As a historian, I approve this message! It's so nice to hear someone articulate this pretty complex topic, in an easily understandable way. Brilliant interview!
conveniently omits to mention that Britain's wealth was mostly through conquering overseas colonies and selling Opium drugs throughout Asia. and that was mostly led by corporation (e.g. East India Company). Just like current American system - mostly controlled through the major big corporations. So either an authoritarian government takes charge or you leave it to Corporations to run the nation. Choose your poison.
Is not history no more and no less than a set of beliefs about what is imagined or supposed to have taken place in the past? - Self-evidently the past cannot be known or directly immediately personally experienced and any information about it can only be hearsay, thus it must be composed essentially of belief or consist of belief or a set of beliefs - beliefs about what is imagined supposed or believed to have happened in the past.
@@vhawk1951klthink you have taken philosophy a little to far my friend. For my next trick I will prove that black is white and get run over at the next zebra crossing.
The premise of a democracy is that there is a general agreement on the principles and values that we share. On that basis, we accept that while a government may not reflect the mode of achieving agreed ends we can live with it. The increasing complexity of globalisation and financial markets has led to an elite class who despite being citizens just like us have appropriated a disproportionate power that is not democratically accountable and appears to be similar to the East India Company in its reach and desire for wealth - for itself, rather than the population in general. QS eloquently sets out this scenario and I felt a chill at the historical parallels he draws and how apt they appear in the light of this government's statements and actions. It is tempting to play the culture war game and confront the government on these terms - their playing field - but the real prize will be to demonstrate to those who, however reluctantly, may accept this economic paternalism that any sense of security they may felt in the past from a conservative administration has been in spite of and not because of the policies they have pursued and continue to do so in an ever-increasing authoritarian way.
Spent 4 days of my honeymoon there. None of the locals would speak to my wife. If she order water at dinner they'd look at me to approve it. Taxis would only take directions from me. Etc etc wouldn't go back if I won a free holiday.
Have you been there? Some say they feel safe there. There are no hooligans, no car theft, no burglaries. It's against the law to be rude to someone on the road. It's actually a crime for a man to eye up another man's woman. I've seen gold worth over £2 million in a jeweller's window. And they don't get robbed. It's different. There is also a warning about 'Wasti' which is power. If you have a car accident with someone with power, then you're at fault. Even if they are 100% at fault, you're at fault. So there's pros and cons. I think it's good for a holiday. But the lack of balance of power is unsettling.
I always thought that the Tory Party was looking to the USA as an economic model to follow. It's both interesting and alarming that they are also looking at Dubai. IMO we should be looking at the economic model followed by Finland and Norway, both countries with a Mixed Economy and progressive social and political. Instead of which we are going in the direction of 'Dubia-on-Thames' - which I fing very alarming.
Well, I mean England was already stupid enough to sell a barrage of London to these criminal bastards from Russia, the Middle East, etc... They aren't the only idiots, NYC has done the same with all the aforementioned, plus tons of Chinese. Hell, the nick name of Vancouver is Hongcouver cuz millionaire Chinese investors came like a paralytic swarm and started buying every property they could get a hold of. These bastards add NOTHING to local economies as they don't live in the properties (and buy them through shell corporations, so they get tons of tax reductions, or sometimes pay no tax!), and price locals out of the market, while pushing the prices of everything in that city (food, services, etc...) higher and higher as the local residents and businesses are further burdened with the increasing taxes necessary to pay for the infrastructure upkeep for everything in the city!
@@plokijplokij97 I take it the percentages you cite are of total GDP? Or total GNP? Or were you refering to the percentage of taxation taken from annual company profits? Your comment is ambiguous. Could you enlighten us please? The point is that where any given multinational company - say Apple or Microsoft - are charged only a TINY percentage of their profits in the UK, a much HIGHER percentage is levied in tax in Scandanavian countries. This money is then used to fund public services, build affordable houses, etc.
Extremely clear focussed explanation. Milton Freedman used to argue that Free Enterprise mainly sat with democracy and democracy required free enterprise. But it's now clear that authoritarianism can squeeze more out of people for the managers and shareholders in free enterprise. That is the way the UK s going and it's shocking.
Brilliant interview. A couple of historical notes: 1. Democracy as we know it in the western world was born as a reaction from the bourgeoisie to the power of aristocracy. In that sense Democracy has accomplished its original goal. 2. Capitalism can absolutely work under totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Moreover, the original fascist party became successful exactly because Italian capitalists (first agrarian and then all of the rest) felt the liberal democratic State they had was not defending them from the risk of communism so they backed a violent counter revolutionary force tgat granted their power into Italian society oppressing workers and people’s freedoms. At the time, it was much lauded by American and British upperclass people, Winston Churchill among them
Authoritarianism didn’t improve the economies of Germany, Spain and Japan when they tried it. They all were much more successful when they switched to democracy.
in the past, but now China is the pinnacle of growth, and it is the highly authoritarian, in the economic definition of the word it is also literally fascist.
General elections are just questionnaires, aren't they ? People drink more Cola than Pepsi but both corporations thrive People tick boxes at elections, the millionaires notice the results & continue accumulating compound interest... It's an invincible system because it's slander to officially accuse them of fraud News corporations give the impression the electoral process has genuine significance which provides talking points for the public Thus the wheels on the 🚍 bus go round & round, metaphorically speaking Or to put it another way, life goes on because that's all it's ever done...
I always wondered why Dubai is so aggressively marketed as a tourism destination in the U.K. much more than any other country I lived/visited. Guess is good for normalising and even showing it as "cool" rather than what actually is...
It's true, On the BBC, in the Premier League (Football), in TV shows (Housewives, The Apprentice) etc. I have noticed this as well. Dubai, Qatar and the Emirates plastered everywhere. Don't see any adverts on TV telling me to visit , Brussels in Belgium or Strasbourg in France. Wonder why that might be lol.
Ghana established a Free Trade Zone Areas by an act of parliament in 1995. Nearly three decades later, ordinary people still do not know what this invention adds to our lives.
Great stuff as always. Just want to say that the last couple of videos have been very quiet. Even with it turned up fully on my phone I'm struggling to hear. Is it just me?
Sadly no, he is merely a sanctimonious prig that would impose his infernal religion on others exactly as all religious fanatics seek to impose their infernal religion on other people.
I would say it's very important to stop describing these people as "free marketeers" - they absolutely are NOT according to a proper definition of a free market. If actually true free markets - free of corruption, free of leverage and so forth - existed in the world, everything would look very different.
@@therealrobertbirchall Agreed. It is first-year, A-level Economics to understand the clear distinction between an oligopoly, which is what we have in every sector of economic activity in this country, or an actual free market, which is what they tell us we have, even as they try desperately to avoid any of it’s consequences, usually at our expense.
Perhaps if you define free as uncontrolled, or untrammelled by religious fanatics or bullies that would impose their religion on other people. Does not free mean unconstrained and if it does not mean unconstrained or uncontrolled man what the devil does it mean? According to that dreamer Rousseau man is born free but is everywhere in chains, and of course he is entirely constrained by or slave to his functions and one of them in particular.
@@cambrian_ranger Sorry to break it to you, but the "Free Market" doesn't exist and never will. All capital accumulation is built on exploitation and unequal power dynamics by default. You cannot have capitalism without wage labor and you can't have wage labor without leverage. You're "free" to sell the hours and years of your life on the market or else you're free to starve.
For accurate to say Democracy cannot exist alongside Capitalism The 2 have diametrically opposed values/goals and will always end in one displacing the other
What makes you suppose believe or imagine that there is any such thing as what you call "capitalism"? Do you suggest there is particular merit in whatever you mean by democracy? Are not all markets necessarily reflective of demand? - Or do you suppose that markets arise as a result of some wicked conspiracy? - I thought I detected in a whiff of religion in your remarks
@@vhawk1951kl Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Democracy is literally rule of the people. If you can't see how private persons owning all the finite resources disrupts the rule of THE PEOPLE, meaning all the people, then I guess you really don't have a good grasp on the meaning of these terms.
@@jacobjones630 Calm down dear; those that abuse capital letters emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, and in your religious hysteria into the do not understand that what you call “the people” is imaginary - or no more than some vague generalisation. You clearly take a normative or moralistic or religious view of what you call the means of production (although you have no idea what you mean by that, do you?) What exactly do you mean by “ownership”? Leaving aside the fact that “the people” is and can only possibly be imaginary, when you use the word capitalism you use it to describe the state of affairs to you not? - Something rather like foxes eat rabbits? Would you describe that as an “ism”? Do you take some particular objection to the means of production being whatever you mean by “owned” by whatever you mean by private people, and if so what exactly is the basis for your objection - do you object on religious or moralistic or normative grounds and what exactly are those grounds? Leaving aside the screamingly obvious fact that your famous and imaginary “the people” is and can only possibly be imaginary, exactly how many of them constitutes whatever you imagine to be “the people”? Do you understand that your famous and imaginary “the people” and any universal can only possibly be imaginary in the sense that it cannot be directly immediately personally experienced?
@@vhawk1951kl Buddy you are a sophist and not worth arguing with. When I say people I literally mean every person in a country. When I say means of production, I mean the way people make everything we need to survive. Food, housing,medicine, transportation, ect. When I say ownership, I mean they have legal property rights over them, meaning they can be bought, sold, leased, inherited, or excluded from use by the public. By legal right, I mean the government literally protects them with force. Real, concrete reality that you can see and experience everyday. Foxes and rabbits aren’t people and don’t have much agency in their social organization. They do however have a relationship. One is predator the other is prey. They exist in opposition to each other and struggle against each other to for their existence. If the rabbit dies the fox gets to eat, if the rabbit lives the fox starves. Capitalism as a social system has the same kind of diametrically opposed relationships between people. The existence of rich people means there are necessarily poorer people. In a democracy, where literally everyone is supposed to have equal say in making and following the rules, having such disparities in wealth and power make it impossible. And while you’re busy trying to figure out what the meaning of “is” is, in the real world you can look at things like child poverty and homelessness in countries with less state intervention in the economy. Liberal governments in countries like the United States have 1/20 children going hungry everyday. Far worse than governments that provide robust social safety nets. A country like Japan has capitalism but also has massive state intervention, and in tokyo, the most densely populated city on earth there is virtually no problem with homelessness as compared to the much less densely packed and richer San Francisco.
I think the Authoritarian turn in Capitalism is the tendency to try everything else but the right things to do - the socially responsible things to do, before being forced to do them anyway. The Fukayamaesque stage of globalisation, from the 1990s, has enriched the already asset rich, but has impoverished and destabilised Western democracies in the process. The West moved it's manufacturing capacity to Asia in a fit of 'exuberant secular optimism', where it gained in doing so Asia would reciprocate and import a lot Western technology. That didn't happen. The West is running a large aggregate trading deficit with Asia, and that leaves the Western labour force with chronic declining wages, insecurity, and low value jobs, and high taxes. The only beneficiaries are the corporations and their financiers, and the politicians that facilitated the move. It's the greatest of ironies that colonialism under early capitalism has just evolved into a parasite of the nations that were once enriched by it. That the legacy passed from nationalist, autonomous, statist, colonisers - industrialisation, democratic government, national welfare and distribution - devolved into a globalised neofeudalism. All because the plutocrats feel they no longer need national states, but can wonder the world - or space - to escape the consequences of their actions. They screwed up, and are running from the consequences of their actions.
Great interview there. It'd be really great if you could put these kinds of things (talking/interviewing without any kind of diagrams or video clips) on a podcast please :)
I lived in Hong Kong after Britain left but before Xi started messing it up. It was wonderful. Not quite a Freeport because they had to charge HK$1 per shipment. The real secret of the territory being a success was a 'Fair Share' Tax of 15% on money 'made' in Hong Kong. A 15% Tax was not too low to be ineffective and not too high to make Companies engage teams of Accountants to hide their money in tax schemes and offshore. People paid it. So then money was invested into the infrastructure so the Subway (MTR), buses and ferry were subsidized and cheap. Parks like Victoria Park in Causeway Bay have facilities for everyone. New residential blocks had shopping complexes, playgrounds and free mini-sports grounds so communities are built. So the Capitalist wheels can keep spinning and really all we need to do is have a Fair Share Tax and some reinvestment. And that reinvestment into the people is helping provide healthy educated workers, safer streets and people with enough money to buy the Corporation's Goods to keep the whole Merry-Go-Round alive. So its a win-win situation for all.
I mean of course there is no need for people having a say they are the pawns in the game here just give them the illusion of choice and it works perfectly fine (so far at least).
Quinn uses the word 'self-consciously' several times in this when discussing Dubai free economic zone...but I think he means 'sub-consciously' or do I misunderstand?
I don’t think he means sub-consciously, he talks about neoliberals looking to Dubai as a model and I got the impression he’s saying they’re making this aspiration purposefully. Maybe he just means consciously rather than self-consciously.
Tbh I haven't watched the whole video so can't really relate to what you're exactly saying, but I am going to guess that they are self-concious that they have this 'free zone', when the rest of the country lives along different rules which aren't so 'free'. In the same way that someone wearing a fine suit would be self-concious about it if they knew that if you looked behind them you would see their butt cheeks because there is no seat in the pants. In short, they are nervous that it is easy to see through the facade of what they want you to see, to see things they don't want you to see. But like I said, that is a guess because I haven't watched the whole video. :)
Capitalism is directly opposed to the core essence of democracy - that being equal rights, privileges, social and political rights and votes per person. Capitalism explicitly affords all those things to monetary units, meaning the more monetary units you have, the more rights, privileges, social and political rights and votes you have. And the more Capitalism thrives, the deeper inequality runs with riches building on themselves having a cummulative effect, until certain capitalists pull away so much from their exploits that we tend towards oligopolies, oligarchs and potentially even monopolies, which proponents of Capitalism claim to be against. You need Capitalism to dig poor societies out of their poverty, but beyond that its own success becomes particularly insidious and undemocratic.
Well, it does need a population who feel like they are free or at the very least not restricted too much.. freedom and democracy tend to go hand in hand even if its not borne out in reality in all places at all times.
Help me with this please if you would be so kind: exactly what function does the "well" perform in "Well, it does need a population who feel like"? - Decoration? Is it not slightly absurd to speak of any creatures that are the slaves of their functions as being free or capable of experiencing freedom?
@Peter Codner it's a sociological question if anything. Structure and Agency. And how does one define 'freedom'? In the context of limited agency within a finite Structure bound by rules, laws and social dictates? Flip side being how limited is the Structure in its ability to give people agency..
What's with the weird background beat. I'd rather listen to him. Please don't go the route where some of us can't listen to your content. It's excellent without you wasting time on sound effects. Just saying 🙄
He was trying to interview members of the public, which would be legal in a public space but can be prohibited in private spaces, or special 'zones' like Canary Wharf.
Given that politics is a form of religion, defined as any set of related*unquestioned* beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms (that bunk that men call morals or ethics) religious Joe plainly regards free-market radicals as sinners and of course the religious are invariably exercised particularly by what they regard as sin and by good/evil right/wrong, all of which are religious mumbo-jumbo, and he seems to assume that there is such a thing as capitalism, which is merely a label that a chap called Marx attached to anything he didn’t like, and there is no more such a thing as capitalism and then ‘ism’ then there is any such thing as foxes-it-rabbits_ism which no doubt religious Joe regarded profoundly sinful or what he might call “wrong” - which can only mean he doesn’t like it. Religious Joe also does not like is that markets are free they arise spontaneously in response to demand and they cannot be controlled by bullying religious fanatics like him. Religious Joe simply assumes that democracy is desirable or likeable or virtuous or good, and it does not seem to cross his mind that it might be no more and no less than the fool invention of a psychopath, but being religious he never even questions his religious assumption that somehow or other what he calls democracy is desirable likeable or as is said “a good thing” and he speaks of what he calls “free-market radicals” as if the term was a cognate or synonym of sinner and of course all religious fanatics like religious Joe are obsessed with sin, and it is that obsession with sin or castigating others sinners or characterising them as sinners that is the hallmark of the religious fanatic and bully.
When you point the finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you. And it is you who is the zealot, because you do not have the courage to be skeptical about your own claims of knowledge. Markets are not free in any sense. They are not organic, but are constructs, shaped and controlled by defined structures for the benefit of the economically powerful. The dream of capitalism has always been mechanistic, because machines don't argue back. That's why mainstream economics is at a loss to prevent capitalism crashing the bus repeatedly, over and over again with its mechanistic models and graphs. Dubai, and the other economic utopias beloved by such "free marketeers" only exist to cater to their fantasies. The grubby misery behind it is carefully tidied up, hidden, or removed. And those who worship these mega rich, predatory, Disney theme parks, can forget the mess they left behind. That's your religion. You want to escape to places like that with your wallet and portfolio of assets. That junk is as bad as heroin.
Your whole rant falls down at the first hurdle, you've failed to demonstrate that politics is a form of religion. For one thing, it's frequently questioned, debated and refined.
The UK needs do to something, the amount of tax on industry is ridiculous, why manufacture and innovate in the UK when its cheaper else where. I have been saying this for decades. It's not just the tax on end products its the business rates on buildings is extremely expensive, then on top workforce, expensive utility bills, transport fees and expensive fuel duties, then you have to import raw material or components to make your product so there's import fees. Then if you export your fight with competition over seas that are making simular products but cheaper.
Do you think what the people you speak with are saying is too boring to show it without adding some weird, distracting music? I simply cannot listen to this, sorry.
capitalism does not threaten democracy. Infact its the embodiment of democracy. Everyone time you buy something it is a vote for that product, it indicates to society what needs to be produced.
You are incorrect, why would the minority rich tolerate being told how to spend their money by the poor majority? Why would they support the teaching of critical thinking necessary for the functioning of democracy when that critical thinking questions their right to earn hundreds times more than their employees? Why would they support a free press which criticises them? Why would they support unions which challenge them? Why would they support human rights when they damage the bottom line?
@@laurencedavey3121I am not. Money is an incentive for you do do something. With out it all you have is fear and threats. And that is what communism is.
@@laurencedavey3121The issue isn't that capitalism doesn't work, the issue is a few greedy people manage to get control of all the money and effectively size control of everything.
@@laurencedavey3121 the minority rich need the poor to buy their products. If they make something no one wants they have no profits. If they make a newspaper no one agrees with, no one buys the newspaper. If a politian says something no one agrees with, he doesn't get voted in. That is democracy!!
One night in Paris | French pension riots documentary: ruclips.net/video/-hiTUswblhc/видео.html
As a historian, I approve this message! It's so nice to hear someone articulate this pretty complex topic, in an easily understandable way. Brilliant interview!
conveniently omits to mention that Britain's wealth was mostly through conquering overseas colonies and selling Opium drugs throughout Asia. and that was mostly led by corporation (e.g. East India Company). Just like current American system - mostly controlled through the major big corporations. So either an authoritarian government takes charge or you leave it to Corporations to run the nation. Choose your poison.
Is not history no more and no less than a set of beliefs about what is imagined or supposed to have taken place in the past? - Self-evidently the past cannot be known or directly immediately personally experienced and any information about it can only be hearsay, thus it must be composed essentially of belief or consist of belief or a set of beliefs - beliefs about what is imagined supposed or believed to have happened in the past.
@@vhawk1951kl that's absolutely hilarious nonsense! 😂
@@vhawk1951klthink you have taken philosophy a little to far my friend. For my next trick I will prove that black is white and get run over at the next zebra crossing.
@@Robin-cf9ts You know where the un don't shine, " my friend"? Nuff said.
The premise of a democracy is that there is a general agreement on the principles and values that we share. On that basis, we accept that while a government may not reflect the mode of achieving agreed ends we can live with it. The increasing complexity of globalisation and financial markets has led to an elite class who despite being citizens just like us have appropriated a disproportionate power that is not democratically accountable and appears to be similar to the East India Company in its reach and desire for wealth - for itself, rather than the population in general. QS eloquently sets out this scenario and I felt a chill at the historical parallels he draws and how apt they appear in the light of this government's statements and actions. It is tempting to play the culture war game and confront the government on these terms - their playing field - but the real prize will be to demonstrate to those who, however reluctantly, may accept this economic paternalism that any sense of security they may felt in the past from a conservative administration has been in spite of and not because of the policies they have pursued and continue to do so in an ever-increasing authoritarian way.
As a woman I don’t see Dubai as a “wonderful place”…
As a human being I don't think Dubai is a wonderful place.
I hope the desert takes it back.As a human
Spent 4 days of my honeymoon there. None of the locals would speak to my wife. If she order water at dinner they'd look at me to approve it. Taxis would only take directions from me. Etc etc wouldn't go back if I won a free holiday.
Have you been there? Some say they feel safe there.
There are no hooligans, no car theft, no burglaries.
It's against the law to be rude to someone on the road.
It's actually a crime for a man to eye up another man's woman.
I've seen gold worth over £2 million in a jeweller's window. And they don't get robbed.
It's different.
There is also a warning about 'Wasti' which is power. If you have a car accident with someone with power, then you're at fault. Even if they are 100% at fault, you're at fault.
So there's pros and cons.
I think it's good for a holiday. But the lack of balance of power is unsettling.
Really, for how long did you live there, or have you lived there? Does your sex necessarily predicate or condition all your reactions?
I always thought that the Tory Party was looking to the USA as an economic model to follow. It's both interesting and alarming that they are also looking at Dubai. IMO we should be looking at the economic model followed by Finland and Norway, both countries with a Mixed Economy and progressive social and political. Instead of which we are going in the direction of 'Dubia-on-Thames' - which I fing very alarming.
You are not the only one!
Well, I mean England was already stupid enough to sell a barrage of London to these criminal bastards from Russia, the Middle East, etc... They aren't the only idiots, NYC has done the same with all the aforementioned, plus tons of Chinese. Hell, the nick name of Vancouver is Hongcouver cuz millionaire Chinese investors came like a paralytic swarm and started buying every property they could get a hold of. These bastards add NOTHING to local economies as they don't live in the properties (and buy them through shell corporations, so they get tons of tax reductions, or sometimes pay no tax!), and price locals out of the market, while pushing the prices of everything in that city (food, services, etc...) higher and higher as the local residents and businesses are further burdened with the increasing taxes necessary to pay for the infrastructure upkeep for everything in the city!
@@plokijplokij97 I take it the percentages you cite are of total GDP? Or total GNP? Or were you refering to the percentage of taxation taken from annual company profits? Your comment is ambiguous.
Could you enlighten us please?
The point is that where any given multinational company - say Apple or Microsoft - are charged only a TINY percentage of their profits in the UK, a much HIGHER percentage is levied in tax in Scandanavian countries. This money is then used to fund public services, build affordable houses, etc.
Extremely clear focussed explanation. Milton Freedman used to argue that Free Enterprise mainly sat with democracy and democracy required
free enterprise. But it's now clear that authoritarianism can squeeze more out of people for the managers and shareholders in free enterprise. That is the way the UK s going and it's shocking.
I've just listened to this and George Monbiot in one sitting and my head is blown off! What an introduction to your channel! Brilliant stuff!
Brilliant interview.
A couple of historical notes:
1. Democracy as we know it in the western world was born as a reaction from the bourgeoisie to the power of aristocracy. In that sense Democracy has accomplished its original goal.
2. Capitalism can absolutely work under totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Moreover, the original fascist party became successful exactly because Italian capitalists (first agrarian and then all of the rest) felt the liberal democratic State they had was not defending them from the risk of communism so they backed a violent counter revolutionary force tgat granted their power into Italian society oppressing workers and people’s freedoms. At the time, it was much lauded by American and British upperclass people, Winston Churchill among them
A new reason to hate Churchill, thanks!
Authoritarianism didn’t improve the economies of Germany, Spain and Japan when they tried it.
They all were much more successful when they switched to democracy.
in the past, but now China is the pinnacle of growth, and it is the highly authoritarian, in the economic definition of the word it is also literally fascist.
singapore and china grew massively under authoritarian regimes
General elections are just questionnaires, aren't they ?
People drink more Cola than Pepsi but both corporations thrive
People tick boxes at elections, the millionaires notice the results & continue accumulating compound interest...
It's an invincible system because it's slander to officially accuse them of fraud
News corporations give the impression the electoral process has genuine significance which provides talking points for the public
Thus the wheels on the 🚍 bus go round & round, metaphorically speaking
Or to put it another way, life goes on because that's all it's ever done...
Germany did pretty well under the Kaiser, that was pretty authoritarian in its make up, and as the witnesses said, Hitler gave everyone a job.
@@sciencefliestothemoon2305
Nations can be ruled by force or economic systems...
An excellent interview. And may I add that I am delighted to hear an American who knew genuine history of Britain and the empire. Bravo!
he is Canadian i believe
@@gambit0913 That explains everything. But he does teach in an American university.
I always wondered why Dubai is so aggressively marketed as a tourism destination in the U.K. much more than any other country I lived/visited. Guess is good for normalising and even showing it as "cool" rather than what actually is...
It's true, On the BBC, in the Premier League (Football), in TV shows (Housewives, The Apprentice) etc. I have noticed this as well. Dubai, Qatar and the Emirates plastered everywhere. Don't see any adverts on TV telling me to visit , Brussels in Belgium or Strasbourg in France. Wonder why that might be lol.
Ghana established a Free Trade Zone Areas by an act of parliament in 1995. Nearly three decades later, ordinary people still do not know what this invention adds to our lives.
Great stuff as always. Just want to say that the last couple of videos have been very quiet. Even with it turned up fully on my phone I'm struggling to hear. Is it just me?
At last someone can stand up and say it as it is! Excellent!!!
Sadly no, he is merely a sanctimonious prig that would impose his infernal religion on others exactly as all religious fanatics seek to impose their infernal religion on other people.
I would say it's very important to stop describing these people as "free marketeers" - they absolutely are NOT according to a proper definition of a free market. If actually true free markets - free of corruption, free of leverage and so forth - existed in the world, everything would look very different.
Privateers would be a more accurate description
@@therealrobertbirchall Agreed. It is first-year, A-level Economics to understand the clear distinction between an oligopoly, which is what we have in every sector of economic activity in this country, or an actual free market, which is what they tell us we have, even as they try desperately to avoid any of it’s consequences, usually at our expense.
Perhaps if you define free as uncontrolled, or untrammelled by religious fanatics or bullies that would impose their religion on other people. Does not free mean unconstrained and if it does not mean unconstrained or uncontrolled man what the devil does it mean? According to that dreamer Rousseau man is born free but is everywhere in chains, and of course he is entirely constrained by or slave to his functions and one of them in particular.
@@cambrian_ranger Sorry to break it to you, but the "Free Market" doesn't exist and never will. All capital accumulation is built on exploitation and unequal power dynamics by default. You cannot have capitalism without wage labor and you can't have wage labor without leverage. You're "free" to sell the hours and years of your life on the market or else you're free to starve.
What an incredibly articulate chap.
Loving these interviews… can you bring back Adam Curtis please
Zizek has been banging on about this for ages. Top work though,
On top of the gulf states, China is a good example of capitalism not needing democracy
Brilliant video, I like the lines he draws between Empire and modern globalized capitalism. I learned a lot.
For accurate to say Democracy cannot exist alongside Capitalism
The 2 have diametrically opposed values/goals and will always end in one displacing the other
What makes you suppose believe or imagine that there is any such thing as what you call "capitalism"?
Do you suggest there is particular merit in whatever you mean by democracy? Are not all markets necessarily reflective of demand? - Or do you suppose that markets arise as a result of some wicked conspiracy? - I thought I detected in a whiff of religion in your remarks
@@vhawk1951kl Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Democracy is literally rule of the people. If you can't see how private persons owning all the finite resources disrupts the rule of THE PEOPLE, meaning all the people, then I guess you really don't have a good grasp on the meaning of these terms.
@@jacobjones630 Calm down dear; those that abuse capital letters emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, and in your religious hysteria into the do not understand that what you call “the people” is imaginary - or no more than some vague generalisation. You clearly take a normative or moralistic or religious view of what you call the means of production (although you have no idea what you mean by that, do you?)
What exactly do you mean by “ownership”?
Leaving aside the fact that “the people” is and can only possibly be imaginary, when you use the word capitalism you use it to describe the state of affairs to you not? - Something rather like foxes eat rabbits? Would you describe that as an “ism”?
Do you take some particular objection to the means of production being whatever you mean by “owned” by whatever you mean by private people, and if so what exactly is the basis for your objection - do you object on religious or moralistic or normative grounds and what exactly are those grounds?
Leaving aside the screamingly obvious fact that your famous and imaginary “the people” is and can only possibly be imaginary, exactly how many of them constitutes whatever you imagine to be “the people”?
Do you understand that your famous and imaginary “the people” and any universal can only possibly be imaginary in the sense that it cannot be directly immediately personally experienced?
@@vhawk1951kl Buddy you are a sophist and not worth arguing with. When I say people I literally mean every person in a country. When I say means of production, I mean the way people make everything we need to survive. Food, housing,medicine, transportation, ect. When I say ownership, I mean they have legal property rights over them, meaning they can be bought, sold, leased, inherited, or excluded from use by the public. By legal right, I mean the government literally protects them with force. Real, concrete reality that you can see and experience everyday. Foxes and rabbits aren’t people and don’t have much agency in their social organization. They do however have a relationship. One is predator the other is prey. They exist in opposition to each other and struggle against each other to for their existence. If the rabbit dies the fox gets to eat, if the rabbit lives the fox starves. Capitalism as a social system has the same kind of diametrically opposed relationships between people. The existence of rich people means there are necessarily poorer people. In a democracy, where literally everyone is supposed to have equal say in making and following the rules, having such disparities in wealth and power make it impossible. And while you’re busy trying to figure out what the meaning of “is” is, in the real world you can look at things like child poverty and homelessness in countries with less state intervention in the economy. Liberal governments in countries like the United States have 1/20 children going hungry everyday. Far worse than governments that provide robust social safety nets. A country like Japan has capitalism but also has massive state intervention, and in tokyo, the most densely populated city on earth there is virtually no problem with homelessness as compared to the much less densely packed and richer San Francisco.
I think the Authoritarian turn in Capitalism is the tendency to try everything else but the right things to do - the socially responsible things to do, before being forced to do them anyway. The Fukayamaesque stage of globalisation, from the 1990s, has enriched the already asset rich, but has impoverished and destabilised Western democracies in the process. The West moved it's manufacturing capacity to Asia in a fit of 'exuberant secular optimism', where it gained in doing so Asia would reciprocate and import a lot Western technology. That didn't happen. The West is running a large aggregate trading deficit with Asia, and that leaves the Western labour force with chronic declining wages, insecurity, and low value jobs, and high taxes. The only beneficiaries are the corporations and their financiers, and the politicians that facilitated the move.
It's the greatest of ironies that colonialism under early capitalism has just evolved into a parasite of the nations that were once enriched by it. That the legacy passed from nationalist, autonomous, statist, colonisers - industrialisation, democratic government, national welfare and distribution - devolved into a globalised neofeudalism. All because the plutocrats feel they no longer need national states, but can wonder the world - or space - to escape the consequences of their actions. They screwed up, and are running from the consequences of their actions.
spot on, whilst we just sit there and let it all happen, or blame our problems on immigrants and people on benefits
@@54wsbrdtyd6ryeb56d you'll find those things are interwoven into the way society is reproduced.
They want to protect there little empires they've built in backs of others.
On not in 😉
Thanks for including Singapore in your books. I'm from there. Is it on sale in Singapore?
Fascinating. Very intelligent analysis.
The way I see it we are living in an economy that is essentially like the dating idiom 'fast and loose'!
Superb interview ! Will he be appearing on the BBC ? 🤔
Wouldn't think so with BBC news etc only show what they want you to see not what's relivent or what's good for the UK
Oh. Now why is that then, I wonder?😏
Sort answer no, longer answer, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
great interview and interviewee
Very interesting. Thank you.
I've never looked a Dubai with anything but a very jaundiced eye.
Great interview there.
It'd be really great if you could put these kinds of things (talking/interviewing without any kind of diagrams or video clips) on a podcast please :)
I lived in Hong Kong after Britain left but before Xi started messing it up. It was wonderful.
Not quite a Freeport because they had to charge HK$1 per shipment. The real secret of the territory being a success was a 'Fair Share' Tax of 15% on money 'made' in Hong Kong. A 15% Tax was not too low to be ineffective and not too high to make Companies engage teams of Accountants to hide their money in tax schemes and offshore. People paid it.
So then money was invested into the infrastructure so the Subway (MTR), buses and ferry were subsidized and cheap. Parks like Victoria Park in Causeway Bay have facilities for everyone. New residential blocks had shopping complexes, playgrounds and free mini-sports grounds so communities are built.
So the Capitalist wheels can keep spinning and really all we need to do is have a Fair Share Tax and some reinvestment. And that reinvestment into the people is helping provide healthy educated workers, safer streets and people with enough money to buy the Corporation's Goods to keep the whole Merry-Go-Round alive. So its a win-win situation for all.
Wonderful guest
The most efficient capitalism is without meddling democracy
he knows his shit
I mean of course there is no need for people having a say they are the pawns in the game here just give them the illusion of choice and it works perfectly fine (so far at least).
Yeh they've nicked a couple from Starmer's Labour. That's authoritarian in itself.
Quinn uses the word 'self-consciously' several times in this when discussing Dubai free economic zone...but I think he means 'sub-consciously' or do I misunderstand?
I don’t think he means sub-consciously, he talks about neoliberals looking to Dubai as a model and I got the impression he’s saying they’re making this aspiration purposefully. Maybe he just means consciously rather than self-consciously.
Tbh I haven't watched the whole video so can't really relate to what you're exactly saying, but I am going to guess that they are self-concious that they have this 'free zone', when the rest of the country lives along different rules which aren't so 'free'. In the same way that someone wearing a fine suit would be self-concious about it if they knew that if you looked behind them you would see their butt cheeks because there is no seat in the pants. In short, they are nervous that it is easy to see through the facade of what they want you to see, to see things they don't want you to see.
But like I said, that is a guess because I haven't watched the whole video. :)
It's an odd one.. because when 2 trillion pound of dark money was lost in the economy, dubai magically appeared.
Capitalism is directly opposed to the core essence of democracy - that being equal rights, privileges, social and political rights and votes per person.
Capitalism explicitly affords all those things to monetary units, meaning the more monetary units you have, the more rights, privileges, social and political rights and votes you have.
And the more Capitalism thrives, the deeper inequality runs with riches building on themselves having a cummulative effect, until certain capitalists pull away so much from their exploits that we tend towards oligopolies, oligarchs and potentially even monopolies, which proponents of Capitalism claim to be against. You need Capitalism to dig poor societies out of their poverty, but beyond that its own success becomes particularly insidious and undemocratic.
They should look across the pond for economic reform not Dubai
Well, it does need a population who feel like they are free or at the very least not restricted too much.. freedom and democracy tend to go hand in hand even if its not borne out in reality in all places at all times.
Help me with this please if you would be so kind: exactly what function does the "well" perform in "Well, it does need a population who feel like"? - Decoration? Is it not slightly absurd to speak of any creatures that are the slaves of their functions as being free or capable of experiencing freedom?
@Peter Codner it's a sociological question if anything. Structure and Agency. And how does one define 'freedom'? In the context of limited agency within a finite Structure bound by rules, laws and social dictates? Flip side being how limited is the Structure in its ability to give people agency..
They have been at it for 50 + years
basically the take home is as countries get away from taxation to fund public expenditure everything booms.
Ian Gilmour stated this back in the 1970s in his book, Inside Right [1977]
What's with the weird background beat. I'd rather listen to him. Please don't go the route where some of us can't listen to your content. It's excellent without you wasting time on sound effects. Just saying 🙄
It’s just the intro my man
Slurpcore fits the current state of our civilisation perfectly.
Like deployed 👍
It does need compliance from the majority though? Something it would do well to not underestimate?!
It's funny to hear these statements about an "undemocratic form of capitalism" as if capitalism was ever democratic.
Sorry, but that backing track is so distracting I can't hear what he's saying.
There is no backing track.
What was he trying to do in Canary Wharf ? I can't understand him
Vox Pop, basically their videos asking the public their opinion on current topics
He was pointing out the privatisation of common space.
He was trying to interview members of the public, which would be legal in a public space but can be prohibited in private spaces, or special 'zones' like Canary Wharf.
Till people start impaling them.
substantive nature, kingdom of God
The mice know the problem they just can't bell the cat
That’s obvious.
You never defined Democracy... but you mention it a lot. How can we have a discussion if you don't define your terms?
Given that politics is a form of religion, defined as any set of related*unquestioned* beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms (that bunk that men call morals or ethics) religious Joe plainly regards free-market radicals as sinners and of course the religious are invariably exercised particularly by what they regard as sin and by good/evil right/wrong, all of which are religious mumbo-jumbo, and he seems to assume that there is such a thing as capitalism, which is merely a label that a chap called Marx attached to anything he didn’t like, and there is no more such a thing as capitalism and then ‘ism’ then there is any such thing as foxes-it-rabbits_ism which no doubt religious Joe regarded profoundly sinful or what he might call “wrong” - which can only mean he doesn’t like it.
Religious Joe also does not like is that markets are free they arise spontaneously in response to demand and they cannot be controlled by bullying religious fanatics like him.
Religious Joe simply assumes that democracy is desirable or likeable or virtuous or good, and it does not seem to cross his mind that it might be no more and no less than the fool invention of a psychopath, but being religious he never even questions his religious assumption that somehow or other what he calls democracy is desirable likeable or as is said “a good thing” and he speaks of what he calls “free-market radicals” as if the term was a cognate or synonym of sinner and of course all religious fanatics like religious Joe are obsessed with sin, and it is that obsession with sin or castigating others sinners or characterising them as sinners that is the hallmark of the religious fanatic and bully.
When you point the finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you. And it is you who is the zealot, because you do not have the courage to be skeptical about your own claims of knowledge. Markets are not free in any sense. They are not organic, but are constructs, shaped and controlled by defined structures for the benefit of the economically powerful. The dream of capitalism has always been mechanistic, because machines don't argue back. That's why mainstream economics is at a loss to prevent capitalism crashing the bus repeatedly, over and over again with its mechanistic models and graphs.
Dubai, and the other economic utopias beloved by such "free marketeers" only exist to cater to their fantasies. The grubby misery behind it is carefully tidied up, hidden, or removed. And those who worship these mega rich, predatory, Disney theme parks, can forget the mess they left behind. That's your religion. You want to escape to places like that with your wallet and portfolio of assets. That junk is as bad as heroin.
Your whole rant falls down at the first hurdle, you've failed to demonstrate that politics is a form of religion. For one thing, it's frequently questioned, debated and refined.
Great interview!
I’m just wondering if this guy sniffs more than DJTJ.
Here's a trailer to the book I'm discussing! ruclips.net/video/LSlc9bOVy04/видео.html
The UK needs do to something, the amount of tax on industry is ridiculous, why manufacture and innovate in the UK when its cheaper else where.
I have been saying this for decades.
It's not just the tax on end products its the business rates on buildings is extremely expensive, then on top workforce, expensive utility bills, transport fees and expensive fuel duties, then you have to import raw material or components to make your product so there's import fees.
Then if you export your fight with competition over seas that are making simular products but cheaper.
Chase the offshore accounts and tax them.
Tas on dividends should be the same as income tax.
DOUBLE SEMAPHORE ALERT !!!
The problem with "Capitalism" is it takes geniuses to understand it & evil ones to work it. (Green Fire, UK) 🌈🦉
Do you think what the people you speak with are saying is too boring to show it without adding some weird, distracting music? I simply cannot listen to this, sorry.
China proves it
🤠💜
I get so irritated by millennial vocal fry.
capitalism does not threaten democracy. Infact its the embodiment of democracy. Everyone time you buy something it is a vote for that product, it indicates to society what needs to be produced.
You are incorrect, why would the minority rich tolerate being told how to spend their money by the poor majority? Why would they support the teaching of critical thinking necessary for the functioning of democracy when that critical thinking questions their right to earn hundreds times more than their employees? Why would they support a free press which criticises them? Why would they support unions which challenge them? Why would they support human rights when they damage the bottom line?
@@laurencedavey3121I am not. Money is an incentive for you do do something. With out it all you have is fear and threats. And that is what communism is.
@@laurencedavey3121Read 1984, that is what happens what happens when their is no market mechanism indicating what people want!!
@@laurencedavey3121The issue isn't that capitalism doesn't work, the issue is a few greedy people manage to get control of all the money and effectively size control of everything.
@@laurencedavey3121 the minority rich need the poor to buy their products. If they make something no one wants they have no profits. If they make a newspaper no one agrees with, no one buys the newspaper. If a politian says something no one agrees with, he doesn't get voted in. That is democracy!!
We don’t have a free market. We have fractional reserve banking. As long as there are central banks no price discovery can exist.
this episode is brought to you by @ParadoxInteractive
Criminally underwatched video. Found this so enlightening.