What’s Wrong With Capitalism: Capitalism vs Socialism—Corporatism NOT Capitalism Part 7

So this is the biggest laugh of all: “To the
real point of the golden pizza is that it is emblematic of the fact that the extreme
economic inequalities of our society are laughably unjustifiable. If I were to translate the
meaning of the golden pizza into an argument, it would go something like this: Capitalism
as we know it is a defective economic system.” The idea that capitalism is a defective system
and this is the concession: “because, although it’s good at creating large amounts of wealth,”
but apparently it distributes this “in an incredibly inefficient way.” Well, that’s
rather quite laughable because nothing can rival free market capitalism for efficiency
and the reason for why that is is because capitalism is not faced with; a) the knowledge
problem and b) the economic calculation problem. Now, this is something that I am going to
discuss critiquing another YouTuber on the economic calculation problem. If you destroy
market-driven prices, which is to say, prices that are determined by consumer demand, which
requires a capitalist system, in other words, a free market economy for the free market
to determine what prices are through consumer demand, that’s market-driven prices; if you
distort market-driven prices via socialist price controls aka government price controls,
then you end up destroying the information of profits and losses. When you destroy the
information of profits and losses, you can forget efficiency because without the information
of price signals, without the information of the profits and losses, there’s no possible
way for you to know all the valuable information to know what resources to use and where to
allocate them, etc, or even how much to produce, etc, etc, you don’t know the information.
The reason the capitalist system works so well is because there is no incentive for
a producer to produce goods that are not going to sell, why would they want to do that? If
the goal of private business owners is to make a profit, they are not going to produce
what is not selling, why? Because it’s going to make them losses. So, what a producer does
is the goods that are not selling, they stop selling it, that’s an efficient way to tell
them what resources to stop using and, of course, what to stop producing. So, they efficiently
know where to allocate resources, what to produce more of and or how much to produce,
they know where it’s going in the market, they know what is in demand. Whereas, they
know that from what is not in demand, they know where to stop allocating the resources,
etc, etc. Whereas, socialism is not driven by consumer demand, socialism is driven by
what it is defined by; economic central planning, the idea that you can place the consumer secondary
and that you can just centrally plan the economy, centrally plan production. As if the central
planner knows the needs and wants of 70 million people in Great Britain, ignoring the fact
that out of 70 million people they all have different needs and wants from each other.
Imagine trying to, you know, plan production just for one type of product for, you know,
70 million people, not everybody likes the same stuff, that’s the issue. You’ve got a
very complex society, it’s not as simple as just, you know, producing and throwing it
out there on the market and hoping for the best. You either have this idea of the Marxist
theory of a moneyless based economy, which means you have no price system and if you’ve
got no price system, you’ve got no information of profits and losses, so you don’t know all
the valuable information. If it’s not the moneyless based economy and from what I gather
from ContraPoints argument, this individual seems to agree with a money based system,
so what’s ContraPoints saying? ContraPoints is saying, on one hand, they want to abolish
the private sector, right, but they want a money based system. So, if they want a money
based system, what are they going to do? Well, what do socialists famously do? Socialists
resort to government price controls and what do government price controls result in? It
results in shortage problems through price ceilings; it results in surplus waste problems
through the price floors and it results in the misallocation of valuable scarce resources.
That’s going way past theory, by the way because we’ve got mountains of historical evidence
to back it, it’s been proven everywhere. You seen it with the mass production of pelts
in the Soviet Union; you seen it with the mass production of shoes in the late 1980s;
you seen it with the food shortage problems in Venezuela, you’ve seen it everywhere. This
is the problem with socialism. It’s destroyed on the economic calculation problem alone,
never let alone arguing on the knowledge problem. So, it’s completely false to say that a capitalist
system is defective and somehow is inefficient, how can someone claim such a thing? The style
of economy that we live under today, whether you talk about that of Great Britain or the
United States of America, that’s not a capitalist system, that’s not a free market. How can
anybody say that today’s economy is something capitalist when we’re sitting here with a
central banking system, when we’re sitting here with the type of economy full of government
subsidies? They were bailing the banks out for crying out loud, that’s not capitalism
and as far as I’m concerned, if you wish to try and connect a mixed economy to capitalism,
you’re basically stating a fallacy. “where efficiency is understood, not as the capacity
to maximise total wealth but as the capacity to maximise human happiness. Now, I need to
explain what I mean about happiness. Here’s a question: should the economy serve humanity
or should humanity serve the economy?” And again, ContraPoints really proves the point
that this particular individual really doesn’t understand efficiency at all, it’s not about
this of to do with human happiness, it’s about how you can maximise productivity out of using
the fewest resources as possible. A great example in that in history and again, I provided
a video on that that you can go and watch that I explained on Standard Oil with John
Davison Rockefeller, he was the perfect example; this was a man utterly obsessed with that
of efficiency and, you know, he achieved what he got, he maximised his profits whilst minimising
the use of his resources. Efficiency isn’t doing what the hundreds of other oil refinery
companies were doing and what were the hundreds of other oil refinery companies doing? They
were wasting vast quantity of natural resources and they were being punished for it. The reason
why John Davison Rockefeller managed to benefit from it is because, again, the laws of supply
and demand, as more and more people entered the oil refinery market, the price would drop
by about 50 percent on the barrels of oil and these companies could not afford that
because they were so wasteful, that’s why they couldn’t afford it. Meanwhile, because
John Davison Rockefeller was too smart for them because he was far more efficient than
them, he was gaining more money out of the whole thing. That’s not a case of unfair practice,
that’s just a case that you have one businessman who’s far smarter than the rest of them, so
he deserved where he got. So, that is an example of what we call efficiency, it’s not this
idea of something to do with human happiness, or something. “It seems obvious to me that
the economy should serve humanity, so what I look for in a good economic system is that
it produces the most happiness for the people who are a part of it. So, if you’re willing
to go along with this, the first question we should ask is: does having more wealth
make people happier? And we actually have data about that, at least within the context
of our own economic system and the data shows that more income does lead to more happiness
up to a certain point, but the happiness benefit of increased income plateau’s somewhere between
$65,000 and $95,000 a year. One interpretation of the reason why happiness increases up to
the threshold is that at lower income levels, more income means less stress about paying
rent, or mortgages, or medical bills, or college tuition.” Through a free market economy, you
actually see wages drive up and the inflationary rate of the economy drives dramatically down.
So, therefore, you end up living under a low inflationary based economy where everything
becomes cheaper and, of course, people become wealthier as their wages grow. This was precisely
what we saw from historical evidence in the late 19th century when there was only small
pockets of poverty left behind. If you were to contrast the poverty of people living in
1760 in what would become the United States of America; if you were to compare the people
living back then in the 1760s with how poor they were and then contrast that to how people
lived in the 1880s onwards nearer the 20th century, you will find that the vast majority
of American people had been lifted out of poverty and the most important thing out of
this fact, is the fact that, again, as I have pointed out before; between 1840 to 1900 the
consumer price index continuously dropped and back then they had free market healthcare
and education that was dirt cheap and you contrast that to the corporatism that you
live under today. “So, at least to my naive eyes, what it looks like is that millions
of people in this country don’t have enough money to securely afford; food, housing, education
and healthcare.” The very fault of why American healthcare costs are through the roof, I have
explained in detail about this, it’s because you are living in the absence of capitalism,
that was the fault of all the socialist government interventionism that restricted supply and
increased demand, that is the laws of supply and demand that you can’t ignore. You can’t
ignore the American Medical Association monopoly. It is a bit like that funny cartoon where,
you know, the socialist sticks something like a stick in the spokes of the bicycle and goes
flying over the handle bars and says: “awww capitalism’s fault!” You complain about the
house costs, you complain about all of these problems, meanwhile, you’re sitting there
with a central banking system that controls and manipulates interest rates, for example;
artificially lowers interest rates resulting in consumer demand driving up in an area of
a shortage and before you know it, you end up seeing house prices soar out of control
and even as a result of all the, you know, the lack of proper immigration controls, you
see more and more people flooding into the United States and even for Great Britain,
for example and therefore, you see housing costs drive up because, you know, that’s the
laws of supply and demand. You then have all the regulation and the taxation in certain
places that end up driving up food costs because if you restrict productive output, you’re
going to see the costs drive up, that’s not a case of greed, that’s just a case of the
laws of supply and demand. How do you solve the problem of healthcare in terms of costs
or education in terms of costs, or anything else for that matter, in terms of costs; how
do you solve that problem? Well, it’s the laws of supply and demand. If you have more
productive output in ratio to what is in demand, if you produce more, demand drives down, so
the cost drives down. That’s how you reduce the cost. So, how do you reduce the costs
of education? Simple, you create more placements available for students, that’s how you do
it, you build more schools. It’s not because of GREED! It’s because of the laws of supply
and demand, it’s because of what governments been doing, basically. It’s the government
that restricted supply and increased demand. A good example of that was the American Medical
Association and even the closure of all those medical schools and what did that result in?
Well, in 1996 there was 44,000 applicants who applied for medical school, but there
was only 16,000 placements available. So, is it any surprise why the costs of medical
school is so expensive? It’s expensive because that’s the fault of the government granted
created monopoly. How can you blame that on capitalism? This is the point. If you’re not
going to take it seriously, if you’re not going to acknowledge the laws of supply and
demand, how can someone take you seriously on your arguments about costs when you don’t
even understand prices. It goes off on this tangent, again, to speak about today’s economy
ignoring the complex argument, ignoring the fault of why you have this problem with housing
and food and, you know, all the other stuff to do with education and healthcare. That’s
the fault of all the government intervention; that’s the fault of the mixed economy; that’s
the fault of living in the absence of a capitalist system, in other words, a free market.

  1. "Capitalsim" i.e. economic freedom, doesn't "distribute" wealth, which implies some sort of conciousness actively deciding who gets wealth and how much. With economic freedom people EARN different amounts of wealth. The fact that Bill Gates and I earn vastly different amounts of wealth is not "decided" by some external third party who is actively deciding he earns billions and I earn thousands, its the result of our different choices and circumstances in life and the choices of our respective customers.
    What's going on here is this person is an authoritarian and believes that someone ought to dictate how much wealth, resources, ect each individual is allocated or allowed to possess and because she holds that belief she is projecting that onto "capitalism" by assuming that "capitalism" is just another form of the economic authoritarianism she believes in but done by a different method with different results when "capitalism", economic freedom, is the ABSENCE of authoritarianism, the absence of the initiation of force, in economics.

  2. Here was the anarcho syndicalists response:
    “Yes, obviously the definition of Socialism varies widely across dictionaries. And yes many point to state ownership, and ignore governmental ownership. I don't have a problem with this, and if you want to confine socialism to governmental ownership, I'm fine with that, but I would still classify socialism under Marxism, and I would be fine with redefining it as libertarian socialism as many do. I never disagreed with this. Furthermore, you are aware that socialist theory from state socialists looked what they looked like in practice. As to say there were theorists that theorized libertarian socialism, and theorists that theorized state socialism. Now, you make the claim that the only socialism ever seen is governmental ownership, No doubt that is the most common form, because it is most easily implemented, but I can still Talk about Rojava, Catalonia, and the Zapatistas.

    We can identify that the principles that brought about Socialism as it was most commonly implemented are the same principles that brought about libertarian socialism, and if you confine Socialism to that definition, than yeah, Catalonia wouldn't have been Socialist, but it wouldn't have been capitalist either. It is interesting at this point you are drawing this distinctinction because previously you have maintained complacency with it.

    Furthermore, you then describe why state socialism has been more implemented, it is easier to carry out post revolution, or during revolution. Yes, when a revolution is carried out the formation of a central government can be used to quickly destroy all left private industry, and all left forces of capitalism, but you can still maintain a market, and there is still the option for a decentralized revolution.

    Furthermore, you keep calling Catalonia not libertarian. The Central Government again had virtually no power, and to be frank the states monopoly on violence was destroyed. Both under the definition of libertarianism and anarchism are fitted into Catalonia.

    Now, you make the claim that the workers having to take the means of production is somehow anti libertarian. I would disagree, now firstly, I would argue the redistribution of the means of production is just as voluntary or involuntary as capitalism itself, being that in capitalism labour is stolen directly from the worker, without said workers consent, in the sense that the worker only has the authority of what he buys, and where he works, and generally those two things can be restricted.

    Next you make the claim that market socialism is an oxymoron, You can control an economy and simulate a free market, and I could say that capitalism is the CONTROL of the economy by the Capitalists, thus not a FREE market because individual workers don't have equal opportunity to achieve the same capital.

    Now, for Catalonia, you are aware the workers patrol had special privileges endowed to them by the workers right? As to say in Barcelona, CNT FAI police forces were formed, and they were formed democratically. They had a totality of support from the workers, and this still remains to be a demonopolization of violence, because independent groups could form a rival police force if they wanted to, if you got the votes you could disband the forces, or start a rival force and attack that one. This is Anarchist, It is a sort of hierarchy but one again that has everyone at the top, all the people in barcelona at the top, as they were the ones who instituted the special privileges of those people. You then begin to talk about committees conflicting with each other, which I would assume you mean independent committees inside the many Syndicates or Federations. So yes, but as for your claim that the consolidation of power was carried out by Catalonia, no, the consolidation of power was as I have said before carried out by the PCE, and done so with full violence. I would call this non anarchic because it was carried out without the will of the people in that Area, and it was done so without any democratic mandate, as to say the people did not have the capability to reverse the decision, nor the capability to start the decision, nor the capability to oust any representatives that instituted the decision. Thus an unjustified hierarchy.

    As for what made you laugh, no, I should have been more clear, the collective of workers had the authority of who could buy and sell the products they produced. The individual only has the freedom to practice capitalism, if the individual is the only one involved in the production of that capital. Furthermore, the producer is somewhat producing for the consumer, as the producer depends on the consumer to purchase from them, (them and the producer being the collective of the workers) as the producer does in fact still depend on them, but effectively the workers as a collective have the authority over who buy and sells their product in a similar fashion to in Capitalism, but in this case it is a collective means of buying and selling, collective between the workers, where as Capitalism is the individual deciding for others, or a few individuals deciding for others.

    Now, again, socialism is defined by total authority over one's own labour in a collective setting. You have equal authority over your labour, as ever other person in that factory, or in the syndicate, or in the confederation or federation, everyone in the system has equal authority over this system, and thus you get the total authority over your own labour as you are an equal part of that labour. You then go on to make many claims about Socialism as someone who defines it, I would ask do you really represent the majority of people in this opinion? The majority of socialist movements that go on today happen in the third world, so if we were to take wittgenstein's linguistic approach perhaps dictionaries don't have usefulness. Or perhaps we should be clear and simply use clarifying words to describe what we mean, because the simple fact is during the entirety of the Soviet Union, the PRC, and every state socialist apparatus, they had to constantly justify to academics among them, and their people, how it was that the workers had total authority over their own labour, again speaking collectively. Now, Personal does pertain to individual, and individual ownership can take place, just not of capital, because then it would be private ownership, the insinuation being more is kept from society with that ownership. And finally you make the massive claim that Socialism doesn't permit individual liberty at all. Really? So in the Soviet Union you didn't have the liberty of what you wore? What you said? What you did? You had reduced liberty definitely, but to say at all you are making a drastic statement. Furthermore I would say Socialism has the capability of allowing for MORE, liberty. Socialism's purpose was in fact to fulfill the liberties originally described to have Capitalism achieve by Smith. But still, most definitions of Socialism describe in only terms of capital being collective or individual, not in terms of personal property, and I imagine every definition of libertarian socialism defines it that way, But fine, under your claims, and on your standards, Catalonia wouldn't be socialist, Because people had liberty, People had Equal opportunity, You had just as much authority as virtually everyone else, unless you were directly trying to take away said liberty”

  3. Here’s another one of his responses:
    “Now Money, how will people know how much money to produce, easy demand, similar to production in the capitalist market, just decisions on it made collectively by the workers producing the money. Furthermore the implementation of consumers councils can equally be used to drive market stimuli of production, via demand portrayed through democracy. In Anarcho Syndicalism this can be driven by Union involvement in the community and in consumers. Unions, and Coops which more effectively work with the community and consumers will do better, and market influences will more apparently be created for them, which will be imitated by others and improved upon, those that don't will fail. Furthermore Local committees can democratically decide either in metric, or individual time based choice.

    Furthermore, the economy is driven by consumer demand, only that the economy is driven by consumer demand and distributed through a socialist means, being the worker control of those means to produce what is being demanded by the consumers. Again, you seem to ignore what I am saying, there are market driven prices, they are set, by the workers, of a factory, union, syndicate, or federation, depending on the circumstances, just as in capitalism they are set by the highest levels of management, but in both situations those in control, either the workers or the management, will have the need and drive to do so according to the same market influences.

    How will we know the correct price? How much is another group of people willing to pay for it. One Coop can sell means of production to another coop, and they will decide how much to sell it for based on what the other coop is willing to pay. And no, that isn't capitalism, it is laissez faire, it is a market, and it is also Libertarian Socialist, as the workers are still deciding every step of the way.

    When I say it doesn't require collectivism, I mean it doesn't require totality of collectivism, only collectivism within those who produce what is being collectivized. You realize I, Marx, and the vast majority Libertarian Socialists look fondly of Capitalism right? It was an improvement, and the thing is there are aspects of Capitalism I like, the aspect I don't like is the theft of labour, and the theft of labour is completely removed in my system. I am not redefining Socialism, at all, and again, if you wish to call me a capitalist go ahead, I would call myself a libertarian socialist, but still, we disagree because I believe that the means of production should be controlled by the workers. I like how you fail to see how far you have been pushed at this point.

    You also make the claim that Socialism requires centralization, which again I disagree with, Socialism is about collectivism, among the workers, not necessarily among the entire society, and especially when that Society spans hundreds of millions of people in some cases. If this sounds like Capitalism, it is because it was theorized to be a smooth transition of capitalism, workers seize control but maintain methods, the only change is who controls the means of production, exchange, and distribution, being the workers.

    When you decentralize agriculture, yes often you are talking about CApitalism with the private individual, but if that agricultural industry employs people, or is in any extent beyond individual people working only for themself with no bosses, nor servants, than yes it is individual and it is private, but if you own agriculture, and employ anyone, or are employed by anyone, under socialism you have to have equal ownership to that person, and you have to receive the full value of your labour. This is what happened in Catalonia. There weren't many individual farmers, as it was a relative serfdom, but the thing is under this definition Catalonia would be Capitalist, which is strange as you seem to be arguing both that Catalonia was a brutal police state and also not really socialist. That is what Caplan was arguing to an extent.

    Catalonia did have some individual farmers, that had through one way or another escaped feudal peasantry, and achieved independence, and if they employed only themselves and their family, the CNT FAI had no issue with this, but if they did, there was an issue, and democracy would be demanded, as the employees were required to have equal ownership, and receive the full value of their labour. And in most instances where there were individual's owning agricultural and employing no one safe themselves and their family, then generally they would join unions, and syndicates dedicated to agricultural groups, and in return they would have to pay some tax to said syndicate, but they would also be protected from the invading Fascists, and receive help if they were falling into a compromised position.

    Now yes, State Socialists held the opinion that the workers weren't entitled to the collective ownership of their own labour, but society as a whole was, and then this should be achieved through Centralism and Statism, I disagree with this of course, it shouldn't be forced upon by a central state, and it should be striven for via the workers being encouraged to support the community, being that the workers represent a massive portion of the community.

    Furthermore, my argument would be that, sure, you have State Control of the Means of production, but when someone says collective control, that implies everyone has equal say in what occurs, because collectively the decisions are made, and the collective is a mass representative of the population, and the division of the population goes down to the individuals, whom equally represent said population. If the individuals equally represent said population, collective control implies equal control. Now, would you really tell me in the Soviet Union they had equal control? In the Soviet Union, there was an equal representation, or some kind of means of showing this equal decision among each person, either in Representatives or in Direct Democracy, no, you wouldn't make this claim because the Soviet Union wasn't democratic, nor did the people have a choice in their representatives. They were chosen by other representatives already in there, and if they are chosen by representatives, this means that these representatives who were also just chosen by other representatives, aren't actually being chosen by the people. Which means the people didn't have authority over who was coming and going. Unless I'm wrong and I'm forgetting the great Election of Kruschev, I guess Beria wasn't shot and killed, and I'm guessing Khrushchev was just elected, and he got in because he was chosen by the people for the people, not because he managed to get support of the military and strong manner everyone, and if it was I'm sure the military democratically supported him, because the leader of the Military who had total authority over it Zhukov was of course elected by the members of the military, except he wasn't, he was appointed, by Stalin, a guy that did the same thing Khrushchev did except before, and with another military.

    Now, what have I said so far relating to stripping away your individual rights, or individual liberty in an authoritarian manner supported by the state. Would you call the french revolution (in the beginning) authoritarian? The storming of the bastille? I would compare it to restricting the rights of a thief, if you stole my labour, and put me in a position where I had to work for you, losing a huge amount of money by not receiving the totality of what I could be earning in a system in which I had equal authority to everyone else involved in my labour, I would say I had the total right to steal back what you stole from me. Technically that is authoritarian, but so is shooting someone who is trying to shoot you, in both situations you are asserting authority. Now if someone stops you from owning your photography business, well why are they stopping you. If I shoot someone, am I being authoritarian? Well what if I shot someone trying to kill me? Am I still authoritarian, by definition yes, but is that really the consensus definition? The dictionaries may say it but would the majority of the population say it? No of course not.”

  4. And Another response:
    “Now, let me ask you, what is collective about a state existing totally independent from the population, there is no democracy, and no attempt at democracy, the only way to influence the government is to climb the ranks, change around a few words and that description works the same for a business. I would argue that the government can be a private force in the sense that the government can act in the same way a business can, as a private thing, it can be run by individuals. Would you really call feudal lords public? 14th and 15th Century kings Public? No, that would be fairly absurd. Furthermore, Capitalism isn't exclusively an individualist system, would you seriously call Corporatism non Capitalist? And just because Capitalism isn't purley individualist, doesn't mean that Capitalism is the state controlling the economy. This argument leads to the conclusion that again Fascist states, Monarchies, Feudal society, was all socialist.

    You are correct, you can't correlate capitalism to collectivism, you can correlate capitalism to authoritarianism however, quite easily. All Capitalism is somewhat authoritarian, those who have capital assert authority over those who do not, you assert authority over your workers, buy holding the majority of power.

    Now, Collectivism, again, doesn't mean the entire society, in the case of Socialism, it often means the collective of workers in an industry, or even in a factory. So Yes, the rights of the Group of workers in the factory, are prioritized over the individual, because in capitalism, the individual prioritizes their authority in the group, your boss, your manager, asserts his authority over you, whereas in socialism, you, and everyone else, holds equal authority over each other. Furthermore, no, the total collectivization of society and all property being publicly owned is communism, because that would mean total equal distribution of everything, and the dissolution of class.

    I have never tried to take capitalism and throw it onder collectivism, I have thrown it under authoritarianism, because it is always, inherently authoritarian. You are strawmanning me so apparently at this point. Capitalism is about the freedom of the individual, but it doesn't necessarily state that the individual isn't free to infringe upon the freedom of other individuals. Again in business this occurs. Furthermore again to bring your argument to its conclusion, Monarchy, the feudal system, and Fascism would be non capitalist, and by your dichotomy which I agree with, they would be socialist. (Your dichotomy of Capitalism to Socialism, and yeah i do agree with it, I disagree with your premise and blanket of what is and isn't capitalism).

    And I would disagree that capitalism is inherently individualist, as I have already said, Capitalism doesn't prohibit the infringement of others individual freedom, so unless you redefine Individualism to also include authoritarianism, then no, Capitalism doesn't have to be individualist.

    I must ask at this point two things, why have you dramatically increased your extent of disingenuous arguments? Your use of fallacy and at this point purposeful ignorance of what I am saying is now beyond a reasonable doubt, and similarly to the same extent if you continue at this rate after this response. I must wonder why you have shifted to this extent, especially given that we were actually reaching accommodation and at a point of genuine discussion. Second question, You seemed to drop that Noam Chomsky stuff, which means you either backed off your claims that he was radically pro government, and many other of your claims after actually looking him up, or you emailed him. Many of your questions to me have been extremely simple, and he would probably happily have this discussion with you, as I would, so if you wish to ask any questions you think I have failed to answer, you can email him here, or if you failed to find his email and want to criticize him on being radically pro government. Information about his email is here.

    As for Socialism being invented, Socialism on a definition basis you could call have been existed before Marx, but a main and primary portion of Socialism is the dialectical and historical materialism, the pure criteria for socialism is one that can be met fairly easily but in the brider scope of theory, and praxis, not so much”

  5. And for your claims on Catalonia, I would like historic proof and books that support our view. Because if he asks, “What historic proof you have the patrols were terrorizing?” I won’t be able to respond

  6. Also America has the IRS head hunting Americans. They actually harass people and people complained about it. Suing the IRS is a common thing to say. I heard the tax code is so long and complicated.

    Here in canada we pay our taxes in a few clicks. I'm guessing it's the same for you Brits

  7. Hi Scotty I was gonna ask about your opinion about Tipping in general. I'll admit i do tip in restaurants and my barber when he does my haircut. Also what do you think about tipping in a free market economy.

Leave a Reply

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