This talk should be revamped and geared towards central planning as a whole. A lot of people see "Socialism" and turn a deaf ear yet continue to push for government ownership of things like healthcare, transportation, schooling etc., when it's the same thing, unbeknownst to them.
I see your point, but not sure if it would work, though. The point of a tittle is to attract attention, and here, "socialism" should attract more. Also : * With "central planning", you would get the kind of left wingers that will say the USSR "wasn't real socialism", and that central planning isn't a feature of socialism. Better to call it what it is. * Your fix is along the pro-State people's mistake instead of correcting it. I think that instead of accomodating the socialists-in-denial view of the world, we should make it clear to them what they are. * Calling them socialists would be good polemics too
Socialism: state control of the means of production. That's it, the word has been redefined or altered so much so that no one can use their common sense in even identifying it. Wait but doesn't that just mean when the government does something? Yeah pretty much. We drive on socialist Roads, we get policed by socialist police you name it government action in a democratic political system is social action. Some of this is not only acceptable but desired. Where is the line and what direction should we be heading Socialist authoritarianism or liberty...
on the other hand we had witnessed that over the past 2-3 centuries one of the most dirty (and not very prestigious) jobs has become one of the most prestigious, regardless of the structure society or the prosperity of the community. In rich societies it has become also quite (but not extremely) lucrative. In poor societies or even socialist societies it is not lucrative, but still very prestigious, often way more prestigious than many more lucrative ones. on a separate note: all these theories were under the basic assumption that people have to do something for survival as the overall efficacy of the system was pretty low. simple example - roughly 100-130 years ago 90+% of labor force were making food. In some countries - 97%. Now it is reverse - only about 3% of the labor force are making food. More to it - we produce roughly 25% more food than we can consume and it goes to waste. Technological advances made (and keep making) the need to work for survival decrease further and further. Next step is luxury - what was luxury yesterday, is a routine today. 75% of SF homeless have smartphones+services. So, yes, we can build a society where work (even a garbage collector) will be more prestigious than have a "basic income" even though this basic income can correspond to a very high standard of living. Less and less people will be needed in labor force for production. People will be (and already doing that) will be making up professions/services/expertise, which would have been not only useless but laughable yesterday. 'Universal prosperity' of the high living standards with majority of the population just consuming and not producing anything is quite achievable through technological advances. IMHO, 'socialism' is not an economic construct and it is not about economy or prosperity or even good for people - it is a social construct of control and lack of freedom.
14:30 Mother Theresa was a crook of the worst kind. Countless people suffered and died because of her. It's terrible how many good people hold her in such regard. Her and that awful church.
That's SAINT Teresa to you, heretic! Nah, totally agree. Horrible human being, and the fact that she was sainted speaks volumes about the "Godliness" of the RCC.
That nun was against condoms so she aided in the spread of disease. All the money given to her she had to give to the church. She was not a modern nurse so lots of crude medicine was done.
Well, she also believed that suffering was the path to salvation. So, rather than healing people she was more concerned with keeping them alive long enough to suffer their way to God. "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
Her's wasn't even the biggest charity in Calcutta, several Protestant organizations did far more work in Calcutta while she milked the attention to bring in Billions into the RCCs coffers. According to the Vatican Bank, she was their biggest client, with holdings on behalf of her charity on the order of Billions of dollars. It is very telling that all of those Billions were put in the bank instead of re-invested in actually helping people. And the money that was spent tended to go to proselytizing activities instead of caring for the sick and dying.
Exactly, the worst crook. My country respects mother Theresa as she grew up in my country, but many forgets she despised Macedonians when the Earthquake in 1963 was happen. She was Albanian by origin, and despised Macedonians.
This talk should be revamped and geared towards central planning as a whole. A lot of people see "Socialism" and turn a deaf ear yet continue to push for government ownership of things like healthcare, transportation, schooling etc., when it's the same thing, unbeknownst to them.
Well said
I see your point, but not sure if it would work, though. The point of a tittle is to attract attention, and here, "socialism" should attract more.
Also :
* With "central planning", you would get the kind of left wingers that will say the USSR "wasn't real socialism", and that central planning isn't a feature of socialism. Better to call it what it is.
* Your fix is along the pro-State people's mistake instead of correcting it. I think that instead of accomodating the socialists-in-denial view of the world, we should make it clear to them what they are.
* Calling them socialists would be good polemics too
Socialism: state control of the means of production.
That's it, the word has been redefined or altered so much so that no one can use their common sense in even identifying it. Wait but doesn't that just mean when the government does something? Yeah pretty much. We drive on socialist Roads, we get policed by socialist police you name it government action in a democratic political system is social action. Some of this is not only acceptable but desired. Where is the line and what direction should we be heading Socialist authoritarianism or liberty...
I love lectures that are fun to listen to where I actually learn things. Thanks for this.
Thx Dr Salerno, I always seem to grab the concepts of your lessons. Thanks for all you guys do
Fantastic presentation.
Calculation and Socialism is like saying Up and Down
:), explain, I would love to read your argument.
He's comparing mutually exclusive terms.
@@MrAceman82 Watch the video and you'll get it.
Great video. No way U.S. teachers could ever understand any of this.
on the other hand we had witnessed that over the past 2-3 centuries one of the most dirty (and not very prestigious) jobs has become one of the most prestigious, regardless of the structure society or the prosperity of the community. In rich societies it has become also quite (but not extremely) lucrative. In poor societies or even socialist societies it is not lucrative, but still very prestigious, often way more prestigious than many more lucrative ones. on a separate note: all these theories were under the basic assumption that people have to do something for survival as the overall efficacy of the system was pretty low. simple example - roughly 100-130 years ago 90+% of labor force were making food. In some countries - 97%. Now it is reverse - only about 3% of the labor force are making food. More to it - we produce roughly 25% more food than we can consume and it goes to waste. Technological advances made (and keep making) the need to work for survival decrease further and further. Next step is luxury - what was luxury yesterday, is a routine today. 75% of SF homeless have smartphones+services. So, yes, we can build a society where work (even a garbage collector) will be more prestigious than have a "basic income" even though this basic income can correspond to a very high standard of living. Less and less people will be needed in labor force for production. People will be (and already doing that) will be making up professions/services/expertise, which would have been not only useless but laughable yesterday. 'Universal prosperity' of the high living standards with majority of the population just consuming and not producing anything is quite achievable through technological advances. IMHO, 'socialism' is not an economic construct and it is not about economy or prosperity or even good for people - it is a social construct of control and lack of freedom.
14:30 Mother Theresa was a crook of the worst kind. Countless people suffered and died because of her. It's terrible how many good people hold her in such regard. Her and that awful church.
That's SAINT Teresa to you, heretic!
Nah, totally agree. Horrible human being, and the fact that she was sainted speaks volumes about the "Godliness" of the RCC.
That nun was against condoms so she aided in the spread of disease. All the money given to her she had to give to the church. She was not a modern nurse so lots of crude medicine was done.
Well, she also believed that suffering was the path to salvation. So, rather than healing people she was more concerned with keeping them alive long enough to suffer their way to God.
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
Her's wasn't even the biggest charity in Calcutta, several Protestant organizations did far more work in Calcutta while she milked the attention to bring in Billions into the RCCs coffers.
According to the Vatican Bank, she was their biggest client, with holdings on behalf of her charity on the order of Billions of dollars. It is very telling that all of those Billions were put in the bank instead of re-invested in actually helping people. And the money that was spent tended to go to proselytizing activities instead of caring for the sick and dying.
Exactly, the worst crook. My country respects mother Theresa as she grew up in my country, but many forgets she despised Macedonians when the Earthquake in 1963 was happen. She was Albanian by origin, and despised Macedonians.
Now make a 1 hour talk steelmaning marx and socialism 😎
Capitalism can be like a game of Monopoly
socialism sucks - That's all he should have said
Kind of defeats the point of making a argument.
Yes, why shoud we make arguments against socialism. Are you for real, Niall Condren?
no. he is a troll obviously.
*I* got a good chuckle out of that.