The Robber Barons and the Progressive Era | Tom Woods

Archived from the live broadcast, this Mises University lecture was presented at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on 24 July 2014.

[@bradleydavis4376]

Tom Woods changed my life... It is amazing how quickly he converted me into a full-fledged libertarian; literally took a week.

[@soapbxprod]

Ain't he the best dude that ever breathed? I love this guy so much... I almost went to the same HS in NYC as Murray Rothbard, Birch Wathen- but my parents sent me to Ethical Culture Fieldston instead... where Oppenheimer went. Studied physics in the same lab... while many of my lifelong friends were being taught quasi-Marxist Econ by yet another "useful idiot"... even in the most elite prep school in the US, the Socialists had control...

[@bradleydavis4376]

It is incredible to learn how bamboozled I was in high school.... What I love about Woods, in addition to his brilliance, you can tell he's a great guy.

[@soapbxprod]

Bradley Davis Totally! And he loves his wife and kids, and he's always just so engaging... no wonder Murray Rothbard and he were such good friends. I was living near Columbia U. on 106th and Broadway when he was there in the early 90s... if I'd only known then what I know now- I would have done anything to have met him- I was working on a program for PBS Frontline that probably would have interested him... about the FDA's and American Red Cross' complicity in obstructing efforts to prevent HIV contamination of the national blood supply... AIDS BLOOD AND POLITICS

[@Mechanized0]

Bradley Davis "It is incredible to learn how bamboozled I was in high school...." All of us were. The key however is when an individual is willing to open his eyes to reality and observe the cultural matrix for what it really is. Dr. Woods has a talent for providing the lens which allows others to see past the the politico-economic, historical, and cultural mythology that the Left and statists in general have created.

[@Jekyll_Island_Creatures]

It's like being unplugged from the Matrix.

[@ThingWhatKicks]

This is the Tom Woods who converted me to libertarianism. I've listened to countless hours of his lectures...

[@andrek.1399]

Still doing it in 2018. 😎👍🍺

[@EarthSurferUSA]

I saw this first, just now, almost 2019. My intuition about business for my adult life has always been this, plus I was taught by what seems now as rogue teachers that I was free to grow up to be whatever I wanted to be. I but I did not know there was so much history of people before me who knew the same, and won. This is the best vid I have ever listened to when working in my garage, enjoying what is left of our capitalism. (small business owner, known and respected world wide, with no subsidies). As long as there are people like us around, there is hope for all.

[@daleholmgren6078]

When I listen to Tom Woods, I feel like I'm listening to an intellectual giant in his prime.

[@SovereignStatesman]

Just one question: WHO HOLDS FINAL AUTHORITY IN THE USA, BY LAW? And the answer is: 1) each state is a separate nation, 2) supremely ruled by its respective ELECTORATE.

[@thomasgarrett1828]

Tom Woods is right. I was homeschooled and I do not remember being told that I should not like Vanderbilt or Carnegie.

[@SovereignStatesman]

Well you SHOULD have been, they were Crony Capitalists up the wazoo.

[@ourowndevices5907]

Libertarians should hate the robber barons more than anyone. Nobody has done more damage to free markets.

[@SovereignStatesman]

@@ourowndevices5907 That's INEVITABLE when people don't consent to their government. Libertarians miss the forest for the trees on that.

[@Davidhussey8917]

Tom Woods is an intellectual giant.

[@Max-nc4zn]

I got more than my opportunity cost's worth.

[@blockboygames5956]

This comment deserves a lot more likes. :)

[@Bluuplanet]

At about 3:25, Tom says we're told, "...public servants intervened...now we have the level playing field of today." Actually, we're told that we have a constant revolutionary battle against capitalism toward achieving a level playing field.

[@PittsburghHODLr]

Tom Woods is a great man.

[@newthirx4311]

Last month I spent my last economics class in high school arguing with my teacher using these exact books and references. I've been waiting for than moment for a whole year, looking up things and debating my socialist brother. It was so cathartic.

[@cvr527]

The only real monopoly is government.

[@steveoconnor6045]

Clay Ruppenthal Oh really? Do tell me how many corporations compete in the United States in the large body aircraft industry? In the world? Why? Oh, don't tell me - because government decided to make the advancing technology so incredibly expensive that anyone like Clay Ruppenthal can start up his own 787 factory in his garage and not kill the flying public10 times a day, 7 days a week. So how often do you worship your free Market God? And when will you buy your first economics text? Demise of Competition Critics argue that capitalistic ideology is permissive of, and even conducive to, the demise of its main controlling mechanism - competition. The alleged weakening of competition as a control mechanism comes from two basic sources. Though desirable from the social point of view, competition is most irksome to the producer subject to its rigors. It is allegedly inherent in the free, individualistic environment of the capitalistic system that profit-seeking entrepreneurs will attempt to break free of the restraining force of competition in trying to better their position. Combination, conspiracy, and cut-throat competition are all means to the end of reducing competition and escaping its regulatory powers. As Adam Smith put the matter more than two centuries ago: “People of the same trade seldom meet together but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some diversion to raise prices.” Some economists believe that the very technological advance which the price system fosters has contributed to the decline of competition. Modern technology typically requires (a) the use of very large quantities of real capital (b) large markets (c) a complex, centralized, and closely integrated management, and (d) large and reliable sources of raw materials Such an operation implies the need for producers who are large-scale not only in the absolute sense but also in relation to the size of the market. In other words, the achievement of maximum productive efficiency through the employment of the best available technology often requires the existence of a small number of relatively large firms rather than a large number of relatively small ones. To the degree that competition declines, the price system will be weakened as a mechanism for efficiently allocating resources. Producers and resource suppliers will be less subject to the will of consumers; the sovereignty of producers and resource suppliers will then challenge and weaken the sovereignty of consumers. The “invisible hand” identity of private and social interests will begin to lose grip. Furthermore, the protection from coercion which the market system provides is predicated upon the widespread dispersion of economic power. The concentration of economic power which accompanies the decline of competition permits the possessors of that power to engage incoercive acts. Campbell R. McConnell Professor of Economics, University of Nebraska - LincolnEconomics, Principles, Problems, and Policies; Tenth EditionMcGraw-Hill, 1987, 1984, 1981, 1978, 1975, 1972, 1969, 1966, 1963p. 80-81

[@cvr527]

Steve Oconnor 20 years ago their were three. Lockheed, McDonald Douglas and Boeing. But government regulations, interference in the market place, bloated infrastructure and other issues caused them either to merge or get out of the commercial aerospace industry. Regardless, every single move was sanctioned by or dictated by the federal government. You can dispose of your discredited cut and paste non-sense from McConnell, as I have already completely discredited it. If McConnell isnt competent enough to understand one paragraph from an enormously influential book, and misread that same paragraph to such a degree that he completely misstated it, then he isnt competent enough to be quoted on any subject.

[@steveoconnor6045]

Clay Ruppenthal You are an idiot which is why McConnell was an economics professor and author of a college level economics text that went through 10 editions and you are an ignorant buffoon trolling youtube postings and feeding your inferiority complex with imaginary refutations that only have credibility in your own fertile imagination. As for your comic book history of the U.S. large body aircraft industry -: "Commercial aircraft has been a crown jewel of U.S. manufacturing and export trade. Yet, consider the fate of the companies that were once America’s pride. Not long ago, McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed helped America dominate a world market in which no European nation could compete with the United States. Europe’s answer: a consortium of the aircraft companies of England, Spain, Germany, and France called Airbus Industrie. In its first quarter century this socialist cartel sold 770 planes to 102 airlines but did not make a penny of profit. A U.S. company would have been forced into bankruptcy, but not Airbus. Airbus was backed by the treasuries of European governments, which had a strategic goal unrelated to next year’s profits. Europe was determined to capture a huge slice of the American’s world market, no matter what the initial cost. "If Airbus has to give away planes," warned an executive, "we will do it!" When Europeans complained of Airbus’s subsidies, $26 billion by 1990, German aerospace coordinator Erich Riedl replied, "We don’t care about criticism from small-minded pencil-pushers." Boasted Richard Evans of British Aerospace,"Airbus is going to attack the Americans, including Boeing, until they bleed and scream." That is the authentic voice of economic nationalism, a voice an earlier America would have instantly recognized - and known how to deal with. The Airbus cartel gradually began to squeeze its U.S. rivals to death. Lockheed was the first to give up the ghost. Under an American defense umbrella, our European allies were killing off the very companies that had built the planes that kept Europe free; and American statesmen stood by and watched, like buffalo grazing contentedly on the grass as one after another of their number was cut down. In late 1996 once-mighty McDonnell Douglas - whose F-15s had swept the skies over Iraq in a war to protect Europe’s oil - capitulated, canceling plans to build a 300- to 500-seat passenger jet. The lucrative field of jumbo jets was left exclusively to Boeing and Airbus. McDonnell Douglas had not been defeated in fair competition. It lost because the U.S. government would not tell Europe that the United States would not tolerate a continental cartel running our aircraft companies into the ground…. In a final abject surrender, when McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing, the European Union threatened sanctions unless Boeing gave up its exclusive supply contracts with three U.S. airlines. As our government stood by, Boeing capitulated the contracts." Pat Buchanan "The Great Betrayal" pp. 46-48

[@cvr527]

Steve Oconnor Lmao I guess that is why I am smart enough to show that McConnell is incompetent. As for your Pat Buchanan cut and paste, it only confirms what I said about the US commercial aircraft industry. I guess you are bot very good at reading. You are a typical leftist projector. not smart enough to think on your own so all you can do is regurgitate propaganda. The problem is you are not smart enough to understand what you cutting and pasting. Therefore all you can do is through more cut and pastes.

[@steveoconnor6045]

Clay Ruppenthal In your own delusional mind, you are always right - which is a trademark of the right wing extremist. The inability to admit error and to project your "I'm always right" attitude with the arrogance of a spoiled brat is your true character, which is all too typical of the far right wing dogmatist. Humility and a sincere pursuit of the truth where ever it might lead, are not in the far right wing zealot's character. I won't insult moderate right wing people by lumping them in with self-serving morons like yourself. My father was a moderate Republican and raised me the same way. As I searched for the truth behind economic crisis I soon found the vast majority of literature pointed the finger at the defects of the "Free Market". Nut-jobs like yourself are so far off the radar screen that you can't even begin to accept criticism of your God. Unlike you, Mr. McConnell has a Phd in economics and unlike you, Mr. McConnell wrote an economic textbook that was accepted by his peers and published by a world renown textbook publisher for more than 25 years. Also, he was not alone in quoting Adam Smith "out of context" (which is your excuse to derail the subject onto a petty non-topic): books.google.com/books?id=K-jKAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA361&lpg=PA361&dq=adam+smith+%E2%80%9CPeople+of+the+same+trade+seldom+meet+together+but+the+conversation+ends+in+a+conspiracy+against+the+public,+or+in+some+diversion+to+raise+prices.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=OXhKkvhoTv&sig=kugxQkraCOIUsCZkHG41sw6d1vM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XEhJVbGWFILlsAW1zIC4BA&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=adam%20smith%20%E2%80%9CPeople%20of%20the%20same%20trade%20seldom%20meet%20together%20but%20the%20conversation%20ends%20in%20a%20conspiracy%20against%20the%20public%2C%20or%20in%20some%20diversion%20to%20raise%20prices.%E2%80%9D&f=false

[@lancesteinke3732]

I love this! It's hilarious; and it also makes an incredible argument against the the social norm.

[@macsnafu]

That's an important variation on regulatory capture. Not that businesses necessarily want government regulation, but rather, if it can't be avoided, then they go ahead and engage in regulatory capture. It almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that light.

[@EnFuego79]

True, but you have to understand that "regulatory capture" itself is a term of propaganda of the Fabian socialists to obscure the fact that gov't has the "monopoly on violence" and is in full control of whom they auction off the threat of gov't violence to. In other words, there is nothing being "captured", rather it is being auctioned off by those who have the power so they may expand that power and enrich themselves in the process. This is also the logical and philosophical basis for the argument that the notion of a "public sector" is a collective delusion by virtue of the fact that it is a "fallacy of false concretion", whereby the gov't has no means in and of itself to create anything nor provide any service and must either conscript private citizens to do the work, or coerce the citizenry to provide capital for the gov't to create bureaucracies which fail inevitably due to the "socialist calculation problem" that occurs when pricing signals are removed from economic calculation.

[@macsnafu]

@@EnFuego79 Sure. Too many anti-corporation people miss the point that politicians are willing participants in their "corruption" as they're busy selling their influence to corps and other special interests. These people fail to realize that giving government more power to control businesses is exactly the wrong and opposite thing to do to fix the problem of lobbying and corruption. And then they wonder why big government isn't fixing the problems of big business.

[@genli5603]

Do note that the Northern industrialist rammed through legislation to force railroads in the North to deliver their goods more cheaply at the expense of industries in the South. That was actually the Hepburn Act--it was targeted AGAINST southern industry. It nearly bankrupted the Northern railroads (and did bankrupt some), but the steel industries profited enormously. Much of the difference in industrial development of the North vs South can be explained by this difference of railroad rates and the deep lack of access to capital that the South had after the Civil War. So much of Southern production ended up being siphoned off into Northern goods that it was essentially a mercantilist colony of the North. Even the early highway system was designed in a very helpful way in the North and a completely bafflingly useless way in the South. The absurdity of the state-sponsored railroads in the first place created much of the foundation for the entire problem.

[@EnFuego79]

Which is why the "robber barrons" ceased to be capitalists the moment they allied with political mafiosos to use gov't violence as the means by which to secure monopolistic control, much to the benefit of the political class and the wet dream of the growing Fabian socialist movement at the time which spoke of "nationalism" is typical 1984 double-speak style meaning nationalization of industry - the point of fascism being of course the path to communism.

[@PhilosopherRex]

The State, IMO, created the conditions that facilitated the later demonization of some of these effective capitalists through the creation of limited liability laws - falsely insuring society against the potential damage that a corporation might cause. Limited liability also puts a pressure on investors to invest in a limited liability firm instead of their own business or local business that they can keep an eye on. I suspect this was not an unwanted State protection on the part of many of these businessmen however as it would have brought a lot more investment into their firms. As a student of Austrian econ myself, I find the lack of mention of this frustrating.

[@soapbxprod]

I think that Joe Salerno addresses this point in one of his lectures... maybe it was David Gordon or Roger Garrison?

[@Devin_Stromgren]

Hill owned a farm in my county in the furthest northwest corner of Minnesota. It's where he exiled his son after he got sick of him wasting his money partying it up in Minneapolis/St. Paul. The farm is still here.

[@tabletalk33]

Bravo, Tom Woods! Splendid!

[@soapbxprod]

Thomas E. Woods Jr. rules, baby... so do Robert Murphy, Robert Higgs, Tom DiLorenzo, Joe Salerno, Peter Schiff (and his totally courageous dad), Roger Garrison... and THE JUDGE! Mises Institute, babay... if I could, I'd go back to school and move to Auburn...

[@kenmills3401]

+soapbxprod Is Irwin Schiff the father of Peter Schiff?

[@soapbxprod]

+Ken Mills Indeed, sir. It's been a terrible week I'm sure for Peter the Great- no father could have been prouder of a son that I'm sure Irwin was... the apple did not fall far from the tree... www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/october/20/irwin-schiff-a-most-dangerous-man/

[@stacypierre2145]

Yes, he is and died recently...as a prisoner of the state.

[@soapbxprod]

+Stacy Pierre Yes... poor Irwin. He refused to knuckle under...

[@jayb-clay2724]

To be fair Rockefeller did say competition is a sin. Every biographer on him quoted him with saying that.

[@TrevorHamberger]

yeah but at that point in time people were awake enough to stop him from eliminating competition.

[@jayb-clay2724]

@@TrevorHamberger but they didn't pull it off people just thought they did when they broke him up but he was still the man. It was just a song and dance to make people feel good.

[@genli5603]

Oooooooh..... A good example: the war between Amazon and the book publishers. They are trying to get minimum price agreements to keep Amazon from discounting their ebooks so much that they are below the average costs to produce a book (a large amount of the costs are actually in editing and marketing--human work that isn't made cheaper by digitization) and Amazon is claiming that they are therefore price fixing and is fighting for the privilege of selling the books at a loss. The margins on book publishing are TERRIBLE which is why the publishers love the big bestsellers and use them to basically fund everything else that's published....which mostly loses money.

[@TrevorHamberger]

thats sad.

[@AV24274]

Is it weird that these are the types of videos i watch when im high on drugs

[@Liberty-rn4wy]

Here in Minneapolis you can see the Stone Arch Bridge, which was built by James Hill. It is a great stone bridge from 1888. People walk, jog, etc on it and cars can't go on it. It is one of the icons of our city so James Hill is still alive and well! Well, his legacy is.

[@JRJohnson1701]

At about 40:00 you talk about predatory pricing and pricing competition out What about lobbying Congress for labor, environmental, or other laws that instead of product price, raise the price of doing business to the point that competitors can't start? I seem to recall Pepsi and Coke did that some time back

[@homewall744]

Chain stores have an advantage in that customers prefer them; they have reasonable prices; they have known supplies; they have a brand to protect; they are consistent as you move around the country.

[@profoundwill43]

Hell on Wheels beautiful stated the incentives for inefficient rail lines in that series. Colm Meaney is an amazing actor. I dunno if there was a secret libertarian or economist in the writing of that show, but it's a point that really hits the nail on the head.

[@ghostrecon3214]

Fantastic!

[@TruthOverEverything]

Turd Flinging Monkey ***** This one is awesome, goes into: How the prices of everything was brought down How the price of individual services was brought to in some cases "free" How monopolies didn't exist (their output rose at an insane rate..175% vs GDP @ 24%), how "predatory pricing" is extremely hard to enact 51:50 why regulations ultimately fail 54:00 onward he goes into all the industries that most think apparently had a "monopoly" 57:00 he goes into regulation and why some top businessman/company owners appeared to be "for it"

[@TurdFlingingMonkey]

It's the same tactic you see with Feminists. They create all the problems, and then blame men for them. Now just replace the words Feminists with Progressives, and Men with Capitalists.

[@steveoconnor6045]

Free market worshippers hold their golden calf to be more pure than the Christ child. When it does do harm, it is they that must in every single case find government to blame. Their deity must always be as pure as the virgin Mary.

[@TurdFlingingMonkey]

Steve Oconnor not at all. The free market isn't supposed to be perfect or create a utopia, it is simply supposed to WORK, and not fail spectacularly like planned economies do. The free market will always have flaws because humans have flaws. Human nature is a bitch, but you have to respect and work around it.

[@steveoconnor6045]

Capitalism has shown to be spectacularly unstable. In its very short life span it has constantly had to be modified in order not to be completely over thrown by revolt until today there is no pure capitalist economy left in the world. All are mixtures of free market and socialism.

[@TurdFlingingMonkey]

Steve Oconnor that isn't a failure of capitalism but democracy. In a free market there are going to be those that can't compete or want to cheat, so the free market doesn't stay free very long.

[@wesfortney5294]

A note, there are currently significant amounts of predatory pricing schemes but all operate as political monopolies and are industry wide actions; Auto industry, insurance industry, healthcare industry, financial industry.....

[@rlkinnard]

Adam Smith pointed out that a lot of the CEOs are not under control of the real owners; that is known as the agency problem. You understand that Buffett is paid 100,000 dollars with no stock bonuses; Bezos was paid nearly 81,000 with no stock bonuses though Amazon paid for his security, Charlie Munger is paid 100,000 dollars (though Buffett's security is paid also.). There are a lot of people who wonder why people who provide little value should be paid so much more than Buffett or Bezos or Munger. I don't think that envy is the cause of my question.

[@danielwarton5343]

Two thoughts on Tom’s thoughts on predatory pricing. If the company that idea it drives the others out of business, they get to buy all their bankruptcy stock and further cement their monopoly. If the chain store operates on a loss leader and subsidises stores from their profitable ones, someone else coming along doesn’t need $3 million to compete as they don’t have the buying power of the large chain. The chain can buy eggs for say $1 a dozen because they have 50 stores and can leverage greater buying power. The independent store buys eggs at $1.50 per dozen and is already down 50% on their margin.

[@VincentWeisTheThird]

This leveraged buying power assumes the suppliers and buyers themselves are alright with having lower product sold, which is something addressed in the speech, and is also addressed in other works and studies. Walmart wasn't able to pull this shit in low pop density regions, and the moment it looked like they'd jack prices up they just left and the regional chains opened right back up.

[@Mister.Psychology]

Hi guys, I'm totally interested in the reading list. I do want to read the books and become more intelligent on this stuff that most people are not taught about in school. It's a damn shame we are so ignorant after years and years of schooling. But a book presented momentarily in a video is not the best way to make people be able to find it easily. There should be a list of books here in the KZbin video info section. I assume this is the best place to start. But who knows? tomwoods.com/goodbooks/

[@killyourtelllievision]

When Tom Woods talks....there is a lesson in every statement. Very astute scholar of our history and the approach of its conclusion if we don't get to the changing of the proverbial guard

[@soapbxprod]

Indeed! Viva Tom...

[@Doncious]

sounds like some of the Atlas Shrugged plot

[@SovereignStatesman]

Yes: cheap right-wing fiction. Woods is famous for debunking Lincoln and the "civil war" lobbied by Crony-Capitalists; but here he PRAISES the same oligarchs, while IGNORING the Crony Capitalist monopoly that they CREATED through Lincoln. And it's like WTF? How could you NOT have government-installed oligarchy, when that's what the war was all ABOUT?

[@umar-vp1cq]

he sounds different now on his podcast

[@justinw2107]

Gotta call Tom Woods... This just in! Bitches love me for my non-aggressive means and ends

[@Melki]

49:00 But this example itself shows that people do use selling below cost as a strategy to be a monopoly. Don't tell me that the market has a built in mechanism to protect low prices / high quality low prices. As soon as one play the game of selling below cost, they can't but to raise back the price later. Tell me what if the products were intangibles? like services, how would the market would balance that without regulatory interventions?

[@newthirx4311]

do you have a mental disability? The example itself tells how this backfired.

[@EarthSurferUSA]

I would like to find a book about as many American success stories of the USA, from rags to riches, with no lobbyists, during the industrial revolution. I think we need to know who those hero's are, especially if the products we still use today, (or a variation of them), might not exist if one man/woman had not thought of it. I want a book of Hero's who brought something of value into existence, that did not exist before. I want a book, like only a free society can tell, that shows the Hero's, no, the GODS of useful material goods! I am torn between the names, "HERO", and "GOD" in this context, to create in a free market things of value that did not exist before,--and the opportunity they provided others, possibly even hiring their future competition, (which we should embrace as good,---just be better). :) Does that book exist Mr. Woods?

[@icewater00]

Envy - especially mass envy - is a social signal that should not be dismissed.

[@friedrichhayek3683]

predatory pricing is real! thats why zero examples for it exist

[@genli5603]

How about how Bell didn't let you hook your own phone up to their network? You had to rent theirs (at high rates) and then pay them for installation, too. It's basically the same fight at Right of Repair right now.

[@immaculatesquid]

Gen Li I'm absolutely positive that government had something to do with that in some way.

[@primoridalspatula663]

@@genli5603 The fallacy with your argument is that Canada doesn't exist. Therefore, any networks companies within Canada don't exist either and, consequently, can't be used as an example.

[@ProFilmsUSA]

List of all the recommended reading in the video please?

[@StubbsMillingCo.]

Monopolies in energy like Dominion Energy here in South Carolina…. Those are the kind I do not agree with. They own or have board members on every co op in the state.

[@imonlyamanandiwilldiesomed4406]

[@SovereignStatesman]

Tom makes a false distinction between political entrepreneurs and MARKET entrepreneurs; while ignoring that _EVERYONE_ was a political entrepreneur, post-Lincoln. So Vanderbuilt just UNDERSOLD monopolies that wouldn't exist in the FIRST place in a free market, where prices are set where Marginal Costs equal Marginal REVENUE. Meanwhile monopolies can charge TWICE that amount. Just IGNORE that elephant, Tom.. I thought you were an economist?

[@JRJohnson1701]

At 8:50-9:15, you talk about a CEO getting his millions reducing social welfare. The issue with CEOs getting millions is that they often get more and more millions each year, while people like me get no raise whatsoever, the company claiming that there's no money to give us raises. This is how Oracle works every year. When that happens, those CEOs create a lot of resentment and look incredibly out of touch. After a few tens of millions of dollars, you don't really notice a few extra because of the interest you earn. If instead of a $20 million bonus or salary, the CEO instead gave out raises or bonuses to the people who have even gotten cost of living increases in five or more years, they would build more goodwill and reduce the number of socialists and communists that their own actions created.

[@coindorni]

The issue with this reasoning is that company profits don't determine salaries. Salaries are determined by marginal productivity. If the salaries in general haven't increased as much as total profits have, it's most likely that those new millions coming in every year are a result of increasing the volume of the company rather than increase in productivity, which would result in an increase of salaries.

[@bradfordlangston836]

Employees don't get to reap the rewards of an investment they didn't make. They're just getting paid for the market value of their labor, which is enhanced by capital that the owners of the company either developed or bought themselves. If the company and owners are succeeding that means that they've invested in the production of something that is demanded by the market at a price deemed suitable by the market, enhancing the welfare of all.

[@shad2529]

An intellectual giant

[@OolTube02]

So people whose standard of living has gone down while others have gotten richer don't count because having become poorer and hence envious and resentful makes them jerks? Individual prosperity doesn't count, only overall wealth, is that the argument? You're not allowed to complain if you're not personally profiting? Well, I hope if you ever drown under a mountain of debt I hope you take it humbly and gracefully, good sir, and don't rail against a system that railroaded you! Because collectivism, I guess...

[@yoshiilash4438]

who's the guy he mentioned steagler/steigler??

[@diddlididdli1376]

George Stigler?

[@Tsnore]

I got a Woodie listening to this.

[@lollypton4572]

ha ha !

[@ladymacbethofmtensk896]

Schoolteachers still subscribe to Malthusian economics, and Freudian psychology. We might as well defund public schools!

[@normandolinic2044]

Buy something with silver or gold.

[@MaghoxFr]

That plywood stand is so ugly. I can't focus on anything else than that ugly box.

[@EarthSurferUSA]

We are suppose to elect people not to protect our individual interests, but our individual liberty, (as it is the proper role of government to protect individual liberty so we can follow our interests in our free market, not to destroy our liberty and ability to compete.). The business lobbyists make Congress rich by paying them ,(in some way of several), to secure market share with favors, instead of ability. Now, lets compare this to marriage. You marry a lady, and you make a deal to represent each other through thick and thin. But she meets another guy who has more money, (the lobbyist), and she cheats on you and sleeps with him. You find out about it, and get mad. Who do you get made at? The person you made a deal with, or the person who made coaxed her to break that deal? Which is suppose to have integrity here, to honor a deal? "Getting mad a corporations first, (as we are taught, "ONLY" and "ALL"), instead of government first, is like blaming the guy who slept with your wife". You made a deal with your wife, as we make a deal with who we elect, but we are taught to blame only the homewrecker, the lobbyist partner of the person who promised to represent you. Do you expect your wife to have more integrity for the deal you made with her, or are we suppose to blame the homewrecker because he did not have any promise to you?

[@immaculatesquid]

Congressional Single Term Limits and mandating that no bill be over 20 pages would do a great deal to 1. Reduce Corruption 2. Reduce Money in Politics 3. Increase Average Understanding of Laws.

[@joeg8304]

OK, this is a painfully slow walk through examples of businesses taking advantage of short-sighted and/or corrupt governments. Hardly a contentious issue. Other businesses that weren't gaming systems didn't waste money on stuff that only benefited people gaming the system. Also not contentious. I came here hoping to find a discussion of beneficial monopolies and instead found an echo chamber. Any suggestions on something relevant to the topic I was hoping?

[@SaulOhio]

Joe G "short-sighted and/or corrupt governments"What other kinds are there?

[@gareginasatryan6761]

tom woods starts off with an interesting point. Were these men sinister? Well, according to the Church teachings that Woods believes, yes! They were unquestionably greedy men, unrepentant sinners. Even though they improved living standards for many. Still, the role of law should be the protection of person and property. This is what social conservatives don't understand about libertarianism. I am not morally responsible to pay other people (the gov't) to stop others from committing transgressions.

[@soapbxprod]

"These men"? Which of "these men"?

[@Garegin]

***** The men he is talking about. Otherwise known as the "robber barons"?

[@soapbxprod]

Garegin So you make no distinction between State monopolist fascist criminals like Edward Collins, and actual entrepreneurs like Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, and James J. Hill, who built their businesses on their own, and whose products and services raised living standards for millions? You must be a communist.

[@BladeOfLight16]

Well, you're right up to a point. The government _does_ have a place in preventing violence and fraud. Those sorts of transgressions are something the government is explicitly responsible for managing. But it's not responsible for forcing everyone to have a pure heart. As long as your sin is confined to your own heart and you're not cheating or physically hurting others, the government has no role in addressing it.

[@brianpatterson8407]

just how many railroad corporations are operated... not many.. its all a monopoly.... could not have been done without state footing bill...socialism.

[@kenmills3401]

+Brian Patterson What could not have been done without the state footing the bill?

[@benjaminbrixey1416]

Ken take it easy on him man. Haha, you are killing me over here. Brian obviously didn't watch the video.

[@steveoconnor6045]

WHY WE HAVE GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF BUSINESS “In spite of declining traffic and repeated deficits, the (Illinois & Michigan) canal was still a sufficiently effective competitor to keep down railroad rates. In 1876 the canal rate on corn from La Salle to Chicago, 99 miles, was 3.25 cents a bushel; the railroad rate was 4.5 cents. From Henry to Chicago, 128 miles, the water rate was 4 cents per bushel, while the railroad charged 4.5 cents. But from Tiskilwa, which did not have the advantage of water competition to Chicago, the railroad rate was 6.83 cents, although most of the way the grain from this place and from Henry moved over the same tracks and frequently on the same trains. The effect of the canal competition was also seen in the railroad rates from Peoria to Chicago, 190 miles; in the summer the rate was 3 cents a bushel, but 4.5 cents in the winter when the canal was not in operation. The effective and the possible competition of the canal route and its effect in keeping down railroad rates was probably the most potent influence in inducing the people to continue in operation an artificial waterway which on the surface was losing money for the state. ( the canal operated at a profit until 1879 - p. 348) The agitation for improved and cheaper transportation facilities, which took the form of granger legislation, of rate regulation, of the creation in Illinois of the railroad and warehouse commission, and of other efforts to secure cheaper rates directly from the railroads, next found expression also in efforts to improve the waterways and thus reduce the cost of transportation. The low prices obtained by the farmers for their grain and the high railway freight rates which made it almost impossible to market their products at a profit caused many shippers to look to artificial or improved waterways as the best solution of their problem. This movement led to the building, by the state, of two locks on the Illinois river in 1872 and 1876 which greatly improved the navigability of the upper section of the river. But this improvement did not help the Illinois farmers and other shippers on the upper Mississippi; they desired a shorter and more direct route between their section of the state and Lake Michigan. Thus began an agitation for a second canal which finally culminated in the construction of the Hennepin canal. Although it was not completed until 1907, the discussion of this project in the earlier period throws considerable light upon the character and extent of the forces that were agitating for cheaper transportation. The proportions of this movement may be judged from the the fact that nine hundred delegates attended a canal convention held in 1874 at Rock Island, Illinois. This convention passed resolutions declaring that the time had come for the United States government to assume control over interstate commerce; that congress had too long neglected the petitions for direct water communication between the Mississippi and the Great Lakes; and the construction of a canal from Hennepin on the Illinois River to Rock Island would help solve the transportation problem of the farmers on the upper Mississippi. Clarence Walworth Alvord, editor-in-chief The Industrial State; 1870-1893, vol, 4 The Centennial History of Illinois, Illinois Centennial Commission, 1920 p. 348-350

[@steveoconnor6045]

@ 7:40 mark - Thomas Woods QUOTE: ". . . and we look only at the market entrepreneurs - there's nothing to be upset about. They have done nothing to harm us. . . . the only reason we might dislike them is out of shear envy." HISTORY LESSON DESPERATELY NEEDED HERE: Tragedy on the TP&W Death of two unarmed strikers on February 6, one of them a member of our Brotherhood, shot down on a public highway, and the wounding of three others by gunmen in the employ of George P. McNear, Jr., is a tragic example of the ruthless tyranny that characterizes his attempts to force substandard wage and operating conditions upon Toledo, Peoria and Western Railroad employes. The dead are Brothers Arthur Brown, TP&W engineer, member of Lodge 926 of our Brotherhood, and Kenneth Paschon, head timekeeper of the road. Wounded were Brothers Howard Williamson, Russel M. Esslinger and Amos Vinson. Brother Williamson is a striking TP&W engineman and a member of Lodge 926. In a statement issued by Vice President Keiser who is representing our Brotherhood and serving as chairman of the committee of the thirteen organizations involved, it was set forth that the two strikers were killed and the three injured by gunfire that entered their backs. It had been known McNear was securing guns and ammunition to use against the strikers. State police stopped a car loaded with firearms as it was leaving the state highway to enter TP&W property. The occupants were taken to the East Peoria, Illinois, police station where the guns were confiscated subject to instructions from Springfield. The next day the weapons and ammunition were released to McNear's representative. Not only in the immediate vicinity has this tragic event aroused tremendous sentiment, but throughout the country as well. Murder charges have been filed against the four men who did the shooting and the U.S. District attorney announced that he had requested an FBI investigation. In Peoria the unions arranged a public memorial service in the state armory for Sunday, February 17. It was attended by some 3,000 friends and sympathizers. How President McNear plans to escape responsibility for the tragic affair remains to be seen. Certainly the gunmen were under his employ and direction, and as they were acting as his agents the accusing finger points directly at him. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen's Magazine Vol. 120, March 1946 p.139

[@steveoconnor6045]

]"That free markets alone will not bring about the economic millennium is evident from the experience of England and France during the first half of the nineteenth century, when the doctrine of laissez faire was tried and found wanting. The period from 1810 to 1840 stands out in European history as the epoch during which there was the least amount of government intervention in economic affairs. The leading men of the time argued that the market forces of demand and supply should have free reign to work their magic. They thoroughly believed that complete freedom for individual initiative and self-interest would result in the greatest social good, and they were convinced that any government interference or labor legislation would be both vicious and futile, because it would run counter to "natural law". So firmly were the people of England convinced of these economic superstitions that they repealed all laws safeguarding the workers, restricting the spread of factories, and limiting the rise of capitalism. From bitter experience, however, the English soon learned the limitations of markets as final arbitrators of economic matters. Before long Parliament was forced to pass a new set of labor laws called Factory Acts in order eliminate the most glaring evils and abuses that developed under this "natural order" of laissez faire. An understanding of this epoch in economic history is so important for a student of labor, as well as for advocates of the individualistic ideal who oppose labor organization and legislation, that this chapter is devoted to a discussion of labor in England during the early nineteenth century and the failure of laissez faire as an economic policy.... This theory of laissez faire - let the market, not the government, control - along with the doctrine of economic harmonies, was adopted by Adam Smith directly from the Physiocrats, some of whom he had known personally. Smith believed that when “all systems of preference or of restraint” are completely abolished, “the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord,” and he thought that each man pursuing his own self-interest is “led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention” - the general welfare of the nation. It is easy to understand why parts of the Wealth of Nations soon became the businessman's bible, though not the part in which Smith pointed out that high wages increased the efficiency of labor so that “where wages are high, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious than where they are low.”..... Under the early factory system in England, the employment of women and children was the foundation of certain branches of industry. Three independent estimates for the years 1833, 1835, and 1839 indicate that almost half of the factory workers in England were children under the age of 18 years of age - one quarter of the workers in the cotton mills were under 14 years of age. About 55 percent of all factory employees in the 1830's were women, and nearly one half of the female employees were under 18 years of age. In woolen, silk, and flax mills, 70 percent of all “operatives” in 1839 were women. A census of 1841 showed that 27 percent of the workers in British mines (coal, iron, tin, etc.) were under 20 years of age, although only 3 or 4 percent were females...... The normal working day for women and children as well as men was from 12 to 14 hours for six days a week, and at rush seasons factories sometimes ran day and night on one shift. Children, who in rush seasons worked 18 hours a day with only four hours for sleeping, often fell asleep at meals “with the victuals in their mouths.”..... Working weeks from 72 to 108 hours for children tended to deform their bodies and legs and made workers old at 40. To force child laborers to perform their stint, foremen sometimes strapped them. Children of six, seven, and eight years of age worked in coal mines where, for 12 or 14 hours a day, girls in their teens, crawling on all fours, would drag a car or tub of 300 or 400 pounds of coal by chain attached to a leather band around their waists..... The well-known French economist, J. B. Say, from his travels in England in 1815, declared that a worker with a family, despite efforts often of a heroic character, could earn no more than three quarters, and sometimes only one half, the sum needed to support his family. According to a writer in 1820, real wages (wages reckoned in commodities) had fallen 33 percent from 1760 to 1820.... It was from 1795 to 1835 that the problem of pauperism reached its most extreme and acute form, and that the term “labouring poor” became such a common expression.”..... England had become, to quote Disraeli,”Two nations: between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets;....THE RICH AND THE POOR.”..... In 1814 a crises, accompanied by an avalanche of commercial failures, shook the English market. Thereafter there were depressions in 1819-1820, 1825-1826, 1836-1837, and the early 1840's, and in 1847-1848 there was a great crash. That period became known as the “hungry forties.”..... Laissez faire proved to be no cure for business cycles and depressions." Richard A. Lester, Duke University Economics Of Labor, 1941 p. 50-66

[@steveoconnor6045]

Steve Oconnor “Of course, this pervasive social and political unrest reflected not merely material poverty but social pauperization: the destruction of old ways of life without the substitution of anything the labouring poor could regard as a satisfactory equivalent. But whatever the motives, waves of desperation broke time and again over the country: in 1811-13, in 1815-17, in 1819, in 1826, in 1829-35, in 1838-42, in 1843-4, in 1846-8. In the agricultural areas they were blind, spontaneous, and in so far as their objectives were at all defined, almost entirely economic. As a rioter from the Fens put it in 1816; “Here I am between Earth and Sky, so help me God. I would sooner lose my life than go home as I am. Bread I want and bread I will have.” In 1816, all over the eastern counties, in 1822 in East Anglia, in 1830 everywhere between Kent and Dorset, Somerset and Lincoln, in 1843-4 once again in the east Midlands and the eastern counties, the threshing machines were broken, the ricks burned at night, as men demanded a minimum of life. In the industrial and urban areas after 1815 economic and social unrest was generally combined with a specific political ideology and programme - radical-democratic, or even 'cooperative' (or as we would now say, socialist), though in the first great movement of unrest from 1811-13 the Luddites of the East Midlands and Yorkshire smashed their machines without any specific programme of political reform and revolution..... But essentially, what held all of these movements together, or revived them after their periodic defeat and disintegration, was the universal discontent of men who felt themselves hungry in a society reeking with wealth, enslaved in a country which prided itself on its freedom, seeking bread and hope, and receiving in return stones and despair..... “Wretched, defrauded, oppressed, crushed human nature lying in bleeding fragments all over the face of society”, wrote the American, Colman, of it in 1845. “Every day that I live I thank Heaven that I am not a poor man with a family in England.” Can we be surprised that the first generation of the labouring poor in industrial Britain looked at the results of capitalism and found them wanting?” Eric J. Hobsbawm The Pelican Economic History of Britain Volume 3, From 1750 to the Present Day Industry and Empire, 1969 p. 94-95 "Clearly the last quarter century of the nineteenth century was a time when life became much easier and more varied for the working class, though the Edwardian age brought a setback. Nevertheless, trends are not achievements, and the picture of social conditions which the surveys of the time revealed - often to the shocked surprise of the inquirers - was horrifying. It was of a working class stunted and debilitated by a century of industrialization. In the 1870s eleven- to twelve-year old boys from the upper-class public schools were on average five inches taller than boys from industrial schools, and at all teen-ages three inches taller than the sons of artisans. When the British people was for the first time medically examined en masse for military service in 1917, it included 10 per cent of young men totally unfit for service, 41.5 per cent (in London 48 - 49 per cent) with 'marked disabilities', 22 per cent with 'partial disabilities' and only a little more than a third in satisfactory shape. Ours was a country filled with a stoic mass of those destined to live all their lives on a bare and uncertain subsistence until old age threw them on to the scrapheap of the Poor Law, underfed, badly housed, badly clothed. By the standards of 1965, or even of 1939, the rise of the working-class standard to a modest human level had barely begun. Eric J. Hobsbawm The Pelican Economic History of Britain Volume 3, From 1750 to the Present Day Industry and Empire, 1969 p. 164-165

[@steveoconnor6045]

Steve Oconnor In 1802 Sir Robert Peel directed the attention of Parliament to an abuse which was perhaps the grossest of the day, i.e., the miserable condition of apprentices in cotton mills, and did it with such force that he was able to bring about the enactment of the first statute in English history relating to factory employment. In their anxiety to relieve the rate-payers the authorities of the parishes, it developed, were accustomed to dispose of pauper children as apprentices, transporting them to the mills, where nominally “learning a trade,” they were reduced to veritable slavery. Men made a business of procuring and supplying apprentices, bringing together gangs of workhouse children from neighbouring parishes and conveying them by wagons or canal-boats to factory districts where they were likely to be in demand, and subsequently disposing of them on the best terms possible to factory owners in need of “hands.” Apprentices were lodged and fed, under conditions that were execrable in cheap houses adjoining the factories; they were placed in charge of overseers whose pay was dependent upon the amount of work they could compel to be accomplished; they were flogged, fettered, and tortured, and in general subjected to repression and cruelty which exceeded that occasionally practiced in the same period in the slave states of America. Meager pay was sometimes provided, but as a rule the apprentice's only compensation was poor and insufficient food, the cheapest sort of clothing, and a place to sleep in a filthy shed.” Peel's “Health and Morals Act” prohibited the binding out for factory labour of children under nine years of age, restricted the working hours of children to twelve a day, forbade night labour, required that the walls of factories in which children were employed should be whitewashed and that the buildings should be properly ventilated, prescribed that every apprentice should be given at least one new suit of clothes a year, and required that bound children should be made to attend religious services and to receive an elementary education. That the prohibition of the employment of apprenticed children under nine and the reduction of the working day for children to twelve hours comprised a distinct improvement upon former conditions is a sufficiently striking commentary upon the nature of those conditions.” Frederic Austin Ogg, Phd. Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin Economic Development of Modern Europe, 1922 p. 373-375 "Upwards of a million of human beings are literally starving and the number is constantly on the increase.....It is a new era in the history of commerce that an active and increasing trade should be the index, not to the improvement of the condition of the working classes, but to their poverty and degradation." P. Gaskel Artisans And Machinery, 1836

[@steveoconnor6045]

Steve Oconnor "1870s The patent medicine industry started its rise. Because there were no restrictions on advertising, labeling, or contents of any products the patent medicine industry made up all sorts of concoctions including the opiates, cocaine, and other drugs, and sold them with the most extravagant advertising claims. This led to a rise in addiction. Addiction was poorly understood. Morphine and heroin were recommended as remedies for alcohol addiction and for crying infants. 1906 The Pure Food and Drug Act was passed, forming the Food and Drug Administration and giving it power to regulate foods and drugs, and requiring labeling of contents on foods and drugs. The most important effect on the drug problem was the demise of the patent medicine industry. Drug addiction began a dramatic drop." Here, the ugly oppressive government intervened in the free market. Upton Sinclair did more to protect the American public from contaminated meat than a thousand conservative economists. In his novel, "The Jungle", Upton Sinclair tells the story of an immigrant named Jurgis and shows the horrors of the Chicago stock yards and Packingtown. Full of hope for a better life, Jurgis married and bought a house on credit. He was elated when he got a job as a "shoveler of guts" at "Durham," a fictional firm based on Armour & Co., the leading Chicago meat packer. Jurgis soon learned how the company sped up the assembly line to squeeze more work out of the men for the same pay. He discovered the company cheated workers by not paying them anything for working part of an hour. Jurgis saw men in the pickling room with skin diseases. Men who used knives on the sped-up assembly lines frequently lost fingers. Men who hauled 100-pound hunks of meat crippled their backs. Workers with tuberculosis coughed constantly and spit blood on the floor. Right next to where the meat was processed, workers used primitive toilets with no soap and water to clean their hands. In some areas, no toilets existed, and workers had to urinate in a corner. Lunchrooms were rare, and workers ate where they worked. Almost as an afterthought, Sinclair included a chapter on how diseased, rotten, and contaminated meat products were processed, doctored by chemicals, and mislabeled for sale to the public. He wrote that workers would process dead, injured, and diseased animals after regular hours when no meat inspectors were around. He explained how pork fat and beef scraps were canned and labeled as "potted chicken." Sinclair wrote that meat for canning and sausage was piled on the floor before workers carried it off in carts holding sawdust, human spit and urine, rat dung, rat poison, and even dead rats. His most famous description of a meat-packing horror concerned men who fell into steaming lard vats: . . . and when they were fished out, there was never enough of them left to be worth exhibiting,--sometimes they would be overlooked for days, till all but the bones of them had gone out to the world as Durham's Pure Leaf Lard! After reading The Jungle, President Roosevelt invited Sinclair to the White House to discuss it. The president then appointed a special commission to investigate Chicago's slaughterhouses. The special commission issued its report in May 1906. The report confirmed almost all the horrors that Sinclair had written about. One day, the commissioners witnessed a slaughtered hog that fell part way into a worker toilet. Workers took the carcass out without cleaning it and put it on a hook with the others on the assembly line. During the Spanish American War, Sinclair stated that more U.S. soldiers died from eating contaminated meat sold to the Army by U.S. meat packers than actually died in battle. Teddy Roosevelt testified before Congress that he'd rather eat his hat than the meat supplied by the Army.

[@steveoconnor6045]

Steve Oconnor “Nearly two-thirds of the Fortune 500 corporations were charged with violations of corporate law over a two-year period (1975-1976): one-half of these were charged with a serious or a moderately serious violation (Clinard and Yeager, 1980: 113, 118). At least one sanction was imposed on 321 of the corporations (Clinard and Yeager, 1980: 122). Using imposed court sanctions, one study found that 11 percent of the Fortune 500 were involved in a major law violation between 1970 and 1979 (Ross, 1980: 57). A more recent study found that 115 corporations of the Fortune 500 had been convicted between 1970 and 1980 of at least one major crime or had paid civil penalties for serious illegal behavior (U.S. News and World Report, 1982: 25-26). Allowing for size, the largest of the Fortune 500 corporations have been found to be the chief violators (Clinard and Yeager, 1980: 119). Moreover, they have received a widely disproportionate share of the sanctions for serious and moderate violations. These corporate violations have resulted in enormous economic losses to consumers and the government (Ross, 1980). Such illegal practices include price fixing, false advertising claims, the marketing of unsafe products, environmental pollution, political bribery, foreign payoffs, disregard of safety regulations in manufacturing cars and other products, the evasion of taxes, and the falsification of corporate records to hide illicit practices. There have also been injuries (and even deaths) among citizens and employees because of unsafe drugs and other products, pollution, and unprotected work conditions.” Marshall B. Clinard Corporate Ethics And Crime, The Role Of Middle Management, 1983 p. 15

[@zigoter2185]

Average libertarian Chad

[@EvanMcCarter]

first

[@carlc6657]

peak ideology

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

Who Howard Zinn and his ilk or Tom?

[@thegeneralstrike6747]

So by your analysis, a forced altruist is a jerk? Racketeering is good? Vanderbilt has never been on anyones list.

[@EarthSurferUSA]

Quit "liking" yourself. You will go blind.

[@billmelater6470]

I'm not actually sure you can be a "forced altruist". Seems to undermine the definition.

[@smartiepancake]

I dunno, all points are well made, but weren't the anti-monopolists of that era also pointing to non-capitalist monopolies? ie the feudal-colonial model of land monopoly. Land monopolists have much less of a leg to stand on, because they don't create value - on the contrary, the extract it from labour and capital - and are subsidised (and defended) by the state via the biased tax system. Take a modern day example. Alan Sugar is rightly revered in the UK as a true entrepreneur - he brought low cost PCs to the market and many businesses were able to computerise. But Alan Sugar is now a land speculator - this is how he makes his fortune now. As he says in is autobiography, land speculation is boring (uncreative) but it's easy money... Land and natural resource monopoly - the diseased feudal core of today's capitalism - is the root cause of our current crisis.

[@ThingWhatKicks]

"Land monopoly" sounds like a Marxism for "private property". Are you saying that private property is the root of our current crisis?

[@smartiepancake]

ThingWhatKicks You maybe can read some Albert Nock to find out where I'm coming from.

[@IamAsaJ]

you answered your own question by saying "and are subsidized (and defended) by the state via the biased tax system." ... monopolies only result from government.... ie preferential treatment, limited liability, subsidies, selectivity enforced regulation/taxation etc. This is not an argument against the free market, its a argument for it...

[@smartiepancake]

Asa Jay I agree 100%. Howwever, I was trying to show that those pesky Progressives aren't always wrong. Libertarianism and Progressivism do share some common roots in this area - I honestly feel this fact is kept a little quiet which is a big shame because that's needless factionalism. Land monopoly (the true enemy of capital and labour, the true source of statism) is a key issue - maybe the key issue but it remains obscure.

[@michaelmcmedia]

I have to say, monopoly in relation to economically valuable land and what's called the 'rentier class' is my last hurdle. Surely, given that returns on rented property can buy more property, giving more returns, consolidation would be exponential? Or am I missing something?

[@lostindixie764]

Watching the video was bad enough, but reading the comments confirms that we, as a species, are a mistake and are doomed to extinction.

[@brianpatterson8407]

there is no free market.

[@SaulOhio]

+Brian Patterson Yes, there is no free market. But there ought to be.

[@steveoconnor6045]

There sure is a free market and it beautifully represents the brutality of it - it's called the drug trade.

[@SaulOhio]

Steve Oconnor You mean a market that is ILLEGAL, is free? When the most successful businesses get to have their competitors arrested by the police? That is a FREE market? Must be some new definition of the word "free" I hadn't previously been aware of.

[@steveoconnor6045]

The black market is the purest form of free market. It is totally unregulated and the drug market is by far the biggest and best example.

[@SaulOhio]

Steve Oconnor Didn't we have this discussion before? Free means there is no coercion used. No violence, no force, no fraud. A black market is created by coercion, by the government banning something or regulating it so much that it is driven underground. The government bans a whole class of drugs for recreational use. This requires raids, police arresting people for possession, searches that violate the Constitution, asset forfeiture, all sorts of violent violations of property rights. It is as much the opposite of free as you can get. A free market lacks all the things I named. Your claim is absurd.

[@spanaker]

tom, this lecture is really boring

[@soapbxprod]

Then go watch Dancing with the Stars.

[@spanaker]

***** i hate that show

[@666mandrake]

This guy is a former CIBC executive no less. You have to be part of the establishment to have those type of position. Just saying.

[@geoffrey955]

www.ctvnews.ca/business/former-cibc-executive-tom-woods-named-chairman-of-the-board-at-hydro-one-1.4083746 . Just saying.

[@Dremin2009]

@@geoffrey955 Doesn't look like the same Tom Woods to me