Socialism is Coming: Owen Jones Debunked Part 2


“under public ownership, unlike the privatised
calamity across the Atlantic, it provides for the needs of the entire population and
is far more efficient to boot.” Are you serious, it’s far more efficient? As poor
as the American healthcare system has been with regards to its neglect, at least the
U.S. can say that its neglect has been down to its costs. The fault of the U.S. healthcare
system has never been down to its quality of healthcare service, its waiting times,
the reason why the U.S. healthcare system is so neglectful is simply because of its
healthcare costs because of all the government interference, but what completely contradicts
you is the very fact that when you turn your attention to economies such as what France,
Italy, Singapore, San Marino and all of these other countries that have hybrid healthcare
market systems, they’re closer to free markets. Yes, they have a certain level of government
in there with a safety net, but the point being is they all have strong private sectors
in their healthcare systems and they’re far more efficient, most of all cheaper than
your NHS. That completely destroys your entire argument. “In other European countries,
utilities such as; rail, water and energy are publicly run.” Yes, but what you also
forgot to mention is the very fact that those European countries that are running all those
public things, soaring through the roof with their debt levels. They’re economies that
won’t even sustain themselves in the long-term. It’s a bit like saying that a country like
Denmark is one of the most successful economies on the face of the planet earth. Denmark’s
real unemployment level is three times higher than its official figures, its an economy
with soaring costs through the roof and if you don’t understand what high prices in
the market signify, it signifies scarcity and if you really haven’t got a clue about
the problems in countries like Denmark, they’re economies that are going to face their eventual
doom because natural resources don’t last forever, because once the natural resources
are gone, where then are they going to get their levels of productivity from? Are they
going to get it from having big massive welfare states and high tax rates? “That doesn’t
have to mean centrally by the state. In Germany, local communities run the energy supply.”
The wonderful wind turbines. The wonderful efficient wind turbines that have to be turned
off when there is strong winds, that each cost (and I’m talking about each one of
them) costs the taxpayer £300,000 and this is what you call a great massive big success?
Now, where is your evidence for global warming? “In the Nordic countries, tax rates on the
richest are significantly higher than our own.” Yeah, I must admit, the tax rates
are higher and significantly higher on the rich, but, what you didn’t tell the people
was the fact that Denmark’s real unemployment level is three times higher than its official
figures; the very fact that, in a country like Norway, when it comes to its own automobile
industry, it only has 5% of its own workforce left in Norway because, well, it cannot afford
to produce in its own home country. I wonder why? Maybe it’s because of the high tax
rates; maybe it’s because it’s cheaper for them to produce elsewhere in foreign countries
such as Mexico, probably the United States, or maybe, China; because of your high tax
rates, they’ve got a low level of productivity. Now, there is a price to pay for that and
that price will come when their natural resources run dry, but you don’t seem to care, because,
after all, I though the study of economics was about finding the most efficient style
of economy possible because natural resources are scarce? And one of your most fallacious
critiques of capitalism, is that, capitalism is so wasteful. Well, if capitalism is so
wasteful, why are you so wasteful over natural resources and you don’t seem to care about
this very problem that Norway is faced with? “and yet their living standards are, an
average, much higher than our own.” That’s because Scandinavian economies are what we
call; social market economies, therefore, they are not social democracies. They are
not what you call democratic socialist economies. They are basically social market economies,
they have extremely low levels of government regulation, therefore, they do have strong
economic business freedom. The problem in those economies is the very fact that they
do have the high tax rates and the big welfare states. A country like Denmark since 2001
has been rolling back on its socialist policies because of that disastrous failure. I’ve
pointed out before that as a result of what we saw in Sweden, you know, it was because
of the free market that enabled them to become so successful and as soon as they laid on
the big strong government regulation, big government interference with all the welfare
statism etc, the higher tax rates, isn’t it a surprise that their economy began to
stagnate, so much so that they faced a crisis by the beginning of the nineties and after
the nineties they began to deregulate and privatise and bring private initiatives into
their school and healthcare systems, low and behold their economy began to fair better
again. It doesn’t take a genius to see that the most successful economic time period in
their history was when they had extremely low levels of government regulation (which
of course, you did complain about deregulation, didn’t you? And of course you did complain
about the privatisation). Well, it’s most successful period in its economic history
was under strong private ownership. So, this again completely contradicts everything that
you believe in. “In Singapore, often portrayed as some free market utopia, nearly all homes
are owned by the state and most land is nationalised.” What on earth has state owned housing got
to do with the price of cheese? That’s like saying, Hong Kong has state ownership of land,
it leases the property and therefore, state ownership of housing is the reason why Hong
Kong became prosperous. Oh really? So, if that’s the case then, I guess that Venezuela
should be prosperous because as state owned housing and state owned this and state owned
that. That is so far off the truth. The very reason why places such as Singapore and Hong
Kong thrived and prospered is because they had strong free markets. Just because it isn’t
something exactly a hundred percent of a free market, it doesn’t exactly mean to say that
it’s because of government that made them prosperous. They had extremely low levels
of government regulation in places such as Singapore and Hong Kong and with practically
no natural resources, they thrived and prospered because of strong economic business freedom,
because of the strong freedom to trade. Your socialism would have taken that opportunity
away from them, they wouldn’t have had business freedom; they wouldn’t have had the freedom
to set prices; they wouldn’t have had the freedom to allow the market to regulate itself
and that is exactly what places such as Singapore and Hong Kong did. It’s a laugh for anyone
to sit there and say that the very reason why Hong Kong is better off today or Singapore
is better off today is because, well, government owned the housing. Could you please explain
to everyone of your viewers, could you please explain to them why state owned housing led
to the prosperity of those places? How can state ownership of housing create prosperity?
What matters is what you produce in the economy. Owning houses does not produce goods, its
businesses. You haven’t even got a leg to stand on. “Imagine we took the successful
elements and then built on them and took them even further. It means higher rates of tax
on the beaming profits of big corporations…” Higher rates of tax on the rich is what would
lead to a catastrophe. Now, the reason why your argument is fundamentally deeply flawed
is because you’re basing that off of the current corporatist system that we live under
today and you’re trying to pass that off as capitalism. This system we live under today
is not capitalism, capitalism is the separation of the economy from government, it’s the
free market, it’s the economy that regulates itself, meaning you have free market money
and you cannot have a capitalist system, a free market without free market money, that
means money determined by the consumers, by the people of society, by the market and therefore,
your argument is the fact that we can somehow make things better by bringing in more socialism.
As a result of more of your nationalisation, there would be less money from the private
sector and therefore, you would be forced to run the printing press. What a catastrophe
that would lead to; you would drive up the prices, the inflation because of continuously
printing money and as a result of the devaluation of the paper currency, you would eventually
drive us into hyperinflation. You talk about taxing the rich, the very job creators, that’s
a fantastic idea, why don’t you try that, because what you forget as a socialist is;
rich people have bags to pack and legs to run with. Unless of course you’re planning
on building a wall. “It means a state led industrial policy and planning in the economy.”
Yes, that’s right, your wonderful central planning, where you’ll be faced with the
economic calculation problem and the knowledge problem that government will be faced with.
The idea of more public ownership, your world class success of British Rail where it was
running at nearly a £1 billion deficit; it had a severe shortage of passenger journey’s;
there was the endless strikes; there was the outdated trains, but isn’t it magical how
you seem to have just, you know, skipped round that, like it just didn’t exist and you
pretend that it was somehow this great big success? Oh, that’s absolutely wonderful.
You know, I don’t know what you’ve been smoking, but, I actually live in the real
world and your British Rail was a disastrous failure. “It means a mass public housing
program…” The very reason why Margaret Thatcher brought in privatisation was because
of a third of British housing was state owned. Britain, to put it kindly, was a shit hole.
“A recent poll found that 43% of Britain’s for a genuinely socialist government, would
make Britain a better place to live.” They seriously need a better education in this
country, that is an embarrassment to say the least. I bet you if you asked every single
one of them; ‘what’s the economic calculation problem?’ They wouldn’t even know, they
couldn’t even tell you why setting rent controls would lead to a shortage and this
is the thing, this is the problem and is why socialism is so dangerous; it’s this idea
that you can place your theoretical nonsense above the real world of the socialism we’ve
actually seen. “Our collapsing social order isn’t just unjust, it isn’t just unfair,
it’s irrational.” Excuse me? So you think an income tax, which is theft, forcing individuals
into a collective group; forcing individuals to pay for things they personally may never
ever need or use; forcing people into a collective group and then driving inflation sky high
through the roof, reducing the very sector that finances the economy to run the printing
press, you think that is rational?




Comments
  1. Love you brother. You still pissing off Socialist lovers? Keep up the good work. lol Happy thanksgiving. I know y'all don't celebrate it but I still hope you're getting nice and fat and not too drunk! Lol

  2. You have to love how Socialists blame all the problems caused by Socialism on Capitalism, and their solution to the problems caused by Socialism is MORE Socialism.

    Then, when they finally get their Socialist Utopia, and it collapses, they blame Capitalism, and immediately try to impose the exact same system again.

  3. Don't get me started on wind turbines and solar panels. They produce too much electricity at times and not enough at others. This is hugely wasteful. This summer we had so much excess electricity in California that we couldn't use it all. Other times we've not enough. When there is too much we actually PAY other states to take it, but they are still telling us to turn air conditioners off when it is 110 degrees Fahrenheit. The whole thing is a snarled, illogical wasteful mess.
    They are taking out nuclear plants and hydroelectric plants while they are requiring an increased percentage of cars on California roads be electric. This when we already have a shortage of electric much of the time. The whole thing is stupid. We need to get back to hydroelectric and nuclear power. Hydroelectric is nice. Affordable electricity and much needed water storage.

  4. Nicely put Scotty.
    Your explanation was spot on and you managed to get some humour in. But the best laughs was when the commie comedian opened his mouth. His summing up why are utopia is not working…lol

  5. I think Owen Jones should move to a country that follows his “idealistic” version of socialism. I bet he still wouldn’t learn.

  6. When I hear the hair brain, irrational garage of the likes of Owen Jones and his ilk, I can feel blood pressure go up almost immediately. Scotty thanks you for injecting some humor into mix!

  7. So Owen Jones started his video off by saying all of britains problems are because of "neo liberalism" and "free market fundamentalism" and he defines these term with privatisation, deregulation and low taxes for big business. Then his ideal countries all have lower regulations than the uk, stronger private property rights and lower/equal corporate taxes or slightly higher taxes but planning on lowering them.
    How does anyone actually take him seriously?

  8. The British healthcare system is literally more efficient than both American and Continental European countries. That's a fact.

    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/images/publications/fund-report/2014/june/davis_mirror_2014_es1_for_web.jpg?h=511&w=740&la=en

  9. Libertarian Views Scotty M You said " … 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 … 𝑓𝑎𝑟 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 … 𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑁𝐻𝑆 … " This is what's known in the trade as a '𝘁𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗯𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸𝘀'. Would you care to offer some evidence?
    How can a private system that has to reward investors, be more efficient than a publicly-funded NHS that keeps profit out of saving lives? I worked on development of Hospital Information Services (HIS) software for a Microsoft company that was unable to reconcile a US profit-based system that has to reward shareholders for each band-aid issued, to a point-of-need-requirements-based system who's priority is 𝐬𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥-𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬? Note that the private profit-based healthcare claims in the US are 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝟔𝟎% 𝐨𝐟 𝐔𝐒 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 through medical bills). Please stop telling porkies and pretending you know what the f^ck you are talking about!

  10. Libertarian Views Scotty M " … 𝑰 𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒒𝒖𝒆 𝑶𝒘𝒆𝒏 𝑱𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒔 … " Don't bother – you're not worthy.

  11. You make lots of good points, BUT the world needs people like owen jones, because just as socialism is ECONOMICALLY flawed, so is capitalism MORALLY flawed. In the free market the majority of people suffer greatly on wages that afford only essential living costs, and barley at that, so that a small group of people can live in luxury, and it is morally wrong.

  12. I love watching you burn Owen jones down !! Fantastic, I hope jones sees these ! Keep exposing jones's socialist drivel !

Leave a Reply

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