Yaron Brook on Capitalism, Question 3 - Ayn Rand Institute
Uploaded by: AynRandInstitute
Video Description:
http://www.aynrand.org
Dr. Yaron Brook discusses whether unregulated capitalism results in pollution and inadequate healthcare for children. From the Q- &-A period of a lecture titled "Why Unregulated Laissez-Faire Capitalism Is the Only Moral Social System," delivered at the University of California, Irvine on April 14, 2008.
Yaron Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, California.
Tags for this video: analysis Ayn Brook capitalism commentary environmentalism healthcare Institute Irvine nationalize Objectivism pollution Rand Yaron
Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by AynRandInstitute
| Yaron Brook on Capitalism, Question 2 - Ayn Rand Institute | Yaron Brook on Capitalism, Question 4 - Ayn Rand Institute | Yaron Brook on Capitalism, Question 5 - Ayn Rand Institute |
 |  |  |
| Yaron Brook on Capitalism, Question 6 - Ayn Rand Institute | Yaron Brook on Capitalism, Question 7 - Ayn Rand Institute | UFM.edu - Interview with Yaron Brook |
 |  |  |
Share This Video:
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
| Comments for this video on YouTube |
| why cant i post my ... ( 5 months ago by hussainmehdi) |
| why cant i post my other part of reply??? |
| when i click "post ... ( 5 months ago by hussainmehdi) |
| when i click "post comment" it says "comment posted" but it didn't appear after refsht??? |
| you can believe ... ( 5 months ago by shovelcharge) |
| you can believe whatever nonsense you want, pal |
| Economist Ha-Joon ... ( 5 months ago by Psy500) |
| Economist Ha-Joon Chang counters that argument asking if you take a child and throw them directly into the job market what are the odds they they will earn as much then if they were subsidized by the parents thus free to get an educated. Ha-Joon Chang also points out that every world power became a world power through subsiding their industrialization, the American economy still be geared to agriculturally exports if not for the US government subsidizing industry. |
| But the government ... ( 5 months ago by shovelcharge) |
| But the government doesn't have a right to have any sort of subsidies. And, wealth is created by men who use their mind to produce products that benefit mankind, not by government help. Why is being a "world power" a value? What does that even mean? |
| Industrialization ... ( 5 months ago by Psy500) |
| Industrialization requires a great amounts of capital and they pay for themselves for sometime. The free-market only started industrializing when regulated market raised the living conditions of workers that the underdeveloped world had a advantage of cheaper labor (which is why Americans don't flock to these free-market miracles). |
| That should be ... ( 5 months ago by Psy500) |
| That should be don't pay for themselves for sometime, in my previous post. Anyway the idea that governments don't have a right to subsidize comes from a individualist point of view. For example most everyone within society has benefited from the industrialization that was brought be government subsidies, would you rather be working for little pay because the US didn't industrialize and instead let market forces lock it into agricultural exports thus dooming the US to a 3rd world nation? |
| You are talking ... ( 5 months ago by shovelcharge) |
| You are talking about some organic collective. Who and what required capital? Was it individual businessmen with their own agenda or was it a single thing called "industrialization"? That doesn't make sense. The free market made the increased standard of living. Regulations don't make life better, they simply leech off of the productivity of businessmen and force them to do things with their businesses. Governments didn't create better housing, sanitation, technology, medicine... |
| Governments, i.e. ... ( 5 months ago by shovelcharge) |
| Governments, i.e. regulations, only have the power to use force, i.e destroy things. The threat of force doesn't create new products or the drive to create better products that make our standard of living so high. |
| Did you look up the ... ( 5 months ago by Psy500) |
| Did you look up the works of Ha-Joon Chang? He shows how free-market economists got economic history upside down. The the world powers all industrialized through subsidizing their economies (USA,UK, Germany, Japan, Italy, France,ect) the peak of US living standards is at the peak of Keynesianism. The free-market only builds industry where labor is cheaper, thus why Americans don't flock to the free-market miracles. The Internet your using right now was invented by government subsides. |
| What are "these ... ( 5 months ago by shovelcharge) |
| What are "these free-market miracles"? |
| Free-market ... ( 5 months ago by Psy500) |
| Free-market miracles are underdeveloped nations rapidly industrialize without serious government subsidies, they are pointed by free-market supporters as proof that all poor nations need to do is work hard and they can prosper. The problem is that what really drives this growth is these underdeveloped nations having cheaper labor, they are actually less productive as the workers are less skilled and using sub-standard equipment but since the labor it is more profitable. |
| opps last bit is ... ( 5 months ago by Psy500) |
| opps last bit is since the labor is cheaper it is more profitable. Don't think it would have fit into the 500 character limit anyway. |
| ...and here is one ... ( 5 months ago by dclewis) |
| ...and here is one of the great problems of communication on the subject. Think about what you just wrote for a second. Laissez-faire, by definition means that Government is not involved in the market - at all. The fact that Government intervenes in the market means that it is not free. I doubt you can name a time in history when there was actually Capitalism - meaning Laissez-faire. |
| "The Internet your ... ( 5 months ago by shovelcharge) |
| "The Internet your using right now was invented by government subsides." No. That makes no sense. The government doesn't produce anything or invent anything. The government is a group of individuals with the power to use force. The guy who invented the internet...made the internet. |
| the fact that the ... ( 5 months ago by shovelcharge) |
| the fact that the internet was made by a guy who was subsidized by the gov. doesn't mean the gov. is special. It just means that invention usually takes investment. It doesn't matter if the money came from the government, it could have easily come from a rich man, and probably would have been used more effectively. |
| The government ... ( 5 months ago by Psy500) |
| The government played the role of capitalist when it came to the Internet as it was developed by people employed by the government. |
| Great!!! ( 5 months ago by TheUndercurrent) |
| Great!!! |
| there are several ... ( 4 months ago by petergullestrup) |
| there are several thousands of people that can document that the pollution created by cars has led to lung/heart disease...Do we have the right to take legal action against car owners- for the illness it has created? Our bodies- our property. right? |
| Why take legal ... ( 4 months ago by Psy500) |
| Why take legal action against car owners, most would take public transit if public transit was properly funded, just look at Europe. Speaking of public transit, private cars are less convenient,less efficient and causes more pollution on a large scale then mass transit but they are far more profitable then mass transit thus why General Motors bought up private mass transit companies and liquidated them to remove them as competition to the automobile. |
| As always, Dr. ... ( 2 months ago by AuntGrace11) |
| As always, Dr. Brook was spot on but I'm surprised he didn't mention the "brain drain" of doctors that would occur under socialized medicine. Not only would there be the long lines he spoke about but the quality of health care would deteriorate. |
| How does he equate ... ( 2 months ago by KhanSlayer) |
| How does he equate pollution with longer life expectancy? I thought sanitation and clean drinking water, (Scientific innovation), was the reason we live longer. If anything wouldnt you say pollution is a detriment to our life expectancy? They live longer than we do in Germany and Japan with less pollution and they are just as capitalist. |
| His statement is ... ( 1 month ago by GZorangutan) |
| His statement is not that pollution=increased life expectancy, conversely it is that pollution produced by capitalist economies in relation to non-capitalist economies is relatively much lower. The life expectancy at birth for the U.S., Germany, and Japan are as follows:78,78,79. Very minimal difference. Also, Germany and Japan, although very industrialized, are not as productive as the United States. |
| Indeed ( 1 month ago by KhanSlayer) |
| Indeed |
Tell a friend: