In this third part video on the truth about capitalism having debunked Non Compete on 'why capitalism sucks,' I cover his fallacious argument critiquing capitalism in a bike example he covers in his second part video. Non Compete, again, doesn't understand prices and why without profits and losses the company would be screwed given the complexity of the varying resources used to produce bikes, as well as the different colours and types produced. I also have Non Compete debunked on his argument regarding wages as he erroneously claims that the fall of prices from productive output, the capitalist cuts costs and gets away with underpaying exploiting the skilled-workers. He also contradicts himself on this claim as it proves the opposite of monopoly creation from what he stated in his first part video. Unlike himself in his videos where he has made baseless silly claims on why capitalism sucks, I have provided plentiful information and facts that contradict his narrative. It is vitally important for people to get to understand the economic calculation problem as it helps people understand the argument made for why it is not as simple as producing one type of bike that are all the same. Finally, his argument on automation has been debunked countless times over, Henry Hazlitt's argument on the machines can be found in his excellent book 'Economics in One Lesson' which you can read for free here or listen to: • https://fee.org/resources/economics-in-one-lesson/ The argument I made on both parts on the economic calculation problem can be found here: • part 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVbbFVKWdhI • part 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFoqXD_o6Wc ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRigCXnx7HQ

American healthcare is compared to the NHS a lot in Britain as supporters would like to have you believe that if it weren't for the NHS we'd all be dying by our thousands and American healthcare to them is some beacon of free market with overly expensive healthcare. In this video I point out that the American healthcare system is not an example of the free market and about the third party payer system. The NHS has been failing for decades even with Labour Party having poured billions into it in the past it kept on failing, so it is not a monetary issue when it comes to the NHS but rather a central planning and economic calculation problem which leads to the misallocation of resources. If the American healthcare system was a beacon of free market healthcare it most certainly would not be as expensive as it is, rather quite the opposite. Shane Killian a friend on YouTube explains this perfectly in his video I've linked in the video and the disasters of the NHS from another friends experience, RockingMrE. You can also check out a few of my other videos as mentioned in this video about American healthcare and the NHS below. AMA Monopoly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqT-axNMIK0 Hinchingbrooke Stitch Up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZhRjVvmAJk ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkdTUbX1VZc

I was recently asked the question on the 2008 financial crisis and given the common misconception of the usual claims which are made I felt it was important to cover this for its own particular video. The 2008 financial crisis is quite a complicated topic issue, but for the purpose of this video I have covered the basis of the argument. Many people will falsely claim that the "unregulated markets" caused the problem, as I've noted, this is actually a concession from people to acknowledge capitalism is about the market regulating itself, which is vitally important as the problems that led to the 2008 financial crisis were the exact opposite of that. I have broken the argument down into sections covering briefly on the truth about the 2008 financial crisis which you can find below. As I've explained, the crisis is every bit as much to blame on the governments for their protectionism, as well as the lending institutions and investment banks, etc. I've argued many times before that the cause of the crisis was caused by manipulation of the market and legally protected fraud, not to do with regulation, per se. I first cover brief history to help you understand the difference between capitalism and what you see today. It is vitally important that people understand the actual cause of the crisis that way they understand the solution to prevent repeating the problem. Intro: (0:00) Anticapitalism: (2:20) Unregulated Myth: (4:51) Boom and Bust: (6:21) Lending Institutions: (11:26) Investment Banks: (14:52) Housing Bubble: (18:02) Credit Default Swaps: (20:57) A Summary: (22:06) *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/profile/ScottCJMcKelvie/ • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCHahZ2e6kU

In this video I'm refuting Victor Magariño on an argument I have done several times already in relation to do with the Labour Theory of Value. As it was requested, it can be difficult not to repeat over certain things relative to subjective theory, but in relation to Victor's argument, this video I explain the flaws in his claims of where value comes from. It is important to note that when Victor mentions about _'use value'_ he doesn't understand that it is people's subjective value over its use. Something may be of greater use to one particular person over another and as I've pointed out in his attempt to differentiate the use value and exchange value, he fails to acknowledge that his explanation of the exchange value still correlates to someone's subjective value. Another thing to note is that the size of a given commodity, it's material, etc again is based on the individuals subjective opinion of the product. It's like how consumers may prefer smaller cameras to bigger, heavier, bulkier cameras, therefore, the physical aspects of a commodity is even determined down to subjective value. Whilst certain larger portion sizes of food could be construed as having greater value due to quantity, it is the opinion of the consumer what they prefer. If there's greater quantity, there is greater costs, so there will be a greater price, however, it is still the subjective value determined down to the individual consumer, people have different value for different things, we don't all like the same clothes, food, books, music, films, games, etc. A product may be made of a particular material that could push the price up, but the real determining factor determining the value for such products is down to the individual preference of the consumer, some may prefer the cheaper material, others may not. In other words, something of better quality is actually determined down to the preference of consumers, not because of the object itself. *Follow Me on Social Media:* • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScottCJMcKelvie • Parler: https://parler.com/#/user/LibertarianViewsScottyM • Gab: https://gab.com/LibertarianScot • Minds: https://www.minds.com/LibertarianScot/ • MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/scottmckelvie • WordPress Blog: https://libertarianviewswithscottym.wordpress.com/ • LBRY/Odysee: https://odysee.com/@LibertarianViewsScottyM:6 • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390494 • BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egfCIS1DbaBM/ *You can also support me here on Patreon:* https://www.patreon.com/LibertarianViewsScottyM ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVbcitSoC2Y