The Predictable Rise of Conscious Capitalism

Start your one-month free trial of CuriosityStream here: curiositystream.com/secondtho... just use the coupon code 'secondthought'
More and more often we've seen corporations take an ethical stance on production, or espouse popular social values. While this may sound like a step in the right direction, there's a lot we need to be aware of...
The Predictable Rise of Conscious Capitalism - Second Thought
SUBSCRIBE HERE: bit.ly/2nFsvTS
WATCH LAST VIDEO HERE: • Playlist
New video every Friday!
Follow Second Thought on Social Media!
Twitter: / _secondthought
Facebook: / secondthoughtchannel
Reddit: / secondthought
Support Second Thought on Patreon!
/ secondthought
Watch More Second Thought:
Latest Uploads: • Playlist
Spaaaaaace!: • Playlist
What If...: • Playlist
Popular Videos: • Popular Videos | Secon...
About Second Thought:
Second Thought is a channel devoted to the things in life worth thinking about! Science, history, politics, religion...basically everything you're not supposed to talk about at the dinner table. Welcome!
If you're tired of learning after watching all my videos, come unwind on my gaming channel: / @pixelshack
Business Email: [e-mail]

[@yy-hj4br]

If you go 90 in a school zone and get ticketed, no one will complain that the government has no business getting involved in regulating the roads. But if a company has regulations to make sure it treats customers and workers like people, entire political movements backed by business lobbies pop up and spread.

[@zalmoxis2111]

no one is forcing those people to work, they can quit any time

[@Blkeith88]

How is life not forcing anyone to work, where do u live that u don’t have to?

[@rabab473]

Sergiu Coporan everyone needs to work to make money

[@yy-hj4br]

@@rabab473 Ancaps believe in your freedom to starve.

[@MacetazzOpina]

@@zalmoxis2111 life is rigged to make those people work, if they quit how can they survive?

[@simoncote2783]

Okay comment section.. Economy is not as simple as capitalism OR communism. Deforming what someone said or comparing it to the most extreme opposite like it was a yes or no/black or white question are not good arguments. That's called sophistry. This video only talks about real facts of the free market theory. These are true facts, wether you like it or not. You should do a video about sophistry and cognitive bias!

[@PitterPatter20]

Well, I mean another option is feudalism... No, the two options really are just capitalism or socialism. The means of production are either going to be publically or privately owned. There isn't a third option. The problem you're trying to address is "it isn't just a choice between _free-market_ capitalism and socialism". Other alternatives do exist in that case, such as social democracy. Social democracy still is a form of capitalism, as the means of production are still owned privately, but social democracy allows for things like wealth redistribution, social safety nets, and welfare programs. Plenty of people _think_ that the last three things I listed are socialist, which is why people say "we can have a mix between capitalism and socialism". They're just incorrect about that. Wealth redistribution, social safety nets, and welfare programs can exist in either a capitalist economy or a socialist economy, because they're totally independent concepts. The _sole_ distinguishing feature between capitalism and socialism is who owns the means of production; any other change in feature is simply a difference in the _type_ of capitalist or socialist economy you are talking about.

[@grmpEqweer]

@@PitterPatter20 Look up "mixed economy." If one looks into it, both "capitalist" and "socialist" countries are mixed economies. So to call any country purely capitalist or socialist is actually an oversimplification. Just saying. It's more of a spectrum. Plus, the ideal of democratic socialism is for workers to collectively own their own workplace, and vote on how that workplace is run. Presumably this would be a form of market socialism. ...As I understand Sweden, it's majority capitalist, but there's a significant number of state-owned enterprises. So that's not pure capitalism, is it?

[@PitterPatter20]

@@grmpEqweer I'm perfectly aware of mixed economies.

[@grmpEqweer]

@@PitterPatter20 Well, that's all that OP was saying. Every economy has socialist and capitalist elements, or private and public elements.

[@PitterPatter20]

@@grmpEqweer every system having public and private elements is not the same as every system being part socialist and part capitalist

[@AmberyTear]

Ironically Wholefoods is pretty damn unethical with all the demonization of gmo they're doing, product descriptions scaring people with "harmful chemicals" and a whole section of the store selling friggin homeopathy which shouldn't even be legal.

[@kennygutierrez6809]

It's only the start. Keep people dumb enough and you can get them to buy shit that costs nothing to make and has no value while you sell it at a profit. Capitalism wants people to stay stupid to introduce more bullshit.

[@gking407]

WF sales tactics are just following in the tradition of marketing that began around the advent of public radio. Check out the tv/radio ads of the 40s and 50s it’ll blow your mind!

[@Andy-km1xp]

What’s wrong with homeopathy?

[@AmberyTear]

@@Andy-km1xp it's a magical belief trying to sell itself using scientific terms. One of the biggest hoaxes in sharlatan "medicine", basically a placebo effect which os dangerous to use when people ACTUALLY need more than just a placebo.

[@antonioscendrategattico2302]

@@Andy-km1xp It's essentially a scam. It's charging people for a product that doesn't exist, which is extremely exploitative.

[@christophermills9289]

The owners had to be forced to accept the 8 hour work day, the 40 hour work week, overtime, safety regulations, HAZMAT regulations, and sexual harassment regulation. They had to be forced to do all of these things by unions influencing government actions through the power of the vote and peaceful protest . The owners hired the strike breakers to swing clubs back in the day.

[@sch4891]

yep and often times the strike breakers were cops. it's called union busting. the only reason capitalist behave is because they are afraid of the working people

[@nil981]

They will hire private mercenaries with machine guns and armored personnel carriers this time round.

[@FranzNF]

@@nil981 They aren't working in Afghanistan anymore so they are actually free and willing.

[@stefansanchez50]

Didn't know millennials could buy a Tesla or an Audi

[@phoenixwright7802]

they can't, but the rich can buy one and get social points from millennials by having one

[@CAGreve1231]

Depends on how deep their parent's pocket are...

[@sorzin2289]

When I was studying through college all I wanted was a new car, now I just don't care anymore, and would most likely buy an old version of a new model. I used public transportation so often I now prefer it to private vehicles. I've been poor for so long, that what was once a desirable middle class lifestyle doesn't seem all that appealing to me anymore.

[@La0bouchere]

Its restricted to the ones that avoided the college debt trap and also went into a line of work that's employable beyond summer jobs.

[@user-te1fn8cj5r]

"Never have I been more offended by something that I completely agree with!"

[@jimlambrick3248]

I always wondered why Amazon acquired Whole Foods. Now I know - John Mackey is every bit as slimy as Jeff Bezos.

[@gking407]

Every CEO or billionaire automatically is bad unless we discover they actually help lift up humanity in some secret way. Bill Gates maybe?

[@prime_optimus]

@@gking407 Elongated Muskrat.

[@seafoam6119]

@@gking407 Billie G and his boy epstain

[@DvDick]

It's like people don't even study history. Truly free capitalism existed for a while, right at the beginning of the industrial revolution. It was hell, literally the worst thing you can imagine, kids as young as 9 had to work in factories, often in very dangerous environments, workdays were up to 12 or 16 hours long, workers received so little money that slums formed around factories, where families had to pump out children non stop so that everyone worked and they could build up a little bit of money to stay afloat (that's where the word "proletariat" comes from by the way, "producing offspring"). That's what pushed Marx to write his manifesto, his work at the time was actually really beneficial, it sparked a political movement to protect the rights of workers and it forced governments to step in and introduce healthcare plans, minimum wages, paid holidays, sick leave, and all those things we think are a given and indispensable today. Communism in the end proved to be just as bad as capitalism, but at least now we have a mixed economy that works relatively well. Thinking that we can let capitalism run free again without consequences is just asking for trouble, same as with letting communism take over. What we need to do now is to recognize that the environment has become a factor that we cannot exclude from the equation, because our health, and even our survival depend on it. Personally I can't see how we can keep up consumption while preserving the environment, maybe a space based economy could be the solution, but in the meantime consumerism and "growth at all cost" has to go, as it's unsustainable.

[@CorneliusThroatworthy]

tl;dr : I disagree with 4 of the things you said, but the rest I agree with, & I'd be interested as to what you think about my counterpoints 1) I disagree with your "Communism in the end proved to be just as bad as capitalism" statement - for one thing, thus far we've had several hundred years of capitalism as the dominant system worldwide, and in that time, capitalism has (I presume) had times where it is stress-tested, and times where it isn't challenged as an economic system various forms of communism, by contrast, have had less than 100 years as the dominant system, specifically in some countries (never in all countries thus far) and for the majority of the time the countries using communism have been under immense duress - the USSR having to in a very short space of time industrialize, and then weaponise against fascist germany and then against capitalist america (both of whom were extremely economically motivated to try & ruin the USSR); vietnam & cuba & many south american & african countries all facing antagonism from USA in terms of invasions, embargoes, coups & more invasions. Thus I'd argue you can't really compare the experiences of capitalist countries like USA & UK, who had at least a hundred years head start when it came to industrialization. 2) Also, I'd argue the "Mixed economy" that you & Darth Bane in the comment before me refer to is still wholly capitalism, it's just liberalism (capitalism with various social "safety-net" measures in place) rather than free market capitalism (capitalism where the free market decides your fate). Why countries like the US & UK have liberal systems in place? Because the social safety-net measures are popular enough that the liberal-leaning governments are happy to embrace this form of capitalism, and the conservative-leaning governments are willing to make concessions to the peoples' demands for social programs, and rather than dismantling the social safety measures dramatically they are content to chip away at these measures covertly communism, by contrast, whilst yes it does have social safety-net measures, is very different, as private ownership of the means of productions is forbidden, so all shops, companies, corporations are owned & run by the workers & to varying extents the local government, and thus management & profits & working conditions are democratically decided on by the workers / the local people. To have a "mixed economy" of capitalism & communism, at least as I understand it, would mean some companies are privately owned by rich people, and some companies are owned by the workers/the locals - e.g I think Spain has at least some sectors of the economy set up like this. If this is what you'd have in mind when you say "mixed economy" then fair enough - I've not really thought through whether I'd say that sector of the economy is "mixed" or still capitalist. 3) A really key point though (prehaps I should have put this higher up in this long message :D ) is that I really disagree that the current system "works really well" - as you mention, the environmental disasters that capitalism necessitates is one gargantuan problem, and I'd argue that another massive problem is the imperialist violence committed by countries like USA & China & Russia to try & gain political power in other countries in order to expand the markets under the imperialist country's control. This is a problem I (& Lenin, who understood this way better than me :D ) would argue is innate to capitalism, and therefore innate to the liberal form of capitalism practised by the US today, as to delay the point of failure of capitalism, markets must expand, and both now & in the past that incentivizes wars for the sake of building empires or trading blocks of other countries. 4) You suggest that looking to outer space to expand capitalism is an option. Certainly it is an option, but so very expensive an option that the benefits are only accessible to those already on top under capitalism now (and the payloads of rockets is so small, thus the benefits are small). So sure expanding our markets to space's resources would prolong capitalism, but the average person wouldn't see real life improvements as a result for decades or even centuries. Also, we do have enough space & resources on this planet for everyone - certainly when it comes to food & shelter - but capitalism requires scarcity (meaning some people must suffer without basic necessities) & thus requires waste. The earth can sustain 10 billion people easily, but the earth cannot sustain 10 billion (or 7.6 billion for that matter) people under capitalism. other than those 4 disagreements (did communism end up just as bad as capitalism? what is a mixed economy? is the current mixed economy setup working really well? would space travel alleviate the bad aspects of capitalism?) I agree heartily with the rest of what you said :D just to be clear, I'm not angry at you or anything like that (apologies if my lengthy comment is a bit off-putting) I just wanted to share my thoughts & see what you think in response g'day to you, internet traveller :)

[@CorneliusThroatworthy]

if I recall correctly, this video has a pretty nifty way of looking at things regarding looking at how systems have pros & cons kzbin.info/www/bejne/in3aeaaLd65-laM

[@DvDick]

@@CorneliusThroatworthy Hi, I also have some things I agree with your comments and some I don't. I think there is a lot of confusion and ambiguity around the word "capitalism". Many economists over the years have lumped into capitalism stuff that deviates significantly from its proper form as envisioned by Adam Smith, and this in my opinion clouded a lot discourse around this topic. I think that capitalism should just be used to describe "free market capitalism" (or "laissez faire"), because today's "capitalism" is way different and goes against many principles that where brought forward by Smith. Similarly communism is what Marx envisioned, any deviation from it stops to be communism. In this sense I must recognize that I was mistaken in my original comment about communism, because true, unfettered communism actually never existed, some parts of it did (like the proletariat revolution and the establishment of the proletariat dictatorship, however it never went over this last step) though it could be argued if even those step where aligned to what Marx envisioned (I'll leave this last part here because I don't think I know enough to argue about the October revolution being as Marx intended or not, for example). So I have to agree with 1), I can't say much about communism because it never developed to the extent that capitalism did, and even the little development that it had was botched in some way or another (so maybe I could move criticism to some deviations of communism like leninism or maoism, but not communism itself). I basically already addressed your 2) point, capitalism, at least to me, cannot be applied to our current economic paradigm because it's not compatible with what Smith proposed. Mixed economy works much better because it doesn't point to a specific ideology, but to a collection of them which describe what we have now much better, as it's applicable to European economies (where there is private ownership and the goal of maximizing profit, but with heavy state regulations and publicly owned institutions, like education and healthcare), the US (same as Europe but with much less regulation and public ownership, in this sense it's the closest to true capitalism) to even countries like China (where government regulation is extreme). The fact that I call them mixed is just because a communist country would naturally have publicly owned institution, which many economies that exist now share. Of course this similarity with communism isn't extensive, capitalist principles are very much dominant in today's economies, but we shouldn't ignore the other bits because of it. On point 3) I think we already agree, I said that what we have now "works relatively* well" (not "really well") because it did have some measurable benefits, consider all the scientific and technological progress for example, and the fact that extreme poverty is going down (see: blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/here-are-top-10-sub-saharan-african-countries-have-reduced-poverty-most ). Here the world "relatively" is important, because despite this of course there are still plenty of issues, the most pressing of which I think is the environment, our consumes are way too large to be sustainable, and if we don't do something a catastrophic collapse is sadly inevitable. I do agree with you that imperialism is another of these problems, I decided to focus on the environment mainly because it has civilization-ending consequences if it's not dealt with quickly. Tackling this problem will be hard, because as far as I can tell we have only two choices: _We either reform the economy radically, as I can't see profit being a drive if we need to preserve the environment, they are directly at odds with each other. So I agree with 4) on this. _We find a workaround using technology. This could be anything, like the space based economy (which I do agree, will probably end up into the ends of private entities due to the nature of space travel; when it'll happen we'll have to fight hard to avoid all that wealth getting into the hands of a couple of multi-trillionaires), or another alternative (though I don't know if it's feasible) is to ramp up recycling to the point where waste is minimal, and apply techniques to become carbon neutral (which as far as I know is possible for most things we do, it's just hard to implement). One minor disagreement about space-based economy is that the benefits are small. Rocket payloads are small as you said, however it's not technically hard to build stuff in space, NASA is already working on it for its Artemis project (the one who plans for a manned outpost on the Moon), so it's not difficult to imagine that in 20-30 years we could manufacture fuel and factories in orbit or on asteroids. It just takes some automated probes capable of extracting and assembling material (of course it's not the easiest thing but it's within the realm of possibility). Once you have a factory in orbit production will become exponential. So to summarize, I agree with what you say except on the key point about what constitutes capitalism and what constitutes a mixed economy. I admit that my comment about communism not having worked was wrong as it ignored a lot of nuance.

[@darthutah6649]

Child labor was declining before laws were passed against them. In 1900, 12.03% of children aged 10-13 were in the labor force. In 1930, it was only 2.46%. Bear in mind that the federal government was only able to get around to passing child labor laws due to the supreme court striking them down. ourworldindata.org/child-labor

[@johnnorris7504]

Do you actually believe that capitalism pushed child labor? It's evident that the use of child labor during that time was more due to a difference in culture and perspective on who could work back then. Not only that, the industrial revolution creatied a future of prosperity and success never seen before in human history. Take the US, 300 Million people live in this country, and with exception with around 1% of the population, all of them are housed, fed, and protected. That amount of people being supported would have never happpened without capitalism or the free market. Furthermore, child labor is even STILL used in China today, a country that proclaims itself as Communist.

[@bennyboy5949]

"Talking wiretaps" lmao

[@rabbiddoggoo6610]

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂 exactly

[@tylermacdonald8924]

A poet and a scholar

[@lucabrandalesi6743]

And add to this greenwashing and apparently greener alternatives and boom. Here ya go capitalism 2.0 now with more avocado

[@gking407]

Lol so true. Woke capitalism is how we’ll probably destroy ourselves in the end.

[@aislin1057]

Maybe ironically, I think you'd make a lot of money off a Capitalism 2.0: now with more avocado shirt lol

[@gking407]

@@aislin1057 making a profit while society and the planet burn is the best capitalist has to offer

[@ML-xh6rd]

I work for a company that has aligned itself with Conscious Capitalism and they are not green in the least. 90+ percent of the trash we create in the store is recyclable and yet we throw it away because it is not cost effective to develop and execute a recycling program. Regardless of whatever trendy operating philosophy a business is espousing, maximum profit will always be the goal and will be the primary factor in decision-making.

[@myles6235]

Because CEOs want nothing more than to pay you a living wage, right?

[@jeffer746]

i'm convinced this channel is sneaking crypto-leftist content to everyone masquerading as normal videos. i love it

[@Quintinohthree]

This channel stopped being crypto leftist earlier this year and is now unabashedly leftist.

[@matthiasdarrington3271]

@@Quintinohthree good

[@derpzbruh]

@@Quintinohthree it was always progressively tilted.

[@philip9830]

You know a video is American when there has to be a disclaimer before politics can be discussed.

[@eruditootidure2611]

Comrade Second Thought

[@comradejesus3022]

Oh just you wait, you've seen nothing yet XD

[@hellboy6507]

He is a neoliberal. I don’t know if I really buy into his leftist stuff. This is KZbin after all, lot of political stuff is just a grift.

[@AntTheBugcather]

Only by this video he clearly show he's not a neolib hahaha

[@jackvac1918]

@@hellboy6507 A neoliberal believes in the virtue of lassiez-faire capitalism and that deregulated profit-driven market systems (e.g. private healthcare and health insurance) are the solution to all social problems. None of his videos advocate these ideas.

[@BrandonWheelr]

@@hellboy6507 Yeah, so you were absolutely full of shit with this comment. You sure were confident in your absolute incorrectness though.

[@adityarao7703]

That was not really critical of capitalism, atleast not enough to give that warning at the start

[@Syncopator]

Yes, and he sums it up by pointing to the video, produced by his SPONSOR, on Conscious Capitalism, which is paywalled but it's preview seems to suggest that Conscious Capitalism is entirely a good thing, the "new", "better", "greener" capitalism. If that video critiques it at all, you can't tell that from the preview and I'm not going to sign up to find out.

[@dexterjettster8875]

Yes, well this guy just doesn't like capitalism, and will attack it at every opportunity.

[@dexterjettster8875]

@Matricx700 lol, your a joke. xD

[@dexterjettster8875]

@Matricx700 In what way is capitalism failing. Considering how wealthy we are in the modern world (compared to socialist counterparts which have all failed) i'd say it's pretty damn good. Unless there is some sort of huge problem which causes it to be "Failing us", do you want to tell me the insane detrimental problem which causes capitalism to be "FAILING"

[@dexterjettster8875]

@Matricx700 You lived in Cuba for 1 day and you'd shut the fuck up about problems like police violence. I like how you pick out tiny little problems in the country to justify it being a "failure". Why would you compare it to Cuba of all places? This just looks like a pathetic attempt to make capitalism look bad, by listing a few capitalist countries and pointing out small problems with them that probably wont even effect most people.

[@kylehayden3113]

"No matter how noble a business might seem, they're only after your dollar. If you want to learn more about how companies exploit you with advertising, watch this thing made by the company that I am now advertising."

[@Yoyomeyo]

Haha! Still gotta play by the system we live in

[@AmmoBops]

lol we are so conditioned to want money we ourselves can’t even say no even after realizing the evils of it ( although advertising isn’t as bad as say a big corporation exploiting cheap labor)

[@lordofgangstas]

AmmoBops Ah yes, we’re “””conditioned””” to want money by having to buy food and pay rent in order to not die. It’s totally an ideological issue that he took a sponsor, yeah that makes total sense “Yet you participate in society, curious!” head ass.

[@AmmoBops]

lordofgangstas lol you and the others didn’t understand what I meant, I may have worded it wrong Essentially what I’m saying is we know how bad capitalism and money is, but we have to participate in it anyways, which sucks, but yeah... so fuck you becuase that was rude anyways

[@anxez]

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism after all. And there's no existence under capitalism that doesn't require consumption. Thus, there are no ethical people in a capitalist system.

[@Echo81Rumple83]

keep in mind, that whole foods guy is a libertarian, which should say a LOT about his backassward thinking of deregulation on corporate entities.

[@Sebastian-gb3hs]

@@Nanofuture87 protections from what they are now the holder of all the power

[@owenbevt3]

The big flaw in all of this is it requires consumers to be experts and always make the right choice- in a world with so much greenwash even professors of sustainablelits fall for some of it.

[@andrewszigeti2174]

We've tried unfettered capitalism before. The Guilded Age was not a good time for workers or consumers.

[@randydandy8840]

So many spazzing Libertarians in the comments lol

[@BloodRider1914]

Hello comrade

[@bleachbleacher6979]

Hello

[@jacoblockwood3595]

hello

[@makaylahatesyou6703]

Hello

[@jackri7676]

hello comrade

[@relevantstuff7315]

Hello

[@MatthewStinar]

As someone who enjoyed the book Conscious Capitalism, I appreciated the additional points in the video as well as the recommendation of the video on Curiosity Stream.

[@hlkihglkhglkhg]

Vegans seats just reminds me of south Parks "congratulations on getting a hydrid" episode.

[@magicalsimmy]

I almost never pay attention to sponsors in YT videos (crates and sponsored unboxings make me mental), but after finding out Curiosity Stream was basically an updated old school Discovery/History Channel (which I loved), I subbed. Thank you for the recommendation, I fucking love it. I’m still on the 30 day trial, but it’s worth every penny and I intend to sub for a year once my trial is up. :)

[@adrs1380]

Hi! Just to say, I've recently suscribed. Happy to find something worth watching while quarantined.

[@DSL384]

how does he have almost 700k subs, but this video doesnt even scratch 25k views?

[@dummy3646]

Ghost subs

[@rabab473]

Not all subscribers will watch every single one of his videos

[@razzle_dazzle]

Nice video, comrade.

[@mr.nemesis6442]

There should be law that says that if a company discovers a cure to advancement, then it not using it is illegal. The punishment should be heavy fines for the corporation and felonies for the people involved

[@yulin84]

wouldnt benefit the consumer. companies would just stop researching cures that they dont want to introduce to the market yet.

[@mr.nemesis6442]

Jojo, they would have to devote a certain percentage of profits into researching cures. The process will be monitored by some government agency like the cdc or the fda

[@bpalpha]

We are caretakers here, not owners of this Earth. No soul should be bartered or paid for nor the riches of this beautiful planet. Capital serves the King that strikes the coin. To paraphrase Emerson, we are rich in what we give, not which we receive.

[@terrysmyth4277]

0:57 Flashbacks of Contrapoints' Parable of the Golden Pizza

[@Zyvo2]

Free Market Capitalism: Automate everything, have people come to the store that is located at the automated warehouse/Factory which stores the items automatically into vending machines that are powered off solar power and only come on during times of use. Employees = 1 (Owner)

[@SharienGaming]

capitalism found a hack though - they found that depressing workers wages is much cheaper than automation, so they are investing in a large workforce that is paid next to nothing and expected to work like machines

[@TRAVELLEROFWORLDS]

Truly conscious capitalism would NOT be capitalism.

[@safe-keeper1042]

My experience is they tend to be as conscious as the customers in their country, becoming more ethical when they have to. Like how all these companies suddenly announced on their web sites that our privacy is *very* important to them... once the EU passed laws that required them to allow users to opt out of being tracked.

[@micahgriffiths]

I think people forget that, as consumers, we *almost* have the power to decide if a corporation lives or dies. A true free market is ruled by demand from consumers, but unfortunately because of government handouts to big businesses they have more protection from the power of the consumers. Government aid makes weak companies.

[@squidcultist0022]

You're a bit off there, we have no power in a free market, in a free market, monopoly is the name of the game, and you have even less choice than now

[@wannabecar8733]

But is it our decision WHAT companies offer us Companies have become ever more monopolistic with a much higher concentration of market power then say 70 years ago Is it our decision whether companies reveal what chemicals are in product. especially since boycotts have become basically illegal in my home-country of Australia. Companies not even registered as American are receiving aide from the American government

[@MaaveMaave]

@@wannabecar8733 what's the status on that "boycott ban" now? I can only find articles from 2019. It's blatant corruption, and in America would violate the first amendment

[@wannabecar8733]

@@MaaveMaave Still existent Secondary boycotts and boycotts affecting international trade are generally illegal in Australia. boycott conduct has been permissible if it is for the dominant purpose of environmental or consumer protection. Don't worry protests are being violently suppressed in America including that of blm

[@eymed2023]

Forbising companies from abusing animals or destroying the environment isn't an econonic decision, it's a moral responsibility. Animals aren't property. They owe nothing. They have the right to not be exploited. Who are we to torture someone who did nothing wrong? As for the planet, it is a collective property. No one has the right to destroy it.

[@sandpiperbf9767]

I appreciate the things you're saying, but wondering what you consider the solution given that government is corrupt.

[@squidcultist0022]

Abolition of both

[@Sebastian-gb3hs]

the main thing corrupting the government is capitalism

[@sandpiperbf9767]

@@Sebastian-gb3hs well that's just not true. All of history is riddled with corrupt communist parties, monarchs, and feudalists as well.

[@sandpiperbf9767]

Are you claiming that democracy is uncorruptible, except by capitalism? Why would that be?

[@Sebastian-gb3hs]

@@sandpiperbf9767 I recommend the article: Ends and means the anarchist critique of seizing state power. Capitalism is a high factor of corruption because it creates very strong hierarchy wich leads to individuals having much more power than others

[@greysoncpeltier]

0:26 That was literally my economics textbook in college.

[@ristekostadinov2820]

Mackie literally sold Whole Foods to Amazon the most capitalist conscious corporation 🤣

[@driftracerepeat7334]

What the blin? Capitalism? [Soviet Anthem Intensifies] This is unacceptable cyka blyat

[@Azknowledgethirsty]

No, it's the least bad alternative, not a villain

[@VinceroAlpha]

Wait, theres such a thing as a golden pizza?!

[@WBT_1995]

Do you provide sources in your descriptions?

[@vascoamaralgrilo]

Thanks! Joel Bakan's book "The New Corporation" talks about this too!

[@twoshea749]

NEW BOOK "CONSCIOUS NAZISM" compassionate painless genocide. Environmentally conscious public transit that runs efficiently and on time. Crime and poverty eliminated among those who conform...heroic😀

[@PotVon]

Profit is the goal of capitalism, but when people stop buying products that harms the environment/workers and the profit goes away then they do listen the concerns of the customer. Monopolies are the larges problem in free market capitalism and they are who hold innovation back.

[@sawyerjohnson6632]

Jesse Kiili This is true and a very good point.

[@mauriciocanedo8846]

Monopolies can only be created and sustained by governments

[@creshiell]

What was that about the wire taps

[@auregamer5]

Neoliberalism, conservatism, social liberalism, social democracy, ethical capitalism, conscious capitalism Same shit different day

[@alexanderdavies1891]

There is certainly a balance to be struck. I'm generally pro-capitalist, but there are absolutely reasonable restrictions and regulations. But I do feel that in this video you went too far as a criticism of the system. Capitalism isn't perfect, but I believe it is more inherently moral than any other. Any transaction is voluntary. With certain proper regulations (environment/safety etc.) it is the best of a bunch of flawed systems. To criticize capitalism as profit motivated is fair, but at the end of the day, I still choose whether or not I give them my dollar. Other systems, if corruption could be rooted out, might be better (theoretically but even then...), but to insinuate that capitalism is corrupt in its current, real-world iteration, and disfavorably compare it to idealized theoretical systems is disingenuous. To pretend that other systems aren't as deeply flawed or corrupt is either an oversight in research, or an intentional manipulation.

[@rollo6292]

Alexander Davies good points well made

[@fivesquaredyt2521]

Alexander Davies facts an actual reasonable comment

[@jonathantybirk]

I didn't perceive the video has advocating for abolishing capitalism. It's more about acknowledging the flaws of the system we live in. I too believe capitalism currently is the best economic system we have, but it has to be heavily regulated and supported by a strong welfare state, as business nearly always choose profit over morals.

[@Chrishelmuth1978]

All transactions in capitalism are not truly voluntary. You must pay to have a place to live and food to eat. There really isn't another alternative...

[@tomasroma2333]

Capitalism is an economic system. Its doesn’t address morals.

[@ziggy8253]

“Doesn’t bother me one bit.” ;) 0:18 -Karl M.

[@Magnulus76]

It sounds like Mackey is engaged in something like "greenwashing".

[@TheFGEpisodes]

Watched this right after the CEO of Wholefoods did an interview with Joe Rogan where he talked about conscious capitalism. I was for it and then I watched this 👍

[@marlonmoncrieffe0728]

Well healthcare is not a regular market so I do not think outdated drugs was the best example. And with environmental harm indirectly related to a population's health, SOME and REASONABLE environments regulation is not out of the question.

[@ReddwarfIV]

Yeah, ST talks about ethical vs profit driven systems, but if the US' healthcare is profit driven, which countries would he point to and say "these are ethical"? The UK? Here we have an organisation called NICE who have the job of _rejecting drugs and treatments_ if they cost too much. That's not ethical, its pragmatic. We cannot spend an inordinate amount of money on treatments because then there's no money for treatments that cost less. ST says "under capitalism we keep producing the same old drugs that fail to do their job" but ignores that we do the same under socialised systems. I'm not saying that basing your heathcare solely on capitalism is just as good or bad as socialised healthcare. Capitalised healthcare means that medicine production costs fall, socialised healthcare means everyone gets access to some form of medicine regardless of whether they can afford it. These are different goals and comparing them morally may be apples and oranges. Its just not as simple as it was put in the video.

[@ReddwarfIV]

@@Moerasgeest Pharmacy and healthcare are inextricably linked, though you are right that I addressed the wrong argument. Capitalised vs socialised healthcare is a factor in pharmaceutical production, but not what was being talked about. So, to address the real point: If you can prevent monopolies and cartels forming, and you have a maximum amount you'll pay for new treatments (that are still patented) then you can prevent price gouging. After that, you can rely on corporations to use mass-production methods to lower their costs (which obviously increases the amount of medicine available.) By comparison, a command economy would say "we need x amount of y drug" and build enough infrastructure to supply that amount of that drug. It will cost more, lacking economy of scale, and far less money would likely be put into researching new treatments (unlike a corporation, a government will be less worried about being overtaken by competitors, especially when it means spending more money.) This is not to say that the command economy version would be useless in all aspects. If there is a particularly expensive and necessary treatment, a government could buy the patent and the production facility, and produce it for no profit. And, as you point out, there may be important drugs that are not cost-effective to produce, and a government could pay for its production. However, this does not mean that _other_ drugs should not be produced by a profit-driven system. As for the Big Three automotive companies, that's what globalisation does. If a company can just up and leave to somewhere cheaper, it'll do that. I'm not sure automotive counts as a vital, life saving industry though.

[@benedictfay5926]

I don’t understand the need to have ethically sourced products. I’m happy knowing that my shoes were made by children in Vietnam. I’m happy knowing my car seat is made of cow.

[@SecondThought]

That's kinda fucked up... *checks username* Ah, I get it now.

[@benedictfay5926]

Second Thought understandable

[@squidcultist0022]

You jest, but you just described "Libertarian"s

[@Syncopator]

A fundamental foundation of the free market is informed consumers. Without that, a market is not a free market. But the entire PR industry is specifically designed to MIS-inform consumers. Capitalism is based on defrauding the consumer, not informing them.

[@warcriminal4183]

Vegans: I don't want animals exploited in the production of this car Me: I don't want HUMANS exploited in the production of this car

[@eymed2023]

Humans ARE animals. Veganism naturally oposes exploitation of humans as well.

[@Guus]

The irony of the curiositystream adds in this video...

[@thiagosimoes95]

hey a man's gotta eat. joking aside, if we want real good and unbiased videos on social criticism we need full time youtubers doing this we need ads . KZbin is fed by ads.

[@blind1337nedm]

a mans gotta eat, that means me. your eating is oppressive. not mine though.

[@squidcultist0022]

There's no irony. Unless you want to tell me the only people who can criticize Capitalism live in the woods

[@otiagomarques]

the ad at the end

[@squidcultist0022]

Omg you live in a house but don't like homeless. What a hypocrite

[@ziziroberts8041]

Watching this in August of 2020. Whole Foods doesn't care about their employees. That's for sure.

[@Truth-of-the-matter]

The idea that companies are formed just to make profit no matter the cost is sadly the result of unconscious individuals. Companies need to make money, yes, but their moral and ethical standards should be based on the treatment of their workers, the product they are manufacturing and the overall impact their business has on the surrounding area. Studies show that workers who are among other things paid well and feel like they are appreciated are much less likely to quit and continue to improve the company. When you work for low paying jobs, which I certainly have, there is no incentive to want to improve when the company sees you as an expendable number to be thrown out. I'm not saying you don't do your best at work but it is a companies duty to take care of their employee and make sure they are a part of your business. Unfortunately with the demise of unions workers benefits have continued to go down hill and the pay rate is unacceptable. Companies expect a lot from their employees but are not willing to compensate them either. Sounds like modern day slavery to me.

[@sirmeowthelibrarycat]

😡 What is meant by ‘conscious’ in this context? The opposite of ‘unconscious’? It appears to be nothing more than a buzzword! Is there any mention of ‘conscience ‘ in this text? I doubt it very much! What price can be put on ethical behaviour? There is none. What price can be attributed to business behaviour? Only that of money. I know where I stand on this issue and will not be buying this apology for rampant capitalism.

[@damymetzke514]

I think the medicine argument is flawed. The reason it seems to work is because you took a deceptive example that is blurry because we are speaking of human lives. Any other example and it becomes an argument in favor of capitalism. For example: Let's make an ideal case. In reality things aren't perfect, but for this example we assume they are. First of all there is a linear relation between cost and effort used to make the product. If the cost doubles so does the labor. Secondly we ignore diminishing value, which means that the value gotten from a product doesn't decrease over multiple uses. We have a cake that takes 1E to produce. Eating the cake results in 1R for the consumer. So E is the effort used to create the cake and R the reward gotten from eating the cake (think dopamine). We have a population of exactly 1 person which has exactly 4E that they can "spend" exclusively on making cake each day. Now let's say there is a new cake recipe. It has the following values: R = 2, E = 4. I think it's pretty clear why this cake is worse. The first cake only costs 1E, so you would be able to consume 4 cakes each day. This would result in a reward of 4R every day. The second cake costs 4 times as much, so you can only produce 1 of them each day. This results in a reward of 2R each day, which is less. Back to the medicine. The fact that medicine B is more expensive implies that it takes more effort to create. Switching to medicine B will result in less death, however we also need more production. So either less people get medicine, or we lose value from other products. You could make the case that the cost isn't representative of the effort; assuming this is true I make the case that eliminating the reason why cost and effort are unbalanced is a better solution. Lastly you could argue that the demand and value are unbalanced. Basically people don't value medicine B as much as they should. However now we are in the territory of psychology, collective systems or both. This makes the argument several magnitudes more complex making the medicine argument way too simple to properly address the issue. Back to the main point in the video: It seems like capitalism is the scapegoat here. I think I reasonably refuted the fact that in the previous counter arguments, however I do agree that pure capitalism is problematic. There are just too many things that make the system work imperfect, which is why I also believe that the system isn't fairly balanced at the moment (in any country to my knowledge). I think "conscious capitalism" is one of the prime examples of this. Even though the argument is flawed, the fact that companies will switch tactics the moment their consciousness isn't profitable is 100% true. Now in a way this isn't a problem, this is how capitalism is intended to work. Companies will produce what is profitable. Things are profitable when consumers like/support them. Consumers are consciousness, companies produce conscious products. The problem I have that it's all fake. Companies *cannot* have opinions. You can take the average opinion from its employees or perhaps from the people on the top. You can have actions that align with certain opinions. But in the end companies don't have opinions, they have goals. In most cases this is to make profit (and due to the nature of capitalism those seeking profit will have more success). Companies declaring things like: "We support the environment" is dishonest at best, but likely manipulative. A more honest statement would be: "Because of demand we are producing environmentally positive products". Anyways those are my thoughts. Even though I think the argument is badly presented I do think this video brings up an important issue, one that has been annoying me for quite some while now.

[@OskarVanBruce]

You completely ignore the argument that better medicine could be produced at more efficient and cheapest ways if it had more attention from producers instead of simply producing the most profitable and easy medicine right off the bat. Furthermore, he used the medicine argument to highlight how little unrestricted capitalism cares about human lives when faced with the prospects of more and easier benefits and that is the whole point of this video.

[@squidcultist0022]

Capitalism will fuck you over for 2 extra cents. Fuck off

[@chrisk8208]

While corporations are required by law to make profits for their shareholders their #1 priority, we will get whatever they can dish that makes $$. They will literally know a product is dangerous and be forced to work out how much profit they will make and how much the law suits will cost. If that makes more money than safe, dangerous is what they'll sell you.

[@NoelTaylor42]

Yoooo! I play drums and was born in August!

[@micahdesilva1685]

Capitalism isn't a "system". It's not profit-driven, either. Capitalism is what results from free and open trade between individuals, without anybody using violence. People are the profit-driven ones, and since people are free to do as they please, the results are (usually) competing profiteers. This might not seem important, but the distinction is critical, because PEOPLE are the most important factor in any "system", because any system ultimately relies on people. This means that no matter the "system", profiteerism is inevitable, the only difference is that Capitalism excludes violence, while all other systems require it. Tldr, you can't pretend that companies are the only entities capable of selfishness or evil. The government is just as corruptible, but has the added bonus of using violent force.

[@alexturlais8558]

Capitalism is a system and it is profit driven system. Trading stuff isnt the same as capitalism.

[@squidcultist0022]

Lmao Capitalism is a system you pathetic donut.

[@johnnorris7504]

Why is having markets decide what is good inherently bad in a system? This videos argument that free market capitalism is bad because it only exists to make a profit is wrong. This is because the free market reacts and is directly controlled by what the consumers want, instead of what the companies or the govt. wants. Not only that, the need to profit is extremely beneficial because it creates significantly cheaper, more affordable products, mostly due to other competing companies fighting with each other. This need to earn a profit also drives innovation, because it incentivizes companies to stremline and create, instead of using the same technology they have always used. Furthermore, even though a companies motivation to show "woke ads" is profit, they still portray good messages that help the public, so why fuss?

[@MrsKaylakat56]

The problem is that profit outweighs the desire to be decent. I can only speak to the medical field because that's what I study, but an example of where profit is a bad motivator is the pricing for insulin. Insulin in other countries is about $20. In the US it's closer to $700. It's about $500 with government aid. That ridiculous profit margin is likely used is more than likely used for stock buybacks and increasing exec salaries. The company that mainly produces insulin in the US isn't the only pharmaceutical company that does this. Many of these companies are using government aid (tax payer dollars) to fund research and their innovation you talk about, then turn around and screw over their consumers on a life or death purchase. Perhaps for profit isn't the worst thing in certain areas, but in life altering industries like healthcare and the justice system, profit cannot be the leading motivator. And as far as your other point, the issue with companies that use woke messaging to promote a product is that behind the scenes, they're usually actively working against that message.

[@johnnorris7504]

@@MrsKaylakat56 The whole idea that profit, especially in the medical field, is unethical or wrong is incorrect in my opinion. In fact, the pharmaceutical companies themselves use most of their own money on R&D costs. Furthermore, only the largest of pharmaceutical companies recieve govt. funding, and the rest of the research is funded by investors or the companies themselves. Not only that, Tresiba, the most expensive form of insulin, is covered by nearly every insurance plan, and therefore is much less expensive than you state. Your first point is even wrong, because profit doesn't outweigh the desire to be decent, because in order to be profitable, you need to give consumers something that will be affordable, and effective. Just take Walmart for example, Walmart gives millions of people the chance to eat cost effective, predominantly healthy food. Furthermore, it employs millions of people and mostly gives them a living wage (with exception to economic capitals, where there are enough high paying jobs to drive up cost of living). This is only possible because competition creates lower prices, and therefore cheaper prices for consumers. One last thing on insulin, different insulins are extensively and expensively researched, by no means does that research amount to $600 a vial, but at minimum hundreds on millions of dollars.

[@bluegravestone58]

John Norris profit is not inherently moral. It’s true that being a moral company can sometimes net a profit, but at the end of the day companies care much more about money than being good people. Also, you don’t need to make effective or affordable products if you control vast sections of the economy, which under capitalism is the end goal of any company: complete market domination for maximum profit.

[@frankyboy8513]

@@johnnorris7504 walmart does not give living wage it gives minimum wage which is not enough to live on unless your idea of "live" is a homelss man walmart exploits labour from china and underpays its workers thats why its cheap because they dont spend massive amounts of money on workers they can do it cheap and also you have to pay full for insurance insurance plans are not cheap and as a poll was taken in 2019 the uninsured rate in america is 8.7% which doesnt sound like alot but is equivelant too 2.7 million americans insurance and also even for the amount you pay a vial of insulin can still be as much as 30-50$ insurance has to make a profit as well under capitilism meaning that cost is going to smack you in the face next time bill comes by

[@squidcultist0022]

Markets always pick profit over ethics. Children in coal mines 16 hours a day six days a week is what you get when Markets decide what's goof

[@macrumpton]

Is it my imagination, or are society destroying moguls with absurdly bad haircuts a thing? It is almost like a movie where you can tell the bad guys by what they wear.

[@toneeviera8336]

Hey, what was the tuna about?

[@Killuminati23]

It would be great if you could make a video that criticizes libertarianism/anarcho capitalism and what possible dystopias it could lead to.

[@JamarfromAfar]

Libertarianism is too different from anarcho-capitalism to be criticized in the same video. Also how would libertarianism be a dystopia? It ain’t perfect but wouldn’t a dystopia require oppression of people? You can’t really do that if the government actively works to remove itself from the lives of people.

[@georgeconnett7812]

@@JamarfromAfar It's a bit more of a stretch but there could be a dystopia where the government has gotten so small it's unable to uphold law, there is little to no healthcare and infrastructure is falling apart due to lack of funding.

[@derkanal1908]

@@JamarfromAfar no it doesn't, dystopias are simply versions of the future that are grim. Oppression by the governement is not a nessecity: ,,A dystopia (from Ancient Greek δυσ- "bad" and τόπος "place"; alternatively, cacotopia,[1]kakotopia, or simply anti-utopia) is a community or society that is undesirable or frightening. It is translated as "not-good place" and is an antonym of utopia." (,from wikipedia)

[@derkanal1908]

@@georgeconnett7812 good example. This could create a society where "might is right".

[@williamhild1793]

The dystopia would come from the unfettered cartel of for-profit monopolies that would control every scrap of raw materials that people need to survive. You want a clean glass of water? Better prepare to pay through the nose to some private conglomerate that will privatize all the water in a given area. Want to drive on a highway? Sorry---pay the toll first to the XYZ roads and bridges company, John Doe chairman and C E O. OH---I see your town is being taken over by a foreign military force. Too bad you didn't pony-up for a private army of soldiers that the U S government used to provide. Now, you need the servies of Red, White, and Blue military force, Incorporated (James Q Smith, chairman and C E O) The United States of KOCH brothers, Google, JP Morgan Chase, Turing pharma,...(etc etc etc). Now, do you see why government can be a GOOD thing? Unfettered capitalism, where everybody is out to get as much for themselves as possible without a single regard to any other groups of people on the planet WILL lead to dystopia.

[@uvbe]

It's not only a bad vision of capitalism, but also an outdated one.

[@WheatleyOS]

Regulated capitalism is where it's at

[@squidcultist0022]

There's no good version of Capitalism

[@brokkoliomg6103]

I would have two video requests for you (maybe you already did sth similar): 1 Does the US still have the capitalistic, market and competition driven economy it believes is best? 2 How I (you) would reform America (this will be highly controversial and lead by your views, but I would be very interested)

[@rubikscubedude4028]

I have waited for someone to ask that question.

[@VeronikaBenson]

A lot more capitalists should read Adam Smith where he talks about the interest of the businessman being OPPOSITE of that of the public. He also described monopolies as applying an "absurd tax upon the public"

[@MaaveMaave]

Is that covered in The Wealth of Nations? It's on my read list

[@VeronikaBenson]

@@MaaveMaave yeah it's a small section, but where depends on which copy you have.

[@S3maxime16]

Capitalism is the tool that creates wealth and organizes workers and production. The countries where the quality of life is best are consistently the countries where the economies are the most free. From that justified assumption, it can be relevant to introduce social measures to distribute some of the wealth to the people in need without getting rid of the capitalist incentives to create wealth in the first place. It's a balance and both extremes are plain out bad ideas.

[@tehderpingscorpion]

The workers must sieze the means of production.

[@falcoperegrinus82]

Do a video on "greenwashing".

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

Good video..

[@MM-qk9wx]

Same arguments (conscious capitalism) as the Gospel of Wealth. Same realities, also - give it ten years and all the trappings of what makes it "conscious" gives way to the profits.

[@nescius2]

oxymoron

[@hangukhiphop]

How does a union interfere with one having lovers?

[@metametodo]

Thanks for your job, great as always, second thought. I admire how you keep making videos that instigate questions and doubts within, and this is another great one. No matter where you are on the political spectrum, I'd like to do different than the most of comments here, and say I'm glad there's this channel instigating doubt and thoughts inside people, because this unfortunately is rare, and to me it is important beyond any ideal of politics.

[@wartrix6046]

What's the point of not mentioning political parties if you're just going to pick one political opinion and run with it? By the way I'm Gen Z and I love how you guys group us all into one, and act like we all believe the same thing.

[@SecondThought]

Generally speaking, the younger generations are more likely to believe in ethical standards of production. If you'd rather be lumped into a less humane group, I'd be more than happy to criticize you as an outlier.

[@wartrix6046]

@@SecondThought Of course I believe animals should be treated better, but I also believe that capitalism is by far one of the best, if not the best economical system to date. And studies have shown that Gen Zers are actually more conservative than Millennials.

[@cameronikswokark5536]

Wartrix I think you're kinda missing the point. You can find a study for anything you want, but for the sake of this video, we're assuming the younger generation tends to have a more "liberal" stance than the older generation. Whether you agree or not has nothing to do with the point that this video is trying to make.

[@wartrix6046]

@@cameronikswokark5536 What? We aren't going to "assume" things that aren't true.

[@JustSomeDudethe]

Dont worry dude. Western culture still have Hope. Conservadorism is the New counterculture. Go gen Z!

[@ChrisBryer]

This honestly does not seem very critical of capitalism overall. If anything it sounds like you were talking about corporatism, cronyism, government regulation and ethics. Capitalism is a machine, uncaring. People that have nothing else to their life but the pursuit of capital are dangerous since that simply is just someone that wants power and has no moral or ethical code behind it. Also, HBomberGuy is not a very good source. I dont just say that cuz i disagree with alot of what he has said and believes but also due to him being out right lying about people he disagrees with. He's extremely disingenuous.

[@100perdido]

I would not have known about Dog Beer if not for this presentation. Busch Dog Beer. Ah. The wonders of Capitalism.

[@mrnonsense1031]

there is no such thing as conscious capitalism because the nature of capitalism itself makes virtually all consumption unethical to one degree or another.

[@frantzeyssallenne6387]

This Video: “This video will not cover politics” Also this video: “Let us explain our politics.”

[@surjo8095]

Notification Squad!!!!

[@fabiantombers4966]

the spectacle is here.

[@Nikofran]

I saw a sign that said employee could not use the elevator in whole food but who knows I might have miss read

[@nikolaglushkov7813]

What mackey is talking about sounds like socialism to me with the only difference that he isn't the one on top and earning all the profits but the state.

[@SecondThought]

that's an...interesting take

[@SvenDzahov]

What? What do you think socialism is exactly?

[@nikolaglushkov7813]

@@SvenDzahov Wow you took me back to my edgy political phase. Honestly I don't know what i was talking about and probably didn't back then. The one thing I know is that second tough's videos are political propaganda and are really not worth your time.

[@SvenDzahov]

@@nikolaglushkov7813 lol😂 dont worry we've all had edgy political phrases. I used to be totalitarian. And yeah his videos definitely are political sort of disguised as biased but I agree with what he says and his logic is pretty sound

[@harrys.truman6010]

Dirty red talk

[@whorror_punx]

I love finding videos of yours about topics that are becoming hot and popular to talk about, then seeing that you posted it years ago lol My dudes always way ahead of it. Love you 🖤

[@EddieKMusic]

Vegan friendly seats? Guys... please don't eat car seats

[@skeletizer]

I agree with some points, but the overall idea isn't my cup of tea. However, it is still a Second Thought video, therefore I must watch anyway.

[@SecondThought]

Hey, I appreciate your support :) I bounce around with all sorts of topics, so I hope I can make one you'll enjoy soon!

[@skeletizer]

@@SecondThought I enjoy all of the videos, man, no matter the topic. Keep up the amazing work!

[@WildermanJNM]

The problem is that you start with the premise that things are "morally" better if they are one way or another, and that's something we just don't know. Yeah, government regulation may prevent worker's exploitation and environmental damage but maybe those same regulations make the final product more expensive and difficult to make. If we talk about something like fishing (given that you used some footage that touched it), maybe that results in a more alive ocean, and it may give work to more people (which sounds really good) but it will also make production less efficient, making it harder to produce and probably reducing offer, which at the end results in higher prices. And even the slightest rise in prices could mean life and death to poor people. I myself live in Venezuela, a country where trawling was banned in 2003 in order to protect the environment and the average fishing worker; now, in 2019, we are living the biggest crisis in our history and food shortages are very common, and we could use some trawling and prevent people from starving, but I guess it isn't worth it... right? The thing is, we don't know. We don't know if a regulation that seems good has bigger effects. We don't know how many people will be affected in the future nor we know what possibilities will open in the future if we don't regulate. We don't know what is morally wrong or right. Maybe it is worth to develop new antibiotics but it would be too expensive, and the new antibiotics would be available to only a small percentage of people, so maybe it's better to just change a bit the current antibiotics and keep them cheap, saving millions of lives that otherwise couldn't afford medication. We don't know. That's why capitalism trusts in the free market to make these decisions. If we can't know what is better, then let's just try doing what we do in the most efficient way (I'm talking about financial efficiency; if something is cheaper without losing quality then it's considered more efficient) and hope it will end up paying out. And turns out it normally pays out. Statistically, more government regulations tend to result in less economic growth, and with a worse economy, there are fewer chances that someone will change for the best the way things operate and make a profit out of it.

[@WildermanJNM]

@Celtic Revival / Adfywiad Celtaidd You're totally right, and I agree. But, while it is true that we are destroying the ecosystem and that could lead to mass deaths, it is also truth that if there are people that work with the ecosystem, there is plenty of motivation for them to protect it. No one is more concerned with deforestation than the person that earns a living out of selling wood; if we run out of trees they will have to go out of business. If we apply the argument that the only thing businesses care about is profit, they would also care about protecting their business, and if their business depends on the soil, they will probably find out how to not destroy it while keeping the production. If we start regulating there is suddenly less motivation to create new technology that actually solves the problem, and we will create plenty of motivation for them to, somehow, jump over the regulations. We don't know what kind of technologies could be discovered in the future, and with more risk, there is more motivation to create those technologies faster. And yeah, there is uncertainty, but there is uncertainty even with regulations, the only difference regulations make is making processes less efficient and, therefore, less productive (possibly causing mass deaths as well, directly or indirectly)

[@uhohhotdog]

Wilderman Niño except reality has proven you wrong. Capitalism will literally obliterate the environment. They don’t care about the long term. It’s all about get rich now and fuck everyone else.

[@WildermanJNM]

@@uhohhotdog That wasn't my point. I don't think all capitalists just want to get rich and fuck everyone (because there are good people in the world), but even if that was true, maybe that way of operating is the best. Maybe destroying the environment and figuring it out later saved more lives than it would have saved the governments protecting the environment. Truth is if someone wants to get rich in a capitalist world, normally they would need to give a product or a service for which people would pay. Services or products that could literally save lives and make life easier for everyone. Oil production could be destroying the environment but I'm telling you, gasoline is pretty handy. In Venezuela we're living the worst shortage of gasoline ever and we have (I think) the highest gasoline price in the world, and it feels even worst than the food shortages.

[@WildermanJNM]

@@uhohhotdog Oh, I think you're answering to the second comment I made. And you're right, capitalists might just want to get rich and don't care about anything. But when they destroy the environment, they won't be able to keep doing that. And all the aconomic incentive will be on saving the environment and saving humanity from global warming.The capitalists that want to get rich then will need to make things for the environment, because there is where the money will be (ehem Elon Musk ehem).

[@alexturlais8558]

Personally I'd rather actively try to make the world a better place rather than leaving it up to the free market and just hope.

[@CAGreve1231]

Spot-on. One point: the U.S. isn't a free market. There is much intervention from the government on the part of those who bribed them to do so. As a business owner, I can confirm most of this video to be correct, but unfortunately the concept of this cannot be fully wrapped up in a short video. You did a great job of hitting the main points that need to be considered.

[@appa609]

Why are you taking it as an axiom that the free market cannot be ethical? If the demand function is right and demand increases with ethicacy enough to offset increases in supply cost, then it will result in better outcomes. In other words: if ethical business strategies are not profitable, it will be because the consumers don't care enough about ethics. And in that case, well the the consumers are also the voters, and we have no reason to expect the government to do any better.

[@Logan-zl7jh]

what millenial can buy a tesla or audi

[@SecondThought]

Relatively few Americans in general can afford the current models. These high-dollar models will fund less expensive ones down the line, as we've seen with Tesla just releasing the $35k Model 3. Still a lot of money, but headed in the right direction. Check out last week's video on electric vehicles for more info :)

[@squidcultist0022]

The ones born rich

[@freee8838]

Great video!

[@SecondThought]

Thanks, friend!

[@tuomassaarinen147]

So whats better then? Pretty pointless to critisize things if you dont present a better alternative or atleast some improvements. "Greed" drives the society forward. Is it a coincidence that in 1700-1800s when free market systems first came up those countries expierenced financial and technological growth we have never seen. If you are allowed to pursue your own benefit, you will eventually create jobs and wealth for other people too. Today, the poorest 1% in the UK has better living standards than the king of England in the 15th century. And that is thanks to the ambitious scientists and entrepenours who strived to succeed.

[@williamsnyder6639]

problem is most dollar is spent from FED and Government, so we have far less saying in this capitalism. Most of money is spent to push the house price high and fund the big banks.

[@cynic2201]

It... doesn’t even seem like you’ve read his book. Just like you took random quotes from the framed video without context... I find it funny how you, a relatively wealthy person who makes his money from influence and being paid BY a corporate and political entity are preaching to us that, no. In reality if you do things my way, it will be far better (completely ignoring actual studies and research).

[@MysterySeeker]

That's a stupid notion, even if you participate in a system, you can still argue about how it could be improved. It's not like he has a choice not to participate in capitalism, otherwise he'd starve to death.

[@lewisbaker5977]

Makes his videos on a Mac,even though apple is one of the least ethical businesses 😂

[@squidcultist0022]

YOU WANT TO IMPROVE SOCIETY YET YOY PARTICIPATE IN SOCIETY, CURIOUS. IM VERY SMART

[@justinspencer9894]

complaines about Capitalism -> "this is episode is brought to you by Curiosity Stream"

[@Lfppfs]

Yeah, right, he should not """"""""complain""""""""" about Capitalism since it is not an economic system where a few people own the means of production and have more money that they can spend while most other people have to sell their time to the first in order to barely make a living, it is a content producer trying to earn enough money to make the content he wants to make by finding some company who he/she, in some way, approves, to sponsor his work, which is focused on teaching people about what Capitalism is and what its absurd premises and dreadful consequences are.

[@alexturlais8558]

It was barely even a complaint, he was very lenient on capitalism.

[@squidcultist0022]

Don't make me get the "yet you participate in society" strip

[@lapislazarus8899]

So which for-profit corporate owns curiosity stream?

[@sapphirestarblazer6805]

When the capitalism is conscious! [Insert image of a black hole or something here]