodia in the Vietnam War.
Politicians serve 1st themselves, 2nd their fund source, 3rd no more
I love Prof. Wolff
politicians all serve for the money.
they playing the rule of reelections
All the politicians serve themselves.
For the past 40 years, liberal democracy has been marching towards capitalistic democracy.
All those labels...all without meaning.
Ok so what I understood from this video is that you Americans should overthrow your government
Nah, FDR already did that.
😀 Factual Information! 😃
Really, what facts would those be?
I simply could not disagree more. Wolff’s completely ignoring the self-selection factor: as a young man with a brilliant mind, a silver tongue, and degrees from prestigious Ivy League universities, Richard Wolff could easily have chosen politics for a career. Why didn’t he? It would certainly have been far more lucrative for him. It would have been easier hours, he would have had crowds of supporters fawning over him, and easily have been famous. So why didn’t he choose that path? I’m willing to bet he was unwilling to stifle his gag reflex, unwilling to sell his constituents health and lives to the highest bidder, unwilling to tell shameless lies for a living. He couldn’t stomach it. No, politicians under our two-party capitalist system ARE different: they have chosen wealth and power over our nation’s health, peace, and prosperity.
But, as he pointed out, it isn't tenable for people to become politicians without being beholden to donors and lobbyists. There may be a couple of exceptions but they are few and far between.
Politicians often complain about having to spend perhaps 70 percent of their time raising campaign donations. Yet, they never seem to see the advantages of enacting a campaign-reform law that both creates public financing of political campaigns and bans cash contributions from the public. I think this can be done in a way that doesn’t give incumbents an unfair advantage, but the fear of an unfair advantage for incumbents probably is the main objection. Individuals and businesses have a 1st Amendment right to lobby the government, but not a right to buy our elected representatives. Until we change how our political campaigns are financed, we really can’t call our government a “representative democracy.” By the way, our elected representatives should not be permitted to keep all the unspent campaign donations they receive during their political career.
You know. Lawyer, your "Yet, they never seem to see the advantages of enacting a campaign-reform law... " gets at the very heart of what bugs me so much about the US. The prevailing sentiment seems to be "Everything we have is perfect, we just need to tweak this or that".
Gun rights is a perfect example of such. "2A is perfect, we just need to put protections in place." But the powers that be (can't afford to?) don't consider that we now have whole defense department - 'a well-regulated militia' so necessary to the security of the state. When the Constitution was drafted, that wasn't the case. Furthermore, private citizens owning guns could hardly be called a well-regulated militia, could it? Wouldn't that then make the right private gun ownership obsolete, save for maybe hunting rifles?
That is because no governments can give politicians THAT MUCH MONEY. Insane amount that could have thousands of families straight away.
@@teckmenglee8060 I cannot recall how much money both of the major political parties raised and spent during the 2020 presidential election, but suspect that most of that money was wasted on television ads that people don't watch. When I was young, presidential campaigns began during the election year, not a year or two before that. The federal government can allocate a specified amount of money to each candidate, perhaps a little extra for the challenger. In addition, the FCC can require television and radio stations to offer a specified amount of free broadcast time to each candidate as part of their obligation under their broadcast license. Most Americans will be better off if our elected representatives represent us rather than their wealthy campaign donors.
A simple solution to that problem would be to prohibit any "identifier"
on the ballot other than the candidates' name. In addition, the names on the ballot
should be randomized so that they appear in no particular order...this would
prevent "straight party voting" ...and force voters to actually learn the names and
positions of each of the candidates.
Manchin and Sinema
What we need is Direct Democracy for lawmaking.
So we can vote YOU off the island?
Thank you
The next step is to start talking about how to implement change.
How about figuring out how the "change" was actually implemented?
Oooh ooh I know this one! I'll take- most definitely not us and themselves, the big banks and Wall Street for $5000, Alex!
I would also like to ask you about the Restrict Act. The Restrict Act is really the Patriot Act but it's set up for Selective prosecution.
Triple the pay of our congress and president etc, ban all donations to politicians. Ban all of it. Let them have a pay raise but ban stock trading and donations.
They already make far too much money and have too many benefits for the little bit of work they do. Here's a better idea: cap election costs and cycles. Federal elections, one month of campaigning, tops. Local elections, two weeks of campaigning Statewide elections: 3 weeks. TV ads, maybe 2 million. Direct mailings: 10K. Ditto for internet ads.
@@krejados1 capping costs is great. Limiting campaigning to 1 month isn't. It's extensive labor to get and keep people's attenion. Most of the people in govt with millions had won so because of other ventures outside of politics, or have ties to people in business and benefitted from that. Direct pay from govt work isn't in itself extravagant. But I do like the idea of having a cap on campaigning. But it shouldn't be 1 month.
Government,,,translated means,,,control the mind
Professor, did they kill Kennedy? (Kenny)🤔
God Bless Professor Wolf for speaking the Truth. We are proud of him & we will pray for him forever. May God Bless him. Amen.
Why are you asking for favoritism from God?
This is pretty daft, to be honest. Greed, being a bad person, etc. are chosen; it's shown in your actions. The system can bring that out, but there are also innumerable people who don't choose those pursuits simply because they're not greedy and sh-tty people and don't want to become greedy and sh-tty people in an environment that is known for its greed and sh-ttiness. So 100% disagree: the people who pursue these jobs are at least already well on their way to be greedy or bad people. And then they make further decisions that solidify that as their identity.
Thank you Richard
In the 19-teens, Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Later commander on Iwo Jima during WW2) was an attache in Washington for Japan, he is quoted as saying, "They bought me a car and taught me how to drive. They toured me around the plant area of Detroit and I saw how that with the push of a button, the whole industry would be mobilized for military service."
The joining of the state and business, fascism around the same time Italy coined it during WW1...in the US...(and I won't even bring up the later "Business Plot")
(EDIT: The movie, Letters from Iwo Jima is a great window into Kuribayashi and the conflict. He was an intelligent anf introspective dude. It's still one of my favorite war movies...even though it was directed by Clint Eastwood, who I am not a fan of...)
Thanks!
The situation of parties and unions is the situation of any strongly centralized structure. Robert Michels wrote, around 1911, a book ("Political Parties") in which he analyzed how any centralized structure turns into a mafia and called this tendency "the iron rule of oligarchy". For their decentralization, the organizational law should specify that decisions must be taken with the approval of the majority of members, their management only having the role of coming up with proposals to solve various problems
There are two types of politicians One politician serves for capitalist.Another politician serves proliteriat
THEY EAT PRIME RIB OR STEAK NOT BREAD AND bUTTER
All governments essentially serve the rich, the elite, the establishment
The rule of men shall pass and the authority shall be given to the Saints of the Most High to rule the earth. We almost to enter into new world order where righteousness and justice shall prevail.
The kingdom of God is Coming. Let’s welcome Him with a cheerful Heart.
I’m a free lobbyist- 😂
Discretionary wealth??? It's their money...not open to your mushy opinions... It's theirs. Otherwise start your own company, and you can do whatever you want with the profit...
Lmfao
It's the money the government creates. It's really nothing more than an IOU from the government. The government can and does control it's power to coin money and proffer large scale market manipulations... and to restructure it's debt.
So, what you are insisting upon is the current way the government structures it's debt. Which is in fact a political decision. For example, you think that the government owes Elon Musk more that it owes the bottom 25% of the population of the USA.
I'm going have to question the ethics and core values of that mindset.
Collection and community became privatized, and so now you don't understand what they were? Lol.
How come the workers had their strike at the Carnegie Steel plant, and not an empty lot???? Because Carnegie built a steel plant.... There'd be nothing for you commies to try and steal without the capitalist creating it in the first place.
@@blogintonblakley2708 That's another story Blakely.. Money is just the means of exchange. They (government) didn;t start the businesses that made production possible..
Wolff endlessly proclaims that the entrepreneurs and managers steal part of their workers' wages in order to create 'profit'. Workers (employees) who actually believe that should always offer their time and talent to other employers, or better yet, go into business for themselves. If that makes them better off, more power to 'em. If it doesn't, then they should tell Wolff to shut the f---k up.
Wollf thinks you should take the risk to open a business , if it succeeds then employer should divide up all profits equally , same pay for owner and employees , but still assume all the responsibility and risk . That can't work , never has , never will
So, to carry that logic into the realm of the worker, what you are saying is that workers should at every opportunity seek to do as little as possible while costing the owner as much as possible?
The democracy should control its means of production for obvious reasons. We have a special caste of rich people who own the means of survival. That's not helpful ot fair. But it's killing the ecosystem and waging endless wars, predictably.
@YTCensors 😂😂
@@blogintonblakley2708 Reading comprehension problems??
Wollf want the people that start businesses to share all profits equally with employees , same pay for owner and employees , but I'm sure still assume all risks and responsibilities of operating the business . Why would a person start one ? This won't work , can't work, never will
It will be started cooperitively.
Prof Wolf is not advocating sharing profits equally, but he is advocating profit sharing, because no business is the work of one person, without employees and the commons we all pay for, there would be no business. I have owned a business and became successful only by understanding and valuing my fellow workers
@@fredturner7787 nonsense
@@fredturner7787 So did your fellow workers share the losses?
We have a choice greedy capitalism , dictatorial communism and failed socialism .
Read
Americans buy that. Socialism and fascism are opposites, but they're confused by liars so often that we lack judgement. Socialism isn't available and they're unable to govern as voters. So it's endless war and fabulous profits,!
Not that much difference between them. They've all failed.
All these modern myths... capitalism... socialism... feudalism... slavery... etc. These are all founding myths... not science or consistent rationality.
And they all cover the same basic con game. A series of heirarchial authoritarian structures that serve to render control of the resources everyone needs into a very few hands.
We tend to think of this process as civilization. And we've all been more or less socialized to tolerate this state of affairs. But it doesn't work, civilization keeps breaking down, because the interests of the few outweigh the interests of the good maintenance of the society that sustains them.
Rich people are greedy, greedy people do short sighted things for short term gains.
@@blogintonblakley2708 democracy is still a human right and capitalism as global hegemon specifically has failed recently. We've been free of democracy because of it long enough.
@@patricialongo5870 Human rights are what governments promise you to get you to go along.
You have free will, you have personal authority. You decide what you do.
Period.
Rights are part of the modern mythology. Just as is Democracy.
People evolved to live together in small family connected units.
All this civilization stuff... it's onerous to the extent that it's negatives overpower it's positives for humanity.
Which is why people are worried about us destroying the environment as a means to exploit natural resources.
Or nuclear war.
Or bio weapons.
You just don't really think about how effing crazy all this stuff is, because mostly you are used to the way things are, and have managed so far.
Conflict of interest such as policy makers holding stock portfolios or changing the rules to suit them is corruption. What is needed is higher taxes and reestablishing regulation. Taxes should be about 90% after the first 3 million $$. At one point CEOs had a choice, give their money to the tax man or reinvest in their companies. Now the choice is reinvest in the company with better safety, profit sharing, lower prices etc, or funneling money into the pockets of the greedy investors pockets. Lowering taxes is a bad idea but lowering taxes and deregulating at the same time is the fastest way possible to destabilize the economic foundation by allowing 1% of the population to control the cash while the working class borrows on massive credit.
Taxes on what should be higher?
@@jgalt308 income and capital gains
@@daddyaf945 The bottom 50% pay 2.3% of those taxes, while the top 50% pays the rest,
and the highest percentage is paid by those at the top. The latest breakdown
for 2020 is available from government sources, so take a look and then explain
the reasoning for why the bottom half should pay even less?
@@jgalt308 everyone says this. Not because it’s true but because they don’t listen. Do you see up there in my initial comment where it says that the high tax rate isn’t there to increase federal revenue but to encourage reinvestment? They won’t be paying more in taxes, they just won’t be accumulating money at the unsustainable out of control way that’s destabilizing our currency and economy. And even if they do pay higher taxes, I’m sure they would prefer that to working and living from paycheck to paycheck.
@@daddyaf945 No, they say it because it IS TRUE!
Also, you can't destabilize a currency that is not stable to begin with,
which is the definition of "fiat" and the inflation guaranteed by it.
Please explain how you accumulate currency that is constantly losing value
while also paying taxes...where the profit being taxed as a gain, is a loss
in terms of its purchasing power? BTW inflation has equal effects on EVERYONE,
raises the cost of EVERYTHING, and is responsible for those who live
paycheck to paycheck. It was possible for a family to live on one paycheck
but those days are long gone, and now it requires multiple paychecks.
Since costs increase for everyone, if the goal of taxation is not to increase
revenue, even though the costs of what the government does will also increase,
then where does the revenue come from for government to keep doing what
it is doing...or expand in any way what it is doing?
Your claim as well as its motivations and effects is not new, as that was
precisely the thinking that was advanced after the War and the so-called
American Dream delusion...and it FAILED. ( obviously )
BTW profits increase incrementally as a small percentage of its operating
revenue... while the effects of inflation are exponential...and these concepts
are beyond the ability of most to grasp. All your examples suffer from
this lack of understanding.