TV is all about sound bytes that fit between commercials. Solutions to our problems do not fit in a sound byte. TV is the conduit between much of the public and information. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

why even have schiff as a guest if your going to put words in his mouth?
that was like watching pigs have sex,mildly amusing but you feel dirt afterward.
schiff makes a valid point about the free market,but what we have now is nothing resembling a free market.

I didn't care for the way O'Donnell conducted this interview either, but I think he's right to crow that the one idea bouncing around in the healthcare debate that Schiff was willing to sign on to was a tax increase.

*news

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by NetRunner.

Geez, that was painful. People on shows where hosts do that crap really need to learn how to defend against it.

The free market argument is bullshit , If you leve things to business you end up with individuals manopalizing things and exploiting things. As far as I understand the expenses with current health service are because of capitalism and the insurance companies working out ways to derive more money from people ,

capitalism is only concerned about money it is not concerned about people and fairness.

getting ill is like a house fire you don't expect it often its not predictable you can never tell if its only a small thing or if its a huge thing, now as everyone has a body surly it makes sence for everyone by dufult to have coverage Tax makes more sence for this kind of thing, If you belive the goverment is waist full with money then you need to work on the governments ways of spending mony and whats going wrong in the goverment , its not that the idesa of tax funded helth car is wrong. If you make it private its out of the peoples controle and the system is motivated to cheet people out of mony its unfixable.

^ You're grammar is raping my brain... My Lord!

>> ^bealsubub:
^ You're grammar is raping my brain... My Lord!


Your* ;}

yeh, if YOU'RE gona make a point about someone elses grammar.........make sure YOUR own grammar is correct.

n00b.

Regardless of my own feelings, if I was going to bet money on the outcome of the national healthcare debate, I'd bet that Obama does pass healthcare reform, and that it produces better results than our previous system.

It's always interesting when intellectuals go into politics, but it seems to me that Schiff is going against the winds of history on this.

Schiff's a freakin loon... Every problem we have is due to government intervention, and every solution is capitalism. You really can't get any more delusional than that.

O'Donnell is definitely being an ass, but that doesn't change the lunacy here.

Ok, I'll do it.

What you guys are failing to understand is that pure capitalism regulates itself. Every problem we have now is because of government intervention in the free market. Most of the very big companies we have today got there by enlisting the governments help. The "winds of history" tell a sordid tale of large companies using the government to help them meet their ends. Even to the point of using the military against civilians as in the Pullman strike and the Ludlow massacre.

Monopolies would only exist in the free market if that company consistently had a better quality products at better prices than any single smaller company, which is virtually impossible without stuff like government enforced patents etc. (Imagine a world without patents for a minute, it's fun.) What big companies do now is quash smaller companies by using the government to, for example, get laws past that favor their model or labor laws passed that favor their workers over their competitors - tons of ways. Also by enlisting the government to work internationally, sometimes with wars, sometimes assassinations, coups etc as with Exxon and United Fruit.

It's a racket, pure and simple. Why make a better product at less profit if you can force people to buy what you have with an FDA ruling? Why pay top dollar for a quality forest when you can get it in a deal with a friendly government installed by your government? Stuff like that.

Edit:

Ask yourself why orange juice is so damned expensive. 3 to 4 dollars a gallon? The stuff grows on trees, the trees grow like weeds, you can get what.. 20-30 gallons a tree?? The answer is that orange juice owners want to be filthy rich. The asked for the governments help and they got it. Our government uses YOUR tax dollars to pay orange tree farmers to destroy parts of their crops in order to reduce supply and keep the prices up. If the government wasn't involved, orange juice would be 50 cents a gallon and the orange juice owners would only be moderately well off. Think about it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^That's a bit overly simplistic. Pure capitalism will not manage things like monopolies, cartels and collusion. Pure capitalism also does not take into consideration ecology, human welfare and the common good.

Wow! That was tough to watch. Let the guy make his point for God's sake. LOL. I can see why Ed's ratings are in the tank. Schiff sounds interesting, anyone who seen this mess coming is worth looking at. I obviously didn't get anything from this interview. On my way to youtube to find out more on Schiff...

>> ^dag:
^That's a bit overly simplistic. Pure capitalism will not manage things like monopolies, cartels and collusion. Pure capitalism also does not take into consideration ecology, human welfare and the common good.


And your argument was so well thought out. Thanks. Now I have a deep knowledge of all the evils of Capitalism without any of the fact to prove it.

*quality *fearmongering from this "Ed" douchebag. What an ass. He has to be the Democratic equivalent of Bill O'Reilly.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by blankfist.

Adding video to channels (Fear) - requested by blankfist.

Wow, incredibly rude *douchebag.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

If we're talking about pure unfettered capitalism, BF - the paradoxes around ethics, the commons, monopolies and ecology are real problems. I don't think you or your libertarian buddies have good answers for it.

IMO, the Libertarian slogan should be "fuck you jack, get your hand off my stack". The rest of the world has the freedom to die from starvation or lack of healthcare any way they want. At least we won't have government intervention.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience."

C.S. Lewis

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^If CS Lewis had lived 50 years earlier in his jolly old England, he could have had the experience of growing up under robber barons in the factories of Britain's industrial revolution. No child labor laws needed under glorious pure capitalism.

I can't watch stuff like this, how childish to talk over him the whole time.

bleah. If I post another hundred videos of peter schiff running for senate will someone please shoot me.

Solutions for combating aggressive hosts like Bill'o, This guy in this video, or any other loudmouth that would talk over you, put words in your mouth, get you in an argument, ect ect

1: Don't say anything after being prompted for a response. look at them square in the eyes. after moments of uncomfortable silence, say "are you finished?" repeat as much as necessary.

2: Angry host is yelling at you. For shock value, say "Are you a complete Idiot?" Just drop it, drop it right in their lap, and then confront them about being aggressive.

3: If the two options above don't work, stare blankly, then stand up, say "this interview is over" and walk out.

Enzo, after 8 years of Bush, I'm sure very few would argue against you in saying that corporate influence within the government is a bad thing. However, I think it is more than a bit naive to believe that lessening our own civic power would somehow magically cause corporations to suddenly behave themselves. In fact, without a public government to stand in its way, a large corporation would be pretty much free to do as it likes.

Let's be honest. 'The free market will regulate itself' is pure bullshit. It's a statement taken on faith and regurgitated by every Milton Freidman fearing freemarketologist as Gospel truth. If you'd like to pull your head from the sand and see what a free market - unfettered by government tyranny - actually looks like, then book a plane trip to Darfur and open up a small business. That free market will regulate the shit out of you.

Anyway, if we can both agree that corporate influence in government is one of our major problems, then why don't we get pragmatic and join forces to pry these gremlins out of our civic engine?

While the host is being rather rude, and I do not really see the canidate being that worthwhile to vote for (for the moment), I do think the host should let the man speak. Speaking up, shouting, or just talking over the person, is so 'O'Reilly-ish'.

The issue of Capitalism vs Goverment, is so simplistic of a arguement, as to compare an orange to an apple. In a pure capitalistic sociality, monolopies would eventually win out. And the more well financed companies would control other companies. A good example (that's recent for you kids), is Microsoft. At one point, in the early '90s, The Microsoft Corp. had a 97% usage of all computer operating systems in the US. If goverment did not intrude, Microsoft would hold a strangle hold on ALL companies in the USA. Every software, would have to pay royalities and 'protection' money to Microsoft, every company would fully comply with Micrsoft's wishs. And Microsoft, through sheer scales of economy, could buy out all its competitors, and in to other related industries within 15-20 years. Along the way, the company purchases financial companies, with media (like CNN or The New Yourk Times), and sports teams. Now, if this sounds like a conspiracy theory of monolopies, you are starting to get the idea. Monopolies do not increase creativeness, but seek to destroy it.

Capitalism does not have an inherent mechanism to self-correct itself, as those who promote it, would have you believe. If the rule of law, for business was pure capitalism, the USA would quickly be turned in to a technocracy, as an extreme small group of extremely wealthy individuals changed the laws, to better suit their wishs. You, the reader, are simply an irrelevant peon, meant to exist only for your master's pleasure. Your life, and deathy would be absolutely dictated by someone you will never meet, nor speak to. But that person would own you as a slave. You would be enslaved by financial debt so deeply you could not get out of it.

This is not even a conspiracy or sci-fi novel. This stuff has happen in the past. Companies in the railroading industry, financial, texile, defense, and others, have employed tactics to garner more wealth. Crack open a history book on American business 1790-2009. Look for the Sherman Act. Look at laws that require someone to make 1.5 times their hourly wage after 40 hours. Back in the Texile mills of New England (1820-1920_, a person would be required to work 70 hours, or be fired. This stuff is not made up. THIS, IS, what capitalism is REALLY about. So if you wish to be a fool, and want completely open capitalism, and ignorant to its dangers, then do yourself a favor, and live the rest of your life as a monk, making $2/day.

>> ^Enzoblue:
Ok, I'll do it.
What you guys are failing to understand is that pure capitalism regulates itself. Every problem we have now is because of government intervention in the free market. Most of the very big companies we have today got there by enlisting the governments help. The "winds of history" tell a sordid tale of large companies using the government to help them meet their ends. Even to the point of using the military against civilians as in the Pullman strike and the Ludlow massacre.
Monopolies would only exist in the free market if that company consistently had a better quality products at better prices than any single smaller company, which is virtually impossible without stuff like government enforced patents etc. (Imagine a world without patents for a minute, it's fun.) What big companies do now is quash smaller companies by using the government to, for example, get laws past that favor their model or labor laws passed that favor their workers over their competitors - tons of ways. Also by enlisting the government to work internationally, sometimes with wars, sometimes assassinations, coups etc as with Exxon and United Fruit.


First paragraph I agree, I remember reading the vast majority of the wealthiest companies in the world had benefited massively at some point or another from government bailout. Government favouritism and special interests groups twisting policy towards their interests is certainly undesirable but it's not a mandate for abolishing government intervention altogether.

Without the the enforcement of anti-collusion legislation, industries, particularly those with only a few firms would all agree to mark up their products to extract additional revenue to the detriment of the consumer. Those firms would then also ensure that would be rivals keep up by setting up large barriers to entry, creating exclusive deals with their suppliers, and drastically underpricing anyone who dares to try to compete with them. Like Nithern pointed out, companies or carlets in crux industries with near monopoly power could then exercise economic extortion against both individual firms dependent upon them and the government. This kind of thing goes on all the time when a large multinational sets up in an impoverished developing country, which then becomes dependant on the employment and capital it provides.

Similarly without patents, industries with very high R&D and drug trial costs such as the pharmaceutical industry would have no incentive to innovate.

What about the more than obvious example of negative externalities specifically climate change and general environmental pollution. Would we not be up shit's creek right now (literally) without certain industries being regulated?

Dag - Dystopian et al: You seem to think that a free market means corps are free to do as they please and start killing people at random or something... a civil code would still exist. You also seem to be considering what would happen if we just freed up capitalism tomorrow. It would be hell on earth, I agree, but that's because of how huge and corrupt corporations have gotten thanks to government help. I'm being abstract and yes simplistic - it's a comment, not a thesis.


Nithern: you are equating freeing capitalism with letting capitalism take over the government. Monopolies can only exist with government help and/or illegal strong arm practices that occur while the government is paid to look the other way. Capitalism DOES have an inherent self-correcting system, it's called supply and demand. Simple to say, but when you think about it the implications get crazy complicated.

Pure capitalisum could be grate the only problem is as pure capitalist society can never excsist , unless you removed mony from everyone and reset the whole system (evan then over time it would fuck up) ,

your also forgetting that success of a product is not necoserly based on the actual merits of a product. this is why advertising is such a huge industry. and this also means that you could have a successfull entity in a capitalist environment that screws everyone over , in the end the only way for capitalism to work is if you have checks in place that make wealth not the sole motivator , in other words capitalism can only work when it is married with socialism .

I love the libertarian perspective on these things - it's so cute. It reminds me of this video.

Would Libertarians want 100% privatized fire departments? Police departments? Armies? Schools? Mass Transit?

Where exactly do they draw the line? What is a "public service" and what isn't? Pure libertarianism demands that nothing should be provided by the government (aside from possibly a judicial and penal system).

Libertarianism looks great on paper, as do most other philosophies. Can one of you name one successful modern Libertarian society? Just one, please, to shut us all up.

As someone who hopes to sit in my national legislature one day, I enjoy reading the thoughts and arguments of netizens. However, if and when I am in a position to affect governance in my country, I will have to deal with realities, not ideologies. I will have my own bent on things, but I will never assume that something is a good idea because some economist said it is - I will look at how it will affect people.

This ultimately comes down to negative vs. positive freedoms. I'm a positive freedom type because I've seen how easily negative freedom types excel at ignoring the plight of their fellow man.

I'm glad this video has drawn a lot of comments.

I don't like the straight libertarian bashing here though. Socialism has strengths and weaknesses and so does Capitalism. I think our biggest problem has and always will be corruption. Mixing the two systems doesn't eliminate it nor does a pure form of one or the other. Unfortunately we're all too meek and lazy to really watch over those we determine are good enough to govern us.

I think both systems do make good points though. A mix is fine obviously and I think most libertarian's realise this. I don't hear of Libertarians asking for private Firefighters/Police etc. Whether you all like to think so or not libertatians DO believe in Government. Only limited in scope. So until you understand the other side a little better try not to make such excessive comments on what they want.

I do believe copyright and patent laws are outta control though. Yes some grace time is beneficial to the one that took the time to develop a product. However a life time copyright or 30 year patents are just way too much. Do you get payed at your job for 30+ years for doing one thing? (i.e. cleaning the floor generates revenue for you for years and years for each time you do it

Anyways I just wanted to chime in and give some support to the capitalist side that's getting bashed a lot here. I do agree with one thing Schiff usually says and that's that the United States current market is NOT a free market. There is so much collusion with government that you have to be blind or stupid not to see it. If he's willing to be more of a fighter to clean it up I don't know why you wouldn't give him a shot. Seems a lot better than a lot of the other guys that usually get voted in.

Enzoblue


'Self Regulation' is exactly what the Bush administration, and here in Britain, did. They said 'the free market knows best, knows more than us. Let them get on with it'.

And they deregulated everything. And look what happened.

All you people ever seem to understand is black and white. The fact is for most things in life to work, especially in economics, there's always a compromise that needs to be found.
You americans have all been brainwashed by the red army propaganda from way back when, and anything remotely to do with government you cry of communism. How absurd.

Deregulation played a major part in the financial meltdown. As westy says, business fundementally is about exploiting people. If you make a profit on something, you are exploiting. If you were to leave Healthcare to the private world, their fundamental concern is to maximise shareholder wealth - not to maximise the nations health.

You can go on deluding yourselves about glorious capitalism - history and evidence has shown.........it doesn't work. You need a bit of both. You need free markets to keep prices down and generate competition, but you also need governments to not let companies get too huge, create barriers to entry into markets (which is the current situation, thus suppressing competition) and have taxes which benefit people who aren't rich (i.e. 99% of the world population.....)
I advise you to read some books on this myth of 'free market is best'.
The cost of capitalism: robert j barbera
The myth of the rational market: justin fox
House of cards: william d cohan

The last one especially talks about the greed of wall street you hear so much about, but don't seem to acknowledge. When youve got money as a motivating factor, all ethical concerns and welfare of others go straight out the window. If you want your perfect free market - that is the exact mentality that will take place - which would be fine if everyone was starting off on an even plate, with the same amount of assets - but they're not. The inequality between poor/average/rich is so huge it would never be fair to begin with.

The problem of course now is politicians see their positions as careers, rather than civil servants. But with a good government, with good people, if that will ever happen, proper regulation and control of the markets has to take place to ensure the equality gap doesn't become even more wide than it is at the moment. Oil company profits anyone?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

This is a *quality discussion.

This video has already declared quality - ignoring quality request by EndAll.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Right your Siftus, right you are.

Seeing how you're in Britain you might not remember that President Bush tried to regulate Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac a few times and the democrats stuffed him. Which we all know was the final piece of hay that broke the camels back. The start of it was the Community Reinvestment Act which forced banks to loosen their loan requirements so that anyone could get a loan.

'Self Regulation' is exactly what the Bush administration, and here in Britain, did. They said 'the free market knows best, knows more than us. Let them get on with it'.

And they deregulated everything. And look what happened.

Talk about black and white. They didn't deregulate everything, not even close. They selectively removed very specific barriers to a very select number of companies so that they could rape at will. All laws that prevented or hindered anyone hurt by these changes to fight back, (plus many new ones), were kept very much in place. The deregulated the fat cats and over-regulated the rest.

Another example of what I'm getting at:

Why do I have to have that bulky stupid baby car seat? Why can't car companies make a built in the middle of the back? Because the select few companies that make a fortune off the overpriced buggers have paid government officials a lot of money. Those officials make sure that any advances in baby seats never make it out of government inspection. Now we have the same design we got in the 80's.

This is what I'm talking about.

P.s.
I am a closet anarchist.

My car has two car seats built in to the seat from the manufacturer. I'm not sure that is a good example.

>> ^dag:
If we're talking about pure unfettered capitalism, BF - the paradoxes around ethics, the commons, monopolies and ecology are real problems. I don't think you or your libertarian buddies have good answers for it.
IMO, the Libertarian slogan should be "fuck you jack, get your hand off my stack". The rest of the world has the freedom to die from starvation or lack of healthcare any way they want. At least we won't have government intervention.


You're right. To some degree the Libertarian answer is "fuck you, jack, get your hand off my stack." But, if I broke into your house because I needed something, wouldn't that be your answer? Why is it okay if the crime is organized using the guise of government?

I like to help people, dag, and I think the ethical direction is voluntary help, not stealing. You'd disagree?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^why yes, I do. I believe that humanity needs the institution of a government for and by the people. And I do believe that a governmnent needs income from its constituents to do work for the public good.

I do believe in charity. I just don't think you build roads from Jerry Lewis telethons.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^dag:
If we're talking about pure unfettered capitalism, BF - the paradoxes around ethics, the commons, monopolies and ecology are real problems. I don't think you or your libertarian buddies have good answers for it.
IMO, the Libertarian slogan should be "fuck you jack, get your hand off my stack". The rest of the world has the freedom to die from starvation or lack of healthcare any way they want. At least we won't have government intervention.

You're right. To some degree the Libertarian answer is "fuck you, jack, get your hand off my stack." But, if I broke into your house because I needed something, wouldn't that be your answer? Why is it okay if the crime is organized using the guise of government?
I like to help people, dag, and I think the ethical direction is voluntary help, not stealing. You'd disagree?


Anyone who thinks humanity voluntarily cares for the weak, poor, starving, and sick ought to read the wikipedia page on "The Great Depression". Then we'll talk.

>> ^Enzoblue:

Talk about black and white. They didn't deregulate everything, not even close. They selectively removed very specific barriers to a very select number of companies so that they could rape at will. All laws that prevented or hindered anyone hurt by these changes to fight back, (plus many new ones), were kept very much in place. The deregulated the fat cats and over-regulated the rest.
Another example of what I'm getting at:
Why do I have to have that bulky stupid baby car seat? Why can't car companies make a built in the middle of the back? Because the select few companies that make a fortune off the overpriced buggers have paid government officials a lot of money. Those officials make sure that any advances in baby seats never make it out of government inspection. Now we have the same design we got in the 80's.
This is what I'm talking about.
P.s.
I am a closet anarchist.


you are joking. They did deregulate major laws which had been in place for years - google Glass Steagall act, for one.
In this country you had a financial services authority who turned a blind eye to the cdo's that were being traded, and/or didn't even know what these new banking derivatives were, not even the bank of England had a clue.
Because there was no control, bankers would simply sell these loans on, making their huge sums of money+bonuses, and not caring for the consequences.

And how many times have we seen this process in history? Speculation causing bubbles, which then burst.

I don't understand your car company example..... car manufacturers give the option for an ISOFIX standard implementation in the back seat so parents can put any kind of seat they want in the back. They could sell the seat as an option as well...but why bother when there's already a huge market out there for babyseats.

What.
But yeh, your point is basically corruption. Well, you think the government stops progress, what about corporations? Surely the corporations are as much to blame for paying off government officials as the government is for accepting them? it takes two to tango.

And why can they pay? Because they are ridiculously rich in the first place. All thanks to the lovely free market. As I said in my previous post, im not saying free market is bad. You just need a good mix of both, erring on the side of Control that benefits the nation, not wealthy individuals. Also I did acknowledge corrupt politicians in my previous post - what are you gona do about it? We're living in democracies aren't we? Just vote these politicians out right???

Democracy my ass. But. thats a whole different matter.

I like the democracy my ass comment at the end there .

Another advantage of smaller government is that in theory (as always) it would be easier to make changes. Without so much money changing hands it might be easier for the small guy to really make a difference.

However you're quite right it takes two to tango. Both are wrong. Companies want more and more and politicians enjoy being employed and the odd one (and even ones?) enjoys the kick backs too.

The thing that matters most is the rule of law at the top end. If the president can't be jailed or convicted of crimes then you no longer are part of a fair justice system and that's a big part of what makes us "free".

Corruption blows .

I think liberals would benefit by understanding the following:

Free markets:
- A lot more creative and motivated to solve problems than you think.
- The free market can't use force, so problems that arise can be solved without it.

Governments:
- A lot more destructive than liberals give it credit for.
- Government usually acts by force, therefore, problems that arise can hardly be solved without government itself or through crime/rebellion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but liberals are always creative when they think of every possible thing that could go wrong with the free market, not giving any thought to how these things could eventually be fixed by the market itself. Then they suggest government should come in and solve it, not using any of this creativity into foreseeing what could possibly go wrong.

No matter how evil a company/cartel is, without the aid of government, there's only so much damage it can do, and it can only do as much damage as its productivity allows. So even if a company hurts society, they have to help it somehow in order to get the resources they need for their evildoing.

Government (specially one that doesn't care about its Constitution), on the other hand, has no limit to the amount of damage it can do, they don't have to be productive, and they can keep fucking society for as long as taxes are paid.

dag, I don't think they're a telethon, but the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation donates US$1.5bn a year.. I'm pretty sure they might have built a road or two..


you are joking. They did deregulate major laws which had been in place for years - google Glass Steagall act, for one.
In this country you had a financial services authority who turned a blind eye to the cdo's that were being traded, and/or didn't even know what these new banking derivatives were, not even the bank of England had a clue.

Removing Glass Steagall would have done nothing if the government had not set interest rates so low. Oh, and don't forget the government's implied guarantee of mortgages in Freddy and Fanny Mac.

It always intrigues me to see people claim that humans need government to provide services for them. I personally don't think either socialism or capitalism are perfect, but in the latter, at least you are free to choose what you want.

*length=00:08:02

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 8:02 - length declared by hpqp.

'This video does not exist.' *dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by cricket.

Awarding eric3579 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.