Can Our Planet Survive Capitalism: Resource Allocation part 2

Can Our Planet Survive Capitalism: Resource Allocation part 2

I feel really sorry for that of California
because their economy’s just going down the toilet and that’s because of the fact that
these ‘Green New Deal’ obsessed, you know, people like Francesca Fiorentini are basically
going to cripple California and kill it. Just listen to one researcher who says cap and
trade pushes us in the opposite direction of where we need to be going: ‘We need to
overcome our addiction to fossil fuels and the problem with cap and trade is, is that
it stands in the way of doing that in many ways. It’s a way of providing pollution rights
to some of the worst polluters so that they can delay the kind of structural change that’s
necessary.’ He’s right, that’s not how you fight an addiction. If you want to get your
brother off heroin, you don’t split up his stash between your mom and dad, like ‘Let’s
all just do a little bit of heroin to keep Brad from doing a lot of bit of heroin.’ At
this point cap and trade isn’t even a relevant solution anymore because it’s too slow to
be viable. California, the second largest carbon polluter in the nation, but first in
my heart, reduced its emissions by almost 9 percent in 3-years, which is not bad, but
do the math, it’s not nearly enough if we’ve got only 12-years to get to zero. Silicon
Valley is still going to be underwater and then we’ll have to deal with a whole bunch
of floatation device startups and that just seems exhausting.” They’re going to turn it
into another Detroit because they really don’t understand economics and the importance of
business and thinking that raising the tax rates is somehow going to benefit employment
and thinking that’s going to somehow benefit their economy as a whole, well, that’s rather
laughable to say the least because, you know, many of these people will pack up and they
will leave and they will go to places like Arizona and Texas and the sad thing is is
the fact that they take their policies with them. So, the very people who voted California
into that mess will now move over to that of Arizona and Texas and start voting the
same way. “So, cap and trade won’t get us there, what about innovation? We’ll just ask
the science nerds to come up with something, I mean, other than the ones telling us to
stop burning fossil fuels. Innovation has been the aim of private companies also looking
to get rich off the climate crisis floating ideas like Geo-Engineering, which includes
one plan to spray reflective Aerosol’s into the stratosphere to block the sun. Yeah, Aerosol,
if only our climate change denying President knew that this whole time the answer has been
hairspray. Turns out though that that scheme like many others has too many unforeseen side
effects to be feasible, things like; stopping rain and totally vindicating chemtrail conspiracists.”
Okay, first of all, when you go on about that of the market, that’s not a free market and
the free market would have far better solutions to such problems and that is by acknowledging
the fact that your climate change claims are just a load of nonsense. In fact, the free
market would find ways to better improve the use of such resources and we’re already seeing
things like that where they’re grinding down plastics and using them in roads, etc. We
don’t agree with things that are harmful to the environment, such as those measures and
the free market would not do so. What you’re seeing is corporatism, so, where did the market
itself, where did the consumers demand for things like that of what we see spraying stuff,
you know, into, you know, our crops, etc that we didn’t ask for, where did you see that?
You didn’t and you’re living under corporatism. So, that’s the problem with that argument
and yes, innovation is the right way forward for looking after the environment, but, we
must acknowledge facts and statistics and from what we can see it’s not the CO2 driving
temperatures, it’s the temperatures driving the CO2. “Even if whacky inventions or cap
and trade worked, they’re still too slow. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to subsidise
the fossil fuel industry to the tune of $649 billion a year.” All government subsidies
are socialist, that’s got nothing to do with capitalism. You know, at the end of the day,
you could look at the 19th century and just see all those private companies that failed
as a result of government subsidies, meanwhile, free marketeers had given them a showing up,
a prime example of that was the hundreds of companies that all went, you know, under,
they faced bankruptcy, they failed with their railroads and yet, along came someone like
James J. Hill who built the only successful railroad in American history which was the
Great Northern Railroad. You compare that to the North Pacific Railroad Company that
took on a government subsidy for every 1-mile of track that they would build. “Hill was
interesting in that he used his own fortune, it’s a great northern, was not a land grant
railroad, so he did not have the advantage that other railroads had in that they were
able to leverage the land given to them by the government.” What a disastrous failure
that turned out to be. So, government subsidies are not the answer and that isn’t, you know,
anything at all to do with capitalism. Capitalism is a system that stands against all of that,
it’s in favour of the free market, it’s not in favour of using government subsidies to
redirect, you know and basically leads to incompetency, that’s essentially what the
government subsidies create. “So, not only are they making the planet uninhabitable,
they’re getting a Goddamn discount. These faux solutions have come and gone all the
while climate change has been getting worse, which means, now, we need to do far more in
way less time. ‘The longer we wait, the more that the response challenges our economic
system because we need to cut so much in so deeply.’ What does she mean that the response
will challenge our economic system? Well, that’s because our economic system is currently
based on using up all of earth’s natural resources with no regard for the actual earth.” They
don’t even know the first thing about the economic calculation problem and I don’t care
how tiresome it is, you can check out both videos that I did on that, on the profits
and losses and, of course, on the variety. See if you don’t have the information of profits
and losses, see if you don’t have the information of market-driven prices, you don’t have price
signal information, therefore, you don’t know; what resources you’re going to use; you don’t
know how much to use; you don’t know where you’re going to allocate it in the market
because there’s about a billion and one different products, take for example, wood; wood is
a resource, but you’ve got the different types of wood, you’ve got Oak, you’ve got Birchwood,
you’ve got all the different types of wood, but not only that, you’ve then got all the
different styles of wood products, they’re not all the same and it’s not just redirected
to that of producing tables and then each and every single table all has different styles
and what style of table is it, what’s the table used for? And where are you going to
allocate it? Her solution to the problem would lead to an absolute disaster, a catastrophe.
Both Shmelev and Popov of the Soviet Union, who 2 Soviet Union economists themselves had
said that, you know, no matter how hard they tried, they would see the surplus waste problems
in the Soviet Union. That’s what happens when you try to fix prices above or below market
value. That’s what happens when you think you know better than the free market does.
But, of course, these people never learn. What she’s basically telling you is, she’s
saying that, oh well, in the current system, well the current system isn’t capitalism.
If the current system was capitalism you would see efficiency, you wouldn’t be faced with
the economic calculation problem. Keynesians, much like Marxists, and I said this before,
as if you just somehow create aggregate supply and then along comes demand. No, that’s not
how it works. How it works is demand drives production and, therefore, when you leave
demand to drive production, you know how much to produce; you know where the resources are
going to go in the market and you know basically what resources to use. You don’t just take
any willynilly, you know, resource and just overuse it and produce it and then just say
“Hey, along comes demand!” There’s no guarantee that consumer demand will come along. So,
whose to blame for that? The Keynesians are to blame for that, that’s not the fault of
the supporters of capitalism. “All to turn a profit and create economic growth or GDP.
You remember GDP from my video on the economy, which you should totally watch and while you’re
at it, subscribe.” Oh, this should be fun, I would actually really like to do a video
response on that one because you could see from the Soviet Union, it had a high GDP,
you could see from several places. In fact, I actually had a comment from one who actually
tried to make Nazi Germany out as if it was this great economic success, what a laughing
stock that was. I don’t know where these people come from, I don’t even know how they even
drew to that conclusion that Nazi Germany was a successful economy. These people are
a laughing stock. Now, just because you’ve got a high GDP does not mean to say that you’re
producing of anything of value because whose to say that the vast production that you make
is going to be of any value to the consumer? There has to be some use value, there has
to be a value to the end consumer. If a consumer is not going to buy it, then what worth is
it sitting there on the shelves doing nothing going to waste? It’s not worth anything, just
because you produced it, sat it there on the shelf and nobodies buying it, that didn’t
mean anything, it’s got no use, doesn’t do anything, just sits there. That’s a bit like
saying, look, the Soviet Union had a high GDP, oh how successful it was. Yeah, so successful
that, you know, it had pelts that were rotting in warehouses because they overproduced. It’s
a bit like how, you know, they overproduced more than 3-pairs of shoes in the late 1980s
in the Soviet Union and there was massive big long waiting lines because the shoes that
they produced did not meet the tastes of the consumer. I
can’t help but laugh at that, these people just don’t understand, right? So, just because
you produce a lot doesn’t mean to say you produce anything of value. You need to ensure
that what you’re producing, and this is the funny part because, you know, Francesca Fiorentini
has just sat there, and let’s just say stood there, whatever, right, she stood there and
she said that, you know, oh the current system is using up all these resources and we’re
causing such great inefficiency. Well, what do you think you’re doing by overproducing
and producing what consumers are not in demand of? If you do not let consumer drive what
is being produced, if you do not let that free market be in order to do so, then the
inevitable consequence you end up creating that waste. “GDP is that fancy number that
many agree is useless but is actually incredibly harmful when it comes to climate change. ‘Since
when was GDP a sensible measure of human welfare? And yet everything that governments want to
do is to try boost GDP. Now, people like the OECD or the World Bankers, oh we’re not asking
for a lot of growth, just 3 percent a year. That means doubling in 24-years. Yeah, we’re
bursting through all the environmental boundaries and screwing the planet already, you want
to double it? We have to overthrow this system which is eating the planet with perpetual
growth.’ I love how blown this hosts mind is, rarely do you see the precise moment that
someone gets woke.” I now see where you’re going with the whole GDP thing, which is actually,
I thought originally you were meaning that, okay, well, we can be more efficient with
resources, but, of course, like I argued on GDP, when it comes to socialism, socialism
is just completely wasteful and, of course, I did mention before the difference between
theory and practice. But, you’ve actually gone over the cliff, you’re actually now complaining
about people having a better improved material standard of living, which is just insanity,
right? The problem isn’t productivity, the problem isn’t resource usage, right? The problem
isn’t to do with that, it’s to do with how much and what you do with those resources,
right? So, you could have all the resources there, but it’s all a question of what you
do with the scarce natural resources and when it comes to socialism, the inevitable consequence,
you lead to disaster. Now, it sounds to me that you’re arguing, Francesca Fiorentini,
for a type of, you know, economy that goes back to pre-Industrial Revolution, you know,
period of life, that’s just insanity. I mean, what are you thinking? It was the machines
that enabled us to cut down our working hours. So, do you want to take us back to a time
period where we were working more than 80-hours a week? You want to take us back to a time
period where the living conditions were simply awful? Because they certainly weren’t anything
to what they are today. And the problem today isn’t so much to do with, you know, people’s
material standards of living and the productivity, the problem is the system that’s in place,
the great inefficiency, that overuse of scarce natural resources and whose to blame for that?
That is the fault of socialism, that’s not the fault of the free market and like I explained
before, the economic calculation problem explains that. So, the problem today is nothing to
do with capitalism, that is the fault of socialism because it’s all the government price fixing
that’s causing such a problem. You’re misallocating valuable scarce resources into the wrong parts
of the market, so how can you blame that on capitalism?

4 thoughts on “Can Our Planet Survive Capitalism: Resource Allocation part 2

  1. legend has it, if you comment early enough, scotty will respond. granted, he always responds, so that doesn't really matter i guess.

  2. Funnily enough, it was the USSR that hunted and killed more whales than any other nation, in the senond half of the 20th century.

  3. Yup you sound like a climate change denier. One reason I will never be a libertarian, that and it would screw over my mother

Leave a Reply

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