The truth about Capitalism

[bobhikes]

If only people would really listen.

 

[Nakosis]

Spends a lot of time complaining about the government.
Says capitalism is evil.
Ends by saying the solution is capitalism.

Ok.

 

[exchemist]

If only people would really listen.

I'm not going to spend 25 mins watching a video.

What are the main points it makes?

 

[metis]

All countries today have what's called a "mixed economy", thus a mixture of capitalism and socialism to varying degrees.

 

[QuestioningMind]

If only people would really listen.

Raw unregulated capitalism is the game of Monopoly in which the goal is for one person to end up with everything and everyone else ends up with nothing. It's a delightful concept for a board game, but a truly lousy model for a viable economic system.

 

[Sunstone]

If only people would really listen.

I was skeptical I'd find the video worth listening to in its entirety. I clicked on it expecting to give it just three minutes.

I ended up watching the whole thing.





EDIT: Here's the outline of the video...

The author starts off by pointing out that there is a natural conflict of interest between owners (capitalists) and workers (labor).

He goes on to show that for the past 30 or 40 years, the owners have prospered while things have gotten tougher for the workers. e.g. it has become harder or nearly impossible to realize the American Dream to own a home, support a family on just one income or job, pay for higher education and adequate health care. He backs up his statements with lots of facts.

He wraps it up -- not by calling for an overthrow of the owners (like some folks would) -- but rather by calling for the workers to join together in order to achieve raised wages, improve working conditions, obtain affordable health care, and so forth.

In short, it is not at all a controversial video in 90% of the world, but many Americans will find the notion that the workers should join together in order to improve their lives outlandish and offensive -- and at the very least, belittle the notion and dismiss it.

 

[exchemist]

I was skeptical I'd find the video worth listening to in its entirety. I clicked on it expecting to give it just three minutes.

I ended up watching the whole thing.

Good. So perhaps you can save the rest of us 25mins and tell us what it says.

 

[Sunstone]

Good. So perhaps you can save the rest of us 25mins and tell us what it says.

It is basically the story of the pandemic told in terms of capital vs labor and backed by a ton of statistics. I recognized many of the stats. The video has its facts lined up. Whether or not anyone agrees with its conclusions is up to them to decide. But it's a fact-based video.

 

[exchemist]

It is basically the story of the pandemic told in terms of capital vs labor and backed by a ton of statistics. I recognized many of the stats. The video has its facts lined up. Whether or not anyone agrees with its conclusions is up to them to decide. But it's a fact-based video.

Sounds like one to avoid, then. Thanks.

 

[Revoltingest]

Spends a lot of time complaining about the government.
Says capitalism is evil.
Ends by saying the solution is capitalism.

Ok.

Sounds like an excellent summary.
Glad I skipped it.

In my experience, any video's title beginning with
"The Truth About..." portends tedium....unless it's porn.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If only people would really listen.

If you arent willing to discuss and at least summarize it why shoild we be willing to invest our own time in it?

 

[Valjean]

If you arent willing to discuss and at least summarize it why shoild we be willing to invest our own time in it?

Curiosity? Interest in the subject? Education?
Did you have some other pressing engagement?

 

[Sunstone]

Good. So perhaps you can save the rest of us 25mins and tell us what it says.

I have edited post #6 to more clearly summarize the contents of the video while trying to be brief.

Earlier when I responded to your post I was worn out by insomnia, so I didn't do a good job of it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Curiosity? Interest in the subject? Education?
Did you have some other pressing engagement?

Touche, albiet that wasn't where I was going, lol.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was skeptical I'd find the video worth listening to in its entirety. I clicked on it expecting to give it just three minutes.

I ended up watching the whole thing.





EDIT: Here's the outline of the video...

The author starts off by pointing out that there is a natural conflict of interest between owners (capitalists) and workers (labor).

He goes on to show that for the past 30 or 40 years, the owners have prospered while things have gotten tougher for the workers. e.g. it has become harder or nearly impossible to realize the American Dream to own a home, support a family on just one income or job, pay for higher education and adequate health care. He backs up his statements with lots of facts.

He wraps it up -- not by calling for an overthrow of the owners (like some folks would) -- but rather by calling for the workers to join together in order to achieve raised wages, improve working conditions, obtain affordable health care, and so forth.

In short, it is not at all a controversial video in 90% of the world, but many Americans will find the notion that the workers should join together in order to improve their lives outlandish and offensive -- and at the very least, belittle the notion and dismiss it.

Kinda a tangent, but what has the role of unions been in the US traditionally?
In most first world countries I'm aware of, there has been (at some point) a strong union presence which has influenced working conditions in meaningful ways (negative or positive, depending on the country/industry/your viewpoint) and union power has then gradually been eroded or become more conservative in nature.

 

[Valjean]

Kinda a tangent, but what has the role of unions been in the US traditionally?
In most first world countries I'm aware of, there has been (at some point) a strong union presence which has influenced working conditions in meaningful ways (negative or positive, depending on the country/industry/your viewpoint) and union power has then gradually been eroded or become more conservative in nature.

Unions here created a strong middle class, but industrialists and free-market types have considerably undermined both union membership and bargaining power.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Kinda a tangent, but what has the role of unions been in the US traditionally?
In most first world countries I'm aware of, there has been (at some point) a strong union presence which has influenced working conditions in meaningful ways (negative or positive, depending on the country/industry/your viewpoint) and union power has then gradually been eroded or become more conservative in nature.

They were criminal for awhile, they did do wonders in paving the way for weekends, holidays, safety regulations, and so many other work protections we relly on. The Capitalist class has continued their war on unions, smearing them, demonizing them, weakening them, and reducing them to toothless and clawleess shells of their former selves.

 

[Sunstone]

Kinda a tangent, but what has the role of unions been in the US traditionally?
In most first world countries I'm aware of, there has been (at some point) a strong union presence which has influenced working conditions in meaningful ways (negative or positive, depending on the country/industry/your viewpoint) and union power has then gradually been eroded or become more conservative in nature.

Unions were hard fought for, as you might expect. It wasn't until the 1930s that sufficient numbers of workers were unionized for them to began to have an influence on the economy as a whole. From then until Reagan's destruction of the Air Traffic Controllers union, they were key players in creating the largest, most prosperous middle class in the history of the world up until their time.

Moreover, their impact on wages and benefits extended well beyond the companies that were unionized. When they negotiated higher wages and increased benefits for the unionized workers of ABC corporation, the non-unionized workers of XYZ corporation saw their own compensation rise a bit too. That's because XYZ had to compete with ABC for labor.

Perhaps their biggest contribution to the overall health of the republic was the effect they had on distributing the wealth. From about 1930-40 until the 80s, unions forced management to split the gains from steadily increasing productivity roughly 50/50 between owners (capitalists) and workers (labor). In practice this meant that a majority of Americans could expect things to get a little better each year.

I noticed while I was still a child that every year, things were getting a little better for my family. An updated car (we could never afford an actual new car, but we could now and then update to a more recent model used car), better food on the table, four pairs of pants this year instead of the two last year, even -- to my delight -- a few more and more expensive toys at Christmas. At age 10 or so, I thought it was some kind of law of nature that mom would be able to buy a few more and better things with each year. Unlike, say, Japanese kids of my same age, I had been taught nothing about economics. Nothing. I hadn't even heard the word yet. So, to me, it was all "just the way the world works."

Unfortunately, some of the biggest, most powerful unions were remarkably corrupt. Organized crime. Hoover had done little or nothing to root it out -- he was too busy fighting communists. Their reputation made all unions vulnerable to being smeared as "corrupt" and along with stories of union excesses, the American public turned against them, making them sitting ducks for political attacks.

One thing I used to love about Americans -- honestly love about us -- was that corruption outraged us. Not just disturbed us, but we were a people idealistic enough to feel deeply offended by it. However, when that outrage was turned against unions, there was no effort to see them as a mixed bag. Americans are not a subtle people. We are so many of us black and white thinkers. Unions went from white hats straight to black hats. Reagan was even cheered on by union workers when he knocked out the Air Traffic Controllers. In doing so, he set a precedent that was immediately copied and rolled out by management in industry after industry.

Today, unions are almost irrelevant. Moreover, they will never come back. If workers are to get a larger share of the economic pie, they will need to invent new ways of doing it.

I hope that helps.

 

[tytlyf]

Spends a lot of time complaining about the government.
Says capitalism is evil.
Ends by saying the solution is capitalism.

Ok.

You didn't watch it. Everyone knows republicans are only interested in corporate policy. The weird part is that 60 million people voted for corporate policy instead of worker policy.
They're tricked into it by the propaganda from the usual RW gossip queens. Their media scares them into voting corporate over American worker.

Corporatists (conservatives) hate the following:

-Safety laws (regulations)
-Affordable healthcare
-Raising minimum wage
-Climate change
-Public education
-Social security
-Medicare
-Corporate taxes
-Unions
-Workers rights
-Government run anything
-etc.

I'm in the middle class, I have no business supporting capitalists and their immoral agenda

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Unions were hard fought for, as you might expect. It wasn't until the 1930s that sufficient numbers of workers were unionized for them to began to have an influence on the economy as a whole. From then until Reagan's destruction of the Air Traffic Controllers union, they were key players in creating the largest, most prosperous middle class in the history of the world up until their time.

Moreover, their impact on wages and benefits extended well beyond the companies that were unionized. When they negotiated higher wages and increased benefits for the unionized workers of ABC corporation, the non-unionized workers of XYZ corporation saw their own compensation rise a bit too. That's because XYZ had to compete with ABC for labor.

Perhaps their biggest contribution to the overall health of the republic was the effect they had on distributing the wealth. From about 1930-40 until the 80s, unions forced management to split the gains from steadily increasing productivity roughly 50/50 between owners (capitalists) and workers (labor). In practice this meant that a majority of Americans could expect things to get a little better each year.

I noticed while I was still a child that every year, things were getting a little better for my family. An updated car (we could never afford an actual new car, but we could now and then update to a more recent model used car), better food on the table, four pairs of pants this year instead of the two last year, even -- to my delight -- a few more and more expensive toys at Christmas. At age 10 or so, I thought it was some kind of law of nature that mom would be able to buy a few more and better things with each year. Unlike, say, Japanese kids of my same age, I had been taught nothing about economics. Nothing. I hadn't even heard the word yet. So, to me, it was all "just the way the world works."

Unfortunately, some of the biggest, most powerful unions were remarkably corrupt. Organized crime. Hoover had done little or nothing to root it out -- he was too busy fighting communists. Their reputation made all unions vulnerable to being smeared as "corrupt" and along with stories of union excesses, the American public turned against them, making them sitting ducks for political attacks.

One thing I used to love about Americans -- honestly love about us -- was that corruption outraged us. Not just disturbed us, but we were a people idealistic enough to feel deeply offended by it. However, when that outrage was turned against unions, there was no effort to see them as a mixed bag. Americans are not a subtle people. We are so many of us black and white thinkers. Unions went from white hats straight to black hats. Reagan was even cheered on by union workers when he knocked out the Air Traffic Controllers. In doing so, he set a precedent that was immediately copied and rolled out by management in industry after industry.

Today, unions are almost irrelevant. Moreover, they will never come back. If workers are to get a larger share of the economic pie, they will need to invent new ways of doing it.

I hope that helps.

It does.
There are both similarities and marked differences in what you describe compared to the Australian situation re : unions.
However, I'd need to do a little research to make sure I'm accurate.
Thanks!!