God I hate this video.. what a piece of propoganda, although I have to admit it is quite convincing to the naive mind.
Socialism kills more people..
He said that we had 12x the food we need, but what he failed to say is what created the technology and production of all those food, the hardwork behind it, the motivation that is
capitalism.
Socialism can only exist successfully for a short period of time immediately subsequent to a successful capitalistic society, then proceed to turn for the better immediately, but gradually destroys itself.
Capitalism is like a car on blocks... Socialism is a boat on the same terrain..
We have the most technological society ever, he says.. but what created that technology? Capitalism.
Socialist politicians oversimplify things,..
He speaks of unequal distribution of wealth, but all you see is %, as if it was a zero sum game, but the fact of the matter is, in a capitalistic society, that 5% is more than 95%, if you factor in technological advances + production in two societies seperated over the years.
Also, IQs are also unevenly distributed, there are the mentally defficient, and there are the geniuses.
Rule 5. The poorer you are, the more expensive things are for you.
That's relativity by percentage from the poor POV, but from the unaffiliated POV, everything's cheaper for the poor person, taxes, subsudized lunches, etc.
7. The poorer you are, the worse education you have. Bullshit, the opportunity is the same, it's the kids around you that make the difference.
8. The lower the pay, the harder the job.
9. The higher the pay, the easier the pay.
Do I even have to say how ridiculous this is?:lol:
10. If you're really rich, you're a capitalistic and don't work at all.
If you're really rich, and achieved that weath legally, you wised allocated the scare resources given to you. That is why Japan with almost no natural resources can produce more, just like the rich person working easier, than Russia, one of the most mineral and natural substances endowed countries in the world, but cannot even feed it's own citizens, like the poor person working so hard yet earning or making so little.
The capitalist is using his resources better, so for every jouel used, he produces much more than the socialist.
11. Rich people start wars, but poor people have to fight.
There's not enough rich people to fight, and the rich fighting would be poor allocation of resources for the superorganism(the country, or whatever), as a whole, because the rich could be producing more while not fighting than fighting while the poor fights, which is the most efficient thing they can do depending on their skills.
13. Most rich people get rich by inheriting.
This is outright bullshit, the people in the top 20% earnings in the US flucuates rapidly, and shift quickly. Studies show those who were poor earlier became rich afterwards due to earning experience as a result of age, the older you get, the richer you are.
The rules of the alternative, socialism, is much worse.
The REX analogy, the world does not work like that, all the resources are not given to one person, nothing is given for free from a superpowerful authority in capitalism, but that happens in socialism. The gov't takes everyones money and give it equally to everyone, regardless of the amount of work done.
The 19 other kids can rebel and kill REX, and take his toys. The French Revolution?
The REX analogy has several fallacies.
1. It's a zero sum game.
2. Things are unfairly given to specific people.
3. The economy is controlled stringently by an unaffected authoritative figure.
The bigger children can just take REX's toys.. What makes REX have authority over the bigger children, who in turn have the real power when REX has none?
The control that REX have is dictatorship, in capitalism everyone is given the same opportunity, and anyone can achieve anything. The American dream, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefella, all came from the poor, so how is it possible the poor can become the most powerful and richest in this coersive, slavery like system this dude described?
Funny thing is, if REX can convince these people that he is more powerful, important, etc than everyone else, and is able to control these people, then by achieving power he is more important and intelligent than everyone else. :doh
Create people to hate each other... seperated so they won't all turn and unite to dethrone REX.
Ah, so affirmative action is a tool of propoganda and hate in order to seperate us!
So now diversity is evil?
This is really sad, he says working is bad, and weekends, holidays, leisure, are only to keep the workers in dillusioned that they're not slaves, while the rulers get everything while not working. Funny thing is, the rich, self made billionaires, work the most, sometimes twice as many hours as normal workers and producing thousands times more value.
Then he says about the past, where all the kids were equal and playing.. but who's producing anything? Nothing's being produced, inefficiency, in turn creates a lower life standard for all the children, under REX with the children working, inventing, etc. They're creating betters things to bette their lives, so the working life will become better than when they were all equal. Again rememeber this is not a zero sum game.
Utopia is a fantasy, a fairy tale. If all people were not kepted in line, then they would burn the kindergartend down. People are bad, everyone is bad by nature, "the lucifer principle" by Howard Bloom.
Utopias do fail and cannot exist, why? Because our history is long and fruitful, 99.9999999% of the things you have thought of, it has already been tried.
A Welsh socialist tried to build a utopia, New Harmony, Illinois. There was no private property, or money. Everyone was equal. There were no individual sovereignty in this socialist community..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Harmony
And it failed after 4 years.
He defeats his own point with the hunter gatherer analogy, when private property was nonexistent, people were primative, had nothing. Is he saying that primative hunter gatherers are how we should be living? Is that his definition of utopia? Because without capitalism, we would still be hunter gatherers.
Regarding death monopoly, no ones dies in a capitalistic society because there is so much surplus from the success and produce created by capitalism, there is enough so that everyone survives.
How many people in the United States starve to death each year?
What creates these famines, and starving children, is lack of capitalism in those societies early one.
Competition keeps us running, from sheer terror. True, without that terror, the world wouldn't go round in a sense of production of goods. There would be nothing...
Capitalism is fair, it's equal opportunity, not forced equality, which is unfair because regardless of your actions and reactions which should determine and define you with your properties, the other guy, regardless of his actions and reactions, will have the same to you.
In this game, I get more out of it than if it was not running. Without this game, I would have much less than if If I was playing that game, that is why you play it, because if you are better off not playing it, no one would play.
Now he correlates private property with the destruction of the earth.. That is true of both capital and socialist societies.
Without private property, it would abolish a lot of problem, but create new ones.
He's asking for anarchy, no hiearchy..
Without property, people still have power over others, physically.....
People like doing things for free, his hobbies... Except these hobbies cannot fulfill the requirements needed for survival. Playing computer games all day will not produce anything... or basketball.... or anything that's fun generally.
There will be no order, no efficiency, in post capitalism. The best incentive is money, not need.. because need does not create surplus.
These incentives and fears create efficiency, and in turn increase the standard of living. The hole in his theory is everything does not run perfectly, like in a utopia. There will be people who are lazy, and not everyone has the highest morals in the world. There will be disease and other problems if the "problem" of capitalism is solved, and only capitalism can make the best overral for these situations.
Without price, there will be so much inefficiency and problems. There will be no signs to what someone should do, and the ultimate failure of socialism is the misallocation of scare resources. Only a capitalism society can be the most efficient one, the most motivated and successful, because economy is not production, it is the allocation of scare resources and how we use it.
What will tell a socialist state that doctors are needed? The gov't? How slow will it be before a few central planners realize there is a shortage? When hundreds of thousands are suffering? In a capitalism society, as the demand increases, the doctors will make more, therefore more people will try to become doctors. Same for nurses, engineers, teachers, or anything for that matter.
Socialism completely abolishes the basic laws of economy with the lack of private property and individual sovereignty. It creates massive efficiencies and flaws that it cannot fix by itself. Without the invisible hand, nothing is preventing people from going into the wrong direction.
I love it when he compares the computer revolution and the internet revolution to his theoritical socialism revolution. :lol:
We have seen the outside, and we have seen it fail. Socialist utopias have been scientifically proven to fail.
