Socialism is Coming: Owen Jones Debunked Part 1 - YouTube

„Der Sozialismus kommt.“ Lassen Sie uns nicht zu den Menschen liegen, Owen Jones, wir alle wissen, dass der Sozialismus

ist bereits hier. „Unsere alte soziale Ordnung ist überall um uns herum zusammenbricht. Nennen Sie es Neoliberalismus,

nennt es freien Marktfundamentalismus.“Sie diesen Begriff Neoliberalismus, wie Sie so viel verwenden können

wollen, ist es ein Begriff aus, es ist etwas, das gar nicht existiert und wenn Sie sich beziehen

auf den Übergang zum Kapitalismus, würde ich kaum eine Wirtschaft mit starkem Korporatismus nennen,

starke staatliche Regulierung über den privaten Sektor als eine Art Übergang zu

ein freier Markt. Man könnte argumentieren, dass es nicht regulierte Märkte mit Blick auf, was führte

Jedoch auf die Bankenkrise, ist auch das zutiefst fehlerhaft, da die FSA (Financial Services

Authority) gesteuert, um die Banken britischen Vorschriften zwischen 2001 und 2012 und sogar ihr Handbuch

war mehr als zehneinhalb tausend Seiten in Verordnungen lang. Sind wir zu einem freien

Marktwirtschaft? Nein, denn wir haben ein zentrales Bankensystem, eine, die kontrolliert und manipuliert

Zinssätze, ändert die Reservesätze und natürlich druckt FIAT Währung aus

dünne Luft. Um einen freien Markt braucht es freien Markt Geld zu haben, die getroffen wurde aus

wir waren, das Gold und Silber. Wir sollten die Zinsen, die durch die Gesetze der eingestellt werden

Angebot und Nachfrage frei auf dem Markt. „Die Ordnung der Privatisierung, der Deregulierung ...“

So, you say there is an order for deregulation, so, basically what you have done is you have

conceded to the fact there never was a deregulated economy. There is an order for deregulation,

because it's that which will free the economy up, open up fierce competition in the marketplace

and consumer choice and it's that that prevents the monopolies from forming. You don't want

that, however, you want to remain within this current system. Well, no, you don't actually,

let's be more accurate to be fair to yourself, you want Marxism and by Christ that's even

worse than what we have today, that's asking for Venezuelan style poverty and food shortages.

"of low taxes on the rich and big business..." Low taxes on the rich and on big businesses

is not so much a bad thing, it was never really the fault of big business to start with, big

business is a positive thing to the economy and the history of Standard Oil pretty much

proves that. It's to do with the fact that the current system in a free market they wouldn't

have that same opportunity and the history of Standard Oil could not be clearer on that

very issue, just look at how they were forced to continue on driving down their costs because

of competition, after all, their main competitor was the producer and seller of the electric

light bulb. "it is failed to provide a decent and affordable housing." I've got to laugh

at this one. All thanks to your government intervention that has restricted supply and

thanks to all your wonderful welfare statism, wonderful social security, all your wonderful

free goodies, we were forced to pay for that by compensating, by cutting back elsewhere

in the economy and raising the costs of living. Most importantly, however, is the very fact

that we are faced with about 350,000 people flooding into this country every year and

therefore, the supply of housing cannot keep up. Now, if you understood the laws of supply

and demand, you would understand the very reason why the costs of housing basically

soared. It soared as a result of not just all your socialist welfare statism and social

security, it soared through the roof because people such as yourself seem to believe we

can have a welfare state at the same time as having an open door immigration policy.

"the increasing living standards, the world class services that should be the birthright

of every single citizen..." You mean those world class services such as the NHS which

left countless thousands of people in neglect every single year which has been famous for

not just the massive big long waiting lines, but famous for all the waste that it's caused,

because it's been faced with the economic calculation problem which you don't understand?

"of one of the wealthiest societies that has ever existed." I'm sorry to tell you, but

just because you spend a lot of money, does not make you wealthy. The fact that you're

sitting more than £8.6 trillion in debt does not make you wealthy. That's a bit like me

saying, yeah, I'll borrow money, I'll put myself in debt, I'll go out and buy myself

a Ferrari and a big massive mansion, I'll live in it and pretend I'm wealthy. The fact

of the matter is, it's borrowed money, it's debt and that's essentially it, Britain has

been broke since the end of the first World War, never let alone the second World War.

So, where you got this idea from that we're somehow wealthy is beyond belief. How could

people such as yourself get to that conclusion that £8.6 trillion debt is wealth. "gives

us rip off and inefficient utilities like the railways, like energy..." You mean those

inefficient utilities such as the British rail today which is faced with much government

intervention that's caused the costs to soar through the roof because there's not enough

privatisation in the marketplace. "Dogma that put profit ahead of a wider social good."

Ah, it's the good old 'it'll put it ahead of profit'. I'm sorry to tell you, but, if

you honestly think you can run a society without the profit motive, it's just completely delusional.

Now, we've looked at recorded history, we've seen what your socialism did all over the

African continent after it flirted with Marxism and Leninism; we saw what it did in the Soviet

Union; we saw exactly what socialism did in China; we saw what it did in Cambodia; we

saw what it did in Cuba; we saw what it did all over the South American continent, in

fact, Argentina faced two defaults in the space of a decade. How you can draw to the

conclusion that your socialism will bring it all into the hands of the people like you

always, it's always this rhetoric about it's always in the hands of the people, it's workers

control over the means of production. Yeah, where have we ever seen that? And the fact

of the matter is, even if you did want to make that argument, you're still faced with

two problems: (1) you're going to have to control prices or (2) you want your moneyless

based economy, now, either side of that argument whether you have a moneyless based economy

or an economy where you want to control prices, you're faced with the economic calculation

problem and that means that as a result of your price controls or the lack of information

of prices through a moneyless based economy, it means without the information of profits

and losses, you're faced with the misallocation of valuable scarce resources. Now, tell everyone

how you propose to provide the people for what they need and want when you don't even

know what scarce and what is not; what valuable scarce resources to use and what not to; where

to allocate them, where not to and even what to invest more in and what not to. If you

don't hold the information of profits and losses, you may as well forget it and if you

don't understand that, then pick up an economics textbook because it seems to me you've never

touched one. "Socialism, it means building on successes that already exist, the national

health service..." The National Health Service, you honestly called that a success, that soared

through the roof because they centralised it and because of an extremely high demand

because everyone was getting healthcare, well, that's what they said and as a result of that,

the cost soared through the roof. So, what did your wonderful government try to do to

rectify the problem of a soaring healthcare cost? Ah, that's right, it pulled off a Venezuela,

it pulled off a government price ceiling. If you don't know what that means, it means

they artificially (keyword there is artificially), they artificially lowered the cost below market

value and it caused a shortage. Absolutely fantastic, that was absolutely brilliant and

what happened? The cost just kept on soaring, so much so that your NHS is costing more than

£108 billion per year. Before you tell everybody about the United States of America and their

healthcare costs, just remember that when it came to the United States of America they

were faced with three problems; the American Medical Assosciation Monopoly, granted by

the U.S. government; the over regulation of the private sector and of course the Third

Party Payer system, which has got nothing at all to do with a free market because a

free market is all about consumers shopping around freely for what they wish to have and

private providers being in fierce competition to provide and there is a straight transaction

between the consumer and the provider. This is absent from the American healthcare system

and has been absent from the American healthcare system for arguably more than a hundred and

ten years. So, don't even bring the United States of America into that argument.