If slavery is what made America so Wealthy, then is the American South so poor compared to the rest of the country? Why are the states that explicitly kept out blacks for a long time so wealthy compared to the rest of the nation? Why is it that white people in the states that abandoned slavery first, are now richer than white people in states who abandoned slavery at a later date? If you're a straight white Christian male, then on average you're going to be better off living in New England than the American South.
And why didn’t the Soviet Union become an economic powerhouse, since the whole population were slaves of the State? It’s disgusting how slavery gets portrayed as some uniquely western thing, when in reality it was everywhere and the west was the start of its end.
Leftists don't see any difference between wage labour and slavery. I literally explained the difference to relatively smart socialists and just got denial from them or impossible scenarious. These people are lying, they know that they are lying, and they still do that for sake of their ideology.
Right! This is typical of the left. Modern and historical. They take the "hurt feelings" of a small, uneducated, or ignorant group or people and adopt those feelings as reality. Then they fuel a movement by manipulating the overall decent human tendencies of a much larger group of liberal-leaning people by using buzzwords and provocative phrases to essentially mobilize an army behind their true goals. This is seen throughout history especially in the Western societies by the communist movements. These movements have infected every facet of our society..... Government, education, religion, economy, and smaller societal corners of their parent Nation. Especially here in the United States. The bottom line is we NEED to learn from our History and remember History to prevent the same mistakes and also to capitalize on the successes that built the foundations for a successful civilization.
@Igor As George Costanza said to Jerry Seinfeld, "It's not a lie, if you believe it." Socialist believe lots of things, such as a Marxist utopia can be achieved, that will never happen. But, some day they may mature. Be gentle with them.
@CodeBloke ”Who controls the past controls the future.” George Orwell, 1984. While it is true that learning history may not add substantially to the marketplace, societies are not solely comprised of the market. I am both a Free Market advocate and a student and teacher of history. You may want to qualify your statement with Marxist or Socialist historians. Many historians support free markets and teach the benefits of free markets.
@@batmanwins4584 that's actually a real limitation of capitalism-- capitalists are too busy building capital to evangelize to the lost, and religious anti-capitalist have nothing but their life to give to spreading their gospel.
CodeBloke I disagree. History has a lot of value in the marketplace, just watch how many people are willing to buy history books. That said, history research suffers a lot of the same problems that physics research does, a lot of it looks pointless, but we need physics if we want better engineering, we need history if we want better economics. This degree of separation heavily affects incentives, and creates a safe heaven for anticapitalists and left-leaning individuals to move to. I’ve seen as many communists in physics higher ed as in history higher ed, but physics professors can’t link electrons and socialism without committing career suicide
You're not very bright are you. "History has little value" is one of the most stupid things one could say in the middle of a global pandemic that could've been far less damaging if our governments had taken heed to history.
It basically is. Set a goal that can't be attained, and fail to attain it, it wasn't really the system, because it didn't reach the goal. Learn nothing. Come up with a name for the failed system that differentiates it from the hypothetical successful system. Repeat mission.
@Braveheart Indeed. State capitalism (which is almost literally just fascism) or collapse is the necessary end state of communism. The one child policy is specifically because economies built on equal redistribution inherently give advantages to less productive members of a society, so they outbreed the productive members of a society, so you have to do something to mitigate that, or you end up with too few producers and too many consumers. Wealth isn't finite, but the bottleneck is labor. Too many consumers for a certain threshold of labor means starvation.
Milton Friedman has used the term state capitalism for socialism as well since the capital still exists it's just the states that owns it. This was the example I found but I know he spoke about in a lecture you can find online somewhere. "When I speak of the future of capitalism, I mean the future of competitive capitalism-a free enterprise capitalism. In a certain sense, every major society is capitalist. Russia has a great deal of capital, but the capital is under the control of governmental officials who are supposedly acting as the agents of the state. That turns capitalism (state capitalism) into a wholly different system than a system under which capital is controlled by individuals in their private capacity as owners and operators of industry. What I want to speak about tonight is the future of private enterprise-of competitive capitalism." www.hoover.org/research/future-capitalism
@Scooters Videos No. I literally got it by reading census information. It's literally a fact that redistributionist programs remove consequences of breeding beyond your natural resources, and it's literally a fact that those conditions cause the lowest earners, who are also the lowest IQ people to outbreed every other demographic. For example, the US: www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ Lowest income demographics outbreed all the others. However, in my research, the US is one of the only places where you can easily find birth rate by income. However, most places track both general poverty and child specific poverty, which makes it easier to get the full story and see if the pattern holds true. It does. US: www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-266.html General poverty rate: ~12% Child poverty rate: ~16% More liberal estimates put child poverty at 20%, when they are trying to make the case for more help. However, the reality is that the exact policies for which they advocate are CAUSING such high child poverty rates by removing consequences from the sexual market, and effectively marrying low income, low intelligence women to the government. UK: socialmetricscommission.org.uk/social-metrics-commission-results-tables-2/ General poverty rate: ~11% Child poverty rate: ~34% Just google anywhere and I'd bet you can't find more than a handful of exceptions where they have a redistributionist economy and a lower or equal rate of general and child poverty, or a lower birth rate among the poor than other classes. China's one child policy was harsh, but it was necessary if they wanted to sustain their redistributionist policies for any meaningful length of time. People have done much more extensive work on this stuff when researching animals. Google why we don't feed the birds. Spoiler alert; it's because it weakens them by diminishing the sexual appeal of high performers in the flock.
yes . while they did 'exploit " their labor in the mills , mines and packinghouses but people were nonetheless lining up for those jobs .Capitalism is preferable to slavery for most concerned and socialism is closer to slavery than capitalism
Northern companies like JPMORGAN, Wells Fargo, New York Life, made fortunes financing, insurance, shipping. No one was clean, should have spilt the alliance & country. Patriots & Loyalists
@@woodrow6155Did you mean to say that JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, and New York Life engaged in financing the purchase of slaves, shipping them and selling insurance policies to slave owners for the value of their slaves? By context, that's implied, but you didn't specify. Harvard and other Ivy League universities had their foundation costs and endowments paid for with profits from the slave trade. [RUclips is truncating comments.]
@@Cyallaire yeah and I do understand that though out history all civilizations where built upon forced labor. In that regard everyone benefitted from, but USA was founded on inalienable rights of all. Disappointing how easily abandoned principles where.
@@woodrow6155 "Everyone benefited"? Not the forced laborers, and not those forced to sell their labor, the poor but ostensibly "free," who were then in competition with slavery in marketing their goods and services. "Inalienable rights" was a pretty slogan crafted by slaveowners. They didn't abandon their principles. They were devoid of principles and great at obfuscation - still going strong 243 years later.
Wow that’s so crazy, I never thought that a group of political activists would try to reframe American history to advance their political objectives! And under the guise of a major newspaper that functions as an extension of one of the two political parties? Wow!
Schools are trying to erase George Washington, William McKinley, Andrew Jackson, and other historical figures from history. They may have flaws from their lives, but we learn from their flaws too. Learning history, prevents history from repeating itself.
History revisionism is a primary tactic used to effect social change. Although it has been used by the left in this instance, it is not exclusively the province of the left - the Romans did it in europe as they spread first their empire, and later, their church. As no one could ever accuse the Romans of espousing any sort of collectivist philosophy, their type of revisionism was purely about social control, and not any sort of social "equity". The thing today is that, due to Marx, and his influence on academia as promulgated by "the Frankfurt school" among others, revisionism has become a tool for activism. TRUTH does not exist for such activists, ONLY emotion, and this is why colleges and universities exist in their current form- purely to propagate leftist social change.
I also was in school in the 70's and 80's and realized years later what was wrong with the way they taught us about slavery. It was all about the harsh treatment and rough living conditions. This elicits a strong emotional response, but neglects the most important reason why slavery is wrong: because it's slavery!
The modern left wants slavery under an all-powerful State: they just think it can be perfected into some wise and benevolent master ordering everyone around.
J. Joseph You completely missed the point. Slavery is wrong because it violates people’s natural rights: it is not made just by better working conditions.
I am a descendant of slavery, born 1952 in Birmingham Alabama; I have been thinking about this very issue of Slavery and Capitalism. I say, when double entry booking started , is a minor detail. Slavery and Capitalism goes together like a horse and carriage . I believe that Slavery and Capitalism is a pernicious problem globally, because if we can not see this truth, we will all die with our eyes closed. The racial problem is not just a black and white issue , but more significantly a historical issue. It was not simply white people starting slavery and blacking people suffer the burden , but a particular universal function ( the Capitalist), who had a capital interest of enriching himself. The Capitalist is the bullshitter , that tells other white people you are suffering , but at least you are better than these slaves; but what they did not know, is that one day this universal function is coming for them. The irony now is that some of the slave descendants are now part of the Universal Function.This guy is here to Gaslight.
Bruce C Moore Utter nonsense. Without the freedom of Capitslism you are the slave of the State or the victim of the mob. Look at how free and happy people lived where Capitalism was abandoned: destitute and oppressed.
Don't conflate Free Market and Capitalism. While they both can exist simultaneously, they aren't the same. Capitalism is a system that focuses on the production of wealth, and the ownership of capital and the means of production. A free market focuses on the exchange of wealth, or of goods and services. In a capitalist system, production and pricing are determined by the free market, and there may be some government regulation as without it monopolies can occur violating the free market. A free market system is based solely on supply and demand with little government interference. Buyers and sellers have free transactions when they can agree on the price of goods and services.
@@THall-vi8cp in truth without government the only people who can create monopolies are consumers. Business free of government interference cannot on their own establish monopolies.
What if you have a child and all he ever wants is to sit on his ipad while injecting himself with drugs? Will you take that away from him? What if an entire population is doing this, will you take that from them? What if people want to be enslaved? Will you take that away from them?
4 года назад+68
The New York Times: *Purposely "interprets" history in SHOCKING ways so that it sells papers and subscriptions.* Fake News 101 - Sensationalism = LIES.
Well them chaps at the Times did earn themselves a Pulitzer for torpedoing the Brewster Hearings(ya know, the *actual* inquiries into Hollywood s embrace of Communism).
General Robert E Lee: Don't forget that any newspaper which DIDN'T validate the federal government, was CLOSED DOWN by the Lincoln Administration as "traitors printing treason;" since the administration had suspended habeas corpus, and ran on pure censorship. Needless to say, the New York Times has always been a propaganda-mill for the US government.
The Tariff of 1824 caused the price of cotton to fall from 21 cents/lbs to 12 cents/lbs in 1825. By 1826 the price of cotton had fallen to 8.8 cents/lbs.This caused a severe recession in the South. Meantime, profits for Northern industry rose by 25%. This shows the theory that cotton was vital to the world economy was proved wrong long before the Civil War. Northern industrialists gleefully bludgeoned the Southern cotton economy because it may their industry much more profitable.
The idea that a material for making fabric - one of many that existed at the time - would have been vital to the global economy is absurd. Also, when the Northern states were cut off from cotton during the civil war and their economies continued to boom shows that cotton was not important to economic growth.
Even with the price of cotton going down in the 1820s, there were still many, many wealthy slaveowners in the Southern states. I read that there were more millionaires (owners of cotton plantations) in Mississippi than anywhere else in America in 1860.
@@justmyopinion9883 The tariffs affected everyone in the Deep South especially. It was a trickle down severe recession. Less money for the rich, less for the lower classes. ..... Meanwhile Northern industry prospered because of the the tariffs. The tariffs were great for the North, but terrible for the South.
@@Melons-vg8dq Did'ja know that there were times when the work load of the plantation was low and slaves could work off the plantation? they were always paid cash when this happened. Slaves often had cash and sometimes bought their way out of slavery. That's one of the reasons why there were 260,000 free blacks in the South by 1860., or 7% of the Black population.
@@mzavros humans need jobs to stay mentally and physically healthy. sense of purpose and achievement is normal human behavior. Socialism stifles the very essence of being a human.
So, how do you pay rent? You are male, young and in good health, I trust? For many people the choice is work a job that grinds them down or be homeless and starving.
@@destroytheboxes High school, although my teacher had the aptitude to admit that this essay, in particular, was pretty controversial and even provided reading material that criticized the whole 1619 project, so props to her. I'm more worried about the almost completely positive response the essay got from my classmates
@@Not_actually_a_commie Why are you concerned about positive reactions to ethno nationalism? Have you prescribed the entire world a healthy dose of diversity? Or just white people? If so why? What is your logic behind that prescription?
@@Not_actually_a_commie What's your point? I love black ethno nationalists. They actually have their head on straight and would be the first people willing to separate.
If that was true about slavery then by that logic the South would have been lot more industrialized than the North, also the British Industrial Revolution happened long after they gave up slavery. Matter fact by that logic the Arabs should have had Industrial Revolution because they kept slavery for a much longer time. It literally doesn't make sense.
The Industrial Revolution made slavery an unnecessary evil. As soon as a single machine could do the work of 20 laborers the value of those laborers declined dramatically however the cost to maintain those 20 slaves didn’t decline. The industrial Revolution doomed slavery. The United States has the most productive farms in the world, and only a tiny fraction of the population works in farming. It’s all automated. Slavery can be viewed from a political lens, a moral/ethical lens, and an economic lens.
William the conqueror taxed slave trading in England and Wales in 1082 to raise revenue. By 1100, slavery had collapsed in England and Wales. The British banished global slave trading first by banning it within its own empire, then by forming anti slavery alliances and through boycotts with fifty sovereign states between 1830 and 1860. The industrial revolution occurred in the 1780s onwards.
Other ideas worth adding to assess slavery: The Barbery Pirates' role in Atlantic/African slavery. And rather than a Rousseauian state of nature view of what preceded the civilized west, look at how tribalism operated where slavery was an alternative to massacre in battle or was even sought by the victims of famine because society lived on such thing economic margins. The Atlantic Slave Trade was participation in kidnapping but earlier forms were more nuanced and universal and maybe even necessary for survival. Viewed from that perspective, capitalism likely allowed abolition to be feasible. Few bring these points up enough. Thank you, Thomas Sowell.
I grew up in a family that always read The NY Times. It was a sunday morning tradition to read it after breakfast: my father had the sports section, my mother “Arts and Leisure”, and I would read “The Week in Review”. I stopped subscribing to the New York Times a decade ago due to its sorry decline, starting with Judith Miller’s beating the drums for the Iraq war. The “1619 Project” symbolizes their decline into a rigid “Politically correct” ideology. So sad from a paper that for many decades strived for objectivity. NY Times, it’s time to fall on your sword and close up shop. You are not a flagship of American journalism anymore. The “Grey Lady” is dead.
@@SociallyTriggered I've never met or read a modern leftist that read Marx (at least not the way Marx was read during his lifetime). Everything from the left since about the 70's is highly revisionist of Marx, and frequently contradictory.
@@onetwothree4148 Very true. Most of them like socialism because they think it means something like "social" and is all about working together and equality. They are afraid of competition and seek government protection. They don't see the dangers. Personally I embrace capitalism because I believe in liberty and merit. Inequality is natural but it is also something benefits us all. Those who rise to the top often bring up the rest of society with them.
5:40 oh, of course, state capitalism. As in the state owning the means of production. Whereas socialism is, uuhh... the state ownership of... capital. Yep, whenever socialism fails just call it state capitalism
Increasingly people are waking up to the fact the so called "far right" and so called "far left" are simply statism. The totalitarian manipulation of economic activity to profit the state. You'll hear people exclaim "it's the horseshoe effect" - that's the moment they should have figured what all "government" tends towards without constant vigilance from the populis it is supposed to serve. Left and right is not the current spectrum under contention, it's liberty and control. MBA's are seen as economic qualifications. In practice they are gateways into the managerial class, those who "manage" the behaviour of the "electorate" (you could insert bourgeoisie and proletariat if you were so inclined).
Part of it is because Reason often veers into tinfoil hat territory talking about mass immigration, foreign policy issues, and the effects of outsourcing. They are often as dogmatic as the worst TDS sufferers, Trump supporters, and out and out Marxists. It's a shame too because they've got a lot of important things to say.
No philosophy of economics could be more opposed to slavery then capitalism. Communism has more parallels then any other that I can think of. “You will work/sacrifice/suffer/die (war) for the benefit of us because we believe we own you”.
Robert Bork wrote an article soon after the Civil Rights Act of the 60's, saying it was unconstitutional because business owners' property was their own. He said that the justifications of SCOTUS based on interstate commerce was transparently wrong. Was Robert Bork a racist? Or did he read the Constitution and apply it to the act?
@Zach cash So because some doesn't want to serve you for whatever reason you have the right to try to attempt to destroy their business because your feelings were hurt?
Robert Bork obviously never heard of the Commerce Clause, which means anything that Congress WANTS it to mean. The elephant in the room, as Jefferson pointed out in the Kentucky Resolutions, is that the Constitution is an INTERNATIONAL compact among the peoples of the states, ultimately enforced by their individual non-compliance against bad faith; just like the EU and Brexit; not a meaningless list of unenforceable terms against an all-powerful empire, whose own discretion is the sole limit on its power.
In these times of banal superficiality and emotionalism (masquerading as gravitas), this video delivers true mental stimulation and fair consideration. Well and truly done, gentlemen. Thank you!
Leftists hate Thomas Sowell because he is eloquent, wise, and routinely disproves their narratives with "facts and logic" as a certain Jewish American businessman might say.
@9:00 true indeed ; prior to the invention of the cotton gin both Slavery and cotton were not particularly profitable; during the war , when cotton was embargoed in the US and fairly scarce in Europe due to the blockades , the only country that went broke was the South , while the rest of the world economy barely noticed . Of course Egypt and other countries took up the slack , but it's fairly good evidence that "50% of the US economy "did not come directly from slavery .
52:53 THIS is what differentiates good interviews from bad ones: knowing both the interviewer and the interviewee; their story, their ideologies and their personal histories that gives the viewer a sense of _who_ are we listening to and what things may incline his/her views towards one thing or another. I know people are never 100% objective and always incline at least a little bit towards something, I just want them to be sincere about it.
I would like to see a closer examination of the two foundational economic assertions upon which the 1619 project relies: 1. • That slavery accounted for approximately half of the then U.S. national GDP. 2. • That the then total asset value of all slaves in the U.S. were equal to the total asset value of all other U.S. industrial assets combined.
@@jaik195701 Of course the government did business with private businesses, what I am talking about is massive financing. Most of the tariffs collected before the Civil War were going to the railroads. S. Carolina nullified the tariff in 1833.
The southern states said the civil war started over the issue of slavery (or the right to decide slavery), *but the north explicitly said the war was about secession, not slavery.* What other war do historians cite only the cause claimed by the clear villains and losers, while saying the cause declared by the undetested protagonists and victors is incorrect? Probably there isn't any other conflict were the descendants of both parties completely swapped opinions about the cause, each side abandoning their original position and taking up the other side's explanation as more favorable. Imagine if someone told you WW2 was fought because of European intervention in the unification of the German people, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was about the western resistance to the inevitable realization of global communism, and the gulf War was started because Kuwait slant drilled Iraqi oil wells... Clearly both slavery and secession were the causes of the civil war, but the fighting literally started over the issue of secession, not slavery, so it doesn't make much sense to say secession wasn't at least an equal cause. Further it's hard to ignore that most of the soldiers actually involved if the fighting, on both sides, did not consider themselves to be fighting primarily for or against slavery, but primarily wrote that convictions about whether secession was an act of freedom or betrayal worth dying for.
"...the fighting literally started over the issue of secession..." Why were the Confederate states seceding? They were seceding over slavery. Union states objected that they could not secede, regardless of their reasons for doing so. As indeed they could not since the States were never a party to the Constitution. As the States were never party to the Constitution, no State has authority to withdraw for the Constitution.
@@flatebo1 yep, the south fought because they wanted slaves, but the south didn't start the war. The US invaded north Carolina because they didn't want to become smaller and weaker from states exercising their right of popular sovereignty.
"History is the lie agreed upon." Economics is the lie no one can agree upon. ( and whatever the economics of a system is, it is determined by the FORCE of its governing authority. )
Revisionists take one or two sentences by Lincoln, which may have been pandering to slavers, to slander and void the long efforts of the Abolitionists and the sacrifices of Union soldiers. They did not give a damn about secession. They offered their labors and their very lives to end the evil of slavery.
What disturbs me most is that I meet young people today who think slavery originated and ended in the United States. They have no idea it was a universal institution throughout human civilization.
one long badly written story replete with the maudlin, mawkish, maundering emotionalism dredged up by ahistorical assertions from those with ideological slants to promote. ^ya-a-a-w-w-w-n^
@@THall-vi8cp Well since it was a "magazine" they got "people" to pay to read it... "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. " The Boxer, S. & G.
51:58 ... WTH are you talking about? What exactly was "built on the back of blacks"? I'm from Wisconsin... there were no blacks involved in the building of anything there. A few blacks showed up from from the South in the mid 1800s ... by 1910 there were 900 blacks in Milwaukee. Nothing of Wisconsin was 'built on the back of blacks'. How many states used slave labor to build their buildings, roads, bridges, homes, etc? What are you talking about?
There were a total of 423,000 blacks in the US when the war ended. It is numerically impossible for them to build the US. The US was built and funded by three / four groups. The Brits, The Germans, The Irish and The Italians. Literally, they (we) built and made the US.
Ah, Nick, I think you're confusing a position that says the *war* was not fought to end slavery with a position that says *secession* was not about preserving slavery. The latter is a silly position, but not one I see many libertarians stake out. OTOH, abolitionists were in the minority in the North. It was rebellion and dissolution of the Union that animated the majority in the North, including Lincoln, who I'm sure you know said he'd preserve slavery if it meant preserving the Union, and who waited until a propitious time in the war to issue his proclamation "freeing" the slaves. If secession had simply been accepted, as Jefferson would have done, clearly there would've been no war.
I agree but see Lincoln as the one who publicly abandoned voluntary association to the Union, literally was willing to kill southerns before allowing them to leave the Union (I'm including the rest of congress with Lincoln). Reconstruction was nothing more than a military occupation, started compulsory re-education of wrong think.
in truth his proclamation was a testament to what you said. It was as much a carrot in regards to slavery as it was stick. Remember that it allowed states 60 days to surrender and come back into the union and they would keep their slaves.
Ha. I actually turned off the interview at about that point because I can't stand Nick Gillespie's obnoxious insinuations againt people; at that piint in the interview I just couldn't take him any more and had to turn it off befroe I damaged my computer screen.
I am a descendant of slavery, born 1952 in Birmingham Alabama; I have been thinking about this very issue of Slavery and Capitalism. I say, when double entry booking started , is a minor detail. Slavery and Capitalism goes together like a horse and carriage . I believe that Slavery and Capitalism is a pernicious problem globally, because if we can not see this truth, we will all die with our eyes closed. The racial problem is not just a black and white issue , but more significantly a historical issue. It was not simply white people starting slavery and blacking people suffer the burden , but a particular universal function ( the Capitalist), who had a capital interest of enriching himself. The Capitalist is the bullshitter , that tells other white people you are suffering , but at least you are better than these slaves; but what they did not know, is that one day this universal function is coming for them. The irony now is that some of the slave descendants are now part of the Universal Function.This guy is here to Gaslight.
@@brucecmoore1657 I was born in 1952 . My dad was in the military and when I was 6 we went to Biloxi, MISS. One day we were on the freeway next to the Gulf. I looked off to the right and saw something very different. It was a Black Shanty town is the best way to describe it. People were walking around various run down small shacks. I did not know anything about Black people then. It was the last time I was in the South but it must have left an impression on me because I can still see it 61 years later. Anyhow..I agree with you about Capitalism ans Slavery going hand in hand.
Adam Smith was a critic of slavery in his "Wealth of Nations" in 1776 and influenced Scotland to end slavery by 1778. Capitalism, through the East India Company and West Indian Company exported Capitalist anti-slavery around the world, long before UK abolitionists took up the cause in the early 19th century. Read Smith's article on slavery. It was Capitalism that ended slavery world wide. The US came late to the cause. The 1619 Project is flawed as it practically contends that there was no slavery prior to the North American colonies, even though it existed long before the Bible was written and before the African slave trade began.
It did. The free market decided first that slavery was wrong from a ethical perception and if word got out that you were engaged in good made by slaves most people bypassed that business. Once something is unpopular it really drives that market faster than policy.
@JC S I agree. Usually you end up with a two tier socialist state. Government and friends vs everyone else. Government administers the equality, so often they end up better than everyone else. Seeing as government, left or right, has been in debt my entire life, I really don't want them in control of the food supply, let alone the canadian medical anymore.
Slightly inaccurate, since the distinction you are seeking is that of "productive capitalism" v. rent seeking, or what Michael Hudson deems the F.I.RE sector. Corporations are simply a form of raising "capital" while limiting the "liability" of "passive investors" who are not involved in the day to day running of the company. Any other "abuses" that may take place by corporations, are those that have been legally enabled by "government"...and this battle had been ongoing from 1879 and the ratification of the constitution...whose details can be found in "We the Corporations"...
I am losing the narrative of the reason why I’m listening to this episode. Starting with double entry and then moves on to capitalism and slavery. Okay, then it gets stuck talking about slavery. Slavery is just about as old as written history and it’s just a guess, but slavery was part of the human history even in the cave man days. I grew up during the civil rights movement. I didn’t understand what was happening until I reached junior high level. One thing for sure is that hate on any level leads to destructive behavior. And then we still have the facts that blacks hate whites more-so than vis-à-vis
I dozed off listening to a prior podcast, and this autoplayed. I dreamt that I was back in school, listening to a great lecture, but the prof completely ignored my questions.
The libertarian perspective regarding the Civil Rights Act is really quite simple and far more principled than creating special classes of people. Every person, regardless color, sex, creed, religion, or other immutable characteristic, has the right to life, liberty, and property. What the government does NOT have, however, is the right to force trade between people. The libertarian perspective is that any business has the right to deny service to anyone for any reason... also realizing that the free market will close such a myopic business's doors. But the government has no right to create special groups of people and force transactions between them. I would encourage the guest to revisit the strawman of the libertarian perspective in citing the abolitionist movement, as if libertarians even question everyone's right to the "big 3."
Excellent discussion. Great interview questions for a very generous and learned guest. At the time of this conversation, little did they know what was soon to come.
39:46 If I place is block on the floor 100 years ago and others put another block on it for every year was that first block responsible for people knowing where to place the following blocks? if they didn't know exactly what it was they were building does that first block need characteristics that caused the following blocks to go on it instead of other blocks?
Well, understand that we are talking about groups that think "wage slavery" is a thing. Honestly, they're at the point where if they even have to work to get up out of bed in the morning, they're a victim of "bed slavery" or "comfort slavery".
Re: Libertarians’ dislike of Lincoln. It’s not that LRC or LvMI say slavery had nothing to do with secession, it’s that Lincoln refused to let the south secede, which did destroy federalism and created more centralized power.
Thank God for Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation. Historically slavery was a globally accepted practice by other countries with many races and nationalities involved long before the US was even established. As a developing nation President Lincoln (formerly of the Whig party became a Republican) was against slavery. Slavery was popular primarily in the southern Democratic states. The refusal of the southern states to accept the new mandate led to the deadliest war in America’s history. More men died in the civil war than any other war in US history. Teach your children well.
Lincoln did not just support and argue for colonization of freed slaves; he was personally responsible for hundreds of deaths in the Ile a Vache colonization disaster. Second, the arguments against slavery being the main cause of the Civil War don't revolve around Southern secession, which the Southerners clearly stated was to preserve their culture and institution of slavery. Instead, they revolve around the idea that the North started fighting the war to free the slaves. Most Northerners did not see ending slavery as a cause worthy of war, and Lincoln himself never made that argument - if he had, he probably would faced rebellion in the North as well. In fact, slavery remained legal in parts of the North until well past the end of the war, and the United States government became the largest slaveholder in the country as it collected (and exploited) contrabands.
The emancipation proclamation didn't free any slaves. It tried to free slaves in the south, which Lincoln had no say over. But did nothing for the slaves Lincoln did have a say over. If Lincoln wanted to free slaves, why did he choose not to?
Baby steps. After the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery was doomed in the US. Only a matter of time before the Amendments which did free the slaves in the entire country.
@@SwingDancer61 Or it was a war move, hoping he would incite rebelling among the enemy. His view on the issue was repatriation; sending slaves back to Africa. Not simply freeing them.
@@voswouter87 Information that I've seen is that Lincoln favored a voluntary moving of blacks to Africa not a mandatory sending them to Africa. Pretty clear if it was voluntary, then not all blacks would go back. www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jun/26/blog-posting/did-abraham-lincoln-plan-send-ex-slaves-central-am/
Lincoln freed ALL slaves. I never read in our history books about slavery AFTER the Civil War. There wasn't any slavery in the North. It was all in the South. Lincoln's move was strategic to free the slaves as the North moved through the South. I believe Lincoln's move was final &. complete.
@@davidgrg117 Slavery was ended after Lincoln was killed. Quickly, but after. And no it wasn't all in southern states. Some of the states loyal to Lincoln had slaves whom weren't freed by his emancipation proclamation.
Critical Theory is based on criticism. We want to bring down the current system. Criticize Criticize. That is why Magness can't figure out what they mean by capitalism. That is beside the point. Just criticize it to destroy it.
"New History of Capitalism" It's right there in the name. I know they probably imagine they were being clever but when the name of your project implies revisionism, are you shocked that people look for (and find) the revisionism in your project?
@@SovereignStatesman Wrong. Left wing is a mental illness. Are you guys still beating the drum about evil corporations? Even with Google being exposed as being in the tank for Democrats? LMFAO.
PragerU has even more misinformation than the 1619 project lol. He’s like the right wing revisionist version of the “crazy left”. He’s far from a nuanced academic, he’s just a right winged revisionist ideologue that knows how to cater to people too lazy to actually read actual academic scholarship…
When I was in college (20 years ago) a lot of the gen eds would meet once a week in a huge lecture hall and then we'd meet with a TA once a week to go over homework and ask any questions that we had. Perhaps a similar model would work with a hybrid online/in person class. Also, the local Community College has a 2 year Transfer degree where you knock out almost all of your gen eds there. All of the 4 year State Colleges in my State accept the degree.
What's the difference; if the college is accredited by the state, then that's who it will validate. They're not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
I have three friends who all did this: they went to inexpensive "junior colleges" in California for the first two years, then transferred for their junior and senior years at relatively prestigious California state-sponsored universities. Thus did they graduate with valuable degrees at minimal cost. Only one of my three friends had any college debt at the end. Their peers all went to more expensive four-year colleges. Much of those people's first two years was spent enjoying the social aspects of college life with lots of partying. By contrast, the junior college was a more sober, more boring experience. Of course, the price of that partying lifestyle came in at between $20,000 to $50,000.
That Fitzhugh fellow should be talked about more and used to educate self proclaimed anti-capitalists. This history lesson would make many check their premise.
The argument of economic reasons for the civil war is just as sound as the one of slavery. In fact, it's impossible to separate the two.. To put more weight on one over the other is reductive.
Extremely well balanced. Points out the specific flaws, praises the broad achievements, and illuminates the unwillingness to change some glaring errors.
Great interview except for a creepy attack on Libertarians for not sufficiently idolizing war Presidents such as Lincoln, apparently because they have not read enough Bastiat. Perhaps it could be that Libertarians do not much like bloody murderous wars -- and instead prefer finding peaceful means of solving social issues? I'm sure it's true that every war in history was necessary and virtuous. How dare those Libertarians try to learn from history by considering alternatives to war (you know, like a negotiated slave buyout, which might have avoided creating permanent scars of racism in so many who never owned slaves, but nevertheless had sisters and mothers brutally raped and murdered by Union troops). Ending human bondage is an important issue to Libertarians -- second only to the issue of protecting human life by challenging mongers of war. I believe it was Bastiat who reminded us that "life is a gift from God."
Libertarians don't much care about national sovereignty of states, either; like the fact that every state was a sovereign nation-state ever since 1776, by law.
Bastiat also said that America's major flaw was slavery. He praised the US government's hands off economic policies, but correctly predicted that slavery would be historically seen as a direct contradiction to our stated values. I agree that there should have been an attempt at buying out the slave owners before war was just declared.
@@SovereignStatesman Libertarians are often patriotic. But they do place certain principles above identity -- with ideas like "unalienable" or "human" rights superseding national political identity.
@@johnpaparella4995 Unfortunately, Lincoln wanted slavery to stick around a bit longer -- in order to fund his ambitious plans for national greatness. He saw slavery as evil -- but a necessary evil. The idea we are taught that he launched the war to emancipate the slaves is sheer revisionism. He launched the war to only to prevent succession of the states funding his vision of federal expansion. He was very clear on this point.
You’re right about worthy changes coming from tough situations. What looks like harsh leadership can, in time, be seen as a necessary correction to advance civilization. Thanks to both of you for the deep exploration.
The article in question never suggests that double-booking accounting was invented in the antebellum South, simply that it was used there. It is mentioned a single time in the article in question (do a Find on the article) and it appears in a list of a tools that were used to track the productivity of slaves. The article's argument is not that capitalism was invented in the South, but that this relentless monitoring of individual worker productivity - which is increasingly a hallmark of "innovative" companies like Amazon, Google, etc - was given an early dress rehearsal on the plantation. In fact, that "that's almost a direct quote" connecting double-book accounting on plantations with Microsoft Excel never appears anywhere, even approximately, in the article. This historian is correct about the origins of double-book accounting, but it is a defense against a charge that was never leveled by the original piece. This occurs at the 4:00 minute mark - why did Reason shoot an hour and change of this garabge?
Good stuff, but you guys took it too easy on the people behind this project. Just say what it is, an attempt to rewrite history to fit a political agenda.
If America's wealth is due to slavery, wouldn't countries with the most slavery, Mauritania, Arab countries, be the most wealthy. The more industrial North in the US didn't have slaves and was richer.
Right around 40:25, Gillespie starts describing a relatively contentious issue as to what caused the Civil War. In doing so, he makes two mistakes: 1) He distorts the argument about those who reject the idea that "slavery was the sole cause of the Civil War". Most folks reject slavery as the primary cause, but the numbers who say that it had nothing at all to do with the Civil War is much smaller. It is far more common to say that slavery as an institution, particularly due to its economic importance, was one among many reasons in a complex explanation for the southern states to secede. 2) He is completely wrong when he says of the souther states: "all of them in their documents said we are doing this because of slavery not because of taxes or tariffs." That's untrue. Most said nothing at all, such as Virginia. While several states did mention slavery in their articles of secession, South Carolina and Mississippi notably, they did so among a list of reasons, including taxes and tariffs. Texas listed in its reasons for secession the Federal Government's failure to act against Mexican "banditti" and American Indian attacks. It should be well known that the Confederate President Jefferson Davis specifically denied slavery as the main issue for secession in an interview with the New York Times -- not after the War, but while it was going on, in 1864. He ignores what the President had to say, but does quote the Confederate VICE President, as if somehow the Veep was authoriative. Especially in a state-based system like the Confederacy created. Magness does himself no favors by chiming in to accuse people of "willfully setting aside historical evidence" when he and his interlocutor are doing exactly that. For a video about the grotesque distortions of history that is the 1619 Project, it is unfortunate for the makers to engage in their own. How can they be taken seriously if they cannot adhere to their own principles of honest observance of the facts of history?
The plantation owners spoke English, and I'm pretty sure they invented English, too, and it was created for the primary purpose of trading slaves. People are saying...
Gee, I guess you forgot that the "pope" divided the world and gave half to Spain and half to Portugal and that the American slave trade originated with them. ( and Columbus, who was an Italian from Genoa. )
This is the part that doesn’t go well with me as a modern day American, Paying reparations for Slavery. Forcing the Modern day Americans that have NEVER owned any slaves to African-Americans that have NEVER been slaves. Can someone explain the logic behind this African-American Slavery Reparations Bill?
Civil Rights Act destroyed the freedom of association. You can criticize it while simultaneously hating segregation and not being racist. Libertarians criticizing the CRA do so because it is the principled correct position, not because they want to be contrarians. Do you honestly think Rand Paul can improve his electability by opposing this?
So why didn't lincoln let the south secede? he said if he could end the war without freeing one slave he would have. I think people who say the war of secession was not about slavery feel the south or any state today should be able to secede...exactly how the colonies seceded from britian. All and all slavery would have ended with or without the civil war.
I find it fascinating that almost no one today knows anything about the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment which stated that *_No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State._* So what happened? Basically the southern press suppressed all knowledge that President Lincoln was genuinely serious about not wanting the federal government to abolish or interfere with slavery. I bet no one here had ever heard of this proposed Amendment either. History is constantly being rewritten by those who would prefer to forget the past. More history is lost through omission than by outright lies.
Libertarianism is as mean as Nature. Both have produced some of the greatest outcomes, yet people always want to "tame" and "control" these things to our collective harm.
What's often ignored is that formal chattel Slavery ended only as a mistake. Enslaved Africans in the US were never supposed to gain freedom. The South wanted to enforce slavery and go their own way to expand. The North didn't want to let the South go (mainly for monetary reasons). In the Civil War, the only method Lincoln had left to hurt the South was the phony Emancipation Proclamation, which was supposed to affect the South even though it had already seceded from the North. But the South was so dependent on slavery that the phony promise of freedom debilitated the South and gave the Civil War to the North. And ever since Reconstruction ended, the US has unleashed a great wave of revenge and anger on those enslaved Africans and their descendants.
In the late 80s I earned a degree in American studies under one of the two leading professors in that field. They did teach historiography and sociology and Psychology and all that sort of thing, but they also taught revisionist history. The concept of revisionist history is that you look at the historical events in light of current modern-day views. In other words, what is really important is not how the people acting at the time period looked at things, but what we derive from their actions. The same goes for looking at motivations and the purposes behind things. Using this thing turned Lincoln and Washington and all the rest of them into Scoundrels and praises all these highly obscure people (who didn't really do much of anything) to make them as though they were the center of everything.
@Megalodon Unlocked You mean, some of my ancestors had this land, and met others of my ancestors who came in on boats. Half of them killed half the people who came on the boat, and half of the people on the boats killed half of them. The rest of them married each other. The ultimate result of all of this congregating together was my own wonderful self. I have a little piece of land, true, but it comes with a mortgage. Just about everything I have, I worked for. The time for restitution is past. The Deeds been been done, all the actors in that drama are dead. In today's society, we can rise or fall on our own Merit. I myself have come up from literally less than nothing. I have been responsible for debts that I did not create. I have paid many of these. With my labor, with my sweat, with my blood. I do not want to hear anyone whining about land that was stolen from people who are long dust now-- some of whom were my ancestors... As with me, I would say to anyone else, get off your ass and get to work. No one cares about your butt hurt feelings. We do not pay bills with feelings, but with Hard Labour. And... To put it all into perspective for you, ... I am not in the upper 5% in this country. But when we look at the World At Large, I'm in the upper 2%. As you may tell if you look around, many people have such small resources that it literally is a crying shame. But I'm no Thief. And I and my family do things to help others. We ask no reward. So anyone who complains about these people who have turned to dust and their losses, I have one question. What have you done to help others?
Cotton IS KING! Tulips are king, Salt is king... Puhleez, northern States kept slaves then and now. Slaves sold by daddy, uncle, the Barbary pirates were lucky to be discarded in the States. Those left behind were slaves of their tribal enemy captors. Slaves were taken care of better than any horse or ass, due to the cost. South and central America were destinations. Britain imported slaves, too. Arabs bought slaves from the African traders, so too did the Chinese.
I don’t know if I’ve seen Anything else that can bring libertarians (Reason), conservatives (ie Glenn loury), liberals (ie John McWhorter) and radical socialists (ie Adolph Reed Jr) together like the rejection of this project has lol
Facts are facts, which is why. For a serious left wing review of the 1619 project and its attempt to re-write history read the world socialist website www.wsws.org
Wish people would talk more about corporatism vs capitalism..... VERY relevant* right now. Corporatism is NOT working.... for the same reason socialism/communism doesn't work.... all the power goes to the top.
Yes, equal protection under the law is ignored as for as progressive tax rates, different tax rates on products that are sold that are not varied due to negative externalities, tariffs that prop up inefficient industries, and of course donor/special interest legislation passed by corrupted political leadership.
First warning sign: "Sociologist" is not a real science. Sociology is social studies wearing a lab coat. Sociology is the political subversion of social studies. Where social studies has always been respected as a field of study, it was not scientific. This was accepted as part of the limitations of studying history and philosophy. Both being human constructs, both being flawed both in their creation, recording, and interpretation. Social Studies has always been accepted as an art, not a science. Even today, Social Science is categorized in most institutes under the school of Liberal Arts, NOT Medical, physics, engineering, or mathematics. Sociology is the study of society. The elemental building block of society is the individual human. There for it logically follows that to study Human Society, one must have a basic understanding of Humans. There is in fact a field of study dedicated to the study of Human anatomy, thought, and behavior. Primarily medical, sometimes branching into bio-chemistry, Psychology in particular focuses specifically on Human behavior. Within the field of Psychology there exists a sub field called "Social Psychology", that focuses on group dynamics and group behavior. This sub field of Psychology totally negates the entire purpose of Sociology as a separate field. With a focus on medical treatment and counseling, it has far more productive and industrial use than sociology, and is backed by medical research, where as Sociology is totally free floating with no general theory or general model of any kind. Despite this, Sociological studies are cherry picked by lobby groups for various purposes, having been given the authoritative title of "Scientific" they are toted around as indisputable fact, even though their chief methodology involves changing the definitions of key terms to support their thesis, with no standard unit of measure. The field of Criminology has been cooped and built by sociologists, having a major influence on contemporary criminal justice policy reform in recent years. The most popular terminological theories not only criticizing the standard model of criminality established before the founding of this nation, and by extension the basis of our criminal justice system, but criticize the very philosophy our constitution uses in regards to law. It does this by arguing philosophy, not science. Sociology is not a respectable stem field, and should be disregarded entirely. If you have any questions or interest in the scientific study of Human Society, I suggest you seek out a social psychologist. I am a student of the University of Massachusetts Lowell's criminal justice program. Having seen this mess from the inside, I say this from experience. If I had known this ahead of time, I would have gone to medical school instead, and taken psychology. No one tells you when your just a kid about how big the world is: Not in terms that can actually help you navigate it. I didn't know how many sub fields and different categories there were, I didn't know the history of sociology before I started, I didn't know its methodology, I'd never heard of social psychology, nothing in high school or community college prepared me for any of this. I've been going by the seat of my pants, aiming in the general direction of the criminal justice system. I wish someone had told me about this shit before, so I'm going out and sharing my experience for others to see.
Insight from USA... *• The MOST prosperous nation that's ever existed throughout all history, • ALSO the freest society civically, politically, socially, religiously, ethically, • ALSO the most BENEVOLENT nation ever CONCEIVED* :: In Capitalism, man *COMPETES* with man. The *ONLY* exploitation in Capitalism is that of one's own skills, ideas, resources & resourcefulness, imagination, personal industry & commercial aptitude, drive & ambition & aspirations, conception of success & prosperity, motivations & underlying values, etc.... All things, without which, no amount of wealth or prosperity or progress can ever be made by any individual or society.... Socialism/Communism takes. Capitalism CREATES.
Right around minute 19:00 they start talking about the advocates for slavery and how they hated capitalism. Specifically he mentions George Fitzugh. I made a whole video about this where I quoted Fitzhugh and two other slavery supporters at length. Check it out here! ruclips.net/video/LW9c_CN5_BQ/видео.html
Anti-freemarket capitalists are collectivists. Or if you prefer, crony capitalists or monopolist capitalists. Those are derivatives of collectivism - offshoots and manifestations.
If slavery is the reason America became wealthy, why were so many other parts of the world poor? Those places had slavery or similar systems as well?
If slavery is what made America so Wealthy, then is the American South so poor compared to the rest of the country? Why are the states that explicitly kept out blacks for a long time so wealthy compared to the rest of the nation? Why is it that white people in the states that abandoned slavery first, are now richer than white people in states who abandoned slavery at a later date? If you're a straight white Christian male, then on average you're going to be better off living in New England than the American South.
I'd say Sherman and Grant had something to with it.
And why didn’t the Soviet Union become an economic powerhouse, since the whole population were slaves of the State?
It’s disgusting how slavery gets portrayed as some uniquely western thing, when in reality it was everywhere and the west was the start of its end.
If a history of slavery made a country rich, Brazil would be the richest country in the world.
k3D4rsi554maq - fuck Sherman, he’s burning in hell right now...the perfect end for him.
Slavery is not capitalism. Capitalism is a voluntary trade of private goods or services. Without the consent, you have no capitalism.
Leftists don't see any difference between wage labour and slavery.
I literally explained the difference to relatively smart socialists and just got denial from them or impossible scenarious.
These people are lying, they know that they are lying, and they still do that for sake of their ideology.
Das Krapital
Right! This is typical of the left. Modern and historical. They take the "hurt feelings" of a small, uneducated, or ignorant group or people and adopt those feelings as reality. Then they fuel a movement by manipulating the overall decent human tendencies of a much larger group of liberal-leaning people by using buzzwords and provocative phrases to essentially mobilize an army behind their true goals. This is seen throughout history especially in the Western societies by the communist movements. These movements have infected every facet of our society..... Government, education, religion, economy, and smaller societal corners of their parent Nation. Especially here in the United States. The bottom line is we NEED to learn from our History and remember History to prevent the same mistakes and also to capitalize on the successes that built the foundations for a successful civilization.
@Igor As George Costanza said to Jerry Seinfeld, "It's not a lie, if you believe it." Socialist believe lots of things, such as a Marxist utopia can be achieved, that will never happen. But, some day they may mature. Be gentle with them.
@V N If it's not voluntary, it's not capitalism. Communist centralized economies are not the only ways that transactions cannot be capitalism.
“The New York Times, a former Newspaper.”
There are no E's in Klavan
Toilet paper
@LAFOLLETTER - No , lets not rewrite history to favor totalitarianism .
didn't they go out of business? communist takeover, I heard!
LAFOLLETTER what are you talking about
I doubt historians' dislike of Capitalism has anything to do with the fact that their occupation has little value to the labor marketplace
@CodeBloke ”Who controls the past controls the future.” George Orwell, 1984. While it is true that learning history may not add substantially to the marketplace, societies are not solely comprised of the market. I am both a Free Market advocate and a student and teacher of history. You may want to qualify your statement with Marxist or Socialist historians. Many historians support free markets and teach the benefits of free markets.
@@batmanwins4584 that's actually a real limitation of capitalism-- capitalists are too busy building capital to evangelize to the lost, and religious anti-capitalist have nothing but their life to give to spreading their gospel.
CodeBloke I disagree. History has a lot of value in the marketplace, just watch how many people are willing to buy history books. That said, history research suffers a lot of the same problems that physics research does, a lot of it looks pointless, but we need physics if we want better engineering, we need history if we want better economics.
This degree of separation heavily affects incentives, and creates a safe heaven for anticapitalists and left-leaning individuals to move to. I’ve seen as many communists in physics higher ed as in history higher ed, but physics professors can’t link electrons and socialism without committing career suicide
You're not very bright are you. "History has little value" is one of the most stupid things one could say in the middle of a global pandemic that could've been far less damaging if our governments had taken heed to history.
@@ironfelix2963 It has immense value but it is purposefully ignored.
I have newfound respect for Reason TV.
THE GOLDEN RULE OF JOURNALISM:
*_FOLLOW THE FACTS, NO MATTER WHERE THOSE FACTS MAY LEAD TO!_*
We don't have journalists now we have a third-party in this country it's callef the fake news
We don't have journalism we have activism. Sad
The facts lead to the conclusion that the left is evil, but Reason refuses to go there.
Brian Stelter is married to a woman
State capitalism... how is that not a term for failed communism?
It basically is. Set a goal that can't be attained, and fail to attain it, it wasn't really the system, because it didn't reach the goal. Learn nothing. Come up with a name for the failed system that differentiates it from the hypothetical successful system. Repeat mission.
@Braveheart Indeed. State capitalism (which is almost literally just fascism) or collapse is the necessary end state of communism.
The one child policy is specifically because economies built on equal redistribution inherently give advantages to less productive members of a society, so they outbreed the productive members of a society, so you have to do something to mitigate that, or you end up with too few producers and too many consumers. Wealth isn't finite, but the bottleneck is labor. Too many consumers for a certain threshold of labor means starvation.
Milton Friedman has used the term state capitalism for socialism as well since the capital still exists it's just the states that owns it. This was the example I found but I know he spoke about in a lecture you can find online somewhere.
"When I speak of the future of capitalism, I mean the future of competitive capitalism-a free enterprise capitalism. In a certain sense, every major society is capitalist. Russia has a great deal of capital, but the capital is under the control of governmental officials who are supposedly acting as the agents of the state. That turns capitalism (state capitalism) into a wholly different system than a system under which capital is controlled by individuals in their private capacity as owners and operators of industry. What I want to speak about tonight is the future of private enterprise-of competitive capitalism."
www.hoover.org/research/future-capitalism
@Scooters Videos No. I literally got it by reading census information. It's literally a fact that redistributionist programs remove consequences of breeding beyond your natural resources, and it's literally a fact that those conditions cause the lowest earners, who are also the lowest IQ people to outbreed every other demographic.
For example, the US: www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/
Lowest income demographics outbreed all the others.
However, in my research, the US is one of the only places where you can easily find birth rate by income. However, most places track both general poverty and child specific poverty, which makes it easier to get the full story and see if the pattern holds true. It does.
US: www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-266.html
General poverty rate: ~12%
Child poverty rate: ~16%
More liberal estimates put child poverty at 20%, when they are trying to make the case for more help. However, the reality is that the exact policies for which they advocate are CAUSING such high child poverty rates by removing consequences from the sexual market, and effectively marrying low income, low intelligence women to the government.
UK: socialmetricscommission.org.uk/social-metrics-commission-results-tables-2/
General poverty rate: ~11%
Child poverty rate: ~34%
Just google anywhere and I'd bet you can't find more than a handful of exceptions where they have a redistributionist economy and a lower or equal rate of general and child poverty, or a lower birth rate among the poor than other classes.
China's one child policy was harsh, but it was necessary if they wanted to sustain their redistributionist policies for any meaningful length of time.
People have done much more extensive work on this stuff when researching animals. Google why we don't feed the birds. Spoiler alert; it's because it weakens them by diminishing the sexual appeal of high performers in the flock.
@@lemonsq well sure. that makes sense. even the book Utopia is technically "State Capitalism". trade does not go away simply based on Marx's ideology.
if i remember correctly, didn't fredriech douglas comment on how the american north was richer, even though it didn't have slavery?
yes . while they did 'exploit " their labor in the mills , mines and packinghouses but people were nonetheless lining up for those jobs .Capitalism is preferable to slavery for most concerned and socialism is closer to slavery than capitalism
Northern companies like JPMORGAN, Wells Fargo, New York Life, made fortunes financing, insurance, shipping. No one was clean, should have spilt the alliance & country. Patriots & Loyalists
@@woodrow6155Did you mean to say that JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, and New York Life engaged in financing the purchase of slaves, shipping them and selling insurance policies to slave owners for the value of their slaves? By context, that's implied, but you didn't specify. Harvard and other Ivy League universities had their foundation costs and endowments paid for with profits from the slave trade. [RUclips is truncating comments.]
@@Cyallaire yeah and I do understand that though out history all civilizations where built upon forced labor. In that regard everyone benefitted from, but USA was founded on inalienable rights of all. Disappointing how easily abandoned principles where.
@@woodrow6155 "Everyone benefited"? Not the forced laborers, and not those forced to sell their labor, the poor but ostensibly "free," who were then in competition with slavery in marketing their goods and services. "Inalienable rights" was a pretty slogan crafted by slaveowners. They didn't abandon their principles. They were devoid of principles and great at obfuscation - still going strong 243 years later.
Wow that’s so crazy, I never thought that a group of political activists would try to reframe American history to advance their political objectives!
And under the guise of a major newspaper that functions as an extension of one of the two political parties? Wow!
Sweetie, it's been going on since I tried to make sense of the paper in early 70s. But no one asks "where'd you get that data?"
Schools are trying to erase George Washington, William McKinley, Andrew Jackson, and other historical figures from history. They may have flaws from their lives, but we learn from their flaws too. Learning history, prevents history from repeating itself.
@@RocketmanRockyMatrix who the fuck doesnt fucking have fucking flaws????????????????????????
History revisionism is a primary tactic used to effect social change. Although it has been used by the left in this instance, it is not exclusively the province of the left - the Romans did it in europe as they spread first their empire, and later, their church. As no one could ever accuse the Romans of espousing any sort of collectivist philosophy, their type of revisionism was purely about social control, and not any sort of social "equity". The thing today is that, due to Marx, and his influence on academia as promulgated by "the Frankfurt school" among others, revisionism has become a tool for activism. TRUTH does not exist for such activists, ONLY emotion, and this is why colleges and universities exist in their current form- purely to propagate leftist social change.
@@Macheako Those flaws are the reasons why they are taking down statues, changing names of schools, erase murals...
I also was in school in the 70's and 80's and realized years later what was wrong with the way they taught us about slavery. It was all about the harsh treatment and rough living conditions. This elicits a strong emotional response, but neglects the most important reason why slavery is wrong: because it's slavery!
The modern left wants slavery under an all-powerful State: they just think it can be perfected into some wise and benevolent master ordering everyone around.
So...It's wrong because it's wrong. Ok. You've convinced me.
J. Joseph You completely missed the point.
Slavery is wrong because it violates people’s natural rights: it is not made just by better working conditions.
I am a descendant of slavery, born 1952 in Birmingham Alabama; I have been thinking about this very issue of Slavery and Capitalism. I say, when double entry booking started , is a minor detail. Slavery and Capitalism goes together like a horse and carriage . I believe that Slavery and Capitalism is a pernicious problem globally, because if we can not see this truth, we will all die with our eyes closed. The racial problem is not just a black and white issue , but more significantly a historical issue. It was not simply white people starting slavery and blacking people suffer the burden , but a particular universal function ( the Capitalist), who had a capital interest of enriching himself. The Capitalist is the bullshitter , that tells other white people you are suffering , but at least you are better than these slaves; but what they did not know, is that one day this universal function is coming for them. The irony now is that some of the slave descendants are now part of the Universal Function.This guy is here to Gaslight.
Bruce C Moore Utter nonsense. Without the freedom of Capitslism you are the slave of the State or the victim of the mob. Look at how free and happy people lived where Capitalism was abandoned: destitute and oppressed.
Socialist: "Capitalism *IS* slavery!"
Me: I recall reading about a slave or two who would gladly trade places with you.
Check the road of bones and the famines of ukraine, appart from all the experiments the USSR made outside mainland Russia
Capitalism is an economic system, is voluntary interactions between parties where the party that pays decides what is bought.
Don't conflate Free Market and Capitalism. While they both can exist simultaneously, they aren't the same.
Capitalism is a system that focuses on the production of wealth, and the ownership of capital and the means of production.
A free market focuses on the exchange of wealth, or of goods and services.
In a capitalist system, production and pricing are determined by the free market, and there may be some government regulation as without it monopolies can occur violating the free market.
A free market system is based solely on supply and demand with little government interference. Buyers and sellers have free transactions when they can agree on the price of goods and services.
@@THall-vi8cp in truth without government the only people who can create monopolies are consumers. Business free of government interference cannot on their own establish monopolies.
What if you have a child and all he ever wants is to sit on his ipad while injecting himself with drugs?
Will you take that away from him?
What if an entire population is doing this, will you take that from them?
What if people want to be enslaved?
Will you take that away from them?
The New York Times: *Purposely "interprets" history in SHOCKING ways so that it sells papers and subscriptions.* Fake News 101 - Sensationalism = LIES.
Going to take a Confederate supporter like you seriously lol
@MICHEAL GALE that's because you're racist
Well them chaps at the Times did earn themselves a Pulitzer for torpedoing the Brewster Hearings(ya know, the *actual* inquiries into Hollywood s embrace of Communism).
General Robert E Lee: Don't forget that any newspaper which DIDN'T validate the federal government, was CLOSED DOWN by the Lincoln Administration as "traitors printing treason;" since the administration had suspended habeas corpus, and ran on pure censorship.
Needless to say, the New York Times has always been a propaganda-mill for the US government.
The Tariff of 1824 caused the price of cotton to fall from 21 cents/lbs to 12 cents/lbs in 1825. By 1826 the price of cotton had fallen to 8.8 cents/lbs.This caused a severe recession in the South. Meantime, profits for Northern industry rose by 25%. This shows the theory that cotton was vital to the world economy was proved wrong long before the Civil War. Northern industrialists gleefully bludgeoned the Southern cotton economy because it may their industry much more profitable.
The idea that a material for making fabric - one of many that existed at the time - would have been vital to the global economy is absurd. Also, when the Northern states were cut off from cotton during the civil war and their economies continued to boom shows that cotton was not important to economic growth.
Even with the price of cotton going down in the 1820s, there were still many, many wealthy slaveowners in the Southern states.
I read that there were more millionaires (owners of cotton plantations) in Mississippi than anywhere else in America in 1860.
@@justmyopinion9883 The tariffs affected everyone in the Deep South especially. It was a trickle down severe recession. Less money for the rich, less for the lower classes. ..... Meanwhile Northern industry prospered because of the the tariffs. The tariffs were great for the North, but terrible for the South.
Tariffs or overproduction? I am sure the slaveholders made up for it by working the slaves even harder.
@@Melons-vg8dq Did'ja know that there were times when the work load of the plantation was low and slaves could work off the plantation? they were always paid cash when this happened. Slaves often had cash and sometimes bought their way out of slavery. That's one of the reasons why there were 260,000 free blacks in the South by 1860., or 7% of the Black population.
"Capitalism is slavery!"
I can quit or change jobs whenever I want.
thank you
Not necessarily. You still need a job.
@@mzavros humans need jobs to stay mentally and physically healthy. sense of purpose and achievement is normal human behavior. Socialism stifles the very essence of being a human.
Yes, I’m a slave to myself. I can sell my labor to whomever wants to buy.
So, how do you pay rent? You are male, young and in good health, I trust? For many people the choice is work a job that grinds them down or be homeless and starving.
I read one of the essays written by Nikole-Jones for school, and I was shocked by how blatantly racist and ethno-nationalist it was
What level of school? Please not secondary or primary!!
@@destroytheboxes High school, although my teacher had the aptitude to admit that this essay, in particular, was pretty controversial and even provided reading material that criticized the whole 1619 project, so props to her. I'm more worried about the almost completely positive response the essay got from my classmates
@@Not_actually_a_commie Why are you concerned about positive reactions to ethno nationalism? Have you prescribed the entire world a healthy dose of diversity? Or just white people? If so why? What is your logic behind that prescription?
@@Ban_Usury_Worldwide The Nikole-Jones essay was BLACK ethno-nationalism
@@Not_actually_a_commie What's your point? I love black ethno nationalists. They actually have their head on straight and would be the first people willing to separate.
If that was true about slavery then by that logic the South would have been lot more industrialized than the North, also the British Industrial Revolution happened long after they gave up slavery. Matter fact by that logic the Arabs should have had Industrial Revolution because they kept slavery for a much longer time.
It literally doesn't make sense.
The Industrial Revolution made slavery an unnecessary evil. As soon as a single machine could do the work of 20 laborers the value of those laborers declined dramatically however the cost to maintain those 20 slaves didn’t decline. The industrial Revolution doomed slavery. The United States has the most productive farms in the world, and only a tiny fraction of the population works in farming. It’s all automated.
Slavery can be viewed from a political lens, a moral/ethical lens, and an economic lens.
William the conqueror taxed slave trading in England and Wales in 1082 to raise revenue.
By 1100, slavery had collapsed in England and Wales.
The British banished global slave trading first by banning it within its own empire, then by forming anti slavery alliances and through boycotts with fifty sovereign states between 1830 and 1860.
The industrial revolution occurred in the 1780s onwards.
Other ideas worth adding to assess slavery: The Barbery Pirates' role in Atlantic/African slavery. And rather than a Rousseauian state of nature view of what preceded the civilized west, look at how tribalism operated where slavery was an alternative to massacre in battle or was even sought by the victims of famine because society lived on such thing economic margins. The Atlantic Slave Trade was participation in kidnapping but earlier forms were more nuanced and universal and maybe even necessary for survival. Viewed from that perspective, capitalism likely allowed abolition to be feasible. Few bring these points up enough. Thank you, Thomas Sowell.
58:18 cat enters frame
58:30 cat begins cleaning itself
59:08 cat stops cleaning itself
59:19 cat starts cleaning itself again
1:02:45 cat commits not alive
I grew up in a family that always read The NY Times. It was a sunday morning tradition to read it after breakfast: my father had the sports section, my mother “Arts and Leisure”, and I would read “The Week in Review”.
I stopped subscribing to the New York Times a decade ago due to its sorry decline, starting with Judith Miller’s beating the drums for the Iraq war. The “1619 Project” symbolizes their decline into a rigid “Politically correct” ideology. So sad from a paper that for many decades strived for objectivity. NY Times, it’s time to fall on your sword and close up shop. You are not a flagship of American journalism anymore. The “Grey Lady” is dead.
Alternative "news" is alive - because of the majority being really ignorant.
Saturation.
Advertiser dollars.
“Tried to reach objectivity” well what does that mean?
It's good paper to line your birdcage
@@factsmachine9905 It means they use to be independent in their writing. Now they are far left.
Anyone that has read Adam Smith would know that slavery has nothing to do with capitalism.
Do you really think anyone at the Times has read Adam Smith?
@@flatebo1 lol good point. though they probably read Marx.
@@SociallyTriggered I've never met or read a modern leftist that read Marx (at least not the way Marx was read during his lifetime). Everything from the left since about the 70's is highly revisionist of Marx, and frequently contradictory.
@@onetwothree4148 Very true. Most of them like socialism because they think it means something like "social" and is all about working together and equality. They are afraid of competition and seek government protection. They don't see the dangers. Personally I embrace capitalism because I believe in liberty and merit. Inequality is natural but it is also something benefits us all. Those who rise to the top often bring up the rest of society with them.
@@SociallyTriggered I like whatever works and dislike whatever doesn't
The failing New York Times.
Fake news is called fake for a reason.
5:40 oh, of course, state capitalism. As in the state owning the means of production. Whereas socialism is, uuhh... the state ownership of... capital.
Yep, whenever socialism fails just call it state capitalism
Increasingly people are waking up to the fact the so called "far right" and so called "far left" are simply statism.
The totalitarian manipulation of economic activity to profit the state.
You'll hear people exclaim "it's the horseshoe effect" - that's the moment they should have figured what all "government" tends towards without constant vigilance from the populis it is supposed to serve.
Left and right is not the current spectrum under contention, it's liberty and control.
MBA's are seen as economic qualifications. In practice they are gateways into the managerial class, those who "manage" the behaviour of the "electorate" (you could insert bourgeoisie and proletariat if you were so inclined).
It's crazy how few views Reason gets these days.
Michael Burke algorithmic intervention
Part of it is because Reason often veers into tinfoil hat territory talking about mass immigration, foreign policy issues, and the effects of outsourcing. They are often as dogmatic as the worst TDS sufferers, Trump supporters, and out and out Marxists. It's a shame too because they've got a lot of important things to say.
The algorithm decreases their visibility because they cut against the lefts narratives.
No philosophy of economics could be more opposed to slavery then capitalism. Communism has more parallels then any other that I can think of. “You will work/sacrifice/suffer/die (war) for the benefit of us because we believe we own you”.
Robert Bork wrote an article soon after the Civil Rights Act of the 60's, saying it was unconstitutional because business owners' property was their own. He said that the justifications of SCOTUS based on interstate commerce was transparently wrong. Was Robert Bork a racist? Or did he read the Constitution and apply it to the act?
@Zach cash So because some doesn't want to serve you for whatever reason you have the right to try to attempt to destroy their business because your feelings were hurt?
benjovi55 google is your friend. smh.
He was rcist read more.
Robert Bork obviously never heard of the Commerce Clause, which means anything that Congress WANTS it to mean.
The elephant in the room, as Jefferson pointed out in the Kentucky Resolutions, is that the Constitution is an INTERNATIONAL compact among the peoples of the states, ultimately enforced by their individual non-compliance against bad faith; just like the EU and Brexit; not a meaningless list of unenforceable terms against an all-powerful empire, whose own discretion is the sole limit on its power.
In these times of banal superficiality and emotionalism (masquerading as gravitas), this video delivers true mental stimulation and fair consideration. Well and truly done, gentlemen. Thank you!
Love way you layed this out, notice it filters out the programmed crazies with your well versed vernacular.
@@jerrysingleton4956 Interesting insight. 👍
I would disagree completely with the 1619 project and those who push this fraud.
If you want a history of slavery that is actually nuanced in detail, go to Thomas Sowell’s history of slavery. It is powerful.
Leftists hate Thomas Sowell because he is eloquent, wise, and routinely disproves their narratives with "facts and logic" as a certain Jewish American businessman might say.
Coming from a black conservative who repeatedly told black people to "just act right", it probably has something to offer
@9:00 true indeed ; prior to the invention of the cotton gin both Slavery and cotton were not particularly profitable; during the war , when cotton was embargoed in the US and fairly scarce in Europe due to the blockades , the only country that went broke was the South , while the rest of the world economy barely noticed . Of course Egypt and other countries took up the slack , but it's fairly good evidence that "50% of the US economy "did not come directly from slavery .
52:53 THIS is what differentiates good interviews from bad ones: knowing both the interviewer and the interviewee; their story, their ideologies and their personal histories that gives the viewer a sense of _who_ are we listening to and what things may incline his/her views towards one thing or another. I know people are never 100% objective and always incline at least a little bit towards something, I just want them to be sincere about it.
I would like to see a closer examination of the two foundational economic assertions upon which the 1619 project relies:
1. • That slavery accounted for approximately half of the then U.S. national GDP.
2. • That the then total asset value of all slaves in the U.S. were equal to the total asset value of all other U.S. industrial assets combined.
Idiocy is alive and well at the NY Times.
Thank you, Reason for doing the work few other publications are willing to do.
Reason and think?
Publications are the reason were in this mess...
For a serious left wing review of the 1619 project and its attempt to re-write history read the world socialist website
www.wsws.org
Lincoln was a railroad attorney. The railroads were the first private businesses to receive government funds.
Gordon Mcintosh nonsense. The government conducted business with private firms long before the arrival of the railroads
@@jaik195701 Of course the government did business with private businesses, what I am talking about is massive financing. Most of the tariffs collected before the Civil War were going to the railroads. S. Carolina nullified the tariff in 1833.
The southern states said the civil war started over the issue of slavery (or the right to decide slavery), *but the north explicitly said the war was about secession, not slavery.* What other war do historians cite only the cause claimed by the clear villains and losers, while saying the cause declared by the undetested protagonists and victors is incorrect? Probably there isn't any other conflict were the descendants of both parties completely swapped opinions about the cause, each side abandoning their original position and taking up the other side's explanation as more favorable.
Imagine if someone told you WW2 was fought because of European intervention in the unification of the German people, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was about the western resistance to the inevitable realization of global communism, and the gulf War was started because Kuwait slant drilled Iraqi oil wells...
Clearly both slavery and secession were the causes of the civil war, but the fighting literally started over the issue of secession, not slavery, so it doesn't make much sense to say secession wasn't at least an equal cause. Further it's hard to ignore that most of the soldiers actually involved if the fighting, on both sides, did not consider themselves to be fighting primarily for or against slavery, but primarily wrote that convictions about whether secession was an act of freedom or betrayal worth dying for.
"...the fighting literally started over the issue of secession..."
Why were the Confederate states seceding? They were seceding over slavery. Union states objected that they could not secede, regardless of their reasons for doing so. As indeed they could not since the States were never a party to the Constitution. As the States were never party to the Constitution, no State has authority to withdraw for the Constitution.
@@flatebo1 yep, the south fought because they wanted slaves, but the south didn't start the war. The US invaded north Carolina because they didn't want to become smaller and weaker from states exercising their right of popular sovereignty.
"History is the lie agreed upon." Economics is the lie no one can agree upon. ( and whatever
the economics of a system is, it is determined by the FORCE of its governing authority. )
@Flatebo
That's such nonsense. The right to leave a political union is a fundamental right.
Revisionists take one or two sentences by Lincoln, which may have been pandering to slavers, to slander and void the long efforts of the Abolitionists and the sacrifices of Union soldiers. They did not give a damn about secession. They offered their labors and their very lives to end the evil of slavery.
What disturbs me most is that I meet young people today who think slavery originated and ended in the United States. They have no idea it was a universal institution throughout human civilization.
That was done on purpose.
I wouldn't read The 1619 Project unless you paid me $100 an hour to do it.
Same. Then I'd take advantage of those dumbasses and take about 1,000 hours to read it.
I don’t have that kind of time
one long badly written story replete with the maudlin, mawkish, maundering emotionalism dredged up by ahistorical assertions from those with ideological slants to promote.
^ya-a-a-w-w-w-n^
Unfortunately, they are making our children read it because they are not worried about you. They want the next generation to control.
@@THall-vi8cp Well since it was a "magazine" they got "people" to pay to read it...
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. " The Boxer, S. & G.
51:58 ... WTH are you talking about? What exactly was "built on the back of blacks"? I'm from Wisconsin... there were no blacks involved in the building of anything there. A few blacks showed up from from the South in the mid 1800s ... by 1910 there were 900 blacks in Milwaukee. Nothing of Wisconsin was 'built on the back of blacks'. How many states used slave labor to build their buildings, roads, bridges, homes, etc? What are you talking about?
There were a total of 423,000 blacks in the US when the war ended. It is numerically impossible for them to build the US. The US was built and funded by three / four groups. The Brits, The Germans, The Irish and The Italians. Literally, they (we) built and made the US.
This “project” having fact-checkers is about as useful as somebody fact-checking the Cthulhu mythos.
hellsunicorn I’d vote for Cthulhu over the two main party candidates.
😂😂😂👍👉..
How many tentacles did Cthulu have on his face? Scholars are still debating.
Cthulhu is based on real historical fantasies.
Ah, Nick, I think you're confusing a position that says the *war* was not fought to end slavery with a position that says *secession* was not about preserving slavery. The latter is a silly position, but not one I see many libertarians stake out. OTOH, abolitionists were in the minority in the North. It was rebellion and dissolution of the Union that animated the majority in the North, including Lincoln, who I'm sure you know said he'd preserve slavery if it meant preserving the Union, and who waited until a propitious time in the war to issue his proclamation "freeing" the slaves. If secession had simply been accepted, as Jefferson would have done, clearly there would've been no war.
I agree but see Lincoln as the one who publicly abandoned voluntary association to the Union, literally was willing to kill southerns before allowing them to leave the Union (I'm including the rest of congress with Lincoln). Reconstruction was nothing more than a military occupation, started compulsory re-education of wrong think.
in truth his proclamation was a testament to what you said. It was as much a carrot in regards to slavery as it was stick. Remember that it allowed states 60 days to surrender and come back into the union and they would keep their slaves.
Ha. I actually turned off the interview at about that point because I can't stand Nick Gillespie's obnoxious insinuations againt people; at that piint in the interview I just couldn't take him any more and had to turn it off befroe I damaged my computer screen.
I am a descendant of slavery, born 1952 in Birmingham Alabama; I have been thinking about this very issue of Slavery and Capitalism. I say, when double entry booking started , is a minor detail. Slavery and Capitalism goes together like a horse and carriage . I believe that Slavery and Capitalism is a pernicious problem globally, because if we can not see this truth, we will all die with our eyes closed. The racial problem is not just a black and white issue , but more significantly a historical issue. It was not simply white people starting slavery and blacking people suffer the burden , but a particular universal function ( the Capitalist), who had a capital interest of enriching himself. The Capitalist is the bullshitter , that tells other white people you are suffering , but at least you are better than these slaves; but what they did not know, is that one day this universal function is coming for them. The irony now is that some of the slave descendants are now part of the Universal Function.This guy is here to Gaslight.
@@brucecmoore1657 I was born in 1952 . My dad was in the military and when I was 6 we went to Biloxi, MISS. One day we were on the freeway next to the Gulf. I looked off to the right and saw something very different. It was a Black Shanty town is the best way to describe it. People were walking around various run down small shacks. I did not know anything about Black people then. It was the last time I was in the South but it must have left an impression on me because I can still see it 61 years later. Anyhow..I agree with you about Capitalism ans Slavery going hand in hand.
Adam Smith was a critic of slavery in his "Wealth of Nations" in 1776 and influenced Scotland to end slavery by 1778. Capitalism, through the East India Company and West Indian Company exported Capitalist anti-slavery around the world, long before UK abolitionists took up the cause in the early 19th century. Read Smith's article on slavery. It was Capitalism that ended slavery world wide. The US came late to the cause. The 1619 Project is flawed as it practically contends that there was no slavery prior to the North American colonies, even though it existed long before the Bible was written and before the African slave trade began.
It did. The free market decided first that slavery was wrong from a ethical perception and if word got out that you were engaged in good made by slaves most people bypassed that business. Once something is unpopular it really drives that market faster than policy.
@@Mrs.CGraves Adam Smith noted that slaves tended to do the minimal work possible for their upkeep...sort of like union workers today...
CAPITALISM ISNT CORPORATISM
@JC S I agree. Usually you end up with a two tier socialist state. Government and friends vs everyone else. Government administers the equality, so often they end up better than everyone else. Seeing as government, left or right, has been in debt my entire life, I really don't want them in control of the food supply, let alone the canadian medical anymore.
Slightly inaccurate, since the distinction you are seeking is that of "productive capitalism"
v. rent seeking, or what Michael Hudson deems the F.I.RE sector.
Corporations are simply a form of raising "capital" while limiting the "liability" of
"passive investors" who are not involved in the day to day running of the company.
Any other "abuses" that may take place by corporations, are those that have been legally
enabled by "government"...and this battle had been ongoing from 1879 and the
ratification of the constitution...whose details can be found in "We the Corporations"...
I am losing the narrative of the reason why I’m listening to this episode. Starting with double entry and then moves on to capitalism and slavery. Okay, then it gets stuck talking about slavery.
Slavery is just about as old as written history and it’s just a guess, but slavery was part of the human history even in the cave man days.
I grew up during the civil rights movement. I didn’t understand what was happening until I reached junior high level. One thing for sure is that hate on any level leads to destructive behavior. And then we still have the facts that blacks hate whites more-so than
vis-à-vis
I dozed off listening to a prior podcast, and this autoplayed. I dreamt that I was back in school, listening to a great lecture, but the prof completely ignored my questions.
😂😂
The libertarian perspective regarding the Civil Rights Act is really quite simple and far more principled than creating special classes of people.
Every person, regardless color, sex, creed, religion, or other immutable characteristic, has the right to life, liberty, and property.
What the government does NOT have, however, is the right to force trade between people.
The libertarian perspective is that any business has the right to deny service to anyone for any reason... also realizing that the free market will close such a myopic business's doors.
But the government has no right to create special groups of people and force transactions between them.
I would encourage the guest to revisit the strawman of the libertarian perspective in citing the abolitionist movement, as if libertarians even question everyone's right to the "big 3."
Excellent discussion. Great interview questions for a very generous and learned guest.
At the time of this conversation, little did they know what was soon to come.
I almost forgot there are still smart people in the world. Thanks for the reminder
Oh hell yes! They keeping getting longer. Keep em coming!! 😩😩😩
The 1619 Project is basically the Bizzaroworld version of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy.
39:46 If I place is block on the floor 100 years ago and others put another block on it for every year was that first block responsible for people knowing where to place the following blocks? if they didn't know exactly what it was they were building does that first block need characteristics that caused the following blocks to go on it instead of other blocks?
Well, understand that we are talking about groups that think "wage slavery" is a thing. Honestly, they're at the point where if they even have to work to get up out of bed in the morning, they're a victim of "bed slavery" or "comfort slavery".
Re: Libertarians’ dislike of Lincoln. It’s not that LRC or LvMI say slavery had nothing to do with secession, it’s that Lincoln refused to let the south secede, which did destroy federalism and created more centralized power.
Thank God for Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.
Historically slavery was a globally accepted practice by other countries with many races and nationalities involved long before the US was even established. As a developing nation President Lincoln (formerly of the Whig party became a Republican) was against slavery. Slavery was popular primarily in the southern Democratic states. The refusal of the southern states to accept the new mandate led to the deadliest war in America’s history. More men died in the civil war than any other war in US history. Teach your children well.
Lincoln did not just support and argue for colonization of freed slaves; he was personally responsible for hundreds of deaths in the Ile a Vache colonization disaster.
Second, the arguments against slavery being the main cause of the Civil War don't revolve around Southern secession, which the Southerners clearly stated was to preserve their culture and institution of slavery. Instead, they revolve around the idea that the North started fighting the war to free the slaves. Most Northerners did not see ending slavery as a cause worthy of war, and Lincoln himself never made that argument - if he had, he probably would faced rebellion in the North as well. In fact, slavery remained legal in parts of the North until well past the end of the war, and the United States government became the largest slaveholder in the country as it collected (and exploited) contrabands.
Seems like the classic example of American ignorance thinking that history only began in the USA.
Honestly you have a point. Though I would assert it's moreso people ignoring the aspects of macrohistory that don't support their personal biases.
Huh? Nobody is making that claim. Strawman alert 🚨
Lincoln not only wanted to abolish slavery, he considered the possible consequences, and possible remedies for those consequences.
The emancipation proclamation didn't free any slaves.
It tried to free slaves in the south, which Lincoln had no say over.
But did nothing for the slaves Lincoln did have a say over.
If Lincoln wanted to free slaves, why did he choose not to?
Baby steps. After the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery was doomed in the US. Only a matter of time before the Amendments which did free the slaves in the entire country.
@@SwingDancer61 Or it was a war move, hoping he would incite rebelling among the enemy. His view on the issue was repatriation; sending slaves back to Africa. Not simply freeing them.
@@voswouter87 Information that I've seen is that Lincoln favored a voluntary moving of blacks to Africa not a mandatory sending them to Africa. Pretty clear if it was voluntary, then not all blacks would go back. www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jun/26/blog-posting/did-abraham-lincoln-plan-send-ex-slaves-central-am/
Lincoln freed ALL slaves. I never read in our history books about slavery AFTER the Civil War. There wasn't any slavery in the North. It was all in the South. Lincoln's move was strategic to free the slaves as the North moved through the South. I believe Lincoln's move was final &. complete.
@@davidgrg117 Slavery was ended after Lincoln was killed. Quickly, but after. And no it wasn't all in southern states. Some of the states loyal to Lincoln had slaves whom weren't freed by his emancipation proclamation.
Critical Theory is based on criticism. We want to bring down the current system. Criticize Criticize. That is why Magness can't figure out what they mean by capitalism. That is beside the point. Just criticize it to destroy it.
Man, I had no idea Bob Saget moonlighted as an economic historian. ;)
"New History of Capitalism" It's right there in the name. I know they probably imagine they were being clever but when the name of your project implies revisionism, are you shocked that people look for (and find) the revisionism in your project?
"Truth is not a left-wing value." -Dennis Prager
Or right-wing; to which the left wing is simple BLOWBACK.
@@SovereignStatesman Wrong. Left wing is a mental illness.
Are you guys still beating the drum about evil corporations? Even with Google being exposed as being in the tank for Democrats? LMFAO.
For a serious left wing review of the 1619 project and its attempt to re-write history read the world socialist website
www.wsws.org
PragerU has even more misinformation than the 1619 project lol. He’s like the right wing revisionist version of the “crazy left”. He’s far from a nuanced academic, he’s just a right winged revisionist ideologue that knows how to cater to people too lazy to actually read actual academic scholarship…
PragerU has about 100 times as much misinformation than the 1619 project lol.
Every group and country had slaves. Even Africa and native Americans.
When I was in college (20 years ago) a lot of the gen eds would meet once a week in a huge lecture hall and then we'd meet with a TA once a week to go over homework and ask any questions that we had. Perhaps a similar model would work with a hybrid online/in person class.
Also, the local Community College has a 2 year Transfer degree where you knock out almost all of your gen eds there. All of the 4 year State Colleges in my State accept the degree.
What's the difference; if the college is accredited by the state, then that's who it will validate.
They're not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
I have three friends who all did this: they went to inexpensive "junior colleges" in California for the first two years, then transferred for their junior and senior years at relatively prestigious California state-sponsored universities. Thus did they graduate with valuable degrees at minimal cost. Only one of my three friends had any college debt at the end.
Their peers all went to more expensive four-year colleges. Much of those people's first two years was spent enjoying the social aspects of college life with lots of partying. By contrast, the junior college was a more sober, more boring experience. Of course, the price of that partying lifestyle came in at between $20,000 to $50,000.
That Fitzhugh fellow should be talked about more and used to educate self proclaimed anti-capitalists. This history lesson would make many check their premise.
This was wonderfully nuanced. Thank you for producing this!
The argument of economic reasons for the civil war is just as sound as the one of slavery. In fact, it's impossible to separate the two.. To put more weight on one over the other is reductive.
I hope we don't allow this crap into our schools.
too late.
Extremely well balanced. Points out the specific flaws, praises the broad achievements, and illuminates the unwillingness to change some glaring errors.
Great interview except for a creepy attack on Libertarians for not sufficiently idolizing war Presidents such as Lincoln, apparently because they have not read enough Bastiat. Perhaps it could be that Libertarians do not much like bloody murderous wars -- and instead prefer finding peaceful means of solving social issues? I'm sure it's true that every war in history was necessary and virtuous. How dare those Libertarians try to learn from history by considering alternatives to war (you know, like a negotiated slave buyout, which might have avoided creating permanent scars of racism in so many who never owned slaves, but nevertheless had sisters and mothers brutally raped and murdered by Union troops). Ending human bondage is an important issue to Libertarians -- second only to the issue of protecting human life by challenging mongers of war. I believe it was Bastiat who reminded us that "life is a gift from God."
Libertarians don't much care about national sovereignty of states, either; like the fact that every state was a sovereign nation-state ever since 1776, by law.
@@SovereignStatesman How so? They may not idolize politicians at any level, but they are very supportive of decentralization of political power.
Bastiat also said that America's major flaw was slavery. He praised the US government's hands off economic policies, but correctly predicted that slavery would be historically seen as a direct contradiction to our stated values. I agree that there should have been an attempt at buying out the slave owners before war was just declared.
@@SovereignStatesman Libertarians are often patriotic. But they do place certain principles above identity -- with ideas like "unalienable" or "human" rights superseding national political identity.
@@johnpaparella4995 Unfortunately, Lincoln wanted slavery to stick around a bit longer -- in order to fund his ambitious plans for national greatness. He saw slavery as evil -- but a necessary evil. The idea we are taught that he launched the war to emancipate the slaves is sheer revisionism. He launched the war to only to prevent succession of the states funding his vision of federal expansion. He was very clear on this point.
You’re right about worthy changes coming from tough situations. What looks like harsh leadership can, in time, be seen as a necessary correction to advance civilization. Thanks to both of you for the deep exploration.
What an astute dude
The article in question never suggests that double-booking accounting was invented in the antebellum South, simply that it was used there. It is mentioned a single time in the article in question (do a Find on the article) and it appears in a list of a tools that were used to track the productivity of slaves. The article's argument is not that capitalism was invented in the South, but that this relentless monitoring of individual worker productivity - which is increasingly a hallmark of "innovative" companies like Amazon, Google, etc - was given an early dress rehearsal on the plantation. In fact, that "that's almost a direct quote" connecting double-book accounting on plantations with Microsoft Excel never appears anywhere, even approximately, in the article. This historian is correct about the origins of double-book accounting, but it is a defense against a charge that was never leveled by the original piece. This occurs at the 4:00 minute mark - why did Reason shoot an hour and change of this garabge?
Good stuff, but you guys took it too easy on the people behind this project. Just say what it is, an attempt to rewrite history to fit a political agenda.
For a serious left wing review of the 1619 project and its attempt to re-write history read the world socialist website
www.wsws.org
@@ppazpppaz8618 Well damn. When even avowed socialists are ripping on the 1619 project, you know it's hot garbage.
@@reharl4953
Curiosity has the better of me. Did you read any of the articles at the website I posted, how did you find them?
If America's wealth is due to slavery, wouldn't countries with the most slavery, Mauritania, Arab countries, be the most wealthy.
The more industrial North in the US didn't have slaves and was richer.
Thanks for the interview and info and engaging discussion.
Right around 40:25, Gillespie starts describing a relatively contentious issue as to what caused the Civil War. In doing so, he makes two mistakes: 1) He distorts the argument about those who reject the idea that "slavery was the sole cause of the Civil War". Most folks reject slavery as the primary cause, but the numbers who say that it had nothing at all to do with the Civil War is much smaller. It is far more common to say that slavery as an institution, particularly due to its economic importance, was one among many reasons in a complex explanation for the southern states to secede.
2) He is completely wrong when he says of the souther states: "all of them in their documents said we are doing this because of slavery not because of taxes or tariffs." That's untrue. Most said nothing at all, such as Virginia. While several states did mention slavery in their articles of secession, South Carolina and Mississippi notably, they did so among a list of reasons, including taxes and tariffs. Texas listed in its reasons for secession the Federal Government's failure to act against Mexican "banditti" and American Indian attacks. It should be well known that the Confederate President Jefferson Davis specifically denied slavery as the main issue for secession in an interview with the New York Times -- not after the War, but while it was going on, in 1864. He ignores what the President had to say, but does quote the Confederate VICE President, as if somehow the Veep was authoriative. Especially in a state-based system like the Confederacy created.
Magness does himself no favors by chiming in to accuse people of "willfully setting aside historical evidence" when he and his interlocutor are doing exactly that.
For a video about the grotesque distortions of history that is the 1619 Project, it is unfortunate for the makers to engage in their own. How can they be taken seriously if they cannot adhere to their own principles of honest observance of the facts of history?
The plantation owners spoke English, and I'm pretty sure they invented English, too, and it was created for the primary purpose of trading slaves. People are saying...
Please don't reproduce.
Gee, I guess you forgot that the "pope" divided the world and gave half to Spain and half to
Portugal and that the American slave trade originated with them. ( and Columbus, who was an Italian from
Genoa. )
You know you have something powerful to say when your comments keep getting deleted.
This man’s interview skills are insanely good. Wow.
I completely disagree. He interrupts too often.
This is the part that doesn’t go well with me as a modern day American, Paying reparations for Slavery. Forcing the Modern day Americans that have NEVER owned any slaves to African-Americans that have NEVER been slaves. Can someone explain the logic behind this African-American Slavery Reparations Bill?
If anything "Time on the Cross" seems to me to justify the civil war as a necessary to end slavery.
I enjoyed the interview however it bothered me that the host was interrupting in the middle of the guests discussions.
The 1619 project is a gross lie about the scope of slavery.
Civil Rights Act destroyed the freedom of association. You can criticize it while simultaneously hating segregation and not being racist. Libertarians criticizing the CRA do so because it is the principled correct position, not because they want to be contrarians. Do you honestly think Rand Paul can improve his electability by opposing this?
Betchya' the NYT forgets to mention certain names that were to crucial to the slave trade.
Forget about John Galt.
"Who is Aaron Lopez?"
So why didn't lincoln let the south secede? he said if he could end the war without freeing one slave he would have. I think people who say the war of secession was not about slavery feel the south or any state today should be able to secede...exactly how the colonies seceded from britian. All and all slavery would have ended with or without the civil war.
I find it fascinating that almost no one today knows anything about the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment which stated that *_No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State._* So what happened? Basically the southern press suppressed all knowledge that President Lincoln was genuinely serious about not wanting the federal government to abolish or interfere with slavery. I bet no one here had ever heard of this proposed Amendment either. History is constantly being rewritten by those who would prefer to forget the past. More history is lost through omission than by outright lies.
Libertarianism is as mean as Nature. Both have produced some of the greatest outcomes, yet people always want to "tame" and "control" these things to our collective harm.
Progressives see the world as they want it and Libertarians recognize the world for what it is.
@@JK-gu3tl
👍👍
What's often ignored is that formal chattel Slavery ended only as a mistake. Enslaved Africans in the US were never supposed to gain freedom. The South wanted to enforce slavery and go their own way to expand. The North didn't want to let the South go (mainly for monetary reasons). In the Civil War, the only method Lincoln had left to hurt the South was the phony Emancipation Proclamation, which was supposed to affect the South even though it had already seceded from the North. But the South was so dependent on slavery that the phony promise of freedom debilitated the South and gave the Civil War to the North. And ever since Reconstruction ended, the US has unleashed a great wave of revenge and anger on those enslaved Africans and their descendants.
In the late 80s I earned a degree in American studies under one of the two leading professors in that field. They did teach historiography and sociology and Psychology and all that sort of thing, but they also taught revisionist history. The concept of revisionist history is that you look at the historical events in light of current modern-day views. In other words, what is really important is not how the people acting at the time period looked at things, but what we derive from their actions. The same goes for looking at motivations and the purposes behind things.
Using this thing turned Lincoln and Washington and all the rest of them into Scoundrels and praises all these highly obscure people (who didn't really do much of anything) to make them as though they were the center of everything.
@Megalodon Unlocked
You mean, some of my ancestors had this land, and met others of my ancestors who came in on boats.
Half of them killed half the people who came on the boat, and half of the people on the boats killed half of them.
The rest of them married each other.
The ultimate result of all of this congregating together was my own wonderful self.
I have a little piece of land, true, but it comes with a mortgage.
Just about everything I have, I worked for.
The time for restitution is past. The Deeds been been done, all the actors in that drama are dead.
In today's society, we can rise or fall on our own Merit. I myself have come up from literally less than nothing. I have been responsible for debts that I did not create.
I have paid many of these. With my labor, with my sweat, with my blood.
I do not want to hear anyone whining about land that was stolen from people who are long dust now-- some of whom were my ancestors...
As with me, I would say to anyone else, get off your ass and get to work. No one cares about your butt hurt feelings. We do not pay bills with feelings, but with Hard Labour.
And... To put it all into perspective for you,
... I am not in the upper 5% in this country. But when we look at the World At Large, I'm in the upper 2%. As you may tell if you look around, many people have such small resources that it literally is a crying shame.
But I'm no Thief. And I and my family do things to help others. We ask no reward.
So anyone who complains about these people who have turned to dust and their losses, I have one question.
What have you done to help others?
Cotton IS KING!
Tulips are king,
Salt is king...
Puhleez, northern States kept slaves then and now.
Slaves sold by daddy, uncle, the Barbary pirates were lucky to be discarded in the States.
Those left behind were slaves of their tribal enemy captors.
Slaves were taken care of better than any horse or ass, due to the cost.
South and central America were destinations. Britain imported slaves, too.
Arabs bought slaves from the African traders, so too did the Chinese.
I don’t know if I’ve seen Anything else that can bring libertarians (Reason), conservatives (ie Glenn loury), liberals (ie John McWhorter) and radical socialists (ie Adolph Reed Jr) together like the rejection of this project has lol
Facts are facts, which is why.
For a serious left wing review of the 1619 project and its attempt to re-write history read the world socialist website
www.wsws.org
The 1619 project was not developed in good faith. It was intentionally dishonest. A shame that decent people have to spend time debunking it.
Wish people would talk more about corporatism vs capitalism..... VERY relevant* right now.
Corporatism is NOT working.... for the same reason socialism/communism doesn't work.... all the power goes to the top.
Yes, equal protection under the law is ignored as for as progressive tax rates, different tax rates on products that are sold that are not varied due to negative externalities, tariffs that prop up inefficient industries, and of course donor/special interest legislation passed by corrupted political leadership.
@@homewall744
Yah, these days legislation is to meddle in the stock market and make their buddies even more rich.
First warning sign: "Sociologist" is not a real science. Sociology is social studies wearing a lab coat. Sociology is the political subversion of social studies.
Where social studies has always been respected as a field of study, it was not scientific. This was accepted as part of the limitations of studying history and philosophy. Both being human constructs, both being flawed both in their creation, recording, and interpretation. Social Studies has always been accepted as an art, not a science. Even today, Social Science is categorized in most institutes under the school of Liberal Arts, NOT Medical, physics, engineering, or mathematics.
Sociology is the study of society. The elemental building block of society is the individual human. There for it logically follows that to study Human Society, one must have a basic understanding of Humans. There is in fact a field of study dedicated to the study of Human anatomy, thought, and behavior. Primarily medical, sometimes branching into bio-chemistry, Psychology in particular focuses specifically on Human behavior. Within the field of Psychology there exists a sub field called "Social Psychology", that focuses on group dynamics and group behavior.
This sub field of Psychology totally negates the entire purpose of Sociology as a separate field. With a focus on medical treatment and counseling, it has far more productive and industrial use than sociology, and is backed by medical research, where as Sociology is totally free floating with no general theory or general model of any kind.
Despite this, Sociological studies are cherry picked by lobby groups for various purposes, having been given the authoritative title of "Scientific" they are toted around as indisputable fact, even though their chief methodology involves changing the definitions of key terms to support their thesis, with no standard unit of measure. The field of Criminology has been cooped and built by sociologists, having a major influence on contemporary criminal justice policy reform in recent years. The most popular terminological theories not only criticizing the standard model of criminality established before the founding of this nation, and by extension the basis of our criminal justice system, but criticize the very philosophy our constitution uses in regards to law. It does this by arguing philosophy, not science.
Sociology is not a respectable stem field, and should be disregarded entirely. If you have any questions or interest in the scientific study of Human Society, I suggest you seek out a social psychologist.
I am a student of the University of Massachusetts Lowell's criminal justice program. Having seen this mess from the inside, I say this from experience. If I had known this ahead of time, I would have gone to medical school instead, and taken psychology. No one tells you when your just a kid about how big the world is: Not in terms that can actually help you navigate it. I didn't know how many sub fields and different categories there were, I didn't know the history of sociology before I started, I didn't know its methodology, I'd never heard of social psychology, nothing in high school or community college prepared me for any of this. I've been going by the seat of my pants, aiming in the general direction of the criminal justice system. I wish someone had told me about this shit before, so I'm going out and sharing my experience for others to see.
Read "The Real Lincoln" by Tom DiLorenzo. Minarchists like Gillespie hate the Mises Institute anarchists.
thank you for posting this conversation . . . deeply appreciated
Insight from former USSR. In capitalism man exploits man. In communism its the other way around.
Funny. And true.
Insight from USA...
*• The MOST prosperous nation that's ever existed throughout all history,
• ALSO the freest society civically, politically, socially, religiously, ethically,
• ALSO the most BENEVOLENT nation ever CONCEIVED*
:: In Capitalism, man *COMPETES* with man. The *ONLY* exploitation in Capitalism is that of one's own skills, ideas, resources & resourcefulness, imagination, personal industry & commercial aptitude, drive & ambition & aspirations, conception of success & prosperity, motivations & underlying values, etc.... All things, without which, no amount of wealth or prosperity or progress can ever be made by any individual or society....
Socialism/Communism takes.
Capitalism CREATES.
Actually that was John Kenneth Galbraith, a Canadien economist.
Right around minute 19:00 they start talking about the advocates for slavery and how they hated capitalism. Specifically he mentions George Fitzugh. I made a whole video about this where I quoted Fitzhugh and two other slavery supporters at length. Check it out here! ruclips.net/video/LW9c_CN5_BQ/видео.html
Thank you for telling and shedding light on the truth! It is appreciated and will inform my future actions.
Anti-freemarket capitalists are collectivists. Or if you prefer, crony capitalists or monopolist capitalists. Those are derivatives of collectivism - offshoots and manifestations.