JAKE & AMIR OUTTAKES bit.ly/Nm10EI LIKE us on: / collegehumor As seen on Fox Seuss. See more www.collegehumo... FOLLOW us on: / collegehumor FOLLOW us on: / www
With chainsaw so mighty! The tree fell down so brightly! It’s suffering has ended It’s death no longer suspended The trees cried out free! Thank god no more jimmy!
Going back to the original story, I think Seuss was trying to make a separate point about responsibility and the like, through the modus of trees, not one particularly about capitalism, and environmentalism. So an obvious solution like what logging companies do irl would've messed with the intended message. But I agree, if environmentalism was the true aim, it should have brought up points like that. Although they do mention in the cartoon how long it takes to grow truffula trees. 10 months just to germinate, and many many years after that just to grow a bit, so creating massive orchards would've taken a long time especially with how quickly thneed corp. expanded from nothing.
@@robertwagonschutz777 true, though there are many instances of capitalist prefering short term profits to mid and long term profitability. It's more of a metaphor.
The Supreme Court approved of something called citizens united which recognizes corporations as human beings, thus allowing them to donate as much money as they want to politicians. So that line about corporations being people hits really hard 😢
Citizens united determined that political donations were a form of speech. The idea is that since verbal support of something is protected by the First Amendment, monetary support is also protected. So long as the donors do not conspire with the campaign, they can donate as much as they like through PACs and SuperPACs because the court views their money as a form of speech
I think the idea is that companies are allowed to fund adds in support of political campaigns as much as they please as long as they don't cooperate with the campaign itself, or at least as long as cooperation can't be proved.
Unfortunately capitalism isn't great at long term planning. Farms take capital to set up and it's more profitable to exhaust a resource, make a killing as it becomes rare, then move onto the next thing.
FOR ANYONE WHO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND HOW TREES WORK... Yes, trees can grow back, but it takes decades for them to do so. Not to mention the graphic change in enviorment their absence can leave.
DisneyKidsFOREVER and they do keep a local environment free of massive runoff, and absorb pollution. But a majority of our O2 comes from good ol' algae! And there isn't a regulation on that (I mean, most of it is out of our way so we don't touch it, but still) I find that clip oddly concerning as a conservative
It really depends on the type of tree, some only take a year or two to grow. Lumber and paper industries have actually created more forest then they've destroyed by using trees that grow quickly. The real problem is when big companies clear out already established forest to make room for factories or plantations.
+HunterTheCyborg// HunterHTC I've recently heard of this new house building alternative to wood called stone! I guess it's one of the trends those weird hipster stoneage kids like to follow. But to be honest, it's too futuristic for my taste
Replacing a forest with different species of growth affects the ecology of the local area. Different animals are bound to spring up with a new systemic homeostasis~
Honestly I don't understand how people can fall perfectly into the outline of either party. Conservatism makes sense on some issues. Liberalism makes sense on some issues. If we would agree to take the best of each party, we could do truly great things.
Jim Bob Compromise is only attainable when the two parties either want the same thing, or have more in common than they don't. With American Politics, this is NOT the case.
liberalism and conservatism are only two faces of the same system. both act within the framework of capitalism and both are comparatively right wing if you compare it to other political positions (ie reformism/social democracy or various versions of socialism): in the 30s both viewpoints showed themselves as more willing to side with fascism in europe than with the left (notably in spain). so yes there's plenty of room for compromises between the two, but to say that's because they both have good ideas is where I have to depart with you.
+Jim Bob Spot on, couldn't agree more! Too bad there's no third party to highlight this problem. - I visualize someone saying, "hey, do you like blue or red?" They both have their ups and downs. It's hard to make a defining choice over who the lesser of two evils is. Voting in this system is fucked, there seems to be no purpose. - Why not implement a system where you show up, they give you a sheet, it has the top 30 important issues. You then check either "yes", "no", or "abstain" on each topic from top to bottom. Then you slide it into a ballot box. - I just hate this whole "he said this" "Oh yeah? Well HE said this!" The back and forth of politics is just sad, it's hard to get into. I have a feeling most people vote because they feel very strongly on one or two subjects and that makes them "left" or "right". Or there are others who don't want to let their family down so they just go with the flow. And finally, there are those who abstain from voting all together.
I'm just a random commenter and i say... Canada makes a nice bit of money, eh? That's beceause they cut trees, but now you must ask: Why are there so many trees there, if they all get the axe? Well my friend, that's to do with legislations. They benefit the forest, and also corporations. For every tree cut, two more are planted. That's to make sure the forests don't get blanted. And then we see something very nice. They managed to keep forests healthy, despite all the ice. Truly, it is possible now. To make money and still say "wow". You see my friends, corporations aren't crazy. It's the government that's sometimes a bit lazy. I salute you now, as i am out of rhymes. And whatever you do, remember to look back at the old times.
He also ran in 2012, but didn't get far. He started the Birther Movement (the people who claimed Obama wasn't born in America) and then he dropped out before the nominations.
@@CyanWatercress4 Maybe on a world wide stage since the government heavily subsidies the production of processes food and bio fuels resulting in the destruction of the rainforest for example but not in the developed world such as the US or Europe. Planting a tree costs a fraction of a fraction of what they make as a profit out of the wood, replanting results in a huge long-term profit and it would be financially brain dead to not do it - which is why, like I said, the wood industry plants the mist trees and that is a fact. The wood industry does basically the same as the average farmer, planting and harvesting. More than half the forest land in the U.S is owned and managed by about 11 million private forest owners. Private forest lands provided 89% of the domestically produced wood and paper products in 2017. The income landowners receive for trees grown on their land encourages them to maintain, sustainably manage and renew this valuable resource. At the same time the net forest area in the U.S. has been stable since the early 1900s and increased by about 2% from 752 million to 765 million acres between 2007 and 2017. Net volume of growing stock increased by more than 5% over the same period.
Lorax grew up, went to Harvard Business School, graduated with honors, started up Stratton Oakmont with The Wolf of Wall Street, got rich, ran for Senate and now he's here. I don't know if I'm proud.
Cardi Jey ??? Your point is... what exactly? Sure they cut down football fields. Then they promptly plant new trees right where they cut. Kind of like a farmer. A farmer harvests his corn, but he knows he'll run out, so once the harvest is over, he plants more corn for next year.
oh nono, here in the us, or in europe, that is the case. Our wood is from preserved areas where they keep a balance, but if it comes to wood from asia, africa and south america, they chop everything down without regrets and vision for the future. That's why i said rainforest. But we are not totally innocent, we buy that stuff.
Cardi Jey Ah. It seems like a pretty bad business plan from those companies then. They'll run out of both product and the ability to plant more. Are you sure that none of them are doing that over there? I really thought I saw something about one of the bigger, US logging companies replanting even in the rain forests.
You know the biggest threat to trees aren't loggers right? With loggers, they plant more trees to replace what they took, or use paper farms, or in easier terms have farmers grow trees in order to sell it for paper. Now the real threat would be farming actually, mostly for raising domestic animals.
YESSSS!!!! You are so right!!!! Animal agriculture (meat, dairy, egg, etc. Industries) contribute to 91% of Amazon rainforest destruction. Animal agriculture also contributes to 51% of all greenhouse gas emissions. All transportions (cars, airplanes, trains, etc) only contribute 13%.
are you sure? I dont know if they pushed it or not, or even if a regulation even exists. but I know the trees cut down now are 3rd and even 4th growth. and I cant imagine a regulation being passed for logging 150 years ago
because they took all the trees, and put them in a tree museum. And people had to pay a dollar and a half to see them. they took all the trees and put in a parking lot... lol.
The biggest threat to trees is fire, and big logging companies are among the biggest contributors to fire danger, especially in old-growth forest. This is true in the U.S. anyway.
jwan besande good luck on your journey young comment, one day you will be needed, keep in earshot non-political comment you will be called upon and on that day you will transcend all expectations
Republicans are red, Democrats are blue, and neither of them give a shit about you. I'm not picking sides. Fuck narrow minded political parties. I'm staying independent, thank you very much.
Even George Washington said that political parties were a bad idea. He said they would create a divisive environment in which people could just flock to one side or the other instead of formulating their own deductions. And, that's exactly what has happened.
What the fuck is this? In Dr Seuss everything rhymes. Do it again and stop wasting my time. Rhyme your ass off and don't be lazy. Or I will turn you crazy.
This bullshit party system and this "pick a side" bs only causes hostility and leaves little to no room for compromise or understanding. Mark my words, in due time the country will end up with another civil war and end up as a divided shithole, oh wait, that's already happening.
I've always wondered this, couldnt they have shaved the trees in lorax without cutting them down? The fabric or whatever they are supposed to be would have just grown back, cutting them down would have just destroyed profits, also technically some trees do die and should actually be chopped down to prevent forest fires, ironically, this is actually good for the environment
@@baronbrummbar8691 this is not explained,perhaps a fandom wiki suggest the wood is used as firewall.Also the problem is that the onceler cuts to many trees, theres a diference betwen choping down some trees and choping down the entire forest
I feel that if the Lorax would want to continue his profit, he would plant multiple plots of thneeds that would be harvested at different times then replanted to make sure his profits continue to come in instead of blindly harvesting every tree in a forest.
If you were to do that you would risk getting out produced by a competitor who's willing to cut down trees for short term profit therefore the capitalist free market incentive creates long term environmental problems
@sol1d gh0st No, you don't. You have made fabulous profit in the short term, which happens to also be your career. Long term would benefit people who follow you, but not necessarily you.
This is actually what we do. Do you think loggers just take and take with no replanting. One problem is that a lot of forest just becomes a farm and not a habitat. There are plenty of trees in the world, just not the natural kind of variety or lifespan anymore. Like how you can get an apple almost anywhere at anytime these days but only a few varieties (at most stores)
What a stereotype, one that's rather extreme. Why is bashing political parties such a meme? Be realistic, this depiction of yours isn't true, we recognize what's ours, and what's not, too. Like how false the Liberal stereotypes go, that they're lazy, uncaring drug users, yo! Take these portrayals with a grain of salt, I know Seuss would, as parties aren't at fault. United States or Divided Political Parties; there's a difference between the two of these. I judge people by character and that alone, not by other people's, it's each to their own. Autobot and Decepticon, Jedi and Sith, fairness means there's no one "side" to go with. We don't want to be dragged into your wars, and no longer support this system of yours.
As hilarious as this is, and as much as I despise the lobbyists and bureaucrats that run this country, the video has the same flaw that the original story had. A smart business owner would have ensured the survival of the trees so that he would always have the resources to make more thneeds. It would have been in everyone's best interest to preserve them. Of course, that wasn't the main message of the story, so it's alright
Actually, businesses have an incentive to effectively rape the land because the cost of it is split evenly among everyone, so while it's huge in total, it's low for the corporation. Meanwhile the benefit of it is nothing for the people, but big for the corporation. So this destruction is worth it for the corporation but not for everyone in total.
@@mikeydaversa1760 A small family business would. But stock traders don't care about the long term. They want fast profits yesterday and once the resources are gone they have already liquidated and moved on. And big corporations just see value in scarcity, because if you control all that is left then you can put whatever price you want. Which is why you need incentives and regulations for small, sustainable business to thrive.
Kristian Jörgensen but if you just controlled the resource, like the kid controls the forest in the video, then you could ensure those fast profits far into the future and ride the train until JUST before the wheels fall off. That’s by far the most profitable plan
***** Banana's are a natural mutation, and are wiped out easily. The banana that was commonly eaten from the 1920's to the 1950's was nearly driven to extinction because of lack of genetic variance, and the banana we eat today faces the same threat.
***** Not to be rude but the tragedy of commons is a story promoting private enterprise. Essentially, the tragedy comes from the fact that since no ONE person owned the land, the collective could not bother to maintain it's upkeep. Rather, they kept using it and using it until there was nothing left where as if it had been privately owned, the owner would have stepped in. It's a good lesson but not exactly applicable in this sense as private ownership and big business are now the cause for the tragedy. When everyone owns something, people may be less inclined to clean it up (much like your roommate(s) despite that everyone would benefit from clean dishes, vacuumed rugs, etc.). However, when it is privately owned for the sake of profit and nothing else, the owners may (as shown through experience) will only care about the profit here and now. It's not a collective issue but a greed issue. When is enough enough and what will we sacrifice for it. And that's all of us, even the majority who support these institutions for a few dollars more. But that leads us to low wages and the like which stem for the previous problem of big business who outsources. ...I did not mean for this post to be so long and....rude isn't the right word...preachy maybe? Sorry.
ThatOneAccount931 The tragedy of the commons happens under communism, however, there is a way to get all the benefits of communism and capitalism without the downfall of either. It's called co-operative enterprise. It's a business model where every worker of particular business enterprise shares ownership of said business. All the workers vote on their wages, and on how to run the business. All the money that in a private enterprise would become the private money of the Capitalist, now is the pooled money of that whole business. Instead of blindly obeying orders and competing with employees for promotions, everyone would be able to freely discuss and debate about how things should be run, and there would be a work environment of community and cooperation and autonomy. Co-operative enterprise would be able to be conscientious of externalities such as how the environment is being effected by their business practices because unlike in a competitive economy where you have to compete at all costs just to achieve bottom line profit needed to survive as a business, a co-operative enterprise cooperates with everyone, and therefore has time to step back and discuss and be conscious of externalities. And the tragedy of the commons is avoided with this model since free riders would be getting a share of money that could be spread among the rest of you, you would have an economic incentive to fire free riders, meaning people would have an incentive not to be free riders themselves. And unlike communism, co-operative enterprise still respects personal property, so you could wake up in your private home, put on your private clothes, eat some of your private food for breakfast and drink some of your coffee and if it helps you work smoke a bowl of some good sativa and then drive your private car to a workplace that you co-operatively own and run with all of your co-workers. And there are different models of co-op, different models work better for different businesses. Some are a direct democracy, some elect managers every so often in elections (and usually vote for them to have slightly higher pay as an economic incentive to do well), some elect work councils, whatever works.
***** I do not want to be rude or come across crass but you are wrong. I am a Political Science major and an Economics minor, the Tragedy of Commons stems from an ACTUAL English event in which an edict allowed local farmers to use the "common land". These farmers, acting as rational individuals, chose to have their cows and sheep overgraze, thus having them grow fatter and more profitable. And as everyone acted in their own self interest and rationally, it over extended the commons to a point in where the land was unusable. And as far as I was taught, if someone were to own that land and see it was becoming unusable, they would step in and stop it. When you own something, you take better care of it. It's a fact. How many people go to parties and don't care about the mess they make, how many people litter on the beach, etc. You have no incentive to protect or clean anything if you'll only see a short term gain as the people who visit the area after you wreck it and mess it. It's not about selling a profitable enterprise as you can't sell it since it isn't even yours. However, if you can recognize that fact and realize it's a communally owned property than it's different. If it's recognize by the group as owned by the group than the group will try to preserve it. However, if no one or group will claim ownership who will protect it. There wouldn't even be forests (or as many at least) in America had Roosevelt not created the National Parks Service. He decided that they needed to owned so they could be preserved and saved. Humans are tragically short sited, if we would read the writing on the walls would there really be tragedies like Easter Island, the extinction of the Dodo bird, the latest American recession? I doubt it. Ownership isn't bad per say but it does has it's draws back. People forgo long term benefit for short term game. Like when you decide to get a good paying job after high school versus college and end up making less in the long run.
ThatOneAccount931 Would it not have incentivized the farmers to treat all the cows equally on the common land if they co-operatively owned all the cows and voted on how to distribute all the money made from the cows?
Red Pentalpha If that's what you think, then you didn't read the book or see the original 1972 special. And if you did, then you missed the point of them entirely.
Stoneth I did read the book. I did not see the 1972 special though. I think it was a good movie, you are just taking it too seriously. If you didn't like it, then fine. There is nothing wrong with me liking it.
Actually, I saw the movie. It was a well-expanded movie (as you can never expect NO expansion when making a movie out of a children's book) that added to the message that the book has now. Sure, it's a "whole different story", but it's a meta-story. The story surrounding the world of "The Lorax", the book, is filled in magnificently in a dystopian utopia, and the movie kept faithful to the book as possible (You just can't make a movie without showing one of the main characters until the end!).
Okay, but you do realize "the economy" doesn't just mean the stock market and the rich getting richer and all... It's also everyone's jobs, (including the middle and lower classes) and it's having enough quality goods and services for everyone to live.
Yeah well what's the point of living when Earth looks like planet Mars? Idk what kind of lifestyle you live and what you value. It's foolish to place such values on what you said when there will come a day that there's no resources left for these greedy people to pillage and then there will REALLY be no jobs left.
@@russelstrawmire9817 I know. I didn't say we shouldn't stop destroying planet or anything. I'm just saying if somebody expresses concern about "the economy" they're talking about something important and you shouldn't dismiss them as just a greedy monopolist.
Is it just me, or does it seem that everyone on RUclips is always bashing conservatives and republicans. Like I haven't seen a single College Humor video ridiculing democrats and liberals. If there is and I'm just missing it. Please link.
+Leafcathead Not to bash on Conservatives and Republicans too much, it's just that they suck at face value. Not saying Democrats are better, but they do a better job of hiding their stupidity in deep policies, while a Republican wouldn't. It's just easier to make fun of them.
+Minere okham actually I can easily make fun of stupid democrats I am not saying there all stupid I just haven't met a smart one all democrats I met always swear swear swear swear and swear and never give facts just give me opinions while iam giving facts! (That rimes ;D)
Free market economies usually preserve nature better because companies have an incentive to preserve and restore natural resources because of their value. Also, corparations are created by the government and are not a result of the free market.
Corporations are extremely effective at what they are created to do - make profit. They suck balls at everything else. And are in fact often very harmful if not independently regulated. If you want to see what happens when organizations are left to completely regulate themselves, look at any lawless area under control of organized crime. They regulate themselves because if they rob and kill everyone there won't be anyone to kill, employ and rob from, but those places are still hell on earth. On the other hand, their profits are only matched by top pharmaceutical and software companies.
A company may gain a lot of profit for, idk, burning the rain forest to grow crops there. Eventually, this will lead to worse life conditions for all (climate change, less oxygen etc.), but at that point all those businessmen are dead and don't care anymore.
A private company can make a much greater profit by turning land into land for sale for construction and rent and such than they can by using that same land for a wildlife preserve, park, etc.
I'm not sure what the message is. "Oh, no, they cut down all the Truffula trees!" Except the fact ThneedCo owns the seed means they plan on planting replanting the entire forest?
Except they wouldn’t because trees take half a lifetime to mature and capitalist decision making is driven by short term quarterly profits, not long term sustainability. Once the market for Thneeds is decimated by deforestation, they’ll just move the capital to the next investment, leaving the locals without a forest and the thneed workers without jobs. People need to learn that’s how the “free-market” works.
Cam Jones So stupid, not grounded in reality. No, they would be genetically modifying them to produce more seeds and fabric, and doing it faster. This causes them to be cheaper, and thus more people will want it, and then they will have to make more. *Like in real life.*
Artyom Metro none of your reply addresses the fact that it takes 30 years for trees to mature. You think they are going to stick around and pay their employees for 30 years while they wait for the next set of mature trees to harvest? Or are these trees genetically modified to appear instantly like some fantasy novel?
@@BGcam you know people plant seeds as they go right... You could harvest a forest for 30 years and then come back around to where you started. Or better yet, you could hire contractors to cut down your trees and not long-term employees. As long as people need trees they'll be a market for trees. If everyone wants then but it's not profitable to harvest them then clearly those people aren't paying enough for what they want.
Except markets work by producing that which is demanded. So when there is a high demand for wood you have an increased incentive to produce more trees. As trees become scarce, the price of wood rises, consequently increasing the profit margin in planting and conserving trees. Think about why there are so many cows in existence.. isn't it due to the massive demand for beef? Typically on private lands, trees are not actually deforested. The owner has an incentive to maintain some inventory given that prices go up as trees become fewer and fewer . That being said deforestation does occur on public lands due to a concept called 'tragedy of the commons'. Things tend to be overused when no individual (or private group) bares the cost for over-use. Trees are no exception. Deforestation happens in places with lots of public lands but not enough resources to enforce the rules that protect it (think South America). So the issue of deforestation is socialism, not free markets. stupid ass lorax ; )
+Matt Paul You're not wrong. But it takes time for the market to adjust. So its still very possible to over harvest a renewable resource to near extinction. the "rules that protect [those lands]" are by definition a restriction on the free market. Plus the whole lorax movie is pretty much about the tragedy of the commons. And if its more profitable for a corporation to exhaust trees and move on to the next big thing rather than sustainably harvest trees, they'll do it.
+xWhiteRice yea but that only happens on public lands.. thats the point. 'Public lands' is a socialist construct because it isn't owned by any one individual. Resources that are free and public are always exhausted. The point of this video was to show that free markets exhaust resources when in fact the opposite is true. A free market where individual ownership exists actually preserves resources especially when they become scarce because economic forces create profit based incentives to do so.
+Matt Paul What would you think would happen if we went full libertarian on places like the Amazon Rainforest? There would be only a small number of private players competing for such a vast resource, meaning each participant gets an enormous number of trees. There would be very little incentive to replace trees if they are being used at, say, a rate of
+Naveen Arun If you own a tree farm, it is definitely in your interest to replant trees. How could it not be? If I'm not mistaken, you are saying that markets can only react to current market conditions? This is not the case and why we have things like agricultural futures. Futures are investments based on predictions of future consumption. In our private tree farm example, there is great value in planting a tree immediately after it has been harvested. The value of the farm increases as more trees are planted (and the closer those planted trees get to maturation). If you are growing oak, and it takes 100 years to mature, the farms value becomes higher every year as the inventory gets closer to harvest. At year 5 , the value of the farms inventory is 5X more than on year 1. At year 99, the value of the farms inventory is 99X what it was on year one. So, why would I leave my farm barren if I could increase its value over time by planting trees?
You missed the part where the same corporations that cut down the trees come back around and plant more trees than they cut down in order for there to be an ongoing supply. It would be stupid and bad business for a company to cut down the trees and not plant more in the same exact spot so they have more trees down the road.
+AJ Chubber The tragedy of the commons is averted with private property. Let people hold title to the land and it will be used responsibly. Give them access to land they don't own, they will hack and burn everything to get as much as they can before they lose access. Literally the difference between a homeowner and a burglar.
Not one person thought to replant the trees after chopping them down. Logging companies aren't stupid, if a lack of trees in the future will destroy their business they'll plant more trees now.
So you think this is a misrepresentation of conservative views? In my experience, Conservatives generally oppose anything that gets in the way of the free market or business. By the government saying 'this place is an national park' they are saying that businesses cannot freely operate within that area. You can care for the environment in spite of being a conservative, but rarely because of it, at least in my opinion.
Merry Machiavelli Really? All of the conservatives I've met oppose GOVERNMENT getting in the way of free market and they also appreciate the beauty of nature. My father, who is highly conservative, even hates it when people litter in a National Park, so yes, this is a misinterpretation, besides, who would deplete the supplies of something that makes money?
YouJustGotAnimated By declaring an area a national park government is 'getting in the way of a free market' National parks could make a lot more money if their resources were open to exploitation; logging, mining, farming, real estate development? I'm not criticising national parks, but they are not a money-making venture. Yes you can appreciate the beauty of nature and be a conservative. But national parks and free market economics are not very compatible ideas.
That is pretty much what happen in I think Zimbabwe, there is a massive hole in the landscape because Diamond mining was unregulated and the guy who ran the operation was a British guy who only cared about making money having no care for the environment or the people that lived there.
the parody and exaggerated conservative lorax: with illegal immigrants, are trees really our biggest concern? the actual president, four years later: with illegal immigrants, are trees really our biggest concern?
When I ran out of words to describe my despair with plethora of preposterous metaphors here, I turned to this comment and smiled it's true. You truly do get it, o yes you do.
Businesses nowadays don't really care about persistence. With the buying and trading of stock, markets are largely motivated by short term growth. Then people sell their stocks and couldn't care less
Has anyone else ever felt, while watching a video or reading the comments or listening to people argue, a certain oneness with the universe? A oneness so powerful that you just really want to leave this universe, and feel for a few fleeting moments that you actually can? Because I just felt that. Right now. And it was _glorious_.
Bob Marley Thanks for the insightful rhyme...but I like my life, thanks. I didn't mean that I wanted to die when I said I could leave. I meant that I felt I could actually travel interdimensionally.
Guys... I'm not on drugs... and I never sniffed glue... and yeah overkill8436 kind of sad how my generation is deteriorating that way. I'm not a part of that.
A real conservative would say: let it grow protect the environment save lifes then proced to cut down the trees anyway giving the middle finger to the public
One of the big problems with the once-ler is that he didn’t grow any trees as he was chopping them down. If he grew twice as much as he chopped, then there would still be trees and enough resources for his company. However, the next big problem would be the pollution or where the trash goes. One way to help that is by making recyclable materials, but how would you get rid of the trash in a way that is environmentally friendly? Even the original Lorax admitted that it did not have all the answers, and going to extremes isn’t an option. Honestly, I wouldn’t know the answer between nature and the business world. You need both to exist and thrive as people.
We can look at reality. In the USA, it is the paper industry that plants the most trees, therefore the tree population in the USA is constantly increasing, despite the fact that millions of trees are chopped down every year. In addition, we have seen before, especially in the oil industry, attempts to make every drop of oil economically usable, which has btw succeeded, for which we can thank Standard Oil.
@@YangChuan2001 Standard oil is always painted a ‘bad’ company- and to some extent they were. But they also progressed the economy. And when when they were broken up- nothing really changed. Even though monopolies are an unfair advantage for other companies to take over the entire market- that’s the big reason why Roosevelt got involved. It wasn’t that he didn’t like businesses, he did! He saw the value in them. But he saw monopolies as unfair and they are.
@@V1nce_man Standard Oil controlled only about 60% of the oil market and their market cap was already in comparison shrinking. The "monopoly" argument was literally made up by their competitors to get rid of them. It is also not true that nothing changed - with standard oil breaking up oil prices were rising, the government also founded for the "war efforts" a state run oil monopoly which the oil industry used to further increase prices by artificially lowering production. The government never broke up a monopoly, they destroyed a hard competitor to make their own monopoly.
@@V1nce_man Yes it is true. In 1900 standard oil controlled bout 90% of the entire oil market, about 10 years later it was at 65%, mainly because many competitors emerged with the increase in oil demand, they were never a monopoly, they had a large market cap, yes, but they were not enforced nor was competition impossible. It was actually a relatively rare case that standard oil actively drove out competitors and when it happened, it happened because their oil was better and cheaper. That was mostly possible because standard oil had a better network for their oil distribution, better refining practices (they decreased the oil price from 26ct per gallon in 1870 to 8ct per gallon in 1885) and because they had better employees (that was duo to the fact that standard oil wages were mostly better then the competitors wages.) Now to my other claim that the government created an actual monopoly shortly after the broke up standard oil in 1911. 1917 the U.S. Fuel Administration was founded and in 1924 the government founded the Federal Oil Conservation board. Both of these administration were granted large control in form of regulations and guidance over the oil industry and they did everything they accused standard oil of like price fixing, the elimination of competitors and artificial decrease in production by increase of waste.
Owners of private property have the right to do whatever they want with that property, they just have to live with the consequences of their actions, good or bad. Consumers have the power and freedom to do the same thing with their money. So if a company does something you don't agree with then don't do business with them. Simple as that. It's a far more effective arrangement for holding business accountable for actions which the majority of society finds disagreeable. Far more effective than corrupt politicians and even more corrupt government unionized bureaucrats infringing on the economic rights of individuals and businesses at the request of minority special interest groups.
***** I's a lot more complex than saying "Just don't enable them". Not having a reasonable ceiling for businesses is already rather dangerous when our entire planet is connected. Every sentient being we know of is now within reach of our world's largest businesses. Not doing business with them these days often comes with a lower standard of living. While a person should be able to do what they want with their money within legal limits, why should that person also be exempt from responsibility because they only get the title "person" as a corporate entity? I know you mentioned it already, but corporations and businesses of large sizes simply don't pay for their travesties because they are just too big. It's frightening. We all know walmart underpays their employees and threatens them for considering unionizing. We know McDonalds circumvents the FDA. We know that Apple owns and uses sweatshops to mass produce. Do we stop buying? Not as a whole. Personally, I don't buy from walmart and would never consider touching an apple product (I have a serious problem with how Apple is dumbing down technology for those who refuse to learn.) and I used to work at McDonalds in a younger age, I still have get tense whenever I accidentally say something that almost puts me back in their robotic speech patterns it was such a horrid place to work. But I'm one guy who refuses to associate with remorseless, faceless "people". I can't simply walk around parading in the streets on what little free time I have to tell people to stop doing this or that. Because those companies sell things at prices low enough to pretend to be doing these people a generous service. And these poor people I'd be inadvertently shaming for these purchases can't afford anything else and deserve to live in whatever comfort they, like myself, like yourself, can scrounge out of their meager paychecks. So what else can one do aside from look at these companies as they are: Monsters. These shareholders who earn their money while offering nothing real to the world aside from paper representations of someone else's hard work. THEY are monsters. Playing the stock market may help fund big business to keep us in that comfort, but those businesses and those shareholders are doing little to nothing to gain and hold that money. It's like they're all just sharing little pieces of paper and pretending to be better people for it. Wait. That's not even a metaphor! That's literal! Don't get me wrong. I understand that I have a lot in life. Someone has to flip the burgers. To run the registers at a clothing store. To be on the service end of customer service. It's all about that "level of comfort" That allows us to call ourselves "first world". But does that really mean we, the real people who deserve the title "person" because we've had real experiences a corporate entity by definition can't have, have to suffer by nature just to keep you all up there afloat? I know I look petty because all I seem to be upset with is the concept of corporate entities being people, but that simple concept has been a thorn in the side of human decency since the concept has sprung up. What can you really tell me.... tell the world even, that justifies a large company using its' money to indirectly cause worldwide suffering? Worldwide suffering that they're all aware of because A: They're not idiots, and B: the very network they use to connect to the world is constantly showing the world their behind-the-scenes.
***** Seeing as how most corporations are publically traded, they're not really private huh? Everyone who owns at least one share of stock is part owner.
People on here who are complaining that this video "makes fun of conservatives" are wrong. It makes fun of conservative beliefs. That is the mistake often made in America today, to believe that simply because you call yourself conservative, you have to believe everything associated with conservatives and only vote for conservative candidates. You can call yourself conservative and still want to preserve the rain forests, but environmental security is a liberal idea. Don't devote yourself to one side, because you'll find yourself voting for something that you never should have. Be independent, and vote for what you feel is right, not what your party or political allegiance feels is right.
The lorax is not about capitalism nor socialism it's about people just needing to care about the environment like no one cares until it becomes political
Dr. Seuss had a weird way of rapping...but he threw down bars pretty memorably.
It's called poetry
@@Neilapolitan08 it's called a joke
@@Neilapolitan08 liar
I misread it💀
Yeah.
The Lorax: Master of guilt-tripping
Lorax please help me I being killed slowly from people like this
you cant say ones right and ones wrong
So why dont we all just get along
666 likes woah
In rhyme no less. This man-...er, Lorax is a god.
@@a.bagasm.7253 You can
I am the Lorax
And I speak for the trees
But I can't understand them
Because they speak Vietnamese
*Cái quái gì vậy ???*
Cheyenne Bates oui
I've deppresion and despair
Gepetto is in the belly of a whale
So why dont you get him out there
In those dark,chaotic,sad jail
@@Sahiyena11 hay lắm bạn
A. Bagas M. Oh well oh my
“I am the Lorax I speak for he trees now pick up your litter or I’ll break you knees.”
Nah, that's more like ancom Lorax
500th like
@@MattFyrm have you seen Cuba? Commies hate the environment.
Ecofash all day
@@jagerbluetooth43 I wouldn't quite call Cuba ancom :P
On the contrary they are or at the very least were statist communists
Jager Bluetooth Eco fascists leaving their bedroom treehouse when their mom calls them to come back inside for dinner.
I am the Lorax
And I speak for the trees.
And this tree says...
Please End Me
"I beg of you please" says the tree so it seems
And this tree wants a table made out of it's knees.
It pleaded and pleaded so a chainsaw the Lorax needed
With chainsaw so mighty!
The tree fell down so brightly!
It’s suffering has ended
It’s death no longer suspended
The trees cried out free!
Thank god no more jimmy!
**End Me Please
I am the lorax,
I speak for the trees,
Touch me or them again,
And ill break your fucking knees.
That Lorax is dumb. He should’ve saved some trees to make more trees.
Todd Kubela true a real capitalist would replant to maintain a profit
Going back to the original story, I think Seuss was trying to make a separate point about responsibility and the like, through the modus of trees, not one particularly about capitalism, and environmentalism. So an obvious solution like what logging companies do irl would've messed with the intended message. But I agree, if environmentalism was the true aim, it should have brought up points like that. Although they do mention in the cartoon how long it takes to grow truffula trees. 10 months just to germinate, and many many years after that just to grow a bit, so creating massive orchards would've taken a long time especially with how quickly thneed corp. expanded from nothing.
*logger factory*
@@robertwagonschutz777 true, though there are many instances of capitalist prefering short term profits to mid and long term profitability. It's more of a metaphor.
True
The Supreme Court approved of something called citizens united which recognizes corporations as human beings, thus allowing them to donate as much money as they want to politicians. So that line about corporations being people hits really hard 😢
They have changed this since then, of course it is knowingly still full of loopholes
Citizens united determined that political donations were a form of speech. The idea is that since verbal support of something is protected by the First Amendment, monetary support is also protected. So long as the donors do not conspire with the campaign, they can donate as much as they like through PACs and SuperPACs because the court views their money as a form of speech
@@heyitsally7995 isn't there laws about giving too much to a candidate?
@@justanotheranimeprofilepic yes. But the lawyers found a very clever loophole. Half as interesting has an excellent video about this.
I think the idea is that companies are allowed to fund adds in support of political campaigns as much as they please as long as they don't cooperate with the campaign itself, or at least as long as cooperation can't be proved.
**Dr. Suess has left the server**
Emma Utterback no he was a leftist
20 years ago...
:)
Joie Russell all his story’s have this strong communist music
Joie Russell I’m leftist
A true capitalist would farm the trees instead of cutting them all down.
@Nova Ah, the good old conservative bizarro-verse.
@Nova Sure. Tell yourself that. As long as you can lie to yourself, you'll feel fine. You'll be a fool. But you'll feel good about it.
Bravo
Unfortunately capitalism isn't great at long term planning. Farms take capital to set up and it's more profitable to exhaust a resource, make a killing as it becomes rare, then move onto the next thing.
Matt Dombrowski Its more profitable to renew and farm the resource, like what most conservative businesses do.
Let it die, let it die, let it shrivel up and... c'mon who's with me huh?
Nobody!
Raidenslicer YOU GREEDY DIRTBAG!
Michael Carvajal L E T I T G R O W
PokéOtaku L E T T H E L I G H T I N S I D E Y O U S H O W
Michael Carvajal P L A N T T H E S E E D I N S I D E T H E E A R T H
Oh it's so sad! Sniff! Those poor managers and tycoons. How are they supposed to buy an eleventh yacht?
13th you mean
@@PMVoid 50th
By making smart moves in the market
Actually the more yachts they buy the better for everyone
@Republican Channel yup that's the point
Made 8 years ago and it feels like nothing's really changed...
republicans will keep sucking billionaire dicks as long as billionaires exist
@@icyr0bin-794 Well it will take a civil war to weed them out, so lets see in 20 years
Yeah :(
and the democrats don´t ??? ----- they even give them a subsidy or two and some nice tax loops
@@baronbrummbar8691 both parties suck
Welp, there goes your oxygen
the majority of our oxygen is produced by moss and algae
Soviet Doge Nice, didn't know :D
Vecthur the more you know, the less you value life as we know it :-[
+Soviet Doge Actually, most of the oxygen we breath is from the oxygen stored in the atmosphere.
Freakin Hobbs i said produced by moss and algae not what we consume
FOR ANYONE WHO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND HOW TREES WORK...
Yes, trees can grow back, but it takes decades for them to do so. Not to mention the graphic change in enviorment their absence can leave.
Thx to librals no more paper or houses cuz we cant cut trees
DisneyKidsFOREVER and they do keep a local environment free of massive runoff, and absorb pollution.
But a majority of our O2 comes from good ol' algae! And there isn't a regulation on that (I mean, most of it is out of our way so we don't touch it, but still)
I find that clip oddly concerning as a conservative
It really depends on the type of tree, some only take a year or two to grow. Lumber and paper industries have actually created more forest then they've destroyed by using trees that grow quickly.
The real problem is when big companies clear out already established forest to make room for factories or plantations.
+HunterTheCyborg// HunterHTC I've recently heard of this new house building alternative to wood called stone! I guess it's one of the trends those weird hipster stoneage kids like to follow. But to be honest, it's too futuristic for my taste
Replacing a forest with different species of growth affects the ecology of the local area. Different animals are bound to spring up with a new systemic homeostasis~
Y O U G R E E D Y D I R T B A G
Let it grow, let it grow
You don't know me, but my name's Sai
But it seems like trees, might be worth a try
My name is Dan, and my name's Rose
Mr. Toaster And that's not good, so we supose...
We should let it grow
Let it grow, let it grow
And then he ran for president, true story.
Lchup1cabara i thought of the same exact thing haha
+miksuaka XD
Heathcliff "global warming is a hoax"
+Staffaynu "perpetrated by the fish to destabilize the truffula market"
ethan howsare ikr, can't believe it oh well
Honestly I don't understand how people can fall perfectly into the outline of either party. Conservatism makes sense on some issues. Liberalism makes sense on some issues. If we would agree to take the best of each party, we could do truly great things.
Thank you. Seriously. The people who 100% agree with either party are idiots.
Jim Bob Compromise is only attainable when the two parties either want the same thing, or have more in common than they don't. With American Politics, this is NOT the case.
+Jim Bob cute
liberalism and conservatism are only two faces of the same system. both act within the framework of capitalism and both are comparatively right wing if you compare it to other political positions (ie reformism/social democracy or various versions of socialism): in the 30s both viewpoints showed themselves as more willing to side with fascism in europe than with the left (notably in spain). so yes there's plenty of room for compromises between the two, but to say that's because they both have good ideas is where I have to depart with you.
+Jim Bob
Spot on, couldn't agree more! Too bad there's no third party to highlight this problem.
-
I visualize someone saying, "hey, do you like blue or red?"
They both have their ups and downs. It's hard to make a defining choice over who the lesser of two evils is. Voting in this system is fucked, there seems to be no purpose.
-
Why not implement a system where you show up, they give you a sheet, it has the top 30 important issues.
You then check either "yes", "no", or "abstain" on each topic from top to bottom.
Then you slide it into a ballot box.
-
I just hate this whole "he said this" "Oh yeah? Well HE said this!" The back and forth of politics is just sad, it's hard to get into.
I have a feeling most people vote because they feel very strongly on one or two subjects and that makes them "left" or "right". Or there are others who don't want to let their family down so they just go with the flow. And finally, there are those who abstain from voting all together.
I love how most of these comments are from a 1 year or 2 years yet this video came out 2012 lol
And they’re either “THE TREES SPEAK VIETNAMESE” or completely irrelevant to the video
I'm just a random commenter and i say...
Canada makes a nice bit of money, eh?
That's beceause they cut trees, but now you must ask:
Why are there so many trees there, if they all get the axe?
Well my friend, that's to do with legislations.
They benefit the forest, and also corporations.
For every tree cut, two more are planted.
That's to make sure the forests don't get blanted.
And then we see something very nice.
They managed to keep forests healthy, despite all the ice.
Truly, it is possible now.
To make money and still say "wow".
You see my friends, corporations aren't crazy.
It's the government that's sometimes a bit lazy.
I salute you now, as i am out of rhymes.
And whatever you do, remember to look back at the old times.
THIS NEEDS MORE LIKES
INTernal Jordan I know right!?
Yay canada i hate my country usa sucks
The same thing happens in America. We also plant 2 trees for every 1 cut down.
Jona Willekens ..."blanted"?
*Trump*
This was made in 2012
Carmela M they predicted the future
He also ran in 2012, but didn't get far. He started the Birther Movement (the people who claimed Obama wasn't born in America) and then he dropped out before the nominations.
Storm Shred nah it’s just that trump and Romney have a lot of similarities.
The future was predicted by the simsons too... scarry
This obviously was about more than Trump, it was the whole conservative party
I thought that the word ”Conservative” meant someone who was traditional and likes something of the old days.
No it's just Republican stuck better than conservative in America.
@@python1972 Actually being a conservative means to uphold traditional values, we like to conserve that is why it is called conservatism.
@@imanoldsoul59 I believe the word you're looking for is : Preserve
@@SirPhrosty Conserve: to protect or uphold, and preserve
Liberals are creative and
Cosnservatives are dutiful
So why dont we all get a long
To make this world beutiful
3 years later and still accurate. Timeless lessons emphasized by Dr. S and CH
10 years
wdym? Paper and Wood instry plant the most trees of all. Way more then they cut ;P
@@YangChuan2001nope! they plant literally a fraction of what they cut down
@@CyanWatercress4 Maybe on a world wide stage since the government heavily subsidies the production of processes food and bio fuels resulting in the destruction of the rainforest for example but not in the developed world such as the US or Europe. Planting a tree costs a fraction of a fraction of what they make as a profit out of the wood, replanting results in a huge long-term profit and it would be financially brain dead to not do it - which is why, like I said, the wood industry plants the mist trees and that is a fact. The wood industry does basically the same as the average farmer, planting and harvesting.
More than half the forest land in the U.S is owned and managed by about 11 million private forest owners. Private forest lands provided 89% of the domestically produced wood and paper products in 2017. The income landowners receive for trees grown on their land encourages them to maintain, sustainably manage and renew this valuable resource.
At the same time the net forest area in the U.S. has been stable since the early 1900s and increased by about 2% from 752 million to 765 million acres between 2007 and 2017. Net volume of growing stock increased by more than 5% over the same period.
It's ok we have Mr Beast
You can't spell "economy" without "eco"
白ない where were the tree ents when you needed them
白ない ekonomy
あかり赤座 haha
*ego
Carlminion to
Lorax grew up, went to Harvard Business School, graduated with honors, started up Stratton Oakmont with The Wolf of Wall Street, got rich, ran for Senate and now he's here. I don't know if I'm proud.
Don't, wolf of wall street wasn't supposed to make you cheer for the dude
@@techissus7449 Same with Fight Club, but the message was lost
LET IT DIE LET IT DIE LET IT SHRIVEL UP AND DIE 🅱️😤😤
LET IT 🅱️IE
You 🅱️reedy 🅱️irt 🅱️ag
YOU GREEDY DIRBAAAAAAG
Lauren Jewel z yOU gREeDy DiRT bAG!
Cheryl Lynsky PPP
why do things like these never mention that most logging companies plant trees as they cut?
To maintain their narrative.
That's why everyday footballfields of rainforest are choped down.
Cardi Jey ??? Your point is... what exactly? Sure they cut down football fields. Then they promptly plant new trees right where they cut. Kind of like a farmer. A farmer harvests his corn, but he knows he'll run out, so once the harvest is over, he plants more corn for next year.
oh nono, here in the us, or in europe, that is the case. Our wood is from preserved areas where they keep a balance, but if it comes to wood from asia, africa and south america, they chop everything down without regrets and vision for the future. That's why i said rainforest. But we are not totally innocent, we buy that stuff.
Cardi Jey Ah. It seems like a pretty bad business plan from those companies then. They'll run out of both product and the ability to plant more. Are you sure that none of them are doing that over there? I really thought I saw something about one of the bigger, US logging companies replanting even in the rain forests.
You know the biggest threat to trees aren't loggers right? With loggers, they plant more trees to replace what they took, or use paper farms, or in easier terms have farmers grow trees in order to sell it for paper. Now the real threat would be farming actually, mostly for raising domestic animals.
true, and almost all the trees cut down now are only 60 years old roughly. their 3rd growth and years of cutting down and replanting
YESSSS!!!! You are so right!!!! Animal agriculture (meat, dairy, egg, etc. Industries) contribute to 91% of Amazon rainforest destruction. Animal agriculture also contributes to 51% of all greenhouse gas emissions. All transportions (cars, airplanes, trains, etc) only contribute 13%.
are you sure? I dont know if they pushed it or not, or even if a regulation even exists. but I know the trees cut down now are 3rd and even 4th growth. and I cant imagine a regulation being passed for logging 150 years ago
because they took all the trees, and put them in a tree museum. And people had to pay a dollar and a half to see them. they took all the trees and put in a parking lot... lol.
The biggest threat to trees is fire, and big logging companies are among the biggest contributors to fire danger, especially in old-growth forest. This is true in the U.S. anyway.
They forgot the part where Monsanto sues the kid for theft lol
"corporations are people too"
for 2012 even CollegeHumor knew alot
They're made up of people, sure. Yet they lack that human touch.
Depends which type
true
Don't mind me, just a non-political comment.
HUH finally
jwan besande good luck on your journey young comment, one day you will be needed, keep in earshot non-political comment you will be called upon and on that day you will transcend all expectations
Demilitarized zone coming through!
Austin Parnell wtf is wrong with you. You must have a rock for brains
I don't understand it, but it's obviously a joke
just change the mustache to its hair and we have Sir Donald
TheWooperAbove *Triggered*
100th like.
Sir??? i thought he was born in the usa ( not a monarchy )
Marte van Vechel Well...he is trying to blur the lines
Just put the stache on his head
I think i finally understand how liberal college humor is
Wrong. They make fun of liberals too
*****
Nope, they do. You just haven't looked
Jonny, can you explain to me how racial profiling can be construed as not racist
***** I would say "Where are your sources to prove that statement?"
source: the ministry of defence crime statistics
Republicans are red, Democrats are blue, and neither of them give a shit about you.
I'm not picking sides. Fuck narrow minded political parties. I'm staying independent, thank you very much.
dude, I just watched a Dr. Seuss parody AND the first sentence of your comment. I was reading the rest expecting it to rhyme XD
Even George Washington said that political parties were a bad idea. He said they would create a divisive environment in which people could just flock to one side or the other instead of formulating their own deductions.
And, that's exactly what has happened.
only your first sentence rhymed...
What the fuck is this? In Dr Seuss everything rhymes.
Do it again and stop wasting my time.
Rhyme your ass off and don't be lazy.
Or I will turn you crazy.
This bullshit party system and this "pick a side" bs only causes hostility and leaves little to no room for compromise or understanding. Mark my words, in due time the country will end up with another civil war and end up as a divided shithole, oh wait, that's already happening.
The funny thing is, this more competent and convincing than 90% of conservative media.
The amount of angry conservatives who can't take a joke
Jason Shults A shining example
+yWreck Are just a bunch of big awful blokes!
(Continue!)
+yWreck angry liberals are worse... (college protests lmao)
+Bob it actually was pretty funny lol
+yWreck i can when you do the same to the other side... This channel cannot it simply goes after the right. Done with this channel.
I am the Lorax
I speak for the trees
Litter again
Say goodbye to your knees
I've always wondered this, couldnt they have shaved the trees in lorax without cutting them down? The fabric or whatever they are supposed to be would have just grown back, cutting them down would have just destroyed profits, also technically some trees do die and should actually be chopped down to prevent forest fires, ironically, this is actually good for the environment
becouse the new lorax movie was an anti capitalist propaganda movie ---- if you watch the original it makes way more sence
@@baronbrummbar8691 this is not explained,perhaps a fandom wiki suggest the wood is used as firewall.Also the problem is that the onceler cuts to many trees, theres a diference betwen choping down some trees and choping down the entire forest
@@davifernandopereiraborges5168 do you know the Lorax demo songs ???
-
they show what the movie was suposed to be
@@baronbrummbar8691 i only know biggering
@@davifernandopereiraborges5168 "Thneedville" (intro song) has a demo version ...... it is pretty messed up aswell
"I am the Lorax I speak for my fees, and if you keep protecting the trees, I will feast on your knees."
I feel that if the Lorax would want to continue his profit, he would plant multiple plots of thneeds that would be harvested at different times then replanted to make sure his profits continue to come in instead of blindly harvesting every tree in a forest.
In this case, yes. But if he was cutting the trees down to make room for farmland, then he would have no reason to plant trees.
If you were to do that you would risk getting out produced by a competitor who's willing to cut down trees for short term profit therefore the capitalist free market incentive creates long term environmental problems
@sol1d gh0st
No, you don't. You have made fabulous profit in the short term, which happens to also be your career.
Long term would benefit people who follow you, but not necessarily you.
This is actually what we do. Do you think loggers just take and take with no replanting. One problem is that a lot of forest just becomes a farm and not a habitat. There are plenty of trees in the world, just not the natural kind of variety or lifespan anymore. Like how you can get an apple almost anywhere at anytime these days but only a few varieties (at most stores)
@@yawningsoldier7675 which is why you want your kids to earn
Man, this Lorax was very convincing.
+Jack Wilby Fake Capitalist??
His entire fortune is made off of free enterprise.
However he likes tariffs...What's up with that?
+Jack Wilby Ronald Reagan was a democrate.
+Nathan Brinkerhoff Um no, he was a Republican
+Christine Humphrey google it. He was a democrate for most of his life. Only towards his presidency did he become a republican.
Nathan Brinkerhoff that's probably the story of a lot of liberals, after they found out that democrats aren't liberals at all.
What's even funnier about this political cartoon is Doctor Seuss actually started out as a political cartoonist
If you put the mustache on top of the Lorax's head, and you'll find Donald Trump.
CrAzyW3irdo Still better than fucking Hillary.
Nosebleed Macgee Oh, but see, that's incorrect.
minioop2 *Raises Eyebrow* Really now.
At least she isn't breaking the FIRST AMENDMENT
Tankerchief She wants to get rid of the Second Amendment.
What a stereotype, one that's rather extreme.
Why is bashing political parties such a meme?
Be realistic, this depiction of yours isn't true,
we recognize what's ours, and what's not, too.
Like how false the Liberal stereotypes go,
that they're lazy, uncaring drug users, yo!
Take these portrayals with a grain of salt,
I know Seuss would, as parties aren't at fault.
United States or Divided Political Parties;
there's a difference between the two of these.
I judge people by character and that alone,
not by other people's, it's each to their own.
Autobot and Decepticon, Jedi and Sith,
fairness means there's no one "side" to go with.
We don't want to be dragged into your wars,
and no longer support this system of yours.
Accurate
It's odd seeing so many people on this video who seem to forget that satire and hyperbole are kinds of humor
+Lydia Xavier The only reason I support this is because you said Autobot and Decepticon and Jedi and Sith. I love Transformers AND Star Wars
how long did it take you to right that, be honest
mintbreathingdragon An afternoon.
As hilarious as this is, and as much as I despise the lobbyists and bureaucrats that run this country, the video has the same flaw that the original story had. A smart business owner would have ensured the survival of the trees so that he would always have the resources to make more thneeds. It would have been in everyone's best interest to preserve them. Of course, that wasn't the main message of the story, so it's alright
Have you ever heard if the tragedy of the commons?
Actually, businesses have an incentive to effectively rape the land because the cost of it is split evenly among everyone, so while it's huge in total, it's low for the corporation. Meanwhile the benefit of it is nothing for the people, but big for the corporation. So this destruction is worth it for the corporation but not for everyone in total.
W Abc yeah but once you run out of resources, thats it. So you can rape the land all you want, but you’re screwing yourself over in the long run
@@mikeydaversa1760 A small family business would.
But stock traders don't care about the long term. They want fast profits yesterday and once the resources are gone they have already liquidated and moved on. And big corporations just see value in scarcity, because if you control all that is left then you can put whatever price you want.
Which is why you need incentives and regulations for small, sustainable business to thrive.
Kristian Jörgensen but if you just controlled the resource, like the kid controls the forest in the video, then you could ensure those fast profits far into the future and ride the train until JUST before the wheels fall off. That’s by far the most profitable plan
As a conservative, even I have to admit.
*This is 🅱️ U C K I N G HILARIOUS* 😂🤣👌😆🤔
For sure
Indeed
Stop being a conservative
Well as a conservative, you should reconsider your stance
@@wiggy009 "oRaNge mAn bAd"
This video was ahead of its time.
Yes, because nothing's more profitable than depleting your whole source of supply.
***** Banana's are a natural mutation, and are wiped out easily. The banana that was commonly eaten from the 1920's to the 1950's was nearly driven to extinction because of lack of genetic variance, and the banana we eat today faces the same threat.
***** Not to be rude but the tragedy of commons is a story promoting private enterprise. Essentially, the tragedy comes from the fact that since no ONE person owned the land, the collective could not bother to maintain it's upkeep. Rather, they kept using it and using it until there was nothing left where as if it had been privately owned, the owner would have stepped in. It's a good lesson but not exactly applicable in this sense as private ownership and big business are now the cause for the tragedy. When everyone owns something, people may be less inclined to clean it up (much like your roommate(s) despite that everyone would benefit from clean dishes, vacuumed rugs, etc.). However, when it is privately owned for the sake of profit and nothing else, the owners may (as shown through experience) will only care about the profit here and now. It's not a collective issue but a greed issue. When is enough enough and what will we sacrifice for it. And that's all of us, even the majority who support these institutions for a few dollars more. But that leads us to low wages and the like which stem for the previous problem of big business who outsources. ...I did not mean for this post to be so long and....rude isn't the right word...preachy maybe? Sorry.
ThatOneAccount931 The tragedy of the commons happens under communism, however, there is a way to get all the benefits of communism and capitalism without the downfall of either. It's called co-operative enterprise.
It's a business model where every worker of particular business enterprise shares ownership of said business. All the workers vote on their wages, and on how to run the business. All the money that in a private enterprise would become the private money of the Capitalist, now is the pooled money of that whole business. Instead of blindly obeying orders and competing with employees for promotions, everyone would be able to freely discuss and debate about how things should be run, and there would be a work environment of community and cooperation and autonomy. Co-operative enterprise would be able to be conscientious of externalities such as how the environment is being effected by their business practices because unlike in a competitive economy where you have to compete at all costs just to achieve bottom line profit needed to survive as a business, a co-operative enterprise cooperates with everyone, and therefore has time to step back and discuss and be conscious of externalities.
And the tragedy of the commons is avoided with this model since free riders would be getting a share of money that could be spread among the rest of you, you would have an economic incentive to fire free riders, meaning people would have an incentive not to be free riders themselves.
And unlike communism, co-operative enterprise still respects personal property, so you could wake up in your private home, put on your private clothes, eat some of your private food for breakfast and drink some of your coffee and if it helps you work smoke a bowl of some good sativa and then drive your private car to a workplace that you co-operatively own and run with all of your co-workers.
And there are different models of co-op, different models work better for different businesses. Some are a direct democracy, some elect managers every so often in elections (and usually vote for them to have slightly higher pay as an economic incentive to do well), some elect work councils, whatever works.
***** I do not want to be rude or come across crass but you are wrong. I am a Political Science major and an Economics minor, the Tragedy of Commons stems from an ACTUAL English event in which an edict allowed local farmers to use the "common land". These farmers, acting as rational individuals, chose to have their cows and sheep overgraze, thus having them grow fatter and more profitable. And as everyone acted in their own self interest and rationally, it over extended the commons to a point in where the land was unusable. And as far as I was taught, if someone were to own that land and see it was becoming unusable, they would step in and stop it. When you own something, you take better care of it. It's a fact. How many people go to parties and don't care about the mess they make, how many people litter on the beach, etc. You have no incentive to protect or clean anything if you'll only see a short term gain as the people who visit the area after you wreck it and mess it. It's not about selling a profitable enterprise as you can't sell it since it isn't even yours. However, if you can recognize that fact and realize it's a communally owned property than it's different. If it's recognize by the group as owned by the group than the group will try to preserve it. However, if no one or group will claim ownership who will protect it. There wouldn't even be forests (or as many at least) in America had Roosevelt not created the National Parks Service. He decided that they needed to owned so they could be preserved and saved. Humans are tragically short sited, if we would read the writing on the walls would there really be tragedies like Easter Island, the extinction of the Dodo bird, the latest American recession? I doubt it. Ownership isn't bad per say but it does has it's draws back. People forgo long term benefit for short term game. Like when you decide to get a good paying job after high school versus college and end up making less in the long run.
ThatOneAccount931 Would it not have incentivized the farmers to treat all the cows equally on the common land if they co-operatively owned all the cows and voted on how to distribute all the money made from the cows?
I'm conservative and couldn't help but smile
Same
There's a difference between a right-winger and greedy capitalist
It’s funny to see their weird and wacky views of us because they don’t think we believe in regulations keep economy and environment at equilibrium
Me too
@@tetsuoatehimbread1234 ok commie libtard
Still better than The Lorax movie from 2012.
Oh cmon, that movie was good.
Red Pentalpha If that's what you think, then you didn't read the book or see the original 1972 special. And if you did, then you missed the point of them entirely.
Stoneth I did read the book. I did not see the 1972 special though.
I think it was a good movie, you are just taking it too seriously. If you didn't like it, then fine. There is nothing wrong with me liking it.
Actually, I saw the movie. It was a well-expanded movie (as you can never expect NO expansion when making a movie out of a children's book) that added to the message that the book has now. Sure, it's a "whole different story", but it's a meta-story. The story surrounding the world of "The Lorax", the book, is filled in magnificently in a dystopian utopia, and the movie kept faithful to the book as possible (You just can't make a movie without showing one of the main characters until the end!).
Okay, but you do realize "the economy" doesn't just mean the stock market and the rich getting richer and all...
It's also everyone's jobs, (including the middle and lower classes) and it's having enough quality goods and services for everyone to live.
Yeah well what's the point of living when Earth looks like planet Mars? Idk what kind of lifestyle you live and what you value. It's foolish to place such values on what you said when there will come a day that there's no resources left for these greedy people to pillage and then there will REALLY be no jobs left.
@@russelstrawmire9817 I know. I didn't say we shouldn't stop destroying planet or anything. I'm just saying if somebody expresses concern about "the economy" they're talking about something important and you shouldn't dismiss them as just a greedy monopolist.
@@ethanpetersen810 Fair enough, fair enough.
Is it just me, or does it seem that everyone on RUclips is always bashing conservatives and republicans. Like I haven't seen a single College Humor video ridiculing democrats and liberals. If there is and I'm just missing it. Please link.
+Leafcathead Liberals and democrats dominate the internet.
+Leafcathead Not to bash on Conservatives and Republicans too much, it's just that they suck at face value. Not saying Democrats are better, but they do a better job of hiding their stupidity in deep policies, while a Republican wouldn't. It's just easier to make fun of them.
Minere okham Pretty much saying the democrats are better at coverups.
+Minere okham actually I can easily make fun of stupid democrats I am not saying there all stupid I just haven't met a smart one all democrats I met always swear swear swear swear and swear and never give facts just give me opinions while iam giving facts! (That rimes ;D)
+Minere okham Democrats are show their stupidity in many ways, so I'm not sure where you got that from.
Free market economies usually preserve nature better because companies have an incentive to preserve and restore natural resources because of their value. Also, corparations are created by the government and are not a result of the free market.
dude its just an animation
Corporations are extremely effective at what they are created to do - make profit. They suck balls at everything else. And are in fact often very harmful if not independently regulated.
If you want to see what happens when organizations are left to completely regulate themselves, look at any lawless area under control of organized crime. They regulate themselves because if they rob and kill everyone there won't be anyone to kill, employ and rob from, but those places are still hell on earth. On the other hand, their profits are only matched by top pharmaceutical and software companies.
A company may gain a lot of profit for, idk, burning the rain forest to grow crops there. Eventually, this will lead to worse life conditions for all (climate change, less oxygen etc.), but at that point all those businessmen are dead and don't care anymore.
A private company can make a much greater profit by turning land into land for sale for construction and rent and such than they can by using that same land for a wildlife preserve, park, etc.
This is actually the most persuasive arguement for the Conservative viewpoint I've ever seen.Take from that what you will.
The 20-minute TV special (the one that follows the origional to a t) is on Hulu, and it is much better than this.
Somehow this is a better story than the 2012 movie. Thank god there’s no how bad can I be
Sam! Thanks for coming in
@@priestofronaldalt Well, I am quite good you know
69 Likes.
You can't spell economy without no
you also cant spell it without eco. :/
Dang. Preach.
You can't spell communism without famine, disease, and oppressive authoritarianism.
smug anime face Yeah you can.
You can't spell "environmentalist" without mental
That lorax reminds me of Trump :P
But he is republican
+Bindy Catt Don't compare Trump to ANY political party, even the ones he says he's in. Lol
Except his hair went down to his mustache
+Amber cat Gamer24 ... Trump should win (Nice B8 M8, 88/8, time tuh go masterb8. don't w8)
+Horizen Walker no he should not. He is a fucking idiot with a mind full of air
It's a joke, people. Don't take it too seriously. Notwithstanding ,the American right fundamentally believes in social Darwinism.
Now do The Liberal Lorax. 😁
Agent 47 They are “College” Humor not “Sensible” Humor
Agent 47 it would be “sensible” to do so but wouldn’t fit with the “college”
"who cares about the trees when we have bigger issues like oppressed minorities"
ejsdotalt
How about you don't use autism as an insult? It makes you look ignorant.
P77777777 lol
I'm not sure what the message is. "Oh, no, they cut down all the Truffula trees!" Except the fact ThneedCo owns the seed means they plan on planting replanting the entire forest?
Except they wouldn’t because trees take half a lifetime to mature and capitalist decision making is driven by short term quarterly profits, not long term sustainability. Once the market for Thneeds is decimated by deforestation, they’ll just move the capital to the next investment, leaving the locals without a forest and the thneed workers without jobs. People need to learn that’s how the “free-market” works.
Cam Jones So stupid, not grounded in reality.
No, they would be genetically modifying them to produce more seeds and fabric, and doing it faster. This causes them to be cheaper, and thus more people will want it, and then they will have to make more. *Like in real life.*
Artyom Metro none of your reply addresses the fact that it takes 30 years for trees to mature. You think they are going to stick around and pay their employees for 30 years while they wait for the next set of mature trees to harvest? Or are these trees genetically modified to appear instantly like some fantasy novel?
Artyom Metro .
@@BGcam you know people plant seeds as they go right... You could harvest a forest for 30 years and then come back around to where you started. Or better yet, you could hire contractors to cut down your trees and not long-term employees. As long as people need trees they'll be a market for trees. If everyone wants then but it's not profitable to harvest them then clearly those people aren't paying enough for what they want.
Except markets work by producing that which is demanded. So when there is a high demand for wood you have an increased incentive to produce more trees. As trees become scarce, the price of wood rises, consequently increasing the profit margin in planting and conserving trees. Think about why there are so many cows in existence.. isn't it due to the massive demand for beef?
Typically on private lands, trees are not actually deforested. The owner has an incentive to maintain some inventory given that prices go up as trees become fewer and fewer . That being said deforestation does occur on public lands due to a concept called 'tragedy of the commons'. Things tend to be overused when no individual (or private group) bares the cost for over-use. Trees are no exception. Deforestation happens in places with lots of public lands but not enough resources to enforce the rules that protect it (think South America). So the issue of deforestation is socialism, not free markets. stupid ass lorax ; )
+Matt Paul What!? How dare you bring logic and facts to this thread, thou shalt be burnt at the stake for the crime that is thinking!
+Matt Paul You're not wrong. But it takes time for the market to adjust. So its still very possible to over harvest a renewable resource to near extinction. the "rules that protect [those lands]" are by definition a restriction on the free market. Plus the whole lorax movie is pretty much about the tragedy of the commons. And if its more profitable for a corporation to exhaust trees and move on to the next big thing rather than sustainably harvest trees, they'll do it.
+xWhiteRice yea but that only happens on public lands.. thats the point. 'Public lands' is a socialist construct because it isn't owned by any one individual. Resources that are free and public are always exhausted. The point of this video was to show that free markets exhaust resources when in fact the opposite is true. A free market where individual ownership exists actually preserves resources especially when they become scarce because economic forces create profit based incentives to do so.
+Matt Paul What would you think would happen if we went full libertarian on places like the Amazon Rainforest? There would be only a small number of private players competing for such a vast resource, meaning each participant gets an enormous number of trees. There would be very little incentive to replace trees if they are being used at, say, a rate of
+Naveen Arun If you own a tree farm, it is definitely in your interest to replant trees. How could it not be? If I'm not mistaken, you are saying that markets can only react to current market conditions? This is not the case and why we have things like agricultural futures. Futures are investments based on predictions of future consumption. In our private tree farm example, there is great value in planting a tree immediately after it has been harvested. The value of the farm increases as more trees are planted (and the closer those planted trees get to maturation). If you are growing oak, and it takes 100 years to mature, the farms value becomes higher every year as the inventory gets closer to harvest. At year 5 , the value of the farms inventory is 5X more than on year 1. At year 99, the value of the farms inventory is 99X what it was on year one. So, why would I leave my farm barren if I could increase its value over time by planting trees?
I dunno but the lorax reminds me of trump
and he build 'gates' to prevent the 'mexicans-like thing' to enter theor territory. CollegeHumor predicts the future. holy shit
Cranias Malakers Trump dump
its because you don't understand politics very well.
i assume you reached this conclusion when they showed the illegal immigrants?
Except the lorax is better looking and exponentially more articulate.
oh yeah
*If Lorax decided to join once-ler*
*T R U E*
Ok, I hate comments that say " This is propaganda!" Well duh! You can't persuade people to take your political view without it. Everyone does it!
You missed the part where the same corporations that cut down the trees come back around and plant more trees than they cut down in order for there to be an ongoing supply. It would be stupid and bad business for a company to cut down the trees and not plant more in the same exact spot so they have more trees down the road.
+David Taulbee Get with the program. Natural forests are not replanted. Never have been, never will be.
+David Taulbee All depends on how short-sighted a company is. The markets don't reward long-term thinkers.
+David Taulbee Old growth or natural forest takes generations to be replaced. it's a very complex biome, not a few dozen saplings.
+AJ Chubber The tragedy of the commons is averted with private property. Let people hold title to the land and it will be used responsibly. Give them access to land they don't own, they will hack and burn everything to get as much as they can before they lose access. Literally the difference between a homeowner and a burglar.
AJ Chubber They do but not when the government ignores property rights
You don't know me, but my name's Si, I'm just the O'Hare delivery guy, but it seems like trees might be worth a try, so I say: Let it grow
Not one person thought to replant the trees after chopping them down. Logging companies aren't stupid, if a lack of trees in the future will destroy their business they'll plant more trees now.
I would have beaten the shit out of that conservative Lorax and planted that seed anyway!
Donald Percival Please elaborate.
I'm a conservative and I'm against things that hurt the environment unless it is needed.....
bullshit.
*****
I don't understand what's so hard to believe about it?
So you think this is a misrepresentation of conservative views?
In my experience, Conservatives generally oppose anything that gets in the way of the free market or business. By the government saying 'this place is an national park' they are saying that businesses cannot freely operate within that area.
You can care for the environment in spite of being a conservative, but rarely because of it, at least in my opinion.
Merry Machiavelli
Really? All of the conservatives I've met oppose GOVERNMENT getting in the way of free market and they also appreciate the beauty of nature. My father, who is highly conservative, even hates it when people litter in a National Park, so yes, this is a misinterpretation, besides, who would deplete the supplies of something that makes money?
YouJustGotAnimated By declaring an area a national park government is 'getting in the way of a free market'
National parks could make a lot more money if their resources were open to exploitation; logging, mining, farming, real estate development? I'm not criticising national parks, but they are not a money-making venture.
Yes you can appreciate the beauty of nature and be a conservative. But national parks and free market economics are not very compatible ideas.
Conservative orange man? That explains a lot.
What's wrong with conservatives?
wwhats wrong with trump?
“Every single thing this “conservative” lorax says is the reason why the human race will cease to an end.” - The ghost of Dr. Seuss, 2021
Remove the word lorax and he would still say that
That is pretty much what happen in I think Zimbabwe, there is a massive hole in the landscape because Diamond mining was unregulated and the guy who ran the operation was a British guy who only cared about making money having no care for the environment or the people that lived there.
@@kappadarwin9476 africa summed up in one sentence
the parody and exaggerated conservative lorax: with illegal immigrants, are trees really our biggest concern?
the actual president, four years later: with illegal immigrants, are trees really our biggest concern?
I know this is late, but now our president is saying what the lorax said, so this doesn't seem exaggerated anymore..
The failures of capitalism, a satire
By Dr. Seuss
But Capitalism hasn’t failed- actually it’s been doing quite well!
@@V1nce_man *Jefferson Davis pfp* yeah, I can see why you'd say that
Capitalism has been failing for years
I’d like to disagree- Capitalism is working!
@@V1nce_man any proof?
“This cartoony zing zanger replaces logic with Woke. If trees go extinct all tree business goes broke!!!”
When I ran out of words to describe my despair with plethora of preposterous metaphors here, I turned to this comment and smiled it's true. You truly do get it, o yes you do.
Businesses nowadays don't really care about persistence. With the buying and trading of stock, markets are largely motivated by short term growth. Then people sell their stocks and couldn't care less
@@vikmanphotography7984 but their suppliers do lmao. we dont do vertical monopolies anymore, except maybe Google and amazon but still
Has anyone else ever felt, while watching a video or reading the comments or listening to people argue, a certain oneness with the universe? A oneness so powerful that you just really want to leave this universe, and feel for a few fleeting moments that you actually can?
Because I just felt that. Right now. And it was _glorious_.
Bob Marley Thanks for the insightful rhyme...but I like my life, thanks. I didn't mean that I wanted to die when I said I could leave. I meant that I felt I could actually travel interdimensionally.
***** Excuse me? I'm 13. Does someone really have to be on drugs to feel that kind of euphoria? I don't think so.
TrekkerLLAP I agree you but just because you're 13 does not mean you are not on drugs, I actually think it makes you higher at risk
Don't sniff glues again or your brains will be real mash.
Guys... I'm not on drugs... and I never sniffed glue... and yeah overkill8436 kind of sad how my generation is deteriorating that way. I'm not a part of that.
a time traveler: *move a chair*
the lorax:
Illumination Lorax sequel leaked
the lorax but its opposite day's POV💀💀💀💀
this was amazingly good
Prager U kids be like
Some people will agree with this Lorax :(
I... I’m dying of laughter
The lorax looks like trump
"How good can I possibly be?"
im gonna tell my kids that this is the lorax
Isn't this the Libertarian Lorax
Wouldn't it be capitalist lorax not conservative lorax?
Conservatives are capitalists
Conservatives are capitalists
@Long live Old Europe conservative can be both in reality, as the two in the modern era are fairly close.
@Long live Old Europe true. Conservative is quite the versatile term outside the USA, and I often forget that.
A real conservative would say:
let it grow
protect the environment
save lifes
then proced to cut down the trees anyway giving the middle finger to the public
You mean republican. Not conservative.
You don’t seem to know a lot about what conservative means. Let alone how to spell it.
One of the big problems with the once-ler is that he didn’t grow any trees as he was chopping them down. If he grew twice as much as he chopped, then there would still be trees and enough resources for his company. However, the next big problem would be the pollution or where the trash goes. One way to help that is by making recyclable materials, but how would you get rid of the trash in a way that is environmentally friendly?
Even the original Lorax admitted that it did not have all the answers, and going to extremes isn’t an option. Honestly, I wouldn’t know the answer between nature and the business world. You need both to exist and thrive as people.
We can look at reality. In the USA, it is the paper industry that plants the most trees, therefore the tree population in the USA is constantly increasing, despite the fact that millions of trees are chopped down every year.
In addition, we have seen before, especially in the oil industry, attempts to make every drop of oil economically usable, which has btw succeeded, for which we can thank Standard Oil.
@@YangChuan2001
Standard oil is always painted a ‘bad’ company- and to some extent they were. But they also progressed the economy. And when when they were broken up- nothing really changed. Even though monopolies are an unfair advantage for other companies to take over the entire market- that’s the big reason why Roosevelt got involved. It wasn’t that he didn’t like businesses, he did! He saw the value in them. But he saw monopolies as unfair and they are.
@@V1nce_man Standard Oil controlled only about 60% of the oil market and their market cap was already in comparison shrinking. The "monopoly" argument was literally made up by their competitors to get rid of them.
It is also not true that nothing changed - with standard oil breaking up oil prices were rising, the government also founded for the "war efforts" a state run oil monopoly which the oil industry used to further increase prices by artificially lowering production. The government never broke up a monopoly, they destroyed a hard competitor to make their own monopoly.
@@YangChuan2001
I mean… that’s not really true but. Okay.
@@V1nce_man Yes it is true.
In 1900 standard oil controlled bout 90% of the entire oil market, about 10 years later it was at 65%, mainly because many competitors emerged with the increase in oil demand, they were never a monopoly, they had a large market cap, yes, but they were not enforced nor was competition impossible. It was actually a relatively rare case that standard oil actively drove out competitors and when it happened, it happened because their oil was better and cheaper. That was mostly possible because standard oil had a better network for their oil distribution, better refining practices (they decreased the oil price from 26ct per gallon in 1870 to 8ct per gallon in 1885) and because they had better employees (that was duo to the fact that standard oil wages were mostly better then the competitors wages.)
Now to my other claim that the government created an actual monopoly shortly after the broke up standard oil in 1911.
1917 the U.S. Fuel Administration was founded and in 1924 the government founded the Federal Oil Conservation board. Both of these administration were granted large control in form of regulations and guidance over the oil industry and they did everything they accused standard oil of like price fixing, the elimination of competitors and artificial decrease in production by increase of waste.
They really went all "leave that multimillion corporation alone"
There are too many people getting butthurt in the comments... It's a joke, chill
yeah!
No. It's political propaganda disguised as a joke and it's not funny.
Angry Child No its not people might think this is real.
Angry Child Damn, you're literally everywhere.
Flan Girl i try
The trees can’t be harmed if the Lorax is armed
I am the Lorax, now armed with a gun.
If you harm the trees, I'll shoot you undone.
Time traveler: *kicks a rock*
The timeline:
Found this years ago, loved it, still do
Come on CollegeHumor, Enviromarxist propaganda? Really? It may be a joke but it's not funny, not in the sense that it's actually humorous or amusing.
Because corporate personhood is not a problem, right?
It really looks like a lot of comedians (Not just CollegHumor) keep making extreme skits like these. It's kind of sad really.
Owners of private property have the right to do whatever they want with that property, they just have to live with the consequences of their actions, good or bad. Consumers have the power and freedom to do the same thing with their money. So if a company does something you don't agree with then don't do business with them. Simple as that. It's a far more effective arrangement for holding business accountable for actions which the majority of society finds disagreeable. Far more effective than corrupt politicians and even more corrupt government unionized bureaucrats infringing on the economic rights of individuals and businesses at the request of minority special interest groups.
***** I's a lot more complex than saying "Just don't enable them". Not having a reasonable ceiling for businesses is already rather dangerous when our entire planet is connected. Every sentient being we know of is now within reach of our world's largest businesses. Not doing business with them these days often comes with a lower standard of living. While a person should be able to do what they want with their money within legal limits, why should that person also be exempt from responsibility because they only get the title "person" as a corporate entity? I know you mentioned it already, but corporations and businesses of large sizes simply don't pay for their travesties because they are just too big. It's frightening. We all know walmart underpays their employees and threatens them for considering unionizing. We know McDonalds circumvents the FDA. We know that Apple owns and uses sweatshops to mass produce. Do we stop buying? Not as a whole. Personally, I don't buy from walmart and would never consider touching an apple product (I have a serious problem with how Apple is dumbing down technology for those who refuse to learn.) and I used to work at McDonalds in a younger age, I still have get tense whenever I accidentally say something that almost puts me back in their robotic speech patterns it was such a horrid place to work. But I'm one guy who refuses to associate with remorseless, faceless "people". I can't simply walk around parading in the streets on what little free time I have to tell people to stop doing this or that. Because those companies sell things at prices low enough to pretend to be doing these people a generous service. And these poor people I'd be inadvertently shaming for these purchases can't afford anything else and deserve to live in whatever comfort they, like myself, like yourself, can scrounge out of their meager paychecks. So what else can one do aside from look at these companies as they are: Monsters. These shareholders who earn their money while offering nothing real to the world aside from paper representations of someone else's hard work. THEY are monsters. Playing the stock market may help fund big business to keep us in that comfort, but those businesses and those shareholders are doing little to nothing to gain and hold that money. It's like they're all just sharing little pieces of paper and pretending to be better people for it. Wait. That's not even a metaphor! That's literal! Don't get me wrong. I understand that I have a lot in life. Someone has to flip the burgers. To run the registers at a clothing store. To be on the service end of customer service. It's all about that "level of comfort" That allows us to call ourselves "first world". But does that really mean we, the real people who deserve the title "person" because we've had real experiences a corporate entity by definition can't have, have to suffer by nature just to keep you all up there afloat? I know I look petty because all I seem to be upset with is the concept of corporate entities being people, but that simple concept has been a thorn in the side of human decency since the concept has sprung up. What can you really tell me.... tell the world even, that justifies a large company using its' money to indirectly cause worldwide suffering? Worldwide suffering that they're all aware of because A: They're not idiots, and B: the very network they use to connect to the world is constantly showing the world their behind-the-scenes.
***** Seeing as how most corporations are publically traded, they're not really private huh? Everyone who owns at least one share of stock is part owner.
watch "The Lorax but the Lorax is the only character"
People on here who are complaining that this video "makes fun of conservatives" are wrong. It makes fun of conservative beliefs. That is the mistake often made in America today, to believe that simply because you call yourself conservative, you have to believe everything associated with conservatives and only vote for conservative candidates. You can call yourself conservative and still want to preserve the rain forests, but environmental security is a liberal idea. Don't devote yourself to one side, because you'll find yourself voting for something that you never should have. Be independent, and vote for what you feel is right, not what your party or political allegiance feels is right.
The lorax is not about capitalism nor socialism it's about people just needing to care about the environment like no one cares until it becomes political
This animation style literally predicted the animation style of Cat In The Hat Knows About That 💀
i love this so much. This is extremely well done. Props!
The lorax in the old days: I love trees😃
The lorax now: mafia boss😒🚬
nah man average capitalist