America's Socialist Origins | 5 Minute Video

[@JohnnyJPatt]

My father told me once that expecting others to give you everything most the time will turn you into a total bum 100% of the time. He was right

[@RD-lu1tr]

@@garr123 ?

[@tankieflanker4119]

Except under a Socialist or Anarchist society, everyone would contribute their fair share towards the common good of society.

[@neumiekane2136]

Now parents their children that they deserve everything because they want it. Everyone gets a trophy, so no one's feelings get hurt. That's how to raise a generation of entitled people with no skills

[@tankieflanker4119]

@Catfish They'll get what they need to live and just like everyone else they have a niche to fill in society. Also specify what you mean by "unqualified".

[@tankieflanker4119]

@Catfish lol, Venezuela isn't even Socialist, most of the economy is privately owned. Also, it's pretty clear that Capitalism is incredibly wasteful, both in resources and human talent. American capitalism isn't much of a meritocracy that the Rightwing likes to champion, infact it tends to kill innovative spirits and encourages centralization of power within a small minority of oligarchs

[@graydonwilson9106]

If you look back even further, all tribal societies were communist, but had to gradually move toward capitalism once the tribe started to become a town. Communism works in very small societies where everyone's contributions can be seen by everyone else. The incentive to work is to please the community. The larger the population, the easier it is to get away with less work, so capitalism is necessary. If you are someone who does not like capitalism, think of it as a necessary evil that comes with a large population.

[@HarsonoNg]

Graydon Wilson i like this opinion

[@maxxon99]

Nuclear families still are, and in some cases extended families. But it doesn't translate to larger context, and even families sometimes have problems with abusive members.

[@prxnv]

Graydon Wilson well said

[@prodigalson6166]

@UncleDaddy you are misconstruing the paradigms of trading horses for women. 98% of American Indian nations are matriarchal. When a young man married a woman he became part of her family. The horses were a gift and also proof that he was Worthy to be a member of the family. What the young men were proving is that they were responsible and hard workers. Just in case you're triggered. Matriarchy and feminism are two completely different things. Feminism is nothing more then patriarchy turned on its head. It has nothing to do with matriarchy. Matriarchy is about balance and is very traditional, which is counted as a form of "conservatism." The Constitution of the United States of America is in essence a matriarchal government system. We were patterned after the Iroquois Confederacy which is a matriarchal Society. What is stereotyped as patriarchy is actually more specifically graeco-roman and Middle Eastern patriarchy where women are the property of men. When examining the patriarchal tribes of Europe we find a very different form of patriarchy that is balanced with matriarchal perceptions. I wish I had space to explain it; one could write several books on it. The Concept of matriarchy and patriarchy as we understand them today are actually quite modern. In ancient times people didn't think of themselves in such terms it was just what they did. In most so-called patriarchal societies we find a very strong matriarchy interwoven with in the culture itself, unlike the Romans and Greek, with the exception of the Spartans, and Mesopotamian Society there was actually a very strong form of feminism within other patriarchal cultures as we find women were also Warriors and quite often went into battle with their husbands. Just as the Spartans we're an exception to graeco-roman patriarchy so the Amazons ARE an exception to matriarchal culture as the women instead of the men hold the prime leadership positions. Jeannine Davis-Kimball found the "Amazons" alive and well, living in Mongolia, and interbred into the population, over a decade ago. Of course they don't call themselves Amazons anymore then the Diné call themselves Navajo or the Lakota call themselves Sioux. Sadly the political atmosphere causes such discoveries to be politicized. Matriarchy and patriarchy can be differentiated in simple terms. Matriarchy follows what is now referred to as natural law nomocracy whereas patriarchy can be defined as hierarchical and based upon man-made laws at the whims of its leaders.

[@saber2802]

I argue it works well in a survival situation, where it is literally do or die.

[@alextang1030]

Every time when I watch this kind of video, it always remind me that: The only thing we learn from the history, is the people never learn from the history.

[@dboy6400]

The unbridled power of emotion and instinct #1.

[@eeveegaming4798]

The only thing we learn from history is that people cherry pick history

[@maka8551]

@@eeveegaming4798 a good commie is a dead commie

[@jamesnabors3643]

Sounds more like people enamored by socialism never learn from history.

[@milkdrinker7]

You can tell they don't really know what they're talking about from the getgo, introducing Adam Smith as an English thinker. He was Scottish. It's not a huge transgression but it underlines a generally surface level understanding of things.

[@avro549B]

Adam Smith would have been rather upset at being called an Englishman, I think. He was a proud Scot. Otherwise, a fine summary.

[@ScipioXII]

+avro549B aye

[@Pomiferous]

+avro549B People don't seem to be able to get over it.What is it with this ethnicity correctness theme when it comes to Scot or Englishman ?

[@normanwells2755]

I noticed that too.

[@PenneyBack]

+Double D Scotland and England are two different countries, with Scots and English people respectively. While both do come under the same government, calling a Scotsman an Englishman is like calling a German an Italian because they both come from Europe

[@leebrondum2643]

+Double D for the same reason you probably wouldn't like to be called a Canadian even though you are American. Plus there is a rivalry between us and England

[@c0p13dn4m3]

Poor Scottish people. Their most famous philosopher is mistaken for an Englishman.

[@murrayaronson3753]

+George Costanza Their most famous philosopher, Adam Smith? You are forgetting David Hume, who is not chopped haggis!

[@dickditty480]

I like haggis, what's your problem with it? 🙂

[@seamusbrown3171]

A lesson in valuing your own sovereignty..

[@lugus9261]

George Costanza urm, david hume?

[@CoelhoSports]

common mistake because he often paid retail prices and tipped at restaurants

[@irvin295]

If you don't work you don't eat.

[@fudichhalt]

That would be wrong in a wealthy country. But I'd go for. If you don't work you get no luxury. You get food and some shelter where you don't die in the winter. Want more? Work for it! You can't let people die in a wealthy country.

[@irvin295]

GuteAlteDMark true

[@sanityinaseaofmadness7353]

That 90 million includes retired people, 16 y.o. high school students, most college undergrad and post-grad students, the disabled, and stay-at-home parents. The statistic is being used politically to coerce sheep into being angry about things they don't understand.

[@4y6857]

Lt. Columbo: You said, "36% of our employable population is able to work, but do not. 63% Work." First: what is your source authority for this number? Not just a website quoting another website, etc., but where did the data come from, what were the study demographics, et al. Second: what and/or who were being measured? How were stay-at-home mothers, for example, counted? Did they fall under the heading of those who "are able to work but don't", or are they considered to be "fully employed but grievously underpaid"? Then you conflate these two statements: "My comment isn't about shaming the elderly or the handicapped..." followed immediately with: "Either these folks are lazy, stupid, or they cannot find a job...up to their standards." It sounds as if you're saying the elderly and handicapped are lazy, stupid, or just too stinkin' picky about the kind of work they'll do. Was that your intent? I'm going to submit for discussion that your "36% of the population is employable but too lazy to work" is seriously skewed. I suspect it includes stay-at-home moms (or dads), the feeble, the seriously handicapped, those who are too young to work, et al. Unless can parse those numbers and be more specific about the demographics and size of the population studied and the methodology used, they're just dust in the wind.

[@james192599]

Irvin Gomez then why do landlords or business owners eat? They only collect wealth from others labor.

[@SkyrimEs5]

The lack of female/gay/transgender stick figures is triggering me. I suggest you re-upload this with all black trans gendered female stick figures so that this can be a diverse safe space for hamsters that are going through college.

[@LibertyDownUnder]

+SkyrimEs5 what, no Muslims? Racist! LOL

[@davidaustin7305]

For a secound I thought you were serious!

[@LeviPaladin]

+David Austin Why for only a second?

[@davidaustin7305]

Levi Paladin Im sorry, but your hard questions are triggering me.

[@LeviPaladin]

David Austin My apologies, best get thee to thy safe space.

[@alanhowitzer]

I don't think we perfected capitalism. We got closer than most any other nation.

[@Codie-el2di]

+Despiser Despised the new deal was a great compromise and helped relieve poverty and unemployment it certainly did more than Obama or Bush Jr combined.

[@SwagableKingdom]

what a useless opinion

[@chetansharma6344]

+sheparddog117 Capitalism is based upon voluntary participation. Cartels use force to maintain their position and dominance. That is not Capitalism. Try to be a little more objective and not just confirm your biases.

[@JakeMobley1]

Not true. If anything, the New Deal caused even more instability in the US economy, that was already beginning the long road to recovery when Hoover left office. The only thing the New Deal accomplisehd was the increase of Socialist policies in the US, and making the Great Depression last longer than it otherwise might have. If it weren't for the New Deal, we may have left the Great Depression prior to WW2, and likely would have been more predisposed to assist against Hitler earlier in the war.

[@redseagaming7832]

Alan Fox a system where you can rise from the gutter and become a rich CEO like Bill Gates or Walt Disney that is a dream we all have and we know we have to work hard to get there that is capitalism.

[@TheChosennn]

The US is the land of opportunity, not the land of giving

[@egalwasdukochstkarlmags1214]

Socialism is merely trying to achieve a land of opportunity, instead of some arbitrary luck leading to success. Billionaires all have just one thing in common. They were all born rich.

[@shalyfemusic]

@@egalwasdukochstkarlmags1214 most billionaires are self made

[@egalwasdukochstkarlmags1214]

@@shalyfemusic Billionaires are built off the backs of hard working people. You will find that most billionaires take out a “small loan of a million dollars” from their parents, or just ask for some of that apartheid emerald wealth their father has.

[@shalyfemusic]

@@egalwasdukochstkarlmags1214 Labor is not the only thing in creating wealth. There is also Innovation, ideas, Capital, and leadership. Not everything is labor

[@egalwasdukochstkarlmags1214]

@@shalyfemusic Capital is generated by labour and leadership shouldn’t be able to be bought with the same capital that labour generated.

[@AktienMitKopf]

very nice Video. Also the fundamental difference between mercantilism and capitalism, is that mercantilists view economy as a zero-sum game, considering it more important to export more than to import and seeing the difference payed in gold. Gold was their definition of wealth. Adam Smith refused this world-view, viewing the economy not as a zero-sum game and considering the wealth of nations not as their ownership of gold, but in the products and services we create and consume to enhance our life. I think one of the most fundamental ideas is wether you consider the global economy as a zero-sum game, meaning some people "exploiting" others, or in a "win-win" game, where people trade und enhance each others lives.

[@MikhaelAhava]

Yeah

[@jackhooper2839]

Well, at the end of the day you should want your nation to prevail over all others, unless, I suppose, your nation is a real shithole.

[@jackhooper2839]

Bart Bols Uhh, because you value the past accomplishments and culture of your country? Because you want to contribute to the nation that's provided such great opportunities for you? Because you want to enrich the life of your fellow man? Because you know that spreading the values and knowledge of your nation to others will make those nations better too? Because you simply want to contribute to something greater than yourself? Take your pick, there are more than enough reasons.

[@jackhooper2839]

Bart Bols Some countries are simply more prosperous than others. If by "their country's system works for them" you mean "they prefer to live in a country which is less prosperous" then I would question their motive. Most people prefer prosperity, though.

[@terryhollands2794]

+Aktien mit Kopf Adam Smith's book was written at a time when world wealth was being created by the exploitation of lands in the new world. The rapid rise in true wealth tapered off in the 1970s, it seems like today most "wealth" created, is now on paper.

[@iam16bits]

I'm convinced that the people who praise socialism don't really understand socialism.

[@CrazyPhilMachine]

+iam16bits You could say the same about capitalism.... This guy does not know what capitalism is, his "definition" of capitalism is totally wrong. Nobody supports pure capitalism or pure socialism.

[@vegetatheprince3080]

+Craze Phil true

[@iam16bits]

Craze Phil While it's true that no one supports true capitalism and socialism most people do agree that capitalism is a much more stable and reliable system than socialism and history has proven this over the decades.

[@jakemorrison5146]

+iam16bits Yes, a market driven economy is more stable than a government driven one. But in no way is anyone on the main political scene advocating for a government driven economy, so I'm not quite sure what the point of your last comment was. As to your initial comment, I'm assuming you speak of Sanders' supporters, and I'm personally convinced that people who disparage his ideas don't really understand them.

[@blogegog]

+iam16bits Socialism, on paper, is a beautiful thing. So is communism. We all work together to achieve prosperity, and we all benefit. It is delightful. The only problem is, we DON'T all work together. It begins with, "I'm sure someone else will plant that wheat, so I'm going to go to the bar and get drunk instead of working in the field." Then it spirals out of control when someone notices months later that no one ever planted any wheat.

[@zacharypisarski9348]

This is a great video. Incidentally enough I have been reading “Of Plymouth Plantation” by William Bradford and noticed the exact same thing. For the first few years after landing, masses of people died from famine. Then, they made the hard decision to turn away from the communal system and let everyone work for himself. After that, Bradford never mentioned any famine or anyone dying of starvation for the years following. Amazing how that works!

[@janruudschutrups9382]

Capitalism ho! One small error in the video; Adam Smith was Scottish, not English.

[@janruudschutrups9382]

+Jordan Stiltner I'd agree on British (from the British isles) though I don't believe Scotts will like it when you call them English ;).

[@in3x]

We (Scots) are definitely not English. These two nationalities cannot be used interchangeably.

[@Blue-nn1oh]

Gimme a break, we (the English speaking peoples) are all part of the Anglosphere. The constituent parts of Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand. Basically, the places where life is really good.

[@AdolfHitlerMemeLord]

Well, they speak English in India as well. I'd not say it is very nice over there.

[@Jonas-1A]

As a Finn, I agree! Scottish people

[@Mitjitsu]

0:30 - Adam Smith was Scottish.

[@jacob_carter_is_batman]

Scotland at this time was own by and kinda suppressed by England so yes he was both

[@jacob_carter_is_batman]

Yea but it is less suppressed today

[@Michiganman800]

+Jacob Carter that still doesn't make Smith English. He could be British

[@Datroflshopper]

>Shows Britain >"England"

[@thetroyzernator]

+Datroflshopper He wasn't English. That's like saying the founding fathers were English.

[@Devoid516]

Socialism exposed....

[@pedrobatista7975]

No, its not socialism, its just equal distribution of the production, a very christian thing, no socialism involved. Of course it doesn't work, do you really think that all those socialists defend this piece of shit? That's rubbish!

[@mikeoxsmal8022]

Devoid516 well a form of socialiam

[@brooksh.3775]

@@pedrobatista7975 Is stealing and sexual depravity a Christian thing then eh?

[@abrahamlincoln5185]

A 17th century village does not work for an analogy for modern macroeconomics

[@danielholm1987]

You can't perfect Capitalism. Individual liberty is Capitalism. Socialism, communism, fascism and monarchy are all the same principle. Tyranny.

[@unknowunknown9096]

Pls read a book Like the principles of communism, on authority

[@danielholm1987]

@@unknowunknown9096 Communism doesn't have principles. It is based off of resentment and rebellion. It's whole underlying modis operandi is overthrowing existing structures.

[@brodyhagemeier9356]

"It was the wisdom of experience, not academic ideology, that created America's free market principles."

[@546cowboy8]

These PragerU videos are the best. Seemingly complicated topics explained in the words we can all understand. No word game to complicate with bias.

[@Thane36425]

There was more to Jamestown than that. The original "settlers" weren't settlers exactly, they were men, many from the upper classes, who were looking to get rich. They thought Virginia might be like the lands to the south with gold and silver everywhere to fall right into their hands. That wasn't the case. Many of these same didn't want to do manual labor in favor of looking for gold or just doing nothing. They set up shop on an island, sort of. There was a swamp on one side one made worse by a terrible drought that was occurring at the time. This meant that water supplies were difficult and marginally potable at best. It also meant lots of mosquitoes coming from the swamp. The natives in the area were in the middle of a war when the Europeans showed up. At first, both sides courted the strangers and their weapons. However, finding the newcomers uninterested in joining their war, and losing much of their fear of the musket (but still having some respect for the power of the cannon on ship and fort), they attacked the Europeans from time to time, which trapped them in the fort and made hunting and farming difficult or impossible. Lastly, there may have been traitors in the fort. Recent evidence has suggested that someone in the fort may have been poisoning food supplies and otherwise working against the English expedition. The reason for this is that accounts show that sickness and death would increase while the settlers were trapped in the fort and living on stores, but health would improve whenever ships brought in new supplies, before the cycle would start over again. A few relics linked to Spain were also found on the site, suggesting a Spanish agent was present. It is also though that Spain might have sent an expedition to wipe out Jamestown, but the ships never arrived. Now, all that said, the first couple of years were awful. Bad leadership, disappointment at not finding gold-rich natives, and men not inclined to manual labor, all played their part. Once they found a substitute in tobacco and some other things, that's when the colony took off.

[@JohnAlbertRigali]

THANK YOU. This video was begging to be made.

[@MrXemrox]

Wade Haden And calling Columbus a plunderer isn't immoral rewriting? He wasn't a plunderer, he was sailor and discoverer in his time.

[@goingcommando5714]

Wade Haden No re-writing involved. You just don't like it.

[@air6448]

why do I always get some liberal ad whenever I watch a clearly right wing video it's so weird

[@FootClob]

Liberalism isnt leftist it's also right wing, and even PragerU says it

[@ladyjade6446]

Trying to brainwash you.

[@tMatt5M]

I'm a dumb liberal and this is triggering. The core concepts of economics and the true beauty of human liberty is far beyond my level of understanding. I'm an unhappy victim who hates the idea of man ruling himself. Popular opinions on the internet argued through hashtags form the majority of my political opinions.

[@SkyrimEs5]

+tMattLZ #Socialistlivesmatter

[@HaloForgeUltra]

+tMattLZ What makes you think all liberals want socialism? It's mostly the regressive left and third wave feminists that want that, they don't actually care about human rights, they aren't liberals.

[@tMatt5M]

CMDR Dantae Really the title "liberal" is the most ironic title ever. Other than gay marriage and baby slaughter, they hate liberty. I should have used the term leftist. But yes, I cannot think of one major left of center thinker who is a moderate democrat. sanders and clinton are socialists.

[@HaloForgeUltra]

tMattLZ Bernie isn't a true socialist depending on your definition, he doesn't support the abolition of private property which is pretty important to most socialists, if you mean socialist government policies, just building infrastructure and the army and healthcare, then yes he is very socialist, but even the republicans have health care plans, he's just on the same stance as every other first world country when it comes to healthcare.

[@tMatt5M]

Communism is the abolition of private industry. The military has nothing to do with economics. Cuba has your version of health care. Wanna go there for cancer treatments? "Free" healthcare from a faceless nameless bureaucratic government is hardly progressive. It's regressive. Socialist healthcare is scary. It isn't free. The costs go up and care goes down. Really common sense suggests this. The reason it's so popular is because people like you value equality over liberty. If one unleashes the free market, companies will complete, prices go down care goes up. We already have medicare and medicade.

[@AdagioPhoenix]

Long live the idea of "if it's meant to be, then it's up to me." Taught to me by one of the greatest mentors I've ever had.

[@normanvaliao]

I hate it when other people say "I Deserve It!" or "I have the right to have it!" No one is really entitled to anything in this world. You have to "EARN" it in order to be entitled to it. You have to "TAKE RESPONSIBILITY" in order to deserve it. There is no such thing as FREE in this world. You have to "WORK HARD" for it in order to get what you need and want.

[@KenH60109]

Yes, one is entitled to the full benefits of their own labor, right? That’s something capitalism doesn’t DO, like, at all, whether “free market” or not.

[@xGreenHawk97x]

You want me to WORK to pay for my tuition? My health insurance? But I want to live at home with my parents for the rest of my life.

[@GeoFry3]

+GreenHawk97 By at home, they mean their own place, a car, no bills, and no one to tell them what to do.

[@ashhketchumm]

+GeoFry3 all paid by government so they don't have to

[@pinkmpheles108]

Yea and then what happens when you outlive them? Or they can't afford to support your lazy ass anymore? Make a living, don't take someone else's.

[@VinceQc01]

+Pink MPheles I think a parent knows pretty much in what adventure he is part of when comes the time to have children. And as a parent, if my child want to go university fine. If he is not ready to go in apartment, sure a parent should help them, until having them home is not serving them anymore. But it can take until 25-26 years old for a child to go away from their parents home, its sooo late I know, but it is not that worst. And, all the knowledge given by the university is giving back to the community when those bachelors are finding a job. Now, if the states accept to finance a large part of the education system, they will invest in a ressources that will be given back to the population one day. I don't see why you are on the side of the "responsible" when comes the time to make responsable decision for our future exactly like invest a lot to make education more accessible. But sure we need social securities to make sure that everyone will have almost the same chance to sucess in America, again it is simply logic. But your "fake-responsible moneymaker" side make you total jealous that are totally blind when comes the time to talk about fees, social securities fees, education tuitions fees etc. Think again and freee yourself from a world full of hate and jealousy, the world of making money only for making money, a selfish world, we are all one, u know..

[@0ryGreg1]

+GreenHawk97 Under Bernie's "free" college plan you have to qualify for free tuition. In short, you have to WORK hard in high school and you can get free tuition. It is also only for community colleges. As for health insurance, America isn't built on letting our fellow Americans die on the streets.

[@jackscott4772]

Capitalism worked perfectly when it originated as businesses were forced to help others in order to advance there own profits, however now the largest businesses don't need to help others as so many people rely on them, allowing them to exploit them. Just a criticism of capitalism today but it's still better that socialism

[@ganthore]

Name one single business in the USA that the American people have no choice but to purchase from them.

[@911mastermind]

There are many many many many such businesses/industries. All protected by the government (making the markets less competitive and not completely free). Recent example that was all over the news : auto dealerships which are protected by law (can't buy a car unless through a dealership). Free market capitalism works when there is free market capitalism.

[@jenonfung7992]

Amzing comment 10/10 no 100/100 nver scene respectful disagreement in youtube before, so inspirational overwhelmingly unprecedented developmetn no flame war absolutely asstounding well thoguht out opinions and arguement, such phenomenon has never ben seen in youiutbe before, give this man a medal

[@jenonfung7992]

Now that I'm done smashing my face into the keyboard, I figure I'll actually say something. Firstly to ganthore , a business that Americans effectively have to buy from is Luxotica which has a near absolute monopoly on eyeglasses, which are effectively a necessity to lots of Americans. Next to Huey Iroquois and Mr. Osama , you're not all that wrong, both parties seem to want the Government and big businesses to merge with republicans wanting the government to allow corporations to do what they want without restriction, and democrats wanting the government to absorb those corporations (read bailouts). Finally to address Jack Scott's point, I think you're absolutely right Capitalism works best when businesses can't dick over the populace and interfere with the political system. Essentially the problem is that the relationship between a corporation and its employees is barely consensual.

[@911mastermind]

Jenon Fung (@Luxotica): That's simply not true, there are many many competitors in the market, you just don't know about them. (@last point) : Capitalism works best in complete absence of government.

[@vitalidontcare9329]

2:12 The settlements didn't collapse because they were communes. Other factors like harsh winters, not enough supplies and fights with Native Americans were the main reasons for the settlements to die off.

[@Original_Dalvik]

When England was said and the map of the United Kingdom came up. 👀 And the English government. 👀

[@ДанилаПахомов-р5я]

Thanks to all people who donate these videos! I realy can`t afford donating it.. but it really makes my thoughts more profound

[@youtubeshadowbannedme]

Starting to see ads on PragerU videos. Does that mean KZbin is appeasing them to avoid the lawsuit?

[@EvErLoyaLEagLE]

See guys, this is why I am not voting for Bernie and his Socialist ways.

[@Wolfangs88]

lol Bernie doesn't want to abolish private property

[@TheDarkhunterxmg]

+Fang Q. No, he just wants to take property from people whom he believes have too much.

[@Magicarpmaster]

+Stephen kajdan Never heard of him taking property. If you mean taxes based on income yes but they already take that. The chart Ive seen for his tax increases only affects people that make i believe 250k a year by 4% and the max was 10 million and up was going up to 48%. Honestly if you are making 10 million a year you arnt worrying about money. You are worrying about to get a solid gold pool or gold jet.

[@0ryGreg1]

+Stephen kajdan They DO have too much. You do realize that the United States is effectively an oligarchy right? It has been proven already.

[@Wolfangs88]

+Magicarpmaster +1

[@alastairtivy-harris8129]

The animation of the two sailors throwing the tea overboard was adorable!

[@onewhoseeks17]

There are so many things wrong with this video but i'll just run through the basics. The reason why settlers perished wasn't because of 'socialism' but because they couldn't secure enough food stuffs to last the winter. These settlements were initially private enterprises and john smith was a company appointed task master who forced a work regime on the colonists. Nothing voluntary or exchange based about it. Only by trading and forming relationships with the Indians did conditions improve. Indians who then had their 'public lands' privatized by the US government.

[@thevisionary2007]

Hey Larry, I have both "48 Liberal Lies" and "A Patriot's History", great books, thank you for them!

[@ianfavreau9776]

This guy should be the new Colonel Sanders

[@Pomiferous]

+Ian Favreau Pop-Eyes will send the Colonel back to school.

[@theexoticone3478]

PragerU can literally tell us they're biased without saying they're are biased in the most obvious way.

[@tobinprowant10]

I think the hilariousness of the colonies was that England wanted them to be free so they didn't need to give them money but by forcing them to be independent they discovered Independence and freedom... No matter how you look at it capitalism is based on freedom of thought.. freedom to work hard or not work at all the freedom to make great sums of money or not make any at all the problem is in some cases we've indulged the worst in people like slothfulness and criminal greed.

[@IDontLiveTodayJH]

Adam Smith was a great British economist, but he was, of course, Scottish, not English.

[@fathertime1331]

It's sad how many emotion-driven American minds can't understand what is being taught in this video.

[@pedrobatista7975]

The problem with this video is that its definitions of "capitalism" and "socialism" are based in feelings and not objective terms.

[@fathertime1331]

Tell us your definitions.

[@yarpen26]

Here are mine: Capitalism: a terrible idea on paper that works great in practice. Socialism: a great idea on paper that works terribly in practice. Make your pick.

[@sciencemanguy]

+yarpen26 Here's my pick: a hybrid of both because I define capitalism slightly differently than you. capitalism: economic system where the people are in charge of the economy. It constantly works in a state of unstable equilibriums with competition without regulation. Else, if allowed to fall down to it's most stable state, capitalism would become an oligopolistic system [an oligopoly] if there were no regulation [or in extreme circumstances, a monopoly]. These minor regulations are inherently socialistic, as it violates laissez-faire economics. Socialism integrated into capitalism is what prevents capitalism from turning into an oligopoly, or even, a pure monopoly, which is where I believe America is headed if we don't get our act together. Socialism: yeah... even as a liberal, I have to agree with your definition. Also, please note: no true progressive ever wants socialism. Whenever we advocate for socialism, we really mean a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. Integrate the best of both worlds.

[@yarpen26]

I can agree only to some degree, that being the basic law regulations. Yes, these are necessary in the modern economy. When you sign a contract you need to have a legal guarantee that the other part will do accordingly for fear of penalty if not anything else. That being said, I can still imagine a free market economy working at least somewhat satisfyingly in a total anarchy, in which people simply wouldn't be inclined to do dealings with those who have a tendency to default on their promises. Still, a lousy economy that would be, mostly because power tends to gravitate towards people with the worst morality codes rather than the biggest brains and so it is the overmuscled junior high dropouts who take the helm even though they don't know shit about economics. If things were different, then maybe I would agree with anarcho-capitalists. But they aren't so it's a big no-no from me. But I do not agree on the monopoly part because, as long as no violent force or fear of using force is included in the equation, then any monopoly will sooner or later wither away. Why? Because of the inherent human nature that forces you to lose the broader picture when you think you have an absolute control over the market. That's why Microsoft was caught totally offguard with the smatphone revolution and allowed Android to gain dominance in that particular niche. If such force does indeed exist to prevent you from putting up a fight against the monopoly, that's "state capitalism", which in essence is just a boogeyman term coined by socialists to justify the unavoidable demise of any centrally planned economy. If I were to summarize my views on the best economic policy in the briefest terms possible, that would be _make people envious of others' success and _*_not_*_ jealous of it._ Because envy encourages you to work harder, to give your best, whereas jealousy only makes you want to bring the other guy down at any cost (I'm aware that the difference between the two terms is not always agreed upon so feel free to substitute these with "positively/negativele jealous/envious"). That's that subtle difference in mentality which is the reason why the US and Canada prosper whereas Latin America fails. The only prerequisite is, everybody who engages in business must have a guarantee that should they fail the only thing they will lose in the process is money and maybe some self-esteem, *not* their freedom or personal health.

[@TalmoTheSell]

Adam Smith is incredibly underrated. Why does no one talk about him more?

[@ecmarsenal]

This is probably one of my favorite Prager videos. They're all pretty good, but have strong anti-democrat tones and comments. This man seems fairly impartial towards any party (as long as it's not socialist, of course) and takes no rude and misplaced swipes at a certain party. Very good work, Prager.

[@Dr_Kenneth_Noisewater]

I can’t think of one that mentions democrats. But I mean the shoe usually fits…

[@ecmarsenal]

@@Dr_Kenneth_Noisewater also this video has an awful definition of capitalism and somehow attributes all of america's success to capitalism which is just wrong

[@ferminespinoza429]

They briefly touched on the Thanksgiving part though I was curious to know more about the natives many of these settlers encountered that tended to be more communal societies that didn't starve or collapse until they were told that the land they lived on for a millennia was now someone's personal property (and in some cases so where they).

[@GODHEPME]

They figured it all out 200 years ago !

[@DarkWandererAU]

Without really knowing that they figured it out XD

[@anubis2814]

I like how you can make up any definition you want, and they believe that modern labor interactions are on equal terms. Free market is what he is discussing, capitalism is the use of capital to make more money off of investing in things you didn't actually do the work yourself for. Not a terrible idea but very very easy to corrupt. Their definition of socialism is communism, which the chinese found didn't work either due to labor and game theory, socialism also has just as many definitions as capitalism. Free market socialism works very well in northern Europe.

[@anubis2814]

And you are?

[@anubis2814]

Socialism demands that the means of production be owned by the people. sometimes that is view coops some times that is through a strong union and sometimes through government. That is why just like capitalism is there are many definitions for socialism because it comes in many flavors. Communism is a utopia that will never happen, totalitarian socialism is what the so called "communist" nations were, Democratic socialism doesn't believe in private property(something bernie sanders doesn't get) social democracy is what most of europe and even the US have. Socialism can mean many things and can embrace or all or some of the communist manifesto (reject such things as naive faith in government, violent revolution, elimination of all private property)

[@anubis2814]

Democracy in the work place and power for the workers? No thanks I would like to have some power over my own labor instead of believing in the benevolent magic of the laissez-faire free market.and my employer.

[@IowaKim]

When the Mormons moved West there is little town in Utah called Orderville. It was a commune style community and it only lasted one generation. As you can imagine the young people were seeing the surrounding community`s young people enjoying more freedom and perks than they were so it fell apart. I read about this town before we went for a trip to Utah Funnily enough our car broke down at Orderville so I got a first-hand glimpse of the town.

[@KenH60109]

The town actually did work for a bit, but they didn’t have many methods of industrializing and connecting to the outside world (communal areas are supposed to be connected to others to succeed), which led to people leaving since the new guys had connections, and a lot of money to begin with. It did actually work decently well, but it just lacked resources in the beginning, and that’s what killed it later.

[@k8ydidit]

Thank you for explaining the history of capitalism in USA so clearly and concisely. Thanks PragerU

[@BLARGHALT]

also, the idea of communal land ownership is *far* older than socialism, possibly as old as human civilization. is everything that isn't a outright celebration of greed "socialism" to prager? Are we that far down the rabbit hole?

[@BLARGHALT]

Them being communal had nothing to do with their failures; they failed because they were almost always in terrible locations, with populations who straight-up didn't know how to survive by themselves. And with Jamestown, also because they made the pretty unwise decision to spend a lot of their resources looking for gold instead of, you know, growing food.

[@TheUnit270890]

+Blarghalt Are you surprised? Conservative viewpoints are always servants to corporate interests and misinformation. The people here are of the same brand that support Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, some of which think vaccines cause autism.

[@TheUnit270890]

+LikeASir9719 Trump DOEA have conservative supporters, fact. Some conservatives, important word you missed, DO think vaccines cause autism, and even he said he thought so in a debate, fact. And then you used an ad hominem of your own calling me an idiot, however, I've actually read the literature to support my beliefs. Have you?

[@TheUnit270890]

+LikeASir9719 No, in fact, I think Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus's works regarding people as slaves to the captialist system that you can breed or shrink by the changing of wages more so influenced me to go left. Perhaps you should read The Iron Law of Wages. Louis Blanc, Charles Fourier, Marx and Engels proposed solutions, but the capitalists show explicity the problem and their lack of concern.

[@TheUnit270890]

+LikeASir9719 I'm sorry if you can't find further falter in my convictions beyond confirmation bias (which I've already refuted), petty insults, and word play. If you read my comments you'll see I used this special word "some" to denote not all of Trump supporters have confidence in vaccines. If anything, that shows his support base is at least willing to tolerate fake scientific conclusions. Some probably, see that word "some", I wouldn't be surprised believe evolution is false too.

[@michaelwoods4495]

Socialism works very well on a small scale. Every family is a socialist organization. Churches too. We care for each other voluntarily. The problem is some remote government confiscating the product of our labor to give away to people we never met, and taking a rake-off to pay a bureaucracy along the way. We want to do it ourselves for our neighbors' sake, not to enhance some politician's self-righteousness.

[@barrygormley3986]

Great video. I love how this guy pronounces "ideology" as if he were trying to say "idiotology". We should make that a word and use it to describe how most academics think.

[@DoctorMurch]

+Barry Gormley Are you calling academics idiots?

[@terryhollands2794]

+Spire Sonex I think Barry was making a joke, even if he didn't intend his comment to be funny, it made me laugh.

[@Rielestkid]

I know right, these academics are such idiots, doing research, reading and soaking up all available information and facts and stuff. Idiotology, you nailed that!

[@NerevarineVivec]

+terry hollands Yeah by being a joke himself.

[@ThePucko97]

+Spire Sonex "hurr durr academics are stupid because being smart is stupid cuz hillbilly logic"

[@LegacyIvyTerascale]

Easier is not synonymous with Better

[@thomasjoffs8362]

Then wouldn't you agree that a person who works and a person who dose not work get the same pay is unfair many that is why many nations are leaving the eu, it's an awful idea with and awful execution.

[@LegacyIvyTerascale]

Thomas Joffs cause those who do the right thing will ask themselves : what's the point ?

[@redseagaming7832]

Adrian Fidi what's the point indeed if you don't benefit or be acknowledged for that good work what's the point.

[@salokin3087]

I live in Australia, which is by and large a Conservative country, but our terrible Socialist policies have risen us to one of best counties in our quality of life. A mix of both? The horror!

[@garymeister515]

+Salokin Sekwah Explain the good vs. bad of Australia's socialist policies. Love you Aussie's. I've given serious thought to retiring down under.

[@salokin3087]

Gary Maravich Alright cool. With Health care, because of free public health care, our family doesn't have to float extremely expensive operations so we can instead afford good dental service. So through public options we can afford private options During the 1970s we had free universities, this allowed a huge number of poor citizens to obtain a higher education, thus a higher paying job. Now, today we don't have free unis but we have the HEX services. This is where students take a loan from the government for their education but only have to pay it back once they start earning a certain amount of money which can be years later. Unfortunately a lot of great public programs were cut back such as public elementary and high school education and transportation. You can see this in Sydney and Melbourne, the former removed its Trams and only increased congestion. But its not all perfect, some state run services like Railcorp suffer from internal corruption with the CEOs daughter gambling away millions of dollars. You also have good ideas like the Home Insulation programming failing because you had workers who had no idea what they were doing getting killed on the job. Australia is a great country, but if you think America has a dumb government then OH GAWD YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING YET!

[@garymeister515]

+Salokin Sekwah Thanks. Very interesting. Appreciate you taking the time. Oh, and by the way....thanks for Nicole Kidman. Aussie gals rock!

[@DuranmanX]

1:29 that isn't England, that is Great Britain and Ireland I mean, you wouldn't show a map with Portugal and Spain and just say it is Spain

[@ganthore]

Your argument is the same as someone here in the USA saying "I'm a North Carolinian, not an American". If someone showed us the UK on the map... pretty much everyone that does not live in the UK are going to say "That is England".

[@DuranmanX]

Banter Banter even worse he calls Adam Smith a great English thinker, when he was in fact Scottish also during the 1600s, England and Scotland where independent, but shared a personal union it wasn't until the 1700s that England and Scotland would be part of the UK of GB and not until the 1800s that it Ireland would be included for it to be the UK of GB and Ireland which means at the time, there would be no Union Jack, it would just be the English flag (unless they merged the flags because of the personal union)

[@6rett]

Actually they would show a map of Portugal and Spain and just say it was Europe - that way they piss off bouth countries

[@MrUkandUSA]

Hold on, wasn't Adam Smith Scottish? Yet the guy called him English

[@lukemcewan6719]

They also kept showing the United Kingdom and calling it England

[@lukemcewan6719]

+JP's Brother At the time of the first settlers the UK was ruled by James V of Scotland or James I of England. So it wasn't a case of conquering (which to me ownership of another country implies) more a case of Royal succession. So you could say in a way Scotland owned England and vice versa.

[@lukemcewan6719]

+Luke McEwan *James VI of Scotland.

[@kenkrak4649]

he is a "historian" lets believe everything he says

[@effinty2112]

Scotland was always a separate country. Adam Smith lived in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland of which Scotland and England were separate nations. Adam Smith was SCOTTISH.

[@Zeusselll]

0:50 not even a minute in and he's already lying. In a worker coop-based economy, you still freely choose what to produce and who you serve

[@evanr2000]

Adam Smith was Scottish not English

[@seamonster936]

Evan Robinson You're wrong. If you look at the map at 1:30, you can clearly see that Edinburgh is in England. Geography at Prager University.

[@niipierre944]

@PragerU Adam Smith was Scottish... 0:30 I'd like to keep watching but...

[@Leftistattheparty]

Funny how America doesn't have a free market capitalism.

[@enrique5850]

it depends, compared to who?

[@pedrobatista7975]

protectionism much?

[@Leftistattheparty]

Armando E not really. a free market would mean no governmental interference in the market what so ever. This is not what we have at all, given the huge amount of subsides that large companies get.

[@enrique5850]

Cheechster again, we are speaking in relatives terms , that's why I asked, compared to who? because the USA is sure much more capitalist than Venezuela, for example.

[@Leftistattheparty]

Citizen Civics BAHAHAHAHAHA "Dang those safety regulations that keep people's limbs connected. Or that keep poison out of our food. or that keep our water safe." "OH no, how dare the capitalist has their stolen profits taxed. To help the huddled masses in fact" How horrible.

[@lapamful]

Cue the emotional snowflakes engaging in a trigger-induced rant about how we misunderstood socialism/communism/marxism/leninism/stalinism etc. and how we just don't get it and how a spade isn't a spade. These kids are running out of excuses.

[@lompeluiten]

So if we look at your scoring machanism your side is winning! Congratulations! Your side is absoluty awsome in not onderstanding subleties!

[@lapamful]

I never said anything of the sort. Don't be obtuse. Collectivism is a serious threat to lives and livelihoods of many millions of people around the world right now. Until humanity frees itself of this ideological disease they will continue to remain in poverty.

[@TritonsGuard]

+Crocuta IV Scandinavia is no longer socialist. They have been saying this for sometime.

[@bejoysen4468]

+Crocuta IV Denmark's prime minister has publicly called out Sanders for repeatedly calling his country socialist. If they don't consider themselves socialist, why are you calling them socialist?

[@johnr8095]

+Bejoy Sen Why is sanders refereeing them as the model he wants and also calling himself a socialist?

[@sonarbison]

Adam Smith was Scottish!

[@redseagaming7832]

İskender İbrahim Adam Smith was a Scottish man yet he was considered an Englishman because he was part of Great Britain because Scotland and England became Great Britain the Scottish in the new Great Britain outside of the country were considered Englishman by the rest of the world So Adam Smith once considered an Englishman by people who did not know he was Scottish because people got confused because the British or actually the Scots and English but it was the union of the two crowns of Scotland and England that made them into British

[@kevinsutton6927]

Adam Smith wasn't an English philosopher but he was a fellow Brit. He was Scottish,

[@Skedarking85]

I have some friends I really want to force into watching this. But they'll call it bullying. They always do that. I don't even keep the ropes that tight.

[@kal3lll]

Denying facts lol

[@thothheartmaat2833]

maybe you should actually tie them down and force open their eyes like in clockwork orange..

[@joanneg7646]

😆

[@adrianfisher3349]

And now, you have Obama, Clinton, and Sanders...

[@adrianfisher3349]

Aaron Richards They all support vstealing the wealth of the people and redistributing it amongst their chosen beneficiaries. They all support collectivism and the state being able to dictate how the people live.

[@adrianfisher3349]

Aaron Richards I'm under no such illusion. That's one of the biggest problems with big government. The bigger it is the more corrupt it becomes.

[@Pomiferous]

+Adrian Fisher Big Governance is not always your friend ? Union advocates are not likely to subscribe.

[@adrianfisher3349]

Double D I have no problem with government, just with government that gets too big and tries to do too much. The bigger it is, the more corrupt it becomes.

[@Pomiferous]

+Adrian Fisher I know.The same people who rail against big oil,big pharma and big business etc. seem to have no reservations about jumping in bed with big government,big unions and the enormous public education complex.

[@4y6857]

Prof. Larry Schweikart needs to go back to school. He said, "...we have to travel back in time to the very first settlers of America." To 1620. The first permanent European settlement in North America was St. Augustine, Florida, established by the Spanish in 1565, 40+ years before Jamestown. He said, "The early colonists began their adventure with what they thought was a beautiful idea. They set up a common storehouse of grain from which they were supposed to take what they needed, and put back what they could....Though there was no name for this system, it was an ideal, socialist commune." The settlers who founded Jamestown were funded by the Virginia Company of London. The Company was a group of investors (we would call them "venture capitalists"), and they expected a return on their investment. As any good capitalist would. The site for Jamestown was selected because it had deep water for anchoring large ships near the shore and was an easily defended location. What it wasn't good for was growing crops. The settlers didn't understand the local climate. The local water was bad. They hadn't brought enough provisions to sustain them until they could harvest a good crop. And they began the settlement in the middle of a drought. These factors are what lead to a large number of deaths from starvation and disease. Not anything to do with "communal living". There's more to the real story of Jamestown. It's worth spending the time to research it. The history of the Plymouth Colony also is not what is presented here. First error: "Plymouth was settled by Puritans." It wasn't. It was settled by Pilgrims. They are not the same. A history professor should know that. To give an accurate history of Plymouth Colony, I'm going to lift a paragraph from an article published by the Foundation for Economic Education..... "What is less known about this incident is how the little colony ever made such a disastrous decision in the first place." The fact of the matter is that the colonists had never wanted to inaugurate a system of totally common property. The group of British "adventurers" that had supplied the Pilgrim exiles in Holland with traveling money and capital had insisted that the colony be made a part of the joint-stock company. The assets of the colony therefore were the assets of the company, headquartered in Britain, and the agricultural products were to be shared equally among company members, both colonial and British. Governor Bradford was the chief agent of the company in New England; hence, he was compelled to impose the common storehouse system." Briefly, the Colonists bought out the British investors and scrapped the "communal" system. Which they didn't want in the first place. Neither group of settlers thought "communism" was a "beautiful idea".

[@NujabesGaming]

the fact that this video doesn't mention that private banking is the one who ruined this all, makes this a very, VERY, dishonest piece.

[@The_Scouts_Code]

no it doesnt

[@NujabesGaming]

MyLifeForAuir87 Yes it does, because it's intentions are to shed light on the horror that is socialism, but doesn't make you understand today's socialism, and it's roots. It simply tells you the truth, but doesn't give you the tools to do something about it, which is dishonest.

[@MerryNineThree]

+NujabesGaming No, that was the Government bailing out the banks instead of letting them fail like they would' have with no gov't intervention, as they would have with in a more capitalist society.

[@NujabesGaming]

***** Why want the information from someone who you're already hostile to, and be biased towards his/her info. Look up the history of the bank and the federal reserve, plenty of youtube video's on that subject already.

[@GeoFry3]

+NujabesGaming Private banking has ALWAYS been an issue, and they failed regularly throughout all of history. No big deal. A bank could only get so big and would fail the moment people lost confidence in it. What we have now on the other hand is not a private banking system but a federal one, aka socialist( fascist) one. Privately owned, government sponsored, regulated, and unfortunately fairly regularly bailed out in recent years. With the government behind the system, banking could and has gone international. We've been under this system for something like 200 years. With every decade seeing worse and worse schemes and failures committed by those involved.

[@muchpandassowow9726]

I'm not sure why anybody would dislike this video.

[@dabuss55]

Hearing this guy say, "The result has been the most prosperous and free nation in the history of the world" made my stomach churn. If Capitalism is the crux of this country, then he doesn't know the meaning of "prosperous" or "free", except for when he threatens to requires donations.

[@themreverythingman]

You're so dumb. This nation is better than any is or has ever been. Stop whining about your first world problems, our society is near perfect compared to those of the past.

[@roundabout8225]

Thanks for the video. Nice job getting some basic concepts and historical facts down for us non-academics. I am truly amazed by those born in the US who are clearly afraid of freedom and liberty and so entertain the idea of being a slave to the masses (or a small elite group of bureaucrats, as how socialism plays out in the real world). The state is a great consumer of wealth, and is historically not very good at creating prosperity.

[@kc3vv]

+David Haisten always keep in mind that this channel is not neutral.

[@deka0014]

+kc3vv no channel is neutral. dnews,testtube,vox are all biased

[@stormpilgrim7443]

+kc3vv For this reason I follow it, I am full of this socialist/communist bullsh!t.

[@kc3vv]

Deka 001 a channel that talks about issues that have no "true" position and does not explain arguments of both sides is NOT neutral. Crusader44 it is good to hear all sides on issues.

[@deka0014]

kc3vv Like I said...No channel is neutral.

[@italia689]

Badmouse needs to see this now. Of course, he will shove it off...

[@pedrobatista7975]

true

[@redseagaming7832]

when everyone is equal no one is.

[@tomlxyz]

It's easy: If it doesn't work once it will never work under any circumstances.

[@TheUnit270890]

Not even a system in which machines take jobs from people?

[@tomlxyz]

JacobRP /AemAer I was sarcastic.

[@TheUnit270890]

+tomlxyz I know, I'm saying so to deter others.

[@samiamtheman7379]

+tomlxyz "It works! It's just never been implemented right!" Says every socialist hipster.

[@Pomiferous]

+tomlxyz Not at all.Change the circumstances and anything can work theoretically.

[@neoan]

Ok, wait. There are so many question marks in here, I don't know where to start. First we hear ".. by [improving capitalism], they created more wealth for more people than any society in the history of the world". What do you mean? Per capita? No! As an absolute percentage from the countries population? No! I simply don't know how you generate this. And then, just let me clarify: The pilgrims in Virginia bought land, right? No? Oh, that's right, they GOT IT FOR FREE! That's more socialist than anything! When you define the difference between merchantilism and capitalism, maybe the same should be done with socialism and communism. The problem that lies in your point of view (And slowly I believe PragerU cuts that way) is the absolutism of your conclusions. Do you tell a soldier in a wheelchair "He who won't work, won't eat"? I guess not. The time is over where you can tell people the old story of "lefties" wanting everything for free. It's time we get rid of History professors that influence the youth into a system that out of historic evidence has been proven unsustainable. Let's rather sit together and remember that there is historic evidence for the dangers of a powerful government as well as a free market. Let's stop pretending that our choice is between a Stalin-like communism and a Wallstreet capitalism. Stop telling the 40 Million Americans in front of soup kitchens each morning that they suffer in order to save us from socialism. That is BS!

[@destinal_in_reality]

+Stefan Röhrl It's better put that he who won't work, won't eat, unless those who will work voluntarily choose to give up their own food to him. The incentives are still in place. Guess what, human beings care about other people, and have a naturally evolved moral sense, and so we don't have to force everyone to help others.

[@neoan]

Eric Duprey well, that is more or less what we agreed on in society. This is why social programs are in place. As for the morals of the people: I wish I had your optimism

[@destinal_in_reality]

Stefan Röhrl There's a difference between voluntary charity and stealing what people produce by force to redistribute it. The American founders believed in the former, and NOT the latter.

[@neoan]

Eric Duprey Well, first of all I must say that speaking about the founders like they would be all-knowing gods always bothered me. I do believe they have achieved a lot and looked far into the future. However, it cannot be an argument what this or that person believed in. That said, let's look into two aspects. What is property? We don't wonder enough about what should be public domain and what should be privately owned. Do you think a society should pay for hospitals, or do you think health should be an industry? Think about it. This shifts the priority from providing health to making money. On the other hand, it forces hospitals to stay on track with their budgets and run efficiently.So before we talk about stealing we have to talk about owning. The next thing is pluralism. What we call democracy is based on the idea of pluralism. In theory, governmental action is nothing else but the will of the majority. So if the government "steals" for the benefit for the majority, than that is perfectly democratic (not necessarily moral, though). The feeling of distrust into such a role in society is shared by the right and the left. In short: Nobody trusts the government. However, the left feels that the corruption is based on influential factors (mainly big money) while the right feels that taking away the power and possibilities of governmental influence will "cut off" corruption. What the right doesn't understand is that this only gives more direct power to the corrupting factors (This is why being against ANY regulations is so silly) while the left believes strengthening the same power indirectly will somehow make things better. So forget that story of somebody steals from you. It is a crying shame that people are dependent on any kind of charity. Every family feeds it's children without asking for anything in return.

[@destinal_in_reality]

Stefan Röhrl I don't know what kind of world you live in where "every family feeds it's children without asking for anything in return" - I donate to food banks. When I was young and poor, food banks helped me feed my children when I lost my job and was looking for work. I am glad to help others in need and thankful that others helped me. That's not demeaning, at all, and certainly not more than the government stealing other people's money to give to me would have been. I'm sorry, but the "will of a majority" does not give a majority the right to violate a minority. If we all have inalienable rights like life, liberty and property, then that means that the State must not violate them either. And that includes taking the property of one man against his will to give to another man just because he can "afford it." Taking money from someone for the small expenses of protecting their rights to life, liberty and property can be morally defended. (though I won't defend it here) Taking from some to give to others cannot. It violates the very right to property that the State supposedly exists to protect.

[@james192599]

then why are worker cooperatives so much more productive then the capitalist firm.

[@AdolfHitlerMemeLord]

Communism/Socialism (I know they are different) in a perfect society would work, I'd be communist myself if it did work but unfortunately people are greedy, people are lazy and people are evil. Capitalism in an inefficient machine but it is able to get the job done, Communism is a fully efficient machine that just does not work. Maybe one day we will see a communist or socialist state that actually worked, as in having a great economy, a large population and a good standard of living.

[@james192599]

the socialist state your looking for is called Yugoslavia which was one of the only communist countries that practiced real socialism and gave workers control over their workplaces rather than have a undemocratic beauracratic state capitalist rule (like in all soviet states). Now Yugoslavia doesnt exist, not because of economic inefficiency but because of nationalist sentiments in a very divided country and the death of tito(the leader holding them together.). There have also been various examples of socialist cooperatives functioning in overall capitalist organized economies(including the USA). Socialism is about social ownership and democratic control nothing more nothing less.

[@james192599]

first off market socialism is the only real thing that works because decentralized planning is logistically impossible and centralized planning is just undemocratic. Yugoslavia was very prosperous which is why it was a country on par with western european countries like Portugal also when it reall started using real socialism in the 1950s that is the economies GDP did very well. Also it had modern amenities that wasnt in other eastern bloc countries like private radios and personal goods.

[@james192599]

Well it was and there documented proof and the people that live their still love tito and actually theres alot of yugonostalgia. Capitalism is inefficient it will cause crashes and eventually ruin everything when we can have worker cooperatives as the main force of the economy making people happier and income inequality fall.

[@james192599]

ya but thereason is different because when state capitalism in Russia happened it induatrialized russia and they were a world power. Real socialism is worker control.

[@alexandrakollantai4146]

"He who won't work, won't eat" Lenin said the same thing 😂😂😂

[@lionitowk]

"There was a village, in that village there were socialists, they were hungry, then free market came and America become the awesomest beatiffullest place in the universe." -PragerU 2016

[@Pomiferous]

+Lionitowk No longer true.The progressives are in charge of demolition.

[@matthewh2549]

+Double D Another lame simlistic meme

[@Pomiferous]

Michael P TY so very much.You can keep handling the complications for personal growth and a sense of superiority.

[@matthewh2549]

Double D How clever of you.

[@Pomiferous]

+Michael P Most people don't notice.You must be rather special.

[@pss9203]

This is a very well done video. Easy to understand and thorough.

[@phm0750]

"More wealth for more people" Have you ever taken a single look at the wealth distribution in the US?

[@Synodalian]

Yes. It's inherently socialist in nature where the rich are taxed excessively while those classified under "poverty" are subjected to the government welfare program.

[@redseagaming7832]

Natasel there has to be a winner and there has to be a loser. but that loser instead of feeling bad for losing how about this he learns from his failure so he can win next time.

[@mykulpierce]

Phm07 wealth distribution is not the same as more wealth for a nation. Before socialist gutted the middle class there was plenty of wealth to sustain families and home ownership.

[@bza069]

god bless you....that was beautiful.. Im so grateful I was raised in an era when there were winners and losers and the ambitious hard working ones, put in a lot of effort and sacrifice to join the winning side.

[@goingcommando5714]

Yeah, literally MILLIONS of people that cant afford a new flat screen TV every year. The poverty in this country is unbearable.

[@BloodOfYeshuaMessiah]

*Liberalism is just a pretty way of saying SOCIALISM !*

[@upwiththerose1011]

That's like me saying Capitalism with Free Healthcare is full Socialism.

[@earllsimmins9373]

People only turn to socialism when capitalism fails them. When you can't afford your health insurance and can't afford your doctor. When gas is $6 a gallon and yet oil companies are making record profits and receiving subsidies. When people can't afford baby formula because there's only one supplier. When a week's work barely pays for an apartment. When you have to open a GoFundMe site to pay for your cancer treatment. When the CEO of the defense contracting company makes $20 million dollars per year, that could pay for a real nice School or small hospital.

[@emmittmatthews8636]

You've outlined a lot of problems with government, but then your solution is more government.

[@zeyadsaeed9580]

@@emmittmatthews8636do you think having government increase corporation tax, improve social service and welfare, all of these things that are only possible through “big government”, wouldn’t mitigate and even solve the crisis of people having the basic necessities of living?? It is always romantic and dramatic to say that more government = bad, but the reality is that many countries have adopted big government and mixed economy in order to provide better living conditions and standard than in America.

[@PwnEveryBody]

What was described in the beginning of this video as 'socialist' societies were communist, plain and simple, not socialist, and definitely not liberal, and they were far from ideal for such a practice. Communism is at its core built upon the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', while socialism is built on 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution'. Communism therefore only works if people actually provide 'according to their ability', which hardly anyone will do if they receive 'according to their needs'. Socialism is almost capitalistic in that regard, because you won't receive anything if you don't contribute. Both require some sort of system to watch over the shared supplies in order to function properly. If the stockpile is open then people will just take what they can and give nothing back (yes, I quoted Jack Sparrow and Gibbs from that one PotC movie, sue me). Basically, what this 'historian' described wasn't socialism at all, but unregulated communism, which doesn't work, as should be blatantly obvious. What does work, as has been proven, and continues to be proven, by all of northwestern Europe, is properly regulated socialism, paired with classical liberalism. Liberalism provides you with your civil and political rights and liberties, while socialism provides you with both your incentive to work harder and your safety net should you fail, as well as public services like police and the fire service. Pure free-market capitalism, by itself, without any interference by a third party that has both consumers and providers in mind, is fundamentally unsustainable, because, as is the case with anarchy, eventually, and usually sooner rather than later, someone will gain monopoly, i.e. someone will gain access to the entire supply of some resource, blocking out all others. At that point, once a single company (or a conglomeration of companies) has gained monopoly on a resource, there is no competition left, and as such there is no reason for that company (or conglomeration) to bother with pricing that resource fairly. Some government regulation is therefore required for free-market capitalism to work in the long run. Allow me to re-phrase: Free-market capitalism only works when no one has monopoly on a single resource, but that is the inevitable outcome of free-market capitalism. It's a paradox, of sorts. Also, just as an aside, if you think the state should tax people's income and then use some of the tax money for anything that benefits the public in general, you're a partial socialist. As it happens, nearly every single bloody state in the world does this. You'd be an idiot to not want the state to pay for at least some of the things used by the general public. These things include education and health service, as you probably expected, but also roadwork, police, fire service, garbage collectors (or whatever they're called), and public transportation, to name but a few.

[@JackBond1234]

+Magnus Anthun Preventing monopoly is no excuse to abandon capitalism and switch to socialism. The government's job is to block predatory practices and prevent monopolies so that the capitalist playing field can remain fair and open. (It's NOT to take over a business or "protect" one side or the other or micromanage the market as a whole) "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution" The main failing of this ideology is that, let's say in an analogy, you produce the world's best chocolate, and you love chocolate and you want to eat it... but no, you must give that to the government, and they'll give you caviar, and you hate caviar... But you aren't free to decide what you get from your own work, because the government has decided it knows what you want better than you do.

[@PwnEveryBody]

JackBond1234 I don't think you understood the gist of my comment. I never said capitalism should be abandoned outright. I said that pure free-market capitalism can only fail in the long run, due simply to human nature. It is therefore necessary to have some government intervention, just like you say yourself. This intervention can take many forms, taking over companies and micromanaging the market included. If a company breaks the law then that comapny cannot exist in the same form in the future. Something must be changed, and whoever is responsible must be punished. Do you disagree? Do you think people should be able to get away with anything just because they own a successful business? I certainly don't. Your analogy doesn't really work. 'From each according to his ability' doesn't mean 'take everything they own'. Taxing their income is one way of taking 'from each according to his ability'. 'To each according to his contribution' doesn't mean 'give them something shitty in return for everything they own', either. Not having to pay directly for a road to your house, police to catch that bloke who stole your car, and fire service to keep your house from burning down are all ways of receiving from the state. In other words, if you pay taxes, and subsequently receive benefits like police coverage and the like, then you're benefitting from socialism, because that's all that socialism is. The state takes a certain amount of however much money you earn, and then use that money to pay for public services like police and roadwork, so that you won't have to pay directly. To use your analogy, if you produce chocolate, the government is going to take some of your chocolate and give it to others, while letting you keep the rest, and then they give you a load of stuff that you don't produce, like carrots, but also a road that makes it easier for you to get into town to buy food and supplies, and police coverage to protect your chocolate factory. Are you still on the fence about socialism? You'd be an idiot to not want at least some socialism. I mean, if the government wasn't at least a little socialist then there'd be anarchy, quite literally. Everyone would have to fend for themselves, with the government being nothing but a figurehead, with no real power. They couldn't even use the military to keep the people from becoming too unruly, unless they used money gained through other means than taxes, because then they'd effectively be using tax money for the benefit of the public, and that's socialism.

[@JackBond1234]

+Magnus Anthun That's still no excuse for 99% of the socialist policies people have implemented or are demanding. Monopoly and predator control can be very minimal things where the government keeps intervention to a bare minimum, especially because the government is essentially the biggest monopoly of them all, and can team up with predators to harm the market.

[@PwnEveryBody]

JackBond1234 Do you have any statistics on that? Or did you just pull that number out your arse? I'm having a hard time believing that 99% of the socialist policies that have been implemented or are desired cannot be justified from a reasonable point of view. Also, to what does 'that' refer? I mentioned quite a few things. Did you mean government intervention to prevent a single company or conglomeration of companies having monopoly on a resource? Or did you mean taxes benefitting the public? In either case, your '99%' simply cannot be true. I'm still not sure what you're arguing. Are you saying socialism is entirely unnecessary? Even after what I said about how a bit of socialism is entirely necessary to not have anarchy on our hands? Or are you just arguing against socialism because you've always been told that socialism is bad, without ever actually knowing what socialism really is? The government doesn't have monopoly over a certain resource in the same sense that a company might. I'm not even entirely sure what resources you think the government has monopoly on. Would you want the police to be privately funded? Fire service? Roadwork? I don't think so. What do you mean by government intervention being kept at a minimum? Or rather, which minimum is that? In my personal opinion, government intervention should include not allowing people to increase the price of a life-saving medicine so much that the majority of people won't be able to afford it, banning slavery (and by extension buying/selling humans) and child work, banning the sale of human organs, enforcing age restrictions on certain commodities like alcohol and drugs, and of course keeping companies (or conglomerations of companies) from having monopoly over a resource. Competition is great, because it forces companies to improve the value to price ratio of their products, by either improving the product or lowering the price, or both. However, it doesn't work when the only ones who trade with a particular resource work together, because then the company (or conglomeration of companies) is still going to want to cut expenses and increase their income as much as possible, but there'll be little to no reason for them to keep supply and demand in mind at all. In other words, competition is great, but competition is only possible with quite a bit of government intervention.

[@PwnEveryBody]

JackBond1234 Your claim was that 99% of the socialist policies people have either implemented or demanded to be implemented cannot be justified by whatever 'that' is (you still haven't told me what you were referring to with 'that'), not that you believe it to be so. That is why I asked for proof. Please don't try to pass something off as truth, and then when challenged claim that you merely believed it to be so, especially when the proof is right there that you tried to pass it off as truth, not as your belief. >Whatever we can eliminate That doesn't make sense. What do you mean by 'eliminate'? Answer the question, would you please? Do you even read my comments? I thought I clearly stated why socialism is necessary to prevent anarchy. Anarchy, in case you weren't aware, is when individuals in a community aren't subordinate to any sort of government. This is, as you might imagine, fundamentally unsustainable, due quite simply to human nature driving us together into communities and making us want order in those communities, but that's not the point. I guess I'll have to explain it a bit more thoroughly. If a government was to eradicate all signs of socialism everywhere, and never implement anything of a socialist nature, then they would quickly either run bankrupt due to not receiving any money from the people they govern, because receiving money from them while simultaneously protecting them would be socialism, or never have any means of protecting the people they govern, because doing so while also receiving money from them would be socialism. In other words, if someone both receives money from someone else and uses that money for the benefit of the people they got the money from, then that's socialism. People would be left to fend for themselves, either by somehow making money (by working for some of the numerous companies that would spring up, or by taking on private contracts), or by becoming self-reliant and protecting themselves. Numerous companies would likely spring up, but most would die out pretty quickly, or join up with others, because they would always seek to gain control of as much of the market as possible. Companies aren't interested in competition. They're interested in winning. That's why competition works at all. Once a single company (or conglomeration of companies) gains monopoly on some resource, then the prices will skyrocket, going as high as possible without making people realise that they can probably make do without it. Now, the companies might still be subject to the government, but for all intents and purposes they're all, at best, different states in a union at this point, and this particular union must be enforced by military force, because that's all the power the government has left. The government must at this point start selling stuff to make money to pay for the military, or they won't have a military for long. If and when they no longer have a military, there'll be nothing left to keep the various companies, by now likely reduced to a single conglomeration of companies (or even just a single company) that has monopoly on all trade in the now stateless region, maybe even the world. It would take ages to explain it all, but you're smart, you'll fill in the blanks, so to speak. It might sound like paradise to you, but that's what anarchy is. Whether you like it or not is your opinion. I'm just saying what it is. Surprisingly many are only against a certain ideology because they only ever heard it referred to as 'bad', without ever being told why it's 'bad'. This can (and often does) quickly lead to those same people espousing many of the ideas that make up that particular ideology, while still believing that ideology to be 'bad'. This is also why many are starting to think like Hitler and the Nazis while still admonishing Hitler and the Nazis themselves. I merely asked if that was the case with you. That's not being childish. 'Charging nothing for medicine' doesn't mean that no one pays for medicine. This is Economy 101. Have you ever heard of taxes? The state takes some of your income to pay for medicine, so that when you or anyone else desperately needs that medicine they won't have to pay hundreds of dollars for it. This means that even if you're on minimum wage you can get potentially life-saving medicine that you wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. In other words, everyone pays for X (in this case, medicine), so that anyone can get X. This is exactly what we teach villagers in poor communities in Africa to do in order to prosper. They all put some of their money into a shared pool, and whenever someone desperately needs money they will be allowed to take some of it, but they can only take as much as the entire collective deems necessary. Of course, 'charging nothing for medicine' only works if the medicine is paid for by someone else, and in this case that would be the state, and the state receives that money from taxing the people. Of course slavery was protected by the government before. I never said anything as to the contrary. It's basic history. However, today slavery is banned, yet many companies, even those based in states in which slavery is otherwise banned, use slavery in one form or another. It would simply be naïve to think that just because the US has officially banned slavery means that none of the US based companies own slaves. That's why I want the government to be able to intervene more directly. If the majority of a population thinks slavery is acceptable then I'll bow to democracy, though I'll still not consider slavery acceptable. However, as of right now, the majority of people consider slavery unacceptable, but the companies aren't forced to bow to democracy. They can do as they please, as long as they can keep their customers from knowing the truth. It is actually a lovely system, but most companies, then particularly the bigger ones, aren't forced to abide by it. >Like I said, minimum intervention to prevent predatory practices But you still haven't said what you mean by 'minimum intervention' or 'predatory practices'. I'd consider them to be what I've described thus far, but you don't seem to agree, so what would you consider them to be?

[@ramondenner5126]

why nobody remember portugal and netherlands in the colonization of the americas wtf

[@memekid9998]

Thing is, we are talking about North America, so those countries are irrelevant

[@larslarsen8010]

Very good video. ! Socialism and freedom explained in 5 minutes. Also explained independence (under responsibility) versus "Collectivism". And it even included the superiority of private ownership.

[@bubasa87]

This video is gonna piss off a lot of lazy ass people who want free shit.

[@adamost4831]

Like certain homeless people

[@jonathanf.azulay8458]

Damn i love living in Denmark

[@jo9285]

+Jonathan F. Azulay Can I visit

[@jonathanf.azulay8458]

john olmos sure, we got a lot of great stuff here

[@jo9285]

You're going to get a lot of backlash. Especially on this channel, A lot people in the states tend to not "Question Everything," here and refuse to hear both sides of an idea or argument.

[@Davidian1024]

Americans perfected capitalism? So, what's went wrong?

[@Pomiferous]

+David Brinovec The progressives decided to make improvements.

[@Davidian1024]

I was responding to the comment made in the video, "you could say that America perfected capitalism", or words to that effect. Suggesting that capitalism has been perfected, and that most of the credit should go to America. So I agree, and I would go further, there is simply no such thing as perfection. I disagree on this notion, capitalism was not made to do anything. No one designed it. It's a system that evolved out of human interactions. Also, pure socialism has never existed. In fact I don't believe socialism has ever been achieved at any level. Socialism is the vague notion that we need to move beyond capitalism. The flaws of which are once again becoming extremely difficult for our society to bear.

[@Davidian1024]

I agree with you. We shouldn't cling to ideologies. Like the ideologies that hold capitalism up as the best of all possibilities. We should learn from our experience that capitalism itself, like the systems that came before it, is flawed.

[@mountains400]

1913 went wrong.

[@matsfreedom]

For all of you brilliant socialists here in America, please go to Venezuela and see socialism in action. If you like it, stay. If you don't, welcome back to America, the worst political/economic system in the world, except for all the others.

[@nicholasvogt2524]

Oh, What is this a source of American Nationalism, well, I guess I better start hating in the comments.

[@TheLucidDreamer12]

problem with communism: breeds laziness over time problem with capitalism: breeds dishonesty over time

[@honored.knight]

Laws can help suppress dishonesty. The question is, what can help suppress laziness?

[@ildikoivanyi6873]

@@honored.knight When the incentives motivate people they aren't lazy. If the incentives are not great enough or misaligned than people become lazy. Why try to be virtuous, honest, hard working, creative, responsible, if you will never own property, have a decent living standard, and and the ever looming threat that your livelyhood will be stolen from you. This is why socialism/communism fails. The perverse incentives and theft through forced income redistribution. Free market capitalism actually produces more honesty and increases morality instead of dishonesty. Crony capitalism is dishonest.

[@generalrendar7290]

Man schools today are so shady about teaching this. They just say that conditions were bad and the settlers were lazy because they were looking for gold and didn't want to be farmers. This makes much more sense.

[@workhardism]

Looking forward to the day when we can have another video called, "The Death Of Socialism In America". ;)

[@TheUnknownPersonnn]

"The Death Of Socialism In The World" would be better

[@workhardism]

Orgz Amen, brother! ;)

[@jonathanallison785]

Great stuff but please get the facts straight. Adam Smith was Scottish(and British) not English, the flag you used for England was the Union Jack.

[@thomasclark7383]

Great Britain is an island made up of England, Scotland, and Wales. At the time in history that he is speaking of, Adam Smith would have been considered British. Also, the flag shown is not today's Jack. It is the final flag flown by the British empire before it became the UK in 1707.

[@thomasclark7383]

I misread that first part and thought you were saying that Smith wasn't British. Sorry about that.

[@josephupton3601]

The first use of the actual word "capitalism" was by an associate of Karl Marx. It was meant to be a pejorative term. The mistake that "capitalist" defenders made is accepting that term in the first place since it is not a good descriptive of "free markets". The free market does not always require a person providing "capital" (i.e. ditch digger). And often the "entrepreneur" is not the same person providing "capital"(i.e. business loan).

[@nobodyfromnowhere3597]

Again and again Prager you impress me, this actually can fly as reasonable argument against left.

[@avoisin]

+Nobody From Nowhere socialism for all parts of a country isn't good. For some parts, it's great. It's all about deciding where to use it. Some things, like power generation, some amount of retirement (social security), medicaid, etc., are overwhelmingly better outside of capitalism.

[@avoisin]

+Alex Georgiadis No, public utilities are a pretty clear cut case for public control. When we had private control of California's power grid, we got brownouts caused by private greed. Any time you have a good that is provided to the community as a whole, rather than just select customers, and especially when there is an effective monopoly provided because of the type of distribution needed (water, power, roads), government control is the only practical solution. It's fine to argue between a truly state-owned utility and a state regulated, but privately owned utility, but either way the government needs to ultimately be in charge. I'm not saying that publicly run corporations are perfect, but when the good provided has an inherent monopoly, you really don't want that being owned by a private company.

[@xesau]

+avoisin I really admire your balanced way of putting this. Great job!

[@avoisin]

+Alex Georgiadis I don't like monopolies - but they can't always be avoided. If my two choices are between private control where the private company can do as they wish with a good that the public needs (power, water, roads), and public control or regulation, public control is always the right answer. With public control I can always vote in a change, with private, I simply have to accept whatever the company dictates, I have no choice. Healthcare is the much harder one to handle. Certainly, it is in the best interest of the society for everyone to have doctors and healthcare, since it's only a matter of time before you are sick or injured. In that sense, healthcare is a public service, and it could make sense to have it government owned and regulated. However, it's not a natural monopoly, since there's lots of places to receive care, which leans more towards private control. The right answer is bound to be something in the middle then, where the government does take a role in ensuring everyone gets care, but allowing private companies to compete as to exactly how the care get done. Some of the roots of the ACA (Obamacare) are spot on, where we're trying to ensure everyone has health insurance, because health insurance is the only way, currently, to affordably receive care, while letting people decide what company they want to use. There's flaws in the law of course, but the idea is right.

[@michdem100]

+Nobody From Nowhere How?

[@SexualPotatoes]

Such impartiality wow

[@haroldfinch9144]

+Sexual Potatoes Impartiality is not necessary for someone to be right and those who know facts are bound to follow them. For example, if I pointed out that America had a history with slavery and that slavery held back technological innovation; would you ignore me because I find slavery to be morally wrong?

[@Pomiferous]

+Sexual Potatoes Are you all that familiar with impartiality on a personal level ?

[@Malhaloc]

+Sexual Potatoes and you are just the shining example of it aren't you? Just because the facts lean toward a side you disagree with doesn't mean its a biased argument. Remember kids, facts don't care about your feelings.

[@Pomiferous]

I'm starting to catch on.Truth is biased against deception.

[@Pomiferous]

And the criminal justice system is prejudiced against law breakers.

[@isaacwest276]

Karl Marx came up with Communism. Why? He was a smart philosopher who had no job and was disinterested in getting one. He lived off of his friend Engels. Marx decided the one thing better than living off his friend, was livong off of the government. Communism born! "Socialism doesn't work because you eventually run out of other people's money." -Margarat Thatcher. "Socialism is the most selfish ideology. It believes that I deserve things simply because I exist." -Ben Shapiro. I'd also disagree that the USA is the best capitalist nation. I'd say its 2nd, because of Norway. It's the richest nation, there government barely does anything, and is one of the only nations not in debt.

[@hwaner1]

im voting for only Trump no matter how much propaganda you guys make. just give up.

[@gregb6469]

+hwaner1 -- And what flavor was the Kool-aid?

[@gregb6469]

nopotato -- A lot of businessmen, especially the big corporate types, prefer a crony-socialism system that gives them a protected-against-competition legal advantage, and power to dictate wages, prices, etc.

[@gregb6469]

Aaron Richards -- You can't "rig the market" in a free enterprise system, because if you don't give the consumers what they want, at a price they are willing to pay, other companies will step in and do so. Under crony socialism the favored corporations use government influence to pass laws and regulations that rig the system in their favor.

[@gregb6469]

Aaron Richards -- Politicians may be elected by the people, but the government bureaucrats who do the actual regulating are not. They have no incentive to do right anyway, since their jobs don't depend on satisfying anyone other than their departmental superiors. Under a free-market system, people have the option of shopping around until they find the products and services they want at prices they are willing to pay. If there is a demand for something, persons and companies will rise up to meet that demand. This kind of flexibility does not exist under a government-regulated system. Your description of companies getting together to rig the system in their favor, at the expense of the consumers, is not the free market, but cartelism. Adam Smith denounced such in his The Wealth of Nations.

[@Pomiferous]

+hwaner1 Why would you buy Trump stamped propaganda over other brands ?

[@Lex_Koncord]

Capitalism without morals is the same as socialism without morals.

[@cloroxbleach5359]

Capitalism without morals is just socialism. Socialism is inherently immoral.

[@Lex_Koncord]

People are inherently immoral, not a system - that's why communism doesn't work. Capitalism without morals turns the society into an oligarchy. Side note, check out "life cycle of an empire". Where is the U.S. on that path?

[@MattJohnsonA]

+Detective A system of government that respects individual rights to life, liberty, and property is inherently more moral than one that doesn't, though I guess that depends on your definition of morality.

[@Lex_Koncord]

+Matt Johnson Capitalism vs socialism has nothing to do with individual rights to life and liberty. Property and who "owns" the means of production on the other hand - yes - but does only differing views on property make one inherently more moral than the other? Both can be (and have been historically) abused to the same extreme based on how moral the people with power are... There's not just 1 capitalist view and 1 socialist view. There are many variants inside of those words.

[@caller347]

Please explain.

[@Someone6070]

Very simplified version of the political spectrum Right Libertarian- You're a loser? Work hard and you'll be a winner. Right Authoritarian- You're a loser? Good. Left Libertarian- You're a loser? Don't worry, a winner will help you out. Left Authoritarian- You're a loser? You're still a winner.

[@luuchoo93]

You wont make me vote for Bernie Sanders, I know what shitty socialism can do

[@bradfordonate1560]

healthcare

[@luuchoo93]

Bradford Onate I'm not against national healthcare. The rest is shit though

[@bradfordonate1560]

+luuchoo G free education, minimum wage made living wage, social security, splitting up banks. FYI I am pretty sure splitting up banks would create more competion wich means that bernie is helping capitalism. If you have another question, no Bernie Sanders does not want to steal rich peoples money he just wants to increase taxes for the money they will get in the future. Last but not least no bernie will not destroy the public sector. Any more questions? P.S. I don't mean to sound rude

[@luuchoo93]

Bradford Onate I don't describe myself as right-wing, left-wing, republican or democrat. I think national health care and public universities are needed in the US, but practically everything else coming from socialism sucks. Minimum wages and free education already exist in the country, and the US is far from being socialist. Just take a look at Europe and see what socialism did to them. They're facing a huge problem with refugees and terrorism, and their governments are "too socialist" to solve the problem because it might be offensive... No, thanks, the US is the world's most powerful nation, and that was achieved thanks to a non soliciast American view of the world.

[@bradfordonate1560]

+luuchoo G Their terrorism movement is not the result of their economic system, but as a result of poor leadership and stupid people running their countries and regressive ideals.

[@quietthomas]

The most bizarre interpretation of Socialism and Capitalism I've ever seen. Starts out by defining Capitalism as 'trade' (hint the word "Capital" is at the core of "Capitalism") - goes on to try and blame Colonialism on Socialism... a really strange take on history. [Edit: Remember kids, Prager U isn't an actual university - it's what ever Dennis Prager says it is]

[@bruhdabones]

At least Dennis has a brain

[@Tiger74922]

+Bob “bobdabiulder” dabiuld doesn't seem like it

[@bruhdabones]

+TigerVenom I said at least Dennis has a brain, not you or the OP

[@Tiger74922]

Bob dabiuld Does not seem like you or Dennis has one either

[@destinal_in_reality]

+quietthomas Say "free trade" or a "market system" then. That's the essence of capitalism in practice, private control of the means of production. They didn't have to understand capital as such to do that.

[@GH-xy4zz]

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any government program, but crony capitalism (government helping big business avoid the natural consequences of free market capitalism) is a blight on this land. Notice how Alexander Hamilton refused to bail out banks that caused a financial crisis? Wish we had that political backbone these days.

[@Mr0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0]

LOOOOOL - sincerely Sweden

[@allisoncarrell5976]

+Mr0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0 That is the best response for this video!

[@bradtheunchad3192]

+Mr0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0 How is rape in Sweden?

[@Mr0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0]

+Brady Cunningham Not mutch ^^ How is it in the US? www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/rape-and-sex-offences.html

[@DesertStateInEU]

+Mr0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0 Ahh Sweden. Debt/capita $91 000, declining population since people cant afford to have more than 1-2 kids, and it doesnt even have to maintain a big military like the US to keep world peace. For comparison the US debt/capita is $58 000. Massive debt, sky high taxes, sky high gas prices, declining population, small military and STILL failing. LOLOL

[@Mr0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0]

+DesertStateInEu nope 21,000$ www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/sweden