More Info

Marco Onyxheart says:

Anti-trust laws are COMMUNIST!

Cythil says:

My view on government is that if there was no government then someone would invert it and implement it.

Those that think the world would be better without a government do not realise that what ever system they set up to replace it would it self be a form of government. After all without any government there is no property rights. There are in fact no right at all. But the first moment we start to agree on some rules then we have created a form of government.

TheGreatWolfy says:

down with capitalism!

Merry Machiavelli says:

I find it interesting how this video would be taken in very different ways by people in different countries. For example, the proposition that government is important in the economy is much less controversial to a Western European audience – the only significant argument there would be one of degree.

For a Chinese audience, that may go even further, with a large level of government involvement in the economy viewed as essential for prosperity.

For an audience from some sub-saharan African countries, I imagine this message is met either with a derision or remorse, given that corruption and political instability occurs there on a scale in just doesn't in the US or Western Europe.

For a country governed under Shari-ah, the intertwining of law, religion and government seems like it alters some aspects of the debate entirely.

The mental link between free market economics and personal freedom, as well as the ideological emphasis on freedom itself, is a something particularly pronounced in the US for cultural reasons. Hearing how much less individualistic cultures, like that of Japan for instance, react to the same ideas would be interesting.

TheFireflyGrave says:

Great video Craigers!

Marcial Amaury Pineda Moquete says:

Take that free-market enthusiasts

Greg Moberg says:

but wait, if we speculate enough or provide the right hypothetical circumstance, the market will take care of all these things. The government could be taken over by mind reading androids. It only fallows from that, that people shouldn't be bound by laws and should be allowed to have nukes and tanks and use them at their own discretion. /s

Sam Barkley says:

Tim Minchin?

Mafhiw says:

A free market naturally fixes frauds and scams.

The story of Brad Katsuyama and the founding of IEX is the perfect example. The trade scalping was perfectly legal, and law enforcement could do nothing about it, so he opened a stock exchange that prevented it; a tiny subtle scam can open the window to a massive competition.

A scam or a fraud is a leak on the quality of the service, and consumers naturally heavily punish it.

Thanks to a competition arising, the trade scalpers in the long run will lose more than they gain with the scam.

therealquade says:

so I have a question here.
A written titles and deeds are physical things. didn't these used to be incredibly vague for ownership, like "the holder of this deed owns X thing/place" I have seen many a movie where the plot revolved around people fighting over a deed because literally, whoever physically possessed said deed, was the owner of the land. I mean, maybe they glossed over needing to forge a signature or something, or maybe they didn't originally require them. I don't honestly know.

So my question is…. for things with a high monetary value, such as real estate, cars, etc, that have a title or deed…. I'm assuming that today there's signatures and such specified on the title or deed for who the owner is, and if i'm somehow wrong please correct me…. but, Was that always the case, and if not, when did it change?

Gabriel Fine says:

Great videos, however, some of the viewers including me aren't born in English speaking places, can you please slow down with the talking? difficult to follow. But great videos :)

Antonis Rountas says:

The truth is that I was attracted by the characters in the thumbnail…

shreddaily101 says:

Wait, wait. You are not John green???