Does Capitalism Exploit Workers? – Learn Liberty

Does Capitalism Exploit Workers? – Learn Liberty


[Music] Karl Marx famously thought that a capitalist economy promotes the systematic exploitation of workers for Marx this idea was based on a labor theory of value which most scholars today reject nevertheless many still agree with Marx’s basic claim that capitalism is inherently exploitative they simply define exploitation in broader and less contentious terms instead of thinking about exploitation as involving the forced extraction of surplus value from labor contemporary philosophers define it as taking unfair advantage of others vulnerability and defined in this way many philosophers think that contemporary capitalism is rife with exploitation with economically powerful capitalists taking unfair advantage of workers vulnerability in order to maximize their profit so what should we make of this argument is capitalism exploitative and what’s the alternative well first it’s absolutely correct that many capitalists want to exploit workers they want to pay as low a wage as possible and get as much work out of workers as possible in order to maximize profit but the fact that other capitalists also want to exploit workers in this way makes it difficult for any of them to do so this is because competitive pressure forces capitalists to pay workers close to the value of what those workers produce whether they want to or not if you try to pay someone less than their worth someone else will offer them more because they can profit by doing so imagine you’re in an auction bidding against others for a dollar of course you’d like to pay as little as possible for that dollar but if someone else was bidding sixty cents for it wouldn’t it be worth your while to bid 62 and wouldn’t someone else then bit 64 and so on in a competitive marketplace that same process leads capitalists to pay workers close to the value of what they produce not because they want to but because they have to the second point to keep in mind about capitalism and exploitation is this even when exploitative or unfair exchanges do take place the institutions of a free market ensure that they will at least usually be mutually beneficial because the exchanges are voluntary as an example think about an exchange that a lot of people find unfair payday loans a poor working man needs money right now to meet his basic needs and so get to loan from a payday loan store but only by paying fees equivalent to a 400% annual percentage rate that’s a grant at least for the sake of argument that charging such a high interest rate is unfair even so it’s important to bear in mind that both parties had the opportunity to say no to the exchange if they believed that they could do better somewhere else and because of this fact because the exchange was voluntary in just this very weak sense this means that both parties expect to gain more from the exchange then they give up it means that unless one of them has made a mistake the exchange will be mutually beneficial this is an important fact important for the well-being of individual laborers and important for the growth and development of society as a whole mutually beneficial exchanges are how wealth is created in society and the more wealth a society creates over time the less vulnerability there is for capitalists to exploit markets aren’t perfect but whether or not you think capitalism is exploitative you need to ask what’s the alternative the usual suggestion is political regulation and control but if our concern is to minimize exploitation we need to ask whether this alternative really makes sense after all citizens are in a position of tremendous vulnerability relative to the state and lobbyists bureaucrats and elected officials will often be tempted to exploit that vulnerability for their own private gain think of the way in which our political institutions subsidize large agribusinesses bailout auto companies carta lies the banking industry through the Federal Reserve System and so on all of these policies benefit the interests of the economically powerful and politically well-connected at the expense of ordinary citizens that’s not a free market at work that’s big government and politics is unlike markets and that political exchanges aren’t voluntary when the government wants to use your money to bail out GM you don’t have the right to say no and this means there’s no guarantee that the exchange will be mutually beneficial when politics is involved one party’s gain usually comes at someone else’s expense politicians gain from the contributions they receive from big business and big business gains from the favors they receive from government sure those favors have a cost but because government has the power of coercion it can force third parties to pay that cost those who can afford political influence get the benefits and those who cannot afford it suffer the consequences this is how politics works and it’s not because we have bad people in office and need to get nicer people in it’s because of the structural nature of politics because the state has the power to impose its decisions by force on the public just hoping that the state will use its power on behalf of the vulnerable isn’t enough we need to ask ourselves if we really want to reduce the amount of exploitation in the world is increasing the power of the state really the best way to do it [Music]

Author:

100 thoughts on “Does Capitalism Exploit Workers? – Learn Liberty”

  • Deschutes Maple says:

    ONLY within the incredibly exploitive, grotesquely unfair capitalism of USA could a video like this actually ask the question "Is capitalism exploitive?". Even a teenager working at McDonald's knows full well he is doing all the actual work for his manager and the shareholders and CEO of McDonalds. Do the math!!! Look at the earnings of American CEOs! Take for example Amazon.com: Jeff Bezos is the world's wealthiest man with 140 billion net worth; and what about workers at Amazon warehouses? $13/hr, contract not permanent, very high turnover–go and watch any of the numerous documentaries on Youtube describing the horrific wage slavery conditions at Amazon warehouses in USA, UK, etc. Capitalism's basic function is to extract as much labor from a worker for as little as possible.

    Look at UPS's recent payout to shareholders in August 2018: UPS announced a quarterly dividend payout to shareholders of more than $700 million for the three months to August 2018. The announcement came the very same day as the Teamsters union met in Chicago, Illinois to endorse new contracts for UPS workers that enforce poverty-level wages and introduce major new concessions. UPS’s dividend payout is an object lesson in the basic functioning of capitalism. Where does this $700 million come from? It did not, after all, arise out of thin air. It is extracted from the labor of hundreds of thousands of workers, in the US and internationally. It is part of the surplus value produced by these workers—the difference between the wages they earn by selling their labor power, barely enough to survive, and the value they add in the process of production and distribution. But according to this guy, UPS owners would have had to pay that 700 million in profits to the delivery guys 😀

    This guy in this video is full of sh!t when he glibly claims that 'capitalism forces employers to pay close to the value of what those workers produce'. Look at the Chinese being paid a few dollars a day to assemble MacBook Pros at Apple Foxconn factory. Do you think they can buy a $2000 Macbook? That there is a video like this on Youtube actually asking 'does capitalism exploit workers' only confirms how stupid and brainwashed American workers have become under capitalism. And that is not by accident.

  • Deschutes Maple says:

    Awful. Awful. Awful. I've never seen such blatant dishonesty crammed within 6 minutes in all my life. First, he makes the laughable claim that 'capitalism forces employers to pay close to the value of what those workers produce' (if that were true why do CEOs earn 270+ times more than the average worker? Why is there this HUGE pay disparity?); then he goes on to argue that government regulation is bad because 'citizens are vulnerable' to what governments do!? Well yes they are, because in US government private corporations control who gets elected, and politicians do their bidding!–and certainly not the bidding of a worker. Libertarian nonsense.

  • capitalist belief – I guess you forgot about the Great Depression then. You see in your world if a country operates according to the “capitalist system” they should never go broke or experience financial downturns – when you hit the wall on your debt we’ll see if that holds true ok. In the meantime 50m on food stamps and another 50m working poor non of which can afford healthcare so they need to get Medicaid (socialist handout program?) so I would talk to loudly just yet.

  • Pure capitalism does not concern itself with people (and their welfare issues – the opposing viewpoint – pure socialism does not concern itself with business issues. Truly anyone should see that these labels and the extremes they represent are not helpful in creating a vibrant society. Balance is needed with political policies being more focused on what works best for any given situation. Is it OK for Banana plantation workers in Central America to spray plantations with dangerous chemicals without the benefit of even a mask to ensure they don't breath toxic fumes (as a cost cutting measure?) or should business be saddled with the responsibility to pay the majority of costs for over-bloated social programs that provide them little to no benefit? Neither approach is helpful or sustainable in the long term. A proper approach would be to look around the world at systems that work well for any given problem with an open mind focused on improving and solving problems in society and business. For instance in Switzerland many major policy decisions are included in the voting platform for the citizens to determine the best course of action. In a system like that you would have to have an informed citizenry that understands how these decisions will effect them from a business / financial / social perspective. The government could develop laws and policies and the people could ratify them much as the senate does thus saving money on the system that is used to oversee government policy. This would also eliminate the corruption we see daily where elected representatives are bought and paid for by special interest groups or look after their own interests at the expense of the people they serve.

  • Legal Fiction Natural Fact says:

    fine, just don't make the mistake of thinking that capitalism and socialism are the only two options. they are to be transcended. and no communism and socialism are NOT interchangeable terms.

  • In my country (The Netherlands) only 5% of employees get paid minimum wage. So the whole sob story of people being exploited and forced to work for pennies is mostly fantasy.

  • pure lie wakup man even High skill worker don't have a say in there wedges and in countries like India and China all the job are purely slavery

  • Only thing Capitalism does is increase poverty and make 1% of population richer, I think you have no clue what you are talking about , this model only works for entrepreneurs to get more money , not people who work for them , let it completely free and people will work for just having food, while heads of companies will have everything.

  • I had a job interview last month and I said I would only work for £2 an hour more than they where offering , havent heard back from them yet but i'm sure they respected my request . fingers crossed xx

  • RAFFAELE DE SIMONE says:

    UNFAIR REASONING.
    He introduced the situation in which the economy is under control of country, but discussing only about the possible negative outcome, which takes place if the politicians in general are not acting in favor of who they are representing.
    If they they were shown doing so, the result would be totally different. YES, this is the right opposite and a quite extreme hypothesis, BUT this is exactly the same extreme one of the free market working in favor of the people and providing wages which are close the value of the workers thanks to the principle of Perfect-Semi Perfect competition.

    Do not let an unfair and unrealistic way of reasoning influence you, because the topic is so complex that it is impossible to say what it is better so easily.

  • God, so much bs. This video is exploitative. I get that you are a sell out having a buck to exploit the poor through a campaign of misinformation, but how about at least a little human dignity.

  • whatever you want to call our current economic situation. however you want to parse the details. whatever you want to replace our system with. no one here realizes that we are currently experiencing the highest standard of living the world has ever known by such a huge margin that there is no comparison to the past.

  • What I think I just heard was that compartmentalizing sections of society, as you did in the example implying a separation between the State and the free market, is a verifiable and significant facet of the status quo. I would argue that your statements clearly reveal that the State works in cohort with the rich and powerful outside of the State itself. Without significant monetary pressure from the groups you claim are benefitted by the State's, in your example, original actions, then the State would not have significant reason to act as it does. In simpler terms, you present a chicken or the egg argument that gets people tangled up in a convoluted, endless, and pointless argument. What should be focused on here is that lobbyists, capitalists, etc., petitioning the government for legislated power, and the State accepting bribes, etc., from such capitalists synergizes into a situation that is quite exploitative of laborers and workers of all classes in this country, the United States.

  • x794z2000 x794z2000 says:

    Which ever way you look at it the ability to maintain your human condition requires land grow food shelter etc… As long as land or use of land is not a birthright you are captive to whichever authority is withholding your ability maintain yourself .
    I see that as taking an unfair advantage from the get go.

  • This is incorrect in low skill labor jobs. We have such an abundance of these people wanting jobs, that their value is inherently far lower.

    While the premise here is good for higher income, higher skilled workers. It does not apply equally to the bottom tier individuals.

    Just as Jordan Peterson's said "if you're at the bottom, you're stuck there."

    That's why payday loans are predatory. This caters to the people who do not have another option. Hence they cannot shop around for a better deal.

    This is nonsense predicated on capitalism is equitable and everyone has the same amount of options. Well, no, they don't.

  • If capitalism exploits the average worker then it's also true that communism exploits workers because, under communism, the worker has no way of escaping the slave position they have. At least under capitalism an ordinary person can come up with a bold idea, start their own business and bank big bucks.

  • Some of the rich get exploited, all of the middle class and poor are exploited. The way society is now 99 percent of people literally have no choice but to become wage slaves.

  • democracy sucks says:

    Not all workers are exploited..well in fact where i live, corruption is a very prevalent thing throught our country, so the people always create a money making policy.

  • Brett Wallander says:

    well let's ses…The market decides market values, unskilled laborer still makes owners a butt ton of money and share holders get a say in gaining profit before those who produced it..hmmm

  • Андрей А says:

    The problem is in initial stage of capital accumulation. How did capitalist gain their capital? The truth is that capital is gain by whole society, but only 1% own it, instead of spray capital between all citizens. Capitalist does the same work as a manager, engineer or a laborer, so why does it have to own capital only by himself; we should share capital between society equal and income has to be shared according to labour. Becouse we all create capital together.

  • I see the same objection over and over: "But there are still poor people on a free market! Clearly it doesn't work."

    This objection is not sensible. Free market is based on the principle of consensual economical activities. The goal of the free market to begin with is not to make everyone rich. The goal of the free market is to let everyone produce something of value and exchange it for something else of value, given consent of both parties.
    If the market values your labor low, then you will get low wages and be poor. There is nothing wrong with that; in fact, this is how the market is supposed to work. If you want higher wages, then you must work on your skills and find a way to produce labor that the market values higher.

    The opposition to free markets is always based on lack of understanding of the core idea behind the free market: freedom. People take the assumption that everyone must end up rich as a given, while the correct assumption to have is that every economical exchange must be consensual. People think that the end (everyone is rich) justifies the means (economical freedoms are restricted), while free markets state that the means (economical freedoms are guaranteed) define the end (some are rich, some are poor).

    It is the eternal struggle between freedom and security. People who argue against free markets prefer security over freedom. One smart person once said that such people deserve neither security nor freedom, and will lose both – and this is what, indeed, happens.

  • If you don't want to be "exploited" open your own business. In the short term, you will realize a wage pays you more than you can make in your own business; depending on your knowledge and experience, maybe in the long term you will do better but one thing you will realize is how bad all the regulations are for business caused by the politicians you elected.

  • concurency between "capitalists" for the worker's labour force was maybe true in a full employment and non mondialised society. But now with the ammount of unemployment and the cheap workers from poorer countries, it's the workers who are in concurency in order to find a job, decreasing their work value.

  • SociallyTriggered says:

    Saying that the workers are exploited is a powerful tool against capitalist. People look at capitalists and see how rich they are and then look at the workers and see they have so much less. The conclusion they draw is there must be something wrong. They think why is it so unfair. The truth is the capitalists become rich not through exploitation of others but by realizing and recognizing the value of others. The more value they can create within someone else the more success they will have.

  • At 2:24 the example of payday loans – isn't also true that because of the government restrictions/regulations on who are allowed to make these kinds of loans, competition is suppressed and this is a cause of the exorbitant interest rates and fees?

  • Just another Bird says:

    Capitalism is ALL about exploitation. Go to a Walmart and look at the prices and then explain how they can sell a brand new shirt for less than 3$, without having to exploit people somewhere. Please this is utter garbage, exploitation happens and it is something intrisical of capitalism and there is no going around this FACT.

  • A market needs to be regulated to some extent, the early 20th centry market is what happens when there is total capitalism. A few people become so wealthy to the point were they prevent other's from competing against them. If all government regulations to the economy went away, the same thing would happen, people will be working 16 hours a day with almost no pay, and their only option would be to go to a few competitors who would require the same thing. Companies would also just pay in tokens to be used at company owned shops. Mining companies were notorious for this in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Arguing for an unregulated market is just as dumb as arguing for commuism.

  • American In Russia says:

    It's interesting that companies want to pay you for your "time". But then they want to also be able to regulate your "productivity" during that time and not compensate you for greater productivity. Well, now wait a minute. Our agreement is that you were going to pay me for my "time", not for my "level of productivity". If you want to be able to "regulate my productivity", that's fine, but then you need to be honest and pay me for my level of "productivity". But that's not what we negotiated, we negotiated that you were going to pay me for my "time". Companies themselves get paid for their "productivity". But they want to turn it around on you and only pay you for your time.

  • Being told that you can either work or starve isn't a choice, it's an ultimatum. Capitalism is not voluntary, because there is no way to detach yourself from that system without literally dying.

  • Liberty AboveAllElse says:

    Excellent video. Problem with this and other videos like it is that leftists won't click on it. They'll never see this information. I suspect upwards of 95% of those clicking on this video will tend to already agree with these propositions.

  • Jonathan Mosher says:

    "Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?" I don't know, ask the 9-year-old in Bangladesh who made my shoes…

  • Ruth Clements says:

    Except if all capitalists exploit workers, then there's no where better to go, especially if there are more workers than work positions. Its not hard to find workers for low skilled jobs. Capitalism is fundamentally undemocratic

  • Competitiveness?

    In a world of large corporations and instant information that can be shared and controlled by these same corporations? Really?

  • 台灣友邦計數器 says:

    capitalists buy yachts and privates plane laundering their money and they teach you this is EQUALITY and FREEDOM!

  • Unfortunately the competition of the labor markets does not always work, especially when super large corps control markets.

  • You can't be serious if you think accepting a 400% apr loan is mutually beneficial. Nobody cares that he voluntarily accepted that loan. He just fucked his life up by accepting that shitty deal. He did not benefit at all, especially when considering he will likely never pay that loan off like the majority of pay day loan accepts. He lost as soon as he accepted that money, and the lender holds considerable bargaining power over him.

    Exploitation is not based on whether both parties expect to gain. Exploitation only occurs when someone has bargaining power over the other person and uses that power to drive an unequal exchange. When I say unequal exchange, I mean more than just monetary benefits. In most cases, the employee/job seeker faces a position where their choices are accept a job or starve and be homeless. The owner however has many choices of employees even in a tight labor market, and he knows you face this dilemma. Because of this, the employer, in 99% of cases, has considerable bargaining power over his employees. And it is in this bargaining power that makes capitalism exploitative even though the exchange was voluntary and mutually beneficial from a financial perspective. The employer benefits way more, and will continue to benefit more, by making such deals.

    Because employees are caught between a rock and a hard place, employers are able to make such shitty deals seem fair.

  • Austiblaze _it says:

    Everything said would be true, if it werent for the fact that "competitiveness" really does not exist as most large corporations have semi-monopolies on just about everything.

  • Exploitation does happen but not in the 1st world. Most people don't understand this. Where the exploitation occurs is in the 3rd world via superprofits which are extracted from the workers in Third World countries by the imperialist powers (in the First World). Part of these superprofits are then distributed (in the form of increased living standards) to the workers in the imperialists' home countries in order to buy their loyalty, achieve political stability and avoid a workers' revolution, usually by means of reformist labor parties. The workers who receive a large enough share of the superprofits have an interest to defend the capitalist system, so they become a labor aristocracy. We can see examples like Bernie Sanders, He is interested only in the benefit of the American working class but doesn't care about the effects his policies may have on the 3rd world.

  • Even if it is exploitation, I would rather have it decentralized than the state having a monopoly on violence.

  • You want to live an exploitation free life? Buy an acre, and grow your own food. You will find yourself doing 18 hour days of back breaking labor, and living at half the poverty level. And if you get sick, your only medicine will be a slug of moonshine. Your only retirement since the food you grow can only be stored a few months is to have a child willing to feed you when you are too weak to work.

    Or you could get yourself exploited at a factory, making 10X the money, get your employer to pay your medical bills at a state of the art hospital, a full retirement package, and paid vacations.

    I'll take the exploitation please.

  • industrialcentre says:

    Many good points but when corrupt governments and corporations have systematically destroyed the manufacturing base in many countries by moving off shore there are now many more people seeking work than there are jobs available. This creates a situation where workers will accept almost any horrible job at minimum wage just to survive, the guy at the pay day lender may know full well that he is going to go under in the end but still voluntarily takes out the loan just to hold off the crash a little longer.

  • Oh my god. What is this monstrosity. This dipshit wants to pass as an academic? Did he actually just say that the capitalists have to compete with each other to give the workers higher wages?

  • dara ghaznavi says:

    If there were a shortage of work force, yes, then the corporations would compete each other for hiring workers and the wages would raise. But in reality, that is not the case, there are limited positions to be occupied and workers compete for them. So the contrary is the case.

    And about the state, it much depends on which state we are talking about. In democratic states, the chance of exploitation is low.

  • dara ghaznavi says:

    If somebody points a gun at you and wants you to do something, you also have the choice to say "No". But how genuine is that choice is not very clear.

  • There never should have been any UNEQUAL WEALTH! It started thousands of years ago! And nowadays since most money is just numbers in computers we can now eliminate money, and say everything is FREE! Just like what would have happened if WE had said “the wage is slavery and illegal, and we’re eliminating it! Now all PEOPLE OWN ALL THINGS!” So we never would have been forced to need Big Government, forced on us by CORPORATE SLAVE PLANTATIONS! I think it was Ferdinand Lindberg who said that in “The Rich and the Super Rich”.

  • What bothers me about capitalism is that if an employee of a corporation invents something really wonderful that saves time, saves lives, or whatever, then that person gets too sick to ever work again they get fired or as capitalists say “let go”, so the corporation/s can go on selling their idea/invention forever making billions of dollars from it, but the employee gets nothing. And say that employee was just 18 years old, isn’t he screwed? His life is ruined, as well as his families if he has any, and how is that fair, or just?

  • That’s a great analysis of that ideology the idea of exploitation is effectively eliminated when taking into account risk adversity and competitive compensation (hence the idea of a FREE market) businesses aren’t holding a gun to the head of an employee demanding they except a certain pay, that’s what a socialist government does. Also the employees aren’t engaging in any risk so the for that they deserve less. Without slightly more capital gains on the side of the business it won’t be able to grow. Keep in mind that most assets that these billionaires have aren’t liquid. They are frozen on equity of the company.

  • Another point is that a completely free market isn’t ideal. There needs to be regulation to minimize exploitation. For example cartels are illegal because they exploit the consumer by fixing prices. Business owners can’t fix wages in some secret society meeting (same concept as the cartels) Monopolies are also not ideal for obvious reasons. So it’s a battle between regulation and economic freedom.

  • Andrew Smith says:

    Competition is a relative thing and there’s no guarantee there will be substantial competition in the labour market.

  • Carlton White says:

    That’s bs………it’s not that capitalist want to exploit workers………..they want reasonable costs……….a salary is a cost that can reduce their bottom line

  • The only “exploitation” we need to stop is that of illegal immigrant labor because that is not subject to the market rules of competition and actually hurts the economy as a whole

  • Patrick Bateman says:

    Socialism and Communism will never work, Capitalism is the system that really works, not utopian one like socialism and communism.

  • Tatiana Racheva says:

    This is the same as saying that "guns don't kill people". Mkay.
    All this logic about competition goes out the window when you think of the truly vulnerable: https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/the-unpaid-cost-of-elder-care/

  • Labor actually won't be worth anything, especially human labor, when the robots get here. The good news is that everyone screaming: Freedom! and 'Murica! are going to starve along with the rest of the masses when over 50% of all work is performed by AI Machines / Robots. And then everyone will have a crystal clear understanding of the kind of hell that a truly free, and unregulated market can deliver……

  • if you put this man in a room with one small child , the child would quickly conclude that he was a worthless human .

  • ohmusicsweetmusic says:

    without government power, we would be a third world nation with many very poor and a few very rich. Capitalism is greedy, selfish and always wants more.

  • with no government you guys would not be even paying livable wage, like what happens in china with Nike, a factory comes in and says i will pay you a dollar a day, another comes in and says i will pay you 1.25. and then company out does the other but the people are still poor, plus since they have not other choice in the matter either work or not, then that is called exploiting the worker, we need government to make sure the big company do not make a monopoly off the people, capitalism is all about making a profit, they dont care for the workers or the quality of the product as long as they make money. Amazon was exploiting there workers very very well, then Bernie sanders presued them to increase wages, and they did.

  • bravetherainbow says:

    "capitalism isn't bad because you always have the individual choice to reject it and starve to death on the streets"

    NICE!

  • Capitalism always leads to crony capitalism involving big government, it's not a matter of choice, it's causal determinism. It's a mistake to think that within a "pure" capitalistic system, competition leads to fair competitive practices that creates fair wages for the services provided. Without government some form of mafia type organization will start to rise. Instead of outbidding one another and out-competing each other, it's much easier to hire someone to take out or threaten your competition. So it wont be peaceful competition but that's not the only reason. Doing business without a safety net a government provides will make things much more risky investment wise. Within many fields government is needed to lay the foundation before a company feels its safe enough to invest in. Look at aerospace and intercontinental shipping companies, they needed government to build the infrastructure and prove it can be done and avoid the risks and pitfalls.

    Eventually any capitalistic system will inevitably lead to involving government. And that will lead to corruption and lobbying which causes the problems we see today. Therefore capitalism is inherently flawed and we don't need it. we live in a universe with infinite resources, we need to create a resource based economy using that fact and create a civilization that benefits everyone.

  • More businesses = more competition for workers = more negotiation power for workers = better quality of life for workers.

    Regulations to prevent more businesses = less competition = less negotiation power for workers = frustration and stress for workers.

    More businesses = more competition for consumers = decrease in price and/or increase of quality of goods and services for consumers.

    Restraining the amount of businesses = less competition = less innovation = stagnation of price/quality of goods and services.

    Take away: increase the options.

  • This is a simplification. They're are many tactics for exploitation. Anyway, pretty pictures are, well, pretty. But if you're not going to discuss mechanisms then it's just chatter. About big and small government: as with anything ,the values of the people involved matter most as well as outside influence. Government is not monolithic. Parties are not monolithic, schools of philosophy are not monolithic. The idea that simply limiting the size of government will create Paradise via the "free market" is just another religion, another ideology. It's uncritical. This is because of oligarchy. It does arise naturally, you know, unless there is a strong social structure to prevent it. Markets are crap. People are everything.

  • personalperspective says:

    5:20 How can you get through this without mentioning that legalized bribery ie money in politics is root cause of corruption in the political system. Candidates take corporate dollars making them beholden to the donor and not their constituents. This drives political decisions in favor of those corporate check writers at the expense of constituents. Until that is addressed step one of any issue is crippled and cannot be fixed.

  • 1:08 it’s not just employers that are greedy. Employees a greedy too.

    While employers want to higher somebody for the least amount of money for the most amount of work, employees want the opposite – they want the job that pays the most for the least amount of work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *