Watched it. Thanks for sharing. I just disagree that publicly owned means what it's supposed to mean. The public cannot own anything as it is not an individual

Watched it. Thanks for sharing. I just disagree that publicly owned means what it's supposed to mean. The public cannot own anything as it is not an individual. Someone else has to manage what is collectively owned, and these individuals that represent the public, effectively become the rich people that so many say are the problem with capitalism. In other words, while I agree that monopolizing land and resources is a problem, making these resources public is actually exacerbating the problem because it further concentrates the power and wealth into the hands of even fewer number of individuals. It goes from a thousands of rich people owning things, to the government "publicly owning" it, except we're in fact talking about a handful of politicians controlling all of that wealth. Europe takes this approach much more than America, where government is not trusted, but I think history is very clear as to which place has had the most problems with government abuse of power. Europe was a mess in the 20th century, while America grew to a super power, and I firmly believe this is because of the distrust in government. Again I don't know what is the best solution to fix a handful of rich people owning the majority of wealth, but it is definitely not further concentrating that wealth into an even smaller number of individuals that are notorious for lying and manipulating the public (politicians). Trusting politicians is incredibly naive, and at the moment it seems the best solutions involve voting for those people that can prove they will use the power to SHRINK government, such that wealth returns back to the rest of population (but not via public ownership which is really politicians playing the role of the rich people).