its a shame videos like this are not more popular---it would be a good response to videos like "second thought"--slickly produced and reliant on emotional appeal as opposed to facts
The reason why videos like this isn't popular is because the audience it's speaking to (like you) already believes that socialism is bad, so they wont bother wasting their time watching video explaining to them what they already believe. Then there are people like you who haven't figured out how to argue against the socialist perspectives (like Second Thought) and look to watch videos like this with the hope that you get ideas on how to argue against socialist. Sadly for you, all of the arguments that you could possibly gain from this kind of video are easy to tear apart.
@Hunterchuck I do not believe it is bad I know it is fucked up evil as hell itself. No ideology, religion, or belief structure has resulted in More human death than socialism. Socialism is death.
One more amazing video! I have been following this channel for almost five years and it's content has always been excellent. Keep doing the great job you are doing!
I believe that the best way to promote the channel is to create a whole course based on books like "Human Action" and "Man Economy and State" with videos of comparable quality.
I love how simply following the logic where it takes you gets you to Austrian Economics. Or, more specifically, following the logic where it takes you *is* Austrian Economics!
Austrian economics is blind to regulatory capture at it's most basic level and why individuals are personally incentivized to abuse that dynamic.. it's OK as an economic ideology, but fails miserably as a political ideology and thus does not constitute a working societal ideology.
@@joansparky4439 It completely ignores the role of the working class in production because it sees us as just a factor of production. Not a living thinking human being.
@@kimobrien. there is no "xyz class".. we all are thinking human beings. "Classes" are being defined by the left side of the spectrum only, no one else does that. Thinking in "classes" denies ones intellect to think of alternatives - it right away comes down to team blue vs team red.. talk about a poisoned well.
@@joansparky4439 The problem with that is your theory now becomes the source of the profit which you would then have to assign to labor. Which all the bourgeois economist insist it can't be the product of labor. Your also going to have to explain how the money is created with fractional reserve banking. See the class struggle is real and you can't escape that either with a system of private property. Your going have to explain why some are paid in wages for work and others can use their position in the system of production to spend what they choose. Like why Bill Gates got to spend $9 million last year on carbon neutral jet fuel.
@@kimobrien. 1) profit is defined as the difference of revenue minus cost. The revenue depends on supply and demand dynamics (on markets) and is NOT guaranteed. When supply is higher than demand, revenue falls below cost and leads to negative profit / loss (which is unsustainable and suppliers will drop out, reducing the supply). If demand is above supply it's the other way around and more suppliers are incentivized to increase the supply. When demand meets supply, the revenue will be roughly at cost.. this I call a wash.. economics call this zero or normal profit.
Because it removes any incentive to try harder the further along time you go. Most people barely pull their shit together in a capitalist society. In a socialist one you then have to compensate for all the shitters who don't contribute anything.
actually, in a capitalist society those very same types get to play a meta game by which they try to introduce (or rely on) rules that benefit themselves at the cost of the rest, which is possible because capitalism is an economic ideology only, not a political nor a societal one. So while in socialism those types get to be party leader and enjoy a higher standard of living, in capitalism they will manage the same.. just different.
In capitalism the ones that don't contribute anything are the ones at the top, and they are the ones we all have to compensate for. The incentive to try harder is already evaporated because trying harder just means you work harder for no real gains. People figure this out very quickly at work. It seems like you've never worked a job before, which is why you didn't know the obvious.
@@Hunterchuck oh yes they dont contribute anything. Only the funding for the places of work, the equipment, the salaries, all the repairs on depreciating equipment, logistical organisation, marketing etc. How can you people be so thick and not get the concept of what paying someone to do something is? You pay people to do tasks that you do not have the time/want to do in exchange for money so that they in turn can buy stuff. If the people at the top are idiots and cant run a place well then they lose potential money and they lose good workers who leave to do other jobs that pay better or have better conditions. Workers compete with workers and companies compete with companies.
@@MrJabbothehut Where did they get the money to fund the work, equipment and salaries? The vast majority of business owners are children that were born from wealth. This can be easily proven with me asking you to start a company like Amazon or Walmart. This isn't something that the average person has the income to afford getting off the ground. Point to any of these businesses that are owned by someone who truly is a rags to riches person. 🤷♂ It's all spoiled rotten people who never worked a day in their life. This is why the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism was such a smooth transition. There wasn't any difference between the rich lesser noble families vs the greater houses. Nor was there any difference between plantation owners that didn't like paying taxes vs the British monarchy. The transition of power only switched and not much else. Capitalism is not innovative or inspiring.
@@Hunterchuck actually from a statisitcal standpoint most millionaires are self made and dont start with big fortunes. There are way more millionaires in the world than you think. At the end of the day it doesnt matter. Life isn't fair and no one gives a rats arse what you think is fair and what your quest for cosmic justice has as an end goal. Life is and has always been unfair and groveling on youtube and hoping for the overhaul of society and redistibution of wealth by force, because you don't have the patience or perserverance to develop your skills, is uber lame. Results are what matter, not the difficulty of the journey. Plenty of rich people piss away tbeir inheritance because they dont have the skills or knowledge on maintaining wealth. My point has been made and nothing you say is going to shift my perspective. Also Feudalism and Capitalism are not mutually exclusive things. Capitalism is a system where people work for profit. Feudalism is an arrangment of society where protection is granted in exchange for resources and manpower. One is an economic system and the other is a societal organisational system. The transfer wasnt smooth and it wasnt from feudalism to capitalism. It was from feudalism to parlimentary monarchy (in the UK at least). It was full of blooshed and those who were in power fought bitterly against it at first. Please learn history and economics instead of spouting bullshit because you're mad at the world and the cards it dealt you (which are way better than 95% of the rest of the world I can assure you).
fun fact, a billionair actualy never makes any bad decisions in the name of personal gain, they always do the most efficient thing because they care so much about the peasants below them.
capitalism is only an economic ideology, not a political nor a societal one, which is it's Achilles heel as it does not define how the rules under which capitalism operates under are to be found and enforced (which is actually what causes capitalism to get it's bad rep from).
Capitalism in all of it's forms have been tried. Some lead to cyclic booms, then recession and wars, the rest lead to ecological collapse and dehumanisation.
@@joansparky4439ultimately it shapes politics and society. Wealth inequality means power inequality - not based on real merit but inheritance, corruption and exploitation too. That's why democracies are effectively controlled by a group of wealthy people. The world can be better under a property-less and moneyless direct democratic system. The Inca empire did it economically, the Greeks did it politically. We can scale it up using technology.
@ mahi_nureaziz *representative* _"democracies are effectively controlled by a group of wealthy people"_ fixed it, otherwise I agree (selecting 0.000x% of the populace to make the laws is the main culprit right now). But wealth inequality is based on power inequality, not the other way around. You think by eliminating money / property you avoid the problem but you don't (Marx was wrong on that on so many aspects). _"world can be better under a _*_property-less and moneyless_*_ direct democratic system"_ Money is nothing else than publicly made promises by individuals based on the delayed exchange of resources between people (which is what enables the efficiency gains that work sharing / specialization brings with it). Our societies after all are just a peaceful way of resource gathering/distribution compared to the alternative (wilderness). The problem lies with how the rules that govern the resource acquisition and distribution are made.. under a direct democratic system where every societal participant aged 10 to end has his vote count and his abstinence is automatically noted as no to the proposal, while to enact any proposal into a societal rule requires an absolute majority will NEVER be able to create rules that economically benefit a few at the cost of the rest (creating the wealth inequality that you want to avoid). So you see, the political power (and inequality) comes first, then the economical inequality.
@ FluffyBucketSnake Why would conflict between people lead to power concentration? What's the argumentative chain there please? Thanks! Also where does Capitalism define how a society gets to formulate and then enact the rules that govern over it? This would be news to me.. IMHO Capitalism only defines what economic rules there need to be for the economic system to be functioning as capitalism, it does not state anything about how the remainder of the rules of society look like (for example if we should have rules against weapons of mass destruction or rules that protect the environment) nor how a society comes to those rules (democracy, aristocracy, etc.).
You know, it literally almost always annoys me, but I feel like the fist (emoji) here somehow doesn't feel misplaced just this once. That's definitely just my opinion though.
Why would authorities in capitalism countries allow people (e.g. immigrants) to occupy private properties when actual owners were absent (traveling out of country)?
To give another example which is classic for economists to make. When arguing that to embrace central planning deprives “society” of the benefits that could be reaped from entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs or Henry Ford the video embraces a collectivist moral standard i.e. what’s good for society. But “society” isn’t an concrete particular entity, society is an abstraction. What exists are individual people, what is good or bad is good or bad for someone in particular. Values imply a valuer, and a purpose in which the value will be used. We pro-liberty types should be using collectivist standards. We need to defend Steve Jobs individual, selfish right to his own life, liberty property and pursuit of happiness. Not trying to obfuscate that fact by saying that “society” will benefit. What you end up doing then is putting Steve Job’s interests in conflict with “society” and implying that the correct moral standard is the needs of society, so if society judges that it is in their interests to sacrifice, take from, or dictate to Steve Jobs society can because it is, it holds the standard of what is morally good.
Its assumes that socialism is just a bureaucratic version of capitalism and capitalism advantage is the smart petty bourgeois entrepreneur. In fact the petty bourgeois entrepreneur is continually driven out of business durring ever capitalist crisis of production. The real advantage to socialism comes from the working people organized as the producers such that the can move about into different industries and take what they learned in one to another. You can incentivise people with things other than money and if you get rid of the exploitative nature of capitalism you create a happier population. If you can draw in more people into working than you can reduce overall hours needed for production .
Watch all the videos on the channel. Learn some ACTUAL economics. And hopefully, you will realize that more socialism always leads to more poverty, except for the political elites and those connected to them.
@@SL2797 The world capitalist system is in long term decline. The post war boom after the destruction of industrial Europe and Japan will not comeback without another world war. All that talk about capitalism being self regulating and lifting people out of poverty is just so much neoliberal BS. The crisis of 2008 ended the neoliberal project leaving its advocates with nothing but egg on their faces. The America Investors Empire with its two parties has entered a period of endless political and economic crisis.
@@kimobrien. there was egg on their faces, yet they kept on trying to pretend that everything was fine. then trump won, i will never forgive the DNC. though I am not surprised at all
You can have socialism with no communism and same efect, like in Poland 1945-1989 economic system was called "real socialism" Central planning, dysfunctional economy, misery, factory that produce defective products, cars technologically obsolete 50 years in relation to the western. Food ( and not only food ) stamps . Queues for bread and toilet paper, finally social strikes, the authorities send enforcers to shooting protesters. So not only in communism. Communism was never tried :D after all :P
Capitalism follows from socialism when socialism inevitably collapses. Then the country desperately warns others who have not suffered from it yet to turn back, and they don't listen. Rinse and repeat.
@@abcdef-ms9mb you are besically describing how capitalism destroyed the economy of the USSR, not a positive transition 😂. the reason why Russia was able to recover from the shock therapy is because of the neo-liberal global order that Ronald Reagan started. Argentina won't recover because neo-liberalism has ended. china never left socialism, they just adopted a little bit of capitalism, but their country was still socialist. capitalism is in fact a post-feudalist economy while socialism is post-capitalist, not the other way around. socialism is the sequel of capitalism
@@levelzanimations Blaming the failure of socialist countries on capitalism is the red flag to me that I'm dealing with a cultist. I will disengage, and wish you the best.
Whilst this vide is economically sound it is philosophically awful, and since philosophy is more fundamental and consequential than economics the video undermines itself in disastrous ways. Take for instance the claim that central planners don’t have a tool to make all the calculations that individuals entrepreneurs and consumers do, this claim presupposes that what central planners lack is enough data and if they could gain this data (through AI or quantum computing etc) they could make the necessary calculations. But philosophically (and in particular morally) this isn’t true. It doesn’t matter what my level of knowledge is I could never pick your values for you. Values are not intrinsic, they don’t exist in an object apart from a human valuer, nor are they subjective, rational values are not something can be anything as judged by a human valuer; values are neither in an object apart from consciousness, nor are they in consciousness apart from the object. Value are OBJECTIVE which means that they exist independent of consciousness, they exist with a definite nature as determined by the facts of reality, and what a human consciousness does is examine the nature of an object an assess its value to him based on the purpose it will serve for his life and in the full context of his other values, interests and goals. This cannot be done for someone else. The process of examination and evaluation is personal and individualistic.
It's worse than that.. even 'central planners' are just humans (living beings) like everybody else and will be incentivized to favor their own benefit over the benefit of others or the rest. As central positions of deciding about resources are naturally positions of power which the more competitive among the populace want to control, the ones which have no red lines that they do NOT cross will not be the reluctant philosophers that Plato, Rand/Rothbard or Marx hoped for would take up such positions.. which is why no amount of AI/Quantum computers will be able to solve this, unless you want to live in a world ruled by machines (which as soon as they develop their own consciousness and their evaluation of *what to do with their cycles/time* finds that serving humans is not really their thing). PS: _"The process of examination and evaluation is personal and individualistic."_ This is because each individual values the time it needs to get what it wants differently. And ultimately it is time - more precisely lifetime - that we need to spend in the acquisition/creation/distribution of resources that we then exchange with OTHER like-minded people who want those resources that counts in this context. In that sense the value of any resource can be zero or even negative.. the only thing that counts IMHO is how much of your personal lifetime (which you do not have an infinite amount of) does it require to get what you want and how others see this.
Actually, the economics are MORE fundamental and consequential than "the philosophy", since the economics describe REALITY as it is. Also, although the price of an object or service is determined by the equilibrium between supply and demand of said object or service, the value of it is still SUBJECTIVE, since not everyone will assign the same value to that thing. Water is not valuable for someone who went to the desert to finish himself or herself. And the Black Lotus MTG card is worthless cardboard for some, while others are willing to spend thousands of dollars on it.
its a shame videos like this are not more popular---it would be a good response to videos like "second thought"--slickly produced and reliant on emotional appeal as opposed to facts
The reason why videos like this isn't popular is because the audience it's speaking to (like you) already believes that socialism is bad, so they wont bother wasting their time watching video explaining to them what they already believe.
Then there are people like you who haven't figured out how to argue against the socialist perspectives (like Second Thought) and look to watch videos like this with the hope that you get ideas on how to argue against socialist.
Sadly for you, all of the arguments that you could possibly gain from this kind of video are easy to tear apart.
@Hunterchuck I do not believe it is bad I know it is fucked up evil as hell itself.
No ideology, religion, or belief structure has resulted in More human death than socialism.
Socialism is death.
One more amazing video! I have been following this channel for almost five years and it's content has always been excellent. Keep doing the great job you are doing!
Its just the typical worship of the smart boss nothing more nothing less. It assumes only these so called entrepreneurs have a brain.
Incredible videos! I'm binging all your stuff now
Thanks alot ., keep it up
Please more videos!!! I use this in the education of my children!!!
Great discussion.
To all that think any kind of socialism is a great idea…
Have fun standing in long lines for literally everything. Enjoy!
I don't think this is fair. No one wait in line to enter an empty supermarket.
Don't forget the gulags
I believe that the best way to promote the channel is to create a whole course based on books like "Human Action" and "Man Economy and State" with videos of comparable quality.
Well, they are all faith based.
What exactly is that faith?
@@009mfu antimaterialism
@KickboxingTALP 😏
Plain socialism is just economic stupidity.
What you meant is marxist socialism, which is even worse.
@@PaltecRhyse Correct, don't even mention marxism 🤮😂
I love how simply following the logic where it takes you gets you to Austrian Economics. Or, more specifically, following the logic where it takes you *is* Austrian Economics!
Austrian economics is blind to regulatory capture at it's most basic level and why individuals are personally incentivized to abuse that dynamic.. it's OK as an economic ideology, but fails miserably as a political ideology and thus does not constitute a working societal ideology.
@@joansparky4439 It completely ignores the role of the working class in production because it sees us as just a factor of production. Not a living thinking human being.
@@kimobrien.
there is no "xyz class".. we all are thinking human beings. "Classes" are being defined by the left side of the spectrum only, no one else does that.
Thinking in "classes" denies ones intellect to think of alternatives - it right away comes down to team blue vs team red.. talk about a poisoned well.
@@joansparky4439 The problem with that is your theory now becomes the source of the profit which you would then have to assign to labor. Which all the bourgeois economist insist it can't be the product of labor. Your also going to have to explain how the money is created with fractional reserve banking. See the class struggle is real and you can't escape that either with a system of private property. Your going have to explain why some are paid in wages for work and others can use their position in the system of production to spend what they choose. Like why Bill Gates got to spend $9 million last year on carbon neutral jet fuel.
@@kimobrien.
1) profit is defined as the difference of revenue minus cost. The revenue depends on supply and demand dynamics (on markets) and is NOT guaranteed.
When supply is higher than demand, revenue falls below cost and leads to negative profit / loss (which is unsustainable and suppliers will drop out, reducing the supply). If demand is above supply it's the other way around and more suppliers are incentivized to increase the supply.
When demand meets supply, the revenue will be roughly at cost.. this I call a wash.. economics call this zero or normal profit.
One year since you posted any video 😢 please come back
Because it removes any incentive to try harder the further along time you go. Most people barely pull their shit together in a capitalist society. In a socialist one you then have to compensate for all the shitters who don't contribute anything.
actually, in a capitalist society those very same types get to play a meta game by which they try to introduce (or rely on) rules that benefit themselves at the cost of the rest, which is possible because capitalism is an economic ideology only, not a political nor a societal one. So while in socialism those types get to be party leader and enjoy a higher standard of living, in capitalism they will manage the same.. just different.
In capitalism the ones that don't contribute anything are the ones at the top, and they are the ones we all have to compensate for. The incentive to try harder is already evaporated because trying harder just means you work harder for no real gains. People figure this out very quickly at work. It seems like you've never worked a job before, which is why you didn't know the obvious.
@@Hunterchuck oh yes they dont contribute anything. Only the funding for the places of work, the equipment, the salaries, all the repairs on depreciating equipment, logistical organisation, marketing etc.
How can you people be so thick and not get the concept of what paying someone to do something is? You pay people to do tasks that you do not have the time/want to do in exchange for money so that they in turn can buy stuff.
If the people at the top are idiots and cant run a place well then they lose potential money and they lose good workers who leave to do other jobs that pay better or have better conditions. Workers compete with workers and companies compete with companies.
@@MrJabbothehut Where did they get the money to fund the work, equipment and salaries?
The vast majority of business owners are children that were born from wealth. This can be easily proven with me asking you to start a company like Amazon or Walmart. This isn't something that the average person has the income to afford getting off the ground. Point to any of these businesses that are owned by someone who truly is a rags to riches person. 🤷♂
It's all spoiled rotten people who never worked a day in their life. This is why the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism was such a smooth transition. There wasn't any difference between the rich lesser noble families vs the greater houses. Nor was there any difference between plantation owners that didn't like paying taxes vs the British monarchy.
The transition of power only switched and not much else. Capitalism is not innovative or inspiring.
@@Hunterchuck actually from a statisitcal standpoint most millionaires are self made and dont start with big fortunes. There are way more millionaires in the world than you think.
At the end of the day it doesnt matter. Life isn't fair and no one gives a rats arse what you think is fair and what your quest for cosmic justice has as an end goal.
Life is and has always been unfair and groveling on youtube and hoping for the overhaul of society and redistibution of wealth by force, because you don't have the patience or perserverance to develop your skills, is uber lame.
Results are what matter, not the difficulty of the journey. Plenty of rich people piss away tbeir inheritance because they dont have the skills or knowledge on maintaining wealth. My point has been made and nothing you say is going to shift my perspective.
Also Feudalism and Capitalism are not mutually exclusive things. Capitalism is a system where people work for profit. Feudalism is an arrangment of society where protection is granted in exchange for resources and manpower. One is an economic system and the other is a societal organisational system. The transfer wasnt smooth and it wasnt from feudalism to capitalism. It was from feudalism to parlimentary monarchy (in the UK at least). It was full of blooshed and those who were in power fought bitterly against it at first. Please learn history and economics instead of spouting bullshit because you're mad at the world and the cards it dealt you (which are way better than 95% of the rest of the world I can assure you).
This is exceptionally wonderful video and it would be good to spread this video
Does anyone know what's happened to this channel/creator, they seem to have just stopped.
fun fact, a billionair actualy never makes any bad decisions in the name of personal gain, they always do the most efficient thing because they care so much about the peasants below them.
Love to see the use of a Polish video, albeit an old one.
Socialism in all forms have been tried and all have failed .. most lead to misery and death.. the rest lead to capitalism
capitalism is only an economic ideology, not a political nor a societal one, which is it's Achilles heel as it does not define how the rules under which capitalism operates under are to be found and enforced (which is actually what causes capitalism to get it's bad rep from).
Capitalism in all of it's forms have been tried. Some lead to cyclic booms, then recession and wars, the rest lead to ecological collapse and dehumanisation.
@@joansparky4439ultimately it shapes politics and society. Wealth inequality means power inequality - not based on real merit but inheritance, corruption and exploitation too. That's why democracies are effectively controlled by a group of wealthy people.
The world can be better under a property-less and moneyless direct democratic system. The Inca empire did it economically, the Greeks did it politically. We can scale it up using technology.
@ mahi_nureaziz
*representative* _"democracies are effectively controlled by a group of wealthy people"_
fixed it, otherwise I agree (selecting 0.000x% of the populace to make the laws is the main culprit right now). But wealth inequality is based on power inequality, not the other way around. You think by eliminating money / property you avoid the problem but you don't (Marx was wrong on that on so many aspects).
_"world can be better under a _*_property-less and moneyless_*_ direct democratic system"_
Money is nothing else than publicly made promises by individuals based on the delayed exchange of resources between people (which is what enables the efficiency gains that work sharing / specialization brings with it). Our societies after all are just a peaceful way of resource gathering/distribution compared to the alternative (wilderness).
The problem lies with how the rules that govern the resource acquisition and distribution are made.. under a direct democratic system where every societal participant aged 10 to end has his vote count and his abstinence is automatically noted as no to the proposal, while to enact any proposal into a societal rule requires an absolute majority will NEVER be able to create rules that economically benefit a few at the cost of the rest (creating the wealth inequality that you want to avoid). So you see, the political power (and inequality) comes first, then the economical inequality.
@ FluffyBucketSnake
Why would conflict between people lead to power concentration? What's the argumentative chain there please? Thanks!
Also where does Capitalism define how a society gets to formulate and then enact the rules that govern over it? This would be news to me.. IMHO Capitalism only defines what economic rules there need to be for the economic system to be functioning as capitalism, it does not state anything about how the remainder of the rules of society look like (for example if we should have rules against weapons of mass destruction or rules that protect the environment) nor how a society comes to those rules (democracy, aristocracy, etc.).
I'm curious who thought it was a good idea for this channel to use emojies in its titles and what was their reasoning
Eric Cartman: "how to reach these kids?"
You know, it literally almost always annoys me, but I feel like the fist (emoji) here somehow doesn't feel misplaced just this once. That's definitely just my opinion though.
Why would authorities in capitalism countries allow people (e.g. immigrants) to occupy private properties when actual owners were absent (traveling out of country)?
I agree
To give another example which is classic for economists to make. When arguing that to embrace central planning deprives “society” of the benefits that could be reaped from entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs or Henry Ford the video embraces a collectivist moral standard i.e. what’s good for society. But “society” isn’t an concrete particular entity, society is an abstraction. What exists are individual people, what is good or bad is good or bad for someone in particular. Values imply a valuer, and a purpose in which the value will be used.
We pro-liberty types should be using collectivist standards. We need to defend Steve Jobs individual, selfish right to his own life, liberty property and pursuit of happiness. Not trying to obfuscate that fact by saying that “society” will benefit. What you end up doing then is putting Steve Job’s interests in conflict with “society” and implying that the correct moral standard is the needs of society, so if society judges that it is in their interests to sacrifice, take from, or dictate to Steve Jobs society can because it is, it holds the standard of what is morally good.
Its assumes that socialism is just a bureaucratic version of capitalism and capitalism advantage is the smart petty bourgeois entrepreneur. In fact the petty bourgeois entrepreneur is continually driven out of business durring ever capitalist crisis of production. The real advantage to socialism comes from the working people organized as the producers such that the can move about into different industries and take what they learned in one to another. You can incentivise people with things other than money and if you get rid of the exploitative nature of capitalism you create a happier population. If you can draw in more people into working than you can reduce overall hours needed for production .
Marxism is slavery.
Watch all the videos on the channel. Learn some ACTUAL economics. And hopefully, you will realize that more socialism always leads to more poverty, except for the political elites and those connected to them.
@@SL2797 The world capitalist system is in long term decline. The post war boom after the destruction of industrial Europe and Japan will not comeback without another world war. All that talk about capitalism being self regulating and lifting people out of poverty is just so much neoliberal BS. The crisis of 2008 ended the neoliberal project leaving its advocates with nothing but egg on their faces. The America Investors Empire with its two parties has entered a period of endless political and economic crisis.
@@kimobrien. there was egg on their faces, yet they kept on trying to pretend that everything was fine. then trump won, i will never forgive the DNC. though I am not surprised at all
@@SL2797 dude, you need to learn alot.
All the points in this video are great, but it mixes definitions by calling socialism what is, in fact, communism.
You can have socialism with no communism and same efect, like in Poland 1945-1989 economic system was called "real socialism" Central planning, dysfunctional economy, misery, factory that produce defective products, cars technologically obsolete 50 years in relation to the western. Food ( and not only food ) stamps . Queues for bread and toilet paper, finally social strikes, the authorities send enforcers to shooting protesters.
So not only in communism. Communism was never tried :D after all :P
cool vid and all but botted sub count
First view.... First like... First comment... ❤️ ❤️❤️
socialism is the following of capitalism when capitalism is expiring.
Capitalism follows from socialism when socialism inevitably collapses. Then the country desperately warns others who have not suffered from it yet to turn back, and they don't listen. Rinse and repeat.
@@abcdef-ms9mb
you are besically describing how capitalism destroyed the economy of the USSR, not a positive transition 😂. the reason why Russia was able to recover from the shock therapy is because of the neo-liberal global order that Ronald Reagan started. Argentina won't recover because neo-liberalism has ended. china never left socialism, they just adopted a little bit of capitalism, but their country was still socialist. capitalism is in fact a post-feudalist economy while socialism is post-capitalist, not the other way around.
socialism is the sequel of capitalism
@@levelzanimations Blaming the failure of socialist countries on capitalism is the red flag to me that I'm dealing with a cultist. I will disengage, and wish you the best.
@@abcdef-ms9mb
😂😂😂right
th-cam.com/video/XC7OQt6Pw8M/w-d-xo.htmlsi=K8633jIzitqY4R52
@@abcdef-ms9mb
right 😂😂😂
Whilst this vide is economically sound it is philosophically awful, and since philosophy is more fundamental and consequential than economics the video undermines itself in disastrous ways. Take for instance the claim that central planners don’t have a tool to make all the calculations that individuals entrepreneurs and consumers do, this claim presupposes that what central planners lack is enough data and if they could gain this data (through AI or quantum computing etc) they could make the necessary calculations. But philosophically (and in particular morally) this isn’t true. It doesn’t matter what my level of knowledge is I could never pick your values for you. Values are not intrinsic, they don’t exist in an object apart from a human valuer, nor are they subjective, rational values are not something can be anything as judged by a human valuer; values are neither in an object apart from consciousness, nor are they in consciousness apart from the object. Value are OBJECTIVE which means that they exist independent of consciousness, they exist with a definite nature as determined by the facts of reality, and what a human consciousness does is examine the nature of an object an assess its value to him based on the purpose it will serve for his life and in the full context of his other values, interests and goals. This cannot be done for someone else. The process of examination and evaluation is personal and individualistic.
It's worse than that.. even 'central planners' are just humans (living beings) like everybody else and will be incentivized to favor their own benefit over the benefit of others or the rest. As central positions of deciding about resources are naturally positions of power which the more competitive among the populace want to control, the ones which have no red lines that they do NOT cross will not be the reluctant philosophers that Plato, Rand/Rothbard or Marx hoped for would take up such positions.. which is why no amount of AI/Quantum computers will be able to solve this, unless you want to live in a world ruled by machines (which as soon as they develop their own consciousness and their evaluation of *what to do with their cycles/time* finds that serving humans is not really their thing).
PS: _"The process of examination and evaluation is personal and individualistic."_
This is because each individual values the time it needs to get what it wants differently. And ultimately it is time - more precisely lifetime - that we need to spend in the acquisition/creation/distribution of resources that we then exchange with OTHER like-minded people who want those resources that counts in this context. In that sense the value of any resource can be zero or even negative.. the only thing that counts IMHO is how much of your personal lifetime (which you do not have an infinite amount of) does it require to get what you want and how others see this.
Actually, the economics are MORE fundamental and consequential than "the philosophy", since the economics describe REALITY as it is.
Also, although the price of an object or service is determined by the equilibrium between supply and demand of said object or service, the value of it is still SUBJECTIVE, since not everyone will assign the same value to that thing. Water is not valuable for someone who went to the desert to finish himself or herself. And the Black Lotus MTG card is worthless cardboard for some, while others are willing to spend thousands of dollars on it.