@@joshuawadsworth6417 *Getting rid of competition (authoritarianism) is also an attribute of Socialism.* It also exists in Corporatism, which is related to Socialism.
life is about competition, things like DEI and it's parent ESG exist to throttle and destroy the simple reality of the life experience. They actually don't want the best of the best...which only makes one wonder who is they? They shouldn't want you even getting to that point, if they were so smart. They thems come off as the insane ones...
Socialism does not eliminate hierarchies. There is a hierarchy of those who plan over those who produce. Central planning amputates the millions of Invisible Hands of the consumers which dictate the demand and thus supply.
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" quickly becomes "From each according to their ability, from each according to their contribution". Then the next stage quickly follows: "From each according to what we say, to each according to your importance". "Pure Communism" can never be reached: by the very nature of collectivization, hierarchies must be created. Power must be centralized to some degree. There will always be a ruling class, and Communism provides ZERO means to prevent that ruling class from becoming entrenched and abusive. It has happened after EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. of the successful Communist uprisings in history.
collectivization is land reform, not socialism. Marxism acknowledges the reality of hierarchies. That is why in its first stage, it said there has to be. a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Read it.
True socialism runs to the contrary of evolution. Every living being on Earth have two programs wired into their DNA, lessening efforts and hoarding resources. Those things are also the reason why we have a study of economy. Socialism aggravates lessening efforts and suppressed hoarding resources. That throw billions years of DNA code to chaos. Now I said it in the context of Earth. Because, maybe there are extra terrestrial life forms that has a very different variables and processes in their evolution. Then socialism may be beneficial for them. But certainly not for us.
A free market with competition is the greatest form of democracy. Every purchase of Coke is a vote for more Coke to be made available. And it is a vote on its price. Modern Western socialist will tell us that we can unify socialism with democracy. But these are not capable ideals
The head of the Goskomptsen, the Soviet economic bureaucracy that set the prices of goods, would open up the Wall Street Journal to the price indexes every day to set the prices for the day. They could not solve the problem of pricing even though their very lives depended on it.
The joke from old Soviet Union ... Q&A on Pravda Q : "Why don't we make USA a communist country?" A : "Because then we can't calculate how much we must price stuffs."
Nah, it's actually very easy to achieve socialism: 1. Define socialism is good, good is socialism. Anyone against these equations are far-right racists. 2. Label wealthy capitalist countries like Denmark as "socialism", no matter how much free market these countries have. 3. Any failed socialist states must be disqualified as "not real socialism". Problem solved
Many socialists can be called "racist" because when they are asked about what their ideal countries are they mention wealthy Nordic social-democratic countries. Not communist third world countries.
It doesn’t sound good on a sentimental level. The most basic level of property you own is yourself. You are a means of production. If the state owns the means of production then when you distill that down to its most basic unit they own you.
The underlying premise sounds like what the Apostles tried to do in the New Testament. But even then those who failed to live up to the ideal were killed. It has never produced a utopia and never will. If you need enforcement it's not a utopia.
@@Jst4vdeos sentimental sort put passion before mind. It does sound nice to many others even if to you & me we know passion-sentiment like emotions in general have nasty a side to them. Not all can be on the ball as well as me & you lad.
Socialism often goes one of two ways Communism or Fascism, neither is desirable, both require forced perfection, and you don’t want the government to act as or replace God.
@@simongross3122 totalitarianism isn't an ideology, it quite literally is total government control over society with the most insidious aspect of totalitarianism is that it often isn't overtly brutal but actually relies on the illusion of choice, narrative control and the ability for the totalitz\ariuan regime to convince people that the oppression is normal
I am an engineer with a masters degree. I have helped bring lots of things to market. People want my income, but most people are not willing to work as hard as I did to get my income.
I'm a small business owner and I have a similar issue with the people around me as well. I have found loads of things now that people can do on their own that could make them insane money compared to what they do now. ABSOLUTELY NO ONE ever wants to step up and do the even most basic level work and take the money.
@@etchalaco9971 labor is simply one piece of the many pieces required to bring a product to market. Each piece has a value. The marketplace decides the value. Labor is often easier to replace than engineering.
What about the people that did bust their ass, go to college, get a good job and still can't make ends meet? That right there proves Capitalism is not designed for regular folk, only the upper 5%
That also applies when you socialize just one sector of the economy, like healthcare, for example. How many MRIs do you need? How many ultrasound machines? How many hospitals? The central planners never guess right.
Well, my mother would have waited between three to six months to get her thyroid gland removed if she hadn't taken the services of a private surgeon. My father's bypass operation was postponed three times due to an influx of emergency patients. Now, that I am an Austrian EMT and know the system better than I used to I wish I could end state healthcare because bureaurcrats have no clue about ANYTHING. They asked us to bring an immobile patient home in a car without option to deliver patients who can't walk.
@@Lakshya_Plays_Minecraft equality can come with only one thing that is force and when there is coercion individuals won't produce any stuff. Thing that makes us work is incentives and that's what is destroyed in this process
I see the title and thought to myself "Is it gonna be what Mises said about their inability to develop a functional pricing index", and was pleasantly surprised that, yeah, it was.
Many economists like oscar lange, cottrel and cockshot tried to respond to the ECP but ultimatly failed, this is very well documented in the books 'socialism, economic calculation and entrepeneurship' by huerta de soto and 'história do debate do cálculo econômico' by Fábio Barbieri There are many other criticisms of socialism and marxism against their theory of labour value, dialectical materialism and historicism by people like eric voegelin, murray rothbard, karl popper, eugen von bohm bawerk, juan ramon rallo, etc. Theres a very good TH-cam channel called tik history in which he makes a lot of good videos about marxism and national socialism.
Many communist economists like oscar lange and paul cockshot tried to respond to the ECP but ultimatly failed, this is very well documented in the books 'socialism, economic calculation and entrepeneurship' by huerta de soto and 'história do debate do cálculo econômico' by Fábio Barbieri.
There are also many other criticisms of socialism and marxism against their theory of labour value, dialectical materialism and historicism by people like eric voegelin, murray rothbard, karl popper, eugen von bohm bawerk, juan ramon rallo, etc. Theres a very good TH-cam channel called tik history in which he makes a lot of good videos about marxism and national socialism.
We are a very broken nation, who the heck is going to be able to lead us to recovery and to heal from all the bad things we are facing, bankruptcy, war, disease and so many other issues. God help us all!!
After I raised more than 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸also paid for my son's surgery (Oscar). Glory to God.shalom.
It’s individual ingenuity that’s the motor behind society. Socialism just destroys a person’s original nature to create and advance, all in the name of equality. It’s education that solves that.
We have been hearing since at least the middle of the 19th century that the “…workers must rise up and take over the means of production,” but there is never a reference to where the means of production come from.
You are a gifted communicator, Nick. Clearest, most concise explanation I've ever heard. America needs a leader who does not only make promises of what they will do, but who can _articulate the reasons_ for the policy decisions they propose or make. Freitas for POTUS!
You wouldn't convince some of them because some of them have been fallen victim of demoralization from ideological Subversion no matter how much the facts you shove it into his face, unless when you try to put them to North Korea and they get their butts kicked with the boot, that'll change their perspective. Look for Yuri Bezmenov, and spread the word!
Because they're not. They're simply capitalists with more team-spirit than the US. That's the advantage of a small population with minimal variation in culture from one person to the next -- if one Swede wants something, probably 30 percent of all other Swedes want it too, and another 50 percent are okay with it. We vary so much in the US that we can't agree on anything, so everything is a fight, and rapidly turns into more "my group is better than your group" instead of "which option is actually best".
They never called themselves socialist and they never were socialist they are capitalist economies with extensive welfare systems (wich are socialist aspects but they are only aspects the base is still and was always capitalism) People who call these countries socialist have no idea what socialism is.
The price problem is probably solvable now that every purchase can be tracked in real time. But here's the thing about socialism: It amounts to reducing the economy to one big corporation that owns everything, all the land, all the housing, the military, even the people. If there's no private property you don't own your own body and a handful of corporate executives/politicians get to decide how it's used.
You know what economic system results in the people owning the means of production? Capitalism. I work for a 100% employee-owned company, and I invest in stocks. Those are two ways to own the means of production. Additionally, people can start their own businesses. That's another way to own the means of production.
I think it needs to be emphasized even more that we are the economy and why central economic planning is impossible is because it would require to accurately predict the decisions of millions of people on a continuous basis. Hence the shortages and extreme lack of variety of goods in communist countries.
I think the closest thing to socialism ever working in history would perhaps be in the Incan Empire. But back then there really wasn’t much need for private property. It has not worked once in our globalized economy.
I just don't get how people don't understand this.. it sounds nice and all but it doesn't take an economist to see the glaring problems with this as an economic system..
@@PanzerkampfwagenVITigerIAusfE Socialism has never worked anywhere in the world, at any time in history, under anybody's management. It has never created a thriving economy, lifted people out of poverty or created a growing standard of living, ever. We even know why it doesn't work. Capitalism generates wealth. It generates the profits that governments tax and use to create social programs. Socialism is a proven abject failure at generating wealth. There is nothing to tax, nothing to redistribute and everybody becomes impoverished. It's a parasitical ideology. It requires a successful host to steal from. Socialists don't want to "own" the means of production, they want to "seize" the means of production.
One issue, however, is how much socialism people agree to having. Every country has some amount of socialism, like government-sponsored healthcare and education. Most people don't view the word socialism as the original all-encompassing Marxist definition.
this has a lot of parallels to government grant money... the govt picks the winners and losers... the artificially prop up a company not based on merit but pull or hiring grant writers...
Yep. Go look up where the grant money is right now. NONE of it is for anyone doing anything that actually helps build a better country or economy. It's all for anti-American political agenda useful idiot incetivization initiatives.
Well let’s see. All of the party officials had different stores, Hospitals, Schools, etc. they want “us” all to be “equal” but “they “want no part of the system
What drives me crazy is that socialists are free to collectivize and make their own socialist communes within our capitalist society, but a capitalist can't practice free markets in a socialist society without resorting to the black market, risking jail.
Very good explanation. I've got another and simpler reason why socialism can't work in theory, and why capitalism does work. An economy is entirely based on productivity. Capitalism maximizes the incentive to be productive while socialism minimizes the incentive to be productive.
One thing that a lot of Americans don’t understand is that Socialism is more than just an economic theory. It’s a lot more than just moving some money around from here to there. It’s a whole philosophy it’s a whole way of thinking a whole way of having a new mind and seeing the world differently. It’s a lot more than just about money.
The computer people call it "parallel processing". Instead of one powerful processor trying to solve the entire problem (535 congressmen running the US economy), we have 300 million small processors each solving a small portion of the problem. The lag is reduced, too -- you know RIGHT NOW whether you'd rather spend $50 on a tank of gas or a new video-game, and can do the transaction RIGHT NOW. No telling how old that information would be when congress finally gets it, or when the answer finally gets back to you.
Central planning will never be more efficient than a decentralized economy. The government simply doesn’t have enough information about the millions of goods and services in the economy. The people buying and selling those things understand the ins and outs of them better than a bureaucrat who is far removed from it.
They are a load minority & many just don't know one way of the other. A bit of patience & they will seer the wolfs in sheep's clothing. Some just aren't as quick on the ball is all!
People will always want to steal from their peers, and government exists to facilitate this operation. Humans can't figure this out, or they do figure it out and refuse to stop pretending that thieves are caregivers.
Because, as Ben Franklin suggested, some people will always trade liberty for security/safety. That includes some % of men... and a FAR higher % of women. Thus, as a species, it's an inherent flaw which continually renews itself.
USA let their guard down and Herbert Marcuse exploited it to plant the seeds of socialism in academia. Today, you'll be hard pressed to find any teacher who don't believe in socialism.
2:12 feedback comes from the community. You can track directly what people consume rather than using this metric that has so many different and complex variables that is ultimately inefficient.
Wow. You convincingly succeeded to condense an apparently complicated matter into a few minutes. No BS talk just facts. I wish more TH-cam content was that concise. I love the channel.
Definition is incorrect. Understanding of socialism is incorrect. Understanding of the market is incorrect. Understanding of capitalism is incorrect. This is a really bad video
The only problem is if you want to put 100% socialism on everything. We germans have a so called soziale Marktwirtschaft. The Nordics have a socialist capitalism and are the happiest countrys in the world.
3:10 Again, commodities are NOT collectively owned. You can keep your car, you can keep your toothbrush. But you can't own a factory, you can't own a corporation
2:18 USSR never had shortages because of government inefficiency alone. Venezuela for one isn’t socialist, for two, it’s market was artificially collapsed by the west. 90% of all buildings over two stories were destroyed by the United States in the Korean War, only to be isolated from the world economy. Good luck providing for your massive population after that.
So i have a honest question about this whole topic. What is keeping us from finding a good balance between capitalism and socialism? I personally grew up in germany and would argue, that we had a great system. A System that A) gives you opportunities to grow a bussiness and compete, but also B) Care for the poor and people in need, through taxation. Looking at the whole politics atm (America, Russia, Germany), i don't think this System is responsible for our Situation, but weak people and ideologies are.
In the US, it's because we're all too different. Aside from the natural disagreements that arise between different kinds of people, our politicians see this as an opportunity to create artificial problems and advertise themselves as the solution to them. As a result, EVERYTHING in the US is a fight, because everyone is terrified that anything they DON'T fight over is going to be a loss for them. You look away for five minutes and suddenly a law has been passed that says every Goth kid gets free black lipstick for life, on YOUR tax money. So now you hate Goth kids, and tomorrow they'll hate everyone who drives a Ford, because the media decided to say "Angry Ford owners prejudiced against Goths!" And a politician sits back and laughs while the donations and bribes pour in....
What keeps us from having a balance between capitalism and socialism is your flawed definition of socialism. You assume that the "selling point of good intension" of socialism is to "Care for the poor and people in need," and it has never been about caring at all. Only capitalism can afford a social safety net. Socialism always goes bankrupt, for many reasons. Gullible right-brained people are confused by the math of economics, so if someone tells them the "economic cannibalism" of socialism can solve the anguish of their envy and jealousy against successful people, then they will assume they are socialists.
It's like this because small businesses can't prosper and for the past 60 years, more people have been taught to go to college for jobs that don't exist than how to create your own business.
@@CarlosC77 no it's not, you honestly think small business can't prosper the only unjustification of capitalism? Parts of socialism work as do parts of capitalism both need to be regulated correctly
Got one for you: Why is there tension between the Cold War factions, again? To be clear, I'm asking for the political, economic, and cultural factors that either dented the friendships or expedited animosity. At the turn of the millennium, relations were so much smoother than they are now. Why? What changed?
@@gorilladisco9108 it's something more than that. From my understanding, 'Liberty' goes back to the Old Testament of the bible and is part of the sacrifices the Twelve Tribes of Israel were making at the time. The term has evolved. I understand it to be -- having the freedom to live your life in accordance to God's will for the individual. It has since been watered down to mean 'literal freedom' which is why I think it makes a good Why Minute Topic.
Socialism doesn’t have to mean central planning. An economy consisting entirely of worker co-operatives engaging in a market economy would be a system where the production of goods is democratically organized. there you have it
Got one: Why does it seem like we're in another Cold War? Not to be dystopia, but more accurately: What meetings/policies lead to this? How did the formerly friendly relations become former? What changed from the turn of the millennium to now? Genuinely curious how/why all that work went sour.
So well explained. Thx! It made me think of a family friend from the former Yugoslavia. She always talked about how great things were there before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Now, it's true, things were way better in Yugoslavia than in most of the rest of the Eastern Block countries. But, even though she talked about how everyone had everything they needed, including a decent education, and holiday pay, she never seemed to realize the irony that the reason her country even HAD the capital to pay for those things was because Yugoslavia was selling its manufactured goods to the West (anyone remember a car called the "Yugo" back in the 80s?). And HOW did they determine the 'pricing' for those goods?!?! Good ol' Capitalism! (supply and demand from the customers). So, on a microcosm, Socialism sort of functioned, but it could never work large scale or without a Capitalist component.
Well done for defining socialism. In Europe, especially, it does not mean what you define it as - at least not in colloquial use and so often discussions get off to a bad start when the two sides are using the same words but meaning different things.
Why can’t a collective own the means of production and control decisions for a company or organization? Have you ever tried getting consensus on anything where more than 10 people were involved?
3:39 There is a problem with the people ourselves that hasn't been mentioned in the video. Some people lack the knowledge of handling resources. Handing resources to the collective doesn't instantly give said people this knowledge. Therefore, socialism cannot eliminate the knowledge barrier without letting wasteful people waste, and therefore jeopardize, common resources.
1)library-fy the economy, you can borrow anything from a library, and use it however you like, except for destroying it. As soon as you don’t want it anymore, you can return it and let someone else use it. This GREATLY reduces resource consumption. 2)see how much each library kept having not enough resources, and produce that, there’s not enough resources? Then ask people what they want more. Either by vote or Better yet, consensus, this can accurately determine what they should make. No need for prices, they’re only just one way to communicate supply and demand, why not instead just directly hold consensus where every gets a voice on the issue and not just those with money.
If you didn't sell books, nobody would write books. The library is a parasitical entity that relies and survives from other people buying and selling books. So every time we go shopping we have to vote first to get stuff made? What if I want something and your group of authoritarians votes no?
@@anthonymorris5084 "If you didn't sell books, nobody would write books." Dude, you're on the goddamn Internet. You KNOW what you wrote there is utter bullshit! Most people who actually want to make things want to, (GASP), MAKE THINGS. The incentives to make a profit are usualyl secondary to most creative people. If you're into making things like writing and art "for the money" you're very likely going to be miserable. Look into literally ANY WORK OF "FAN FICTION", like EVER. I mean, fuck, 'The Loud House: Revamped' is FREE, was made FOR FREE, hasn't gotten a single bit of profit from it's creation. It is a work of fiction made SOLELY out of someone's passion, and it has (currently) THE MOST AMOUNT OF WORDS EVEN WRITTEN INTO A WORK OF FICTION. The guy who made it, regardless of whatever anyone else thinks about him or thinks his "conditions" might be, clealry WANTED TO MAKE IT without thinking about his work ever selling. And, in a sense, makes his fiction more pure in a sense. The incentive of profit is NOT the only incentive a person can have. In fact, most people only want profits so they can escape poverty. If we lived under a more (actually) Socialist/Leftist/caring government (one that cares for those it resides over) MORE PEOPLE would have the time and resources to make the things they want to. If you believe in God, what was it's "incentive" to make everything? Mankind included. Was it money? NO. FUCK MONEY. We could be living in a world where money isn't relevant anymore. In fact, at some point we may be, should tech ever get to a point where people don't have to work anymore. You can find meaning and purpose in other avenues besides the """inherent""" "incentive" of profits. I mean, people can. I don't know about You, specifically, since you hate public libraries which... I mean, I can't think of a more fucking retarded take to have. You probably hate thrift stores and any place that gives people more access to more things in general. I mean, you think some communal voting is gonna magically make it so you can't just order shit online from another community. Like "voting" is going to take away your ability to buy... I dunno. I don't know what you had in mind with that shitty "hypothetical". Was it Pokemon cards? I'd imagine those would still be sold on eBay, even if the US became super Socialist( ! )
@@TH-camIsntTwitterKnockitoff Dude, you're ranting. Where did I ever claim that I hate libraries. My friend, you can't make a living doing things for free. You're correct that the underlying motive is to create. U2 doesn't make music to get rich, but they can't make music and tour while working in a factory to put food on the table. The Wright brothers didn't farm all day, and work on their engineering late into the evening. They also required financing which investors provided. To create, manufacture and/or sell any product or service requires capital. This means risk is involved. Investors don't invest for they joy. They invest for the return. They may wish to create something but they need the money to live. One day a producer came to Bob Marley. He said if you gave me a little more control and let me produce your music I could get you dramatically higher sales. Marley declined stating that his music came from the heart and he didn't want it changed. The producer told him, "What if I can make it so you can do this for a living, and more people would hear your music". Marley capitulated and the rest is history. *"MORE PEOPLE would have the time and resources to make the things they want to."* Nope, the opposite would occur. This is the *failure* of socialism. It's parasitical. It requires somebody else to make money to support those who don't. Nobody would have any time or any resources to pursue what gives them meaning, because you have to put food on the table and pay your rent. You seem to think that you could happily write songs all day while someone else pays your bills and brings you your dinner.
Hey Nick, family, and team! Here's a why minute that rings resounding true over the last 75 years or so, why since WWII, has the United States won every war militarily, yet in the political sphere it is counted as a loss? As a veteran I've seen it first hand, my father in law has seen it first hand in Vietnam, and we all should see it still in Korea.
I know something I'd like to see in a future video. I've been hearing more about the New Madrid Fault ever since this movie came out on Tubi. How serious of a threat is it?
Given the Supreme Court's rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which affirm an individual's right to own firearms for self-defense, and considering the absence of meaningful historical precedent for restricting civilian ownership of arms commonly used by the military, particularly prior to the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, what are the constitutional justifications for imposing restrictions on modern firearms? This includes commonly owned firearms such as AR-15s, short-barreled shotguns (SBS), short-barreled rifles (SBR), fully automatic weapons, and other advancements. Given the historical recognition of the right to keep and bear arms as essential for self-defense, resistance to tyranny, and national defense, how can such restrictions be reconciled with the original intent of the Second Amendment, particularly in light of the judiciary’s reliance on historical tradition in these recent rulings?
As a corollary to this video, the reason for wealth inequality is that people's economic worth (reflected in earnings) is due in large part to people's material worth to society. Tailor Swift makes tons of money because people will pay to see her. The Starbucks barista, not so much. If you want to make money, increase your worth by getting educated in the things the market values.
"increase your worth by getting educated in the things the market values" "Taylor Swift" All you proved in this "case" of yours is that the "market" is retarded, can't separate entertainment from what's needed in society, and thusly it should be dealt with through abolishment. I mean, honestly, your comment might be one of the dumbest I've read under this particular video. It's STRIKINGLY stupid and devoid of any earnest reasoning( ! )
In Venezuela the oil was nationalized in 1976, as a result the government received a gigantic mass of money, especially after the Persian Gulf crisis of 1978, Petroleos de Venezuela PDVSA became the goose that laid the golden eggs, with the oil money the socialist governments initiated public works social programs and a lot of state companies, the largest of those state companies was the Venezuelan Corporation of Guyana or CVG, this state megacorporation was managed with political criteria, Steel, Aluminum, Gold, Diamonds, Coltan and Coal are amazingly abundant and easy to extract and process in Guyana, but these companies became a herd of white elephants, Sidor, the largest steel industry in Venezuela was known for having 7 times more workers than necessary and the poor quality of its steel, there was a time when builders preferred imported steel beams over Sidor beams. Well, in 1983 there was an economic crisis from which we have not recovered yet, that year oil prices fell, that would not have been a big problem if it were not for the fact that the losses of the CVG exceeded the profits of PDVSA, and PDVSA represented the 90th of the government's revenues, the logical thing would have been to reform the CVG, they did not do it, the white elephants stayed that way because it was politically necessary, Venalum, the company in charge of processing aluminum was closed for two years and its employees continued to collect their salaries, the company returned to operation and in one year doubled its payroll without generating a penny of profit and accumulating a huge debt.
Times change, but human nature remains the same. The "selfish" can be, and mostly are, moral. The "selfless" cannot be, and never are, moral. Volunteering your life, and more importantly others lives, into slavery; makes you immoral. Human nature remains the same.
There is no such thing as an inherent "human nature". If it did and if such "always remained the same" you wouldn't be living in a society of any sort. Humans LITERALLY PROGRESSED to get where we are now, even if there is still more to do before most people can live relatively well on a mass level. Like damn, you "human nature" plebs are fucking abundantly okay with the worst shit being perpetuated so long as you keep sipping on the idea that, somehow, everyone is secretly like you and thusly those who control most aspects of our govern lives have "earned" it by "virtue" of... I don't even fucking know with you, specifically( ! )
What is the weakness of corporatism that is a mixture of socialism and capitalism which has a command economy with private partners managing the market for the state.
The pricing factors and economic logic is very important but is not the answer to making the case against socialism and for capitalism. The case has to be made and won on moral and ethical grounds, otherwise you can't win the argument. As long as altruism is held as the moral virtue you cannot win the case for capitalism.
Capitalism and regulation go hand in hand. Regulation by a body elected by the population is a form of socialism. Companies should absolutely be regulated for many reasons, chiefly to protect the consumer who otherwise has basically zero power. The idea that capitalism is totally good and socialism is totally bad is bonkers. There are elements from each system which make sense in a well functioning economy / society, and that mean everyone is better off. No drama.
Actually I agree with what you are saying ----but what we have is an ever increasing control/influence over government by lobbyist/campaign donation by big money. I have no answers other than to ignore government as much as possible. We do NOT have a democracy nor a free market
The questions arise, How was it decided who would be a bureaucrat sitting in that room making decisions for all the other co-owners, and does that not establish a hierarchy with its inherent inequality? Seems that the desired leveling effect just evaporated. Hmm. So, no bureaucrats. Every decision must be made by a vote of every person. Now that would be efficient. It also negates individual expertise. The devil is in the details.
Anything taken to the extreme is always harmful. The key to prosperity is to find the balance that fits the society's needs. Different geography, different culture. Different demography, different society. There's no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to socioeconomy. To prescribe such solution in top-down manner, is ironically, similar to communist's central planning. Where to find this "harmonious balance"? Give local communities the freedom to figure it out by themselves as well as the policy and fiscal tools to implement it. The federal govt only needs to point out the destination the country needs to be in 5 years time and put up a scoreboard of local communities economically competing against each other to reach that destination first. Such scoreboard is very useful for voters to evaluate the performance of their elected leaders. The only things the federal needs to regulate are the country's monetary system, energy grid system and public health concerns. Everything else is nothing more than bureaucratic extortion
First of all I would like to point that a an economic system that uses markets as the mechanism for the allocation of resources and the distribution goods can be socialist as long as the means of production are cooperatively owned to an extent
it still doesnt matter. socialism is not a good system anyhow. because capitalism is fair. when you work in a factory thats fair because it means that you wouldnt make more money if you were an independent artisan. you are renting out the industrial complex you are working in. that is completely fair. when you sieze the means of production the incentive to rent out industry is gone and thus the government must conduct all research expand factories and if the population doesnt grow they will either stagnate or increase taxes and both of these will lead to stagnation one day and thus itll collapse
@cleocal socialism, regardless of the noun or adjective placed in front of it, is a self defeating philosophy "Let's grant all lateral power to the state that we notionally want to abolish one day!" Like I said, cope.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
If people are allowed to prosper, they will.
It is that simple.
At the same time, if people are allowed to get rid of the competition. They will...
@@joshuawadsworth6417 *Getting rid of competition (authoritarianism) is also an attribute of Socialism.*
It also exists in Corporatism, which is related to Socialism.
@@anthonyhuber-permanentlyre7808 You mean Corporatocracy.
Socialism isn't the only problem
life is about competition, things like DEI and it's parent ESG exist to throttle and destroy the simple reality of the life experience. They actually don't want the best of the best...which only makes one wonder who is they? They shouldn't want you even getting to that point, if they were so smart. They thems come off as the insane ones...
@@joshuawadsworth6417 *It's just another way of saying Corporatism, which is related to Socialism.*
Socialism does not eliminate hierarchies. There is a hierarchy of those who plan over those who produce. Central planning amputates the millions of Invisible Hands of the consumers which dictate the demand and thus supply.
Socialism replaces multiple relatively decentralized hierarchies with one totalitarian hierarchy.
Some animals are better than others.
Socialism as amputation. That's pretty good.
And those who distribute. In the Soviet Union, shop and warehouse employee were some of the most privileged classes.
@@doughaug Four legs good. Two legs bad. :)
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" quickly becomes "From each according to their ability, from each according to their contribution". Then the next stage quickly follows: "From each according to what we say, to each according to your importance". "Pure Communism" can never be reached: by the very nature of collectivization, hierarchies must be created. Power must be centralized to some degree. There will always be a ruling class, and Communism provides ZERO means to prevent that ruling class from becoming entrenched and abusive. It has happened after EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. of the successful Communist uprisings in history.
collectivization is land reform, not socialism. Marxism acknowledges the reality of hierarchies. That is why in its first stage, it said there has to be. a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Read it.
True socialism runs to the contrary of evolution. Every living being on Earth have two programs wired into their DNA, lessening efforts and hoarding resources. Those things are also the reason why we have a study of economy.
Socialism aggravates lessening efforts and suppressed hoarding resources. That throw billions years of DNA code to chaos.
Now I said it in the context of Earth. Because, maybe there are extra terrestrial life forms that has a very different variables and processes in their evolution. Then socialism may be beneficial for them. But certainly not for us.
Prices are the quickest and most accurate feedback.
Remember when they couldn't give away New Coke
New coke was actually used to drive up demand for Coke. It created a scarcity effect in the consumer consciousness.
A free market with competition is the greatest form of democracy. Every purchase of Coke is a vote for more Coke to be made available. And it is a vote on its price.
Modern Western socialist will tell us that we can unify socialism with democracy. But these are not capable ideals
The head of the Goskomptsen, the Soviet economic bureaucracy that set the prices of goods, would open up the Wall Street Journal to the price indexes every day to set the prices for the day. They could not solve the problem of pricing even though their very lives depended on it.
The joke from old Soviet Union ...
Q&A on Pravda
Q : "Why don't we make USA a communist country?"
A : "Because then we can't calculate how much we must price stuffs."
Nah, it's actually very easy to achieve socialism:
1. Define socialism is good, good is socialism. Anyone against these equations are far-right racists.
2. Label wealthy capitalist countries like Denmark as "socialism", no matter how much free market these countries have.
3. Any failed socialist states must be disqualified as "not real socialism".
Problem solved
Easy peasy ! 🥹
#3 is the key principle. THat's how marxists excuse their 100% failure rate.
GO RUN A BUSINESS BRO ! -- then come back and add more to your comment ...
Many socialists can be called "racist" because when they are asked about what their ideal countries are they mention wealthy Nordic social-democratic countries. Not communist third world countries.
Even China went to a capitalist economy.
Why the 2nd amendment is important
Why lol, I didn't Quite get it.Bother explaining?
@@Robberybob-d3d wdym? He asked what question would you like answered so I asked that.
@@Gamerguy8585 oh sorry I didn't get it, I am not well educated About ideologies so I was confused about your connection to the 2nd amendment .
So we can overthrow the capitalist class, seize the means of the production, and implement a socialist mode of product. Exactly.
On a sentimental level socialism sounds nice but on the theoretical & in practice it is awful!
It doesn’t even sound good on sentimental level
It doesn’t sound good on a sentimental level. The most basic level of property you own is yourself. You are a means of production. If the state owns the means of production then when you distill that down to its most basic unit they own you.
it sounds terrible in theory honestly
The underlying premise sounds like what the Apostles tried to do in the New Testament. But even then those who failed to live up to the ideal were killed. It has never produced a utopia and never will. If you need enforcement it's not a utopia.
@@Jst4vdeos sentimental sort put passion before mind.
It does sound nice to many others even if to you & me we know passion-sentiment like emotions in general have nasty a side to them.
Not all can be on the ball as well as me & you lad.
Socialism often goes one of two ways Communism or Fascism, neither is desirable, both require forced perfection, and you don’t want the government to act as or replace God.
Socialism is a crime against humanity.
You forgot to mention totalitarianism which is the end-point of your two examples.
What's the difference between fascism and communism tho?
Fascism is, in reality, a form of Marxism.
@@simongross3122 totalitarianism isn't an ideology, it quite literally is total government control over society
with the most insidious aspect of totalitarianism is that it often isn't overtly brutal but actually relies on the illusion of choice, narrative control and the ability for the totalitz\ariuan regime to convince people that the oppression is normal
I am an engineer with a masters degree. I have helped bring lots of things to market. People want my income, but most people are not willing to work as hard as I did to get my income.
Thank free market capitalism for the opportunities to perform @ a high level & receive proper compensation. Enjoy this while you can
I'm a small business owner and I have a similar issue with the people around me as well.
I have found loads of things now that people can do on their own that could make them insane money compared to what they do now. ABSOLUTELY NO ONE ever wants to step up and do the even most basic level work and take the money.
labor is what actually brought things to the market.
@@etchalaco9971 labor is simply one piece of the many pieces required to bring a product to market. Each piece has a value. The marketplace decides the value.
Labor is often easier to replace than engineering.
What about the people that did bust their ass, go to college, get a good job and still can't make ends meet? That right there proves Capitalism is not designed for regular folk, only the upper 5%
That also applies when you socialize just one sector of the economy, like healthcare, for example. How many MRIs do you need? How many ultrasound machines? How many hospitals? The central planners never guess right.
Well, my mother would have waited between three to six months to get her thyroid gland removed if she hadn't taken the services of a private surgeon. My father's bypass operation was postponed three times due to an influx of emergency patients. Now, that I am an Austrian EMT and know the system better than I used to I wish I could end state healthcare because bureaurcrats have no clue about ANYTHING. They asked us to bring an immobile patient home in a car without option to deliver patients who can't walk.
@@chrismath149 And why would they, they are not the doctors
Spot on! Governments deciding which meds and procedures are “necessary” and how much they should cost is a recipe for disaster!
@@Blakehx
So you agree abolishing abortion on a federal level is a recipe for disaster?
@@AmaryllisAlexakisThat’s not even close to a fair comparison and you know it.
The Soviets just copied prices from Sears catalogs.
That only works if you're selling in the US!!
@@uncaboat2399 Not saying it was a good system. That’s just what they did.
@@Anti-CornLawLeague I suppose it got them closer to "market" prices then anything else they might have done! 😄😄😄
@@uncaboat2399 yea but still better than flying blind :)
“The quickest way to make everyone poor is to insist on the equality of wealth.”
~Napoleon Bonaparte
Make an argument instead of these vague assumptions dawg I'm ready to answer
@@Lakshya_Plays_Minecraft equality can come with only one thing that is force and when there is coercion individuals won't produce any stuff. Thing that makes us work is incentives and that's what is destroyed in this process
@@RDesai_indiancapitalisthe wasn't ready.😂
Idea,Why the book Atlas shrugged is a great lesson for our time.
I see the title and thought to myself "Is it gonna be what Mises said about their inability to develop a functional pricing index", and was pleasantly surprised that, yeah, it was.
but no mention by name, in 1920s it was amazing finding
Many economists like oscar lange, cottrel and cockshot tried to respond to the ECP but ultimatly failed, this is very well documented in the books 'socialism, economic calculation and entrepeneurship' by huerta de soto and 'história do debate do cálculo econômico' by Fábio Barbieri
There are many other criticisms of socialism and marxism against their theory of labour value, dialectical materialism and historicism by people like eric voegelin, murray rothbard, karl popper, eugen von bohm bawerk, juan ramon rallo, etc.
Theres a very good TH-cam channel called tik history in which he makes a lot of good videos about marxism and national socialism.
Many communist economists like oscar lange and paul cockshot tried to respond to the ECP but ultimatly failed, this is very well documented in the books 'socialism, economic calculation and entrepeneurship' by huerta de soto and 'história do debate do cálculo econômico' by Fábio Barbieri.
There are also many other criticisms of socialism and marxism against their theory of labour value, dialectical materialism and historicism by people like eric voegelin, murray rothbard, karl popper, eugen von bohm bawerk, juan ramon rallo, etc.
Theres a very good TH-cam channel called tik history in which he makes a lot of good videos about marxism and national socialism.
We are a very broken nation, who the heck is going to be able to lead us to recovery and to heal from all the bad things we are facing, bankruptcy, war, disease and so many other issues. God help us all!!
How
..? Am a newbie in crypto investment, please can you guide me through on how you made profit?
Thanks to Mrs Latricia Hammonds
She's a licensed broker here in the states
After I raised more than 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸also paid for my son's surgery (Oscar). Glory to God.shalom.
I'm surprised you mentioned and recommended Latricia Hammonds. I came across the testimony of one of her clients on CNBC news last week.
It’s individual ingenuity that’s the motor behind society. Socialism just destroys a person’s original nature to create and advance, all in the name of equality. It’s education that solves that.
We have been hearing since at least the middle of the 19th century that the “…workers must rise up and take over the means of production,” but there is never a reference to where the means of production come from.
Brilliant timing!! Thanks Nick!
Actually socialism to a certain extent does work
You are a gifted communicator, Nick. Clearest, most concise explanation I've ever heard. America needs a leader who does not only make promises of what they will do, but who can _articulate the reasons_ for the policy decisions they propose or make. Freitas for POTUS!
This video should be watched by everyone who claims we need Socialism.
You would convince some but, unfortunately, most of them fallback on the old, "It would have worked if WE were in control."
You wouldn't convince some of them because some of them have been fallen victim of demoralization from ideological Subversion no matter how much the facts you shove it into his face, unless when you try to put them to North Korea and they get their butts kicked with the boot, that'll change their perspective. Look for Yuri Bezmenov, and spread the word!
They won't care. They are sheep.
No, make them watch a documentary on Mau, then get back to them in socialism.
I still like it
Even so-called socialist countries (think Nordic) don’t want to be called socialist anymore.
Because they're not. They're simply capitalists with more team-spirit than the US.
That's the advantage of a small population with minimal variation in culture from one person to the next -- if one Swede wants something, probably 30 percent of all other Swedes want it too, and another 50 percent are okay with it.
We vary so much in the US that we can't agree on anything, so everything is a fight, and rapidly turns into more "my group is better than your group" instead of "which option is actually best".
@@stevenscott2136”team spirit” funny, but correct.👍🏼
@@stevenscott2136 no they aren't team spirit they have socialist policies
@@stevenscott2136 that team spirit is about to go down hard with that immigration
They never called themselves socialist and they never were socialist they are capitalist economies with extensive welfare systems (wich are socialist aspects but they are only aspects the base is still and was always capitalism)
People who call these countries socialist have no idea what socialism is.
Ludwig von Mises strikes again
La imposibilidad del cálculo económico es, entre otras razones, el mayor motivo por el que no funciona el Colectivismo
The price problem is probably solvable now that every purchase can be tracked in real time. But here's the thing about socialism: It amounts to reducing the economy to one big corporation that owns everything, all the land, all the housing, the military, even the people. If there's no private property you don't own your own body and a handful of corporate executives/politicians get to decide how it's used.
You know what economic system results in the people owning the means of production? Capitalism. I work for a 100% employee-owned company, and I invest in stocks. Those are two ways to own the means of production. Additionally, people can start their own businesses. That's another way to own the means of production.
OR start YOUR OWN BUSINESS !!!!!! Yahooo --- GO for it --- and see how HARD IT is !! --- I bow down to capitalists !
@@AffyBoy I've done it before. Yes, it was hard. I may do it again.
@@AffyBoy That doesn't even make sense.
But...but...muh free stuff!" -- Every socialist, ever.
"Free." No lunch is free.
@@joshuawadsworth6417 It is for you when you are forcing someone else to pay for it.
nice strawman
@@malogibeaux4946 Oh, look! A Bernie bro!
@@russianbot4418 then its not free
I think it needs to be emphasized even more that we are the economy and why central economic planning is impossible is because it would require to accurately predict the decisions of millions of people on a continuous basis. Hence the shortages and extreme lack of variety of goods in communist countries.
I think the closest thing to socialism ever working in history would perhaps be in the Incan Empire. But back then there really wasn’t much need for private property. It has not worked once in our globalized economy.
I just don't get how people don't understand this.. it sounds nice and all but it doesn't take an economist to see the glaring problems with this as an economic system..
21st century, the information age, and reptiles keep clinging to this ideology.
@@anthonymorris5084because it works, but capitalist don’t want to give us a good life
Or you can just, hear me out, you can just give everyone their basic needs without money, how does that sound?
@@PanzerkampfwagenVITigerIAusfE Socialism has never worked anywhere in the world, at any time in history, under anybody's management. It has never created a thriving economy, lifted people out of poverty or created a growing standard of living, ever. We even know why it doesn't work.
Capitalism generates wealth. It generates the profits that governments tax and use to create social programs. Socialism is a proven abject failure at generating wealth. There is nothing to tax, nothing to redistribute and everybody becomes impoverished.
It's a parasitical ideology. It requires a successful host to steal from. Socialists don't want to "own" the means of production, they want to "seize" the means of production.
One issue, however, is how much socialism people agree to having. Every country has some amount of socialism, like government-sponsored healthcare and education. Most people don't view the word socialism as the original all-encompassing Marxist definition.
Who said it was supposed to work? As long as it benefits those with power it doesn't have to work as it's theorized to work.
this has a lot of parallels to government grant money... the govt picks the winners and losers... the artificially prop up a company not based on merit but pull or hiring grant writers...
US government doing this all the time...
Yep. Go look up where the grant money is right now. NONE of it is for anyone doing anything that actually helps build a better country or economy. It's all for anti-American political agenda useful idiot incetivization initiatives.
Well let’s see. All of the party officials had different stores, Hospitals, Schools, etc. they want “us” all to be “equal” but “they “want no part of the system
What drives me crazy is that socialists are free to collectivize and make their own socialist communes within our capitalist society, but a capitalist can't practice free markets in a socialist society without resorting to the black market, risking jail.
Very good explanation.
I've got another and simpler reason why socialism can't work in theory, and why capitalism does work.
An economy is entirely based on productivity.
Capitalism maximizes the incentive to be productive while socialism minimizes the incentive to be productive.
One thing that a lot of Americans don’t understand is that Socialism is more than just an economic theory. It’s a lot more than just moving some money around from here to there. It’s a whole philosophy it’s a whole way of thinking a whole way of having a new mind and seeing the world differently. It’s a lot more than just about money.
The computer people call it "parallel processing".
Instead of one powerful processor trying to solve the entire problem (535 congressmen running the US economy), we have 300 million small processors each solving a small portion of the problem.
The lag is reduced, too -- you know RIGHT NOW whether you'd rather spend $50 on a tank of gas or a new video-game, and can do the transaction RIGHT NOW. No telling how old that information would be when congress finally gets it, or when the answer finally gets back to you.
Great comparison
Great video. Simple and straight to the point. This should be made mandatory learning in our school systems.
Central planning will never be more efficient than a decentralized economy. The government simply doesn’t have enough information about the millions of goods and services in the economy. The people buying and selling those things understand the ins and outs of them better than a bureaucrat who is far removed from it.
Why we are even having this discussion in 2024 is beyond me. I don't have much hope left for the human race. 😂
They are a load minority & many just don't know one way of the other.
A bit of patience & they will seer the wolfs in sheep's clothing.
Some just aren't as quick on the ball is all!
People will always want to steal from their peers, and government exists to facilitate this operation. Humans can't figure this out, or they do figure it out and refuse to stop pretending that thieves are caregivers.
Because, as Ben Franklin suggested, some people will always trade liberty for security/safety.
That includes some % of men... and a FAR higher % of women.
Thus, as a species, it's an inherent flaw which continually renews itself.
USA let their guard down and Herbert Marcuse exploited it to plant the seeds of socialism in academia. Today, you'll be hard pressed to find any teacher who don't believe in socialism.
@@arnijulian6241I used to think the same about fascism
2:12 feedback comes from the community. You can track directly what people consume rather than using this metric that has so many different and complex variables that is ultimately inefficient.
Loving the Lysander Spooner line of reasoning
Wow. You convincingly succeeded to condense an apparently complicated matter into a few minutes. No BS talk just facts. I wish more TH-cam content was that concise. I love the channel.
1:03 First problem: the "goods", or commodities, are NOT the same as the means of production. Try again
Humans are resources, too.
Perfect explanation!
The irony of getting a Kamala "Chuckles the clown" Harris ad the moment I clicked this video....
Definition is incorrect. Understanding of socialism is incorrect. Understanding of the market is incorrect. Understanding of capitalism is incorrect. This is a really bad video
The only problem is if you want to put 100% socialism on everything.
We germans have a so called soziale Marktwirtschaft.
The Nordics have a socialist capitalism and are the happiest countrys in the world.
3:10 Again, commodities are NOT collectively owned. You can keep your car, you can keep your toothbrush. But you can't own a factory, you can't own a corporation
2:18 USSR never had shortages because of government inefficiency alone. Venezuela for one isn’t socialist, for two, it’s market was artificially collapsed by the west. 90% of all buildings over two stories were destroyed by the United States in the Korean War, only to be isolated from the world economy. Good luck providing for your massive population after that.
The challenge of Socialism is all those pesky people.........They don't all value the same exact world.
I hope your channel grows bigger Nick!
Keep pushing to 100K Subscribers!!!!
So i have a honest question about this whole topic. What is keeping us from finding a good balance between capitalism and socialism?
I personally grew up in germany and would argue, that we had a great system. A System that A) gives you opportunities to grow a bussiness and compete, but also B) Care for the poor and people in need, through taxation. Looking at the whole politics atm (America, Russia, Germany), i don't think this System is responsible for our Situation, but weak people and ideologies are.
In the US, it's because we're all too different.
Aside from the natural disagreements that arise between different kinds of people, our politicians see this as an opportunity to create artificial problems and advertise themselves as the solution to them.
As a result, EVERYTHING in the US is a fight, because everyone is terrified that anything they DON'T fight over is going to be a loss for them.
You look away for five minutes and suddenly a law has been passed that says every Goth kid gets free black lipstick for life, on YOUR tax money.
So now you hate Goth kids, and tomorrow they'll hate everyone who drives a Ford, because the media decided to say "Angry Ford owners prejudiced against Goths!"
And a politician sits back and laughs while the donations and bribes pour in....
What keeps us from having a balance between capitalism and socialism is your flawed definition of socialism. You assume that the "selling point of good intension" of socialism is to "Care for the poor and people in need," and it has never been about caring at all. Only capitalism can afford a social safety net. Socialism always goes bankrupt, for many reasons. Gullible right-brained people are confused by the math of economics, so if someone tells them the "economic cannibalism" of socialism can solve the anguish of their envy and jealousy against successful people, then they will assume they are socialists.
Great video dude! Should be required viewing for all of the kiddies who "hate capitalism" (or whatever their argument is...)
Thanks for this!
None of them are smart enough to understand what he is talking about. Hence why they hate it.
Price and value are emergent phenomenon.
True, but Rampant, unchecked capitalism is not the end all be all. Look at what America has become
It's like this because small businesses can't prosper and for the past 60 years, more people have been taught to go to college for jobs that don't exist than how to create your own business.
@@CarlosC77 no it's not, you honestly think small business can't prosper the only unjustification of capitalism? Parts of socialism work as do parts of capitalism both need to be regulated correctly
@@javiervega1065 This idea of a 'capitalism socialism spectrum' is so bizarre.
Short and decisive, fantastic video
Got one for you: Why is there tension between the Cold War factions, again? To be clear, I'm asking for the political, economic, and cultural factors that either dented the friendships or expedited animosity.
At the turn of the millennium, relations were so much smoother than they are now. Why? What changed?
Any fee the government establishes is random. There is no economics or science behind taxes, fees or penalties. It’s just a power grab.
Great video!
Why minute question: Why is Individual Liberty essential to a free and open society?
Liberty is literally freedom. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@gorilladisco9108 it's something more than that. From my understanding, 'Liberty' goes back to the Old Testament of the bible and is part of the sacrifices the Twelve Tribes of Israel were making at the time. The term has evolved. I understand it to be -- having the freedom to live your life in accordance to God's will for the individual. It has since been watered down to mean 'literal freedom' which is why I think it makes a good Why Minute Topic.
@@WintersKnight546 I don't think the Old Testament was written in Latin.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Socialism doesn’t have to mean central planning.
An economy consisting entirely of worker co-operatives engaging in a market economy would be a system where the production of goods is democratically organized. there you have it
Got one: Why does it seem like we're in another Cold War? Not to be dystopia, but more accurately:
What meetings/policies lead to this? How did the formerly friendly relations become former? What changed from the turn of the millennium to now?
Genuinely curious how/why all that work went sour.
So well explained. Thx! It made me think of a family friend from the former Yugoslavia. She always talked about how great things were there before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Now, it's true, things were way better in Yugoslavia than in most of the rest of the Eastern Block countries. But, even though she talked about how everyone had everything they needed, including a decent education, and holiday pay, she never seemed to realize the irony that the reason her country even HAD the capital to pay for those things was because Yugoslavia was selling its manufactured goods to the West (anyone remember a car called the "Yugo" back in the 80s?). And HOW did they determine the 'pricing' for those goods?!?! Good ol' Capitalism! (supply and demand from the customers). So, on a microcosm, Socialism sort of functioned, but it could never work large scale or without a Capitalist component.
So you're advocating for a mixed market approach( ? )
Well done for defining socialism. In Europe, especially, it does not mean what you define it as - at least not in colloquial use and so often discussions get off to a bad start when the two sides are using the same words but meaning different things.
You can literally own the means of production if you get a job with stock options. Then you get paid more if everyone works harder and smarter.
I'm late on my "beard Wednesday" comment...but I've been a little busy...as Nick is aware. Great video as always!
Actually he's wrong and left out alot of parts
Why can’t a collective own the means of production and control decisions for a company or organization? Have you ever tried getting consensus on anything where more than 10 people were involved?
3:39 There is a problem with the people ourselves that hasn't been mentioned in the video. Some people lack the knowledge of handling resources. Handing resources to the collective doesn't instantly give said people this knowledge. Therefore, socialism cannot eliminate the knowledge barrier without letting wasteful people waste, and therefore jeopardize, common resources.
1)library-fy the economy, you can borrow anything from a library, and use it however you like, except for destroying it. As soon as you don’t want it anymore, you can return it and let someone else use it. This GREATLY reduces resource consumption.
2)see how much each library kept having not enough resources, and produce that, there’s not enough resources? Then ask people what they want more. Either by vote or Better yet, consensus, this can accurately determine what they should make. No need for prices, they’re only just one way to communicate supply and demand, why not instead just directly hold consensus where every gets a voice on the issue and not just those with money.
If you didn't sell books, nobody would write books. The library is a parasitical entity that relies and survives from other people buying and selling books.
So every time we go shopping we have to vote first to get stuff made? What if I want something and your group of authoritarians votes no?
@@anthonymorris5084 "If you didn't sell books, nobody would write books." Dude, you're on the goddamn Internet. You KNOW what you wrote there is utter bullshit!
Most people who actually want to make things want to, (GASP), MAKE THINGS.
The incentives to make a profit are usualyl secondary to most creative people.
If you're into making things like writing and art "for the money" you're very likely going to be miserable.
Look into literally ANY WORK OF "FAN FICTION", like EVER.
I mean, fuck, 'The Loud House: Revamped' is FREE, was made FOR FREE, hasn't gotten a single bit of profit from it's creation. It is a work of fiction made SOLELY out of someone's passion, and it has (currently) THE MOST AMOUNT OF WORDS EVEN WRITTEN INTO A WORK OF FICTION.
The guy who made it, regardless of whatever anyone else thinks about him or thinks his "conditions" might be, clealry WANTED TO MAKE IT without thinking about his work ever selling. And, in a sense, makes his fiction more pure in a sense.
The incentive of profit is NOT the only incentive a person can have. In fact, most people only want profits so they can escape poverty. If we lived under a more (actually) Socialist/Leftist/caring government (one that cares for those it resides over) MORE PEOPLE would have the time and resources to make the things they want to.
If you believe in God, what was it's "incentive" to make everything? Mankind included.
Was it money? NO. FUCK MONEY. We could be living in a world where money isn't relevant anymore.
In fact, at some point we may be, should tech ever get to a point where people don't have to work anymore.
You can find meaning and purpose in other avenues besides the """inherent""" "incentive" of profits.
I mean, people can. I don't know about You, specifically, since you hate public libraries which... I mean, I can't think of a more fucking retarded take to have. You probably hate thrift stores and any place that gives people more access to more things in general.
I mean, you think some communal voting is gonna magically make it so you can't just order shit online from another community. Like "voting" is going to take away your ability to buy... I dunno. I don't know what you had in mind with that shitty "hypothetical".
Was it Pokemon cards? I'd imagine those would still be sold on eBay, even if the US became super Socialist( ! )
@@TH-camIsntTwitterKnockitoff Dude, you're ranting. Where did I ever claim that I hate libraries.
My friend, you can't make a living doing things for free.
You're correct that the underlying motive is to create. U2 doesn't make music to get rich, but they can't make music and tour while working in a factory to put food on the table.
The Wright brothers didn't farm all day, and work on their engineering late into the evening. They also required financing which investors provided.
To create, manufacture and/or sell any product or service requires capital. This means risk is involved. Investors don't invest for they joy. They invest for the return. They may wish to create something but they need the money to live.
One day a producer came to Bob Marley. He said if you gave me a little more control and let me produce your music I could get you dramatically higher sales. Marley declined stating that his music came from the heart and he didn't want it changed. The producer told him, "What if I can make it so you can do this for a living, and more people would hear your music". Marley capitulated and the rest is history.
*"MORE PEOPLE would have the time and resources to make the things they want to."* Nope, the opposite would occur. This is the *failure* of socialism. It's parasitical. It requires somebody else to make money to support those who don't. Nobody would have any time or any resources to pursue what gives them meaning, because you have to put food on the table and pay your rent. You seem to think that you could happily write songs all day while someone else pays your bills and brings you your dinner.
Outstanding work, Nick.
Now run for Congress.
How about no
2:18 you just named 3 non-socialist states. At most they were state-capitalist states
Hey Nick, family, and team! Here's a why minute that rings resounding true over the last 75 years or so, why since WWII, has the United States won every war militarily, yet in the political sphere it is counted as a loss? As a veteran I've seen it first hand, my father in law has seen it first hand in Vietnam, and we all should see it still in Korea.
I know something I'd like to see in a future video. I've been hearing more about the New Madrid Fault ever since this movie came out on Tubi. How serious of a threat is it?
Because of human nature, similar to true capitalism.
Given the Supreme Court's rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which affirm an individual's right to own firearms for self-defense, and considering the absence of meaningful historical precedent for restricting civilian ownership of arms commonly used by the military, particularly prior to the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, what are the constitutional justifications for imposing restrictions on modern firearms? This includes commonly owned firearms such as AR-15s, short-barreled shotguns (SBS), short-barreled rifles (SBR), fully automatic weapons, and other advancements. Given the historical recognition of the right to keep and bear arms as essential for self-defense, resistance to tyranny, and national defense, how can such restrictions be reconciled with the original intent of the Second Amendment, particularly in light of the judiciary’s reliance on historical tradition in these recent rulings?
Please don’t act like capitalism is perfect you said the people with the most pull with government calls the shots then what do you call lobbyists?
Legal bribery. Literally it's bribery but worded differently.
you dont see the irony here?you are not complaining about capitalism youre complaining about big governments.
As a corollary to this video, the reason for wealth inequality is that people's economic worth (reflected in earnings) is due in large part to people's material worth to society. Tailor Swift makes tons of money because people will pay to see her. The Starbucks barista, not so much. If you want to make money, increase your worth by getting educated in the things the market values.
"increase your worth by getting educated in the things the market values" "Taylor Swift"
All you proved in this "case" of yours is that the "market" is retarded, can't separate entertainment from what's needed in society, and thusly it should be dealt with through abolishment.
I mean, honestly, your comment might be one of the dumbest I've read under this particular video. It's STRIKINGLY stupid and devoid of any earnest reasoning( ! )
In Venezuela the oil was nationalized in 1976, as a result the government received a gigantic mass of money, especially after the Persian Gulf crisis of 1978, Petroleos de Venezuela PDVSA became the goose that laid the golden eggs, with the oil money the socialist governments initiated public works social programs and a lot of state companies, the largest of those state companies was the Venezuelan Corporation of Guyana or CVG, this state megacorporation was managed with political criteria, Steel, Aluminum, Gold, Diamonds, Coltan and Coal are amazingly abundant and easy to extract and process in Guyana, but these companies became a herd of white elephants, Sidor, the largest steel industry in Venezuela was known for having 7 times more workers than necessary and the poor quality of its steel, there was a time when builders preferred imported steel beams over Sidor beams. Well, in 1983 there was an economic crisis from which we have not recovered yet, that year oil prices fell, that would not have been a big problem if it were not for the fact that the losses of the CVG exceeded the profits of PDVSA, and PDVSA represented the 90th of the government's revenues, the logical thing would have been to reform the CVG, they did not do it, the white elephants stayed that way because it was politically necessary, Venalum, the company in charge of processing aluminum was closed for two years and its employees continued to collect their salaries, the company returned to operation and in one year doubled its payroll without generating a penny of profit and accumulating a huge debt.
Thank You! Excellent Analysis!
Times change, but human nature remains the same. The "selfish" can be, and mostly are, moral. The "selfless" cannot be, and never are, moral. Volunteering your life, and more importantly others lives, into slavery; makes you immoral. Human nature remains the same.
There is no such thing as an inherent "human nature".
If it did and if such "always remained the same" you wouldn't be living in a society of any sort.
Humans LITERALLY PROGRESSED to get where we are now, even if there is still more to do before most people can live relatively well on a mass level.
Like damn, you "human nature" plebs are fucking abundantly okay with the worst shit being perpetuated so long as you keep sipping on the idea that, somehow, everyone is secretly like you and thusly those who control most aspects of our govern lives have "earned" it by "virtue" of... I don't even fucking know with you, specifically( ! )
What is the weakness of corporatism that is a mixture of socialism and capitalism which has a command economy with private partners managing the market for the state.
Great talk Nick.
The pricing factors and economic logic is very important but is not the answer to making the case against socialism and for capitalism. The case has to be made and won on moral and ethical grounds, otherwise you can't win the argument. As long as altruism is held as the moral virtue you cannot win the case for capitalism.
Hurrah!!! Well done!
Preach it Brother Nick
Capitalism and regulation go hand in hand. Regulation by a body elected by the population is a form of socialism. Companies should absolutely be regulated for many reasons, chiefly to protect the consumer who otherwise has basically zero power. The idea that capitalism is totally good and socialism is totally bad is bonkers. There are elements from each system which make sense in a well functioning economy / society, and that mean everyone is better off. No drama.
Government convincing you they are not socialist while having social security tax is wild
Thomas sowell basic economics
that five mile island in Russia, great results from literal socialism. So great they refuse to talk about it and it's lessons decades later.
Actually I agree with what you are saying ----but what we have is an ever increasing control/influence over government by lobbyist/campaign donation by big money. I have no answers other than to ignore government as much as possible. We do NOT have a democracy nor a free market
The questions arise, How was it decided who would be a bureaucrat sitting in that room making decisions for all the other co-owners, and does that not establish a hierarchy with its inherent inequality? Seems that the desired leveling effect just evaporated. Hmm. So, no bureaucrats. Every decision must be made by a vote of every person. Now that would be efficient. It also negates individual expertise. The devil is in the details.
Thanks
Nick for president
The only time socialism can work is when we develop Star Trek replicators, and have unlimited energy.
Anything taken to the extreme is always harmful. The key to prosperity is to find the balance that fits the society's needs. Different geography, different culture. Different demography, different society. There's no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to socioeconomy. To prescribe such solution in top-down manner, is ironically, similar to communist's central planning.
Where to find this "harmonious balance"? Give local communities the freedom to figure it out by themselves as well as the policy and fiscal tools to implement it. The federal govt only needs to point out the destination the country needs to be in 5 years time and put up a scoreboard of local communities economically competing against each other to reach that destination first. Such scoreboard is very useful for voters to evaluate the performance of their elected leaders.
The only things the federal needs to regulate are the country's monetary system, energy grid system and public health concerns. Everything else is nothing more than bureaucratic extortion
First of all I would like to point that a an economic system that uses markets as the mechanism for the allocation of resources and the distribution goods can be socialist as long as the means of production are cooperatively owned to an extent
how do you have a market if nothing is privately owned?
bro never heard of market socialism
it still doesnt matter. socialism is not a good system anyhow. because capitalism is fair. when you work in a factory thats fair because it means that you wouldnt make more money if you were an independent artisan. you are renting out the industrial complex you are working in. that is completely fair. when you sieze the means of production the incentive to rent out industry is gone and thus the government must conduct all research expand factories and if the population doesnt grow they will either stagnate or increase taxes and both of these will lead to stagnation one day and thus itll collapse
cause its a massive, nonsensical cope.
@ being smug doesn’t make you less ignorant, just google it you might just learn something :)
@cleocal socialism, regardless of the noun or adjective placed in front of it, is a self defeating philosophy
"Let's grant all lateral power to the state that we notionally want to abolish one day!"
Like I said, cope.