@Deniz Gunes That's right. Credit, no money, makes the whole world go round and round. We're indentured well into the next millennium.

Offshoring is not the problem. Real estate, financing, addictions, and lack of skills are the main problems.

There is a name for this specific process, “boom and bust cycles” happens once every few years and it is extremely detrimental

The problem is Capitalism. Capitalism in itself is inherently evil and brutal for the 99% of the world that is not part of the capital owner class. And if you're not part of the capitalist owner class, then you're one of the exploited. Capitalism does not work without economic worker exploitation. Capitalism creates lower classes in order to exploit and profit off of-prison slave labor, migrant worker exploitation, racism is even part of this.. perpetuating the lie that there are races/classes of people worth less than white people.

The poor don't have to buy goods, just let the government spend everything in military...

Better yet, join a communist party. Unions are a great first step, but ultimately limited in their capacity to actually challenge capitalism itself. Most, if not all, big unions in the imperialist countries are pro capitalist unions, meaning there is no real fight for the interests of the working class in the foreground. Unions are often heavily influenced and controlled by capitalists or capitalist-friendly opportunists/careerists/bureaucrats and only operate as "co-management" organs to keep workers feeling complacent. There are far too many examples to name of unions being hijacked by corporate interests that continually mislead workers and do more harm than good. In the end, unions of this character not only pose zero threat to capitalism, but they actually help perpetuate capitalism by "stabilizing" it (allowing capitalists to maintain their power in exchange for small wage increases or other compensation). The great minds of Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg, and others have already proven long ago that capitalism cannot be reformed, rather it must be overthrown. The ruling class will NEVER give up their power and stolen wealth voluntarily, or without a fight. We really are facing the hard truth nowadays (especially facing the global environmental catastrophe) that there are only two options: socialism or barbarism. There is a lot of work needed to UNDO all the anti-communist propaganda spread by the capitalists over the last several decades. This educational work is especially important within workers unions so that they can begin to gain a new, revolutionary character rather than serving as mere employee management tools.

The ultra elite will push for a WWIII. The American Bankers ( West Europeans ) and it will be just another RACKET. For them is just business.

dat algo

Capitalism is inherently prone to crisis

@@supermanscat6930 Oh, I agree. I just meant that current events are reminding us of how accurate these theories are

​@@supermanscat6930 Just as socialist societies without capitalism are prone to misery.

@@edfoss9974 Doesnt a crisis cause misery? The class system also causes misery. Minimum wage and slave labour

Go through KZfaq and it's proof where nowgwre near to a solution. The capitalist superstructure is too powerful.

The drawer has a lot of drawings. lulz.

The animation is brilliant but tbe speaker is clueless.

Considering you have the flag of an oppressive dictatorship, anything you say is invalid.

@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign so tell me where he’s wrong

@@nomisteaks because he calls a mixed economy, capitalism, is he stupid or a liar. Politics and government is the overwhelming problem, and their manipulation of money to the advantage of their friends and massive corporations. That a socialist, who openly admits he has no solution, who is incapable of even describing the problem, is listened to for even a second is amazing.

Of course. Nothing changed.

yakyakyak69 I am only going to say this once 1. There is no such thing as FREE MARKET and there can NEVE - EVERRRR be. 2. Govt. involvement is not always bad 3. Capitalism requires inequality, poverty and even slavery and coercion. Slavery by wages and coercion through poverty. If you want to reply do it in SMALL comments that are to the point. If you are going to write inane walls of text about how i don't understand "freedom" , spare me the bullshit. If you want to reply that "this is not real capitalism but *crony capitalism* " or some other euphemism to try and scape goat your pet ideology AGAIN i will not bother replying to this idiotic statement. Have a nice day,

***** I overheard some guys at Princeton some weeks ago. They said that after studying what label to put on the US as a society with economics in mind. The answer was "oligarchy". Free markets in some way would surely be nice though.

karsy579 Full free market is impossible - from a logical point of view. The problem with capitalism is that eventually those who control the means of production and wealth decide they want more power. In other words, power corrupts ( duh :P ) A full free market is impossible because: a) a free market would be eventually be monopolized by one "player" => not free b) the government regulates against monopoly => the market is not free This is why Libertarianist ideologies are completely bonkers. Check out Richard Wolff's analysis - really powerful stuff.

***** that is why right wing libertarian ideologies are like that! Left Libertarians aren't exactly mainstream in the US, but they make a lot more sense than corporation worshippers...

So, your solution to a risk of escalating inflation, is to return to a system that guarantees escalating deflation? That couldn't possibly be bad for the economy!

Rowan Evans It would be better to have deflation than to continue making money out of thin air. Because having a currency with nothing to back it is totally good for the economy. -_-

Rowan Evans It's not a "solution to a risk of escalating inflation", it's a solution to definite, current and inevitably accelerating inflation. The idea that you can have a prosperous economy without competing currencies is even more insane then the leftist intellectual gymnastics in this video.

Maxime Laneville What do competing currencies have to do with it? Is this supposed to be the means by which inflation gets "inevitably accelerated"? Are you advocating that gold must exist as a currency in competition with government issued ones?

Rowan Evans Haha nooooo the only way that a currency inevitably inflates is when a government monopolizes it (and in this case, counterfeits it). And no I don't think the government issued currency can compete with anything because it has no real value. It only retains value in the present economy BECAUSE other currencies are banned by the government. I don't advocate gold, bitcoin, or any specific currency I'm just pointing out the basic economic reality that a healthy economy needs competing currencies because it's a basic fact that often get left out of the discussion.

Xa Ven coming right up...!

If one can make a crash destroy the economy, then they should do it.

+Gustavo Menezes Form a group with me (we can discuss the structure of this group) to discuss how to change that. I would like to discuss this subject with (not limited to) like-minded people. Kind regards

+Gustavo Menezes It's called libertarian-socialism lol. Socialism without a state is the only logical way. We know socialism with a state doesn't work, we know capitalism without a state is a fantasy contradiction, we know that capitalism with a state barely works.

Thank you for posting this. Thank you.

Anarchism is a legit school of political thought, in this day and age only an uneducated twat can still think it means edgy punk kids breaking windows. Have you taken your knowledge of politics from MTV? Do yourself a favor and go read the Conquest of Bread.

Gustavo Menezes name a single country doing well as a communist or socialist country.

AnnoyedDragon The 1% don't make a profit by selling you stuff. They wait until the economy collapses and then buy up your assets for pennies on the pound.

There is a theory in economics right now that once global wages catch up with the other "advance" countries, wages in the U.S. will rebound.

What is your definition of globalism anyway to me sounds like a global socialism. As far as I'm concern free market paves the road for what we think globalism is.

+Steve Jung Tell me I'm misreading your post, are you seriously trying to blame Socialism for the current state of the world?

Your using vague terms. "Globalism" which was "suppose' to liberate capitalism...?? Where do you get the notion of globalism? As far as im concern its a vague term that has positive connotation such as world peace and end to world hunger. It is but free trade that brings countries together. A global market. Then how is this "suppose" to liberate capitalism? And what does that even mean? The use of terms are vague.

how's it going with the english hiếu?

@@asuka_the_void_witch LoL good. it's been 6 years. I don't even remember what this video is about

@@hieuthepunk well, as long as your english improved since 6 years ago, you kept your promise haha =D

@@hieuthepunk Congrats hieu

As this is this 7th year can you tell us how much your English has improved.

socialism is inevitable...we should make that transition smoother by taking actions collectively instead. Eventually most tasks will be done by robots and those robots can't be owned by certain companies. All of us need to be the part of that company, have shares, and since everyone is going to be part of it...it should be owned by govt a public entity.

answerOfstupids No, it should be jointly owned by the people and the ceo, therefore giving the people power. Which they don't have at the moment. Government owned businesses is not the way to go, learn from the past. Again, the businesses should be jointly owned by both the people and the CEOs.

doodelay Question, why can't the workers own directly? Or the consumers, in the case of utilities? Actual ownership by the people directly involved. Why should a CEO, chosen by capitalists, be part of the equation at all? Why shouldn't leadership be chosen by the workers directly?

doodelay no robots for you, throw away your computer, forget youtube and go watch documentaries at the theater.

manu de hanoi a computer isn't a fucking robot bro lol

+MGTOW Jesus The best way to listen to this is to wind the window up so the distraction of the artistry does not get in the way of the message. We connect with the human form talking to us, we connect with the human voice. The game of the hands distracts from the message. Namaste and care, mhikl

Maybe in order to not breach copy-right-bullshit or something. Copied from lecture therefore has to be inferior for some obscure reason.

:/

Lisa Hind Hi Lisa - I teach Canadian university students and also create instructor aids for a higher-ed publishing company. I consistently incorporate and recommend videos for use in the classroom - students engage with the material, and the follow-up discussion is very 'animated' :)

Indeed! Marx also mentions the trajectory of humanity into mere machinery for capital accumulation and even extrapolates this to conceive that generalized mental labor will be discreetly machinated which, if you're generous with thinking about abstractions and consider he wrote it like 200 years ago, is pretty much a prediction of the whole goal of developing AI, which I found pretty amazing/awesome if nothing else. But I definitely agree that this sort of backlash against religious dogmatism from the enlightenment essentially threw out the meaningful spiritual baby with the totalitarian bathwater, and perhaps worse is that it wasn't really "thrown out" so much as it has changed in appearance. "The market" and broad enforcement capitalist realism narrows our imagination/collective goals to the point of effectively having instituted the same dogmatism in a different distorted lexicon. Basically Nietzsche's underlying point in decrying the "death" of god. Yeeeeeeeah...not lookin' too good for this whole humanity thing.

Bisquick can you explain what you both are referring to in regard to religion? Are you saying Buddhism is the new doctrine?

@@taina8622 No God is basically the equivalent of "dads not home! We can do whatever we want!", we're going to end up in a lord of the flies situation very quickly.

Read a book titled Capital in the Twenty-First Century by a French economist called Thomas Piketty. Afterward, if you are not exhausted or denying it, read "Capital and Ideology" by same owner, then a Brief History of Neoliberalism by the very speaker of this video.

+TheSquidPro I have no idea what's he talking about.

***** There's no excuse for not being educated in today's world, all the information is a click away. Public libraries are in abundance, and all schools except for the tippest of the toppest are free. The unambitious will always be at a disadvantage to the ambitious, but that is no fault of society.

I'm still saying that economic texts confuse me and I have no idea what it all is.

***** Mandatory education is just a benefit of maintaining a societal standard, if you don't have the agency to educate yourself than you're not as smart as you claim to be schools or otherwise. Meanwhile you try to water the argument of the internet down with baseless drivel then conveniently ignore the libraries who are not 50 bucks a month, luckily for everywhere fibre optic doesn't reach books do. Billions of people don't need access to the internet, billions of people have more pressing issues like "Lets try to listen to all these specialists the west keeps sending and not forget to feed ourselves." or "Lets reject foreign aid so a domestic market can start blooming" or "Maybe democracy isn't a great idea in countries racked by populism and superstition or foreign infiltrators." or "Lets dig a hole outside the city instead of throwing trash two steps away from my doorstep" Basic stuff that doesn't need the internet. It's not hard to reveal who is lazy. From top to bottom there are those who climb and those who wallow being "content", hence any system discriminates against the poor because the poor do not actively choose in life, not they let choices be made for them just like how the media regurgitates opinions for them to absorb in the same way you envision schools. So I will state again that it is immensely easy to separate the wheat from the chaff, because the ambitious choose their lives and do not let it be chosen for them.

I'm just saying that every time I pick up an economic textbook it makes my head spin, I'm not arguing that information is hard to access, there's also a problem of comprehending the texts.

There's little specific reason why co-ops couldn't compete with multinationals on the same level, no? I think the only reason the biggest companies aren't co-ops is that there's so few of them, and they're less likely to agressively expand as they go by consensus and member-investment usually. That said, one of the biggest banks in the Netherlands started cooperatively, and several large companies in Spain are co-ops.

There is more needed than just cooperatives. Competition still exists within a cooperative-based system.

Act Free yeah, and that breeds innovation. The cure for economic crises is not the economic equivalent of playing soccer without the ball and then giving everyone a participation medal.

searchoverload8 false equivalency

Resource Based Economy such as proposed by The Venus Project

Nobody has ever managed to create a monopoly through a free market, absent government intervention. All of the real, coercive monopolies which restricted supply to earn monopoly profits at the expense of consumers were created with the help of government. All of the classic examples of suppsed monopolies persecuted under antitrust laws were increasing production, improving quality, and bringing their products to consumers at ever falling prices. This includes Standard Oil and John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Cornelius Vandervilt was actually a monopoly breaker. He defied a government imposed monopoly on steamboat traffic on the Hudson river.

SaulOhio Who told you the market can be "free" ? No wonder we've never seen it in this utopian form...

Role of management ?Tell me how valuable is your vision for making more money straight from money mister creative entrepreneur ? And labor provides demand my ass, under this system it is the capitalist class that solely creates the demand, the laws of supply and demand just direct the labor. "the fundamental problem of capitalism has once again reared it's head -- Winners accumulate too much power, The winners come to control the system and inevitably move it away from its free market roots by making monopolies and the like." Well since it always finishes like this why on Earth you think it has "free market" roots ? How many more years we are going to repair and patch a system that cannot meet even the basic needs of human society ?

Ilian Kulishev A free market is one where market participants are free to enter and leave at will. They are economically efficient since success breeds imitation and new ideas quickly permeate the entire market. Of course this isn't always a good thing. For example intellectual property laws are designed to limit the free market. Also, economic efficiency is not the end all, be all of life. Having dirt cheap food for 9 years running then no food in the tenth year would be bad, even if the average cost was lower than moderately priced food at all times. BTW, since no one is free to leave the health care market, "Free Market Health Care" is a lie.

Ilian Kulishev You are confusing capital with management. Capital uses money to make money. Management directs workers in useful directions. During the corporate "reforms" of the late 1980s businesses were being bought, broken, and sold. Workers were losing jobs so they thought this was bad. They supported rules that made boards of directors beholden to the companies CEOs (that's management) instead of stockholders (capital). Since then CEOs usually pay themselves bloated salaries for shipping jobs overseas. In other words they ship their own work (managing employees) overseas while giving themselves a raise. Both employees and stockholders (often retired employees BTW) suffer. But there's nothing they can do. Management has most of the power. Also, in our consumer society it is spending workers who provide demand for products. The hundred or so billionaires just don't eat that many hamburgers (for example).

He's an idiot.

John Doe Jr. Which he? I was talking about the animator on the white board. If I could do that, that's all I'd do. There is a problem with Capitalism, by the way, at least the new Pope thinks so.

Oh, sure he's a good drawer. There isn't a problem with Capitalism, there never has been.

John Doe Jr. Sure, if you're rich.

Anthony Blackburn You have no idea how the economy works, do you?

+awsomeguy001 The free market doesn't exist. Without the government enforcing private property laws capitalism wouldn't exist.

+awsomeguy001 No, we need to move beyond capitalism altogether.

Anarcho Communist Watch the PragerU video "Myths Of Capitalism"

awsomeguy001 PragerU is just neoliberal capitalist propaganda. The problems with capitalism aren't just myths.

Did you watch it?

We were never at hayek. It's not even keynes, its a manipulated keynes. Hayek would have never bailed out the bankers, the video never even touches on it. You bail out the losers there is no end to the cost.

So long as you want to fix a paper cut using amputation

its easy, marx points at several problems with american-style democracy. it hurts the establishment so economists (who work for what we call the establishment btw) talk about marx in denigrating terms. if they do otherwise they put their career at stake as the establishment is very vidicative. besides, all thats interesting with marx is him pointing at social issues created by/because of economic laws as well as excesses made possible by capitalizm in its extremes. its not fag blabber, its economists who use economy to have power over government so over us. they zeitgeit fags are only a sickness of today- they talk compassion to hide their own weakness.

besides, marx is 50% utopian bullshit-his economical views- and 50% critique over social issues created by/because of capitalizm -pure social issues- thats why it is irrelevant to economists. as sociology is a half-science cuz poor sociologists dont know much about economics and economics determine social wellness- the best way to keep everybody in the dark, but were into another debate, and its too long for yt comments

First, learn that not every noun is capitalized, second, learn that plural nouns don't have apostrophes. Then make an argument. I didn't even read your post, because nobody would take it seriously. Big words, though. At least you can spell.

I've been looking around for a critique of capitalism that doesn't take the issues governments make, and blame capitalism as the cause of these issues. This video and others I've seen are critiques of crony capitalism. They are excellent critiques, I should mention, just not critiques of what they think they're critiquing.

Jason Colby What you call “crony capitalism” or “corporatism” is simply already the standard feature of capitalism. The whole fundamental of capitalism is to maximize one’s own capital for the sake of.. well.. capital.. The capitalist state ensures this through infrastructure spending, the issuing of money, and enforcing capital maximizing based properties (“private property in factories, corps, enclosure of the commons, imperialism, etc”) . www.filmsforaction.org/news/the-iron-fist-behind-the-invisible-hand-corporate-capitalism-as-a-stateguaranteed-system-of-privilege/

+DataEntity He discussed this at 9:50

How about nationalizing the banks?

And absorb the liability? You do know that let's the bankers off the hook, right? If anything is nationalized, it's the savings portion of the bank, allowing the investments to fail per market forces. Possibly only after the bank has been declared bankrupt. This protects the average citizen form liability they didn't sign up to, while retaining it for those who are responsible for the situation.

Every time the light comes on, the free market roaches run back and forth all over the conversation, and I try to stomp on at least a few....it's hopeless, I know, but here goes; Every success (as perverted as the measure of it is in this system) is lauded by you market purist's as "the free market", but every failure of it, is simply ridiculed as "crony capitalism". How convenient it must be, to reject anything that doesn't fit that tidy little model, and embrace anything that does. Would you get real? Please? Cause I for one, am sick of the schizophrenia... The "merger" was there from the get go. There is no division. It is a big and messy system of greed, one up man-ship and usury that is out of control and consuming itself. You can't pick little pieces of it out and say "this is our ideal, if only everything hinged on this principle there would be harmony". There is nothing in serving oneself above all else that is principled! Mussolini meant to merge the people with their work, and with the fruits of that work. That is much closer to a principle. Did it go terribly bad? Of course it did, just like it did with Hitler. Of course, if you claim as your system one built upon the most base instincts mankind has, it's success or longevity is hardly something to trumpet about. The cost of that "success" also has a very nasty looking under belly. One we don't talk about much, huh? Instead, we have "Dictator" in our own image; the iron boot of corporatism.

pjamesbda I readily admit that the free market system has disadvantages. I am just sick of the free market taking the blame for things like corporate subsidies, bailouts, bribing politicians etc. that are explicitly against free market ideals. This is why we need to make a distinction between crony capitalism and the free market. The two are, in many cases, opposites. To be blind to this distinction is to leave yourself open to misunderstanding and error. So I have a question for you: can you name a criticism of the free market? I'd love to discuss the good ones. I am just sick of discussing straw men.

freesk8 Yes, certainly the most obvious is the competition. I'll elaborate if needed.

freesk8 What is the "free" market? Governance and capitalism go hand in hand from the beginning of civilization. Who will enforce property rights, currency, and transactions if not the government? The word "crony" means "friend," so the phrase "crony capitalism" implies that friendship has bought these advantages, not the money itself. I can assure you, it's not all about friendship. Money doesn't care whether it's going against your supposed "free market ideals." Like the Marx quote in the video says, "capital cannot abide a limit." In other words, your "free market," which looks for any advantages it can profit from, has overtaken government, not the other way around. Therefore it seems to me that what you're wishing for is a government that restricts (rather than enhances) the advantages that excess capital affords. Welcome to the club.

humanelk If government didn't have power to intervene economically in the first place, there would be no buyers for this service.

Miguel 'Big Mig" Benavides Yeah, I still struggle with this issue myself. I really want to be open minded and so I am very willing to entertain new ideas, new theories, new solutions. But, even though I agree that there are many negative outcomes of capitalism, both inherently and as it is practices right now, I also cannot help but acknowledge that it was capitalism that managed to significantly raise the living standards of millions of people in the last 150 years. So, if someone can offer an idea of how we can keep the good stuff and move to a system that gets rid of the bad stuff, I'm happy to hear it.

+Miguel 'Big Mig" Benavides get past the labels. Harvey isn't arguing for anti-capitalism, rather for being anti-neoliberalism, the extreme interpretation of capitalism that is predatory, short-termist and re-distributes wealth 'upwards'. Harvey isn't anti-capitalist but much of his entire academic output has tended to emphasise the need to be more conscious of, alert to the inherent contradictions in capitalism. And for all those who think that regulation on finance will inhibit innovation - consider how much innovation might *actually* happen if the mega rich didn't hoard so much capital

+Miguel 'Big Mig" Benavides What's the difference? How do you get past capitalism without anti-capitalism?

+Russell Todd Harvey's a Marxist. Of course he's anti-capitalist, and that's a good thing.

+Demian Haki _"I also cannot help but acknowledge that it was capitalism that managed to significantly raise the living standards of millions of people in the last 150 years."_ Yes, capitalism is better than feudalism, etc., which is acknowledged by Marx and every serious anti-capitalist. But that doesn't mean we can't do better.

If you have no coercive apparatus then you have no property, and if you have a volunteer based society without a state and property, that isn't free-market capitalism. That's communism.

Thomas Sutton "If you have no coercive apparatus then you have no property". Actually, it is VERY MUCH possible to me to own property without me having to INITIATE violence or force on other people. If I point a gun at you and say, "give me your (fill in the blank with whatever item you wish)" and you give it, I have just used coercion on you. It was NOT a voluntary trade. However, if I were to offer you something you want (like money) in exchange for that item (and I didn't use force or threaten to use force) then I did not coerce you because I was not causing any harm to you.

FurryMurry7 But property rights must be enforceable. If there was nothing to stop me, I could just go around declaring that your belongings are mine. Some socially agreed on mechanisms for exclusion or entitlement must be in place to support property rights.

Ryan Marsh I completely agree with you! =D And, fortunately, these "socially agreed on mechanisms" already exist. It's called "commonlaw". In a nutshell, commonlaw is basically laws (or rules) that exist outside of government. These are laws that everyone knows and understands. "Common Knowledge", if you will. To illustrate: imagine I went to a restaurant, ordered a turkey sandwich, ate it, and refused to pay, saying "well i never signed uh contract that said ah promise 2 pay for muh food." LOLZ But seriously, everyone would know that what I'm doing is wrong, even if we were living in a stateless society. This is commonlaw at work. And EVEN IF the fear of jail were taken out of the equation, I would still have a damn good reason to pay my bill. I need a job. I need an apartment. I need money (loans, credit cards, etc.). And with all of those things, someone is going to check on my TRUSTWORTHINESS. (another way of saying trustworthiness is "credit"). When word gets out that I keep ripping off restaurants, a lot of people are not going to want to interact with me. Restaurants won't want to serve me. Employers won't want to hire me (for the good jobs, at least. Maybe I could be a dishwasher making a not-enough-to-live-on wage). Banks and finance companies won't want to lend me money (which I will desperately need, since I can't get a good job). And the list of this kind of "economic ostracism" goes on and on for me. In short, we could say that if I turn to a life of ripping people off, my life will turn into a living hell. The best medicine is prevention, not cure. The fear of such economic ostracism is usually quite enough for people to respect property rights.

Thomas Sutton please visit mises.org

Seven years later but here we go... That's not what he means and you know that. It's amazing to me that some people see this and think "maybe we should make changes, both big and small, to our economy" while others hear "we need to abolish private ownership and dismantle the competitive market"