Comments by "Ōkami-san" (@mweibleii) on "14 Richest Americans Worth more than Food Stamps..." video.

  1. The reason is because of rent-seeking, regulatory-capture and the rise of the State which has (of course) led to Corporatacracy. This isn't 34 years of Reganomics, it's 110 years of life under a Central Banking Cartel. It was the Progressives of the late 1800s that gave us the Central Bank and the Oligarchs who own it. Income tax means laborer's have to pay TO work. It's all one farce. 
    2
  2. ***** "unfettered capitalism" LOL... the USA adds millions and millions and millions of lines of regulation every single year. As a matter of fact, there's so many lines of regulation no one can tell you how many laws and regulations there are - let alone how many lines of regulation there are. Depending on the State you live in, you can't even sell arranged flowers without a licence, you can't cut hair, you can't fix computers, and onward it goes. The USA has hyper-regulated markets. NOT 'unfettered'. Not to mention, the State issues our currency - as it's fiat. It requires it's citizens (us) to pay it in it's fiat currency a transaction tax on our labor.  Unfettered capitalism - get real. I'll tell you what, you go out to your front yard, put up a BBQ and start grilling and selling organic hotdogs without the million State licensees and permits and health and safety regulations you'll be in violation of - watch how quickly your ideas of 'unfettered capitalism' come to an end. Oh, but buy a franchise and you can easily sell FDA approved boiled ammonia washed HFCS infused pink-slime off cuts ground with bone meal and food coloring. You know, because the State worries about your health and wants to make sure you're looked after real well - as well as taking it's cut. The FACT is the Progressives of the late 1800s brought the Central Bank into existence as well as Labor Tax. The problems of the USA's economy IS directly due to hyper-regulation and the central bank. But, don't worry, we're getting more central planning, more regulation, less privacy and less liberty. So, enjoy the Progressive Sociapathy. It's here to stay. 
    1
  3. bohemianwriter1 They write the regulations ensuring their regulator capture and perpetuating their rent-seeking. You know, for our "safety". Because you can't trust your neighbor to sell you a hot dog but you can trust pink-slime made from bone meal and food coloring following a boil in a hot ammonia wash. The idiot Progressives of the 1800s sold us out.
    1
  4. ***** Who said anything about a pure free-market? We had a tradition of LIMITED government, sound money and law. Now we have massive Government, one that is spying on us, hyper-regulating all aspects of our lives, taxing laborers when they work and the accompanying Progressive Sociopathic 'Utopian' society that is inevitably derived from using force against innocent people. The irony, the USA Government preaches all the free-market principles needed to lift the poor out of poverty - only to other nations. AND guess what, it works pretty well. They get wealthier. We get poorer.  The only fantasy here is the Progressive's magic-thinking that using State violence against free people is 'Good for Society'. Aside from the jingoistic tone of "Progressive Socialism" there's the fact it's predicated on violence against innocent people. It's an oxymoron.  Only an irrational boob or religious crank thinks it's "Progressive" to use the initiation of force against innocent humans is good for society. The Progressives gave us our Central Banking cartel. The Progressives gave us our Progressive Income Tax. We are living in the inevitable outcome of their fantasy thinking. From their Progressive welfare slums to 'help the poor', to their Teacher Unions whose Government Schools graduate functional illiterates, to their never-ending-moral-wars. War on Poverty. War on Drugs. War on Privacy. And now a never ending War on Terror.  Our Founders of our State ensured it was LIMITED for a reason. The first 10 amendments protect us from the State. Not the rich - and there were plenty of rich then. But from the State. Why? Because the State is inherently immoral. It's legalized legitimate violence perpetrated against innocent humnans within a geographical area. The 'OF" in the phrase, Citizens of the United States denoted ownership.  Don't worry, we're getting more regulations and more State - do, you should be happy. Less free association/free-trade, hyper-regulated lives. Lets see how that works for us. 
    1
  5. ***** The best option is Panarchism. I have no problem at all with Syndicalists attempting to get people to voluntarily create any society they like, so long as force is not used against anyone innocent and people are free to leave.  I feel most Anarchists who also espouse Socialism have never had the displeasure of hiring and dealing with loafers, thieves, slackers and incompetence. Have you ever had to fire someone because they didn't have the aptitude - they were simply inept? While it'd be nice to think anyone and everyone does their best, the fact is most don't. Or maybe they do, but it's not good enough. That's the interesting aspect to these socialistic societies. Because inevitably, its the loafers, not the idealists, who end up running them. Loafers do have one skill - getting others to do their work for them and taking credit for it. And while I do think "loafing" is a good idea in the sense of working hard upfront to create something to save time later. But most loafers don't do this. They just loaf. They rise to the top - and destroy the institution they run. The only option is to allow those institutions to collapse - and most socialist societies are loath to do this. Thus, society itself collapses.  Interestingly, most mediocrity don't think of themselves as being mediocre. They think they're, well.... damn good. But, in reality - they're mostly not that good. It's why we need a free market, sound money, and law. So that the impartial hand of the free-market can signal to these people letting them know, they're not good enough by putting them out of business. And while this may seem harsh, it's a fact of reality and it must be allowed to occur. Again, I don't think most socialists have had the required experience dealing with enough people of a wide enough variety to really see things as they truly are. I've worked with hundreds of people, across multiple nations and cultures, at the highest levels of expertise - I can tell you, most people simply don't have what it takes, and most people over-value their own worth to the market. Most people think they're worth double (or more) what they're actually worth to the market. They're not the unique snow flake they think they are. And they're not that clever. Some are (and ironically they often under value themselves), but most aren't. I don't think socialists deal with this aspect of society very well as they want and think everyone will work as hard as they. Well, they won't. Not by a long shot. 
    1
  6. ***** OK, suppose you have two people who want to work as surgeons. - Person A is an incompetent idiot, lazy, and while they like the idea of working as a doctor they do not do well under stress and often make mistakes when under time pressure - they do not have mental aptitude to be a good surgeon. - Person B is competent works hard and shows all the mental aptitude to deal with the stress and be a high functioning surgeon.  BOTH person A and B want to be doctors. However, there are only enough resources and time to permit the training of one of them. It's up to you to determine the value of each person's potential. What do you do? I didn't say people do not have value - but not everyone produces the same amount of value to society. People are different and the value they offer to society is not the same. A computer programmer, medical research, surgeon or nuclear physicist is paid more relative to someone who rakes leaves, makes coffee or carries bricks because their labor, service or produce is valued MORE by society. Again, I didn't say people have zero value. So don't put words in my mouth. But to pretend everyone's labor is of equal value is naive at best and grossly negligent at worse. And don't pretend you don't make value judgements (or as you say "Price People"). You most certainly do. You didn't randomly choose the people you are close to and formed relationships with. You determined, based on your set of value-criteria, a value in a person and perused a friendship by investing your time and emotion. This doesn't mean you think the other's you neglected or refused befriend had no value - just not enough for you to take your limited time and effort to invest it in them. You probably have a favored place to drink coffee/food/etc.. - you're not treating people 'equal', you are making value judgments all day every day (as you say: "pricing people"). While you can pretend you're not, that's simply being childish. 
    1
  7. ***** I do admire that you discovered anarchism, given it's inherent moral structure. However, you have some misconceptions regarding value and society. You confuse working hard with providing value. You can labor all day raking leaves in the woods - but that labor is not valued by anyone. So, while it is true you are working hard, no one cares. Also, 'society' doesn't anything, it's not a thing. It's a meta concept and has little, if any, meaning. While a useful shortcut, I wouldn't frame anything actually important using it. People are not equal. Some are good at running, others are not. Some are good at mathematics, others are not. Some like to paint and are good at it, others are not. Some can hear perfect pitch, other can not.  I do not agree with how you use the word Capitalists - given you are one yourself. But, I understand your sentiment. Yes, the fascist Statists have done what they always do and the best course of action is pacifism. I for one plan to open a school sometime in the future. Maybe in the USA, but maybe Japan would be better. Japanese people are a bit more inclined towards anarchism in many ways. Whereas Americans prefer State-worship. 
    1
  8. ***** "No. I don't accumulate massive amounts of capital, and I don't advocate the ideology of capitalism." You accumulate capital and then use it - you're a capitalist. Amount is relative. To someone who makes $0.05 cents a day, you probably do have a 'massive' amount of capital. "People are not equal in their capacities, but they are still equal in their worth. Don't conflate things which are not the same." You're going to have to define worth. Let's take Steve Jobs and a drug running thug-pimp. Are you telling me that these two people are valued 'equally' by 'society'? Well, I'm in society, and I value Jobs more. Thus, if all people really did 'equally' value them 50/50, then I alone would tip the balance in Jobs favor. Thus, they are not valued equally. Neither are their skills, neither are their personal attributes. It's just that simple. Society is not composed of people who are equally valued by those in said collective. Any why would they? Some people are better at providing perceived value. They sacrifice their weekends to work long 18 hour days and develop the medicines that make our lives better. It's not that they wouldn't like being out to the clubs partying - but they forgo their own self interests to do something noble. They are valued by society much more than some drunk who really couldn't give two shits.  I do agree that the accumulation of 'money' can distort and pervert society - and the solution is not to use the money we've been using. We can use something else. This can be done voluntarily. 
    1
  9. ***** The niche of nuclear physicist is not the same as basket ball player which is not the same as brick layer which is not the same as a grocery store greeter. They never will be valued equally. Well, not by humans - using capital or not. I'm not sure what you mean by Capitalists - again, YOU are a capitalist. You use capital to show your value to others in society. Maybe you don't buy McDonald's value meals and instead you go buy organic or farm fresh. In that way, you're telling the people working at McDonald's you do not value what they are producing. That IS capitalism.  I agree society is broken, the solution may be education in how to think. Also, we need less State as we become more complex. We need less regulation and more services provided by free markets. 
    1
  10. ***** 1) Basketball player provides entertainment. I don't watch sports, I can't stand doing so TBH, but that doesn't mean others do not find value in watching grown men play childhood sports. I happen to like watching theater. A brick layer can be replaced by a machine, a good actor cannot. 2) You do save money, that money is capital, your bank pays you a little bit for keeping it with them. You are a capitalist. Not to mention you use your capital in society to express your subjective experience of perceived value.  
    1
  11. ***** 1. Entertainment is what people are entertained by. And so long as it doesn't involve the initiation of force against someone innocent, then it's moral. As for it's aesthetics, that's subjective. 2. What is a capitalist them?  3. The nonviolent solution to capital accumulation is to voluntarily stop using that currency as capital. Believe it or not, but large amounts of capital allocation is an important and necessary aspect to modern society. Once the State is removed, we'll see what society looks like. Certainly will have less economic activity as much of the current activity only occurs because of the State. Without a State, large capital holders will be needed to facilitate large projects.
    1