Libertarian Scot

The real pandemic we face today is the ignorance of capitalism. Aljazeera perfectly illustrate the level of ignorance we face up to when it comes to the study of economics. Although I left out the argument about individualism, time and time again it is ignored that there is no _'type of'_ capitalism, capitalism is the only individualist system that exists. To correlate capitalism in any shape or form to collectivism is to correlate it to socialism. You may as well call a socialist type of capitalism the mixed economy, even then, a socialist type of capitalism is an oxymoron and is more appropriately called corporatism. Capitalism is not corporatism. I respond on filmmaker and activist, Astra Taylor, who misconstrues capitalism with the corporatist system we live under today, especially on bailouts and American healthcare costs; economist, Aditya Chakrabortty who strangely things socialising losses and privatising gains is capitalism, as well as economic sociologist, Linsey McGoey who clearly doesn't understand, not only the laws of supply and demand when it comes to the price of goods and services, but tries to blame capitalism for the price gouging today during a period when there are shortages. Like I have noted, there is no perfect system, capitalism is not perfect, but it is the capitalist system that best deals with this problem through consumer choice and fierce competition which we live in the absence of. Intro: (0:00) Projecting the Blame: (4:16) Prices Explained: (6:11) The Crisis: (7:27) Inequality Myth: (10:22) American Healthcare: (11:37) Profits Explained: (16:35) Investments: (18:24) Price Controls: (19:21) Charity: (19:59) Taxation: (21:56) Private vs Public: (23:21) Price Gouging: (24:11) The Bailouts: (25:56) The Confusion: (27:35) Resource Efficiency: (28:40) Utopian Beliefs: (30:00) Collective vs Individual: (30:56) Outro: (32:00) MY SOCIAL MEDIA: • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/

Out of this COVID pandemic we have had a lot of ignorance floating around not only trying to blame capitalism for the current crisis, but for the global economic crisis even on the leadup to the COVID pandemic. Capitalism is NOT corporatism. As I illustrate, MOST people do NOT understand what capitalism is. The sad part is, there have been numerous socialists who have ignorantly conceded to the fact capitalism is an individualist system. Even one woman of Aljazeera concedes what a capitalist system is about with prices self-regulating in a market. Individualism defines the free market, as I address, the definition is very clear, as follows: _"A doctrine advocating freedom from government regulation in the pursuit of a person's economic goals."_ Therefore, to blame capitalism for what caused the boom and bust cycle is not only ignorance of fundamental basic economics, it is ignorance of history. Blaming capitalism for socialist government subsidies and central banks having control and power of counterfeit money, meanwhile, having stripped us of our free market money and using fractional reserve banking, as well as artificially reducing interest rates, it is crazy for anyone to claim that this is not only the fault of capitalism, but that we live under a capitalist system. It is remarkable how many ignorant folk there are out there who not only purposely ignore the fact we live under a mixed economy and the presence of the public sector, but to contradict themselves to say they acknowledge that capitalism is individualist or that capitalism is about the market self-regulating. It's as ignorant as the erroneous claims we have heard in the past, the same lies claimed that the private sector is someone _"unfettered"_ and that the banking crisis was caused by deregulation, nothing could be farther from the truth. Individualism is NOT about forcing society into a collective group to strip them of their individual rights and liberty, therefore, this is against everything a capitalist system stands for. These people deep down know this, the reason for why they will never admit to it is because they have an agenda to try and make capitalism look the fault so they can further their agenda of their erroneous evil ideology that has caused nothing but pain and suffering on the humanity of the past century and more. Ask these ignoramuses how wars occur, how they start, you'll even find foolish people correlating the East India Trade Company with that of capitalism which illustrates the level of ignorance there is out there when it comes to the subject of economics. This should come of no real surprise, these are the same people who think they can control prices above or below market value and think it's about raising the minimum wage to keep up with inflation rather than trying to tackle the inflationary problem to begin with. I have long argued, there is NO subject in world history that faces up to a greater deal of ignorance than that of the subject of economics. If people were serious about tackling such problems today and are genuine about it, they will acknowledge the fact we live under cronyism, again, capitalism is NOT corporatism and it is NOT the early stages of corporatism. Intro: (0:00) Disaster Capitalism: (03:44) Socialist Agenda: (04:55) A Concession: (07:03) Globalist Agenda: (07:40) Today's Economy: (08:44) Fractional Reserve Banking: (10:15) Healthcare Costs: (12:06) Profits: (12:33) Subsidisation: (16:15) Call for Socialism: (17:24) Solidarity Tax: (21:14) Climate Agenda: (22:10) MY SOCIAL MEDIA: • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/

The minimum wage debate is as hotly debated as that of the argument on healthcare. Why the minimum wage should be abolished is because like all government price controls it is destructive to the economy. Regardless of what socialists may argue about greed, the laws of supply and demand cannot be argued with. Another thing to note, employers are not chess pieces on a chessboard, the minimum wage itself is an attempt to control what employers pay out, however, in the real world of economics the employer finds ways around to compensate paying for it. As I've argued, this isn't because of greed, but because an employer must ensure that the value for what he or she is getting is greater than the cost. The only reason the minimum wage debate still goes on is that socialists reject reality. Despite mountains of historical evidence of the minimum wage resulting in soaring unemployment, inflation and reduction in working hours, socialists persist on trying to argue with reality. There is a good reason for this and that is because they require the minimum wage to push for socialism. The minimum wage should be abolished because good intentions mean nothing in the face of the dire consequences that have proved time and time again to follow. It must be noted that such consequences may not follow immediately, it may take time, like all policies, one must measure not only the short-term effects but the long-term. As stated, other factors may influence employment during a specific given year, an example would be large events such as the 2012 London Olympics or the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth Games. Second Thought seems to believe that if a company cannot afford to pay out the minimum wage, then they should not be in business, but as I've stated, this is ridiculous and would only result in greater unemployment and raising the bar to make it more difficult to enter the job market for the lower-skilled workers. • Introduction: (0:00) • Industrial Revolution Wages: (2:46) •Industrial Revolution Labour: (5:32) • The Roosevelt Recession: (8:50) • Child Labour Law Myth: (9:42) • Inflation Causation: (10:40) • Currency Devaluation: (12:56) • Bretton Woods Gold Suspension: (14:15) • Supply and Demand: (16:50) •Denmark Unemployment: (19:00) • 1960s Soaring Inflation: (22:10) • 1980s Wage Suppression Myth: (25:10) •Free Markets Explained: (25:54) •McDonald's Example: (29:16) • Conclusion: (30:10) • McDonald's Gave Up On Minimum Wage: https://fee.org/articles/why-mcdonald-s-gave-up-the-minimum-wage-fight/ • Seattle $15 Minimum Wage Failure: https://fee.org/articles/the-minimum-wage-and-the-end-of-teen-work/ • $15 Minimum Wage Wiped Out Jobs in New York and Illinois: https://fee.org/articles/15-minimum-wage-laws-are-wiping-out-jobs-in-new-york-and-illinois/ MY SOCIAL MEDIA: • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/

Neoliberalism explained is a term that has largely been used by the political Left as a derogatory slur to critique capitalism. Initially, it seems, Neoliberalism was an idea and project to transition toward a free market economy based off classical liberal economics. The problem is, however, the name Neoliberalism has been thrown around by the critiques to largely describe today's dominant economic system. This is no surprise given the fact people claim we live under capitalism and somehow think we're living under a capitalist system. There have been countless myths thrown around by the Left such as the claim that deregulation caused the banking crisis or that capitalism was responsible for the boom and bust cycle of the 19th and 20th centuries and as I have explained, it is in socialists self-interest to label this as capitalism so they can blame our problems today to try and garner support for socialism. As I've pointed out, politicians often speak a good word like Thatcher had about capitalism and the free market, but that doesn't necessarily mean to say that what people saw was a free market in the 1980s or a transition to such an economy. Thatcher was under pressure from members of her own party and society. So, as folk may question: 'what is Neoliberalism,' my answer would be, corporatism, otherwise known as cronyism. The reason for this is because it has become widely popular to label the current economy we're living under as Neoliberal as you can hear by the proof of what led to the financial crisis of 2008. Little do folk realise, that was to blame on Keynesianism, which is really just a fancy name for corporatism. You can hear from a young lassie's mouth that capitalism is in relation to prices being determined by the laws of supply and demand and that is how it goes with everything else from money, to interest rates, etc. That's quite the concession, because if she is aware of that, she must be aware of the fixing of interest rates. An Introduction: (0:00) Regulation Argument: (2:51) The Banking Crisis: (4:52) Entrepreneurship: (11:49) Saying and Doing: (14:02) A Concession: (18:21) *MUSIC:* Title: After rainy day Artist: Zura Genre: Jazz & Soul Download / Stream / Support: https://soundcloud.com/zurafendi-rosli/zura-after-rainy-day-no-copyright-music-jazzsoulinstrumental ♪♫Zura / after rainy day // https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9hfyscTeNc *No Copyright | Calm Jazz Music | Background Chill |* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVEUcbPkb-c&t=1957s *SOCIAL MEDIA:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/

Capitalism and monopolies, the favourite argument used by opponents of capitalism, whether it's mixed economy sympathisers or even Marxists, the one erroneous claim you will always hear is the myth of free market monopolies. Many, much like Second Thought, are led to believe that in the late 19th century there were robber barons that used predatory pricing to wipe out competition, shaft the consumer and through monopolies they would put out dangerous products and the consumers couldn't do a thing, therefore, to popular belief, people think the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was there to break up the "supposed" evil monopolies. This, again, is another Second Thought Debunked video to add to my collection. The common theme you will find is that he assumes that we are living under capitalism today and again, makes the fatal flaw and his baseless assumption that he seems to think we're living under a style of economy lacking in government regulations. Whenever you hear about deregulation in the economy, it tends to be minute in the grand scale of things and as the Mises Institute points out in the following article you can see that the real cause of the problem is governments regulation blocking entry for the competition. The Question of the Cable Monopoly: https://mises.org/library/question-cable-monopoly Again, government intervention through socialism creates a problem, capitalism sadly gets the blame for it. As I covered on capitalism and monopolies, the myth of free market monopolies is just that. The origins of monopolies throughout history have stemmed government intervention in the market through its regulatory power. As history proves, there has never been a single realworld example of a monopoly to stem from predatory pricing, you can find the example of Herbert Dow's chemical company to prove why predatory pricing is a silly idea here: Tom Woods: Herbert Dow and the Predatory Pricing Myth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6dD-ifIr8s&t=6s As I have noted, there is only one way a monopoly can form and that is by restricting productive output to increase costs. The claims against the likes of Rockefeller are similar to many throughout the 20th century whether it was the Tobacco Company, IBM or even Microsoft. Whilst I acknowledge the problem today with big tech and the censorship, as well as the oligopoly market with mainstream media, the real solution to the problem is not antitrust legislation, but to free up the market from government regulation and interference in the market, to move toward a free market economy. We do still have choice, but it's whether people are willing to give up on those who are abusing them. *My Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM •Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM •Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie •LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 •Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ Don't forget to subscribe to me on LBRY/Odysee, Rumble and BitChute as I cannot guarantee the safety of this channel from censorship. MUSIC • On the Cool Side On the Cool Side by Kevin MacLeod https://incompetech.com/ Promoted by MrSnooze https://youtu.be/iYOvAO1rAM0 License: CC BY 3.0 https://goo.gl/Yibru5 • Shades of Spring Shades of Spring by Kevin MacLeod https://incompetech.com/ Promoted by MrSnooze https://youtu.be/iYOvAO1rAM0 License: CC BY 3.0 https://goo.gl/Yibru5 • Cool Vibes Cool Vibes by Kevin MacLeod https://incompetech.com/ Promoted by MrSnooze https://youtu.be/iYOvAO1rAM0 License: CC BY 3.0 https://goo.gl/Yibru5 Intro: (0:00) Merger Argument: (0:57) Monopoly Definition: (1:39) Big Tech, Media and Solution: (3:19) Monopolies Explained: (10:28) Telecommunications Act: (14:50) Natural State of Capitalism: (20:49) Monopoly Power and Antitrust Myth: (22:43) Conclusion: (25:57)

In this third part on how capitalism did not ruin our education I touch upon the concessions of a socialist, @Sheep In The Box who not only conceded that private education proves better, but the fact it is state education he's been referring to as an example the whole time. His erroneous claim that the state has been pushing through 'capitalist' propaganda based off teaching favourably about the British Empire is laughable. Sadly, however, I am not the slightest bit surprised as time and time again I have seen capitalism get the blame for what was imperialism and colonialism. For whatever reason, socialists seem to believe that the natural state of capitalism is imperialism, colonialism, fascism and nazism. The reason this is irrational is that those very systems depend upon the state taking control and direction of the economy. As I have pointed out previously, this does not define individualism which he conceded at the start of his video that capitalism is an individualist system. You'll find the concessions of a socialist often enough in many arguments because the real world of economics and history contradicts the narrative they paint, as I have argued many times before, socialists love to paint their own version of events in their own head and make things up as they go along, which is why you persistently hear them parrot baseless claims without any actual information to back those claims up. Socialists are immune to such evidence, it is why more than 100 years of socialism proving a disastrous failure was not enough for them to let go of it. There is no exception to this when it comes to them staring at the definition of collectivism I provided. There are tonnes of other sources that prove this.

In this second part on how capitalism did not ruin our education I address @Sheep In The Box erroneous argument on Churchill with his baseless claims as well as upon individualism and collectivism relative to his argument of the British Empire. Sheep in the Box wants you to believe that somehow individualism is responsible for the imperialism and colonialism of the British Empire (or at least that's what I perceive of his message) and somehow the state education system is painting some capitalist narrative. As I have addressed on how capitalism did not ruin our education, capitalism is an individualist system, he concedes to this at the start of his video. You can find a full piece on Churchill here that refutes his erroneous claim about Churchill, bearing in mind, he wasn't perfect, but if he's going to make such an erroneous claim, he has to be able to provide such information. Remember, attacking a source isn't an argument, the information of the source is what matters. *Did Churchill Cause the Bengal Famine:* https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/did-churchill-cause-the-bengal-famine/ Another point I address in response to Sheep in the Box is on nationalism, for whatever reason being he seems to think that just because nationalists in Britain oppose the Marxists that this somehow makes them anti-socialist. As mentioned, it's no different to fascist regimes fighting against communism throughout history. I must note, however, not all nationalists are strongly collectivist, many do respect to a varying extent some level of individual liberty, but what you most commonly find, most support and enable big government. It is no wonder capitalism gets the blame and why so many young folk come out of these colleges and universities thinking capitalism is the problem today because they aren't properly taught about free-market economics, at least not that I am aware of. This helps explain why most economists today are Keynesian influenced.

This is a response and critique for How capitalism did not ruin our education in response to a video titled 'How (Neoliberal) Capitalism Ruined Your Education by @Sheep In The Box. I have refuted this argument and in this first part I cover the foundation of the argument. Yet again, much like Joe Scott, Second Thought, Viki 1999 and a great many others, socialists love to spread erroneous claims such as claiming that we somehow live under a capitalist system today. One would need to be living in severe denial to ignore the fact we live under a mixed economy and are being disingenuous. You have to love the mentality, however, of socialists, not only ignoring this fact that it is a mixed economy but that socialism is present and the denial that socialism could have had anything to do with the problems we face today. Much like sticking a stick between the spoke of your bike wheel when riding and going flying over the handlebars, it is not the fault of the bike for why you fall, no different to strangling capitalism half to death through all the "wonderful" socialism that is supposed to improve the economy, but it didn't, it progressively destroyed our education and economy. As I've long argued, socialists do not want to take responsibility for their own actions, just like how they live in denial to what happened in the Holodomor or that socialism was the cause of Venezuela's economic woes, instead, they project the blame off elsewhere and it just so happens to be the United States of America is one of their favourite targets. In this case, @Sheep In The Box being a leftist in Britain targeting Britain's past for the British Empire, he somehow thinks this makes the education system somehow capitalist. As I explain, this has nothing to do with capitalism. How capitalism did NOT ruin our education is that capitalism is about the free market economy, it's not about empire, imperialism, colonialism or even nationalism for that matter. As I argue, the nationalist movement has been littered with collectivists and are actually anti-capitalist.

In this video, I cover in response on Capitalism and Freedom which explains how the Gravel Institute lies to you as capitalism is freedom. It is very clear from the argument made by the so-called professor of law that she hasn't got a clue what capitalism is. She concedes by speaking about today's economy which isn't even capitalist, then is forced to concede later that the market isn't free, which proves she is all over the shop. I could not reiterate it enough, capitalism is an individualist system, you cannot correlate capitalism in any shape or form to that of collectivism as that is anti-capitalism, it defies the entire meaning of capitalism. The definition of individualism is as follows: • a social theory favouring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control. • A doctrine advocating freedom from government regulation in the pursuit of a person's economic goals. As I have addressed that explains how the Gravel Institute lies to you, capitalism is most certainly not responsible for monopoly creation. You can check out a video I covered on the Antitrust myths that not only explains why monopolies cannot stem from predatory pricing but also it destroys the myth of the robber barons. Monopolies: The Antitrust Myths: • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC9KNt8-T4g It is important you watch and learn about the Antitrust myths as it helps you to understand where monopolies stemmed from and the real rationale behind the government's interference. As I have explained, it wasn't in favour of the consumer. I also addressed the point regarding employment and exploitation, something Zephyr Teachout doesn't comprehend it was all thanks to her socialist government interventionism that restricted market competition, created the monopolistic system, drove private-sector costs through the roof, and made employment opportunity harder to come by as we live in the absence of a capitalist system. The truly magical part of all is, however, the concession that the market is not free. Well, no surprise there, much like Second Thought and Joe Scott, these people simply haven't got a clue about economics or what capitalism is.

I was requested to check out Ash Sarkar and decided to do my own research on her. It didn't take me long to find her views and is very clear by her words as she seems very assure of herself that she's a communist. She doesn't understand communism or economics, you can hear the typical socialist flipflopping as one minute she speaks about people being paid wages, then mentions about using money, but ignores what communism is theoretically, most importantly, she couldn't even tell you where money comes from. I'd love to see her abolish the private sector without dictatorship and run the printing press. Ash Sarkar is a team member of Novara Media I was requested to respond to on Fully Automated Communism, which is something I will get around to. I had just newly discovered she was a part of Novara Media. It's quite humorous to say the least, the argument on automation has been debunked countless times over and the erroneous claims that it is leading to higher job losses is utter nonsense and what you would find through research, the complete opposite is the truth. This is something I left out, but what you find with socialists is they are very good at making baseless claims and assertions, such as Ash Sarkar's bold claim that money ends up in the hands of the elite, as if to claim this is what would happen in a capitalist system. Nothing could be farther from the truth and history proves it. She can harp off about corporatism all she wants, that isn't capitalism and all the socialist government interventionism as I reiterate is the cause of such wage suppression, etc. Her argument even on immigration proves she's completely oblivious of the laws of supply and demand, doesn't understand prices and thinks you can just have an unlimited open door policy and that scarcity isn't real. Socialists are clueless when it comes to economic reality, they don't understand the fact scarcity is real and isn't something which you could ignore. Again, if you wish to learn about scarcity and resource allocation, watch my 3 videos on the Economic Calculation Problem, only then you will begin to understand; profits and losses, the variety of options and a fuller understanding of the economic calculation problem on scarcity, as well as why supercomputers could never solve the problem.

In part 3 covering Grime4Corbyn I touch upon the lies and promises of politicians and how it leads people up the garden path. As I have addressed, those who were supporting Jeremy Corbyn were so easily led on, they speak about his character rather than the actual information of what he speaks, not about his policies but about his image. The Grime4Corbyn movement perfectly illustrated the mindset of Labour Party voters. A lot of these people are good hearted, they aren't necessarily bad people, however, they are unfortunately gullible and led on by feelings. Everything seems about hope and feelings. The perfect illustration of such promises and lies you could see from the likes of Nicola Sturgeon and much of the SNP who for months stood strongly against a no deal Brexit, tried to overturn Brexit completely when it came to Scotland, then Nicola Sturgeon says she supported May getting a deal (which we know was Brexit in name only) and after the likes of Ian Blackford, etc claimed that Boris would never get a deal, they were proved wrong come end of 2020. As soon as it came push come to shove and Boris got a deal, the SNP voted against it, which the only other option was a no deal Brexit. This illustrates beautifully why you do not pay attention to the mainstream media and the utter garbage politicians hit out with. Politics is a game and once you understand the game, you can see right through most of them. The likes of Sturgeon make up all these promises of pie in the sky because she wants to win your vote, that's it. Even if there are some well meaning politicians who mean to be truthful, economic reality doesn't permit their promises, so in the end, when push comes to shove, in practice, their term as Prime Minister or First Minister leads to dire consequences and when promises cannot be fulfilled, it leads to a disjointed, disgruntled population who based their support on faith of those politicians. This is why so many feel so let down. If people understood all of this, they wouldn't lay all their eggs in the one basket and put so much faith in them, they would study economics and maybe then they would be able to really take control. The political establishment fear an educated populace because only then people will take back control and power of their own lives.

In this second part covering #Grime4Corbyn I touch upon how feelings don't change reality with the example on rent controls and the damage they cause. It perfectly illustrates how a politician like Jeremy Corbyn can so easily fool socialists simply because they don't understand basic economics. As I explained, socialists are more interested in the image of Corbyn rather than the actual information he speaks. This can be seen with the religious defence of the British NHS, a healthcare system that is treated as a religious institution. It has failed every single year on record since 1948 but in the words of Corbyn it must be protected and even pushing for full renationalisation of the NHS. Feelings don't change reality that when you destroy the information of profits and losses you are faced with the laws of supply and demand, the economic calculation problem and the knowledge problem. Corbyn loves to speak a lot of rhetoric about healthcare for "everyone" but that is all that it is, rhetoric. Not only is that statement contradicted from the history of the NHS, economic reality would never permit it and as I explained, healthcare isn't inelastic as some like to have you believe. Socialists are not really interested in costs or quality of healthcare, if they cared that much why do you never hear them speaking about Singapore's more free market model of healthcare or the Direct Primary Care model of the United States? Either they are not aware of it or most likely, they really only care about their agenda for nationalisation and that's it; one step closer to communism.

As I was requested to cover my thoughts on Grime4Corbyn I had to do a wee bit of research. The grime music artists showed their support for Jeremy Corbyn. Although Corbyn is no longer the Labour Party leader, I feel this is still prevalent as the support for these policies have not died away, it's merely just a different Labour Party leader. My response on this is merely a critique on the support for Corbyn as I have already covered extensively the arguments against socialism in other videos. I could have gone into such things of how raising tax rates or how the governments regulation is damaging to the economy, but I feel other content I've done explains enough of this. What you do gather from this is what goes on in the minds of the socialist sympathisers. You can see that from the arguments made for supporting Corbyn is really all about how they feel, the image of Corbyn rather than any information. It almost seems as if the policies he proposed was just in good faith and again, as I touched upon, it's because a lot of people sadly do not understand economics. I must reiterate that I can sympathise with a lot of these young ones who are concerned about the costs of education, housing, etc, these are genuine problems, but they don't understand that capitalism is the solution to the problem, not the cause of the problem. The fact these people think socialism is somehow going to solve their problems is a big problem in of itself given the fact it was socialism that led us into this mess to begin with through all the state intervention in the economy. Everything is faith based and socialists are unfortunately driven by emotion, it's all about beliefs, hope and feeling, rather than the content of information being spoken.

Much of what Second Thought argues in his video on A Future Beyond Capitalism is pretty much utopian. I didn't go into too much detail, but the idea that scarcity is just artificial and that everyone's needs and wants can be met is simply utopian. He doesn't even stop to think about the variety of different kinds of food, just like housing. He thinks that it is all one. This is the fundamental fault of the socialist mentality, he doesn't question how much needs to be produced of each and every single option, rather, food is simply viewed as one thing, like as if it's just a case that you can take whatever food it is and mass produce it without consequence. The ignorance to talk about the waste created by companies, yet he concedes that they are being made to shows his failure to acknowledge that government is the problem, not the fault of companies. As I've argued before, if resources were infinite, there would be no requirement for the study of economics as there would be no need for economising such resources. The whole reason for why we need to 'economise' is because resources are not infinite and there are alternative uses for such resources, it's why we need to work out how much of it we use and where we allocate it. Another problem I didn't go into as I've done so before, even if you produce, he thinks people are just one group, he doesn't stop to think about individual preference, like as if we all like the same stuff and production should just be made for the collective. Again, his utopian worldview that socialism will bring about this fantasy world of prodiving employment for everyone, that healthcare, education, etc will all be free and costs of living would be more affordable is simply laughable, he doesn't stop to think about how all of that is paid for. This is exactly what we mean about the unintended consequences of socialists with their "good intentions." He doesn't comprehend the fact that his intentions are meaningless in the face of socialism put into practice. Therefore, he can't complain about the costs of goods and services meanwhile wanting to pay out wages as his own idea requires running the printing press in the absence of the private sector. The sad thing is, the reflection of how many likes his original video got is a sad reflection of society today; most people just do not get economics.

Having explained the economic calculation problem in two previous part videos on profits and losses and on the variety of options, there was a lot of information I had left out. I thought the argument was suffice to explain in clear English the problem with the economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth. I recently had two video responses from @Mouthy Infidel and @Viki 1999 who responded with their own arguments. @Viki 1999 seems to be under the impression that this only pertains to the central planning problem, however, Mises argument on socialism was directed towards the real world of socialism we know of, rather than the theoretical perspective. However, his argument on the economic calculation problem wasn't saying that the failure was solely confined to central planning, he was saying that in the absence of market-driven prices it is impossible to calculate production and determine resource allocation. In other words, @Viki 1999 doesn't understand that all mixed economies are faced with the economic calculation problem and that the primary cause for the problem is in relation to government price controls. However, as I've argued in this video, even if socialists were to argue for a moneyless based economy there is no price information signals and I have explained extensively in this video on the importance the role prices play in the economy. @Mouthy Infidel turns to William Paul Cockshott, surprise, surprise, having done a little research he's a University professor at Glasgow University, by Christ will Adam Smith be rolling about in his grave. This embarrassment of a lecturer somehow believes that via mathematical equations using supercomputers, they can somehow finally solve this problem. As I have explained in this video and is important for me to reiterate this point here; supercomputers cannot calculate production without the information of prices and if price information signals do not exist, there is no information there to calculate for production. Collective decision-making as I have explained is faced with various problems, but never mind that fact, 70-million people can't all talk to one another at the same time and if you are to plan for such a large scale economy like Great Britain, you require the main central planner as I mentioned previously. When that central planner has to collect information and even theoretically speaking gathers such information from individual communes (if they argue this, which wouldn't be the case,) by people telling the central planner what they want and how much, it doesn't provide enough information never mind accurate information to calculate rationally. A free market through market-driven prices understands the information of how much to produce and where resources are allocated because price information signals enable such calculation and efficiency, but if you took prices away, simply telling a central planner what you want and how much isn't going to provide accurate information, again, there's no information of prices for a central supercomputer to rationally calculate production. Furthermore, to base an economy on consumers determining what they want isn't socialism. The biggest fatal flaw, however, is that money only comes from 2 places; (1) the private sector (2) the printing press. If not financing the economy to pay for all their socialism through the private sector, their only option is the printing press and this would drive the country into hyperinflation. As Kevin D. Williamson explains: “There are 115 million households in the United States, if we imagine a weekly milk consumption budget for each of them, that’s 5.98 billion household weeks to plan for, adding in a fairly restrictive list of variables, call it 0 to 20 quartz a week, 4 levels of fat content; organic, non-organic; soy, dairy and 3 flavour options, you end up with around 6 trillion options to choose from. These are the choices facing our committee of central planners and let’s just assume that our central planners are the best and brightest that our world has to offer with the temperaments of angels totally unswayed by the quotidian concerns of politics or the influence of the various competing dairy lobbies, for instance; let’s assume they are not human beings as we know them to exist and that they have at their exposle a vast array of top-flight supercomputers, if they took just one second to consider each of these options, it would take them 190,128 years just to run through the possibilities of 1 years milk consumption in the United States.”

As I explained about the economic calculation problem on price signals and the importance of the information of profits and losses and what it means to the operation of an economy for resource allocation, in this video I touch upon variety in the market which I paint the clear picture of all the different options central planners would be faced with. The purpose of this video is to help paint the clearer picture debunking Kommari Kettu showing; the different fabric of clothing; the variety of colours; the vast array of designs; the options of designers, etc. Kommari Kettu shows in his example that he isn't thinking about the bigger picture, like the idea of simply producing 1 car for every individual, he doesn't stop to question: what type of car, what colour, what make? Is it a diesel engine or an electric car? On top of those options, Kommari Kettu doesn't understand that the central planner would have to work out production for EACH and EVERY possible option available out of ALL of those options because not every individual's needs and wants are the same for a vast population of 70 million people. It is for this reason that through central planning it leads to economic disaster, not just a catastrophe for the waste of scarce natural resources, but also, since the central planner has no way of knowing production, it takes the self-serving attitude of thinking it knows best for the people, to quote a 'Democratic Socialist' Labour Party politician, Douglas Jay: "The gentlemen in Whitehall really does know better what is good for the people than the people know themselves." As I have clearly proven in the video from the likes of the Soviet Union, nothing could be farther from the truth.

In this third part debunking Second Thought on A Future Beyond Capitalism he concedes to the fact that what led to such a problem was the issuing out of cheap credit, which is an acknowledgement that interest rates were artificially driven down. I briefly explain what led to the 2008 banking crisis in relation to this. Second Thought then goes on to claim that profiteering is what led to the crisis. Again, it's proof that most people fail to comprehend what profits are and why profits are so important to the economy. The cause of such a crisis wasn't because banks were seeking profits, but because government took away the risk of the creditors enabling legally protected fraud. As I have pointed out numerous times, capitalism is an individualist system, it is not about subordinating the rights of individuals, forcing society into a collective group for the state to forcibly remove tax money from society collectively to pay for the losses of others. If it was a capitalist system, individuals would have individual responsibility over their own finances, therefore, they would not be forced to pay for other people. Again, Second Thought lives in the assumption that capitalists have no concern whatsoever over the wellbeing of their workers, perhaps businesses in today's market might cause harm whilst being protected by government, but in a free market business reputation is vitally important and there is nothing profitable for business owners if they harm their workers and there would be nothing stopping those workers leaving the company and working for themselves or another company in competition. Second Thought also fails to acknowledge why prices drive up in this economy today especially with regards to housing. His assumption, again, is almost as if to claim all housing is the same. Whilst I briefly explained, the bottom line is, each individual have their own preference and that goes for type of housing to the location and demand far exceeds availability. I must note that I'm not against homeless people being given the opportunity to get shelter and get out of the mess that they are in, I'm all for that, but thinking housing is just something you can treat as some give away and as if it's all the same is deeply flawed. Part of the problem in today's economy, this is happening, it's why the taxpayer is furious, because they're working their backside off only to see immigrants flood in and get better housing, cars, etc given to them on a plate whilst having not worked for it. This destroys the incentive for people to work hard. Again, socialists don't understand meritocracy, they think you can just gift things on a plate with no consequence for their actions. He then moves onto claiming that capitalism is somehow responsible for all the war intervention, which is just ridiculous. It's every bit as ridiculous as those who claimed capitalism was responsible for killing millions, even although capitalism is about individualism and nothing to do with imperialism, colonialism, fascism, etc. Again, socialists are desperate to separate capitalism from individualism for this reason, because they need something to blame capitalism for. Second Thought is of no exception to this, he doesn't wish to accept that on a question of scale, the governments interference that led to these problems is socialism.

The economic calculation problem is widely misunderstood and in part 1 I touch upon price signals as it is important for people to understand the role of prices in relation to the information we gather from profits and losses. I felt that Kommari Kettu's argument was very childish in response to Learn Liberty and really didn't make much sense. Socialists fail to comprehend prices and it is precisely the reason why Kommari Kettu grossly misunderstands the economic calculation problem. Kommari provided no real argument that proves my point. The reason it is so vitally important for people to understand prices is that without prices there is no way to operate an economy efficiently and is precisely why socialism leads to such a mess.

In this second part on a future beyond capitalism debunking Second Thought, I refute his arguments on the exploitation, his misinterpretation of what wealth is and his deeply flawed view of workers owning the means of their own production. Second Thought, in other words, believes in workers co-ops, but if you analyse socialists arguments on workers co-ops they speak about personal ownership, which again, defies everything communal ownership stands for. He then mentions about unemployment claiming that it is somehow beneficial for capitalists and the minimum wage and yet again, people like Second Thought fail to acknowledge that minimum wage workers are not supposed to get paid much higher than they currently are based on market value, they're entry level jobs. Once you argue about skilled labour, the argument is turned over on its head and capitalists have to compete for skilled labour. I acknowledge we live under a corporatist system, he doesn't, he thinks this is capitalism. Whilst there is a level of exploitation, it is the capitalist system that can reduce that problem. His argument on a future beyond capitalism he talks about increasing prices of goods and services, but fails to acknowledge the private sector has had the backside ripped out of it through strong government regulation. This also relates to his ignorance to think he can argue with the laws of supply and demand, which is proof he doesn't understand what prices are. Second Thought then makes the fallacious argument that if workers are not getting paid enough then no one would be able to afford to buy anything. The truth is, this is overly simplistic, he doesn't understand that each individual company have their own niche of who their target market is. Whilst there are companies who sell expensive goods, their target market would be aimed at the higher end, those who have a lot of money to spend, there are a variety of others who sell cheaper goods. He doesn't acknowledge the fact companies can only sell if they have a consumer base there who are willing to part with their money in exchange for such goods. If nobody was able to afford such goods, the company would be forced to reduce their prices as they are not selling such goods. Even if you go down the road of his argument, his socialism would be left running the printing press which would drive inflation soaring through the roof, which is laughable, as I pointed out, there are consequences for his actions and this is the prime example of the difference between his theoretical nonsense of socialism to the real world of socialism in practice. He then has the audacity to touch upon the booms and busts that were caused by the artificially low driven fixed interest rates, which has nothing to do with capitalism. As I've mentioned, socialists like to pretend to you that socialism has no presence whatsoever in today's mixed economy and that all the problems you face today are all the fault of capitalism. The funny thing is, he concedes that the banks were issuing out cheap credit.

The reason why socialism fails every time is that the ideology of socialism reaches so far outside the bounds of human nature and economic reality. In this video, in response to a question I got from a commenter, I cover some of the basic economic reasons for why socialism fails every time as well as in relation to human nature. It is important to note that socialists will try to twist socialism to suit their own agenda, and how they define socialism is completely warped. Socialists want you to see socialism from how they imagine socialism to be, rather than the practical reality of socialism in the real world. The examples I give show the consequences of their actions that explain the basis for why socialism cannot avoid such a catastrophic economic mess. I must also add that socialism does destroy the incentives for people to work hard, but this correlates to the argument I made against communal ownership of property. It takes away the rights and liberty of the individual to own the fruits of their own labour and without that the people lose the will to live. Socialists might feel they're doing good by working for the collective, but that's all it is, good intentions, they don't understand the dire consequences of their actions. It's all well socialists speaking about the theoretical nonsense of socialism, but what really matters is what is put into practice. My explanation touches the surface of socialism and covers the basis for why it's such a disastrous failure. I could have went more into depth on the destruction of incentives, but what I've covered are the main reasons for why socialism fails every time and explains socialism in a nutshell.

A future beyond capitalism is an oxymoron given the fact we live under a strongly mixed based economy. In this video debunking Second Thought I reiterate the point that his entire worldview is based around theory. It's all well speaking about this utopian world he speaks of and how socialism will solve his problems, but because he doesn't understand basic economics, he doesn't understand the disastrous consequences that follow his actions. It must be stated that Second Thought really doesn't understand the theory of Marxism himself and the news clips he tried to critique were actually right in what they stated regarding socialism. As I explained in a previous video on why socialism fails, there are a variety of consequences socialists are faced with in their goal. Just because you INTEND for something to be a certain given way doesn't mean to say it turns out that way in practice. I left out information regarding capitalism in practice because I didn't wish to go too much into detail as it would extend the length of this video. Capitalism works in practice. We can see problems in the economy throughout history, especially of the 19th century didn't stem because the market was free, but because of interference in the market by government. If anyone tries claiming that capitalism as how I describe it is utopian, the difference is, capitalism can exist and can work successfully, it's not unrealistic to believe in the market freely regulating interest rates or prices, the same cannot be said for socialism. Socialism is disastrous in practice and is completely irrational theoretically.

The reason why socialism fails every time is that the ideology of socialism reaches so far outside the bounds of human nature and economic reality. In this video, in response to a question I got from a commenter, I cover some of the basic economic reasons for why socialism fails every time as well as in relation to human nature. It is important to note that socialists will try to twist socialism to suit their own agenda, and how they define socialism is completely warped. Socialists want you to see socialism from how they imagine socialism to be, rather than the practical reality of socialism in the real world. The examples I give show the consequences of their actions that explain the basis for why socialism cannot avoid such a catastrophic economic mess. I must also add that socialism does destroy the incentives for people to work hard, but this correlates to the argument I made against communal ownership of property. It takes away the rights and liberty of the individual to own the fruits of their own labour and without that the people lose the will to live. Socialists might feel they're doing good by working for the collective, but that's all it is, good intentions, they don't understand the dire consequences of their actions. It's all well socialists speaking about the theoretical nonsense of socialism, but what really matters is what is put into practice. My explanation touches the surface of socialism and covers the basis for why it's such a disastrous failure. I could have went more into depth on the destruction of incentives, but what I've covered are the main reasons for why socialism fails every time and explains socialism in a nutshell.

In this third and final part on why Second Thought doesn't understand socialism I illustrate why socialism in practice results in disastrous consequences between running the printing press and driving up inflation. Again, as socialists always do, they love to project the blame off elsewhere and is precisely what Second Thought does with regards to the expensive costs of education, housing, healthcare, etc. But like I've pointed out, socialism would drive inflation soaring through the roof and is actually the cause of the problems for why things are so expensive. As he claims, socialism doesn't hurt the poor, sounds good if one were to look at theory, but even the theory of socialism cannot be taken seriously. In the real world of economics, socialism leads to dire consequences and severe economic impoverishment because of the inflationary problem it is faced with and the attempts to control prices in the economy.

Continuing on with the argument on Second Thought and why he doesn't understand socialism, he continues by making the baseless claim that capitalism somehow takes away people's freedom, which nothing could be farther from the truth. He has a warped sense of reality thinking that socialism will lead to this democratic workers ownership in the workplace but completely ignores that socialism seeks to abolish the private sector and this always ends up in the hands of government ownership and economic central planning for the wider economy. Again, it is the delusional belief that socialists have thinking they can place theory above practice, meanwhile, completely ignoring nationalisation in practice. There is never any clear answer as to how they plan to remove government from the equation, rather, just baseless assumptions that socialism will put power into the hands of the workers. Much like every other socialist, the usual argument is thrown around about rich people, just like Sir Winston Churchill once rightly quoted saying that socialism is the creed of envy, which is so true, they see everything as the glass half empty rather than half full.

Second Thought, just like any other socialist, doesn't understand socialism. As you will always find, socialists want you to believe that socialism is what they want you to believe what it is, what they hold theoretically in their own head. They don't want you to acknowledge socialism for what it has proven to be in the real world, for what we have seen put into practice. In other words, socialists do not acknowledge practice and anyone with common sense understands you cannot place theory above practice. Second Thought believes that socialism will somehow correct such problems with today's economy and complains about costs of education, healthcare, etc, but he doesn't acknowledge the fact that in the goal of socialism, the consequences for such actions is, he would be left running the printing press, which would drive the country towards hyperinflation. Second Thought, like any other socialist, don't understand basic economics. He doesn't comprehend what prices are, why prices are so important to the operation of the economy with resource allocation and much like his argument critiquing capitalism he generally doesn't have a clue why the economy is in the mess that it is in. As I've mentioned, it's all well believing in the theoretical nonsense about socialism, but in practice, economic reality and human nature defies socialism. He talks about democratic governance, but as I've mentioned numerous times before, socialism cannot avoid economic central planning, it is a big part of what defines socialism and so long as they are faced with the economic calculation problem, it is impossible to have democracy with socialism. The only democratic thing about socialism is voting it into place. His argument on Liberals and as he describes 'the left' may sound reasonable but so-called 'liberals' today do not support capitalism, they prove that by their opposition of the free market economy. Whilst there may be a distinction and they value the private sector to some extent, their policy decision-making is every bit as destructive as that of full-blown socialism and full-blown socialism, as I've mentioned, would never fix the problems but only make things progressively worse. As mentioned, socialists like Second Thought have good intentions, but just because you INTEND for something to be a certain given way, does not mean to say that in practice it turns out that way. This is why when faced with economic reality that defies them there are disastrous consequences that follow their theoretical socialist nonsense.