5 Truths You CANNOT Disagree With: 1. You cannot legislate the poor to prosperity by legislating wealthy out of prosperity. 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
DVFDrinkOrDie The idea that capitalism has been no more successful at eradicating poverty and opening opportunity than socialism just shows some notions are totally impervious to any evidence.
How are we, as a "United Union" STILL facing the same damn issues from when Reagan was a Governor?! Side note, he was such a classy man and deserves so much more recognition for his ideals and ACTIONS. Much respect.
Ask yourself this question....would you like to have him running this year? For me I would . Measured, adult, conservative and with integrity. A great governor and President.
How ironic it was to have a Hollywood guy from California, become the greatest President we've had since Lincoln...Like Lincoln, Ronald Reagan also 'belongs to the ages.'...Some of us were lucky enough to remember him as President, before the legend of his presidency, with the good he did for our country and all other oppressed countries(especially those behind the iron curtain), slipped into history...But oh, what a gold standard he left for all to follow!...Here's to you President Reagan...You are sorely missed.
This is the kind of civility I wish would return to politically discussion. DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF EITHER POLITICAL PARTY- NOR EQUALLY AN ENDORSEMENT OF ANY PARTICULAR NEWS AGENCY.
It's true. If a state is not being governed well, causing high taxes or lack of economic opportunity, then people will just vote with their feet and move to another more attractive state. This has been the pattern throughout American history. It's the reason why people have been leaving states like California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in droves. They're moving to states like Texas, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, and even some Southern states. The only downside is that they are bringing a lot of their misguided blue-state thinking with them.
I think that in addition to what Reagan said in this video about competition between states, the more states rights are recognised and respected the less intrusive and abusive the federal government can become.
You have a warped version of what freedom is. Freedom is when you are able to do something without somebody forcing you not to be able to do it. And the only entity in the US which has force is the gov. Somebody voluntarily choosing not to hire you for a given wage is not anti-freedom, that is a perfect illustration of how freedom works. No force was involved. You dont get to force the employer to hire you and the employer doesnt get to force you to work for him. Though gov can sure do that
Back in 1995 my generation thought of the conservatives as mean old men. But if you look at Buckley's show, you'll see that it's mostly young people in the audience, and a whole lot of women. I wonder, in a time when women were paid less, perhaps working women were more inclined towards candidates who wouldn't throw their money away.
"businesses create jobs" There, you said it. Demands have always existed. It is those who innovate to meet those demands that create both wealth and jobs.
Compare Buckley's civility and his vocabulary with the current conservative pundits of today. Conservatives should look to emulate those like Buckley and Reagan.
+jones Well what do you expect, in the internet age, where young people are looking to be entertained. Nowadays we have Sean Hannity as the top conserative on TV.
+jones Very true and it applies to both sides of the aisle. Watch Reagan and RFK at the Town Meeting of the World. Always ask yourself if you are showing proper respect to a worthy opponent?
jones 100% agreed.... I blame the divide on the right more than the left. Well if you consider the "tea party" the right.... I dont but then again I'm from an old time when people like Jeb, Romney or McCain were considered Republicans
Jack Pacheco Reagan administration help create death squads in South America. John Negroponte was the main guy that created them and he worked for Reagan. He played to the religious right. If it weren't for him HW Bush would have never became President since HW was his VP. His tax cuts ruined the economy and created a recession. He sucks,
I don't know how more plainly I could explain this to you. The costs are widely diffused, the benefits are clearly visible for a select few. The costs are too high compared to the benefits, but they are spread out amongst a greater number of people, when aggregated a serious problem
US Constitution, 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." They are effectively one in the same within the context of the Federal Govt. The States created the Federal Government; it is beholden to them, not vice-versa. Reagan was not a big-gov't crony capitalist. Read the Cato Institutes's article on "Limiting Government, 1980-2010"; he had a Dem Congress.
Ask workers in an auto plant in Michigan or textile workers in Bangladesh if what they are doing is 'voluntary exchange of services'. Often in the US, when a company goes under and the workers offer to buy it, a great effort goes into preventing them from doing so, the ownership class in this country, quite rightly, fears a domino effect. The people who work in a workplace should decide to what ends their labor should go and also have a say how the profits should be used.
people advocating for states rights usually share your philosophy, but states rights is the most fitting expression to state that you support state independence over the federal government
It's not clear to me whether Reagan is just making a joke when he says (4:04) "We're getting along without new taxes. We're just raising the old ones about a billion dollars." Today's Republicans would certainly not accept the distinction and would accuse Reagan of being a tax-and-spend liberal.
Haha! I could see he was obviously making a joke when he flashed that charming but sly smile and eye sparkle. Reagan was a master at political discourse and theater. He could tell you your pants were on fire in such a way that you were OK with it.
"If you’re not a socialist before you’re twenty-five, you have no heart; if you are a socialist after twenty-five, you have no head. If you aren’t a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart, but if you aren’t a middle-aged conservative, you have no head." --- Winston Churchill
Yep! And I'm dirt floor poor and woke up after Obama's second re election at the ripe old age of 26! I'm now campaigning and trying to help Trump get elected! As the border, the security, and the economy ride in the hands of a deviant, anti American GANG right now! This is our last chance to save the republic my grandparents and parents fought, bled, and worked so hard for to preserve for myself! It's amazing once you get past 25 how that statement was made. It was truly a common senseeee quotation and observation. Socialism can't even survive in tiny, homogeneous populations in Europe, let alone in a nation of 325 million multi cultural AMERICANS! Not gonna happen! My generation was the lasttt that loved and respected American values. This next one I'm afraid of! We must "re discover" it in the words of Reagan himself. The republic is a dream! Pure democracy and mob rule leads to famine, violence, and death! We must stop it NOW! Bush and Obama have taken us to a HEAD! #Trump2016
Jack Weinberg, of the Berkeley Free Speech movement, said "never trust anyone over 30." Weinberg is now 75 years old, so does he trust himself? I wouldn't trust anyone UNDER 30 nowadays. I'm not young anymore, I have bills to pay, I don't have the option of fighting because things aren't fair. I want people that have proven themselves.
The point that your missing is that there has always been demand yet you are saying a lack of demand is the cause of it. The reason people dont have money is because they are most likely unemployed due to it being hard to get hired in the labor force due to government rules and regulations. If you got rid of those, people would get hired, have more money, and would be able to create that demand. What you want is to try and artificially create demand, thats not the same thing
Absolutely untrue, everyone from Aristotle to Madison understood you can not have democracy without equality. They understood that in a democracy people will be eventually fed up with plutocracy and will demand a more equitable distribution of life's riches.
The argument has nothing to do with trading what you produce for something you need. It has all to do with the fact you rent yourself, you are owned by your boss for those 8 hours, as soon as you don't want to do something with your labor, you are fired, but your boss can get away with the most egregious things as long as he pleases his boss. The workers in the mill should own it. The most natural opinion, that someone who has 20 million in a hedge fund somewhere should decide what you should do
50+ years later, we’re still arguing the same ideas. Government is obsolete at best and has devolved into organized crime at worst. I think the latter is the case.
" Fascism is private ownership, private enterprise, but total government control and regulation. Well isn't this the Liberal philosophy? The Conservative so called is the one that say's less government, get off my back, get outta my pocket and let me have more control of my own destiny " ---Ronald Reagan
It is well understood that most people can't accept facts that are a threat to their belief system. The facts are there, we have the testimony of Reagan's own people that they were selling weapons to terrorists at the same time that the President signed legislation making such sales illegal. The only excuse he had was that his dementia was so far advanced at that time that he really did not know what he was doing. And by then he was certainly unfit to be President, he should have resigned.
***** Urban Myth? We have the fact that Reagan signed the legislation outlawing selling weapons to terrorists. We also have the fact of testimony before Congress of Reagan officials who admitted that they were selling weapons to terrorists. If the good side is going to win our leaders need to obey the law, and not take actions that make things worse, like giving surface-to-air missiles to terrorists. Imagine if Obama sold missiles to the Islamic State, the Republicans would go berserk, yet they still worship Reagan, who did exactly the same thing.
calamagrostis88 This action was also taken to get several US hostages from Iran back to America. Weinberger wrote that Reagan said he could answer to the charges for his actions. This doesn't seem like an act of a demented person, does it? To, possibly, sacrifice his job to save some US hostages wasn't the right thing to do? Either way he would get hell from either side of the conflict. These arms that started the Iran-Contra War also helped to stop it. It's also not like we asked the Contras to use terrorism either. In fact this helped the strive for anti-communism in the middle east. This helped to keep communism from spreading. These illegal acts don't have just downsides. They have their ups too.
The principle is the same- you sell your labor and the fruits of your labor belong to your boss. In slavery your boss owned your labor and its fruits. There are other factors of course- for how much time you are owned, that you can leave (sometimes, but in effect be subject to the same system) social factors etc. but you are not free. The wage laborer, the serf, the slave have this in common- you are owned by someone else and so is what you produce.
There is no evidence that when government as an economic force is diminished the economy will grow. If anything, there is overwhelming evidence income disparity will increase, not because of some workings of the 'free' market, but because there are even less levers of democracy left once you privatize, deregulate and cut social spending. A cogent argument can be made that social spending increases economic growth potential, and there is evidence for it- Scandinavia etc.
Having a balanced budget means you arent spending money you dont have which causes inflation, inflation means the prices of goods and services go up due to a weaker dollar. Why would the government want to spend money it doesnt have? And WHY do you think we have had a lack of spending? Could it be the amount of taxes and regulations and fiat money printing has caused the prices of goods and services to increase? You always ignore the supply side of the economy and focus only on demand
the 2008 crash was not a result of the market. It was the result of the Fed manipulating interest rates to send a false signal to business to take out loans and invest when people werent saving their money to buy products in the future. Also, the CRA which punished banks for not lending to poor who would normally not get a loan and then on top of that telling the banks that the gov would bail them out if their loan could not be repaid is what led to the housing crash.
Of course there is! I already gave you an example! If the min wage is raised higher and higher, the unemployment increases, thereby decreasing economic growth. If Obamacare is in effect which tells anybody who hires 50+ workers that they will be forced to cover healthcare with them, that will cause the business to hire less than 50 and move full time to part time! Decreasing economic growth! I just gave you 2 easy examples of why gov intervention is negative for the economy and you ignore it
This has nothing to do with personal freedoms. It's about who makes the decisions in a society that affect everyone regardless of whether they participate in the decision making process or not. Relative equality is the desideratum because you can not have democracy without it. It is no different than the old systems- monarchy, despotism, oligarchy etc. when a few men decide everything and the best we can do is sell our labor to them. Sure, we have more civil freedoms etc. but the principle is
Thanks for uploading this LP, its refreshing. To think that Romney and Obama and everyone else under the sun refer to Reagan so callously, and so dim wittingly, it really shows what they want to project yet never do because at the core, they do not know at all what they are talking about. To the intellects in society, this is for you.
FDR and the new deal didn't end the depression , it prolonged it; and neither did WW2. Cutting spending after the war spurred our economy, even though keynesians said the economy would fall apart after the war.
Of course it does! In a free market society, nobody FORCES you to do anything. You are FREE to do what you want, when you want, AS LONG as you don't violate somebody elses rights. Non sequitur. Relative equality in property is not needed in order to have democracy. Democracy simply means majority rule. If you can vote, you have democracy. But why are you so focused on equality of anything other than rights? There will always be inequality in property, because we have different skills
I understand basic economics, because its almost like common sense. I dont need to see an economic model in order to understand basic economics. What I do need to see is data verified through testing of variables to see which variables when tampered, lead to what results. But you havent even brought up a point to refute any claims that I have made. So I will assume you are a troll
And what about all the people who do not get hired because their labor does not constitute a minimum wage? You are ignoring the excess supply of labor that will inevitably come from an increase in min wage. Who cares if somebody doesnt spend their money immediately? They put their money in the bank and then the bank loans out that money to business people who invest and create jobs. Its a net benefit regardless of what people do with their own money.
Explain a problem with externalities, systemic risk, public goods, that would not be solved with the free market? Give an example, surely if its so obvious to you you can do it.
Some freedoms are non-exclusive, some are. The fact that you own land precludes me from owning that land, the fact you own 99% of all land prevent the rest of us from owning land. The freedom of speech for instance is different. The fact that you have free speech doesn't interfere with my right to have free speech.
Public goods- technically impossible to exclude new customers from consumption, and the marginal cost of another consumer is 0. If it were privately owned, the price would obviously not be zero, therefore making it economically inefficient. Think national defense, air, even national parks etc. Externalities are costs incurred on third parties not part of a transaction- fossil fuel emissions for instance, they lead to tragedy of the commons. Systemic risk- an obvious example would be 2008 crash.
You basically want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have the control of your labor, which you are perfectly able to do, but then you want the products and services that others are willing to trade, without trading anything to get them in the first place. You can choose not to work, by trading your labor for somebody else. But dont expect to live long since you wont be able to acquire food and other things you need to survive. Now you can always go in the woods, but I bet you wont
Wow, no thats not. See this is your problem. You assume that any cutting of spending even if your still overspending is austerity. No its not, its still overspending. Austerity is when you actually cut more money than what you spend. Since by your own definition of what you thought austerity was, when you said that those countries were experiencing bad times, what you really meant was that they were continuing to spend more money they didnt have. I win
Austerity helps the long term problems, not the short term. Obviously if somebody is employed in government, and then loses the job, that sucks for him, but it will be better in the long run for the economy due to the less government. You are looking at short term gains regardless of the long term pain. It is not common sense for a gov to spend during a recession, sure they do it a lot, but that doesnt mean it helps. The evidence you have is just a bunch of correlation equals causation
Its going to help them by giving them a balanced budget so that the economy can restructure in order to create products and services that people want so that everybody can get back to work again. Yes their GDP has regressed and their spending have sent them into a Depression. Gee, I wonder who would've thought of that? If you keep spending money you dont have, you are going to cause inflation, and inflation is bad for everybody ecause the purchasing power is lower
Obviously the perfect free market does not exist. Though we can still see elements of the free market in action you fool. Just because its not an all or nothing, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
So you mean make the president's cabinet run independently, like Lincoln? As opposed to the executive branch taking direct control of the cabinet like Jefferson Davis?
The push for deregulation was backed by both parties, which are effectively two factions of the same party that represents business interest obviously. They took the risks because they could, as simply as that, if you don't set rules we'd still have slavery and child labor, the market does not self-regulate. The bulk of the deregulation happened under Clinton, but Bush didn't trail far behind, the Commodity Futures Act is a prime example.
Red herring. Im not talking about fantasy. Im talking about reality. Once again, I am not ignoring the government. What I am saying is that when the government stays out of the market as much as it can, the result will be better than if it did interfere. We dont even live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. Yes we do elect people, but just because they are elected, that does not give them free reign to do whatever they want. If an policy is unconstitutional, they cannot do it
Not everybody suffers from pollution. Otherwise every single individual who works anywhere near a company would be suing, so clearly this isnt so universally afflicted by it. And yeah, why arent there these class action lawsuits? Its entirely possible. But people dont do it? HMM I WONDER WHY? Private property and individual rights is what protects the enviroment. Sue the corporation who put some cost on you that you did not agree to. Why dont you do that?
More evidence you don't understand the first thing about economics, the irony is just too much. Balanced budget, huh? How does this magically restructure the economy, what? The LACK of spending has sent them into a depression, inflation is the LEAST of their concerns right now.
Big business is not the only ones pushing for deregulation, small businesses are too. Obamacare certainly hurts all businesses whether they be big or small. Just because somebody benefits more from something than somebody else doesnt make that something wrong. Im not pro business, Im pro freedom. If a business is somehow able to become big in a free market, that means that got there because they sold a product or service that people wanted, like Walmart. Nothing wrong with low prices
You cant explain what austerity measures were taken place. If I am spending 1 trillion more than I take in, and I cut 200 billion, that is not austerity. The market will correct itself, it always does, until government gets in the way. What the hell do you mean successful growing economies? How are they successful? Sweden has been moving to more market reforms, not continuing down the socialist path. Austerity has never failed. Learn Basic economics
Ever heard of the tragedy of the commons? Look it up, a good education for you. Obviously, again, the benefits to a small section of society are obvious, while costs are so diffused it too costly for individuals to sue the company on their own or to even act, but they're there and they're pernicious. Privatize the profits, socialize the losses, ever heard of that? The essence of state capitalism in which we live.
If the minimum wage is increased, these minimum wage earners increase their demand and consumption, increasing economic growth, especially if the money is redistributed from the people higher on the pay scale who wouldn't spend the money immediately. If Obamacare is implemented, healthcare will be covered by the employer, people will have more disposable income, thereby increasing economic growth. You see, those are not examples, you have to actually look at the data and try to make sense of it
First off, you are TRADING your labor, not giving it to the person. Its a voluntary trade. I trade you my labor for your money. Its a win win. The employer owns your labor, but you own his money. You are leaving out the other side of a trade. You have no idea what freedom is. If you want to keep the fruits of your labor, then dont work for anybody, but dont also expect to buy any products from anybody because you dont have any money since you wont attempt to make money by trading
Yes it is. Surveys does not change economic principles. Why would a person hire somebody when they know the costs of hiring them will be too high? Of course the businesses will all say that they can do anything because people arent buying their products, that is natural for any business to say that. Exploitation is an emotional word that has any logical meaning. Everybody exploits each other in some way. If I printed 100 tril to create jobs, you think that demand is good? Come on now
Good Day to all:Good Day LibertyPen and Thank you for sharing our Wonderful President``s speech(President Ronald Reagan) President Ronald Reagan was the Greatest U.S.President in U.S.History!Wonderful actor as well!We Love President Ronald Reagan from all of our Hearts! Very Sincerlly With respect TG-
If the defining property of capitalism is wage labor, than capitalism is obviously anti-freedom. When the best you can do is to sell yourself to the highest bidder, but than that person owns your labor and the fruits of it, than you are obviously not free and that relationship is analogous to chattel slavery, the temporal dimension is the only real difference. You sell yourself (this is not a voluntary exchange of services) and receive remuneration in return- like slaves did.
If an externality isnt obvious, why would I then want to regulate something which doesnt apear at all? I can easily use your own logic against you. Why would I want to regulate 1 company in a 100 who pollutes, if you then cant prove that the pollution is causing harm to you and putting a cost on you? I am not going to try and prevent something which isnt harmful. If it is harmful, then sue the corporation and make him go out of business, that will send the signal to other businesses
The government is the most important economic agent in every single economy in the world. When you devise models using 'the free market' and ignoring the government, you are not doing economics or science, you're doing politics, and the worst kind, trying to pass a moral idea as being backed by empirical, rational facts. The correlation-causation distinction in social science leads me to believe you know nothing about economics, what it does and have never seen an econometric model.
False. Democracy is a process, a discussion, a discourse where each person has a voice. If you want to be free and equal there is no alternative system that gives you those two things in the same capacity. There always have been, always will be important societal decision to be made. You can have democracy where all concerned get to decide or a system where the 'enlightened' few get to decide what is best for everyone.
Once again your wrong. Of course businesses are going to say a lack of sales is the problem, everyone would say that. If im an inefficient business by selling milk for 10 dollars a gallon and people arent buying my product, what do you think Im going to say is the problem that my milk isnt selling? Its due to people not buying my inferior product. Your survey does not change economic principles. Learn them. How would you artificially create demand without causing other problems?
Income disparity is nothing to be concerned about in the slightest. If Person A makes more or less money than Person B, the gap between their incomes is naturally going to increase if they make the same amount of money. Thats simple arithmetic you fool. If the gap between the rich and poor is higher, its not good or bad, if the gap between the rich and poor is lower its not good or bad, its meaningless, you can't deduct anything from it. You attach meaning to things which are meaningless
Oh so wait. The costs are s diffused, that pollution actually doesnt harm any single person enough for them to sue a corporation? WELL GEE then that means it clearly isnt such a problem that you thought it was. This country has cleaner roads and streets due to technological innovation of the market. When we road buggys we had poop on the roads and sidewalks, now that we have cars, we dont have to deal with that anymore. The enviroment got cleaner because of it
Funny that Ronny Reagan was all in favor of states' rights when it came to taxes, but so strongly supported (Unconstitutionally) federal drug laws taking power away from states simply due to his personal beliefs that drugs are bad. He must have forgot about this in his presidency, something he mastered in his later years...
5 Truths You CANNOT Disagree With:
1. You cannot legislate the poor to prosperity by legislating wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
+Bill Bass all totally true Bill. Totally true.
+Matthew Orlando As if Capitalism was any better. Face it; all "isms" are fucked
DVFDrinkOrDie The idea that capitalism has been no more successful at eradicating poverty and opening opportunity than socialism just shows some notions are totally impervious to any evidence.
+DVFDrinkOrDie
so what would you do?
***** by creating something people will pay billions for !!! Paul MacCartney is a billionaire. JK Rowling is probably not far off it. etc etc.
How are we, as a "United Union" STILL facing the same damn issues from when Reagan was a Governor?! Side note, he was such a classy man and deserves so much more recognition for his ideals and ACTIONS. Much respect.
Man... How HAUNTING HIS WORDS ARE NOW.... talk about a man, Governor & President that saw the "writing on the wall"... IN 1967!!!
"Vote with your FEET"
Yes! I've also heard former congressman Ron Paul say hauntingly say similar stuff. Decades ago as well!
Exactly, Scott Anthony!
We have to keep the memory of this great man alive.
From your lips to God's ears.
I wish I had appreciated him more while he was alive.
Meh, I wouldn't call him "great"
Yeah we do, because he started us on this road to modern feudalism.
Iran Contra, arming Iraq, arming the Taliban, South American death squads, the death of the middle class. I keep his memory alive.
I have to watch these vids to keep me from slashing my wrists.
Don't watch !
Ha ha ha Right!!! Lol
Ask yourself this question....would you like to have him running this year? For me I would . Measured, adult, conservative and with integrity. A great governor and President.
Actor.
How ironic it was to have a Hollywood guy from California, become the greatest President we've had since Lincoln...Like Lincoln, Ronald Reagan also 'belongs to the ages.'...Some of us were lucky enough to remember him as President, before the legend of his presidency, with the good he did for our country and all other oppressed countries(especially those behind the iron curtain), slipped into history...But oh, what a gold standard he left for all to follow!...Here's to you President Reagan...You are sorely missed.
Gold standard??? Fools gold maybe.....
This is the kind of civility I wish would return to politically discussion. DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF EITHER POLITICAL PARTY- NOR EQUALLY AN ENDORSEMENT OF ANY PARTICULAR NEWS AGENCY.
Imagine watching an interview or debate in 2016 where the interviewer let the opposition speak
Firing line was one of the best television events in history. The Dick Cavett Show was quite good too, also at the same time roughly.
It's true. If a state is not being governed well, causing high taxes or lack of economic opportunity, then people will just vote with their feet and move to another more attractive state. This has been the pattern throughout American history. It's the reason why people have been leaving states like California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in droves. They're moving to states like Texas, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, and even some Southern states. The only downside is that they are bringing a lot of their misguided blue-state thinking with them.
"We are to decide the question on which rest the happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves."
I think that in addition to what Reagan said in this video about competition between states, the more states rights are recognised and respected the less intrusive and abusive the federal government can become.
Hooray for Buckley & Reagen🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸💪💪💪💪👏👏👏👏👍👍👍👍😀😀😀😀😀👍👍👍👍👍🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸😎😎😎😎Reagen is a 50"s Rocker🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🎸🎸🎸🎸🎼🎵🎶🎧🎹🎶🎵🎼🎹🎹🎹🎸🎸🎸🎸🎷🎷🎷🎷🎷🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
You have a warped version of what freedom is.
Freedom is when you are able to do something without somebody forcing you not to be able to do it. And the only entity in the US which has force is the gov.
Somebody voluntarily choosing not to hire you for a given wage is not anti-freedom, that is a perfect illustration of how freedom works. No force was involved. You dont get to force the employer to hire you and the employer doesnt get to force you to work for him.
Though gov can sure do that
Back in 1995 my generation thought of the conservatives as mean old men. But if you look at Buckley's show, you'll see that it's mostly young people in the audience, and a whole lot of women. I wonder, in a time when women were paid less, perhaps working women were more inclined towards candidates who wouldn't throw their money away.
Which of course they always did. Reagan increased the debt massively.
"businesses create jobs" There, you said it. Demands have always existed. It is those who innovate to meet those demands that create both wealth and jobs.
I ENTHUSIASTICALLY cast my first vote for Ronald Reagan on Tuesday, November 6'th, 1984-when I was 19!
I was 19 in 1984 also. Reagan was loved much.
for a liberal to listen to this is for a vampire to visit the beach at high noon.
+Gary Miller I'm liberal an I listen to it. I must be high noon lol! :-)
New Wave
He means the intolerant Antifa kind
Ha ha ha lol. Nice one...score
Just curious how people feel now that Trump killed the republican “states’ rights” talking point.
@@levishackelton4437 i would separate conservatives from Republicans as i would liberals from Democrats.... the parties arent ideologies.
Compare Buckley's civility and his vocabulary with the current conservative pundits of today. Conservatives should look to emulate those like Buckley and Reagan.
+jones Well what do you expect, in the internet age, where young people are looking to be entertained. Nowadays we have Sean Hannity as the top conserative on TV.
+jones Very true and it applies to both sides of the aisle. Watch Reagan and RFK at the Town Meeting of the World. Always ask yourself if you are showing proper respect to a worthy opponent?
Ironically, Bill O'Reilly is his nephew.
jones 100% agreed.... I blame the divide on the right more than the left. Well if you consider the "tea party" the right.... I dont but then again I'm from an old time when people like Jeb, Romney or McCain were considered Republicans
Sean Hannity is a very nice man.
He rarely is combative. He is actually no good at interviewing the left because they are so loud.
Was wondering where the videos of Reagan of his time as Governor were. Found one, would love to find the others.
More of this needs to happen
When Reagan was still sharp at 56 years old
Didn't last
He is, but I was referring to more than just the looks.
The last minute was timely, wasn't it?
Remember when America had a real President?
Reagan was a fascist
@@captcrais101 how so?
Jack Pacheco Reagan administration help create death squads in South America. John Negroponte was the main guy that created them and he worked for Reagan. He played to the religious right. If it weren't for him HW Bush would have never became President since HW was his VP. His tax cuts ruined the economy and created a recession. He sucks,
I don't know how more plainly I could explain this to you. The costs are widely diffused, the benefits are clearly visible for a select few. The costs are too high compared to the benefits, but they are spread out amongst a greater number of people, when aggregated a serious problem
There is one on here somewhere of Reagan and Bobby Kennedy debating some kids on Vietnam.
US Constitution, 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
They are effectively one in the same within the context of the Federal Govt. The States created the Federal Government; it is beholden to them, not vice-versa.
Reagan was not a big-gov't crony capitalist. Read the Cato Institutes's article on "Limiting Government, 1980-2010"; he had a Dem Congress.
Ask workers in an auto plant in Michigan or textile workers in Bangladesh if what they are doing is 'voluntary exchange of services'. Often in the US, when a company goes under and the workers offer to buy it, a great effort goes into preventing them from doing so, the ownership class in this country, quite rightly, fears a domino effect. The people who work in a workplace should decide to what ends their labor should go and also have a say how the profits should be used.
people advocating for states rights usually share your philosophy, but states rights is the most fitting expression to state that you support state independence over the federal government
It's not clear to me whether Reagan is just making a joke when he says (4:04) "We're getting along without new taxes. We're just raising the old ones about a billion dollars." Today's Republicans would certainly not accept the distinction and would accuse Reagan of being a tax-and-spend liberal.
Haha! I could see he was obviously making a joke when he flashed that charming but sly smile and eye sparkle. Reagan was a master at political discourse and theater. He could tell you your pants were on fire in such a way that you were OK with it.
"If you’re not a socialist before you’re twenty-five, you have no heart; if you are a socialist after twenty-five, you have no head. If you aren’t a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart, but if you aren’t a middle-aged conservative, you have no head." --- Winston Churchill
Yep! And I'm dirt floor poor and woke up after Obama's second re election at the ripe old age of 26! I'm now campaigning and trying to help Trump get elected! As the border, the security, and the economy ride in the hands of a deviant, anti American GANG right now! This is our last chance to save the republic my grandparents and parents fought, bled, and worked so hard for to preserve for myself! It's amazing once you get past 25 how that statement was made. It was truly a common senseeee quotation and observation. Socialism can't even survive in tiny, homogeneous populations in Europe, let alone in a nation of 325 million multi cultural AMERICANS! Not gonna happen! My generation was the lasttt that loved and respected American values. This next one I'm afraid of! We must "re discover" it in the words of Reagan himself. The republic is a dream! Pure democracy and mob rule leads to famine, violence, and death! We must stop it NOW! Bush and Obama have taken us to a HEAD! #Trump2016
Jack Weinberg, of the Berkeley Free Speech movement, said "never trust anyone over 30." Weinberg is now 75 years old, so does he trust himself? I wouldn't trust anyone UNDER 30 nowadays. I'm not young anymore, I have bills to pay, I don't have the option of fighting because things aren't fair. I want people that have proven themselves.
Bill Presley Yeah but I'm 15 and I'm a Libertarian Conservative that supports free market capitalism.......... How the hell do I have no heart?
The point that your missing is that there has always been demand yet you are saying a lack of demand is the cause of it.
The reason people dont have money is because they are most likely unemployed due to it being hard to get hired in the labor force due to government rules and regulations. If you got rid of those, people would get hired, have more money, and would be able to create that demand.
What you want is to try and artificially create demand, thats not the same thing
What does this mean, innovate? Wealth is created by both labor and capital, but not by any means solely by someone who puts up the money.
Great man being interviewed by a beautiful man.
Absolutely untrue, everyone from Aristotle to Madison understood you can not have democracy without equality. They understood that in a democracy people will be eventually fed up with plutocracy and will demand a more equitable distribution of life's riches.
The argument has nothing to do with trading what you produce for something you need. It has all to do with the fact you rent yourself, you are owned by your boss for those 8 hours, as soon as you don't want to do something with your labor, you are fired, but your boss can get away with the most egregious things as long as he pleases his boss. The workers in the mill should own it. The most natural opinion, that someone who has 20 million in a hedge fund somewhere should decide what you should do
50+ years later, we’re still arguing the same ideas. Government is obsolete at best and has devolved into organized crime at worst. I think the latter is the case.
" Fascism is private ownership, private enterprise, but total government control and regulation. Well isn't this the Liberal philosophy? The Conservative so called is the one that say's less government, get off my back, get outta my pocket and let me have more control of my own destiny " ---Ronald Reagan
It is well understood that most people can't accept facts that are a threat to their belief system. The facts are there, we have the testimony of Reagan's own people that they were selling weapons to terrorists at the same time that the President signed legislation making such sales illegal. The only excuse he had was that his dementia was so far advanced at that time that he really did not know what he was doing. And by then he was certainly unfit to be President, he should have resigned.
*****
Urban Myth? We have the fact that Reagan signed the legislation outlawing selling weapons to terrorists. We also have the fact of testimony before Congress of Reagan officials who admitted that they were selling weapons to terrorists. If the good side is going to win our leaders need to obey the law, and not take actions that make things worse, like giving surface-to-air missiles to terrorists. Imagine if Obama sold missiles to the Islamic State, the Republicans would go berserk, yet they still worship Reagan, who did exactly the same thing.
calamagrostis88 This action was also taken to get several US hostages from Iran back to America. Weinberger wrote that Reagan said he could answer to the charges for his actions. This doesn't seem like an act of a demented person, does it? To, possibly, sacrifice his job to save some US hostages wasn't the right thing to do? Either way he would get hell from either side of the conflict. These arms that started the Iran-Contra War also helped to stop it. It's also not like we asked the Contras to use terrorism either. In fact this helped the strive for anti-communism in the middle east. This helped to keep communism from spreading. These illegal acts don't have just downsides. They have their ups too.
Aaron Exactly
calamagrostis88 What the hell urban myth are you referring to?
He maybe meant to spell Woodrow Wilson ... who knows :D
The principle is the same- you sell your labor and the fruits of your labor belong to your boss. In slavery your boss owned your labor and its fruits. There are other factors of course- for how much time you are owned, that you can leave (sometimes, but in effect be subject to the same system) social factors etc. but you are not free. The wage laborer, the serf, the slave have this in common- you are owned by someone else and so is what you produce.
There is no evidence that when government as an economic force is diminished the economy will grow. If anything, there is overwhelming evidence income disparity will increase, not because of some workings of the 'free' market, but because there are even less levers of democracy left once you privatize, deregulate and cut social spending. A cogent argument can be made that social spending increases economic growth potential, and there is evidence for it- Scandinavia etc.
States dont have rights, only individuals have rights.
Having a balanced budget means you arent spending money you dont have which causes inflation, inflation means the prices of goods and services go up due to a weaker dollar.
Why would the government want to spend money it doesnt have?
And WHY do you think we have had a lack of spending? Could it be the amount of taxes and regulations and fiat money printing has caused the prices of goods and services to increase?
You always ignore the supply side of the economy and focus only on demand
greatest president ever
+Chris Moore Eisenhower was a bad ass too.
+Imperial Peasant Yeah, Darth Vader too.
***** fuck fdr he started us on this path to where we are now,
Chris Moore You are not on that path anymore. But you should go back to it.
Pablo123456x no thanks I can take care of myself and I don't need the government babysitting
the 2008 crash was not a result of the market. It was the result of the Fed manipulating interest rates to send a false signal to business to take out loans and invest when people werent saving their money to buy products in the future.
Also, the CRA which punished banks for not lending to poor who would normally not get a loan and then on top of that telling the banks that the gov would bail them out if their loan could not be repaid is what led to the housing crash.
Yes, the true hierarchy is supposed to be: Individual Rights, States Rights, Federal/National Rights not Feds, States, Groups, Individuals.
Of course there is! I already gave you an example!
If the min wage is raised higher and higher, the unemployment increases, thereby decreasing economic growth.
If Obamacare is in effect which tells anybody who hires 50+ workers that they will be forced to cover healthcare with them, that will cause the business to hire less than 50 and move full time to part time! Decreasing economic growth!
I just gave you 2 easy examples of why gov intervention is negative for the economy and you ignore it
This has nothing to do with personal freedoms. It's about who makes the decisions in a society that affect everyone regardless of whether they participate in the decision making process or not. Relative equality is the desideratum because you can not have democracy without it. It is no different than the old systems- monarchy, despotism, oligarchy etc. when a few men decide everything and the best we can do is sell our labor to them. Sure, we have more civil freedoms etc. but the principle is
Who is the other guy standing there? The butler? Jameson, please get the governor a spot of tea before he's parched, dear man!
Thanks for uploading this LP, its refreshing. To think that Romney and Obama and everyone else under the sun refer to Reagan so callously, and so dim wittingly, it really shows what they want to project yet never do because at the core, they do not know at all what they are talking about. To the intellects in society, this is for you.
FDR and the new deal didn't end the depression , it prolonged it; and neither did WW2. Cutting spending after the war spurred our economy, even though keynesians said the economy would fall apart after the war.
Of course it does! In a free market society, nobody FORCES you to do anything. You are FREE to do what you want, when you want, AS LONG as you don't violate somebody elses rights.
Non sequitur. Relative equality in property is not needed in order to have democracy. Democracy simply means majority rule. If you can vote, you have democracy.
But why are you so focused on equality of anything other than rights? There will always be inequality in property, because we have different skills
You are 100% correct.
I understand basic economics, because its almost like common sense.
I dont need to see an economic model in order to understand basic economics.
What I do need to see is data verified through testing of variables to see which variables when tampered, lead to what results.
But you havent even brought up a point to refute any claims that I have made.
So I will assume you are a troll
And what about all the people who do not get hired because their labor does not constitute a minimum wage? You are ignoring the excess supply of labor that will inevitably come from an increase in min wage.
Who cares if somebody doesnt spend their money immediately? They put their money in the bank and then the bank loans out that money to business people who invest and create jobs.
Its a net benefit regardless of what people do with their own money.
Explain a problem with externalities, systemic risk, public goods, that would not be solved with the free market?
Give an example, surely if its so obvious to you you can do it.
It has gotten worse rather than better.
heard what he said..FREE TO TRAVEL NOT DRIVE.
Some freedoms are non-exclusive, some are. The fact that you own land precludes me from owning that land, the fact you own 99% of all land prevent the rest of us from owning land. The freedom of speech for instance is different. The fact that you have free speech doesn't interfere with my right to have free speech.
Public goods- technically impossible to exclude new customers from consumption, and the marginal cost of another consumer is 0. If it were privately owned, the price would obviously not be zero, therefore making it economically inefficient. Think national defense, air, even national parks etc. Externalities are costs incurred on third parties not part of a transaction- fossil fuel emissions for instance, they lead to tragedy of the commons. Systemic risk- an obvious example would be 2008 crash.
You basically want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have the control of your labor, which you are perfectly able to do, but then you want the products and services that others are willing to trade, without trading anything to get them in the first place.
You can choose not to work, by trading your labor for somebody else. But dont expect to live long since you wont be able to acquire food and other things you need to survive.
Now you can always go in the woods, but I bet you wont
Wow, no thats not. See this is your problem. You assume that any cutting of spending even if your still overspending is austerity. No its not, its still overspending.
Austerity is when you actually cut more money than what you spend.
Since by your own definition of what you thought austerity was, when you said that those countries were experiencing bad times, what you really meant was that they were continuing to spend more money they didnt have.
I win
Austerity helps the long term problems, not the short term. Obviously if somebody is employed in government, and then loses the job, that sucks for him, but it will be better in the long run for the economy due to the less government.
You are looking at short term gains regardless of the long term pain.
It is not common sense for a gov to spend during a recession, sure they do it a lot, but that doesnt mean it helps.
The evidence you have is just a bunch of correlation equals causation
Its going to help them by giving them a balanced budget so that the economy can restructure in order to create products and services that people want so that everybody can get back to work again.
Yes their GDP has regressed and their spending have sent them into a Depression. Gee, I wonder who would've thought of that?
If you keep spending money you dont have, you are going to cause inflation, and inflation is bad for everybody ecause the purchasing power is lower
Obviously the perfect free market does not exist. Though we can still see elements of the free market in action you fool.
Just because its not an all or nothing, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
The non sequitur talking point about socialism renders your argument invalid.
we also need saving, everything body want things, but we have to have money first
That's why I'm a libertarian. We need to limit the government's power so we don't have this cronyism.
So you mean make the president's cabinet run independently, like Lincoln? As opposed to the executive branch taking direct control of the cabinet like Jefferson Davis?
You sure have a funny way of spelling Franklin Roosevelt...
Then why did STATES oppose the Fugitive Slave Act?
Also, the education bubble will be bursting sooner or later as well.
The push for deregulation was backed by both parties, which are effectively two factions of the same party that represents business interest obviously. They took the risks because they could, as simply as that, if you don't set rules we'd still have slavery and child labor, the market does not self-regulate. The bulk of the deregulation happened under Clinton, but Bush didn't trail far behind, the Commodity Futures Act is a prime example.
Red herring. Im not talking about fantasy. Im talking about reality.
Once again, I am not ignoring the government. What I am saying is that when the government stays out of the market as much as it can, the result will be better than if it did interfere.
We dont even live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. Yes we do elect people, but just because they are elected, that does not give them free reign to do whatever they want. If an policy is unconstitutional, they cannot do it
you said it!
Reagan talked a good game, I'll admit that. Execution was somewhat lacking.
Funny... he mentions Gov Romney's success in MI back then.
Not everybody suffers from pollution. Otherwise every single individual who works anywhere near a company would be suing, so clearly this isnt so universally afflicted by it.
And yeah, why arent there these class action lawsuits? Its entirely possible. But people dont do it?
HMM I WONDER WHY?
Private property and individual rights is what protects the enviroment.
Sue the corporation who put some cost on you that you did not agree to.
Why dont you do that?
Is that how you spell Barrack Obama?
More evidence you don't understand the first thing about economics, the irony is just too much. Balanced budget, huh? How does this magically restructure the economy, what? The LACK of spending has sent them into a depression, inflation is the LEAST of their concerns right now.
Big business is not the only ones pushing for deregulation, small businesses are too. Obamacare certainly hurts all businesses whether they be big or small.
Just because somebody benefits more from something than somebody else doesnt make that something wrong.
Im not pro business, Im pro freedom. If a business is somehow able to become big in a free market, that means that got there because they sold a product or service that people wanted, like Walmart. Nothing wrong with low prices
You cant explain what austerity measures were taken place.
If I am spending 1 trillion more than I take in, and I cut 200 billion, that is not austerity.
The market will correct itself, it always does, until government gets in the way.
What the hell do you mean successful growing economies? How are they successful? Sweden has been moving to more market reforms, not continuing down the socialist path.
Austerity has never failed. Learn Basic economics
Ever heard of the tragedy of the commons? Look it up, a good education for you. Obviously, again, the benefits to a small section of society are obvious, while costs are so diffused it too costly for individuals to sue the company on their own or to even act, but they're there and they're pernicious. Privatize the profits, socialize the losses, ever heard of that? The essence of state capitalism in which we live.
If the minimum wage is increased, these minimum wage earners increase their demand and consumption, increasing economic growth, especially if the money is redistributed from the people higher on the pay scale who wouldn't spend the money immediately.
If Obamacare is implemented, healthcare will be covered by the employer, people will have more disposable income, thereby increasing economic growth. You see, those are not examples, you have to actually look at the data and try to make sense of it
TheSpiritOfTheTimes What are your thoughts today. Dec 2018
First off, you are TRADING your labor, not giving it to the person.
Its a voluntary trade. I trade you my labor for your money. Its a win win.
The employer owns your labor, but you own his money. You are leaving out the other side of a trade.
You have no idea what freedom is.
If you want to keep the fruits of your labor, then dont work for anybody, but dont also expect to buy any products from anybody because you dont have any money since you wont attempt to make money by trading
not as bad as James Buchanan
Yes it is.
Surveys does not change economic principles.
Why would a person hire somebody when they know the costs of hiring them will be too high?
Of course the businesses will all say that they can do anything because people arent buying their products, that is natural for any business to say that.
Exploitation is an emotional word that has any logical meaning. Everybody exploits each other in some way.
If I printed 100 tril to create jobs, you think that demand is good?
Come on now
Good Day to all:Good Day LibertyPen and Thank you for sharing our Wonderful President``s speech(President Ronald Reagan) President Ronald Reagan was the Greatest U.S.President in U.S.History!Wonderful actor as well!We Love President Ronald Reagan from all of our Hearts! Very Sincerlly With respect TG-
If the defining property of capitalism is wage labor, than capitalism is obviously anti-freedom. When the best you can do is to sell yourself to the highest bidder, but than that person owns your labor and the fruits of it, than you are obviously not free and that relationship is analogous to chattel slavery, the temporal dimension is the only real difference. You sell yourself (this is not a voluntary exchange of services) and receive remuneration in return- like slaves did.
If an externality isnt obvious, why would I then want to regulate something which doesnt apear at all?
I can easily use your own logic against you.
Why would I want to regulate 1 company in a 100 who pollutes, if you then cant prove that the pollution is causing harm to you and putting a cost on you?
I am not going to try and prevent something which isnt harmful. If it is harmful, then sue the corporation and make him go out of business, that will send the signal to other businesses
welcome to the Internet?
WILSOOOON!
The government is the most important economic agent in every single economy in the world. When you devise models using 'the free market' and ignoring the government, you are not doing economics or science, you're doing politics, and the worst kind, trying to pass a moral idea as being backed by empirical, rational facts. The correlation-causation distinction in social science leads me to believe you know nothing about economics, what it does and have never seen an econometric model.
False. Democracy is a process, a discussion, a discourse where each person has a voice. If you want to be free and equal there is no alternative system that gives you those two things in the same capacity. There always have been, always will be important societal decision to be made. You can have democracy where all concerned get to decide or a system where the 'enlightened' few get to decide what is best for everyone.
MrStpetetom buzz off troll
Once again your wrong. Of course businesses are going to say a lack of sales is the problem, everyone would say that.
If im an inefficient business by selling milk for 10 dollars a gallon and people arent buying my product, what do you think Im going to say is the problem that my milk isnt selling? Its due to people not buying my inferior product.
Your survey does not change economic principles. Learn them.
How would you artificially create demand without causing other problems?
what are you talking about? look at obama
Income disparity is nothing to be concerned about in the slightest.
If Person A makes more or less money than Person B, the gap between their incomes is naturally going to increase if they make the same amount of money. Thats simple arithmetic you fool.
If the gap between the rich and poor is higher, its not good or bad, if the gap between the rich and poor is lower its not good or bad, its meaningless, you can't deduct anything from it.
You attach meaning to things which are meaningless
Oh so wait. The costs are s diffused, that pollution actually doesnt harm any single person enough for them to sue a corporation?
WELL GEE then that means it clearly isnt such a problem that you thought it was.
This country has cleaner roads and streets due to technological innovation of the market.
When we road buggys we had poop on the roads and sidewalks, now that we have cars, we dont have to deal with that anymore. The enviroment got cleaner because of it
Funny that Ronny Reagan was all in favor of states' rights when it came to taxes, but so strongly supported (Unconstitutionally) federal drug laws taking power away from states simply due to his personal beliefs that drugs are bad. He must have forgot about this in his presidency, something he mastered in his later years...
States' rights = segregation. Segregation = KKK. KKK= denial of us civil war was about slavery. Slavery = white supremacy.