*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, May 2nd, 2014 11:07pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter Trancecoach.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

*history

Videos are limited to being in a maximum of 7 channels - ignoring all requests by MrFisk.

This video = liberty.org = Institute for Humane Studies = chaired by Charles G. Koch

Gotta be on the look-out, those cocks'll getcha every time...

Shocking. @Trancecoach why do you try to bring this worthless propaganda to the sift? Are you looking for friends you sad sad man?

whats with her voice? Is she entering shapeshift mode?

P R O P A G A N D A

Just because this is associated with Koch doesn't mean it's wrong. It is a simplification though. Changes to the legal code which saw enforcement of property rights were critical. Without the scientific advances of the industrial revolution, these gains in efficiency and wealth couldn't have been achieved and a disproportionate proportion of the population would have had to remain in agriculture. Among other things I'm forgetting.

up-vote for satanic larynx and reflex-fear of Koch

First off, I don't think those base numbers are accurate.

But even if they were, looking at averages doesn't make any sense.

The average wage of 100 people earning $10 a day is $10 a day.

The average wage of 100 people where 99 earn $1 a day and 1 earns $901 a day is $10 a day.

Talking about averages is a good way to confuse people when what should be discussed is the median number (for those non-numberphiles, the median is the point where half the group is above that number and half is below).

She's a he... or was, until 1995.

The thing is, we should be (and we were) doing better.

That line from 1800 to now is not a straight line. It rises steadily up to about 1980, but then flattens out sharply. Over the last 30 years the average worker actually earns less than they would have over the previous 30 (adjusted for inflation).

The top end basically figured out they could demand a larger slice of the profits at the expense of the middle and lower classes. We've all seen the stats on ceo vs worker pay and the obscene differences (200+ times a workers salary). That money didn't just appear from nowhere.

Also the elite of the past were expected to build the roads and the overall infrastructure. The elite of today expect to get subsidies, lower rates when they loan money and not to pay taxes or follow the law.. There is not a single word about responsibility.

Let's see debt history with this.

Free (to pay your debts) and Honest (that we'll fuck you over if you don't).

Get back to work wage slaves.

Put the tax rate back at 100% for those who make over $2 million a year. You don't want to live here anymore than that's fine, we're better off.

False. The industrial age was primarily brought about by cheap access to energy - first coal, then oil. Not one sided economic policies.

The industrial age is part of 'economic liberty'.

People were free to make inventions that use coal, or use oil, and were free to market them either as products or services.

That differs from the earlier times/case where folks were obligated to participate only in activities sanctioned by their local lords. Often where they couldn't even travel freely.

Much of the math and chemistry we have comes from centuries worth of largely superfluous [essentially hobbyist at the time] higher education of the privileged classes. (eg. Boyle's/Charles' laws being a foundation of modern internal combustion engines, not used in said form for centuries after written down).

(Note : Which still continues to be the case, what we come up with in a purely theoretical form today, ends up being used in practical application much later. Although maybe it's speeding up. eg. Relativity is used in making GPS work, and that time delta isn't quote as large.)

Once the idea of economic liberty took hold, and people were free to come up with ideas that use the universes natural/physical properties to replace 'manpower', you had the industrial revolution.



The 'honor' part plays a good role too. You can witness this still being an issue today.
You can go to parts of eastern Europe, and talk with people about jobs and respectability.

There are plenty of places where a laborer is scum, and a businessman (eg. owner, who does not himself work, but has people working for him) is highly respected.
In these places, you don't see much work getting done, as a large portion of the typical western service sectors just doesn't exist.
For example, there are ~no house painters. Showing up with paint buckets and overalls would just get you strange stares and mumbles from people around you, and parents would be saying to their kids "See, this is what happens if you don't get good grades".
If you want your house painted, you gotta do it yourself. Few self respecting people are willing to do that job.
In contrast, ask people around the U.S. about who painted their house. Odds are, they hired for it.

The effects on small business are visible too. Lots of shops, the moment the owner can afford to not come in himself, that's exactly what they do.
And on top of that, they take every chance they can get to point out to folks that 'they don't work anymore - people work for them'.

It's a culture where the people responsible for productivity are looked down on, and it has a chilling effect on productivity.

-scheherazade

"Exploitation has been throughout human history, and *didn't* cause economic growth"...?

I'm pretty certain that's exactly wrong. Maybe it wasn't as booming as what brought us into the 20th and 21st centuries, but that's also because we didn't have globalization forces at work. History should easily prove the economic growth due to exploitation is directly proportional to how much your economic mobility is and how much of your workforce you're "exploiting".

We're seeing a slowdown in economy for the western world largely because the proportion of exploiters to exploitees is nearing equilibrium.

To say increased wealth doesn't come from exploitation because there's always been exploitation is fucking stupid.

In the 1800s people just became better at exploiting labourers. You could call that innovation, I guess.. if you are a callous bitch.

The Lord of the manner was respected too, back when he was the 1%. But that caused the handle on her stupid hockey stick. Nice how she carefully dismisses exploitation then tries to slip that one by.

perhaps, but first things first. Economic policy is secondary to energetic concerns. Innovation is seriously impeded if a society is primarily worried about feeding itself. You don't innovate if u spend ur time digging in the dirt for primary needs. Agrarian societies require energetic resources to become industrial.
Once that is considered, then u can argue economic policies. Until then, it's seriously premature.

That's true for a post industrial POV.
When machines already exist, and you just need energy to get things moving.

The energetic concerns of bygone eras were :
Whale oil, and later kerosene. For lighting. (note: back then, a day's work would only buy minutes of light)
Firewood, and later coal. For heating.
Manpower was the only energy user when it came to food production.

Early machines such as the combine were horse drawn, and did not need an energy architecture in place. (ignoring "food" as an energy)

Later machines used steam power, and hence could piggy back on the already existing wood/coal energy architecture (in turn stimulating it to grow larger).

Once the machinery industry was established, and the revenue generation was in place, it was possible to invest in improvements and alternative energies - ultimately leading up to oil burning machinery being common.

In any case, historically, industrialization drove the energy industry. (As it should, why have an industry to produce a product (energy) that isn't needed?)
And industrialization depended on a conducive society. A place where an inventor could own his invention, and could sell it, allowing things that were no more than ideas or garage trinkets to transition into products - which in turn place demand on other resources such as [forms of] energy.

In the past, there was nothing, so everything was build from the ground up. Industries grew out of nothing, they weren't established up front.
Modern times are different, where you have investment capital from entities who's entire existence revolves around investing, and you can front the establishment of an industry in the calculated hope of future demand.
(Granted, lords/aristocrats had a hand in industrial investment. Just not the kind or scale that you can see today.)

What you say applies a bit later, when industrialization was already well under way. Like when Thomas Edison used investment capital to fund power plants and an electrical network, in order to power the first [practical, but not 'first'] light bulb in New York.

-scheherazade

This post has been removed from the Education channel by channel owner Sagemind. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.