Right from the greed of a capitalist who doesn't care for health. To the greed of a communist who holds your family hostage and either kills you for treachery and your family or imprison you and your family for terrorist actions against the communism by not meeting inhuman insane standards and goals
When conservatives get so triggered they start arguing with Sponebob quotes. Then again these people also supported bombing the fictional country from Aladdin just because it had a vaguely Arabic-sounding name, so maybe they're not too bright.
The only difference between the Robber Barons of the past and the Robber Barons of today is that the Robber Barons of the past were at least honest about their unethical business practices.
The robber barons of today are Bill Gates(Microsoft), Jeff Bezos(Amazon), Tim Cook(Apple), Mark Zuckerberg(Facebook), Sundar Pichai(Google), and Elon Musk(Tesla).
Because most people learned their political science from 10 min video on RU-vid. They are too lazy to read the classics, just join a "side" that they think is cool like the sheep people they are. Also don't forget all those conspiracy theorists that think they hold the key to understanding the universe.
"Then militias are brought out to ease tensions" is about as hilariously inappropriate as "then clowns and strippers are brought out to make the funeral more dignified and solemn".
the pinkerton's were turned into the government and FBI so there still around in 2022 ( probably continued control by some 🧢's but that's speculation and not facts that i can back up ) yep there back in 2022 🧢 capitalism untrained is great isn't as history repeats itself again 😑🤑 and next is NGO's run by these people so they control the narrative instead of worker's compensation and rights and government-representing
@FWD: 7 been done before as well as the FBI parts of the reason i still wondering and rumours about the FBI being used as a corporate/elite-class tool to some extent inappropriately and not a justice department/tool only
@@comrat9805 , It is only while the monopoly is being constructed that the prices are low. Soon as the monopoly is in place, those prices will rise to recoup the losses that went in creating the monopoly....
The US military actually bombed miners who were striking, they brought in bombers and fecking bombed them! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_coal_wars
Is anyone entitled to a job? Could they just no go work elsewhere? Do you understand where benefits came from? It was the LACK of finding working.. No longer was "money" something people cared about.. but days off.. healthcare.. retirement.. that was something they could offer AND keep wages down. It would of be GREAT if we didn't allow bankruptcy from businesses. Now you have to government trying to force benefits and high wages.. In what world does that seem right? If you don't feel like working for what is offered.. Don't take the job.. if others DO take that job, don't cry because you wanted it.. just at a higher rate. EDIT TO ADD.. THIS is why bringing in immigrants into the US is bad. No longer are citizens able to "not work" at low paying jobs.. because immigrants come in and do that job for less because it was more than they could of made back in their own country. It's so epic to see the left's position in all of this because they are truly harming the causes they speak for by caring about EVERYTHING.. this is TIED to each other.. You can't have both unless you truly want socialism.. but no SOCIALIST nation would EVER let in immigrants.. because they would could a negative effect on the market.. WONDER WHY OUR MIDDLE CLASS IS SHRINKING!?
@@ericblack2252 You do know there are laws regulating that? Immigrant can't work for less if there's a treshhold. Your country woudn't exist without immigrants be grateful we still want to come.
+VHSAlien You idiot. You don't have to work for him. Sounds like you would have rather just whined about it while your children starved, instead of actually working.
>When your neighbour cuts his grass and a blade falls on your lawn, thus violating the NAP, so you get in your A-10 Warthog and strafe his house, killing his entire family.
Isn't this just like the US "invading" Northern Syria & Iraq, in order to "avenge" the Kurds (a group most Americans CANNOT even identify, much less identify with)?
@@joelholmes1260 No, Clinton wasn't elected... Go back and listen to Putin's words right before the 2016 US presidential election (or, you might be exactly correct).
And while it's there it's especially tolerable for us as consumers, as long as we get our decently priced consumer goods at the cost of horrible mining practices in Africa and horrible production lines in China. EDIT: "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" is fantastic reading relating to this subject; Prosperity at the expense of suffering of a few.
@@sergiowinter5383 And chose to give it up by not running for president again, which he would have won easily! Some are of the opinion that he could have become a king if he would have chosen so.
The only reason capitalism became oppressive was because there were no anti-trust laws. As long as there is competition everything else works itself out.
@@Dennis-nc3vw that is at the very least a vast oversimplification. There is no nation with a capitalist economy that thinks allowing for real competition will just sort out fire protection or food safety for example. For some things a profit motive and genuine competition is best for the consumer but some things are incompatible with a profit motive. Private prisons come to mind or the misuse of civilians in the Iraq War. This isnt an ideological debate I'm trying to have. It's very practical, in some cases there are clear obvious conflicts of interest.
I mean the East India company had a private army twice the size of the british army at the start of the 19th century and controlled around 70% of the world's trade as well as essentially ruling over the whole of India
THANK YOU! Every libertarian says if the government didn't exist, nothing like this would happen and totally forgets that no government just means private armies.
Fun fact, the anarchist who shot Frick wasn't just some anarchist. He was teenaged Alexander Berkman, who became one of the leading figures of Anarcho-Communsim later in his life. He wrote the 'ABC of Anarchism'
@@rachelslur8729 Stalinist communism it's authoritarian, but it exists also the ideology of anarcho-communisms. Marx himself stated that the final form of communism it's the dissolution of the state. The political spectrum it's way larger than you think
@@davidespanti If communism/socialism/ancom in best, then failining governments would be adopting parts of it out of necessity. What we observe instead is Venezuela, USSR, North Korea, Cuba adopt parts capitalism out of necessity.
@@rachelslur8729 ok, so, two major things: 1. I never said communism is the best ideology 2. You know that politics and economic theories are a broad spectrum on things that collide into each other? It's ALWAYS a mixture of things. When it isn't, it collapses (aka Soviet Union, for example). In the majority of civilised world we have something like free health care, but even in the USA there are unions, a progressive taxation and the general concept of "paying taxes to receive services". This is thanks to a kind of politic that it's not socialism, but it's influenced by it. In fact, in the majority of civilised world there are social democratic parties or social liberist parties that works with a mixture of capitalistic economy and socialism (and they do a great job, just look at Sweden for example). There are a lot more economic theories too, like Keynesianism or Monetarism. It's stupid to classify all range of politics just to capitalism and socialism. Try searching on Google "Political compass" and you'll see
Wdym? Knowledgehub ended video saying things are better now, we have learned from history and you gotta be pretty dumb to not realize that, no offense. It's like saying colonialism is coming back... But it isn't, it'll never, cause we have learned.
@@GnosticLucifer 🤨big tech, banking, universities, and big pharma all have massive influence and power over government, which they use to make policies that benefit them and screw us over. Things are better now, but if action isn't taken, they will get much much worse
@@benayasdebela1164 True, but you're looking at it the wrong way. They have influence and power over gov because gov has influence and power over people, gov can indirectly decide what product you use specially above mentioned big tech, banking, universities and pharma. THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE THAT. The idea that capitalism leads to monopoly is a myth, literally every monopoly ever is one way or another supported by the gov. Capitalism isn't the problem, the influence gov which can easily be corrupted by money due to their dependence on money to win elections and govern is. We must take action to lower gov influence on these products and services. We should specially eradicate IP cause the creators of idea barely get any benefit, most of them are long dead while big companies are profiting off their ideas cause gov won't let anyone else use those ideas.
Back when Britain was cool! you know back before they're busy playing second banana to, Canada and fourth banana to the United states! poor pathetic Britain, your little more than a lapdog at this point! However the United States neglecting you has led to you catching a bad case of the migrants, cough I mean fleas
It’s more of an Oligarchy now, where companies get as big as possible for profit and investors but just barely out of reach from being labeled a monopoly.
@@oneofmanyparadoxfans5447 That isn't true, cooperation is more profitable than competition. But only if cooperation is by all parties involved. when a subset of the parties cooperate to compete against the rest of the group, it drives profits down. When I say profits I am talking the increase in wealth (real profits), not the rate of transfer of cash from one party to another (false profits)..
@@TheNoodlyAppendageusually competition is better for the society and cooperation either can't be a long term equilibrium or will be in the form of a cartel or something so however profitable for the cooperating agents it usually is not profitable for the society as a whole
@@Nico-ig1mr That is an insufficient answer. Everyone knows they avoid taxes. The question is do these companies pay lower total tax sums than in the 19th century. Sounds unlikely. Let me be kind to your position; can you give me evidence that companies (which is so broad a term it doesn't just include the Fortune 500 master-evaders, but any limited liability business) pay an effective tax rate that is lower than they did in the 1870s to 1890s? Sounds unlikely. Show me the evidence, if there is any. If you can't, you have to admit that your statement is false and ought to delete it if you respect truth. Simple. No argument required - just show me the facts or retract your statement.
@@fatpotatoe6039 What, is Nico a fuckin' mind reader? YOU asked a vague question and, I think, received a satisfactory answer. Talk about disingenuous -- that's your follow-up post here. If you had asked the "actual question" that you meant in the first place, maybe your gripe would be legitimate. Amazon paid no federal taxes on a billion dollars of profits last year, according to the article. How about this itep.org/4-3-billion-in-rebates-zero-tax-bill-for-60-profitable-corps-directly-related-to-loopholes/ then? Not only did sixty of the Fortune 500 companies pay zero taxes, they even got tax money *back again*. How about YOU showing that companies in the 19th century were able to pull that off. Sounds unlikely. And this past month, it's even worse with the most recent corporate giveaway bill (the Corona Virus Heavenly Loving Gifting To Humanity Bill or whatever nonsense they call this shite): around 800 pages, hidden within are RETROACTIVE TAX CUTS going back five years. That's right. A good portion of the working class gets a measly $1,200 one time payment, but the banks and corporations are forgiven taxes paid years ago, paltry as those taxes are in the first place. Name me ONE thing even close to what the corporations in the 19th century could have gotten or had gotten that reaches that level of evilness. Sounds unlikely.
@@fatpotatoe6039 "As of 2019, the Fortune 500 companies represent approximately two-thirds of the United States's Gross Domestic Product with approximately $13.7 trillion in revenue, $1.1 trillion in profits, and $22.6 trillion in total market value. These numbers also account for approximately 17% of the gross world product" en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_500#Influence. Even if the tax rate was lower back then for smaller companies, it's lower now with the major companies who pay little to nothing in taxes, using tax havens, lobbying ect. The majority of the GDP is represented by the major companies. After 5 seconds of googling I found this: In 2018, 91 of the top fortune 500 companies paid $0 in taxes. Many others paid a small amount. Congress is corrupt and bought out, and dear leader isint helping to drain the swamp like he promised. In fact he filled it, and we can see it paying off in the stimulus bill. Like the guy above me said, if you wanted to de validate my argument, I guess you could compare the tax rates of all the companies now to before. However this is kind of like the oh, your a _, name every _ (hopefully you have seen it, otherwise Google it) meme. It would be a huge waste of time to do it, but I could. However I'm not the type to put that much effort into arguing over the internet, as either A, the person is usually just looking to fight and won't change their beliefs, or B, they will probably forget about it in a day or two, and the subject was probably pretty trivial anyways.
As a general rule, if you work more than 40 hours a week and your job pays less than $20 an hour you can pretend to work harder than you do. If you finish things too quickly the boss man just gives an unrealistic work load anyway with no raise, so working hard is pointless.
@@dustinalbers8160 Such a great country that people across the world would literally kill you to get your passport. Grow up. Improve things, but don't be a tool.
@@shinryusaiha Which is why the US suffers by losing citizens to other developed nations, right? Oh wait, that's not the case. In fact it's the opposite. This in conjunction with a relative HDI kinda points to you being too brainwashed to take seriously. I ain't even saying the US is the best by any margin; just that it's pretty decent.
@@thechicken5939 Latin America and Africa actually experienced the highest improvements in all of their histories, with absolute poverty, conflict, and violence decreasing drastically. If its on fire now, then it was a a giant dead crater littered with the remains of babies before.
Gilded age fits perfectly, if you lack at the economy as a whole and the richest 1%, it seems awesome (gold) but it's just a covering over the horrible reality.
You mentioned the founding of Canadian unions and the labour day but one of the most important dates for the international workers movement you did not mentioned. Early May 1886 killed the police dozens of striking workers in Chicago (Haymarket riots). That's why the labour day is in the most countries on the first of May.
That's not exactly correct. The first of May has been a spring holiday in most of Europe for a very, very, long time. Far before it ever got associated with labour or socialism. The most common tradition for a lot of these places was dancing around a May pole. And that is who associated May 1st with a labour day - Communists and Socialists. It was decided as the 2nd Workers International to co-opt the already existing spring festivals and add on a labor day with the express purpose of making it a Socialist/Communist holiday, not just a worker's holiday. Tellingly, the places that adopted May Day as a labor holiday (mostly in Europe and South America) are much more friendly to Socialist and Communist parties in general, while in the US, where Labor Day is in August, they aren't.
"Well of course you're just in the middle you're a furry, Ferrys are notoriously moderate!" I'm just being sarcastic there as ex furry, I know that curries are notoriously left-leaning that's why left the fandom there are too many dum-bass liberal snowflakes! That and all the weird disturbing fetish crap gave me nightmares! #BurnYourFurr
The last job I worked was 12 hours a day 7 days a week. No days off, no holidays, no sick days, "salaried" that equaled less than minimum wage, so I quit and went to college. We currently live in a new gilded age.
2:20 Well that is not strictly true. The technology that developed rail also went into developing steam powered ships. Which were not only several times faster than sail boats but also far more reliable. A sail boat could take between 1,5 to 3 months while a steam ship took just under 21 days no matter what the wind was. For a business predictability is important. Another big thing is that a steam ship requires a smaller crew which makes them cheaper to run. (Of course compared to today's ships the crew was still very large.) For the US though a big factor was that the Panama canal was not yet build. So with the west rapidly developing and the center of the US largely empty trains were the only way to bring goods from the East and Europe to the West. The building of the Panama canal greatly weakened the influence of the railroad companies.
To build the panama canal we liberated a bunch Of people from a dictatorship, establishing a “democracy” then used… military force to threaten them into letting the construction began, yellow fever killing thousands of workers and damaging international relations
@@kjl3080 Actually the US put a tremendous amount of effort into fighting yellow fever. It was what killed the French attempt a few decades prior as yellow fewer and other tropical diseases killed workers faster than they could be brought in. The Panama canal though was largely in the middle of nowhere so the militairy didn't really 'threaten' them into it. Most of the natives and settlers just left the Americans to it. I don't know of any relationships that were damaged though. Europe was the only area at the time worth caring about and none of them were hurt by the canal. Almost all trade between Europe and America remained the same and Europe's trade with Asia went through Suez like it always did. The panama canal really only majorly impacted the America's and most of the south-American nations were also happy with it. Even the people of Panama were happy as it was a major boost and made Panama the richest country in central America.
It's weird how in the same breath they criticize monopolies on railways as well as people building alternative additional railways. Pick one or the other lol
I think a good follow up to this would be how the players from this episode also met secretly to form the framework of the modern US banking system with the Federal Reserve which meant that they would ensure for the next 100 years that the banks, investors, and super wealthy still control, rather directly or indirectly, the direct state of the US and World economy through inflation and bank loans.
"Existed..." "Fun to look back..." "Something romantic about a time of unchecked capitalism..." *Looks around at total corporate domination of society at large, gutted labor laws, and, the heights of exploitation* History rhymes homie.
Workers have it much better these days than they did then. Most businesses do concern themselves with not killing their employees by negligence. On pretty much every other front though... yeah, the business landscape is a little one sided these days...
We got to watch it during my Junior year of high school. Whenever I asked people the same grade as me if they watched it to, I'd always name it "The Men Who Destroyed America". I just found a minor title change that funny.
It's worth noting that there's a miniseries on the history channel talking about this stuff. The Men Who Built America is a 6 part series showing off the typical stuff: dramatic reenactments, portraits, references, ect. Jumps around from all of the people mentioned in this vid to others such as Edison and Ford. It's been out for several years at this point, and personally I love it. Would recommend
It wasn't even a question, it's so stupid to think that individual transport in huge machines that have 1 engine for 1-4 people could ever replace trains We need to take back our streets in the cities too, and only let service veichles use our roads to counter A the issue that cars are the highest producer of microplast in the world and it's not even close B the noise pollution creates mental issues for basically everyone except the person who drives around in the car C 90% of public spaces are only accessable if you own a veichle, shits weird and clearly we can make cities that don't need cars I mean after all cities are older than cars, we can use trams trains and literally anything else, it atomizes the population in cities to not have streets be walkable and the more walkable they are the less they will atomize people, cause you won't have a conversation with someone through your cars ever, but you might have a conversation with someone in the street or public transportation, meet an old friend or just talk with kind strangers
@@danitron4096 climate change its literally caused by private cooperation wanting more profit so they destroy the environment its all for profits and in most places in the world people are below the poverty line
@@danitron4096 no.... Most people are actually not fine. Most people actually live check to check in America. Globally people live on dollars a day working for capitalist.
One major factor of that period that was scary for the average work was the Pinkerton Detective agencies who where a private police and para military force bigger then the actual U.S. army at the time that could be bought by those Titans of industry to do their dirty work
The average US citizen work week in 1830 was ~68 hours. According to Gallup in 2015 the average US citizen work week is 34 hours, wheras the average work week for full-time employees is 47 hours. Breaking down the full-time worker number further, 42% work 40 hour work weeks, 21% work 50-59 hours, and 18% work 60+ hours. In the early 1800s 68 hour work weeks were both normal and mandatory for the average US citizen; nowadays the number of people working 60 hours, let alone 68+ hours, are part of a vast minority, and not all within this group _have_ to work these many hours purely for the sake of survival. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, "[b]y 2002, the best-paid 20 percent were twice as likely to work [50 or more] hours as the bottom 20 percent. In other words, the prosperous are more likely to be at work more than those earning little." So to sum up, yes, things are most certainly better than they used to be.
@@jackwiessel2029 which hours do you mean by "hours close to those in the 1880s"? The average work week in the US in the 1880s was about 60 hours, so are you comparing the 1880s hours to 1830s hours, or modern hours, or some other hours?
I don't like treating anyone poorly. But WHO really has proven they only a boon to the workforce? Who has carefully measured the productivity taken from the company? What that would have done for the company. What that would have done for the employees? What the newer products created would have done for the marketplace? Measured the value passed down to the populace. Please by all means, show me a report that does not fall into historicism.
You really don't provide any basis for your original claim in your first comment - I'd imagine that such a thesis is very difficult to prove with research. I'd be interested to hear where you got that claim from. As with many things in real life, unions have both upsides and downsides - unions increase unemployment in low-skilled positions, reduce overall GDP, but help to compress wages (which helps deal with inequality), and provide more job security (therefore contributing to overall economic stability if a significant fraction of the workforce is unionized). This is leaving aside the many worker benefits that unions have helped agitate for over the years. Here's a paper that goes through the positive claims: economics.mit.edu/files/6950 I'm sure you can find many studies on the negative claims - it's a popular research topic as it pays very well as an academic to illustrate the downsides of unions, for reasons I'm sure you can guess. :)
Bill Heughan How would you like a boss that instead of grading you on your performance at your job graded you on how good you made the BBQ at last weekends cookout? A boss that tells you he doesn't like the shade of your siding, and coincidentally they just kind of forgot you when it came to handing out raises? Or maybe a boss that needs you to find someone to babysit their kids and if you refuse, coincidentally of course, your union dues just went up by 20%? That's what you get with a union. Instead of having one tyrant controlling and judging you for 8 hours a day at work, you've got a handful of tyrants controlling and judging you for the rest of the 16 hours every day and even longer on weekends. Hope you like drinking, cause if you're not down at the bar rubbing elbows with the union heads at least twice a week, they're not going to remember your name when it comes negotiation time. Enjoy your life as one big popularity contest.
@@billheughan637 1. Inequality isn't a bad thing. 2. Detroit, you know, formally one of the richest places in America that unions destroyed the fabric of.
Major thing not mentioned here: Vanderbilt got his fleet of ships and his control over rail lines because of government regulations. His ferry business grew because the local government said that only he could do that route, and that route was a major necessity for growing businesses in Manhattan. Later, when he started growing his railroad business, the local government only allowed his lines to go in and out of the city, so he had the power to just stop the trains and do damage to the economy. With a fully open market, competition would have prevented both from happening. Competition would have both decreased prices and increased capacity. It is ENTIRELY government regulations that caused this to happen. If the government didn't have the power to say "Only so and so can do that", then none of this would have happened. This just what I've noticed in the first three minutes of the video. I'll post more as I watch it. Note: the above strategy is EXACTLY the strategy used by Comcast and Time Warner Cable right now for internet providers in this country. If the Net Neutrality movement gets their way, this movement by Comcast and/or Time Warner (whichever is more politically connected at the time) could go entirely national, if not international. Be aware.
Safety for workers still isnt a concern. Most factories/warehouses I've worked for just pay off the osha fines instead of actually fixing the safety problems
@@duruarute5445 just look at the OSHA report of Tesla factories from 2018 That's one of the more popular and many examples of unsafe workspaces owned by big corporations. I mean I literally worked in a large corporation (that I will not name because the contract mentioned legal liabilities if I slander their name and even if its bullshit I'd rather not risk it) owned warehouse in the UK and the safety inspector did jack shit, as if HSE didn't exist. One big safety issue I remember was that the LLOP charging bays had multiple chargers with EXPOSED WIRES, they literally fixed it 2 weeks later by sticking it over with sticker rolls we use to print labels on. That was one of about 20 safety issues, some literally fatal, like a broken 1 ton cooking oil pallet on the 6th rack falling onto the gangway. There is literally a CCTV video of it that hit the local newspaper because it almost killed a picker. TLDR, The source is any workspace owned by a big corporation, look into them and there is a 70% chance there will be at least 3 major safety violations.
Some degree of socialist policy is necessary for a society to function. It's just not profitable to maintain roads, upgrade infrastructure, educate the masses, or employ an emergency response system, and so these and many other essential but unprofitable services would go either unfulfilled or would be maintained exclusively by those who see a new and interesting way to exploit those systems for their own benefit and to the detriment of everyone else. A society with no taxes is also society with effectively no means to enforce law, which means crime would go out of control in a heart beat and the only police force that would exist would be privatized mercenaries working for whoever has more money. A pure capitalist society is just as devastatingly horrible as a pure socialist, or pure communist society. The only difference is that you put absolute and easily abusable power into the hands of a different group of entirely corruptible people. Ideally, we need to have a balance of these systems which has the power and funding to maintain critical needs of the country, and to enforce it's laws, while also having checks in place to prevent abuse of that power.
Interesting video. However, I do feel like you've missed two other business titans from the later era of the Gilded Age: Gardiner Hubbard and Theodore Newton Vail, who lead the Bell Telephone Company to become an absolute monopoly using similar tactics to Carnegie and Rockefeller: Buying up smaller companies and strangling out the remaining independents by not allowing them to connect with Bell's long distance network. In fact, the latter believed that Bell should be the _only_ telephone company with his statement "one policy, one system, and universal service". It gotten so bad that the successor company to Bell Telephone, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, needed to settle with the government before a lawsuit came after them with the Kingsbury Commitment, promising to not buy any more independents and allowing them to connect with the long distance network. And while that delayed their ultimate fate, they were indeed broken up like Standard Oil in 1984. It's a pretty interesting story and another great example of this turbulent era before WWI.
Bob Johnson, i believe he was referring to how factories are shutting down in the west, and America mostly produces food and other agricultural products nowadays.
The next time someone complains about teddy being on Rushmore show them this. You could also include the fact he got shot in the middle of a speech and still finished it.
I really can't understand how all those captains of industry did not get assassinated left and right. Monarchs in Europe constantly had to look out for themselves, but somehow those capitalists didn't fear for their lives all day...
@Figgy G I agree that they are fucking retarded but they can be reasonable when it comes to very specific issues, most AnCaps want to get rid of the FDA, which is fucking insane. However the idea of deregulation is not a bad one at all
its not so much that PraggerU is wrong or right but that they bring up points that others ignore. For instance the Railroad crash mentioned in this video was partly caused by to much government investment in railroads- The Federal Government was giving away massive advantages to "Pacific Railroads" even though the undeveloped country they went through often had little economic value and were extremely cost intensive to maintain. Likewise small towns would buy bonds to encourage railroad development even if the region they lived in could not support one. Thing was in those days the Railroad just like today is expensive to maintain and cannot make a profit if the region its supporting cannot support it in turn. also to many railroads resulted in over competition that resulted in them driving each other out of business.
I love capitalism, but just like any government, it can become too big and powerful and lose commonality with the people. While some regulation is necessary, too much is also detrimental to the economy. It's about finding balance, like all things in life.
The only thing is what do you think the current "balance" is. Do you think the government is currently too big or is the corporation that is currently too big? If you say both or the government, then read below: Government's current size is made up of 3 major spending categories. Defense, Medicare, and Social Security. Unless you are willing to severely cut at least 1 or moderately cut 2-3 of these, there is no big government from where we currently stand. Discretionary spending and the rest are small enough to be irrelevant. Not to mention majority of the bloat from military and medicare spending are caused by market forces. So while government can become too big, we are nowhere near the breaking point. What we do have is artificial bloat of the government caused by a market that is getting way too big and powerful. Politicians that constantly talking about big government don't want to cut anything that makes corporations money, what they want to cut is anything that doesn't benefit corporations. When we talk about balance, it must include further elaboration, otherwise it can be seen as a cop-out. Like if I say, my current diet is 80% meat 5% vegetables and 15% junkfood, so I need more balance in my diet thus now I change my diet to 70% meat 2% vegetables and 28% junkfood. Balance is a word that is very subjective and prone to political and personal bias.
I think currently there is way to much regulation that gets in the way of innovation and in turn deters new competitors from entering into specific markets (automotive and renewable energy start ups are great examples of this). I especially think that the federal government is way too large and powerful, the economy should have little to do with politics because of how incredibly stifling it is.
Everything in moderation. A completely free market causes businesses to rise and control the country. But a fully socialized system causes the government to rise up and control the country. Market economies are good, but have to be kept in check, a struggle that will likely persist until the end of time.
@@DunmeriDrain Much obliged, friend. I've found a lot of people today unknowingly agree with moderate Libertarianism but are so enamoured with lefitst media and ideals that they're constantly supporting Socialism, a lost cause in the world that causes nothing but famine and poverty in the end.
I'd be wary of accepting an eternally shifting scale of oppression. It reminds me of court culture in early Chinese dynasties, or how the serfs generally saw feudalism for centuries. They believed that their way of living would persist until the end of time and that they would always live in a world where power shifts from kings to bishops and back again. It was a worldview the nobles were happy to perpetuate for as long as they possibly could. I'm what you might call a less-than-insane anarchist. I am actually in favor of totally free markets, but I don't think they're without their dangers. I just think they're easier to address and live with than the dangers of the state. I also think that things like Generally Accepting Accounting Principles, Human Capital Strategic Planning, and other aspects of state-divorced business administration has changed in ways that dramatically favor employees and consumers, advancing far beyond things like minimum wages and benefits packages than what the state mandates at any given time these days. Now that's not true in the case of offshored cheap labor, but we're fast approaching the age where people will be suffering because cheap human labor has been replaced by cheaper and more effective machine labor. Education, compensation, benefits, training, and development of employees is now very important to employers, regardless of whom they are hiring at any skill level, and it's not because it's against the law to give people dead-end jobs or anything like that (after all, some people do consider unchanging job security to be comforting). It's because capitalism has evolved and improved since the gilded age. Ancaps aren't insane for wanting to give it another go when they see how much business has matured and how promising mutual aid societies were, but~ even I agree the time isn't quite right yet. Some states would literally crush ancap enclaves as if they were insurrections in order to keep their elite in power. Most governments are entirely unwilling to allow citizens to opt out of taxation and state benefits in any way, not even partially. Ideally to an Ancap, governments would voluntarily stop spending so much on services that their citizens don't want, allowing their services to become more voluntaryist and competed with. Still, a struggle that will persist until the end of time? Nothing persists until the end of time.
Great video. "Free markets" do not mean companies can do whatever they want, just the opposite. In competitive free markets, nobody can make large profits because somebody else will undercut their price.
I believe this era has never ended. There is bigger wealth inequality today than in the Gilded Age. Now sure the pie is bigger for everyone now, but they have more leverage than we do by a bigger margin then they did back then. The only thing that broke the era was the New Deal era which helped a bit.
Not really unlike before you are still way better off than even the billionaires from the Gilded Age. Sure there are still poor people but most of us can now have the luxuries like air conditioning, higher food quality, cheap air travel, quality healthcare and freedom of information which is the internet all of which was inaccessible even from the richest of the 19th century.
