Also, socialized loss is arguably worse. Socialized profit stifles innovation and wealth creation, but socialized loss actively incentivizes wealth destruction.

so you are saying you like the system of competition but you don't like it when some win ?

@@Profit_is_Theft why are you spamming this everywhere?

When property is mostly controlled by public officials [under any banner] its no longer private. Take an auto manufacturer. Wages? Tilted by federal minumum wage laws. Shift hours? Truncated by our rather French overtime rules [is 45 hours a week to much to ask for F sake?]. Operations? Not much freedom left. Plant hours, and building orientation on the land are about the only unfettered choices a company may determine at its sole discretion. So a tip for the public school victims out there: forget about Stalins propaganda labeling the third reich "right wing" [still used to this day in American 'progressive' circles]: socialism and communism are close cousins - the latter being the one to remove the scant few rights left unmolested under socialism.

@@flinch622 Its worse than that dude, the Communists only started saying communist as a marketing move to distinguish themselves western socialists, but its the same socialism through and through. Then it was the Communist party that later invented a loose nonsensical distinction between the two in a week attempt to explain why people were still starving; namely, that the country was it a transitory period of socialism and that true communism had not been reached. It was possible the first time that old excuse got thrown around unless maybe Hitler got there first and the reich forgot to write it down.

You know, sharing _directly_ defeats the algorithm.

Because most people are no longer centralist or moderates. Most are either antiwhite racist communist on the left OR bible thumping anti gay to the right.

@@jeffblackard9753 No, Most people are far right now. The _radical left_ has drug the line so far left that everyone left of it is now on the right.

@@jarrod752 interesting theory BUT I look at the results of election’s. Republicans took the house for what that’s worth. Senate still held by democrats as is the presidency. And to my knowledge free market libertarians have just about nothing. Which sucks.

@@jeffblackard9753 your conflating. The radical left and the media has pushed the culture so far left most people don't identify with what the left is anymore. Elections are won by the uniparty. It's not left and right, it's the _in_ party and the _out_ party. It's like most Arizonians lean right, but Kari lake lost to the uniparty, not the Democrats.

so you are saying you like the system of competition but you don't like it when some win ?

​@@Profit_is_Theft If you're talking to me, your comment is such a non-sequitur to what I wrote I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Are you asking me about the role of competition in a marketplace?

@@Profit_is_Theft It’s like running a race and paying the mafia to break your competition’s kneecaps, then going “It’s just a race, why are you complaining?” How tone-deaf.

@@beybladeguru101 but you haven't understood that in the case of government/capitalism, the mafia ORGANIZED THE RACE IN THE FIRST PLACE ! don't cross swords with me in future kiddo.

@@Profit_is_Theft Wow, you’re such a logical tough guy on the internet, I’m really scared to “cross swords” with you. P.S. shaking in my boots as we speak

Exactly my thought!

As if capitalists would allow that.

so you are saying you like the system of competition but you don't like it when some win ?

@@darklazerx7913 You're referring to business owners who are aware their products are inept, so seek government assistance to remain in the market. Those people cease to be capitalists the moment they take government assistance.

@@Si_Mondo Every big sucsessful company in the Us bribes politicians, to enact favorable policies, and discurage competition, unsucsessful companies dont have the money to do this. To enure that they never fail in the futire, bribing politicians is completely logical if you have enough money. The CIA basically works for american private interests. Where do you think the term banana republic comes from?

Lol

That will never happen. The real solution is to make all drugs legal, and to make "doctor" and the caduceus into a super-trademark like "4-H" and the four-lobed shamrock. If you go through the standard (current) training, you can call yourself a doctor. Other people can do health care, but have to call themselves something else.

How is insurance and Pharma companies are to be blamed for that?

Agree, I left traditional practice because of government intervention. We never had shortages prior to Obamacare, or not nearly as commonplace comparatively. Plus, government uses price controls, historically a failure and leads to increase in costs with lower quality. Since the rich keep getting richer they can afford the out of pocket while people at certain incomes have to go to state insurances, basically a monopoly in many states where only one or two insurances are available. The government wants a universal system so squashing competition is the strategy.

Wholeheartedly agree with you. Government intervention / socialism stifles innovation and leads to a great deal of waste as well as garbage service. Forever and a day the douchebag Michael Moore pointed to Cuba for healthcare this has since been disproved. As has the healthcare of the ever past and present communist / socialist nation to my knowledge. The only way I can figure up could actually make it work would be to institute the 70%ish tax rates utilized in the Scandinavian nations.

​@@jandrashriker5861 check out Lex Fridmans poscast with John Abramson, the US is completely fucked and if you think less government is the answer to that I think the USA will be even more fucked than they are now

Sadly. This has been the case time and time again. Keeps repeating. They are terrified of another telecom type split of the monopolies. Even then...they have been working around it by just creating companies/brands under other new companies. So they build that new brand and state who owns that brand has no effect on them. Good example of this is OnePlus (although a Chinese sub of oppo) states they would keep their software separate. Budget cuts said otherwise and they had to merge colorOS into their cyanogenmod based OxygenOS

Rockefeller and Carnegie invented those rules in America over a century ago. Best line I ever heard in person from a billionaire was “you don’t bribe elected officials. You rent them for either a two or four year period.”

@@jeffblackard9753 perhaps we should just "sell" congressional and presidential appointments. More cash every 2 years from the house and every six for the senate. Let's include the judiciary. Auction to the highest bidder? Capitalism at work. Why vote?

@@BB-cf9gx so that’s been the argument for many years why vote? Further that’s why there are supposed to be campaign laws. And if it hurts your feelings then stand up and fight for a free and open election where every last dollar provided is made transparent. Then kick out max in waters as just about every dime she gets is funneled to her water that’s somehow involved with her campaign BUT it’s legal. Then do the same thing for the black supremacist in Minnesota who funnels everything she can to her husband and it’s also legal.

@@jeffblackard9753 I support your approach. There is corruption in the system but I always vote and I am involved. Big money and big business has too much influence on our political system but it's not beyond repair. You're right. Get involved. Fight like hell. This democracy is far from perfect but it's way better than any alternative I've ever heard of.

Been that way for a long time Sergio. Never really been a free market in the US. Never really had capitalism here. Just corporatism and crony capitalism.

Read about guilded age. There were no regulations but a lot of monopolies. See Rockfeller, Vanderbilt,Carnagie.

@@Kannot2023 No regulations? Are you insane? Rockefeller, vanderbilt, and carnagie would NEVER have amassed such wealth without the government! You really believe they could have done that in a free market? No way!

@@Kannot2023 Ok, so you really believe that Rockfeller, Vanderbilt, and Carnagie didn't have an unfair advantage in the marketplace due to gov't? I hate to be the one to break it to you but free market capitalism did NOT exist during the gilded age. Central banks cannot exist in a free market.

I would disagree with you. Don’t get me wrong there are monopolies for days. BUT America is one of the few nations that actually has laws against monopolies the problem is that whenever one is broken up usually the bed gets shat. Example standard trust broken up. Rockefellers wealth increased roughly eight fold. He went from owning /. Controlling one monster to over eight and there publicly listed stock prices shot through the roof. Remember AT&T. It was shattered in the 1980s and now what are those antiwhite douchebags doing? Their reassembling. Plus if you look at the competition in America it’s absolutely freaking brutal. Look at the billions BILLIONS handed out every year solely to disabled veterans, women owned, hub zones, non white otherwise known as socially disadvantaged. I can think of one other nation that has programs like that all though I’m sure there are others BUT South Africa actually has affirmative action solely for blacks even though they constitute 80%ish of the population. So end of the day does it suck yes. BUT it’s sucks a lot less than other nations and forms of Government around the world.

Mmm, delicious Socialist inspired markets. Yeah, definitely better than here for sure pal, but it aint because of Capitalism xD

So you subscribe to the three rules established by Milton Friedman regarding government and business?

@@jeffblackard9753 Nope. I don't know them. I'm more of a Austrian econ guy.

who builds the roads tho?

@@Pestbringer89 Trick question. Everybody knows roads are a myth! ;-P

Sure, because lobbying is a commons. Your don't *have* to run your sheep on the commons, but everybody else will and they will be able to sell their sheep's products for cheap.

That's the only way to compete in today's marketplace. One is NOT a hipocrite as you imply just because they are engaging in a practice that they know to be unethical. There is no other choice. Either you remain poor and homeless, or you play the game the way it is being played. There is nothing hipocitical to point out the flaws and immorality of a system that you're forced to act within. Is there another choice? I'm anti government and understand that taxation is theft. However, I still pay taxes due to the threat of violence against me.

@@mattolivier1835 let’s not act like a16z is some small fish company trying to survive in a super competitive market please. They’ve been one of the first to turn the VC market into the gigantic Ponzi scheme it has become, lobbying is not something they had to do to survive, is something they did because they would make a killing, even they knew it was a zero sum proposition. Lots of companies don’t behave that way and they’re fine.

@@theondono You made my point for me. If you think they are acting unethically, how is another ethical company going to compete with them? They can't! Maybe that is why they don't have to bribe gov't officials, cause nobody is prosecuting them for unethical practices. I'm sure they'll start bribing once a politician realizes the money to be gained and starts putting pressure on them. An ethical company can NOT compete with an unethical one, unless the customers reward the ethical company and punish the unethical one.

@@mattolivier1835 "You made my point for me." What? I'm only saying there's lots of people better to say this things on ReasonTV than Marc Andreessen. The fact that others can't compete with them doesn't make him less of a hypocrite. By the way, this guys company has been pumping crypto projects for years, and they avoided being tangled in FTX by a freaking legal miracle. They have companies in their portfolio that they know won't find a path to profitability, but they could not care less, since they're going to dump them on unsuspecting retail investors after hyping them up.

Of course the people can effect change, the issue is not what people care about but how much. When there are riots in the streets, things change. A large percentage (not necessarily a majority, of course) needs to be upset enough and have a clear enough vision of the change they want. Governments and oligopolies (especially modern ones) have become very good at confusing and redirecting the anger of the population to the point that the clarity of vision is lost. And naturally bread and circuses has always calmed people down as well. A well fed, safe, comfortable population is just not likely to overcome that confusion barrier.

@@jessicav2031 funny how the violent riots from one side were reported as "mostly peaceful" Then the other side had an actual peaceful protest and was invited into a building and was branded as a violent insurrection. No, I don't think riots or protests are what makes the change, the powers that be are already pushing for that change on some level or the put down the riot/protest no matter how little damage or inconvenience it actually caused. Another example is the Canadian trucker/farmer protest where the police actually broke their laws to put those protests down.

@@ARockRaider THANK YOU! Literally the only other person I’ve heard say that besides me. Two billion burned dozens dead Wendy’s burning in the background to a “mostly peaceful protest.” People march on Washington, D.C. and a few thousand dollars in damage-not good BUT not an insurrection either. Likewise with the truckers in Canada.

@Jeff Blackard keep in mind that any damage done on jan6th was probably done by glowies, someone built a ramshackle gallows but there is no footage of who... said structure also was very sub par in it's construction so very unlikely that anyone who actually worked for a living put it up.

@@jeffblackard9753 strange, my reply to you isn't properly tagging.

Dell computer, hewlitt packard, apple all started in garages. Multil billion dollar per year profitable companies how were they elite and entitled entrepreneurs? Tell me or provide examples of elite / entitled entrepreneurs?

@@jeffblackard9753 bill gates, jeff bezos, elon musk... they had unfair advantages... bill gates had early unrestricted access to computers, larry and sergei from google also had priviledged education... they got big first so now all the geniuses have to sell out for them... and they promise mega projects with all of their earnings like they will get us to mars or get rid of oil but they havent... theyve just improved marketing for other businesses.... digital feudalism.

@@jeffblackard9753 ALL of them were upper class snobs who went to 50k a year schools while their parents gave them "loans" of millions of dollars. Whats up with americans bending over to these scammers who mostly fail upwards.

And that's how our economy works, isn't it just great? 😄

Real easy way to eliminate all that. Eliminate tax write offs.

You mean like Stephen curry the black supremacist multi millionaire basketball player that just said we need more homes for the homeless but not in my backyard which are the exact same sentiments uttered by literally every democrat in America? Like Maxine waters telling the homeless of I believe los Angelos to get off the streets and go home to which they replied “we don’t have a home.”

Doubt it was as massive as today

Easiest way to end all of that would be 1. Instituting monetarism as the official policy. 1. Eliminating fractional reserve lending.

He said, "If your business is in a sector that does not affect political power, you're free to do what you want," and, "the regulators, which is the managerial class in government, 'fix' the market."

so you are saying you like the system of competition but you don't like it when some win ?

Every US politician is privy to the fact that US citizens are signed over as slaves! See Sec filing: AG59880464A-U.S.S.E.C

@@Profit_is_Theft "so" is how people usually introduce a strawman into a conversation, just as you have done.

I've been saying this for years...

Exactly! What is needed is capitalism! All we have right now in the US is corporatism and statism. Nothing to do with capitalism. If one talks about capitalism and doesn't speak in terms of free market capitalism, then they might as well include theft as a form of capitalism. The local car jacking company is engaging in capitalism is an absurd belief. In fact, anytime one speaks of capitalism and accepts that violence and theft is an acceptable form of capitalism they are either super ignorant, or a huge liar. Or maybe just evil.

Thanks... i just remembered "settings", "playback speed"... much better

Yeah, normally I watch in 2.2x, but this one I had to turn down to 1.6x. Still worth every second!

@@swolebro lol usually i watch reason on 1.5x, had to turn it down to 1.0. this son of a bitch is on fire!!!!

Capitalism is about government getting and staying out of the market, this even includes business using government to force out competition. The point is the government is either being used and/or the government is interfering on their own terms to interfere in the market and rig it in favor for large corporations. You have no idea how capitalism works, the definition you are looking for is Corporatism.

@@doomersnek3878 You’re wrong. Gov’t power isn’t inherently bad you fool, OUR gov’t is bad exactly because they are bought and paid for by the very rich. In a properly functioning democracy we would have mechanisms for removing from office people who don’t represent our interests. We can’t do that here, again, because the powerful people who benefit from the status quo prevent any kind of structural change. Gov’t intervenes in the market constantly, on behalf of the wealthy. Allowing a few people to hoard all of our wealth has disastrous societal impacts as we are seeing. Wish you people would wake up and figure out whose to blame and what side you’re on.

Compare how laundromats operate vs military industrial complex. They are not the same. If the government want to use an industry like a gravy trough it will do so

Maybe you should take a Tummmms

No! Government corrupted capitalism! You got it backwards! Government IS corrupt by its very nature. Capitalism is the economic ideal. But when there is a gun in the room (government), capitalism, or at least free market capitalism (the only viable form), isn't possible.

Corruption is born out of coercive power. Free or black market crypto currencies will help avoid some of the violent power.

You are totally lost if you think “organization” is the highest human value. And corruption is a marginal issue. Read Ayn Rand.

@@sybo59 I did not even mention human values. I have read Ayn Rand. I don't think you understood what I meant.

@@alterego3734 Perhaps I misunderstood. If so, my apologies. Can you elaborate? The video is about humans. Are you speaking in metaphor? The universe is not conscious and does not “try” to do anything, of course. Nor do I see corruption as anything but a marginal issue in human relations.

@@sybo59 For me, governmental corruption is any mechanism in the government that advantages some people/groups; including regulation and taxation. The universe may not be conscious, but it is dominated by certain (thermodynamic) tendencies. One of the most import one is the tendency towards more organization. Matter organizes into atoms, molecules, planets, stars, galaxies, etc. On earth too, in the long term, organizations become more complex. Evolution tends towards larger-scale organization in the long run. Some random examples: vascularized plants, multicellular organisms, complex social behavior. Globalization is another instance of this general phenomenon. Corruption is a natural local tendency, just like aging and decay. It is a fundamentally hard problem to solve: "How to enable cooperation while preventing defection?". Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense for me to spend too much time on a KZfaq comment, so it might still be hard to understand and easy to misunderstand. My comment also doesn't spend enough time laying foundations and justifying claims.

Thats right. Its not government that corrupts capitalism at all. Its rich capitalists paying the government to do their bidding. This means its actually capitalism that corrupts government.

Large corporations couldn’t buy out smaller innovative competitive companies without government?? Interesting. I guess corporations are spending hundreds of millions on lobbying against regulations for nothing then. Someone should tell them so they can better invest that money into some stock buy backs to enrich the executives of the company who own most of the shares.

@@memememepee Corporations ARE gov't entities son. The designation of corporation is given to a company BY gov't! And NO, corporations generally DON'T lobby against regulations. They usually lobby FOR regulations. The corporations use regulations to create barriers to entry for smaller companies making competition very difficult. Then, cause it's got a quasi monopoly, it can raise it's prices! Corporations use gov't to gain an unfair advantage. That's not free market capitalism.

@@mattolivier1835 by that absolutely insane logic I guess you and I are also government entities dad. We are assigned SSN’s and designated citizens after birth. Corporations lobby for whatever helps the bottom line. Period. Doesn’t matter what they are bribing government officials for. Bribing is bribing. Are you aware the fed is a private entity? Or are you under the impression that our government is in control of our economy?

Do you think our media is government controlled? Or is it owned by corporations who control what we talk about and hear? How can you possibly rely on people to chose what they want with their money when the companies control the narrative of everything through media?

@@memememepee Government is made up of private individuals enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else.

Statism

In short, it's called Corporatism. This is also what you would call our current system in the USA. The point is the government will use the private entities as basically an extension of the government. So long as the "private business" operates with the government's best interest in mind, then the government won't punish them. This is what happened in Nazi Germany, currently happening in China and plenty of cases we have seen here in the USA. Ultimately, we need the state and business to be separated. However, that doesn't even guarantee the government won't make laws that only benefits themselves. They just have to add even more regulation, which basically means it's still corporatism but more controlled by government than the business. Therefore, there needs to be measures to ensure government stays out of the market but still protecting natural rights.

Its not government that corrupts capitalism at all. Its rich capitalists paying the government to do their bidding. This means its actually capitalism that corrupts government.

lol yeah. George Carlin said it first

The point is the business and state needs to be separated. Capitalism is about government staying out of the market, this even includes large business using government to force the market in their favor. The word you are looking for is Corporatism.

What do you mean sounds like? Its not government that corrupts capitalism at all. Its rich capitalists paying the government to do their bidding. This means its actually capitalism that corrupts government.

@@doomersnek3878 How can government stay out of the market, when rich elite pay them to manipulate the market to secure the wealth of the rich?

Its not government that corrupts capitalism at all. Its rich capitalists paying the government to do their bidding. This means its actually capitalism that corrupts government.

lol, i don't know why but i really appreciated his speed, and his brain

@@majermike It was just that he felt what he was talking about strongly and it gets him worked up how ridiculously corrupt it all is, but just continues on a daily basis like it's normal, and how stupid the populations are, as a whole.

@@malachi- yes, passionate and linguistically capable

Are you kidding that is literally his nickname, "Egghead"

@@Canadian_Eh_I I didn't watch the whole video and I didn't know that.

Nobody here has said that. Capitalism is the economic ideal. But capitalism doesn't exist in the US. At least not free market capitalism. And if you're not talking about free market capitalism when you use the word "capitalism", then you might as well embrace car jacking as a legitimate business. The US for a long time now has only had corporatism and crony capitalism. What is needed is CAPITALISM to solve all of the problems in the world.

​@@mattolivier1835 ah yes so since things are bad we don't have capitalism, because all goods things come from capitalism, so we need capitalism to have good things, this sums up the circular reasoning of libertarians pretty well

@@donnerwetter1905 I'm not a libertarian. I'm even better. I'm an Anarchist. No, it's not cause it's bad that it isn't capitalism. It's that there is no point to speaking about capitalism if you're going to mention unethical and immoral behaviors. For example, would it make sense for you to claim that capitalism is bad cause your local car jacker is involved in it? Car jacking is NOT a legitimate business. Nor is any business which isn't voluntary. In the United States and most of the West, a lot of monetary exchange isn't voluntary. Taxes, regulations, and money manipulation isn't voluntary and gives unfair advantages to some over others. ALL human interactions should be voluntary, and not based on violence and coercion.

@@mattolivier1835 Anarchists are libertarians are liberals. The nuances of the different flavors of liberalism or libertarianism are as relevant for me as the different types of government are for you. You said capitalism doesn't exist in the US. Now you are telling me that capitalism is only voluntary business. Combining the logic of the two statements means that you are saying that voluntary business doesn't exist in the US. But this doesn't stop you from declaring capitalism the morally and otherwise superior system that solves all the problems in the world, a system that according to your own logic doesn't even exist in the US. So essentially you are claiming superiority of capitalism out of thin air based on the circular logic I explained above, which is all bad things come from government and all good things come from capitalism, so no bad things (including economic problems) can come from capitalism. That aside, there is also no inherent MORAL superiority of voluntary action. Even voluntary action can be unethical. It all depends on how you define morality itself. You can claim that this or that is moral or immoral, but no liberal/libertarian that I have asked or read before has given me a convincing logical reasoning for this. Just saying "ALL human interactions should be voluntary, and not based on violence and coercion" is no argument. It's just an assertion.

@@donnerwetter1905 I NEVER said that no bad things could come from capitalism. I did, however, say that NO good things come from gov't and I stick by that statement. Yes, people have different ideas about what is moral and what isn't. But I've never once heard an argument that any involuntary action is moral. Using violence to force others is never moral. For the simple reason that if it is moral, then no morality is possible and anything goes. No point in even discussing morality. Any debate or belief must start with at least one premise. If we start with the premise that the initiation of violence is immoral, then any human interaction which isn't voluntary is immoral. My position is very simple and basic logic. If you disagree, then give me an example of when the initiation of violence is NOT immoral!

Yes. The entire ethos of American government is predicted on the concept of Natural Rights, individual rights against coercion & for personal & by proxy national liberty. To stop incidents of such abuse of force is one of the only legit purposes of government.

Jim crow was in fact govt. overreach, just like slavery.

Yes. You don't get to deny human beings they're God given rights, just because you said they don't count.

Yes but they didn’t needed to go war to do it.

@@Djarms67 Yeah...maybe.

Wow wow wow your education is greatly lacking. There is not a goddamn thing you said that is correct. Kings created money? grow up

@@whousa642 Buffoon. Go look up what a palace economy is.

@@ndalum75 Your education is below kindergarten level. Start learning or hyenas will eat you.

@@whousa642 Can't tell if bot or genuinely this dumb/possessed. I gave you the info to prove that you are wrong, you're still here hurling insults like a child. Go hang out in the comments section of CNN or National Review, where such comments are considered high intellect.

State sponsored money does not equal capitalism. Your point of the king recording peoples' trades actually reinforces the the argument made in the video, where authority is interfering in the free exchange between people.

Settings - Playback speed