Correct.... I still have not gotten a single answer. Lots of people angry at rich people and wanting them to "pay", but no one can answer how to CONTINUE to fund socialism.
And her policies were a rip roaring success...I mean that's why she was one of the most hated politicians at the end of her career. Socialism already exists in the U.S just not primarily for ordinary folk. Corporate bailouts of 2008 , government subsidies massive companies like exon mobil recieve year in year out, government money used to fund and help research of covid vaccines yet Pfizer, Moderna reap the profits. I guess its not socialism when corporations receive aid.
@@princesszeldaprincess447 there are not socialist countries in europe SSweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland are not Socialist utopias theyre capitalist economies
At first I was like "Clay has balls for dropping this". Then I was like, "well the majority of the subscribers are trying to capitalize in some way, or else why would they subscribe".. so this is a safe space for capitalists. I agree that 100% socialism would not work. I just wish we could find a way to get people Healthcare that really need it, and for the government to stop subsidizing student loans.
People have no clue about socialism, Capitalism, Marxism, Marx's 3 Volumes of Capital is how Capital works however it is implemented, there's no polar opposite socialism vs Capitalism arguments, the rich have more or less gamed it into polarising sides of an incorrect Premise, so only confusion can grow out of it. Socialism is not about making the rich pay for society. The current crop of billionaires is a specific venue of a particular group of greedy bastards whose finances have paid them very well. Anti-trust laws rescinded helped and created what the system has wrought. Matt Stoller has an interesting book over the events of how the particular billionaires success was created. [Matt's book is called, Goliath] US oligarchs created the Russian oligarchs[US oligarchs, same playbook, except Putin said oh, hell no, what you've done is create oligarchs that have hurt the Russian people the same way the US has done to its people as well. So he dumped them, said okay, keep your money but no way are you going to hurt the people anymore, stay out of politics, and you wanna leave get the fuck out, but you are not going to drive the politics of Russia, and by the way, we're gonna need a fair chunk of that money you tole from the people, but you get the rest and if you wanna go, go take what's left and go. BUT once it's gone it's gone and so are you.
@Clay I think that you’re getting the whole Socialism concept wrong. By the way, I agree a Socialism system wont work, unless you’re in China but our current Capitalism model hasn’t been working either. So the solution has to be a Hybrid system, example: Canada.. The current system in the US simply says, lets keep the 1% rich and perhaps richer, and that will create a ripple effect that spirals down to the below classes. Well that hasn’t worked and will never work example: when companies make more money, they hardly ever invest in paying more wages and rather they focus more on stock by backs and CEO massive payouts.
Plug in whatever "ism" you want. My point is, it needs a source to continue to pay for it... and as of now, that "source" was created by capitalism, not socialism (or any other kind of "ism").
Coming from a Soviet (i.e. communist Russian) background, I'd like to point a couple of points. Although this subject is so huge it's impossible to solve it in so few words or minutes of time. Define socialism. There are degrees of the amount of socialism you want to apply to society. Is it just having a consensus that education, healthcare, culture should be funded by society? Or is it a full-blown nationalization of all means of production? The latter would mean that there would be no "riches" in your society as all money is coming from the people and going out back to the people. This means no private Goldman Sachs, no private JP Morgan, no private Ford, no private name-your-fav-brand. All means of production belong to the people, all income goes to the budget and the government, which is strictly representing the people instead of being a representative of the rich private elite, as there would be no elite, would distribute money back to society. In case of abolishing capitalism completely, then money and the monetary system must be abolished as well as money is a commodity that can be collected and monopolized, hence there will always be someone poor and someone rich, hence creating the rich class, hence sustaining the possibility of the resurrection of capitalism as the rich will always fight back to reclaim/support/fortify their advantages. In such a (for now a utopian) society, technology would take over to serve humanity: robotized manufacturing would produce the needs of humanity, without the requirement of paying for anything using money. Which means, automata and robots would grow food until they get broken, which would be the moment when human administrators step in to fix the problem. People would do what they want to do in life and not what they are forced to do. Their curiosity would be their incentive, not money and not their fear for survival. So, you see, it depends on your set of values. Do you want a society with higher values? A society with science and technology as its priority, based on knowledge? Or do you want a society based on "money is everything, buy this, buy that, buy every piece of garbage that you don't actually need! And don't forget to call others as infidels if your religion tells you so. And regard other races as inferior, so we can invade and destroy them to grab their lands and resources."? But let me give you a working example of communism: people said they need a good operating system that is free as in free beer. A guy named Linus Torvalds said "OK" and he created an operating system, called it Linux and made it open source and free to the world. And guess what? The whole world now runs on Linux servers. I can name so many other open-source software made by people who are giving free to the world, in their free time: Blender 3D, GIMP, VS Code, PostgreSQL ...etc. As I said, it's impossible to answer your question in short. I would recommend you take a look on a documentary called Zeitgeist:Addendum, it's free on the internet, it explains some of the ideas. Or maybe you'd want to go deep and read Carl Marx' The Capital.
I define "socialism" (or any kind of "ism") as needing to be paid for... if you take from the rich is excessive amounts, they A) will have less over time and B) probably will move their money elsewhere to another country... so does how socialism (or any "ism") CONTINUE to pay for itself. That's my question...
@@claytrader The issue is that your definition of socialism dose not actually mach the definition of socialism. The actual definition of socialism is: any economic system with privet property (not for the sake of profit though) and money, overseen by a strong federal state (both authoritarian and democratic forms are possible and have existed successfully) in which the means of production (factory, farms, mines, etc...) are commonly owned. Think for example like a worker cooperative, or if a company board and CEO where replaced with union leadership, though other forms exist. And where a government was responsible for providing every citizen with things like free healthcare, food, water, education and housing.
@@claytrader The money would come from taxes on the sale of products produced by the now comely owned means of production. We can go without the tax revenue from food, housing, water, housing, healthcare, and education , those things are mostly not taxed anyway. especially when you take into account the reduced government spending on war. socialism dose not get rid of production, it simply places the fruits of production into the hands of the common person. The market is not destroyed in socialism but is instead used to exchange goods and money instead of the all powerfully entity it is in capitalism. Markets are not unique to capitalism, they existed before capitalism and hopefully will get to exist after capitalism.
@@lasttarrasque6223 "it simply places the fruits of production into the hands of the common person." You mean the people that did not take the same level of risk compared to the people who started the business in the first place? Yeah... sorry... that seems a bit immoral...
I think the biggest reason people want socialism is mostly the lack of understanding of one thing: The Rich don't really pay taxes. There are legal loopholes that allow them (and the poor as well if they actually knew it) to avoid paying taxes or paying severely reduced taxes. So in order for Socialism to work, there would have to be a solid "tax" that cannot be avoided, and it would NEED to be "fair." That is basically an impossible ask as nobody would ever agree on anything for it, so its better to just become financially smart.
I heavily disagree since there could be a progressive tax based on your income. So lets say you make 100k a year. You would be taxed more for certain goods and services than someone who only made 50k a year.
I always lean towards whatever system is runned it depends on who's running, I like communism on paper but history shows human nature takes control same with capitalism where rich become super and poor become extremely poor and yes there's more too it than that and there's good things about capitalism and as you point socialism has its cons aswell but I digress like I said all depends on the individuals running the system
Problems snowball and escalate over time with socialism, your point exactly.. Problems work themselves out naturally with capitalism and a truly free market...
European history has many great examples of why pure capitalism and "truly free" market is absolutely catastrophic and does not work. I'm am not advocating for pure socialism, just pointing out the potential flaw of this statement.
Yeah capitalism sure does straighten itself out alright....at the rate our capitalist system is going we will end up with the uber rich and those with nothing much like what happened in Russia at the end of the cold war. Capitalism is a system that requires endless growth and making endless profits. A company will make 10 billion in profits this year but guess what the market says they must make more next year, then more the year after etc. We live on a planet with finite resources. It simply is not logical at some point capitalism will eat itself.
@@DwayneBennett It doesn't "require" endless growth. But the potential is there for it. Billions of sheeple feeding into a company causes it to grow.. If sheeple smartened up that wouldn't happen. When a company goes bankrupt but gets bailed out that's the problem... It's being rewarded for a failed business plan. Capitalism and a free market would have allowed those failed businesses to go under and allow better ones to take their place.
"Socialism" AKA (Health Care, College Education, Daycare, and a Decent standard of living) is paid for by either the wealthy, corporations, or a combination of both. It would not need to be no where near 100% taxation. Progressives are looking for the minimum amount of 1-2% I'd say max 10% depending on the situation. The problem is currently we have Mega corporations like AMZN, NKE, and FDX paying ZERO in taxes while everyone else AKA Normal People (
@@claytrader Out of all the points he made why would you only go after that one🤣. Standards of living can be measured objectively (we do this already). For example: Accessibility to housing, clean water, food, healthcare, education and life expectancy; just to name a few. This was a really silly video and it shows you really haven’t engaged in the complex field of socialism vs capitalism as all your talking points in the video were extremely rudimentary. If you want to learn more about socialism watch Vaush, David Packman, Chomsky, Richard Wolff, and Destiny.
@@Ripred0219 that's called strawmaning. When you already have an inherent bias towards something and only look for and exaggerate "weak" points in an argument. I believe a hybrid system of socialism and capitalism is need. Neither system on its own is sustainable especially with the inherent corruption people who run either system seem to have.
@@claytrader no. It's really not. You're saying that and defending this current system because you hope to be the "factory owner" one day. So let me ask you something. You think when people like Elon get 4.9 billion in government subsides, corporations get hundreds of millions in covid loans fire their employees and pay themselves millions in bonuses or when the same people that crash the financial markets get bailed out with BILLIONS of TAX PAYER dollars or when sick American needs to file for medical bankruptcy on the richest nation on earth is a winning system? Honestly I want you to answer that for me. Btw there is no true "Socialist" nation but ones with political systems closest to Socialism or Social democracy are yet the ones that rank highest in Life expectancy, overall happiness, have the best social programs, world class government subsidized housing, best health care, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time and more and more and more. So you know working class people don't have to be a slave to the syatem for the rest of their lives. Standing up in front of your board like a clown talking about "RiCh pEoPlE pAy FoR EveRyThInG" uh... news flash clown. No one man or woman will ever put in the man hours to have actually created a billion dollars worth of wealth and no man or woman should have more wealth than small nations or countries especially when alot of these corporations and billionaires pay ZERO in federal income taxes and yet can receive millions if they're businesses are failing due to poor handling or robbing there works wages by paying themselves huge bonuses. And the counter that system is literally all Socialism is about is the means of production being owned or at the very least democratized by the public being provided with living wages amazing benefits and so so so much more. It's what the rest of the developed world has, maybe it's time Americans catch up. I mean technically you guys do have Socialism in the states. But unfortunately it's Socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the rest. Rob the little guy and give it to fat cow. You should be ashamed of who you are and what you're defending. I see you in the comment section talking 💩 about Canada. Well Son let me educate you on a few things here. You talk about Canadas health care saying how "people from Canada come to the USA" Well 1 We rank higher than you guy in health care so take that 2 Thats a Donald Trunp talking point (how embarrassing) and 3 yes people can go pay for treatment in the US but the difference between we and you is that if people stay here they're not going to DIE because we don't abandon our citizens if they don't have insurance provided by a Health industry Mafia. People get help IMMEDIATELY for life threatening not elective procedures. Also this is a talking point that has been debunked many times because if someone does need to go to the US for whatever reason the Canadian government will cover it (primarily for specialized procedures such as a specialist doctor or for when you get your future hair transplant you know;) The pandemic also showed us another amazing reason for why you guys need socialized health care. Because now if you don't die from covid you sure as hell will die from working your life away to pay off the medical bankruptcy that unfortunately poor and working class Americans won't be able to pay off. Funny, seeing as you guys are the wealthiest nation on the planet yet took you guys months to cough up one stimulus check and almost a year more to cough out another when here we in the land of the Maple leaf we gave 2k relief for three months and are still doing CRB for up to 54 weeks for those who lost their jobs or are unable to work because of C-19. It's quite also ironic what you said because here in Canada. My Dad almost died from Covid yet he went to the hospital got top care, was given Experimental treatments/medicines and walked out alive didn't pay a cent apart from the Ambulance ride the night he almost died which was $300. Could you Imagine that in America Clay🤡? Because I sure as hell don't have too🤣😎🤣🇨🇦😘 btw I only stopped by to see how you're trading and can see you're still trading like 💩💩 A word of advice Clay... throw away the fib Retracting, Indicators, RSI and vwap 🐃💩 You keep it up and you'll never grow past you "$500 in X amount of minutes" stage. Try ACTUALLY reading some Marxist theory, maybe then you'll be better prepared for when people like me rip into you 😘😏
The issue has been debated on and on. There are always people who want to win the game not by the amount of money they earned within a set of rules but persuasion and privileges. You can’t make them away. They always come back for more.
One problem with the diagram. Capitalism is not a magic money machine. People don't get rich from the glory of capitalism. They get rich exploiting everyone else. This is referred to as wage theft.
Can you answer how socialism continues to get paid for over time? I'm asking a question. Got any answer? If you take from the rich in excessive amounts, they A) will have less over time and B) probably will move their money elsewhere to another country... so does how socialism (or any "ism") CONTINUE to pay for itself. That's my question...
@@claytrader No I can’t. I don’t know much about socialism to form an opinion on it. Seems like you do though because of your video. Can you share any books that you’ve read on this subject?
@@claytrader Clay, I’m asking *you* personally to share the books/articles that YOU have read on this subject. Google is not going to tell me what you’ve read.
Better for a healthcare system to have flaws then not have healthcare at all. I'm from the UK which like all country's with universal healthcare also has an option for private medical insurance. In the UK the insurance is a 3rd of the price of US. There are also many world renowned Doctors that work in a socialist healthcare system. And its not just the rich that pay for socialism, everyone pays taxes. The rich will still have plenty of money even if they do pay more.
We have a labor shortage here in the USA... the vast majority of these companies offer health insurance as part of their salary package.... so yeah, at this point in time, it's not a problem of health insurance... it exists for those that want to work!
the principles that clay lays out here directly translate to healthcare. the risk with no reward leads to lack of invention and innovation and overall progression in society. same thing with healthcare if you are a doctor and you are earning a living you take pride in your job you care if your a doctor that makes a very low income and arnt getting paid what you should be getting paid you will not have the same motivation to do your job to the fullest of your ability. and to say having healthcare with flaws is better then not having it all is just ridiculous. people that do not contribute to society should not be carried by it. 91% of people in americs last year had insurance 66% of which was private insurance and 82% of that was from employment. no reason healthcare has to be forced on anybody it is not a right it is a privilege to those who earn it. when you start giving free things to everybody then nobody has a reason to work and provide because they are being handed the things they are supposed to work for. you saw a very good example of this with the covid relief money.
@@philshoreman9489 "the risk with no reward leads to lack of invention and innovation and overall progression in society." this is what many people seem to miss... very well said.
For an economy to work and generate wealth and prosperity, you need production and consumption, and the free exchange of goods and services. The state/government/collective doesn't produce, it simply consumes. If you give ownership/control of the means of production to the state, (i.e. socialism) they will simply consume it all for itself first before they get to the people they claim to be helping raise out of poverty. And the amount of government beauracry that you will need to sustain this system of redistribution means very little will actaully get redistributed. Even in theory, socialism doesn't work. Society's demands are infinite. You can always demand for more housing, more food, more water, increased wages, more energy, more of this and more of that while society's productive capability is varied and limited. Not everyone can produce at the same rate but you can always demand more. It's human nature. There's always someone somewhere who will not be satisfied with his lot in life and will demand more while doing absolutely nothing for it. In fact, there's plenty of them. I believe this is why socialism is not just impractical, it's a road to hell. It is evil. Society's will always demand more and more, and if the government administers a system of redistribution of resources, they will also take more, while productivity remains limited. This then leads to crises of all sorts. And it's only a matter of time, before the state uses force to address these crises, the government will literally have to force people to produce more and more. Taken to its fullest conclusion, socialism cannot work without totalitarianism and everyone will be equally starving.
The closest version of functional socialism we have is from a number of nordic countries today, where there are more billionaires per capita than the U.S. I think it's a flawed assumption that capitalism is the only path to extreme wealth.
@@claytrader if you listen closely to the right people it is. Unfortunately Republicans and mainstream media only straw man tenets of socialism. They never talk the benefits of the system versus the cons. They only prop up the pros of capitalism and hardly its cons.
@@DwayneBennettsocialism is built on the moral grounds of, "hey, let me take control and be the knight in shining armor using other people's money without their consent"... not a fan of that.
@@claytrader The government does that already with the police, fire department, military etc. Should we get rid of those? Unfortunately they also decide who to bail out (the rich too big to fail types) when those people fail at capitalism. The type of socialism you are talking about is what you see on fox News. Why not have an honest debate about the prose and cons of both systems rather than marking 1 has whole and inherently evil? Democratic socialism has things like workers own the means of production meaning they have a say in how corporations are run and have a bigger share of the profits and those do not only go to ceo and share holders (the government would not be in control of such a company) when you or people strawmanning socialism talk about it you guys never talk about this possibility; only the angle of the government taking control of private companies as an example. You always like to say "you did the work , you should get the benefits " why can't this apply to workers instead of hoping our technocratic overlords trickle down on us?
Why wouldn't the working class pay for social services like they already do? Not only that, would anyone even need to pay for the services if you can have workers produce the services themselves? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. That being said I am not a socialist. It clearly seems like you haven't read any academic economics literature on the matter.
Because in America, socialism is NOT being marketed as having anything to do with "the working class"... EVERYTHING is being marketed as "the rich will pay"....
@@claytrader Socialism, in its absolute sense, is the abolition of private property (the property where special interest partially or fully control production factors, typically a worker's labour). Thus, it is first principles analysis of the relationship labourers, and owners have to the factors of production. High taxation is perfectly consistent with a capitalist economy and you can 0 taxation in a socialist economy (USSR had income tax of only 10%, something the USA would never do). So your arguing against a proposal of socialism, that isn't socialism and seems to be variant of capitalism. You've been indoctrinated by corporate media to fight an invisible bougieman that no serious econonmist proposes or even agrees on lol Read an economics book please.
You literally argued the problem with capitalism while trying to argue the problem with socialism. “Bob needs money to make money.” So then what happens when you’re born with no money? Sure you can break poverty, it’s possible, but it is far from the norm and cannot be expected from the average person. I’m not saying capitalism is necessarily bad, and I’m not sayin socialism is necessarily good. But the crux of this debate to me, is how can we make EVERYONE better off. If you’re a supporter of capitalism, it’s because you believe in money over human life. Greed over humanitarianism. I am a socialist not because I think it’s the true economic model, but because I recognize human life is more important that wealth. There shouldn’t be billionaires in San Francisco living in million dollar homes when there are millions of people on the street. This is not an economic debate to me, it is a matter of human life. Housing, water, survivability are human rights. The prospect of getting rich is not more important than these. Thanks
"Sure you can break poverty, it’s possible, but it is far from the norm and cannot be expected from the average person." And RIGHT THERE is our problem. You are an elitist who looks down on your fellow human beings and claims they are too helpless. What an arrogant attitude to have. I believe EVERYONE has the power to improve their situation. Is everyone going to be Elon Musk? No. But can thy pull themselves out of poverty? Absolutely. Doesn't mean it will be easy, but here in the USA it is 100% possible. That's why people in impoverished countries flee here.... I'd encourage you to step down from your high perch of elitism.
I asume someone has already commented this but what you are describing is a Social Democracy and they can work. Actually, looking at some European welfare states, more people are willing to take the risk because the reward would be lower but so would the risk; you couldn't lose your Healthcare etc. The higher exestential minimum leads to a lot of smaller businesses and not just a few big ones dominating the industry which is good for the market and people are more equal strengthening the Meritocracy.
Also capitalism is a relatively new concept, wealth has been built up by the aristocracy over hundreds of years, money can still be made in socialism and used for good. The NHS in the uk is a good example.
I'm not saying money can't be made, I'm saying can enough be made in order to continue to pay for socialism... seems like a glaring flaw and why "ONLY tax the rich" has never worked in any other situation (which again, that is what is being marketed here in the USA)
@@claytrader I get your point and I don’t think your wholly wrong but I’m not sure you appreciate the level of wealth already established and how long that would take to diminish if ever. But again communism and socialism are different. If communism came in you’d be more correct IMO
I find nothing moral about playing the knight in shining armor using someone else's money... zero morality about that (and quite frankly, a lazy solution)
@@claytrader plus all pay taxes not just the rich with socialism, capitalism IMO encourages bad practice in some areas like social care, wealthy owners paying staff minimum wage and old people getting a rubbish service. In socialism this would be avoided by having these services in house paying staff a fair pay and training them to deliver a service for non profit reasons. Quite a complex argument really that can’t possible be done justice here
Neither capitalism nor socilaism is ideal for most people. An ideology that's designed for 'most people' will never work for _all people_. Because people are individuals and have different goals and values. Some people are investors, some are inventors, some are workers, some are teachers and some like to care for people. Some like working alone, some like working in a teams, some don't like to work at all. Wich ideology will be best for every single person on earth? None!
@@claytrader no, 'freedom of choice' is really nothing else than anarchy, or else it's not real freedom of choice. I use to say: "Do whatever you like, but don't bother others with it". I think that fit most dilemmas :)
@@_Viking correct... "freedom of choice" within boundaries. The boundaries being, "don't physically hurt someone else. don't force someone else to do anything. don't steal from someone else".
Geez man PLEASE do more research before dumping this amount of cringe on the internet This was just full of trying prove an ideology you’re married to with false premises. If I were socialist that wanted to debunk all of your talking points i’d do it in one word: cooperatives. Look into Richard Wolff’s and Vaush’s commentary on co-ops if you’re truly interested on how innovation, wealth creation and risks exist in a socialist system.
As far as "co-ops"... those already exist. Within capitalism you are FREE to build a company where you do a cooperative with your employees. NOTHING is holding you back from doing that in capitalism.
@@claytrader Not sure why your asking “Are you saying etc…) While socialism and capitalism seem diametrically opposed, most capitalist (US) economies today have some socialist aspects… therefore… the premise that the rich in the past accounted for the majority of taxes can be argued … Both socialism and capitalism has issues …
In an ideal socialist setting (let us assume we aren't talking about China), all means of production are owned by the state/socialist government. Every sector becomes a public sector. Thus all money earned go to the reservoir of the state, which it dispenses equally for the benefit of people. This is more or less how socialism works. ''Socialism gets its money from the rich"- such thing is new to my learning.
I perhaps may be wrong about this, but I believe there is something called the extraction of surplus value in capitalism. Essentially, if a business receives $20/hour from one worker, they will not pay that worker $20/hour. This is because if they do pay the worker $20/hour, they will not get a profit. If they don't get a profit, they will be unable to invest in new technology and the CEOs will not make as much money. Under socialism, this surplus value will continue to not go to the worker, but instead to welfare programs. As a result, the use of taxes should be minimized.
Correct. If the person taking the risk of hiring a person does not keep any of the rewards for themselves, then why even take the risk in the first place? (aka, create a job)
I really appreciate your openness to new ideas because that's a a great thing to have. I feel like the real issue with the things you are bringing up is that the rich people that you mention in your video would be different in socialism. I, like you, don't know everything about this topic, and am very open to a new idea, but I feel with this, you are thinking of this concept from a purely capitalist perspective, where there ARE ultra wealthy people. I recently saw a video (ua-cam.com/video/O9CFP_58mBc/v-deo.html) that gave me a perspective of a "socialist" economy 'in action' rather than just the transition from capitalist to socialist. I definitely don't agree with all the things in the video but I feel like it gives an idea of how the system could work, rather than just transitional period of 'capitalist' to 'socialist'. I hope to hear your ideas on this because i would like to broaden my currently quite limited beliefs.
Everyone pays taxes. At the sameish rates. Socialism takes wealth from the rich not through high taxation, it takes it through forced wages that are AT THE LEAST what you need to survive which includes food, shelter, and healthcare. So mcdonalds will still be a minimum wage job, but it's the minimum LIVABLE wage. This would actually allow government to lower tax rates. Currently the majority of Americans only buy what they absolutely NEED. Opting to save the rest to hopefully retire at a semi decent age. If you know that your future is secure and you will have food and shelter and healthcare regardless of what job you hold. You have opportunities. Learn the violin, go on vacation, visit your grandma who you will only see a couple more times before she's gone. Capitalist society doesn't value these because they don't generate profit. Therefore cut them to the bare minimum. However socialist society values human health and rights as the number one priority. Because when grandma dies she's gone. I'm only going to get to see mine a couple more times before she's gone. Because I can't afford a 2 hour drive. I have a good gas mileage car. But I either lose my home or see my family. Capitalistic society breeds this.
Good logic and explanation in 10-minutes. Also, in Scandinavian countries they are all Scandinavian. Reason it won’t work in the US is because we are a melting pot of different cultures, ethnicity and we are very much the land of opportunity. There aren’t opportunities in socialist countries. My family fled one and came here for a better life.
A lot of assumptions and hypotheticals. The idea that any PURE system can function successfully over the long haul is a fallacy in my opinion. Hybrid systems are going to be the best option.
@@claytrader if you think Pure socialism would ever take hold in America, that is silly. The rich are far too powerful to allow that to happen. Social Democracy is possible but even that is an uphill battle. Did you post a video in 2001 asking how we would pay for a 20 year war? Probably not. The rich should pay their FAIR share. Look at the most prosperous time in America following WWII and what the tax rates were for the richest Americans. I’ll save you some time, the top bracket $200k+ paid 90%. Now it’s 39.6%. Not to be rude but I think I can tell where you get your information
@@claytrader it’s also silly to say that individuals are going to not innovate or create something because they may have to pay more taxes in the future. That’d be like saying you’re not going to buy a stock that you know is going to increase in value, because you might have to pay more tax on your gains in the future. Doesn’t seem logical to me.
@@Kyle.Wynsma World War 2... you mean that time when the world was blown to bits and America was the only operational country left production wise? You honest think 90% (or anywhere close) would work in today's globalized economy? Not to be rude, but that's a terrible example to use to justify "everything is okay with higher tax rates"
@@Kyle.Wynsma "That’d be like saying you’re not going to buy a stock that you know is going to increase in value"... umm, what? "know"? You don't KNOW anything, hence the risk.....you are operating under a flawed assumption of "knowing what will happen" 'which is the exact opposite of business/investing... sorry my friend, that's a premise that is not in line with the real world.
Well in America we have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. So yea, that for sure doesn't work. It also depends on what you are saying works or not. What metric you are going off of. Overall happiness? Overall wealth? I think democratic socialist countries do work, like Finland (Finland also happens to be the most free country on earth as a side note) and Denmark. Both, being the two countries with the happiest amount of people on earth. You can even look at Switzerland (3rd on that list) that taxes 40% of income, but has a median income of 75% higher then the US. Full communism in practice is terrible, hence why a true socialist country like China isn't up there, and way down at the bottom of the top 100 countries. So many people in America look at socialism as some evil thing, while they take advantage of their social security and various other socialist programs we already have. Getting something like free healthcare here will only make the country stronger, healthier, and more productive
The problem with socialism is not the system but the people. You can make the greatest vehicle on planet earth but what difference will it make if it's being driven by an idiot ? I'll give you an example..... In the U.K. we have something great called the BBC, a socialist funded organisation run by an absolute ninkampoop, Tim Davie, this dufus promised reform at said BBC, what did we get instead ? Shafted. He gave himself a payrise, he gave Zoe Ball, Gary Lineker & various others a pay rise and we are not talking monopoly money here we are are talking 5 to 6 figure rises. This all on taxpayer dime in a year when everybody has had to tighten their belts. To add insult to injury these very same people will try their utmost best to send you to prison if you choose to not pay the licence fee to fund their extravagant lifestyles whilst the rest of us live on a shoestring. But this is the true kicker, these very same people that rely on the people that provide their Gucci bags and Bentley's, demonize and mock them day in day out. I swear you couldn't make this shit up
I hold the definition of Socialism as the state owning and running the means of production. An analogy is a small village that grows its own crops, livestock and other food. So the villagers just chip in and often the result is they get only what they need. There is little motivation to make more. I make the assumption that socialism is simply this kind of arrangement brought to the state level, with hundreds of thousands to millions more people. No market dynamics, just chip in, and everyone is supposed to still get their food and stuff. Problem is, that is vulnerable to famine, locusts and other sudden changes. And people make mistakes (such as being too lazy to work), so mistakes in the amount you "chipped in" could lead to famine. I would say that happened in Mao-era China. Market dynamics is still better because profit gives a motivation to produce more. You can overproduce, that may be a problem, but overproduction still better than a little amount from chipping in. You still have more of the goods because of the overproduction, and that itself reduces the chances of famine. That of course aside from innovations such as Fritz Haber's fertilizer discovery and refrigeration. Informing me on this are TIKhistory, Ryan Chapman, New Discourses and similar channels.
1. The Rich do not exist. Corporations and their owners exist, who would get their money from the government and the people, as their corporations are state owned and licensed, all of them. Of course, being heavily taxed themselves, the owners are not exactly rich personally. 2. Bob would not invest his own money in a company, so the risk is not his to make. The government would decide whether Bob's business idea is worth supporting, and whether there is a need for it. 3. Due to heavy taxes on the Rich, Bob would not get (much) more money, even if he wanted to. So Bob would probably stay depressed and unemployed, or work some easy job that pays ok. Bob might choose to work more in a service he cared about personally, despite never having the opportunity to become rich personally. For now, assuming the numbers all added up and formed a perfect loop of taxes gained and redistributed, the main issue I see is the lack of incentive for effort. Things might be fair and equal, but also somewhat bland as nobody has reason to do more than the bare minimum.
Are you familiar with ‘Rich Dad Poor Dad’? During one of his interviews, the author said that giving money to poor people only creates more poor people.”
@ClayTrader The problem of poor people having less chance is more severe in India&China, both countries claim they are socialism, but the degree of inequality between people is deep-rooted in two countries. If you can't study well, you go to vocational school and whatever effort you make, you will NOT be able to afford a decent life such as to buy a house (in Shanghai a house of 100m^2 cost at least 1 million dollar and a normal worker can make 1000 dollar if you work very very hard but it's your upper bound that you will NOT be promoted because your education background. It takes you 88 years to buy a house without eating anything, and if you are having a housing loan you will need to pay 20000 dollar a year but that will make your money being negative. So they must have socialist to avoid the country being extremely unbalanced like rich people can earn 10000 dollar a day by lending and that is not fair at all if you are a hard-working individual struggling to earn 3000 dollar a month in China, because earning that amount in China requires very professional skills and very good university education experience. So China's government need to grab Monopolistic companie's money to get it more balanced otherwise their reign will be overthrown. Everything is more relistic when it comes to the government because they consider much more factors than us.
@@claytrader I just think the government should take more money from the rich in those countries. I am not supporting socialism or commuism, because it is not gonna work in countries now, only maybe 1000 years later.
@@claytrader it is not good when people work 16 hours a day and making their boss wealthy, and when free market no longer exist but dominated by small proportion of monopolies. the solution is not socialism, because it stop people from getting rich, but should be something else.
There is more to it. Socialism continues as long as big businesses partner up with government and control the direction of the country (this is hapenining right now). The middle class and below will be brought down to the same level. The rich will keep their wealth and enrich the politicians that will back them. Companies will keep producing and generate income. The down side will simply be that new comers will face extremely high barriers to create new business. Since this is a trading channel I will not go deeper into it.
Happy New Year. My issues with your explanation are as follows 1. The title of your video is deceptive considering the current political climate. Ppl are calling for democratic socialism, not that authoritarianism that many in America associates with the hx of socialism. 2. When you briefly discussed Dem Socialism you admitted it is working. In fact, they appear to be the happiest ppl on earth. So what many in America are calling for is actually working in the world. 3. The idea of anyone being "rich" isn't a necessity for a functional society. Because as I mentioned, ppl in societies with fewer millionaires tend to be happier. No question this is due to human nature: greed and the desire to exploit. Capitalism fails miserably at this. Look at the current situation and the trends. 4. Socialism taxes everyone higher and the down side is having less stuff and getting things slower. I'm ok with that. U can tout the idea the Socialism buries innovation and I will point out how many "innovations" in the US that were partially or totally funded by the state. 5. We already practice Socialism for the wealthy. You can say it's cheeky, but it's still true. We have bailed out the wealthy plenty of times because they have literally become too big to fail. Recently was propping up the stock market during Covid. And the entire media complaining about stimulus. 6. Lastly, if Socialism isn't the answer then we better find a better one. The wealthy elite in this country control the media and the gov. That's an oligarchy. That's dangerous
6.... if the government was stripped of the majority of its power, would you care if they were controlled? Nope. The solution is LESS government. Give the government LESS power... not MORE, which is what you seem to want to do.
Valid. The USA is a country's of risk takers (something capitalism is built upon)... I mean, back in the day people were crazy enough to get into a big wooden boat and sail across an ocean for 3 months to "build something better" for themselves that's the DNA of this country...
Thanks for the video. Others have already commented on the importance of defining your terms from the start (since it’s unclear what the socialism you’re talking about really is), so instead of going down that route, I just wanted to highlight two things. First, your example of risk, though useful as a generic illustration of the concept, doesn’t do a great job representing how it works in our current society. In reality, the amount of risk a person needs to account for is vastly different depending on who you are. Sure, you or I would need to carefully calculate risk before putting time into an entrepreneurial prospect. However, if you are an owner or board member or officer or investor representing a large corporation or bank or investment firm, your exposure to risk is massively diminished. The example you know I’ll go to is the 2008 recession. Those with decision-making power and control over the risky financial abomination they themselves helped create didn’t have to ever realize that risk. They were bailed out-hell, some became wealthier from the whole disaster-and regular, uninvolved working and middle-class folks had to bear the full brunt of that risk. When you abstract capitalism to the individual, entrepreneur level, rather than describe the way our current society and economy are structured, I think it’s easy to miss this. The reality is (for the most part) that our current regulatory financial regime takes many steps to minimize risk as much as possible, especially disproportionately for the most powerful in our society. Even in the COVID pandemic recession, these huge corporations were largely insulated from revenue loss risk with yet more massive wealth transfers straight from the public purse. Second, on the idea of who pays for stuff if not the rich. This isn’t even really a socialism issue; it’s more an issue over contemporary money and currency and how we “pay for things” at all, regardless of the political-economic system we’re in. Stephanie Kelton’s “The Deficit Myth” offers some insights here. “Rich people” don’t produce the money we need to pay for things. We live in a world of fiat currencies. The only entity that can actually create and produce our money is the federal government. It issues the currency that we all use to trade goods and services, then taxes some back to ensure there isn’t too much of it circulating around. We don’t need “rich people” to pay for things. Our currency-issuing government spends the money into existence, then taxes some back to avoid too much of it circulating around causing inflation. This doesn't mean we can just print as much money as we need infinitely to pay for things. Our limitation on “how we pay for things” isn’t liquid cash, but instead is the amount of actual economic assets we have-our factories, farms, machinery, materials, labour, commodities, etc. Money is just a kind of IOU we use to get and exchange those assets-I’d recommend David Graeber’s “Debt” for more on this. Anyway, just a few thoughts!
Also, I wanted to add another thing regarding how we "fund socialism." I'd argue the question is kinda nonsense. Like, how did we pay for feudalism? Well, peasants and serfs worked the fields to produce the goods necessary for survival. They didn't need to pay for it externally; they just worked the land directly (disregarding the systems of land tenure, division of labour, and so on). Do you see now how that question is odd? Now take capitalism. We do a huge amount of economic activity every day. Now-to simplify socialism a lot so it's clear-take that same amount of economic activity, but change the ownership structure organizing it: so, instead of the owners of said economic activity being private owners or investors or what have you, the owners are the workers themselves or the public or citizens of a local area or what have you. That base economic activity is still there; it's just how we organize ownership and control and revenue streams over it that is different. So we're not "paying for socialism" with something external to it-we're still doing all the same things. We've just organized our society differently. Obviously, there are a lot of weeds I could get into but I think that simplifies it enough so it's clear.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of taking companies from people and forcing them to restructure them. People are more than welcome to start a company on their own and structure it however they want, but to go and TAKE someone's company (which is essentially what you're doing if you are forcing them to totally restructure) is a bit immoral.
Well, it's created lots of rich people that socialist now want to tax.... and how did those people get rich, by creating the very products and services YOU are using....
@@claytrader so your "success" is measured by the disparity of wealth? These services have an artificial monopoly where they crushed all competitors. Not sure about you but I'd happily give up all these services if it meant helping people who can't afford to live.
set your high horse of morality aside... here in America, socialism is being marketed as, "the rich will pay"... my question is, how does socialism continue to pay? It sounds to you like, well.. eventually EVERYONE will be forced to "sacrifice" as you've said in the name of "helping people"... and that's fine, but my point is... that is NOT what is being marketed...
@@claytrader There's always the capitalism lets YOU become rich.. YOU can be the next Bezos.. the next Elon.. yet just those two are and very few are anything even close. 1%... yes 1% own 37.7% of the U.S wealth. that is not a lot considering there are over 300,000,000 people in the US. 3 million rich people out of 300,000,000 people. 50% of the US (150,000,000) have 2% of all us wealth. There just aren't that many rich people that come out of capitalism. It is crazy how some countries that have more socialist ideals and programs can still use and create new technologies. Plus all veterens benefits? socialist. highways? socialist. police? socialist. presidential care? socialism
I heard someone say American capitalism has changed. The theory is we're living in something closer to techno-feudalism. Capitalism is better than socialism to help getting people out of poverty. But there are issues in the American system. It's a rabbit hole though. I don't feel I have the time to study the nuance and develop solutions.
The benefit of risking your money only to give to the system is a peaceful country and the idea that we are all in this together imagine if we all did that for once
So I have a couple of things that I want to point out. Socialism is not quite defined correctly. My first point would be that it's a misconception that socialism is taking from the rich and only the rich. There is still taxes. People pay a percent of what they earn/pay/whatever metric you want to use. Socialism isn't so much that rich people will pay for the government. Rich people will pay their employees fairly. This will provide taxes at the same rate, arguably I think it would increase the amount of government income. Reason why is because when you have $1000 dollars to make it to your next paycheck in 2 weeks. You are not a consumer. You will pay less taxes since you are saving all that you can for retirement, and only buying what you need. However if you are paid fairly for your work. You now have the ability to start your own business if you'd like, learn an instrument. Take time off of work, spend time with your family. Which leads right into the second point. The profits for the business aren't taxed. It is not to fund the government. It is to pay people fairly. Bezos makes around $300 million a day. The minimum wage employee makes $100 a day rounded up. You mentioned math, here is a great situation where the numbers dont add up. Does bezos work 30000 times harder than the average minimum wage worker? No way. Sure he may work harder, but he is not inhuman. He got that rich because he didn't pay his employees anywhere near what they were making for him. My last point is on your risk comment. I do agree that if someone puts in risk they should reap some reward. However under our current state of capitalism. If you fail and are left with nothing. How are you going to retire at BEST case 40 years later. Some people start their business at 30 years so they have less time. Socialism gives the idea of if you mess up your business, you have a job that will pay you what you are worth, and will potentially give you the opportunity to try again, or do something else with your life. Compare that to capitalism. That person is now a desperate minimum wage worker who will barely live his whole life. Will never contribute anything to society except his minimum wage job. He can't try to make a difference, he has to suffer in silence. I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on this.
"My first point would be that it's a misconception that socialism is taking from the rich and only the rich." I very SPECIFICALLY made it a point to say that here in the USA, this is how it is being talked about...
I don't agree with that though. I understand that this is the version that most people think of when they think of socialism. However that is not a reason to refute my argument. People can have the wrong idea about a lot things. For thousands of years humans thought the earth was flat. The point is we should try to move forward intellectualy and educate those that are uneducated. In a non toxic manner. The definition of socialism in America is designed to be awful. Everyone has a different definition, and to make things worse the amount of fallacies that are embedded in our education system makes most people's opinions completely useless. Before you can debate socialism you need to really understand it first. Americans don't. At least the majority. I would highly recommend a UA-cam channel called second thought. He is probably the most educated person I know on this subject. He has his sources posted when needed, and he encourages you to double check them.
@@daxharris2721 you are making an argument against an argument I am NOT making. I am making an argument based on the relevant one to Americans given the version I talked about is the one being marketed.
Lol I like the videos clay but don’t you think this topic is a little big to be covered in a 10min video. Not a socialist or anything but found the subject matter very interesting.
@@claytrader Seems like a strange title for a video where you are apparently not explaining anything.. "The Problem With Socialism (and why it does not work)"
@@pittcrew1 i'm explaining a massive flaw with socialism by asking a question... which, so far, no one has been able to answer other than, "well, the system eventually turns to communism" which is NOT what is being marketed here in America lol
Havent looked at comments yet but im assuming theres a lot of butthurt people in here brainwashed by media and their colleges. Bless their hearts. Keep up the good content Clay.
Love your humble approach to the argument! I think rn both sides are so polarized that opening for debate, like how you stated, is the best approach. Thanks for breaking it down Clay! Capitalism all the way though.. ✊🏽 haha.
I have a theory,. by the time the rich people supply is done, Socialism will have become self sustaining. Everyone will have enough to live a satisfactory life. At that point people will take business risks not because of profit incentive, but because of passion, curiosity, etc. Also, that risk will not be as huge because if you fail, you will have a safety net(a society where you don't have to break your back, or take absurdly high risks in order to live comfortably). I however do not believe that a 100 % tax rate makes sense. Majority of people won't take the risks that come with starting a business without some profit incentive. It is also risky to give the state all that power because they might misuse it. My conclusion(from a limited understanding of the topic) Both socialism and capitalism, and any other "isms" have their issues. A solution that might work is combining the best parts of all of them to come up with some kind of hybrid system that serves everyone or at least tries to. Tax the rich some more, but not 100% like in total socialism, Allow businesses to make profit, but make sure that the people who work for those businesses get the pay they deserve, etc.
"Everyone will have enough to live a satisfactory life." Define "satisfactory life"... do you really want someone else to define that for you? I prefer we allow everyone to pursue their own definition of a "satisfactory" life...
@@claytrader @ClayTrader I see. I would not want that. What if instead of satisfactory, We say that everyone has their basic needs met. Proper affordable(or free, if possible) healthcare, education housing.. Then if one feels that that is unsatisfactory for them, they would have the ability to pursue more.. But there would be safeguards that make sure that people don't exploit other people in their pursuit of their version of satisfactory? 🤔 It would be like," Sure, you can start a business, but you'd have to share your profits 50 - 50(or something close) with your workers.", or ,"sure, you can go on and become wealthy, but you would have to pay a little more in taxes. " But then there would be follow ups to ensure that those taxes are put to proper use,etc. Although , that probably wouldn't be total socialism, so your argument that total socialism wouldn't work still stands I think.
@@afroboi7454 that system already exists. ANYONE can start a business now and share their profits 50/50 with their employees if they want. Nothing in the current system is preventing that.
Logic has no place in the political environment, Clay, come on! Only joking, good approach to the topic. At what point does one define rich (in order to keep paying for socialism)? Do we tax people making $1M+, or does it become 500K+, or maybe 100K+... then when those people are out, maybe it becomes $20K?? Just blowing smoke. I think the history of the "social security" system and it's "intended" purpose would be a glaring example.
It is really interesting how in history people can convince a well educated socialist into becoming a fascist, but they cannot convince a well educated capitalist to become a socialist. Fascism was suppose to be a reinvention of socialism created by former socialists to address the inherent issues of Socialist economies pointed out in this video. Fascists understand that in order to have socialism work it needs to be nationalized and to make the party officials the rich owners of corporations so that all taxes that would be taken away from them is really just redistribution to themselves to do what the State wants them to do. Corporations literally started under Fascist rule because they invented the terminology for their body-politic interventionalist policy towards economics.
@@claytrader Did you already forget 2008. Capitalism created a huge problem. Then the Capitalists crawled on their knees to the Federal government and begged for Socialism in the form of a 700 Billion bailout. 2008 is what happens when the government gets out of the way.
It's about not being greedy and actually sharing , it's not an economy but a state of being and mentally that could shove us into a higher evolved state instead of acting like chimpanzees killing each other over bananas
Im not trying to shut down your opinion here just looking for a discussion. Is it generally conceived that rich people are greedy? It is my belief that people who are well off often donate or contribute to causes and people who need help out of the goodness of their hearts as a form of "giving back" or "paying it forward". Their ability to "give back" comes from the fact that they were able to create enough wealth through hard work and risk taking that a capitalistic system affords individuals the freedom to do. It is an unfortunate reality that money rules our lives. Having the freedom to be able to build our own wealth through hard work and providing value to others with products and services is what i believe creates a good "state of being" in people. Your "state of being" is created by you the individual. You are responsible for that and not someone else. Just my opinion though. Please feel free to discuss with me.
Rich people DO share... they share a product/service with you as an idea and then leave it up to you on whether or not you want to voluntarily give them money for their product or service. That seems like a pretty fair set-up.
@@ApacheChief88 hey just wanted to comment on your belief that well off people often donate to charities and that jazz, and yes I believe that rich people are greedy and you have to be to make good business deals but the only reason someone with a lot of wealth would donate to charity is to avoid taxes. Some of the ultra wealthy will even open up their own charity and just “donate” to it and pull the money back out ( I’m not a socialist just for clarification )
@@claytrader You seem to think that all rich people are also creating useful products for everyone to use. Tons of rich people are born into rich families where they themselves have done nothing except be born. Others have come up more on their own but still by using other people's labor.. probably at less than what their labor was actually worth.. which can be seen by huge profit margins in a lot of cases. Can i stop buying services from people who got born into a wealthy family, had lets say $1 mil loan.. invested in index funds and never have to work again because of compounding growth. Other people just never have that opportunity.
Okay, clue you in, but first, 8 years ago Oxfam reported 85 of the top richest people on earth are as wealthy as the bottom half of the planet, and easy math can have you figure out that the amount the most wealthy have, will be enormous, as in having enough to support maybe 50 of their human lifestyle as wealthy people. And so, the rich came up with extrapolating the amounts involved with so many poor, then these 50 wealthy lifetimes that they'll never be able to use, and so taking just an amount to support, say 10-15 of those wealthy lifestyles could very well raise some of those living on a pittance per day, to be able to afford what we 'll raise them from their poverty to a reasonable life for their families, etc. \It isn't that the rich ashould pay for what a program folks deemed as socialism would be a good idea, folks may not be homeless anymore etc and so on. Fact is, Socialism is merely a community system of community arrangements, where people help each other, establish maybe a working co-op instead of shareholders who do nothing but gain from workers doing the actual jobs., BUT a o-op GODDAMNIT, I just lost a whole paragraph, but you get the idea. Peace and LOVE, but in our lifetime
Like I told you in the other comment, I stopped reading as soon as you revealed you hadn't even actually listened to the video. I need to guard my time.
If you need a monetary incentive to be a good person, then you aren't a good person. And you don't need to tax the rich by much. Just have everyone pay 20% across the board. Just fair and even percentage tax for everyone.
Scandinavian socialism "not the kind of socialism we're talking about." Then it should be. I'm American but have lived in Sweden and spent lots of time in Denmark (voted happiest place on the planet many times). Americans just don't know what socialism is when they equate it with communism most of the time. That you don't deserve to die if you're not working and don't have health insurance. That-hey, an educated work force is not a bad thing so let's make sure we have that, even if we have to pay for it. And a social safety net? Well, why not let those people live on the street? If you want to know why 'socialism' (heck, Sweden actually has a monarchy!) doesn't work then look at those commies at Spotify, Volvo, Maersk, the list keeps going. They can never compete in a capitalist society with that big tax burden.
"That-hey, an educated work force is not a bad thing so let's make sure we have that, even if we have to pay for it." I agree educated people are a good thing! But yeah... capitalism already pays for it: www.estudentloan.com/blog/10-companies-will-help-pay-college
"Scandinavian socialism "not the kind of socialism we're talking about." Then it should be." and that is more than fair on your part; however, the main stream politicians are not talking about that kind of socialism... they make it sound like "all you we gotta do is tax the super rich"... which is not how those countries do it.... their middle class gets hammered with taxes also...
Clay you nailed! I know socialism very well. I am from Venezuela and my country is a clear and great definition or result of Socialism. 21 years ago Venezuela was the richest country in the region, today is the poorest and the number 1 country in the world with hyper inflation, pretty much the country is a wreck. I left my country 18 years ago and came here because I saw my country was going in the wrong direction. I am so grateful to be here, everyday I pray 🙏 for America and hopefully will never take that way. Socialism is a plague! Proud to be part of Clay University and become a full time day trader. God Bless America 🇺🇸
You literally do not know what you're talking about. You're going by the definition of what socialism has become not what it originally was. The definition of socialism was redefined with the help of men like Ed Bernays by the Titans of industry from the industrial revolution. They did this because at it's core socialism seeks to limit their ability to make money on certain social needs. Needs like food, water, shelter, medicine and education. You are equating the behaviors of the ruling or governing body with the philosophies of socialism. That's a common mistake. Socialism like capitalism can be applied to any governing system. They're both economic systems. You can have a socialist dictatorship. You can have a democratic socialism. You can have a communist socialism. You can also have capitalism applied to a dictatorship or a democracy. Economic systems are not the same as governing systems. There's a distinction that you and a lot of people don't know or see. Yes, Nazis were socialist. But there's a lot of confusion about what socialism is. Socialism IS NOT a governing system. It's an economic system. Socialism IS NOT a redistribution of wealth. That would actually be capitalism under the Federal Reserve System. I'm always amazed at what people will believe because it's said a lot. Ubiquity becomes validity just simply because it's common place. It's the same thing with gender and with this vaccine. Gender is a scientific distinction not a social one. This vaccine is a vaccine and not gene therapy. Is this vaccine bad...yes. But there needs to be a little bit more that conjecture and opinion based information being passed off as truth. Socialism Is a system where certain social needs has restrictions or bans on the monetization and profiting on them. Socialism takes those social needs and any supporting system and/or resource sources and place them under the direct ownership of the people. A managing entity is then appointed by the people to manage the socialized resource/service such that the minimum need of the resource by the public is met by DISTRIBUTING(NOT REDISTRIBUTION) it where that need is met while being able to maintain the sustained integrity of the resource. Marxism....you got that wrong as well. Marxism is a philosophy that seeks to explain the reasons for certain failings in society by attributing them to inherent inequalities due to the economic and social structure of said society. Does socialism have influences from Marxism....yes....kinda. Socialism actually existed long before Marxism.
"Socialism takes those social needs and any supporting system and/or resource sources and place them under the direct ownership of the people." And THAT is exactly what I said, and is my question (did you even listen to what I said or just what you wanted to hear?). The source is the rich people but if you keep TAKING from them, where do you take from in the future? You really think the people creating the money to "be taken" are going to accept that? Nope. See ya later as they move their money to a more "non taking" system.
Hi! Im the Swedish guy that made a jerk of myself in a earlier video you made about socialism. Just wanted to say that i didnt unsuscribe, im still here ;-). Being scandinavian. I read the comments here and are curious about What you mean when you talk about how socialism is marketed in the U.S. I know nothing about that or the debate going on over there. I just hear a lot about feminism from American leftists. Whats ”that kind” of socialism that you talk about? One of the fundamentals with socialism is collective ownership of things everyone need. Healthcare, school, postservice etc. Here we have 33% tax for a normal worker. (And ofc your employer has already payed taxes on the money and when you use them you will pay another 12-25% taxes. I mean. Because of the % system the rich will pay more than a nurse with a low income. Is that What you mean, the rich will pay. And what will they pay for? This is also just a question, i too just want to learn more. Im not used to write in english though. Thank you for the video
In the USA it is being strictly marketed as "nothing will change in your life tax wise other than for RICH people"... it's literally being portrayed as "all source of income will be coming from new taxes on ONLY rich people".
Aka... no one here in America is expecting as a "normal worker" (the "middle class") to be paying 33% in taxes!!! That whould catch MANY Americans off guard...
@@claytrader I'm seeing US tax rates at 22%-24% for 40K-165K. But from there, 165K-210K is 32% so the same. Looks like average American income already are paying 2/3 of 33% right now.
@@claytrader I could agree with that somewhat. I think people are just tired of paying into a pot that others aren't held accountable for. If we all see that we are putting an equal rate in, we should honestly all be willing to put in more. Then we can go back to arguing how best to spend it. Haha!
Your definition of socialism is wrong and why the system doesn't work in your mind. The goal of socialism for industry to be owned by the state, so the funds to fund socialism isn't coming from "rich people" paying more tax, it's coming the directly from the profits generated from state run business. What you are currently debating is not socialism but not increasing taxes on the rich. To counter the point on socialism lacking the drive to create innovation, see the richest of people of all time, they aren't innovating for the sake of more money. They often have 2,3 or more projects even after they have more than enough money to live extremely comfortably. Why? They continue to innovate for the sake of innovating. I personally have hobbies, work etc for the sake of hobbies and do things just to create, develop skills, meet new people, drive a sense of community. My point is money doesn't need to be a main motivation to drive anyone to do things. Socialism sets the framework for the whole population to have that baseline income and do whatever they like. The presentation on the framework you have currently in your mind is valid, but not representing the goals or the reality of the situation. So I encourage you to think more on what the points you are trying to make here. Personally I think that you are personally attacked by the possibility of an increased tax rate, but in the US they aren't targetting your income bracket. Unless you're a way more successful trader than you lead on, they are mainly targetting the multi millionaires and billionaires with scaling tax rates currently abusing tax loopholes. In addition to the fact that taxes in turn will benefit you personally given a good government (that is if they don't waste it all on the military)
@@claytrader Your definitions clearly stem from a lack of knowledge. Communism is the extension of socialism and aren't exclusive to one another. Google it. Communism is the abolishment of all currency. I think you need to do more research than you currently do to make content on the matter to misinform people through regurgitation of whatever sources you watch. You clearly haven't even done a quick Google search to research economic theories and thus have lost my trust as an educational source for economic theory. I think you should really stay in your lane 🙂 I am unsubbing
This isn't agreeable to me. I'm not a socialist but agree it does not work. The idea that rich and powerful people cease to exist in any system doesn't seem accurate. Almost every nation no matter how distraught with poverty has its powerful and rich leaders. The real problem with socialism is that the funding to go to social services also controls the means of production and this government has extreme power over its people. In almost all cases under socialism, the government is not acting in the people's interest it is acting against them and with the rich interest. It's the same problem as anywhere else but socialism will cause the same problem to create much more disastrous results. Theoritically if the government were acting in the poor's interest there's no reason it wouldnt work i believe. Still though socialism blows.
Correct. That's my point. Sure, there may still be rich.. but the model is not going to be for them to "be paying" for things. That's why everyone gets poorer over time.
And btw every European socialist “economy” is DWARFED BY NEW YORK , TEXAS , AND CALIFORNIAS ECONOMIES ALONE , it is minuscule and not applicable in an actual government that is supposed to spread freedom and all people to have the the right to work for a better life and invest their wages ,
I am curious do you think those people in those countries you mentioned are leading a worse quality of life than those in the states you mentioned? You do not see them fleeing from their Scandinavian hell to come to ny etc. I live in NY work my butt off and can barely keep up with the bills and always feel stressed. That is no quality of life. This money worship will doom humanity. The capitalist class are the masters of money and the rest of us have become its slaves. Since capitalism is so great and perfect, get rid of the fire department, get rid of public infrastructure, get rid of the police, get rid of social security. Those are all facets of socialism. Leave the ultra wealthy as the only ones who should have access to roads, police etc after all capitalism tells us they are so much better and deserving than the rest of us.
capitalism is forcing you to stay in NYC? Come to the Midwest the cost of living is way cheaper! At what point for you does personal responsibility come into play? Like... at what point is it ON YOU to look in the mirror and say, "ya know Dwayne, it might not be choice 1, but I could move out of a place that is crazy expensive for a place that more-so fits my budget's ability"... when does this happen in your scenario?
oh... and I 100% believe we should get rid of social security! That's such a slap in the face to people... the PERFECT example of the government saying, "now now, we don't' think you know how to save money on your own.. we know best... we're gonna FORCE you to save while we go dip into the honey pot and eventually bankrupt the social security system"... these are the people you want to give more money and control to? I'm sorry my friend, we just operate on different plains of logic...
The issue you're missing is that the money rich people are losing to make them *not_as_rich_as_before is the money poor people are getting to make them *not_as_poor_as_before. Thus providing them an equal playing field. Why should the billionaires not have a billion dollars? Cause you don't earn a billion dollars you steal a billion dollars through unpaid and underpaid labour. But that's a really simple arguement that your conveniently ignored. Is it because it hurts your agenda? Awwwwww how sweet. Also, capitalism doesn't breed innovations, capitalism breeds monopolies.
"Cause you don't earn a billion dollars you steal a billion dollars through unpaid and underpaid labour." This is a TERRIBLE and WEAK argument. If the labor was "forced", then hey.. we have a discussion, but they are NOT forcing anyone to accept those wages.
I don't need to explain socialism. My question, and therefore what I just need to explain is "where" the funds for socialism are coming from... which is "the rich"... do you have an answer? How does socialism CONTINUE to pay for itself?
Just a thought but if you tax the rich more and more than what is stopping them from moving to another country since they can afford it. It would just push all the rich people out of the country in my mind
Correct... that whole "rich" paying for everything has several pitfalls, including the glaring one you note... people just will move their money elsewhere...
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money." ~ Margaret Thatcher
Correct.... I still have not gotten a single answer. Lots of people angry at rich people and wanting them to "pay", but no one can answer how to CONTINUE to fund socialism.
And her policies were a rip roaring success...I mean that's why she was one of the most hated politicians at the end of her career. Socialism already exists in the U.S just not primarily for ordinary folk. Corporate bailouts of 2008 , government subsidies massive companies like exon mobil recieve year in year out, government money used to fund and help research of covid vaccines yet Pfizer, Moderna reap the profits. I guess its not socialism when corporations receive aid.
But then how is Europe doing socialism the right way
Margaret Thatcher? Anyone who has led as charmed a life as she has, should be trashed, stuff into a garabge can. NOT her, her thoughts and ideas.
@@princesszeldaprincess447 there are not socialist countries in europe SSweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland are not Socialist utopias theyre capitalist economies
At first I was like "Clay has balls for dropping this". Then I was like, "well the majority of the subscribers are trying to capitalize in some way, or else why would they subscribe".. so this is a safe space for capitalists. I agree that 100% socialism would not work. I just wish we could find a way to get people Healthcare that really need it, and for the government to stop subsidizing student loans.
Cheers Rob!
People have no clue about socialism, Capitalism, Marxism, Marx's 3 Volumes of Capital is how Capital works however it is implemented, there's no polar opposite socialism vs Capitalism arguments, the rich have more or less gamed it into polarising sides of an incorrect Premise, so only confusion can grow out of it.
Socialism is not about making the rich pay for society. The current crop of billionaires is a specific venue of a particular group of greedy bastards whose finances have paid them very well. Anti-trust laws rescinded helped and created what the system has wrought. Matt Stoller has an interesting book over the events of how the particular billionaires success was created. [Matt's book is called, Goliath] US oligarchs created the Russian oligarchs[US oligarchs, same playbook, except Putin said oh, hell no, what you've done is create oligarchs that have hurt the Russian people the same way the US has done to its people as well. So he dumped them, said okay, keep your money but no way are you going to hurt the people anymore, stay out of politics, and you wanna leave get the fuck out, but you are not going to drive the politics of Russia, and by the way, we're gonna need a fair chunk of that money you tole from the people, but you get the rest and if you wanna go, go take what's left and go. BUT once it's gone it's gone and so are you.
I’m coming from a socialist country, is a chaos let pray four our liberties and this great country
Cheers
@Clay I think that you’re getting the whole Socialism concept wrong. By the way, I agree a Socialism system wont work, unless you’re in China but our current Capitalism model hasn’t been working either. So the solution has to be a Hybrid system, example: Canada..
The current system in the US simply says, lets keep the 1% rich and perhaps richer, and that will create a ripple effect that spirals down to the below classes. Well that hasn’t worked and will never work example: when companies make more money, they hardly ever invest in paying more wages and rather they focus more on stock by backs and CEO massive payouts.
Plug in whatever "ism" you want. My point is, it needs a source to continue to pay for it... and as of now, that "source" was created by capitalism, not socialism (or any other kind of "ism").
Coming from a Soviet (i.e. communist Russian) background, I'd like to point a couple of points. Although this subject is so huge it's impossible to solve it in so few words or minutes of time.
Define socialism. There are degrees of the amount of socialism you want to apply to society. Is it just having a consensus that education, healthcare, culture should be funded by society?
Or is it a full-blown nationalization of all means of production? The latter would mean that there would be no "riches" in your society as all money is coming from the people and going out back to the people. This means no private Goldman Sachs, no private JP Morgan, no private Ford, no private name-your-fav-brand. All means of production belong to the people, all income goes to the budget and the government, which is strictly representing the people instead of being a representative of the rich private elite, as there would be no elite, would distribute money back to society.
In case of abolishing capitalism completely, then money and the monetary system must be abolished as well as money is a commodity that can be collected and monopolized, hence there will always be someone poor and someone rich, hence creating the rich class, hence sustaining the possibility of the resurrection of capitalism as the rich will always fight back to reclaim/support/fortify their advantages.
In such a (for now a utopian) society, technology would take over to serve humanity: robotized manufacturing would produce the needs of humanity, without the requirement of paying for anything using money. Which means, automata and robots would grow food until they get broken, which would be the moment when human administrators step in to fix the problem.
People would do what they want to do in life and not what they are forced to do. Their curiosity would be their incentive, not money and not their fear for survival.
So, you see, it depends on your set of values. Do you want a society with higher values? A society with science and technology as its priority, based on knowledge?
Or do you want a society based on "money is everything, buy this, buy that, buy every piece of garbage that you don't actually need! And don't forget to call others as infidels if your religion tells you so. And regard other races as inferior, so we can invade and destroy them to grab their lands and resources."?
But let me give you a working example of communism: people said they need a good operating system that is free as in free beer. A guy named Linus Torvalds said "OK" and he created an operating system, called it Linux and made it open source and free to the world. And guess what?
The whole world now runs on Linux servers. I can name so many other open-source software made by people who are giving free to the world, in their free time: Blender 3D, GIMP, VS Code, PostgreSQL ...etc.
As I said, it's impossible to answer your question in short. I would recommend you take a look on a documentary called Zeitgeist:Addendum, it's free on the internet, it explains some of the ideas. Or maybe you'd want to go deep and read Carl Marx' The Capital.
I define "socialism" (or any kind of "ism") as needing to be paid for... if you take from the rich is excessive amounts, they A) will have less over time and B) probably will move their money elsewhere to another country... so does how socialism (or any "ism") CONTINUE to pay for itself. That's my question...
@@claytrader The issue is that your definition of socialism dose not actually mach the definition of socialism. The actual definition of socialism is: any economic system with privet property (not for the sake of profit though) and money, overseen by a strong federal state (both authoritarian and democratic forms are possible and have existed successfully) in which the means of production (factory, farms, mines, etc...) are commonly owned. Think for example like a worker cooperative, or if a company board and CEO where replaced with union leadership, though other forms exist. And where a government was responsible for providing every citizen with things like free healthcare, food, water, education and housing.
@@lasttarrasque6223 socialism "cost money"... that's my point. Which is why my question of "where does the money CONTINUE" to come from arise from.
@@claytrader The money would come from taxes on the sale of products produced by the now comely owned means of production. We can go without the tax revenue from food, housing, water, housing, healthcare, and education , those things are mostly not taxed anyway. especially when you take into account the reduced government spending on war. socialism dose not get rid of production, it simply places the fruits of production into the hands of the common person. The market is not destroyed in socialism but is instead used to exchange goods and money instead of the all powerfully entity it is in capitalism. Markets are not unique to capitalism, they existed before capitalism and hopefully will get to exist after capitalism.
@@lasttarrasque6223 "it simply places the fruits of production into the hands of the common person." You mean the people that did not take the same level of risk compared to the people who started the business in the first place? Yeah... sorry... that seems a bit immoral...
I think the biggest reason people want socialism is mostly the lack of understanding of one thing: The Rich don't really pay taxes. There are legal loopholes that allow them (and the poor as well if they actually knew it) to avoid paying taxes or paying severely reduced taxes. So in order for Socialism to work, there would have to be a solid "tax" that cannot be avoided, and it would NEED to be "fair." That is basically an impossible ask as nobody would ever agree on anything for it, so its better to just become financially smart.
Thanks for the thoughts.
I heavily disagree since there could be a progressive tax based on your income. So lets say you make 100k a year. You would be taxed more for certain goods and services than someone who only made 50k a year.
I always lean towards whatever system is runned it depends on who's running, I like communism on paper but history shows human nature takes control same with capitalism where rich become super and poor become extremely poor and yes there's more too it than that and there's good things about capitalism and as you point socialism has its cons aswell but I digress like I said all depends on the individuals running the system
I like "freedom" on paper... so yeah, I'm a fan of capitalism.
@@claytrader everyone has there own opinion whether wrong or right in different eyes that's what suppose to make the US great right?
@@carmike7671 cheers
Problems snowball and escalate over time with socialism, your point exactly.. Problems work themselves out naturally with capitalism and a truly free market...
European history has many great examples of why pure capitalism and "truly free" market is absolutely catastrophic and does not work. I'm am not advocating for pure socialism, just pointing out the potential flaw of this statement.
Yeah capitalism sure does straighten itself out alright....at the rate our capitalist system is going we will end up with the uber rich and those with nothing much like what happened in Russia at the end of the cold war. Capitalism is a system that requires endless growth and making endless profits. A company will make 10 billion in profits this year but guess what the market says they must make more next year, then more the year after etc. We live on a planet with finite resources. It simply is not logical at some point capitalism will eat itself.
Thanks for the thoughts.
@@DwayneBennett It doesn't "require" endless growth. But the potential is there for it. Billions of sheeple feeding into a company causes it to grow.. If sheeple smartened up that wouldn't happen. When a company goes bankrupt but gets bailed out that's the problem... It's being rewarded for a failed business plan. Capitalism and a free market would have allowed those failed businesses to go under and allow better ones to take their place.
exactly Michael... way too many people are confusing capitalism with crony capitalism...
"Socialism" AKA (Health Care, College Education, Daycare, and a Decent standard of living) is paid for by either the wealthy, corporations, or a combination of both. It would not need to be no where near 100% taxation. Progressives are looking for the minimum amount of 1-2% I'd say max 10% depending on the situation. The problem is currently we have Mega corporations like AMZN, NKE, and FDX paying ZERO in taxes while everyone else AKA Normal People (
"Decent standard of living"... ahhh, THERE it is... the talking point that is a broad statement and very subjective...
@@claytrader Out of all the points he made why would you only go after that one🤣.
Standards of living can be measured objectively (we do this already).
For example: Accessibility to housing, clean water, food, healthcare, education and life expectancy; just to name a few.
This was a really silly video and it shows you really haven’t engaged in the complex field of socialism vs capitalism as all your talking points in the video were extremely rudimentary.
If you want to learn more about socialism watch Vaush, David Packman, Chomsky, Richard Wolff, and Destiny.
@@Ripred0219 that's called strawmaning. When you already have an inherent bias towards something and only look for and exaggerate "weak" points in an argument. I believe a hybrid system of socialism and capitalism is need. Neither system on its own is sustainable especially with the inherent corruption people who run either system seem to have.
@@DwayneBennett Yeah he completely strawmanned him🤣🤣
@@claytrader no. It's really not. You're saying that and defending this current system because you hope to be the "factory owner" one day. So let me ask you something. You think when people like Elon get 4.9 billion in government subsides, corporations get hundreds of millions in covid loans fire their employees and pay themselves millions in bonuses or when the same people that crash the financial markets get bailed out with BILLIONS of TAX PAYER dollars or when sick American needs to file for medical bankruptcy on the richest nation on earth is a winning system? Honestly I want you to answer that for me. Btw there is no true "Socialist" nation but ones with political systems closest to Socialism or Social democracy are yet the ones that rank highest in Life expectancy, overall happiness, have the best social programs, world class government subsidized housing, best health care, paid maternity leave, paid vacation time and more and more and more. So you know working class people don't have to be a slave to the syatem for the rest of their lives. Standing up in front of your board like a clown talking about "RiCh pEoPlE pAy FoR EveRyThInG" uh... news flash clown. No one man or woman will ever put in the man hours to have actually created a billion dollars worth of wealth and no man or woman should have more wealth than small nations or countries especially when alot of these corporations and billionaires pay ZERO in federal income taxes and yet can receive millions if they're businesses are failing due to poor handling or robbing there works wages by paying themselves huge bonuses. And the counter that system is literally all Socialism is about is the means of production being owned or at the very least democratized by the public being provided with living wages amazing benefits and so so so much more. It's what the rest of the developed world has, maybe it's time Americans catch up. I mean technically you guys do have Socialism in the states. But unfortunately it's Socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the rest. Rob the little guy and give it to fat cow. You should be ashamed of who you are and what you're defending. I see you in the comment section talking 💩 about Canada. Well Son let me educate you on a few things here. You talk about Canadas health care saying how "people from Canada come to the USA" Well 1 We rank higher than you guy in health care so take that 2 Thats a Donald Trunp talking point (how embarrassing) and 3 yes people can go pay for treatment in the US but the difference between we and you is that if people stay here they're not going to DIE because we don't abandon our citizens if they don't have insurance provided by a Health industry Mafia. People get help IMMEDIATELY for life threatening not elective procedures. Also this is a talking point that has been debunked many times because if someone does need to go to the US for whatever reason the Canadian government will cover it (primarily for specialized procedures such as a specialist doctor or for when you get your future hair transplant you know;) The pandemic also showed us another amazing reason for why you guys need socialized health care. Because now if you don't die from covid you sure as hell will die from working your life away to pay off the medical bankruptcy that unfortunately poor and working class Americans won't be able to pay off. Funny, seeing as you guys are the wealthiest nation on the planet yet took you guys months to cough up one stimulus check and almost a year more to cough out another when here we in the land of the Maple leaf we gave 2k relief for three months and are still doing CRB for up to 54 weeks for those who lost their jobs or are unable to work because of C-19. It's quite also ironic what you said because here in Canada. My Dad almost died from Covid yet he went to the hospital got top care, was given Experimental treatments/medicines and walked out alive didn't pay a cent apart from the Ambulance ride the night he almost died which was $300. Could you Imagine that in America Clay🤡? Because I sure as hell don't have too🤣😎🤣🇨🇦😘 btw I only stopped by to see how you're trading and can see you're still trading like 💩💩 A word of advice Clay... throw away the fib Retracting, Indicators, RSI and vwap 🐃💩 You keep it up and you'll never grow past you "$500 in X amount of minutes" stage. Try ACTUALLY reading some Marxist theory, maybe then you'll be better prepared for when people like me rip into you 😘😏
The issue has been debated on and on. There are always people who want to win the game not by the amount of money they earned within a set of rules but persuasion and privileges. You can’t make them away. They always come back for more.
Thanks for the thoughts.
One problem with the diagram. Capitalism is not a magic money machine. People don't get rich from the glory of capitalism. They get rich exploiting everyone else. This is referred to as wage theft.
such a victim mentality.
Hello Clay, can you share any books/articles that you’ve read on this subject?
Can you answer how socialism continues to get paid for over time? I'm asking a question. Got any answer? If you take from the rich in excessive amounts, they A) will have less over time and B) probably will move their money elsewhere to another country... so does how socialism (or any "ism") CONTINUE to pay for itself. That's my question...
@@claytrader No I can’t. I don’t know much about socialism to form an opinion on it. Seems like you do though because of your video. Can you share any books that you’ve read on this subject?
yeah, they're all over the internet... Google away!
@@claytrader Clay, I’m asking *you* personally to share the books/articles that YOU have read on this subject. Google is not going to tell me what you’ve read.
@@lovegxdherself ik a Book Written by a Austrian Economist named Ludwig Von Mises and he wrote about exposing the dangers of Socialism
I 100% agree with your video! I'm from Canada. What are your thoughts about universal healthcare? this ties into socialism/capitalism debate.
it has its flaws, which is why people from Canada come to the USA for medical procedures
Better for a healthcare system to have flaws then not have healthcare at all. I'm from the UK which like all country's with universal healthcare also has an option for private medical insurance. In the UK the insurance is a 3rd of the price of US. There are also many world renowned Doctors that work in a socialist healthcare system. And its not just the rich that pay for socialism, everyone pays taxes. The rich will still have plenty of money even if they do pay more.
We have a labor shortage here in the USA... the vast majority of these companies offer health insurance as part of their salary package.... so yeah, at this point in time, it's not a problem of health insurance... it exists for those that want to work!
the principles that clay lays out here directly translate to healthcare. the risk with no reward leads to lack of invention and innovation and overall progression in society. same thing with healthcare if you are a doctor and you are earning a living you take pride in your job you care if your a doctor that makes a very low income and arnt getting paid what you should be getting paid you will not have the same motivation to do your job to the fullest of your ability. and to say having healthcare with flaws is better then not having it all is just ridiculous. people that do not contribute to society should not be carried by it. 91% of people in americs last year had insurance 66% of which was private insurance and 82% of that was from employment. no reason healthcare has to be forced on anybody it is not a right it is a privilege to those who earn it. when you start giving free things to everybody then nobody has a reason to work and provide because they are being handed the things they are supposed to work for. you saw a very good example of this with the covid relief money.
@@philshoreman9489 "the risk with no reward leads to lack of invention and innovation and overall progression in society." this is what many people seem to miss... very well said.
For an economy to work and generate wealth and prosperity, you need production and consumption, and the free exchange of goods and services. The state/government/collective doesn't produce, it simply consumes. If you give ownership/control of the means of production to the state, (i.e. socialism) they will simply consume it all for itself first before they get to the people they claim to be helping raise out of poverty. And the amount of government beauracry that you will need to sustain this system of redistribution means very little will actaully get redistributed.
Even in theory, socialism doesn't work. Society's demands are infinite. You can always demand for more housing, more food, more water, increased wages, more energy, more of this and more of that while society's productive capability is varied and limited. Not everyone can produce at the same rate but you can always demand more. It's human nature. There's always someone somewhere who will not be satisfied with his lot in life and will demand more while doing absolutely nothing for it. In fact, there's plenty of them.
I believe this is why socialism is not just impractical, it's a road to hell. It is evil. Society's will always demand more and more, and if the government administers a system of redistribution of resources, they will also take more, while productivity remains limited. This then leads to crises of all sorts. And it's only a matter of time, before the state uses force to address these crises, the government will literally have to force people to produce more and more. Taken to its fullest conclusion, socialism cannot work without totalitarianism and everyone will be equally starving.
Good thoughts. Thanks for sharing.
The closest version of functional socialism we have is from a number of nordic countries today, where there are more billionaires per capita than the U.S. I think it's a flawed assumption that capitalism is the only path to extreme wealth.
But that is NOT the version that is marketed here in the USA...
@@claytrader if you listen closely to the right people it is. Unfortunately Republicans and mainstream media only straw man tenets of socialism. They never talk the benefits of the system versus the cons. They only prop up the pros of capitalism and hardly its cons.
we can agree to disagree! Really appreciate your thoughts though.
@@DwayneBennettsocialism is built on the moral grounds of, "hey, let me take control and be the knight in shining armor using other people's money without their consent"... not a fan of that.
@@claytrader The government does that already with the police, fire department, military etc. Should we get rid of those? Unfortunately they also decide who to bail out (the rich too big to fail types) when those people fail at capitalism. The type of socialism you are talking about is what you see on fox News. Why not have an honest debate about the prose and cons of both systems rather than marking 1 has whole and inherently evil? Democratic socialism has things like workers own the means of production meaning they have a say in how corporations are run and have a bigger share of the profits and those do not only go to ceo and share holders (the government would not be in control of such a company) when you or people strawmanning socialism talk about it you guys never talk about this possibility; only the angle of the government taking control of private companies as an example. You always like to say "you did the work , you should get the benefits " why can't this apply to workers instead of hoping our technocratic overlords trickle down on us?
Why wouldn't the working class pay for social services like they already do? Not only that, would anyone even need to pay for the services if you can have workers produce the services themselves? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. That being said I am not a socialist. It clearly seems like you haven't read any academic economics literature on the matter.
Because in America, socialism is NOT being marketed as having anything to do with "the working class"... EVERYTHING is being marketed as "the rich will pay"....
@@claytrader Socialism, in its absolute sense, is the abolition of private property (the property where special interest partially or fully control production factors, typically a worker's labour). Thus, it is first principles analysis of the relationship labourers, and owners have to the factors of production. High taxation is perfectly consistent with a capitalist economy and you can 0 taxation in a socialist economy (USSR had income tax of only 10%, something the USA would never do). So your arguing against a proposal of socialism, that isn't socialism and seems to be variant of capitalism. You've been indoctrinated by corporate media to fight an invisible bougieman that no serious econonmist proposes or even agrees on lol Read an economics book please.
You literally argued the problem with capitalism while trying to argue the problem with socialism. “Bob needs money to make money.” So then what happens when you’re born with no money? Sure you can break poverty, it’s possible, but it is far from the norm and cannot be expected from the average person.
I’m not saying capitalism is necessarily bad, and I’m not sayin socialism is necessarily good. But the crux of this debate to me, is how can we make EVERYONE better off.
If you’re a supporter of capitalism, it’s because you believe in money over human life. Greed over humanitarianism. I am a socialist not because I think it’s the true economic model, but because I recognize human life is more important that wealth.
There shouldn’t be billionaires in San Francisco living in million dollar homes when there are millions of people on the street. This is not an economic debate to me, it is a matter of human life.
Housing, water, survivability are human rights. The prospect of getting rich is not more important than these.
Thanks
"Sure you can break poverty, it’s possible, but it is far from the norm and cannot be expected from the average person." And RIGHT THERE is our problem. You are an elitist who looks down on your fellow human beings and claims they are too helpless. What an arrogant attitude to have. I believe EVERYONE has the power to improve their situation. Is everyone going to be Elon Musk? No. But can thy pull themselves out of poverty? Absolutely. Doesn't mean it will be easy, but here in the USA it is 100% possible. That's why people in impoverished countries flee here.... I'd encourage you to step down from your high perch of elitism.
I asume someone has already commented this but what you are describing is a Social Democracy and they can work. Actually, looking at some European welfare states, more people are willing to take the risk because the reward would be lower but so would the risk; you couldn't lose your Healthcare etc. The higher exestential minimum leads to a lot of smaller businesses and not just a few big ones dominating the industry which is good for the market and people are more equal strengthening the Meritocracy.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Also capitalism is a relatively new concept, wealth has been built up by the aristocracy over hundreds of years, money can still be made in socialism and used for good. The NHS in the uk is a good example.
I'm not saying money can't be made, I'm saying can enough be made in order to continue to pay for socialism... seems like a glaring flaw and why "ONLY tax the rich" has never worked in any other situation (which again, that is what is being marketed here in the USA)
@@claytrader I get your point and I don’t think your wholly wrong but I’m not sure you appreciate the level of wealth already established and how long that would take to diminish if ever. But again communism and socialism are different. If communism came in you’d be more correct IMO
I find nothing moral about playing the knight in shining armor using someone else's money... zero morality about that (and quite frankly, a lazy solution)
@@claytrader plus all pay taxes not just the rich with socialism, capitalism IMO encourages bad practice in some areas like social care, wealthy owners paying staff minimum wage and old people getting a rubbish service. In socialism this would be avoided by having these services in house paying staff a fair pay and training them to deliver a service for non profit reasons. Quite a complex argument really that can’t possible be done justice here
socialism does not make money it destroys it like it did tin venenzuela
Neither capitalism nor socilaism is ideal for most people. An ideology that's designed for 'most people' will never work for _all people_. Because people are individuals and have different goals and values. Some people are investors, some are inventors, some are workers, some are teachers and some like to care for people. Some like working alone, some like working in a teams, some don't like to work at all. Wich ideology will be best for every single person on earth? None!
Which is why "freedom of choice" is powerful....
@@claytrader no, 'freedom of choice' is really nothing else than anarchy, or else it's not real freedom of choice.
I use to say: "Do whatever you like, but don't bother others with it". I think that fit most dilemmas :)
@@_Viking correct... "freedom of choice" within boundaries. The boundaries being, "don't physically hurt someone else. don't force someone else to do anything. don't steal from someone else".
Geez man PLEASE do more research before dumping this amount of cringe on the internet
This was just full of trying prove an ideology you’re married to with false premises.
If I were socialist that wanted to debunk all of your talking points i’d do it in one word: cooperatives.
Look into Richard Wolff’s and Vaush’s commentary on co-ops if you’re truly interested on how innovation, wealth creation and risks exist in a socialist system.
Exactly....
Agree
Are you saying socialism does not need a source to pay for itself?
As far as "co-ops"... those already exist. Within capitalism you are FREE to build a company where you do a cooperative with your employees. NOTHING is holding you back from doing that in capitalism.
@@claytrader
Not sure why your asking “Are you saying etc…) While socialism and capitalism seem diametrically opposed, most capitalist (US) economies today have some socialist aspects… therefore… the premise that the rich in the past accounted for the majority of taxes can be argued … Both socialism and capitalism has issues …
In an ideal socialist setting (let us assume we aren't talking about China), all means of production are owned by the state/socialist government. Every sector becomes a public sector. Thus all money earned go to the reservoir of the state, which it dispenses equally for the benefit of people. This is more or less how socialism works. ''Socialism gets its money from the rich"- such thing is new to my learning.
The type of socialism in the USA is not advertised as you said, it's "tax the rich".
What screen recording software do you use with the drawing tools?
Here ya go: claytrader.com/resources/
Your confusing socialism with communism. In socialism nobody would be taxed 100%
I don't think you watched the full video... I didn't leave it as 100%...
I perhaps may be wrong about this, but I believe there is something called the extraction of surplus value in capitalism. Essentially, if a business receives $20/hour from one worker, they will not pay that worker $20/hour. This is because if they do pay the worker $20/hour, they will not get a profit. If they don't get a profit, they will be unable to invest in new technology and the CEOs will not make as much money. Under socialism, this surplus value will continue to not go to the worker, but instead to welfare programs. As a result, the use of taxes should be minimized.
Correct. If the person taking the risk of hiring a person does not keep any of the rewards for themselves, then why even take the risk in the first place? (aka, create a job)
I really appreciate your openness to new ideas because that's a a great thing to have. I feel like the real issue with the things you are bringing up is that the rich people that you mention in your video would be different in socialism. I, like you, don't know everything about this topic, and am very open to a new idea, but I feel with this, you are thinking of this concept from a purely capitalist perspective, where there ARE ultra wealthy people. I recently saw a video (ua-cam.com/video/O9CFP_58mBc/v-deo.html) that gave me a perspective of a "socialist" economy 'in action' rather than just the transition from capitalist to socialist. I definitely don't agree with all the things in the video but I feel like it gives an idea of how the system could work, rather than just transitional period of 'capitalist' to 'socialist'. I hope to hear your ideas on this because i would like to broaden my currently quite limited beliefs.
My time is limited, but I'll see what I can do.
I always thought that middle class tax payers was the ones footing the bill for socialistic programs 🤔
Guess it depends on who you ask...
i thought that public services were paid for by everyone's taxes. like healthcare, education etc. i'm a 15 year old from england btw.
@@GabstheGamerYT not everyone pays taxes though, specifically the poor
@@claytrader oh ok. makes sense. i guess i meant mainly the middle class and the working class and the rich.
Everyone pays taxes. At the sameish rates. Socialism takes wealth from the rich not through high taxation, it takes it through forced wages that are AT THE LEAST what you need to survive which includes food, shelter, and healthcare. So mcdonalds will still be a minimum wage job, but it's the minimum LIVABLE wage. This would actually allow government to lower tax rates. Currently the majority of Americans only buy what they absolutely NEED. Opting to save the rest to hopefully retire at a semi decent age. If you know that your future is secure and you will have food and shelter and healthcare regardless of what job you hold. You have opportunities. Learn the violin, go on vacation, visit your grandma who you will only see a couple more times before she's gone. Capitalist society doesn't value these because they don't generate profit. Therefore cut them to the bare minimum. However socialist society values human health and rights as the number one priority. Because when grandma dies she's gone. I'm only going to get to see mine a couple more times before she's gone. Because I can't afford a 2 hour drive. I have a good gas mileage car. But I either lose my home or see my family. Capitalistic society breeds this.
Good logic and explanation in 10-minutes. Also, in Scandinavian countries they are all Scandinavian. Reason it won’t work in the US is because we are a melting pot of different cultures, ethnicity and we are very much the land of opportunity. There aren’t opportunities in socialist countries. My family fled one and came here for a better life.
Thanks for the thoughts!
A lot of assumptions and hypotheticals. The idea that any PURE system can function successfully over the long haul is a fallacy in my opinion. Hybrid systems are going to be the best option.
Um, what? The socialism being marketed in America is literally based on the talking point that... "the rich will pay"...
@@claytrader if you think Pure socialism would ever take hold in America, that is silly. The rich are far too powerful to allow that to happen. Social Democracy is possible but even that is an uphill battle. Did you post a video in 2001 asking how we would pay for a 20 year war? Probably not. The rich should pay their FAIR share. Look at the most prosperous time in America following WWII and what the tax rates were for the richest Americans. I’ll save you some time, the top bracket $200k+ paid 90%. Now it’s 39.6%. Not to be rude but I think I can tell where you get your information
@@claytrader it’s also silly to say that individuals are going to not innovate or create something because they may have to pay more taxes in the future. That’d be like saying you’re not going to buy a stock that you know is going to increase in value, because you might have to pay more tax on your gains in the future. Doesn’t seem logical to me.
@@Kyle.Wynsma World War 2... you mean that time when the world was blown to bits and America was the only operational country left production wise? You honest think 90% (or anywhere close) would work in today's globalized economy? Not to be rude, but that's a terrible example to use to justify "everything is okay with higher tax rates"
@@Kyle.Wynsma "That’d be like saying you’re not going to buy a stock that you know is going to increase in value"... umm, what? "know"? You don't KNOW anything, hence the risk.....you are operating under a flawed assumption of "knowing what will happen" 'which is the exact opposite of business/investing... sorry my friend, that's a premise that is not in line with the real world.
Could some of it be that motivation for innovation diminishes?
Yup!
Well in America we have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. So yea, that for sure doesn't work. It also depends on what you are saying works or not. What metric you are going off of. Overall happiness? Overall wealth? I think democratic socialist countries do work, like Finland (Finland also happens to be the most free country on earth as a side note) and Denmark. Both, being the two countries with the happiest amount of people on earth. You can even look at Switzerland (3rd on that list) that taxes 40% of income, but has a median income of 75% higher then the US. Full communism in practice is terrible, hence why a true socialist country like China isn't up there, and way down at the bottom of the top 100 countries. So many people in America look at socialism as some evil thing, while they take advantage of their social security and various other socialist programs we already have. Getting something like free healthcare here will only make the country stronger, healthier, and more productive
The problem with socialism is not the system but the people. You can make the greatest vehicle on planet earth but what difference will it make if it's being driven by an idiot ? I'll give you an example.....
In the U.K. we have something great called the BBC, a socialist funded organisation run by an absolute ninkampoop, Tim Davie, this dufus promised reform at said BBC, what did we get instead ? Shafted. He gave himself a payrise, he gave Zoe Ball, Gary Lineker & various others a pay rise and we are not talking monopoly money here we are are talking 5 to 6 figure rises. This all on taxpayer dime in a year when everybody has had to tighten their belts.
To add insult to injury these very same people will try their utmost best to send you to prison if you choose to not pay the licence fee to fund their extravagant lifestyles whilst the rest of us live on a shoestring. But this is the true kicker, these very same people that rely on the people that provide their Gucci bags and Bentley's, demonize and mock them day in day out. I swear you couldn't make this shit up
Thanks for the thoughts.
I hold the definition of Socialism as the state owning and running the means of production. An analogy is a small village that grows its own crops, livestock and other food. So the villagers just chip in and often the result is they get only what they need. There is little motivation to make more. I make the assumption that socialism is simply this kind of arrangement brought to the state level, with hundreds of thousands to millions more people. No market dynamics, just chip in, and everyone is supposed to still get their food and stuff. Problem is, that is vulnerable to famine, locusts and other sudden changes. And people make mistakes (such as being too lazy to work), so mistakes in the amount you "chipped in" could lead to famine. I would say that happened in Mao-era China.
Market dynamics is still better because profit gives a motivation to produce more. You can overproduce, that may be a problem, but overproduction still better than a little amount from chipping in. You still have more of the goods because of the overproduction, and that itself reduces the chances of famine. That of course aside from innovations such as Fritz Haber's fertilizer discovery and refrigeration.
Informing me on this are TIKhistory, Ryan Chapman, New Discourses and similar channels.
Thanks for the thoughts.
1. The Rich do not exist. Corporations and their owners exist, who would get their money from the government and the people, as their corporations are state owned and licensed, all of them. Of course, being heavily taxed themselves, the owners are not exactly rich personally.
2. Bob would not invest his own money in a company, so the risk is not his to make. The government would decide whether Bob's business idea is worth supporting, and whether there is a need for it.
3. Due to heavy taxes on the Rich, Bob would not get (much) more money, even if he wanted to. So Bob would probably stay depressed and unemployed, or work some easy job that pays ok. Bob might choose to work more in a service he cared about personally, despite never having the opportunity to become rich personally.
For now, assuming the numbers all added up and formed a perfect loop of taxes gained and redistributed, the main issue I see is the lack of incentive for effort. Things might be fair and equal, but also somewhat bland as nobody has reason to do more than the bare minimum.
I agree with your summary.
Are you familiar with ‘Rich Dad Poor Dad’? During one of his interviews, the author said that giving money to poor people only creates more poor people.”
Right... throwing money at problems doesn't solve anything.
Systems are like diets. The reason they don't work is because of those pesky humans.
Thanks for t he thoguhts.
@ClayTrader The problem of poor people having less chance is more severe in India&China, both countries claim they are socialism, but the degree of inequality between people is deep-rooted in two countries. If you can't study well, you go to vocational school and whatever effort you make, you will NOT be able to afford a decent life such as to buy a house (in Shanghai a house of 100m^2 cost at least 1 million dollar and a normal worker can make 1000 dollar if you work very very hard but it's your upper bound that you will NOT be promoted because your education background. It takes you 88 years to buy a house without eating anything, and if you are having a housing loan you will need to pay 20000 dollar a year but that will make your money being negative. So they must have socialist to avoid the country being extremely unbalanced like rich people can earn 10000 dollar a day by lending and that is not fair at all if you are a hard-working individual struggling to earn 3000 dollar a month in China, because earning that amount in China requires very professional skills and very good university education experience. So China's government need to grab Monopolistic companie's money to get it more balanced otherwise their reign will be overthrown. Everything is more relistic when it comes to the government because they consider much more factors than us.
Are you making an argument for or against Socialism?
@@claytrader I just think the government should take more money from the rich in those countries. I am not supporting socialism or commuism, because it is not gonna work in countries now, only maybe 1000 years later.
@@claytrader it is not good when people work 16 hours a day and making their boss wealthy, and when free market no longer exist but dominated by small proportion of monopolies. the solution is not socialism, because it stop people from getting rich, but should be something else.
@@qiping7165 okay, well I can not speak to other countries, but here in the USA... socialism I would disagree with.
There is more to it. Socialism continues as long as big businesses partner up with government and control the direction of the country (this is hapenining right now). The middle class and below will be brought down to the same level. The rich will keep their wealth and enrich the politicians that will back them. Companies will keep producing and generate income. The down side will simply be that new comers will face extremely high barriers to create new business. Since this is a trading channel I will not go deeper into it.
I agree with you. LESS government is a good thing.
Happy New Year.
My issues with your explanation are as follows
1. The title of your video is deceptive considering the current political climate. Ppl are calling for democratic socialism, not that authoritarianism that many in America associates with the hx of socialism.
2. When you briefly discussed Dem Socialism you admitted it is working. In fact, they appear to be the happiest ppl on earth. So what many in America are calling for is actually working in the world.
3. The idea of anyone being "rich" isn't a necessity for a functional society. Because as I mentioned, ppl in societies with fewer millionaires tend to be happier. No question this is due to human nature: greed and the desire to exploit. Capitalism fails miserably at this. Look at the current situation and the trends.
4. Socialism taxes everyone higher and the down side is having less stuff and getting things slower. I'm ok with that. U can tout the idea the Socialism buries innovation and I will point out how many "innovations" in the US that were partially or totally funded by the state.
5. We already practice Socialism for the wealthy. You can say it's cheeky, but it's still true. We have bailed out the wealthy plenty of times because they have literally become too big to fail. Recently was propping up the stock market during Covid. And the entire media complaining about stimulus.
6. Lastly, if Socialism isn't the answer then we better find a better one. The wealthy elite in this country control the media and the gov. That's an oligarchy. That's dangerous
6.... if the government was stripped of the majority of its power, would you care if they were controlled? Nope. The solution is LESS government. Give the government LESS power... not MORE, which is what you seem to want to do.
I think the key to your missing equation is the culture of the country. Things that will work in one country will never work in some others.
Valid. The USA is a country's of risk takers (something capitalism is built upon)... I mean, back in the day people were crazy enough to get into a big wooden boat and sail across an ocean for 3 months to "build something better" for themselves that's the DNA of this country...
I think the goverment would fund Bob's plans but I'm not entirely sure where I got that information from so I can't be certain
Fund it with what? OTHER PEOPLE'S money... which eventually runs out...
How does money run out? Wouldnt it just go back into the economy
@@damnmark nope... because companies would just leave the country and relocate to other "tax friendly" countries.
@@claytrader i think companies under socialism are owned by the state
@@claytrader oh damn I didn't even realise it's you lol
Thanks for the video. Others have already commented on the importance of defining your terms from the start (since it’s unclear what the socialism you’re talking about really is), so instead of going down that route, I just wanted to highlight two things.
First, your example of risk, though useful as a generic illustration of the concept, doesn’t do a great job representing how it works in our current society. In reality, the amount of risk a person needs to account for is vastly different depending on who you are. Sure, you or I would need to carefully calculate risk before putting time into an entrepreneurial prospect. However, if you are an owner or board member or officer or investor representing a large corporation or bank or investment firm, your exposure to risk is massively diminished. The example you know I’ll go to is the 2008 recession. Those with decision-making power and control over the risky financial abomination they themselves helped create didn’t have to ever realize that risk. They were bailed out-hell, some became wealthier from the whole disaster-and regular, uninvolved working and middle-class folks had to bear the full brunt of that risk. When you abstract capitalism to the individual, entrepreneur level, rather than describe the way our current society and economy are structured, I think it’s easy to miss this. The reality is (for the most part) that our current regulatory financial regime takes many steps to minimize risk as much as possible, especially disproportionately for the most powerful in our society. Even in the COVID pandemic recession, these huge corporations were largely insulated from revenue loss risk with yet more massive wealth transfers straight from the public purse.
Second, on the idea of who pays for stuff if not the rich. This isn’t even really a socialism issue; it’s more an issue over contemporary money and currency and how we “pay for things” at all, regardless of the political-economic system we’re in. Stephanie Kelton’s “The Deficit Myth” offers some insights here. “Rich people” don’t produce the money we need to pay for things. We live in a world of fiat currencies. The only entity that can actually create and produce our money is the federal government. It issues the currency that we all use to trade goods and services, then taxes some back to ensure there isn’t too much of it circulating around. We don’t need “rich people” to pay for things. Our currency-issuing government spends the money into existence, then taxes some back to avoid too much of it circulating around causing inflation. This doesn't mean we can just print as much money as we need infinitely to pay for things. Our limitation on “how we pay for things” isn’t liquid cash, but instead is the amount of actual economic assets we have-our factories, farms, machinery, materials, labour, commodities, etc. Money is just a kind of IOU we use to get and exchange those assets-I’d recommend David Graeber’s “Debt” for more on this.
Anyway, just a few thoughts!
Also, I wanted to add another thing regarding how we "fund socialism." I'd argue the question is kinda nonsense. Like, how did we pay for feudalism? Well, peasants and serfs worked the fields to produce the goods necessary for survival. They didn't need to pay for it externally; they just worked the land directly (disregarding the systems of land tenure, division of labour, and so on). Do you see now how that question is odd? Now take capitalism. We do a huge amount of economic activity every day. Now-to simplify socialism a lot so it's clear-take that same amount of economic activity, but change the ownership structure organizing it: so, instead of the owners of said economic activity being private owners or investors or what have you, the owners are the workers themselves or the public or citizens of a local area or what have you. That base economic activity is still there; it's just how we organize ownership and control and revenue streams over it that is different. So we're not "paying for socialism" with something external to it-we're still doing all the same things. We've just organized our society differently. Obviously, there are a lot of weeds I could get into but I think that simplifies it enough so it's clear.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of taking companies from people and forcing them to restructure them. People are more than welcome to start a company on their own and structure it however they want, but to go and TAKE someone's company (which is essentially what you're doing if you are forcing them to totally restructure) is a bit immoral.
And capitalism works? The saddest videos on the Internet are Americans crying about not having enough money for medicines...
Well, it's created lots of rich people that socialist now want to tax.... and how did those people get rich, by creating the very products and services YOU are using....
@@claytrader so your "success" is measured by the disparity of wealth? These services have an artificial monopoly where they crushed all competitors. Not sure about you but I'd happily give up all these services if it meant helping people who can't afford to live.
set your high horse of morality aside... here in America, socialism is being marketed as, "the rich will pay"... my question is, how does socialism continue to pay? It sounds to you like, well.. eventually EVERYONE will be forced to "sacrifice" as you've said in the name of "helping people"... and that's fine, but my point is... that is NOT what is being marketed...
@@claytrader There's always the capitalism lets YOU become rich.. YOU can be the next Bezos.. the next Elon.. yet just those two are and very few are anything even close.
1%... yes 1% own 37.7% of the U.S wealth. that is not a lot considering there are over 300,000,000 people in the US. 3 million rich people out of 300,000,000 people.
50% of the US (150,000,000) have 2% of all us wealth.
There just aren't that many rich people that come out of capitalism. It is crazy how some countries that have more socialist ideals and programs can still use and create new technologies.
Plus all veterens benefits? socialist. highways? socialist. police? socialist. presidential care? socialism
@@pittcrew1 you still haven't answered my question... how does socialism CONTINUE to pay for itself?
I heard someone say American capitalism has changed. The theory is we're living in something closer to techno-feudalism.
Capitalism is better than socialism to help getting people out of poverty. But there are issues in the American system. It's a rabbit hole though. I don't feel I have the time to study the nuance and develop solutions.
I have a solution... get the government OUT OF THE WAY lol
There are problems with every idea and economic theory
The benefit of risking your money only to give to the system is a peaceful country and the idea that we are all in this together imagine if we all did that for once
I'm not sure what you mean.
So I have a couple of things that I want to point out. Socialism is not quite defined correctly. My first point would be that it's a misconception that socialism is taking from the rich and only the rich. There is still taxes. People pay a percent of what they earn/pay/whatever metric you want to use. Socialism isn't so much that rich people will pay for the government. Rich people will pay their employees fairly. This will provide taxes at the same rate, arguably I think it would increase the amount of government income. Reason why is because when you have $1000 dollars to make it to your next paycheck in 2 weeks. You are not a consumer. You will pay less taxes since you are saving all that you can for retirement, and only buying what you need. However if you are paid fairly for your work. You now have the ability to start your own business if you'd like, learn an instrument. Take time off of work, spend time with your family. Which leads right into the second point. The profits for the business aren't taxed. It is not to fund the government. It is to pay people fairly. Bezos makes around $300 million a day. The minimum wage employee makes $100 a day rounded up. You mentioned math, here is a great situation where the numbers dont add up. Does bezos work 30000 times harder than the average minimum wage worker? No way. Sure he may work harder, but he is not inhuman. He got that rich because he didn't pay his employees anywhere near what they were making for him. My last point is on your risk comment. I do agree that if someone puts in risk they should reap some reward. However under our current state of capitalism. If you fail and are left with nothing. How are you going to retire at BEST case 40 years later. Some people start their business at 30 years so they have less time. Socialism gives the idea of if you mess up your business, you have a job that will pay you what you are worth, and will potentially give you the opportunity to try again, or do something else with your life. Compare that to capitalism. That person is now a desperate minimum wage worker who will barely live his whole life. Will never contribute anything to society except his minimum wage job. He can't try to make a difference, he has to suffer in silence. I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on this.
"My first point would be that it's a misconception that socialism is taking from the rich and only the rich." I very SPECIFICALLY made it a point to say that here in the USA, this is how it is being talked about...
I don't agree with that though. I understand that this is the version that most people think of when they think of socialism. However that is not a reason to refute my argument. People can have the wrong idea about a lot things. For thousands of years humans thought the earth was flat. The point is we should try to move forward intellectualy and educate those that are uneducated. In a non toxic manner. The definition of socialism in America is designed to be awful. Everyone has a different definition, and to make things worse the amount of fallacies that are embedded in our education system makes most people's opinions completely useless. Before you can debate socialism you need to really understand it first. Americans don't. At least the majority. I would highly recommend a UA-cam channel called second thought. He is probably the most educated person I know on this subject. He has his sources posted when needed, and he encourages you to double check them.
@@daxharris2721 you are making an argument against an argument I am NOT making. I am making an argument based on the relevant one to Americans given the version I talked about is the one being marketed.
Lol I like the videos clay but don’t you think this topic is a little big to be covered in a 10min video. Not a socialist or anything but found the subject matter very interesting.
No... my question is simple. How does socialism... "continue" to pay for itself? That's my question... got an answer?
Listen to professor Richard Wolf he can explain it better.
I'm not explaining anything, I'm asking... HOW does socialism CONTINUE to pay for itself over time?
@@claytrader Seems like a strange title for a video where you are apparently not explaining anything.. "The Problem With Socialism (and why it does not work)"
@@pittcrew1 i'm explaining a massive flaw with socialism by asking a question... which, so far, no one has been able to answer other than, "well, the system eventually turns to communism" which is NOT what is being marketed here in America lol
@@claytrader Yes, I understand but your comment literally says "I'm not explaining anything, I'm asking [a question]"
Havent looked at comments yet but im assuming theres a lot of butthurt people in here brainwashed by media and their colleges. Bless their hearts. Keep up the good content Clay.
Thanks for watching!
I’m not one of them because I have actual critical thinking skills lol
Love your humble approach to the argument! I think rn both sides are so polarized that opening for debate, like how you stated, is the best approach. Thanks for breaking it down Clay! Capitalism all the way though.. ✊🏽 haha.
Cheers
Who's paying for these never ending overseas conflicts?
The US Taxpayer... currently in the form of inflation.
Conflicts creates jobs too. Don't forget that 😉
I have a theory,. by the time the rich people supply is done, Socialism will have become self sustaining. Everyone will have enough to live a satisfactory life. At that point people will take business risks not because of profit incentive, but because of passion, curiosity, etc. Also, that risk will not be as huge because if you fail, you will have a safety net(a society where you don't have to break your back, or take absurdly high risks in order to live comfortably).
I however do not believe that a 100 % tax rate makes sense. Majority of people won't take the risks that come with starting a business without some profit incentive. It is also risky to give the state all that power because they might misuse it.
My conclusion(from a limited understanding of the topic)
Both socialism and capitalism, and any other "isms" have their issues. A solution that might work is combining the best parts of all of them to come up with some kind of hybrid system that serves everyone or at least tries to. Tax the rich some more, but not 100% like in total socialism, Allow businesses to make profit, but make sure that the people who work for those businesses get the pay they deserve, etc.
"Everyone will have enough to live a satisfactory life." Define "satisfactory life"... do you really want someone else to define that for you? I prefer we allow everyone to pursue their own definition of a "satisfactory" life...
@@claytrader @ClayTrader I see. I would not want that. What if instead of satisfactory,
We say that everyone has their basic needs met. Proper affordable(or free, if possible) healthcare, education housing.. Then if one feels that that is unsatisfactory for them, they would have the ability to pursue more.. But there would be safeguards that make sure that people don't exploit other people in their pursuit of their version of satisfactory? 🤔 It would be like," Sure, you can start a business, but you'd have to share your profits 50 - 50(or something close) with your workers.", or ,"sure, you can go on and become wealthy, but you would have to pay a little more in taxes. " But then there would be follow ups to ensure that those taxes are put to proper use,etc. Although , that probably wouldn't be total socialism, so your argument that total socialism wouldn't work still stands I think.
@@afroboi7454 that system already exists. ANYONE can start a business now and share their profits 50/50 with their employees if they want. Nothing in the current system is preventing that.
@@claytrader hmmm...True
@@afroboi7454 cheers
Logic has no place in the political environment, Clay, come on! Only joking, good approach to the topic. At what point does one define rich (in order to keep paying for socialism)? Do we tax people making $1M+, or does it become 500K+, or maybe 100K+... then when those people are out, maybe it becomes $20K?? Just blowing smoke. I think the history of the "social security" system and it's "intended" purpose would be a glaring example.
Thanks for the thoughts.
It is really interesting how in history people can convince a well educated socialist into becoming a fascist, but they cannot convince a well educated capitalist to become a socialist. Fascism was suppose to be a reinvention of socialism created by former socialists to address the inherent issues of Socialist economies pointed out in this video. Fascists understand that in order to have socialism work it needs to be nationalized and to make the party officials the rich owners of corporations so that all taxes that would be taken away from them is really just redistribution to themselves to do what the State wants them to do. Corporations literally started under Fascist rule because they invented the terminology for their body-politic interventionalist policy towards economics.
Thanks for the thoughts and for watching!
When capitalism getting into trouble people will think about socialism and vice versa.
How is capitalism "in trouble"?
@@claytrader Did you already forget 2008. Capitalism created a huge problem. Then the Capitalists crawled on their knees to the Federal government and begged for Socialism in the form of a 700 Billion bailout.
2008 is what happens when the government gets out of the way.
Um, what? 2008 had tons of government bailouts lol... they by no means got out of the way...
@@claytrader it creates misery and exploitation, isn’t that enough for you?
@@vil4038 how are people being exploited? Are they being forced to accept the terms of employment?
It's about not being greedy and actually sharing , it's not an economy but a state of being and mentally that could shove us into a higher evolved state instead of acting like chimpanzees killing each other over bananas
Im not trying to shut down your opinion here just looking for a discussion.
Is it generally conceived that rich people are greedy? It is my belief that people who are well off often donate or contribute to causes and people who need help out of the goodness of their hearts as a form of "giving back" or "paying it forward".
Their ability to "give back" comes from the fact that they were able to create enough wealth through hard work and risk taking that a capitalistic system affords individuals the freedom to do.
It is an unfortunate reality that money rules our lives. Having the freedom to be able to build our own wealth through hard work and providing value to others with products and services is what i believe creates a good "state of being" in people.
Your "state of being" is created by you the individual. You are responsible for that and not someone else.
Just my opinion though. Please feel free to discuss with me.
Rich people DO share... they share a product/service with you as an idea and then leave it up to you on whether or not you want to voluntarily give them money for their product or service. That seems like a pretty fair set-up.
@@ApacheChief88 hey just wanted to comment on your belief that well off people often donate to charities and that jazz, and yes I believe that rich people are greedy and you have to be to make good business deals but the only reason someone with a lot of wealth would donate to charity is to avoid taxes. Some of the ultra wealthy will even open up their own charity and just “donate” to it and pull the money back out ( I’m not a socialist just for clarification )
@@claytrader You seem to think that all rich people are also creating useful products for everyone to use. Tons of rich people are born into rich families where they themselves have done nothing except be born. Others have come up more on their own but still by using other people's labor.. probably at less than what their labor was actually worth.. which can be seen by huge profit margins in a lot of cases.
Can i stop buying services from people who got born into a wealthy family, had lets say $1 mil loan.. invested in index funds and never have to work again because of compounding growth. Other people just never have that opportunity.
@@pittcrew1 these are all different talking points... none of which answer my question... how does socialism CONTINUE to pay for itself?
Okay, clue you in, but first, 8 years ago Oxfam reported 85 of the top richest people on earth are as wealthy as the bottom half of the planet, and easy math can have you figure out that the amount the most wealthy have, will be enormous, as in having enough to support maybe 50 of their human lifestyle as wealthy people. And so, the rich came up with extrapolating the amounts involved with so many poor, then these 50 wealthy lifetimes that they'll never be able to use, and so taking just an amount to support, say 10-15 of those wealthy lifestyles could very well raise some of those living on a pittance per day, to be able to afford what we 'll raise them from their poverty to a reasonable life for their families, etc.
\It isn't that the rich ashould pay for what a program folks deemed as socialism would be a good idea, folks may not be homeless anymore etc and so on.
Fact is, Socialism is merely a community system of community arrangements, where people help each other, establish maybe a working co-op instead of shareholders who do nothing but gain from workers doing the actual jobs., BUT a o-op
GODDAMNIT, I just lost a whole paragraph, but you get the idea.
Peace and LOVE, but in our lifetime
Like I told you in the other comment, I stopped reading as soon as you revealed you hadn't even actually listened to the video. I need to guard my time.
If you need a monetary incentive to be a good person, then you aren't a good person.
And you don't need to tax the rich by much. Just have everyone pay 20% across the board. Just fair and even percentage tax for everyone.
So you're good with "poor people" paying 20% also?
100% Agreed with you
Thanks for watching.
Scandinavian socialism "not the kind of socialism we're talking about." Then it should be. I'm American but have lived in Sweden and spent lots of time in Denmark (voted happiest place on the planet many times). Americans just don't know what socialism is when they equate it with communism most of the time. That you don't deserve to die if you're not working and don't have health insurance. That-hey, an educated work force is not a bad thing so let's make sure we have that, even if we have to pay for it. And a social safety net? Well, why not let those people live on the street? If you want to know why 'socialism' (heck, Sweden actually has a monarchy!) doesn't work then look at those commies at Spotify, Volvo, Maersk, the list keeps going. They can never compete in a capitalist society with that big tax burden.
"That-hey, an educated work force is not a bad thing so let's make sure we have that, even if we have to pay for it." I agree educated people are a good thing! But yeah... capitalism already pays for it: www.estudentloan.com/blog/10-companies-will-help-pay-college
"Scandinavian socialism "not the kind of socialism we're talking about." Then it should be." and that is more than fair on your part; however, the main stream politicians are not talking about that kind of socialism... they make it sound like "all you we gotta do is tax the super rich"... which is not how those countries do it.... their middle class gets hammered with taxes also...
Scandinavian socialism isn't even socialism, to begin with. It's more Capitalism than the US itself.
Clay you nailed! I know socialism very well. I am from Venezuela and my country is a clear and great definition or result of Socialism. 21 years ago Venezuela was the richest country in the region, today is the poorest and the number 1 country in the world with hyper inflation, pretty much the country is a wreck. I left my country 18 years ago and came here because I saw my country was going in the wrong direction. I am so grateful to be here, everyday I pray 🙏 for America and hopefully will never take that way. Socialism is a plague! Proud to be part of Clay University and become a full time day trader. God Bless America 🇺🇸
Thanks for the thoughts!
You literally do not know what you're talking about.
You're going by the definition of what socialism has become not what it originally was. The definition of socialism was redefined with the help of men like Ed Bernays by the Titans of industry from the industrial revolution. They did this because at it's core socialism seeks to limit their ability to make money on certain social needs. Needs like food, water, shelter, medicine and education. You are equating the behaviors of the ruling or governing body with the philosophies of socialism. That's a common mistake. Socialism like capitalism can be applied to any governing system. They're both economic systems.
You can have a socialist dictatorship. You can have a democratic socialism. You can have a communist socialism.
You can also have capitalism applied to a dictatorship or a democracy.
Economic systems are not the same as governing systems. There's a distinction that you and a lot of people don't know or see.
Yes, Nazis were socialist.
But there's a lot of confusion about what socialism is.
Socialism IS NOT a governing system. It's an economic system.
Socialism IS NOT a redistribution of wealth. That would actually be capitalism under the Federal Reserve System. I'm always amazed at what people will believe because it's said a lot.
Ubiquity becomes validity just simply because it's common place.
It's the same thing with gender and with this vaccine.
Gender is a scientific distinction not a social one.
This vaccine is a vaccine and not gene therapy. Is this vaccine bad...yes. But there needs to be a little bit more that conjecture and opinion based information being passed off as truth.
Socialism Is a system where certain social needs has restrictions or bans on the monetization and profiting on them. Socialism takes those social needs and any supporting system and/or resource sources and place them under the direct ownership of the people. A managing entity is then appointed by the people to manage the socialized resource/service such that the minimum need of the resource by the public is met by DISTRIBUTING(NOT REDISTRIBUTION) it where that need is met while being able to maintain the sustained integrity of the resource.
Marxism....you got that wrong as well.
Marxism is a philosophy that seeks to explain the reasons for certain failings in society by attributing them to inherent inequalities due to the economic and social structure of said society. Does socialism have influences from Marxism....yes....kinda.
Socialism actually existed long before Marxism.
"Socialism takes those social needs and any supporting system and/or resource sources and place them under the direct ownership of the people." And THAT is exactly what I said, and is my question (did you even listen to what I said or just what you wanted to hear?). The source is the rich people but if you keep TAKING from them, where do you take from in the future? You really think the people creating the money to "be taken" are going to accept that? Nope. See ya later as they move their money to a more "non taking" system.
Hi!
Im the Swedish guy that made a jerk of myself in a earlier video you made about socialism. Just wanted to say that i didnt unsuscribe, im still here ;-). Being scandinavian.
I read the comments here and are curious about What you mean when you talk about how socialism is marketed in the U.S. I know nothing about that or the debate going on over there. I just hear a lot about feminism from American leftists. Whats ”that kind” of socialism that you talk about?
One of the fundamentals with socialism is collective ownership of things everyone need. Healthcare, school, postservice etc. Here we have 33% tax for a normal worker. (And ofc your employer has already payed taxes on the money and when you use them you will pay another 12-25% taxes.
I mean. Because of the % system the rich will pay more than a nurse with a low income.
Is that What you mean, the rich will pay. And what will they pay for?
This is also just a question, i too just want to learn more. Im not used to write in english though.
Thank you for the video
In the USA it is being strictly marketed as "nothing will change in your life tax wise other than for RICH people"... it's literally being portrayed as "all source of income will be coming from new taxes on ONLY rich people".
Aka... no one here in America is expecting as a "normal worker" (the "middle class") to be paying 33% in taxes!!! That whould catch MANY Americans off guard...
@@claytrader I'm seeing US tax rates at 22%-24% for 40K-165K. But from there, 165K-210K is 32% so the same. Looks like average American income already are paying 2/3 of 33% right now.
well, that's NOT what is being marketed to the USA population. "Your taxes won't change, only for the rich" is the marketing talking point...
@@claytrader I could agree with that somewhat. I think people are just tired of paying into a pot that others aren't held accountable for. If we all see that we are putting an equal rate in, we should honestly all be willing to put in more. Then we can go back to arguing how best to spend it. Haha!
I thought this was a trading channel....
You're not required to watch every video.
@@AdamS491 I am aware it just seems a bit out of context that's all.
This is a trading/finance/learn to think channel....
@@claytrader Take a scroll through the last hundreds of videos you have posted, and read the banner on your channel. Its nothing but trading.
Your definition of socialism is wrong and why the system doesn't work in your mind. The goal of socialism for industry to be owned by the state, so the funds to fund socialism isn't coming from "rich people" paying more tax, it's coming the directly from the profits generated from state run business. What you are currently debating is not socialism but not increasing taxes on the rich. To counter the point on socialism lacking the drive to create innovation, see the richest of people of all time, they aren't innovating for the sake of more money. They often have 2,3 or more projects even after they have more than enough money to live extremely comfortably. Why? They continue to innovate for the sake of innovating. I personally have hobbies, work etc for the sake of hobbies and do things just to create, develop skills, meet new people, drive a sense of community. My point is money doesn't need to be a main motivation to drive anyone to do things. Socialism sets the framework for the whole population to have that baseline income and do whatever they like. The presentation on the framework you have currently in your mind is valid, but not representing the goals or the reality of the situation. So I encourage you to think more on what the points you are trying to make here. Personally I think that you are personally attacked by the possibility of an increased tax rate, but in the US they aren't targetting your income bracket. Unless you're a way more successful trader than you lead on, they are mainly targetting the multi millionaires and billionaires with scaling tax rates currently abusing tax loopholes. In addition to the fact that taxes in turn will benefit you personally given a good government (that is if they don't waste it all on the military)
That sounds an awful lot like communism... no thanks
@@claytrader Your definitions clearly stem from a lack of knowledge. Communism is the extension of socialism and aren't exclusive to one another. Google it. Communism is the abolishment of all currency. I think you need to do more research than you currently do to make content on the matter to misinform people through regurgitation of whatever sources you watch. You clearly haven't even done a quick Google search to research economic theories and thus have lost my trust as an educational source for economic theory. I think you should really stay in your lane 🙂 I am unsubbing
@@fosterluu take care
@@claytrader “I am open to everything”””
This isn't agreeable to me. I'm not a socialist but agree it does not work. The idea that rich and powerful people cease to exist in any system doesn't seem accurate. Almost every nation no matter how distraught with poverty has its powerful and rich leaders. The real problem with socialism is that the funding to go to social services also controls the means of production and this government has extreme power over its people. In almost all cases under socialism, the government is not acting in the people's interest it is acting against them and with the rich interest. It's the same problem as anywhere else but socialism will cause the same problem to create much more disastrous results. Theoritically if the government were acting in the poor's interest there's no reason it wouldnt work i believe. Still though socialism blows.
Correct. That's my point. Sure, there may still be rich.. but the model is not going to be for them to "be paying" for things. That's why everyone gets poorer over time.
And btw every European socialist “economy” is DWARFED BY NEW YORK , TEXAS , AND CALIFORNIAS ECONOMIES ALONE , it is minuscule and not applicable in an actual government that is supposed to spread freedom and all people to have the the right to work for a better life and invest their wages ,
Cali, ny, and Texas , all individually are worth more than those tiny socialist economies lol
Thanks for the thoughts.
I am curious do you think those people in those countries you mentioned are leading a worse quality of life than those in the states you mentioned? You do not see them fleeing from their Scandinavian hell to come to ny etc. I live in NY work my butt off and can barely keep up with the bills and always feel stressed. That is no quality of life. This money worship will doom humanity. The capitalist class are the masters of money and the rest of us have become its slaves. Since capitalism is so great and perfect, get rid of the fire department, get rid of public infrastructure, get rid of the police, get rid of social security. Those are all facets of socialism. Leave the ultra wealthy as the only ones who should have access to roads, police etc after all capitalism tells us they are so much better and deserving than the rest of us.
capitalism is forcing you to stay in NYC? Come to the Midwest the cost of living is way cheaper! At what point for you does personal responsibility come into play? Like... at what point is it ON YOU to look in the mirror and say, "ya know Dwayne, it might not be choice 1, but I could move out of a place that is crazy expensive for a place that more-so fits my budget's ability"... when does this happen in your scenario?
oh... and I 100% believe we should get rid of social security! That's such a slap in the face to people... the PERFECT example of the government saying, "now now, we don't' think you know how to save money on your own.. we know best... we're gonna FORCE you to save while we go dip into the honey pot and eventually bankrupt the social security system"... these are the people you want to give more money and control to? I'm sorry my friend, we just operate on different plains of logic...
Why even wasting time in thinking that utopian concepts? In reality socialism is not going to make the growth, its capitalism!
Correct. The only way it works is in an utopian environment, which does not exist.
Socialism makes Mediocrity.
indeed
You make a very good point, very nice video.
Thanks for watching.
The issue you're missing is that the money rich people are losing to make them *not_as_rich_as_before is the money poor people are getting to make them *not_as_poor_as_before. Thus providing them an equal playing field.
Why should the billionaires not have a billion dollars? Cause you don't earn a billion dollars you steal a billion dollars through unpaid and underpaid labour.
But that's a really simple arguement that your conveniently ignored. Is it because it hurts your agenda? Awwwwww how sweet.
Also, capitalism doesn't breed innovations, capitalism breeds monopolies.
"Cause you don't earn a billion dollars you steal a billion dollars through unpaid and underpaid labour." This is a TERRIBLE and WEAK argument. If the labor was "forced", then hey.. we have a discussion, but they are NOT forcing anyone to accept those wages.
You didn’t explain socialism you just explained how taxing the rich would work in America
I don't need to explain socialism. My question, and therefore what I just need to explain is "where" the funds for socialism are coming from... which is "the rich"... do you have an answer? How does socialism CONTINUE to pay for itself?
Wow .. censorship…
What?
Get em ! Let’s goooooooooo! give me liberty or give me death, LAISSEZ FAIRE
:-)
Thanks for your video!
My pleasure!
MMT
What?
based
Interesting...
Just a thought but if you tax the rich more and more than what is stopping them from moving to another country since they can afford it. It would just push all the rich people out of the country in my mind
That is exactly what is happening. US citizenship renunciation is at unprecedented levels.
Correct... that whole "rich" paying for everything has several pitfalls, including the glaring one you note... people just will move their money elsewhere...
Thanks for the info 👍
Thanks
Wrong on so many levels
How?
@@claytrader they just make statements, they never explain.
@@christopherrobbins2236 seems so...
Very good video, like always! :D
Thanks