Importance of Natural Resources

Economics of Climate Change: Why Capitalism is Better Than Socialism Part 2


Their answer to trying solving the problem
to overthrow capitalism “I’m Francesca Fiorentini and in this episode we’re looking at the failures
of profit driven climate change solutions and why the cooking of our planet is becoming
a recipe for socialism.” Now, you don’t live under a capitalist system because you don’t
live in that of a free market economy, but you do live in a mixed economy. If you were
to completely rid the economy, like I say, of capitalism, you will be faced with the
economic calculation problem and I don’t care if I’ve bored folk enough as it is. I’ve provided
videos on the economic calculation problem on profits and losses and, of course, on the
argument to do with the variety of different, you know, resources and stuff like that and
products and central planning would be an absolute disaster and this is exactly what
they are calling out for. They would end up causing a disaster where they would over use
scarce natural resources, they would misallocate them, they would end up creating disaster
like you saw in the Soviet Union. India was a country with vast arable land, it was a
country with vast resources, yet, what happened all thanks to socialism? They used up 70 percent
of those natural resources, 70 percent of them! Waste, because by the mid 1990s India
was living in extreme poverty. So, in other words, they did very little. Hong Kong like
I’ve reiterated so many times before, is a tiny small fishing village in about 1948,
turns towards the free market, has practically no natural resources and becomes the richest
city in the world. There’s the difference between the efficiency of capitalism and the
absolute abysmal failure of socialism. “For any good discussion of Neoliberalism I’m going
to start with capitalism and look at the relationship between capitalism and environmental degradation
or the environmental crisis we’re facing today like climate change, etc. So, as I mentioned
in other videos, profit is only generated in a capitalist society through exploitation,
expropriation of labours and exploitation of resources, or the environment.” Now, those
of you will remember that I’ve done, you know, responses to that of Mexie before whose a
Marxist. It’s rather quite funny that she goes on about capitalism, again, you can see
the real agenda here. It’s not really about that of the environment, well, maybe for some
people, right, to be fair to some people, but you get certain groups who their real
agenda really is Marxism to say the least. First of all, B.P. was a company that was
over regulated by the government and it caused a massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico, it
paid for its damages. After the massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico by the state owned oil
company, the Mexican government didn’t even pay for its own damages, it took no accountability
for it. That’s the prime example of the difference between capitalism and that of socialism.
Again, her argument on profits is just laughable because she doesn’t understand profits and
I could go on a whole other argument on that in itself. In a free market economy the only
way that you can gain a profit is by providing a service that benefits the consumer, that’s
not exploitation, that’s called providing a service that consumers are in demand of
and fierce competition forces businesses to provide better, because, see if you don’t?
Your competition will wipe the floor with you and competition will always step in and
provide better than its competitor. So, the consumer always wins, the consumer is King.
Now, what her type would try and do, she would try and conflate that of capitalism and corporatism.
We see this corporatist system of monopolies, etc. “I think that the most important thing
is that our society would live within the boundaries of what our planet can take, so,
we know we need to be cutting our emissions by between 8 to 10 percent a year because
we’ve waited so long, those numbers come from the Tyndall Centre here in the U.K. a very
trusted institution and in order to do that, we need to expand the parts of our economy
that are already low carbon, we need to roll out renewable energy, we need to move very,
very quickly to 100 percent renewable energy. We know that the technology is there, the
cost is getting very low, we’ve seen the price of solar drop by 80 percent in 5-years, so
the technology is there.” So, whilst she spits in the face of capitalism that basically enables
you to technologically advance, enables your economy to grow, she’s talking about that
of, you know, efficiency and basically tells people to live within their means. This is
coming from the same socialists who have been profligates for decades on end, the same profligates
who are asking for massive big welfare states, strong social security, just everything under
the sun with the high tax rates in this utopian fantasy world where we’ll have 100 percent
employment. Whilst being profligates all that time they want to tell you to live within
your means. How can these people honestly sit there with a straight face and tell you
to live within your means? And then she goes on about that of, you know, the renewable
energy? Now, there are articles out there and I can show you just some for example;
it would cost an absolute bomb on our economy, again, it’s that thing where they just jump
two feet into something without even thinking first. They don’t even seem to care about
the cost, you know, never mind United States being more than $220 trillion in debt, you
know, that’s not important, no, what’s more important is just how we feel. See, if there’s
a way that you could make renewable energy sustainable, I’m pretty sure the market would
accept that and that’s not a problem, but I remember seeing an article where a weather
disaster occurred and all you saw was these solar panels that cost an absolute bomb left
shattered in pieces all over the ground. Now, how much would that have actually cost? Now,
you’re going to hear the argument often enough on that of the ice melting and you probably
seen this story before, but have a look at this article and you can see that it contradicts
their narrative and that’s not because of global warming where they try to blame global
warming and this correlates to the one that frustrates me the most, it’s the one where
they say that the polar bear population is in decline because of global warming, otherwise
known as climate change. As you can see from the propaganda they’re spreading about polar
bear population in decline, well, it’s actually been on the increase since the 1950s and 1960s;
we’ve seen the polar bear population rise from 5,000 to more than 25,000. Again, just
like that guy, you know, never mind all the facts, don’t acknowledge all the statistics,
that doesn’t matter, no, what matters is basically feelings over facts. This is why I cannot
take these people seriously. If you’ve got anything you would like to add yourself, see
if you’ve got any data below, fling it down there, do so, do so because the fact that
it upsets them so much because they think their feelings matter more than actual facts.
I hope you’ve enjoyed the video, thank you for watching and, of course, I shall talk
to you’s later, cheers!


Reader Comments

  1. I like to understand how socialists would like to run an economy considering that everything that socialism has touched has turned into a dumpster fire of hell. As a free-market anarchist, I can even tell from the slightest socialism does not give any respect to property rights and individual liberties as it's been shown in history to fail making many people suffer. Why the hell do people think government solves everything knowing it's unsustainable to decide what's best for everyone? Absolutely retarded and ridiculous.

  2. A Scot talking about capitalism? Aye, as it should be! To Adam Smith and let these neo-socialists starve in their marxist gulags.

  3. First time I see you lose it and just laugh with no regard to the video recording 😛

    I've been thinking about the dilemma of human nature lately. Human nature is what causes both capitalism and socialism to fail. We're not like ants, therefore we push for more capitalism. We're not perfect individuals, therefore we push for more socialism. It's an eternal struggle of human societies.
    I wonder if a solution will eventually come as technology reshapes the human condition until every individual can realistically become a complete master of oneself. Will this redefine what it means to be an individual? Or will the struggle of economic ideologies just continue on an elevated level? There are many fascinating questions to be answered.

  4. According to the Vostok Ice Core Records, CO2 level changes have followed Earth's overall temperature changes at an 800 year lag for the last 800,000 years. That means that our current CO2 levels are the result of Earth's overall temperature 800 years ago. World leaders have convinced their dependents that this works in reverse, and that we are to blame, so that they can tax us out of a false shared guilt in order to be able to afford to "fight" climate change, an unstoppable natural cycle. REFERENCES: https://www.nature.com/articles/20859
    (Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.), https://science.sciencemag.org/content/283/5408/1712.abstract (Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.), https://science.sciencemag.org/content/291/5501/112.abstract (Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia, also in Antarctica – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600.), https://www.manfredmudelsee.com/publ/pdf/The_phase_relations_among_atmospheric_CO2_content_temperature_and_global_ice_volume_over_the_past_420_ka.pdf (Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.)

Leave a Reply

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