I would concur with something that Nick said- in that our current version of Capitalism greatly rewards people with sociopathic traits...greed, payoffs, bribes, and high level corporate corruption have made it all the way to the White house(I know its been there before but not at this level). Jonathan mentioned Emron and he also talked about how we are the descendants of the Common Law that governs us (good point as well)- a major problem in todays society is that we don't punish corporate criminals the same way do all other criminals-they can still millions in fact billions of dollars. This lack of criminal prosecution allows Nick's Sociopaths to thrive in this version of capitalism.
I've liked what Nick has had to say for years. I've always felt that there was something more while Nick has, over the years for the most part not had a lot to say (at least on utoob). Yeow, thank you Nick. Much more in-depth analysis and I like how you did partial economic nerd but brought it back to more common understanding.
we've got only 2 basic options, in our Matrix minds: 1) Centralised Socialist/fascist Control, and 2) centralised 'Free Market" mythology [Federalism]. But, more and more people around the world have begun to seriously plan on comprehensive decentralised governance, re govt, economy... no limits to the Localising arrangements, as: the only sensible course towards govt of, for, and by the people, vs govt of, for, and by The Powerful, The Greedy.
@@symbolsarenotreality4595 consider this, not in OTHER words, but, in SO many words; ''But, more and more people around the world have begun to seriously plan on comprehensive decentralised governance, re govt, economy... no limits to the Localising arrangements, as; the only sensible course towards govt, of, for, and by, the people, vs govt of, for and by The Powerful, The Greedy.'' i am informing you that I am ''so confident'', as: I am deferring to those aforementioned Localising people, all over the world. re ''the most basic political definitions'', NO. I, indeed 'WE', are SOLELY concerned with the most basic political OUTCOMES, as cited above. actually, now at 68, I must ask THIS question, as the most important issue: what do you think about a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state? (think: militia controlled areas, vs cop 'controlled' areas-- understanding that all cops always serve their corrupt paymasters, and NOT The People)
@@barrysmith1202 Define capitalism, communism, fascism, marxist socialism, national socialism 100% guarantee you have nonsensical definitions of all of them that highlight your psychologically internalised biases the main one being generalising all power as bad and thinking freedom is the opposite of power and is good.
@@symbolsarenotreality4595 did you ever see that great movie Cool Hand Luke, the famous line: ''What-we-have-here--- is-FAILURE-to-COMMUNICATE..."' would you plz try to read my comment? I actually re-wrote it for you, almost entirely. But, re all power being bad': no; the idea is for the PEOPLE to wield power over the govt (not the other way around); or rather, the people TO BE the govt; or to establish 'govt of the people, for the people, and by the people'. Does any of this sound familiar? Re 'freedom being the opposite of power', I can't imagine what that would, um, imply? I don't know what you could possibly be getting at, there... Do you mean the power of govt to arbitrarily restrict the freedom/s of the people? I'm against that. Many people are against that. But, re 'freedom is good', I agree with that, if that's what you implied-- which I doubt. So, are you saying freedom is good? Individual freedom, freedoms. Individual liberty, liberties? Individual rights? Is any of that good? Heading off to bed now, as I reside in VN, the Socialist LOL Republic Of VN, in a little top-tier tourist town, over 5 yrs now.
The average working joe has never been the we ? Some people never pursue profits, they just need enough to make the time for family and friends a very small footprint are they wrong? Or do they enjoy a good life. These good hearted soles are usually the backbone of every small and large community because they usually take the time to volunteer to help coach your children, feed the poor and generally share their empathy with everyone, and the planet. These are the kind of people I love not greedy, share what little they have, help where its needed, you know real people.
This Discussion is great , topical neo economics the whole lot but how can any positive change gain momentum if (as a lot of the discussion points to) those who control the companies, the lobbyists, the Economists, world bank's and whatever independent governing bodies etc are the ones who groom and elect it's successors decade after decade , if can't affect their thinking how you going to bring any changes?
you need to re-release this book with a new title to represent this upside down version of capitalism we now have: Capitalism in the "Upside Down".... and to continue with the "Stranger Things" reference-Chapter one " We have a demogorgon in the White house" :)
I like what (was it) John Perkins said 46:00ish. It's been said that under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the opposite is true. I've said, maybe since Regan was president that under communism, the state controls not only the means of production but the state has power over,well, the state. Under capitalism, capitalism not only controls the means of production but power over the state. Both ways, it's the workers/ the people who are the outsiders. What have folx thought about anarcho-syndicalism? I like what y'all said.
Sorry, I could not get past the first 3 minutes of this video. When she started mouthing off about "economic equality", that alone told me that she hasn't a clue about anything. Maybe she had something actually intelligent to say further in the 1:14-long video, and if so, please time-index me to it. Other than that, I have better ways to waste my time.
Why do people write books about capitalism, without knowing the definition of the word? Ownership of the means of production by the wealthy has nothing whatsoever to do with how markets work. I can see the average person not getting it, but if you are writing a book, you should display some expertise.
