I haven't yet watched the entire video (in fact, I didn't pass two minutes) but right off the bat she assumes that economies were originally (and always) sustained by a bartering system, a presumption as old as capitalism. Many scholars prove that this was not the case. This repetitive anecdote only serves to create an imaginary problem to justify the necessity of capitalism later on.

I might edit my post as I watch the rest of the video.

Edit: "but that's another story," a story which she will actively avoid because it overturns the entire mode of production on which she a priori built her fantasies.

Edit 2: her conflation of capitalism and "progress" is very problematic in its own right. She's basically saying that without capitalism there could be no "progress", no "innovation" and no "civilization". The only way to progress is through capitalism. I am reminded by what Mark Fisher wrote on capitalist realism, which is a "widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it."

Edit 3: she writes in the description that "[t]his video is a brief summary of a dip I did into microeconomics literature in a dark hour of my life." It shows.