@@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.
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%
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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
I'm not sure what you mean. The means of production are clearly defined as the assets and resources needed to produce outputs, mostly land, labour, and capital. We don't need someone to wholly own these things, they can exist independently of a single or a small handful of people. They should be democratically controlled by the people who empower industry and contribute to society, not the people who happen to own it.
@RDesai_indiancapitalist yet another argument aginst socialism that is just capitalism projecting itself equality can only come through force not because that's how people can be forced to work but because we need force to bring down the bourgeois that won't let their position be brought down so that everyone can live a better life and the planet doesn't get destroyed let's look at why people work under capitalism, coercion. Yep material coercion you are not guaranteed a minimum standard of living under capitalism so its either you work or you die but the theory is that even tho its bad it maximizes human potential millions may die but hey the ceo of a corporation you'll never see got a bit more money he didnt need. No capitalism does not maximize human potential even by its own fucked up standards there are more unemployed people than jobs to fill if you think this is false i can prove it. It is more profitable to overwork some people another to employ everyone due to it being necessary for a reserve army of labour to exist than to employ everyone capitalism causes millions to be poor starving and homeless on the theory that it will get them to work it is misery for miserys sake big thing built into capitalism is protestent work ethic it is better to cause the destruction of the world spewing carbon into the atmosphere as the ceo of a company than not to work
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.
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.
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
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.
Yes a very charitable view of people who take a different opinion. I have a lot of respect for what capitalism has been able to achieve relative to feudalism of the past. However, it has fundamental issues, inequalities, and contradictions which should send us looking for a better system.
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.
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 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 UA-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 UA-cam channel called tik history in which he makes a lot of good videos about marxism and national socialism.
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.
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.
If socialism is doomed to fail, why does the usa feel the need to spend billions in coups and the war in vietnam to make sure they die? Why would the domino theory exist if they couldve just let the countries die off on their own? Its almost as if socialism does work. Example countries of successfull socialist countries (until they were overthrown by foreign backed coups for being socialist): - Guatemala - Burkina Faso - Chile The famines in USSR and under Mao were mostly due to mismanagement or stupidity, not the economic system.
Famines in the early years of USSR and China was because of the lack of industrial power that is crucial for giving the basic necessities in these Post war countries. Pre revolution of Russia and China had a far more frequent occurrence of famine and during the communist leadership, it was expected to undergo famine because of it and not mismanagement or stupidity.
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
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.
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
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
@@Murray_Rothbard the video is stupid, he doesn’t know the difference between private and personal property and he believes that profit maximisation is more efficient than volume maximisation- basic economic mistake
Lmao. Decentralized Economic Planning doesn’t work for Socialism. None of those countries from Eastern Europe from 1945 to 1953 had that. They were all Centralized Planned Economy by Stalinists. Expect Titoist Yugoslavia which well had IMF Loans from 45 to 1980 and basically bankrupted itself which isn’t surprising.
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.
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.
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 videos there are a lot of issues with this video. One of the largest is the op is confusing Socialism with Communism. Secondly, the means of productions are own ed by the workers. So steel workers own the steel production and profit share, but they don’t have a profit stake in the oil industry. The third large issue is the mention of a country like Venezuela. They were one of the wealthiest and fastest growing nations until the US placed a trade embargo that crippled them. You’re also entirely ignoring the existence of Democratic Socialism. You’re saying it can’t work but it does currently. Canada, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, Iceland, Greenland, there’s a lot of great examples
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There so much wrong with what you've said here...In what way does socialism destroy a persons "original nature"? as if a persons nature is set in stone. Human nature is proven to be very mailable depending on the society a person lives under. Socialism aims to get rid of or greatly reduce massive wealth/resource disparity. And in what way does socialism destroy a persons nature to create and advance? Is predatory exploitation and greed a main driving force for creativity and innovation? Innovation has be driven forward in public sectors without profit motives, look up the Lucas Plan in 1976.
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. If you are willing to teach a man to fish for free to prevent his starvation, that is socialism. If you are willing to teach a man to fish if he pays you to, that is capitalism. If you are willing to let a man starve if he cannot afford to pay you to teach him to fish, that is free market capitalism.
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
Kamala Harris is in no way are communist, socialist, or even left-wing. She believes in capitalism as much as any republican. She may want a few more benefits for the exploited workers, but ultimately she doesn't want to do anything to change their situation. She's right-wing in every way.
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?
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.
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.
market socialism is the most contradictory economic system, the entire point of socialism is to redistribute wealth by eliminating capital and markets entirely, reintroducing the market within a socialist system would just cause wealth to concentrate again
As expected. If a non-socialist explains what socialism is, it is automatically a failed explanation. Too oversimplified, even failed to read and include the basic Labour Theory of Value where it simply explained the prices of the commodities and how it gets traded fairly. And also relying much on another theory the Demand and Supply which has failed to explain other aspects properly like how Inflation actually occurs and why it has always lead to production of unnecessary products. "Under socialism there are no real prices" super obvious he never really investigated how the actual implementation of Socialism worked in the USSR and other Socialist countries. What a bad take and explanation of Socialism.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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( ! )
I have a feeling you may have understood the flaws of democracy more than Socialism. The USSR is another party to be blamed for such misconceptions aside from individual that may have what I call an "biased mental government" and western capitalists. *Biased mental government can refer to some individuals with both views others associate with either right wing or left wing views or those who allow a specific internal government into power.
Wow. You convincingly succeeded to condense an apparently complicated matter into a few minutes. No BS talk just facts. I wish more UA-cam content was that concise. I love the channel.
@@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.
It wasn’t but it was translated to Latin it was first written in Hebrew and Greek then translated to Latin when the Roman’s came in and Jesus Christ and his apostles came about.
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.
The main argument for Socialism is with Capitalism is that a minority of people will acquire the majority of the wealth. And fair enough, that is what happens with Capitalism. But what people making the argument don't realise is Socialism does not make those people go away, they go into politics. If you are a Socialist, would you trust, for example, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk or Donald Trump to decide where the resources go?
whoever has the most pull with the government.....isnt that what we have now with corrupt big corporate lobbying? maybe we need a free market system but with a form of control on max volume of ownership / controll by any one entity.
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.
I agree with Nick here. With capitalism you have private banks for startup capital, and customers decide what is for sell, not a government overlord. Markets are determined bottom-up, not top-down. There are MANY reasons why socialism can never work. If your definition of socialism is "A Command and Control system of economic organization in which government has a necessary role in the continuous redistribution of power, wealth, and property," then you notice the terrifying expenses around the word "continuous." The communist-socialist model eventually requires the government to be the only entity that owns everything and employs everyone... Children these days ignore the fact that socialism always goes bankrupt, and assume that they can have property rights when the government owns everything they "buy." The selling point for socialism is that resources are magically limited and this creates conflict when the wants of the wealthy impede that needs of the poor. Socialism then promises to assuage the envy and jealousy they feel toward successful people, when an army of government redistributors steals the good stuff.
One thing I keep seeing socialists struggling to explain is the concept of "incentives" or how you get people to do jobs that no one else wants to do in a socialist society. For example a sewer cleaner. Cleaning dirty smelly sewers and possibly getting some disease from doing it is a job not a lot want to do. But in a capitalism, people do this job regardless because the pay is good or the benefits. Also we need sewer cleaners, it is a vital job needed to be done to keep are waterways flowing. Now I have seen socialists explain that in their society, the incentives for people to do these jobs would be given "benefits" or some other goods like food. The irony in that exchange is capitalism started out as a barter system, for example I'll exchange 10 eggs for your 10 loafs of bread. Capitalism was more efficient, as instead of exchange of goods for other goods, I'll exchange "money" like gold coins that have value for goods. It just seems like socialists are going backwards only to arrive back into capitalism.
Also...the workers get payed for just showing up. Incentives for higher production from workers individually are not rewarded so there is no incentive to do more and/or better work. Everyone does the least possible. That accounts for shortages far more than does the estimated units needed by bureaucrats.
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?
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 fundamental problem with socialism is it goes against human nature. All men are NOT created equal, and to try to force equality on people is a recipe for tyranny and oppression. When you trade capitalism for socialism, you are just exchanging one set of masters for another,and while the former will value and reward you on your skills and productivity, the latter will value you more on your willingness to go along with the glorious revolution, aka the government. I have known many people who lived in Eastern Europe during the soviet era, they all hated the fact that Party apparatchiks were given many rewards over the workers, even to having special shops for Party members where the quality and variety of good was superior to that for the masses. That's one of the big reasons so many of the hard working types escaped and came here to benefit our country.
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.
@@iwatchyoutube202 , Incentives always come in the form of a carrot or a stick. Some people are more motivated by the carrot (big house, nice car, nice clothes...) and others are more motivated by the stick (don't work, don't eat). It's a combination of greed and need. Socialism attempts to remove both greed and need by giving you what you need to survive while taking away anything you produce above that level. You can see the results with the exact same set of people by looking at the productivity of West Germany versus East Germany when they were divided, and North Korea versus South Korea (look at a satellite map at night where North Korea is almost completely dark while South Korea is lit up), or Venezuela prior to socialism versus after. These are the exact same people under socialism versus capitalism. More specifically, these are the same people where some are motivated to be productive while others have no such motivation.
@@Bgrosz1 Well that isn't exactly necessary, you could simply create a socialist economy with a different taxation model that allows luxuries that would counteract this. Socialism doesn't inherently tax away your luxuries.
@@iwatchyoutube202 , Of course it does. The point of socialism is that the government takes everything and redistributes it equally. You don't get luxuries, unless your high up in the government, because there isn't enough to spread around to give everyone luxuries. I think you have an incorrect idea of what socialism is. The state owns whatever you produce, and you get what the state decides to give you, which isn't very much. Socialism is not just a higher level of taxation.
We have businesses within our economy who practice a socialist form of equity distribution. Cooperatives, your local Credit Union, or a Mutual Insurance Company are owned by the people who patronize it. Like Ocean Spray is a Agricultural Cooperative whose equity is owned by the producers of the company, instead of it being traded on wall street by billionaires like most companies. Ace hardware's equity is owned by individual store owners, like a franchise but its owned by its franchisees. These are real examples of socialist companies who are successful, even within the framework of our capitalist society who infamously exploits, and under-compensates the people who actually make the economy function.
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.
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.
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( ! )
@@UA-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.
That is comunism, not socialism. Ownership is key difference between these two. Socialism is when government taxes your property in exchange for stuff. But you can still have some property/bussines.
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
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.
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( ! )
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. :)
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%
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."
But... but... but it wasn't REAL socialism
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.
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.
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
"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.
@@etchalaco9971so socialism doesn't work to begin' with 😂
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.
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!!
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.
She is really a good investment advisor. I was privileged to attend some of her seminars. That is how I started my crypto investment
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.
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 :)
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
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.
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.
I'm not sure what you mean. The means of production are clearly defined as the assets and resources needed to produce outputs, mostly land, labour, and capital.
We don't need someone to wholly own these things, they can exist independently of a single or a small handful of people. They should be democratically controlled by the people who empower industry and contribute to society, not the people who happen to own it.
@@hubertcumberdale6221they’re asking about who builds the means of production
“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
Rdesai Indian capitalist sold me fent behind a Walmart
@RDesai_indiancapitalisthe wasn't ready.😂
@@Lakshya_Plays_Minecraftmake an argument 😅😅😅
@RDesai_indiancapitalist yet another argument aginst socialism that is just capitalism projecting itself
equality can only come through force not because that's how people can be forced to work but because we need force to bring down the bourgeois that won't let their position be brought down so that everyone can live a better life and the planet doesn't get destroyed
let's look at why people work under capitalism, coercion. Yep material coercion you are not guaranteed a minimum standard of living under capitalism so its either you work or you die but the theory is that even tho its bad it maximizes human potential millions may die but hey the ceo of a corporation you'll never see got a bit more money he didnt need. No capitalism does not maximize human potential even by its own fucked up standards there are more unemployed people than jobs to fill if you think this is false i can prove it. It is more profitable to overwork some people another to employ everyone due to it being necessary for a reserve army of labour to exist than to employ everyone capitalism causes millions to be poor starving and homeless on the theory that it will get them to work it is misery for miserys sake big thing built into capitalism is protestent work ethic it is better to cause the destruction of the world spewing carbon into the atmosphere as the ceo of a company than not to work
@@bigtobacco1098 I forgot I had to reply to him thanks for reminding ig
La imposibilidad del cálculo económico es, entre otras razones, el mayor motivo por el que no funciona el Colectivismo
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.
You’re acting like big companies don’t own all of the products you buy.
Capitalism isn’t the issue, it’s corporations owning everything without giving others a chance to compete
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.
Yes and people don’t understand that it’s not just one economic system, it’s a philosophy.
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
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.
"SC0chiawiZM D03s WuRk l0l!1 u Juzt D1dn't d0 it RigHt11!" - Average western socialist.
Living in America mind you.
As they type from their iphone 😂😂😂
Yes a very charitable view of people who take a different opinion.
I have a lot of respect for what capitalism has been able to achieve relative to feudalism of the past. However, it has fundamental issues, inequalities, and contradictions which should send us looking for a better system.
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.
@@PanzerkampfwagenVITigerIAusfEthey think it’s completely impossible but we have the resources
2:18 you just named 3 non-socialist states. At most they were state-capitalist states
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.
Brilliant timing!! Thanks Nick!
Actually socialism to a certain extent does work
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 UA-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 UA-cam channel called tik history in which he makes a lot of good videos about marxism and national socialism.
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.
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.
Ludwig von Mises strikes again
If socialism is doomed to fail, why does the usa feel the need to spend billions in coups and the war in vietnam to make sure they die? Why would the domino theory exist if they couldve just let the countries die off on their own? Its almost as if socialism does work.
Example countries of successfull socialist countries (until they were overthrown by foreign backed coups for being socialist):
- Guatemala
- Burkina Faso
- Chile
The famines in USSR and under Mao were mostly due to mismanagement or stupidity, not the economic system.
because the ussr can easily subsidise them and keep it alive.america works with whoever serves their intrest. also they can revert to state capitalism
Great point
@@tahmagicz i love how you ignored the response.
Famines in the early years of USSR and China was because of the lack of industrial power that is crucial for giving the basic necessities in these Post war countries. Pre revolution of Russia and China had a far more frequent occurrence of famine and during the communist leadership, it was expected to undergo famine because of it and not mismanagement or stupidity.
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
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.
Idea,Why the book Atlas shrugged is a great lesson for our time.
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
yes....and I only watched the first couple of minutes.
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
Exactly, these people only know one type of socialism.
That literally doesn't change the point of the video😂
@@Murray_Rothbard the video is stupid, he doesn’t know the difference between private and personal property and he believes that profit maximisation is more efficient than volume maximisation- basic economic mistake
Lmao. Decentralized Economic Planning doesn’t work for Socialism.
None of those countries from Eastern Europe from 1945 to 1953 had that. They were all Centralized Planned Economy by Stalinists. Expect Titoist Yugoslavia which well had IMF Loans from 45 to 1980 and basically bankrupted itself which isn’t surprising.
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.
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.
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 videos there are a lot of issues with this video. One of the largest is the op is confusing Socialism with Communism. Secondly, the means of productions are own ed by the workers. So steel workers own the steel production and profit share, but they don’t have a profit stake in the oil industry. The third large issue is the mention of a country like Venezuela. They were one of the wealthiest and fastest growing nations until the US placed a trade embargo that crippled them. You’re also entirely ignoring the existence of Democratic Socialism. You’re saying it can’t work but it does currently. Canada, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, Iceland, Greenland, there’s a lot of great examples
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
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 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.
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
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.
@@asjsjbspswho do you think pays big government to do what they do? Capitalists.
@@asjsjbspsthe bribery of governments by firms to gain favours and influence in order to increase profits.
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.
Why Socialism Can Never Work
Economics
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.
Education sure has for the past 200 years. Keep making excuses.
There so much wrong with what you've said here...In what way does socialism destroy a persons "original nature"? as if a persons nature is set in stone. Human nature is proven to be very mailable depending on the society a person lives under. Socialism aims to get rid of or greatly reduce massive wealth/resource disparity. And in what way does socialism destroy a persons nature to create and advance? Is predatory exploitation and greed a main driving force for creativity and innovation? Innovation has be driven forward in public sectors without profit motives, look up the Lucas Plan in 1976.
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. If you are willing to teach a man to fish for free to prevent his starvation, that is socialism. If you are willing to teach a man to fish if he pays you to, that is capitalism. If you are willing to let a man starve if he cannot afford to pay you to teach him to fish, that is free market capitalism.
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.
The irony of getting a Kamala "Chuckles the clown" Harris ad the moment I clicked this video....
Kamala Harris is in no way are communist, socialist, or even left-wing. She believes in capitalism as much as any republican.
She may want a few more benefits for the exploited workers, but ultimately she doesn't want to do anything to change their situation. She's right-wing in every way.
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?
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.
1:03 First problem: the "goods", or commodities, are NOT the same as the means of production. Try again
Humans are resources, too.
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.
What about "Market Socialism"?
market socialism is the most contradictory economic system, the entire point of socialism is to redistribute wealth by eliminating capital and markets entirely, reintroducing the market within a socialist system would just cause wealth to concentrate again
Former Yugoslavia was a good example of market socialism. There even used to be commercials on TV to buy products.
The challenge of Socialism is all those pesky people.........They don't all value the same exact world.
As expected. If a non-socialist explains what socialism is, it is automatically a failed explanation. Too oversimplified, even failed to read and include the basic Labour Theory of Value where it simply explained the prices of the commodities and how it gets traded fairly. And also relying much on another theory the Demand and Supply which has failed to explain other aspects properly like how Inflation actually occurs and why it has always lead to production of unnecessary products. "Under socialism there are no real prices" super obvious he never really investigated how the actual implementation of Socialism worked in the USSR and other Socialist countries. What a bad take and explanation of Socialism.
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?
Loving the Lysander Spooner line of reasoning
Great video. Simple and straight to the point. This should be made mandatory learning in our school systems.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Any fee the government establishes is random. There is no economics or science behind taxes, fees or penalties. It’s just a power grab.
我觉得在资本主义国家的人更应该理解资本主义根本行不通，周期性地爆发经济危机和赢者通吃最后只会生产贵族和奴隶 ，以1：99的比例
尤其是本国的资产阶级没能掌握科技革命被其他国家的资产阶级击败，而该国的政府是该国资产阶级的傀儡，本国的经济就会衰退，该国家开始仇视其他国家，最终变成法西斯主义，比如特朗普领导的美国
所以资本主义和封建主义最终会是同一样东西，领主的土地和资本家的工厂其实是同一件事
计划经济是社会主义的一种构想，苏联没有先进的计算机科学和管理学来实现它，导致供应总是小于需求
但是如今计算机已经足以取代大部分工厂的工作了，我们从来没有如此有机会过
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( ! )
Nice one. Helping others is immoral, and being a selfish individual with no regard to anyone else is “moral”
I have a feeling you may have understood the flaws of democracy more than Socialism.
The USSR is another party to be blamed for such misconceptions aside from individual that may have what I call an "biased mental government" and western capitalists.
*Biased mental government can refer to some individuals with both views others associate with either right wing or left wing views or those who allow a specific internal government into power.
Wow. You convincingly succeeded to condense an apparently complicated matter into a few minutes. No BS talk just facts. I wish more UA-cam content was that concise. I love the channel.
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)_/¯
It wasn’t but it was translated to Latin it was first written in Hebrew and Greek then translated to Latin when the Roman’s came in and Jesus Christ and his apostles came about.
Government convincing you they are not socialist while having social security tax is wild
why-greed and lack of empathy
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.
I hope your channel grows bigger Nick!
Keep pushing to 100K Subscribers!!!!
The main argument for Socialism is with Capitalism is that a minority of people will acquire the majority of the wealth.
And fair enough, that is what happens with Capitalism. But what people making the argument don't realise is Socialism does not make those people go away, they go into politics. If you are a Socialist, would you trust, for example, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk or Donald Trump to decide where the resources go?
whoever has the most pull with the government.....isnt that what we have now with corrupt big corporate lobbying? maybe we need a free market system but with a form of control on max volume of ownership / controll by any one entity.
Perfect explanation!
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.
I agree with Nick here. With capitalism you have private banks for startup capital, and customers decide what is for sell, not a government overlord. Markets are determined bottom-up, not top-down.
There are MANY reasons why socialism can never work. If your definition of socialism is "A Command and Control system of economic organization in which government has a necessary role in the continuous redistribution of power, wealth, and property," then you notice the terrifying expenses around the word "continuous." The communist-socialist model eventually requires the government to be the only entity that owns everything and employs everyone...
Children these days ignore the fact that socialism always goes bankrupt, and assume that they can have property rights when the government owns everything they "buy." The selling point for socialism is that resources are magically limited and this creates conflict when the wants of the wealthy impede that needs of the poor. Socialism then promises to assuage the envy and jealousy they feel toward successful people, when an army of government redistributors steals the good stuff.
One thing I keep seeing socialists struggling to explain is the concept of "incentives" or how you get people to do jobs that no one else wants to do in a socialist society. For example a sewer cleaner. Cleaning dirty smelly sewers and possibly getting some disease from doing it is a job not a lot want to do. But in a capitalism, people do this job regardless because the pay is good or the benefits. Also we need sewer cleaners, it is a vital job needed to be done to keep are waterways flowing. Now I have seen socialists explain that in their society, the incentives for people to do these jobs would be given "benefits" or some other goods like food. The irony in that exchange is capitalism started out as a barter system, for example I'll exchange 10 eggs for your 10 loafs of bread. Capitalism was more efficient, as instead of exchange of goods for other goods, I'll exchange "money" like gold coins that have value for goods. It just seems like socialists are going backwards only to arrive back into capitalism.
Also...the workers get payed for just showing up. Incentives for higher production from workers individually are not rewarded so there is no incentive to do more and/or better work. Everyone does the least possible. That accounts for shortages far more than does the estimated units needed by bureaucrats.
Yep. the harder you work the more of other people's jobs you get to do yourself but without getting extra pay for it.
Far more?? I would say far less
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?
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 fundamental problem with socialism is it goes against human nature. All men are NOT created equal, and to try to force equality on people is a recipe for tyranny and oppression. When you trade capitalism for socialism, you are just exchanging one set of masters for another,and while the former will value and reward you on your skills and productivity, the latter will value you more on your willingness to go along with the glorious revolution, aka the government. I have known many people who lived in Eastern Europe during the soviet era, they all hated the fact that Party apparatchiks were given many rewards over the workers, even to having special shops for Party members where the quality and variety of good was superior to that for the masses. That's one of the big reasons so many of the hard working types escaped and came here to benefit our country.
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.
How does socialism minimize the incentive to be productive?
@@iwatchyoutube202 ,
Incentives always come in the form of a carrot or a stick. Some people are more motivated by the carrot (big house, nice car, nice clothes...) and others are more motivated by the stick (don't work, don't eat). It's a combination of greed and need.
Socialism attempts to remove both greed and need by giving you what you need to survive while taking away anything you produce above that level.
You can see the results with the exact same set of people by looking at the productivity of West Germany versus East Germany when they were divided, and North Korea versus South Korea (look at a satellite map at night where North Korea is almost completely dark while South Korea is lit up), or Venezuela prior to socialism versus after. These are the exact same people under socialism versus capitalism. More specifically, these are the same people where some are motivated to be productive while others have no such motivation.
@@Bgrosz1 Well that isn't exactly necessary, you could simply create a socialist economy with a different taxation model that allows luxuries that would counteract this. Socialism doesn't inherently tax away your luxuries.
@@iwatchyoutube202 Name me those luxuries that would motivate someone to consistently work hard.
@@iwatchyoutube202 ,
Of course it does. The point of socialism is that the government takes everything and redistributes it equally. You don't get luxuries, unless your high up in the government, because there isn't enough to spread around to give everyone luxuries.
I think you have an incorrect idea of what socialism is. The state owns whatever you produce, and you get what the state decides to give you, which isn't very much. Socialism is not just a higher level of taxation.
We have businesses within our economy who practice a socialist form of equity distribution. Cooperatives, your local Credit Union, or a Mutual Insurance Company are owned by the people who patronize it. Like Ocean Spray is a Agricultural Cooperative whose equity is owned by the producers of the company, instead of it being traded on wall street by billionaires like most companies. Ace hardware's equity is owned by individual store owners, like a franchise but its owned by its franchisees. These are real examples of socialist companies who are successful, even within the framework of our capitalist society who infamously exploits, and under-compensates the people who actually make the economy function.
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.
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.
The only time socialism can work is when we develop Star Trek replicators, and have unlimited energy.
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
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( ! )
@@UA-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.
That is comunism, not socialism. Ownership is key difference between these two. Socialism is when government taxes your property in exchange for stuff. But you can still have some property/bussines.
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
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.
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( ! )