PragerU on Capitalism vs. Socialism | Trash Can of Ideology



is this going to be a good preggers you video no wrong so wrong hello everyone my name is Nana and today we're gonna look at one of previews latest videos titled capitalism versus socialism this response may be a little late but I had a lot of things to say and I do not want to sacrifice any quality so let's go into it but first we will quickly analyze the thumbnail this new upload here you can see a GDP graph with lines and illustrations that make capitalism look very good and make socialism look very bad now we will take this fictional graph and put it next to another graph displaying the GDP per capita of the Soviet Union in post-soviet states take a very good look at this for a moment this is just something to think about but anyway let's get into the video capitalism versus socialism we can sum up each economic system in one line capitalism is based on human greed socialism is based on human need right no wrong so wrong he's right capitalism is based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit socialism is based on the social ownership of the means of production and work of self-management it's exactly backwards it's exactly backwards yeah I almost forgot this was a video from Prager you and I'll prove it to you men on Amazon lately each of the thousands of products amazon offers represents the work of people who believe they have something you want or need if they're right they prosper if they're wrong they don't now we reach the first juicy part of this video there is a fundamental issue with markets as producers are constantly trying to speculate what consumers actually want the disconnection between those that produce and those that consume is summed up in the market since producers are constantly trying to determine what consumer demand is afternoon accurately we get overproduction for this reason among others such as the proper motive capitalism is the only economic system in human history who have major crises due to overproduction which may somehow be seen as a good thing to some people but they are crises nonetheless and illustrate one of the many problems with capitalist production many like to insult Karl Marx in his work but these individuals unfortunately do not recognize some of the important relevation x' you have revelations and he bought some economic thinking during the 19th century and one example of this comes in the form of Marx's analysis of Woma production under capitalism and the crises associated with it in layman's terms improvements in production under capitalism increased the amount of use value in society whereas the market value of what is produced diminishes thereby creating a paradox which leads to economic crises due to the falling rate of profit in addition to other factors like individual consumers lacking the wealth to buy products and getting the circular full of the economy despite there being so many products on the market this is a key contradiction of capitalism that played a significant role in forming the concept of boom and bust that is frequently seen in mainstream as a side note when profit rates eventually declined to a point where adequate profits can no longer be accumulated this will mark the logical end of capitalism since as mentioned previously capitalism is driven by the accumulation of profit well then what is a socialist or call me the solution to this well we will look at that what it becomes especially relevant later in this video we have already covered one important flaw in modern market economics but I have another to speak of let's go back to this part of the video each of the thousands of products amazon offers represents the work of people who believe they have something you want or need if they're right they prosper if they're wrong they don't there is a difference between the people who believe that they have something you want or need and the people who are actually working to produce those things in a capitalist enterprise the ordinary workers who actually produce take on jobs to survive nothing is what they are doing to receive wages for themselves and generate profits for the capitalists is enjoyable decisions are ultimately made by those at the top those seeking the most profit rather than the well-being of society he was political scientist and philosopher ji Cohen to speed on the subject further well the argument for the idea that capitalism promotes human benefit is pretty familiar it goes something like this capitalist firms survive only if they make money and they make money only if they prevail in competition against other capitalist firms since that competition is severe the firm to survive has to be efficient if firms producing competently they go under so they have to seize every opportunity to improve their productive facilities and techniques so that they can produce cheaply enough to make enough money to go on its admitted in this justification of capitalism that the capitalist firm doesn't aim to satisfy people but the firm's can't get what they are aiming at which is money unless they do satisfy people and satisfy them better than rival firms do well I agree with part of this argument capitalist competition that has to be acknowledged has induced a remarkable in our power to produce things but the argument also says that capitalism satisfies people and I'm going to claim that the way the system uses technical progress generates widespread frustration not satisfaction my anti-capitalist argument starts with the very same proposition with which the argument praising capitalism begins namely this proposition the aim of the capitalist firm is to make as much money as it can it isn't basically interested in serving anybody's needs it measures its a performance by how much profit it makes now that doesn't prove straight off that it isn't good at serving needs in fact the case for capitalism that I expressed a moment ago might be put as follows competing firms trying not to satisfy needs but to make money will in fact serve our needs extremely well since they can't make money unless they do so okay that's the argument but I'm now going to show that the fact that capitalist firms aren't interested in serving human needs does have harmful consequences recall that improvement in productivity is required if the firm is going to survive in competition now what does improve productivity mean it means more output for every unit of Labor and that means that you can do two different things when productivity goes up one way of using enhanced productivity is to reduce work and extend leisure while producing the same output as before alternatively output may be increased while labor stays the same now let's grant that more output is a good thing but it's also true that for most people what they have to do to earn a living isn't a source of joy most people's jobs after all are such that they benefit not only from more goods and services but also from a short working day and longer holidays just consider if God gave all of us the pay we now get and granted us freedom to choose whether or not to work at our present jobs for as long as we pleased but for no extra pay then there'd be a big increase in leisure time pursuits so improved productivity makes two things possible it makes possible either more output or less toil or of course some mixture of both but capitalism is biased in favor of the first option only increased output since the other reduction of toil threatens a sacrifice of the profit associated with greater output and sales what does the firm do when the efficiency of its production improves well it doesn't just reduce the working day of its employees and produce the same amount as before instead it makes more stuff it makes more of the goods it was already making or if that isn't possible because the demand for what it's selling won't expand then it lays off part of its workforce and seeks a new line of production in which to invest the money it thereby saves eventually new jobs are created and output continues to expand although there's a lot of unemployment and suffering along the way now the consequence of the increasing output which capitalism favors is increasing consumption and so we get an endless chase after consumer goods just because capitalist firms are geared to making money and not to serving the interests of consumers Alfred P Sloan who once ran General Motors in the United States said that it was the business of the automobile industry to make money not cars I agree and that I'm saying is why it makes so many cars it would make far fewer if its goal weren't money but say providing people with an efficient and an inoffensive form of transport if the aim of production were the satisfaction of need then rather less would be produced and consumed than is in fact produced and consumed and most of us would lead less anxious lives and have more time and energy for the cultivation and enjoyment of our own powers and we will get into this more later when the speaker talks about the concept of voting with your dollar that's how the free market works it encourages people to improve their lives by satisfying the needs of others no one starts a business making a thing or providing a service for themselves they start a business to make things or provide services for others now I speak from personal experience when I was the CEO of the company that owns Carl's jr. and Hardee's restaurant chains we spent millions of dollars every year trying to determine what customers wanted if our customers didn't like something we changed it and fast because if we didn't our competitors would plan intended eat us for lunch but these statements we only need to go back to the words of Jay Cohen I guess you can rewatch that part of this response if you would like to I guess also I cannot verify the speaker's anecdote so I can't really comment on it at all the consumer that's you has the ultimate power in effect you vote with every dollar you spend in general there are two overall types of competition under capitalism according to most spiritual economists perfect competition and imperfect competition perfect competition or what would translate to real capitalism in the eyes of many people is the only condition where they're voting with your dollars concept would truly exist because here individual companies have no power to dictate the market price of goods however perfect competition has numerous conditions I need to be satisfied to even get close to it on top of that it is pretty much universally agreed upon by economists that a literally perfect market in this form is not possible but why is that well here's a list of characteristics for prefer competition a large number of buyers and sellers perfect information homogeneous products well-defined property rights no barriers to entry or exit every participant is a price taker perfect factor mobility maximization of sellers rational buyers no externalities zero transaction costs not increasing returns to scale and dynamic effects and inter competitive regulation if you are at all familiar with the general structure of modern business you will see that the vast majority of industries do not follow most not to mention all of these features as a result they are considered imperfect competition and cannot qualify as places where voting with your dollar actually means anything or anything very significant I will describe one example here but there are countless industries that can be used as case studies for this if you are remotely aware of this form for an industry you probably know that there are very few producers who essentially have an oligopoly on the production of all smartphones in the world many consumers want features like headphone jacks and removable batteries which are now slowly disappearing than the latest devices bit business executives are making the decision to remove them because doing so lowers production costs and people will still buy their smartphones anyway since there is a consistent amount for smartphones the few producers already control the smartphone market have no incentive to listen to consumer desires and instead act on what generates in the most profit also the way major smartphone producer seems to consistently follow our copy show those designs so just a possible industry collusion if somebody were to try to enter the smartphone industry to create a product reflecting the wishes of consumers the high barrier of entry as a result of massive economic costs and already established businesses make such an action nearly impossible this is not even matching the anti-competitive practices that massive companies often undertake to prevent competition the only exceptions to this are corporations and other wealthy entities that are already established in other areas of the economy which would have enough capital to even begin a venture into the smartphone industry in the first place in a socialist economy the government has the ultimate power it decides what you get from the limited supply it decides should exist instead of millions of people making millions of decisions about what they want a few people government elites decide what people should have and how much they should pay for it not surprisingly they always get it wrong the government is often treated as a separate foreign it often malicious entity by advocates of conservative forms of capitalism I'm surprised that this same logic does not apply to large companies since the government's under capitalism or at least somewhat accountable there people these large firms with monopolies oligopolies and life in collusion in many significant industries are not they're not which would mean that if anything they are accountable to the government when they violate the law if anything they are accountable to the government when they violate the law which would mean that corporations are in some ways more malicious since government power is required to ensure the existence of things like labor laws and workplace safety standards which large companies tried so long to remember being made into legal policy this is not to say that governments do not harm people they certainly have on capitalism but what is evident is that corporations are not exempt from the same criticism that is made by the speaker regarding economic control as mentioned previously in the majority of cases producers have the ultimate power and the most influential companies in the world would have nearly unlimited power without government intervention now to understand social second ah mcc's one needs to understand the role of a government in socialism unlike the idea often presented by those who support capitalist markets the government is not this foreign thing that you should be afraid of as implied by the definition of socialism you are the government one small piece of it social ownership and workers self-management have many different interpretations among different social study ologies but what i can say in general is that everybody in some way plays a role and has their respective influence in the governance of a social society since the workers would control the means of production they have full power over what they would produce there is no separation between the people and the government here as there is with governments in which the bourgeoisie have a monopoly on power but we also the question of socialist countries in the past yes there were many issues with the economic and political structures of 20th century social states for numerous reasons and I recognize that the video states only somewhat correctly that central planning in the past has a difficulties managing the production and distribution of goods albe it mostly consumer goods with constant shifts demand or very frequent ones also the prices of these goods were not driven purely by the profit motive so they were comparatively cheaper to buy than from genuine capitalist firms this plays into the creation of the stereotype that socialist countries were poor or something along those lines when in reality a lot of that can be attributed to the fact that there was not a profit basis for many of the things that were sold in general but at this point these coaches were starting to slowly degenerate from socialism with the introduction of market forms overtime additionally consumers do not always make the most logical decisions such as you know buying harmful drugs that could kill you or other substances that could kill you which contributes to market failure in bourgeois economics at least this is a very minor point but appointment unless a cover critique is that things were often too centralized and bureaucracies were inefficient either politically and or economically an entire video series can be dedicated just to this topic but that must be kept for another day another common argument thrown against socialists and communists is that they are crazy for wanting to try the same system again unfortunately these people have never in basic Marxist literature to realize that different tactics and theory must be updated or created for new material conditions over time Marx talks about how capitalism or any historical economic system eventually creates the tools necessary to destroy itself one of these tools in use today right now is computer technology now the Soviet Union had computers but they were not nearly as robust as they are now on top of the fact that a cybernetic central planning program was not approved for usage when it was proposed around the Year 1980 this is a 21st century solution to many of the problems found in Soviet style economies of the 20th century compared to past systems computerization would greatly increase efficiency eliminate a massive amount of bureaucratic positions and allow for less centralized political and economic systems due to the flow of information being vastly quicker and easier this would mean that production would rely less on traditional central planning and more on production quotas created directly by and for groups of workers as computer systems would make recording massive amounts of data about the economic activities of hundreds if not thousands of communities vastly simpler simpler and more efficient these are just a couple of examples of the effects of computer technology on evolving social systems for more information on this subject I highly recommend computer scientist and economist Paul cockshott and his book titled towards a new socialism where he explains these concepts in much more detail I will also link his YouTube channel here in the description or in the comment section wherever wherever it may be have you ever noticed that late stage socialist failures always run out of essential items like toilet paper we will talk about that as we assume but for coaches like the Soviet Union the liberal economic reform has been under Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin created NASA deficiencies which cost shortages across the Soviet Union well it's the infamous red lines and widespread problems throughout the Eastern Bloc during late 1980s and early 1990s this also gives me the opportunity to show you this graph once again as a side note the Soviet Union was not at all like this during its better years he was a British travel video from 1965 to show you with your own eyes the Red Army is on ceremonial duty and the crowds lap up the spectacle daily but our actors have come to see not only guards on parade but the Russian people themselves how do they live these mysterious human beings once our wartime allies but always an unknown quantity to us just cross the red square and step into gum their most famous department store which is in effect a network of roof tin shopping streets here's a life-sized picture of people in a land so vast that it embraces both Siberian ice and the thirsty heat of summer can watch the shopkeepers manipulates the most ancient computer ever invented the abacus and don't dismiss it as something inferior to our cash registers because it works stand by the fountain here they say and in time you'll see people from every corner of the globe stand by the new fountains it's Moscow's economic achievement exhibition and the chances are in time you'll meet every one of perspicacity and the whole wide world it isn't admiration that draws people to the square mile of pavilions and there are 78 of them landscaped some 40,000 trees you read here the Russian claims as to their contribution to the world's culture and you read two anomalies the claims are authentic the Russians certainly launched that Sputnik but it's the contrasts that are fascinating and revealing the simplicity you suddenly discover the rate of growth and its unevenness the truth and the fiction it takes an actor like John stride for a start to break the language barrier and make memorable contact with a little girl it takes a master of mime from the West to show what he wants and to turn the baffling business of buying a bun into a human contact see how it's done [Applause] actors with their expressiveness are good ambassadors for rubbing out misunderstandings and language difficulties discovering that people with what to us is an upside-down alphabet are nevertheless basically the same but here in Moscow you find contradictions a mighty power built on simple people who have not yet got the quality of toys trinkets and consumer goods that we know though they're doing better and better contrasts are obvious and comparisons are much more misleading because the standards we started with are so different here's where you see the contrasts clothes and consumer goods substandard to westernize yet things you must look up to the space race memorial the Russians have made headway in space yet their main recreation park in spite of its big wheel is a depressing imitation of Denmark's tivoli gardens and even falls short of London's Battersea Park this is a country that so often seems like yesterday sometimes drab and sometimes dramatically beautiful a country that sacrificed today for an ambitious tomorrow for see how they're building this was empty land eight years ago they're hungry for accommodation and they're putting up skyscraper hotels apartments universities at a rate that soars in a way Moscow's like a new American town with wide impersonal avenues but the people seem bent like English jaywalkers on attempting suicide incidentally just when you expect hard Frost Moscow has a thirsty heatwave so buy yourself a curbside drink when you wash the glass contrast and contradictions wonderful and inexpensive telephones but no such thing as a telephone directory here telephone numbers are worth gold dust what a place the Kremlin is for rubbernecks like our actors yes we're in the Kremlin it isn't private its Moscow's showplace with gold domed cathedrals which now have fabulous museums alongside government offices and the theater where our Shakespeare Company performs Monday's the night off here for actors and sir there's a reception at the British Embassy just across the river from those Kremlin domes the Ambassador receives Sir Laurence and Lady Olivia and for the first time in history film cameras are invited into this island of diplomatic Britain at the heart of the USSR it's a case of two ambassadors meeting because Olivia off stage like the rest of his company is showing exactly how important actors are in breaking down international barriers it's relaxing playing the piano it's relaxing going to the circus here or the ballet the puppet theater or the thousand things that Moscow artists have arranged as a welcome to their British guests on a cultural play in this cultural exchange is rewarding and complete as our actor miles malison appreciate now the surface puts us in a well of course this isn't a problem for those who have the right connections with the right people those chosen few get whatever they want but everyone else is out of luck towards the end of the Soviet Union with liberal economic reforms devastated the country this was very likely widespread such behavior is expected when your country's economy is falling apart and nobody knows where to get basic goods here I have a video detailing the potential artificial shortage of food in the late USSR which is theorized to have been orchestrated by Gorbachev to facilitate the end of the Soviet Union as we knew it it is nothing short of repeated ad nauseam but the Soviet Union had shortages that killed a hundred billion people but the truth is that there were two periods of shortages at first at the beginning of the country when they had been destroyed by World War one and following the Civil War during this time where there were shortages in the country that was under reconstruction the second significant period was around the end of the country it is this second period that we're going to be looking at the second period was a result of deliberate choices made by Gorbachev he intentionally created shortages a masterful piece on for trusts details exactly how Gorbachev carried out this sabotage we'll begin with a good point about food security a country is considered food secure if it manages to produce at least 80 percent of its food supply if the supply is below 50 then it is considered to be at great risk as of 2016 Russia was producing 55 percent of the populations food purchases during the pre Gorbachev Soviet era it was more than 95 what we have to think that this change was the perestroika it advocated the system of food coupons but the real damage was yet to be done even in 1987 food production grew faster than population growth and wages the increase in production when compared with 1980 in the meat industry amounted to a hundred and thirty five percent in cheese 131 percent in fish a hundred and thirty two percent milling a hundred and twenty three percent the average salary had increased by 19% so food production was running full steam yet all of a sudden the people were switched to what was basically a rationing system soon after there was a terrible difficulty in getting anything for days people stood in queues every three hours arranging a roll call barely anyone didn't fight wondering where everything had gone right down to tobacco if the production was being done but the products were being consumed then the problem was in distribution we can only come to one conclusion this was being done deliberately how do we know on the 1st of January 1992 a guard our shock therapy began and on January 2nd the grocery store shelves were already full products became more expensive by the day sometimes by more than 30% did production suddenly quadruple literally overnight no it was always there to begin with it was being withheld deliberately there is a documented speech by first mayor of Moscow Gavril Popov in the inter-regional deputy group where he claimed it was necessary to create a food situation so the system of coupons had to be started this created anger towards the Soviet government then the lies came to explain what was going on Yuri Luzhkov the chief of Moscow gave an explanation we could supply considerably more meat in Moscow to meet the demand but the front line unloading refrigerated sections do not allow it due to a lack of access roads that refrigerator does not have time to unload many believe this lie and set up a way of dealing with it the workers decided to take matters into their own hands to help refrigerated sections with frozen meat can directly use the access roads of Moscow giant factories like those of Cronus chef ROC its science facilities where about 80 thousand people worked in the metallurgical hammer and sickle plant and the musca vich with a group of 20,000 and others trade committees would have distributed everything in workers would have unloaded it all but no in such a scheme not a single kilogram of meat would reach the dealers but the workers were unaware this is the new class of shopkeeper shadow businesses grew in the Paris go Venezuela once the richest country in South America is the most recent example of socialism driving a prosperous country into an economic ditch now maybe you think it's an unfair example I'm not sure why but okay we'll ignore the fact that leftist activists celebrated it as a great socialist success right up until it wasn't people have made entire videos just about Venezuela but here I'm gonna give you the fast facts Venezuela's economy most resembles of social democracies of Scandinavia roughly two-thirds of all economic activity are in the private sector whereas only about 1/3 are in the public sector there exists a market in Venezuela with many social programs this by definition is not socialism prevent is way left to be socialist practically all its economic assets would need to be in the public sector and/or operated in such a way that there exist social ownership in workers self-management that is what it is I've never praised Venezuela as being a socialist country and those who did or do have little understanding of what socialism actually is although Venezuela has a socialist policy per se and people respect the developments that have been going on in Venezuela since that turned from neoliberal governments which I can understand and interestingly the speaker comments on these kinds of people who would say that you know social democracies are socialist later in the video and he will start making my arguments for me so if public ownership is the determining factor for socialism according to the speaker then there are dozens of countries more socialist than Venezuela these would be Latvia Ethiopia Serbia Denmark Croatia Singapore Jordan the Bahamas Saudi Arabia Moldova the Seychelles Norway Russia Kuwait China Belarus India and lastly Cuba which is considered to be the only socialist country in the world although some include North Korea and even China Venezuela may have social symmetry but that does not mean it is socialist it doesn't mean it has socialism similarly just because the united states presents itself as a democracy does not mean that it actually is a democracy or is you know what a democracy actually is but what about Western European countries don't they have socialist economies people seem pretty happy there why can't we have what they have free health care free college stronger unions good question and the answer may surprise you there are no socialist countries in Western Europe most are just as capitalist as the United States the only difference and it's a big one is that they offer more government benefits than the u.s. does we can argue about the cost of these benefits and the point at which they reduce individual initiative thus doing more harm than good Scandinavians have been debating those questions for years well the man said of himself if we are following his logic and if government control is the determining factor of socialism and if there are no socialist countries in Western Europe that Venezuela is not a socialist country because there are countries with a larger public sector than Venezuela in Western Europe do I really need to say anything else here but anyway I have to get credit where credit is due this guy is basically correct on the topic of Scandinavia I hate it whenever I see people defend socialism using examples like the Socialists or two countries because they are not socialist they are social democracies as a sidenote social democracy is not the same as democratic socialism social democracy is regulated capitalism with abundant public benefits all democratic socialism is socialism with an emphasis on the democratic management of the economy but only a free-market capitalist economy can produce the wealth necessary to sustain all of the supposedly free stuff Europeans enjoy to get the free stuff after all you have to create enough wealth to generate enough tax revenue to pay for everything the government gives away without capitalism your Venezuela without capitalism you are not Venezuela we will look at the Soviet Union as a case study to debug this statement on wealth generation there has been a long debate between Marxist about whether or not the Soviet Union was even socialist for the sake of simplicity the USSR will be classified as a socialist country here the speaker does not explain why socialism can't generate wealth because looking into historical data regarding the Soviet Union you know the culture that people associate most with socialism and communism will prove incorrect as I will do right now the link to the article should be in the description and I encourage you to look along yourself here is agricultural growth in the USSR from 1913 to 1933 note the lower numbers around 1930 to 1933 which came as a result of the Soviet of 1932-1933 grain crop stayed relatively the same but industrial crops vegetables and melons and fodder crops triple or quadruple over 20 years but the entire Great War included the agricultural data for the second five-year plan shows a similar story relative to 1913 total crop the area increases by 30 percent grain increases by 9% industrial crops grew by an insane 144 percent vegetable crops and drue by in 147 percent and fodder crops grew by the insane 571 percent overall there are more crop examples but I feel like the rapid growth of Soviet agriculture was pretty clear at this point in this image we see a gravity picking the number of tractors and horses in the Soviet Union the amount of tractor is increased by almost six times six times in five years horsepower increased by almost eight times between 1929 and 1933 eight times in four years from the russian empire 1913 to the soviet union in 1933 industrial output almost quadrupled compared to other major european powers of the time whose outputs were made about the same in 1933 as 1913 due to the Great Depression the economy of the USSR was socialist and therefore did not suffered the crises facing major capitalist nations due to market failure from the start of the first five-year plan of 1929 to the end of the second five-year plan in 1938 the USSR industrial growth quadrupled and almost quintupled in 1913 agriculture accounted for almost 60 percent of the economy of the Russian Empire in 99 this number for the Soviet Union was almost 50% by at the end of the first five-year plan this number decreased almost 30 percent making the USSR an industrial country in half of a decade to finish as part of the response off here are a couple of non-economic charts from 1939 to 1938 the amount of schools in the USSR quadrupled as sixteen thousand more were built in only five years the life expectancy of a person living in the Russian Empire 1913 was 32 years old in only 45 years this number more than doubled to a staggering 69 years old before Soviet economic policy subsidized housing pre public education from childhood to university universal health care and countless other social benefits were unthinkable of what was done the Russian Empire the Soviet model generated an extremely strong economic base that allowed the USSR to provide these benefits as well as concept to its Western neighbors economically at lightning speed and eventually defeat most German forces during the Second World War in large part due to the sheer amount of industrial production power gained from the unparalleled advancements seen in the interwar period in a 2015 speech at Harvard Denmark's prime minister took great pains to make this point I know that some people in the u.s. associate the Nord model with socialism therefore I would like to make one thing clear Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy Denmark is a market economy as I said before I find this basically correct however advocating for the Nordic model also translates advocating for increased regulations on capitalism something that Praeger you constantly argues against so when you point to Denmark as a paragon of socialism you're really singing the praises of capitalism at this point I think it's safe to say that when somebody doesn't actually know what socialism means they should not be seen as a reference for comparing socialism with any other economic system whether it's you know capitalism but cancel ISM feudalism what-have-you you're more capitalism the less socialism you need look at America since 2017 a policy of lower taxes and less government regulation that's more capitalism has led to a robust economic expansion something thought impossible just a few years earlier weakening the public servant economy generally improves its production of profits at least in Western countries the abolishing of kinsey and safety nets in addition to policies like moving industrial jobs to the less developed countries for cheaper labour costs has been a part of neoliberal policy for decades but there's lack of symmetry when it comes to the generation of profits and satisfying human needs as explained by the clip of Jay Cohen earlier in this response but you'll get to the topic of human needs and very soon unemployment notably among minority groups typically most at risk for poverty is at a generational low unemployment in the United States has had a decreasing trend for the past decade I'm not questioning that what I am questioning though is the notion that employment is a direct reflection of comfortable living here I'll use information from my previous responsibilities of the tick last year alone the wealth of billionaires was rising by 2.5 billion dollars a day and the wealth of the bottom half of humanity 3.8 billion people was declining reducing by 500 million dollars per day it's not difficult to see why you look at the business model we work Oxfam works with garment workers in many of these Asian countries take Bangladesh a woman who is teaching clothes for the clothes we wear the clothes we buy hm in Zara in the high street shops earns 4 dollars a day she is always in debt when she gets sick she's not paid she walks 20 21 hours a day when she's pregnant she's fired that's in Bangladesh then we also work with poultry workers in the richest country in the world the United States poultry workers these are women who are cutting the chickens and parking them and we buy them in the supermarket's dolorous one woman we work with there told us that she and her co-workers have to wear diapers to work because they are not allowed to eat breaks this isn't the richest country in the world this is a business model that is continuous to maximize for shareholders and to cheat the ordinary people down the supply chains and to damage the environment damaged communities and then not pay their fair share of taxes the topic that we talked about jobs but the quality of those jobs I've just told you about dolorous in the United States who wears a diaper to work that's not a dignified job I can tell you about a company I went I I took a taxi Nairobi recently and I was charged the minimum charge I think would be that I was charged less than two dollars for a taxi ride where in the world do you go in the taxi for less than two dollars I asked the taxi driver he was from one of these companies I won't mention which I said how much are you getting out of this he said 20 percent must go to the global company that owns the network so I said then what about the rest the rest I have to share with the owner of the taxi out of $2 I asked him where he rents his home where he lives he said they rent a room three taxi drivers they sleep in tons six hours five hours because they can't none of them can afford to rent a room that's the job those are the jobs are being told about that globalization is bringing jobs their quality of their jobs matter it matters these are the jobs of dignity in many countries workers no longer have a voice they are not allowed to unionize they are not allowed to negotiate for web for salaries so we're talking about jobs but jobs that bring dignity we are talking about health care the World Bank has told us that 3.4 billion people who earn five point five dollars a day all diverge are just medical bills away from sinking into poverty they don't have health care they are just a crop failure away from sinking back into poverty they have no crop insurance so don't tell me about low levels of unemployment you are counting the wrong things you're not counting dignity of people you're counting exploited people [Applause] economic expansion gets people off welfare and into work that's less socialism according to the IMF as relative income per capita increases relative welfare per capita also increases a speaker is simply incorrect here is information for this claim only discusses the unemployment rate of black workers in the United States which was for the previous statement in this video there is no connection between economic expansion and welfare in this article that is sourced at all none of this requires a degree in economics common sense is all you need this statement is basically conclusion for much of what the speaker has already said economics is not a simple subject and many of the concepts he generalizes do require a certificate level of knowledge to accurately talk about whether that means having college degree or not while economics involves some common-sense thinking reducing this entire subject of common sense is both inaccurate and disrespectful to the field of economics unfortunately Prager you fans seem to not have a problem with this at all that's why it's so frustrating to see young people praising socialism and criticizing capitalism many of these people who prefer socialism were actually looking for social democracy this is primarily because of the incorrect use of the term democratic socialism by advocates like Bernie Sanders in Alexandria Ocasio Cortez most of them do want capitalism just a reformed version of it that benefits themselves not a revolution where they could end up sacrificing their lives given how things are going this attitude may change to a more revolutionary tone relatively soon it's bad enough that they're working against their own interest better job prospects better wages personal freedom in an economy where real wages have been studying for almost half a century it's not surprising why people are looking into alternatives to the neoliberal capitalism that has been the status quo for decades the financial crisis of 2008 and the Great Recession that came after have shown how there are fundamental issues with modern capitalist economics the Pew Research Center has found that almost 10 years after 2008 the wealth gap between middle income families and high-income families is higher than ever before wealthy families have only become richer while ordinary families have stagnated in their income a lot of this is due to this Nilla a lot of this is due to citing wages but also the fact that wealthy families have on average much more invested in the stock market and poorer families who cannot afford to freely make investments in the market while real wages have stayed the same the values of stocks did not which means in most cases income for those who have the economic resources to invest in the first place most Millennials have suffered greatly from these conditions which is why many of them have a problem with capitalism as it currently operates unlike in the late 20th century there are college-educated people today working minimum-wage jobs earning poor wages despite their higher qualifications and therefore have less personal freedom due to having much less economic power the market has failed ambitious people that want to engage in their passions to advance society however they can if we are to use basic economic terms here market output does not correlate with socially optimal output these Millennials may not be looking for genuine socialism but it is clear the status quo has not worked for them and they are searching for something else but they're also working against the interest of the less fortunate capitalism leads to economic democracy socialism leads to the economic dictatorship of the elite always and everywhere if you have been watching the rest of this response up to this point you can see what this conclusion is incorrect if not borderline insane in short an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production with the tendency to centralize another important economic principle contribute when works inevitably leads to the concentration of wealth among a few people who end up ordering that which is used to produce nearly everything in human civilization and since the goal of this economic system is profit not the well-being of society we enter a situation with a vast majority of the population those who work for the tiny minority of capitalists often marginalized in the ever-moving competition between these elites and a loose alliance whose ultimate goal is to preserve and expand their power this in a nutshell is capitalism socialism on the other hand literally refers to the operation of societies politics and economics in a manner that is defined by social ownership worker self-management and by extension democracy this was infinitely beyond voting with your dollar this is where the people have direct control over what they need and what they want to produce from themselves and do not require an elite class or markets in between to make decisions for them not to mention all the value taken from workers in the name of profit maximization this in a nutshell is socialism Shelby where would you ask for you just might get it i'm andy puzzler the author of the capitol has come back for Prager University so I hope you guys enjoyed this video I had nothing response to Prager you in over a year so I also hope that those who enjoy watching my response to them are satisfied and if you are a new viewer who enjoyed or we're satisfied by this video please consider supporting my channel however you wish as always thank you all very much for watching and I hope to see you soon




Comments
  1. That prager video was such a goldmine of every stupid capitalist argument in one place. Great job refuting it!

  2. I have one problem, I thought the soviet union didn't count as a, "real socialist country", like I've heard from so many arguments for socialism.

  3. Boeing's attempt to create more profit have become responsible for two Boeing-737-8 MAX crashes and each accidend killed above 150 passenger.

  4. {}=alt right, conservatives, isis just people who help the bourgaisie.
    {{}}=petite bourgaisie.
    {{{}}}=bourgaisie/politician/tv journalist.

  5. I choose neither. Capitalism denies the human soul of their value and the fruits of labor. While the socialist denies national consciousness and the cultural structure essential for civilization. Capitalists see people as Dollar signs and GDP producers, and nations as Economic Zones in an International Market. Socialists see people as casualty statistics and empty vessels without inherent differences by identity.
    I choose a course determined by individual liberty, but a largely national market. The nation siezes and mobilizes its economy and production and consumption is loosely monitored. In essense the economy serves the nation, not the other way around.

  6. COMPLETELY lost me at the Jason Unruhe clip

    explain your points without using blatantly anti trans dipshits

  7. GDP is a terrible way of calculating the well-being of a society. Especially if you're looking at a socialist economy that aims to minimalize commodity production, a metric that only looks at monetary value of things should be the last thing to look for. Focusing on the capability of the industry and agriculture should be the main objective when looking at a socialist economy. Healthcare, education and housing make up to 45% of the capitalist countries' GDP. Those things are almost always free in socialist economies, which should mean that you can't compare the socialist and capitalist economies by using this metric.

  8. The most hilarious thing about USSR is that people in it's former republics have worse living conditions, than it was before perestroyka. Wages remain the same low, but because of plan economy there was no such thing as a profit, so goods costed almost as low as their first price. Secondly, the level of social welfare was higher, so most people got free holidays (mostly for recovery purpose), universal healthcare, education and even free housing (accommodation still belong to state, so people can't manipulate it for commecrial purposes). Following collapse of the Soviet union, situation in thoose countries can be a scritp both to comedy and a horror. In Russia, hospitals look worse than it was in WW2. Semi-civil semi-russian war started in Ukraine. Central Asia's countries are republics on paper, but in fact they recovered absolute monarchy. Education system became worse, than it was 40 years earlier(!), and now it's purely based on nationalism and useless tests. But hey, there is good news: people became so poor that megacorporations can build factories, employ workers and pay them with cheap food. Not to mention, there is a lot of emigrants moving to Europe, so capitalists now have no need to expand. Basicaly, i expect we will turn into full economicaly-dependent colonies such as Brazil or India

  9. Good video but you need to take the glasses off comrade……….

    -Sincerely, the Anti-Glasses Gang

  10. Great video. As a suggestion, you might want to slow down a bit. At times you talk very fast and it's a bit hard to hear you clearly. Otherwise, great job.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *