Lincoln was actually a disgusting tyrant.

True libertarian

The fix is in, Harris will win, they will sentence Trump to prison and make it effective immediately and after that things will turn ugly, there is no way he won’t get prison as they have invested so much time and effort into it for it not to happen. They will pay when they meet their maker.

literally exposing his country as the first in modern history to implement such totalitarian regime .. and then a second later spilling filth on countries like albania and bulgaria accusing them of the same .. no bulgaria and albania didn't have a law that incentivized telling on your neighbors .. just admit that your ruling "elite" and it's subservient media has always projected it's own sins on other countries with the aim of convincing american citizens that.. " *_but they have it worse there_* "

Copperheads and rattlesnakes are not the same.😂

What a dufus. Whats his agenda? To bring white supremacy back? subjugation of blacks?

Iam in chicago and i know the rebellion were the good guys

Abe was by far the most evil leader we had Rothschild bar member and was the downfall of the usa

Nowadays self-help industry feeds on guilt tripping people for being "comfortable" and these unconsciously "guilt-tripped" people then do the so-called "discomforting" things (again without getting in touch who they are or painful feelings) just to not feel shamed by self-help gurus like Jordan Peterson, Mark Manson, Tony Robbins, etc. all in their head.

This is why they hate a free and open internet. One day you're just minding your own business looking at junk to buy to be a good consumer and next thing you know you've watched every tom dilorenzo talk on how Lincoln was our first dictator and realizing how we've completely lost the plot of America. I also never understood the Hamilton mania until now.

Change your stupid channel name to C for Censorship instead. If you're not brave enough to even listen to people who tell the truth, then change your subject to something like nvidia product review. Disgusting

IOWA STATE OF CORRUPTION kzbin.info OUTRAGEOUS Weaponization of Government Gaslighting people with Marxist prosecutions and the Cover-up continues

15 years alreasy

Please people, don't be sheep and just believe what this phony DiLorenzo is saying; he's lying misquoting and misrepresenting Lincoln - and he's counting on you to not be informed enough to catch on. This is just like the conspiracy theory junkies happily guzzling the conspiracy cool-aid.

The united states is a corporation and a foreign corporation in respect to any state

19 CJS §886- Citizens are corporations and artificial persons as supported by the supreme court

Marx theorized about the exploitation of the surplus labor value in his labor theory of value and that was fundamentally wrong. There is no surplus value to ANY sort of labor but ONLY when the idea behind the labor adds value to the labor itself. Example: If Marx was correct, I could place a million workers to dig a hole and another million to close that hole up and create surplus value. Of course that's nonsense. No added value was created by those 2 million people even though they worked a lot.

19 corpus juris secundum §886- citizens are artificial persons and corporations

I worked there and my son graduated from there. Its a wonderful place.

Loyds of london is the insurance companies, insurance company,who owns loyds,,could it be the jesuits.😮

Preamble to the DC code.no new laws are inacted none repealed,it is presumed to be the law until its rebutted..

Thank you for uploading this

Government is organized crime.

The south shall rise again

7:00 St. Thomas argues, the borrower removes the burden of uncertainty in the lender. "Will I still have those 10 000 dollars a year from now, when I can buy that apartment?" If he keeps the dollars, he may overconsume and be 1000 dollar short when the time comes. Or he may be robbed, and it is his responsibility to ward off robbers. If he lends over a year, all the uncertainty falls on the borrower if he can pay back, and if he can't, the lender can often get his money back by evicting the borrower from his property at least from the collateral. As for the argument in favour of the capitalist here made, it basically presumes it is normal that few rentiers own the means of production where the rest of the people do work for wages. It presumes that small inherited property is abnormal. It presumes that small enterprises starting from scratch are abnormal. And in fact, many capitalists make sure it remains uncommon enough to be regarded as abnormal.

5:41 _"was a saver first"_ Do you mean the kind of micro-capitalist in Singapore who is a loan shark on micro-credits? He's not putting up 5 years of money in advance, OK. Many Capitalists have proven themselves savers, shown off their willingness to forego consumption, but _mainly_ as a rite de passage.

4:27 _"a capitalist who has already done the saving"_ No capitalist _ever_ started out like Uncle Scrooge saving his first penny and doing menial works and saving on that until he was able to put up investments for five years in advance. Many may have saved a first penny when they were children, but that's not the source of their monetary wealth. The real source is usury and speculation. And enjoying the benefit of inheriting without inheritance duty dilapidating the enterprise, as they would typically do for many a mom and pop shop.

4:08 Assume there is no capitalist. They would _not_ have to wait for five years to have that income. They would have remained small owners instead. That's not economics in the abstract, that's history as it happened in the concrete. Your example presupposes that it's perfectly normal and has gone on that way since Adam and Eve for one huge mass of people to be able to work, but to own nothing, and a much smaller mass of people who own so much they can pay others to work by relieveing the burden of waiting. Not only is that not normal, it's also a state of affairs that's highly derived from other states of affairs in which that logic doesn't work. Or when it does, it does so in a smaller and gentler way.

3:34 _"to remove the burden of waiting for the workers"_ This presupposes there is a mass of people for whom waiting would indeed be a burden. If you are a small farmer, and you inherited the farm before your dad died in return for giving him a small hut where he's kept alive and well and leaves you alone with your family until he dies, before you were a farmer, you already _had_ harvests from back when your dad was the owner. Such people are obviously less exploited than people who go empty handed to a capitalist and ask for work. And let's not forget, there was a time when such people were _more_ normal than those who were asking for work. Then the Capitalists of diverse types, starting with English major landowners looting monasteries and small churches, started making it less easy to remain such a man who wasn't a Capitalist, but also wasn't asking the Capitalist for work. It took some political and religious revolutions to get there. And that means the shedding of often enough innocent blood.

2:33 The workers do not have simply a time preference. They have a need for it. You cannot compare your own time preference (hypocritically stated in the abstract in contravention to the preferences you actually made instead) to their actual need to have a rent this month or 30 full meals this month and 31 the next. Plus the smaller meals. "I could theoretically have partied instead" doesn't compare to "I concretely need that money today."

1:38 There is no such thing as "future dollars are less worth than present dollars" _except_ for those who shouldn't lend out in the first place. _"I could have partied all this year for those 10 000 dollars more, I was sober so you could have satisfaction, now it's your turn to be sober so you pay me 1000 for my sacrifice over and above the 10 000 I handed you."_ _"No, Sir. I didn't ask you to forego pleasures, I asked for 10 000 dollars. Here they are."_ It stinks to hypocritically claim to have made a sacrifice one arguably really hasn't made, just so one can get an advantage.

1:25, Yes, precisely, you _are_ exploiting by taking more money than you gave. And I mean buying power. If the inflation is 10 % in the meantime, that's another matter. The extra 1000 are a compensation for inflationary loss. But at zero inflation, and, as said previously, zero missed business opportunity that you had planned before the agreed but delayed pay day, the sum owed back after a year is 10 000, not 11 000. Now, this presupposes that the lender has a fairly stable economy apart from lending. Lending is _not_ his business. The lender already _has_ real estate that he enjoys for his life and uses for a living. He did not in any way shape or form need the 10 000 in the meantime. This may make the opportunities for loans a bit scarce. Montes pietatis are another option. 1) They are partly built from donations. 2) They compensate for non-payed debts, apart from donations, by selling collateral (so, they are pawn shops). NOT by taking extra money from the ones borrowing and paying back. 3) They are run by local authorities. 4) The office clerks doing that paper work (and obviously the cleaning ladies of the offices) are owed a decent, but modest living, and this can be supplied either by very moderate interest or by the tax money the local authorities dispose of.

1:01 St. Thomas view of time preference is this. 1) You cannot _both_ enjoy (a k a spend) the 10 000 during the year _and_ retain them at the end. 2) You _can_ make a reasoned choice on whether you need them better during the year or _after_ the year. Say you know a real estate is going to complete work one year from now and you want to buy then, lending 10 000 to someone else during that year is reasonable, since it means you have the money after the year, you don't risk losing it, if the borrower loses it, you can sue him. What if he is late? What if you miss the real estate purchase because he pays after 14 insted of 12 months? THAT is a very different proposition. You can charge for the profit you missed out on after the agreed payday, by charging him more back, because his delayed payment foiled your purpose in lending to him. But that's different from a rate of interest agreed on in advance.

Lincoln vs. slavery.

28:30 has aged like a fine wine

Only one comment!! This is scandalous!!

Won’t allow schooling to interfere with my education.

I first read it as “the dangers of civilization” haha

The one who have hurt me the most, is....me... No serious trauma ever happened to me from the outside, this is what I think. I think the lack of knowing myself is the issue, and the "antidote" is to know myself.

How is Friedman considered a free market economist? He sounds like a garden variety socialist.

7:25 the problem with diamonds on divisibility is that you can't melt them back together, so that's why the smaller pieces would be deemed less valuable. Once they're cut, the sum of the smaller pieces are basically different assets from the single total piece.

Awwwww

Time preference is a timeless economic concept. It's present in everyone's daily lifes, for example in long term ETF/treasure bonds inventing.

He is brilliant.

What a brilliant man ❤

One comment... how sad Carroll Quigley called the interim between ww1 and ww2 the 20 year armistice and that's how I see it as well.

So to speak

under this logic no level on interest rate can be exploitative. Investment does not need to be privatised. the capitalists position is unnecessary and their power in dictating the interest rate is still unjustified.

I have not seen an explanation of time-preference better than this one

Robert LeFreve created the black and yellow flag that i want to fight for, and i was born in 1987 and he died in 1986.