>>1
Don't get too far ahead of yourself. His assessment of the problem (especially when he got to the first Monopoly board) isn't that far off from how it was engaged. The second Monopoly board is half-correct (he fails to talk about resources gathering and doesn't mention what happens when resources can't be acquired, due to location or due to individuals); he ends up sitting on his own problem and just talks about cash money.
As soon as he jumps from analysis to "what to do" he goes down the path of nonsense-making. One does not, for example,
have to join an "anti-capitalistic organization;" that's his assessment of the solution. Even after he starts talking about switching away from capitalism he goes on to mention how money was being made in India; from a personal perspective, I grumble, but, from a purely capitalistic perspective,
that's the point. It doesn't matter how bad shit gets in one or more places because there's always at least one other place that manages to prosper and will, eventually, have that wealth shift back around to these disenfranchised regions when they become to expensive for their own good (that works for either capitalistic profit or socialistic equity). The best socialistic systems offer is "everyone will get stuff equally." So what happens if everything just starts sucking equally?
I do agree, though; the video has great format.