Libertarian Scot

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.” You can find my other two arguments on the economic calculation problem here: • profits and losses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVbbFVKWdhI • Variety of Options: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFoqXD_o6Wc

In this video debunking the Finnish Bolshevik I cover the truth about socialism covering important points for not only the deeply flawed mindset of socialists attempting to place theory above practice, but also for why socialism inevitably ends in terror and why it cannot avoid economic central planning for a large scale economy. As you will hear when you listen to the Finnish Bolshevik (and other socialists,) they speak purely from a theoretical perspective and of their aspirations, for what they intend and not for how things turn out in practice. One only needs to look at the mindset of socialist sympathisers of socialism who visited the Soviet Union during its 'honeymoon period,' protecting their ideology was of greater importance than those lives lost. More than 70,000 people put into labour camps, thousands tortured to death, but as Kristian Niemietz in his book titled 'Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies' points out, the sympathisers merely pretended there were no famines or painted the labour camps were happy glorious places. The point I make in this video is to make it clear that with the economic calculation problem and knowledge problem aside, when planning production for a large scale economy like we have today, it is impossible for socialism not to have a central planner. You can also hear the Finnish Bolshevik completely contradict himself as he mentions about the reward vouchers claiming what you can or cannot do as an individual. There lies the issue, if there is no state under communism, who says I can or cannot do anything? The truth is, you require that central authority to dictate and govern society. It's like the oxymoron of Libertarian socialism, thinking you can strip individuals of their individual rights and liberty by taking away their rights to own private property and then once the state is gone, then thinking that magically they'll all be working in communes. The trouble is, this ignores the fact society is made up of individuals who have self-interest and if there is no government, individuals can go do their own thing. If a set group of people decide to dictate to other people terrorising them to prevent them from owning private property, that by definition is governance and this is where the fundamental flaw in the Finnish Bolshevik's argument caves in. The Finnish Bolshevik lives in a utopian fantasy world based on his IDEALISTIC view of socialism and as stated, if it does not live up to those theories of Marxism, it's not socialism according to him and other socialists. The Finnish Bolshevik, therefore, does not understand that all those socialist regimes that ended in terror had tried socialism, it was always their goal to reach such a democratic workers paradise, but always ended in the opposite direction. As I briefly touched upon, it is inevitable for socialism to drive the whole country into extreme poverty and when that happens, they have no other option but to build a Berlin Wall or an Iron Curtain, they have to make it illegal for there to be migration out of the country. What I didn't touch upon, like Kristian Niemietz points out, if someone seeks to leave the commune they are regarded as traitors because they're betraying the collective work they owe their fellow workers. This is the finest form of slavery you can find and it is of no surprise how they justified killing so many countless millions of innocent people. All in all, even if they were to reach their fantasy world they would be doomed from the get-go as that is never going to hide the economic failings of socialism, especially without price signals. Again, you can learn about the Economic Calculation Problem in both parts here: Economic Calculation Problem: Price Signals Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVbbFVKWdhI Economic Calculation Problem: Variety in the Market part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFoqXD_o6Wc

It would be easy enough to pass the blame off on the current coronavirus lockdown effects on the economy, whilst it certainly has made its own impact, as I have argued, the economic crisis of 2020 was long coming. Whilst I acknowledge the importance of social distancing and I agree that the virus was to be taken seriously, I also believe that there has been a lot more to what led to such a lockdown than simply just a virus. From predictions I have seen elsewhere, it doesn't sound good for the world economy and there isn't a gold war going on for nothing. You can see from the economic war going on with the United States and China that things are escalating and I do find it rather coincidental that the country that was trying to impose laws on the Hong Kong people to extradite them if they stepped out of line it is rather suspicious how everything panned out. That is not to say that the virus isn't genuine, but for me it seems there is a whole lot more than just a virus and this isn't in reference to the lockdown causing such economic woes, but what has been long coming for over a century. The economic crisis of 2020 has certainly undone the past decade in Britain of reducing spending and from my prediction, the government will carry out the bailouts that will exacerbate the economic crisis further down the line for something much worse than what people think. No economy can sustain Keynesian economics for that length of time without expecting to face some serious economic crisis and I feel we will eventually face that sooner rather than later.

The #NHS is treated like a religious institution and it seems that no matter how bad the NHS gets, it is a #healthcare system that can do no wrong in the eyes of its supporters. The NHS has been faced with the massive long waiting lines, surplus waste, and shortage problems since its inception in 1948, yet despite this evidence, we hear these tired used up excuses about the NHS underfunded or about immigration. This completely ignores the fact the problems they're facing today are no different to those same problems that date back to the 1950s. In this video, I explain the differences between the free-market model of healthcare with Direct Primary Care as opposed to the main American healthcare system that people erroneously try to turn to in order to try justify the failed healthcare system, the NHS. It is important to note that doctors and nurses are not at fault for the system itself, yes, there is a management problem, the doctors and nurses can only do the best to their ability in a system that is nye impossible to make work, so I do sympathise with them. Unfortunately, the supporters of the NHS are very religious of it, one word of privatisation and they lose their minds. Do they understand the complexity of the argument behind privatisation? Well, as I've explained, no, they don't. People assume that privatisation is black and white. My explanation makes clear the distinction between a free market model of healthcare and why it would give the like of the NHS a showing up.

A long overdue video response that I was meaning to get around to, on the top 10 capitalist arguments having debunked Libertarian Socialist Rants ludicrous arguments. For those who have been subscribed long enough will remember my previous arguments with himself, a very foul mouthed young boy with no real concept of the study of economics. In this video I briefly take apart his argument on socialism showing why he doesn't even understand his own ideology, never let alone pointing out the flaws in his arguments in his video. For those of you who would like to see Libertarian Socialist Rants original video on the top 10 capitalist arguments, you can check that out below. Top Ten Capitalist Arguments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI6a7WySFsU&t=80s You could run through a whole host of deeply flawed arguments in his video in a long-winded rant, but I thought I would cover briefly over the main parts. As you will find in Libertarian Socialist Rants video he conflates capitalism with the corporatism we live under today. I have covered in this video debunking his arguments on the regulation and risks and many other things relative to economic development and efficiency. Again, you can learn about the economic calculation in both parts I provided before that explains why socialism is so inefficient and why there is no alternative to capitalism below. Economic Calculation Problem: Profits and Losses Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVbbFVKWdhI Economic Calculation Problem: Variety of Options Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFoqXD_o6Wc I also covered before in a response to Libertarian Socialist Rants explaining why Libertarian Socialism is an oxymoron. Libertarian Socialism—Collectivism and Individualism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPxYY-FpKYA

The reason why economics is important is because without the study of economics it has a detrimental impact on humanity. The importance of economics in our daily life helps us to improve the standard of living of the masses. An argument I recently had on Facebook shows the gross misunderstanding of the study of economics, one must understand the importance of economics in our daily life because then they will comprehend why you cannot place 'humanity' before economics. There are many examples of disastrous consequences that have occurred as a result of ignorance of the subject of economics, such given policies had detrimental effects on society, many were so disastrous that it led millions to their death. As I explain on why economics is important, I touch upon the difference between 'goals' and the 'intentions' that people may have, to that of the consequences people may face. Economics is a study of our place on this earth with scarce resources and the study of economics is a study of trade offs. I mentioned about profits and losses in part 1 on the economic calculation problem, but what I didn't touch upon was the 'incentives' that drive from profits and how prices help us to ration what is scarce in a society that's demands far exceed what is available to them. Scarcity, much like profits are is grossly misunderstood. The examples I give in this video will help you better understand the importance of economics in our daily life, to explain of the disastrous consequences we face if one believes they can simply ignore the study of economics or even argue with what history has already proven from said given policies. The examples I give help clarify the relationship between consumer behavioural patterns to the impact it has when a price ceiling is imposed creating a 'price shortage'. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 🎵 Track Info: Title: 1812 Overture by Tchaikosvky Genre and Mood: Classical + Dramatic Source: https://youtu.be/SylTHospNKM Laid Back Guitars by Kevin MacLeod http://incompetech.com Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0 Free Download / Stream: https://bit.ly/_laid-back-guitars Music promoted by Audio Library https://youtu.be/OOiBVpyOdRc 🎵 Track Info: Title: Laid Back Guitars by Kevin MacLeod Genre and Mood: Classical + Sad ——— 🎧 Available on: iTunes: https://music.apple.com/us/album/laid... Incompetech: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-... ——— 😊 Contact the Artist: kevin@incompetech.com https://incompetech.com https://soundcloud.com/kevin-9-1 https://youtube.com/user/kmmusic https://music.apple.com/us/artist/kev... https://patreon.com/kmacleod https://twitter.com/kmacleod ———

The argument and question, can our planet survive capitalism as I explained previously without market-driven prices the economy leads to chaos as a result of the resource allocation problem that socialism is faced with, otherwise known as the economic calculation problem. In this argument, Francesca Fiorentini managed to pull off this crazy argument against economic growth and climate change in her argument would be solved by overthrowing capitalism. Lo and behold, surprise, surprise, here we have the typical BBC with ignorant Marxists sitting debating the issue claiming that productivity is killing the planet. I suppose if you're an ignoramus with no understanding of economics then that would sound like a reasonable argument. I mean, what exactly are they arguing for, to take us back to the dark ages? The BBC is a crying shame because it produces some of the greatest content such as the amazing wildlife programmes with top class videography work, I should know, I'm a photographer and can appreciate the work they do. However, when it comes to politics and economics, this is why all government funding and the forced TV licence should be abolished. The BBC should be forced to work for its money, maybe then it'll start providing for the people of this country. Even if we were to go along with their argument on economic growth and climate change, how is overthrowing capitalism in the mixed economy going to help matters any? As I explain in this video it would lead to a major catastrophe. It is, therefore, my case that if we wish to improve and protect our environment, it is an argument for capitalism, NOT against capitalism. As I explained before on the disaster of socialism and its failures relative to the environment, another problem is without a private sector to finance the public sector, where will you get the money from to not only pay their wages in those jobs but also where will the jobs come from? The government destroys more jobs than what it creates. Socialism is nothing other than an ideology based on religious faith and feelings, it is not based on reason. Like I've argued many times before, profits much like losses are grossly misunderstood and this argument of profits over people sends out the clear message that people like Francesca Fiorentini do not understand profits to begin with as I explain briefly in this video. The economic consequences we face from their 'Green New Deal' would be catastrophic on a cataclysmic scale that without exaggeration but a simple understanding of history, countless millions in untold numbers would starve to death. At least from my arguments on economic growth and climate change I can provide reasonable arguments like Tony Heller has in his video, which you can also check out. *The Jerry Brown And Michael Bloomberg Climate Clown Show:* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWKVnbuwaq8&t=127s To quote what the founder of Extinction Rebellion said in his own words to prove this is really just a socialist agenda, here is what he had to say: "This movement is the best chance that we have of bringing down capitalism. Get on board, induction through the day at Parliament Square. You are Welcome, you are needed." This was posted in a group tweet on by Extinction Rebellion, if that doesn't tell you their real true agenda, then what does? So, can our planet survive capitalism? The answer is, yes, it most certainly can and without capitalism, human life on this planet would be doomed.

In part 2 covering the question, can our planet survive capitalism, I cover the argument on resource allocation in response of what Francesca Fiorentini argues. The argument relative to GDP and production in general from what Francesca is saying is that overproducing creating waste is why we need to overthrow capitalism. The problem with this argument is that we don't live under a capitalist system, we live under corporatism and socialism through socialist government interventionist policies resulted in the surplus waste problems, as well as the resource allocation problem we see today. The way Francesca is arguing is almost as if to say because production goes to waste due to inefficiency, then we need to drastically cut back on productivity altogether. It sounds almost as if she is arguing to take us back to a period of life before the Industrial Revolution. Again, you can check out both videos I made on the economic calculation problem, which is the resource allocation problem, in both parts I covered on profits and losses and on the variety of options where I go more into detail on this subject matter: • Economic Calculation Problem: Profits & Losses https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVbbFVKWdhI • Economic Calculation Problem: Variety of Options https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFoqXD_o6Wc The economic calculation problem (resource allocation problem) is primarily the reason why socialism is so inefficient, why the Soviet Union resulted in such waste as both Soviet Union economists Shmelev and Popov pointed out themselves. The problem cannot be solved by technology as no technology can read the human mind and humanity is never going to accept living in an Orwellian surveillance state, we're already fighting for our liberty from all of that today. So, even if we were to go along with her argument about climate change, how would socialism solve the problem? It would create an even GREATER problem, in fact, a problem so cataclysmic it would result in most of the earth's population dying of starvation, they would no doubt waste more resources on a massive catastrophic scale, quite convenient that given the fact her argument is against producing waste. So when she asks can our planet survive capitalism, the answer is yes, because the problem isn't productivity to help improve people's material standard of living, the problem is what you do with those resources and how much you use; the problem is living in the absence of capitalism that as a result of price controls by governments, it has resulted in such resource misallocation. There is a reason why Hong Kong with practically no natural resources turned from a tiny small fishing village to becoming one of the richest cities in the world and when you contrast that to socialism of Venezuela or India, there's a reason why they were living dirt poor despite having used up large quantity of scarce natural resources. As I reiterate, it is important for us to look after our planet to reducing waste and managing how we use resources, as well as finding ways for cleaner, more efficient ways of using energy, but that's not an argument AGAINST capitalism, that's an argument FOR capitalism. So can our planet survive capitalism? Yes, it is socialism that destroys it.

The question surrounding can our planet survive capitalism is rather ludicrous for a variety of reasons. As I argue in this video on part 1 of climate change and capitalism I touch upon a variety of the climate change myths with regards to the our planet temperatures in correlation to CO2 level data. Socialists like to believe (or other climate alarmists,) that CO2 drives temperature as they like to use data from the past 800,000 years. Another one of their favourite arguments is to touch upon the arctic ice melting, however, strangely enough, much like Francesca Fiorentini she completely ignores the Antarctic as ice sheets have been growing more more than 10,000 years. There is plentiful data out there to back this. Another erroneous myth is that sea levels are rising leading to such a dooms day scenario, for this argument check out Tony Heller's informative video titled 'Accelerating Rate Of Sea Level Fraud' explaining in detail that debunks this claim and be sure to subscribe to his channel that has a wealth of information out there refuting their arguments on climate change, etc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e82smfcypUc&t=165s I'm sure there is much more data out there than I could possibly imagine, some of which could detail more information regarding the CO2 spike in data over the past century. When it comes to the argument on climate change and capitalism just like Francesca Fiorentini tries to argue, you can hear from the basis of her argument she doesn't even understand prices, she thinks Donald Trump just sets any old price he likes but doesn't comprehend the laws of supply and demand that determine cost, no different to her sarcasm on the $700,000 price tag on medication. As I have argued in detail before, the reason American healthcare costs are through the roof is to blame on government intervention, I explained that in detail in my response to VOX which you can also find here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsHx8Opx8ss

In part 2 on the economics of climate change, I cover more on why capitalism is better than socialism to prove the point that the answer isn't to overthrow capitalism, but to move in the direction of capitalism, to open up the free market economy. Capitalism gets the blame for so much under the sun and it's easy for people to misinterpret what capitalism is just by listening to the likes of Naomi Klein or Noam Chomsky, etc, but what they reference to as capitalism, is actually corporatism, otherwise known as cronyism and that's NOT capitalism. This is why climate change is anti capitalism because people think that what we live under today is capitalism, they don't comprehend the difference between a private sector in a free market economy (capitalist system) to that of a private sector subsidised and strongly regulated by the state. Mexie is the prime example of the common climate change alarmist who pushes the anti capitalist agenda and holds a strong anti capitalist mentality. The typical Marxist who misconstrues what capitalism is and thinks profits are merely just a means to filling your pockets, whilst completely ignoring the benefit the consumer gains in exchange for what they pay in hand. I have covered previously in response to Mexie and will no doubt do another response on more of her arguments. I also cover some of the other myths, such as on the melting ice and on the claim of a decline of the polar bear population, again, there is plentiful information out there that refutes these climate change alarmists narrative, the purpose of my argument was to clearly point out their agenda and even if there was global warming, socialism would lead to disaster and my arguments prove this very point.

The economics of climate change is arguably a very serious argument and in my opinion it is the most important argument and the case I make for my argument is that climate change is anti capitalism. Capitalism and climate change is so heavily correlated simply because a great many people are ignorant of what capitalism is, the subject of economics and even economic history for that matter. Climate alarmists would like to have you believe that we live under some sort of a capitalist system and it's that ignorance that is troublesome. In order to tackle problems with the environment, as well as over resource usage, one would have to have some level of understanding of the economics of climate change and it just so happens to be that the entire agenda behind the movement proves that climate change is anti capitalism. The anti capitalist hysteria stems from a great many who are ignorant of history, for example; the failure to comprehend why and what caused the Great Depression, as well as the failure to comprehend why the Banking Crisis occurred and what led to the crash in 2008. If one does not understand, it is easy enough to point the finger and blame capitalism and what you find today are a great many who do not understand the difference between capitalism and corporatism. The purpose of my video on the economics of climate change, relative to the anti capitalism is to point out what the real agenda is behind the movement. One only needs to look at the protests and Extinction Rebellion are more than certainly a symbol for that. But as I argue, socialism has proven to be a complete disaster for the environment, whether that being the Soviet Union or any other socialist regime for that matter. It is also important to note that inefficiency in the private sector stemming from socialist government subsidies is not a fault of capitalism, but a fault of government intervention to begin with. Therefore, the reason the economics of climate change is based off Anti Capitalism is because they view capitalism as the primary problem. However, as I've argued, if they were looking for real world solutions to problems, why do they stare in the face of the failure and disaster socialism has caused to the environment? The answer is simple: they aren't really that interested in the environment, at least a certain 'group' aren't. I see plentiful arguments refuting climate change by many scientists, etc and there is plentiful information out there to back that evidence, therefore, I don't need to provide much in that argument, but for me, it is important to fight in defence of capitalism, to put the Anti Capitalist hysteria to bed as without capitalism, your life would be a living hell. Whilst we may not live under a capitalist system, at least capitalism's presence in the mixed economy allows us to survive, somewhat. It is also important to note that I am not against the view of climate change, the earth's climate has always been changing and I'm not against improvement and looking after our environment, I'm a nature and wildlife photography enthusiast with a strong love for nature and I more than welcome the growth of trees in our environment and cleaning up litter and plastic waste in our oceans, etc to protect our environment, but what I do NOT support is strangling the private sector half to death to try achieve some regressive impossible climate change theory that has already been refuted. The Anti Capitalist movement is growing and even amongst socialist critiques I see a great many who do not fully comprehend what capitalism is. Therefore, I feel it is important to draw people's attention to the argument on the economics of climate change and to why climate change is Anti Capitalism.

In part 2 on the Industrial Revolution I cover issues relative to child labour relative to the myths of child exploitation regarding the Victorian children. Several of the myths that you will hear claim that mothers and children were enslaved and forced into working in the factories, that the Victorian children were poorly mistreated by the capitalist factory owners and beaten up. Another common myth, as mentioned, relates to the child exploitation, claiming the Victorian children worked endless hours for such little pay. There is no question that living conditions and the pay was awful during that time period, but when you compare that to where they came from before, the pay was substantially better and relative to part 1 their living conditions had significantly improved thanks to the machinery that capitalism made possible. An interesting quote by Thomas J. DiLorenzo strikingly puts things into perspective: "Interestingly, there was never an organized propaganda campaign against child labor in agriculture, even though the work performed on a farm could be every bit as hard and grueling as in any factory. The most likely reason for this is that labor unions were the driving force behind the anti-child labor crusades, and unions were concerned about child labor in large part because it represented competition for union labor. In other words, the unions' first concern was their own membership rolls and dues revenues, not necessarily the welfare of children." E. P. Thompson's own concession shows this in of itself: "Child labor was not new, the child was an intrinsic part of the agricultural and industrial economy before 1780. Certain occupations; climbing boys and ships boys were probably worse than all but the worst conditions in the early mills." Take notice of how he refers to the 'early' mills, this puts into contrast that their working conditions prior to the factories were worse off, but propaganda would like to paint this picture of child labour during the so-called 'evil' factories that they were pure evil. Ask yourself, if they were pure evil, why do you have such luxury today of free time and higher living standards? Again, that is the power one has to spread lies about the Industrial Revolution Victorian children. It tells you a lot when a socialist economic historian, E. P. Thompson comes out and states that concession in his own words.

In part 1 on the Industrial Revolution, I touch upon the living conditions during the industrial revolution debunking the myths relative to both Victorian Britain and the United States throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. There are countless myths you could go through, such as the myth of the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer, or about the monopolies and the dangerous concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. I have covered the Robber Barons myth in refutation of another YouTuber which you can check that video out below along with the antitrust myths. Robber Barons Myth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Izbn5j_9Q Antitrust Myth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC9KNt8-T4g Much of the information I must give credit to the Mises Institute with many great scholars as I named in this video, are as follows: • Thomas E. Woods Jnr • Robert P. Murphy • Thomas J. DiLorenzo • Robert Lefèvre • Ralph Raico There is plentiful great information out there covering the industrial revolution and in this part 1 I mostly covered relative to Victorian Britain living conditions during the Industrial Revolution. The strong critique of capitalism and of living conditions improving was Edward Palmer Thompson, a British economic historian and socialist. The work Ralph Raico cited from was E. P. Thompson's 'The Making of the English Working Class' from 1963. You can watch Ralph Raico's full argument on the living conditions during the Industrial Revolution here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdXj6tnvdZA

In part 2 on social democracy and why social democracy doesn't work in relation to Keynesian economics I address about the inefficiency relative to the economic calculation problem and the disastrous consequences of thinking demand is something secondary that you need to produce to create. Throughout history, relative to the economic calculation problem and the lunacy of believing production drives demand, it results in surplus waste wasting scarce natural resources. As the claims about resource usage it results in neglecting areas of the economy in greater urgency whilst producing aggregate supply in other areas. This explains why mixed economies aren't just so wasteful, but stagnant. As I have explained many times before, you require an economy to be free to drive prices to efficiently allocate resources efficiently that results in better improving the material wealth of the masses, which is why the free market economy works best. Add to the fact social democracy results in serious inflationary problems through reckless borrowing and spending running the printing press, resulting in an ever growing problem through fractional reserve banking and the strong government regulation over the private sector and you end up with not just a monopolistic corporatist system, but one lacking in opportunity in the marketplace as government tries to take more and more control trying to 'create' jobs that results in the destruction of jobs in the private sector. Government is not a job creator, it destroys more jobs than what it creates via higher tax rates as mentioned previously. The whole idea of social democracy is predicated around the state and trying to correct so-called problems, but as I mentioned before, the governments intervention only exacerbates the problem.

In this first part video I explain about social democracy and why social democracy doesn't work, which is Keynesian economics. Much like Marxists, Keynesians fail to comprehend there are trade offs in the economy that can lead to disastrous consequences. I have covered briefly on social democracy before on the brief history and some of the things that social democrats believe in, as well as explaining why it eventually results in people crying out for more socialism here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVSSjtd9yvs For the purpose of this argument, it isn't so much about where it eventually leads, but similar to full-blown socialism, it inevitably results in monopoly creation. One of the arguments is on unemployment and wage suppression, again, this is part of the consequences social democracy is faced with as a result of introducing socialism into the mixed economy through socialist government interventionism. There is a lot of information out there on the industrial revolution, the argument, therefore, for social democracy is erroneous given the fact that not only was the British industrial revolution anti-capitalist, in many regards, despite that, we still saw improvements in material wealth. I've argued before that things are a question of scale and economies perform better off the freer the economies are. As social democrats would argue, they try to accredit the state for the improvement in people's living standards when nothing could be farther from the truth. Finally, we can clearly see from what Keynesian economics caused resulting in the banking crisis through the reckless printing, borrowing and spending via all the failed quantitive easing, leading to legally protected fraud that not only did corporatism thrive as a result of this and put the poor and small business people at a disadvantage, it led to the economic recessions and economic crash of 2008. This proves that Keynesian economics is far from stable and is why social democracy doesn't work. You can also check out my video on why Keynesian economics doesn't work that explains more in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZabl3MGQl4

In part 2 in response debunking Mouthy Infidel on the Labour Theory of Value, I make the argument for why socialism doesn't work. Mouthy Infidel claims the failure of the Soviet Union would eventually come as a result of Mikhail Gorbachev, as I prove, the Soviet Union was always a failure. In correlation to the previous argument he claimed about the failure of Venezuela, Cuba, Chile and the Soviet Union about U.S. embargo's, I cover the reason for why socialism doesn't work regarding the issue on currency and inflation. It is important to note, I describe and define socialism from the real world perspective, not the theoretical fairy tale bed time story nonsense of Marxism being this moneyless theory, so before Mouthy Infidel responds saying Marx didn't believe in a monetary system, that has no bearing on the real world; what you have in theory on paper is not the same thing as to what you put in practice and socialism in practice leads to catastrophe either way, whether that is a moneyless based economy, as there is no price information signals or fixing prices. Therefore the Marxist Labour Theory of Value is directed at Marxists from the real world perspective. I could cover on why having a moneyless based economy is ludicrous but that is a whole other topic issue. Therefore, the natural state of socialism and why socialism doesn't work, why it results in such inflationary problems isn't just the requirement of higher tax rates (which I explain,) but also the monetary issue. Another thing I do address is what constitutes economic success. Now, I understand that economies are complex and you could cover on a variety of things like life expectancy, etc, however, I relate economic success to it's sole purpose and the evidence I provide shows for just how inefficient socialism has been. Again, this correlates to the economic calculation problem which I argued in part 1 and the knowledge problem.

In this first part response debunking Mouth Infidel on the Labour Theory of Value I cover the difference between Adam Smith vs Karl Marx explaining why the Marxist is deeply and inherently flawed. Mouthy Infidel doesn't even understand the Labour Theory of Value of Marx himself as he attempts to conflate the laws of supply and demand with Marxism saying that Marx accepted the laws of supply and demand. Furthermore, he attempts to state that price fixing has nothing to do with Marxism, whilst he may be accurate that by theory it aims for the moneyless based economy, this is still faced with the economic calculation problem. Important to note, my definition of Marxism is of the real world of socialism, not theoretical fairy tale bed time stories of Marxist theory. Even if you go along with that argument, however, you can find my argument on the economic calculation problem in 2 parts: Part 1: Profits and Losses — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVbbFVKWdhI Part 2: Variety of Options — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFoqXD_o6Wc As I have argued, the economic calculation problem isn't something that can be solved via technology, here is an example provided by Kevin D. Williamson in his book, 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism' that explains why: __________________________________________ "Milk, imagine what it would take in terms of sheer information to run a socialist redistribution network for milk in the United States. Some people, such as vegans or the lactose intolerant consume no milk, but some households consume large quantities of the drink; those with many kids, those who use lots of milk products in their cooking, etc. Others may consume varying amounts; in July when it’s hot and humid, a family might prefer lemonade but it might consume a lot of milk in August if it’s whipping up a bunch of ice cream for a big family reunion. "In addition to quantity calculations, there are various questions to answer to; whole milk or skimmed; 1 percent or 2 percent; do you prefer more expensive organic milk or cheaper factory farmed milk and if you prefer the pricier organic stuff, how much more are you willing to pay for it? What about soy milk, chocolate milk, the delicious Pennsylvania Dutch treat known as Vanilla milk? "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 have noted and what Mouthy Infidel is clueless about, Marx did NOT question; at what time is it valuable; where it is of value or even who it is valuable to. If he claims otherwise, he is twisting the entire Marxist Labour Theory of Value to suit his own deeply flawed agenda. As mentioned, Marx viewed value as objective, I cover more on this in this video. UPDATE: whilst I accept Adam Smith's Labour Theory of Value, a slight correction on my own argument is that the questions asked about to who, where, time and context was questioned by Mises. The argument, however, still remains the same.

In this final part 5 video debunking Polidice on the arguments against social democracy I cover on why the NHS is killing you. Polidice, like many social democrats, doesn't comprehend that not only is single-payer healthcare socialism, it most certainly is not working as he likes to have you believe. The long waiting times doesn't just pertain to that of A & E, it correlates on a far greater extent to those of other demands. This is one of the main arguments against social democracy that socialists and mixed economy supporters don't seem to understand, you cannot ignore the laws of supply and demand and the it's a failure to comprehend the damage created by that of government fixing prices, in the case of the NHS failure with the massive long waiting times it is caused by a price ceiling in the name of "FREE" healthcare. Setting price ceilings result in 'quality deterioration,' I provide my argument for this and why the NHS is killing us. Polidice argument is erroneous on American healthcare because he's comparing the NHS to that of American healthcare by today's standards. The American healthcare system as I have covered is in the mess it is in and neglectful because of all the socialist government interventionism, that's what happens when you turn your back on capitalism and strangle capitalism half to death through government created monopolies. Again, you can check out my argument on American healthcare in response to VOX for why healthcare costs in America soared out of control: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsHx8Opx8ss

In part 4 debunking Polidice ont he arguments against social democracy, I cover on the U.S. debt crisis. One must remember that the argument on universal healthcare and on the NHS correlates to this crisis as it would cripple the U.S. if they were to ever move down that path. The real U.S. debt crisis is way over $210 trillion and national debt now sitting at $22 trillion, as I've explained, it would be irrational for anyone to claim capitalism is the fault of the mess the United States is in today. The U.S. debt crisis one must lay the blame squarely on social security and all the other welfare programs. Again, correlating to the argument, the claim about universal healthcare for something akin to the NHS is laughable, the NHS has been far from anything successful.

In this third part video debunking Polidice on the arguments against social democracy, I cover on the social security and medicare arguments. Polidice likes to believe that through having higher tax rates in the United States that they would be able to sustain themselves, apparently, much like that of Scandinavian economies, however, as I have pointed out, these countries aren't the utopias he paints them to be and they are social market economies, not social democracies going by what social democrats want with the strong government regulation. The arguments on social democracy and medicare are ludicrous because the whole reason for the cause of why American healthcare costs are so expensive is to blame on the absence of the free market, therefore, the answer isn't universal healthcare. Also, it is unfair to compare Scandinavian economies with that of the United States given the fact those countries at least have low levels of government regulation like Sweden and Denmark. I also covered the unemployment argument, again, Denmark with a real unemployment rate 3 times higher than official figures this again paints the real picture of the damaging impact. The argument on the social security and medicare of the United States is ludicrous for the simple reason that the social security was the largest contributing factor to the United States soaring debt problem and medicare is NOT more affordable, it's more expensive. You can also check out my argument debunking VOX on why American healthcare costs are so expensive, which I cover more in depth on each reason given here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsHx8Opx8ss

In this second part video debunking Polidice on the arguments against social democracy, I cover more on the Scandinavian economies and why they aren't so great as they are made out to be. Polidice, like many others, don't seem to understand what constitutes as a successful economy which is something else I briefly cover. Again, I cover partly about the United States, however, it is important to note that it is an unfair comparison and cover the arguments for why Scandinavian economies have been doing reasonably well compared to some states in the U.S. like California. Again, whilst these countries may not be full-fledged socialist economies with strong government ownership, they are mixed economies and socialism does have its presence to some extent and most certainly isn't benefiting their economies, such as the higher tax rates. As mentioned in this video, I covered on the minimum wage and for why it is so damaging, you can check that out here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKzrnzQm5Lg For more information that I have covered on social democracy, again, the link to that you can find here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVSSjtd9yvs

In response debunking Polidice on his video titled: 'Debunking 20 Arguments Against Social Democracy' I cover my own arguments against social democracy. In this first part I cover Sweden setting the example of the economic failure of social democracy. It is important to note that the Scandinavian economies are social market economies, this differs from the common belief of social democrats as they typically believe in strong government regulation over the private sector. The historical example I have given of Sweden setting the example shows that socialism is a disaster no matter how much of it you try to implement into the economy, whether it's full-blown Marxism or even the mixed economy. I covered previously on the topic issue of what social democracy is with a bit of history which you can check out here: • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVSSjtd9yvs the video about social democracy covers why social democracy eventually leads to people crying out for more and more socialism. The argument I covered in both parts on the economic calculation problem can be found here: • Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVbbFVKWdhI • Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFoqXD_o6Wc As I have shown by example in this first part video, universal healthcare is a disastrous failure and the NHS is no exception to this, you cannot make socialism work, not even in a mixed economy. This pertains to the price mechanism problem which is the economic calculation problem.

In this video on 'Why Capitalism is Great: Non Compete Debunked' I cover the anti-capitalist rhetoric where Non Compete tries to conflate Liberalism with that of capitalism. Another thing I cover in response is the erroneous argument claiming that it somehow enabled fascism and national socialism, as I point out from evidence, both national socialism and fascism are inherently socialist. The definition of the word synonym means: • A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language. The synonyms for collectivism are clear: • https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/collectivism • https://www.synonyms.com/synonym/collectivism • https://www.thesaurus.net/collectivism •https://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/collectivism • https://www.powerthesaurus.org/collectivism/synonyms •https://www.synonym.com/synonyms/collectivist Under umpteen sources you will find socialism listed synonymous to the word collectivism. Even nazism and fascism can be found listed in sources under synonyms for collectivism. The reason why capitalism is great is that it is an individualist system, it doesn't place the state as the main element of the economy like collectivism does in practice that results in tyranny.

This video on why capitalism is great: Non Compete debunked, I cover the argument in defence of capitalism and the capitalist. Like all socialists, Non Compete paints an erroneous image describing the capitalist as some greedy individual who provides nothing in return. Unfortunately, as a result of living under corporatism, people like Non Compete are obsessed on trying to blame this on the capitalist, he doesn't understand the difference between a market entrepreneur and political entrepreneur, which one is a capitalist, the other is anticapitalist. The data which you will find in this video you can cite from: • Thomas J. DiLorenzo's book, 'How Capitalism Saved America'. • Thomas E. Woods Jnr's book, 'Real Dissent'. Why capitalism is great is because you aren't faced with the knowledge problem and economic calculation problem. In relation to this, I briefly cover the Broken Window Fallacy which is all too common with people such as Non Compete who don't understand this. For information I covered on the Great Depression and the New Deal: • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82dH_7S22Mw