Why Capitalism is Great: Non Compete Debunked—The Capitalist Part 1

Why Capitalism is Great: Non Compete Debunked—The Capitalist Part 1


Another ludicrous argument that Non Compete
has come up with is a video titled ‘Capitalism is a ‘friggin’ scam,’ listen to this: “Six
hundred smackaroo’s, seven hundred smackaroo’s, eight hundred smackaroo’s. Boy, I sure do
love profits.” As I’ve argued before, Non Compete really doesn’t understand the whole
thing on profits and losses. He doesn’t comprehend the very fact that the capitalist has to provide
a service or product in exchange for that money; has to provide something that is going
to be of benefit to the consumer. He doesn’t look at wealth in terms of material wealth.
A consumer is only going to part with their money for something that their going to benefit,
such as the product or service that they’re getting. Businesses have in place returns
services. The reason why returns services exist was because of consumer demand and competition.
“Excuse me, Mr, the capitalist.” “What do you want?” “May I come in?” “Yeah, suit yourself.
Oh, it’s you, uh Nicklebrick, is it?” “Actually, it’s Neckybeard, sir.” “Yeah, whatever, you
got three minutes, start talking.” “I was hoping to talk to you about capitalism.” “Capitalism,
what about it? Say, you’re not another one of those pinko wrongheads are you, coming
into complain about the job I was generous enough to bestow upon you?” “No sir, Mr the
capitalist, sir, quite the contrary, see, I’ve always loved capitalism, my dream is
to be a capitalist just like you some day.” “Go on.” “Well, see, recently I met this girl,
she’s really beautiful, sir and strong and really smart, everything I’ve ever dreamed
of in a woman and she tells me that capitalism is exploitative and that I’m being exploited
and that I should fight against capitalism.” “You’re girlfriend’s absolutely right, kid.”
“She’s right?” “Yep, one hundred percent.” The truth of the matter is, you will never
get rid of exploitation 100 percent and these type of people try to paint this perfect world
as if you’ll ever get rid of that from the economy. You have never seen a socialist economy
without extreme levels of exploitation. “The United Nations human rights investigator for
North Korea says he will look into allegations that 20,000 North Koreans are working in slave
like conditions in countries like China, Russia and the Middle East.” In other words, workers
working endless hours for such little pay, you saw that in every communist regime that
you ever found. Socialism you will face extreme levels of that, so it’s really all a question
of what system best works for limiting that problem and it just so happens to be a capitalist
system because the only way you’re going to limit that problem as best as possible is
by having strong consumer choice and strong workers choice for the worker to choose where
they work and it’s through competition that enables that to limit such a problem because
then the worker has the freedom to choose to leave that company and go and work for
another company. “So, capitalism is a bad?” “Well, it’s bad for you, your a worker, it’s
great for me, look at all this money I have.” I pointed out before that between 1840 to
1900 you saw wages continuously increase by 1.6% on average. Most of the wealth was going
to that of the 70 percent of the employees, the workers, meanwhile, 30 percent was going
to that of the capitalists. Throughout that entire time period, the wealth distribution
remained the same. So, there was no dangerous concentration of wealth into the hands of
the few like his type would try to argue and there most certainly wasn’t a case that the
capitalist was just consuming it all for themselves and the employees were getting nothing. In
fact, in 1968 they actually ran a survey of 50,000 families and between that time period
of 1968 to the mid 1990s, you could look at between 1975 to 1991, even during a time period
when Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States during the 80s, what you found
was was the bottom 20 percent had moved up the ladder by $27,000+ in wages, meanwhile,
the richest percentile only increased in wages by $4,000+ again, the rich got richer and
the poor got richer faster. That completely turns his entire argument upside down and
this isn’t even a capitalist system. “See, up until the 1930s the U.S.A. was really on
the skids. We all know about the Great Depression but did you know that an overwhelming majority
of American’s were anticapitalist and in favour of socialism during that time?” But things
don’t just add up, otherwise, you would not have seen Calvin Coolidge having become the
President of the United States during the 1920s. We do acknowledge the fact that FDR
did become the President, I’m sure it was in 1933. There was no high demand from the
American people for social security, so they were hardly as socialist as he’s making them
out to be. In fact, the social security had to be propagated into place. “Roosevelt’s
New Deal was basically an attempt to thwart and co-opt leftist rhetoric and demands into
his own platform and it worked pretty well. He introduced socialist policies and recruited
socialist leaders to prevent the rise of a socialist third party. He paid off and hired
up socialist leaders into his own administration. To this day it’s widely considered that Roosevelt
saved capitalism. The strategy worked well enough to stave off a socialist uprising until
the 1940s.” FDR was very much sympathetic to that of the fascism in terms of his economic
policies, he’s the reason why the United States of America is pretty much in the mess that
it’s in and that’s the story of FDR, he was the one who led America to the 1938 Roosevelt
Recession. “So, what happened in the 1940s?” “World War II, kid, World War II. With the
war industry, government contracts and massive military drafts ensured that everyone suddenly
had gainful employment. Come to think of it, the way the United States was run during the
war years was a little bit like centralised communism.” “I never thought of it that way.”
“After the war because of our geographical location, we were basically one of the only
developed countries that wasn’t utterly devastated; our factories were still standing and our
military efforts gave us this huge international infrastructure; the Munroe doctrine gave us
financial leverage over pretty much all of the rest of the developed world, we suddenly
became the industrial powerhouse and financial leader of the entire planet.” It all goes
back to Henry Hazlitt’s argument on the Broken Window Fallacy. If you don’t understand what
that means, it simply means that, you know, from the outside, someone like Non Compete
only sees from face value. In other words, he sees the broken window and he thinks that,
oh, the Glazier has now got a job and that’s money in his pocket, but what he doesn’t see
is what goes on behind that. Essentially, the shopkeeper now has money out of his pocket
that he’s going to have to pay for the damaged window and the third party in the background,
which is the tailored business has just lost work because now the butcher, the one with
the broken window, now has to pay for the damages of the window, so that’s money out
of his pocket that otherwise would have went to the tailored suit. Well, it’s no different
to that of a wartime period, in a wartime economy. Resources that could have been used
to alternative uses, that could have went to parts of the economy to improve the material
wealth of the people, whether it’s shoes, or clothes, or food or whatever it may have
been, that was reallocated to an area of the economy to basically finance a very costly
war. Whilst the United States wasn’t a country that was, you know, heavily bombed, etc, it
more than certainly was a country that was involved in the war and that was costly in
itself because you have to pay for all of the weaponry, etc, all the bombs, the planes,
the ships. He doesn’t realise that the alternative uses, had the second world war not occurred,
or had the United States of America not been involved in the second wold war, that hypothetically
speaking, wealth, could have went to producing things that would have improved the material
wealth of the masses elsewhere. In other words, resources could have been used in other areas.
“Starting in the 1950s, this prosperity led to a few decades of artificially inflated
prosperity, especially in comparison to the rest of the world which was struggling to
rebuild from years of heavy bombing and fighting. This put the U.S. in a great position to imperialise
developing nations and we had a huge market for exporting manufactured goods and food
and crap like that.” So, he’s right about the 1950s to the early 1970s claiming about
that of the time period of false prosperity, but what he completely ignores is the fact
that it wasn’t as capitalist as he likes to claim. In fact, throughout the 1950s to the
1960s, you would see the higher tax rates as a prime example and the higher tax rates,
to quote what Tom Woods says here: “Via loopholes or outright tax evasion, these tax rates were
not paid, as tax accountants can tell you.” So, as you can see, what businesses were simply
doing was avoiding the tax, that’s natural. Just listen to what Non Compete says here:
“The corporations of the United States were making so much money that it was pretty easy
for them to compensate employees fairly well. Most factory workers in the 1950s and 60s
were compensated, n’yeah kind of fairly compared to today. Many workers had decent retirement
plans, moved their families to the suburbs, bought cars and went on vacations, we were
living high on the hog.” Of course, we would know this to be completely false given the
fact that in 1971 you would see the partial Gold standard stripped from the currency,
the inflation would spiral out of control, the United States was close to hitting a second
great depression. So, it wasn’t as rosie as he’s trying to make it out to be. “and capitalism
made all of that possible, right?” “Actually, it was capitalism that screwed all that up
for everyone, by the late 1960s capitalists were starting to figure out that they could
move their factories overseas to make more money which started driving down wages for
American workers.” And here comes the argument about capitalists moving their businesses.
Oh, how evil of them to do so after bombing them with high tax rates. I mean, what the
hell is he expecting, is he expecting businesses to survive on that of the higher tax rates?
Of course they’re going to ship their businesses elsewhere, that’s what happens when you try
to impose socialism. When you try to impose socialism, then businesses are going to go
elsewhere, that’s what they did in Venezuela, that’s what they did in Chile. Investment
doesn’t flock to where there are higher tax rates that kills businesses, therefore, businesses
were simply moving with their feet, they were moving away because of the higher tax rates
that they could not sustain running business in. Therefore, it was only natural that it
was cheaper for them to ship their business off to that of China. “Ever since those days,
the little boost we got from world war II has been winding down, the rest of the world
has been bouncing back to full strength and our artificial prosperity has been coming
to an end. The world is starting to equalise, my boy! It may seem like things are getting
worse for us here in the United States compared to the way they were for our grandparents,
but, in truth, they’re just going back to normal and capitalism is doing what its always
done; generating chaos and spinning wildly out of control.” Again, this is based on the
argument as if to say that the United States throughout the 20th century was somehow free
market, the fact of the matter is, the United States during the 20th century has been more
and more corporatist, that’s anti-capitalism. “Anyway, if capitalism is running its course
and leading us to crisis, then, why are you a capitalist?” “Because I’m a greedy prick,
Nirkybread” “It’s Neckbeard” “Whatever, anyway, I’m a capitalist because I love money and
power. I’m accustomed to a certain lifestyle, you see, a lifestyle that involves helicopters
and very large boats. Exploiting workers is the only way to keep myself in yacht’s, so
I’m going to keep riding this pony for as long as I can hold on.” It’s rather quite
convenient that he’s trying to take the piss out of, you know, the capitalist that he’s
a greedy pig and all the rest of this and he’s waving about this paper money and I can
tell you the capitalist would not be waving about paper money and they wouldn’t be reliant
upon the paper. The capitalist would be smart enough to, you know, hold all the assets that
which they do, they invest in things like Gold and Silver, etc because they know fine
well that the average person is going to be left with the paper and the paper’s going
to devalue into nothing, meanwhile, the capitalist is the one that’s going to hold all the assets,
such as that of real money of what they’ve invested in and you can’t say that people
haven’t been warned about that. So, it’s rather quite stupid and it’s uneducated to say that
the capitalist is the one waving about paper, as if that’s what the capitalist holds value
in, is worthless paper.

5 Comments on "Why Capitalism is Great: Non Compete Debunked—The Capitalist Part 1"


  1. Hi Scotty great video as always. You have completely destroyed his argument about capitalism is a bad thing when in reality it is not. Yes it is not perfect but what do people expect nowadays as lefties would always comment on the negatives and never on the positives. There is nothing wrong being rich or wealthy as long as that person has worked hard for it.

    I was gonna mention that if you can do a video regards towards knife crime here in the UK as it is starting to get out of control and what would your solutions would be. Do you think that that there should be a private police force or something equivalent like vigilantism. Thank you.

    Reply

  2. Nice to see you pay more attention to the most popular communist YouTuber. And I have a question about goods with unlimited supply such as video game membership and other such electronic memberships. Would the supply curve be irrelevant in determining prices for memberships to an electronic website or video game because supply for such things is unlimited and doesn’t take labor to produce? Would demand be the only factor in pricing?

    Reply

  3. And that wage reduction he was talking about was due to automation. When an industry gets outsourced, another industry opens up increasing demand by an equal amount as the supply of labor increased, aka Says law

    Reply

  4. Its no surprise that big corporations hate free markets. Not a single one supported Ron Paul, who unlike Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party was actually a libertarian ideologically. We wouldn't have multibillion dollar businesses in capitalism, due to overhead costs and scalability the biggest they can get is probably multimillion dollar or billion dollar

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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