Who Exploits You More: Capitalists or Cronies?

Karl Marx famously thought that a capitalist
economy promotes the systematic exploitation of workers. For Marx, this idea was based
on a labor theory of value, which most scholars today reject. Nevertheless many still agree
with Marx’s basic claim that capitalism is inherently exploitative. They simply define
exploitation in broader and less contentious terms. Instead of thinking about exploitation
as involving the forced extraction of surplus value from labor, contemporary philosophers
define it as taking unfair advantage of others’ vulnerability. And defined in this way, many
philosophers think that contemporary capitalism is rife with exploitation, with economically
powerful capitalists taking unfair advantage of workers’ vulnerability in order to maximize
their profit. So what should we make of this argument? Is capitalism exploitative and what’s
the alternative? Well, first, it’s absolutely correct that
many capitalists want to exploit workers. They want to pay as low a wage as possible
and get as much work out of workers as possible in order to maximize profit. But the fact
that other capitalists also want to exploit workers in this way makes it difficult for
any of them to do so. This is because competitive pressure forces capitalists to pay workers
close to the value of what those workers produce, whether they want to or not. If you try to
pay someone less than they’re worth, someone else will offer them more because they can
profit by doing so. Imagine you’re in an auction bidding against others for a dollar.
Of course you’d like to pay as little as possible for that dollar, but if someone else
was bidding 60 cents for it, wouldn’t it be worth your while to bid 62? And wouldn’t
someone else then bid 64 and so on? In a competitive marketplace that same process lead capitalists
to pay workers close to the value of what they produce, not because they want to, but
because they have to. The second point to keep in mind about capitalism
and exploitation is this: Even when exploitative or unfair exchanges do take place, the institutions
of a free market ensure that they will at least usually be mutually beneficial because
the exchanges are voluntary. As an example, think about an exchange that a lot of people
find unfair: payday loans. A poor working man needs money right now to meet his basic
needs and so gets a loan from a payday loan store but only by paying fees equivalent to
a 400 percent annual percentage rate. Let’s grant, at least for the sake of argument,
that charging such a high interest rate is unfair. Even so, it is important to bear in
mind that both parties had the opportunity to say no to the exchange if they believed
that they could do better somewhere else. And because of this fact, because the exchange
was voluntary in just this very weak sense, this means that both parties expect to gain
more from the exchange than they give up. It means that unless one of them has made
a mistake, the exchange will be mutually beneficial. This is an important fact, important for the
well being of individual laborers and important for the growth and development of society
as a whole. Mutually beneficial exchanges are how wealth is created in society, and
the more wealth the society creates over time, the less vulnerability there is for capitalists
to exploit. Markets aren’t perfect, but whether or not
you think capitalism is exploitative you need to ask, what’s the alternative? The usual
suggestion is political regulation and control. But if our concern is to minimize exploitation,
we need to ask whether this alternative really makes sense. After all, citizens are in a
position of tremendous vulnerability relative to the state, and lobbyists, bureaucrats,
and elected officials will often be tempted to exploit that vulnerability for their own
private gain. Think of the way in which our political institutions
subsidize large agro businesses, bail out auto companies, cartelize the banking industry
through the Federal Reserve System, and so on. All of these policies benefit the interests
of the economically powerful and politically well connected at the expense of ordinary
citizens. That’s not a free market at work; that’s big government. And politics is unlike
markets in that political exchanges aren’t voluntary. When the government wants to use
your money to bail out GM, you don’t have the right to say no. And this means there’s
no guarantee that the exchange will be mutually beneficial. When politics is involved, one
party’s gain usually comes at someone else’s expense. Politicians gain from the contributions
they receive from big business, and big business gains from the favors they receive from government.
Sure those favors have a cost, but because government has the power of coercion, it can
force third parties to pay that cost. Those who can afford political influence get the
benefits, and those who cannot afford it suffer the consequences. This is how politics works.
And it’s not because we have bad people in office and need to get nicer people in.
It’s because of the structural nature of politics, because the state has the power
to impose its decisions by force on the public. Just hoping that the state will use its power
on behalf of the vulnerable isn’t enough. We need to ask ourselves, if we really want
to reduce the amount of exploitation in the world, is increasing the power of the state
really the best way to do it?

100 comments on “Who Exploits You More: Capitalists or Cronies?”

  1. FurryMurry7 says:

    You just answered your own question. "Until we brake [sic] the corporation/government ties…"

    If I owned the coal plant and wanted to buy government influence, I would not be able to do it because gov. is no longer tied to corporation.

    The difference between capitalists and cronies is that capitalists don't (or are unable to) buy political influence. Capitalism does not automatically breed cronies. Sure there will be people who WANT to buy Gov., but they can be prevented from doing so.

  2. Fingolfin3423 says:

    There will be no "replacing," but rather a mixture, which is what we already have. There is no such thing as a "pure" economic system, as you may believe. Your utopia only exists in your mind.

  3. mmzen says:

    What do you base this assertion on? If there was a completely free market and I created a fraudulent product but there was no power structure to punish me what recourse what you have, vigilante justice? What if I sold food with poison in it? What about externalities? What if my business created pollution and was right next to your backyard? What level of limited government would you want? Again, vigilante justice? I'm not trying to be glib here.

  4. jon henry says:

    Its not big gov if it was rules would be kept in check for its electorate its the unregulated cronies that complain about big gov to exploit over run & take it over making unfair laws expecially the crony capitalist in no faith in there abilities in a fair system to compete in business competition

  5. Jon Wise says:

    Well right now corporations just buy laws that they want and still don't care much about externalities. In completely free market with a demand of protection immediately would appear protection services. And, because now they will have to face competition, chances are that they will be offering more effective protection than government offers us now. The only problem people would have to watch out for is those protection companies becoming new governments and stop them in their beginning.

  6. mmzen says:

    What the fuck are you babbling about "a free market that would demand protection immediately" How would it demand protection immediately if they don't realize right away they are being ripped off or poisoned? and again, what would this "protection" vigilante retaliation in a society of minimal laws? …it's naive to think crony capitalism would cease to exist because it is the "real free market" as much as you neocon fucks want to deny it….

  7. mmzen says:

    …….(continued) just like you accuse socialist of "having a niave finite pie idea of economics"

  8. Magicwillnz says:

    While I agree it is not enough to simply hope for the right people in office, "laissez faire" capitalism will always become crony capitalism for 1) competition between states forces corporate welfare 2) capitalism is intensely unstable and periodically collapses 3) you need a state to defend private property. Crony capitalism and laissez faire capitalism aren't opposites they evolve from one to the other.

  9. Cryptekz says:

    What of vulture capitalists who buy majority stakes in other companies, defraud and destroy them, and sell off the assets for a profit? What would you say to that practice?

  10. Kenny Pelletier says:

    Would I be a vulture capitalist if I bought a car and sold it for parts? What if I bought a sandwich and took the onions off. Would I be a vulture capitalist then? What's wrong with doing what you want with your own private property?

  11. Cryptekz says:

    So you'd say there's nothing wrong with buying the majority of a business from it's shareholders, then completely shutting it down, laying off it's entire workforce, and selling off its assets? What if they were competing with your own market? Would you say it's reasonable then to buy out all your competition, regardless of their progress in the market, and use your capital to shut them down, enforcing a monopoly? What then if the industry in question is an essential, like agriculture?

  12. Kenny Pelletier says:

    Is it okay for me to part out a perfectly running car? What about the gas station that will lose my business for selling that car for parts? What about the oil change company? An individual can do with their property as they see fit like shutting it down.

    A private company cannot hold a monopoly for long b/c they create a profit motive for a competitor. The only monopolies that exist today are owned by government. If you care about monopolies, you would want small govt.

  13. Cryptekz says:

    Would you then say you're against the ideas of copyright and patent ownership?

    Because unless you are, then no amount of small government will prevent monopolies from arising. So long as someone can physically own the rights to produce the cheapest, most efficient form of something, they will hold a monopoly on that thing, whatever it is, unless someone can find a cheaper, more efficient way of providing the same thing, and once someone hits peak efficiency, they win, essentially.

  14. Kenny Pelletier says:

    Yes, I'm against the idea of intellectual property.

  15. Cryptekz says:

    A very leftist stance to take, but I personally agree. Once an idea comes to fruition, it should belong to the commons, available for anyone with the ability to do so to improve upon it or realize it.

    Were that a reality, then yes, corporations would have a much harder time instituting monopolies. If you were to further take away any government support and subsidies, and monopolies would collapse in favor of the consumer.

    However, this is all wildly idealistic.

  16. Cryptekz says:

    I doubt any decision-maker would ever agree to removing the protections for intellectual property, and would defame any attempts to do so as communist.

  17. Kenny Pelletier says:

    Yes, I believe all subsidies should end. I would like to see a separation of business and state. I want economic freedom.

    I don't believe ideas are owned by anyone. Shrinking the role of government is hardly a leftist idea.

    Can you name me a monopoly that isn't granted by government? Other than the De Beers company and the NYSE, I can't think of any.

  18. Cryptekz says:

    I meant intellectual property not being private property is considered somewhat leftist, at least by most.

    Well, if you count Microsoft and Apple as being two monoliths in the same market, then you could consider them to be of a monopolistic nature. Yes, they're competing with one another, but the two of them essentially own the profitable market of programming Operating Systems. That isn't to say that third party OS's can't be developed; only they're not likely to succeed in the market.

  19. Cryptekz says:

    For instance, Linux would be the best example, but Linux is all open source and isn't released for profit.

    Otherwise, there really isn't any other competition in the market. And I wouldn't say that has anything to do with Government, so much as those two companies simply seek to employ those programmers who are the most skilled at their jobs and pay them extremely well for their labor and contributions.

  20. Asto says:

    The fun thing is they deliver no alternative either. Probably they are praying to their god that he protects the people from big corporations overtaking everything.
    Or they don't give a shit at all, which is more likely.

    It's really a shame americans equal libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism.

  21. fdpirigyi says:

    They can hold a monopoly only if consumers benefit wildly from their product as compared to competitors. Why wouldn't we want to encourage beneficial transactions?

    When a monopoly uses government and regulations to squash competition is bad for everyone but them. When a monopoly uses superior service to squash its competition everyone benefits.

    There is no peak efficiency either because of this thing called the future, and our amazing ability to innovate.

  22. TheJodiewatson says:

    The government has to stand for election every 4 years. The CEO of a corporation only has to answer to the members of board and share holders. Who would you trust more as a worker to have your interests at heart, the guy who has to make a profit or the guy who has to answer to the people?

  23. DeezNuts SenpaiMcDank says:

    what makes you think the only alternative to capitalism is increasing state power? also i fail to see how the state you saw as the alternative to capitalism wasn't capitalist. i didn't see any shift in whether or not the means of production were owned collectively by society…

  24. John Sheppard says:

    Jodie-Sorry to jump in here—The answer to your question is the following: Without governmental assistance (force) a corporation has no power over you. There are no monopolies except via governmental help. Businesses without the coercive force of government answer directly to the people, and quickly or else they couldn't compete. Are you making the argument for corporate welfare? That's in direct opposition to the "answer to the people" argument

  25. Brockhad says:

    I think less regulation would just make for cut-throat CEOs that bounce between companies…As it is, we are blackmailed with the possibility of huge companies shutting down and cave to the lose, lose situation of corporate greed verses mass unemployment. What is needed is a firm set of stipulations to discourage bratty companies.

  26. Willsturd says:

    Well, if we look in history, the only alternative to capitalism 100% of the time was, and increase to state power. Maybe one day your vision will come true that something magically happen.

  27. Willsturd says:

    You can always quit your job. If someone really is forcing you to work then that is equivalent to slave labor, and I will fight to the death to liberate you from that….

    But if you can quit, then staying there and being abused like that is completely your fault. If you can find a better job, then you are an idiot to work for less.

  28. DeezNuts SenpaiMcDank says:

    except for in the free territory of ukraine, which successfully implemented anarcho-communism, the shinmin region of korea, which also successfully implemented anarcho-communism and the spanish anarchist communes, all of which succesfully implemented anarcho-communism. the only reason any of these failed were because of the actions of people in power, fearing that the sucess of these places would make their citizens abandon authoritarianism.

  29. Willsturd says:

    The average wage for Walmart employees is 12-13 dollars. They pay them 2-4 dollars more than the minimum wage…. They are union less. Are those employees living hand to mouth? Last time I checked they had enough to buy xbox games and an LCD T.V after a few weeks.

  30. dark7element says:

    No-one is ever really 'free', you jackass. Telling someone that they're free to quit working for their abusive employer is meaningless when the alternative is to be out on the street. People don't 'choose' to live. They are brought into this world and have no choice but to survive however they can. The tyranny of the government cannot compare to the tyranny of poverty and deprivation. Most poor folk would gladly give up their "freedom" for a better life and security.

  31. Willsturd says:

    We live in a free world. Last I check, being able to quit was part of freedom. Being able to take responsibility for yourself is freedom. Do you know how many employers there are in America? You are telling me when one is abusive, suddenly you're on the streets? There are so many Americans with 2-3 jobs. Jobs aren't rare. If you work hard, opportunity will open up. To say that once you quit your out on the street… that is being oblivious on what goes on.

  32. dark7element says:

    People are forced to work 2-3 jobs because employers refuse to offer good-paying full time jobs that low-skilled workers can support a family on. They squeeze employees into part time jobs so they won't have to pay for their healthcare, pay people less than they need to live and force them to resort to food stamps.

    So all those people in the ghetto are just lazy, huh? They just need to "work hard" at their minimum wage service industry jobs and 'opportunity will open up', huh? Go fuck yourself.

  33. Willsturd says:

    People are not forced to work 2-3 jobs. You do not understand, everything is voluntary. Being forced to work is equivalent to saying slave labor. During slavery, people were forced to work. Use better terms when talking about forced labor…

    People in the ghetto are not lazy… Stop putting words into my mouth. There are many people who get out of those ghettos and get rich, and some who are rich go to the ghettos. Everybody is the master of their own destiny.

  34. moestietabarnak says:

    some benefit that corporation seek are LESS regulation, LESS interference. by removing the government you are giving away these as gift to corporation.

    Let them pollute more, abuse their position, screw people as long as they can do business without government intervention in the name of the people, because that what government should be "The People"

  35. moestietabarnak says:

    remove government would NOT remove power, it would transfer MORE power to the capitalist without anything to keep them from abusing it, beside the market, but the market doesn't regulate much beside offer and demand. If you're not a customer you're opinion, even your LIFE in some situation, mean shit to a capitalist

  36. moestietabarnak says:

    when you need a roof for shelter, food to survive. you are forced to work. its just a different type of coercion

  37. Willsturd says:

    Actually no. You are not forced to work. You have to make a choice for survival. That is very different. Forced work implies slavery. I do not see walmart going on the streets, pointing a gun to people's head, and forcing them to work. That would be completely illegal. What you imply is choice, which everybody has.

  38. moestietabarnak says:

    See how you get manipulated by statistic. Average wage is higher when you count executive/manager pay.
    Fact is many walmart employee are on food stamp. Fit that into your narrative.

  39. Willsturd says:

    Really now? Then why is it that Walmart is always a huge supporter on raising minimum wage. The average worker at walmart is paid higher because they are not in a union.

    Look up at what walmart supports, It will surprise you.

  40. moestietabarnak says:

    what ?! in which world are you living in?

    Here walmart close shop to prevent any union. even if it's a profitable store. Quite the anti-worker attitude.

  41. Willsturd says:

    The average walmart worker gets paid more. Here, My friends make two dollars above minimum wage.

    People at Walmart are paid better than if they worked at a Mom and Pop store. That is why they are in favor of raising the minimum wage. Those Mom and Pop stores wont keep up and will be forced to close while Walmart will still be in tip top shape. That is why they are for strict regulations that would bankrupt a small company.

  42. richardrmwd says:

    Unions are more anti-worker then any other institution. They are known for breaking the law, beating people up, closing down businesses, attacking competition, making sickly deals with the state to take rights away from the individual, creating a sense of entitlement – the ridiculous and coercive idea that union members are entitled to force others to pay above the market rate for goods or services. Anti-competition, anti-transparency unions. They only look out for their own, selfish freaks.

  43. moestietabarnak says:

    congrats you spewing out the boss' talking point.

    Care to look at reality ? real HISTORY of Union? Does Pinkerton ring a bell ?

  44. richardrmwd says:

    Do you work? Have you any experience or is it that you've gone to University and have studied a liberal arts degree for four years? Challenge yourself to a new perspective, why not type in – Milton Friedman Unions –
    Or challenge any of my points directly. Are you telling me that they are not known for the above? Is the word Pinkerton the only defense you have for Unions? Or will you try and redirect this discussion again? Hell is a place where there is no reason.

  45. moestietabarnak says:

    I am just a lowly engineer, way too liberal for you.
    you don't like Pinkerton? how about Massey Energy ?

    forget Friedman, he's a master of straw-man argument.

  46. richardrmwd says:

    You are an engineer also? I suppose we all have our bouts of irrationality. I assume you mean American Liberal, not actually Liberal. Unions mostly act in a very anti-liberal fashion.
    Friedman will probably be remembered for helping liberate billions of people on this planet, with his arguments, his clear delivery and his painstaking research. A peace-loving humanitarian and fortunately he was around at a time that he could be recorded, his speeches, his discussions, interviews. We are lucky.

  47. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson says:

    I wonder if Professor Matt Zwolinski has travelled the world and realised that this is not "how government works" everywhere. The fix is easier than you think although Americans tend to think that they're always facing problems that have never been solved anywhere else and so they can't look around for a solution. The solution is to not allow corporations and the wealthy to donate unlimited sums of money to politicians. You’d be amazed by how much that would change the political climate.

  48. nustada says:

    Bullshit, politicians are always tools of the wealthy. The only way to fix corporations is to eliminate them. By eliminating their creator, the state.

  49. nustada says:

    I have never met a "liberal, Orwellian usage" engineer. You are either a liar, or you are using the term liberal in the correct way. Implying liberty, the converse of state.

  50. moestietabarnak says:

    it show that you don't care to look elsewhere, fear of getting proven wrong

  51. moestietabarnak says:

    when they cannot bribe politician overtly, they need to do it covertly, and that always at a way lower scale. the result are pretty clear. look around the world on society that works. you may learn something, if you dare.

  52. nustada says:

    "that always at a way lower scale."

    Like war profiteer Morgan Stanley funding G.W.B. election, and in turn GWB started a war in Iraq leaving conservatively a half a million dead?

    Or the insurance companies "donating" to Obama's campaign, in which he enacted "Obama care" resulting in a doubling of premiums, mass loss of jobs in the healthcare industry, and lower service quality, resulting in who knows how many needlessly dead.

    How big does your scale get?

  53. moestietabarnak says:

    what was done covertly there? you really don't get the subtle point, we need to dot the dot and cross the T for you ?

  54. Thomas Hyle says:

    can I steal that? That is sooooooooooo true!

  55. unclearimage says:

    The government tries to over control and regulate Corporations, so big business buys people to control government.

    It's the consequences of government not minding it's own business, not the cause.

  56. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson says:

    The situation is not nearly as bad in Northern Europe as it is in the United States. I wasn't talk about places like Africa. The fact is that bribery has been legalised in the United States of America whereas in most other countries politicians who are corrupt at least have to pretend to be beholden to the people.

  57. Leord says:

    If you're implying that donating to a party in unlimited amounts in the US isn't illegal, I'm fairly certain you're wrong.

    Also, besides gross production, the rest of the Western world does a LOT of things better than the US. I definitely think you should take a closer look.

    What is it you want? More money or generally higher life enjoyment and education by people?

  58. Leord says:

    No, you are incorrect. Google "OECD Better Life Index + Life Satisfaction" — should be first hit.

    Similar things can be found about the rest. The USa isnät as good as its inhabitants have been led to believe.

    Outside the coasts of America there is no sign "Here Be Dragons", but an actual society that has managed better, as long as pollution or production are not your main priorities.

  59. sillyshitt says:

    it's funny how the only way to make liberal ideas sound appealing is to exclude as many factors as possible from the equation.

  60. puppetsock says:

    So that would be why Greece, Spain, are Italy such thriving economies? If you think that open donations are even an important factor you are quite risably naive. Example: Govt unions delivering democrat votes isn't primarily, or even significantly, based on anybody giving money to anybody.

    It's the Aristocracy of Pull. What is being bought and sold is influence.

  61. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson says:

    There are 50 states in Europe and you mentioned 3. The poor red south doesn't represent the whole of the US. It's not like 50% of the workforce is in the public sector so their influence isn't that great. Why is it that corporations constantly get what they want and the workers don't?

  62. Alec Soltes says:

    Shhh! People aren't yet smart enough to imagine a society without an abusive government. What your suggesting is anarchy! *sarcasm*

    A truly free society is one where individuals are not coerced into *any* relationship, including those concerning wealth (the *real* free market). A corporate CEO claiming to support free markets is the economic equivalent of a politician claiming to be for individual sovereignty.

  63. Crunge92 says:

    That's a solution that everyone can agree is desirable. However, much as prohibiting marijuana created a black market for marijuana without actually reducing its use, banning political donations will simply create a "black market" of political donations. Big businesses will continue to pay off politicians, they'll just do their best to keep it secret. Many people will tell you that this is already happening.

  64. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson says:

    So what are you saying? Is the human race doomed? Will the Koch family, defence contractors, weapons manufacturers, the government-subsidised oil industry, the dangerously under regulated nuclear industry and others like them destroy the planet via capitalism and legalised bribery?

  65. Crunge92 says:

    No, I'm not saying that. I'm no cynic. But simply "banning" corruption is superficial. My solution would be similar to what the guy in the video is saying: The less government there is, the less corruption there is. I'm not saying NO government–I'm no anarchist either–but our government does not need to be as big as it is. The government's main role should be to protect civil liberties and enforce contracts–which actually covers a lot, both socially and economically.

  66. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson says:

    And what would you do with corps. that pollute the air and water, put toxins in our food to save a few cents, run dangerous factories/plants in residential areas (with the potential of destroying a large part of the planet) and such? My civil liberties mean nothing if I get killed because there are no consumer protections in place or if I'm forced to work for little to nothing. I can't stand bureaucracy and want to give small businesses a break but not replace govt. with unaccountable corps.

  67. Crunge92 says:

    Like I said, protecting civil liberties actually covers quite a lot. In fact, many of our current regulations would probably still stand in a reduced government. Like for pollution: If someone is dumping toxins that affect your health or your property, that's violating your rights, and it's the government's responsibility to stop them.

    The problem we currently have is governments who create "regulations" that actually allow companies to get away with that sort of thing.

  68. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson says:

    Maybe we don't disagree so much after all then. It's just that I've talked with so many people who self-identify as libertarians or right-wing and as soon as I say that we need government to make sure we don’t have toxins in our food or pollution in our air they start shouting “communist” or “nanny state socialist” at me. I’ve always favoured libertarianism over communism and other strains of authoritarianism but I favour libertarian socialism over capitalism.

  69. Crunge92 says:

    Yeah, a lot of people confuse libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism, and socialism with marxism, and capitalism with corporatism or colonialism, and so on.

    I'm a capitalism fan–I think it's the most fair system, and it's the easiest system to protect civil liberties in. Socialism has been made to work in places in Europe, but the US is too big and diversified for socialism. Not to mention our government sucks at literally EVERYthing. We just couldn't do it.

  70. rickylarch says:

    Learn liberty? What a joke. These videos are so infuriating. Every single one is an oversimplification. Most of them justify bad behavior of corporations with tenuous one sided "freedom" arguments. These are nothing but naked propaganda. Capitalism does have some things going for it but it needs to be tamed because it also has some massive flaws and creates huge inequalities. All these "neo libertarian" ideas would make it even more unfair. Who funds these? Multi-billionaire Koch Bros.

  71. rickylarch says:

    You would make the average American's head explode if you tried to explain libertarian socialism. Many of them believe these two words to be mutually exclusive. They don't do well with "concepts" let alone words hence these misleading videos with an elementary school comprehension level. These are simply capitalist approved conceptions of liberty. What do you expect for Koch brothers funded videos?

  72. Blahblahblaafmn says:

    Good to see someone else with some sense commenting on these videos. Indeed, advertising is an extremely powerful force in influencing citizens and their voting/actions/spending, and education is, sadly, a non-solution: advertisers and businesses will eventually devise a means to convince their target audience of whatever they please. Videos like this are exactly that: finely worded hogwash, implying that cronyism and capitalism are mutually exclusive, whereas in America they go hand in hand.

  73. Blahblahblaafmn says:

    I know this comment is old, but I figured I'd ask if you had seen a recent statement made by Charles Koch regarding the minimum wage. In a not-so-subtle way, he blames the poor for limiting economic growth, bashes the minimum wage, and implies that those living on the minimum wage are earning too much. It's a real laugh, and it boggles my mind how so many struggling Americans are so utterly foolish as to believe anything that comes from Charles' or his brother's mouth.

  74. mooseiah says:


  75. AboveDeception says:

    Ah no, it's socialism (public money) mixed with capitalism.

  76. AboveDeception says:

    No capitalism is a system of private risk private profit or loss and mutual benefit. For an exchange to happen voluntarily it must be mutually beneficial.

  77. AboveDeception says:

    Ah no, if the workers agree to work there, they must be beneffiting. Either that or they are stupid as they could leave and collectively form their own company to pay themselves better. The fact that they can't,shows that the business owners are doing them a favour. What's your alternative, socialism, where everyone get's paid the same by the state and people lose incentive and slacken off overtime reducing productivity?

  78. AboveDeception says:

    Idiot! They can live without capitalism then, there are always choices. A tough choice is not force, people can decide who they want to work for asssuming there is strong capitalism and many businesses hiring people. If you don't want to be part of a system of trade, you can go survive as our ancestors did in the bush! Maybe there would not be so many fat, lazy, welfare check socialists in that scenario. Any form of anrchy has to be free market if you think for a minute.

  79. AboveDeception says:

    Bullshit, idividuals do decide what is produced, if there is no demand things don't get made in capitalism. Only government can create things against the will of people.

  80. brunorosi says:

    Sure, that helps. But I can tell you, it doesn’t solve the problem. Wealth people are still going to run for office and legislate in self favor; wealth people are still going to donate money to politicians, trough illegal means if necessary; well intentioned but naïve people are still going to run for office, and once elected are going to make the state so big that only big business can get close. I know because I don’t live in the US and I experience all that in my country!

  81. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson says:

    Ultimately representatives will in one way or another represent themselves first and foremost which is why I advocate for more direct democracy in the long run. If you eliminate or downsize significantly the government (the people’s government) then you still have the same government in place but in the form of large corporations (the shareholders’ government). At the end of the day someone will be left governing.

  82. brunorosi says:

    I couldn’t agree more: “Ultimately representatives will in one way or another represent themselves first and foremost”; “At the end of the day someone will be left governing”. In my country we have a “people’s government”, that advocates “for more direct democracy”. And they only represent themselves. If it’s different in other parts of the world, I’m sorry to be where I am. But as I see it, the libertarian view fits just fine for my reality. That’s why I believe we have to limit the government.

  83. Hiraghm says:

    You have the RIGHT to say "no"… you don't have the POWER to say "no".

  84. Armindo Ribeiro says:

    I'm not a fan of capitalism either, but the main point of the video is that "small state" capitalism is preferable to "big state" capitalism (which leads to crony capitalism more easily). Exploitation exists as long as capitalism/private property/pick your own word/etc. does too, but the pseudo-leftists' attempts to reduce exploitation aren't efficient and only bring further exploitation.

  85. EdgemanLL2 says:

    Of course I have the power to say no. I say "no" to "shop at Wal Mart today" every day. Unless Wal Mart buys off politicians to force me to give them money, then Wal Mart is 100% irrelevant to me. If they fell off the face of the planet tomorrow, Id never notice the difference.

  86. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson says:

    Not everything gets forced into a black market when prohibited. Of course some would try and they have in the past but things have never been this bad before.

  87. mmzen says:


  88. mrjchristensen says:

    They will always find a way around it. If you think your government officials aren't bribed you are kidding yourself. The government here passed laws against using political money for personal gain, so to get around that those same officials created "Leadership PACs" to donate to where they could use the funds for personal use. Those kinds of laws to which you refer only make politicians look good and keep the public ignorant.

  89. mrjchristensen says:

    I don't patronize walmart either, but if they were gone the prices you pay at other stores would go up because of reduced competition….

  90. EdgemanLL2 says:

    Further proves the point. Free market competition keeps prices low.


  91. saw mu thar says:

    Cronyism is dirty politics.

  92. james bush says:

    They both do the government is a product of corporate ''political donations''. Exploitation will only end when the people have the not the privileged few whether they are corporate or government.

  93. mmzen says:

    cronyism is capitalism….the power of organized money is what manipulates the government…the idea of removing regulation is some nice little crap the think tank who owns this channel have come up with to remove the small amounts of consumer protection we have already.

  94. Tmpqtyu Tmpqty says:

    Go by my rule: when asked:
    "Who Exploits You More: Capitalists or X"
    if the second option isn't "Nazis", then the answer is "Capitalists".

  95. Frank M says:

    Go to southeast Asia or Africa to find out what a small government gets you. 

  96. Tubelaw says:

    This notion of "crony" capitalism is apparently the latest PR coup by our corporate overlords/think tanks. It's quite clever, psychologically speaking: they found a way to continue their free market narrative without resorting to old rhetoric which came under fire after 2008.

  97. Socialist says:

    Crony Capitalists are still Capitalists.

  98. Labour Theory of Value says:

    Both capitalists and cronies exploit people.

  99. rd f says:

    Socialism is almost by definition opposed to freedom. It gives the government power to enforce endless edicts by bureaucrats. Individual freedom is subjugated to the "common good" as determined by the government.

  100. thebogangamer says:

    lol at you yanks, in my country the government will give you money to start a business, i even qualify for up to 150k.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *