Does Capitalism Exploit Workers? - Learn Liberty

The idea that capitalism exploits workers stems from Karl Marx's work in the late 1800s. Learn more: bit.ly/1HVAtKP. Although the definition of "exploitation" has changed since then, many still believe capitalist systems take advantage of vulnerable workers. Prof. Matt Zwolinski explains why capitalism actually tends to protect workers' interests. And Zwolinski contends that even if it were exploitative, increasing political regulation and control would actually make the problem worse. Increases in government make citizens more vulnerable to the state. Political officials are tempted to exploit this vulnerability for the benefit of the politically well connected. Unlike free market transactions, which are mutually beneficial, when politics is involved one party's gain usually comes at someone else's expense.
Follow Professor Zwolinski on Twitter! bit.ly/VHN3xk
SUBSCRIBE:
bit.ly/1HVAtKP
FOLLOW US:
- Website: www.learnliberty.org/
- Facebook: / learnliberty
- Twitter: / learnliberty
- Google +: bit.ly/1hi66Zz
LEARN LIBERTY
Your resource for exploring the ideas of a free society. We tackle big questions about what makes a society free or prosperous and how we can improve the world we live in. Watch more at bit.ly/1UleLbP

[@kevenharvey9711]

In my experience, salary doesn't depend on your productivity but rather how easy you are to replace.

[@charger1369]

That is certainly a factor, but you must produce something of commensurate value to offset the cost of your salary or else there would be no money for the capitalist to pay you with. You don't get work just by being skilled/Hard-to-replace, there must be a market for your skills to be profited off of, so that money can be generated through your efforts, so that you can get paid and the business can continue operating. I think being harder to replace just correlates with being a skilled worker, because people are not naturally skilled so there are fewer skilled people than unskilled people and demand being greater than supply increases what people are willing to pay for the same thing.

[@lights473]

That's literally part of productivity. If you demonstrate you are highly productive and valuable, your salary goes up because of how uneasy you are to replace.

[@prumchhangsreng979]

For example ,just for analogy: If someone can build a house in 1day, that is insane productivity and they want 300$ for salary. But if someone else can build a house in 1day too but willing to do with only 250$ for salary. It doesnt take more than 30IQ to know that anyone would pay for the dude who request 250$ 😂 its common sense. That also raise productivity as it is 20% better in price to productivity ratio

[@arionstarks4640]

@@lights473 That’s not how it works. You can be the most productive mopper in the world, never missing a spot. You even wax the floor when you’re done. Your wage is still low because of the value and difficulty of your work. Regardless of how well you mop, there are millions of people willing and able to do your job at any given time.

[@lights473]

@@arionstarks4640 Yes, of course. What I'm saying implies that. If other people can do the same job as you, then your wage depreciates. I'm just saying that being more productive, all else equal, increases the wage. If the employer demands for a productive worker that never misses a spot and can wax the floor but finding such a productive worker is difficult, then the hired worker that can perform this job can demand a higher wage. This is part of what I was saying of being subjectively valuable to the employer.

[@BryonLape]

There is no greater exploiter than the Government.

[@jonathanmosher72]

ever heard of slavery?

[@Zenas521]

@@jonathanmosher72 Slavery is a mandate by the state

[@jonathanmosher72]

@@Zenas521 Tell me how the government told it's citizenry that they had to own a certain number of slaves.

[@comicsans3845]

decentralized governments aren't exploitative

[@jonathanmosher72]

@@comicsans3845 What do you mean?

[@daraghaznavi7171]

If somebody points a gun at you and wants you to do something, you also have the choice to say "No". But how genuine is that choice is not very clear.

[@UltraRik]

work or die is a law of physics and biology, not a law of man

[@vagabaassassina3461]

@@UltraRik Actually it's not

[@UltraRik]

@@vagabaassassina3461 excuse you can you elaborate?

[@UltraRik]

@Joel T Exactly. We used to dig holes with shovels for pennies, now we push levers and maintain fancy machines which do it for us and earn a decent wage.

[@NegatingSilence]

@@UltraRik It is boggling how many left-wing individuals think that capitalists came up with this idea of working to survive. It's a side effect of being born into a system that works too well.

[@NinjaxPrime]

Hence the myth of "equal opportunity". I'm an engineering major in college on scholarship, so I'm "earning" my way into one of those high paying jobs at the moment. But I didn't get here by myself. I enjoyed several advantages: good parenting, middle-class upbringing, a quality education, and other things that other people simply *do not have access to*. Some people will work themselves to death and still not get what I got by Providence. You don't always get what you earn. The world isn't fair.

[@herberthoover5545]

I come from a lower class family and I'm regarded as someone with a bright future mate.

[@justarandomgirlvx3578]

@@herberthoover5545 You can consider yourself lucky. And you probably live in a first world country

[@psychicspy]

You got to where you are through PROGRESS, not privilege. Some people just make more progress than others. Doesn't mean you don't deserve the results you attained.

[@porcudracului]

@@justarandomgirlvx3578 what does that mean in regards to exploitation?

[@RockPile_]

@@psychicspy what’s the difference? Doesn’t privilege breed progress? I don’t get it.

[@kwekvonscaf]

1:29 - Your argument would be right IF there wasn’t so much excess labor on the marketplace. If the workforce for low wage labor would decline to a real minimum… the worker would be able to ask more for his/her labor since labor power becomes scarce. You are actually putting up an argument about “price and demand” and totally refute the fact that labor for low page jobs is found out there in the streets in abundance. People that can actually ask more for their labor power are specialized people, the more specialized people there are, the more the worth of their labor power plummets. In societies where everyone has a higher degree, the higher degree has no real “value” in the market place, because everyone is just as qualified as the other person. With low wage labor, these people are pretty much screwed till they start organizing and asking more for their labor. 2:05 - Yeah, the exchanges are voluntary. Low wage laborers still choose to work in bad conditions with really low wages, because if they don’t do it…someone else will. It’s indeed voluntary, they can choose “not to work and starve” or choose to work for bad wages and eat ramen the rest of their life’s. A lot of choices are voluntary in life because the other choice is way more atrocious then the on they are making. Because it’s voluntary … all liberal market economists and advocates have their peace of mind…cause well, it’s “voluntary” they could choose to live in absolute poverty or just be poor. 2:59 - 400 percent interests… again: “voluntary” = yes… the moral question however. It’s pretty strange that political philosophers from the 19th century (like Smith) were more morally equipped then people that advocate the market place today. It’s so strange. 4:01 - Why do states bail out big companies? I’ll ask you the same question you asked: “what is the alternative?”. Usually the free market economist will say: “They go broke and this will end up being better for everyone.”. The term “everyone”, in the entire idea of free market thinkers, equals "the consumers”. Not the people (cause people without money, can’t consume stuff that needs to be bought so they aren’t consumers). The political problem (instead of the economical one) is that the government (representatives of the people in a democracy) will be faced with a big number of unemployed people. These unemployed people all flow back to the labor market and will cause social problems (hungry people do crazy things). Again, specialized people (where there is a low amount of) will get jobs and define their terms. But all the other low wage job people… well, they’ll just have to pray to find a new job somewhere, when new job offers start getting published. They will compete with all the unemployed that are already there. Of course, over time, a large amount of people will be reabsorbed in this capitalist mode of production (huray). I mean, I don’t believe “free market thinkers” are stupid or are totally wrong, but they don’t really have an eye for the individual in the bad situation. These people need to survive somehow in the mean time. The low wages didn’t really give them the benefits of putting a lot of money on the side, they’ll just be more poor then they were before struggling to get by till the economy recovers. When it does the free market thinker will say: “look in our statistics all is going well again”. Life is more than stats tough, because families will have lost their homes, will be hungry, will not be able to pay medical bills. The one that has been making profits will be able to sell their big house to come bye (if they even have too) his/her workers… will not. Of course, for all the people that can keep consuming, they will be better off with better competition… all the people that don’t have the wealth to consume, they just become another statistic. So the states bail some big companies out… keeping their population at work. It’s not only beneficial for the big company, it’s also beneficial for the worker (oh darn, you forgot about that guy right). It’s just not beneficial for the idea of a free market, it’s not beneficial for the consumer but it’s beneficial for low wage job personal cause they can keep working (and stay poor instead of absolutely poor). The alternative is more unemployment, more hunger, more people struggling to get by (for a certain period of time). No more ramen, just looking trough trashcans to eat. But no worries, the “free market” will pick itself up again… after a while… with all the hardship that comes with the down time for low wage workers. But who cares about them right? If they had studied and had a better degree/position in life, it would be easier… it’s all their fault. Oh wait… if everyone had a big degree, big degrees won’t be worth anything (as I said before)… I guess for everyone that has the capacity to finish university, you should all be glad not everyone does. 5:19 - I love the fact that free market thinkers are against “big state” (in a lot of ways, I’m against a big state… we should define “big” tough to have a good conversation) but they are pro “big earners”. Since “money” equals “powers” , big earners will eventually get more and more power. If you like it or not. If you are so paranoid of the big state (as I am) you should really be against big earners (like I am), because they both represent the same problem if they wield their power in an authoritarian way. A state, if you have a well working democracy (where everyone has a vote), still is supposed to represent the will of “all” people (ALL PEOPLE), while the individual only represents his own will. I’m more afraid of a few people having hoarded masses amounts of money, then a state that is supposed to be representing the entire nation of voters and that is controlled by voters and is bound to a strong law of the land that’s been guarded over by institutions that guard all of our interests. A state by itself is dangerous (even democratically elected states), you need a strong system of law and a populous that wants to engage in politics and choose to obey a certain amount of liberal democratic values. I also love the fact that big earners created a lot of jobs… and we should idolize them for it. The state is not god, but big earners aren’t either.

[@suyogv8235]

Fun fact: I have to watch this video in my school and this reply makes it all worth it.

[@kwekvonscaf]

@@suyogv8235 Just out of interest? What course makes you watch this specific video? I'm neither a political economist nor an economist... so don't take my word for it. But I just think that this video only shows one side of the coin. This liberal market idea isn't totally wrong, it just doesn't cover everything in my opinion. Oh, I read Marxs' his first volume "Capital", I'm not a marxist. I think Marx is also ideologically driven (he was a revolutionairy author) and was wrong in a lot of place.

[@kwame499]

@@kwekvonscaf didn’t take the time to read your whole essay because I saw sentences that attacked free market capitalism so I just assumed you wrote a bunch of garbage. Free market capitalism is the pinnacle we have ever seen for an economy and overall living standard for everyone in the country and if you want to say otherwise please comment without writing a whole book in response cause I won’t read it.

[@kwame499]

The “state” you fear is because of bigger government. With limited government the state could never abuse power of which it doesn’t have. Simple.

[@kwame499]

Yes you do have the choice not to work in bad conditions. And no you won’t live in poverty. Because in a free market there is such thing as “competition”. So if I have a company and treat my workers like shit less people will come to work for me which equals less productivity and less money for me. the company that treats their workers good will have better production thus more profit.

[@markp8263]

Unfortunately the competition of the labor markets does not always work, especially when super large corps control markets.

[@shibainusojiro5832]

It never works in a global economy where different nations have vastly differing standards of living, forms of government, economies, labour laws and protections, currency values, etc. Due to historical imbalances in power due to the ongoing legacy of imperialism, colonialism and all the economic exploitation and political strife that was caused for and by imperialist-colonialist powers, former vassal states, even ones which ostensibly have managed to achieve 'independence' of any sort, end up economically dependent on their former colonizers due to the trade imbalances and devastated economies, many of which were wholly dependent on a single industry, resource, product for trade (eg. banana republics) and thus have not developed sufficient alternatives to be able to trade fairly without economic dependence on their former colonial masters. In the end, such places end up maintaining the exact same trade relationships with colonial powers, while also being massively in debt due to a combination of mismanagement from inexperienced political leadership, costs of rebuilding after revolution, so that eventually they end up making one-sided economic deals with foreign corporations to come in and exploit natural resources and labour.

[@jollywally001gmail]

Comp’n in the Labor Market? Factories are overseas and non-union here.

[@caracaes]

The only way large corporations control the market is by lobbying the government to make regulations that take their competition out of the market and prevent new competitors from arising.

[@yydd4954]

Large corp control market when there's government intervention So it's socialist causing problems to workers They are not letting competition benefit the consumers and workers

[@zerog1037]

What you just described is a lack of a competition, not a problem of competition lol

[@TheTylrBllmn]

What I think I just heard was that compartmentalizing sections of society, as you did in the example implying a separation between the State and the free market, is a verifiable and significant facet of the status quo. I would argue that your statements clearly reveal that the State works in cohort with the rich and powerful outside of the State itself. Without significant monetary pressure from the groups you claim are benefitted by the State's, in your example, original actions, then the State would not have significant reason to act as it does. In simpler terms, you present a chicken or the egg argument that gets people tangled up in a convoluted, endless, and pointless argument. What should be focused on here is that lobbyists, capitalists, etc., petitioning the government for legislated power, and the State accepting bribes, etc., from such capitalists synergizes into a situation that is quite exploitative of laborers and workers of all classes in this country, the United States.

[@adnanilyas6368]

There is a problem with saying that because of the demand of other Capitalists that workers will get paid close to their value. That would be that there is surplus labor. Instead of companies competing for workers, the workers must compete for the companies, thereby getting screwed. Look at who gets paid the most money in many companies. The administrators. They don't do the raw labor. They don't come up with the ideas for the products. They are there to take whatever value the innovators and the workers have and turning it into as much money as possible.

[@NegatingSilence]

- Whether companies compete for workers or vice-versa is basic supply and demand. Overall people shift to areas where they are more valuable. - If the administrators aren't providing value then it should be easy to get rid of them and increase profits. But if they stick around, there's usually a reason. "Turning things into money" is what value is.

[@nicolasbernardini3413]

That is value in itself. Anyone can work an assembly line, administration is more demanding in the sense that not everyone can or will do it as successfully. That is one of the main problems with militant workers rights activists, is that they assume because they sweat more that the work they do I inherently more valuable. Anyone can do what they do

[@nicolasbernardini3413]

@gespilk yes. Because the employer put them in the position to make the products in the first place. Without the employees the employer is able to create much less. Without the employer the employee is worth nothing

[@nicolasbernardini3413]

@gespilk the employer incurrs the risk and creates the business itself, the work of the employee is inherently less valuable die to the fact that it was provided by the one who created it in the first place.

[@nicolasbernardini3413]

@gespilk without the employer the consumer is not a consumer. The employer provides for the consumer. Yes the consumer dictates how many employees are needed, but without the employer to provide the supply, the demand means nothing

[@generationtpaul]

Seeing taxation for the purpose of Government subsidies and bailouts at the behest of lobbyists, bureaucrats, and elected officials, depicted in such a way was very uncomfortable to watch. That had to have been one of the most powerful representations of taxation of that nature that I've seen.

[@christian2i]

Taxes and gov spending are not directly related. Ever heard of this thing called debt? Works different for states than households

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

​@@christian2i Taxation is theft. Inflation is theft. Debt is not really a problem so long as taxation and inflation are impossible.

[@Howsonify]

The idea that capitalism exploits workers actually stems from the Godfather of capitalism himself, Adam Smith. Marx used Smith’s and Ricardo's ideas (i.e. Labor Theory of Value) to construct a far more systematic theory of exploitation. Still, Smith wrote loosely on exploitation. Taken for his 1776 “The Wealth of Nations,” Smith writes on the capitalist’s “advantage” over labour on wage determination: “…the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible… It is not difficult, however, to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and *force* the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily… “ (not even Smith saw it as "voluntary") Smith goes on to argue that the “masters of industry” have the advantage in wage disputes because “masters can hold out much longer” than workers can, meaning capitalists can sustain halted production longer than workers can sustain no food on the table. On capitalist “advantage,” Smith continues, “…whoever imagines… that masters rarely combine is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. *Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their current rate.* To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals.” (The bold is mine) Smith’s point is very simple. “masters” can exploit “workmen” by exploiting their “advantages” over workers. He delineates two such advantages: 1) capitalists can sustain a wage dispute much long than labor and 2) capitalists have an incentive to explicitly or tacitly collude to hold wages down. Thanks to anyone who bothered to read something so egregiously long.

[@valentin6li]

I read it all, it took effort. But I saw you also took effort to edit your KZbin comment to bring your point across.

[@ufodeath]

***** Capitalism's fuel is quite literally based off of the exploitation of the workers labor - there is no other way around it (How do you think capitalist make their profits, by allowing the workers own the full fruits of their labor? Now way!). But that is how it goes with any hierarchical class system in which one class rules over the means of production and thus give themselves the opportunity to prevent the producers of society (The workers) the opportunity the freedom to have open and free access to utilize the means of production and own the full product of whatever they personally produce.

[@Ezio17a]

Sokami Mashibe The only thing worse that being exploited by capitalism is not being exploited by it at all. What other form of economic system are you proposing which produces the same amount of wealth if not more and also gets rid of this 'exploitation' or whatever you mean by this term?

[@ufodeath]

Ezio17a Worker cooperatives in which workers democratically control the means of production of each workplace and own the full fruits of their labor. Ultimately, I advocate any non-hierarchical institution based on voluntary collaboration, and democratic decision making. This is not a system about taxes, the redistribution of wealth or welfarism. what is the point of those things when the workers already control the means of production, especially when it can be encouraged to voluntarily donate resources to the communities to support its well being? Ideally, there would be absolutely no central governing body that would have a a monopoly on the provisions of laws and force, as this is contrary to a voluntary, non-hierarchical society. Instead, decisions within communities would be made through a form of direct democracy. There might be elected individuals that act as a guidance council meant to solve political and economic problems academically but yielding no power at all. Instead the people would yield the power. communities could be unified as nation not under a central governing body, but through direct democracy in which communities vote on things together that affect them regionally or are useful on a regional basis. Since nobody or nothing would have a monopoly on the provision of laws and force, it would b a stateless form of governance ran directly by the people from the bottom up and guided by intellectuals and problem solvers.. though the type of economic system mentioned (worker cooperatives) can exist either within the context of a state or without a state, I prefer to see them exist without a state apparatus personally, though they can easily be adopted into a republic, like what the US has. Exploitation: the coercive appropriation of the fruits of the workers labor. capitalism requires force by definition since it requires the workers to give the vast majority of their labor to a tine minority, thus being exploited. Capitalism just doesn't exploit workers *it requires it* to sustain itself. I do not support a system that requires exploitation that serves a tiny minority just to be further perpetuated for yet more exploitation (hurrah). so the workers controlling the means of production in the format of worker cooperatives would lead to a more non-hierarchical and certainly non-coercive form of management, production and distribution of goods.

[@Ezio17a]

So you are an anarcho syndicalist, or anarcho-communist. Ok. But answer this: Who is stopping workers from owing their own means of production under capitalism? No one. Workers can pool in their resources together, buy land, machinery, tools and whatever else they need and share equally and do their democratic decision making in the production process and share the profits equally. There is NOTHING stopping them from doing so. Infact there are many worker's cooperatives already, if they were so utopian as you suggest, people would be flocking to set them up everywhere. I on the other hand do not like to work under such a setup because I believe I work harder than others and I am smarter and more intelligent than others, and I will not settle on an equal share of fruit when I put in more effort. I also don't like working in a team. I like to work alone. I know many people like myself who reject worker's cooperatives. Good for those who like it, go set it up and enjoy. I don't. Many others don't. So why are you going to force me to be part of your system. Even though you say you don't like a government and you don't like force, the fact is that the system you propose is a system of force. I also don't like democracy in decision making. I want to make my own decisions, not get reduced to the whims of the lowest common denominator. I don;t have a problem with others who wish to join together and form their own voluntary commune. I don't wish to be part of that. I believe in true freedom - letting people do what they want even if I dont agree with it - as long as they are not committing an act of violence (which is the cornerstone of anarchism)

[@user-ph9si8uc8n]

Buying labour is hardly the same as buying something as an auction. At an auction people only bid on one item. If there were a million of the same item, they would not compete to outbid eachother like that. If the labour market is full of unemployed people, all employers can pay low wages. The worker will be forced to take up the work because within this system not taking the work will mean starving on the road. So capitalists rely on the inherent force of nature that makes people want to eat, drink, have shelter etc Not to mention the psychological manipulation which we call advertising these days. Evidence for this is clear if you look how advertising is created. If you look at children's behaviour who have been exposed to advertising, against children who have not been, the difference is very clear.

[@XorDev]

Fair point. What about starting your own business?

[@shibainusojiro5832]

@@XorDev Not viable in many industries where the market favours existing players, particularly when those monopolistic companies are colluding with each other and also have government regulators in their pockets, making conditions hostile and costly for new entrants into the market, who inevitably end up getting bought up by a larger fish, only to have the smaller company either absorbed or broken up, only their assets kept for technology patents while the average worker is, surprise surprise, out of a job once more.

[@XorDev]

@@shibainusojiro5832 I disagree. Generally there seems to be a market for small business, you just have to market a bit differently. Be personable and tell your friends/family. I know because I've done it. It is possible

[@ffrffdgfvfdsfdsf5724]

@@XorDev why not make it into a worker cooperative.

[@commiebastard351]

How is the choice between starvation and work at all "Voluntary".

[@FurryMurry7]

Because nobody is making you work and nobody is making you starve. Since no other human is at fault for "imposing" any of these choices on you, they are considered "voluntary".

[@FurryMurry7]

***** Thank you for your response. :) You said, " If I put in place (or take advantage of) a system that makes your only meaningful choice in life be 'work or lose your access to oxygen', I am clearly at least indirectly responsible for your lack of oxygen if I use a system that's taking advantage of the fact that you need to breathe. " There are a number of things I need to say on this. Let's do the easy one first. You don't know what my meaningful choices are. You may think you do, but you really don't. I am the only person who decides which of my choices are "meaningful" and which are not. I have spent a good deal of my time playing video games and making KZbin videos on video games. There are plenty of people who believe that I am wasting my time and that I am not doing anything important. But ultimately, the only person who's opinion matters on this issue is me. I believe that what I am doing is not a waste of time, and that is the end of the story. You are certainly allowed to formulate opinions on my lifestyle choices, but your opinions have no effect whatsoever on the "meaningfulness" of my choices. Only my opinions do. :) I am the only one who is allowed to decide if I am wasting my time or not. This is why you cannot tell me what a person's "meaningful" choices are. All you can do is tell me what a person's "possible" choices are, and then it is up to the person to decide for him or herself which are the "meaningful" ones. I have talked to other Marxists and they have a tendency to superimpose their feelings and opinions on others; and they have a very difficult time with the thought of allowing a plethora of possible outcomes to remain open to allow a person to choose for themselves. You said, "'...work or lose your access to oxygen'..." How would I lose my access to oxygen? Short of theft, I can think of two possible ways I can obtain oxygen: 1) Harvest it myself. I could make an attempt to find a pool of oxygen that was unclaimed by other people. If I live inside a city, this means that I may need to travel outside the city to find such a pool; but once I find one, I can claim it as my own. Alternatively, if I don't want to find a pool of unclaimed oxygen, I can attempt to create the oxygen myself. This may be achieved through countless different methods. Perhaps I can obtain a fern and use the fern to harvest the oxygen. If I can manage to harvest my own oxygen, I will be completely autonomous in regards to oxygen consumption. I can consume as much or as little as I like, and no one will have the right to initiate force against me if they don't like the way I'm consuming the oxygen. No one can determine how much oxygen I consume. Even better, I don't need to rely on others for my oxygen consumption. Even if everyone else lost their oxygen, I would still have mine. The downside, of course, is there is risk involved. If I decide to hunt for unclaimed oxygen, what if my pursuit proved unfruitful, and I never found any? I might find it to be a waste of resources to travel such a distance, with no oxygen to show for it. And how might I obtain the fern? Depending on how scarce oxygen is in this environment, it might prove difficult to find an unclaimed fern, and to obtain the fern from someone who already owns a fern might prove costly, as they might be unwilling to give up their fern, and by extension, their precious oxygen. They may feel as though yielding their fern would cause them to lose a great deal, and may ask me to compensate them in some way. This leads me to the only other way I can obtain oxygen. 2) Convince someone who already has oxygen to yield it. I can't initiate violence against people during the "convincing process", as the result would be theft, and we have already ruled that out. If someone else already owns oxygen, and I want to use peaceful means to convince them to allow me to use it, that endeavor will prove more or less difficult depending on who I'm asking. For example, I may have relatives, family or friends that are willing to share their oxygen with me freely. There may also be charities or religious organizations that dedicate their lives to helping people obtain oxygen, with various people donating oxygen (or donating resources to OBTAIN oxygen, like ferns or money) to these organizations in the hopes that these charitable organizations will give them to people who need it the most. This is called "Charity". Alternatively, if I do not wish to collect Charity, there are other means in which I can peacefully acquire oxygen from other people. Let's go back to the pools of oxygen mentioned earlier. If one of the pools is claimed, I can ask the owner if she needs help harvesting oxygen from her pool. I can offer to harvest for a certain amount of time each day, and at the end of the day, I can keep a small portion of the oxygen that harvested, and she can keep the rest. Depending on how difficult it is to harvest oxygen in this world, and how difficult it is to obtain an unclaimed pool or to create the oxygen from scratch, this may prove to be a very profitable arrangement for both of us. She profits because she still gets to obtain oxygen without needing to work as hard, and she can do other things with her time while I work. But I also profit, because I gain far more oxygen working in her pool, than I would searching for an unclaimed one, without any guarantee of finding an unclaimed pool at all! I also profit from this because if I tried to obtain a method of creating my own oxygen, for example through the use of a fern, I might need to spend countless amounts of money and resources obtaining a fern, and it might not yield as much oxygen as a naturally-occurring pool. The reason why I use this example is because many Marxists don't realize that both me AND my employer make a profit. Many Marxists believe that the only person who makes a profit is the capitalist, and that the worker does not profit from the deal. But profit is simply a situation of when your returns are higher than your investments. If I am able to obtain MORE resources through an employer than by myself, then I have made a profit. I can obtain an average of 1 quart of oxygen per day if I attempt to take the risk of utilizing all my resources to find and harvest oxygen myself. But as a wage laborer working in someone's pool, I receive an average of 6 gallons of oxygen per day--multiple times more than I could have obtained otherwise! I may choose to consume all the oxygen, or I may choose to only consume some of it, and use the rest for trading with other people. Depending on how scarce oxygen is in such a world, I may ask for a large amount of resources (money or otherwise) in exchange for the oxygen, and this will help me get other things that I may need. This method of convincing others to yield their oxygen does not suffer from all the same risks as harvesting it myself. But this way, I lose my autonomy. Because I choose to be completely dependent on others to provide oxygen to me, THEY are the ones who will decide how much I will consume; I cannot consume as much as I want. This also means that if everyone else loses their access to oxygen, I will lose oxygen too. But it is important to note that whichever course of action I choose, I am also choosing the consequence as well. Why do I say these things? Well, you said that in a hypothetical world, it could be possible that I could "lose my access to oxygen." But, considering the choices available to me, it seems this is quite impossible. There are countless methods I could use to obtain it, so if one method becomes unavailable somehow, there are always multiple "Plan Bs" that I can rely on. There is more that I would like to say but I will leave it at that for now. Thank you very much! :)

[@FurryMurry7]

***** Would you care to explain what "mental gymnastics" means AND which of my statements are gymnastics? Thank you. You said, "'Work or struggle miserably to survive' (which is what it amounts to) is not a meaningful choice to me," To me, the phrase "work or struggle miserably to survive" does not sound like a choice. It sounds like real life. :P Imagine you were the only person on the planet, or at least the only person within many, many miles of the wilderness you were in. In this state, there is no Capitalism. There is only you. After a time, you may begin to realize that your body needs certain things in order to survive, such as food. You might like to eat food at some point, so you look and see an apple tree, filled with more apples than you can count! Yum! You run to the tree as fast as you can, and reach your arm up, to grab an apple. But just as you do, you stop. At that moment, you realize that harvesting apples will expend energy. And expending energy like this is considered "work". Even if the fruit is hanging low enough for you to reach easily, it is still "work" or "labor" nonetheless. You are still expending energy in order to obtain resources. You really do want to eat an apple at that point, but in that moment you begin to remember what you said to FurryMurry7 in a KZbin comment thread, a long time ago. You remember saying that if you were EVER faced with a choice where you could either work or be miserable, that both choices would be meaningless. Once excited at the thought of eating the sweet apples, you suddenly feel crestfallen. No matter whether you pick the apples or not, nothing you do can be meaningful. Even though your body's life can be extended by doing so, you decide that the life of your body is a meaningless concept and lay on the ground, under the shade of the tree, watching the clouds slowly roll by under a beautiful blue sky. You close your eyes, and accept your death in peace. This one-person society has come to an end. That was a really nice story! Brought me to tears it did! My favorite part was the part where you thought that the choice between "labor" and "resources" was EXCLUSIVE to capitalism, and wasn't simply the way the PHYSICAL WORLD WORKS!!! Labor is required to have resources. Period. End of story. If you want resources, human beings MUST expend energy in order to get them. The apples are not going to pick themselves. The firewood is not going to chop itself. The cows are not going to milk themselves. You cannot separate human labor from the acquisition of resources. They are marching in lockstep. They are inseparable. This is true whether you have Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Flibbity-Jibbity F'tang F'tangism, or any other ISM you can think of. Now, you might be able to convince someone else to perform labor, and give the proceeds to you, so that you personally are not laboring. In the United States, this method was used on various cotton plantations more than 200 years ago. But this does not eliminate labor either. It simply shifts the BURDEN of labor from one person to another. (Of course, if you do not consider the laborers to be actual "people", like back in the plantation days, you might not agree with this. :P ) You cannot tell me that the truth of "labor required for resources" is exclusive to Capitalism. It's just the basic laws of physics. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. If you want matter, you need to DO SOMETHING to get it. It makes zero difference whether you are laboring all alone, or laboring amongst a group of people, where the proceeds of the labor are distributed amongst several group members (like in Capitalism). In short, there is literally NO difference between working for an employer in the hopes that the employer will give you resources; and working for an apple tree, in the hopes that the apple tree will give you resources. No difference whatsoever. Well, maybe one difference. It can be painful to have sex with a tree. :P

[@cheesebone82]

It's a choice because suicide is a choice. To the extent that a capable individual would rather starve to death than be productive enough to survive, that's their choice.

[@matrixman8582]

All species have to work to eat. That's called nature

[@jayromeo9631]

More businesses = more competition for workers = more negotiation power for workers = better quality of life for workers. Regulations to prevent more businesses = less competition = less negotiation power for workers = frustration and stress for workers. More businesses = more competition for consumers = decrease in price and/or increase of quality of goods and services for consumers. Restraining the amount of businesses = less competition = less innovation = stagnation of price/quality of goods and services. Take away: increase the options.

[@jayromeo9631]

@Uncle Sam's so, let people consolidate. As long as government is not able to regulate and add red tape and mess up a free market, a free market will always encourage the growth of local smaller scale cheaper goods and services. When a business consolidates and grows there is only a finite range they can effeciently make a profit. Because to expand their influence outside of their point of origin will be more expensive. You are right to say that in our current situation corporations can control the government. But that point becomes moot if the government cant create a better environment for big companies if the government is prevented from putting up red tape. The more options available the better it is for consumer, worker and business owners. It's that simple.

[@motorcycleman115]

Jay Romeo indeed, making things more competitive is the best thing for a capitalist economy. However, you have one thing backwards. The free market does not encourage local small business. It encourages one risk taking entrepreneur to expand their business and put their competition out of business. You may have heard in an economics class how walmart destroys other retailers by having the funds to sell at lower prices than a local business could then raises those prices higher once that local business is forced to shut down. This is a clear example, but there are plenty if you think about it. If the free market truly encourages smaller businesses, then you would see a local small business with only one store and NOT some nationally/internationally recognizable brand near your area for light bulbs brooms soap dog food blankets computers pens paper workout equipment etc but no you can buy all of that at your local walmart, theres plenty all across america and big or small government isn’t going to change that at all (unless its stalinism but no one wants that) The only place that is too expensive for a business to expand to is one where there are no people for an economy.

[@jayromeo9631]

I would say that it true but it is massively more to do with with the fact that big business can afford the regulations that government sets up. For the cost of goods and services and turning them into profit will always make more money for the local business. Sure walmart can lower prices but only for a short while. The reason the tactic you mentioned works well is because it is the final straw on top of the regulatory obligations most small businesses have to face. Cut those down for a fair playing field and big business will crumble. They are bigger but their expenses and middle men costs are higher too.

[@lipsach]

What actually happens. When capitalist lowers the wage, he can also lower the price of his product. So to be competitive with prices the other capitalist lowers the wage too.

[@realdragon]

Cool so workers earn even less and have to pay even more for house

[@JP-sg5os]

Tbh even if what you said was true, it wouldn't actually be that bad, as the purchasing power of the people would remain the same. However, you seem to forget businesses actually need to attract workers and therefore pay reasonable wages to them. A business wouldn't pay a single cent per hour to a worker if it could by law. That just wouldn't attract any workers and lower wages also means less experienced workers for certain jobs. Not to mention, if your statement was actually realistic, all businesses would pay everyone the minimum wage (maybe some cents an hour more than the minimum wages for higher positions in a company). Anyways, you just need to see what happened to countries that adopted more libertarian economic policies: wages were increased dramatically and the population got way richer.

[@raketny_hvost]

>lower price of product aahahah funny joke

[@troubleddreamer553]

@@JP-sg5os dominos once didn't give the workers health care because it would add 14 cents to the price

[@Bolognabeef]

You seem to ignore basic microecomomics. If the business could have paid the worker as little as possible from day one, he would've. He cannot just decide the pay each day and expect no consequences, because if it's lower than what the worker is willing to accept then he will look for another job

[@KBT_Productions]

he doesnt blink

[@PrimatoFortunato]

definately a reptilian

[@mathewrowland5088]

2:01 TF is this

[@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts]

👁👁

[@benny1459]

Alot of this is also assuming that employers compete for workers, whrn its vice-versa. People are willing to take whatever is offered because theres nothing else for them to apply for that wont get taken by someone willing to take that hit.

[@thomasbrooklyn1820]

That largely depends on the skill set of the prospective employee. The lower the skill set required, the more people are able to meet that criteria, so competition for those jobs is greater, and lower wages can be offered. Workers who wish to make more can do so through education and training. Those who are more ambitious will make more. Some may prefer to do other things, say spend their time playing video games or fishing. The monetarily ambitious people will have to forgo those relaxing activities. It's a choice.

[@Da69expert1]

@@thomasbrooklyn1820 By working harder all you are doing is stagnating your own wages, exacerbating the incongruity between worker value and salary, making the barrier for entry more difficult for those looking to start their career, crippling working class bargaining power, oh and making your boss more rich in the process.

[@zerog1037]

You know why there's not much for them? Because of competition due an oversupply of labour and lack of demand. The wage they're given is evident of these forces at play and with a wage limit or trade union, labour as a resource would be inefficiently managed. Now look to a labour market where demand is higher than supply, those jobs are paid more because employers compete with one another instead to procure this valuable resource. The labour itself has to compete ad well to even get into those markets. This is the beauty of the system and it's horrors

[@ColorMatching]

You forgot to mention how unemployed keeps wages down. Also, workers compete with one another for the same job, driving wages down.

[@LearnLiberty]

The free market will give us the best situation in the labor market. The lowest prices and high demand are on the competitive market, which causes firms to start to produce more and hire more employees. When we have low unemployment on the market, the wages are increased.

[@ColorMatching]

@@LearnLiberty there is no such thing as a free market. Your economics is riddled with lies and bullshit.

[@thepracticalinvestor2386]

@@ColorMatching free markets do exist.

[@ColorMatching]

@@thepracticalinvestor2386 no, they don't'. you're either new to economics, lying, or an idiot.

[@thepracticalinvestor2386]

@@ColorMatching yes they do. Free markets is the choice you get when you buy a product.

[@rubiks5659]

I'm amazed you described exactly how companies (under a capitalistic system) use the tool of state to continue exploitation but offered no better solution than "let's make sure the companies keep that power!"

[@Atilla_the_Fun]

Phrase a few things differently to him and this guy could be a socialist.

[@Bolognabeef]

He never said that what we have now is the best system. He literally said that with a big government (which is actually what America has right now) lobbying is favoured

[@Azraiel213]

...The better solution to *every* problem is literally in the channel title my dude. Liberty is always the answer.

[@jamesandrew1750]

confusing corporatism / crony capitalism with a free market economy

[@jongxina3595]

Because u choose not to watch further and stick to your own interpretation of what he said. Companies only become that powerful BECAUSE of the state. Not the other way around.

[@concernedcitizen6577]

The role of government should be constrained to enforcing property rights and facilitate competitive business environment. Big government handouts and tariffs only incentivize risky and rent-seeking behaviors that don't benefit the society as a whole. Even monopolistic businesses in a free market economy will have to strive to keep their customer satisfied by producing better goods and services at a fair price. Microsoft didn't face real competition until the launch of Macintosh, that just proved the point that monopolistic businesses have to compete to keep their monopoly. The real monopoly is government.

[@deistrix3239]

@Liberty AboveAllElse Human-centered capitalism #YangGang

[@vedigregorian4382]

@@deistrix3239 Thats just cancer. Yang lies about what Friedman said.

[@charger1369]

No a monopoly by definition does not have competition. A monopoly with competition is not a monopoly. Monopoly's face no trouble with competition, which is the problem, they can charge however much they want for their good or service. Imagine if there was only one provider of the internet and there were no restrictions on what they could do with it.

[@vedigregorian4382]

@@charger1369 And imagine the conditions for that to be true. The government would be making that possible. Monopolies are possible in a free market (unless they are effective monopolies). kzbin.info/www/bejne/fmeyoamiot5rn5o

[@herpydepth1204]

@Concerned Citizen that’s just not true though. If you’re a fellow gamer man dude guy person then you must know of the m word. Yeah that one. Microtransactions. Businesses make the CEO and their friend’s happy and rich, not to make the consumer satisfied. Capitalism just makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. If you think that slavery is bad then you should have a distaste for the free market since that’s something a free market heavily rewards but here you are despite probably not being the biggest fan of keeping humans bound in chains. Don’t you think it’s just a little odd how capitalism is apparently all about how anybody can make it if you work hard enough for it but the one’s working the hardest are the Chinese people in sweat shops who are barely paid or the child laborers picking bananas because they have no other real choice to earn money. Yet it’s the rich guy at the tippy top who takes in all of the workers’ hard earned cash. Does that not seem unfair and downright villainous to you? How is it that helping the disadvantaged ends up hurting our society? Because helping the disadvantaged hurts the privileged. Sure they have a “the customer is always right” sign on their desk because people love that but the second they can make more money not caring about said customer they will do that. That’s not even going into the full extent of things either

[@svanneman]

Prof. Zwolinski claims that, "competitive pressure forces capitalists to pay workers close to the value of what those workers produce." This is surely true in some cases, but it is definitely NOT true in all cases as he suggests/implies. For example - "According to the National Labor Committee, women sewing NBA jerseys make 24 cents per garment that will eventually sell for $140" (www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-sweatshops). Thus, we may fairly conclude both 1) the logically contradictory position that "competitive pressure [DOES NOT FORCE] capitalists to pay workers close to the value of what those workers produce," and 2) the logically contrary position that "competitive pressure forces capitalists to pay [SOME] workers [NOTHING] close to the value of what those workers produce." Just to be clear about how we arrived at this determination, we might ask ourselves a few questions. 1) How can we understand the meaning of "value" here? - "the maximum amount of money a specific actor is willing and able to pay for the good or service" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_%28economics%29). 2) What does the sweatshop worker produce? - an NBA jersey. 3) What is the value of what the sweatshop worker produces? - OR - What is the value of the NBA jersey? - $140. 4) What does the sweatshop worker get paid? - 24¢. Now that this much is clear, I would also like to take a moment to point out that Zwolinski, oddly, is arguing that capitalists do in fact appropriate some unspecified form of surplus value from workers. How do we know that he is arguing that this is the case? First, we assume that this is the case because he states that capitalists "pay workers close to the value of what those workers produce." From this statement, we may fairly infer that he means that the total value of what those workers produce is more than the total of what those workers get paid. If the total of the workers' pay is subtracted from the total value of what those workers produce, then this difference leaves a surplus that the capitalist then appropriates for themselves and which, we are led to believe, they use as they see fit. Second, we then firmly conclude that he is in fact arguing that capitalists actually appropriate some unspecified form of surplus value from workers when he gives us his explication of the "Bid on the Dollar" example. He sets this example up by first stating that, "If you try to pay someone less than they are worth, someone else will offer them more because they can profit by doing so." Here, the relevant takeaway is merely that capitalists can profit from hiring workers. In other words, the capitalist understands that the worker creates a profit in excess of what it costs to pay that worker. Zwolinski then goes on to illustrate that position using the "Bid on the Dollar" example. In the illustration, we can understand 1) the auctioneer as representing the worker, 2) the actual "One Dollar" as representing the (average) value of what the worker produces, 3) the bidders as representing the capitalists, 4) the action of bidding by multiple bidders as representing the competitive forces, and 5) the actual bids themselves as the pay offered to the worker (who either accepts them or rejects them depending on whether or not better offers arise). In this object lesson, we can easily understand that the value of what a worker produces is only one dollar. Thus, the capitalists - who want to make a profit, must offer to pay the worker anything up to, but not equal to $1. If the capitalist were to pay the worker $1 or more, then, obviously, they would not be able profit from their "investment" in the worker. Hopefully, it should be more than obvious at this point that Zwolinski is non-controversially arguing that the value of the commodity that a worker produces is greater than what it costs to pay that worker to produce that commodity. To illustrate this point more precisely, here is a corresponding example from the Wikipedia entry on Surplus Value (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value): Imagine a worker who is hired for an hour and paid $10. Once in the capitalist's employ, the capitalist can have him operate a boot-making machine using which the worker produces $10 worth of work every fifteen minutes. Every hour, the capitalist receives $40 worth of work and only pays the worker $10, capturing the remaining $30 as gross revenue. Once the capitalist has deducted fixed and variable operating costs of (say) $20 (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), he is left with $10. Thus, for an outlay of capital of $30, the capitalist obtains a surplus value of $10; his capital has not only been replaced by the operation, but also has increased by $10. This example, though fictional, does an adequate job of illustrating how capitalists appropriate the excess or surplus value that workers produce. The other question that we must ask ourselves is - What is it that qualifies as “close” in Zwolinski’s claim that "competitive pressure forces capitalists to pay workers CLOSE to the value of what those workers produce," One reasonable possibility is to say that, “close,” is any value X greater than half of whatever is the value of what those worker’s produce. In this estimation, 1) if that value X is only half, then it would merely be equidistant to both whatever is the value of what those worker’s produce and zero and 2) if that value X is less than half, then it would be closer to zero than it would be to whatever is the value of what those worker’s produce. Thus, in the case of the sweatshop worker, the boot maker, and any number of other examples, it is possible to see that my own two counter claims hold. The essential points being that 1) "competitive pressure [DOES NOT FORCE] capitalists to pay workers close to the value of what those workers produce," and 2) "competitive pressure forces capitalists to pay [SOME] workers [NOTHING] close to the value of what those workers produce." Hopefully, this long digression has drawn attention to some of the contours and background of Zwolinski’s argument without obfuscating the terrain unnecessarily.

[@ryanwilder4327]

this video is literally my favorite because 1) it blows the whole minimum wage debate into oblivion 2) blatantly states that big government is corrupt and wrong and 3) basically supports the argument that while it is politics is corrupt capitalism has the power to prevail

[@JouelleBrick]

Why does he assume someone will pay more or give a better option? If the largest players agree on a low wage or high interest rates it eliminates the options to the poor.

[@419fish]

Because there are not a few players as you assume. Especially for low skill labor, there are hundreds of thousands of options to choose from. If i am a janitor i can just as well sweep floors for Microsoft as for the local deli. There have been ZERO long standing cartels even in oligopoly markets. How could it be possible then for competitive markets to collude? The profit motive is too strong to let this happen. Even if there were a monopoly the company with the monopoly can only use market power on the price of there good, not labor. For example Microsoft did have a monopoly on personal computer operating systems. However there was still a competitive market for software engineers. software engineers wont work for microsft at $60,000 a year when IBM will offer them $100,000 a year. Or Intel, or apple, or Bungi, or any other huge list of companies. Even in the extreme case of a monopoly the employee cannot be "exploited"

[@tmpqtyutmpqty4733]

419fish Wrong. "there are hundreds of thousands of options to choose from" is false.

[@richdick9628]

Tmpqtyu Tmpqty Not at all. Only when the government and business mix (Corporatism/Fascism or other leftist non-communist systems.) can true collusion happen. Without the thug force of government you cant stop the relentless assault of the free market on unsound business practice.

[@ebbanjenkins5960]

Franklin Michael or starve to death...a monopoly of land/ resources and a legal system geared to protect property rights above value of human life(not in £ and $ signs) guarantees that this can will and does happen...something that was well understood in the 19th 18th and most of the 20th century...notably by Adam Smith himself.The ideology of 'Neo Liberalism',putting its faith in ideas above reality common sense and indeed evidence is at best ignorant and delusional and at worst a cynical attempt by those in power and vast wealth to undermine any other way of living via the use of media propaganda that it is in itself the "natural order of things" alluding in a cowardly way to Social Darwinist and eugenicist idiocy...at least the insane ideology of Nazism was honest in its "justifications".Some of those that advocate and go along with this neo liberalist idiocy and hypocricy are very well meaning people that are actually very naïve ignorant of history and rather quaint in how they are duped in this faith.

[@richdick9628]

ebban jenkins Well eugenics is the way of the left but other than that and EVERYTHING you said you were on target.

[@N0umenalReality]

Close to the value of what they produce(key word Close) , pay 400% interest or starve.....how is this a good argument for Capitalism..........

[@brianbirc]

UNIONS THEY ARE THE ONES THAT GAVE US THE WEEKEND

[@Gorilder]

no.... thank Henry Ford

[@blue200W]

Nice ideas, however, they only work in competetive markets and all markets eventually become non-competitive due to moneys' inherent ability to gravitate more money to itself. This creates overpowering entities knows as monopolies/oligopolies, which have enough economical and lobying pressure on the goverments to change rules of the game enough to suit them more than entry-size entities, therefore make it so its cost prohibitive to comply with all the paperwork and legislation on all givernment levels, not to mention the absurd levels of chaos in the legal system. Not to mention court systems being cost prohibitive to use for entry-size entities, favouring big players with capital. Here is catch 22 - system will not allow entry-level entity to amass enough capital in realistic time period to allow entry to the game for the big bucks, that level is restricted to the big players and always will be. There will always be enough paperwork required, court hearings to attend and other things which will eat up resources to grow company fast enough without outside investment. Investment will (almost) always be 51+% = majority stake. This ensures oligopoly is protected. Another thing this video presumes in perfect information. Humans are inherently fallible, as in able to get deceived, cheated, and not knowing all the information written in the contract, and information not written in contract. Humans are also not able to know about all the competitors, and advertising is making an absolute mess out of capitalism; as in the guy with most money will always win, provided advertising doesnt somehow lose its magic over average customer. As long humans are not able to get perfect information about products, money paid workers is the same money used to purchase stuff and any legislation at all exists (means it is necessary to exist and has to be enforced because humans dont just obey some divine principles somehow) , capitalism will keep failing in cycles which will keep on getting shorter in timespan as debt keeps accumulating on both consumers, producers and governemnts.

[@heathero3130]

Hmmm It took me a minute to realize that channel isn’t about liberty, it’s just a clever spin on neoliberal ideology. I’ll pass on this channel.

[@Peter_Kropotkin]

Based comrade

[@lights473]

Part about liberty is also being free to trade with whomever you want. It's not liberty to use government to get special advantages and regulating markets.

[@theparadigm8149]

Technically, it’s a classical liberal channel, but ok… I see what you mean!

[@nbmi4613]

"Neoliberalism" is just a leftist strawman argument.

[@theparadigm8149]

@@nbmi4613 True, true…

[@sfdrew83]

Are you seriously suggesting that workers are paid what their worth when productivity has gone up and wages haven't? Do you live in reality? Competition is limited in some markets naturally, and artificially limited in other markets by monopoly practices like undercutting new competitors, abusing the patent system, and buying competitors. Workers are forced to sell their labor in a way that businesses are not forced to buy it. The system is not even close to working the way your fantasies say they should . Competition and choice are not as powerful as you people keep claiming. If they did we wouldn't need regulation and government. Let's remember that these regulations came from somewhere, because we used to live in a time when they didn't exist and people died trying to make things change. Look around the, in other countries, or in the past. Sweetshops and exploitation are rampant when government doesn’t step in. The government isn't perfect, but at least it tries to help people and is a hell of a lot better than "truly free markets"

[@LearnLiberty]

+sfdrew83 Proponents of public choice theory hold that human nature is the same whether an individual is acting in the private sphere or in the public (government) sphere. Since it seems that you are in disagreement with them, you may enjoy further exploring that school of thought: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJetd4F7qs-YgpY Also, in this video on food regulations, Prof. Dan D'Amico highlights a few ways in which big businesses and other firms are able to act like monopolies through the tool of government regulations: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iqeQZ4ymit-EmqM You're right that there are no perfect solutions, but how do we know which trade-offs are the correct trade-offs?

[@iMaDeMoN2012]

+Learn Liberty Big business buys their power claiming it is in the national interest. However libertarians claim the only way to eliminate this practice is to give up any democratic voice in the market place and concede all power to big business. This idea will remove the only opposition big business to exercise their will against the American people. This propaganda intentionally fails to differentiate between big business writing policy in their own favor at the expense the American people (and in the name of the national interest) versus policy written by the American people and for the American people ( i.e. special interest) as the founding fathers intended. There may be no perfect solution but there certainly are ones better than the status quo and I'm damn sure there are worst ones.

[@bbiggie97]

+sfdrew83 I love sweetshops, the big jawbreakers are the best ;)

[@iMaDeMoN2012]

***** The 1% buys the power of the state because the political right lets them. The Libertarian-right wants to rob the 99% of their voice in government. Once the 99% is complete disenfranchised there will be no one to stop the 1% from pulling the strings of the state. There will never be a "small" government. The 99% won't ever politically support it and the powerful 1% will create quasi-government forces in the power vacuum that will become a truly tyrannical state. YOU DREAM!

[@ExtractEngineer]

+sfdrew83 Wages have gone up. A lot. You just aren't willing to read basic economics or study the most basic history. For the first time ever in 2015, extreme poverty across the globe is below 10%.

[@V3rt1g0s]

The real life equivalent of a "labor auction" is a labor union. We saw what Reagan did to those in the name of the "free market".

[@foroparapente]

This video ignores that fact that information availability isn't mutually beneficial. Companies associate and research in a much more thorough way than workers, so it's easy for them to make bad offers and not get competitors to offer more to their workers, specially in industries with high entry barriers such as agriculture, oil, wood, fishing, etc. It also ignores periods of crisis which is rather expected to happen: high unemployment, so workers do not have much freedom to say no. The concept is good, but incomplete and therefore easily misleading.

[@ArielleCruz]

Also ignores cartels. Oh, excuse me- also ignores “trade organisations”.

[@foroparapente]

Arielle Cruz To be fair..they could be offset by unions, no?

[@ArielleCruz]

foroparapente Wake me when that happens. ;)

[@foroparapente]

Arielle Cruz Awww, thanks to unions we have paid vacation time, one or more days off a week, limited shifts, overtime, public holidays, minimum wage, etc.

[@shraka]

foroparapente It _COULD_ be, but unions rely on group bargaining which mostly relies on governments forcing companies to abide by certain rules when dealing with unions. And when the corporations own the media, the information availability situation makes it hard for people to make rational decisions about joining a union when they're pre-loaded with negative stereotypes of them.

[@Greenwithao]

What about when entire industry conspire to keep prices high, or wages low, or agree not to compete(Time Warner & Comcast). How do you do this without regulation.

[@charger1369]

@@comoanaturezamanda Exactly!

[@chrismowry6760]

@@charger1369 How do you do that when they control the infrastructure?

[@TomJainKing]

@@chrismowry6760 The only laws prohibiting new infrastructure from being built is the same govt regulations. Compare the price of internet in an area with 3 ISPs vs 1

[@suyogv8235]

@@comoanaturezamanda ah yes. Do you possibly imagine someone overturning amazon? banggood? who could sell lower? who could steal all the customers from netflix? nobody can make a "better stranger things" it's the intellectual property of netflix. there is no competition for the "Stranger Things" market, huh?

[@chronosx7]

@@suyogv8235 "Stranger Things" is not a market but a product in the market for entertainment. Also you don't need to _steal_ all of the clients or even "whole clients" but get a percentage of their "entertainment dollars" or even merely some of their attention, if you consider free videos websites supported by ads. As big as some companies are, size alone doesn't rule out the possibility of competition because markets change: look at who the big companies were 50-100 years ago and look at them now.

[@dennygomez]

Wow! The animation sequence starting at 03:44 is really great. It should have a title, like, "The Shakedown"

[@harryjohns7638]

There should always be limits to financial exploitation by increasing financial education and public records...

[@anderlillemaa8160]

"Both parties had the opportunity to say no." The payday loan store is the last place you go. This guy needed money to satisfy his basic needs, he didn't have much choice. It's basically: "Borrow some money or die." Propaganda at its finest.

[@FurryMurry7]

Don't read more into this than what he actually said. matt zwolinski never said that the Payday Loan store was the "last place" he went to. In fact, there is no record of the guy going anywhere EXCEPT the payday loan store. There is no reason for us to jump to the conclusion that if he did not get a loan from THAT PARTICULAR STORE, that he would starve to death.

[@EdgemanLL2]

If the payday loan store is the last place you have to go, this (said another way) then this is the ONLY place that will help you out. In that case, a little gratitude would be in order, rather than contempt for someone doing you the favor no one else would do. But as Furry makes the excellent point. There is no reason to assume this is the last resort. For the ease and convenience of getting your loan immediately, this could be much more attractive than other, cheaper options.

[@danielcooke7089]

Except when you throw into the equation marketing, which is pure capatalism; to force options into your train of thought it becomes less of a choice but more a commodity.

[@danaililiev1404]

@@EdgemanLL2 just because i am your only option doesnt mean i can exploit you

[@EdgemanLL2]

@@danaililiev1404 If the option was detrimental to you, after all factors are considered, you wouldnt take the option.

[@justinbeagley5151]

Unfortunately this doesn't go into the fact that inflation hasn't created an increase in wages - and the avg. worker makes the same now as they made back in the 90's. 2 decades of inflation hasn't increased the avg. income of workers. Also your dollar analogy doesn't really work - because people aren't dollar bills - they're people. And while you can put a value on skills, when businesses decide what they're willing to pay for that skill, others usually tend to go around that amount. Meaning that if businesses are the ones dictating how much we're worth - they are ALL exploiting us.

[@EdgemanLL2]

Justin Beagley You missed the point. The dollar Bill IS an excellent analogy. youll never win a bid trying to spend 80 cents for a $1 bill, because someone will out bid you because its in their best interests to do so. Just so, if your work was worth $15 an hours, someone will pay you that because its in their best interest to do so.

[@PvblivsAelivs]

The payday loan example is no more voluntary than if I were to point a gun at your head and tell you to give me all your money. Nominally, you could say no -- if you don't mind dying. And nominally, the guy in the payday loan situation can say no, if he doesn't mind dying. Now, you talk about competition mitigating the problem. But here, you have a cartel, which agrees upon prices so that nobody can get a better deal. Now, the situation with a company and workers is a little more complex. Companies try to maintain a situation where there are more available workers than there are total jobs. That way, they don't have to get into a bidding war. They will just take someone else instead. If there was only one worker who could do a particular job, then he would have to be paid at what his work was worth. That is the threshold -- when the company decides, not that it will try to hire someone else, but that it cannot afford to have the work done at all. Now, I don't think that capitalism is all bad. I think that, when unrestrained, it leads to certain bad outcomes. It is very efficient at whatever it does. If left to its own devices, what it chooses to do is make one mega-corporation that effectively owns the population as slaves. As I find such an outcome undesirable, I seek to put restraints on capitalism. But capitalism *can* be made to work for the betterment of society.

[@FurryMurry7]

John Undefined your gun analogy is not applicable to the payday loan situation, for a giant reason. Violence. The largest difference between Person A pointing a gun at your head and Person B offering a payday loan is that Person A is initiating violence against you, while Person B is NOT initiating violence against you. In order to come up with a good analogy, you need to think of a situation where the person asking something of you is NOT initiating violence or threats of violence against you. They are simply offering something.

[@PvblivsAelivs]

FurryMurry7 Analogies are (by necessity) not perfect. But the critical element is that the one in the abused position has only a nominal right to walk away. He cannot *really* walk away. You do not address that. Instead you know that because my analogy was not payday loan places itself, there will be some point of disanalogy for you to attack. That is what you did. You avoided the key issue. "They are simply offering something." What they are offering is th ability to breathe one more day -- just like in the gun-pointing example.

[@FurryMurry7]

John Undefined "Instead you know that because my analogy was not payday loan places itself, there will be some point of disanalogy for you to attack." Yeah, if I was a TROLL. Lolz. I'm not trolling. I would be more than happy to accept your analogies, even if they NEVER mention payday loans, or even money. Watch 4:30 Guy with gun = political exchange Payday loan = market exchange The problem with your analogy is you are describing a POLITICAL exchange. In political exhanges, one party has the LEGAL RIGHT to initiate violence against the other party. Imagine getting a phone call from the Make-A-Wish foundation asking for a "donation", but if you refuse to donate, they would send armed men to your house to kidnap you. That sounds scary! If a guy approaches a payday loan desk clerk, this is a MARKET exchange. In this exchange neither party has the right to initiate violence against the other party. This is the most important question in moral situations: "Violence or no violence? Gun or no gun?" If you're still not convinced, consider this situation: The guy from matt zwolinski 's illustration approaches the same payday loan place, but this time brings a gun. Is he morally justified to demand the desk clerk to hand over the contents of the cash register at the threat of death? He needs the money, and the payday loan place has a lot of it. What could possibly be wrong with this young man initiating violence against peacefull citizens to force them to do what he wants? If I were posed with these questions, I would say that he does NOT have the moral right to initiate violence against anyone, ESPECIALLY for the purpose of taking their money.

[@PvblivsAelivs]

FurryMurry7 "I would be more than happy to accept your analogies, even if they NEVER mention payday loans, or even money." That's why you did, right? Oh, wait, you didn't. And you are still not addressing the main point Political vs. market exchanges are a distinction without a difference. The only question is whether all parties *really* have the ability to walk away. And someone who faces death if he walks away (whether by gunshot or starvation) does not really have the ability to walk away. It doesn't matter how much you shout "political" or "market." The coercion is there in both cases. What you need to show me is that, if the guy doesn't like the payday loans terms, he can walk away and he won't end up on the street and he won't end up starving. But you can't do that. That's why you keep saying "market" in all caps. It doesn't matter. Coercion through market is just the same as coercion through politics. The most important question is "voluntary or coerced." It does not matter what form that coercion takes. All that matters is whether it is there at all. And payday loan places only function through coercion. They won't be found anyplace the "market" can't be used just like a gun. And, ultimately, the market is defended with violence. It's only disguised a little on the surface. But if you're starving, have no money and you go into a shop, take a loaf of bread and run, you will see the violence. "Violence or no violence" is not a question. The violence is always there. My original point stands. Nominally, the guy at the payday loan store can say no, if he doesn't mind dying. You have not argued that the threat of death is not there. You just excuse it by saying it is "market-imposed." But the threat of death is what stops him from saying no. So it is not voluntary.

[@FurryMurry7]

"And payday loan places only function through coercion." One of the words you kept repeating in your comment was the word "coercion". You might have noticed that in my replies, I have been carefully avoiding the word "coercion", mostly because it's one of those empty-calorie filler words. It evokes a lot of emotions, but is mostly meaningless because EVERYONE has a different idea of what that word means. As such, we cannot really communicate using the word "coercion" until we can AT LEAST agree on a suitable definition. I always see coercion as something that one human IMPOSES on another human. Frankly, you cannot be "coerced" by inanimate objects. This is something that frequently comes up when I debate with almost all anti-capitalists. They like to 'personify' things by applying the word "coercion" to nonhuman entities. Personification works beautifully well in the realm of poetry, but it doesn't fit well in discussions about politics or economics. I cannot be "coerced" by an environment or situation, any more than I can be "coerced" by a coffeemaker or "coerced" by a computer. "Murder" is another word that has similar mechanics: it only occurs between one HUMAN and another. A tornado can certainly "kill" you, but a tornado cannot "murder" you. You cannot be "murdered" by nonhuman entities. This isn't poetry. Stop personifying. If we can agree that coercion can only take place between one HUMAN and another, allow me to explain how coercion must be IMPOSED from one human onto another. We can have pressures on us. For lack of a better word, allow me to use the word "pressure" as a large blanket term to describe 'anything that you don't like'. Pain, hunger, and poverty are examples of pressures. Pressures can be made worse, but they can also be lightened or lifted. If someone applies a pressure to you, OR if they threaten to apply a pressure to you if you don't meet their demands, that person has just coerced you. As an illustration: Lohn Shawk, the owner of a payday loan store, has sent thugs to break into a man's house and steal stuff while the homeowner was away. (We'll just call the homeowner Vic Tuhms). As you can see, Lohn has applied a pressure to Vic. (Even if Lohn hired a gang of thugs to do the dirty work, we can still trace the damage back to Lohn.) Lohn then approaches Vic and offers him the monetary value of all the stuff that was stolen ONLY IF Vic agrees to do something for Lohn. (It doesn't matter what he asks Vic to do. Lohn has coerced him because he is the SOURCE of Vic's pressure) This is the first question I will pose to you: Going back to Professor Zwolinski's illustration, "how can you say that that the poor man is being coerced when the Payday Loan store is not the SOURCE of the man's poverty?" Going back to pressures for a minute: If Person A is NOT the source of Person B's pressure, but offers to lift or lighten the pressure in exchange for a favor, then Person A is NOT imposing coercion on Person B. As an illustration: you and I are house neighbors. One day, your car is out of commission (for reasons that have nothing to do with me) and you desperately need a car to get to work. (Let us assume that you need this job in order to survive). If you ask me, "Hey, is it alright with you if I borrow your car?" To which I reply, "sure thing, but *only if you fill the car with gas*." In the above illustration, I am only lightening your pressure ON THE CONDITION that you do something for me. For some people, this is enough evidence to accuse me of "coercing" you. But using the above definition, it does not meet ALL the requirements for coercion, because I *did not apply any pressures to you*. By the contrary, you could argue that my offer would, in effect, HELP you. By accepting my offer, you would be better off than if I had not offered my car AT ALL. One final question: Knowing that the Payday Loan store had NOTHING to do with the man's situation, "couldn't it be said that it might be a GOOD THING for them to offer the poor man a way to get money quickly, ESPECIALLY IF this was the only store willing to do it and no other people were willing to help? Would you say that the loan offer is so unscrupulous that it would be better if *no one made him offers at all?*" For the record, I am willing to acknowledge that there are negative things waiting for the poor man should he not accept anyone's help. But NONE of those negative things are coming from the Payday Loan guy. Therefore, the Payday Loan guy is ABSOLUTELY NOT inflicting coercion upon the poor man. I hope you don't mind long comments. I LOVE them! The longer, the better. I can't wait to read yours! :)

[@Lardzor]

This explains why McDonald's employees in America average $9/hour and McDonald's employees in Denmark doing the same job earn the equivalent of $22/hour. Plus, in Denmark, they have full healthcare and 4 weeks/year paid vacation.

[@LearnLiberty]

The reason for it is not capitalism, it is caused because countries have high regulated borders also tariffs on imports and exports.

[@Lardzor]

@@LearnLiberty So it's because of the high border regulations and tariffs on imports and exports that make it possible for McDonalds to pay their employees 22/hr + benefits and still make a profit?

[@ExPwner]

@Curiouser and Curiouser you have no point. No one is making you a servant.

[@ExPwner]

Actually this talking point is just ignorant. It ignores purchasing power.

[@MichaelMarko]

This is a simplification. They're are many tactics for exploitation. Anyway, pretty pictures are, well, pretty. But if you're not going to discuss mechanisms then it's just chatter. About big and small government: as with anything ,the values of the people involved matter most as well as outside influence. Government is not monolithic. Parties are not monolithic, schools of philosophy are not monolithic. The idea that simply limiting the size of government will create Paradise via the "free market" is just another religion, another ideology. It's uncritical. This is because of oligarchy. It does arise naturally, you know, unless there is a strong social structure to prevent it. Markets are crap. People are everything.

[@robertfaria6474]

As a student of economics I see where this argument is coming from, but it relies on the fundamental assumption that the representative agent is perfectly rational and information is equally available to all parties (the ideal world). Unfortunately, due to the asymmetric distribution of education, consumers are not perfectly rational & may not be able to make the correct conclusion from the information provided (ie the payday loans take advantage of uninformed consumers who may not fully understand the severity of the fees they are paying). Also, they miss the fact that employees wages reflect the fair value of their labor with respect to the next best option in the market. So in a situation such as 2008 where the labor supply drastically increases, wages are no longer reflecting the value of what the employee can produce, it is actually capturing the minimum wage which employees will work at because of downward competitive pressure. Unfortunately, this can create new norms and lead to discounted wages long after the supply glut in labor is reduced.

[@mistadroucicini1182]

Mainly I just wanted to ask - what do you mean by the 'structural nature of politics?' cheers

[@syscomweb1]

where can i ask for a subtitled version of this vid ? thanks

[@RajKumar-nw2en]

Click on top right corner of the video and choose caption

[@AnimMouse]

2:51 I wish I could say "no" to the food store, but no, I could have died. Edit: This comment is made by socialist me, sorry about that.

[@nickwendell9379]

So you determined that paying the food store's price was a better option than dying...and because of this you are mad at the food store, because they literally gave you an alternative to death.

[@AnimMouse]

@@nickwendell9379 What I mean is we still don't have some competition on the market in order to prevent monopoly because of the government interference. If you have only 2 choices, that's monopoly.

[@gloriouscontent3538]

There's other food stores. lol At the very least, they would have to charge low enough people could pay, or else the financial sector would have to get involved which is obviously not a stable arrangement.

[@Vexwisval28]

when everywhere is the same, its hard to say we have a choice. same with work, all companies run a basic M-F 8-5 job, for example. Its a race to the bottom to exploit as much as posible (expecpt if your rich or educated, but not everyone has that privilege). So when all companies want to reach the bottom, they adopt the same policies and render "options" for the employee/consumer obsolete.

[@mwatcherfl]

"How do living wages start to improve where child labour is used?" Assuming it wasn't used prior to the sweatshops being there? What would the kids be doing? going to school? Are there schools?

[@george5693]

What is the song/tune in the beginning

[@RyanJohnson]

I grew up understanding Walmart as the poster boy of capitalism because of their logistics. My concern about exploitation comes about when their full time employees have to use welfare. In a way it's like Walmart is being subsidized by us because the government has to cover what the minimum wage doesn't in order for their workers to survive.

[@FurryMurry7]

"In a way it's like Wal-Mart is being subsidized by us.." Wal-Mart IS being subsidized by us. Watch the documentary "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices" and you will be shocked at how many millions of dollars the government donates to Wal-Mart in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. The other smaller businesses can't get all the free stuff from the taxpayers so they can't compete. If it weren't for government intervention, it's likely that Wal-Mart would not be NEARLY as large as they are today and it would be easier for smaller businesses to compete. By the way, the majority of full-time workers at Wal-Mart make MORE than minimum wage. :D

[@RyanJohnson]

I cannot disagree ;) To a general 'you don't know who's going to read this' audience I may have come off a little naive. Hardline either creates a division where you you have to tell people their references are from biased think tanks sponsored by (name an industry). I'm really glad you mentioned the unfair competitive advantage... how can a claim to believe in capitalism survive? Then that's where I'm picking a battle I just don't have time for because I can't even get my own mother to recognize reality and logic anymore... fox and conservatism stole my mom..:/

[@CarbonGlassMan]

The government chooses who is poor and qualifies for welfare. The government keeps raising the income that you can make and still qualify for welfare, getting more & more people on welfare. I'd be more upset at what government is doing than what Walmart is doing. If I make $50k/year, I don't qualify for welfare. If I have 30 kids and make $50k/year, I do qualify for welfare. If you're a 20 year old single woman with no kids & working at Walmart, you don't qualify for welfare. If you're a 20 year old single woman with 3 kids & work at Walmart, you will qualify for welfare. It's not Walmart's fault that some people do irresponsible things like having kids out of wedlock or mismanaging their lives & money. None of the people who work at Walmart have to work there. They can work somewhere else. Minimum wage is just a starting wage at Walmart. You get raises after you're there for awhile.

[@RyanJohnson]

Until 3 years ago I was making minimum wage, it's not a living wage. If I didn't luck out and have parents that were well situated I wouldn't be nearly as productive a member of society as I am today as a programmer. I'd still be an admin assistant making minimum wage and hating life. Everybody seems to forget how shitty of a situation a peasant's dilemma is. Rent of $650 when you're making $11 doesn't give you any leverage in a society where leverage is all that counts. I can imagine getting by as a single person and don't wish upon my worst enemy. Having kids on top of that, I can only salute those who don't have an abortion when the situation arises to tough it out. I don't know how they would do it without welfare. My boss used to have talk radio going nonstop and I had to listen to that shit for 3 years, telling me how I'm the bad guy when I'm doing everything I can and my boss continues to take advantage of my position. Life is not forgiving at that point. It's either suicide, armed robbery, or 18 hour days of study/work (now I'm a recovering workaholic). No, I don't think people should have to live through that. A kid on top of that, I can only wonder why they aren't robbing us at gun point in the street because it's that hopeless of a situation. I have to ask, how many years have you spent working minimum wage and what's your idea of a living wage? I can tell you from experience that even $11/hr is a miserable existence and quite honestly it would have been worth my employers while to payed me more so I wasn't always distracted by making ends meet. At any point in those 3 years had I had a health complication I would have been unemployed and bankrupt. Let's just say that's not an environment that helps people reach their potential. It's quicksand.

[@FurryMurry7]

***** I made minimum wage for a couple years. I was 15 years old and I was legally allowed to work, but in my state I had many restrictions on where I was allowed to work. In a couple years I finished high school, and I got a small raise. I was no longer making minimum wage. I'm making slightly more than $11/hr right now, and I have to say, it's not as bad as you're making it out to be. I have an apartment with a roommate and we split the rent. I don't buy a bunch of expensive stuff that I don't need (like cable tv for an average of $80 per month, or a new flat screen when my cathode-ray works just fine. Or eating out at fast-food every day when I can easily pack my own lunch for work) and I learn to spend my money wisely. In all, I've managed to live a fairly content life. I don't have EVERYTHING I want, but I definitely have everything I need. Because I don't have spare money floating around, I need to not only spend MONEY wisely, but I need to make general life choices wisely. For example, a sudden illness would definitely break the bank; so I've been making sure to eat right and get enough exercise to be fit. I would LIKE to eat cheesecake and sit around all day, but I know that it will just waste money (and years of my life) later on. I would LIKE to have a bunch of wild sex with women I barely know, but I know that it would just dig me deeper in a financial hole by creating more mouths to feed. I would LIKE to do nothing and play video games all day, but I know that I need to spend time building valuable skills so I can get out of this financial rat race. I would go out on a limb to say that the MAJORITY of people in my position (or in a similar position) already know this. They KNOW that poor lifestyle choices lead to money and health problems. They KNOW that having babies will make their lives harder, instead of easier. They KNOW that if they don't have skills, they won't be able to succeed. And yet, they do it anyway. Then complain when their life is a mess. At some point, we need to treat people like ADULTS instead of children. Knowledge brings accountability. There's a difference between a 300-pound fat girl saying "OMG! You mean fast food is UNHEALTHY? Why didn't somebody tell me??!!! And...what was that?... Are you saying that exercise will make me healthy? WELL WHY DIDN'T SOMEBODY SAY SO!! This whole time I've been thinking that fast food is healthy and exercise is bad!! OH WOE IS ME!!!!" and a person who knows the basics of how to live a good life saying "HOW DARE YOU tell me how to live my life!!! I don't care how many health problems I'm going to get!! I REFUSE TO EXERCISE!! DO YOU UNNERSTAN MEH!!! I REFUUUUUUSE!!!" You mentioned babies in your post. I believe that when a person says "omg. I barely make enough money to survive. I'm living paycheck to paycheck and I may have to go on welfare or apply for charities!! :( Oh, whatever am I going to do?? Oh, WAIT A MINUTE!! I HAVE AN IDEA!!! Okay, make sure you're sitting down and don't flip over with excitement when you hear my BRILLIANT BEYOND BRILLIANT idea! What I'm going to do is, I'm going to make a baby!! Maybe even two or three babies!! As many babies as I can!!! And if THAT doesn't improve my situation, I don't know what will!! :) *smiles*", then it's not a good idea to have an overabundance of sympathy for such a person. Maybe we can feel sorry for the unfortunate babies, but the adults knew better. At some point, we need to realize that the MAJORITY of people know what the right decisions are. And when they say "fuch you! I'm not going to do the right thing", we need to allow those people to experience the negative consequences of their no-one's-gonna-tell-me-what-to-do attitude. Eventually, they'll wise up and learn from their mistakes. How many times do you have to pee on an electric fence before you know not to do it again? Just one.

[@woodcake274]

In my eyes the argument falls down at the beginning when he says that competitive pressure between capitalists forces them to pay workers close to the value of the labour they produce. This only holds true under full employment, which clearly isn't the case. With a reserve army of labour, the social stigma attached to "benefit scroungers", as well as the underemployed, capitalists know how desperate people are for jobs and can treat their workers however they like (though usually up to a limit thanks to labour laws and the welfare state). In 19th century England working and living conditions deteriorated rapidly under relatively free market capitalism until government intervention.

[@yorkshiremgtow1773]

Please can you back up your claim that, between 1800 and 1900, working and living conditions rapidly deteriorated in England.

[@xzxz-uy2lm]

Which ever way you look at it the ability to maintain your human condition requires land grow food shelter etc... As long as land or use of land is not a birthright you are captive to whichever authority is withholding your ability maintain yourself . I see that as taking an unfair advantage from the get go.

[@pixelgabe5471]

=🔰= Free land, Free trade, Free men!

[@shibainusojiro5832]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

[@xit1254]

At 2:24 the example of payday loans - isn't it also true that because of the government restrictions/regulations on who is allowed to make these kinds of loans, competition is suppressed and this is a cause of the exorbitant interest rates and fees?

[@TomKilworth]

I'd like to see someone from the working class defend these libertarian positions. It's so often professors or business owners.

[@xFlRSTx]

no its not, how many business owners do you think there are? do you see any corporate CEO libertarians? no because the state and all its regulations are GOOD for corporations. you liberals go on and on about how corporations use the government to there advantage, and then when someone suggests shrinking the government to stop this you act like thats what corporations want. there is no logic in this.

[@TomKilworth]

xFIRSTx Did I say I was a liberal? And would you mind approaching debate constructively? I'm not in the market for a shouting match

[@xFlRSTx]

Tom Kilworth im sorry, let me spell it out for you, its your turn to tell me why corporations like libertarianism.

[@danpratt6767]

Tom Kilworth, I could be considered part of the "working class". I am a teacher, I don't make much money, and I am a libertarian.

[@TomKilworth]

Dan Pratt Good to know! :)

[@legalfictionnaturalfact3969]

fine, just don't make the mistake of thinking that capitalism and socialism are the only two options. they are to be transcended. and no communism and socialism are NOT interchangeable terms.

[@marschallkenobi6426]

Let's go with feudalism

[@marschallkenobi6426]

Good old days

[@Emre-kb6mq]

@@marschallkenobi6426 lets go with primitivism good old days :')

[@fenrir7878]

I agree that the government we have today is responsive to special interests and big business and big banks, but the source of that is the fact that wealth inequality and power dynamics have diminished the power of American workers and average Americans to have their voices heard. In a way, it's the bad stuff of capitalism, plus the bad stuff of an unaccountable government. The alternative of government regulation makes more sense, assuming that the government is held accountable and that individual rights of everyone, and equality before the law, is protected. When the government implements bad policies, you vote them out. If you're employer implements bad policies, there's not really much you can do, and there's lack of accountability. Ultimately the problem of accountability and mutual parity is the real issue.

[@neverstopaskingwhy1934]

exactly, the alternative to capitalism isnt alway socialism or communism, but a regulated capitalism where minimum wage ensure worker to be paid to acceptable cost.

[@thejohnreview9650]

@@neverstopaskingwhy1934 It is impossible to reform capitalism, because the only way for a capitalist to make a profit is to underpay a worker for his work. In the first half of the working day, a worker produces goods at a cost equal to his salary. The rest of the working day he works for the capitalist, receiving nothing in return. The only way to get rid of the theft of the worker's labor and expropriation is socialism, in which the worker will receive a salary equal to the price of the goods he produced.

[@shrijitasgable]

I disagree with what this guy is saying.

[@hahdakdahkdhalsla]

Doesn't matter if you disagree. He is right.

[@aleccarey5254]

Defend your argument why should you increase the power of the state

[@themontaukboys]

Nice video. While you raise good points, I find that you assume that workers WANT to take out loans or do menial jobs. I've never heard of any child saying "When I grow up, I wanna work at McDonalds". The payday loan example is flawed because ideally, you should be earning enough to not need a payday loan. But wages are so low, and inflation keeps going up, it's hard to even eat for a month from a single paycheck. Wages are so low because the owners of the means of production know that they can always get workers (which is why the unemployment rate can be used as a gauge on how despensible workers). Also, the sale price of a product is no-where near the cost price, if that were true, the sweatshop kids who make AirJordans and Louis Vuitton would be able to afford those products. Newsflash, they can hardly afford bread and milk. I just graduated from college and I'm competing for jobs with people who hardly made it through High School. My expenses are naturally higher than these people, but my salary doesn't even cover a third of my bills (oh yeah, did I mention the student load I have to pay back?) .

[@mwatcherfl]

"Is it okay that these people are being treated like shit just because they don't know any better and can't have it any better way?" At every point in someone's life, they're going to be able to see only what they see and anything they don't see, doesn't apply to them.

[@shrijitasgable]

Wait, so society becomes more wealthy because I pay a 400 percent interest rate, having already asked for the loan out of absolute desperation in the first place, and then that disallows me from paying for tuition or being free myself and still society become so wealthy here? The only person becoming wealthy here is the loan shark.

[@liliacfury]

Why didn’t you save your money in the first place? Everyone knows the possible risk of being injured, so how come you didn’t save your money when you had the chance to before you went into a debt that required interest to pay off? Other people do, and they don’t have to suffer because of it. But now that people like you are wining about the effects of your mistakes, now the people who were responsible with their life have to suffer because of it. In this situation, not everyone is going to be happy in the end. Just because I prioritize those that have to suffer because of other people’s mistake rather than prioritize those that have to suffer because of their own mistakes, doesn’t make me a horrible person. It just means I have half a brain to care more about the obviously more deserving option.

[@d3th2m3rikkka]

@@liliacfury You can't save money if you don't have money to save. People only don't have money to save because of capitalism. Because they were born into a poor family. Or had a bad childhood and robbed a few stores. Or never got a good education. Or can't get a good paying job because no capitalist will hire them. Or have a criminal record because they were a drug addict. Or are homeless. People don't choose to be poor

[@liliacfury]

@@d3th2m3rikkka Anyone under 18 should have all medical expenses and education expenses paid for. I do understand that some people where just dealt a bad hand. I was talking about those that weren’t ad screwed themself over.

[@playerjoe]

What if the market is dominated by a few and corporations start working together to dominate the market and behave in a corporatist manner? For example, there are many hospitals as well as insurance companies, yet the insurance coverage is basically identical for majority of companies. Hospitals continue to overcharge for healthcare costs in favor of high returns for management. There really is not free market, or a market based economy, wealthy corporations use there excess revenue to eliminate competition

[@looseSpark]

What would you say about the notion that those who take out pay day loans are exploited because of lack of education / intelligence or because of desperation causing them to make bad decisions? Do we need regulation of these companies to avoid exploitation of the vulnerable?

Any nation, Included China has proven to be beter in a free market econimy :D

[@elnegrobembon]

Markets != Economy Markets are only 1 aspect of an economy. Markets, as a form of distribution of goods and services, have been around for millennias before capitalism even existed, for example.

[@shibainusojiro5832]

Tell that to the child workers working in sweatshops. www.businessinsider.com/mattel-disney-chinese-sweatshop-child-labor-2011-8

@@shibainusojiro5832 you think child labor was a free market innovation? If any, we have less and less child labor thanks to free market. If you check the data you'll see that you have less child labor as you have more economic freedoms

[@paiosfranen]

China is NOT a free market economy. Its a VERY state regulated market economy. While all companies allow private investments, in most companies, by law, minimum 51% of shares must be state owned. In fact 70% of chinas companies are state owned. China also has very strict anti monopoly regulations, which applies to any and all companies, no exceptions. A clear proof of this is the recent billion dollar fine imposed by China to the tech giants AliBaba and TikTok, before thought untouchable, for breaking the monopoly regulations. The massive poverty alleviation experienced in China in recent decades is a result of the mixed economy, NOT of free market economy. A free market would have plummeted China into misery, like it happened in Russia and Eastern Europe after the collapse of communism.

[@TheKingofsactown]

This whole analogy really falls apart because for the large majority of jobs, even the jobs that bring in a ton of money for the employer, employers do not have to compete for employees at all and that leaves workers very vulnerable to exploitation.

[@tompain2751]

@@bindipig1225 Companies are fighting for skilled employees. Those, on the bottom, need to obtain skills, compete for jobs, or hunt!

[@tompain2751]

@@bindipig1225 "exploitation", doesn't really matter. Somebody always loses. They have the choice, to provide for themselves. Minimum wage, and welfare, enable failure, and the unrealistic view of government fixes. Only individuals, can improve their own situation. The choice is clear: Take a job, hunt/fish/beg, or wait for the government. However, learn that, each job, is a stepping stone to a career goal. if not, you are stagnant, and must do something! BTW, you will die waiting, if you choose government!

[@TheHauntedKiwi]

@@tompain2751 The beneficiaries of "unskilled" labor are parasites who are rewarded for other people's work.

[@madeye111]

I feel that this video let alot of things out and made it more simple than it is. What about the transparency of corporations vs the transparency of the state?

[@kylevswild]

Solid video, but could use some updating (graphics, lighting, etc.). Any chance we could get a newer version? Thanks!

[@EdgemanLL2]

"Running a business is not very hard though," PMSLMGDAOOOOO. Really? By all means, show us how its done.

[@EdgemanLL2]

@gespilk Why do you need 10 million? running a business is easy. Youll make your own capital in no time!

[@EdgemanLL2]

@gespilk *80% of new start-ups fail within the first 3 years* So I was right. Its not easy. So STFU

[@owentova]

@@EdgemanLL2 that doesn't mean it's hard to run a business.

[@owentova]

@@EdgemanLL2 most new business fail because they are suffocated by corporations.

[@EdgemanLL2]

@@owentova "Its hard to run a business because its so easy for corporations to suffocate you. That doesnt mean its hard to run a business! Im smart!" No youre not. Youre a moron.

[@jasonm9193]

Regarding your payday example -- Consent isn't truly voluntary when the system is designed to give you no other viable alternatives...

[@franksappa8732]

So if your trapped in a hole and I am the only one who can throw a rope down to save you but I said I wanted an equivalent amount of money equal to all your future earnings in monthly payments or I will not throw it down would that be fair and mutually beneficial?

[@immanuelt613]

This assumption is if there is only one lender(A monopoly). If there were 500people with ropes obviously the cost to escape the hole would reduce greatly

[@KilgoreTroutAsf]

Very nice explanation of how things should be in theory, but certainly aren't in practice.

[@alfindley1873]

'Bollocks' is the word that springs to mind

[@thijmstickman8349]

How is it voluntary if the employee or the person taking the loan could die of starvation if he doesn't take the offer?

[@mrandrew9480]

What is stopping the person from accepting the offer before they die of starvation? Mutual voluntary exchange is critical with capitalism. We have to take both parties into account. Your question says that the person needing a loan was made an offer which implies that the lender was engaging in voluntary exchange by making an offer. The person could voluntarily accept the offer and buy food instead of dying of starvation, or decline because it's not a good deal. If the person made a counter offer that the lender didn't like then likewise, the lender may voluntarily accept or decline. This isn't to say that people who are starving shouldn't be helped but who is responsible for that person? If that person were permitted to pick and choose who must help them as they see fit, the lender for example, then the lender would not be allowed to voluntarily decline exchanging with the person. What can help in this situation is if there's competition between lenders. If the person doesn't like an offer from the first lender then they can accept an offer from the second lender. But if they're both bad deals that the person voluntarily declines then what do either lenders owe to that person?

[@thijmstickman8349]

@@mrandrew9480 Its about a power imbalance. Sadly most of the time people don't have acces to many choices, a bank is expensive to set up so there aren't very many of them. The person who has the most power gets the favourable deal, aka a fuck ton of profit. They wouldn't need that profit to keep the buisness/bank afloat, but of course their going to take it, because they know the other person has the choices between starving or taking the loan, a loan they have to take. I don't opose markets or banks, but I think we need government protection of those with little power for things to run smoothly and avoid exploitation

[@aaa8181]

This is a great rough overview of the free market.

[@MrGeocidal]

In modern times workers are paid relatively well but that's not the only way capitalism can exploit workers (or consumers). Workers can also be subjected to things such as unpaid overtime. The analogy of the auction, in which employers compete to offer the highest wage can also be applied to the workers themselves, in which they compete to offer conditions most favourable to the employer. The analogy applies to both employers and employees but not equally. It will favour the workers during a labour shortage and the employers during a job shortage. Which one of those do you think we have now? Another argument against the auction analogy is, what is to stop companies entering into a gentleman's agreement for their mutual benefit. As for government regulation, sure governments have done some terrible things. Does that mean all government actions have been bad just because some of them were? Does that mean bad things can't happen in the absence of government control? Capitalists will argue against government influence until they think they can benefit from it. True it would be a fairer system if the government didn't favour one company over another but each of those companies want to be the one so favoured. I'm not against capitalism but I don't think its always good (though it often is) and I don't think governments are always bad (though they often are). The idea that the market will always regulate itself naturally in order to keep prices low and wages high is false because the market will reward any company crafty enough to break the self-regulation.

[@mikescudder4621]

Define "paid relatively well", a 3rd of the worlds population earns less than $1US a day. In capitalism, keeping people poor makes money.

[@20woody11]

Tell me, how in the fuck does capitalism ever "favor workers?" Anything that looks like progress in the realm of labor is nothing but a shallow concession to stave off armed revolution, taking one step forward after having taken 300,000 steps back. Capitalism is incentivized not only to disfavor labor, but to exploit and siphon as much value from every worker as possible, to attain the highest profit margin possible. In no situation in a neoliberal economic system do those in power EVER "favor labor." Gtfo.

[@hrtvolleyball01]

These examples have so many logical flaws. Looking at the payday lender: you’re saying someone needs help to meet their “basic” needs (and highlight food, housing, etc.) can just say “no, your interest rates are too high. I shall not eat or pay my rent this month and wait for you to lower your rates” Though he might get sick (or die over a long enough period) from hunger and/or lose his shelter, his refusal to enter the agreement will cause people to lend him emergency funds at a lower interest rate in his next life. …if this were true, why do all payday lenders offer the same predatory rates?-b/c today’s capitalism is based on silly ideas that the “law” of supply and demand, and the “invisible hand” will always work. These notions might be fine in a vacuum, but the world is far from that

[@Maltcider]

Simply because the current US government is an Oligarchy doesn't mean that politically organizing isn't a answer.

[@geeeee8268]

Polycube O yes it does. Absolutely. There is not a government that exists today or ever existed that is not some form of Oligarchy.

[@Maltcider]

Gee Eee That's true but political organizations are not necessarily governmental or hierarchical in any way.

[@Unprotected1232]

+Gee Eee depends on definition though...

[@EscaVermes]

Power corrupts. There are no saints.

[@supersonicdickhead374]

+EscaVermes if power doesn't corrupt, it instills a false sense of infallibility making people reckless. Reckless people with the incentive to never admit a mistake and the power to make it possible. No consequences reinforces the sense of infallibility and so on. Maybe that's when the corruption sets in, morally anyway.

[@jimmykeke2986]

By definition, economic exploitation is defined as the difference between the marginal product of labour and the compensation recieved, that is, the market wage rate, so to give a mathematical representation, I can't use LaTex script here, so bear with me, When there exists d>0, where d = |MPL - w|, then it can be said there is economic exploitation. Perfect market assumptions cannot avoid this, as the MPL curve is situated above market supply, so under a market wage system, exploitation occurs at every point (even past equilibrium to some extent).

[@harunhernandez]

another issue is that most employers use tricks and their own systemic leveraging to manipulate their higher wages

[@DavidJGillCA]

Competition on price of goods or for labor does not function in the honest and direct manner suggested in the concepts discussed here. Collusion can occur without direct coordination, and this is the norm rather than the exception. Regulation is misrepresented here. Those who most aggressively promote free market capitalism also work hard to keep govt subsidies to business and other special benefits for business in place. That's hypocrisy and it's a fundamental dynamic of the Republican Party. If Govt regulation isn't the best way to protect workers from exploitation then what is? The power of the state is the only means we have to protect us from exploitation. The chief purpose of free trade and free market ideology is to reduce the leverage and power of nation states. Why does LEARN LIBERTY not recognize the real consequences of what they advocate?

[@ebbanjenkins5960]

David J Gill Thank God someone on here that has the common sense and understanding to put this up.I really wish more people would look whats happening to the impoverished throughout the world and very markedly increasing in the western world/and also read the reality of conditions in the 19th century in England for instance....6 year olds working in cotton mills for starvation wages losing life and limb in the process,and these weren't exceptional ....such conditions were only changed because of a few influential/wealthy individuals who did actually have human consciences and hundreds of thousands of men and women forming trade unions and labour movements.Some of the justifications for mass poverty and exploitation are very ugly aspects of human nature rearing their head which are basically "Nazi light"....delusional exercises in personal vanity to elevate levels of self importance and excuse them from any feelings of compassion for their fellow man.

[@Unprotected1232]

This hypocrisy you speak of doesn't necessarily apply to him(though I don't know whether he is a republican.) but then who is going to enforce for instance property rights and all the other necessities for the free market. A state or an equivalent authority. After all any market is dependent upon rules to function. If only more people knew the contradictory nature of freedom and how it ends in conflict...

[@ebbanjenkins5960]

I AGREE 100%....it makes me laugh when people complain that the "free market" is overly constricted by government and the "State" limits them unfairly...on a point by point basis this can be very true for certain companies etc but fundamentally the market of any sort could not function without a legal system and its enforcement (at very least) to maintain it...a period of unprotected markets and weak statehood has been experienced throughout history,the Vikings did really well lol The British state built their entire navy to protect private companies

[@DerryMaine86]

“Oligarchy” must not be in his vocabulary. A few exploiters can easily keep wages down.

[@caiobarros7946]

Not only they can, but history tells us that has happened before wage laws and horking hour laws and so on.

[@immanuelt613]

@@caiobarros7946 obviously these "few exploiters" means low/no competition which is bad for the workers and he explains this, if the Capitalists increase, the workers will benefit

[@FilipeBrasAlmeida]

I think in an auction per se, it happens all the time. With stamps for example. Of course this doesn't apply to the economic hourly value of a human resource. As its cost gets closer to the value of its output, two things tend to happen. 1. The investment becomes less appealing vs alternatives, and 2. The price of the final product(s) goes up. The best that can be expected is, to close the gap within a reasonable margin and preventing abuses in unbalanced job sectors.

[@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts]

Very much so, though there is more to consider. For instance, pay day lenders often hide higher intrest rates in technically legal contracts. It is for reasons like this that state action is vital ensure the discharge of obligations.

[@immanuelt613]

If payday lenders are tricky with their contracts Why don't the people just stop lending from them?

[@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts]

@@immanuelt613 If you are trapped in a legal but exploitative contract, it's already too late. People do stop taking loans from them but they can rebrand and yeet themselves elsewhere, it's called Phoenixing.

[@immanuelt613]

@@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts if it's still under the same basic principles of lending desperate people at incredibly high rates What kind of rebranding is going to blind people from seeing that fact?

[@jorgeibanez9128]

Wow! This dude lives in another planet!

[@deaconlastname6406]

Nice rebuttal

[@jorgeibanez9128]

@@deaconlastname6406 i don't argue with imbeciles.

[@jorgeibanez9128]

@@deaconlastname6406 i don't argue with imbeciles.

[@immanuelt613]

@@jorgeibanez9128 nah actually the only thing that's showing is that you don't argue with facts

[@sergiorgio2000]

For capitalism workers does not exist as persons, I mean as a existential entity but as part of the production process . Being aimed at profit tends to minimize the cost of item. The value of a worker is not whether there is an actual value of the employee on the basis of what they can produce, the cost of labor as the cost of the goods is what the market fixed, there is'nt the merchandise itself with its value a priori. In a free market, competitive, capitalistic, based on competition between workers (every liberal economist sees calamity as a society without a good stock of unemployed people willing to sacrifice in order to work) technological innovation, the ability to tap into (foreign countries etc..) to cheap labor, Workers will ever exploited. If some entrepreneur has a tender heart, or do it think that the worker could also pay more than others for the work he does, he changes his mind at once, "Better pay less, I would have a surplus to reinvest"

[@theboxer5]

360p? Why not HD 720p?

[@shibainusojiro5832]

Because the content of this video is similarly low res. :P

[@JoseCarlosCalixto]

Tell me why there are so many unemployed people in the capitalist regimes.

[@patrickvernon5368]

Yes it does. Ship jobs off, imports labor, and thier books are private to the workers

[@Hundredazers0123]

Corporations use their affluence to sway politics through campaign contributions and the like.

[@deistrix3239]

@Liberty AboveAllElse Exactly, but legislators have a high incentive to accept lobbyist deals because of the large check. We have to somehow vote in policies that nullify this incentive, whether it be restrictions on lobbyism (let the free market take its course, right?), or hold these legislators accountable.

[@charger1369]

That is a problem with Crony Capitalism, not free market capitalism. Crony capitalism is when businesses get so big that they have the resources to fund politicians in return for favors or special treatment, or in the case of reckless business practices and bankruptcy, bailouts.

[@2awesome292]

payday loans can charge so much interest because they can get around the usury laws to be able to do it. If a private person were to loan at even 1/10th the interest at 40%, they could get fined, go to jail, etc

[@alstanwood2721]

when discussing the case for companies competing over employees, we need to look also at the number of people in a certain field, when there are too many people, and not enough jobs, as we are seeing today, prices go down, we see supply and demand, and no, we also don't need big gov't to fix this. we need real genuine businesses, in business to do a service for the community and to do that business, not just generate dollars. If CEOs and major corporations start having common decency, and remember that their big businesses are more than important to building and strengthening the middle class, also known as, the foundation of the united states, than they will maybe give up a private jet and a house or two to give their employees a little more, and no walmart, i'm not talking about holding a food drive for them.

[@thehrchannel8983]

Many confused crony capitalism with real capitalism. I'm guilty of that.

[@gund2281]

The media and politicians don't help. WHy? Because they have the most to LOSE by a TRUE capitalist system. Politicians lose their power if they don't control where our money goes. And the wealthy who buy politicians can't BUY politicians if those politicians have no power to benefit said wealthy.

[@Tespri]

Cronyism is simply socialism mixed with capitalism.

[@Tespri]

DeathToTheDictators Nope, socialism is when means of business and producion is on hands of the state. Any policy where government interfere with business. Is socialistic policy. GEt your facts straight.

[@MrWiibetrollin]

TheHRchannel There is no difference. Stop kidding yourself mate.

[@MrWiibetrollin]

Socialism mixed with Capitalism is gibberish. There can be only one or the other

[@dlbattle100]

I can always predict what these guys are going to say; just figure out what the correct answer, and predict the opposite.

[@shraka]

Hear, hear.

[@marcusporciuscatotheyounge5795]

In competitve labor markets no one is exploited. If it is a company town with one of just a few businesses labor is exploited. That is when a strong Union is needed. If the union is strong and firms many and therefore weak, the firm is exploited. If the gov't gets involved usually everyone is exploited because the politics will rule what the gov't does.

[@udaipratap3007]

this theory is valid only for the countries with less population where the labors are not available...where as in third world countries and countries like india this theory fails as the hire and fire is the rule...and the labors dont have power to negotiate as there will always be someone to do work for lesser money.. so it becomes easy to exploit them and take advantage of vulnerability...

[@ebbanjenkins5960]

udai pratap too right mate...this video is a nonsense based on ideology not reality

[@HomeSkillenSLICE]

Hard to believe a 15 second sentence beat the professors wording of the subject lol

[@tankumaat]

+udai pratap Oh the hypocrisy. :) And you are . . . economic professor? ;) Another yell out, I FEEL therefore I know. :D

[@udaipratap3007]

No... I'm from law...

[@shrijitasgable]

He has a weird definition for ‘voluntary’ here.

[@immanuelt613]

Voluntary = without force It's not that hard

[@Anarchidi]

@@immanuelt613 You have starvation and eviction working as a gun to the back of the head of the person wanting to be lended money. So in actuality, it is not all that voluntary of a choice if it is the only way to get quick cash flow. (There probably are always better alternatives than going to a loan shark for getting money, but lets say that in this case all research showed that this was the best deal the market offered). The same can't be said for the side of the lender, as he has capital to dish out. So that means that he isn't facing the threat of starvation at the time of exchange. In this scenario you easily see that there is an imbalance of power and level of threat to ones livelihood between the 2 parties. Such an imbalance of bargaining power is caused by either a lack of competion between lenders (due to a very small amount of people having the fiduciary capabilities for lending money out, which is a sign of societal inequality) or this raw deal is the making of collusion between competitors. Also, about the other part of the video, IF THE MARKET PAID THE WORKERS THE AMOUNT THEY WERE WORTH, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO SURPLUS PROFIT AND NO NEW CAPITAL WOULD BE PRODUCED!!!! (As the labor of the workers is what causes the multiplication of the initial capital of the owner). The money companies withhold are much more than what the companies material costs are, and what goes invested back into the enterprise. The owners keep for themselves a significant chunk of the pie (which is much more money, than the value created bt their personal managerial input/labor.

[@immanuelt613]

@@Anarchidi starvation and eviction are not sentient agents and as such they cannot act, therefore they cannot exert force and they cannot "hold a gun to your head"

[@immanuelt613]

@@Anarchidi then if the imbalance is created by lack of competition among lenders Isn't the solution to figure out how to increase competition?

[@immanuelt613]

@@Anarchidi I don't think you watched the video. Workers are not paid exactly how much value to offer to the company. Workers are paid close to the value they offer to the company Like the example he said about bidding for a $1. You would never bid $1 to purchase $1, you would only bid higher than what the competitors are offering but lower than the actual dollar. If there is high competition among bidders naturally the $1 would end up being sold at a point very close to it's actual worth as people would only bid up until the point that it isn't profitable.

[@stormweaver82]

What he forgot to mention is that a monopoly will break the fairness of capitalism.

[@mpogias13]

That's why the vast majority of capitalists are pro-"perfect competition" markets. In my country, Greece, all monopolies were created by government intervention in the economy, and almost all of them are inefficient and the government has to keep subsidizing them, forcing the people to pay for these monopolies through our taxes.

[@shraka]

mpogias13 While in America, monopolies are created without government intervention. What's your point?

[@mpogias13]

If by America you mean the USA (America is a continent) then can you name some? I'd really like to know. The vast majority of monopolies all around the world are created either by government intervention or due to scarcity of resources restricting other firms to compete.

[@shraka]

mpogias13 Microsoft. The oil companies have formed a coalition, and are essentially a monopoly despite being multiple companies - because they don't compete with each other.

[@mpogias13]

First of all oil companies cooperating in theory isn't a monopoly. It's called a collusive oligopoly and there are some differences. Once again I already stated above that this isn't a flaw of capitalist system; it's because of resource scarcity making it unable for new firms to enter the market. It's a very special case, in which government has to intervene, not by getting directly involved, but rather by setting the "rules of the game", that is, making the legal framework in a way so as to make collusive oligopolies/cartels collapse. Now, it's ridiculous to say that Microsoft has no competitors, simply because its a corporation that is involved in a number of markets. Some of its well known competitors are Apple, Oracle and Google. How is it a Monopoly? Having a large market share because you offer better prices and yet satisfying quality products to your customers doesn't make you a monopoly.

[@industrialcentre]

Many good points but when corrupt governments and corporations have systematically destroyed the manufacturing base in many countries by moving off shore there are now many more people seeking work than there are jobs available. This creates a situation where workers will accept almost any horrible job at minimum wage just to survive, the guy at the pay day lender may know full well that he is going to go under in the end but still voluntarily takes out the loan just to hold off the crash a little longer.

[@EdgemanLL2]

"You can't live on it" Nor are you intended to. Not all jobs produce the value to deserve 60k a year. If you want a liveable wage, do work that produces that value sufficient to deserve it.

[@EdgemanLL2]

@gespilk *and when the eye is infected by greed* People demand too much pay for the work the produce. I know. I get it. The last turd I flushed knows more about economics than you.

[@EdgemanLL2]

@gespilk Free advice: Marxist Bullshit failed hard enough in Marx's day. You recycling it wont make it any less Bullshit.

[@jpbsilveira]

Terms like "competitive market" and "everyone has the option to say no to any price" is quite not related to reality. If it worked that way, I'd also defend capitalism as the best economic system, but humans will exploit each other no matter how the economic system works. If possible, public opinion should limit each other's interests. If that doesn't happen (like currently and almost always), all you make are theoretical assumptions, in which your point of view ignore a lot of facts to remain correct.

[@armada70]

Capitalism is just human nature at it's finest

[@mylowragg5261]

This isn't a critique of Marxist theory of exploitation, if anything, it's a critique of the Utopian Socialist theory of exploitation which Marx outright rejected; and this is a very watered down, primitive critique at that. Plus, it would be of value to look at the commodification of labor power and workers themselves, the estrangement of labor which leads to fetishism and reification, which in a social sense exploits the species being of each individual. The logic of capitalism extends beyond the work place, it permeates the institutions, personal and social relationships, disciplines and molds the body and mind and the culture at large. People are not merely exploited in the workplace, the culture is dominated by a looming logic predicated on and apologetic to exploitation and domination.

[@mylowragg5261]

***** I don't disagree. I might add, I'm an anarchist and by no means a Marxist but because I'm an anarchist, I'm also anti-capitalist. But, I'm also very well acquainted with Marxist thought; both his economics and his more anthropological/social/philosophical work. Civilized society has its own inherent mechanisms of oppresson and expressions of disciplinary and biopower which I've already mentioned. I'd argue, in order to have some semblance of what I think you mean when you say 'civilized', disciplinarity, the suppression of libidinal flow, and a grip on the thinking mind is imperative. Power is diffuse, through the hands of pig police and politicians, yes, but also in social workers, criminologists, Experts, Education, the psychiatric apparatuses...it's everywhere. There's no destroying domination without destroying hierarchy; without destroying the whole of what you call civilized and tame.

[@mylowragg5261]

That's pretty absurd. Is that to say capitalism is the only source of freedom or Truth? Might as well call it a religion because it's clear the almighty commodity form is revered. When capitalists speak of anarchism, it's my impression that they are speaking of anarchist markets; not full social anarchism. Capitalism is inherently hierarchical and the logic of capitalism is necessarily oppressive because it creates an antagonism between the boss and the worker, the land owner and the landless, the have and the have not, those who own the means of production and those who have to sell their own labor, etc. Those are power relations and contrary to anarchist principle. Plus, these power relations require an armed police force to perpetuate and allow those conditions to run smoothly. The police force as we know it today emerged and came into being in lockstep with industrial capitalism because it became a necessity. That's not even to mention the biopolitical implications of capitalism. For me, anarchism means all hierarchy dissolved, all domination destroyed, all power structures leveled; that means no government or state or nation, yes, but that also means in our personal interactions as well, it's an entire logic. And by 'primitive force' are you referring to something like the market's hidden hand? In capitalist culture, as subjectivities, workers are made and they are made through the institutional apparatuses; from the family and church to the school, the school to the university, perhaps a stop at the prison institution or the psychiatric asylum if you're not assimilating, and then from the university into the office or the factory or where ever you happen to land. These institutions, of course, are hierarchical and capitalism couldn't exist without them. Waking up at 5am to work a long day in order to merely eat and have shelter....only to repeat it day after day after day, that takes breaking. That takes 12 grades of schooling to create docile bodies who can sit still for hours on end and stand in lines, and then after the body has been disciplined, the university goes to work on the mind.

[@fafura13]

Is this what you're saying? You come to free country, where people live freely and say to them: no more freedom, your fruits of labour will be taken from you and redistributed accordingly (by commisar). Explain where is freedom in anarcho commune. And you need to learn history, that all attempts to set up communism failed tragically, plus commune once obtain cannot work ggle: " So, Is That My Corn or Yours?"

[@fafura13]

www.economicfreedom.org/2011/11/23/so-is-that-my-corn-or-yours/

[@mylowragg5261]

No, that's not even close. Not in the slightest. One doesn't come to a free country; a few hundred years ago - people came with guns and violently stole it from people. Then, the labor you do under capitalism isn't your own, the fruits of your labor, produced as exchange value, goes to someone else leaving the worker forever estranged from their work. Soviet Communism or Maoist or any authoritarian strain of communism is, at best, state capitalism with an authoritarian manipulation of the market. Anarcho-communism dissolves the commodity form and the division of labor. I'm getting the impression you don't have enough understanding on the matter for me to even get into Marxist or Anarchist theories of Communism. And I also don't have the energy to preach a seminar course. We will never stand in solidarity together and I'm not here to convince anyone. We are enemies. You must realize, communism was the condition before the oppressing reach of civilization; hunter and gather society and even early agrarian society was both communist and anarchist and it worked. And I see anarchist communism in practice in my daily life among my friends and lovers. I'd also note if I were you, Communism isn't the necessary antithesis of Capitalism, I want the complete destruction of capitalist relation, of course, but that's not to say I want full communism in its place; there are plenty of different ideas about that.

[@hangukhiphop]

When your life is on the line because you can't get what you need to survive, your actions aren't very voluntary. People struggling to find a job can't just weigh all of their options and decide which companies are paying them what they're worth. There aren't even enough jobs out there for everybody to begin with.

[@ScottyNapaa]

the alternative being taking away the desperate worker's last remaining options and disincentivising and punishing employers

[@nikolaybaydanov1984]

The argument that, due to competition, employers have to pay employees close to what they earn only works if you think competition is the only factor. Workers don't know how much profit a company has nor do they have any say in how it's used.In fact, discussing salaries has become a social taboo over the years and I personally cannot think who benefits from that aside from owners. If a company experiences success and it's goal is to profit, the next logical step is to use the money it has gained to continue expanding. This can lead to creating new jobs but with the same salary. There is no incentive to give more money to people who already work for said company. Theoretically, a rival company can offer better conditions in this case and in order to answer both parties will increase wages. In reality, since jobs are not given to the people by governments, capitalists prefer to take their work abroad and employ even cheaper labour. This also means, that few jobs exist in the country of origin, and people feel less secure. This means that neither company really needs to offer higher wages since people are glad to even have a job. But even if one of the companies decides to increase the wages of it's workers, that means it is spending less for expansion and has a higher likelyhood to fail. 95% Of Income gains in America since 2009 went to the top 1%.Big companies are getting bigger and taking the place of smaller ones who disappear. This makes it harder and harder for the regular person to work for himself because he simply can't compete. This makes the promise of freedom and opportunity seem more and more like an illusion. People do not have tens of thousand to open businesses( even if we say that would be enough)and since we need to work to survive, most just accept what is available. And the availability is getting less and less. If you go to Benny and ask to borrow 100$ and he says you have to return 400$ you will just go to Jim who will only ask for 150$. But what if there is no Jim? You would have to borrow money from Benny and return what he wants since it's the law. And btw, since i mentioned the law, why are so many people afraid of the government? The state isn't just evil, we are talking about other people after all. They have their own interests. Why don't we ask why, often times, those interests are not in line with the interest of the people? And could it be because capitalism is a system that gives neither power nor choice to the people but to a select few?

[@immanuelt613]

No. Outsourcing doesn't mean fewer jobs will exist in the country of origin, it simply means the nature of jobs in the country of origin will change. If companies can afford to make their products cheaper elsewhere, this means they can afford to sell at a cheaper price in the country of origin if competition is stiff

[@raketny_hvost]

" capitalism actually tends to protect workers' interests." funniest joke i've ever heard

[@LearnLiberty]

Capitalism is trying to create a free environment where each person has rights.

[@raketny_hvost]

@@LearnLiberty these fairy tales about freedom end when we remember that workers on a west of 20th century got no rights long time even after socialistic revolution raised. Dafuq i have to remind Massachusetts 1912, Mountain Blair 1921, Detroit 1932. Also funny lovers of freedom supported segregation till end of XXth century and still have reservations for native americans. It's very nice when some person have freedom to buy and sell your rights

[@LearnLiberty]

After that period, counties and people developed way more. Also, many arguments are presented in the video regarding why capitalism is the best option for everyone.

[@801Hellfire]

Slavery, union busting, child labor, wage theft, gig work, these are free environments where everyone has rights, huh? Did the free market end slavery and child labor? No, state invention did. Learn history and basic economics plz thanks.

[@801Hellfire]

“Capitalism is the best option for everyone - says no study or economic report ever” 🤣

[@casssaph2287]

Ok so your argument seems to come as "Just choose a different dictator!". We'd like to do this, but we see the way of doing this as through unions and democratic control of the workplace. The way you see it though is completely unrealistic, however. You posit that there are competing market forces, that two different capitalists may compete to hire 1 worker. This is not realistic in a small town, where there is only 1 big business having control over a resource, like food, or maybe electricity. There will be no competing market forces in this scenario, and to say that the value will tend towards its true value is complete garbage. Furthermore, even in a situation where we have capitalists competing to get the work of 1 laborer, for those capitalists to be paid, they themselves must take labor value from that laborer to exist. A lord must always steal from the peasants to live and be existent, otherwise, he would not be a lord. (A boss must always steal part of a laborer's wages, otherwise he would not be a boss, and he would be just another laborer)

[@tommyrosati9326]

Cass Saph the owner takes some of the labor because he holds the risk, the workers made a voluntary decision to get a guaranteed salary, and not take risk.

[@apexxx-csgo1421]

Not just Competetion but cost of living, supply and demand of labour and productivity determines the wages

[@bobbykl6]

Reserve army of labour? What he said would only be true if there were more businesses than workers. Workers obviously outnumber businesses so it is the workers who are competing for jobs. Employers see this competition and are able to pay lower wages because every worker knows, a low wage is better than no wage (no job).