Interesting. And, now you mention it, I knew that the "Asian Tigers" had a lot of deliberate industrial policies supporting their growth and for some reason it just hadn't clicked that these are precisely the countries that Norberg is talking about! And it would indeed have been an excellent point to add into the section about industrial policies at the end. China too is not exactly "laissez-faire" to its high growth market economy. Thanks for the comment.
I agree. I guess the point here is more about questioning why some people seem to want to take a sort of "anti-government" stance, when actually, as demonstrated by the Asian Tigers, effective government industrial policy can often be a great boost to the growth and healthy functioning of the capitalist market economy. We need both to have a thriving liberal society.
@@Go-Meta yep. And i believe all the Japanese industrial miracle is directly related to the "window guidance" employed by the government and the BOJ (the central bank) till mid 1980, and if i m not mistaken is what the Chinese also employed to get the technology growth they have and not just consumer growth.
Oli, I enjoyed your thorough summary of the book. Unbridled markets without strong government regulation and intervention lead to monopolies, oligopolies and monopsonies, as well as gross inequalities in wealth and income, unemployment, poverty, social Ill- health and environmental degradation. Government should act as an independent arbiter on behalf of the well- being of its citizens. I am a fan of Mazzucato’s work so I was delighted that you mentioned her contribution to a more effective, entrepreneurial public sector. As the great Cambridge economist John Maynard Keynes once said, governments should get involved in delivering services where the private sector underperforms or completely neglects. .
Hi Wayne, thank you! And, yes, I too like Mazzucato's work and ways of expressing the role of government to help shape markets to be most beneficial to society. It was really surprising to me how Norberg had spent so much time pedantically critiquing Mazzucato in his book. I think the evidence from the last century of political economics is quite clear that the state has an important role to play, and indeed that markets can be very effective in certain sectors of the economy. So I find it surprising when people argue that either the state or the market are the only real solution to everything! Thanks for the comment.
The state does not act as an independent arbiter in parliamentary democracies because the political process is open to purchase by the oligarchy, both through lobbying and campaign finance, as well as purchase of the media which shapes public opinion. Capitalism in the end is rule by capital, where oligarchs direct the state according to their own private interests while evading both economic competition and political accountability. This is why oligarchs like George Soros prefer the “Open Society”, meaning it is open to meddling by international financiers. The alternative is a strong central government that cannot be purchased, but rather brings oligarchs to heel.
Very interesting story about the village. Notice how all of the credit goes to the business owner. Its a whole group of people who are responsible for the success of the business not just the founder That does not mean he should not get a lot of credit for starting the business. Problem I have with capitalism is they always talk about free up the market give people the freedom to be left alone and make there own way. But the workers never had any freedom.The were kept under tight control of the capitalist a heatbeat away from starvation if they lost there job they could be fired at will at anytime. Wages were largely set by the business owner.
Yes, the only way that the villagers would have had more freedom would be if there were multiple different options for where they could work to earn a reasonable wage. Then they would have the choice of where to work and the ability to encourage businesses to pay them decently and treat them well so that they don't go off to work at the other businesses/organisations. As you say, the situation in the example only empowered the entrepreneur.
One should not forget that when Strindberg wrote that story child labour was common, even in mines and very dangerous situations. Also work related accidents were common. One could also claim that without regulation slavery would still exist. Also, I find it strange to critize the government's for bailing out the failed private enterprises when it was the same people promoting Norbergs ideas that politically pushed for the bailouts. It's fine to throw rubbish at government actions, then demand government action to help them out of the problems private companies themselves created in an unregulated market. How is that proof of efficiency of the market to fix its problems. Libertarians live in a fantasy world and does not take into account reality. It looks good in paper but has never existed the way they describe it.
Please give us an alternative. Seems you are only posing questions. There is a great quote from Chomsky when he was asked about his opinion on capitalism, to which he responded “Ghandi was once asked what he thinks about western civilization, and he said maybe it would be a good idea. And you can say the same about capitalism, we’ve never had anything remotely resembling it.”
I'm not at all suggesting that we should scrap capitalism, and indeed it's an interesting quote you mention from Chomsky as it seems to imply a similar thought to one that I've had, which is that progressives should actually encourage proper functioning markets for certain sectors of the economy. What we often have instead is more like corporatism supported by a captured (corrupted!) government, so a genuine competitive market place would often be an improvement. I guess my overall point in the video is to encourage "anti-government" libertarians to recognise the essential role of government, and indeed "anti-capitalists" to recognise that capitalism can be a very effective way to organise certain parts of the political economy. They both have problems, but they both have strengths too and we need them both, working together. But if that didn't come across in my video then I need to improve my scripting 😀 as I certainly don't want to come across as just asking questions. At the very least I hope I am hinting at the route towards solutions 😀 Thanks for the comment.
Great video, proving you are a free mind. Respect ! And thanks for the reviews, cause unfortunately I dont have time (or the energy) to read any more, which sucks :) My two cents. (a) Contemporary capitalism needs the poor and the homeless, and needs them on display. As an example of what happens if you don't comply. (b) This Johan Norberg guy reminds me of some of my friends I knew since kids, where, when young, and being from poor families and seeing the rich showing off their wealth, they were passionate hardcore communists, but later that they grow up and they got lucky/steal taxes/inherited a rich uncle from "America"/etc etc they got money, they bought the most show-off houses and cars they could afford, they sent their kids to the rich's schools and they start saying louder and louder "everyone gets what he deserves" lol
Regarding the "rhetorical pattern"... let's turn it on its head? Is there a non-capitalist example, without free money from e.g. natural resources, that is a nice place to live? Where "nice" include freedom to leave, freedom of opinion, access to education/health care, etc? I am not aware of any. For me, the alternative ways to organize a society to capitalism with an open society, looks like excuses for a junta, to enslave the local population and steal everything.
Hi, yes, I agree, which is why I don't understand it when some people take an "anti-capitalist" stance. But, I guess the key point I'm trying to make in my video is that I also don't understand taking an "anti-government" stance when actually many of the nice things you mentioned, (freedom of opinion, access to education/health) are not things that capitalist mechanisms are capable of delivering exclusively by themselves. Liberal, democratic governments are also an essential part of the package. To have a flourishing, liberal society we need a healthy interplay between liberal democracy and market capitalism with a continual attempt to seek out and get rid of the worst aspects of both of them, but to also improve and champion the best bits of both of them.
@@Go-Meta Hmm... You seem to build a good case for the straw man position. It seems to me, that the logical next step for libertarians should be in political science -- like building theories about how a state can make it visible, when political parties do a regulatory capture and start misusing resources to stay in power. Which is quite funny.
Any work to help shine a disinfecting light on the worst abuses of state power would be great. While I champion the role of the liberal, democratic state, I certainly agree that there are many aspects of it that need to be radically improved.
It's not either or. Both capitalism and state intervention have their place in a successful society. Look at the nordics for a (imho) great example of mixed economies with both strong capitalist and strong socialist tendencies.
@@lb2791 I am Swedish. What you write it is obviously true, but re Nordic countries: 1. When the politics here got too socialist, the governments had to back down (like the 1970s 100+% taxes on the margin). It just didn't work. 2. USA has a higher economic growth for decades than Sweden, so the Swedish way makes for good lives for the population but risks (relative) poverty over generations.
Doubtless you are trying very hard to be fair to capitalism. There''s just one point about the system, which you (and defenders of capitalism, too,) ignore, and that is that the relentless drive to produce more and more and having to produce more andmore just to keep the wheels turning is destroying the planet and the natural resources in which we all depend for survival. Just a minor problem!
Hi @orglancs, you are right that I'm seeking to find the right balance between where the market works well and where the state needs to be acting or regulating. But, I also think it is hard to know how to best attribute the problem that our ways of producing goods have such devastating impacts on the environment. I totally agree that the incentive for growth and profits that drives the consumerism flywheel is a damaging incentive to make more stuff - and thereby do more damage. But arguably the biggest damage is coming from the linear approach to manufacturing: dig up resources -> make in factory -> sell -> use -> throw away -> bury or burn. And, all the evidence that I'm aware of suggests that more socialist or communist countries do not have a great track record of avoiding this damaging approach to production. Indeed, it is arguably the mixed-economy block of the EU that is doing most to challenge this linear production model and insist that companies take responsibility for the full lifecycle of their products. To be clear, this isn't capitalism doing this, it is the concerns of the people being expressed through democratic choices. So, this is why I think the key is to have a healthy balance between the democratic state and market capitalism (for certain sectors). I take the lessons of the last century to show quite clearly that pure state or pure market both fail to produce the best outcomes. We need a healthy balance. Martin Wolf's book, Crisis of Democratic Capitalism, has a nice phrase about this, talking about these two as symbiotic twins: (my review of his book is here: ruclips.net/video/HtrUJ6Ha4Tk/видео.html ) So, it is only in that sense that I am trying to be fair to capitalism. Thanks for the comment 👍
No, that's what Stalin's State Capitalism (Socialism) did, because it did not have a meaningful price system derived from private property rights, trade, with a sound money; Gosplan had no idea when to pump the breaks and slow down consumption or production, or where to divert engineering efforts to increase efficiencies. The Soviets and their satellites also polluted the heII out of their land, water, and air. I mean, who could sue them or create contacts with them, since none of it was privately owned?
Monopolies that happen voluntarily by people wanting to buy their products are not a problem, these monopolies cannot set prices too high without a new company being able to gain a market. It is when the state via the monopoly of violence, starts a monopoly via coercion, that it is dangerous, they can set whatever prices they want without any market emerging, they charge excess prices all the time, which are partly hidden via taxes and inflation. If people want something, there will always be people who want to sell it and if one company disappears, another will take its place. All countries that have allowed such essential goods as food and drink to be sold by state-owned businesses and regulated prices have always had famines. Norberg just says that the state, just like any company, can have difficulty making the right investment, which is why you need several actors who invest their own money, not one actor who invests other people's money. Your idea of a good society is based on utilitarianism and that's where you go wrong, you shouldn't sacrifice yourself for other people via coercion, everyone loses out and everyone gets poorer. Helping others is voluntary. You must read Ayn Rand's non-fiction works. Your philosophy is based on terrible and evil ideas. Elon Musk would probably have done something else successfully in the free market without government support if it turned out that what he invested in did not make money. it's a logical fallacy to think that government support is the only way because that's what you've seen.
The real lie is there is no competition on the job market and when there is, governments make sure it disappears. If people were not coerced to work, a lot of important jobs would not be filled or they would be extremely expensive. Just take garbage collection. In a real free market, the real value of it probably would be ten times more than it is and even then, I doubt University professors would choose it over what they do at equal salary. But society would do fine without the professor, but not the garbage collector which is essential. There is no reason why one is paid much more than the other who actually works a lot harder. If there was a true free market, the garbage collection should disappear. That's real capitalism and it of course cannot be allowed, so we have socialism instead. So the Capitalist Manifesto is really a Socialist Manifesto. Anarcho-capitalists are socialists, they simply do bait and switch. Think about it, why do they even need a book to sell it? it's because they aren't individuals, they need other people to work for them. Corporations are socialist enterprises. The hat factory, is socialism and an autocracy. It's also collectivist to the extreme. Everything is collectivized and some people, the entrepreneur, is allowed to own everybody else out of a pool of collectivized workers. Slavery was much more capitalist in that regard, at least each slaver owned his workers and was responsible for them, while now, in the "free market", they aren't. And that is true for every last one of the entrepreneurs. They are all staunch socialists. None of them feels responsible for their workers because they don't own them, they just rent from the commons. It's an entitlement and why the economies got richer overall, but not for the slaves of course. To me that's the real knock off of that ideology, it's pure hypocrisy and deception. The hat factory would not exist if there were no workers and everybody did their own thing. There is an assumption to an entitlement to people's work and an entitlement to exploit it for private profits. The only "small government" they want is one that forces people even more into working for them. That's the reality. It's about making sure the workers are entirely despondent on the employer for their survival. That way the bad jobs are filled. It's what people are afraid of, that someday, people just refuse to do them.
I'm not sure I agree that there is no competition in the jobs market. At one point you say, "There is no reason why one is paid much more than the other who actually works a lot harder.", except to my mind, it is precisely because these jobs are being filled via that jobs market that we get physically hard jobs sometimes being paid less than physically easy jobs that instead require academic credentials. The reality is that there are more people "in the market" for doing the physically hard / lower academic skilled job of being a garbage collector than there are people qualified to be a university professor. The mistake some people in our society make is to think that "higher pay" = "more valued or important". What I do agree with is the sense that, as there is not real way in the modern world that individuals can live simply through a subsistence lifestyle on a piece of land somewhere, it does mean in that sense that everyone is "forced" into the labour market. The enclosure of the commons is often cited as being the point when this transition was completed in the UK. But, I think the response to this is for society to try to ensure that individuals have the best opportunities to be able to pick which way they want to engage with work in society. I also hope that one day we'll be able to have some level of UBI or equivalent that helps give people even more choices about how much they do or don't get involved in doing work for money in order to be able to afford more things. If done the right way, the great thing about taking the waged labour approach is that people should be free to choose who they work for and free to switch job or switch profession if they so desire. If we get it right, it's a good way to maximise people's freedom to organise their life how they wish. But, in the meantime we are a long way from that and indeed the choices in front of many people are less fair than those in front of others. That's for sure.
The section about the "myth of the market" is sketchy. You have the issue of the government being the arsonist as well as the fire fighter, both granting companies monopoly power and suppressing competition while supposedly regulating the free market to make sure it is "fair" via the SEC or FTC . In reality an interventionist economy favors big business , while keeping market forces from taking corrective measures against bad actors, by rewarding them with bailouts, favorable regulations, complex compliance structures that small businesses can't keep up with, and insulating them from consumer demand, by replacing it with government contracts. The monopoly ultimately leads to a mediocre poor performing company that no longer needs to innovate like it did when it was first starting out. Of course the market will correct itself, which will create a recession. The Fed simply cannot allow that to happen. We are all trained to expect that bad new is good news, easy monetary policy will follow bad news and the equity markets will simply run ever higher.
“Great job!” That’s what I said to myself about my hard trying self that had listened to this compote for 5 min. Yeah, that was not easy because it insulted my intelligence.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
South Korea had a highly interventionist government, which is exactly why it is a successful economy
Interesting. And, now you mention it, I knew that the "Asian Tigers" had a lot of deliberate industrial policies supporting their growth and for some reason it just hadn't clicked that these are precisely the countries that Norberg is talking about! And it would indeed have been an excellent point to add into the section about industrial policies at the end. China too is not exactly "laissez-faire" to its high growth market economy.
Thanks for the comment.
Doesn’t change the fact it’s a market capitalist society, just with extra government involvement and propping up infant industries early on
I agree. I guess the point here is more about questioning why some people seem to want to take a sort of "anti-government" stance, when actually, as demonstrated by the Asian Tigers, effective government industrial policy can often be a great boost to the growth and healthy functioning of the capitalist market economy. We need both to have a thriving liberal society.
@@Go-Meta yep. And i believe all the Japanese industrial miracle is directly related to the "window guidance" employed by the government and the BOJ (the central bank) till mid 1980, and if i m not mistaken is what the Chinese also employed to get the technology growth they have and not just consumer growth.
Oli, I enjoyed your thorough summary of the book. Unbridled markets without strong government regulation and intervention lead to monopolies, oligopolies and monopsonies, as well as gross inequalities in wealth and income, unemployment, poverty, social Ill- health and environmental degradation. Government should act as an independent arbiter on behalf of the well- being of its citizens. I am a fan of Mazzucato’s work so I was delighted that you mentioned her contribution to a more effective, entrepreneurial public sector. As the great Cambridge economist John Maynard Keynes once said, governments should get involved in delivering services where the private sector underperforms or completely neglects.
.
Hi Wayne, thank you!
And, yes, I too like Mazzucato's work and ways of expressing the role of government to help shape markets to be most beneficial to society. It was really surprising to me how Norberg had spent so much time pedantically critiquing Mazzucato in his book. I think the evidence from the last century of political economics is quite clear that the state has an important role to play, and indeed that markets can be very effective in certain sectors of the economy. So I find it surprising when people argue that either the state or the market are the only real solution to everything!
Thanks for the comment.
The state does not act as an independent arbiter in parliamentary democracies because the political process is open to purchase by the oligarchy, both through lobbying and campaign finance, as well as purchase of the media which shapes public opinion. Capitalism in the end is rule by capital, where oligarchs direct the state according to their own private interests while evading both economic competition and political accountability. This is why oligarchs like George Soros prefer the “Open Society”, meaning it is open to meddling by international financiers. The alternative is a strong central government that cannot be purchased, but rather brings oligarchs to heel.
Very interesting story about the village. Notice how all of the credit goes to the business owner. Its a whole group of people who are responsible for the success of the business not just the founder That does not mean he should not get a lot of credit for starting the business. Problem I have with capitalism is they always talk about free up the market give people the freedom to be left alone and make there own way. But the workers never had any freedom.The were kept under tight control of the capitalist a heatbeat away from starvation if they lost there job they could be fired at will at anytime. Wages were largely set by the business owner.
Yes, the only way that the villagers would have had more freedom would be if there were multiple different options for where they could work to earn a reasonable wage. Then they would have the choice of where to work and the ability to encourage businesses to pay them decently and treat them well so that they don't go off to work at the other businesses/organisations.
As you say, the situation in the example only empowered the entrepreneur.
One should not forget that when Strindberg wrote that story child labour was common, even in mines and very dangerous situations. Also work related accidents were common. One could also claim that without regulation slavery would still exist. Also, I find it strange to critize the government's for bailing out the failed private enterprises when it was the same people promoting Norbergs ideas that politically pushed for the bailouts. It's fine to throw rubbish at government actions, then demand government action to help them out of the problems private companies themselves created in an unregulated market. How is that proof of efficiency of the market to fix its problems. Libertarians live in a fantasy world and does not take into account reality. It looks good in paper but has never existed the way they describe it.
Excellent critique, thank you
love your book analyses ! keep going
Please give us an alternative. Seems you are only posing questions. There is a great quote from Chomsky when he was asked about his opinion on capitalism, to which he responded “Ghandi was once asked what he thinks about western civilization, and he said maybe it would be a good idea. And you can say the same about capitalism, we’ve never had anything remotely resembling it.”
I'm not at all suggesting that we should scrap capitalism, and indeed it's an interesting quote you mention from Chomsky as it seems to imply a similar thought to one that I've had, which is that progressives should actually encourage proper functioning markets for certain sectors of the economy. What we often have instead is more like corporatism supported by a captured (corrupted!) government, so a genuine competitive market place would often be an improvement.
I guess my overall point in the video is to encourage "anti-government" libertarians to recognise the essential role of government, and indeed "anti-capitalists" to recognise that capitalism can be a very effective way to organise certain parts of the political economy. They both have problems, but they both have strengths too and we need them both, working together.
But if that didn't come across in my video then I need to improve my scripting 😀 as I certainly don't want to come across as just asking questions. At the very least I hope I am hinting at the route towards solutions 😀
Thanks for the comment.
@@Go-Metaso you're talking about a Social Market Economy.
Great video, proving you are a free mind. Respect !
And thanks for the reviews, cause unfortunately I dont have time (or the energy) to read any more, which sucks :)
My two cents. (a) Contemporary capitalism needs the poor and the homeless, and needs them on display. As an example of what happens if you don't comply.
(b) This Johan Norberg guy reminds me of some of my friends I knew since kids, where, when young, and being from poor families and seeing the rich showing off their wealth, they were passionate hardcore communists, but later that they grow up and they got lucky/steal taxes/inherited a rich uncle from "America"/etc etc they got money, they bought the most show-off houses and cars they could afford, they sent their kids to the rich's schools and they start saying louder and louder "everyone gets what he deserves" lol
This was amazing. i'm losing my mind at the fact this video doesn't have more views.
Thank you! 🙏
very nice job Oli - super balanced and thoughtful
Hey Giles, thanks! 👍
Something not worth wasting one's time with. Numbers may not lie, but number manipulators certainly do.
Regarding the "rhetorical pattern"... let's turn it on its head?
Is there a non-capitalist example, without free money from e.g. natural resources, that is a nice place to live? Where "nice" include freedom to leave, freedom of opinion, access to education/health care, etc? I am not aware of any.
For me, the alternative ways to organize a society to capitalism with an open society, looks like excuses for a junta, to enslave the local population and steal everything.
Hi, yes, I agree, which is why I don't understand it when some people take an "anti-capitalist" stance.
But, I guess the key point I'm trying to make in my video is that I also don't understand taking an "anti-government" stance when actually many of the nice things you mentioned, (freedom of opinion, access to education/health) are not things that capitalist mechanisms are capable of delivering exclusively by themselves. Liberal, democratic governments are also an essential part of the package.
To have a flourishing, liberal society we need a healthy interplay between liberal democracy and market capitalism with a continual attempt to seek out and get rid of the worst aspects of both of them, but to also improve and champion the best bits of both of them.
@@Go-Meta Hmm... You seem to build a good case for the straw man position. It seems to me, that the logical next step for libertarians should be in political science -- like building theories about how a state can make it visible, when political parties do a regulatory capture and start misusing resources to stay in power. Which is quite funny.
Any work to help shine a disinfecting light on the worst abuses of state power would be great. While I champion the role of the liberal, democratic state, I certainly agree that there are many aspects of it that need to be radically improved.
It's not either or. Both capitalism and state intervention have their place in a successful society. Look at the nordics for a (imho) great example of mixed economies with both strong capitalist and strong socialist tendencies.
@@lb2791 I am Swedish. What you write it is obviously true, but re Nordic countries:
1. When the politics here got too socialist, the governments had to back down (like the 1970s 100+% taxes on the margin). It just didn't work.
2. USA has a higher economic growth for decades than Sweden, so the Swedish way makes for good lives for the population but risks (relative) poverty over generations.
Doubtless you are trying very hard to be fair to capitalism. There''s just one point about the system, which you (and defenders of capitalism, too,) ignore, and that is that the relentless drive to produce more and more and having to produce more andmore just to keep the wheels turning is destroying the planet and the natural resources in which we all depend for survival. Just a minor problem!
Hi @orglancs, you are right that I'm seeking to find the right balance between where the market works well and where the state needs to be acting or regulating. But, I also think it is hard to know how to best attribute the problem that our ways of producing goods have such devastating impacts on the environment. I totally agree that the incentive for growth and profits that drives the consumerism flywheel is a damaging incentive to make more stuff - and thereby do more damage. But arguably the biggest damage is coming from the linear approach to manufacturing:
dig up resources -> make in factory -> sell -> use -> throw away -> bury or burn.
And, all the evidence that I'm aware of suggests that more socialist or communist countries do not have a great track record of avoiding this damaging approach to production. Indeed, it is arguably the mixed-economy block of the EU that is doing most to challenge this linear production model and insist that companies take responsibility for the full lifecycle of their products. To be clear, this isn't capitalism doing this, it is the concerns of the people being expressed through democratic choices.
So, this is why I think the key is to have a healthy balance between the democratic state and market capitalism (for certain sectors). I take the lessons of the last century to show quite clearly that pure state or pure market both fail to produce the best outcomes. We need a healthy balance.
Martin Wolf's book, Crisis of Democratic Capitalism, has a nice phrase about this, talking about these two as symbiotic twins: (my review of his book is here: ruclips.net/video/HtrUJ6Ha4Tk/видео.html )
So, it is only in that sense that I am trying to be fair to capitalism.
Thanks for the comment 👍
No, that's what Stalin's State Capitalism (Socialism) did, because it did not have a meaningful price system derived from private property rights, trade, with a sound money; Gosplan had no idea when to pump the breaks and slow down consumption or production, or where to divert engineering efforts to increase efficiencies.
The Soviets and their satellites also polluted the heII out of their land, water, and air. I mean, who could sue them or create contacts with them, since none of it was privately owned?
The former communist countries did exactly the same, just with less success.
Monopolies that happen voluntarily by people wanting to buy their products are not a problem, these monopolies cannot set prices too high without a new company being able to gain a market. It is when the state via the monopoly of violence, starts a monopoly via coercion, that it is dangerous, they can set whatever prices they want without any market emerging, they charge excess prices all the time, which are partly hidden via taxes and inflation.
If people want something, there will always be people who want to sell it and if one company disappears, another will take its place. All countries that have allowed such essential goods as food and drink to be sold by state-owned businesses and regulated prices have always had famines. Norberg just says that the state, just like any company, can have difficulty making the right investment, which is why you need several actors who invest their own money, not one actor who invests other people's money.
Your idea of a good society is based on utilitarianism and that's where you go wrong, you shouldn't sacrifice yourself for other people via coercion, everyone loses out and everyone gets poorer. Helping others is voluntary. You must read Ayn Rand's non-fiction works. Your philosophy is based on terrible and evil ideas.
Elon Musk would probably have done something else successfully in the free market without government support if it turned out that what he invested in did not make money. it's a logical fallacy to think that government support is the only way because that's what you've seen.
The real lie is there is no competition on the job market and when there is, governments make sure it disappears.
If people were not coerced to work, a lot of important jobs would not be filled or they would be extremely expensive. Just take garbage collection. In a real free market, the real value of it probably would be ten times more than it is and even then, I doubt University professors would choose it over what they do at equal salary. But society would do fine without the professor, but not the garbage collector which is essential.
There is no reason why one is paid much more than the other who actually works a lot harder. If there was a true free market, the garbage collection should disappear. That's real capitalism and it of course cannot be allowed, so we have socialism instead. So the Capitalist Manifesto is really a Socialist Manifesto. Anarcho-capitalists are socialists, they simply do bait and switch. Think about it, why do they even need a book to sell it? it's because they aren't individuals, they need other people to work for them. Corporations are socialist enterprises. The hat factory, is socialism and an autocracy. It's also collectivist to the extreme. Everything is collectivized and some people, the entrepreneur, is allowed to own everybody else out of a pool of collectivized workers. Slavery was much more capitalist in that regard, at least each slaver owned his workers and was responsible for them, while now, in the "free market", they aren't. And that is true for every last one of the entrepreneurs. They are all staunch socialists. None of them feels responsible for their workers because they don't own them, they just rent from the commons. It's an entitlement and why the economies got richer overall, but not for the slaves of course.
To me that's the real knock off of that ideology, it's pure hypocrisy and deception. The hat factory would not exist if there were no workers and everybody did their own thing. There is an assumption to an entitlement to people's work and an entitlement to exploit it for private profits. The only "small government" they want is one that forces people even more into working for them. That's the reality. It's about making sure the workers are entirely despondent on the employer for their survival. That way the bad jobs are filled. It's what people are afraid of, that someday, people just refuse to do them.
I'm not sure I agree that there is no competition in the jobs market. At one point you say, "There is no reason why one is paid much more than the other who actually works a lot harder.", except to my mind, it is precisely because these jobs are being filled via that jobs market that we get physically hard jobs sometimes being paid less than physically easy jobs that instead require academic credentials. The reality is that there are more people "in the market" for doing the physically hard / lower academic skilled job of being a garbage collector than there are people qualified to be a university professor. The mistake some people in our society make is to think that "higher pay" = "more valued or important".
What I do agree with is the sense that, as there is not real way in the modern world that individuals can live simply through a subsistence lifestyle on a piece of land somewhere, it does mean in that sense that everyone is "forced" into the labour market. The enclosure of the commons is often cited as being the point when this transition was completed in the UK.
But, I think the response to this is for society to try to ensure that individuals have the best opportunities to be able to pick which way they want to engage with work in society. I also hope that one day we'll be able to have some level of UBI or equivalent that helps give people even more choices about how much they do or don't get involved in doing work for money in order to be able to afford more things.
If done the right way, the great thing about taking the waged labour approach is that people should be free to choose who they work for and free to switch job or switch profession if they so desire. If we get it right, it's a good way to maximise people's freedom to organise their life how they wish.
But, in the meantime we are a long way from that and indeed the choices in front of many people are less fair than those in front of others. That's for sure.
The section about the "myth of the market" is sketchy. You have the issue of the government being the arsonist as well as the fire fighter, both granting companies monopoly power and suppressing competition while supposedly regulating the free market to make sure it is "fair" via the SEC or FTC . In reality an interventionist economy favors big business , while keeping market forces from taking corrective measures against bad actors, by rewarding them with bailouts, favorable regulations, complex compliance structures that small businesses can't keep up with, and insulating them from consumer demand, by replacing it with government contracts. The monopoly ultimately leads to a mediocre poor performing company that no longer needs to innovate like it did when it was first starting out. Of course the market will correct itself, which will create a recession. The Fed simply cannot allow that to happen. We are all trained to expect that bad new is good news, easy monetary policy will follow bad news and the equity markets will simply run ever higher.
“Great job!” That’s what I said to myself about my hard trying self that had listened to this compote for 5 min. Yeah, that was not easy because it insulted my intelligence.
Sorry my dish wasn't to your taste this time, I'll try to deliver some tasty doughnuts in my next videos!