It is like a video game: one of those pay to win games where if you don't have the money to buy all the OP items, you will be faced with an unbearable, or even downright impossible, grind!

@hannag6546

Жыл бұрын

Literally

@deetaylor334

4 ай бұрын

Don’t be lazy 😂

What version of Monopoly is that?

Death is the "Great Leveller". One day these rich and greedy will be dead. If those alive today do not, or can't bring themselves to look after their fellow man and show compassion and share everything, EVERYTHING, then we are doomed as a species.

I'm all for making profits but there should be a ceiling where once you have a certain amout, excess profit is given to the government for the betterment of the people.

@ultimategamer2669

3 жыл бұрын

I agree.

The deal should require Bill and Warren to donate the money to the world's poorest people to buy them Lifestraws and animals.

Monopoly should just be called Capitalism.

@scruffytuna

3 жыл бұрын

It is technically about "monopoly capitalism". Once domestic capitalist markets are saturated, they force themselves overseas to other countries (imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism)

What kind of monopoly is that?

Nice video sir

Critical flaw: if a big company approaches a smaller one and the smaller one sells out to the big company then it was either a choice, their fault, or coercion, illegal and invalid

Hi Daily Rant, sorry I don't know your name. My name is Lorenzo and I lived for 4 years in Oz between 2013 to 2017. I had issues with and got to know up close the Australian labor market and its loose regulations, particularly the use of labor hire firms. As you know this is currently a period with the Liberal coalition in charge and I was wondering whether this is a result of their policies or if it is a trajectory of the australian society in general that also Labor has contributed to create. What's your take?Can Bill Shorten reverse the tide for the working class and do things like increasing the public spending or will it stay the same? Thanks for your videos who enable me to connect from abroad with a country and people that I hold dear to my heart.

@DailyInsightAU

5 жыл бұрын

First of all, you're welcome. Secondly, I think that Australian society is reflective of the trends occurring around the world. I don't think either major party will "fix" anything very much. Possibly, Labor will make things a little bit better for a short period of time, but ultimately, the world is headed towards cheaper labour due to globalisation and increased automation. If Australians demand more salary, it may just end up with them losing their jobs to cheaper individuals overseas, or to a robot or machine, perhaps. I've seen it in the IT industry. Lots of Aussies are being replaced and I don't think the government can stop it. As I've mentioned in other videos, in the interim, we'll need some form of basic income to enable everyone to continue purchasing all the cheap products and spur the economy on. Ultimately, when automation becomes the norm and everything becomes plentiful, I imagine a world where we won't need money. Everyone can catch a free automated vehicle to the city; Everyone can just "print" out some food. The idea of buying things will become obsolete. Some futurists are saying that humans will ultimately live in a virtual world. There will be no need for houses, or boats, or anything else. We'll just be lying in some warehouse with a drip in our arm providing us with sustenance. We'll be living all of our wildest dreams in virtual reality. I don't think that I would really want to, but perhaps the VR world will be thousands of times better than the real world, and perhaps there would be nothing for us in the real world anyway.

@ekinteko

5 жыл бұрын

@@DailyInsightAU USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, and Scandinavia... they are in a unique position to start a Universal Basic Income, or Negative Taxation. While this won't be much different from having a Minimum Wage, it will help stop the "race to the bottom" that is accelerated by the incoming AI Industry. However, none of the politicians are thinking about this, let alone planning it. And this is a case of the sooner the better, because later this plan may become necessary, at which point the options will be much worse. And I can see this happening. So I don't think your first scenario will happen, nor will your second scenario. Things are going to get much worse before they become same. And that may result in parliamentary revolutions, or a heavy swing of the pendulum the opposite way (against free market). The most important thing is; will this be achieved by taking away Freedom of Speech, and a Free Internet... or will the powers go against the people to take away these liberties to further their influence?

Either way we are supporting them

Honestly content, thank you

Being ruled by a giant company or a giant government are probably much the same thing.

@randomarchive1671

8 ай бұрын

However, the government at least might re invest on the country. Companies can just fuck up a nation and then move to the next one. If you look at capitalist countries where the government has a relatively high control of the economy you will see they have generally better humanitarian conditions than capitalist countries with government that have low control over the economy. (Still shitty, none the less...)

There is no capitalism but priented socialism for rich

@torinion3870

3 жыл бұрын

Bullcrap

I like this video but I wish it explained socialism and its drawbacks. Socialism is the opposite of capitalism. Each ideology has it's pros and cons. The two ideologies exist on a spectrum where communism is at the extreme left and anarchocapitalism is at the extreme right. Anarchocapitalism is a society without any government at all. Communism is a society without private companies only government services/products. Most people and governments are somewhere in between. You don't really want capitalism without socialism (government) and you don't really want socialism without capitalism (private companies). Governments set regulations and are accountable to voters. Private companies create innovation and are accountable to customers and shareholders

Yea life isn’t fair

We need to abolish income tax and increase sales tax. Problem solved.

@Low_Fidelity_3D

Жыл бұрын

🤯

10:10 some people are poor because of their own doing. Carelessness, unplanned parenthood, drug or alcohol addiction etc

@ultimategamer2669

3 жыл бұрын

The key word here is "SOME"

@undeadblizzard

3 жыл бұрын

The funny thing is that Rich People do drugs and alcohol more than the poor. Poor People use their money to buy food. If Poor People do drink it because some of them work back breaking jobs. If ever worked in customer service or retail you quickly learn it mentally and physically draining. I once worked in a grocery and had a guns and knives pull on me. It paid better than most but still.

Title should be called, The Game of Fascism............but that would require actual thinking

@undeadblizzard

3 жыл бұрын

Fascism is Capitalism in decay. The issue with power or The State it can only justify existing by find new problems to fight. The easiest to fight are immigrants they are usually poor so they can't afford a good lawyer. They may not speak the local language well. They might not have the same religion as the country or they do but worship in a different way.

@andrewkerr5296

3 жыл бұрын

@@undeadblizzard wrong

@undeadblizzard

3 жыл бұрын

@@andrewkerr5296 What do you mean ?

@andrewkerr5296

3 жыл бұрын

@@undeadblizzard fascism is not capitalism in decay The Government only gets bigger because dumb masses keep voting for bigger Government

@undeadblizzard

3 жыл бұрын

@@andrewkerr5296 I guess. I am not fan of the government. I am also not a fan of capitalism either. Regardless the Government has a better track record of handling crises. The Vietnamese Government handled COVID very well. I don't agree with China but the same result. Leaving things to the Private Sector means only those who can afford help will get help. You could make an argument for Charities and I not against it. I feel if Charities really work why do we still have homelessness and hungry. The problem is that the Government tends to hire private companies to lighten their load. Private companies need to make money so they take short cuts and that where the fun begins.

I think your videos are great and I've really enjoyed watching them (particularly on the one on work slavery). However, I think, in this video, you're neglecting the fact that these billionaires' products have added trillions of dollars of value to the billions of peoples' lives. For example, Bill Gates has added tens of trillions of dollars of value to the world and so his own reward is extremely tiny by comparison. This is the problem with Thomas Picketty's book 'Capital'. He is only looking at the movement of money and not the value of the products themselves. So if I buy an iPhone then, according to him, I am $1000 poorer and Apple are $1000 richer. But obviously the iPhone must be worth more than $1000 to me otherwise would I exchange the money for it? Therefore, the exchange is equal and is a win-win not a win for the company and a loss for the customer. Finally, whilst all your points are well intentioned and make sense intuitively, you have not discussed the real world results of what government redistribution has actually achieved. Capitalism has brought over a billion people out of poverty in Asia. What can you say that any government around the world has done by contrast?

@DailyInsightAU

5 жыл бұрын

Certainly, I agree with all your points. Many millions (billions?) of people have benefited from capitalism. But some people have benefited much more than others. Yes, Bill Gates has potentially "added" trillions of dollars of value to other peoples' lives. But it should be pointed out that by him allowing people the opportunity to purchase the Windows OS, that does not in itself add value to people's lives. It adds potential. It's what those people choose to do with their newly bought software using their own time and hard work. Bill Gates has also benefited from all the people before him. He didn't invent the computer. He didn't discover electricity, or create the electrical grid. Without those things, he would have been a farmer, or a carriage driver. If his customers have benefited "trillions" of dollars from his software, then so too as he from the computer company that made his computer, or the government's electrical grid. The difference is, Bill has billions of dollars and a ridiculous mansion. His customers do not. We often cite that capitalism has brought millions of people of out of poverty, but it's never been done in a vacuum. Capitalism has always existed together with government. Was it capitalism that brought people out of poverty, or was if the government? Could capitalism have existed without the government? Or should I say, did it exist without government? No. If we state that capitalism has helped so many people, we should equally say that so has the government, because the government (of various countries) have allowed capitalism to happen. If Bill Gates was living in a country that said that individuals were not allowed to profit from personal endeavours, he wouldn't be the billionaire that he is today. He might have contributed to some government-owned software, but we would never know. The US government, and it's own form of capitalism, have allowed Bill Gates to own cars, jets, multiple properties, and a 24 bathroom house. They have also allowed millions of people to remain in poverty.

@joescarffe1472

5 жыл бұрын

@@DailyInsightAU thanks for your response. Here is an article that I was using as my source for the billion statistic: www.economist.com/leaders/2013/06/01/towards-the-end-of-poverty I don't see your point here. Yes, we all stand on the shoulders of giants, but how they can one become a giant if they are shackled into making forced contributions to others? The important thing to realise here is that the state has no power of its own. It only gets power and resources by taking it from society and thereby weakening it. If you feel it is unfair that Bill Gates has the freedom to create products that millions of people want then why not tax 100% of his wealth and then give him the minimum wage? This kind of thinking has very unfortunate slippery slope consequences where one becomes motivated to remove all inequalities, from IQ to physical stature, which has led to travesties like the killing fields of Cambodia - where anyone who displayed any form of tangible advantage was killed off. Do you think anyone should profit or have advantages over others from their work and creativity? If so, how much?

@DailyInsightAU

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the link to the article (although it is mostly behind a paywall). First of all, you're saying that "the state" and "society" are two separate entities. I would say that the state is just a part of society. Society has decided over thousands of years that they want a government. Yes, we could argue over the specifics, but ultimately, society demands government (of some kind). That doesn't mean we can't improve government, but there's no scenario that I can imagine where government would just disappear. If it did, people would still band together and form their own version of government -- even at the very local level. The "neighbourhood watch" group that protects the local area from thugs, or whatever. Secondly, I'm not saying that anybody shouldn't have the freedom to create products, but as a society, we have to dictate how much wealth is enough. With our current system, this could be achieved using an appropriately planned progressive tax. That is, as people earn more and more money, their upper tax rate increases (just on the amount that goes over that tier). I can't tell you how much that would be -- it would be up to the individual country to decide based on its circumstances. There would be a certain untaxed amount where people can earn some money without having to pay any tax. (In Australia, it's currently $18200 -- See www.ato.gov.au/rates/individual-income-tax-rates/ ) Regardless, there would still be entrepreneurs making awesome products and services. It's not the idea of possibly becoming a billionaire that motivates people. At first, even the prospect of thousands of dollars would motivate people. For example, I'm motivated to make videos on KZread and I'm only receiving, quite literally, tens of dollars. But I guess, I'm not the normal sort of guy ;) Ultimately, it comes down to freedom. If people can create a product or service that earns them enough money to be free from working for other people, then that's enough of a motivation for most entrepreneurs. Whether that's thousands of dollars, or later, millions of dollars, people ultimately just want financial freedom. Billionaires are where they are financially because the system hasn't stopped them. They will just keep going and going and going, gaining more and more wealth, until society says that's enough. It's not really their fault. They've just found a way to collect all the money in our broken system. Show less

@joescarffe1472

5 жыл бұрын

@@DailyInsightAU No problem, if you look else where then you can find many other reports that close to a billion people have been lifted out of poverty due to capitalism. It is not reasonable to jump straight from large state control to anarchy - the mechanisms for a minimal state whose only function is to protect the liberties of its citizens has already been well established by the founding fathers in the US. There is also no need for coercion within this system. The issue with trying to tell anyone that they have 'enough' wealth is that you are penalising success. Also, you have admitted that you could not be certain of where the wealth cap should be and so I would like to know who you think is suitable to make this decision? It has to ultimately be arbitrary because the minimal allowable wage levels that the UN now accepts is the same as the average wage (adjusted for inflation) that workers earned just a few hundred years ago. The final problem is that this is all subjective. Some people rant that it is ridiculous that people own iPhones that are over $1000. Everyone has their own budget for living and so you cannot force them to make it equal or cap it just because you think it's unfair. If you want people to have freedom then let them earn what they want, provide whatever level of value to society they want to and be free of state coercion. If you don't want all of those things then I cannot understand what you mean by it coming down to freedom or you supporting people having freedom.

@islommicgommunist6404

4 жыл бұрын

I disagree. The value was created by the workers of those companies. The billionaires may have been useful from the start, but once they were in a position to hire workers and not have to engage in productive labour, they were no longer necessary to the production of useful commodities to society, and they became parasites. Value is created when workers engage in useful labour for society.

Hang on...... pure capitalism would result in a whole bunch of competitors. A limited government means limited scope for lobbying.

@GeneralArmorus

4 жыл бұрын

certainly can't see that being true

This video is wrong in some many ways

@DailyInsightAU

2 жыл бұрын

Feel free to explain.

@mister2053

2 жыл бұрын

@@DailyInsightAU really? Can I use it for a video response?

@dirtydan9785

9 ай бұрын

​@@mister2053Can't help but notice it's been a year and there is no video response

As long as money/knowledge/talent/etc. exists there will be people with a lot and people with little. Stop focusing on someone else's life and whining and complaining and get up and do it yourself.

@DailyInsightAU

2 жыл бұрын

Okay, will do