Видео

Income on our labor was never supposed to be taxed

Great quote, thanks for sharing

No way. That must be youtube suggesting other people's videos. For example, see sampling of other videos on my channel like: ruclips.net/video/tr1olECY1JY/видео.html ruclips.net/video/kTmv7UxxOJk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/Wnxpb5lSY8U/видео.html TRANSCRIPTS on my production studio home page: gpenewsdocs.com/the-capitalist-solution-to-save-the-planet-make-it-an-asset-class-sell-it/ gpenewsdocs.com/the-agribusiness-alliance-for-a-green-revolution-failed-africa/ gpenewsdocs.com/the-2021-corporate-bamboozle-on-world-food-systems/

Capitalism is merely a tendency. It is a tendency for a business to expand itself. "Capital" is just a thing which can be used by a company to increase the value of that company. Capitalism is just a system where there are companies and they are operated on the principle of increasing their own value, indefinitely. The "fascist corporate oligarchy" is just an expansion of capitalist business: a company with more control and power has more property and more value. Capitalism is not a picture of a world - whatever golden age of capitalism that has passed us, where private business was separated from and mediated by a public democratic government, was not the objective of capitalism. It may have been a golden age for many, it may be the idea of the good society for many, and I can certainly see why they would think so.But there were not outside fascist corporate oligarchic forces that stole this good society we called capitalism from us, the call has been coming from inside the house the whole time. The expansion of private power, control, property, and value are the tendencies of capitalism. This tendency to expand is what makes capitalism do its thing, call it the "profit motive", "rational self interest", "market competition", whatever. You can't have a capitalism that isn't always trying to conquer whatever regulates, mediates, administrates, governs, etc it. So it would be best for us to call things what they are, and what we have had for a long time, and continue to have is capitalism.

@@LeeFerikson I appreciate your opinion on this! Thanks for engaging me. I vehemently disagree with you, but that's okay, I still very much appreciate you taking the time to respond. So we are straight semantically, Capitalism is defined by Google as: "An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." I hope we can agree on the above definition. Here is what I will attempt to demonstrate with the comment below: Free Market Capitalism requires a free market. The USA has heavily regulated markets. Therefore the U.S. does not and has not had a free market for over 100 years. Questions to ponder, please feel free to correct me: If someone is following regulations are they free to do as they choose? No, they are following regulations. If a market is regulated is it free? No, it's a regulated market. Are the terms "regulated" and "free" synonymous with each other? No. Who regulates markets? Government regulators. So then who currently controls capital in the U.S.? Government. Is government controlling capital, a capitalist concept? No, reread the definition of capitalism above. Does the United States practice free market capitalism anymore? If the previous answers are accurate, no. Who currently has more influence over government in the US, individual voters or Corporations? Corporations. Then who is doing the most influencing on government in the US? Lobby groups provided by Conglomerates of Corporations. Is this capitalism, socialism, or communism? None of them, it's Corporate Oligarchy, aka Fascism. We do not and have not had an actual free market for over 100 years in the US, at least not by it's literal semantic definition. The beginning of the end of the "golden era" of which you spoke was a time of much less regulation. A time before we had a central bank esoterically controlling markets via interest rate controls (money printing). We had a golden era because there was no centralized control over capital. This fascist take over didn't happen over night. Generational plans of the elite take generations to accomplish, that's why it's hard for the average person to see the take over, especially considering esotericism is literally their religion. The beginning of the modern corporate take over of the United States has to do with Trojan horse law in the 14th amendment. A bastardized redefining of the "equal protection clause" in 1871 granted constitutional protections to corporations. This is what opened the door to charter a central bank. This allowed the creation of a massive money creating corporation protected by rule of law, that "legally" buys everything it needs, controlling all markets through news media and interest rate manipulation esoterically. With this new found corporate protection, those in the know used these loopholes to buy up all the law makers, important land and means of production using the individual protections unique to this nation and extending those protections to powerful resource heavy corporations. These corporate groups in turn, have over the years used their combined means to control all the means of production. It's already happened, we are already there. That my friend is what we have, and that, isn't capitalism. It's a long story but if you'd like more info or want to discuss, let's talk! Free market capitalism is the antidote to what we are experiencing in the world today. FYI I do get busy through the week, I'm much more talkative on Sundays. Thanks for your time!

@@LeeFerikson I'm quite curious as to how you will respond to this information. Hit me up when you get a chance to think about it and reply, thanks!

@@timsession6736 ​ This is a somewhat standard libertarian position, so we have a disagreement that is very much at the root of the problem. For the purpose of this discussion, I'll agree that, at some point in the past, there was indeed this near ideal/perfect form of the free market that was free of contrivance and intervention by the transcendent outside power of regulation and policy. This central bank, for which the existence of a fascist corporate oligarchy depends, did not exist. But, my position is that the good free market capitalism is not *opposed* to the establishment of this corporation. It is in fact, the inevitable conclusion of it. And therefore, rendering it identical to capitalism gets to the root of the problem. Why is the good free market capitalism not opposed to the establishment of this oligarchy? It is a combination of two truths: the law of market competition, and the unclear distinction between the ideas of private and public in political philosophy. Firstly, the law of market competition. In a free market economy, each private business is competing with the other for a share of the market. I will spare you the lecture in "basic economics" - the biggest businesses make the products the cheapest, have the biggest marketing budgets, get bigger, and push out smaller businesses. Business always turns into Big Business. Secondly, the distinction of private and public. and sovereign power. Does it even make sense for this absolute separation of private and public to exist? is the sphere of business and the sphere of governance really distinct enough? Aren't they all simply part of the same immanent domain of "society" or "the human life world"? Don't economies need, and therefore are not separate from at least some transcendent laws to function? Don't monies need sovereign power to exist? And don't sovereign powers depend on their economies to maintain legitimacy and rule? If there is a crisis that is a result of the private free market, is this not a concern of public life? If there is a crisis in the public life, such as disease, or even happiness and morale, is this not a concern of private business? If a state goes to war, is this not a concern of private business? And notice that this relationship is bidirectional. In the good capitalist society, before the corporate fascist oligarchic takeover, sovereign power and public life depends on private business, and private business depends on sovereign power and public life. So business always turns into big business, and, the bigger it gets, the more sovereign power and public life depend on it. The bigger business gets, the more the spheres of public and private converge. And who are these oligarchs? They are the bankers and the businessmen. These oligarchs were grown by the capitalist society. And why do they establish this corporate fascist oligarchy? Because there is nothing to stop them, and it ensures them an increased degree of control, power, security over the private empires they've built, and the potential to expand them across the whole world. If the fascist corporate oligarchs are themselves the capitalists, and, how is that the good free market capitalism, can resist being taken over by these corporate fascist oligarchs? Capitalism plants the seeds and grows its own fruits of corporate fascist oligarchy. But why couldn't a good capitalist society resist this corporate fascist takeover? Why couldn't it have a class of noble statesmen who keep the spheres of private business, public life, and sovereign power separate? Again, refer to the two truths: capitalist accumulation, and the unclear and indistinct ideas of private business, public life, and sovereignty. These facts make the production of a corporate fascist takeover impossible to prevent. In the distant pre-capitalist past, this was possible to prevent. Why? Technology had not yet developed enough. The private printing press: private business can now propagandize in the media like never before. Advanced metallurgy, industrial techniques, mechanical engineering, and steam powered factories make private business into the producers of such advanced technologies, that sovereign power is dependent on them to not be out-competed and dominated by other sovereign powers in warfare and politics, or to even maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the people, who are easily seduced and addicted to consumption and the comforts of technology.

@@LeeFeriksonThanks for getting back to me! "But, my position is that the good free market capitalism is not opposed to the establishment of this corporation. It is in fact, the inevitable conclusion of it. And therefore, rendering it identical to capitalism gets to the root of the problem." The problem is corporate usurpation of the law, that's not a product of free market capitalism. Cheating systems and the public isn't a byproduct of free markets, it's a product of people making rules (regulations) that favor (corporate) groups over the interest of the individual citizen. I believe the most productive thing we can do, is to help each other understand there's been a corporate take over all government, banking and meaningful means of production. Then we can objectively try to stop the corporate abuse by empowering individuals over these powerful corporations by removing corporations from the "equal protection clause" of the constitution. Corporations should not have the same protections as individuals under the constitution, THIS is the silver bullet to end this dystopian corporate rule that we are currently being esoterically subjected. These people are literally trying to undermine our republic and replace it with a global government friendly regime. "Does it even make sense for this absolute separation of private and public to exist?" Without question. Individual liberty is the entire point of this nation. The ability to live free of government completely as long as you live life within the confines of the rule of law, that's the point of this country, like the whole point. You know, liberty and personal freedom from centralized control. This was the intent of the founders, we still could have it if we'd just collectively realize we're all individuals, we deserve equality under the rule of law for that reason, and that reason only. "And who are these oligarchs? They are the bankers and the businessmen. These oligarchs were grown by the capitalist society." No they were not, bankers and businessmen (oligarchs) have existed and used their financial means to gain positions of authority and public influence since the days of Monarchs and goldsmiths. The version of Oligarch we have today was enabled by manipulating the rule of law and bending the monetary system to their advantage, and using those advantages to maintain their influence over the system as a means to cloak their manipulations. This is not a product of capitalism, this is a product of lying and cheating to maintain economic advantages over the masses. Lying and cheating to gain advantages is a product of human nature, not socio-economic structures. "Again, refer to the two truths: capitalist accumulation, and the unclear and indistinct ideas of private business, public life, and sovereignty. These facts make the production of a corporate fascist takeover impossible to prevent." I'm not familiar with the two truths, seems there should be more than just two truths concerning the subject. Private business, public life and sovereignty co-exist under the rule of law. What is it about living under the rule of law, while conducting private business, being in public and maintaining personal sovereignty that you're having trouble with? I'd love to discuss and clarify. I don't see how these elements of American life make a fascist takeover eminent. Lastly, if you'll engage in the discussion with me, I've got a solid argument that the economic issues we are experiencing are due to having un-elected private banking conglomerates in charge of the people's currency, a group who got in that position via manipulation of the rule of law. It's not capitalism's fault there are generations of rich aristocracies as well as greedy folks with new money willing to lie, steal and cheat to climb the wealth and power ladder. The solution to our economic woes is creating a national central credit union, rather than indebting ourselves to an independent (unaccountable) quasi-government central bank. The Federal Reserve Bank has shareholders to whom the people are not allowed to know whom it is that has large vested interests in the people's currency, for reasons of "independence", or more likely, unaccountability. Credit unions don't have customers, they have members because those who put their money in the institution, own a piece of the institution. A national credit union is a bit of a yin and yang approach to the shared currency. We would have a centralized financial entity of decentralized individual's financial interests. The nation's reserves would be made up of our collective taxes, deposits and investments. This, versus what we have, an Oligarch feeding "independent" (unaccountable) entity of unelected central bankers who create wealth confiscation cycles for those at the top of the financial pyramid. I believe we should consider an accountable national central credit union that belongs to all of us. With elected, accountable people running it. Also and actually most importantly, we MUST loosen legal tender laws while we're at it, to create a free market check and balance on the public's currency. This will diversify how we spend and save in this country, while keeping the public money's expansion and contraction honest naturally. Unfortunately. the American people were sold a fraudulent pyramid scheme of a monetary system. The scheme is in it's final phases, the scheme is fundamentally, not capitalist in any way. A central bank is anti-capitalist because it centralizes a public thing into a private powerful centralized corporate banking *group's* hands, that's not capitalism, that's fascism, literally. The day we installed a central banking authority was the day we ended our capitalist experiment and went the corporate fascist path. That was in 1913. We've technically been a fascist state and had a fascist economic system since that time. I believe many in this world that support socialist policy are likely blaming capitalism for what is in reality misdirection from the powers that be and is actually the fault of our fraudulent (fascist) monetary system. I'm not against a little socialism where it makes sense, like the currency, we all have to provide for ourselves through commerce, but there should be a private option for spending as well so an individual can live free of government in their life if they so choose. Also, I'm not a Libertarian. While I generally disagree with what you are saying, I appreciate your position and you keeping it civil. I'm curious, what's your opinion on "economic liberty", should people have it? Do you follow any specific economic schools of thought? If so, who's your favorite economist?

Hi, There is now a series link posted in the video description. Thank you!